"Trump falsely accuses Obama of wiretapping his phone"

[leibowde84]

Certainly, Obama's & Hillary's fans would see it that way.

No, it's just common sense and decency. Without evidence of any kind, accusations of this magnitude should not be made publicly.

We have a war between Dems & Trump.
The former want his tax return, with no evidence of any wrongdoing.

Every presidential candidate (in modern history) has provided their Tax Returns. So, there is no accusation necessary. It creates reasonable suspicion that Trump would break with the tradition. And, we, as citizens, have a right to know who our President is indebted to so we can hold him accountable for his actions.

Unless he has something to hide, he has no plausible reason for keeping them secret. We all already know he didn't pay taxes, and that was above board. Nothing wrong with that. But, it is important to know whether he owes money to lenders from overseas.

They talk of Russian control without proof, & of pursuing it in court.

His administration is doing the work for the Dems. Flynn lied and had to resign, and now Sessions, at the very least, was an idiot in not admitting to meetings he had with the Russian ambassador during the campaign. Because Sessions provided a false statement in front of congress, there is reasonable suspicion. So, Trump's administration can only look to themselves for fanning this flame.

 

[leibowde84]

There's an order to things.
Evidence is what follows investigation.
If it had to be first, you wouldn't be able to investigate much.

That's not true at all. For an investigation to take place, there must be initial supporting evidence. Obviously it doesn't have to be solid proof, but there must be some kind of support for the accusation for it to be taken seriously. Trump has not provided anything of the sort. Thus, it should be dismissed until he does.

 

[Revoltingest]

No, it's just common sense and decency. Without evidence of any kind, accusations of this magnitude should not be made publicly.

Decency...you expect that after the campaigns?

Every presidential candidate (in modern history) has provided their Tax Returns. So, there is no accusation necessary. It creates reasonable suspicion that Trump would break with the tradition. And, we, as citizens, have a right to know who our President is indebted to so we can hold him accountable for his actions.

Divulging returns is naught but a tradition.
Although Dems on NPR are talking of filing suit in state courts to force it.

Unless he has something to hide, he has no plausible reason for keeping them secret. We all already know he didn't pay taxes, and that was above board. Nothing wrong with that. But, it is important to know whether he owes money to lenders from overseas.

His administration is doing the work for the Dems. Flynn lied and had to resign, and now Sessions, at the very least, was an idiot in not admitting to meetings he had with the Russian ambassador during the campaign. Because Sessions provided a false statement in front of congress, there is reasonable suspicion. So, Trump's administration can only look to themselves for fanning this flame.

Flynn's problems aren't evidence of anyone else's guilt.
Basicly, you're fishing for reasons to investigate Trump & crew,
while ignoring Democratic problems, eg, Obama & Pelosi.

 

[leibowde84]

It is indeed a simple fact.
Is there a law compelling him to make it public?

No, that has nothing to do with it. He said that he would release them to the public. He should follow through on his pledge.

"Seem" isn't strong basis for congressional inquiry.

No congressional inquiry. He should just release them to the public.

I particularly love Pelosi's uncovered lie about never having met the Russian.

She didn't say that. She said that she didn't meet with that specific Russian ambassador.

 

[Revoltingest]

That's not true at all. For an investigation to take place, there must be initial supporting evidence. Obviously it doesn't have to be solid proof, but there must be some kind of support for the accusation for it to be taken seriously. Trump has not provided anything of the sort. Thus, it should be dismissed until he does.

If the basis for investing Trump's Russian ties is the standard, then
it would justify investigating the Obama admin's illegal wiretapping.
And we do have much of the latter.

 

[suncowiam]

It is indeed a simple fact.
Is there a law compelling him to make it public?

"Seem" isn't strong basis for congressional inquiry.

Sounds like a pretty weak probable cause.
I wouldn't take this p***ing match between Trump, Obama, & other Dems too seriously.
It even seems quite entertaining.
The more accusations, revelations & investigations the better.
I particularly love Pelosi's uncovered lie about never having met the Russian.

There's no law for Trump to release his taxes but we know for sure not to believe him in the future concerning any taxes. What else should we believe him is more a personal matter but I can't assume he won't lie about other things.

I disagree. There's much at stake concerning Russian influence for us to ensure there should be none. This is Trump's hand given what has happened. It's not fair but it's reality. If he comes out proven to have no collusion then I think it will make his party and influence stronger. It could also weaken credibility with the Democrats and the intelligence agency. It's a double sided sword but I say we do it just to ensure the truth. I'm fine if either case happens just as long as there are no further corruption from both sides to influence a result.

Pelosi met the Russians too? I missed that. Care to catch me up on that?

 

[leibowde84]

Flynn's problems aren't evidence of anyone else's guilt.
Basicly, you're fishing for reasons to investigate Trump & crew,
while ignoring Democratic problems, eg, Obama & Pelosi.

If Flynn, Sessions and others were up front about any meetings with Russian officials, I would wholeheartedly agree. But, they falsely denied these meetings and what was actually talked about. How could that not lead to reasonable suspicion?!

With Obama, there is no evidence that he did any wiretapping at all. It is just a baseless accusation, whereas the russian entanglement is now fueled by misleading statements by members of Trump's administration.

 

[Revoltingest]

No, that has nothing to do with it. He said that he would release them to the public. He should follow through on his pledge.
No congressional inquiry. He should just release them to the public.
She didn't say that. She said that she didn't meet with that specific Russian ambassador.

I don't understand your complaint.
A politician made a promise, & then he broke it.
What's the big deal?
What will you do about it?

 

[leibowde84]

If the basis for investing Trump's Russian ties is the standard, then
it would justify investigating the Obama admin's illegal wiretapping.
And we do have much of the latter.

What evidence of illegal wiretapping by the Obama Administration is there? Can you provide any?

 

[leibowde84]

I don't understand your complaint.
A politician made a promise, & then he broke it.
What's the big deal?
What will you do about it?

I guess you are right. It isn't surprising. Trump might be the most dishonest politician I've seen in my lifetime.

 

[Revoltingest]

What evidence of illegal wiretapping by the Obama Administration is there? Can you provide any?

It's been in the news, although with minimal coverage on some sources.
Edward Snowden: Leaks that exposed US spy programme - BBC News

 

[esmith]

What evidence of illegal wiretapping by the Obama Administration is there? Can you provide any?

Depends on what you consider "illegal".
Obama on Mass Government Surveillance, Then and Now

 

[Jeremiahcp]

Hook line and sinker gobble his BS up.

"The Daily 202: Wiretapping allegations accomplished what Trump wanted – but may backfire bigly"

It is past time to dispense with the fiction that Trump doesn’t know what he’s doing. He knows exactly what he’s doing. He is trying to distract us. And, at least this weekend, he succeeded.

The president knows the media cannot ignore him when he says something so inflammatory, and he believes there will be no real consequences for him if it turns out that everything he said was nonsense

Whenever he is under fire for something in a sustained way, he makes a shocking claim or provocative declaration about something else to change the subject. He is a master practitioner at the politics of distraction. These five examples might jog your memory:

The Daily 202: Wiretapping allegations accomplished what Trump wanted – but may backfire bigly

Wake up. He is a reality T.V. star, he knows how to divert people's attention and he is playing the public (and the media) like a deck of cards.

There is nothing to this Obama wiretap nonsense, he just wants everyone to look that way instead of at his administration.

 

[leibowde84]

It's been in the news, although with minimal coverage on some sources.
Edward Snowden: Leaks that exposed US spy programme - BBC News

Where does this even claim that Obama illegally wiretapped Trump's campaign?

 

[leibowde84]

Depends on what you consider "illegal".
Obama on Mass Government Surveillance, Then and Now

Illegal means against the law. If it was done in accordance with current law it isn't illegal.

 

[esmith]

Illegal means against the law. If it was done in accordance with current law it isn't illegal.

So waterboarding wasn't illegal then?

 

[Callisto]

Certainly, Obama's & Hillary's fans would see it that way

Any stable, intelligent person sees it that way.

 

[Revoltingest]

Where does this even claim that Obama illegally wiretapped Trump's campaign?

Again, where there's smoke there might be fire.
This is why an investigation is in order.

 

[Revoltingest]

Any stable, intelligent person sees it that way.

And Democrats too!

 

[Stevicus]

Sure, but unless evidence is provided, accusations of this kind should be ridiculed and laughed at.

If we allow Trump to get away with this and follow through on an investigation, what's next? Can I accuse you of selling secrets to the Russians, and, based on nothing more than this accusation, get congress to investigate you?

Trump's behavior is extremely damaging to American freedom.

It depends on how you mean by "damaging." After all, regardless of whether his accusation about Obama illegally wiretapping his phone is true or not, at least his statement is enough to conclude that he doesn't like the idea of a president (or any official) tapping into somebody's phone. That's what has been truly damaging to American freedom, and this has been going on for decades. The national security apparatus of this country is like an untamed beast, and a president who steps up to tame that beast might actually be doing more for the sake of American freedom than any of his predecessors.

That's the thing about all these accusations which seems to be getting missed. It's not really about Trump as much as it points up weaknesses in our own system. The reason why accusations like this are given any credence at all is because most Americans are already well aware of what their government has done and what it is capable of.

Same for the alleged Russian connection. Again, this only points up weaknesses within our system which most of us already should have been aware of. If we weren't, then that's on us, the people. If the people have been too complacent and arrogant as to believe that our political system is/was invulnerable to this sort of thing, then we deserve what we get. In the final analysis, it's the voters who are extremely damaging to American freedom for being so frikkin stupid.