Sell The Whitehouse to Trump

Discuss life, the universe, and everything with other members of this site. Get to know your fellow polywell enthusiasts.

Moderators: tonybarry, MSimon

hanelyp
Posts: 2255
Joined: Fri Oct 26, 2007 8:50 pm

Re: Sell The Whitehouse to Trump

Postby hanelyp » Tue Jan 17, 2017 1:53 am

Part I: Undercover investigation exposes groups plotting criminal activity at Trump inauguration
https://youtu.be/MHZSfhd1X_8
The daylight is uncomfortably bright for eyes so long in the dark.

Tom Ligon
Posts: 1871
Joined: Wed Aug 22, 2007 1:23 am
Location: Northern Virginia
Contact:

Re: Sell The Whitehouse to Trump

Postby Tom Ligon » Tue Jan 17, 2017 7:10 pm

All I can say at this point is:

https://heavyeditorial.files.wordpress. ... =all&w=780

My feelings about this are pretty much summed up by this article. The pee story probably is no more true than the fake news stories that Trump exploited, but dang, payback is a bitch, ain't it?

http://nymag.com/thecut/2017/01/the-she ... hower.html

paperburn1
Posts: 2454
Joined: Fri Jun 19, 2009 5:53 am
Location: Third rock from the sun.

Re: Sell The Whitehouse to Trump

Postby paperburn1 » Wed Jan 18, 2017 2:26 am

http://www.businessinsider.com/animatio ... ars-2016-4

I like this graph so much I am posting it here because it is sooooo relevant.
I am not a nuclear physicist, but play one on the internet.

Tom Ligon
Posts: 1871
Joined: Wed Aug 22, 2007 1:23 am
Location: Northern Virginia
Contact:

Re: Sell The Whitehouse to Trump

Postby Tom Ligon » Thu Jan 19, 2017 12:21 am

That video is darned revealing.

I wonder if they could find the data to extend it back to 1840 or so? I would expect a similar pattern leading up to the Civil War.

paperburn1
Posts: 2454
Joined: Fri Jun 19, 2009 5:53 am
Location: Third rock from the sun.

Re: Sell The Whitehouse to Trump

Postby paperburn1 » Thu Jan 19, 2017 4:33 am

HMM interesting thought process. I wonder?
I am not a nuclear physicist, but play one on the internet.

Tom Ligon
Posts: 1871
Joined: Wed Aug 22, 2007 1:23 am
Location: Northern Virginia
Contact:

Re: Sell The Whitehouse to Trump

Postby Tom Ligon » Fri Jan 20, 2017 4:17 pm

As I understand history, the first few terms were pretty divisive, with major disagreements along party lines. Jefferson and Hamilton could not stand each other. John Adams would have had very low approval ratings due to the Alien and Sedition Acts. Jefferson was the butt of jokes due to his poor public speaking ability and rumors about Sally Hemmings, but came out OK due to the Louisiana Purchase. But that purchase was against his principles. He had no authority to do it and he had to use money from Hamilton's banks. He was forced to cross party lines and do the Federalist thing.

The blurring of party lines led to the demise of the Federalists, and a period in which there was little rancor, pretty much because we were a one-party system. However, things started to move apart again due to slavery. The Missouri Compromise attempted to restore some political balance between the sides, but when Jefferson finally read about it he foresaw the Civil War. https://www.loc.gov/exhibits/jefferson/159.html

"... a geographical line, coinciding with a marked principle, moral and political, once concieved and held up to the angry passions of men, will never be obliterated; and every new irritation will mark it deeper and deeper. "

That has a familiar feel to it, doesn't it?

williatw
Posts: 1844
Joined: Mon Oct 12, 2009 7:15 pm
Location: Ohio

Re: Sell The Whitehouse to Trump

Postby williatw » Fri Mar 10, 2017 7:00 pm

More wisdom from "Black Pidgeon speaks".... Trump being "wired tapped" is not even the half of it:




DEEP STATE & the Subversion of President Trump #Vault7



https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Is4hDMgwFwQ

To wit...Obama didn't "order" a "wiretap" of Trump Towers...the CIA in a program authorized by Obama has the means to monitor/spy by a variety of means Trump and virtually anyone else it wishes; for whatever purpose it wishes, (even apparently making it look like someone else is responsible i.e. the Russians); Constitution be damned.
Last edited by williatw on Sat Mar 11, 2017 11:42 am, edited 1 time in total.

hanelyp
Posts: 2255
Joined: Fri Oct 26, 2007 8:50 pm

Re: Sell The Whitehouse to Trump

Postby hanelyp » Fri Mar 10, 2017 8:59 pm

As I've said before, the "king" doesn't need to give the order if he has reliable partisans in place, and they know they won't be prosecuted for lawlessness in support of the king.
The daylight is uncomfortably bright for eyes so long in the dark.

williatw
Posts: 1844
Joined: Mon Oct 12, 2009 7:15 pm
Location: Ohio

Re: Sell The Whitehouse to Trump

Postby williatw » Sat Mar 11, 2017 2:47 pm

hanelyp wrote:As I've said before, the "king" doesn't need to give the order if he has reliable partisans in place, and they know they won't be prosecuted for lawlessness in support of the king.


Mark Levin to Congress: Investigate Obama’s ‘Silent Coup’ vs. Trump

Image



In summary: the Obama administration sought, and eventually obtained, authorization to eavesdrop on the Trump campaign; continued monitoring the Trump team even when no evidence of wrongdoing was found; then relaxed the NSA rules to allow evidence to be shared widely within the government, virtually ensuring that the information, including the conversations of private citizens, would be leaked to the media.



Radio host Mark Levin used his Thursday evening show to outline the known steps taken by President Barack Obama’s administration in its last months to undermine Donald Trump’s presidential campaign and, later, his new administration.
Levin called Obama’s effort “police state” tactics, and suggested that Obama’s actions, rather than conspiracy theories about alleged Russian interference in the presidential election to help Trump, should be the target of congressional investigation.

Drawing on sources including the New York Times and the Washington Post, Levin described the case against Obama so far, based on what is already publicly known. The following is an expanded version of that case, including events that Levin did not mention specifically but are important to the overall timeline.


1. June 2016: FISA request. The Obama administration files a request with the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court (FISA) to monitor communications involving Donald Trump and several advisers. The request, uncharacteristically, is denied.

2. July: Russia joke. Wikileaks releases emails from the Democratic National Committee that show an effort to prevent Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-VT) from winning the presidential nomination. In a press conference, Donald Trump refers to Hillary Clinton’s own missing emails, joking: “Russia, if you’re listening, I hope you’re able to find the 30,000 e-mails that are missing.” That remark becomes the basis for accusations by Clinton and the media that Trump invited further hacking.

3. October: Podesta emails. In October, Wikileaks releases the emails of Clinton campaign chair John Podesta, rolling out batches every day until the election, creating new mini-scandals. The Clinton campaign blames Trump and the Russians.

4. October: FISA request. The Obama administration submits a new, narrow request to the FISA court, now focused on a computer server in Trump Tower suspected of links to Russian banks. No evidence is found — but the wiretaps continue, ostensibly for national security reasons, Andrew McCarthy at National Review later notes. The Obama administration is now monitoring an opposing presidential campaign using the high-tech surveillance powers of the federal intelligence services.



5. January 2017: Buzzfeed/CNN dossier. Buzzfeed releases, and CNN reports, a supposed intelligence “dossier” compiled by a foreign former spy. It purports to show continuous contact between Russia and the Trump campaign, and says that the Russians have compromising information about Trump. None of the allegations can be verified and some are proven false. Several media outlets claim that they had been aware of the dossier for months and that it had been circulating in Washington.

6. January: Obama expands NSA sharing. As Michael Walsh later notes, and as the New York Times reports, the outgoing Obama administration “expanded the power of the National Security Agency to share globally intercepted personal communications with the government’s 16 other intelligence agencies before applying privacy protections.” The new powers, and reduced protections, could make it easier for intelligence on private citizens to be circulated improperly or leaked.

7. January: Times report. The New York Times reports, on the eve of Inauguration Day, that several agencies — the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI), the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA), the National Security Agency (NSA) and the Treasury Department are monitoring several associates of the Trump campaign suspected of Russian ties. Other news outlets also report the exisentence of “a multiagency working group to coordinate investigations across the government,” though it is unclear how they found out, since the investigations would have been secret and involved classified information.

8. February: Mike Flynn scandal. Reports emerge that the FBI intercepted a conversation in 2016 between future National Security Adviser Michael Flynn — then a private citizen — and Russian Ambassador Sergey Kislyak. The intercept supposedly was part of routine spying on the ambassador, not monitoring of the Trump campaign. The FBI transcripts reportedly show the two discussing Obama’s newly-imposed sanctions on Russia, though Flynn earlier denied discussing them. Sally Yates, whom Trump would later fire as acting Attorney General for insubordination, is involved in the investigation. In the end, Flynn resigns over having misled Vice President Mike Pence (perhaps inadvertently) about the content of the conversation.

9. February: Times claims extensive Russian contacts. The New York Times cites “four current and former American officials” in reporting that the Trump campaign had “repeated contacts with senior Russian intelligence officials. The Trump campaign denies the claims — and the Times admits that there is “no evidence” of coordination between the campaign and the Russians. The White House and some congressional Republicans begin to raise questions about illegal intelligence leaks.

10. March: the Washington Post targets Jeff Sessions. The Washington Post reports that Attorney General Jeff Sessions had contact twice with the Russian ambassador during the campaign — once at a Heritage Foundation event and once at a meeting in Sessions’s Senate office. The Post suggests that the two meetings contradict Sessions’s testimony at his confirmation hearings that he had no contacts with the Russians, though in context (not presented by the Post) it was clear he meant in his capacity as a campaign surrogate, and that he was responding to claims in the “dossier” of ongoing contacts. The New York Times, in covering the story, adds that the Obama White House “rushed to preserve” intelligence related to alleged Russian links with the Trump campaign. By “preserve” it really means “disseminate”: officials spread evidence throughout other government agencies “to leave a clear trail of intelligence for government investigators” and perhaps the media as well.

In summary: the Obama administration sought, and eventually obtained, authorization to eavesdrop on the Trump campaign; continued monitoring the Trump team even when no evidence of wrongdoing was found; then relaxed the NSA rules to allow evidence to be shared widely within the government, virtually ensuring that the information, including the conversations of private citizens, would be leaked to the media.



Levin called the effort a “silent coup” by the Obama administration and demanded that it be investigated.

In addition, Levin castigated Republicans in Congress for focusing their attention on Trump and Attorney General Sessions rather than Obama.






http://www.breitbart.com/big-government ... ine-trump/

choff
Posts: 2432
Joined: Thu Nov 08, 2007 5:02 am
Location: Vancouver, Canada

Re: Sell The Whitehouse to Trump

Postby choff » Sun Mar 12, 2017 6:18 pm

With Echelon the alphabet soup agencies can all honestly say they never wiretapped anyone. They merely engaged in the usual routine informal exchanges with the other 5 eyes countries and Trump's name just happened to pop up. :roll:
CHoff

JLawson
Posts: 422
Joined: Tue Jul 08, 2008 6:31 pm
Location: Georgia
Contact:

Re: Sell The Whitehouse to Trump

Postby JLawson » Mon Mar 13, 2017 4:19 pm

Let's see...

There's no 'proof' Trump's working with Putin. There's no proof he did anything wrong, illegal, immoral, or fattening. (Though ketchup on well-done steak is... um... ah, what the heck. It's kinda funny.)

Yet the evidence against the previous administration about possibly tapping Trump's communications is, to my mind, a hell of a lot worse than the continuing accusations of Russian involvement.

What's even worse is they apparently felt completely justified in doing so. Legality was abandoned in service to an ideology that justified winning by any means.

That's not something we can just handwave away - that's a decided cancer in the heart of the system.
When opinion and reality conflict - guess which one is going to win in the long run.

paperburn1
Posts: 2454
Joined: Fri Jun 19, 2009 5:53 am
Location: Third rock from the sun.

Re: Sell The Whitehouse to Trump

Postby paperburn1 » Mon Mar 13, 2017 4:52 pm

Russian ambassador came out today asking what the big deal was, they were in contact with both party's campaign managers and personnel.
The basically said we have records and proof , would you like to know more?
At this point I believe CNN or other news outlets will find some local scandal to focus on until this passes.
I am not a nuclear physicist, but play one on the internet.

ScottL
Posts: 1122
Joined: Thu Jun 02, 2011 11:26 pm

Re: Sell The Whitehouse to Trump

Postby ScottL » Mon Mar 13, 2017 6:01 pm

paperburn1 wrote:Russian ambassador came out today asking what the big deal was, they were in contact with both party's campaign managers and personnel.
The basically said we have records and proof , would you like to know more?
At this point I believe CNN or other news outlets will find some local scandal to focus on until this passes.


I'm still waiting for this proof of the Obama wiretap...deadline appears to be today. The Trump administration is the Andrea Rossi of politics and Briebart is their Mats Lewan. Say some crazy stuff, show no evidence, change topic when claim found to be not true.

I'm not a fan of the surveillance state we have today and while i recognize that many programs started way before I was even a thought in my parents minds, I recognize that Obama took what Bush created for him and ran with it.

williatw
Posts: 1844
Joined: Mon Oct 12, 2009 7:15 pm
Location: Ohio

Re: Sell The Whitehouse to Trump

Postby williatw » Mon Mar 13, 2017 9:35 pm

ScottL wrote:I'm still waiting for this proof of the Obama wiretap...deadline appears to be today. The Trump administration is the Andrea Rossi of politics and Briebart is their Mats Lewan. Say some crazy stuff, show no evidence, change topic when claim found to be not true.


There probably is no "proof" of the Obama wiretap as such; Trump was reacting viscerally to the constants "leaks" of information about whoever met with whomever at Trump Towers with the accusation. His meaning being that someone must be orchestrating the leaks; someone getting lots of info about the private dealings of himself and his staff/support personnel well before the election.

ScottL wrote:I'm not a fan of the surveillance state we have today and while i recognize that many programs started way before I was even a thought in my parents minds


That's your answer....that the "surveillance state" is the source of the leaks...not a "wire tap" as such.


ScottL wrote: I recognize that Obama took what Bush created for him and ran with it


Precisely...that is the "Obama wiretap" which is what Breitbart and others are referring to. Personally at this point I think that Breitbart is probably about as accurate and unbiased as Rachel Maddow/MSNBC & the rest of the "main stream" news media.

ScottL
Posts: 1122
Joined: Thu Jun 02, 2011 11:26 pm

Re: Sell The Whitehouse to Trump

Postby ScottL » Mon Mar 13, 2017 10:00 pm

williatw wrote:There probably is no "proof" of the Obama wiretap as such; Trump was reacting viscerally to the constants "leaks" of information about whoever met with whomever at Trump Towers with the accusation. His meaning being that someone must be orchestrating the leaks; someone getting lots of info about the private dealings of himself and his staff/support personnel well before the election.


The Obama administration didn't wiretap, that's a start. If by "His meaning," you're talking about Trump's meaning, well then why did he call Obama specifically a "sick guy." You and I know darn well he meant Obama specifically and not generally. Anything stating otherwise is self-delusion.


williatw wrote:That's your answer....that the "surveillance state" is the source of the leaks...not a "wire tap" as such.


But I wasn't stating that the surveillance stat is the source of the leaks. Note, I separated the thoughts into two separate paragraphs, the first on the intentional false claim against Obama. The second specifically about the surveillance state. If you want to combine the two ideas, I don't mind speaking on that either. The leaks in Trumps administration are internal, not from a 3rd party entity like Obama IMHO. I say that because there is no evidence that Obama has a mole in the Trump administration. There is also no evidence that he could get a Mole into the Trump administrations inner circle. Furthermore, the leaks have only shown what we figured all along, that his administration is highly dysfunctional.


williatw wrote:Precisely...that is the "Obama wiretap" which is what Breitbart and others are referring to. Personally at this point I think that Breitbart is probably about as accurate and unbiased as Rachel Maddow/MSNBC & the rest of the "main stream" news media.


So you're saying the "Obama wiretap" had nothing to do with Obama or wiretapping or surveillance of any kind by Obama or his administration. Instead, to get more clicks they added Obama to the title?! We agree 100%. Obama had nothing to do with Trumps latest claim (or any prior claim at this point) and it was another mechanism by the Trump administration to point the spotlight elsewhere.

I say the following noting that it isn't a liberal vs conservative issue. It's not Republican vs Democrat. This administration is worthless and if people thought it hurt in 2007-2009, just wait.


Return to “General”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: MSN [Bot] and 8 guests