|
Read the rules in the OP before posting, please.In order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a re-read to refresh your memory! The vast majority of you are contributing in a healthy way, keep it up! NOTE: When providing a source, explain why you feel it is relevant and what purpose it adds to the discussion if it's not obvious. Also take note that unsubstantiated tweets/posts meant only to rekindle old arguments can result in a mod action. |
On March 06 2017 03:25 Gorsameth wrote:Show nested quote +On March 06 2017 03:10 xDaunt wrote:On March 06 2017 02:58 Gorsameth wrote:On March 06 2017 02:55 xDaunt wrote:
I find it interesting that Clapper is denying that there was a FISA wiretap granted, but Obama's people are hedging their answers so much as to imply that there was one. They are likely talking about different things since Trump is being so vague (because he doesn't know himself what he is angry about). Clapper probably denies there was a wiretap for Trump himself while Obama's people talk about the server There are really two things that I want to know. First, I want to see what is in the FISA affidavit. This is particularly interesting given that the original application was apparently denied. Second, I want to know the extent to which FISA-acquired info was leaked. These are the two areas where the Obama administration could get in trouble. Of course, it could also be that the FISA affidavit verifies Trump-Russian collusion, but I doubt it given all of the statements from various people saying that there is no evidence of such a link. Well you should ask Trump since it seems that as President he has access to de-classify the FISA. Since he instead did not blow the lid of the biggest corruption case of the decade and buried Obama is disgrace, but rather tweeted about the Apprentice ratings I'm going to remain somewhat sceptical of his 'proof'.
Well, it appears that he is trying to get access to the subject FISA file, so we will see soon enough. And I don't blame him for tweeting a little prematurely. He has bumped the Sessions nonsense from the headlines.
|
It kind of bumped itself from the headlines for being mostly nonsense.
|
So it's justified to tweet falsehoods (or accusations for which you have no proof) if you don't like the current news cycle?
|
White House deputy press secretary Sarah Huckabee Sanders said on Sunday that President Donald Trump was only speaking about the “very real potential” that former President Barack Obama had wiretapped his presidential campaign.
Trump accused Obama of ordering the wiretapping in a series of tweets on Saturday morning.
“How low has President Obama gone to tapp [sic] my phones during the very sacred election process. This is Nixon/Watergate. Bad (or sick) guy!” Trump tweeted.
In an interview on ABC News’ “This Week,” guest host Martha Raddatz asked Sanders why the president had made the allegations so confidently.
“I think that this is, again, something that if this happened, Martha ―” Sanders began.
“If, if, if, if,” Raddatz interjected. “Why is the president saying that it did happen?”
“He is going off of information that he’s seen that has led him to believe that this is a very real potential,” Sanders replied.
Sanders suggested that Trump was merely asking for the matter to be investigated as part of any official investigation into the Trump campaign’s alleged ties to, or communications with, Russia.
“If they’re going to investigate Russia ties, let’s include this as part of it. So that’s what we’re asking,” Sanders told Raddatz.
“He’s made it very clear what he believes and he’s asking that we get down to the bottom of this,” she added. “Let’s get the truth here.”
Sanders would not provide additional information about the basis for Trump’s claims, other than to say that he was taking media reports about it “seriously.” Right-wing news sites Breitbart and Heat Street are the only news outlets suggesting that Obama personally ordered Trump’s wiretapping. Those sites link to mainstream news sources like The New York Times that do not make those claims definitively.
An Obama spokesman denied on Saturday that the president ever became personally involved in ordering wiretapping. The FBI requires a warrant to eavesdrop. And the Department of Justice, of which the law enforcement bureau is a part, prizes its independence.
Sanders struggled on Sunday to explain Trump’s certainty that Obama had wiretapped him. Raddatz pressed her to respond to one of Trump’s actual tweets making the accusations.
“I’d bet a good lawyer could make a great case out of the fact that President Obama was tapping my phones in October, just prior to Election!” Trump tweeted Saturday morning.
“I would say that his tweet speaks for itself there,” Sanders said.
Source
|
On March 06 2017 03:39 ChristianS wrote:
So it's justified to tweet falsehoods (or accusations for which you have no proof) if you don't like the current news cycle?
What do you mean by no proof? There's been quite bit of reporting on a FISA application being made and granted.
|
On March 06 2017 03:45 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On March 06 2017 03:39 ChristianS wrote:
So it's justified to tweet falsehoods (or accusations for which you have no proof) if you don't like the current news cycle? What do you mean by no proof? There's been quite bit of reporting on a FISA application being made and granted.
What does "there's been quite a bit of reporting" mean? That Donald Trump was wiretapped has been denied by James Clapper.
http://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-39172719
How is this more than just rumors?
|
|
|
On March 06 2017 03:39 ChristianS wrote:
So it's justified to tweet falsehoods (or accusations for which you have no proof) if you don't like the current news cycle?
regardless of justification, it is effective, and trump is good at doing it.
|
On March 06 2017 03:51 zlefin wrote:Show nested quote +On March 06 2017 03:39 ChristianS wrote:
So it's justified to tweet falsehoods (or accusations for which you have no proof) if you don't like the current news cycle? regardless of justification, it is effective, and trump is good at doing it.
Except this time it hasn't worked as he is now punting to Congress to open an investigation they don't want to do and could be a huge can of worms.
|
The ends generally justify the means in politics. Winners write the history a lot more short term then in real life.
|
Can Obama sue for defamation if it all turns out to be bollocks?
|
On March 06 2017 03:55 FueledUpAndReadyToGo wrote:
Can Obama sue for defamation if it all turns out to be bollocks?
Probably not. It's really hard to win defamation suits when's you're a public figure.
|
On March 06 2017 03:55 FueledUpAndReadyToGo wrote:
Can Obama sue for defamation if it all turns out to be bollocks?
legally, I believe he could. politically, it'd be a mess.
Not sure to what extent sovereign immunity could be used to delay a civil lawsuit.
i'm sure our resident lawyers would know on the topic. iirc in general it's very very rare to see defamation lawsuits from politicians against each other for what they've claimed about each other. of course that's in part because most politicians hedge their words enough.
|
|
|
On March 06 2017 02:55 xDaunt wrote:
I find it interesting that Clapper is denying that there was a FISA wiretap granted, but Obama's people are hedging their answers so much as to imply that there was one.
Because Obama's people would have more access to FISA documents than the staff of the currently sitting president?
They don't know if there was a wiretap or not because they're not privy to that information. But they do know that the President is not, and cannot be, involved in a court granted wiretap request.
|
On March 06 2017 04:06 WolfintheSheep wrote:Show nested quote +On March 06 2017 02:55 xDaunt wrote:
I find it interesting that Clapper is denying that there was a FISA wiretap granted, but Obama's people are hedging their answers so much as to imply that there was one. Because Obama's people would have more access to FISA documents than the staff of the currently sitting president? They don't know if there was a wiretap or not because they're not privy to that information. But they do know that the President is not, and cannot be, involved in a court granted wiretap request.
You should go read the FISA statute. The court grants the request that the president makes through the attorney general.
|
On March 06 2017 03:04 LegalLord wrote:
Much as I am not enamored with Trump, at this point I might wonder whether or not his predecessor specifically set him up to fail by creating an executive underclass that would necessarily be hostile towards him.
Trump repeatedly sets himself up to fail because he refuses to take the office of the president seriously. Obama didn't make a qualified candidate suddenly unqualified, and the people who are hostile to Trump tend to be upset reactively (after Trump does something dumb), not proactively.
On March 06 2017 03:14 biology]major wrote:
Trump is doing a terrible job, that is all
Agreed. He tries to blame everyone else, but he has no one to truly blame but himself.
|
On March 06 2017 04:12 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On March 06 2017 04:06 WolfintheSheep wrote:On March 06 2017 02:55 xDaunt wrote:
I find it interesting that Clapper is denying that there was a FISA wiretap granted, but Obama's people are hedging their answers so much as to imply that there was one. Because Obama's people would have more access to FISA documents than the staff of the currently sitting president? They don't know if there was a wiretap or not because they're not privy to that information. But they do know that the President is not, and cannot be, involved in a court granted wiretap request. You should go read the FISA statute. The court grants the request that the president makes through the attorney general.
https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/50/1802
Didn't realize there was a Trump Birther movement going on, but thanks for saying that Trump is not a US person?
|
On March 06 2017 04:33 WolfintheSheep wrote:Show nested quote +On March 06 2017 04:12 xDaunt wrote:On March 06 2017 04:06 WolfintheSheep wrote:On March 06 2017 02:55 xDaunt wrote:
I find it interesting that Clapper is denying that there was a FISA wiretap granted, but Obama's people are hedging their answers so much as to imply that there was one. Because Obama's people would have more access to FISA documents than the staff of the currently sitting president? They don't know if there was a wiretap or not because they're not privy to that information. But they do know that the President is not, and cannot be, involved in a court granted wiretap request. You should go read the FISA statute. The court grants the request that the president makes through the attorney general. https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/50/1802Didn't realize there was a Trump Birther movement going on, but thanks for saying that Trump is not a US person?
“As part of that practice, neither Obama nor White House official ever ordered surveillance on any US citizen. Any suggestion otherwise is false,” Mr Lewis said.
duh. We all saw it comming the day they made the announcement. Will we get an investigattion into wether or not Trump is actually an US citizen?
|
On March 06 2017 03:45 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On March 06 2017 03:39 ChristianS wrote:
So it's justified to tweet falsehoods (or accusations for which you have no proof) if you don't like the current news cycle? What do you mean by no proof? There's been quite bit of reporting on a FISA application being made and granted.
Wait, you need to make up your mind. People initially talked about how the FISA tap had been reported on for weeks, and was to do with his server that seemed like it might be talking with the Russians, not some Watergate-like tap of his campaign:
On March 05 2017 03:34 {CC}StealthBlue wrote:
A good number of tweets that make a good point:
You said we shouldn't assume that's the wiretap he's talking about.
On March 05 2017 03:50 xDaunt wrote:
It strikes me as rather presumptuous to conclusively declare what wiretaps Trump is referring to without waiting for clarification from his Administration.
Okay, fair enough, maybe he's talking about a different wiretap, of Trump Tower maybe. Then when people say he should release his proof if it's some other legal or illegal tap of Trump Tower, you say he's still in the process of getting access to it:On March 06 2017 03:33 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On March 06 2017 03:25 Gorsameth wrote:On March 06 2017 03:10 xDaunt wrote:On March 06 2017 02:58 Gorsameth wrote:On March 06 2017 02:55 xDaunt wrote:
I find it interesting that Clapper is denying that there was a FISA wiretap granted, but Obama's people are hedging their answers so much as to imply that there was one. They are likely talking about different things since Trump is being so vague (because he doesn't know himself what he is angry about). Clapper probably denies there was a wiretap for Trump himself while Obama's people talk about the server There are really two things that I want to know. First, I want to see what is in the FISA affidavit. This is particularly interesting given that the original application was apparently denied. Second, I want to know the extent to which FISA-acquired info was leaked. These are the two areas where the Obama administration could get in trouble. Of course, it could also be that the FISA affidavit verifies Trump-Russian collusion, but I doubt it given all of the statements from various people saying that there is no evidence of such a link. Well you should ask Trump since it seems that as President he has access to de-classify the FISA. Since he instead did not blow the lid of the biggest corruption case of the decade and buried Obama is disgrace, but rather tweeted about the Apprentice ratings I'm going to remain somewhat sceptical of his 'proof'. Well, it appears that he is trying to get access to the subject FISA file, so we will see soon enough. And I don't blame him for tweeting a little prematurely. He has bumped the Sessions nonsense from the headlines.
When I say he shouldn't make shit up or accuse without proof just to change a news cycle, you refer back to the earlier ones that had been reported on already.
So either he's talking about the wiretaps the FBI did investigating his server, in which case the earlier-quoted tweet chain applies, or he's talking about another illegal wiretap for which he has proof, in which case he should put up the proof or shut up, or he's still in the process of obtaining proof, in which case he shouldn't have started slinging accusations until he had proof.
So which is it?
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
