Trump accuses Obama of wiretapping him

[anon_xl72qcu5isp39]

One of the most interesting angles to all this is how old news the FISA warrants are. It was widely reported in Oct./Nov. The flame gets hot with Biff (Sessions, Kushner, Flynn, etc.) and he wakes up and says he just found out about it, and the conservatives lose their shit like it's new.

His ability to turn the conservative herd, and the herd's willingness to suddenly stop and chase a 4 month old story is pretty telling. Throw out a red herring and his zombies dutifully follow it -- they don't even care if he's compromised.

Imagine if HRC had servers dedicated to communicating with a Moscow bank: http://www.slate.com/articles/news_...p_organization_communicating_with_russia.html

 

[anon_xl72qcu5isp39]

P.S. "Obama committed felonies and issued warrantless wiretaps and Arnold Schwarzenegger's had poor ratings on his reality show."

WTH?!? He's crazy. Occam's razor.

 

[Tulsaaggieson]

Ok here is what I need. I'm in the not convinced yet need more, but open to the idea that this is a possibility. Trump said he wanted to drain the swamp this would match that campaign promise. Past Republicans would have just continued the program.

With that being said this is what I need to start looking into it more:
1. Which department wire tapped?
2. Which court approved it?

From there the story can be vetted.

There are things that you all have said I agree with. Yes the Obama administration did a lot of horrible and scandalous things. That doesn't mean they did this one. I need something to go on beside a tweet. The POTUS is good at tweets, but the down side of this is the larger context is lost.

 

[CowboyJD]

http://www.nbc12.com/story/34668559...ent-regarding-russias-involvement-in-election

"Reports concerning potentially politically motivated investigations immediately ahead of the 2016 election are very troubling.

President Donald J. Trump is requesting that as part of their investigation into Russian activity, the congressional intelligence committees exercise their oversight authority to determine whether executive branch investigative powers were abused in 2016.

Neither the White House nor the President will comment further until such oversight is conducted." (Emphasis added)

Let's unpack this, shall we?

Sorry @MegaPoke, Spicer announcing the White House nor the President will comment further AND ties this directly Russian activity investigation sure looks like you aren't going to see the wiretapping evidence you want anytime....kinda like Russia. Wonder if you'll start evaluating them the same. You did say you wouldn't view it charitably if the proof wasn't forthcoming and soon or something like that.

@syskatine @davidallen Russian collusion believers....down for this being investigated by Congress too? An independent (as possible) investigation? I recall statements like "investigate it all". Heck, I made them myself...admittedly while expressing concern for the potential for abuse.

Breitbart....the CNN of the Trump administration yet? Fake news? I don't expect much fair evaluation of this from either side. Trumpies will defend. Obamahamians will say of course, obviously.

I think I am dead on in my narrative analysis and comments on this one. It really is a post factual statement...in the end, the facts....the proof....the truth...doesn't really matter to the usefulness of the claim itself.

IMO, this is basically little more than Trump pointing his finger and yelling "what about that guy!" In the hopes they stop looking at you. No proof was given....doesn't look like it will be coming any time soon...hamhanded politics as usual. Not exactly the most winning narrative from Bannon. Would personally judge this one a miss for all but the Trumpiest of Trumpites.

 

[Ostatedchi]

The submission must be made BY the Atty General. (NOT the President, NOT the VP, NOT anyone else.)


Do people not think that the Atty General wouldn't submit at the request of the President? Why is this such a firewall type statement?

 

[MegaPoke]

The submission must be made BY the Atty General. (NOT the President, NOT the VP, NOT anyone else.)


Do people not think that the Atty General wouldn't submit at the request of the President? Why is this such a firewall type statement?

Same AG who met with Bill Clinton on the airplane?

 

[Ostatedchi]

Same AG who met with Bill Clinton on the airplane?

Yes that one.

 

[AC_Exotic]

Here are some thoughts on the matter from Herman Cain (yes, I know, I know...)

https://www.hermancain.com/why-yes-obama-did-try-to-wiretap-trump-tower

Why yes, Obama did try to wiretap Trump Tower, and here are the details
The timing of Trump's tweet is a little strange, but the facts are plain as day.

I don't really know why Donald Trump decided yesterday to tweet about the Obama Administration trying to wiretap Trump Tower. But what was weird about it was not the content of the tweet. It was the timing. That this happened is not only beyond dispute, but it's been in the public's eye for weeks.

On January 17, Andrew McCarthy discussed it extensively in National Review. He referenced it again this past week in a piece about this whole Russian nonsense and Jeff Sessions:

To rehearse briefly, in the weeks prior to June 2016, the FBI did a preliminary investigation, apparently based on concerns about a server at Trump Tower that allegedly had some connection to Russian financial institutions. Even if there were such a connection, it is not a crime to do business with Russian banks — lots of Americans do. It should come as no surprise, then, that the FBI found no impropriety and did not proceed with a criminal investigation.

What is surprising, though, is that the case was not closed down.

Instead, the Obama Justice Department decided to pursue the matter as a national-security investigation under the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA). In June, it sought the FISA court’s permission to conduct surveillance on a number of Trump associates — and perhaps even Trump himself. It has been reported that Trump was “named” in the application, but it is not publicly known whether he (a) was named as a proposed wiretap target, or (b) was just mentioned in passing in the application.

Understand the significance of this: Only the Justice Department litigates before the FISA court; this was not some rogue investigators; this was a high level of Obama’s Justice Department — the same institution that, at that very moment, was whitewashing the Clinton e-mail scandal. And when Justice seeks FISA surveillance authority, it is essentially telling that court that there is probable cause to believe that the targets have acted as agents of a foreign power — that’s the only basis for getting a FISA warrant.

In this instance, the FISA court apparently found the Obama Justice Department’s presentation to be so weak that it refused to authorize the surveillance. That is telling, because the FISA court is generally very accommodating of government surveillance requests. Unwilling to take no for an answer, the Obama Justice Department came back to the FISA court in October — i.e., in the stretch run of the presidential campaign. According to various reports (and mind you, FISA applications are classified, so the leaks are illegal), the October application was much narrower than the earlier one and did not mention Donald Trump. The FISA Court granted this application, and for all we know the investigation is continuing.

So not only do we know that Obama's Justice Department sought permission from the FISA court to wiretap Trump Tower, but on its second try, they got it. And we don't know for sure that the wiretaps were ever discontinued.

So when left-wing Washington Post propagandist Chris Cillizza huffs that the "burden of proof" is on Trump to show that any of this happened, someone might want to forward this link to Cillizza - although I suppose he and others of his ilk may reject it out of hand because it comes from the conservative National Review. It's not our fault if NR covers the misdeeds of the Obama Administration and the Washington Post refuses to even do any reporting to find out if they're true.

Now, having said all that, I do think it's fair to scrutinize Trump's characterization of what happened. The mere fact that the Justice Department sought a wiretap and went through legal channels to get it does not prove this is Nixon's plumbers bugging the Watergate. But when a sitting Democrat administration wants to wiretap the offices of the Republican nominee during an election campaign, that should be the sort of thing that at the very least invites lots of scrutiny.

Instead, the media are insisting they will treat the whole thing as a big nothingburger unless Trump himself proves it is more than that. Do you think for even one second they would approach it this way if the party affiliations in this situation were the opposite of what they are?

You know damn well what the answer to that question is.

 

[hollywood]

Same AG who met with Bill Clinton on the airplane?

Mega,

Again, AG Lynch had recused herself at that point from anything to do with the campaigns (of either side) and had turned things over to Comey. I would also note, that even if she were, she would be submitting a sworn statement, under penalty of perjury, that ultimately would be seen and reviewed by the FISA Court Judge, the Chief Justice and the Director of National Intelligence.

If she lies, she almost certainly goes to prison as one of those three (or combination thereof) would in all likelihood turn this over the FISA court for review.

Ostatedchi,

What does it really matter? The point is that provision of the Statute is in NO WAY APPLICABLE! No FISA Judge would/could lawfully use a submission based on that Section to order surveillance on ANY US Citizen, or ANYONE (foreign national or not) WITHIN US BORDERS!

You're trying to carve out one little point, while ignoring the totality of the evidence that proves that it couldn't happen in the first place. That Section of the statute ONLY applies to monitoring communications between and among FOREIGN NATIONALS who are residing in FOREIGN LANDS.*

*(There is one exception for the people being under surveillance being within US Borders, but if you read that section closely it basically applies to an area that is "openly and notoriously" under the control of a foreign govt. In reality, the only place that fits that definition would by an embassy or consulate office of a foreign govt.)

 

[Tulsaaggieson]

If Trump can prove it he has the means to do so. Show the media how it is done. At this point I don't care is Confidential information is used. Baring showing the world how to shoot down our fighters with ease lets see it.

 

[CowboyJD]

The submission must be made BY the Atty General. (NOT the President, NOT the VP, NOT anyone else.)


Do people not think that the Atty General wouldn't submit at the request of the President? Why is this such a firewall type statement?

You left out the "and signed by a FISA judge upon a showing of probable cause.

THAT'S the firewall statement. It's a firewall Trump could breach today.....if there IS proof in the warrant affidavit of misconduct. Instead....he tweets...and has his Press Secretary say there will be no further comment.

I was raised to say what you mean and mean what you say.

Trump says what he wants, provides zero evidence, and two days later says there will be no further comment or proof coming from him.

http://www.nbc12.com/story/34668559...ent-regarding-russias-involvement-in-election

"Reports concerning potentially politically motivated investigations immediately ahead of the 2016 election are very troubling.

President Donald J. Trump is requesting that as part of their investigation into Russian activity, the congressional intelligence committees exercise their oversight authority to determine whether executive branch investigative powers were abused in 2016.

Neither the White House nor the President will comment further until such oversight is conducted." (Emphasis added)

 

[Ostatedchi]

Mega,

Again, AG Lynch had recused herself at that point from anything to do with the campaigns (of either side) and had turned things over to Comey. I would also note, that even if she were, she would be submitting a sworn statement, under penalty of perjury, that ultimately would be seen and reviewed by the FISA Court Judge, the Chief Justice and the Director of National Intelligence.

If she lies, she almost certainly goes to prison as one of those three (or combination thereof) would in all likelihood turn this over the FISA court for review.

Ostatedchi,

What does it really matter? The point is that provision of the Statute is in NO WAY APPLICABLE! No FISA Judge would/could lawfully use a submission based on that Section to order surveillance on ANY US Citizen, or ANYONE (foreign national or not) WITHIN US BORDERS!

You're trying to carve out one little point, while ignoring the totality of the evidence that proves that it couldn't happen in the first place. That Section of the statute ONLY applies to monitoring communications between and among FOREIGN NATIONALS who are residing in FOREIGN LANDS.*

*(There is one exception for the people being under surveillance being within US Borders, but if you read that section closely it basically applies to an area that is "openly and notoriously" under the control of a foreign govt. In reality, the only place that fits that definition would by an embassy or consulate office of a foreign govt.)

And you are assuming they actually followed the law.

 

[CowboyJD]

And you are assuming they actually followed the law.

I'm calling for proof that they didn't before tweeting specious BS and then saying you're not gonna comment any further.

I'm also saying that the checks and balances of judicial review for probable cause mitigates (though doesn't completely eliminate) against them not following the law.

Anything is possible. Obama could have gone straight Nixon plumber program. Where is the proof?

 

[Ostatedchi]

Where is the proof?

Good question. I'd like to see that as well. From all sides.

 

[anon_xl72qcu5isp39]

@syskatine @davidallen Russian collusion believers....down for this being investigated by Congress too? An independent (as possible) investigation? I recall statements like "investigate it all". Heck, I made them myself...admittedly while expressing concern for the potential for abuse.

Breitbart....the CNN of the Trump administration yet? Fake news? I don't expect much fair evaluation of this from either side. Trumpies will defend. Obamahamians will say of course, obviously.

I think I am dead on in my narrative analysis and comments on this one. It really is a post factual statement...in the end, the facts....the proof....the truth...doesn't really matter to the usefulness of the claim itself.

IMO, this is basically little more than Trump pointing his finger and yelling "what about that guy!" In the hopes they stop looking at you. No proof was given....doesn't look like it will be coming any time soon...hamhanded politics as usual. Not exactly the most winning narrative from Bannon. Would personally judge this one a miss for all but the Trumpiest of Trumpites.

Hell yes. What's so hard for people to understand about transparency? I think this nugget from a poster (that I disagree with on everything) best articulates my position right now:

If Trump can prove it he has the means to do so. Show the media how it is done. At this point I don't care is Confidential information is used. Baring showing the world how to shoot down our fighters with ease lets see it.

That's a common sense reaction you'd expect from any objective American from either end of the political spectrum. What makes my head spin is watching all the cons on here tap dance around anything but full disclosure and transparency.

I've climbed in foxholes with narcissists and I've fought them. They can't keep from self destructing when they don't know what they're doing. They have this unshakable (and misplaced) confidence and it takes them down... time after time. Biff tweeting that crazy stuff was a huge mistake, imo. Now republicans don't have to be afraid of their base to get behind a thorough investigation. They'll all pull a Lindsay Graham and say, "Those are such serious allegations about Obama, and such serious allegations against Trump, that just we need to get to the bottom of it" and nobody can disagree. Biff making that accusation has inadvertently validated conducting the very investigation he's wanted to prevent.

Biff can make this go away, but he won't be transparent. He LIED about releasing his tax returns!

 

[MegaPoke]

Mega,

Again, AG Lynch had recused herself at that point from anything to do with the campaigns (of either side) and had turned things over to Comey. I would also note, that even if she were, she would be submitting a sworn statement, under penalty of perjury, that ultimately would be seen and reviewed by the FISA Court Judge, the Chief Justice and the Director of National Intelligence.

If she lies, she almost certainly goes to prison as one of those three (or combination thereof) would in all likelihood turn this over the FISA court for review.

Ostatedchi,

What does it really matter? The point is that provision of the Statute is in NO WAY APPLICABLE! No FISA Judge would/could lawfully use a submission based on that Section to order surveillance on ANY US Citizen, or ANYONE (foreign national or not) WITHIN US BORDERS!

You're trying to carve out one little point, while ignoring the totality of the evidence that proves that it couldn't happen in the first place. That Section of the statute ONLY applies to monitoring communications between and among FOREIGN NATIONALS who are residing in FOREIGN LANDS.*

*(There is one exception for the people being under surveillance being within US Borders, but if you read that section closely it basically applies to an area that is "openly and notoriously" under the control of a foreign govt. In reality, the only place that fits that definition would by an embassy or consulate office of a foreign govt.)

I'm pretty sure that at the time this wiretap **allegedly** occurred, Lynch felt strongly that there wasn't much danger of being in s position to worry about prison.

Maybe not related, but did Obama's admin step in to prevent a DOJ investigation of the Clinton Foundation?

Or was Lynch's sketchy AF meeting with Slick strictly an anomaly - and everything else she did was independent and free of executive influence?

 

[CowboyJD]

Biff tweeting that crazy stuff was a huge mistake, imo. Now republicans don't have to be afraid of their base to get behind a thorough investigation. They'll all pull a Lindsay Graham and say, "Those are such serious allegations about Obama, and such serious allegations against Trump, that just we need to get to the bottom of it" and nobody can disagree. Biff making that accusation has inadvertently validated conducting the very investigation he's wanted to prevent.

Biff can make this go away, but he won't be transparent. He LIED about releasing his tax returns!

I agree that this particular tweetstorm was a miscalculated effort at fashioning the overarching narrative. He has quite a few folks in the Comgress that are be towing the line and kowtowing to him publicly but aren't really on board the Trump train personally. It does validate something doing something he apparently didn't want. A swing and a miss for sure.

 

[OKSTATE1]

I don't think Trump compared this to Watergate.

 

[CowboyJD]

I don't think Trump compared this to Watergate.

Actually....he did.....EXPLICITLY.

"How low has President Obama gone to tapp my phones during the very sacred election process. This is Nixon/Watergate. Bad (or sick) guy!"

Was one of the tweets...just took another look at it,

 

[anon_xl72qcu5isp39]

He also tweeted that he "just learned" about the wiretaps. It was reported back in the fall but he didn't hear back then that there was a FISA warrant? How could he just learn about it?

He lies so easily and frequently, in writing, that anything is possible.

 

[MegaPoke]

It's interesting that you guys can declare this such a clear and abject failure roughly 30 hours after it broke.

This was a major accusation and if proof is not offered I will be more than disappointed. However holy shit. Give it a few days at least. I mean we're still talking about Russia four months later right?

 

[ctdub]

 

[anon_xl72qcu5isp39]

It's interesting that you guys can declare this such a clear and abject failure roughly 30 hours after it broke.

This was a major accusation and if proof is not offered I will be more than disappointed. However holy shit. Give it a few days at least. I mean we're still talking about Russia four months later right?

IT DIDN'T BREAK 3O HOURS AGO. FISA WARRANTS AGAINST BIFF WERE REPORTED BACK IN THE FALL.

He has resisted the investigation. Sessions was resistant. They were burying it in a committee where investigations go to die. Now Biff has given republicans all the political cover they need to investigate this.

i can't get why so many conservatives are against a special prosecutor. Just appoint one and get to the bottom of everything. Just by-the-book law enforcement (which, incidentally, may be precisely what has happened.)

 

[CBradSmith]

It's interesting that you guys can declare this such a clear and abject failure roughly 30 hours after it broke.

This was a major accusation and if proof is not offered I will be more than disappointed. However holy shit. Give it a few days at least. I mean we're still talking about Russia four months later right?

Two weeks was the time I put forward in my hypothesis on testing how/when/if Trump "is stupid/Hitler/whatever" versus driving a narrative via a vehicle which attempts to blunt media bias.

Clock started. Let's see what conversations are being held 2 Sundays from now.

 

[NZ Poke]

 

[OKSTATE1]

Actually....he did.....EXPLICITLY.

"How low has President Obama gone to tapp my phones during the very sacred election process. This is Nixon/Watergate. Bad (or sick) guy!"

Was one of the tweets...just took another look at it,

Good catch...this is not Watergate IMO. That all said if Obama had so much control of the government he could get wire tapps issued and it not to be considered a crime what does that say about our government?

 

[CBradSmith]

View embedded media

Been a while since I've consistently to Levin, he's an animated guy.

But his M.O. back when I did listen to him was as strict adherent to constitutionalism.

Unless he's just trying to drive subscriptions to his new media platform, which seems atypical of him based on my prior listenership, he seems to be waving a big red flag pretty fervently on the previous administration.

Through roughly mid 2016 he borderline loathed Trump.

 

[MegaPoke]

IT DIDN'T BREAK 3O HOURS AGO. FISA WARRANTS AGAINST BIFF WERE REPORTED BACK IN THE FALL.

He has resisted the investigation. Sessions was resistant. They were burying it in a committee where investigations go to die. Now Biff has given republicans all the political cover they need to investigate this.

i can't get why so many conservatives are against a special prosecutor. Just appoint one and get to the bottom of everything. Just by-the-book law enforcement (which, incidentally, may be precisely what has happened.)

1. Don't yell at me dork.
2. Trump's tweets were the reason this is being discussed. You know this.

 

[Medic007]

i can't get why so many conservatives are against a special prosecutor. Just appoint one and get to the bottom of everything. Just by-the-book law enforcement (which, incidentally, may be precisely what has happened.)

Straight out of the Obama playbook. Did I miss you screaming for a special prosecutor for Hillary's email scandal, especially in light of the Attorney General getting busted having a secret meeting with the husband of the person being investigated? Serious question, as all I remember was "right wing conspiracy."

Looks like this whole Russian thing is going to end up actually being nothing more than "left wing conspiracy." Oh how comical things are getting.

 

[davidallen]

1. Don't yell at me dork.
2. Trump's tweets were the reason this is being discussed. You know this.

Trump has reopened the convo - this was discussed back when questions arose in Flynn transcripts- DJT either not paying attention or reopening the dialog with a personal Obama spin...

 

[AC_Exotic]

Here's Ben Shapiro's take (who is no Trump supporter, but about as fair, honest and objective as you're going to get these days).

http://www.dailywire.com/news/14101/towergate-trump-accuses-obama-wiretapping-him-ben-shapiro#

A couple of interesting quotes:

"So to pretend the Obama administration did nothing at all questionable here is bizarre."

"There’s No Evidence Obama Himself Had Trump’s Wires Tapped. But It’s Not Impossible."

White House press secretary Sean Spicer essentially tweeted that Trump was shooting from the hip: “President Trump is requesting that as part of their investigation into Russian activity, the congressional intelligence committees exercise their oversight authority to determine whether executive branch investigative powers were abused in 2016. Neither the White House nor the President will comment further until such oversight is conducted.” In other words, Trump made an unsupported accusation and wants Congress to pursue it for him.

"It’s possible that all the Trump-Russia smoke has some fire to it. If not, then Obama’s administration could have been engaging in seriously undemocratic behavior, far surpassing Watergate."

"Trump’s Supporters Will Point To Obama’s Malfeasance, Obama’s Supporters Will Point To Trump’s Twitter Diarrhea, Both Will Be Right."

"And so the two sides will slap each other, accusing each other (rightly) of ignoring the larger issues at play. Just another day in 2017."

 

[CowboyJD]

It's interesting that you guys can declare this such a clear and abject failure roughly 30 hours after it broke.

This was a major accusation and if proof is not offered I will be more than disappointed. However holy shit. Give it a few days at least. I mean we're still talking about Russia four months later right?

Trump...the person making the allegations we aren't talking about....tweeted and thirty hours or so said, "that's it....no further comment or proof will be provided by the guy....you know...made the allegation.

How long did you take to declare the Russia and non-story without proof?

How long would it have taken you to do so if it the entire claim was a couple of tweets from one guy, and single report from a clearly biased media outlet, and 30 hours or so later an announcement that no further comment (with no presentation of evidence to date) would be made?

How long before you declare yourself disappointed for no proof being offered on this one....couple of days?

 

[CowboyJD]

1. Don't yell at me dork.
2. Trump's tweets were the reason this is being discussed. You know this.

And Spicer has issued a release saying there will be no further comment....and no evidence has been presented...so when do we get to call it when the person making the allegation says nothing further in the way of evidence will be forthcoming from him?

 

[CowboyJD]

They'll all pull a Lindsay Graham and say, "Those are such serious allegations about Obama, and such serious allegations against Trump, that just we need to get to the bottom of it" and nobody can disagree. Biff making that accusation has inadvertently validated conducting the very investigation he's wanted to prevent.

Lindsey Graham at a Saturday town hall meeting...

“I’m very worried that our president is suggesting that the former president has done something illegal. I would be very worried if, in fact, the Obama administration was able to obtain a warrant lawfully about Trump campaign activity with a foreign government. So it’s my job as the United States senator to get to the bottom of this. I promise you I will.”

 

[OKSTATE1]

And Spicer has issued a release saying there will be no further comment....and no evidence has been presented...so when do we get to call it when the person making the allegation says nothing further in the way of evidence will be forthcoming from him?

If they plan to investigate further should they? Or, does Trump tweet allow others to do his work for him as we see happening?

We have already seen today people talking about how much Obama tapped phones and how he used the IRS. Right, wrong, or indifferent is this dirty politics and Trump decided to shoot back? Regardless if his tweet is accurate, a lot of discussion has occurred on what Obama was doing while in the WH, more so than in his 8 years in terms of things he would prefer to not be scrutinized?

Perhaps, Trump is sending a message if you are going to smear me and my team, I can smear back and damage your legacy more? Trump might be a little off in what direction he tells people to look, but the direction he points is going to discover dirt?

Even if the tweet is not true a lot of things coming out on the Obama administration many people did not know was going on because MSM ignored it. In the end, Obama was in office 8 years and Trump now going on 2 months? Who has the most skeletons? Does Obama really want to get in to a pissing match?

I personally think it is sad our politics are this divisive. Worst case Trump is full of BS but he still gets the dirty tactics of Obama exposed, he can say based on past Obama behavior and sources he was sure it happened to him but he was wrong but not totally because he tapped the hell out of people, who looks worse? Obama does IMO if he was spying on everyone. Trump can say if not for the dems chasing this Russia stuff and none of this happens.

Not defending anyone, but if each side really goes after heads with all the political payback that will ensue a lot people on both sides IMO would go down because IMO Washington has never been more corrupt, Trump might be ok with that (as would I), but will the collective swamp allow it? That is why I see this playing out as a political pissing match and you would think after 8 years Obama has more political skeletons than Trump does in 2 months.

Who knows, maybe this does get all sorted out, but in a sick sense the political swamp on each side needs the other to exist, the nuclear option means destruction for both IMO. I said 4 years ago if I could I would start all over and replace every dem and rep if I could, still believe that today.

 

[NZ Poke]

Proof?

 

[CowboyJD]

If they plan to investigate further should they? Or, does Trump tweet allow others to do his work for him as we see happening?

We have already seen today people talking about how much Obama tapped phones and how he used the IRS. Right, wrong, or indifferent is this dirty politics and Trump decided to shoot back? Regardless if his tweet is accurate, a lot of discussion has occurred on what Obama was doing while in the WH, more so than in his 8 years in terms of things he would prefer to not be scrutinized?

Perhaps, Trump is sending a message if you are going to smear me and my team, I can smear back and damage your legacy more? Trump might be a little off in what direction he tells people to look, but the direction he points is going to discover dirt?

Even if the tweet is not true a lot of things coming out on the Obama administration many people did not know was going on because MSM ignored it. In the end, Obama was in office 8 years and Trump now going on 2 months? Who has the most skeletons? Does Obama really want to get in to a pissing match?

I personally think it is sad our politics are this divisive. Worst case Trump is full of BS but he still gets the dirty tactics of Obama exposed, he can say based on past Obama behavior and sources he was sure it happened to him but he was wrong but not totally because he tapped the hell out of people, who looks worse? Obama does IMO if he was spying on everyone. Trump can say if not for the dems chasing this Russia stuff and none of this happens.

Not defending anyone, but if each side really goes after heads with all the political payback that will ensue a lot people on both sides IMO would go down because IMO Washington has never been more corrupt, Trump might be ok with that (as would I), but will the collective swamp allow it? That is why I see this playing out as a political pissing match and you would think after 8 years Obama has more political skeletons than Trump does in 2 months.

Who knows, maybe this does get all sorted out, but in a sick sense the political swamp on each side needs the other to exist, the nuclear option means destruction for both IMO. I said 4 years ago if I could I would start all over and replace every dem and rep if I could, still believe that today.

Just about the entirety of this post completely falls in line with what I was discussing earlier.

The truthfulness or untruthfulness of the claim....whether or not Trump is full of bs...don't really matter for the person making them.

Paragraph two...."regardless if his tweet is accurate...".

Paragraph three...."Trump might be a little off".

Paragraph four...."Even if the tweet is not true..."

Paragraph five....."Worst case Trump is full of BS but he still gets the dirty tactics of Obama exposed....".

All followed by analysis indicating Trump doesn't need to be accurate and right and truthful in the tweet for it to accomplish his goals. That's the very definition of a post factual world.

For me, truthfulness of allegations still matters. Not a big fan on throwing crap against the wall and seeing what sticks.

 

[CowboyJD]

Proof?

More info warrioring?

 

[Medic007]

More info warrioring?

That was damn funny in light of all of the mud slinging.

 

[Medic007]

Not a big fan on throwing crap against the wall and seeing what sticks.

This has become the reality of Washington DC and our esteemed media. Nobody even cares if it sticks. They're happy just seeing mindless splatterings on the walls and floors.