"Trump falsely accuses Obama of wiretapping his phone"

[Riders]

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.

Republican Politicians in the white house disagree with you, several of them said Republicans feel like is an in needed distraction they don't need. Guess your a democrat. Oh your a Trump supporter not a Republican got it.

 

[Shad]

I think one should be very careful when one says something that one does not have the facts. So, let's look at what James Clapper has said.

From: Former DNI Clapper: 'I can deny' wiretap of Trump Tower

The last sentence is a CYA.

Yes a known liar should be taken at his word. I'm convinced.

 

[Revoltingest]

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?

An investigation needn't deal with he specifically said.
Instead, it could deal with related possible misdeeds (which I pointed out earlier).

 

[leibowde84]

Republican Politicians in the white house disagree with you, several of them said Republicans feel like is an in needed distraction they don't need. Guess your a democrat. Oh your a Trump supporter not a Republican got it.

Not sure what you are getting at here. I am not a Trump supporter. Where did you get that from?

 

[leibowde84]

An investigation needn't deal with he specifically said.
Instead, it could deal with related possible misdeeds (which I pointed out earlier).

I am not comfortable with letting Trump off the hook like that. Trump made a very specific accusation without providing any supporting evidence. If evidence comes out that Obama did anything illegal, then it should be investigated. But, Trump has to be held accountable for what he actually wrote.

 

[Revoltingest]

I am not comfortable with letting Trump off the hook like that. Trump made a very specific accusation without providing any supporting evidence. If evidence comes out that Obama did anything illegal, then it should be investigated. But, Trump has to be held accountable for what he actually wrote.

It's fine with me if you want to criticize Trump for reckless speech.
I agree that it was.

 

[Riders]

Not sure what you are getting at here. I am not a Trump supporter. Where did you get that from?

I'm a little slow don't listen to me,I get mixed up in long political threads at times, Ill try to listen better next time.

 

[Stevicus]

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.

I don't know if it's true or not. If Trump has found evidence of this, then I'd be interested in seeing it presented as well. Perhaps he's waiting for the proper time or forum to present his evidence. I'm not sure what it could be, though. The best they could do is come up with someone who worked in the Obama administration or in the FBI and say that they witnessed Obama give an order to wiretap Trump. But without any corroborating evidence or any documentation, then it probably won't go anywhere.

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.

Well, yeah, I suppose he can be ridiculed for that - or just about anything else. We're all free to ridicule the president or anyone we want.

I'm not sure how "seriously" we should take this claim. Or at least, if it turns out to be false, I don't see it as the end of the world. It'll pass, and there will likely be more things that Trump might say in the future which could spark even more controversy and ridicule. Just grab a box of popcorn and enjoy the show.

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.

There is no "hook" here to let him off from. Sure, he can be ridiculed, but that's about it.

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.

Of course, that's why this has to be investigated.

I'm not sure what Trump is or isn't pointing out here. Even if he isn't pointing out some general problem with surveillance, then I sure as heck am. I think that's what we have to hold our whole government accountable for.

Sure, I get what you're saying about unsubstantiated claims, and I'll wait and see what kind of case is actually presented here.

Whether or not it should be ridiculed is a matter of opinion dependent upon how "ridiculous" the claim might be. Just because a claim might be unsubstantiated doesn't automatically make it "ridiculous."

 

[Jeremiahcp]

Then danger abounds.

A statement like the one you made presupposes guilt without any evidence. You are not just looking for an investigation, you already decided Obama is guilty of something and all on a baseless claim made by Trump. You can try to pretend this is about something else, but it is just sloppy reasoning on your part.

 

[fantome profane]

It's fine with me if you want to criticize Trump for reckless speech.
I agree that it was.

By "reckless speech" do you by chance mean libel?

 

[Revoltingest]

A statement like the one you made presupposes guilt without any evidence. You are not just looking for an investigation, you already decided Obama is guilty of something and all on a baseless claim made by Trump.

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

You can try to pretend this is about something else, but it is just sloppy reasoning on your part.

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

 

[Revoltingest]

By "reckless speech" do you by chance mean libel?

It could meet the legal definition of libel.
The problem is that in politics, the standards of accuracy are much lower than other areas.
Obama would be extremely unlikely to prevail in court.

 

[esmith]

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

Get with the time @Revoltingest ........Time to switch over to the digital age.....

 

[Revoltingest]

Get with the time @Revoltingest ........Time to switch over to the digital age.....

Another meter I have rated your idea.

 

[idav]

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

If I tweeted non stop that you wire tapped the Oval Office that must make it possible.

 

[fantome profane]

It could meet the legal definition of libel.
The problem is that in politics, the standards of accuracy are much lower than other areas.
Obama would be extremely unlikely to prevail in court.

Maybe after Trump "opens up" the libel laws Obama might have a better chance.

 

[Revoltingest]

If I tweeted non stop that you wire tapped the Oval Office that must make it possible.

I could be Obama disguised by internet anonymity.

 

[Revoltingest]

Maybe after Trump "opens up" the libel laws Obama might have a better chance.

Could be.
But I've little hope that Trump will do any tort reform.

 

[esmith]

Another meter I have rated your idea.

Ouch!!!
At least it didn't peg the meter.
We had a saying that if you didn't burn-up at least one Simpson multi-meter you weren't taking care of your equipment.

 

[Revoltingest]

Ouch!!!
At least it didn't peg the meter.
We had a saying that if you didn't burn-up at least one Simpson multi-meter you weren't taking care of your equipment.

I remember the Simpsons well from grade school electronics classes.

Some new news about government snooping....
Vault7 - Home

This one could be accused of bias....
Wikileaks: CIA 'Stole' Russian Malware, Uses It to ‘Misdirect Attribution’ of Cyber Attacks