So now, how are all the people who defended Trump on this issue going to get back off the limb that he put them out on?


I would think that some people would learn, maybe it's better to wait a few days before doing the knee-jerk defense of everything he tweets.

They'll just come in and say "snowflakes are crazy".... just like they do every time.

---

http://www.cnn.com/2017/03/13/politics/s...retapping/


Now they are claiming he didn't really mean it


Hahaha


this guy is such a complete joke

 

Did you bother to listen to the video? That's totally not what he said.


 

Old people (and Trump is 70) use expressions that originated with different technology. Haven't you heard someone saying they "taped" a TV program? Obama's government was recording Trump's campaign staff, "wiretapping" is just an archaic way of saying that.

---

                                                                          

"Why should I give information to you when all you want to do is find something wrong with it?"

Did you bother to listen to the video? That's totally not what he said.


Old people (and Trump is 70) use expressions that originated with different technology. Haven't you heard someone saying they "taped" a TV program? Obama's government was recording Trump's campaign staff, "wiretapping" is just an archaic way of saying that.

lol you people are shameless

---

lol you people are shameless

 

When you resort to insults you've lost the argument.


 

Hah! I just realized that you ALWAYS resort to insults.

---

                                                                          

"Why should I give information to you when all you want to do is find something wrong with it?"

When you resort to insults you've lost the argument.


Hah! I just realized that you ALWAYS resort to insults.

Hey bruh I got an online petition signed by 31, 000 actual trolls that says I NEVER resort to insults and that you should shut your stupid face

---

Did you bother to listen to the video? That's totally not what he said.


 

Old people (and Trump is 70) use expressions that originated with different technology. Haven't you heard someone saying they "taped" a TV program? Obama's government was recording Trump's campaign staff, "wiretapping" is just an archaic way of saying that.

 

So when Trump said Obama had wiretapped him, he didn't actually mean Obama and he didn't actually mean wiretapped.  

 

The House Intelligence Committee has asked the Justice Department to turn over any evidence that backs up these allegations, and so far, they have received zero.  

 

Trump accused Obama of wiretapping him.   Then, instead of providing any evidence to back this up, he tossed the whole thing to Congress and asked them to investigate.   So Congress says, okay, let's start with the evidence.  What do you have?   And then, in spite of Trump having the legal right to ask the FBI and the CIA and anyone else in his administration to turn over any evidence that Obama or someone did anything at all, he doesn't do any of that.  Instead, he sends his surrogates out to say that he didn't actually mean "wiretapped" and he didn't really mean Obama.

 

And then Kellyanne says it could have been video recorded through the microwave. 

---

Hey bruh I got an online petition signed by 31, 000 actual trolls that says I NEVER resort to insults and that you should shut your stupid face

 

Once again you prove me right. You're the gift that keeps on giving.

---

                                                                          

"Why should I give information to you when all you want to do is find something wrong with it?"

So when Trump said Obama had wiretapped him, he didn't actually mean Obama and he didn't actually mean wiretapped.  

 

 

"Wiretapped" was used as a generic term. He should have used "recorded" but anyone with half a brain (admittedly that leaves out the writers at Vox.com) should understand what he meant. There are no wires to tap these days like there were in the past. There are no tapes in a DVR, but people still say "taped" instead of "recorded."


 

We still don't know if "Obama" was the instigator, but it's extremely naive to believe someone the US government executive branch recorded Trump's colleagues without Obama's knowledge and approval.

---

                                                                          

"Why should I give information to you when all you want to do is find something wrong with it?"

"Wiretapped" was used as a generic term. He should have used "recorded" but anyone with half a brain (admittedly that leaves out the writers at Vox.com) should understand what he meant. There are no wires to tap these days like there were in the past. There are no tapes in a DVR, but people still say "taped" instead of "recorded."


 

We still don't know if "Obama" was the instigator, but it's extremely naive to believe someone the US government executive branch recorded Trump's colleagues without Obama's knowledge and approval.

 

But the point remains, if he was surveilled as he alleges, Trump has the legal authority to release information from the FBI or the CIA or any other federal agency that supports his claim, and weeks into this story, he has provided no evidence.  In fact, he hasn't even said what led him to believe this.

 

He asked the Congress to investigate, and they say, okay, give us the evidence and we will investigate, and he has given them nothing.  And all of his spokespeople say, "I don't know anything about it." 

 

He doesn't even need Congress to prove this.  He can prove it himself.  Just release the evidence. 

---

Did or did not the Obama administration seek a FISA warrant for Trump Tower on multiple occasions?

---

“An empty vessel makes the loudest sound, so they that have the least wit are the greatest babblers.”. - Plato

Did or did not the Obama administration seek a FISA warrant for Trump Tower on multiple occasions?

 

Did they get a FISA warrant?   Trump can release those details if he wants.  He's in charge of the executive branch.  If the executive branch requested a FISA warrant, Trump can show it to us right now. 

 

What was their legal justification for it?   A FISA warrant requires a permit from the special FISA court. 

 

Maybe that's why the Trump people are walking this whole allegation backwards.  They're having second thoughts about what might come out in an investigation. 

 

Here's what Trump tweeted:

 

"Is it legal for a sitting President to be "wire tapping" a race for president prior to an election? Turned down by court earlier. A NEW LOW!"

 

If there was a FISA warrant, the answer is, yes, it was legal.  But then the question becomes, what was alleged that caused the FISA court to okay the warrant?   The answer to that question may be why the Trump people are trying to make this story go away. 

 

Read this:

 

https://www.wired.com/2017/03/feds-wiret...ama-worry/

 

"Trump’s wiretap claims, then, carry presumably inadvertent implications. First, based on previous reporting and the nature of FISA courts, any wiretaps within Trump Tower would be legal. And they would stem from overwhelming evidence that the Trump campaign, or someone within it, has unsavory ties to Russia or another foreign power. Otherwise, it’s unlikely those wiretaps would exist at all.

"If federal authorities did have cause to listen in on Trump Tower, though, and they provided enough evidence for a FISA court to approve the snooping, Obama is not the one who ought to worry."

---

Hey bruh I got an online petition signed by 31, 000 actual trolls that says I NEVER resort to insults and that you should shut your stupid face

31k out of how many billions online.

 

#winning

---

Did they get a FISA warrant?   Trump can release those details if he wants.  He's in charge of the executive branch.  If the executive branch requested a FISA warrant, Trump can show it to us right now. 

 

What was their legal justification for it?   A FISA warrant requires a permit from the special FISA court. 

 

Maybe that's why the Trump people are walking this whole allegation backwards.  They're having second thoughts about what might come out in an investigation. 

 

Here's what Trump tweeted:

 

"Is it legal for a sitting President to be "wire tapping" a race for president prior to an election? Turned down by court earlier. A NEW LOW!"

 

If there was a FISA warrant, the answer is, yes, it was legal.  But then the question becomes, what was alleged that caused the FISA court to okay the warrant?   The answer to that question may be why the Trump people are trying to make this story go away. 

 

Read this:

 

https://www.wired.com/2017/03/feds-wiret...ama-worry/

 

"Trump’s wiretap claims, then, carry presumably inadvertent implications. First, based on previous reporting and the nature of FISA courts, any wiretaps within Trump Tower would be legal. And they would stem from overwhelming evidence that the Trump campaign, or someone within it, has unsavory ties to Russia or another foreign power. Otherwise, it’s unlikely those wiretaps would exist at all.

"If federal authorities did have cause to listen in on Trump Tower, though, and they provided enough evidence for a FISA court to approve the snooping, Obama is not the one who ought to worry."

 

I don't think the issue is just the legality of the "wiretapping" or surveillance, but also the ethical ramifications. We need to know who authorized it and why it was authorized.

 

Was the legal justification for authorizing surveillance actually enough to satisfy the requirements of the law? We may find out that it wasn't, but even if it was, there is likely to be a grey ethical area of uncertainty.

 

The distribution of an American citizen's (Flynn) audio acquired through foreign surveillance throughout the IC without proper scrubbing is definitely a violation which lead to an illegal leak. The surveillance (or hacking) of Trump's server to detect foreign involvement also seems extremely suspect, especially considering how this surveillance activity was almost immediately known by Hillary Clinton, Harry Reid, and other Democrats.

 

Everything about this is super shady and really throws a wrench into the credibility of future elections. If anyone can be surveyed for simply interacting with a foreign entity (many of which do on a daily basis because it is their job), and the IC is no longer scrubbing US citizen's information, then everyone is at risk. I hope this doesn't go away and we get some closure.

---

"Trump’s wiretap claims, then, carry presumably inadvertent implications. First, based on previous reporting and the nature of FISA courts, any wiretaps within Trump Tower would be legal. And they would stem from overwhelming evidence that the Trump campaign, or someone within it, has unsavory ties to Russia or another foreign power. Otherwise, it’s unlikely those wiretaps would exist at all.

"If federal authorities did have cause to listen in on Trump Tower, though, and they provided enough evidence for a FISA court to approve the snooping, Obama is not the one who ought to worry."

 

FISA approval requires very little evidence. And wired.com knew that, so they knowingly printed a lie.

 

http://www.motherjones.com/mojo/2013/06/...ct-request

---

                                                                          

"Why should I give information to you when all you want to do is find something wrong with it?"

I don't think the issue is just the legality of the "wiretapping" or surveillance, but also the ethical ramifications. We need to know who authorized it and why it was authorized.


Was the legal justification for authorizing surveillance actually enough to satisfy the requirements of the law? We may find out that it wasn't, but even if it was, there is likely to be a grey ethical area of uncertainty.


The distribution of an American citizen's (Flynn) audio acquired through foreign surveillance throughout the IC without proper scrubbing is definitely a violation which lead to an illegal leak. The surveillance (or hacking) of Trump's server to detect foreign involvement also seems extremely suspect, especially considering how this surveillance activity was almost immediately known by Hillary Clinton, Harry Reid, and other Democrats.


Everything about this is super shady and really throws a wrench into the credibility of future elections. If anyone can be surveyed for simply interacting with a foreign entity (many of which do on a daily basis because it is their job), and the IC is no longer scrubbing US citizen's information, then everyone is at risk. I hope this doesn't go away and we get some closure.

What are you even talking about? Trump said he heard about it in fake news. Breitbart or Fox - doesn't appear clear where exactly he thinks he saw it.


LOL.

---

What are you even talking about? Trump said he heard about it in fake news. Breitbart or Fox - doesn't appear clear where exactly he thinks he saw it.


LOL.

 

nice memeing breh xD

---

FISA approval requires very little evidence. And wired.com knew that, so they knowingly printed a lie.

 

http://www.motherjones.com/mojo/2013/06/...ct-request

 

So release the evidence!  Release it all!   What's the problem?   Trump can release all this stuff on his own.  He doesn't need a Congressional investigation.   He has the Constitutional authority to tell the CIA and FBI to tell what they know.  Was there a FISA request?   Was it approved?   What kind of flimsy evidence was used to obtain approval?   TELL US.   What's the problem?  

 

The problem is, he believed something that wasn't true, and now he knows it wasn't true, and he's trying to walk it back, and hope all the hubbub dies down.  

 

It's so obvious, I can't believe you Trump supporters cannot see this.   Just say, hey, I was mistaken, I was misled, I'm sorry, now let's talk about health care.  Apologize and case closed.  

---

I don't think the issue is just the legality of the "wiretapping" or surveillance, but also the ethical ramifications. We need to know who authorized it and why it was authorized.

 

Was the legal justification for authorizing surveillance actually enough to satisfy the requirements of the law? We may find out that it wasn't, but even if it was, there is likely to be a grey ethical area of uncertainty.

 

The distribution of an American citizen's (Flynn) audio acquired through foreign surveillance throughout the IC without proper scrubbing is definitely a violation which lead to an illegal leak. The surveillance (or hacking) of Trump's server to detect foreign involvement also seems extremely suspect, especially considering how this surveillance activity was almost immediately known by Hillary Clinton, Harry Reid, and other Democrats.

 

Everything about this is super shady and really throws a wrench into the credibility of future elections. If anyone can be surveyed for simply interacting with a foreign entity (many of which do on a daily basis because it is their job), and the IC is no longer scrubbing US citizen's information, then everyone is at risk. I hope this doesn't go away and we get some closure.

 

Who authorized what?   We haven't even seen evidence that there ever was any surveillance.   And I'm not talking about taking a few newspaper articles and making 2+2=5.   I'm talking about the kind of evidence that would be within Trump's control as head of the executive branch.   He could prove his allegation on his own.   He doesn't need any help from Congress. 

 

Mr. President, what makes you think Obama had you surveilled?   Tell us.  Call a news conference and lay out the evidence.  What's the problem? 

---

How do you Trumpettes manage to breathe while all twisted into a pretzel defending your Orange Emperor.

---

If something can corrupt you, you're corrupted already.
- Bob Marley


 

He needs to provide a formal apology to former President Obama for lying about something he did not do and he needs to apologize to the American people for wasting tax dollars on fruitless investigations that had no ounce of evidence.

---