Trump calls for probe into Schumer over Putin photo
- Thread starter Spike
- Start date
AMERICA'S BLOODLESS (SO FAR) CIVIL WAR
We are currently engaged in America's second Civil War. It is not an exaggeration to say so. And President Trump's actions at 3 AM last Saturday morning has brought the war out into the open. We have been engaged in this bloodless (so far) war for most of the last 50 years. But the war has been fought, for the most part, out of the conscious awareness of the people. It has been fought in the public schools and public and private colleges of the country, in the courts across the land, in the entertainment industry, and in our religious institutions. More recently, the war has been enjoined in the news media making the war even more apparent but still unrecognized as a war. Why war? Because it involves the life and death of two conflicting views for our nation. Will we be a nation of limited constitutional government envisioned by the founding fathers in which all people are created equal and endowed by our Creator with certain inalienable rights and founded upon the principles of individuality and personal responsibility? Or will we be a nation of a huge progressively changing government envisioned by utopian politicians in which all people are made to be equal by the Federal Government which creates and denies rights based on collectivist principles of the Common Good and Social Justice?
So, after weeks of being represented by Democrats as being put into office by a Russian president, having his entire administration declared corrupt and under the influence of Russian agents, and having the details of every move his administration makes internally leaked to the press, at 3 AM on Saturday morning Donald Trump went nuclear and brought us to what could conceivably be one of the final battles of this long war.
Donald Trump went "all in" by declaring that Barack Obama and his administration wiretapped his office building prior to the presidential election. This has prompted a response from Obama that no such thing occurred and his minions are declaring Trump to be a crazy conspiracy theorist. One or the other of these things must be true. Never before, that I am aware of, has one president declared another to be guilty of potentially criminal and at the very least politically corrupt behavior.
Either President Trump has evidence that the Obama White House wire tapped his Trump Tower server or he does not. If he does, he had better order an investigation into whether there was a tap, whether it was based on a FISA request, who ordered it and on the basis of what information, and, finally, who provided that information. If Trump has no evidence supporting his contention other than radio pundits and the New York Times, then he has demonstrated a level of impulsivity that is of concern and has handed Democrats a stick of TNT with which to blow up his presidency. If, on the other hand, it is found that Obama's Justice Department, with his knowledge, inappropriately tapped his internal, private communications or did so on the basis of falsified information, then it could conceivably be the end of the Progressive movement in the United States for a very long time. And that is why I say we are engaged in a Civil War.
This is definitely a big story one way or another and we will wait to see which way this one ends. But if one reads the news from CNN and the news from Fox News, one can view the battle clearly being waged. The gist of CNN reporting is that Donald Trump is a crazy conspiracy theorist unfit to hold the highest office in the land. There has been a consistent drumbeat from the Left as to Trump's sanity and they will ride this horse until they are proven correct or they are finally revealed as the Left's propaganda arm and essentially put themselves out of the business of credible news reporting. On the other hand, Fox News is reporting Trump's revelation as believable and comparing Democrats to Joe McCarthy and the wire tapping as despicable as Nixon and the Watergate break-in. They will support pursing FISA requests, and "who knew what and when did they know it" until Obama or someone very high up in his administration is indicted or they (Fox News) loses all credibility and they are essentially eliminated as a purveyor of the news.
It is, indeed, a war and only one side survives this one. And like all Civil Wars, in the end, there is only one winner and in the short run, the biggest loser is the nation.
THE NOBULL NEWSLETTER
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
3/4/2017
We are currently engaged in America's second Civil War. It is not an exaggeration to say so. And President Trump's actions at 3 AM last Saturday morning has brought the war out into the open. We have been engaged in this bloodless (so far) war for most of the last 50 years. But the war has been fought, for the most part, out of the conscious awareness of the people. It has been fought in the public schools and public and private colleges of the country, in the courts across the land, in the entertainment industry, and in our religious institutions. More recently, the war has been enjoined in the news media making the war even more apparent but still unrecognized as a war. Why war? Because it involves the life and death of two conflicting views for our nation. Will we be a nation of limited constitutional government envisioned by the founding fathers in which all people are created equal and endowed by our Creator with certain inalienable rights and founded upon the principles of individuality and personal responsibility? Or will we be a nation of a huge progressively changing government envisioned by utopian politicians in which all people are made to be equal by the Federal Government which creates and denies rights based on collectivist principles of the Common Good and Social Justice?
So, after weeks of being represented by Democrats as being put into office by a Russian president, having his entire administration declared corrupt and under the influence of Russian agents, and having the details of every move his administration makes internally leaked to the press, at 3 AM on Saturday morning Donald Trump went nuclear and brought us to what could conceivably be one of the final battles of this long war.
Donald Trump went "all in" by declaring that Barack Obama and his administration wiretapped his office building prior to the presidential election. This has prompted a response from Obama that no such thing occurred and his minions are declaring Trump to be a crazy conspiracy theorist. One or the other of these things must be true. Never before, that I am aware of, has one president declared another to be guilty of potentially criminal and at the very least politically corrupt behavior.
Either President Trump has evidence that the Obama White House wire tapped his Trump Tower server or he does not. If he does, he had better order an investigation into whether there was a tap, whether it was based on a FISA request, who ordered it and on the basis of what information, and, finally, who provided that information. If Trump has no evidence supporting his contention other than radio pundits and the New York Times, then he has demonstrated a level of impulsivity that is of concern and has handed Democrats a stick of TNT with which to blow up his presidency. If, on the other hand, it is found that Obama's Justice Department, with his knowledge, inappropriately tapped his internal, private communications or did so on the basis of falsified information, then it could conceivably be the end of the Progressive movement in the United States for a very long time. And that is why I say we are engaged in a Civil War.
This is definitely a big story one way or another and we will wait to see which way this one ends. But if one reads the news from CNN and the news from Fox News, one can view the battle clearly being waged. The gist of CNN reporting is that Donald Trump is a crazy conspiracy theorist unfit to hold the highest office in the land. There has been a consistent drumbeat from the Left as to Trump's sanity and they will ride this horse until they are proven correct or they are finally revealed as the Left's propaganda arm and essentially put themselves out of the business of credible news reporting. On the other hand, Fox News is reporting Trump's revelation as believable and comparing Democrats to Joe McCarthy and the wire tapping as despicable as Nixon and the Watergate break-in. They will support pursing FISA requests, and "who knew what and when did they know it" until Obama or someone very high up in his administration is indicted or they (Fox News) loses all credibility and they are essentially eliminated as a purveyor of the news.
It is, indeed, a war and only one side survives this one. And like all Civil Wars, in the end, there is only one winner and in the short run, the biggest loser is the nation.
THE NOBULL NEWSLETTER
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
3/4/2017
More from NOBULL
MY PERSONAL CONSPIRACY THEORY
It is my belief that IF Trump Tower's server was legally wire tapped under a FISA order issued to the Obama administration, then it was done so on the basis of that "dossier" in which people were said to be in places they never were and Trump was engaged in dubious sexual activities with prostitutes. At this point, there is very little that anyone has said about the legitimacy of that "dossier" that was being circulated throughout the government before its existence was revealed by CNN and helped along by John McCain.
But we must remember who ordered the collection of information that was contained in that "dossier". The man who wrote that document was initially hired by the Hillary Clinton campaign to do "opposition research" (read "dig up dirt") on Donald Trump for use during the campaign.
Now, if the DNC and Clinton were involved in digging up information on Donald Trump, and that information was deemed to be false or untrustworthy, and, nevertheless, that "dossier" was used as part of the material presented to the FISA courts to justify the wire tapping, then that creates what one of my friends calls "one hot mess" for the Democrats. Add to that the fact that Obama was an unabashed Clinton supporter and declared that the election itself was as much about him and his legacy as about her, and you have all kinds of motive for involving Obama. And you have a pretty good case for the justification for the wire tap being fabricated and, therefore, illegal.
I want to add one more thing to the other side of the equation here. Remember that the Democrats have been wanting to see Donald Trump's tax returns for a long time. The implication has always been that his tax returns will demonstrate that he has financial ties and obligations to the Russian government. Trump has asserted that he has absolutely no financial ties to Russia and that he absolutely has no debt obligations to anyone there. Much of this "hot mess" may have been started as a way of forcing Trump to reveal his tax returns. As with most things "Trumpian", the unpredictable has happened and things have gone too far.
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
3/4/2017
MY PERSONAL CONSPIRACY THEORY
It is my belief that IF Trump Tower's server was legally wire tapped under a FISA order issued to the Obama administration, then it was done so on the basis of that "dossier" in which people were said to be in places they never were and Trump was engaged in dubious sexual activities with prostitutes. At this point, there is very little that anyone has said about the legitimacy of that "dossier" that was being circulated throughout the government before its existence was revealed by CNN and helped along by John McCain.
But we must remember who ordered the collection of information that was contained in that "dossier". The man who wrote that document was initially hired by the Hillary Clinton campaign to do "opposition research" (read "dig up dirt") on Donald Trump for use during the campaign.
Now, if the DNC and Clinton were involved in digging up information on Donald Trump, and that information was deemed to be false or untrustworthy, and, nevertheless, that "dossier" was used as part of the material presented to the FISA courts to justify the wire tapping, then that creates what one of my friends calls "one hot mess" for the Democrats. Add to that the fact that Obama was an unabashed Clinton supporter and declared that the election itself was as much about him and his legacy as about her, and you have all kinds of motive for involving Obama. And you have a pretty good case for the justification for the wire tap being fabricated and, therefore, illegal.
I want to add one more thing to the other side of the equation here. Remember that the Democrats have been wanting to see Donald Trump's tax returns for a long time. The implication has always been that his tax returns will demonstrate that he has financial ties and obligations to the Russian government. Trump has asserted that he has absolutely no financial ties to Russia and that he absolutely has no debt obligations to anyone there. Much of this "hot mess" may have been started as a way of forcing Trump to reveal his tax returns. As with most things "Trumpian", the unpredictable has happened and things have gone too far.
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
3/4/2017
- Joined
- Apr 9, 2014
- Messages
- 20,571
- Reaction score
- 22,407
- Points
- 113
Some nasty business going down. We're certainly in uncharted waters.
Trump is blowing this **** up.
Love finally having a Republican who hits back.
I don't know the volatility of this article but according to their perspective, Obama was known to tap just about anybody he deemed a threat.
- Joined
- Apr 20, 2014
- Messages
- 24,914
- Reaction score
- 11,537
- Points
- 113
Blow it all up!
Obama Was Wiretapping Jeff Sessions Too?
President Donald Trump's former campaign manager, Corey Lewandowski, made another unsettling claim on Sunday regarding the controversy behind Barack Obama and illegal wiretapping.
During an interview with Fox News, Lewandowski said that Obama did not only listen in on President Trump's dealings at Trump Tower, but that he also listened to then-sitting Senator Jeff Sessions and his office on Capitol Hill.
“They did spend time listening to conversations between then-Senator Jeff Sessions and the ambassador to Russia while he was in his Senate office,” Lewandowski said. “If that were to take place — which supposedly did take place — what other conversations did they listen in on from the American public?”
He also reaffirmed President Trump's accusation against Obama.
“Is it possible that that previous administration was listening to the conversations that took place in Trump Tower from their political opponents? If that is the case, and what Donald Trump alludes to is accurate, then that’s very, very disturbing for our future going forward.”
https://townhall.com/tipsheet/justinholcomb/2017/03/05/obama-was-tapping-jeff-sessions-too-n2294391
- Joined
- Apr 20, 2014
- Messages
- 24,914
- Reaction score
- 11,537
- Points
- 113
The Exhaustion of American Liberalism
White guilt gave us a mock politics based on the pretense of moral authority.
By SHELBY STEELE
Updated March 5, 2017 6:20 p.m. ET
The recent flurry of marches, demonstrations and even riots, along with the Democratic Party’s spiteful reaction to the Trump presidency, exposes what modern liberalism has become: a politics shrouded in pathos. Unlike the civil-rights movement of the 1950s and ’60s, when protesters wore their Sunday best and carried themselves with heroic dignity, today’s liberal marches are marked by incoherence and downright lunacy—hats designed to evoke sexual organs, poems that scream in anger yet have no point to make, and an hysterical anti-Americanism.
All this suggests lostness, the end of something rather than the beginning. What is ending?
America, since the ’60s, has lived through what might be called an age of white guilt. We may still be in this age, but the Trump election suggests an exhaustion with the idea of white guilt, and with the drama of culpability, innocence and correctness in which it mires us.
White guilt is not actual guilt. Surely most whites are not assailed in the night by feelings of responsibility for America’s historical mistreatment of minorities. Moreover, all the actual guilt in the world would never be enough to support the hegemonic power that the mere pretense of guilt has exercised in American life for the last half-century.
White guilt is not angst over injustices suffered by others; it is the terror of being stigmatized with America’s old bigotries—racism, sexism, homophobia and xenophobia. To be stigmatized as a fellow traveler with any of these bigotries is to be utterly stripped of moral authority and made into a pariah. The terror of this, of having “no name in the street” as the Bible puts it, pressures whites to act guiltily even when they feel no actual guilt. White guilt is a mock guilt, a pretense of real guilt, a shallow etiquette of empathy, pity and regret.
It is also the heart and soul of contemporary liberalism. This liberalism is the politics given to us by white guilt, and it shares white guilt’s central corruption. It is not real liberalism, in the classic sense. It is a mock liberalism. Freedom is not its raison d’être; moral authority is.
When America became stigmatized in the ’60s as racist, sexist and militaristic, it wanted moral authority above all else. Subsequently the American left reconstituted itself as the keeper of America’s moral legitimacy. (Conservatism, focused on freedom and wealth, had little moral clout.) From that followed today’s markers of white guilt—political correctness, identity politics, environmental orthodoxy, the diversity cult and so on.
This was the circumstance in which innocence of America’s bigotries and dissociation from the American past became a currency of hardcore political power. Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton, good liberals both, pursued power by offering their candidacies as opportunities for Americans to document their innocence of the nation’s past. “I had to vote for Obama,” a rock-ribbed Republican said to me. “I couldn’t tell my grandson that I didn’t vote for the first black president.”
For this man liberalism was a moral vaccine that immunized him against stigmatization. For Mr. Obama it was raw political power in the real world, enough to lift him—unknown and untested—into the presidency. But for Mrs. Clinton, liberalism was not enough. The white guilt that lifted Mr. Obama did not carry her into office—even though her opponent was soundly stigmatized as an iconic racist and sexist.
Perhaps the Obama presidency was the culmination of the age of white guilt, so that this guiltiness has entered its denouement. There are so many public moments now in which liberalism’s old weapon of stigmatization shoots blanks—Elizabeth Warren in the Senate reading a 30-year-old letter by Coretta Scott King, hoping to stop Jeff Sessions’s appointment as attorney general. There it was with deadly predictability: a white liberal stealing moral authority from a black heroine in order to stigmatize a white male as racist. When Ms. Warren was finally told to sit, there was real mortification behind her glaring eyes.
This liberalism evolved within a society shamed by its past. But that shame has weakened now. Our new conservative president rolls his eyes when he is called a racist, and we all—liberal and conservative alike—know that he isn’t one. The jig is up. Bigotry exists, but it is far down on the list of problems that minorities now face. I grew up black in segregated America, where it was hard to find an open door. It’s harder now for young blacks to find a closed one.
This is the reality that made Ms. Warren’s attack on Mr. Sessions so tiresome. And it is what caused so many Democrats at President Trump’s address to Congress to look a little mortified, defiantly proud but dark with doubt. The sight of them was a profound moment in American political history.
Today’s liberalism is an anachronism. It has no understanding, really, of what poverty is and how it has to be overcome. It has no grip whatever on what American exceptionalism is and what it means at home and especially abroad. Instead it remains defined by an America of 1965—an America newly opening itself to its sins, an America of genuine goodwill, yet lacking in self-knowledge.
This liberalism came into being not as an ideology but as an identity. It offered Americans moral esteem against the specter of American shame. This made for a liberalism devoted to the idea of American shamefulness. Without an ugly America to loathe, there is no automatic esteem to receive. Thus liberalism’s unrelenting current of anti-Americanism.
Let’s stipulate that, given our history, this liberalism is understandable. But American liberalism never acknowledged that it was about white esteem rather than minority accomplishment. Four thousand shootings in Chicago last year, and the mayor announces that his will be a sanctuary city. This is moral esteem over reality; the self-congratulation of idealism. Liberalism is exhausted because it has become a corruption.
Mr. Steele, a senior fellow at Stanford University’s Hoover Institution, is author of “Shame: How America’s Past Sins Have Polarized Our Country” (Basic Books, 2015).
https://www.wsj.com/articles/the-exhaustion-of-american-liberalism-1488751826
-------------------------------------------------------
A beautiful piece, written by an African American woman.
White guilt gave us a mock politics based on the pretense of moral authority.
By SHELBY STEELE
Updated March 5, 2017 6:20 p.m. ET
The recent flurry of marches, demonstrations and even riots, along with the Democratic Party’s spiteful reaction to the Trump presidency, exposes what modern liberalism has become: a politics shrouded in pathos. Unlike the civil-rights movement of the 1950s and ’60s, when protesters wore their Sunday best and carried themselves with heroic dignity, today’s liberal marches are marked by incoherence and downright lunacy—hats designed to evoke sexual organs, poems that scream in anger yet have no point to make, and an hysterical anti-Americanism.
All this suggests lostness, the end of something rather than the beginning. What is ending?
America, since the ’60s, has lived through what might be called an age of white guilt. We may still be in this age, but the Trump election suggests an exhaustion with the idea of white guilt, and with the drama of culpability, innocence and correctness in which it mires us.
White guilt is not actual guilt. Surely most whites are not assailed in the night by feelings of responsibility for America’s historical mistreatment of minorities. Moreover, all the actual guilt in the world would never be enough to support the hegemonic power that the mere pretense of guilt has exercised in American life for the last half-century.
White guilt is not angst over injustices suffered by others; it is the terror of being stigmatized with America’s old bigotries—racism, sexism, homophobia and xenophobia. To be stigmatized as a fellow traveler with any of these bigotries is to be utterly stripped of moral authority and made into a pariah. The terror of this, of having “no name in the street” as the Bible puts it, pressures whites to act guiltily even when they feel no actual guilt. White guilt is a mock guilt, a pretense of real guilt, a shallow etiquette of empathy, pity and regret.
It is also the heart and soul of contemporary liberalism. This liberalism is the politics given to us by white guilt, and it shares white guilt’s central corruption. It is not real liberalism, in the classic sense. It is a mock liberalism. Freedom is not its raison d’être; moral authority is.
When America became stigmatized in the ’60s as racist, sexist and militaristic, it wanted moral authority above all else. Subsequently the American left reconstituted itself as the keeper of America’s moral legitimacy. (Conservatism, focused on freedom and wealth, had little moral clout.) From that followed today’s markers of white guilt—political correctness, identity politics, environmental orthodoxy, the diversity cult and so on.
This was the circumstance in which innocence of America’s bigotries and dissociation from the American past became a currency of hardcore political power. Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton, good liberals both, pursued power by offering their candidacies as opportunities for Americans to document their innocence of the nation’s past. “I had to vote for Obama,” a rock-ribbed Republican said to me. “I couldn’t tell my grandson that I didn’t vote for the first black president.”
For this man liberalism was a moral vaccine that immunized him against stigmatization. For Mr. Obama it was raw political power in the real world, enough to lift him—unknown and untested—into the presidency. But for Mrs. Clinton, liberalism was not enough. The white guilt that lifted Mr. Obama did not carry her into office—even though her opponent was soundly stigmatized as an iconic racist and sexist.
Perhaps the Obama presidency was the culmination of the age of white guilt, so that this guiltiness has entered its denouement. There are so many public moments now in which liberalism’s old weapon of stigmatization shoots blanks—Elizabeth Warren in the Senate reading a 30-year-old letter by Coretta Scott King, hoping to stop Jeff Sessions’s appointment as attorney general. There it was with deadly predictability: a white liberal stealing moral authority from a black heroine in order to stigmatize a white male as racist. When Ms. Warren was finally told to sit, there was real mortification behind her glaring eyes.
This liberalism evolved within a society shamed by its past. But that shame has weakened now. Our new conservative president rolls his eyes when he is called a racist, and we all—liberal and conservative alike—know that he isn’t one. The jig is up. Bigotry exists, but it is far down on the list of problems that minorities now face. I grew up black in segregated America, where it was hard to find an open door. It’s harder now for young blacks to find a closed one.
This is the reality that made Ms. Warren’s attack on Mr. Sessions so tiresome. And it is what caused so many Democrats at President Trump’s address to Congress to look a little mortified, defiantly proud but dark with doubt. The sight of them was a profound moment in American political history.
Today’s liberalism is an anachronism. It has no understanding, really, of what poverty is and how it has to be overcome. It has no grip whatever on what American exceptionalism is and what it means at home and especially abroad. Instead it remains defined by an America of 1965—an America newly opening itself to its sins, an America of genuine goodwill, yet lacking in self-knowledge.
This liberalism came into being not as an ideology but as an identity. It offered Americans moral esteem against the specter of American shame. This made for a liberalism devoted to the idea of American shamefulness. Without an ugly America to loathe, there is no automatic esteem to receive. Thus liberalism’s unrelenting current of anti-Americanism.
Let’s stipulate that, given our history, this liberalism is understandable. But American liberalism never acknowledged that it was about white esteem rather than minority accomplishment. Four thousand shootings in Chicago last year, and the mayor announces that his will be a sanctuary city. This is moral esteem over reality; the self-congratulation of idealism. Liberalism is exhausted because it has become a corruption.
Mr. Steele, a senior fellow at Stanford University’s Hoover Institution, is author of “Shame: How America’s Past Sins Have Polarized Our Country” (Basic Books, 2015).
https://www.wsj.com/articles/the-exhaustion-of-american-liberalism-1488751826
-------------------------------------------------------
A beautiful piece, written by an African American woman.
Obama Really WAS the Wiretapper In Chief
The Obama administration absolutely loved wiretapping, intercepting confidential transmissions, bugging -- well, anyone it could.
They monitored the phones of 35 world leaders, according to whistleblower Edward Snowden. They bugged a private climate change strategy meeting between United Nations Secretary General Ban Ki-Moon and German Chancellor Angela Merkel in Berlin, Wikileaks revealed. They tapped officials at the World Trade Organization, Italian diplomats, European Union economic officials.
Wikileaks on Sunday tweeted excerpts from a report it released last month detailing Obama's hefty wiretapping history.
Obama has a history of tapping & hacking his friends and rivals https://t.co/XbwyNSwTXg #NSA #PRISM #Merkel #Sarkozy #BanKiMoon #WTO #Trump pic.twitter.com/5CebcnkFgn
— WikiLeaks (@wikileaks) March 5, 2017
The tweet spells out just how into wiretapping Obama and his cronies really were, providing specifics to boot.
WikiLeaks publishes highly classified documents showing that the US National Security Agency bugged a private climate change strategy meeting; between UN Secretary General Ban Ki-Moon and German Chancellor Angela Merkel in Berlin; singled out the Chief of Staff of UN High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR) for long term interception targetting his Swiss phone; singled out the Director of the Rules Division of the World Trade Organisation (WTO), Johann Human, and targetted his Swiss phone for long term interception; stole sensitive Italian diplomatic cables detailing how Israel's Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu implored Italy's Prime Minister Silvio Berlusconi to help patch up his relationship with US President Barack Obama, who was refusing to talk to Netanyahu; intercepted top EU and Japanese trade ministers discussing their secret strategy and red lines to stop the US "extort[ing]" them at the WTO Doha arounds (the talks subsequently collapsed); explicitly targetted five other top EU economic officials for long term interception, including their French, Austrian and Belgium phone numbers; explicitly targetted the phones of Italy's ambassador to NATO and other top Italian officials for long term interception; and intercepted details of a critical private meeting between then French president Nicolas Sarkozy, Merkel and Berluscon, where the latter was told the Italian banking system was ready to "pop like a cork". Some of the intercepts are classified TOP-SECRET COMINT-GAMMA and are the most highly classified documents ever published by a media organization.
WikiLeaks editor Julian Assange said "Today we proved the UN Secretary General Ban Ki-Moon's private meetings over how to save the planet from climate change were bugged by a country intent on protecting its largest oil companies. Back in 2010 we revealed that the then US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton had ordered her diplomats to steal the UN leadership's biometric data and other information. The US government has signed agreements with the UN that it will not engage in such conduct. It will be interesting to see the UN's reaction, because if the United Nations Secretary General, whose communications and person have legal inviolability, can be repeatedly attacked without consequence then everyone is at risk."
http://www.dailywire.com/news/14122...-news&utm_campaign=restlesspatriot#exit-modal
The Obama administration absolutely loved wiretapping, intercepting confidential transmissions, bugging -- well, anyone it could.
They monitored the phones of 35 world leaders, according to whistleblower Edward Snowden. They bugged a private climate change strategy meeting between United Nations Secretary General Ban Ki-Moon and German Chancellor Angela Merkel in Berlin, Wikileaks revealed. They tapped officials at the World Trade Organization, Italian diplomats, European Union economic officials.
Wikileaks on Sunday tweeted excerpts from a report it released last month detailing Obama's hefty wiretapping history.
Obama has a history of tapping & hacking his friends and rivals https://t.co/XbwyNSwTXg #NSA #PRISM #Merkel #Sarkozy #BanKiMoon #WTO #Trump pic.twitter.com/5CebcnkFgn
— WikiLeaks (@wikileaks) March 5, 2017
The tweet spells out just how into wiretapping Obama and his cronies really were, providing specifics to boot.
WikiLeaks publishes highly classified documents showing that the US National Security Agency bugged a private climate change strategy meeting; between UN Secretary General Ban Ki-Moon and German Chancellor Angela Merkel in Berlin; singled out the Chief of Staff of UN High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR) for long term interception targetting his Swiss phone; singled out the Director of the Rules Division of the World Trade Organisation (WTO), Johann Human, and targetted his Swiss phone for long term interception; stole sensitive Italian diplomatic cables detailing how Israel's Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu implored Italy's Prime Minister Silvio Berlusconi to help patch up his relationship with US President Barack Obama, who was refusing to talk to Netanyahu; intercepted top EU and Japanese trade ministers discussing their secret strategy and red lines to stop the US "extort[ing]" them at the WTO Doha arounds (the talks subsequently collapsed); explicitly targetted five other top EU economic officials for long term interception, including their French, Austrian and Belgium phone numbers; explicitly targetted the phones of Italy's ambassador to NATO and other top Italian officials for long term interception; and intercepted details of a critical private meeting between then French president Nicolas Sarkozy, Merkel and Berluscon, where the latter was told the Italian banking system was ready to "pop like a cork". Some of the intercepts are classified TOP-SECRET COMINT-GAMMA and are the most highly classified documents ever published by a media organization.
WikiLeaks editor Julian Assange said "Today we proved the UN Secretary General Ban Ki-Moon's private meetings over how to save the planet from climate change were bugged by a country intent on protecting its largest oil companies. Back in 2010 we revealed that the then US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton had ordered her diplomats to steal the UN leadership's biometric data and other information. The US government has signed agreements with the UN that it will not engage in such conduct. It will be interesting to see the UN's reaction, because if the United Nations Secretary General, whose communications and person have legal inviolability, can be repeatedly attacked without consequence then everyone is at risk."
http://www.dailywire.com/news/14122...-news&utm_campaign=restlesspatriot#exit-modal
This should probably be moved to the football forum, LOL
Reporter Sharyl Attkisson says feds hacked computer, CBS protected Obama
Those who suspect the worst about the Obama administration and the media won’t have their beliefs contradicted by former CBS News reporter Sharyl Attkisson’s explosive new book, “Stonewalled: My Fight for Truth Against the Forces of Obstruction, Intimidation and Harassment in Obama’s Washington.”
“Stonewalled” (HarperBooks), in which Ms. Attkisson recounts the conflicts over coverage with network executives leading up to her resignation in March, isn’t scheduled for release until Tuesday, but eye-popping excerpts are making their way into the press and social media.
The most incendiary charge: that Ms. Attkisson’s personal computer and CBS laptop were hacked after she began filing stories about Benghazi that were unflattering to the Obama administration. A source who checked her laptop said the hacker used spyware “proprietary to a government agency,” according to a Monday article in the New York Post.
“This is outrageous. Worse than anything Nixon ever did. I wouldn’t have believed something like this could happen in the United States of America,” said the source, according to Ms. Attkisson’s account in the New York Post.
In an Oct. 3 video preview of the book, Ms. Attkisson describes how her computer suddenly went haywire as she was working at home on a Benghazi story.
“As I was typing and working on questions for a Benghazi-related story, the data started wiping kind of at hyperspeed, being deleted, as if my computer had been hijacked and I had no control over it,” Ms. Attkisson says in the video.
“I knew because I had had so many anomalies over the past year and a half, two years, that someone was interfering with the computer,” she said. “It was described to me by the computer experts I consulted with afterward that that was purely an attempt to let me know that they could do that and they were watching and that they were in my computer.”
Although Ms. Attkisson calls herself a political agnostic who was equally tough on the Bush administration, she said her dogged reporting on stories such as the Benghazi assault, the Fast and Furious gun-running scandal, Solyndra and Obamacare made her a persona non grata with her liberal CBS bosses.
“Many in the media are wrestling with their own souls: They know that ObamaCare is in serious trouble, but they’re conflicted about reporting that,” Ms. Attkisson says in the Post account. “Some worry that the news coverage will hurt a cause that they personally believe in. They’re all too eager to dismiss damaging documentary evidence while embracing, sometimes unquestioningly, the Obama administration’s ever-evolving and unproven explanations.”
As the November 2012 election approached, her hard-hitting stories about Benghazi wound up on the network’s website instead of on the air. So did a story about a Korean green-energy firm receiving U.S. subsidies.
At one point, the network lost interest in Ms. Attkisson’s Fast and Furious stories. A producer told her, “You’ve reported everything. There’s really nothing left to say.”
She ran afoul of a network executive when she appeared on conservative talk-show host Laura Ingraham’s radio show, who told her Ms. Ingraham was “extremely, extremely far right.” One of her higher-ups insisted on identifying conservative analysts as “conservative,” but liberal analysts were just “analysts.”
CBS officials have not commented publicly on the book, and a New York Post reporter wrote in a Monday article that he was unable to reach executives for their reaction.
Ms. Attkisson said the network’s kid-gloves treatment also applied to its sponsors. She quotes an executive warning not to do anything to upset “corporate partners” until the stock split in 2006, according to the Post account.
She won five Emmys in her nearly 20 years at CBS, but Ms. Attkisson recently has been attacked by left-wing groups. A senior researcher at Media Matters in June described Ms. Attkisson’s reporting as “shoddy,” and Salon’s Simon Maloy mocked her “borderline obsessive focus on Benghazi.”
In her video, Ms. Attkisson says the public “needs to learn to watch the news much as you do a TV commercial. You need to start thinking, ‘Why is that story airing? Who pushed it?’ What special interest might be behind it? And am I getting the full story?’
“I’ve never seen a tougher clampdown on freedom of the press, and I think it’s important that someone stand and say these things and speak out about them,” she said.
She concludes, “I think in general I’m just one of the reporters top on a list of those they watch and they disagree with and they fight.”
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2014/oct/28/reporter-sharyl-attkisson-says-feds-hacked-compute/
Those who suspect the worst about the Obama administration and the media won’t have their beliefs contradicted by former CBS News reporter Sharyl Attkisson’s explosive new book, “Stonewalled: My Fight for Truth Against the Forces of Obstruction, Intimidation and Harassment in Obama’s Washington.”
“Stonewalled” (HarperBooks), in which Ms. Attkisson recounts the conflicts over coverage with network executives leading up to her resignation in March, isn’t scheduled for release until Tuesday, but eye-popping excerpts are making their way into the press and social media.
The most incendiary charge: that Ms. Attkisson’s personal computer and CBS laptop were hacked after she began filing stories about Benghazi that were unflattering to the Obama administration. A source who checked her laptop said the hacker used spyware “proprietary to a government agency,” according to a Monday article in the New York Post.
“This is outrageous. Worse than anything Nixon ever did. I wouldn’t have believed something like this could happen in the United States of America,” said the source, according to Ms. Attkisson’s account in the New York Post.
In an Oct. 3 video preview of the book, Ms. Attkisson describes how her computer suddenly went haywire as she was working at home on a Benghazi story.
“As I was typing and working on questions for a Benghazi-related story, the data started wiping kind of at hyperspeed, being deleted, as if my computer had been hijacked and I had no control over it,” Ms. Attkisson says in the video.
“I knew because I had had so many anomalies over the past year and a half, two years, that someone was interfering with the computer,” she said. “It was described to me by the computer experts I consulted with afterward that that was purely an attempt to let me know that they could do that and they were watching and that they were in my computer.”
Although Ms. Attkisson calls herself a political agnostic who was equally tough on the Bush administration, she said her dogged reporting on stories such as the Benghazi assault, the Fast and Furious gun-running scandal, Solyndra and Obamacare made her a persona non grata with her liberal CBS bosses.
“Many in the media are wrestling with their own souls: They know that ObamaCare is in serious trouble, but they’re conflicted about reporting that,” Ms. Attkisson says in the Post account. “Some worry that the news coverage will hurt a cause that they personally believe in. They’re all too eager to dismiss damaging documentary evidence while embracing, sometimes unquestioningly, the Obama administration’s ever-evolving and unproven explanations.”
As the November 2012 election approached, her hard-hitting stories about Benghazi wound up on the network’s website instead of on the air. So did a story about a Korean green-energy firm receiving U.S. subsidies.
At one point, the network lost interest in Ms. Attkisson’s Fast and Furious stories. A producer told her, “You’ve reported everything. There’s really nothing left to say.”
She ran afoul of a network executive when she appeared on conservative talk-show host Laura Ingraham’s radio show, who told her Ms. Ingraham was “extremely, extremely far right.” One of her higher-ups insisted on identifying conservative analysts as “conservative,” but liberal analysts were just “analysts.”
CBS officials have not commented publicly on the book, and a New York Post reporter wrote in a Monday article that he was unable to reach executives for their reaction.
Ms. Attkisson said the network’s kid-gloves treatment also applied to its sponsors. She quotes an executive warning not to do anything to upset “corporate partners” until the stock split in 2006, according to the Post account.
She won five Emmys in her nearly 20 years at CBS, but Ms. Attkisson recently has been attacked by left-wing groups. A senior researcher at Media Matters in June described Ms. Attkisson’s reporting as “shoddy,” and Salon’s Simon Maloy mocked her “borderline obsessive focus on Benghazi.”
In her video, Ms. Attkisson says the public “needs to learn to watch the news much as you do a TV commercial. You need to start thinking, ‘Why is that story airing? Who pushed it?’ What special interest might be behind it? And am I getting the full story?’
“I’ve never seen a tougher clampdown on freedom of the press, and I think it’s important that someone stand and say these things and speak out about them,” she said.
She concludes, “I think in general I’m just one of the reporters top on a list of those they watch and they disagree with and they fight.”
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2014/oct/28/reporter-sharyl-attkisson-says-feds-hacked-compute/
Remember the big stink over the Obama Admin wiretapping the Associated Press back in 2013?
http://www.commondreams.org/news/2013/09/24/dojs-wiretapping-ap-results-lengthy-prison-term-source
Considering that and the known cases of wiretapping listed below, the gall of those mother ******* at CNN to post a headline: “Trump Without Evidence Accuses Obama of Wiretapping”, amid the constant harping over Trump and the Russians. What about: “Democrats Without Evidence Accuse Trump of Conspiring with Russians”?
* The US National Security Agency bugged a private climate change strategy meeting; between UN Secretary General Ban Ki-Moon and German Chancellor Angela Merkel in Berlin;
* Obama bugged Chief of Staff of UN High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR) for long term interception targetting his Swiss phone;
* Obama singled out the Director of the Rules Division of the World Trade Organisation (WTO), Johann Human, and targetted his Swiss phone for long term interception;
* Obama stole sensitive Italian diplomatic cables detailing how Israel’s Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu implored Italy’s Prime Minister Silvio Berlusconi to help patch up his relationship with US President Barack Obama, who was refusing to talk to Netanyahu;
* Obama intercepted top EU and Japanese trade ministers discussing their secret strategy and red lines to stop the US “extort[ing]” them at the WTO Doha arounds (the talks subsequently collapsed);
* Obama explicitly targeted five other top EU economic officials for long term interception, including their French, Austrian and Belgium phone numbers;
* Obama explicitly targetted the phones of Italy’s ambassador to NATO and other top Italian officials for long term interception; and
* Obama intercepted details of a critical private meeting between then French president Nicolas Sarkozy, Merkel and Berluscon, where the latter was told the Italian banking system was ready to “pop like a cork”.
http://www.commondreams.org/news/2013/09/24/dojs-wiretapping-ap-results-lengthy-prison-term-source
Considering that and the known cases of wiretapping listed below, the gall of those mother ******* at CNN to post a headline: “Trump Without Evidence Accuses Obama of Wiretapping”, amid the constant harping over Trump and the Russians. What about: “Democrats Without Evidence Accuse Trump of Conspiring with Russians”?
* The US National Security Agency bugged a private climate change strategy meeting; between UN Secretary General Ban Ki-Moon and German Chancellor Angela Merkel in Berlin;
* Obama bugged Chief of Staff of UN High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR) for long term interception targetting his Swiss phone;
* Obama singled out the Director of the Rules Division of the World Trade Organisation (WTO), Johann Human, and targetted his Swiss phone for long term interception;
* Obama stole sensitive Italian diplomatic cables detailing how Israel’s Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu implored Italy’s Prime Minister Silvio Berlusconi to help patch up his relationship with US President Barack Obama, who was refusing to talk to Netanyahu;
* Obama intercepted top EU and Japanese trade ministers discussing their secret strategy and red lines to stop the US “extort[ing]” them at the WTO Doha arounds (the talks subsequently collapsed);
* Obama explicitly targeted five other top EU economic officials for long term interception, including their French, Austrian and Belgium phone numbers;
* Obama explicitly targetted the phones of Italy’s ambassador to NATO and other top Italian officials for long term interception; and
* Obama intercepted details of a critical private meeting between then French president Nicolas Sarkozy, Merkel and Berluscon, where the latter was told the Italian banking system was ready to “pop like a cork”.
Last edited:
- Joined
- Apr 20, 2014
- Messages
- 24,914
- Reaction score
- 11,537
- Points
- 113
While You Weren’t Looking, the Democrat–Media Election-Hacking Narrative Just Collapsed
That supposed FBI investigation of collusion with the Russians? Never mind . . . They’re in retreat now. You may have missed it amid President Trump’s startling Saturday tweet storm, the recriminations over president-on-candidate spying, and the Jeff Sessions recusal — a whirlwind weekend.
But while you weren’t looking, an elaborate narrative died. For months, the media-Democrat complex has peddled a storyline that the Putin regime in Russia hacked the U.S. presidential election. There is, of course, no evidence that the election was hacked in the sense that the actual voting process was compromised. Rather, there is evidence that e-mail accounts of prominent Democrats were hacked months before the election, and thousands of those e-mails were published by WikiLeaks in the months leading up to the election.
Now that they’ve been called on it, the media and Democrats are gradually retreating from the investigation they’ve been touting for months as the glue for their conspiracy theory.
In short, the media and Democrats have been playing with fire for months. The use of law-enforcement and national-security assets to investigate one’s political opponents during a heated election campaign has always been a potentially explosive story. Let’s not kid ourselves: If the roles were reversed, and a Republican administration had investigated officials tied to the campaign of the Democrats’ nominee, we would be drowning in a sea of Watergate 2.0 coverage.
Here’s the most interesting part: Now that they’ve been called on it, the media and Democrats are gradually retreating from the investigation they’ve been touting for months as the glue for their conspiracy theory. It’s actually quite amusing to watch: How dare you suggest President Obama would ever order surveillance! Who said anything about FISA orders? What evidence do you lunatic conservatives have — uh, other than what we media professionals been reporting — that there was any investigation of the Trump campaign?
While all this head-spinning legal jibber-jabber goes back and forth, the foundation of the false narrative we’ve been hearing since November 8 has vanished. Now that we’re supposed to believe there was no real investigation of Trump and his campaign, what else can we conclude but that there was no real evidence of collusion between the campaign and Russia . . . which makes sense, since Russia did not actually hack the election, so the purported objective of the collusion never existed.
Read more at: http://www.nationalreview.com/artic...-hacking-fbi-not-investigating-trump-campaign
That supposed FBI investigation of collusion with the Russians? Never mind . . . They’re in retreat now. You may have missed it amid President Trump’s startling Saturday tweet storm, the recriminations over president-on-candidate spying, and the Jeff Sessions recusal — a whirlwind weekend.
But while you weren’t looking, an elaborate narrative died. For months, the media-Democrat complex has peddled a storyline that the Putin regime in Russia hacked the U.S. presidential election. There is, of course, no evidence that the election was hacked in the sense that the actual voting process was compromised. Rather, there is evidence that e-mail accounts of prominent Democrats were hacked months before the election, and thousands of those e-mails were published by WikiLeaks in the months leading up to the election.
Now that they’ve been called on it, the media and Democrats are gradually retreating from the investigation they’ve been touting for months as the glue for their conspiracy theory.
In short, the media and Democrats have been playing with fire for months. The use of law-enforcement and national-security assets to investigate one’s political opponents during a heated election campaign has always been a potentially explosive story. Let’s not kid ourselves: If the roles were reversed, and a Republican administration had investigated officials tied to the campaign of the Democrats’ nominee, we would be drowning in a sea of Watergate 2.0 coverage.
Here’s the most interesting part: Now that they’ve been called on it, the media and Democrats are gradually retreating from the investigation they’ve been touting for months as the glue for their conspiracy theory. It’s actually quite amusing to watch: How dare you suggest President Obama would ever order surveillance! Who said anything about FISA orders? What evidence do you lunatic conservatives have — uh, other than what we media professionals been reporting — that there was any investigation of the Trump campaign?
While all this head-spinning legal jibber-jabber goes back and forth, the foundation of the false narrative we’ve been hearing since November 8 has vanished. Now that we’re supposed to believe there was no real investigation of Trump and his campaign, what else can we conclude but that there was no real evidence of collusion between the campaign and Russia . . . which makes sense, since Russia did not actually hack the election, so the purported objective of the collusion never existed.
Read more at: http://www.nationalreview.com/artic...-hacking-fbi-not-investigating-trump-campaign
Then there are these two *************...
http://www.msn.com/en-us/news/polit...ing-claims/ar-AAnWJCp?li=BBnb7Kz&ocid=UE13DHP
Get a copy of the New York Times you dolts. January 20, 2017.
http://www.msn.com/en-us/news/polit...ing-claims/ar-AAnWJCp?li=BBnb7Kz&ocid=UE13DHP
Get a copy of the New York Times you dolts. January 20, 2017.
- Joined
- Apr 20, 2014
- Messages
- 24,914
- Reaction score
- 11,537
- Points
- 113
Russian Federation : John McCain Asked Russia For Campaign Money During The 2008 Election
https://wikileaks.org/wiki/John_McC...ussian_Ambassador_Vitaly_Churkin,_Sep_29_2008
https://wikileaks.org/wiki/John_McC...ussian_Ambassador_Vitaly_Churkin,_Sep_29_2008
What a bunch of buffoons. Who knows how long it will be before our media is deemed trustworthy again. Hell, never is about right.
Not just the media, the politicians have their share of buffoons too. Someday we may get a 'Minimum Standard for Leaders' bill to go alone with the Voter Intelligence Bill that needs passin'.
Then we can weed out nut cases like this...
See more headlines like this...
And put a stop to some of these so called outrages emanating from Left.
Similar threads
