Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
The media is doing damage control for the Obama administration that was caught red handed spying on a political opponent.
The dems, and the media are focused on taking Trump's tweet literally so they can use it as a way to deflect from the major scandal of spying on the Trump campaign during the election.
Of course Trump's tweet wasn't meant to be taken literally, it was meant to bring as much attention to this serious scandal as possible. As usual, Trump baited the media, and they took the bait, hook, line, and sinker.
THIS EXACTLY ^^^
The Dems and their corrupt media accidentally trapped themselves.
By already leaking info to the NYT and WAPO that there was spying going on with Trump and associates before the election, they were sloppy as they were so sure Hillary would win and the FISA warrants and intel leak trail covered up by her.
LOL, since they had already admitted in NYT and WAPO from their intel leaks that there was spying from the Obama administration, they are now having to backpedal and spin spin spin.....they didn't want THIS investigation. Masses of paper shredding and bleach bitting going on as we read this.
Watch Tom Cotten interviews. He appears to know who, what and how. I think this is going to unwind quick along with Obama's illegal $billions in a slush fund that was redirected from victims to his left wing radical groups.
OK, I don't trust Trump but I don't trust the media's desperation with making Trump look worse than he is. When it comes to this wiretapping thing, I know that Trump's tweets were misleading. No, Obama did not wiretap his phone like the FBI going after the mob in some old school mafia movie. No, Obama didn't order it.
I think this might be a case of the media taking Trump literally but not seriously, and cleverly playing the semantics game in order to discredit Trump.
So far I've read that a FISA warrant was issued by a judge in October '16 after it was first rejected last summer. It was probably issued to probe the Trump campaign's alleged ties to Russia. It probably also explains all the leaks.
Anyways, why is the media playing this game and won't just admit that a FISA court warrant was issued? Why are they taking Trump's tweet as literal? Even if he is wrong, was not Obama's Justice Dept trying to spy on the Trump campaign?
And what is with all this talk of impeachment all of a sudden because of the allegations?
And I will add that several sources hint at the involvement of foreign intelligence agencies - reports from them may have prompted US actions.
You will note that since his original tweet storm, Trump has been silent. Which is - odd - considering that of all people on the face of this planet, he is in the single best position to determine what exactly occurred and why. We are lacking hard evidence at this point, and my guess is that we will continue to lack hard evidence, because Trump did something REALLY dumb, and is now hoping that if he ignores it, everyone else will ignore it too.
As for impeachment, it seems that, unfortunately, some Ds have taken up the silly tactics of some Rs, by trying to blow up everything a disliked president does into an impeachable offense.
And I will add that several sources hint at the involvement of foreign intelligence agencies - reports from them may have prompted US actions.
You will note that since his original tweet storm, Trump has been silent. Which is - odd - considering that of all people on the face of this planet, he is in the single best position to determine what exactly occurred and why.
That's true. It looks as though all the cards would be on Trump's side IF there was nothing justified in the spying. But is there something there he doesn't want revealed?
Now take that statement I just made and dissect it. Did I mean Obama himself or his administration? By surveil did I mean his phone?
Nobody knows. Communicate clearly if you are going to level serious accusations.
Quote:
Point is, the Trump team was targeted during a campaign for surveillance.
So what Trump meant to tweet was "The FBI had a convincing enough case against several of my staff members to convince a FISA judge to issue a surveillance warrant" and it just came out all wrong? Because that can't be that great for him, can it?
Nobody knows. Communicate clearly if you are going to level serious accusations.
So what Trump meant to tweet was "The FBI had a convincing enough case against several of my staff members to convince a FISA judge to issue a surveillance warrant" and it just came out all wrong?
Perhaps the media should've communicated that clearer. Or perhaps liberals needed a witty monologue equipped with snarky sardonic quips and pop culture references to appeal to millennials made by a middle aged ****?
Do you not understand that your attempts to deflect are just not working.
The adults are now having a serious discussion about the surveillance state, and you people are muttering something about but, but, but Trump said Obama....
How is quoting Trumps tweets a deflection from the title of this thread. Explain to me what he meant when he said this is as big as Watergate.
And you and I and everyone posting here has no idea if it was legal or illegal, who was/wasn't involved.....yet.
And trump plays the game all so well once again.
Your link represents my understanding of the situation. The only thing I've heard (from attorneys in my family) that the link left out is that, since Obama was still president, Flynn was a 'designate'....he WASN'T the CURRENT President's top NSA person.....so he was entitled to the same rights and 'procedural consideration' any other 'joe blow' U.S. citizen, and nothing less.
They didn't monitor 45 or Flynn. They monitored the Russians that they talked to.
Why is this so hard to understand?
These people were monitored long before 45 was anyone's afterthought and will be long after.
This nation's security doesn't get suspended just because your idol and his people chose to talk to these people and got caught doing so.
Of course if a) they hadn't all lied about the contact and b) really have nothing to hide, there wouldn't be so many people trying to cover their derrieres.
But, as long as stuff like this keeps surfacing...
"President Donald Trump met last April with the Russian ambassador at the center of a pair of controversies over engagement between Trump allies and the Kremlin, despite claims by his spokeswoman that he had "zero" involvement with Russian officials during the campaign.
Attention to Trump’s encounter with Russian Ambassador to the U.S. Sergey Kislyak resurfaced after revelations last week that at least five members of Trump’s campaign team -- including Attorney General Jeff Sessions -- had contact with Kislyak before Trump took office."
They need to have warrant in order to monitor any US citizen. Without warrant, they suppose to stop listening to the call as soon as there is a citizen. That is what some IC guy explained last week. Is there any update from either CBI or DOJ? DOJ suppose to refute these wire tapping claims on Monday?
How is quoting Trumps tweets a deflection from the title of this thread. Explain to me what he meant when he said this is as big as Watergate.
This is so much simpler than it looks.
A.) Trump tweets something hyperbolic, idiotic as it may be he probably has some misguided strategy to be as bombastic as possible to garner the media's attention.
B.) The allegations, when broken down from their hyperbolic state are essentially that the Obama administrations dept of justice requested a warrant from the FISA courts to monitor people on Trumps staff.
C.) If true and under the Trump team's narrative, this could potentially be bigger than Watergate but that's if the surveillance wasn't justified, which if granted by the FISA courts, it could very well have been.
D.) The media is obfuscating the issue and ignoring all the pertinent points and questions in order to paint Trumps tweets literally and do damage control for Obama.
E.) Trump could easily lay his cards on the table and end this but could there be more to the debacle?
This is a giant clusterfkk.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
