Go look up your favorite “fact checker”. you will see things like “mostly true”, “half true” , “mostly false” a certain number of “Pinocchios”, the list goes on. It is really not hard to do. I bet you know this but are just having trouble admitting that something trump said may be true.
this could well be the case. However, If Trump found out that a phone conversation(s) of his was listened to by the govt but did not know if it was him or the other party that was the target, it seems entirely reasonable to make the claim that he was “wire tapped”. That also does not seem difficult to understand.
Manafort was wiretapped. Since the authority came from a FISA court, the cause was presumably related to his work as a agent of a foreign government. During some of the time that he was wiretapped he was director of Trump’s campaign. To assert that the campaign itself was tapped, one would have to make the case that Manafort’s work as an agent of a foreign government was an intrinsic part of the campaign.
Mostly, partly, etc. Are used in elaborated statements in which some parts are true and other parts are false.
It is very easy and not unreasonable for Trump to have made the claim owing to his misapprehension of the facts. But that doesn’t make the claim true.
Well, translating Trump’s tweets are difficult and even those who claim they can seem to change their version of what they mean depending on what’s in the public record.
As I understood it, they investigated him and closed it because they didn’t find anything. Then suddenly when he became Trumps Campaign guy, they reactivated the warrant and tapping. VERY convenient that the Dem powers suddenly had access to all his campaign work.
I don’t know the exact timeline and we don’t know if there was some reason that presented itself to reopen the case. They must have presented some reason to get the warrant and we don’t know what that is. That said, it seems like that the investigation must have turned up possibly illegal activity if the prosecutors are willing to press charges
Sounds pretty speculative to me. Lots of “I don’t knows” and "must haves’ in this comment. I don’t particularly doubt Mueller will recommend indictment of Manafort for something or other, though I doubt it will be collusion with Russia to influence the election. It will be some “blue dress” kind of thing, figuratively speaking; something completely separate from the ostensible purposes of the special counsel mandate. Seems like that’s always the way appointments of special counsels work out.
Always attacking people when there’s no good leverage on the issue.
Well, the “I don’t know” is the timeline of the investigation. And the “we don’t know” is the reason the investigation was reopened. It is entirely reasonable to assume that the FISA court granted a warrant for good reason. It isn’t surprising that we (Theo, you and I) don’t know that reason though (hence, the “I don’t knows”). Furthermore, if charges are pressed, it isn’t particularly speculative that the investigation yielded actionable criminal behavior on Manafort’s part. So, I think your comment that it ‘sounds pretty speculative to me’ sounds more like wishful thinking on your part.
Do you really think that is what happened and a judge in a FISA court bought it?