Trump cites no evidence in wiretapping claim; Obama spokesman calls it 'simply false'

[yastrz]

Re: Trump cites no evidence in wiretapping claim; Obama spokesman calls it 'simply fa

my issues with Obama were always his arrogance, his liberal agendas, his disinterest in being cooperative with the Republicans, and his utter lack of experience at the beginning.

He tried to complete negotiations on a "grand bargain" with Mr. Boehner, and he may have overplayed his hand, but I don't think it's correct to say that he was "disinterested" in cooperating with Republicans. He agreed, for example, to end all capital gains taxes on investments in small and start-up businesses, to accept pay-as-you-go budgeting rules that helped keep federal spending in inflation-adjusted dollars at about $3.5 trillion dollars from 2009 to 2016, and to maintain the 2009 estate tax provision that exempts the first $3.5 million.

We know for a fact that the information regarding Flynn was from recorded conversations.

Conversations that were monitored because they involved Russian intelligence officers and/or diplomatic officials suspected of operating as spies, conversations that Flynn then lied to the vice-president about.

Flynn is a US citizen, isn't he? If there are recorded conversations of Flynn, that's means he did "wiretap" a US citizen.

If you talk to foreign agents whose conversations are being recorded, your statements will be recorded as well.

Officially such conversations are supposed to be erased and stricken from the record.

That is incorrect. The names of US citizens who are not included in warranted wiretaps are generally redacted, but there are a number of exceptions to that.

Hitler was a good family man, husband, and father

He married his mistress the day before he committed suicide, he had no children, and what "family" are you referring to?

 

[Linc]

Re: Trump cites no evidence in wiretapping claim; Obama spokesman calls it 'simply fa

Exactly! Blind hatred makes it impossible for one to see any good at all in those who they hate. It is all pure emotion. Anti-Trumpers are filled with nothing but hate and are so obsessed with it that they can't see anything else.

False equivalence by you for assigning me having blind hatred for Hitler equal to blind hatred for trump.

blind hatred for trump is your description. I feel sorry for him and especially the Nation .

 

[Risky Thicket]

Re: Trump cites no evidence in wiretapping claim; Obama spokesman calls it 'simply fa

Wow....
Its posts like yours and the the unbridled anger and hatred for the man that makes you come across as an unreasonable person.

I dont think there is anything he can do to ever satisify some of you. He could cure cancer and you would complsin that he put doctors out of work in doing so or some such nonsense.

Au contraire, Trump wouldn't cure cancer. He is not motivated by altruism. Trump is the embodiment of US raw capitalism run amuck.

I can't speak for tres, but I gather from her emails that she doesn't hate Trump. She doesn't trust him, she doesn't believe in him, she doesn't support him. Neither do I. I'll make no apologies for that.

Trump is inept, likely unbalanced, and after what we have seen in 2 months is insincere and incapable.

Before you try to claim your not as i described please refer me to any of your posts that shows you complaining about all the taxpayer money being wasted in investigating trumps ties to russia without any evidence to back it up.

Question: How do you know the money is being wasted?

 

[OpportunityCost]

Re: Trump cites no evidence in wiretapping claim; Obama spokesman calls it 'simply fa

So in other words, Trump forget for 2 months about Flynn, and he just remembered on Saturday morning as he was lying in bed next to Melania at Mar-A-Lago before he game of golf. Got it.

This kind of flip, bs response is why you are impossible to take seriously.

 

[Casca XV]

Re: Trump cites no evidence in wiretapping claim; Obama spokesman calls it 'simply fa

Does Trump pay you by the word to say really stupid things to try to unsuccessfully spin and defend his actions? You and Sean Spicer are getting hosed, but then again, neither one of you is earning your wages either. Epic fail, but I give you a C+ for grammar.

In other words you have no counter argument. Well my C+ beats your F.

 

[trouble13]

Re: Trump cites no evidence in wiretapping claim; Obama spokesman calls it 'simply fa

Fascinating. Now, do you have any proof of Trump's allegation, or not? Because, as flattered as I am that you are focusing on me, the thread isn't about me. I didn't accuse anyone of a crime. President Trump, on the other hand, did.

I also never said I thought Trump had any ties to Russia, so you're barking up the wrong tree wagging your finger at me on that one. Try again?

Im not wagging anything at you. Im saying your complaining about the cost associated with investigating the allegation made by trump bevause he hasnt produced any evidence to back up his claim. Im saying your complaint would be legitimate if you had the same complaint about those demanding trumps ties to russia be investigated even though they dont have any evidence thats available for public consumption either.

It comes off as of you have an axe to grind with the guy and your looking to bash him over the head with anything you can. I get no sense of fairness from you when it involves the name trump. Its striking reading your posts because i have read enough of your posts that did not involve him to know that your generally a fair minded person.

My opinion on this is that the accusations by both sides are very serious ones and both are hidden in clandestine covert sources that they both warrant a serious and fair investigation. They need to lay their cards on the table in front of propperly cleared people and let the cards fall where they may.

If trump and putin were involved in some plot to beat the dems he should be held accountable for that just as if obama was involved in interfering with a presidental race by abusing his powers of office he should be held accountable too.

We the electorate need to be united on one simple principle that we hold everyone to the same standards. That means sometimes we must codemn those we agree with and defending thise we disagree with.

Sent from my SM-G920P using Tapatalk

 

[trouble13]

Re: Trump cites no evidence in wiretapping claim; Obama spokesman calls it 'simply fa

Au contraire, Trump wouldn't cure cancer. He is not motivated by altruism. Trump is the embodiment of US raw capitalism run amuck.

I dont know what trumps motivations are. I can say that he exhibits signs of altrusim as well as naracism. My personal feeling is that everything everyone does is based on being selfish. I draw a lot of fire from the right talking about this in the past because i call mother teressa selfish. I go on to explain that she is motivated by her personal desire to get accepted into the heaven that she believes exists. I have no problem with her because her acts of selfishness produce good. Pertaining to trump i dont care if he is all sbout his ego if he is doing in his heart what he beliebes best serves all of us.

Question,
Im an advocate of capitalism with a few restraints but generally most people consider me staunchly capitalitistic. I can explain why i feel it benefits society. I am interested in understanderstanding your counterpoint perspective of it being a negative. What is the line capitalism crosses when you call it running amuck?

I can't speak for tres, but I gather from her emails that she doesn't hate Trump. She doesn't trust him, she doesn't believe in him, she doesn't support him. Neither do I. I'll make no apologies for that.

I dont think eitherbof should appologize for that. I respect that you dont like him and you have your reasons. To avoid being redundant i will refer you to my response to her after she responded to me. I think i explained what im bothered by pretty adequately in that post. I will leave it at that.

Trump is inept, likely unbalanced, and after what we have seen in 2 months is insincere and incapable.

Thats your opinion and if you can support why im open to listening and considering your point of view. Theres stuff i like about him and theres stuff i dont like about him. I see him as a mixed bag. I give him credit where i think he deserves credit and criticism where i think he deserves and on some things actually many things the jury is still out. Im taking a wait n see approach.

Je was elected and he deserves the opprotunity to show everyone why he won. I promise you even if he ****s up royally we will survive.

Question: How do you know the money is being wasted?

Define wasted? Imo the allegations being made arebtoo serious to not have concrete answers to. True or false they need to be investigated so their is no doubt. We the people must have confidence in our system or all is lost because without that its a license for anarchy. Innocence or guilt whatever is revealed, provided its honest, its money well spent.



Sent from my SM-G920P using Tapatalk

 

[ibelsd]

Re: Trump cites no evidence in wiretapping claim; Obama spokesman calls it 'simply fa

Insinuating isn't the same thing as directly accusing, but don't let facts confuse you.

"Lock her up!" "Lock her up!". That was nice. Lock her up...because her clothes were ugly? Because she was old? Because she had bad haircuts?

Hypocrisy is such an ugly thing. But carry on. I expect no less from a Trump devotee.

Great. At the very least you have conceded that the Democrats have, at a minimum, insinuated that Trump was in collusion with the Russians. Now, what does "Lock her up!" have to do with anything I have claimed or stated? I made an argument and presented it logically. Your response is to parse words and misdirect the discussion. And then you end on an ad-hom, assuming I am somehow biased. So, I'll just continue as though you have refused (or are unable) to refute my argument (either directly or via insinuation).

 

[ibelsd]

Re: Trump cites no evidence in wiretapping claim; Obama spokesman calls it 'simply fa

Nixon was the president of the USA at that time.Obama stopped being president of the USA when Trump took over.

Wake up and smell the coffee.

:lol:

Trump didn't cite any evidence because he has no evidence.This kerfuffle is going nowhere for Trump.

So... because Obama is no longer in office, then past misbehavior as President is ignored??? I really fail to see your point. If the behavior is a felony, its a felony; current president or not.

Secondly, thanks for rebutting an argument I never made. Waste of your time and mine. Where did I claim Trump had evidence to support his claim? Where did I even support the idea that his claim was factual? Can't it be possible that all the following are true:
1) Obama did not wiretap Trump Tower
2) The FBI's investigation or the DOJ's investigation was instigated by the Obama admin.
3) A request was made, via the FISA court, for the surveillance of Trump and his associates?
4) The FISA court denied the request.
5) The FISA request was resubmitted to exclude Trump, but still include some associates.
6) The FISA court accepted this request.
7) The ensuing investigation had nothing to do with political collusion or the election.
8) Some members of Trump's election team were investigated.

Here is the key, it is possible that Trump is exaggerating a claim (something he frequently does). If you'd like to interpret that as lying, feel free. It does not matter as it relates to my argument. However, the central claim I'm making is that his claim (lie or truth) puts the Democrats on the defensive. Consider the above statements which are generally believed to be true. The central premise is that the FISA ball does not start rolling without someone in the Obama admin making the request to investigate or the President signing off on it. Understand, not only did Obama seemingly authorize the investigation of a person running for President, just as damaging, the information was leaked to the press. FISA hearings are considered Top Secret. What I am saying is that, considering we are pretty sure none of this leads to Trump and his campaign working with the Russians, the reward for Democrats wishing to pursue this line may now be considerably less than the potential punishment. Trump's claim, even if a flat out lie, still shifts the weight of defending some odd behavior by the Obama admin onto them. Behavior, which I mentioned before, is not overtly dissimilar than Nixon's wiretapping of the Watergate Hotel. By making such a bold statement, Trump forced the conversation in a way that a more subtle (or truthful) statement may not have done.

Before you start let me just cool your jets. I am not defending Trump. I am merely making an observation that whether through brilliance or instinct, he seems to be able to disrupt the news cycle and get the message where he wants it in a way that is unique and, in general, effective. So, if you want to argue about the veracity of his comments or other absurd argumentation, feel free and continue to keep spitting in the wind.

 

[Top Cat]

Re: Trump cites no evidence in wiretapping claim; Obama spokesman calls it 'simply fa

Graham ready to subpoena for Trump wiretap information

Graham ready to subpoena for Trump wiretap information - CNNPolitics.com

Put up or shut the **** up Emperor Cheeto.

 

[shrubnose]

Re: Trump cites no evidence in wiretapping claim; Obama spokesman calls it 'simply fa

So... because Obama is no longer in office, then past misbehavior as President is ignored??? I really fail to see your point. If the behavior is a felony, its a felony; current president or not.

Secondly, thanks for rebutting an argument I never made. Waste of your time and mine. Where did I claim Trump had evidence to support his claim? Where did I even support the idea that his claim was factual? Can't it be possible that all the following are true:
1) Obama did not wiretap Trump Tower
2) The FBI's investigation or the DOJ's investigation was instigated by the Obama admin.
3) A request was made, via the FISA court, for the surveillance of Trump and his associates?
4) The FISA court denied the request.
5) The FISA request was resubmitted to exclude Trump, but still include some associates.
6) The FISA court accepted this request.
7) The ensuing investigation had nothing to do with political collusion or the election.
8) Some members of Trump's election team were investigated.

Here is the key, it is possible that Trump is exaggerating a claim (something he frequently does). If you'd like to interpret that as lying, feel free. It does not matter as it relates to my argument. However, the central claim I'm making is that his claim (lie or truth) puts the Democrats on the defensive. Consider the above statements which are generally believed to be true. The central premise is that the FISA ball does not start rolling without someone in the Obama admin making the request to investigate or the President signing off on it. Understand, not only did Obama seemingly authorize the investigation of a person running for President, just as damaging, the information was leaked to the press. FISA hearings are considered Top Secret. What I am saying is that, considering we are pretty sure none of this leads to Trump and his campaign working with the Russians, the reward for Democrats wishing to pursue this line may now be considerably less than the potential punishment. Trump's claim, even if a flat out lie, still shifts the weight of defending some odd behavior by the Obama admin onto them. Behavior, which I mentioned before, is not overtly dissimilar than Nixon's wiretapping of the Watergate Hotel. By making such a bold statement, Trump forced the conversation in a way that a more subtle (or truthful) statement may not have done.

Before you start let me just cool your jets. I am not defending Trump. I am merely making an observation that whether through brilliance or instinct, he seems to be able to disrupt the news cycle and get the message where he wants it in a way that is unique and, in general, effective. So,

if you want to argue about the veracity of his comments or other absurd argumentation, feel free and continue to keep spitting in the wind.

And you are welcome to keep tugging on Superman's cape but you're wasting your time and getting nothing done.

:lol:



"The only valid censorship of ideas is the right of people not to listen." ~ Tommy Smothers

 

[ibelsd]

Re: Trump cites no evidence in wiretapping claim; Obama spokesman calls it 'simply fa

And you are welcome to keep tugging on Superman's cape but you're wasting your time and getting nothing done.

:lol:



"The only valid censorship of ideas is the right of people not to listen." ~ Tommy Smothers

And like I thought, outside of knowing some Jim croce, you got nothing.

 

[Moderate Right]

Re: Trump cites no evidence in wiretapping claim; Obama spokesman calls it 'simply fa

False equivalence by you for assigning me having blind hatred for Hitler equal to blind hatred for trump.

blind hatred for trump is your description. I feel sorry for him and especially the Nation .

Then maybe you could describe the good things you like about Trump that are good for the nation. If you can't think of anything at all that means you are either partisan or just obsessed with Trump hatred.

 

[Moderate Right]

Re: Trump cites no evidence in wiretapping claim; Obama spokesman calls it 'simply fa

Graham ready to subpoena for Trump wiretap information - CNNPolitics.com

Put up or shut the **** up Emperor Cheeto.

There you go with the name calling again. Voids your posts as being nothing but sour grape partisanship. Hypocritical how you can get on Trump for what comes out of his mouth while you are the exact same.

 

[tres borrachos]

Re: Trump cites no evidence in wiretapping claim; Obama spokesman calls it 'simply fa

Great. At the very least you have conceded that the Democrats have, at a minimum, insinuated that Trump was in collusion with the Russians. Now, what does "Lock her up!" have to do with anything I have claimed or stated? I made an argument and presented it logically. Your response is to parse words and misdirect the discussion. And then you end on an ad-hom, assuming I am somehow biased. So, I'll just continue as though you have refused (or are unable) to refute my argument (either directly or via insinuation).

"Lock her up" insinuated that Clinton did something to be locked up for. Last I checked she was not only not convicted of any crimes, she wasn't even charged with any crimes.

You had no argument.

 

[tres borrachos]

Re: Trump cites no evidence in wiretapping claim; Obama spokesman calls it 'simply fa

Im not wagging anything at you. Im saying your complaining about the cost associated with investigating the allegation made by trump bevause he hasnt produced any evidence to back up his claim. Im saying your complaint would be legitimate if you had the same complaint about those demanding trumps ties to russia be investigated even though they dont have any evidence thats available for public consumption either.

It comes off as of you have an axe to grind with the guy and your looking to bash him over the head with anything you can. I get no sense of fairness from you when it involves the name trump. Its striking reading your posts because i have read enough of your posts that did not involve him to know that your generally a fair minded person.

My opinion on this is that the accusations by both sides are very serious ones and both are hidden in clandestine covert sources that they both warrant a serious and fair investigation. They need to lay their cards on the table in front of propperly cleared people and let the cards fall where they may.

If trump and putin were involved in some plot to beat the dems he should be held accountable for that just as if obama was involved in interfering with a presidental race by abusing his powers of office he should be held accountable too.

We the electorate need to be united on one simple principle that we hold everyone to the same standards. That means sometimes we must codemn those we agree with and defending thise we disagree with.

Sent from my SM-G920P using Tapatalk

He has the evidence to back up his claim, unless there was no evidence and he simply shot off his mouth (or his fingers in this case). Either he needs to produce the evidence he has, or he needs to, at the very least, admit he made a serious allegation against Obama without anything at all to back him up. This isn't complicated. Don't complicate it in your effort to cover for Trump's actions.

 

[tres borrachos]

Re: Trump cites no evidence in wiretapping claim; Obama spokesman calls it 'simply fa

In other words you have no counter argument. Well my C+ beats your F.

I don't have to have an argument for anything. I didn't accuse anyone of a crime. Your hero did. He needs to back up his claim. In spite of your desperate efforts to justify his actions, nobody with any brain cells that work is buying it. Not even the Republicans.

 

[tres borrachos]

Re: Trump cites no evidence in wiretapping claim; Obama spokesman calls it 'simply fa

This kind of flip, bs response is why you are impossible to take seriously.

And of course everyone takes you seriously. Seriously comical.

 

[tres borrachos]

Re: Trump cites no evidence in wiretapping claim; Obama spokesman calls it 'simply fa

I'm not saying that it is easy but it is there and it is there if you actually look. But, if you're too consumed with being a Trump hater then you aren't going to find it.

I don't hate Trump. I don't even know him, and I'm not an ignorant partisan who "hates" a politician. I didn't "hate" Obama either. I didn't support his policies. Non-partisans understand the difference. It isn't about liking or hating the person. It's about who is a good leader and who has good policies. Since you "love" Trump, then you must be in hog heaven right now.

 

[Hypothetical]

Re: Trump cites no evidence in wiretapping claim; Obama spokesman calls it 'simply fa

I really hope he does have proof. it will be so funny when he reveals it or when congress finds for it.

perhaps the reason he doesn't declassify the information is that he doesn't feel it appropriate to do so at this time... oh i don't know, there could be information there that needs to stay classified.

 

[trouble13]

Re: Trump cites no evidence in wiretapping claim; Obama spokesman calls it 'simply fa

He has the evidence to back up his claim, unless there was no evidence and he simply shot off his mouth (or his fingers in this case). Either he needs to produce the evidence he has, or he needs to, at the very least, admit he made a serious allegation against Obama without anything at all to back him up. This isn't complicated. Don't complicate it in your effort to cover for Trump's actions.

How am i covering for trump? He made an allegation and it should be investigated.

Sent from my SM-G920P using Tapatalk

 

[tres borrachos]

Re: Trump cites no evidence in wiretapping claim; Obama spokesman calls it 'simply fa

How am i covering for trump? He made an allegation and it should be investigated.

Sent from my SM-G920P using Tapatalk

He made an allegation and should provide the proof.

 

[trouble13]

Re: Trump cites no evidence in wiretapping claim; Obama spokesman calls it 'simply fa

He made an allegation and should provide the proof.

Thats why an investigation is called for

Sent from my SM-G920P using Tapatalk

 

[tres borrachos]

Re: Trump cites no evidence in wiretapping claim; Obama spokesman calls it 'simply fa

Thats why an investigation is called for

Sent from my SM-G920P using Tapatalk

Great. So President Trump made a declarative accusation against Obama without an investigation first. Awesome to know. Why do the right thing when you can do the wrong thing.

The Senate is also waiting for his proof. They need it to see what they're actually investigating. They keep asking for it. Ya think he'll give it to them today?

 

[TheGoverness]

Re: Trump cites no evidence in wiretapping claim; Obama spokesman calls it 'simply fa

Thats why an investigation is called for

Sent from my SM-G920P using Tapatalk

Why does he need to investigate, when he's already claimed that he's seen the evidence that Obama wiretapped Trump Tower. That's why he said it as a definitive statement, not as a question.

If he's apparently seen the proof, it should take no time at all to provide it, right?