Agitate? No. I just can’t wait for it all to come out. You know, the truth.
Really an interesting thing for a Trump supporter to say, what with all the ‘truth’ that has come out so far from Trump.
Please answer the question I’m asking, not the question you’d prefer I was asking.
As Kellyanne Conway helpfully pointed out during the campaign:
“If you’re under your 2nd FBI investigation in the same year then you do have a … corruption & an ethics problem.”
and
“Most honest people I know are not under FBI investigation, let alone two.”
Exactly what I said I expected to happen back on page five of this thread about two weeks ago. Agencies under Obama’s control were listening to conversations of Trump’s team. Obama himself didn’t order it, but an agency that reports directly to him was doing it which is close enough to ‘Obama did it’ for colloquial language, and certainly for Trump supporters. They didn’t have a literal wiretap, but those aren’t widely used and ‘listening to communications’ is a reasonable thing to refer to as ‘wiretapping’. It was ‘incidental’, which doesn’t change that it happened.
“Legality” is a sketchy defense to start off with, since the FISA court that approves surveillance warrants may as well just be a rubber stamp, approving 99.97% of warrants it’s looked at in it’s secret proceedings. But if the surveillance reports were being circulated without removing the names of Americans from the reports like Nunes claims, that is actually illegal (plus they probably weren’t supposed to be distributed to the New York Times for their article). And now that means you’ve got an agency that reports to Obama listening in on the communications of Trump’s team and illegally distributing the reports of what they said.
So all of a sudden instead of being an absurd, flat-out lie about Obama that clearly has no evidence, it now seems to be using sloppy language but actually true. Like I expected, Obama’s quick flat denial now looks like he’s hiding behind Clintonian technicality like arguing over what the definition of ‘is’ is. I don’t see how Trump pointing out a major issue is going to make any of his supporters stop supporting him or convince people who aren’t already opposed to him to oppose him, and the Democrats hiding behind technicalities will probably make more people support him. People like McCain may be making noise, but he made noise against Trump back during the election cycle, then neatly fell into step with the party once they pulled his reins, and I expect that to happen again.
I think Democrats believe too much of their ‘Trump is stupid’ hype and forget that he’s a damn good politician who won an election despite significant opposition from both parties, and that lying and twisting the truth is second nature to him. These scandals that are supposed to bring him down seem to be actually strengthening him, and all of the energy arguing about whether listening in on phone conversations is actually surveillance or ‘incidental’ is energy that’s not going in to oppose any of the substantive work that he’s doing. “He’s completely defunding the EPA,” should be a bigger news story, but it’s definitely not getting much focus.
The Scooter Libby affair taught us that no pen is needed.
PotUS could just tweet them, that would de facto declassify them.
It’s close enough for persons who’re highly motivated for it to be close enough.
If the headline was “President busts sex-trafficking ring” we’d all expect that the PotUS had a heavy hand in the operation…or that the author of the headline was a suck-up.
We don’t even know when the names were unmasked. Do you concede that the President himself could have ordered the names unmasked and the information delivered to Nunes yesterday?
Nunes himself said multiple times yesterday that the President’s tweets were wrong. On what basis do you think you know more than this partisan shill working for the best interests of the White House?
don the con said obama was a sick or bad guy for wiretapping him. This is not a semantic question. The president needs to be taken literally until he is not president anymore and goes to jail. Then you can have pedantic arguments about what his words mean. I won’t be there but have at it.
Oh, I can tell you what Trump’s words mean right now. They mean he’s a blithering idiot.
Or for people who don’t care much and see that agencies that answer directly to Obama were spying on Trump’s inner circle and passing around the reports.
First off, this was a tweet by someone who is known for speaking off the cuff who doesn’t care much about consequences for saying stuff, not a headline carefully crafted by a major newspaper. So while you might “expect” it to mean that, certainly not all of us did - as I said two weeks ago, I expected it to mean that an agency that directly reports to Obama did it. And even further, here’s an article Huffington Post about police militarization that, particularly in item 1 attributes things to “the Obama administration” that are being done by agencies but not directly ordered by Obama. So it’s not just a Trump practice to attribute actions of agencies that report to the president to the president.
don the con said obama was a sick or bad guy for wiretapping him. This is not a semantic question. The president needs to be taken literally until he is not president anymore and goes to jail. Then you can have pedantic arguments about what his words mean. I won’t be there but have at it.
I don’t know why you’d think that. Not everyone thinks he’s the pathological liar the left is trying to make him out to be (he’s not in the same league as Hillary, that’s for sure). He’s an exaggerator. He wants to put things in the best light possible, and doesn’t always explain the details that the opposition wants to focus on. If he did I don’t think his overall position on things would change any, and I don’t think it would change the number of his critics or supporters, it would just sound more like the politicians we’ve become used to these days - substance-free gobbledegook.
I don’t care if he exaggerates or skips the details on bigger issues so long as the general theme he’s promoting is true. And in this case his Russian ties allegations, and those about wiretaps. I think the truth will be come out - his ties to Russia were and are minimal to nonexistent, and the Obama administration acted irresponsibly if not illegally in how it handled intercepted communications and targeting thereof of his phone and other devices during the campaign.
I seriously look forward to the truth being told about both.
Your “Trump ordered it yesterday” scenario doesn’t fit with the New York Times report that mentioned the monitoring of Trump’s team much further back than “yesterday”. So while the events you listed are not technically impossible, they don’t appear to be likely, and fail to explain all of the facts that we know of at this time. Also, if we’re demanding concessions, do you concede that your earlier claim that I was wrong for believing that evidence exists but had not been shown yet was in fact completely wrong, and that your claim that the evidence did not exist was wrong?
First off Nunes didn’t say that, I quoted him below. And I’m really not sure what the rest of your question is supposed to mean; I don’t claim to know more than he does, I have made a speculation about what is happening based on the information released so far and supposition that has been correct so far. Also, if your are taking Nunes as an authoritative source on this matter, why do you repeatedly claim that the conversations being monitored were with Russians when he explicitly stated that they were not with Russians?
https://www.bloomberg.com/politics/a...s-surveillance
“Nunes told reporters outside the White House, where he briefed the president on his findings, that “it is possible” Trump’s tweets were correct concerning surveillance.”
How about his years of spreading evidence-free lies about Obama? Why wouldn’t this just be another example, considering that zero evidence has been presented? Trump lying about Obama just seems to be his default mode.
Practically everyone, on both sides of the aisle, thinks he’s a pathological liar.
If you’re talking about ‘birther’ issue, it’s not really the topic of this thread. It will (and is intended to) derail the issue at hand - Obama wiretapping Trump.
(Besides, I’ve addressed that in other threads, as have any number of other people).
Who cares what their opinion is. I don’t think he is and I voted for him. It appears quite a few others did too.
But we’ll see, right? And like I said above, I look forward to it.
He’ll die in prison. This Russian treason makes Watergate look like jaywalking.
You’re right. Hillary is a rank amateur compared to Trump when it comes to lying. And Trump has the highest percentage of untrue statements ever recorded by Politifact.
Which general theme would that be? Did he mean 3 to 5 (as in 1,2,3,4,5) when he said there were 3 to 5 million illegal votes against him in the election? Did he mean that his inauguration was really attended by a much smaller number of people than Obama’s was? Did he mean that it’s actually legal for him to release his tax returns while under IRS audit? Did he mean that all media outlets except right-wing-oriented ones aren’t really ‘fake news?’ Did he really not accuse Obama of a felony, in contradiction of our lyin’ eyes?
You should replace the word ‘think’ in that last paragraph with the word ‘believe.’ You have no evidence of your assertions whatsoever. Unless, of course, you’re privy to Trump’s private tax and business information and specific classified government documents. How do you know what his Russia ties or lack of same are or were?
As for the wiretap thing, usually the way it works is that you gather evidence and then you make the accusation, unless your objectives include something other than actually getting at the truth…like creating a narrative to vilify someone who’s in political opposition to you. Not the way it seems to work with Trump. He makes the accusation while providing no proof whatsoever, then the White House asks Justice to find evidence for the accusation? Yeah, sorry, doesn’t pass the sniff test.