Posted on 03/17/2017 11:26:22 AM PDT by RoosterRedux
Today the National Security Agency has 24/7 access to the mainframe computers of all telecom providers and all computer service providers and to all digital traffic carried by fiber optics in the U.S. The NSA has had this access pursuant to FISA court orders issued in 2005 and renewed every 90 days. The FISA court has based its rulings on its own essentially secret convoluted logic, never subjected to public scrutiny. That has resulted in the universal surveillance state in which we in America now live. The NSA has never denied this.
Thus, in 2016, when Trump says the surveillance of him took place, Obama needed only to ask the NSA for a transcript of Trump's telephone conversations to be prepared from the digital versions that the NSA already possessed. Because the NSA has the digital version of every telephone call made to, from and within the U.S. since 2005, if President Obama last year wanted transcripts of Trump's calls made at any time, the NSA would have been duty-bound to provide them, just as it would be required to provide transcripts of Obama's calls today if President Trump wanted them.
But if Obama did order the NSA to prepare transcripts of Trump's conversations last fall under the pretext of national security -- to find out whether Trump was communicating with the Russians would have been a good excuse -- there would exist somewhere a record of such an order. For that reason, if Obama did this, he no doubt used a source on which he'd leave no fingerprints.
Enter James Bond.
Sources have told Fox News that the British foreign surveillance service, the Government Communications Headquarters, known as GCHQ, most likely provided Obama with transcripts of Trump's calls.
(Excerpt) Read more at realclearpolitics.com ...
Another discussion of Judge Nap’s comments and clip from Bill StilL:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hxWaWqCfu1Y
Thank you wikileaks.
Judge going under the bus. “Why are you asking me? It was FOX.”
The judge just got an impassioned defense from Trump at the Merkel presser.
The judge just got an impassioned defense from Trump at the Merkel presser.
That is not being thrown under the bus. The Judge has sources and I think he is right
Ping.
Most folks on here know my feelings in general about lawyers.I am certainly not a Libertarian but I happen to have the upmost confidence in Andrew Napoli tank. I do not agree with a lot of things he says but it is not for his reasoning,I suppose you would say it is my philosophy.. His reasoning just makes sense to me.
Saw/heard that!
Kudos
The walkback begins...
What did he say?
I loved when he was asked about Obama spying on him, how he turned to Merkel and said, “I guess we have something in common.”
Later
For the life of me, I just don’t get how leftists like Obama or Soros, or intelligence agents or senators, can feel better knowing they’ve lied about everything they’re doing.
How does lying make things better for you people?
Thus, in 2016, when Trump says the surveillance of him took place, Obama needed only to ask the NSA for a transcript of Trump’s telephone conversations to be prepared from the digital versions that the NSA already possessed.
They know who you called, when, how long you were on the phone and even your location during the call (via tower data). But they don’t have the call itself, unless a subpoena was used to actively record your calls.
Unless something has changed in the last five years...
Your intentions are good but they pick up all data now and it can be easily translated from that stored data state into voice data and a transcript.
That’s what President Trump is stating.
You caught it too. Enter wiggle room.
Well, I left the company just over five years ago. So my information may be dated.
And I have a serious problem with them recording voice data without a subpoena. Because there is no need to save that data, it should not be saved. Period. Unless they have a warrant.
It is an illegal recording in virtually (if not literally) all states. Yes, it is that simple.
I am listening to conservative talk radio host Michael Medved, and he says this judge has absolutely no credibility.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.