Trump accuses Obama of wiretapping Trump Tower (1 Viewer)

[Removable Mind]

Have it your way

Bannon has my full support to crush the enemy by whatever means necessary

And he has a lot of means

No, Bannon, doesn't have the means. Like all other people in high seats in governments, he'll use US treasure and our citizens' lives to engage with enemy. That's always worked great for Monday morning quarterbacks who have access to the deepest pockets in the world. The so-called enemy that US leaders has been engaging for 15 years.

There was an important lesson to be learned from Vietnam. I thought we got it, but apparently not.

Trillions of dollars later, thousands of lives lost, tens of thousands injured and still the "perceived enemy" still exists because as the leadership faces change for whatever reasons - the ideology behind the movement - which is mythology, a small number of men are claiming to know what the creator of their universe wants them to convey to all of the followers around the world.

With the money the US has spent thus far - the same amount could have been used to build a security system in and around the US to prevent the second coming of Christ.

Bannon is being exposed to the public, but not by those who should have already done it. The reason that he hasn't been exposed is a mystery that our nation's security agencies didn't do their jobs prior to his nomination. That's telling every enemy that the US security agencies are the weakest frauds on the planet, lead by people who don't know what they're doing.

If it was possible to crush the so-called enemy it would have been done during the Bush/Obama presidencies. The same reason that we didn't win in Vietnam is the same reason we won't in the Middle East. To do what's really necessary to win would make the US appear worse than North Korea.

 

[ocean515]

It's crystal clear that you do not understand regarding my position. There were no Bush war criminals because none were prosecuted/convicted, just as there will be no criminals here because none will be prosecuted/convicted. In other words, people are getting themselves all worked up, and calling for the bad and evil people from the other side to be prosecuted, for what is going to be nothing.

Oh, and if you were interested in the real world, you wouldn't be be such a Sucker for Trump. You're falling right in step with the irrelevant wedge issues.

It's crystal clear you don't understand my position. There was no prosecution for war crimes among the people you are likely referring to because there were no war crimes. It's not because nobody had the huevos to prosecute them. Hard to prosecute someone for speeding if they've never driven a car.

Thank you for offering your opinion regarding my support of President Trump. It's rather petty and juvenile of you to do so in the manner you chose. Joining in the insensate blather of the left doesn't add much to the discourse.

 

[haymarket]

I gave an honest answer. But you can't control yourself, so like a broken record, you enter into the haymarket twilight zone of "you didn't answer my question" nonsense.

Since you obsess over always having the last word, something you absurdly accused me of in a previous spasm of verbiage, I'll leave you to your uncontrollable proclivity.

In which post did you answer my question?

Why would the President of the USA make such a serious charge if he could not prove it or even offer any evidence for it?

 

[notquiteright]

If its true the is beginning of the end of our republic. Nothing brings us closer to dictatorship than one political party using its police power to spy on the opposition party

IF is the biggest word in the English language. I'd hold off lamenting the end of our Republic just yet. Trump doesn't seem to have a good grasp of the truth and has presented ZERO evidence. Not the first time, betting not the last.

Trump needs to head off the chorus line of aides and cabinet officials found to have 'forgotten' meetings with Russians (that damn Russian ambassador seems to be everywhere) and the very bad sound bites of a firm denial and then a wiggly admission by ....ahhh last I heard 6 of his people in his 'fine tuned' administration.

Time will tell... eace

 

[cuban smokes]

In which post did you answer my question?

Why would the President of the USA make such a serious charge if he could not prove it or even offer any evidence for it?

because Trump does NOT think; Trump is a reactionary by virtue of his FLAWED personality

this is who we have as President; not the personality type we need to have with their finger on 'the button'

 

[Mycroft]

IF is the biggest word in the English language. I'd hold off lamenting the end of our Republic just yet. Trump doesn't seem to have a good grasp of the truth and has presented ZERO evidence. Not the first time, betting not the last.

Trump needs to head off the chorus line of aides and cabinet officials found to have 'forgotten' meetings with Russians (that damn Russian ambassador seems to be everywhere) and the very bad sound bites of a firm denial and then a wiggly admission by ....ahhh last I heard 6 of his people in his 'fine tuned' administration.

Time will tell... eace

What is interesting about that Russian Ambassador is that he seems to spend more time with Democrats than Republicans. Heck, in that last speech from Trump, the guy was hanging out with the Democrats.

But, of course, that's different...it's okay if he meets with and talks to Democrats.

 

[notquiteright]

In which post did you answer my question? Why would the President of the USA make such a serious charge if he could not prove it or even offer any evidence for it?

Have you been paying attention to the dribble coming from President Trump??? He flings crap like a pissed off monkey! 46.1% of the American people voted for a well known loose cannon and they got one! Problem is a loose cannon can sink your own ship...

He makes his snipe at Arnold over the TV show TRUMP is an executive producer as 'forcefully' as this crap.

Can you tell us any charge he flung that he could prove or offer any evidence for it??? He has been routinely claiming evidence offered to disprove his claims is 'fake news'... proving just ain't his style... eace

 

[Simon W. Moon]

There are no conditions that would allow the release of transcripts of secret telephone intercepts to the public. There are no conditions that would allow the release of transcripts of conversations between the President of the United States and foreign dignitaries.
Releasing these documents is a violation of the more restrictive and specific guidelines EX President Obama created via Executive Order 13526, which he issued in December, 2009.

The post you're responding to pointed out that the "direction" you have "been trained to think" is not as conclusive as you made it sound.
You posted that certain conditions were required and that these requirements led us necessarily to certain conclusions.
Bu, the conditions you listed as pre-requisites are in fact optional rather than required.
Therefore, we are not compelled to reach the conclusions you would like us to reach.

Your reply above seems to start talking about something other than the post it is replying to.
Your post above is on the same general topic, but not the same subtopic we were previously discussing—the conditions necessary for someone to let "adversary know we can intercept their messages".

However, in response to the new subject you have broached, whether or not there are conditions "that would allow the release of transcripts of secret telephone intercepts to the public"...

There are actually conditions which could exist which would allow someone to divulge such information.
But, the fact that one could contrive such circumstances is immaterial.

The question which it seems you are working toward was whether or not there actually were circumstances which would allow someone to divulge such information.
This questions seems to hinge on details and specifics I have not seen.

But, I did read you speculation on the matter.

 

[ocean515]

The post you're responding to pointed out that the "direction" you have "been trained to think" is not as conclusive as you made it sound.
You posted that certain conditions were required and that these requirements led us necessarily to certain conclusions.
Bu, the conditions you listed as pre-requisites are in fact optional rather than required.
Therefore, we are not compelled to reach the conclusions you would like us to reach.

Your reply above seems to start talking about something other than the post it is replying to.
Your post above is on the same general topic, but not the same subtopic we were previously discussing—the conditions necessary for someone to let "adversary know we can intercept their messages".

However, in response to the new subject you have broached, whether or not there are conditions "that would allow the release of transcripts of secret telephone intercepts to the public"...

There are actually conditions which could exist which would allow someone to divulge such information.
But, the fact that one could contrive such circumstances is immaterial.

The question which it seems you are working toward was whether or not there actually were circumstances which would allow someone to divulge such information.
This questions seems to hinge on details and specifics I have not seen.

But, I did read you speculation on the matter.

Rather than post long winded replies that are challenging to read, why don't you cite the specific laws that allow someone to decide to divulge top secret national security intelligence data and capabilities to foreign, or even, domestic powers. Also cite the laws that allow these same people to release them to the public.

The revelation the United States was intercepting telephone conversations between US Citizens and Russian Dignitaries was done via a violation of national security protocol, not in a one on one discussion between the parties involved.

 

[notquiteright]

What is interesting about that Russian Ambassador is that he seems to spend more time with Democrats than Republicans. Heck, in that last speech from Trump, the guy was hanging out with the Democrats. But, of course, that's different...it's okay if he meets with and talks to Democrats.

Trump-like distraction and strawman.... :roll:

No USofA intelligence agency claims the Russians attempted to influence a USofA election for the Democrats... :doh

No democrat has 'forgotten' meetings under oath in a confirmation hearing.

Name the Democrat that is on video flatly stated no meeting and then once evidence has been produced having to tap dance and admit they were wrong.

Who was the Democrat that denied any conversation about sanctions with the Russians but had to resign once it became clear there was evidence he did EXACTLY that???

Senator Schumer has stated he'd gladly testify under oath on HIS Russian meetings if the Trump team would as well...

But when it comes to the defense of trump's team the excuse makers has no limit in false equivalency... eace

 

[Mycroft]

Trump-like distraction and strawman.... :roll:

No USofA intelligence agency claims the Russians attempted to influence a USofA election for the Democrats... :doh

No democrat has 'forgotten' meetings under oath in a confirmation hearing.

Name the Democrat that is on video flatly stated no meeting and then once evidence has been produced having to tap dance and admit they were wrong.

Who was the Democrat that denied any conversation about sanctions with the Russians but had to resign once it became clear there was evidence he did EXACTLY that???

Senator Schumer has stated he'd gladly testify under oath on HIS Russian meetings if the Trump team would as well...

But when it comes to the defense of trump's team the excuse makers has no limit in false equivalency... eace

Blah, blah, blah... (mixed in with a fair amount of blathering leftist talking points...AND a lie)

You are dismissed.

 

[Simon W. Moon]

Rather than post long winded replies that are challenging to read, why don't you cite the specific laws that allow someone to decide to divulge top secret national security intelligence data and capabilities to foreign, or even, domestic powers. Also cite the laws that allow these same people to release them to the public.

I am sorry that my replies are challenging.
I try to be clear.
I try to put my ideas in simples sentences, one main point per line or so.
I apologize.
I'll try to be more clear for your sake.

As I mentioned in my previous post, the fact that I or someone else could contrive a situation where revealing this information would be permissible is entirely beside the point.
The actual question is whether or not conditions which would make it allowable existed at the time the deed was done.
As I mentioned in my previous post, I do not have that information.

The revelation the United States was intercepting telephone conversations between US Citizens and Russian Dignitaries was done via a violation of national security protocol, not in a one on one discussion between the parties involved.

Are you asserting that the Russians were previously unaware that the conversations of their ambassador were being monitored?

Or, are just saying that it's wrong to bring up in public the fact that the conversations of the ambassador are monitored?

 

[ocean515]

I am sorry that my replies are challenging.
I try to be clear.
I try to put my ideas in simples sentences, one main point per line or so.
I apologize.
I'll try to be more clear for your sake.

As I mentioned in my previous post, the fact that I or someone else could contrive a situation where revealing this information would be permissible is entirely beside the point.
The actual question is whether or not conditions which would make it allowable existed at the time the deed was done.
As I mentioned in my previous post, I do not have that information.



Are you asserting that the Russians were previously unaware that the conversations of their ambassador were being monitored?

Or, are just saying that it's wrong to bring up in public the fact that the conversations of the ambassador are monitored?

Both.

 

[radcen]

It's crystal clear you don't understand my position. There was no prosecution for war crimes among the people you are likely referring to because there were no war crimes. It's not because nobody had the huevos to prosecute them. Hard to prosecute someone for speeding if they've never driven a car.

Thank you for offering your opinion regarding my support of President Trump. It's rather petty and juvenile of you to do so in the manner you chose. Joining in the insensate blather of the left doesn't add much to the discourse.

Even *if* there were war crimes (not a statement regarding whether there were or not one way or another), no one was ever going to go down for them. The system protects itself. That's my point. Same here. Even *if* there is something legit, no one is going down. At most some minor and insignificant bureaucrat will take a fall, that'd be it. You, and others on both sides, are getting yourselves worked up into a lather for nothing. This is exactly the kind of crap that I believe people in power spoon feed the public to distract us from the serious stuff that they're doing that actually does impact our daily lives.

 

[ocean515]

Even *if* there were war crimes (not a statement regarding whether there were or not one way or another), no one was ever going to go down for them. The system protects itself. That's my point. Same here. Even *if* there is something legit, no one is going down. At most some minor and insignificant bureaucrat will take a fall, that'd be it. You, and others on both sides, are getting yourselves worked up into a lather for nothing. This is exactly the kind of crap that I believe people in power spoon feed the public to distract us from the serious stuff that they're doing that actually does impact our daily lives.

Well, you have your opinion. Why you're attempting to connect the Iraq War with egregious violations of National Security laws and protocols is you unique way of viewing things.

I've drawn my conclusion from observation, not through reading anything from any source.

The fact that top secret intercepts were revealed to the public, a gross violation of National Security that puts citizens at risk, should be a concern to all.

The fact they are attempting to harm a duly elected branch of the Federal Government does impact everyone's daily lives.

The fact these operatives apparently feel insulated from the legal ramifications of their activity places this entire offensive they are running on a very high and serious plain.

You, of course, can ignore those ramifications.

 

[notquiteright]

Blah, blah, blah... (mixed in with a fair amount of blathering leftist talking points...AND a lie) You are dismissed.

Rabid Right for- That didn't go like at choir practice so I'll blow smoke and haul butt, but in a Trump-like snotty twitter kinda way.... :lamo

You are owned... eace

 

[radcen]

Well, you have your opinion. Why you're attempting to connect the Iraq War with egregious violations of National Security laws and protocols is you unique way of viewing things.

I've drawn my conclusion from observation, not through reading anything from any source.

The fact that top secret intercepts were revealed to the public, a gross violation of National Security that puts citizens at risk, should be a concern to all.

The fact they are attempting to harm a duly elected branch of the Federal Government does impact everyone's daily lives.

The fact these operatives apparently feel insulated from the legal ramifications of their activity places this entire offensive they are running on a very high and serious plain.

You, of course, can ignore those ramifications.

As with many others on your chosen side, you are choosing to focus on the *how* and are glossing over the *what*. I'll grant that the *how* isn't wholly insignificant(1), but the *what* is far more significant and has the potential to affect our daily lives to a far deeper level. Ideally, both should get at least equal time, but each has split along partisan lines... imagine that!

As far as your first paragraph, I can't decide if you're purposely being obtuse or still honestly don't understand my point. I am not directly comparing or equating the two scenarios themselves. I am comparing and equating the responses, the partisanship, to alleged egregious events.

(1) Don't mistake agreement that it may be something to somehow counter my previous point that no one will take a fall for it and that it's more busy work and distraction for the people.

 

[LetsGoBrandon]

Problem is that it is Trump saying this... can hardly trust what he says. He has less credibility than Pinocchio...

What's the problem? Since the election, the left has been pulling claims out of it's ass that the Trump Administration colluded with the Russians to defeat Hillary, despite no evidence of such.

 

[yankintx]

FFS. read what you just posted. that is just scary.

Yup the poster is raking the leakers over the coals with faux outrage, then asks his team to do the same, you just cant make this up.

 

[PeteEU]

What's the problem? Since the election, the left has been pulling claims out of it's ass that the Trump Administration colluded with the Russians to defeat Hillary, despite no evidence of such.

You must live on another planet. There is plenty of circumstantial evidence, even before the election. It is your lot that are preventing open fair investigations into the situation. Why are you so worried about an investigation? You had 10+ Benghazi investigations that found nothing, you had Ken Starr back in the day and it found nothing.. the list of bull**** investigations against Democrats by the GOP goes on. But when we have actual link and worst of all.. denial of the very same links despite clear evidence that they happened... then we have a situation that needs investigating.

Add to that, that up 8 Russians possibly connected to Trump have died in the last few months, and frankly something stinks to high heaven.

 

[ocean515]

As with many others on your chosen side, you are choosing to focus on the *how* and are glossing over the *what*. I'll grant that the *how* isn't wholly insignificant(1), but the *what* is far more significant and has the potential to affect our daily lives to a far deeper level. Ideally, both should get at least equal time, but each has split along partisan lines... imagine that!

As far as your first paragraph, I can't decide if you're purposely being obtuse or still honestly don't understand my point. I am not directly comparing or equating the two scenarios themselves. I am comparing and equating the responses, the partisanship, to alleged egregious events.

(1) Don't mistake agreement that it may be something to somehow counter my previous point that no one will take a fall for it and that it's more busy work and distraction for the people.

I would argue the "what" has little to no significance to anything in the daily lives of citizens in the US. Consider the facts. Various agencies and such have said there was nothing untoward or concerning about contacts with Russian diplomats. EX President Obama is on record stating Russia did nothing to effect the voting.

But what is all the noise about? Lying? Really? Read the transcripts of the hearings, the questions asked, the context of them, and the answers. Objective minds would not come away from such an effort with anything approaching the massive "response" the left's MSM partners are orchestrating.

Yet, here we are, with operatives deep inside the government leaking top secret intelligence simply because it appears they don't like the person voters put in the White House, and they want to bring it down. Liberal Senators are talking impeachment! What do they want, Civil War? It's outrageous.

This is the stuff of Hollywood action movies, not real life government activity. Yet, it's happening. The ramifications of such activity should be alarming to everyone, not just one side of the aisle.

Who is to say is behind these leaks. Can you, with 100% certainty, identify who is behind these gross violations of the laws pertaining to National Security and Intelligence?

 

[apdst]

You must live on another planet. There is plenty of circumstantial evidence, even before the election. It is your lot that are preventing open fair investigations into the situation. Why are you so worried about an investigation? You had 10+ Benghazi investigations that found nothing, you had Ken Starr back in the day and it found nothing.. the list of bull**** investigations against Democrats by the GOP goes on. But when we have actual link and worst of all.. denial of the very same links despite clear evidence that they happened... then we have a situation that needs investigating.

Add to that, that up 8 Russians possibly connected to Trump have died in the last few months, and frankly something stinks to high heaven.

Circumstantial evidence can't be used to launch an investigation.

 

[yankintx]

You must live on another planet. There is plenty of circumstantial evidence, even before the election. It is your lot that are preventing open fair investigations into the situation. Why are you so worried about an investigation? You had 10+ Benghazi investigations that found nothing, you had Ken Starr back in the day and it found nothing.. the list of bull**** investigations against Democrats by the GOP goes on. But when we have actual link and worst of all.. denial of the very same links despite clear evidence that they happened... then we have a situation that needs investigating.

Add to that, that up 8 Russians possibly connected to Trump have died in the last few months, and frankly something stinks to high heaven.

This is all to be considered when in the polling booth Nov 2018. Lets hope there is a large turnout.

 

[DebateNotHate]

I don't deal in what-ifs when it comes to the POTUS.

Blind trust in the words of any paranoid disordered person is foolish, and downright dangerous if it's the POTUS.

 

[DebateNotHate]

“It’s certainly ironic that the Trump White House — which has heavily criticized articles relying on anonymous sources — now relies on articles based on anonymous sources that cite information that has not been confirmed by any U.S. news organization.”

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news...usly-sourced-reports/?utm_term=.274fdf22101a#