If Trump cannot provide evidence of Illegal Obama Wiretap?

[fantome profane]

I trust that the Wikileaks disclosures all over the news make that clear.

I think if people look closely at what those Wikileak disclosures actually say, beyond the headlines, they will find that there is very little evidence of the U.S. Government spying on large segments of the U.S. population. What you actually see in those disclosures is the FBI looking into various methods of surveillance (Samsung tv's for example) but very little evidence of them actually doing it.

 

[suncowiam]

If Trump is lying, then he should be punished.
But in the realm of politics, this will likely be in the form of partisan drama.
Who knows....if it endures, it could affect the 2020 election.
As for civil court, would Obama find it worth pursuing?
It would be expensive, & entail some risk for him.
Monetary damages would be hard for him to establish, so it could be pyrrhic victory.
But he could decide that it's politically damaging enuf to Trump.

I hope Obama does it so we can set a precedence. Money isn't much to Trump but his ego losing in a civil case might mean more.

 

[idav]

To me, it seems obvious that Trump just made it up, speculating on what he might have read in a fake news story from Breitbart.

Totally especially considering Spicer had to retract the claims as he didn't mean "wire tapping" or Obama specifically. They are still on the hook to provide anything to warrant investigating.
Spicer: Trump didn't mean 'wire tapping' in tweet about surveillance

 

[Revoltingest]

I think if people look closely at what those Wikileak disclosures actually say, beyond the headlines, they will find that there is very little evidence of the U.S. Government spying on large segments of the U.S. population. What you actually see in those disclosures is the FBI looking into various methods of surveillance (Samsung tv's for example) but very little evidence of them actually doing it.

I agree that it says little about illegal spying.
But there is a larger context of gov misusing its tools (which are powerful indeed).
A sampling.....
NSA Spying on Americans Is Illegal
Timeline of NSA Domestic Spying
Mass surveillance in the United States - Wikipedia

 

[Revoltingest]

I hope Obama does it so we can set a precedence. Money isn't much to Trump but his ego losing in a civil case might mean more.

You assume Obama will win?

 

[idav]

You assume Obama will win?

Thats probably why they are trying to say now that he didn't mean "obama" specifically, even though saying he is a bad sick guy.

 

[jonathan180iq]

I disagree. If we don't hold him accountable, every time he has bad press, he will just accuse Obama of something. Letting this go is = to letting Trump get away with it.

But it's not an actual thing...
I think we (The collective "us", not you and I) are giving proper attention to an improper subject.

It's akin to taking the birther "controversy" seriously. It was never a cogent argument. It never had any legitimate backing information. Remember when Trump had his "people working in Hawaii and they are finding interesting stuff...very interesting stuff."? Whatever happened to all that?

Do you think there should have been a Congressional Investigation into those ridiculous claims as well?

Remember when Trump claimed that Muslims were cheering from the rooftops on 9/11?
Remember when he claimed he had evidence of widespread voter fraud?
Remember when he said that the media covered up Terrorist attacks around the world?
Remember how he tried to imply that Hillary Clinton was using uppers before the debates?
Remember when he told a rally in California that there, in fact, was no drought?

I could keep going.

He's a buffoon - a conspiracy-theory-loving buffoon. The fact that the American people voted him into office does suddenly lend credibility to his idiotic ideas. He is nothing more than a Twitter troll and should be treated as such.

 

[Revoltingest]

Thats probably why they are trying to say now that he didn't mean "obama" specifically, even though saying he is a bad sick guy.

I'd wager that no one thinks Obama would ever file suit.
How many times does one pol sue another over accusations?

Moreover, if this low tort standard became widespread, just imagine
how many people who accused The Donald of being Putin's puppet
would find themselves in court.

 

[idav]

I'd wager that no one thinks Obama would ever file suit.
How many times does one pol sue another over accusations?

Moreover, if this low tort standard became widespread, just imagine
how many people who accused The Donald of being Putin's puppet
would find themselves in court.

Wouldn't be such an issue if the president use more secure means of communication. People start getting in trouble when blasting things in public. Same reason Trump would sue the media or someone accusing him of assault. However the ex president may have better things to do than sue over a tweet.

 

[Revoltingest]

Wouldn't be such an issue if the president use more secure means of communication. People start getting in trouble when blasting things in public. Same reason Trump would sue the media or someone accusing him of assault. However the ex president may have better things to do than sue over a tweet.

No argument here.

 

[idav]

No argument here.

Excuse me?

 

[Revoltingest]

Excuse me?

On occasion you're reasonable.
That shall not be denied!

 

[metis]

If I'm innocent of charges, I would want a full investigation by an independent prosecutor with all of the pertaining facts coming out.

OTOH, if I was guilty of the charges, then I would do what the Republicans are now doing.

 

[leibowde84]

Why do you think Wikileaks is unreliable?

They can put whatever they want on there, as there aren't any confirmations or denials that come out. There is no way to know what is real and what is fabricated. They obviously have a political agenda, so I trust them about as much as any other far-left or far-right outlet. Just like Breitbart or Buzzfeed ... they aren't interested in providing evidence to support their claims (emails aren't confirmed, sources aren't named, etc.).

 

[leibowde84]

You're big on having evidence for accusations.
Where's the evidence against Wikileaks?

I'm not making an accusation against Wikileaks. I'm merely pointing out that what they put out may or may not be authentic. There really is no way of knowing, as most governments (US included) has a policy of not confirming or denying anything released on the site.

 

[leibowde84]

But it's not an actual thing...
I think we (The collective "us", not you and I) are giving proper attention to an improper subject.

It's akin to taking the birther "controversy" seriously. It was never a cogent argument. It never had any legitimate backing information. Remember when Trump had his "people working in Hawaii and they are finding interesting stuff...very interesting stuff."? Whatever happened to all that?

Do you think there should have been a Congressional Investigation into those ridiculous claims as well?

Remember when Trump claimed that Muslims were cheering from the rooftops on 9/11?
Remember when he claimed he had evidence of widespread voter fraud?
Remember when he said that the media covered up Terrorist attacks around the world?
Remember how he tried to imply that Hillary Clinton was using uppers before the debates?
Remember when he told a rally in California that there, in fact, was no drought?

I could keep going.

He's a buffoon - a conspiracy-theory-loving buffoon. The fact that the American people voted him into office does suddenly lend credibility to his idiotic ideas. He is nothing more than a Twitter troll and should be treated as such.

Right, we should hold him accountable for being nothing more than a troll, feeding unsubstantiated conspiracy theories irresponsibly. Letting it go wouldn't be doing that.

 

[leibowde84]

If I'm innocent of charges, I would want a full investigation by an independent prosecutor with all of the pertaining facts coming out.

All pertaining facts and falsities could be easily brought out by simply asking the FBI and the Justice Department. Trump refuses to utilize them, which should lead any reasonable person to believe that there is no evidence of any illegal activity. Not to mention, Spicer's gigantic walk-back of Trump's claims. The "wiretapping" air-quotes was just precious, as 2 of the 4 tweets did not use quotation marks around the word "wiretapping". And, the tweets clearly claimed that "Obama illegally wiretapped" "Trump Tower". At this point I feel sorry for Spicer. He's got a tough job.

OTOH, if I was guilty of the charges, then I would do what the Republicans are now doing.

Can you explain what you mean by this? What the Republicans are doing?

 

[Falvlun]

Totally especially considering Spicer had to retract the claims as he didn't mean "wire tapping" or Obama specifically. They are still on the hook to provide anything to warrant investigating.
Spicer: Trump didn't mean 'wire tapping' in tweet about surveillance

This is hilarious to me in a not so funny way.

Trump's Tweet: "Terrible! Just found out that Obama had my 'wires tapped' in Trump Tower just before the victory,"

Spicer: Trump didn't really mean that Obama wire tapped him.

 

[Revoltingest]

They can put whatever they want on there, as there aren't any confirmations or denials that come out. There is no way to know what is real and what is fabricated. They obviously have a political agenda, so I trust them about as much as any other far-left or far-right outlet. Just like Breitbart or Buzzfeed ... they aren't interested in providing evidence to support their claims (emails aren't confirmed, sources aren't named, etc.).

Do you find this irrelevant that no one disputes their revelations?
Do you trust government proclamations that Russians hacked the DNC
when they could also have a political agenda, but offer no evidence?

 

[leibowde84]

Do you find this irrelevant that no one disputes their revelations?

The US Government agencies have policies in place to neither confirm nor deny anything that comes up in Wikileaks. So, yes, I find that irrelevant. There is a good reason for these policies too. It's better not to placate wikileaks as they admit to using illegal means to get the stuff they release. I mean, Asange is a pretty bad guy (personally), and he's in leage with the Russians/Putin, who are the worst kind of authoritarian government. Sure, the US has problems, but they pale in comparison to the horrors unleashed by the Putin regime.

Do you trust government proclamations that Russians hacked the DNC
when they could also have a political agenda, but offer no evidence?

There was plenty of evidence that all points to the Russians. Much was released to the public. I mean, even Trump had to admit it eventually. In fact, I have not seen a reason yet to doubt that the Russians were behind the meddling.