President Donald J. Trump: Orange is the New Black, House Slytherin Rises Also Heil Trump!

[Day]

That server turned out to some unused spam mailing server iirc, so why keep "listening" if they did so

[Deftscythe]

Interesting twitter thread laying out a bit of a timeline

https://twitter.com/justinhendrix/st...10340579426304

[Salodin]

That server turned out to some unused spam mailing server iirc, so why keep "listening" if they did so

Citation needed.

[archibaldcrane]

I never saw any conclusion about that server.

[archibaldcrane]

Trump is alleging a phone tap at Trump tower, which would be new information though, although he's probably just sloppily conflating the news stories like usual.

[Salodin]

I never saw any conclusion about that server.

Don't worry, Day will forget to respond to these comments.

[Quicklet]

Citation needed.

In fairness, that was one plausible explanation offered (by people with the expertise to know) that could account for the server. But as others mentioned, it isn't conclusive.

[Shuichi]

1 Russian Diplomat Dead. 11/8/2016. Meh.
2 Russian Diplomat Dead. 12/19/2016. Well that's bad luck.
3 Russian Diplomat Dead. 12/16/2016. Hmmm.
4 Russian Diplomat Dead. 1/9/2017. Uhhhh....
5 Russian Diplomat Dead. 1/27/2017. Ok now, seriously?
6 Russian Diplomat Dead. 2/20/2017. Yep.

Source: http://www.independent.co.uk/news/wo...-a7602201.html

[Day]

Citation needed.

Don't worry, Day will forget to respond to these comments.

Was based off several accounts like this: https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/...p-russia-link/

I thought it was pretty much determined it was an old unused server but I guess you are correct that no official statement has been made, but again FBI/IC has come out several times now since then stating there is no evidence of Trump/Russia collusion.

[Salodin]

So I assume the FBI has publicly stated they investigated the Russian connection, as well as how it relates to Flynn, Sessions, as well as whoever the next person to get caught lying is.

Or are we just remembering alternative facts again?

[Day]

It's been in almost every article that have had anything to do with the leaks.

[Day]

Senior IC officials or whatever, the same ones talking about the story always concede there is no evidence buried down in about the 5th paragraph of every story.

[Roranora]

1 Russian Diplomat Dead. 11/8/2016. Meh.
2 Russian Diplomat Dead. 12/19/2016. Well that's bad luck.
3 Russian Diplomat Dead. 12/16/2016. Hmmm.
4 Russian Diplomat Dead. 1/9/2017. Uhhhh....
5 Russian Diplomat Dead. 1/27/2017. Ok now, seriously?
6 Russian Diplomat Dead. 2/20/2017. Yep.

Source: http://www.independent.co.uk/news/wo...-a7602201.html

hey as long as it's not done with polonium-210 nowadays amirite

tho we got NK using nerve agents willy nilly

[Salodin]

Senior IC officials or whatever, the same ones talking about the story always concede there is no evidence buried down in about the 5th paragraph of every story.

So the FBI did not state that there is no connection between the Trump campaign and Russian officials. Gotcha.

While we're at it, has any department come out and supported the white houses claim that there were no illegal contacts or deals made between the Trump campaign and Russia?

[Day]

https://www.nytimes.com/2016/11/01/u...ald-trump.html

Law enforcement officials say that none of the investigations so far have found any conclusive or direct link between Mr. Trump and the Russian government. And even the hacking into Democratic emails, F.B.I. and intelligence officials now believe, was aimed at disrupting the presidential election rather than electing Mr. Trump.

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/02/14/u...ons-trump.html

The intelligence agencies then sought to learn whether the Trump campaign was colluding with the Russians on the hacking or other efforts to influence the election.

The officials interviewed in recent weeks said that, so far, they had seen no evidence of such cooperation.

[Byrthnoth]

First article is from October of last year, before all our intelligence agencies came out and said Russia was doing it to get Trump elected.

Second article just means the people they've talked to don't know whether they've found the smoking gun yet.

[Headspace]

Both articles say "so far"


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Day]

but they do say it

[Rooney]

My only issue with that is the statement that the hacking was about disrupting the election. There were only two viable candidates. "Disrupting the election" shows a clear bias one way or the other, so saying it wasn't pro-Trump is misleading at best. Also, the article was published months ago, so not exactly current.

[Deftscythe]

https://mobile.nytimes.com/2017/03/0....co/mDYu8CFxRB

But a senior White House official said that Donald F. McGahn II, the president’s chief counsel, was working on Saturday to secure access to what Mr. McGahn believed was an order issued by the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court authorizing some form of surveillance related to Mr. Trump and his associates.

The official offered no evidence to support the notion that such an order exists. If one does, it would be highly unusual for a White House to order the Justice Department to turn over such an investigative document, given the traditional independence of law enforcement matters.

Can someone explain this to me? It's obvious why the DoJ would want to maintain it's independence(if it has any while Sessions is AG) from the White House in this matter, but if Trump can prove that he was put under surveillance, then wouldn't he be within his rights to demand to see authorization?