Here’s the latest operative statement from the WH
White House Officials Say Trump Isn’t Target of Any Investigation
…Sean Spicer, told reporters, “There is no reason that we have to think the president is the target of any investigation whatsoever.”
I don’t think Trump is planning this, though. He read this elsewhere. I think that the people making these stories are the ones deliberately distracting people, and getting Trump to dance.
Trump just seems completely incapable of learning a new skill, and I can’t recall any use of this tactic before he ran for President.
But maybe I’m wrong. Any other such stories, where he got people off his back by trolling the news before the presidential campaign?
Eh, don’t worry, some conservative blog says that Obama admitted to the wiretap on tape, so I’m sure Obama will be prosecuted any day now.
Could we maybe split the difference?
Like, imagine that – before he ran for President – Trump often used a tactic of “do whatever will get him some publicity, making him the center of attention whenever possible.” Heck, imagine that’s why he ran for President, if you want. And imagine that he’s now simply using the same tactic: not to change the subject, see; but it’s the inevitable side effect of him constantly, well, changing the subject.
oh my dog… the tape has surfaced on youtube!
How wrong is he anyway? With Obama’s love for spying, Trump’s Russian ties, and the rubber-stamp process for getting warrants, I think it’s incredibly likely that an executive agency got a warrant to monitor some phones in Trump tower. People keep harping on the technicality that the president can’t order a wiretap, and Obama is hiding behind the technicality that he didn’t order one in nay case, but it’s not really relevant - in colloquial language, if an agency that Obama heads engaged in an activity, then pinning the blame for that Activity on Obama is reasonable. I’m sure Trump considers all of the phones in his tower ‘his phones’. And arguing over the whether ‘wiretap’ is the correct term for more sophisticated methods doesn’t help either.
I think Obama was way too quick to deny the allegations, and I predict Trump will come out ahead on this round of scandal.
Obama is going to be blamed for judge determining probable cause of either a crime or espionage concerns in Trump Tower, so Trump will come out looking good? Even when there’s literally no evidence that such a wiretap existed at all?
Give me a break.
ROFL, what’d I tell ya?
Except I notice you conveniently ignore this, Pantastic: It’s illegal for a president to order wiretapping of a US Citizen.
I havent read all 4 pages of this thread but I have no doubt Trump and many other leaders have had their conversations “monitored”. By whom? Well many people really. Political opponents. Political allies. Foreign entities. The media. You name it.
Thing is they shouldnt call it a “wiretap” The days of someone actually tapping into physical wires is long gone. They only have to hack into the data streams that come from out cell phones and computers.
Thing is this data is flying all over the world via satellites and the internet. They said on the news that both the USA and the UK have this set of computers that can focus in and certain accounts AND lets say the US wants to listen in on one of its citizens but doesnt want to get a warrant. No problem. They just ask the UK to do it. Same with the UK if they want to listen in on one of theirs.
Cite?
That wouldn’t have been Fox or Breitbart that you saw that on?
Damn homonyms.
“Trump” and “principles” on the same line would have broken my computer…
We know Obama must have done it because there’s no evidence for it. That just proves how sneaky he is.
Right.
As the right-wing talk sites have it; if we haven’t found anything yet we aren’t looking hard enough.
How dare we ask Trump for anything supporting any of his words?
First of all, I doubt your claim that there is literally no evidence of such a wiretap. Like I said in the quoted material and you ignored, there probably is evidence of some kind of communications monitoring of someone in Trump’s tower by someone in an agency that Obama was the head of. My speculation of Trump coming out looking good is based such evidence coming to light in the investigation.
And seriously, have you been paying attention to politics for the past year, or even the past couple of months? People have been blaming Obama for things that Bush did and things that the Republican Congress did since 2008, blaming Obama for something that an agency that he is the head of did is small potatoes by comparison. At 3:30 in this video, there’s a Trump supporter blaming Obama for not being in office on 9/11, seven years before he took office - but you think that no one is going to blame Obama for something an agency that he controls did while he was president? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eFQhw3VVToQ
I also ‘ignored’ this article about the price of tea in China because it provides just as much relevant information https://www.reference.com/food/current-price-tea-china-e46542a4abfd74b0 . Aside from the fact that presidents don’t always act completely legally, which makes ‘oh, it would be illegal for the president to do the bad thing the person accuses him of, therefore he couldn’t have done it’ a worthless defense, as I pointed out in the material that you quoted, plenty of people will accept ‘an agency answering directly to Obama did it’ as ‘Obama ordered it’.
I’m with Pantastic on this one.
Tweets are colloquial. It won’t strike most people as a stretch to interpret Trump’s tweet as an Obama agency in some way surveilled some system or person in Trump tower, and “wiretap” as any kind of surveillance.
And there’s a relatively high chance that happened. Two seem quite likely: monitoring under Section 702 of FISA, or monitoring of the other side of one or more communications (like in Flynn’s case).
This is an excuse for Trump. People always give him the benefit of the doubt. “He doesn’t mean what he said,” and try to twist it as a poor interpretation on the reader. He meant Obama literally ordered someone to wiretap Trump. Even if Trump was wiretapped, Obama did not and cannot order such a thing. Even if Trump changes his tune, when he wrote the tweet he literally meant Obama ordered that Trump be wiretapped.
Even if he didn’t mean it, many Trump supporters read it that way, so it doesn’t actually matter what he meant. (He meant it, though.)
Of course, Trump wasn’t wiretapped. It’s possible he was caught on a wiretap because someone at the other end was being monitored, but it’s almost certain nobody was wiretapping Trump himself.
The problem is that he went a little too specific to really wash it away in that fashion. “Is it legal for a sitting President to be ‘wire tapping’…”, “this is Nixon/Watergate”. I mean, I guess some people will buy it if the FBI tapped his phone but Trump clearly meant Obama personally ordered it.
I didn’t ignore what you wrote. You wrote about your suspicions. Your suspicions are not unfounded.
I said there is no evidence of a wiretap. You understand that suspicions are not evidence, right?
You claim that there is no evidence of a wiretap, that is that such evidence does not exist. But you don’t appear to be basing the non-existence of the evidence on anything more than ‘we haven’t seen it at this time’. That doesn’t show that the evidence does not exist, just that it hasn’t been found or shown yet.
Basing speculation on how a congressional investigation will play out on the supposition that no new evidence will be uncovered does not seem like a very smart plan to me.
If you can get people who don’t already hate Trump to agree with that, then it might be relevant. But the fact that someone who already doesn’t like Trump will continue to not like him after that tweet and/or the aftermath of it doesn’t make any difference. If you think that people who currently support Trump or who are neutral on Trump will believe that it is ‘a little too specific’, what do you base that belief on? It doesn’t match what I’ve seen in the responses to Trump being Trump.