Home
Log in / Sign Up
    Private Messages   Advanced Search   Rules   New User Guide   FAQ   Advertise   Contact Us  
Forum -> In the News
Trump’s Wiretapping Claim
  1  2  3  4  5  6  Next



Post new topic   Reply to topic View latest: 24h 48h 72h

Mevater




 
 
    
 

Post Sun, Mar 05 2017, 8:49 pm
Im addressing the below question to those who think Trump is totally sane and has some kind of proof or motive in regard to Obama wiretapping.

Those who think Trump is insane, thats their answer right there.

Those who think Trump is sane, what would make Trump insinuate and go public about his suspicion that Obama wiretapped him in Trump Tower?
Back to top

Rubber Ducky




 
 
    
 

Post Sun, Mar 05 2017, 9:09 pm
President Trump uses diversionary tactics to change the subject. Maybe he didn't like the accusations against Jeff Sessions — and the accusations targeting Sessions may have been an attempt by Democrats to change the subject after the president's excellent state of the union speech.
Back to top

Mevater




 
 
    
 

Post Sun, Mar 05 2017, 10:10 pm
Rubber Ducky wrote:
President Trump uses diversionary tactics to change the subject.


Possibly, but wont this serve to worsen Trump's already sullied reputation of nonsense talk, if this wont be proven or even attempted to be proven?
Back to top

youngishbear




 
 
    
 

Post Sun, Mar 05 2017, 10:12 pm
Mevater wrote:
Possibly, but wont this serve to worsen Trump's already sullied reputation of nonsense talk, if this wont be proven or even attempted to be proven?


It feeds right into his anti-Obama audience's conspiracy theories.
Back to top

MagentaYenta




 
 
    
 

Post Sun, Mar 05 2017, 10:19 pm
Rubber Ducky wrote:
President Trump uses diversionary tactics to change the subject. Maybe he didn't like the accusations against Jeff Sessions — and the accusations targeting Sessions may have been an attempt by Democrats to change the subject after the president's excellent state of the union speech.


Point of information: The State of the Union address is given annually beginning a presidents second year in office. This was merely a speech given to both houses.
Back to top

Rubber Ducky




 
 
    
 

Post Sun, Mar 05 2017, 10:40 pm
MagentaYenta wrote:
Point of information: The State of the Union address is given annually beginning a presidents second year in office. This was merely a speech given to both houses.
Yes, I know that the president's speech was not officially a State of the Union address — but de facto it was.
Back to top

Fox




 
 
    
 

Post Sun, Mar 05 2017, 10:51 pm
Most observers believe this is a "put up or shut up" move on President Trump's part.

The Democrats along with various media outlets have been alluding since before the inauguration to the existence of intercepted communications that show that Russia aided Trump's election.

However, none of these communications have ever been made public; there has been no explanation for the circumstances under which they were acquired; and the NY Times has admitted that they may not even exist (January 19).

Trump is essentially saying, "If you have something, bring it on and explain how and why you have it, and if you don't have anything, stop with the inuendo."

Given the Obama administration's history of using the federal government to target political opponents and Loretta Lynch's recent video that essentially calls for an insurgency, concerns about "Deep State" sabotage have gone quite a bit beyond the realm of a conspiracy theory.


Last edited by Fox on Mon, Mar 06 2017, 1:27 am; edited 1 time in total
Back to top

ectomorph




 
 
    
 

Post Sun, Mar 05 2017, 10:56 pm
What fox said. But also, perhaps this is an attempt to flush out disloyalty in his camp.
Back to top

WhatFor




 
 
    
 

Post Sun, Mar 05 2017, 11:11 pm
Mevater wrote:
Possibly, but wont this serve to worsen Trump's already sullied reputation of nonsense talk, if this wont be proven or even attempted to be proven?


Trump isn't concerned about his loyalists leaving him. In his own words, he could shoot someone in middle of a NYC street and they would still support him. Of course, that doesn't say much for the respect he has for his adherents' intellectual capacity, but remember, he is a show business guy, and his supporters are "fans".

He can say whatever he wants to and his staunch supporters will still support him. He constantly praises them for their support, and for being such good supporters, reinforcing the mistaken notion that there is an inherent value in blindly supporting someone.

The majority of the American people did not vote for Trump. (The majority did not vote at all, and of the voters, the majority voted for Hillary.) So no, he's probably not worried about "worsening" his reputation. He already won the election, he doesn't need the support of the people who didn't vote for him, and his supporters will tie themselves in knots explaining away his nonsense. He has nothing to worry about.
Back to top

imalady




 
 
    
 

Post Sun, Mar 05 2017, 11:42 pm
OP don't understand your question.

It is in fact the case that members of Trumps team were wiretapped according to many news outlets (NY times and others)

The only issue here is that Trump is blaming Obama himself, who has said he didn't order it, but never that it isn't true.

I do think Trump is sane. I also think that he is sick of the democrats trumping up weird accusations like the RUssia thing, and pretending that its a crime to talk to anyone from Russia as you prepare to become President, or that countries never try to sway another countries election or.... I'm still trying to figure out what the issue is?

What exactly did Russia do again? and is there proof that Trump told them to do what?

Oh yeah, someone spoke to the Russian ambassador.

This is called pushback
Back to top

MagentaYenta




 
 
    
 

Post Sun, Mar 05 2017, 11:54 pm
imalady wrote:
OP don't understand your question.

It is in fact the case that members of Trumps team were wiretapped according to many news outlets (NY times and others)...



A link to the NY Times article confirming that the Trump election team were wiretapped.
Back to top

Fox




 
 
    
 

Post Mon, Mar 06 2017, 12:10 am
This is a lot messier and more complex than an argument over Trump's qualities or the intelligence of people who voted for him. In fact, it doesn't really involve Trump at all.

The NY Times, BBC, and the Guardian -- none of which are exactly rah-rah Trump supporters -- have pretty well documented the evidence so far:

* The FBI had concerns about a potential relationship with one or two Russian banks. They found no evidence of a crime.

* The DOJ then re-drew the matter as a national security issue and approached the FISA court for permission to spy on Trump. The warrant had to be re-written multiples times before the FISA court approved it.

* Again, no evidence of a crime was found but the surveillance continued.

* NSA rules were relaxed that allowed classified material to be more widely disseminated and increase the chance of leaks.

Moreover, quite a few people who don't particularly like Trump are disturbed by the events that are documented as well as Jarrett's ambiguous denial.

Charles Krauthammer, who is conservative but definitely not an apologist for Trump, summed it up as follows:

Quote:
I don’t think there is any question that the former president was intent on leaving behind landmines. And you are right, the NSA stuff is curious. Normally, when NSA is listening in on a foreigner, they take great care to redact any American involved. The NSA is not supposed to spy on Americans. Here it was the reverse, and there was an obvious attempt as was reported in the New York Times to make sure that this was spread as widely as possible, that it would become a problem for the Trump administration. I wouldn’t call it the “deep state,” it gives it a le Carré feel that there is this ominous enemy of the United States hidden in bureaucracy. What this is, is the revenge of the losers. These are people who wanted to make trouble for an administration of a guy who they thought wasn’t going to win and shouldn’t have won, and to see what happens. That is what I think is going on. To some extent, it has happened in other administrations. But I think it’s more obvious and we are going to get to the bottom of it, because there are going to be a lot of investigations.

Here's my prediction: the more that comes out regarding Democratic attempts to up the bird-dogging ante, the more Trump's opponents will complain about his various personal qualities. Or they will take Loretta Lynch's approach, declaring a one-sided state of emergency that justifies using the federal government to spy on U.S. citizens whom the powers-that-be don't like.
Back to top

DrMom




 
 
    
 

Post Mon, Mar 06 2017, 1:33 am
Fox wrote:
Given the Obama administration's history of using the federal government to target political opponents and Valerie Jarrett's recent video that essentially calls for an insurgency, concerns about "Deep State" sabotage have gone quite a bit beyond the realm of a conspiracy theory.

This. I don't know what the real story is yet, or what evidence inspired this accusation, but I certainly think the accusation is well within the realm of possibility.

Let's remember that - among other actions -- the Obama administration used the IRS together with NSA metadata to target, harass, and financially penalize conservative political groups. So the Obama administration already has an established track record of weaponizing the federal government and its agencies against political enemies.

I predict the real question will soon be: Is there enough evidence to show that Obama directly ordered Trump to be bugged, or will someone in one of the intelligence agencies take the fall?
Back to top

marina




 
 
    
 

Post Mon, Mar 06 2017, 12:09 pm
Fox wrote:
This is a lot messier and more complex than an argument over Trump's qualities or the intelligence of people who voted for him. In fact, it doesn't really involve Trump at all.

The NY Times, BBC, and the Guardian -- none of which are exactly rah-rah Trump supporters -- have pretty well documented the evidence so far:

* The FBI had concerns about a potential relationship with one or two Russian banks. They found no evidence of a crime.

* The DOJ then re-drew the matter as a national security issue and approached the FISA court for permission to spy on Trump. The warrant had to be re-written multiples times before the FISA court approved it.

* Again, no evidence of a crime was found but the surveillance continued.

* NSA rules were relaxed that allowed classified material to be more widely disseminated and increase the chance of leaks.

Moreover, quite a few people who don't particularly like Trump are disturbed by the events that are documented as well as Jarrett's ambiguous denial.

Charles Krauthammer, who is conservative but definitely not an apologist for Trump, summed it up as follows:

Quote:
I don’t think there is any question that the former president was intent on leaving behind landmines. And you are right, the NSA stuff is curious. Normally, when NSA is listening in on a foreigner, they take great care to redact any American involved. The NSA is not supposed to spy on Americans. Here it was the reverse, and there was an obvious attempt as was reported in the New York Times to make sure that this was spread as widely as possible, that it would become a problem for the Trump administration. I wouldn’t call it the “deep state,” it gives it a le Carré feel that there is this ominous enemy of the United States hidden in bureaucracy. What this is, is the revenge of the losers. These are people who wanted to make trouble for an administration of a guy who they thought wasn’t going to win and shouldn’t have won, and to see what happens. That is what I think is going on. To some extent, it has happened in other administrations. But I think it’s more obvious and we are going to get to the bottom of it, because there are going to be a lot of investigations.

Here's my prediction: the more that comes out regarding Democratic attempts to up the bird-dogging ante, the more Trump's opponents will complain about his various personal qualities. Or they will take Loretta Lynch's approach, declaring a one-sided state of emergency that justifies using the federal government to spy on U.S. citizens whom the powers-that-be don't like.


It looks like you are either accidentally or purposefully conflating Trump's allegations about wiretapping and the Michael Flynn investigation? Or else you are relying on a Breitbart article about wiretapping based on concerns about banks and a warrant that NO ONE can corroborate? Plse post some credible links thx.
Back to top

Miri7




 
 
    
 

Post Mon, Mar 06 2017, 12:20 pm
I thought that the wire tapped conversations cited thus far have all been wiretaps that were on the lines of Russian ambassadors or other intelligence assets. So Trump associates were only having wiretapped conversations if they called the Russians subject to wiretaps.

Where is the source saying that the lines of Trump or his associates were the ones subject to wiretaps?
Back to top

WhatFor




 
 
    
 

Post Mon, Mar 06 2017, 12:29 pm
Miri7 wrote:


Where is the source saying that the lines of Trump or his associates were the ones subject to wiretaps?


Umm hello? The Twitter feed of the best, most brilliant, most popular and healthiest President in US history isn't good enough for you? Trust him. He knows what he's talking about. He has spoken to some people in really high up places who know what they're talking about and can't tell you any more but there is going to be an investigation. There are some really bad guys, including the Kenyan born Muslim Obama who tried to hack Trump's election and you're asking where Trump got this information from??
You should be asking Obama why he violated ever single constitutional amendment by tapping Trump!! Typical liberal sheep, questioning Trump.

You should be careful about asking such things and showing your treasonous support to the terrorist- supporting Obama. I'm sure you know treason is a crime.

/s
Back to top

Amarante




 
 
    
 

Post Mon, Mar 06 2017, 1:06 pm
WhatFor wrote:
Umm hello? The Twitter feed of the best, most brilliant, most popular and healthiest President in US history isn't good enough for you? Trust him. He knows what he's talking about. He has spoken to some people in really high up places who know what they're talking about and can't tell you any more but there is going to be an investigation. There are some really bad guys, including the Kenyan born Muslim Obama who tried to hack Trump's election and you're asking where Trump got this information from??
You should be asking Obama why he violated ever single constitutional amendment by tapping Trump!! Typical liberal sheep, questioning Trump.

You should be careful about asking such things and showing your treasonous support to the terrorist- supporting Obama. I'm sure you know treason is a crime.

/s


Is this a joke?

It is so out there in terms of being part of the lunatic fringe that I can't tell if someone is just being a troll.

If someone believes this nonsense, I can only weep.
Back to top

Maya




 
 
    
 

Post Mon, Mar 06 2017, 1:18 pm
Amarante wrote:
Is this a joke?

It is so out there in terms of being part of the lunatic fringe that I can't tell if someone is just being a troll.

If someone believes this nonsense, I can only weep.

The /s at the end of the post indicates sarcasm.

But yes, I know people who would write a post like that in all seriousness.
Back to top

treestump




 
 
    
 

Post Mon, Mar 06 2017, 1:22 pm
Amarante wrote:
Is this a joke?

It is so out there in terms of being part of the lunatic fringe that I can't tell if someone is just being a troll.

If someone believes this nonsense, I can only weep.


I'm assuming it's a parody of what many people irrationally say and believe.
Back to top

WhatFor




 
 
    
 

Post Mon, Mar 06 2017, 1:35 pm
Now you got me wondering if the Likers appreciated the satire, or actually agreed with the content. Scratching Head
Back to top
Page 1 of 6   1  2  3  4  5  6  Next Recent Topics




Post new topic   Reply to topic    Forum -> In the News

Related Topics Replies Last Post
Trump Item
by amother
1 Sun, Feb 18 2024, 11:09 pm View last post
Censorship: Refusal to Air Trump Iowa Victory Speech
by Cheiny
0 Tue, Jan 16 2024, 2:50 pm View last post
Home Insurance Claim-utgent
by amother
0 Wed, Jan 10 2024, 9:06 pm View last post
If you were in a car accident-Ins. claim
by amother
23 Tue, Jan 02 2024, 4:46 am View last post
Car insurance - claim
by amother
5 Sat, Jul 22 2023, 10:21 pm View last post