I do not see the equivalence you’re claiming. If the government is monitoring Vladimir Putin’s phone calls then Putin is the target of the surveillance. If Donald Trump then calls up Putin and their phone call is recorded, it’s not the same result as Trump being under surveillance.
Since the results are identical (Trump’s conversation is made available to the government) that is equivalent.
That’s why there are rules in place about keeping the information about the identity of the other side of the conversation private. Those rules were apparently broken.
Another personal slam. Unmoderated.
Did you report it? Are you aware the mod(s) may not be online and it takes time for a response?
Here’s the thing, comments like this are not helpful for a few reasons which I will not enumerate. In the future I suggest reporting something if you suspect a rule violation. I guarantee if you report it the post in question will be looked at, though depending on the time it could take between a few minutes to a few hours. We don’t have an SLA for response unfortunately but I’m comfortable with our practice.
jshore, this is a warning for personal insults. If you feel you must, the BBQ Pit is right around the corner.
[/moderating]
Assuming that your first statement is true, which I won’t do, all it shows is the appearance of rectitude. It doesn’t change that those ties existed, nor does it erase whatever uses they were put to or who knew about them and when.
I should have added ‘language from’ to that last.
How The Trump Campaign Weakened The Republican Platform On Aid To Ukraine
‘Obama was spying on Trump through an agency that he controls, but it’s OK because he wasn’t actually targeting Trump directly,’ is really a pretty damning statement, I didn’t expect something that direct when whole thing started. I don’t see that it’s actually unreasonable at all to term that situation ‘Obama wiretapping Trump.’ I would also say that using the powers of the office to spy on political opponents is definitely Nixonian, even if there’s a fig leaf of legality (rubber stamp from a secret court that approves 99.97% of warrants) and a thin veil of deniability (well, he wasn’t the target!).
Originally I thought this was going to be a big smoke cloud that Trump would use to his advantage, but this might seriously hurt how Obama is remembered. Especially with the quick, flat denial Obama gave when confronted about it initially.
Oh, please. If you get caught in a speed trap, does that mean that the chief of police is conspiring to harass you, personally? Claiming that your ticket is proof that the chief is out to get you would make you sound like . . . well, like Trump.
Pantastic – would you say that Obama wiretapped Hillary Clinton while she was Secretary of State?
I find this attitude to be very bizarre. Let me give you a hypothetical, and note, I’m not accusing Trump, for example, of taking bribes, it’s just a hypothetical:
There is a mafia don who is under surveillance by the FBI. A politician running for office is caught on camera or on the phone taking bribes (or discussing the taking of bribes). Who do you think this is damning:
A. The mafia don
B. The politician
C. The FBI
D. The president who the FBI reports to
You seem to be saying that C and D are the damned parties, but most people would say that it’s A and B. Further, no one who doesn’t have an axe to grind would say that B was under surveillance.
Can you explain what you mean?
Is Trump currently wire-tapping Obama? :eek:
In your example the answer is A+B.
Now this hypothetical: a politician is “caught” on the phone making conversation with someone that FBI or NSA is monitoring, with no criminal content whatsoever, and discusses something he is going to do in the campaign. The FBI/NSA widely disseminates the conversation in its reports, including the part with the campaign info, and including the politician’s name, possibly to the White House.
Whom do you think it is damning?
By the faulty logic of the Trump defenders in this thread, of course he is.
This may be just the break Trump’s investigators in Hawaii are looking for!
Is this hypothetical related to any actual events?
Yes. According to Nunes that kind of thing is what happened.
Does it matter?
People with great legal minds are saying …um… things. That’s the point here.
Just moments ago, Nunes again said on live TV that there was no wiretapping of Trump Tower.
That’s right. No one came into Trump Tower in the middle of the night and fiddled with any wires. How is that relevant to what I said?
Nunes has given at least 3 different stories now. Even you can’t actually be sure what the hell Nunes is saying.