"Trump falsely accuses Obama of wiretapping his phone"

[idav]

This is not an admission of collusion with the Trump campaign. Russian officials are permitted to contact members of a future administration to begin building relationships. But, that being said, Trump and his surrogates have expressly stated that they did not have meetings with Russian officials during the campaign, which seems to be patently false.

Right not evidence of collusion but enough for an inquiry which I'm sure has been going since during the campaign.

 

[leibowde84]

Right not evidence of collusion but enough for an inquiry which I'm sure has been going since during the campaign.

It might even be enough for a legal wiretap, to tell you the truth. Russia is a foreign adversary. So, if it was known that they were meddling in the election and that Trump's admin. was meeting with Russian officials, that might be enough for a FISA judge to approve a wiretap.

 

[Stevicus]

He published a false statement that is damaging to a former President's reputation. If it turns out that all officials confirm it is false (many have already), then Obama can sue him for Libel. I would hope that he does, as it would be a way to hold Trump accountable for what he publishes on Twitter.

Can one sue a sitting president? I didn't think that was possible, although I could be wrong. But either way, that's up to Obama to do.

A claim like this is "ridiculous" if it is not based on anything more than a tabloid article (Breitbart) and a conservative talk show host's rant (Levin), as it is a serious accusation of criminal activity by a sitting President. Doesn't get much more ridiculous than that.

Only if one believes that politicians are always honest and ethical.

 

[leibowde84]

Only if one believes that politicians are always honest and ethical.

I disagree. If we want politicians to be more honest and ethical, we have to hold them accountable for the claims that they make. Trump made a criminal accusation against Obama. A very specific one. Then, he refused to explain why he considers it a "fact" that Obama ordered "illegal wiretaps" on "Trump Tower". We should all hold Trump responsible for providing his reasoning behind his supreme confidence that the accusation is accurate. Until he does that, congress doesn't have anything to work with.

 

[Stevicus]

I disagree. If we want politicians to be more honest and ethical, we have to hold them accountable for the claims that they make. Trump made a criminal accusation against Obama. A very specific one. Then, he refused to explain why he considers it a "fact" that Obama ordered "illegal wiretaps" on "Trump Tower". We should all hold Trump responsible for providing his reasoning behind his supreme confidence that the accusation is accurate. Until he does that, congress doesn't have anything to work with.

Granted, but we also have to hold them accountable for cleaning up their own house and policing their own profession. However, we're talking about how outlandish or "ridiculous" such a claim might be considered - even before the opportunity to present evidence is given.

Just as a counter example, if a used car salesman is accused of fraud, it would still be an accusation in need of evidence to support it. But would it be "ridiculous"? Hardly, since used car salesmen have a longstanding reputation for dishonesty. Or if we say "O.J. Simpson is a murderer," that would also be an unsubstantiated claim, since he was never actually convicted of murder. But it wouldn't be "ridiculous" by any standard.

 

[Revoltingest]

I'm saying that they should require Trump to disclose the evidence he has that convinced him this is a fact, not merely a suspicion. Until that evidence is received, they really have nothing to go off of. Again, the accusation was very specific. It would be a "witch hunt" if they merely were investigating any possible surveillance efforts, legal or not.

With the Russia/Trump issue, there is evidence that Russian officials attempted to illegally influence the US election in favor of Trump. And, no one claimed that it was a "fact" that Trump's administration colluded with the Russians in any specific way. And, we all know that Trump's own surrogates/appointees cast suspicion on themselves by providing false statements regarding meetings with Russian officials.

With Trump's allegations of Obama, Trump stated that it was a "fact", that the wiretaps were ordered by Obama himself, and that they were illegal (not via judicial approval). And, there has been no evidence that his allegation stands muster. Evidence would have to show that Obama ordered illegal wiretaps on the Trump Campaign at Trump Tower in NYC.

Again, I think you're too quick to hinge it all upon what Trump specifically said,
rather than related areas worthy of investigation.

 

[Revoltingest]

I mean, Wikileaks is not a reliable source at all. They can literally claim whatever they want without providing corroborating evidence or checking with sources (kind of like the Donald).

When they release emails, there is no reason to believe that they don't alter said emails, as they don't wait for confirmation.

Oddly, the earlier released emails weren't challenged.
Had they been bogus or even slightly altered, we'd have seen specific outcries.
This strongly points towards substance worth understanding, even if it isn't admissible in court.

 

[Revoltingest]

Trump did make the charge formally.

Well, there you go.
We shall see if an investigation happens, & what it turns up.

 

[idav]

Well, there you go.
We shall see if an investigation happens, & what it turns up.

Sure he asked congress to look into it while they investigate Russia with no evidence.

 

[Jeremiahcp]

That's a silly pronouncement.
There's no way I could know such a thing.
I've only argued that appearances suggest the possibility.

Pretend?
Uh oh.....now you've done it....& it was just repaired yesterday!

"I've only argued that appearances suggest the possibility."

I watched a potential juror for a local court hearing removed for saying the exact same thing you did. He was assuming that the defendant was guilty of something simply because he was on trail. He could not say what that something was, but he assumed he was on trail because he did something. So they removed the juror and replaced him with the next in line. He had an assumption of guilt without hearing any of the evidence. He was already bias towards the defendant before even examining the evidence.

"appearances"

A subjective interpretation on your part.

"suggest the possibility"

No they don't. That is what you are suggesting; not the "appearances".

Like that juror you are making baseless assumptions. You have no real evidence of a "fire", that is a preconception you have made by yourself.

"Uh oh.....now you've done it....& it was just repaired yesterday!"

Well, they clearly miscalibrated it as that is not even what irony is.

 

[Revoltingest]

I watched a potential juror for a local court hearing removed for saying the exact same thing you did. He was assuming that the defendant was guilty of something simply because he was on trail.

Some thoughts...
- I'm not a juror in Obama's trial, so I get to opine more freely.
- Your comments would very likely get you kicked off Obama's jury too.
- Your 1st sentence doesn't lead to the 2nd.

"appearances"
A subjective interpretation on your part.

Yes.
So?

"suggest the possibility"
No they don't. That is what you are suggesting; not the "appearances".

We disagree.

Like that juror you are making baseless assumptions. You have no real evidence of a "fire", that is a preconception you have made by yourself.

Says the guy bursting with preconceptions.

"Uh oh.....now you've done it....& it was just repaired yesterday!"
Well, they clearly miscalibrated it as that is not even what irony is.

It has now become sarchasm.

 

[Revoltingest]

In the news....
https://www.usnews.com/news/nationa...rump-is-absolutely-right-about-wiretap-claims

From the article....
President Donald Trump is "absolutely right" to claim he was wiretapped and monitored, a former NSA official claimed Monday, adding that the administration risks falling victim to further leaks if it continues to run afoul of the intelligence community.

"I think the president is absolutely right. His phone calls, everything he did electronically, was being monitored," Bill Binney, a 36-year veteran of the National Security Agency who resigned in protest from the organization in 2001, told Fox Business on Monday. Everyone's conversations are being monitored and stored, Binney said.

 

[Jeremiahcp]

Some thoughts...
- I'm not a juror in Obama's trial, so I get to opine more freely.
- Your comments would very likely get you kicked off Obama's jury too.
- Your 1st sentence doesn't lead to the 2nd.

Yes.
So?

We disagree.

Says the guy bursting with preconceptions.

It has now become sarchasm.

"I'm not a juror in Obama's trial, so I get to opine more freely."

Sound practical reasoning is sound practical reasoning both in the court room and out of it.

I admit I have made assumptions with no real evidence in this thread. However, I can admit it and I am not accusing anyone of a crime and suggesting an investigation be made.

"- Your comments would very likely get you kicked off Obama's jury too."

Which comments?

"It has now become sarchasm."

Don't get upset, it is a common mistake.

 

[averageJOE]

Well, there you go.
We shall see if an investigation happens, & what it turns up.

Investigation? Trump made a conclusive statement that his phones were tapped. If he said something along the lines of "I believe Obama had my phones tapped" then an investigation could happen. (Maybe)

But that's not what he said: "Terrible! Just found out that Obama had my 'wires tapped' in Trump Tower just before the victory. Nothing found. This is McCarthyism!"

"Just found out..." That only mean's that that is the conclusion of an investigation. What everyone is asking is to show us.

 

[metis]

Investigation? Trump made a conclusive statement that his phones were tapped. If he said something along the lines of "I believe Obama had my phones tapped" then an investigation could happen. (Maybe)

But that's not what he said: "Terrible! Just found out that Obama had my 'wires tapped' in Trump Tower just before the victory. Nothing found. This is McCarthyism!"

"Just found out..." That only mean's that that is the conclusion of an investigation. What everyone is asking is to show us.

Exactly, and that's why they have moved the goalposts from what Trump had said. According to some news reports based on what's been happening inside the White House since Trump spouted such utter stupidity is that they're scrambling to cut back on the fallout.

Ya just can't make this stuff up but, as we've seen, his base simply does not care how much he lies or spouts nonsense-- it's the blind following the blind.

 

[esmith]

Moscow had contacts with Trump team during campaign, Russian diplomat says

Yes, the now Attorney General met with the Russian Ambassador and the Attorney General was part of the Trump campaign. So what. Do you not think that the Russians didn't have contact with anyone in the Hillary or for a matter of fact any campaign members of any party.

 

[leibowde84]

Granted, but we also have to hold them accountable for cleaning up their own house and policing their own profession. However, we're talking about how outlandish or "ridiculous" such a claim might be considered - even before the opportunity to present evidence is given.

Just as a counter example, if a used car salesman is accused of fraud, it would still be an accusation in need of evidence to support it. But would it be "ridiculous"? Hardly, since used car salesmen have a longstanding reputation for dishonesty. Or if we say "O.J. Simpson is a murderer," that would also be an unsubstantiated claim, since he was never actually convicted of murder. But it wouldn't be "ridiculous" by any standard.

Let me explain my reasoning, as your analogy here isn't quite the same. Trump claimed it to be "fact" that Obama ordered illegal wiretaps on Trump Tower. He made that accusation publicly, and he did it as his own Attorney General was under the gun for providing false testimony to the Senate under oath. Unless Trump has incredibly bad judgment (which would be bad enough), he must have information that led him to think this was not just likely, but factual. And, he's had plenty of time to provide this information. Today, Spicer said that Trump is not going to provide any information that led him to this conclusion.

Trump could easily ask the FBI, who would certainly know whether this took place. Yet he has refused to do so. And, the head of the FBI came out saying that the accusation was false. So, unless Trump just pulled it out of thin air, he must have information that makes him confident that Obama did, in fact, order the wiretap.

So, back to your analogy, it would be like someone saying "I know for a fact that this used car salesman committed fraud against me in October." Then, when asked for more information, explaining that he can't investigate the salesman without an explanation as to what happened, the person refuses to provide any further information, yet still demands that the cop investigates the used car salesman.

 

[Revoltingest]

Sound practical reasoning is sound practical reasoning both in the court room and out of it.

Different standards apply.
And your double standard (allowing accusations of Trump but not Obama) regarding investigation doesn't fly.

I admit I have made assumptions with no real evidence in this thread. However, I can admit it and I am not accusing anyone of a crime and suggesting an investigation be made.

And you think I've accused someone of a crime.....who & what?

"- Your comments would very likely get you kicked off Obama's jury too."
Which comments?
"It has now become sarchasm."
Don't get upset, it is a common mistake.

Me no upsettie.
Really!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

 

[Revoltingest]

Investigation? Trump made a conclusive statement that his phones were tapped. If he said something along the lines of "I believe Obama had my phones tapped" then an investigation could happen. (Maybe)

But that's not what he said: "Terrible! Just found out that Obama had my 'wires tapped' in Trump Tower just before the victory. Nothing found. This is McCarthyism!"

"Just found out..." That only mean's that that is the conclusion of an investigation. What everyone is asking is to show us.

Trump does have his way with words.
Too bad it isn't backed up by better reason.

 

[idav]

Yes, the now Attorney General met with the Russian Ambassador and the Attorney General was part of the Trump campaign. So what. Do you not think that the Russians didn't have contact with anyone in the Hillary or for a matter of fact any campaign members of any party.

Right and nothing for anyone to lie about or get fired over or recuse themselves over.