"Trump falsely accuses Obama of wiretapping his phone"

[Riders]

How do you know that Obama didn't tap the phones at Trump Towers? Fact is you don't. He might have tapped them. Under Obama there was much spying going on, much of it illegal. The DNC was acting in an unethical manner and Obama might have been looking for things that could be used against Trump and thus have his phones tapped. I'm not a fan of Trump either. I don't like either Trump or Obama.

Considering the fact that other Republicans have come out against him on tv and its Trump we know it didn't. Whatever you can believe what you want, but considering the fact that Trump is have a mental break down tweeting all night melt down and his staff aren't on his side, if it were true, I sure would want trump in office.

 

[Riders]

You really believe that? Tell me why this thread exists and the accusations?

Because as usual instead of running this country Trump is having a screaming tantrum fit tweeting all night in the white house and totally unhappy with his situation and hates being President apparently you supporters are coming out even though his own party is against him making fools of yourself.

 

[leibowde84]

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

With all due respect, I am losing you here. Trump said that it was a "fact" that "Obama ordered" wiretaps on his campaign specifically. Will you at least admit that there has not been any evidence presented of this specific claim?

Also, apart from mere claims from Snowden, is there any evidence that Obama ordered "illegal" surveillance of citizens? My point is that you must agree that mere claims should not be sufficient to initiate a congressional investigation, as that would open the door to endless baseless investigations.

 

[leibowde84]

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.

This is a troubling opinion, imho. Trump claimed that it was a "fact" that "Obama ordered" Trump's campaign to be wiretapped. If there is verifiable evidence of Obama ordering wiretaps of civilians, that is serious and should be investigated. But, I have not seen anything more than unsubstantiated claims. If you can provide some, I'm definitely interested in seeing it.

But, Trump's accusations are far more serious. Trump is the President, and we should take everything he says seriously. His claim was very specific and he stated it as "fact". Unless he can provide the evidence he is basing this claim of "fact" on, he should be held accountable. If he cannot provide this evidence, he deserves to be ridiculed.

We cannot fall into the trap of letting him off the hook merely because he's Trump and he makes many unsubstantiated claims. Or that he is pointing out some "weakness" in our system.

He clearly wasn't pointing out some general problem with surveillance. He, in writing, made a very specific claim of illegal activity by a specific former President. We have to hold him accountable for his claim of "fact". Nothing less.

 

[jonathan180iq]

How do you know that Obama didn't tap the phones at Trump Towers? Fact is you don't.

If I may interject here...

Not to call you out specifically, Jeff, because I see this all the time - but this line of reasoning is exactly what's wrong with modern debate and discourse.

We are in the midst of a long, opinionated forum discussion about the legitimacy of an event which, to this point, is wholly unsubstantiated. Are we not?

If Trump tweeted tomorrow morning that "Hillary Clinton is a vampire! (What a sick person)", would it be productive in the course of discussion is ask "How do you know that Hillary Clinton isn't a vampire? Fact is, you don't."

Until evidence is presented that Hillary participates in vampire-like practices, at the very least, the whole discussion is nothing more than a national feeding of the trolls.

Any claim, any claim at all, must be taken solely on the merits of its supporting evidentiary - not on the willful emotion of it's claimant. Even if Jesus Christ himself came down and said that Obama wiretapped Trump Tower, you'd still better be asking for supporting evidence.

 

[Callisto]

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.

Actually, that's not the take away at all. Trump has proven himself to be a colossal hypocrite time and again. He's against anything he can accuse someone else of doing but would ignore it for himself. E.g., railed against Hillary's use of a private server as a national security risk while he himself continues to use his own private unsecured cell phone. Railed about supposed voter fraud with people registered in two states allegedly voting twice for HRC despite the fact that people in his own camp like Tiffany Trump, son-in-law Jared Kushner, Steve Bannon, Steve Mnuchin, Reince Priebus, and Sean Spicer are all registered in more than one state. Did they vote for HRC twice or did they vote for him twice?

He finger points in hopes of redirecting heat off of himself. He claims there's smoke but it's just the fetid odor of his own hot air. This is his m.o., cry wolf to deflect deserved scrutiny.

 

[jonathan180iq]

This is a troubling opinion, imho. Trump claimed that it was a "fact" that "Obama ordered" Trump's campaign to be wiretapped. If there is verifiable evidence of Obama ordering wiretaps of civilians, that is serious and should be investigated. But, I have not seen anything more than unsubstantiated claims. If you can provide some, I'm definitely interested in seeing it.

But, Trump's accusations are far more serious. Trump is the President, and we should take everything he says seriously. His claim was very specific and he stated it as "fact". Unless he can provide the evidence he is basing this claim of "fact" on, he should be held accountable. If he cannot provide this evidence, he deserves to be ridiculed.

We cannot fall into the trap of letting him off the hook merely because he's Trump and he makes many unsubstantiated claims. Or that he is pointing out some "weakness" in our system.

He clearly wasn't pointing out some general problem with surveillance. He, in writing, made a very specific claim of illegal activity by a specific former President. We have to hold him accountable for his claim of "fact". Nothing less.

Voter fraud was also a "fact" that Trump knew more about than anyone else, remember?

People have to stop pretending that he's some knowledgeable or wise man who is aware of more information than us and start seeing him for what he is - a grumpy old man who watches late-night right-wing news and then spouts off opinions based upon it. He's being President by-proxy, forming opinions and distributing tweets based on what he hears on TV. It's something that we should find disturbing. Instead, we promote it in the public forum.

 

[leibowde84]

How do you know that Obama didn't tap the phones at Trump Towers? Fact is you don't.

Are you serious with this?! Just because a negative cannot be proved or known does not in any way prop up Trump's very specific unsupported claim of "fact".

All signs are pointing to Trump using a tabloid (Breitbart) and a conspiracy from a conservative radio host (Mark Levin) as evidence for something he claims to be "fact". That is pretty darn pathetic, especially for the leader of the free world.

 

[leibowde84]

Voter fraud was also a "fact" that Trump knew more about than anyone else, remember?

People have to stop pretending that he's some knowledgeable or wise man who is aware of more information than us and start seeing him for what he is - a grumpy old man who watches late-night right-wing news and then spouts off opinions based upon it. He's being President by-proxy, forming opinions and distributing tweets based on what he hears on TV. It's something that we should find disturbing. Instead, we promote it in the public forum.

I don't think we promote it. The media has no choice but to hold Trump accountable for every word he says, especially when he puts it in writing. Or, maybe I misunderstood what you were getting at.

 

[Revoltingest]

With all due respect, I am losing you here. Trump said that it was a "fact" that "Obama ordered" wiretaps on his campaign specifically. Will you at least admit that there has not been any evidence presented of this specific claim?

Trump's histrionics notwithstanding, the claim is possibly correct.
What's to fear from investigating it?

Also, apart from mere claims from Snowden, is there any evidence that Obama ordered "illegal" surveillance of citizens? My point is that you must agree that mere claims should not be sufficient to initiate a congressional investigation, as that would open the door to endless baseless investigations.

Your question is narrowly worded.
There are other possibilities of impropriety.....
- Obama created a climate for lawless surveillance.
- Obama was apprised of the wiretapping, but simply didn't stop it.
As for the validity of his claims, I'm not in a good position to judge.

 

[leibowde84]

Trump's histrionics notwithstanding, the claim is possibly correct.
What's to fear from investigating it?

Trump's claim was that it is a "fact" that "Obama ordered" the "illegal" wiretaps. I have not seen anything even suggesting that this specific claim is accurate. For an investigation to be warranted, there must be evidence of the following:
1. Trump's campaign was "wiretapped" during the campaign.
2. There was no legally authorized order for said wiretap.
Has Trump provided any evidence to support these claims?

Your question is narrowly worded.
There are other possibilities of impropriety.....
- Obama created a climate for lawless surveillance.
- Obama was apprised of the wiretapping, but simply didn't stop it.
As for the validity of his claims, I'm not in a good position to judge.

Trump's claim is that it is a "fact" that "Obama ordered" an "illegal" wiretap during Trump's campaign. It is an extremely specific accusation. If it is going to be investigated, Trump must be held accountable for his specific words. I'm tired of people giving him a break merely because he makes these unsubstantiated claims all the time.

 

[RESOLUTION]

Because as usual instead of running this country Trump is having a screaming tantrum fit tweeting all night in the white house and totally unhappy with his situation and hates being President apparently you supporters are coming out even though his own party is against him making fools of yourself.

Not American and I do not live in the USA. Next!

 

[RESOLUTION]

Trump's claim was that it is a "fact" that "Obama ordered" the "illegal" wiretaps. I have not seen anything even suggesting that this specific claim is accurate. For an investigation to be warranted, there must be evidence of the following:
1. Trump's campaign was "wiretapped" during the campaign.
2. There was no legally authorized order for said wiretap.
Has Trump provided any evidence to support these claims?
Trump's claim is that it is a "fact" that "Obama ordered" an "illegal" wiretap during Trump's campaign. It is an extremely specific accusation. If it is going to be investigated, Trump must be held accountable for his specific words. I'm tired of people giving him a break merely because he makes these unsubstantiated claims all the time.

Obama, is hardly likely to publish the evidence or for that matter admit to it.

If there was a wire tap it would have been illegal.

If they had found anything presuming it happened they would have found some way to use it.

Now we can all rest in pleasant thoughts that no one is really interested.

 

[Jeremiahcp]

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

That is a dangerous way to think right there.

 

[leibowde84]

Obama, is hardly likely to publish the evidence or for that matter admit to it.

If there was a wire tap it would have been illegal.

If they had found anything presuming it happened they would have found some way to use it.

Now we can all rest in pleasant thoughts that no one is really interested.

There are certainly legal ways of wiretapping in the US. The FISA court can help to achieve this.

 

[RESOLUTION]

There are certainly legal ways of wiretapping in the US. The FISA court can help to achieve this.

If you are a known criminal or are suspected of committing a crime. Other wise how would you get the necessary warrant and permissions?

 

[leibowde84]

If you are a known criminal or are suspected of committing a crime. Other wise how would you get the necessary warrant and permissions?

I mean, the explanation going around is that Obama could have requested a warrant from a FISA judge, suspecting the Trump campaign of colluding with Russian officials. They presented their argument and the judge agreed that a wiretap was warranted. But, all signs are pointing to that not being the case. All pertinent officials, thus far, have stated that no US ordered wiretap existed. So, not only has Trump not provided any evidence. Evidence is actually pointing to his claim being bogus.

 

[Revoltingest]

Trump's claim was that it is a "fact" that "Obama ordered" the "illegal" wiretaps. I have not seen anything even suggesting that this specific claim is accurate. For an investigation to be warranted, there must be evidence of the following:
1. Trump's campaign was "wiretapped" during the campaign.
2. There was no legally authorized order for said wiretap.
Has Trump provided any evidence to support these claims?
Trump's claim is that it is a "fact" that "Obama ordered" an "illegal" wiretap during Trump's campaign. It is an extremely specific accusation. If it is going to be investigated, Trump must be held accountable for his specific words. I'm tired of people giving him a break merely because he makes these unsubstantiated claims all the time.

Your argument against investigating it hinges too much upon Trump's specific words.
His less than skilled language doesn't eliminate all merit in the claim.

 

[Revoltingest]

That is a dangerous way to think right there.

Then danger abounds.

 

[leibowde84]

Your argument against investigating it hinges too much upon Trump's specific words.
His less than skilled language doesn't eliminate all merit in the claim.

The claim is very specific. He wrote the claim knowing that it would be cataloged forever, as it is literally "in writing". And, he bypassed language like, "I think it is likely that", "we suspect", "evidence points to", or "there is a high probability". He specifically referred to the claim as "fact", stating that "Obama ordered" an "illegal" wiretap on his campaign at his building in NYC. If any president put this claim in writing for public consumption, we would hold them to account on every word. We certainly have in the past when it comes to criminal accusations. And, when it comes to accusing a former president ... forget about it.

Why should we give Trump any slack?