Obama had Trumps phone tapped?

[Hayabusa Rider]

Tell that to the Wash Post:

It’s unclear whether the FBI — which uses Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) warrants to eavesdrop — had tapped the Russian Ambassador’s phone or Mr. Flynn’s.

If this has legs where is the evidence? Trump doesn't need allegation and investigation. As said many times Trump can produce evidence at will and has not. He has access to all information relating to any possible wiretap. He can release all information without fear of repercussions. This is his right as the President. Nothing.

Or to put it in Clara's terms.

 

[agent00f]

No, he was never a Constitutional lawyer. He did teach Constitutional law though, and styled himself a professor although he never had the title. He has some very scary ideas about the Constitution, but he's no idiot, and I think it would take an idiot to wiretap the opposing candidate.

Thank you. I could have looked that up but I didn't. Bunch of smart people here so I figured I'd get the low down. Any way, I agree. I don't think he'd flout the law with any kind of transparency. If he did, it won't be easy to find or prosecute.

Obama was a lecturer which are technically adjunct professors, and considered/called professors by pretty much everyone who's been to college, which should say something about folks who claim the opposite. He's also a lawyer given he's passed the bar; there's no technical title of Constitutional lawyer, but suffice to say he was qualified to teach the class.

It's really quite pathetic the lengths conservatism will go to concoct this garbage, to train their constituents to throw themselves under the moron-mowing bus for the cause. I mean, they'll pretend telephones are too hard to grasp if that helps the cause.

 

[ivwshane]

It looks to me as if these write tapping allegations were to distract the public from the horrible health care plan the Republicans are putting forward. I've seen news anchors literally say that they were going to talk about the Republican health plan but because of these new allegations they can't.

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

It looks to me as if these write tapping allegations were to distract the public from the horrible health care plan the Republicans are putting forward. I've seen news anchors literally say that they were going to talk about the Republican health plan but because of these new allegations they can't.

I think the potential for being removed from office has Trump and his staff more concerned than health care. The neck is moving towards the noose. Having the end result medically treated is a lower priority.

 

[woolfe9998]

The business with Alfa Bank and this investigation into server activity which might or might not have connected the bank to the Trump campaign is a little unclear. It's really the point source of conservative allegations about this so-called "wiretap." While there were media reports from the UK several months ago suggesting that the FBI had obtained a FISA warrant (no mention of a wiretap), other news organizations have not been able to verify these reports. Moreover, if you google Alfa Bank, you'll discover that the information (DNS logs) was obtained by private individuals, including an internet security firm. While the Times did report that the FBI had investigated it, it looks like the FBI obtained logs from private individuals, not pursuant to a warrant. I assume this will eventually be cleared up. At this point, I think it's likely the UK media reports were based on misinformation because there are literally dozens of media articles from last fall discussing how private individuals obtained these logs. However, it would be interesting if the FBI obtained a FISA warrant, but if so, it barely resembles Trump's claims of wiretapped phones ordered by Obama.

 

[Jhhnn]

It looks to me as if these write tapping allegations were to distract the public from the horrible health care plan the Republicans are putting forward. I've seen news anchors literally say that they were going to talk about the Republican health plan but because of these new allegations they can't.

It was to cover Sessions lying to Congress in his confirmation hearings & Pruitt as well. It's the shiny object that the Media can't resist. It runs cover for Repubs' "We don't care" health plan & anything else that comes up, too.

 

[Jhhnn]

If this has legs where is the evidence? Trump doesn't need allegation and investigation. As said many times Trump can produce evidence at will and has not. He has access to all information relating to any possible wiretap. He can release all information without fear of repercussions. This is his right as the President. Nothing.

Or to put it in Clara's terms.

Amen. The rest is just indulgence in speculation & conspiracy theory, another Birther/Benghazi mind trap.

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

Amen. The rest is just indulgence in speculation & conspiracy theory, another Birther/Benghazi mind trap.

Not a bad response for a rightwing shill eh?

 

[WHAMPOM]

The chance Obama ordered a Trump Tower wire tap is 0%, the chance some ones on the Trump team was under FBI investigation with wire tap is about 500%.

 

[Sea Ray]

First, that's the Washington TIMES, a conservative news outlet, not the Washington POST. Second and more importantly, you're citing an opinion piece, not actual news reporting.

Come on, guy. You're making it way too easy for these people to dupe you.

Oh so pieces from liberal sources are accepted around here but not conservative papers? I get that it was an opinion, so how does that make it less valid?

 

[Sea Ray]

If this has legs where is the evidence? Trump doesn't need allegation and investigation. As said many times Trump can produce evidence at will and has not. He has access to all information relating to any possible wiretap. He can release all information without fear of repercussions. This is his right as the President. Nothing.

I agree 100% that if Trump doesn't have the evidence then he ought not make these allegations.

 

[JockoJohnson]

Amen. The rest is just indulgence in speculation & conspiracy theory, another Birther/Benghazi mind trap.

I'll put on the flame suit before asking but:

How much evidence is there of Trump/Russia collusion that the media keeps speaking of? This is the left's Benghazi...no evidence but plenty of talk about Trump working with Russia. Not trying to defend Trump as he is indefensible but trying to understand all of the judge/jury/executioner coming from the left without any actual evidence on that issue. There was plenty of people making fun of those on the right constantly discussing Benghazi and there has been as much evidence found in that as there is with this Russia connection to Trump.

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

I agree 100% that if Trump doesn't have the evidence then he ought not make these allegations.

Likewise if he has evidence it is critically important he produce it. Any opinions on Trump or Obama aside, if there were a "Watergate" as described it cannot be allowed to stand.

Clearly I do not believe such hyperbole, but if it were true it must be exposed and he has the absolute authority to release it.

 

[fskimospy]

Oh so pieces from liberal sources are accepted around here but not conservative papers?

Huh? You claimed it was the Washington Post, which is a highly respected newspaper. It was in fact from the Washington Times, which is a well known conservative advocacy paper.

I get that it was an opinion, so how does that make it less valid?

Because opinion pieces aren't subject to the sorts of editorial control and factual constraint that actual journalistic pieces are. In an opinion piece the person can basically say whatever they want, regardless of whether or not it is factual. That's what happened in this case, when they tried to frame the Flynn/Russian ambassador thing so dishonestly.

 

[zinfamous]

I get that it was an opinion, so how does that make it less valid?

Are you expecting a civil-minded response to this question?

 

[Sea Ray]

Huh? You claimed it was the Washington Post, which is a highly respected newspaper. It was in fact from the Washington Times, which is a well known conservative advocacy paper.

I apologize for the error if I called it the Wash Post. Thank you for the correction. I do disagree with you that the Post is more respected than the Times. The Wash Times leans conservative, the Post liberal. It doesn't mean either one lies. It just reflects bias as in what news they decide to include.

 

[Sea Ray]

Are you expecting a civil-minded response to this question?

I never expect civil minded responses from the far left

 

[fskimospy]

I apologize for the error if I called it the Wash Post. Thank you for the correction. I do disagree with you that the Post is more respected than the Times. The Wash Times leans conservative, the Post liberal. It doesn't mean either one lies. It just reflects bias as in what news they decide to include.

The Washington Post has won 47 Pulitzer Prizes, the Washington Times has won zero. For everyone outside of the conservative media bubble the Post is far more respected.

That being said I would never take an opinion piece in any paper, regardless of how respectable it was, as evidence in support of any argument as again, they are not subject to the same sorts of sourcing and fact checking requirements as journalistic pieces are.

 

[Grooveriding]

There is as much to this as Trump's birtherism claims, read; nothing but the ravings(tweets) of a sick man. Obama is not POTUS anymore, what is wrong with Trump upstairs that he still has this sick fixation on trashing the man, even once he's in the same job Obama was? That is a more interesting question than the veracity of what is obviously another crazy train Trump tweet. It's deranged the obsession Trump has with people he has on the 'list of grievances' he apparently stores in his small mind.

Trump is just a horrible shit, an example of what happens when the worst characteristics of humanity are amplified and concentrated in one individual.

 

[Sea Ray]

The Washington Post has won 47 Pulitzer Prizes, the Washington Times has won zero. For everyone outside of the conservative media bubble the Post is far more respected.

That being said I would never take an opinion piece in any paper, regardless of how respectable it was, as evidence in support of any argument as again, they are not subject to the same sorts of sourcing and fact checking requirements as journalistic pieces are.

Pulitzer is well known for its liberal bias. I'd post articles about that but they'd be opinion pieces...

 

[jman19]

There is as much to this as Trump's birtherism claims, read; nothing but the ravings(tweets) of a sick man. Obama is not POTUS anymore, what is wrong with Trump upstairs that he still has this sick fixation on trashing the man, even once he's in the same job Obama was? That is a more interesting question than the veracity of what is obviously another crazy train Trump tweet. It's deranged the obsession Trump has with people he has on the 'list of grievances' he apparently stores in his small mind.

Trump is just a horrible shit, an example of what happens when the worst characteristics of humanity are amplified and concentrated in one individual.

Trump needs someone to "campaign" against. He's good at rallying people behind dumb, sweeping platitudes; governing, not so much.

 

[hal2kilo]

Oh so pieces from liberal sources are accepted around here but not conservative papers? I get that it was an opinion, so how does that make it less valid?

You should go back to school and figure that one out.

 

[zinfamous]

Pulitzer is well known for its liberal bias. I'd post articles about that but they'd be opinion pieces...

It's not a liberal bias wrg to Pulitzer. It's an anti-information bias on your part.

Pulitzer is only about journalism, period. If your sources suck at journalism, don't expect Pulitzer to come around.

 

[Sea Ray]

You should go back to school and figure that one out.

You like sending me to liberal places

 

[woolfe9998]

I apologize for the error if I called it the Wash Post. Thank you for the correction. I do disagree with you that the Post is more respected than the Times. The Wash Times leans conservative, the Post liberal. It doesn't mean either one lies. It just reflects bias as in what news they decide to include.

WaPo blew open the Watergate scandal. Your Times OpEd is probably not going to blow open much of anything. It leaves out large amounts of information, such as the fact that Comey is denying Trump's allegation, and the fact that the FBI likely obtained its information about the alleged Alfa Bank connection from private individuals, not from a FISA Warrant. This is why biased journalism is worthless. You can claim that WaPo is biased all you want, but mainstream press sources are usually proven correct in the end. So far, what I'm reading in conservative media about this is poorly sourced and illogical. At the very most, there was a FISA warrant legally obtained by the FBI with no proof of White House involvement, and it wasn't even a wiretap. It's also quite possible that even that much is untrue.