Did Trump Libel Obama (over the wiretapping tweets)?

[MaggieD]

The Flynn thing gives credence, at least partially, to Trumps claim.
The only people who would of likely known about Flynn's call were, Trump's transition people or someone listening in via "wiretap."

The Russian Ambassador was being targeted, actually.

Interesting coincidence...

About a month before Obama left office, he made a significant change in security that comes powerfully into play here. The way it was BEFORE Obama acted was that when an American was heard on a foreign wiretap such was on the ambassador's line, the American's identity would be masked... because that would be illegal without a warrant.

Obama changed the procedure so that, before any American's identity was masked, the recordings would be sent to all sixteen agencies for their listening pleasure. So where was the Flynn leak? Before Obama made that change, perhaps four or five people would have known about Flynn. After? All sixteen agencies and staff knew so the leak of ILLEGAL information became almost impossible to trace.

Verrry interesting.

 

[apdst]

Considering that you believe Trump's communications were monitored despite the assertions of the sources you cited.

Why don't you find the sources you cite credible?

Where did any of my sources prove me wrong?

 

[WCH]

So if the NYT came out tomorrow claiming that Trump is a child rapist and printed the faces of the children he raped, even though there was no evidence to support it, that would just be fine and dandy? What a distorted world view you have.

They are not beyond reproach....

New York Times Reporter Apologizes for Calling Melania Trump a 'Hooker'

 

[Harry Guerrilla]

The Russian Ambassador was being targeted, actually.

Interesting coincidence...

About a month before Obama left office, he made a significant change in security that comes powerfully into play here. The way it was BEFORE Obama acted was that when an American was heard on a foreign wiretap such was on the ambassador's line, the American's identity would be masked... because that would be illegal without a warrant.

Obama changed the procedure so that, before any American's identity was masked, the recordings would be sent to all sixteen agencies for their listening pleasure. So where was the Flynn leak? Before Obama made that change, perhaps four or five people would have known about Flynn. After? All sixteen agencies and staff knew so the leak of ILLEGAL information became almost impossible to trace.

Verrry interesting.

If that is true, anything Trump has said or done up to this point pales in comparison.
A former president or people aligned to said president, using intelligence gathering infrastructure to undermine a sitting president for politics, is dangerous as ****.

 

[ttwtt78640]

The Flynn thing gives credence, at least partially, to Trumps claim.
The only people who would of likely known about Flynn's call were, Trump's transition people or someone listening in via "wiretap."

What is being ignored is that a "wiretap" works on either end of a two party conversation. Assuming that Flynn's phone vs. the foreign party's phone was the target of that "wiretap" is a stretch. BTW, I agree that the "leak" of this (classified?) data is a serious problem.

 

[apdst]

The Russian Ambassador was being targeted, actually.

Interesting coincidence...

About a month before Obama left office, he made a significant change in security that comes powerfully into play here. The way it was BEFORE Obama acted was that when an American was heard on a foreign wiretap such was on the ambassador's line, the American's identity would be masked... because that would be illegal without a warrant.

Obama changed the procedure so that, before any American's identity was masked, the recordings would be sent to all sixteen agencies for their listening pleasure. So where was the Flynn leak? Before Obama made that change, perhaps four or five people would have known about Flynn. After? All sixteen agencies and staff knew so the leak of ILLEGAL information became almost impossible to trace.

Verrry interesting.

That would mean Obama changed the law and that means it's illegal. Verrry interesting, indeed.

 

[countryboy]

The Flynn thing gives credence, at least partially, to Trumps claim.
The only people who would of likely known about Flynn's call were, Trump's transition people or someone listening in via "wiretap."

Furthermore, if Flynn wasn't the target of of the surveillance of the call with the Russian, his voice should've never been recorded. It should have been "minimized". But he obviously was the target.

 

[Harry Guerrilla]

What is being ignored is that a "wiretap" works on either end of a two party conversation. Assuming that Flynn's phone vs. the foreign party's phone was the target of that "wiretap" is a stretch. BTW, I agree that the "leak" of this (classified?) data is a serious problem.

Modern wiretapping, from what I understand is just a look back at already collected data in the NSA databanks and continued listening.
The Snowden leaks more less confirmed that they're recording everyone's, everything.

 

[countryboy]

Flynn wasn't being monitored, the Russian he was talking to was.

Then legally, Flynn couldn't have been recorded. Can you explain how this happened if Flynn wasn't being monitored?

 

[RabidAlpaca]

The Russian Ambassador was being targeted, actually.

Interesting coincidence...

About a month before Obama left office, he made a significant change in security that comes powerfully into play here. The way it was BEFORE Obama acted was that when an American was heard on a foreign wiretap such was on the ambassador's line, the American's identity would be masked... because that would be illegal without a warrant.

Obama changed the procedure so that, before any American's identity was masked, the recordings would be sent to all sixteen agencies for their listening pleasure. So where was the Flynn leak? Before Obama made that change, perhaps four or five people would have known about Flynn. After? All sixteen agencies and staff knew so the leak of ILLEGAL information became almost impossible to trace.

Verrry interesting.

I thought surely the Obama conspiracy theories would stop after he left office, but you guys still are terrified of him.

Damaging info comes to light about Democrats? Nothing to see here, move along.
Damaging info comes to light about Republicans? OMG! TREASON! CONSPIRACY! ALARM!

They are not beyond reproach....
New York Times Reporter Apologizes for Calling Melania Trump a 'Hooker'

If making up fake stories to damage your opponents isn't libel, why should they apologize? Trump hasn't apologized to Obama for slandering him with random conspiracy theories.

Then legally, Flynn couldn't have been recorded. Can you explain how this happened if Flynn wasn't being monitored?

https://www.debatepolitics.com/polls/280514-did-trump-libel-obama-over-wiretapping-tweets-8.html#post1066957633

 

[KevinKohler]

Do you know the definition of a lie? A lie is intentional. A lie is not a mistaken belief.

Because I understand the English language a bit better than you, it would seem, even if it turns out it is NOT true, I do not think he was lying.

I get you, and I agree....but, let me stir this pot a bit more.

Would you prefer a president who intentionally tells lies....


Or a president is wrong a LOT?

 

[Harry Guerrilla]

Furthermore, if Flynn wasn't the target of of the surveillance of the call with the Russian, his voice should've never been recorded. It should have been "minimized". But he obviously was the target.

People have warned us about the NSA and their surveillance.
Just a taste of "turn key tyranny."

 

[KevinKohler]

I voted unsure, because, frankly, even if it isn't libel, it's wrong. You don't level public accusations about someone without something like evidence or proof to back them up. And if you have proof, cough it up!

 

[Simon W. Moon]

Where did any of my sources prove me wrong?

As a favor to you, I will repost your own sources for you to review.
Additionally, I will quote and highlight the relevant parts.

The Obama Camp’s Disingenuous Denials on FISA Surveillance of Trump

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.

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.​

As far as I can tell the author makes a distinction between Trump and "Trump associates".
You agree that the author makes this distinction, don't you?

The targets of FISA warrants are foreign intelligence agents.
Your sources claims that some of Trump's associates are targets of a FISA warrant.
Your source is saying that some Trump associates are foreign intelligence agents.

 

[Casca XV]

Did Trump Libel Obama (over the wiretapping tweets)?

Fake News,Nice propaganda try. Obama has a long history of intelligence services to illicitly spy on his political opponents (he had NSA spying on members of congress who opposed the Iran nuke deal and several other things).

The is about a 100% chance Obama is not the victim here.

The headline here is "Obama wire tapped Trump" not "Trump defamed Obama"

The is similar to a week ago when FBI approached Spicer and said basically "We know the allegations of the Trump campaign colluding with the Russians are BS".
After that the Trump campaign asked them to go public. The dying MSM instead of accurately reporting "FBI says Russia allegations are BS" they tried to spin it "Trump tried to strongarm FBI".

 

[Captain America]

Not being a lawyer, I couldn't say.

But I can say this.

Obama, regardless whether you liked him, hated him, agreed with his policies or not, he did one thing that Trump could never do. Obama represented the position of the POTUS with dignity, intellectual demeanor, rose above the gutter politics, set the prime example of American family values, and made it through 8 years with out the typical Whitehouse scandals.

Now, compare that to the foul-mouth, ***** grabbing, low intellect, compulsive liar we now have occupying the oval office. Compare Obama to the orange man who paraded spoiled-rotten children, from 3 different women, across the stage time after time.

Trump is just trying to blemish Obama while diverting attention from the ongoing realization that he is a commie loving lapdog for Putin.

Trump is lower than a snake's belly in a wagon rut. He is a disgrace.

 

[Simon W. Moon]

I voted unsure, because, frankly, even if it isn't libel, it's wrong. You don't level public accusations about someone without something like evidence or proof to back them up. And if you have proof, cough it up!

Whenever it suits Trump's purposes, he can declassify w/e he thinks needs declassification.

 

[haymarket]

The evidence of Russia anything, is so ridiculously paper thin, that even IT experts question it's validity.
Given that, the rest of the stuff can easily be chocked up to conformation bias.

What if we had actual film of Trump publicly inviting the Russians to get involved in our election going after his opponent to his advantage? Would that be the smoking gun?

 

[Harry Guerrilla]

What if we had actual film of Trump publicly inviting the Russians to get involved in our election going after his opponent to his advantage? Would that be the smoking gun?

You mean that video, that people like yourself, take grossly out of context?
No, not that video.

 

[haymarket]

You mean that video, that people like yourself, take grossly out of context?
No, not that video.

Out of context!?!?!??!!? He publicly invited the Russians to get involved in our election and go after his opponent. That is EXACTLY the context in which it was made.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/poli...fe509430c39_story.html?utm_term=.8a328f7303df

PHILADELPHIA — Republican nominee Donald Trump pleaded directly Wednesday with the Russian government to meddle in the U.S. presidential election by finding and releasing tens of thousands of private emails from his Democratic opponent, Hillary Clinton — an extraordinary and perhaps unprecedented maneuver in American politics.

“Russia, if you’re listening, I hope you’re able to find the 30,000 emails that are missing,” Trump said during a news conference at one of his South Florida resorts. He added later, “They probably have them. I’d like to have them released.”
Asked whether Russian espionage into the former secretary of state’s correspondence would concern him, Trump said, “No, it gives me no pause. If they have them, they have them.”

To deny the obvious is to be irrational. Notice that Trump followed up on his public plea with clarifying statements later doubling down on his eagerness to see the Russians involved. This was not a one line quip made in jest while laughing. It was a very public invitation followed up by more clarification and comments which only emphasized the validity of his invitation to the Russians to get involved in our election process.

This comes right from the top. Or as they say - a fish stinks from the head.

 

[Harry Guerrilla]

Out of context!?!?!??!!? He publicly invited the Russians to get involved in our election and go after his opponent. That is EXACTLY the context in which it was made.

That's the movie that you play in your head to justify your beliefs.
That doesn't equate to reality, sorry. :shrug:

 

[Henrin]

Not being a lawyer, I couldn't say.

But I can say this.

Obama, regardless whether you liked him, hated him, agreed with his policies or not, he did one thing that Trump could never do. Obama represented the position of the POTUS with dignity, intellectual demeanor, rose above the gutter politics, set the prime example of American family values, and made it through 8 years with out the typical Whitehouse scandals.

Ummm...how about no on all counts. There was also scandals during his administration.

Now, compare that to the foul-mouth, ***** grabbing, low intellect, compulsive liar we now have occupying the oval office. Compare Obama to the orange man who paraded spoiled-rotten children, from 3 different women, across the stage time after time.

Lol, because Obama wasn't a constant liar too. Right...

 

[RabidAlpaca]

Fake News,Nice propaganda try. Obama has a long history of intelligence services to illicitly spy on his political opponents (he had NSA spying on members of congress who opposed the Iran nuke deal and several other things).

The is about a 100% chance Obama is not the victim here.

The headline here is "Obama wire tapped Trump" not "Trump defamed Obama"

The is similar to a week ago when FBI approached Spicer and said basically "We know the allegations of the Trump campaign colluding with the Russians are BS".
After that the Trump campaign asked them to go public. The dying MSM instead of accurately reporting "FBI says Russia allegations are BS" they tried to spin it "Trump tried to strongarm FBI".

If people went on TV in front of millions of people and called you, CascaXV, a child rapist without providing a single shred of evidence to support it, would you consider yourself a victim? Are you saying that no one can be a victim of libel?

Do you have concrete evidence of Obama using intelligence services to illicitly spy on his political opponents? Why didn't you or anyone else challenge it in court and bring him down? That's the problem with America nowadays. People like you will read conspiracy theory blogs then immediately incorporate it into your world view without verifying any of it. It sure feels like Obama is the big bad criminal you want him to be, doesn't it?

You mean that video, that people like yourself, take grossly out of context?
No, not that video.

How was that video taken out of context. After he invited the Russians to hack his opponent did he say "Just kidding" a few minutes later? I missed that part, perhaps you could put it in the right context for us.

 

[Van Basten]

This thread is an adventure into the delusions of Trump supporters.

Fascinating and terrifying at the same time.

 

[haymarket]

That's the movie that you play in your head to justify your beliefs.
That doesn't equate to reality, sorry. :shrug:

That makes no rational sense on any level. There is no movie in my head. There is tape of Trump inviting the Russians to get involved in our elections and then clarifying follow up statements from Trump doubling down on that invitation when he had a chance to walk it back but refused to do so.