ADVERTISEMENT

How broad was the Obama administration's domestic spying?

seminole97

HR Legend
Jun 14, 2005
22,982
23,271
113
“We’ve seen this kind of White House influence on the Justice Department virtually in every Justice Department,” Dershowitz continued. “The difference this president is much more overt about it, he tweets about it. President Obama whispered to the Justice Department about it.”

“You said that George Soros asked Barack Obama to have his Justice Department investigate somebody?” Breitbart News pressed.

“That’s going to come out in a lawsuit in the near future, yeah,” Dershowitz responded. “I have in my possession the actual 302 form which documents this issue and it will at the right time come out, but I’m not free to disclose it now because it’s a case that’s not yet been filed.”
 
So Obama is targeting citizens with the FBI at the behest of George Soros ?

Nothing to see here people, move along


:rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes:

Yeah, it has been three years out from Obama, and all you idiots do to try and justify your corrupt dumbass POTUS is blame the black guy you haven’t been able to get anything on for 11 years. But I’m sure this one will stick. Lulz. You’re the Susan Smiths of politics.
 

If CNN doesn't ask the question, does it exist?

LTA8xxM.png



 
Roy / Iowahawkeyefbaivcswjv72 is confused because when he wants to conspire with America’s enemies, and the intelligence community is listening to America’s enemies’ calls, he doesn’t want them to listen to his part of the conversation.
 
  • Like
Reactions: cigaretteman
That's actually an impeachable offense, targeting a private citizen with the DOJ at the behest of a campaign donor, in this case George Soros.
 
  • Like
Reactions: M1Buckeye
Yeah, it has been three years out from Obama, and all you idiots do to try and justify your corrupt dumbass POTUS is blame the black guy you haven’t been able to get anything on for 11 years. But I’m sure this one will stick. Lulz. You’re the Susan Smiths of politics.

Considering Obama's weaponization of government agencies against journalists and conservatives, it wouldn't be out of character for Obama to have done such a thing.
 
The question is...should a civilian have possession of it?

I hardly think that's the only question, or even the most important.

Are you going to try and tell me your biggest takeaway from the Pentagon Papers was whether or not Daniel Ellsberg should have had possession of them?
 
  • Like
Reactions: royhobbs2
“We’ve seen this kind of White House influence on the Justice Department virtually in every Justice Department,” Dershowitz continued. “The difference this president is much more overt about it, he tweets about it. President Obama whispered to the Justice Department about it.”

“You said that George Soros asked Barack Obama to have his Justice Department investigate somebody?” Breitbart News pressed.

“That’s going to come out in a lawsuit in the near future, yeah,” Dershowitz responded. “I have in my possession the actual 302 form which documents this issue and it will at the right time come out, but I’m not free to disclose it now because it’s a case that’s not yet been filed.”

:rolleyes:
 
“We’ve seen this kind of White House influence on the Justice Department virtually in every Justice Department,” Dershowitz continued. “The difference this president is much more overt about it, he tweets about it. President Obama whispered to the Justice Department about it.”

“You said that George Soros asked Barack Obama to have his Justice Department investigate somebody?” Breitbart News pressed.

“That’s going to come out in a lawsuit in the near future, yeah,” Dershowitz responded. “I have in my possession the actual 302 form which documents this issue and it will at the right time come out, but I’m not free to disclose it now because it’s a case that’s not yet been filed.”
Senator McCarthy always maintained he had a list of State Department communists in his suit coat pocket, too. He never produced any such lists.
 
Senator McCarthy always maintained he had a list of State Department communists in his suit coat pocket, too. He never produced any such lists.

Is that what really happened?

“McCarthy gave his Wheeling, W.Va., speech two weeks after Secretary of State Dean Acheson had defended celebrity communist spy Hiss on Jan. 25, 1950 -- the day of Hiss' criminal conviction for denying under oath that he was a Soviet spy.

Even after Whittaker Chambers had produced documents proving that Hiss was working for the Soviet Union while advising President Roosevelt, the Democrats were still defending a traitor. Chambers said of Acheson's disgusting defense of Hiss, "You will look in vain in history for anything comparable to it."

As Democrats always do when they are caught red-handed, they obsessed on some small, technical error of a Republican.

They claimed that McCarthy had said in his Wheeling speech that he had the names of 205 card-carrying members of the Communist Party -- not 57. (Having only 57 communists in the State Department was apparently considered a great success for a Democratic administration.)

In fact, McCarthy had mentioned the 205 number only in citing Byrne's letter to Congress a few years earlier saying that was the number of known security risks still employed at the State Department.

As Soviet spies were honeycombed throughout the government, influencing U.S. policy to the benefit of the Soviet Union, the Democratic-controlled Senate convened panels to determine exactly what Joe McCarthy had said to a meeting of Republican women in West Virginia. To wit: Had he said he had the names of 57 security risks at the State Department, or 205?

After dedicating months of investigation to this crucial question -- with Senate investigators actually flying to West Virginia to interview everyone who attended the speech -- it turned out McCarthy was right.

The Senate committee that was determined to censure McCarthy ended up having to drop the matter of McCarthy's Wheeling speech entirely. A fact-filled memo detailing the committee's findings concluded that McCarthy had said he had the names of 57 security risks, not 205.

The truth about McCarthy's Wheeling speech, including the committee's memo finding that McCarthy was telling the truth, and a newspaper article reprinting the speech before it became a object of obsession by Democrats, is given in M. Stanton Evans' monumental book, Blacklisted by History: The Untold Story of Senator Joe McCarthy and His Fight Against America's Enemies
ir
.

Moreover, contrary to the nonsense about McCarthy not being able to name the 57 specific individuals, the very day he got back to Washington, he gave a six-hour speech on the Senate floor, providing details about each one of the 57 problematic State Department employees, chapter and verse. He did not "name names" because that was not his point.

As McCarthy said, some State Department employees with communist associations might be innocent. His point was: The Democrats were still refusing to take Soviet espionage seriously by investigating these preposterous risks on the government payroll.

Far from recklessly smearing people, McCarthy described each employee as a "case" and cited evidence, such as their being identified as Soviet spies in FBI reports, by fellow spies and by the State Department itself. He reported their connections to known agents, attendance at "Youth International" meetings in Russia and repeated contacts with known Soviet espionage groups.

These were not baseless charges. And as we now know, they were absolutely true.

Sensible people knew it at the time, but the disgorging of Soviet archives as well as Soviet cables decrypted by the top-secret Venona project proved beyond a doubt that McCarthy was right about the individuals he named. None of them should have been allowed anywhere near a government office.“
 
So Obama is targeting citizens with the FBI at the behest of George Soros ?

Nothing to see here people, move along


:rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes:
No but trumpbagging idiots(sorry to be redundant) think so, because they believe everything you russian trolls say. You are very lucky they are morons, or you would not have an audience at all.
 
  • Like
Reactions: cigaretteman
Can somebody tell me what is wrong with an individual asking the president to have somebody investigated? I just want to know so I can figure out the 50 best examples of Trump doing exactly the same thing and the right not giving a damn.
 
  • Like
Reactions: h-hawk
“We’ve seen this kind of White House influence on the Justice Department virtually in every Justice Department,” Dershowitz continued. “The difference this president is much more overt about it, he tweets about it. President Obama whispered to the Justice Department about it.”

“You said that George Soros asked Barack Obama to have his Justice Department investigate somebody?” Breitbart News pressed.

“That’s going to come out in a lawsuit in the near future, yeah,” Dershowitz responded. “I have in my possession the actual 302 form which documents this issue and it will at the right time come out, but I’m not free to disclose it now because it’s a case that’s not yet been filed.”

Apparently not very.

Few, if any, ex DOJ prosecutors have called him out on it.
So, we have that substantive metric...
 
  • Like
Reactions: cigaretteman
I did some research on this .... a lot of digging and internet searches. It wasn't easy, but I felt this was an important topic and I wanted to get to the bottom of it. Here's what I discovered.

Obama hasn't been POTUS for over 3 years. :eek: In fact, he is a private citizen. So, if someone wants to go arrest and prosecute him, go for it.
 
Is that what really happened?

“McCarthy gave his Wheeling, W.Va., speech two weeks after Secretary of State Dean Acheson had defended celebrity communist spy Hiss on Jan. 25, 1950 -- the day of Hiss' criminal conviction for denying under oath that he was a Soviet spy.

Even after Whittaker Chambers had produced documents proving that Hiss was working for the Soviet Union while advising President Roosevelt, the Democrats were still defending a traitor. Chambers said of Acheson's disgusting defense of Hiss, "You will look in vain in history for anything comparable to it."

As Democrats always do when they are caught red-handed, they obsessed on some small, technical error of a Republican.

They claimed that McCarthy had said in his Wheeling speech that he had the names of 205 card-carrying members of the Communist Party -- not 57. (Having only 57 communists in the State Department was apparently considered a great success for a Democratic administration.)

In fact, McCarthy had mentioned the 205 number only in citing Byrne's letter to Congress a few years earlier saying that was the number of known security risks still employed at the State Department.

As Soviet spies were honeycombed throughout the government, influencing U.S. policy to the benefit of the Soviet Union, the Democratic-controlled Senate convened panels to determine exactly what Joe McCarthy had said to a meeting of Republican women in West Virginia. To wit: Had he said he had the names of 57 security risks at the State Department, or 205?

After dedicating months of investigation to this crucial question -- with Senate investigators actually flying to West Virginia to interview everyone who attended the speech -- it turned out McCarthy was right.

The Senate committee that was determined to censure McCarthy ended up having to drop the matter of McCarthy's Wheeling speech entirely. A fact-filled memo detailing the committee's findings concluded that McCarthy had said he had the names of 57 security risks, not 205.

The truth about McCarthy's Wheeling speech, including the committee's memo finding that McCarthy was telling the truth, and a newspaper article reprinting the speech before it became a object of obsession by Democrats, is given in M. Stanton Evans' monumental book, Blacklisted by History: The Untold Story of Senator Joe McCarthy and His Fight Against America's Enemies
ir
.

Moreover, contrary to the nonsense about McCarthy not being able to name the 57 specific individuals, the very day he got back to Washington, he gave a six-hour speech on the Senate floor, providing details about each one of the 57 problematic State Department employees, chapter and verse. He did not "name names" because that was not his point.

As McCarthy said, some State Department employees with communist associations might be innocent. His point was: The Democrats were still refusing to take Soviet espionage seriously by investigating these preposterous risks on the government payroll.

Far from recklessly smearing people, McCarthy described each employee as a "case" and cited evidence, such as their being identified as Soviet spies in FBI reports, by fellow spies and by the State Department itself. He reported their connections to known agents, attendance at "Youth International" meetings in Russia and repeated contacts with known Soviet espionage groups.

These were not baseless charges. And as we now know, they were absolutely true.

Sensible people knew it at the time, but the disgorging of Soviet archives as well as Soviet cables decrypted by the top-secret Venona project proved beyond a doubt that McCarthy was right about the individuals he named. None of them should have been allowed anywhere near a government office.“
Defending McCarthy - surprised that I'm not surprised.
 
  • Like
Reactions: cigaretteman
The eternal lives of wingnut propaganda. No matter how many times debunked, they still believe the lies. SAD!
 
  • Like
Reactions: sixer6
I did some research on this .... a lot of digging and internet searches. It wasn't easy, but I felt this was an important topic and I wanted to get to the bottom of it. Here's what I discovered.

Obama hasn't been POTUS for over 3 years. :eek: In fact, he is a private citizen. So, if someone wants to go arrest and prosecute him, go for it.

Should be easy enough I think, just get a federal prosecutor to file charges. It's not like you have to get 67 senators to vote against him.
 
Is that what really happened?

“McCarthy gave his Wheeling, W.Va., speech two weeks after Secretary of State Dean Acheson had defended celebrity communist spy Hiss on Jan. 25, 1950 -- the day of Hiss' criminal conviction for denying under oath that he was a Soviet spy.

Even after Whittaker Chambers had produced documents proving that Hiss was working for the Soviet Union while advising President Roosevelt, the Democrats were still defending a traitor. Chambers said of Acheson's disgusting defense of Hiss, "You will look in vain in history for anything comparable to it."

As Democrats always do when they are caught red-handed, they obsessed on some small, technical error of a Republican.

They claimed that McCarthy had said in his Wheeling speech that he had the names of 205 card-carrying members of the Communist Party -- not 57. (Having only 57 communists in the State Department was apparently considered a great success for a Democratic administration.)

In fact, McCarthy had mentioned the 205 number only in citing Byrne's letter to Congress a few years earlier saying that was the number of known security risks still employed at the State Department.

As Soviet spies were honeycombed throughout the government, influencing U.S. policy to the benefit of the Soviet Union, the Democratic-controlled Senate convened panels to determine exactly what Joe McCarthy had said to a meeting of Republican women in West Virginia. To wit: Had he said he had the names of 57 security risks at the State Department, or 205?

After dedicating months of investigation to this crucial question -- with Senate investigators actually flying to West Virginia to interview everyone who attended the speech -- it turned out McCarthy was right.

The Senate committee that was determined to censure McCarthy ended up having to drop the matter of McCarthy's Wheeling speech entirely. A fact-filled memo detailing the committee's findings concluded that McCarthy had said he had the names of 57 security risks, not 205.

The truth about McCarthy's Wheeling speech, including the committee's memo finding that McCarthy was telling the truth, and a newspaper article reprinting the speech before it became a object of obsession by Democrats, is given in M. Stanton Evans' monumental book, Blacklisted by History: The Untold Story of Senator Joe McCarthy and His Fight Against America's Enemies
ir
.

Moreover, contrary to the nonsense about McCarthy not being able to name the 57 specific individuals, the very day he got back to Washington, he gave a six-hour speech on the Senate floor, providing details about each one of the 57 problematic State Department employees, chapter and verse. He did not "name names" because that was not his point.

As McCarthy said, some State Department employees with communist associations might be innocent. His point was: The Democrats were still refusing to take Soviet espionage seriously by investigating these preposterous risks on the government payroll.

Far from recklessly smearing people, McCarthy described each employee as a "case" and cited evidence, such as their being identified as Soviet spies in FBI reports, by fellow spies and by the State Department itself. He reported their connections to known agents, attendance at "Youth International" meetings in Russia and repeated contacts with known Soviet espionage groups.

These were not baseless charges. And as we now know, they were absolutely true.

Sensible people knew it at the time, but the disgorging of Soviet archives as well as Soviet cables decrypted by the top-secret Venona project proved beyond a doubt that McCarthy was right about the individuals he named. None of them should have been allowed anywhere near a government office.“

Lolololololololololololol.

You just tried to rebut someone by posting an article from anncoulter.com

Lolololololololololololololololololololololololololololololololllll
 
  • Like
Reactions: cigaretteman
It's kind of hard to take Dershowitz seriously these days. He's all over the place.

Is it possible Obama did it? Yup, but I find it hard to believe. Obama was a master at getting underlings to do his bidding, but without directly asking for it. (Lerner, et al)
I don't think Dershowitz has any clue re what Obama did or didn't do.

I am starting to wonder if Trump doesn't have something on some of these people. Graham, Guliani. Now D-witz.
 
ADVERTISEMENT

Latest posts

ADVERTISEMENT