Or Trump was totally making shit up about Obama with zero evidence, like he did before for many years.
Hi! Could I have a cite for this, and while you’re at it, a cite that WAPO or the NY Times stated, in an article, not an op-ed, that Trump colluded with the Russins? Thanks in advance.
This is GD, not the Pit or the Wild Speculation Board, so please bring cites to your statements.
But he’s jeopardizing doing “racism” which is what he really wants to do as AG.
Ken Starr was an independent prosecutor. He was biased too, or at the very least, wilfully took his prosecution remit beyond hand
a) DoJ != Obama, despite what the completely non-partisan and unbiased National Review might say.
b) What is your recommendation? If it looks like a political candidate may genuinely be colluding with an enemy government, don’t investigate them? While it is certainly problematic to have political investigations, when everything is being run by highly partisan overseers, doing nothing isn’t really an answer either.
That article is a load of crap, and is nothing more than a “if Trump said it, then it must be true” piece of nothing.
To excerpt the relevant “smoking gun” bits.
. . . or how about:
So, it’s a “fact” that maybe Trump was investigated by the FBI? Please. :rolleyes:
Trump should know that Obama couldn’t order the wiretap. Obama only claimed the authority to assassinate US citizens without due process.
That meanie!
(If you meant to post something relevant to the thread, my apologies; you may wish, in that case, to clarify what the hell you think your post has to do with the subject at hand.)
An article full of weasel words, like “seems” and “personally” used to conclude that those denials are “disingenuous” in other words, the writer there has nothing. And in the end it goes once again about Hillary (‘but her emails!!!’).
Let it go. It is Trump and his cabinet the ones that we have to deal with and what is happening is this:
As Digby pointed out yesterday, this is what comes of a president getting his news from the fever swamps at Breitbart. (Didn’t he have plans for draining swamps?)
The New York Times reports that the White House, rather than tamping down Trump’s rage tweets, is going even deeper down the rabbit hole:
**
Yes, that would be interfering in an ongoing investigation.**
[QUOTE=Justin Miller]
What’s scarier, White House reportedly interfering with investigation or not knowing that saying this is tantamount to a confession?
[/QUOTE]
[/QUOTE]
I think either way we’ve crossed a significant line.
If trump really was wiretapped (as seems very unlikely at this point, given Comey, Clapper + Obama office statements), it would be because they had probable cause – and what that evidence was will now be revealed more quickly thanks to Trump’s tweets.
If it’s another lie, it’s a serious and specific lie with repercussions for trump. He’ll have to publicly climb down, possibly after wasting a lot of public money first (yes, a lot of money was wasted over Benghazi, but that time there wasn’t a specific individual to blame for it).
OTOH If it’s a lie and he doesn’t climb down, then we can be sure now he’s never going to climb down over anything, and the lies are just going to get bigger and bigger. It would just be a matter of time before he says something that provokes an international or civil war.
Oh, and how much evidence does it take to make a FISA court authorise wire tapping?
(Bolding mine)
And even with all that, according to the reports, FISA court did refuse the first DoJ’s warrant request against Trump.
One of your cites said that it wasn’t at all clear that the request was “against” Trump.
Should we believe the source you cited or not?
As I have stressed, it is unclear whether “named” in this context indicates that Trump himself was cited as a person the Justice Department was alleging was a Russian agent whom it wanted to surveil. It could instead mean that Trump’s name was merely mentioned in an application that sought to conduct surveillance on other alleged Russian agents.
in October 2016…the Justice Department submitted a narrowly tailored application that did not mention Trump. The court apparently granted it, authorizing surveillance of some Trump associates.
Is this guy credible or not?
If he is credible, why don’t you believe the message he has “stressed”?
As another writer for the National Review puts it:
If you want to quibble with the word - I will revise my statement:
“And even with all that, according to the reports, FISA court did refuse the first DoJ’s warrant request that named Trump.”
But all these reports come based on anonymous sources, thus suspect and not reliable (which BTW also applies to all the articles in WaPo and NYT solely based on anonymous sources - yet those are quite accepted as reliable on this forum).
If there were a FISA warrant issued “against” Trump, that would mean that a FISC judge decided it was reasonable to consider Trump a foreign spy.
Imho, Trump as foreign agent seems a bit far-fetched on its face.
It would take a contrived set of circumstances for that to be a reasonable conclusion for a FISC judge.
When you say that the warrant was “against” Trump, you’re saying that you find it likely a FISC judge decided Trump was an agent of a foreign country.
That’s the target of FISA warrants, afaict—foreign spies.
Does it seems reasonable that a FISC judge would decide Trump was a foreign agent?
Does that seem more likely than Trump making a hyperbolic statement?
It’s pretty weird, if true (wouldn’t you say?) that the first warrant naming Trump that was requested by DOJ from FISA court was rejected, considering that FISA court rejected only 11 out of 20,000 or so applications before that?
That would mean that the DOJ’s case, whatever it was, was laughably weak. Considering just how rubber-stampish FISA seems to be, according to those numbers.
It’s also weird how the warrant that was approved did not mention Trump [as your source tells it anyway].
But somehow, in the minds of some folks on the Internet, Obama tapped Trump’s phones via FISA warrant.
Weird, don’t’chya think?
If Trump’s phone was tapped (whether he was named in the warrant or not) then Trump’s phone was tapped. Wouldn’t you say?