Trump accuses Obama administration of wiretapping Trump Tower phones

  • Thread starter Thread starter kat07
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Culurecatholic said:
Keep defending the immoral, unethical Rump, you Rumpists. He’ll “save babies” and “protect religious liberty” according to your kind. How many “wives” does he have to cheat on and marry before he’s no longer considered a good man, according to you? Oh, it doesn’t matter. He’s going to “save babies” and “protect religious liberty.” So long as they rape women and exchange wives like socks, they’re good men when they claim their going to “save babies” and “protect religious liberty.” Oh, and for the trailer-trash living off of socialism while opposing socialism, he’s going to get them “jobs.” Any of you get a job from Rump? If you did, speak up. Did he save any of your babies? Speak up. As for “religious liberty,” well, we all know what that means. Don’t say you don’t.
Click to expand...
I don’t believe I know of anyone named Rump.
 
Ridgerunner said:
Besides being ill-mannered and vulgar, use of this epithet on Trump or people who support him is likely to get a person sanctioned by the moderators or banned. And it’s hard to think it wouldn’t be deserved.
Click to expand...
👍 yes. very insulting.
 
lmachine said:
WH officials with whom I spoke said POTUS got the info about wiretap from media - Breitbart, Levin - not from govt sources.

It’s been independently verified by other outlets as well.
Click to expand...
What if those anonymous “WH sources” are the same sources that have leaking out information? What if they are leftover from the Obama admin and are putting out non-factual information regarding Trump and his sources because they have got an ax to grind against President Trump? By the way, I’m not a fan of breitbart.com and don’t read much from Mark Levin, but the source doesn’t really address whether the information is correct or not. And breitbart.com and Mark Levin were not the only sources talking about wiretapping prior to President Trump tweeting.
 
TMC said:
They all seem to track back to Mark Levin at Breitbart.
Click to expand...
Mark Levin recently reported on this.

Slate (as well as others) reported on this on Jan. 11th and referenced the Guardian as well as Louise Mensch regarding the FISAs. The fact that the Guardian was reporting on FISAs is troubling.

slate.com/blogs/future_tense/2017/01/11/did_a_federal_surveillance_court_really_reject_an_application_to_monitor.html

theguardian.com/us-news/2017/jan/10/fbi-chief-given-dossier-by-john-mccain-alleging-secret-trump-russia-contacts
 
dvdjs said:
Comey doesn’t comment on investigations or lack thereof.
Well, except that one time.
Click to expand...
I wonder why that was? Because he’s a Republican, it made me feel kind of suspicious about why he deviated from normal procedure that one time?

😉
 
There has not been any official statement put out by Comey that he requested Trump to refute his claim, NYT is only reporting this “according to one of their sources”.
 
Thorolfr said:
I wonder why that was? Because he’s a Republican, it made me feel kind of suspicious about why he deviated from normal procedure that one time?

😉
Click to expand...
In my view, due to Comey’s behavior regarding Hillary Clinton, both in not finding her server impropriety more serious in the first place and then announcing his possible renewal of the investigation right before the presidential election, this has cast a cloud of suspicion over him and the entire FBI. So who in government can we trust to come to the bottom of this mess? Sen. Chuck Schumer has called for an independent prosecutor rather than relying on the congressional intelligence committee, but I wonder if such an animal still exists.
 
kat07 said:
There has not been any official statement put out by Comey that he requested Trump to refute his claim, NYT is only reporting this “according to one of their sources”.
Click to expand...
Comey didn’t request that “Trump…refute his claim.” He requested that the Justice Department (which overseas the FBI) refute Trump’s claim.
 
meltzerboy said:
In my view, due to Comey’s behavior regarding Hillary Clinton, both in not finding her server impropriety more serious in the first place and then announcing his possible renewal of the investigation right before the presidential election, this has cast a cloud of suspicion over him and the entire FBI. So who in government can we trust to come to the bottom of this mess? Sen. Chuck Schumer has called for an independent prosecutor rather than relying on the congressional intelligence committee, but I wonder if such an animal still exists.
Click to expand...
They can always borrow a referee from the NFL. 🙂
 
Robert Reich summed up the situation perfectly:

*Folks, we’ve got a huge problem on our hands. Either:
  1. Trump is more nuts than we suspected – a true delusional paranoid.Trump’s outburst was triggered by commentary in the “alt-right” publication, Breitbart News, on Friday, which reported an assertion made Thursday night by right-wing talk-radio host Mark Levin suggesting Obama and his administration used “police state” tactics last fall to monitor the Trump team’s dealings with Russian operatives.
    If this was the case, we’ve got a president willing to put the prestige and power of his office behind baseless claims emanating from well-known right-wing purveyors of lies.
    Which means Trump shouldn’t be anywhere near the nuclear codes that could obliterate the planet, or near anything else that could determine the fate of America or the world.*
  2. The second possibility is that Trump is correct, and the Obama administration did in fact tap his phones. But if this was the case, before the tap could occur it’s highly likely Trump committed a very serious crime, including treason.
    No president can order a wiretap on his own. For federal agents to obtain a wiretap on Trump, or anyone else, the Justice Department would first have had to convince a federal judge that it had gathered sufficient evidence of probable cause to believe Trump had committed a serious crime or was an agent of a foreign power, depending on whether it was a criminal or foreign intelligence wiretap.*
    In which case we have someone in the White House who shouldn’t be making decisions that could endanger America or the world.*
  3. The third possible explanation for Trump’s rant is he’s trying to divert public attention from the Jeff Sessions imbroglio and multiple investigations of Trump associates already found to have been in contact with Russian agents during the election, when Russian operatives interfered with the election on Trump’s behalf.
    Maybe he’s trying to build a case that the entire Russian story is a plot concocted by the Obama Administration – along with the intelligence agencies and the mainstream press – to bring Trump down. This way, he can inoculate himself against more damaging evidence to come.*
    But if it’s all a big show to divert attention and undermine the credibility of the intelligence agencies and the press,Trump is willing to do anything to keep his job – even if that means destroying the fabric of our democracy.
    So there you have it. Whatever the reason for Trump’s rant, America is in deep trouble. We have a president who is either a dangerous paranoid who’s making judgments based on right-wing crackpots, has in all likelihood committed treason, or is willing to sacrifice public trust in our basic institutions to further his selfish goals.**
 
OrdinaryMelkite said:
Personally , I think Trump is a demagogue and has megalomaniacal leanings… But he IS ultimately a businessman, who believes in “what’s best for the customer.” Sort of what George W. Bush wanted to be, except he was a failed businessman, unlike Trump. If “pushed,” Trump can be made to moderate his position.

Hillary is a committed and unyielding leftist, unlike Bill, who was willing to “make a deal,” like in 1994 with the crime bill.

If Hillary had become president, we would be at war with Russia by now. MY opinion, of course, but personally I feel comfortable with that. You can disagree with it, of course. 👍👍
Click to expand...
But who does he think the customer is?
 
  1. The second possibility is that Trump is correct, and the Obama administration did in fact tap his phones. But if this was the case, before the tap could occur it’s highly likely Trump committed a very serious crime, including treason.
Click to expand...
No president can order a wiretap on his own.
Click to expand...
Barack Obama did a lot of things as president he should have been able to do, and the courts (which the Democrat-led Senate issued a filibuster to stack) are not exactly a check.
 
Interesting perspective from this site:theconservativetreehouse.com/2017/03/05/john-hayward-nails-it-trumps-tweets-force-media-to-put-up-or-shut-up-wkellyanne-conway-interview/#comments

It’s possible one reason Trump issued his explosive tweets on surveillance was to make everyone put up or shut up. That might already be working, as some of the more aggressive dealers in unsubstantiated innuendo are suddenly admitting they don’t have any actual evidence. There can’t be any hard evidence if Trump is super-duper wrong about Obama administration surveillance.

Until now, Democrats and their media have been pleased to create the impression that all kinds of wiretapping operations were conducted against the Trump campaign, uncovering many scandalous, possibly illegal connections. Only by reading those articles carefully does one discover the sources are highly speculative and the evidence is thin at best.

…] Whatever President Trump’s intentions were in using Twitter to touch off this firestorm, one of the immediate effects has been letting the gas out of all those speculative Trump stories. The Democratic media is now furiously working to prove all of its own previous coverage of the Trump-Russia allegations was little more than idle speculation, every bit as lacking in hard evidence as Trump’s accusation that Obama was tapping his phones.

After months of unfounded allegations and badly sourced speculation intended to cripple his administration, maybe Trump wanted to prove that only one side of the partisan divide is permitted to make “wild allegations.” Obama’s plants in the Deep State can leak whatever they please, law and truth be damned. They can get an avalanche of hostile coverage moving with a few phone calls or emails. The media feels no contrition when the story turns out to be exaggerated or completely false, eagerly turning to the same Obama holdovers as sources for the next big phony scoop.
 
queenofheartscv said:
Until now, Democrats and their media have been pleased to create the impression that all kinds of wiretapping operations were conducted against the Trump campaign, uncovering many scandalous, possibly illegal connections. Only by reading those articles carefully does one discover the sources are highly speculative and the evidence is thin at best.

…] Whatever President Trump’s intentions were in using Twitter to touch off this firestorm, one of the immediate effects has been letting the gas out of all those speculative Trump stories. The Democratic media is now furiously working to prove all of its own previous coverage of the Trump-Russia allegations was little more than idle speculation, every bit as lacking in hard evidence as Trump’s accusation that Obama was tapping his phones.
Click to expand...
Hardly any of the MSM articles I’ve read about contacts between Trump’s people and the Russians have said that there is any proof that anything illegal took place. Most of them have admitted that these might have been perfectly innocent meetings. It’s the Trump people who have been acting suspiciously as if they had something to hide. Why else would they have had the Russian ambassador come for a secret meeting at Trump Tower? He didn’t come in the front entrance where he might have been seen by reporters. Instead, he was admitted secretly by a side entrance. And then there was Sen. Session’s evasive answers about contacts between people connected to the Trump campaign with the Russians at his confirmation hearing. He should have disclosed his own meetings with the Russian ambassador.
 
Thorolfr said:
Hardly any of the MSM articles I’ve read about contacts between Trump’s people and the Russians have said that there is any proof that anything illegal took place. Most of them have admitted that these might have been perfectly innocent meetings. It’s the Trump people who have been acting suspiciously as if they had something to hide. Why else would they have had the Russian ambassador come for a secret meeting at Trump Tower? He didn’t come in the front entrance where he might have been seen by reporters. Instead, he was admitted secretly by a side entrance. And then there was Sen. Session’s evasive answers about contacts between people connected to the Trump campaign with the Russians at his confirmation hearing. He should have disclosed his own meetings with the Russian ambassador.
Click to expand...
You’d have to be from outer space to think the democrats and the media are not out to get Trump and anyone associated with Trump on Russian-related charges. Russia! is all we have heard from the democrats ever since the election.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top