ADVERTISEMENT

Trump accuses Obama of wiretapping him

CowboyJD said:
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.
Click to expand...

Not a fan either, but this is feeling like an ideological war and it is win at all costs. Winning the election was not enough, if dems and MSM wants to take back the WH with throwing lies out there, I guess perhaps Trump is willing to water board and use tactics to win said war.
 
Trey Gowdy appeared on TV several times over the past few days. Here's ZeroHedge's article about Gowdy's meeting with FBI Director Comey on Thursday. He (Gowdy) reiterated the same on TV this morning. Gowdy mentioned that the Trump Administration now controls the paper-trail of information (I assume FISA requests, etc.) which perhaps means they can release it. Gowdy said he would take Comey's word over any anonymous sources from the NYT or WaPo.

http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2017-...y-briefing-be-very-very-careful-relying-nyt-a
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: AC_Exotic, MegaPoke and Medic007
Article from a new media source saying there will be no charges filed in Trump's server investigation. FISA order did not include intercepts of phone/email records. Interesting read but weird format. FBI is pissed about the leaks as it tells foreign governments the capabilities and tools used by the FBI. They blame these leaks on Obama's EO to allow intelligence to be shared with the 16-17 other agencies. Lead writer is 20 year veteran of AP, WaPo and other media outlets.

"Agents were examining allegations of computer activity tied to Russia.. Very quickly, they concluded the computer activity in question involved no nefarious contacts, bank transactions or encrypted communications with the Russians, and likely involved routine computer signals."

"Comey’s request (for DOJ to knock down Trump's claim) was designed to combat any insinuation that the FBI was used by the Obama administration as a political-enemy intelligence gathering agency in the midst of the election.

But inside the intelligence community it also conveyed another powerful message: Comey has always insisted the bureau won’t comment on ongoing probes. So his willingness to push out a comment was a sign the FBI doesn’t see a criminal case emerging so far."


http://circa.com/politics/fbi-probe...during-election-yielded-no-evidence-of-crimes
 
CowboyUp said:
Coming to a head soon enough...

http://www.cnn.com/2017/03/08/politics/graham-wiretap-russia-subpoena/index.html
Click to expand...

From the cited article:

"We request that the Department of Justice provide us copies of any warrant applications and court orders — redacted as necessary to protect intelligence sources and methods that may be compromised by disclosure, and to protect any ongoing investigations — related to wiretaps of President Trump, the Trump Campaign, or Trump Tower," Graham and Whitehouse wrote.
Click to expand...

@CowboyJD @syskatine @hollywood @anybodyelsewhogivesacrap

In layman's terms, that may look fine on the surface. But if you received this subpoena and your duty was to provide the information requested, would you include evidence of any other means of electronic surveillance as well?

It seems to me that this request has likely narrowed the focus of the investigation unnecessarily. Does anybody seriously think that an actual wire was tapped (allegedly) in order to gain any intel?

If a request that was worded like that came across your desk, how would you interpret it?
 
wyomingosualum said:
From the cited article:



@CowboyJD @syskatine @hollywood @anybodyelsewhogivesacrap

In layman's terms, that may look fine on the surface. But if you received this subpoena and your duty was to provide the information requested, would you include evidence of any other means of electronic surveillance as well?

It seems to me that this request has likely narrowed the focus of the investigation unnecessarily. Does anybody seriously think that an actual wire was tapped (allegedly) in order to gain any intel?

If a request that was worded like that came across your desk, how would you interpret it?
Click to expand...

I would provide only what was specifically requested.

Not my job in responding to the subpoena to expand the investigation beyond what the investigation/investigators request by producing non-responsive documents. Not my duty or job as the respondent to attempt to expand or limit the investigation. In fact, I would be concerned with disclosing sensitive and classified material outside the subpoena based upon the right and need to know principles of security clearance procedures I have been taught when I received my clearance.

This subpoena does limit the subpoena to "actual wire was tapped" questions. Doesn't mean that further broader subpoenas won't be forthcoming. As far as does anyone "seriously think than an actual wire was tapped to gain any intel".....that is exactly and explicitly what Trump alleged in his tweets, and what several people here has definitively claimed what happened. So yeah....there are probably many people that seriously think that.
 
  • Like
Reactions: anon_xl72qcu5isp39, Tulsaaggieson and wyomingosualum
CowboyJD said:
I would provide only what was specifically requested.

Not my job in responding to the subpoena to expand the investigation beyond what the investigation/investigators request by producing non-responsive documents. Not my duty or job as the respondent to attempt to expand or limit the investigation. In fact, I would be concerned with disclosing sensitive and classified material outside the subpoena based upon the right and need to know principles of security clearance procedures I have been taught when I received my clearance.

This subpoena does limit the subpoena to "actual wire was tapped" questions. Doesn't mean that further broader subpoenas won't be forthcoming. As far as does anyone "seriously think than an actual wire was tapped to gain any intel".....that is exactly and explicitly what Trump alleged in his tweets, and what several people here has definitively claimed what happened. So yeah....there are probably many people that seriously think that.
Click to expand...

And it's a word that was explicitly used in the New York Times as having been done before Trump started tweeting about it, so I understand why he used that particular word. I just doubt that he has given any thought to what that word actually means.

As for the senators who worded that request, I think they know exactly what they are asking for and are looking for an excuse to say, "Well, golly...we looked for exactly what you said and we came up empty" in order to further discredit the president. Graham especially.
 
wyomingosualum said:
And it's a word that was explicitly used in the New York Times as having been done before Trump started tweeting about it, so I understand why he used that particular word. I just doubt that he has given any thought to what that word actually means.

As for the senators who worded that request, I think they know exactly what they are asking for and are looking for an excuse to say, "Well, golly...we looked for exactly what you said and we came up empty" in order to further discredit the president. Graham especially.
Click to expand...

I predicted here Graham would do exactly that, so I agree that is what he was doing.

I am troubled by the concept that Trump would tweet without having "given any thought to what that word actually means" in general and more directly because he set up Graham to do exactly what I believe he is doing. A huge tactical error by Bannon and Trump in the use of social media.
 
  • Like
Reactions: davidallen
CowboyJD said:
I predicted here Graham would do exactly that, so I agree that is what he was doing.

I am troubled by the concept that Trump would tweet without having "given any thought to what that word actually means" in general and more directly because he set up Graham to do exactly what I believe he is doing. A huge tactical error by Bannon and Trump in the use of social media.
Click to expand...

Guess I missed your reference to that or I would have provided attribution. Or maybe I'm just getting old.
 
17191233_756836877807851_2727328434398735830_n.jpg
 
  • Like
Reactions: Headhunter and HighStickHarry
GunsOfFrankEaton said:
17265249_1328770843857060_4170304613279266855_n.jpg
Click to expand...
If there is a "FISA Papertrail" Trump has full authority to declassify it and release it to the world to see. If nothing else, he could have the materials made available for him and his staff with security clearance to review. The fact is, his spokesman Sean Spicer said that they don't have it and that's why they want Congress to investigate it.

He also has the option of ordering Comey to gather the materials and make a report to the "Gang of 8" at Congress, all of whom have security clearances to review the material as well.

I'll be shocked if there's actually any evidence whatsoever to back Trump's claims, or that he even bothered to check with his National Security officials (who also would have access to FISC proceedings) to check into the veracity of the reports BEFORE he just shot his twitter off.

If there is NO evidence, then what? (Can you be honest and tell me what your response would be Obama made a claim like this against Bush and it turned out there was no evidence to support the claim?)
 
hollywood said:
If there is a "FISA Papertrail" Trump has full authority to declassify it and release it to the world to see. If nothing else, he could have the materials made available for him and his staff with security clearance to review. The fact is, his spokesman Sean Spicer said that they don't have it and that's why they want Congress to investigate it.

He also has the option of ordering Comey to gather the materials and make a report to the "Gang of 8" at Congress, all of whom have security clearances to review the material as well.

I'll be shocked if there's actually any evidence whatsoever to back Trump's claims, or that he even bothered to check with his National Security officials (who also would have access to FISC proceedings) to check into the veracity of the reports BEFORE he just shot his twitter off.

If there is NO evidence, then what? (Can you be honest and tell me what your response would be Obama made a claim like this against Bush and it turned out there was no evidence to support the claim?)
Click to expand...
Had Bush and his lapdogs hung around after the election trying to sabotage Obama then I would believe he had it coming. Frankly, I hope we never see another Bush in the White House ever again. Regarding foreign and immigration policy, as well as jobs, how are any of the Bushes that much different than Hillary Clinton? Trump has exposed them all for the globalists they are and I'm glad he did.
 
  • Like
Reactions: NZ Poke
hollywood said:
If there is a "FISA Papertrail" Trump has full authority to declassify it and release it to the world to see. If nothing else, he could have the materials made available for him and his staff with security clearance to review. The fact is, his spokesman Sean Spicer said that they don't have it and that's why they want Congress to investigate it.

He also has the option of ordering Comey to gather the materials and make a report to the "Gang of 8" at Congress, all of whom have security clearances to review the material as well.

I'll be shocked if there's actually any evidence whatsoever to back Trump's claims, or that he even bothered to check with his National Security officials (who also would have access to FISC proceedings) to check into the veracity of the reports BEFORE he just shot his twitter off.

If there is NO evidence, then what? (Can you be honest and tell me what your response would be Obama made a claim like this against Bush and it turned out there was no evidence to support the claim?)
Click to expand...


Hey that reminds me, where is the evidence of Russia stuff? Seem to be hearing less and less about it since the wire tapping stuff came out. Weird.
 
  • Like
Reactions: JonnyVito
MegaPoke said:
Hey that reminds me, where is the evidence of Russia stuff? Seem to be hearing less and less about it since the wire tapping stuff came out. Weird.
Click to expand...
Did Obama make a statement, on Tweet or elsewhere, accusing Trump of being involved with RUSSIA? Did he claim that Trump engaged in CRIMINAL CONDUCT?

Because if he did, I must have missed it.

(You're really trying to make an apple and pineapple comparison here by bringing up something that is not even tangentially related to the actual question at hand, and deflecting the question of whether or not Trump lied.)

Please give me a straight up answer: If the President of the US just accused someone of a very serious crime and it turns out there's NO EVIDENCE to support his claims, and he NEVER even sought evidence before making what ultimately were BASELESS claims, then where do we go from here? Do you believe that our nation's credibility will not take a huge hit if our President turns out to make baseless statements of such importance?
 
hollywood said:
Did Obama make a statement, on Tweet or elsewhere, accusing Trump of being involved with RUSSIA? Did he claim that Trump engaged in CRIMINAL CONDUCT?

Because if he did, I must have missed it.

(You're really trying to make an apple and pineapple comparison here by bringing up something that is not even tangentially related to the actual question at hand, and deflecting the question of whether or not Trump lied.)

Please give me a straight up answer: If the President of the US just accused someone of a very serious crime and it turns out there's NO EVIDENCE to support his claims, and he NEVER even sought evidence before making what ultimately were BASELESS claims, then where do we go from here? Do you believe that our nation's credibility will not take a huge hit if our President turns out to make baseless statements of such importance?
Click to expand...
I believe Trump has more evidence that Obama had him under surveillance than there ever was evidence to prove the ludicrous assertion that Russia hacked our election.
 
I'll give you a straight answer, but first I'm going to address your fluffy preamble.

hollywood said:
Did Obama make a statement, on Tweet or elsewhere, accusing Trump of being involved with RUSSIA? Did he claim that Trump engaged in CRIMINAL CONDUCT?
Click to expand...

Of course he didn't. You don't have to resort to Twitter when the entire establishment apparatus (including the alphabet media) are at your beck and call. Given Obama's unprecedented access to friendly media, it would be unseemly and frankly unnecessary for Trump to have addressed this via Tweet.

hollywood said:
(You're really trying to make an apple and pineapple comparison here by bringing up something that is not even tangentially related to the actual question at hand, and deflecting the question of whether or not Trump lied.)
Click to expand...

No sir, I am actually only inferring a tangential relationship. I did not directly compare the two (but I will be happy to). In fact, I simply asked an open ended question about why I've heard less about Russia since the wire tap statement was tweeted. It was a massive story for months, and now everyone is focused on Obamacare Lite.

Still, it is interesting that the Russia story has fallen out of style so quickly, don't you agree?

He probably exaggerated. Sure. So? It seems to have exposed and neutralized the bullshit Russia story, so given the fact that I didn't vote for a sunday school teacher, I would say - good job Banno... er... Trump.
 
  • Like
Reactions: ctdub, ThorOdinson13, CowboyJD and 2 others
hollywood said:
Here's the actual article, not just showing off the headline.

Show me ANYTHING in the article that suggests that Trump was a target of surveillance.

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/01/19/us/politics/trump-russia-associates-investigation.html
Click to expand...
I don't think the New York Times is going to run a story sourcing that Trump was/is the target of surveillance, especially if it is suspected that Obama was/is behind it. They'll just run chicken shit stories like the above which they probably wish they could retract.
 
GunsOfFrankEaton said:
I don't think the New York Times is going to run a story sourcing that Trump was/is the target of surveillance, especially if it is suspected that Obama was/is behind it. They'll just run chicken shit stories like the above which they probably wish they could retract.
Click to expand...
So you admit that the NY Times article you keep referencing as evidence that Obama had Trump wiretapped actually isn't any sort of evidence supporting the claim at all?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

windriverrange

Obama Giant Solar Plant Funded by $1.6B Shut Down After Only 10 Years Go Green, go broke.

Replies
5
Views
340
24/7 Politics
LAY THE WOODY
L
P

Interesting Article

Replies
66
Views
1K
24/7 Politics
LAY THE WOODY
L
GhostOfMatchesMalone

Chain of command

Replies
0
Views
128
24/7 Politics
GhostOfMatchesMalone
GhostOfMatchesMalone
2

Remember When Democrats Told US Government Forcing Facebook Censorship A Conspiracy Theory

Replies
20
Views
886
24/7 Politics
OUSOONER67
OUSOONER67
windriverrange

Three Russia Hoax Bombshells Hidden In IG Report On DOJ Surveillance Of Congress

Replies
0
Views
306
24/7 Politics
windriverrange
windriverrange
ADVERTISEMENT

Latest posts

ADVERTISEMENT
Top Bottom
Back