The tide of events is turning away from The Democrats like it did for Joseph McCarthy, people are sick and tired of the witch hunt. They want Trump to be given his chance to govern and they don’t want business as usual, the electorate want normalcy. DT

The left and the oligarchs behind them think they own the government as well as the banks and media. I doubt they will give up or change their minds before twitching at the end of rope or bleeding out in front of a firing squad.

A bit dramatic Steen, ut if you take you comment as an analogy, you do hae a point.

The Russian involvement or not, is in all probability a total red herring.

Without doubt Obama knew exactly what was going on.

with whom he confided the tapping information is an unknown.

The instigation, or reason Trump tweeted the allegation was a meeting between Trump and an agent of the FBI that met with Trump in Florida, and told Trump what had happened re. FISA warrant. (I do know the name of the agent, but cannot divulge it now)
The FISA court turned down a request in June, which is highly unusual.
The FISA Court approved the wire-tapping in October. Whether it was actually on Trump per se, or many of Trump’s advisers is not fully divulged at this time.

While the wire tapping story is without a major story, it is still diverting attention of the real story!

The real story is the mis-spending of funds by Obama and the involvement of the DoJ, knowingly under Obama, extracting money from banks to finance leftwing organizations and possibly Obama himself. The amount of money involved is over $3 Billion and probably close to $4 Billion.

“without” should be “without doubt”

the best outline of the wiretapping to date:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q2eu-B5ZNPs

Named after the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act of 1978, the FISC has been used to rubber-stamp warrants that grant the US intelligence community broad surveillance powers under amendments to that original law passed in 2008. Court proceedings are secret; the first time the public ever saw one of its decisions was when Edward Snowden revealed the existence of the PRISM program in 2013 by showing an NSA warrant to surveil the communications of Verizon customers.

Though we don’t have a great understanding of what happens at the FISC, we do know that when the federal government asks for a warrant to spy on someone, that it always gets its wish. According to the Department of Justice’s official numbers, of the thousands of applications made by the federal government to FISC, none have been denied since 2009. Rarely, the court has asked the government to modify its case. In 2013, the US made 1,588 applications; 34 were modified. In 2014, it made 1,379 applications; 19 were modified. In 2015, it made 1,457 applications; 80 were modified.

The anonymous sourcing of The Guardian article leaves several options, one of them much more plausible than the other considering what we know about FISC. It is highly unlikely that FISC “turned down” the FBI’s application, because FISC has never turned down any warrant request that we know of. If it refused to grant a warrant in this specific instance, it would be completely unprecedented in known history of the court. More likely, then, is an October report that the FBI was forced to change its warrant application (which is itself a rare occurrence) before eventually getting it approved.

The FBI’s interest in surveilling a presidential candidate’s political team is notable for obvious reasons, but it’s also worth calling attention to the court’s apparent resistance in this case. Civil liberties groups believe—and Snowden’s documents reveal—that FISC has been used as a rubber stamp by intelligence agencies to get legal cover to conduct mass surveillance.

Loretta Lynch:
Calling for violence!
http://www.wnd.com/2017/03/loretta-lynch-need-more-marching-blood-death-on-streets/

Sorry. There was supposed to be a question mark rather than an exclamation mark after “violence” above. Loretta Lynch was not calling for violence, but implying protesters might have to suffer violence to get heard.

In my view she was using typical transference of Democrats….
i.e. implying what might happen because of Republicans, that which Democrats are more likely to do.

e.g. the pro-Trump rally in Berkeley WAS attacked by Anti-Trumps.
The police were CLEARLY on the side of the Anti-Trumps.
Those arrested were not the instigators of violence, but those defending themselves from the ACTUAL violent, anti-Trump people.

Remember the sixties? I certainly do. This is much more serious because of the much more sophisticated organization all the way up the tood chain to folks of the stature of Loretta Lynch who are very dedicated to their cause. Major social change is occuring and, I think, will continue.