Flynn.
Do you? Man, not me.
I remember so, so well: “I will tell you this, Russia: If you’re listening, I hope you’re able to find the 30,000 emails that are missing,” the Republican nominee said at a news conference in Florida. “I think you will probably be rewarded mightily by our press.”
That was back at the end of July 2016, and I will never forget the chill that ran down my spine. Who does that? There were already rumblings about Russian ties, and I thought, holy shit, he’s actually talking to them through the press!
It wasn’t until October that information was released – to practically no response whatsoever – that 17 of our intelligence agencies agreed that Russia was interfering in our election.
Trump was right in one respect: No one cared.
They seem to care now, and I notice his behavior isn’t nearly so flippant anymore, either. Now he’s spinning like a top trying to deflect attention anywhere else.
I think he knew.
Oops - thanks.
Anyone who doubts that at least someone in the Trump campaign colluded with the Russians should read this article in The Guardian, released just today, about how GCHQ found connections in 2015(!)
(post shortened)
And you’d be wrong.
I didn’t say, “Obama was involved, investigator him or you’re just a partisan hack!” Those are your words.
I didn’t say, “complaining about everyone speculating, we need investigations”. Whatever that means? I said, “I’m in favor of investigations”.
If Rice, or anyone else, is involved in something underhanded related to a Democrat Party/Obama administration wiretapping/spying/tracking of the Republican Party, or of the Republican Party’s Presidential candidate, I would like to know the who, what, where, when of what actually happened. What Actually Happened. I would not demand a halt to such an investigation.
The FBI is investigating any Russian connections to U.S. political campaigns. Good for them. I’m in favor of such an investigation.
There already was an investigation into the fallacious accusations by Trump, and both Democrats and Republicans agreed on the outcome. I’m puzzled while you’re still harping about it as if there is anything more to investigate.
It’s because a talking head speculated Rice et al. were breaking the law and everything. But speculation is bad, or something.
I said I’m in favor of investigations. Apparently, an investigation was undertaken by the House Intelligence Committee. Your linked article was published 2 days ago.
*Politics Apr 17 2017, 12:03 pm ET
Susan Rice Did Nothing Wrong, Say Both Dems and Republicans
by Ken Dilanian
A review of the surveillance material flagged by House Intelligence Committee Chairman Devin Nunes shows no inappropriate action by Susan Rice or any other Obama administration official, Republican and Democratic Congressional aides who have been briefed on the matter told NBC News.*
Update:
CNN now says that Paul Manafort, who resides in Trump Tower, was wiretapped under secret court orders during the 2016 campaign:
You are so close right-wingers. So close.
Unfortunately for you, if Trump knew about THIS wiretap and disclosed it, then Mueller will probably add that to his obstruction charges.
What’s your view of the wisdom and morality of that consequence of FISA?
Is there a law that says, if the Justice Department is wire-tapping your campaign manager, you can’t mention it?
Regards,
Shodan
Perhaps. Presumably the target of the wiretap shouldn’t be told that there is a wiretap in progress else the information gathering would be compromised. So I think that talking about it would obstruct justice.
I would need to see the actual law, or case law, on the subject.
Regards,
Shodan
Two individuals who seem to have some experience with criminal law, Roger Stone and Paul Manafort, claim that leaking the existance of FISA warrants is a felony. Link, link. So it seems to stand to reason that if Richard Parker’s scenario is correct, that Trump leaked the existence of the warrants, then Mr. Stone and Mr. Manafort are indeed accusing Trump of a crime.
Exactly. If you disclose the existence of a wiretap in order to frustrate the goals of the investigation, that’s a good case for obstruction of justice.
Operative words being “in order to frustrate the goals of the investigation”. That, as opposed to “in order to whine about it”.
Which is leaving aside the issue of whether the person knew about it from government sources or was just repeating his garbled misunderstanding of something they heard/saw from some pundit.
Let me take a moment to catch my breath that Bricker cares about a liberal’s view of the wisdom and morality of a law. 
…
Ok. My view is this: the government’s power to eavesdrop should be subject to the Fourth Amendment, and that means not eavesdropping on any conversation involving a U.S. national unless you have probable cause of a crime and a warrant or a good reason you couldn’t get a warrant in time. If the government’s power were properly circumscribed, then I would have no problem with penalties for disclosing the existence of such surveillance when there has been a proper procedure to issue it (agents didn’t knowingly lie to deceive the magistrate, etc.).
Since the government’s power is not limited in the way I would prefer and that I believe ought to be constitutionally required, I have complex moral qualms about penalties for disclosure of surveillance and surveillance programs, and they vary depending on the facts of the particular disclosure. In the abstract, the surveillance of a member of a U.S. presidential campaign is very troubling. But in this case the surveillance began before that campaign started and targeted someone who was exceedingly unlikely to be involved in the general election, which goes a long way toward calming any fear one might have that this was some kind of abuse of power. And, as far as we know, it followed existing law including constitutional precedent (wrong as it may be, in my view).
Nevertheless, if what Trump had done was say something like this, I would feel morally conflicted: “Americans, tonight I inform you that I have learned that the federal government was secretly surveilling members of a political campaign. I am not saying they were targeted because they were part of the campaign, but this nevertheless raises grave concerns about privacy and democratic integrity. I therefore ask that… blah blah.”
Of course, that isn’t what Trump did at all. He blamed Obama, and has zero facts to support that blame. And he claimed he was targeted, which is also completely baseless. To the extent his lies have rubbed up against some separate truth, that may create trouble for him personally if the reason he made that statement was he knew about the FISA warrant. I would have no problem with seeing him prosecuted for obstructing justice if in fact his intent was to tip off people in Trump Tower that they were being monitored.
Then how could it be obstruction of justice if what Trump said about the wiretapping wasn’t true? I don’t think you can have it both ways.
Regards,
Shodan
I think you can. Here’s the scenario: Trump learns of FISA warrant. Trump is angry, stupid, and afraid. He wants to lash out at Obama for doing this and also warn the subjects of any ongoing surveillance. So he tweets out that Obama was wiretapping him at Trump Tower.
His tweet is both literally false–it wasn’t Obama and it wasn’t him–but also both intended to and does obstruct justice.
That’s why you do the exposition in the bathroom, in hushed tones, with the water running.