Trump’s Wiretapping Claim

Jeanette

Wed, Mar 08 2017, 12:51 pm

Squishy wrote:

You opened the door to the discussion on the economy by citing a poll that supported Trump's handling of the economy.

I then responded to 6ofW's post mentioning a couple of Clinton scandals and stating there was no prosecutorial evidence. I pointed out how those investigations led to bigger scandals.

I agree with 6ofW on what the times said. I was going to answer that until I read her post. I have nothing to add to that part of the post, but why is isn't her speech stifled? She discussed other things.

I happen to agree that Trump is a showman, but all these scandals must be placed in prospective. He is good for the economy.

BTW the market is an excellent leading indicator of expansions, so it is predicting beyond today. (It doesn't have the same record of contractions.)

Have no fear, your rights to post freely on a message board have not been abridged.

Although if free speech is a big issue for you, I'd be a lot more concerned about a president who declares the free press "enemies of the people."

Fox

Wed, Mar 08 2017, 1:05 pm

Lol! No one has claimed that President Obama wrote the computer code himself. In fact, most accounts I've read point to the fact that whatever happened was done at the prompting of the DOJ.

Nevertheless, actions taken on behalf of a President by his appointees, even without his specific instruction or consent, are considered his responsibility. Remember President Truman's famous, "The buck stops here" sign? President Nixon wasn't caught jimmying the DNC locks at the Watergate Hotel himself.

So we have the following set of circumstances:

1. Reports of wiretapping of various Trump campaign officials per the NYT ( Intercepted Russian Communications)

2. An Attorney General, Loretta Lynch, who would have theoretically overseen any such actions and whose judgment is suspect (e.g., meeting with President Clinton during on an ongoing investigation of Hillary Clinton) -- and who has subsequently released a disturbing video calling for resistance and insurrection.

3. Denials by Kevin Lewis and Valerie Jarrett that are very, very carefully worded to maintain plausible deniability. They haven't denied wiretapping was done; they simply answered by saying that such actions were contrary to WH policy under Obama.

4. Obama's former speechwriter cautioning reporters not to state categorically that there were no wiretaps.

This article by Andrew McCarthy for the National Review is frequently cited:

Andrew McCarthy on FISA Surveillance

-------------------------------

But now the plot has thickened considerably with the Wikileaks' release of the Vault 7 information.

At this point, wiretapping Trump, his associates, Melania, or Tiffany and Barron's illegal backyard camp is just chump change. Who cares?

Once upon a time, liberals would have been outraged at the revelation that a goverrnment intelligence agency (CIA) had built a generously-funded shadow information-gathering service so that it could avoid oversight and regulation as well as working with other agencies such as the NSA.

They would have been disturbed not just by the capability that a U.S. government agency could carry out undetectable assassinations and leave false-flag footprints, but that virtually no barriers existed to infringing upon the civil liberties of citizens.

They would have been incensed that the former President ducked questions about surveillance the way President Obama did during his interview with Charlie Rose.

However, all is quiet on the left front: CNN is being widely lampooned for their lack of coverage on Vault 7. MSNBC has nothing on their website about it. Liberals on social media are completely avoiding the topic.

So it seems the left is concerned about threats to civil liberties and checks/balances only when the threat comes from conservative administrations. If a liberal is in charge, hey, go for it!

All of you believe that investigating the CIA's various surveillance programs is just a waste of taxpayer money? You're really okay with the idea that the "Engineering Development Group" has actually lost control of much of their work?

You don't worry about, say, North Korea, China, or ISIS turning TVs in sensitive locations into microphones -- but you worry about Trump's midnight tweets?

SixOfWands

Wed, Mar 08 2017, 1:30 pm

Fox wrote:

IOW, there's nothing in the NY Times, which you claimed. There's nothing anywhere but a lot of conjecture and maybe and who knows.

Fox wrote:

-------------------------------

But now the plot has thickened considerably with the Wikileaks' release of the Vault 7 information.

At this point, wiretapping Trump, his associates, Melania, or Tiffany and Barron's illegal backyard camp is just chump change. Who cares?

Once upon a time, liberals would have been outraged at the revelation that a goverrnment intelligence agency (CIA) had built a generously-funded shadow information-gathering service so that it could avoid oversight and regulation as well as working with other agencies such as the NSA.

They would have been disturbed not just by the capability that a U.S. government agency could carry out undetectable assassinations and leave false-flag footprints, but that virtually no barriers existed to infringing upon the civil liberties of citizens.

They would have been incensed that the former President ducked questions about surveillance the way President Obama did during his interview with Charlie Rose.

However, all is quiet on the left front: CNN is being widely lampooned for their lack of coverage on Vault 7. MSNBC has nothing on their website about it. Liberals on social media are completely avoiding the topic.

So it seems the left is concerned about threats to civil liberties and checks/balances only when the threat comes from conservative administrations. If a liberal is in charge, hey, go for it!

All of you believe that investigating the CIA's various surveillance programs is just a waste of taxpayer money? You're really okay with the idea that the "Engineering Development Group" has actually lost control of much of their work?

You don't worry about, say, North Korea, China, or ISIS turning TVs in sensitive locations into microphones -- but you worry about Trump's midnight tweets?

IOW, you can't support a single word you said, so you changed the subject. No wonder you like Trump so much!

And the American people didn't elect ISIS, or Kim Jong-un. We elected Trump. So yes, I'm going to worry about his attacks on the media. About his baseless accusations against Obama. About his tweets, and his endless re-tweeting of Fox News' morning shows.

But I've been reading spy novels about using electronic devices to spy on people for years. I assumed that it would happen, it hadn't happened yet. Why am I supposed to be surprised?

And given the fact that the US has killed, or attempted to kill, world leaders from Papa Doc Duvalier to Fidel Castro to Che Guevara to Salvado Allende to Saddam Hussein, I'd be an idiot to think that the US does not and has not engaged in assassinations.

What I'd like to know is why conservatives are so gleeful about people -- quite possibly enemies of the US -- releasing confidential information.

Fox

Wed, Mar 08 2017, 2:30 pm

SixOfWands wrote:

IOW, you can't support a single word you said, so you changed the subject. No wonder you like Trump so much!

The first line of the NYT story says that intercepted communications exist. Of course, when it became inconvenient, the NYT contradicted this claim, much to the hilarity of Twitter.

SixOfWands wrote:

And the American people didn't elect ISIS, or Kim Jong-un. We elected Trump. So yes, I'm going to worry about his attacks on the media. About his baseless accusations against Obama. About his tweets, and his endless re-tweeting of Fox News' morning shows.

But I've been reading spy novels about using electronic devices to spy on people for years. I assumed that it would happen, it hadn't happened yet. Why am I supposed to be surprised?

And given the fact that the US has killed, or attempted to kill, world leaders from Papa Doc Duvalier to Fidel Castro to Che Guevara to Salvado Allende to Saddam Hussein, I'd be an idiot to think that the US does not and has not engaged in assassinations.

Like I said, a huge shift in the priorities and concerns of liberals. Ho, hum -- move along, nothing to see here. Spying on U.S. citizens? Making cyberweapons available to enemies? What enemies? We didn't elect any enemies!

SixOfWands wrote:

What I'd like to know is why conservatives are so gleeful about people -- quite possibly enemies of the US -- releasing confidential information.

I guess for the same reason liberals were so gleeful back in 2009 when Wikileaks released information regarding the failures of the U.S. military mission in Iraq, which was launched under then-President George W. Bush. Or in 2013, when Edward Snowden was lauded by many for exposing what he believed to be NSA excesses.
____________________________

Frankly, I grow more and more flummoxed by the day regarding such visceral hatred of Trump. He seems to me like most Presidents we've had: so far he's done some good things, some stupid things, and some things with unintended consequences.

In fact, I would think most liberals and liberal-leaning centrists would be thrilled: Trump is bucking traditional Republicans to do things that Democrats would support if done by someone else. I don't know how effective his proposal for family leave will ultimately be, nor do we know the results of the "full attention" of his administration to the issue of human trafficking. He's reaffirmed anti-discrimination policies protecting LGBT employees in government. His SCOTUS nominee shows little interest in overturning Roe v. Wade or Obergefell v. Hodges. These are not the positions or interests of a traditional Republican president.

Most ironically, people were terrified that Trump would gut the ACA, leaving people to die in the streets, if you believed the doomsayers. Well, the current political fight is between Trump and Republicans who don't believe the repeal goes far enough -- apparently unhappy that Trump isn't prepared to leave people completely uncovered.

So even if you think he's a personal slimedog and/or you disagree with his platform, I'd think most liberals would be delighted that he's far more moderate in many ways than the establishment Republicans.

Yes, he Tweets whatever's on his mind and yells back at the press. So what? The First Amendment doesn't guarantee the right of the press to never be criticized. And if you don't like the crazy Tweets, don't follow him on Twitter. "But he's a liar," I keep hearing. Um, probably. Unlike all those scrupulously honest candidates we had to pick from . . .

Despite all the predictions that Trump would impose an authoritarian dictatorship, I just don't see it happening. The press hasn't been silenced in any way. Minorities are no worse off than they were a year ago. Rachel Maddow hasn't been sent to a camp. Increasingly, it seems like some people would oppose good weather if they thought Trump was in favor of it.

SixOfWands

Wed, Mar 08 2017, 2:53 pm

Fox wrote:

SixOfWands wrote:

IOW, you can't support a single word you said, so you changed the subject. No wonder you like Trump so much!

The first line of the NYT story says that intercepted communications exist. Of course, when it became inconvenient, the NYT contradicted this claim, much to the hilarity of Twitter.

Everything in your lexicon is "much to the hilarity ..." In total honesty, its a phraseology that makes me want to rip out your fingernails, its so darned condescending. "Ha ha ha, everyone is laughing at you!" Keep on believing that if it gets you through the night, I guess.

In any case, Trump claimed that Obama ordered wiretaps against Trump. Not that there was a judicial order. Not that there were intercepts. That Obama ordered wiretaps of Trump. And that he has proof. But he's not sharing it with us. No, no, no. Its YUGE. Let's investigate. Even though he already has PROOF.

In any case.the NY Times stated that communications had been intercepted. Which would happen if Trump were speaking to someone who was the subject of a tap.

Or do you believe that the State of New York tapped my phone to learn the details of my wedding planning? Because a number of my conversations on that topic were tapped. Because they happened to be with someone whose phone was tapped at the time, pursuant to a subpoena. I presume I bored whomever was listening to tears. (I received notice of the intercepted communications after the investigation was closed.)

Fox

Wed, Mar 08 2017, 3:41 pm

SixOfWands wrote:

Oy! Such violent imaginings! You want links to every joke on Twitter, Gab, and Facebook? Should I sort them by prominence of author, number of re-tweets, or number of likes? Do jokes from anti-Trump conservatives carry more weight than those from pro-Trump conservatives?

Have you been similarly affected by all the condescending characterizations of Trump voters as racist, xenophobic, homophobic mouth-breathers? Did you want to rip out Lena Dunham's fingernails when she said

Quote:

“So many women aren't raised with the rhetoric of self-empowerment. The messages they're hearing from Donald Trump may be similar to the messages they've heard from their fathers, their brothers, their husbands. They haven't been given the message that they do matter.”

Because, you know, any woman who doesn't see the world the way she does was obviously just raised wrong, poor little thing. Seriously, given all the serious political scientists and constitutional scholars apparently sequestered in Hollywood, that's a lot of fingernail-ripping to want to do.

Like I said, I truly don't get it. I can understand disliking Trump. I can understand disagreeing with various policies. I can understand thinking he's more flash than cash. There are plenty of valid complaints about him.

But I truly don't get the visceral hatred of Trump and anyone who is even pareve on him, let alone thinks he has some good points.

My only hope at this point is that Barbra Streisand is correct: Trump causes weight gain. Of course, I've been fat since the end of the Reagan era, so maybe I'm hoping for too much.

Btw, news reports are trending (is "trending" too condescending?) that Trump is planning to appoint a gay man as ambassador to NATO. It's probably just a trick to hide his secret homophobia as he completes arrangements to send Rachel Maddow to a camp!

JoyInTheMorning

Wed, Mar 08 2017, 8:46 pm

I haven't read the Vault 7 docs because I am literally not allowed to read Wikileaks material. (Long, complicated reason that I can't discuss.) However, I've read the newspaper articles about them. Yawn. I mean, I'm sad and upset that the CIA was hacked. I'm concerned that the consensus of cybersecurity experts is that Russia was behind it, because Russia is getting too much of our intel. It's terrible that the CIA has lost all of their cyber weapons. But really. Of course the government has cybersecurity offensive and defensive programs. What kind of government would we have that didn't figure out how to use the latest technology? Do you think a century ago we were upset that people were using telegraphs and telephones and invisible ink for their espionage and counter-espioage activities?

There's nothing illegal about espionage and counter-espionage activities. It's only illegal if it's turned on Americans ("U.S. persons") without good reason. So far I am seeing nothing that indicates that this has happened.

The NSA collection of metadata was more serious, but hardly surprising. Corporations like Google and Facebook are collecting far more data about us -- yes, even as we are on imamother -- and there are essentially no restrictions on how they can use that.

DrMom

Thu, Mar 09 2017, 1:03 am

JoyInTheMorning wrote:

By the way, Fox, you are wrong. I, along with many other liberals who know a thing or two about cybersecurity, understand well the damage that the Vault 7 leak has caused our country. That has nothing to do with thinking that Trump is ridiculous for accusing Obama of ordering a wiretap on him, unless there was an incredibly good reason to think that Trump was guilty of a major crime. Obama was always uber careful about ethics and legal violations; and everyone knows that ordering a wiretap of a U.S. Person is a violation of FISA.

Really, one has nothing to do with the other.

Um, you mean like when he leveraged NSA data and used the IRS to target conservative political groups?

I don't know what exactly happened in this wiretapping case, but to say that there is no way that Obama would have abused the power of the executive office for political gain is rather absurd, considering the past 8 years.

SixOfWands

Wed, Mar 15 2017, 12:56 pm

Update:

Quote:

In a Wednesday press conference, House Intelligence Committee Chairman Devin Nunes (R-CA) said officials “don’t have any evidence” that the Obama administration ordered wiretapping of Donald Trump while he was running for president. “Are you going to take the tweets literally?” he asked. “If you are, then clearly the president is wrong.” However, Nunes also said that it’s “very possible” Trump’s communications were somehow “swept up” in FBI surveillance of Russians, if he was in communication with Kremlin authorities. The first public hearing regarding the investigation into Russian interference in the 2016 election will take place March 20.

Of course, Sean Spicer already "clarified" that Trump's wasn't using the word "wiretapping" literally, noting that Trump had put the term in quotation marks. (Trump didn't in all cases, BTW. He used TAPP, no quotes. http://www.latimes.com/politic......html

Trump claimed he had evidence. Why doesn't he show it? Because he was referring to communications that were intercepted in a wiretap of Russians?

And are the American people not entitled to take the President of the United States literally when he makes serious accusations against a former President, going so far as to compare his actions to Nixon's Watergate?

Jeanette

Wed, Mar 15 2017, 1:04 pm

Fox wrote:

Can you explain the visceral hatred of Hillary (oops, I meant Hitlery) and Obama? And they are not done yet with the demonization. Obama and HIllary are teaming up to run a shadow government to take over the country!!!

But as to visceral Trump hatred, I didn't hate him when he was building his towers and casinos and starring in reality shows. I never watched his show and never cared one way or the other. I am alarmed at what he has done and is doing in the White House. I am very concerned about the role of Steve Bannon in his administration. Again, not basing this off alarmist extreme left-wing sites but their own statements and actions both during the campaign and since taking office. I'm so done with the ugliness emanating from the White House, and I do not understand people who not only don't see it as ugliness but expend a lot of energy to convince me that darkness is light. What's the end goal here? Why do you feel you have to defend Trump to the bitter end?

SixOfWands

Wed, Mar 15 2017, 1:16 pm

Jeanette wrote:

I think you meant Obummer. The Kenyan Muslim whose family was so smart, they planted an birth announcement in a Honolulu newspaper, and who faked his birth certificate. Obummer supported gay marriage because his "wife" is really a man, who should be “let loose in the outback of Zimbabwe” to live “in a cave with Maxie, the gorilla” (quote Carl Palladino, co-chair of Trump's NY campaign).

But there were no ad hominem attacks on Obummer/Nobama/Oblamer. None at all.

[FTR, I did dislike Trump before the election, because of reports of people I know who worked directly for him.]

treestump

Wed, Mar 15 2017, 1:20 pm

SixOfWands wrote:

This. Exactly this.

Except that his name is Hussein Obummer or Obama bin Ladin. And he's a total Muslim. Oh, except that his mentor is his anti-semitic Christian reverend. Yeah, whatever, he only became Christian to run for president. But he also has a reverend who's his mentor.