If Trump cannot provide evidence of Illegal Obama Wiretap?

[Revoltingest]

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.

The DNC didn't deny their leaked info.
But why would gov types so upset at Wikileaks for releasing info which was bogus?
Their vigorous pursuit of Assange strongly suggests cromulence.

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.

I've asked before for evidence of the Evil Ivan conspiracy, & no on has presented anything substantive.
And if Trump now blames the Russians, does this mean that you trust Trump's accusations?

 

[leibowde84]

But why would gov types so upset at Wikileaks for releasing info which was bogus?

I'm not saying that everything coming out of wikileaks is made up. I'm simply pointing out that it is unreliable. Any accusations, false or real, are going to upset political parties during an election. And, obviously the FBI and CIA are going to be upset if claims are made against them. Wikileaks can alter emails, alter statements, alter anything they want to make it more or less damaging. And, I just can't believe anyone that is in bed with Putin.

I've asked before for evidence of the Evil Ivan conspiracy, & no on has presented anything substantive.
And if Trump now blames the Russians, does this mean that you trust Trump's accusations?

Trump didn't make the accusations. He merely begrudgingly accepted the overwhelming consensus after kicking and screaming for months about it. It holds water because it is bad for the Trump campaign. Obviously, Putin wanted Trump to win ... that much couldn't be more obvious. So, Trump admitting that Russia was behind it is believable because Trump has nothing to gain by doing so.

 

[Revoltingest]

I'm not saying that everything coming out of wikileaks is made up. I'm simply pointing out that it is unreliable. Any accusations, false or real, are going to upset political parties during an election. And, obviously the FBI and CIA are going to be upset if claims are made against them. Wikileaks can alter emails, alter statements, alter anything they want to make it more or less damaging. And, I just can't believe anyone that is in bed with Putin.

Some points in favor of Wikileaks....
- It wouldn't serve Wikileaks's purpose to alter anything. Discovering such would be a great loss.
- I've yet to see a single objection to being factual.
But gov has a long & continuing record of lying to us.

Trump didn't make the accusations. He merely begrudgingly accepted the overwhelming consensus after kicking and screaming for months about it. It holds water because it is bad for the Trump campaign. Obviously, Putin wanted Trump to win ... that much couldn't be more obvious. So, Trump admitting that Russia was behind it is believable because Trump has nothing to gain by doing so.

And you trust Trump's judgement in matters of culpability for political wrongdoing?

 

[metis]

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

They're not in favor of having an independent investigation, plus Trump's spokespeople keep stalling and moving the goalposts.

Meanwhile, Trump just keeps lying and lying and lying some more, although I do admit that his rate of lying has slowed down over the last week. My theory is that Ivanka has put a muzzle on him and then took his cell phone and stuffed it up his T rump.

 

[leibowde84]

And you trust Trump's judgement in matters of culpability for political wrongdoing?

No, Trump denied that it was the Russians for as long as he could. I don't trust Trump at all, and Trump's long overdue admission, in this case, had absolutely nothing to do with my acceptance of the fact that Russia was behind the meddling.

 

[leibowde84]

And you trust Trump's judgement in matters of culpability for political wrongdoing?

Let me be clear. I don't trust a word that comes out of Trump's mouth. He is the most dishonest politician I've seen in my lifetime, imho. His word does not in any way impact my beliefs about anything.

 

[Revoltingest]

No, Trump denied that it was the Russians for as long as he could. I don't trust Trump at all, and Trump's long overdue admission, in this case, had absolutely nothing to do with my acceptance of the fact that Russia was behind the meddling.

You don't trust Trump, so his earlier denials were wrong (in your opinion), but
now you accept his new claims, even though this too could serve him politically?

 

[leibowde84]

You don't trust Trump, so his earlier denials were wrong (in your opinion), but
now you accept his new claims, even though this too could serve him politically?

No, I am saying that Trump's claims have no impact on my belief that Russia was responsible for meddling in our election. He's got no credibility, so his words don't have an impact on my beliefs either way.

 

[Revoltingest]

No, I am saying that Trump's claims have no impact on my belief that Russia was responsible for meddling in our election. He's got no credibility, so his words don't have an impact on my beliefs either way.

I don't trust anything Trump says either, btw.
As for the Russians, if they were behind the leaks, then thank you, Ivan.

 

[leibowde84]

I don't trust anything Trump says either, btw.
As for the Russians, if they were behind the leaks, then thank you, Ivan.

That is ridiculous, though. If they were just releasing emails from both sides, you might have a point. But, they were releasing certain emails that helped Trump and they were doing so to influence the outcome of the election. They weren't doing us a favor, they released emails that harmed the democrats for their own interests.

You can't really believe that they did it in the interest of transparency, can you? I mean, this is the Russians we are talking about. Honesty, fairness, transparency ... these are things that Putin despises.

 

[leibowde84]

I don't trust anything Trump says either, btw.
As for the Russians, if they were behind the leaks, then thank you, Ivan.

I don't care what emails they get. I don't want any of our enemies to influence our election. That is part of the reason why I don't like wikileaks too. They aided our enemy in meddling in our election.

 

[metis]

I don't care what emails they get. I don't want any of our enemies to influence our election. That is part of the reason why I don't like wikileaks too. They aided our enemy in meddling in our election.

Exactly. If it happens to favor my candidate/party this time, then it only keeps the door wide open for it to go against my candidate/party the next time. Democracy is difficult to keep because it relies so heavily on trust, and once that trust is gone, "Katy bar the door!".

BTW, nor should we be interfering in the elections in other countries as well, but we all too often have done just that.

 

[Stevicus]

I just noticed a blurb on Fox News where Judge Andrew Napolitano said that Obama went around the chain of command and used a British spy agency to surveil Trump. He said that he has three intelligence sources and that the person who ordered it resigned three days after Trump's inauguration. I haven't found any other sources confirming this, so it's hard to say whether it's true or not.

 

[leibowde84]

I just noticed a blurb on Fox News where Judge Andrew Napolitano said that Obama went around the chain of command and used a British spy agency to surveil Trump. He said that he has three intelligence sources and that the person who ordered it resigned three days after Trump's inauguration. I haven't found any other sources confirming this, so it's hard to say whether it's true or not.

Sounds pretty outlandish, but if there is any evidence, I would certainly like to see it. Fox News has a tendancy for false reporting. Can you provide a link?

 

[metis]

Correction: It's the Fox Propaganda Channel, an arm of the Republican Party.

 

[Revoltingest]

That is ridiculous, though. If they were just releasing emails from both sides, you might have a point. But, they were releasing certain emails that helped Trump and they were doing so to influence the outcome of the election. They weren't doing us a favor, they released emails that harmed the democrats for their own interests.

You can't really believe that they did it in the interest of transparency, can you? I mean, this is the Russians we are talking about. Honesty, fairness, transparency ... these are things that Putin despises.

Whatever their motives, the airing of dirty laundry is a good thing....not ridiculous.
But perhaps there were no Pub emails of similar wrongful election conspiring to release.
After all, the Dems did dishonestly anoint Hilda while giving Bernie the boot.
The Pubs had a more open primary election process.

 

[Revoltingest]

I don't care what emails they get. I don't want any of our enemies to influence our election. That is part of the reason why I don't like wikileaks too. They aided our enemy in meddling in our election.

You mean they "harmed" our enemy (Hillary).

 

[leibowde84]

But perhaps there were no Pub emails of similar wrongful election conspiring to release.

what on earth would make you think that was possible?

 

[leibowde84]

You mean they "harmed" our enemy (Hillary).

Trump is the enemy. Hilary was merely a flawed candidate.

 

[Revoltingest]

what on earth would make you think that was possible?

Because it is possible.
We saw the candidate least favored by party elites win the nomination.
This is the opposite of what the Dems did.
So yes, it's entirely possible that the flavor of political corruption in one party wasn't present in the other....this time.