"Trump falsely accuses Obama of wiretapping his phone"

[Jeff Strehlow]

What I posted was from watching 'meet the press' this am. What is your point? Clapper denied the tap, and the warrant, and was in a position to know about such a warrant.

Clapper is the last person who I would trust. Clapper also denied that the NSA was collecting information on a massive scale. That was proven to be a lie.

I read something interesting about the "wiretapping." An ex-CIA officer said that Trump wasn't actually wiretapped, but there was information collected from Trump by GCHQ (the British equivalent of the NSA) that was circulated in an effort to discredit Trump. Technically it's not the same as wiretapping, but it amounts to the same thing. Purhaps Obama himself didn't know about it. Trump wants congress to do an investigation, so we will see what comes of it.

 

[Quetzal]

They sure are.
@Quetzal is getting excited (wrong kind of probing).

You say wrong I say otherwise.

 

[Revoltingest]

You say wrong I say otherwise.

I hesitate to ask what "otherwise" probing is.
Sriracha lube?

 

[Quetzal]

I hesitate to ask what "otherwise" probing is.
Sriracha lube?

Never tried it, will add it to the ol'bucket list!

 

[Stevicus]

I don't know if Obama (or anyone for that matter) wiretapped Trump's phone, although if he did, it's not as if it would be unprecedented. Presidents and other government officials have done things like that before. We'll see where the investigation leads, if anywhere.

It would be interesting if Trump wanted to blow the lid off of the past 50 years of government secrecy and possible illegal/unconstitutional activities on the part of our government. Release all the secret files, documents, every bit of data, and every scrap of paper held by the government for public perusal. Snowden just gave us the tip of the iceberg; we should open and investigate...everything.

Trump's allegation, whether true or not, would indicate that Trump himself is against this kind of abuse of power, and if this is the case, it would be beneficial to know if any other such abuses of power have occurred in the past. Some of the activities of the FBI under Hoover have been looked at, as well past actions by the CIA and NSA - among others. Beyond partisan politics, I think people in general have been clamoring for greater transparency in government, so perhaps there may be a silver lining that comes from all of this.

 

[averageJOE]

We already know russia hacked America (wikileaks). We know that people 'on the fence' over Clinton or Trump were swayed to Trump over fake news and propaganda.

It only takes 1 person believing the fake news to show evidence that the hacks had an effect. People rely too much on Facebook and social media for 'news.' That's dangerous.

Do you remember the actual content of the emails that were hacked? The DNC and the media is did a great of shifting the focus of what those emails reveled to who and how those emails were received. The DNC and the Trump campaign team both did something despicable. Which is why these were the two worst candidates to ever run for president. My question is, do you really think those illegally hacked emails actually swayed the electoral college? I blame the DNC for the clown show that is Trump.

 

[Augustus]

I think one should be very careful when one says something that one does not have the facts. So, let's look at what James Clapper has said.

From: Former DNI Clapper: 'I can deny' wiretap of Trump Tower

The last sentence is a CYA.

The claim was that Trump was monitored after 2 FISA requests from the FBI.

If this is false then the credibility of the rest of the story must be somewhat questionable absent any further evidence.

 

[metis]

The information that has come out from Clapper and Comey, along with using basic common sense based on what we know about FISA procedures, anyone who really believes that Trump is speaking the truth needs to do some really serious rethinking. Even the WSJ says this is now a crisis, and they were not referring to any supposed actions by Obama.

There was ample evidence before the election that Trump was mentally unhinged. In less than two months, just take a look at the mess he and those who voted for him have created. If it wasn't so tragic, it would be funny, but this is no laughing matter, nor should it be just subject to partisan politics.

We're in trouble, folks.

 

[Terrywoodenpic]

Trump is just displaying his paranoia in public again.
If the USA or the UK did not Tap into him, then China, Russia and NK will certainly have done so.
All the major countries have GCHQ like facilities now.
Though GCHQ is fast streaming school kids now, as there is a shortage of people with the right aptitudes for this work.
If Trump has anything to hide, he is right to worry. As more than one organisation will known about it.

 

[esmith]

I see it as payback for the Democrats seeing Russians behind every Republican
Then again where did the General Flynn phone call come from?
How about the Democrats getting off the Russian connections and the President getting off the wiretap issue.

 

[Revoltingest]

How about the Democrats getting off the Russian connections and the President getting off the wiretap issue.

Those are difficult things to face.
Democratic Russian connections, & attempts to hide them are awkward indeed.
And a president involved in illegal wiretapping....this is hard thing to deny in light of Snowden's revelations.
Hence, little discussion, even to object.

A likely result is that back channel discussions with Ruskies is more common & accepted
than pols & the media have presented. The Obama wiretapping issue is interesting.

 

[metis]

Trump is just displaying his paranoia in public again.

Yes, this is Trump, and what he has shown time and time again is that he just cannot stop himself from making statement after statement from his paranoia. What is just as tragic are those who blindly try to justify every crazy thing he says and does.

I have never seen anything like this before here in the States with any previous president. Trump simply just cannot control himself, and our allies are just in disbelief as to how this guy actually got to become president-- and they are very much afraid of where we might be going with him at the helm.

No matter how one looks at what Trump has claimed, it doesn't make one iota of sense. Matter of fact, if he were to be correct, then that in and of itself would actually work against him because it would indicate that "probable cause" of a possible Russian connection with the Trump campaign has substance to it. "Probably cause" must contain some verifiable evidence that something is "there" prior to a wiretap being allowed, and it is not issued merely on hear-say "information".

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

Yes, this is Trump, and what he has shown time and time again is that he just cannot stop himself from making statement after statement from his paranoia. What is just as tragic are those who blindly try to justify every crazy thing he says and does.

And what is truly dangerous is that many of these arrant fools vote.

 

[leibowde84]

How do you know that Obama didn't tap the phones at Trump Towers? Fact is you don't. He might have tapped them. Under Obama there was much spying going on, much of it illegal. The DNC was acting in an unethical manner and Obama might have been looking for things that could be used against Trump and thus have his phones tapped. I'm not a fan of Trump either. I don't like either Trump or Obama.

This is a bit absurd. Unless there is direct evidence linking Obama to the wire-tapping that may or may not have happened, It is completely unacceptable for Trump to claim that it is a "fact" that Obama was responsible.

It is critical that the media do not allow Trump to get away with unsupported accusations. Whenever Trump makes serious accusations like this, it is his responsibility to provide evidence to support them. Using Breitbart is akin to supporting a claim that aliens exist based on a National Enquirer article.

 

[leibowde84]

But if done illegally, it's possible.
As Snowden showed us, things which shouldn't be done have been done.

Sure, but unless evidence is provided, accusations of this kind should be ridiculed and laughed at.

If we allow Trump to get away with this and follow through on an investigation, what's next? Can I accuse you of selling secrets to the Russians, and, based on nothing more than this accusation, get congress to investigate you?

Trump's behavior is extremely damaging to American freedom.

 

[leibowde84]

There's that too.
As with Sessions & Pelosi, an investigation is in order.

So, you don't think that evidence of wiretapping should be required to investigate who was responsible for said wiretapping? Trump hasn't even provided evidence that anyone was tapping his building.

 

[Revoltingest]

Sure, but unless evidence is provided, accusations of this kind should be ridiculed and laughed at.

Certainly, Obama's & Hillary's fans would see it that way.

If we allow Trump to get away with this and follow through on an investigation, what's next? Can I accuse you of selling secrets to the Russians, and, based on nothing more than this accusation, get congress to investigate you?
Trump's behavior is extremely damaging to American freedom.

We have a war between Dems & Trump.
The former want his tax return, with no evidence of any wrongdoing.
They talk of Russian control without proof, & of pursuing it in court.
They reap what they sow.
Is this right or for the best?
Politics & government aren't always about that.

 

[Revoltingest]

So, you don't think that evidence of wiretapping should be required to investigate who was responsible for said wiretapping? Trump hasn't even provided evidence that anyone was tapping his building.

There's an order to things.
Evidence is what follows investigation.
If it had to be first, you wouldn't be able to investigate much.

 

[suncowiam]

Certainly, Obama's & Hillary's fans would see it that way.

We have a war between Dems & Trump.
The former want his tax return, with no evidence of any wrongdoing.
They talk of Russian control without proof, & of pursuing it in court.
They reap what they sow.
Is this right or for the best?
Politics & government aren't always about that.

Concerning his tax return, how about the simple fact that he said he was going to give it out?

I have no opinion on his taxes until he releases them but I do have an opinion on his honesty. When people seem like they're hiding something, well it seems like they're hiding something.

The facts are, some members of Trump's campaign communicated with the Russians. Does that prove anything? No, but I would suggest there's enough suspicion to warrant further investigation. I'm not claiming he did anything wrong but I believe there should be further investigation. We know Russians hacked and we know their target was the DNC. It's all logical to me that if they wanted more influence then they would naturally ally themselves with the opponents of who they've hacked. Does that prove anything? No, of course not. But it suggests we continue with an investigation. Trump and Russia had motives... Criminal courts bring forward cases on motives. Why is this any different? We also assume innocence until proven guilty. Trump has that luxury here too.

This all boils down to probable cause. You don't believe there's any probability with Trump colluding with Russia? Or Russia having any blackmailing details to influence Trump? Nothing? Nada? Zilch?

 

[Revoltingest]

Concerning his tax return, how about the simple fact that he said he was going to give it out?

It is indeed a simple fact.
Is there a law compelling him to make it public?

I have no opinion on his taxes until he releases them but I do have an opinion on his honesty. When people seem like they're hiding something, well it seems like they're hiding something.

"Seem" isn't strong basis for congressional inquiry.

The facts are, some members of Trump's campaign communicated with the Russians. Does that prove anything? No, but I would suggest there's enough suspicion to warrant further investigation. I'm not claiming he did anything wrong but I believe there should be further investigation. We know Russians hacked and we know their target was the DNC. It's all logical to me that if they wanted more influence then they would naturally ally themselves with the opponents of who they've hacked. Does that prove anything? No, of course not. But it suggests we continue with an investigation. Trump and Russia had motives... Criminal courts bring forward cases on motives. Why is this any different? We also assume innocence until proven guilty. Trump has that luxury here too.

This all boils down to probable cause. You don't believe there's any probability with Trump colluding with Russia? Or Russia having any blackmailing details to influence Trump? Nothing? Nada? Zilch?

Sounds like a pretty weak probable cause.
I wouldn't take this p***ing match between Trump, Obama, & other Dems too seriously.
It even seems quite entertaining.
The more accusations, revelations & investigations the better.
I particularly love Pelosi's uncovered lie about never having met the Russian.