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.
People are "talking about Trump" because no one in their right mind, least of all the POTUS, makes such serious allegations without proof. And there will be no proof of Obama doing any such thing: U.S. intelligence is its own authority; it doesn't necessarily take orders from the POTUS.
It's all so ridiculous, since apparently he just heard something from Breitbart and reacted, repeating what was suggested, causing others to go into an uproar over this claim, wasting everyone's time. It seems that jerk-face has the urge to divert others' attention, whenever something else crops up that could implicate him.
(Just to say, bear with me, because I have been reading page by page and commenting as I go, the thread being in the hundreds of pages now).
He said he would end the wars. He did not. He said he would not get us involved in new wars. He did. He said he would prosecute the bankers. He did not. He said he would end the welfare for Wall Street. He did not. He said he would end the revolving lobbyists doors. He did not.
Makes sense. Almost certainly sharing. I've never been fond of conspiracy theories if only because they are too much hard work. So little of what is put into any one print/video source ever reflects the underlying reality. At a minimum, one needs to plow through every news outlet (blogs included), pick out the relevant pieces, cross check, then assemble into various configurations.
Much easier to wait for an item to be real enough that it hits all the major MSM headlines.
Could there be "something" there? Possibly, of unknown significance. Financial? Legal? Political? Embarrassment territory? Or worse? Who knows.
But it will never be "real" (or tree-in-forest heard) unless it is legally accessible. In the meantime, I tend to prefer Trump over Pence and prefer a stable or growing stock market.
Before getting on with the rest of the afternoon, back though to the gray area. Politicization. And messes, and ones NOT created by Trump. I pretty much accept that Obama tried to not politicize this into the election (minimal leaks). The timing simply isn't right for that scenario. Plus not to give Obama the gold star, he probably did expect Clinton to pull it out. So easy call.
Post-election may be a different story. Historically, the FBI and the CIA (and other intel agencies) have not communicated well. Then there is the Comey letter (which many Democrats including myself to have been more influential than the Russian hacks). One can't help but wonder whether the perceived misjudgments by the FBI - however they try to draw distinctions between how they treated Clinton but not Trump - might not move some fine lines in the IC.
Given the December EO (don't have the number handy) and the Dossier leaking, without argument the Obama administration appeared to be trying to prevent the Trump administration from burying material. The question is what? And whether it has any legal significance (as opposed to embarrassment territory).
To the extent that the information (Russian connections) is so low-value that this is nothing other then Democratic harassment, then Trump would do well to pull himself away from it. Put his people into the agencies. Deal with wrong-doings internally. Or let Congress respond. Surrogates. Not personally feed the fire.
It's certainly not a conspiracy theory, as it's generally well known that foreign intelligence services spy on each other and that the US uses GCHQ and Five Eyes for it's own means.
As a Presidential Candidate and given some of his views Trump would have been subject to all kinds of intelligence grabs.
However it's unlikely that Obama was behind any intelligence gathering.
He's supposedly the President of the US. Doesn't he owe us some honesty? Is it illegal for him to lie to the American people? If not illegal, isn't it unethical? Impeachable? They impeached Clinton for lying, why shouldn't they impeach the current president for lying?
Status:
"Smartened up and walked away!"
(set 21 days ago)
11,768 posts, read 5,781,921 times
Reputation: 14186
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jstarling
Examples of some of those lies?
Excuse - me but have you not read the thread? We have over 10 pages where people have documented his lies. I know that you libs love to ask for proof first and foremost - but please read the threads before responding to someone on the first page as your proof will be presented and you look like a fool.
He said he would end the wars. He did not. He said he would not get us involved in new wars. He did. He said he would prosecute the bankers. He did not. He said he would end the welfare for Wall Street. He did not. He said he would end the revolving lobbyists doors. He did not.
I can continue.
Those are not lies. They are unkept promises....all politicians make them.
President Bonkers' tweets are accusations of a felony. Big difference.
But if you want to argue it's OK to make promises you aren't going to keep to get elected, you can own that argument if you wish.
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.
It seems that jerk-face has the urge to divert others' attention, whenever something else crops up that could implicate him. 
