US Politics Mega-thread - Page 7427

President Donald Trump said his allegation that he was illegally surveilled by former President Barack Obama has “been proven very strongly” and that that surveillance has negated the relatively warm relationship that the two presidents developed in the weeks following Trump’s victory last year.

“Well, he was very nice to me. But after that, we've had some difficulties. So it doesn't matter,” Trump said in an interview taped over the weekend that aired Monday on “CBS This Morning.” “You know, words are less important to me than deeds. And you saw what happened with surveillance. And everybody saw what happened with surveillance.”

After campaigning hard for Democrat Hillary Clinton during the 2016 campaign, Obama was quick to extend his congratulations to Trump following his unexpected victory, inviting the Manhattan billionaire to the White House just two days after Election Day. The two men held an extended meeting in the Oval Office and Trump, who railed against Obama on the campaign trail and was the most prominent voice behind the so-called birther movement that baselessly questioned whether Obama was born in the U.S., spoke warmly of the man he would succeed in the White House.

Over the following weeks, the two men spoke again via telephone multiple times and Trump said in an interview that he had sought Obama’s counsel on some Cabinet appointments, although he declined to say which ones. Trump, who had not met Obama personally before their Oval Office meeting in the immediate aftermath of the election, said last December that “I really like him as a person” and that the two presidents “have a really good chemistry together.”

But in early March, Trump wrote on Twitter that Obama had illegally ordered surveillance of Trump Tower in the days and weeks leading up to last year’s election, an allegation for which neither the president nor any White House staff member has been able to offer definitive proof. Trump raised the allegation in his interview without prompting, but then appeared unwilling to discuss it further when CBS anchor John Dickerson asked him whether he stood by the accusation.

“I don't stand by anything. I just — you can take it the way you want. I think our side's been proven very strongly. And everybody's talking about it. And frankly, it should be discussed,” Trump said. “That is a very big surveillance of our citizens. I think it's a very big topic. And it's a topic that should be No. 1. And we should find out what the hell is going on.”

When Dickerson pressed Trump for further details, the president replied that “you don’t have to ask me” because “I have my own opinions. You can have your own opinions.” Dickerson followed up that he wanted Trump’s opinion as president, prompting Trump to say “OK, it's enough. Thank you,” and abruptly ended the interview.

On May 02 2017 04:55 Reaper9 wrote:
It seems it will be up to my up and coming generation of Americans to clean this mess up. Time to evolve and get involved. If we dis-agree with the discourse of the parties, then it is up to the people to change it. Parties are merely symbols, representing the actual people behind them. If we dislike how political parties are run in the United States, then it is our duty in this country to set it right. We may be at a point in history where we will sacrifice what comforts we currently hold, but to continue on such a disastrous course is empire/nation ending.

On May 02 2017 04:27 Plansix wrote:

The vast majority of litigation settles rather than go to trial. I don’t see why this case is going to be an exception.

On May 02 2017 04:55 Reaper9 wrote:
It seems it will be up to my up and coming generation of Americans to clean this mess up. Time to evolve and get involved. If we dis-agree with the discourse of the parties, then it is up to the people to change it. Parties are merely symbols, representing the actual people behind them. If we dislike how political parties are run in the United States, then it is our duty in this country to set it right. We may be at a point in history where we will have to sacrifice what comforts we currently hold, but to continue on such a disastrous course is empire/nation ending.

I've done some self reflecting after the elections, and come to the realization that as we stand, nothing is currently right what is going on in politics. Therefore, it is a civic duty to learn and get engaged.

On May 02 2017 05:32 GreenHorizons wrote:


I just presumed the thought was it was going to get thrown out. That the Democratic party is going to settle a suit that claims they aren't democratic (despite their and many others assertions otherwise) seems like it would be worthy of some coverage. Why do you think the corporate media has completely ignored it?

On May 02 2017 05:40 Plansix wrote:

Court cases are boring and you don’t know much until they go to trial. Documents produced in discovery are rarely filed with the court. Attorneys for both sides refuse to talk to the media and people involved with the case are instructed to do the same.

And the case was always going to survive a motion to dismiss, which means it goes into the protracted stage known as discovery and procedural motions. Also deeply boring.

On May 02 2017 06:05 GreenHorizons wrote:


I mean, I find it hard to imagine how they can run a primary after this. Maybe court cases are boring (hasn't stopped every bit of minutiae being covered in some), but they are trying to suggest that they both ran an impartial and fair process, but they are under no obligation to do so and they don't know what one would or wouldn't look like.

The DNC is getting called out for the Primary being a farce and their defense is, "It's Legal for it to be a farce". You have to be a complete idiot (or find it personally beneficial) to continue participating in a process like that, (which whatever it is, isn't democracy).

Would they pitch the primary as the best non-democratic event you can "vote" in?

They should be at least mentioning this on all major news outlets, even if it's just a status update.

On May 02 2017 06:05 GreenHorizons wrote:


I mean, I find it hard to imagine how they can run a primary after this. Maybe court cases are boring (hasn't stopped every bit of minutiae being covered in some), but they are trying to suggest that they both ran an impartial and fair process, but they are under no obligation to do so and they don't know what one would or wouldn't look like.

The DNC is getting called out for the Primary being a farce and their defense is, "It's Legal for it to be a farce". You have to be a complete idiot (or find it personally beneficial) to continue participating in a process like that, (which whatever it is, isn't democracy).

Do would they pitch the primary as the best non-democratic event you can vote in?

They should be at least mentioning this on all major news outlets, even if it's just a status update.

On May 02 2017 06:15 Plansix wrote:

GH, when you asked your initial question about what we thought of the case and how it would resolve, did you really give a shit about that? Or did you just want to bait someone into yet another fight about the DNC.

I don’t think it will be the end of the party. It will be bad if it goes to trial and they rule against them. I expect it to settle because that is how most court cases go. If you want anything else, find some other sucker to go up and down with you about the DNC.

On May 02 2017 06:19 warding wrote:
If both parties go the populist route in 2020 you might end up with a Macron effect - an independent coming in at the middle (Bloomberg? Cuban? I have to assume it'd be a billionaire) coming across as the only grownup at the race. It'd depend on how much of his base Trumo maintains and how polarized tge Democratic party will be.

On May 02 2017 06:21 Mohdoo wrote:


Bloomberg is 75 right now. So no on him. I don't think Cuban has a chance. The only billionaires I think have a legit chance at a political career are Zuckerberg, Musk and Gates.

On May 02 2017 06:20 GreenHorizons wrote:


I legitimately expected to hear that it was a BS case and that it wasn't going anywhere (I feel like that's what people said months ago when it first started).

That they would settle was a surprise assessment to me. Settling seems like a lose-lose for the Democratic party, one that if they were an investment bank would be an acceptable loss of face, but as a national political party it would be rather catastrophic.

Admitting (even though I'm sure they wouldn't legally admit it) that they aren't a "democratic" party at all. Or at minimum suggesting that they sincerely believe they are under no obligation legally or morally to run an impartial and even-handed election process.

So the primary isn't real. It's a glorified American Idol hotline. That seems like a pretty big deal.

On May 02 2017 06:30 {CC}StealthBlue wrote:


Zuckerberg is actually a legit possibility especially considering his visits to certain battleground states and so on.

On May 02 2017 06:32 Mohdoo wrote:


Yeah, his particularly peaceful and out of the way method of dealing with his Hawaii property deal also speaks to political aspirations. And he could totally do it. I really think any of the three people I listed would be heavily favor to win in 2020.

On May 02 2017 06:34 Plansix wrote:

As along as he runs for state office first. A straight run for President would be some sort of nightmare. I am also not sure how Facebook deals with him in politics.