Trump accuses Obama administration of wiretapping Trump Tower phones

[flowerz4rabbits]

Don’t bother. Minds are made up.

Note my join date and my low post count.

Trust me, I know. It’s not worth it.

 

[TMC]

Yes.

And no one has posted them here because?

 

[Sy_Noe]

Sadly, this is who Donald Trump is. Seriously, the leader of the free world tweeting about the ratings of TV show??? You can’t make this stuff up.

And praying to God for those ratings at a prayer breakfast. :whacky:

 

[dvdjs]

Sessions did not lie under oath about his contact with the Russian ambassador as a surrogate of the Trump campaign. He was a senator on the armed forces committee required to make this contact.

Required? That’s a new one. IS there a source for this?
What was the requirement? Who else on the committee had such requirements? Why would there be no recollection of the content of required meeting? Why would no note or reports exist on a required meeting?

Here is teh testimony in question.

AL FRANKEN: If there is any evidence that anyone affiliated with the Trump campaign communicated with the Russian government in the course of this campaign, what will you do?

JEFF SESSIONS: Senator Franken, I’m not aware of any of those activities. I have been called a surrogate at a time or two in that campaign, and I did not have the communications with the Russians. And I’m unable to comment on it.

So stipulates, but understates his role in the campaign, he does not mention. He clais to have no knowledge of such activities, even though he does.

A nice discussion at NPR

INSKEEP: What’s wrong with that testimony?

ENTOUS: Well, we have evidence of - and they’re confirming two meetings that took place with Ambassador Kislyak. You know, I think what advisers to Sessions are trying to argue here is that in his job as a - in the Senate on the armed services committee, he would have meetings in that capacity and that somehow that dual hat that he puts on - one as an adviser to the campaign of Trump and his meetings with the armed services committees are somehow things that Kislyak, the Russian ambassador, is making a distinction in between.

I think, you know, Sessions was getting lots of visitors last year from many ambassadors - the Japanese ambassador, Ukrainian ambassador. The reason they wanted to see Sessions was not so much because he was on the armed services committee but because he was advising the Trump campaign. And they wanted to try to get some insights into where that campaign was headed.

INSKEEP: So the question is - why didn’t he disclose these meetings? His answer is - well, they weren’t really about the campaign. But we don’t know that. And we don’t have independent confirmation of that. Couple of points of significance there. Sessions says in that testimony - well, I was a campaign surrogate a time or two. Doesn’t that understate his role in the Trump campaign?

ENTOUS: Absolutely. I mean, he was one of the early backers on the Senate side for Trump. He joined his campaign formally in February of 2016. Some of his top aides have become top aides at the White House, for example. So the idea that he played a part-time role here is probably disingenuous and not the case.

And certainly, I think we can see that Kislyak, the Russian ambassador, was making a concerted effort in 2016 to spend time with several of Trump’s top aides. Mike Flynn, who was the national security adviser, was another one. And again, you know, you had a similar sort of moment with Flynn where he basically was arguing that discussing sanctions with Kislyak was not discussing the expulsion of Russian diplomats in the United States. So there’s a bit of a parsing here of language that’s being used to basically say that these communications were valid.

INSKEEP: That clip of testimony also points at what’s at stake here because Senator Franken was asking Sessions - if there is contact, what will you do? The reason he’s asking is because Sessions is becoming - and now is - attorney general, overseeing the FBI investigation of Russian interference.

ENTOUS: Right. So this is the person who’s overseeing the Russia investigation who did not disclose his contacts with the Russians. It does raise some interesting questions. And at this point, I don’t think we know how this is going to be resolved. Certainly, Democrats on the Hill are calling for a recusal. Some Republicans have joined that call. But we’re not sure exactly how Sessions is going to play this out.

npr.org/2017/03/02/518087571/washington-post-reporter-on-jeff-sessions-meetings-with-russian-ambassador

At the very least the testimony is incomplete and misleading. And the failure to disclose something ostensibly innocent invites suspicion.

 

[Sy_Noe]

Seems to me that anyone stating that he could shoot people on 5th Avenue and not lose supporters doesn’t care what his supporters really think.

Nor does it seem his supporters really care what he says when he said that about them.

 

[dvdjs]

You’re facts are wrong.

Flynn resigned because Trump couldn’t trust him after he failed to disclose to Pence that he spoke to the Russian Ambassador.

Failed to disclose? Pence aides said that Flynn told Pence he didn’t discussion sanctions.

Sessions didn’t lie under oath … Maybe try reading and looking closely at the questions poised to Sessions and the context of those questions.

See above.

Under the law any ambiguity is construed in favor of innocence, and with potential misunderstandings, the lack of clarity is deemed the fault of the questioner, not the accused.
So does “sex” mean “intercourse” …?

Simply speaking to the Russian Ambassador does not mean one is an agent of Russia or they have ties to them.

Of course not. It is the attempted cover-up that makes the meetings seem suspicious.

 

[dvdjs]

washingtonexaminer.com/article/2616483/
Senate is going to investigate wiretapping.

Excellent. So know we will may get to know who in the campaign was thought to be involved with the Russians.

 

[kat07]

Seems to me that anyone stating that he could shoot people on 5th Avenue and not lose supporters doesn’t care what his supporters really think.

Trump meant it that is supporters will stick with him no matter what, it was inappropriate language even though he was campaigning on not being politically correct.

 

[kat07]

These are the tweets from Mar 4, 2017.

Trump Twitter Archive trumptwitterarchive.com/

Mar 4, 2017 08:19:29 AM - Arnold Schwarzenegger isn’t voluntarily leaving the Apprentice, he was fired by his bad (pathetic) ratings, not by me. Sad end to great show
Mar 4, 2017 07:02:48 AM - How low has President Obama gone to tapp my phones during the very sacred election process. This is Nixon/Watergate. Bad (or sick) guy!
Mar 4, 2017 06:52:54 AM - I’d bet a good lawyer could make a great case out of the fact that President Obama was tapping my phones in October, just prior to Election!
Mar 4, 2017 06:49:00 AM - Is it legal for a sitting President to be “wire tapping” a race for president prior to an election? Turned down by court earlier. A NEW LOW!
Mar 4, 2017 06:42:59 AM - Just out: The same Russian Ambassador that met Jeff Sessions visited the Obama White House 22 times, and 4 times last year alone.
Mar 4, 2017 06:35:20 AM - Terrible! Just found out that Obama had my “wires tapped” in Trump Tower just before the victory. Nothing found. This is McCarthyism!
Mar 4, 2017 06:26:47 AM - The first meeting Jeff Sessions had with the Russian Amb was set up by the Obama Administration under education program for 100 Ambs…

So?

 

[_Abyssinia]

Excellent. So know we will may get to know who in the campaign was thought to be involved with the Russians.

If this wiretapping has happened, it looks Ike nobody from the Trump team has been implicated with the Russians through that. Can you imagine how many journalists for months and months have been doing their own investigations trying to see if there are ties between members of the Trump team and Russians? Nothing of serious substance has been found to date that has been reported on, isn’t that right?

Also in regards to Russia, there was the dossier that BuzzFeed released, which they in turn had been trying to get confirmation on the claims in it, that wasn’t done, but they released it anyway. Unless I’m mistaken, I think this was also the same dossier that was the oppo that was going to be released before the election, but wasn’t released because confirmation couldn’t be had with the claims in he dossier?

By now, with all this, if there was a member of the Trump team who had been involved with the Russians in some way, to try and influence the US election, I think it would have been found out by now.

Rep Peter King said earlier today I believe:

.@RepPeteKing: “Not 1 piece of evidence connecting anyone in the Trump campaign w/ any collusion or collaboration w/ Russian intelligence.”

twitter.com/foxnews/status/838415812243427328

There is a politico report about people within the Ukraine government who allegedly tried to hinder Donald Trump’s chances and that they helped ‘allies’ of Hillary Clinton with information on Donald Trump: politico.com/story/2017/01/ukraine-sabotage-trump-backfire-233446

There should be an investigation in Congress of the Ukrainian government and alleged involvement in the US election.

 

[dvdjs]

If this wiretapping has happened, it looks Ike nobody from the Trump team has been implicated with the Russians through that. Can you imagine how many journalists for months and months have been doing their own investigations trying to see if there are ties between members of the Trump team and Russians? Nothing of serious substance has been found to date that has been reported on, isn’t that right?

Also in regards to Russia, there was the dossier that BuzzFeed released, which they in turn had been trying to get confirmation on the claims in it, that wasn’t done, but they released it anyway. Unless I’m mistaken, I think this was also the same dossier that was the oppo that was going to be released before the election, but wasn’t released because confirmation couldn’t be had with the claims in he dossier?

By now, with all this, if there was a member of the Trump team who had been involved with the Russians in some way, to try and influence the US election, I think it would have been found out by now.

Rep Peter King said earlier today I believe:

twitter.com/foxnews/status/838415812243427328

There is a politico report about people within the Ukraine government who allegedly tried to hinder Donald Trump’s chances and that they helped ‘allies’ of Hillary Clinton with information on Donald Trump: politico.com/story/2017/01/ukraine-sabotage-trump-backfire-233446

There should be an investigation in Congress of the Ukrainian government and alleged involvement in the US election.

 

[kat07]

Required? That’s a new one. IS there a source for this?
What was the requirement? Who else on the committee had such requirements? Why would there be no recollection of the content of required meeting? Why would no note or reports exist on a required meeting?

The first meeting Jeff Sessions had with the Russian Ambassador was set up by the Obama Administration and was an informal exchange.

There is nothing wrong with a Senator meeting with an Ambassador, others Senators have also met with the Russian Ambassador including Democrats.

Here is teh testimony in question.

AL FRANKEN: If there is any evidence that anyone affiliated with the Trump campaign communicated with the Russian government in the course of this campaign, what will you do?

JEFF SESSIONS: Senator Franken, I’m not aware of any of those activities. I have been called a surrogate at a time or two in that campaign, and I did not have the communications with the Russians. And I’m unable to comment on it.

So stipulates, but understates his role in the campaign, he does not mention. He clais to have no knowledge of such activities, even though he does…

Below is the full line of questioning.

"Franken: Okay. CNN has just published a story, and I’m telling you this about a news story that’s just been published. I’m not expecting you to know whether or not it’s true or not. But CNN just published a story alleging that the intelligence community provided documents to the president-elect last week that included information that, quote, “Russian operatives claimed to have compromising personal and financial information about Mr. Trump.” These documents also allegedly say, quote, “There was a continuing exchange of information during the campaign between Trump’s surrogates and intermediaries for the Russian government.” Now, again, I’m telling you this as it’s coming out, so you know. But if it’s true, it’s obviously extremely serious, and if there is any evidence that anyone affiliated with the Trump campaign communicated with the Russian government in the course of this campaign, what will you do?

Sessions: Senator Franken, I’m not aware of any of those activities. I have been called a surrogate at a time or two in that campaign and I didn’t have — did not have communications with the Russians, and I’m unable to comment on it."

“Senator Franken patently framed this line of inquiry in the context of Russian espionage against the Trump campaign, drawn from CNN’s report of a salacious, discredited, uncorroborated dossier. It claimed that the Russians had acquired compromising personal and financial information about Donald Trump. With that premise, Franken added the dossier’s claim that “there was a continuing exchange of information between Trump surrogates and intermediaries for the Russian government.” The point that Franken was clearly driving at was that Sessions, having supported Trump and been a Trump-campaign surrogate, should recuse himself as attorney general from any investigation probing communications between the Trump campaign and Russian officials. In that context, Sessions volunteered that he was not aware of “those activities” — clearly meaning the activities outlined in the dossier. He then appeared to discount the claim that he was a Trump-campaign “surrogate.” To be sure, “surrogate” is not so much a formal position as a blurry description, often offered by persons other than the so-called surrogate, of someone who supports a candidate and speaks on the candidate’s behalf. In an incomplete thought (which one often gets in witness testimony), Sessions appeared to quibble with the notion that he was a formal “surrogate” as opposed to someone who was occasionally referred to as one. It seems apparent that he was distancing himself from Franken’s insinuation about Trump surrogates colluding with Russians. At that point, Sessions abruptly cut himself off and summarily said he “did not have communications with the Russians, and I’m unable to comment on it. In context, Sessions obviously meant that he did not have communications with the Russians in the capacity of a surrogate for the Trump campaign and that he was unable to comment on the explosive allegations in the dossier. Manifestly, he was trying to say that he did not believe that Franken’s outline of the dossier provided any basis for him, Sessions, to recuse himself from any potential investigation. He was not saying that in his capacity as a United States senator, unrelated to the Trump campaign, he had never had any contacts with Russian officials. It is fair enough for critics to maintain that Sessions should have been clearer. But if we consider this matter not as a political dispute but a potential perjury prosecution, then the burden was on Franken, not Sessions, to be clearer…”

nationalreview.com/article/445416/jeff-sessions-perjury-allegation-meritless-al-franken-congressional-testimony

 

[dvdjs]

If this wiretapping has happened, it looks Ike nobody from the Trump team has been implicated with the Russians through that. Can you imagine how many journalists for months and months have been doing their own investigations trying to see if there are ties between members of the Trump team and Russians? Nothing of serious substance has been found to date that has been reported on, isn’t that right?

Well given the posts in this thread, it is not entirely clear who is investigating what.
It would be nice to clear the with thorough investigation and report. I am interested in minimizing undue influences in our elections. If we find that the case against the Trump officials is specious, and that the the Obama administration overstepped, I am happy to know for this to be found out and for safeguards to prevent it in the future.

By now, with all this, if there was a member of the Trump team who had been involved with the Russians in some way, to try and influence the US election, I think it would have been found out by now.

One way or another, these things take a long time to unfold - you might have notices this from the Clinton years, if not Watergate. We need more an investigation and report. And we could all use come candor from the Trump people.

There is a politico report about people within the Ukraine government who allegedly tried to hinder Donald Trump’s chances and that they helped ‘allies’ of Hillary Clinton with information on Donald Trump: politico.com/story/2017/01/ukraine-sabotage-trump-backfire-233446 There should be an investigation in Congress of the Ukrainian government and alleged involvement in the US election.

If there is a quid pro-quo, if there improper influence, you bet.

 

[kat07]

Failed to disclose? Pence aides said that Flynn told Pence he didn’t discussion sanctions.

He was asked to resign because he was less than completely honest in a conversation with Pence. He didn’t “discuss” sanctions.

What was even the basis for the FBI investigating Flynn? To even establish an investigation under FBI guidelines, there must be good-faith suspicion that (a) a federal crime has been or is being committed, (b) there is a threat to American national security, or (c) there is an opportunity to collect foreign intelligence relevant to a priority established by the executive branch.

See above.

See above.

So does “sex” mean “intercourse” …?
Of course not. It is the attempted cover-up that makes the meetings seem suspicious.

I’m not sure how what you mean "So does “sex” mean “intercourse”, or how that is relevant? The fact remains what I stated is the law when it comes to charges of perjury.

 

[Thomas_Ruin]

Andrew McCarthy:

President Trump’s early Saturday morning tweeting has exploded to the forefront an uncovered scandal I’ve been talking about since early January (including in this weekend’s column): The fact that the Obama Justice Department and the FBI investigated associates of Donald Trump, and likely Trump himself, in the heat of the presidential campaign.

To summarize, reporting indicates that, prior to June 2016, the Obama Justice Department and FBI considered a criminal investigation of Trump associates, and perhaps Trump himself, based on concerns about connections to Russian financial institutions. Preliminary poking around indicated that there was nothing criminal involved. Rather than shut the case down, though, the Obama Justice Department converted it into a national-security investigation under the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA). FISA allows the government, if it gets court permission, to conduct electronic surveillance (which could include wiretapping, monitoring of e-mail, and the like) against those it alleges are “agents of a foreign power.”
FISA applications and the evidence garnered from them are classified – i.e., we would not know about any of this unless someone had leaked classified information to the media, a felony.

In June, the Obama Justice Department submitted an application that apparently “named” Trump in addition to some of his associates. As I have stressed, it is unclear whether “named” in this context indicates that Trump himself was cited as a person the Justice Department was alleging was a Russian agent whom it wanted to surveil. It could instead mean that Trump’s name was merely mentioned in an application that sought to conduct surveillance on other alleged Russian agents. President Trump’s tweets on Saturday claimed that “President Obama . . . tapp[ed] my phones,]” which makes it more likely that Trump was targeted for surveillance, rather than merely mentioned in the application. In any event, the FISA court reportedly turned down the Obama Justice Department’s request, which is notable: The FISA court is notoriously solicitous of government requests to conduct national-security surveillance (although, as I’ve noted over the years, the claim by many that it is a rubber-stamp is overblown).

Read more at: nationalreview.com/corner/445504/obama-camp-disingenuous-denials-fisa-surveillance-trump

 

[dvdjs]

He was asked to resign because he was less than completely honest in a conversation with Pence. He didn’t “discuss” sanctions.

No. According to Pence’s aides, Flynn told Pence, that he, Flynn, did not discuss sanctions with the Russian ambassador.

What was even the basis for the FBI investigating Flynn?

Neither of us knows for sure, but that is a juicy list of possibilities.

 

[flowerz4rabbits]

Just gonna drop this nugget of a quote right here:

Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer said he believes Trump is “in trouble” whether there was a court order authorizing surveillance of his phones or “if he falsely spread this kind of misinformation.”
“If he falsely spread this kind of misinformation, that is so wrong. It’s beneath the dignity of the presidency. It is something that really hurts people’s view of government,” the New York Democrat said Sunday on “Meet the Press.” “On the other hand, if it’s true, it’s even worse for the President. Because that means that a federal judge, independently elected, has found probable cause that the president, or people on his staff, have probable cause to have broken the law or to have interacted with a foreign agent. Now that’s serious stuff.”

cnn.com/2017/03/05/politics/white-house-spicer-congress-2016/

 

[Thorolfr]

And praying to God for those ratings at a prayer breakfast. :whacky:

LOL

 

[mwigs]

This could be the worst political scandal of our lifetime, and a real scandal compared to the one the MSM and Democrats have tried to throw out there, and Trump may have served it right at the perfect time!

 

[meltzerboy]

Just gonna drop this nugget of a quote right here:

cnn.com/2017/03/05/politics/white-house-spicer-congress-2016/

I agree with Chuck Schumer on this. (After all, he is my senator and a liberal.) But I had to chuckle when I heard him say that, if misinformation, Trump’s behavior undermines people’s view of government. In the modern age, people haven’t trusted government since the 1960’s at least. This enduring mistrust is one of the main reasons Trump was elected.