Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 5, 2017 10:30:48 GMT -5
To get back to Trump's accusation against Obama, now there's this: Trump wants congressional probe, won't comment on claims until it's doneSo. Trump reads a fake news story in Breitbart. Makes a public accusation against Obama based on it. When asked his basis, demands a Congressional probe and refuses to soeak until it is completed. Could it be any more obvious that he's trying to deflect attention from the investigations into the Russian hacking and whether his own team knew about it? He won't get that investigation --or shouldn't -- because he's got nothing but a Breitbart article and his own fucked-up paranoid delusions to back up his allegations. So then he'll refuse to give his (nonexistent) support for his allegations. And he'll drum up this "woe is me! they investigate my team but not Obama! They're all biased against me and for the Democrats, even the Republicans!" (Conveniently forgetting that the whole run-up to the election revolved around an investigation into Hillary's emails.) The thing is, it will work with his core followers. It will take us a long time, as a country, to recover from the damage he is doing to our political institutions -- if we ever do. I think we are on the way down.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 5, 2017 10:40:28 GMT -5
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 5, 2017 18:06:23 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by nighttimer on Mar 5, 2017 18:59:55 GMT -5
Trump's hatred of Obama is well-known and documented and this bullshit, baseless and unsubstantiated accusation against his predecessor is the proof of it. It makes ZERO sense for Obama to wiretap Trump's phones. What good would that do? If anything was learned that could harm Trump's campaign, why wasn't it leaked to the press? Why do something so overtly dumb and hard to conceal? Answer: President Obama wouldn't. Unless he had a damn good reason and Obama would need a better one than trying to get Hillary Clinton electon. I don't care what the idiots who believe everything Trump says think about this to the extent they can think at all. No, who I want to man up and answer the American people are all those Republican suck-ups who have gone along with whatever batshit insanity Trump spews out into the ether? Those are the feet I want to hold to the fire.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 6, 2017 18:13:20 GMT -5
Once upon a time, Morning Joe hosts Joe Scarborough and Mika Brzezinski were considered to be pro-Trump. Whether that was ever true or not, it certainly isn't now -- this wiretap accusation episode seems to have been the final straw. Article with links: Scarborough, for what it is worth, identifies as a Republican, and was once upon a time a Congress critter. Be that as it may, between them, they pretty much summed up how I feel about Trump's administration. The loss of credibility is one of the biggest issues, to my mind. A president cannot go about tweeting unsupported allegations of criminal behavior against his political enemies, particularly his predecessor in office -- and then, compounding the outrage, refuse to give his basis for those accusations, instead demanding a Congressional investigation of his unsupported allegations. We need not agree with all of our president's policies. But we do need to have some belief in his essential integrity and stability.
|
|
|
Post by ben on Mar 6, 2017 21:41:55 GMT -5
Oh Noes! I can't believe Arnie's gone already.
|
|
|
Post by nighttimer on Mar 7, 2017 15:05:11 GMT -5
When Trump was elected, it was said time and again that the Republican-controlled Congress would restrain his most extravagant flights of fancy and extreme excesses. One little problem with that line of thought. What if those supposedly watching over Trump are just as batshit as he is? The remedy for a cray-cray POTUS is not an equally cray-cray Congress.
|
|
|
Post by robeiae on Mar 9, 2017 16:56:41 GMT -5
I think Trump's claim that Obama ordered a wiretapping of Trump Tower is being rightfully derided. If there is evidence that Obama did this, it needs to come out, but I seriously doubt there is any.
That said, the idea that the CIA or FBI did this is hardly far-fetched. Indeed, the whole "Russia and Trump Campaign in bed together" angle was a product of intelligence reports that most assuredly involved some surveillance, very probably of some offices that were under the umbrella of the latter. That strikes me as common sense. Given that reality, it seems to me that some investigation is warranted, not so much to prove Trump wrong (or, though highly unlikely, right) but to know if the CIA crossed a line.
|
|
|
Post by Amadan on Mar 13, 2017 10:48:03 GMT -5
Of course, it's entirely possible that there was surveillance being conducted in accordance with a properly executed FISA warrant. Which would mean, in other words, that there was actually enough evidence of someone in Trump Tower being a foreign agent that a judge was willing to gave permission for a wiretap. If that's the case, Obama's administration is not the one that should be worrying...
|
|
|
Post by michaelw on Mar 13, 2017 18:04:04 GMT -5
Of course, it's entirely possible that there was surveillance being conducted in accordance with a properly executed FISA warrant. Which would mean, in other words, that there was actually enough evidence of someone in Trump Tower being a foreign agent that a judge was willing to gave permission for a wiretap. If that's the case, Obama's administration is not the one that should be worrying... If there is in fact a FISA warrant out there, Trump in theory could declassify it right now and let everyone see it, right?
|
|
|
Post by robeiae on Mar 13, 2017 19:52:56 GMT -5
Of course, it's entirely possible that there was surveillance being conducted in accordance with a properly executed FISA warrant. Which would mean, in other words, that there was actually enough evidence of someone in Trump Tower being a foreign agent that a judge was willing to gave permission for a wiretap. If that's the case, Obama's administration is not the one that should be worrying... Well yes and no. If that is the case, then Trump's statement would potentially be correct: Obama ordered Trump Tower to be wiretapped. Just because there could be FISA warrant, it doesn't mean there was hard evidence. The AG gets to present the request to a FISA judge and the judge either grants it or doesn't. But it's not like FISA judges turn down requests left and right. Getting approval is kinda like a DA indicting a ham sandwich: no one is there to say why the warrant SHOULD NOT be granted and the AG can spin as hard as he or she desires.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 13, 2017 20:09:42 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by Amadan on Mar 14, 2017 7:45:26 GMT -5
Well yes and no. If that is the case, then Trump's statement would potentially be correct: Obama ordered Trump Tower to be wiretapped. Just because there could be FISA warrant, it doesn't mean there was hard evidence. The AG gets to present the request to a FISA judge and the judge either grants it or doesn't. But it's not like FISA judges turn down requests left and right. Getting approval is kinda like a DA indicting a ham sandwich: no one is there to say why the warrant SHOULD NOT be granted and the AG can spin as hard as he or she desires. You know that the President does not personally initiate or approve FISA warrants, right? I mean, I'm sure if the AG requested a FISA warrant for Trump (or someone in Trump Tower), Obama would have been in the loop, but it doesn't mean Obama ordered it or that it was his idea. Presumably, in this hypothetical scenario, he would have asked some questions and been satisfied that it was warranted. (Unless you go with the "Obama was spying on his political enemies" theory.) As for the ease of getting FISA warrants, a lot of people say that, and yes, it's true that the approval rate is very high (something like 98% or 99% if I recall correctly), but a lot of that is the fact that the requirements are so stringent that the requesting agency and the AG have to have a nearly bulletproof case. They don't request a FISA warrant unless they are 99% sure it will be approved. Not saying that maybe there shouldn't be more oversight, but it's not quite the rubber stamp those numbers suggest.
|
|
|
Post by robeiae on Mar 14, 2017 8:00:21 GMT -5
You know that the President does not personally initiate or approve FISA warrants, right? I mean, I'm sure if the AG requested a FISA warrant for Trump (or someone in Trump Tower), Obama would have been in the loop, but it doesn't mean Obama ordered it or that it was his idea. Presumably, in this hypothetical scenario, he would have asked some questions and been satisfied that it was warranted. (Unless you go with the "Obama was spying on his political enemies" theory.) It doesn't mean he didn't order it or that it wasn't his idea or that he didn't approve of it. Any of those is sufficient, imo. We're talking spin here, with regard to the top dogs in the food chain. If Loretta Lynch went to the FISA court asking for permission to bug Trump Tower (or otherwise engage in electronic surveillance; really, way too much is being made of word choice in this regard, imo), that's on Obama. The "well he didn't directly order it" or "may not have even known about it" crap isn't going to fly. The people who would push such an angle are the same ones who would absolutely deny the same angle to a Repub President (and vice-versa) Disagree. And you sound like you read that off of a DOJ press release, frankly. Certainty of guilt and "grave issues of national security" can both go a long way. Judges are human, even FISA judges. They're not going to deny a warrant when the AG is telling them the next 9-11 could be on the horizon. THAT is why approval rates for FISA warrants are so high. ETA: Oh and let me be clear here: I think Trump is full of shit. I think his tweet accusing Obama of wiretapping is way over the line. Even if it was true (which I don't think it is), it would be over the line. That said, the narrative of "well if it is true, then Trump is the one in trouble" is also total crap. This Trump-Russia cabal has been getting played to the nth degree. Whatever truth there is in all of that mess just doesn't rise to the level the anti-Trump crowd so desperately wants it to.
|
|
|
Post by Amadan on Mar 14, 2017 9:17:22 GMT -5
It doesn't mean he didn't order it or that it wasn't his idea or that he didn't approve of it. Any of those is sufficient, imo. We're talking spin here, with regard to the top dogs in the food chain. If Loretta Lynch went to the FISA court asking for permission to bug Trump Tower (or otherwise engage in electronic surveillance; really, way too much is being made of word choice in this regard, imo), that's on Obama. The "well he didn't directly order it" or "may not have even known about it" crap isn't going to fly. The people who would push such an angle are the same ones who would absolutely deny the same angle to a Repub President (and vice-versa) My point is there are two plausible scenarios here: (a) There was actually credible evidence of someone in Trump Tower being an agent of a foreign power, sufficient to justify FISA surveillance. (b) Obama's administration used intelligence agencies to spy on his political enemies. Personally, I think (a) is a lot more plausible than (b). If (a) is true, then yes, of course Obama was aware of it, but the fact that he didn't order it personally makes a difference - if he did order it personally, it would be a lot more suspicious. How do you know? I think judges are unlikely to deny any reasonable-looking FISA warrant, but I think even if we did have a higher level of scrutiny and skepticism, unless you appoint judges who are actively hostile to the federal agencies applying for FISA warrants, I think you might see the approval rate drop from 98% to maybe 90%. I think that would be a good thing, personally, because I do think the process is not transparent enough currently. But even that change would still have people screaming that a 90% approval rate represents rubber stamping and essentially carte blanche to spy on anyone. Which is bullshit. Again, how do you know? I doubt very much that Donald Trump himself is a "Russian asset," as has been bandied about. But if a valid FISA warrant was executed on someone in his circle, then we are back to my two scenarios above - it's either Obama doing a Nixon, or the Russians really are infiltrating the Trump administration (or trying to). You may consider the former more likely, but I am sure as hell not ruling out the latter.
|
|