pari,
if it wasn't that way, then again, there's either a FISA court-authorized wiretap on Flynn...or there was illegal wiretapping, in which case either the POTUS or he himself as National Security Adviser would have reacted as such instead of accepting the resignation.While I remember, no evidence of this has ever been provided, it's mere supposition that this is the way Flynn's call was recorded.
i take it that you would be fully supportive of the appointment of an independent special prosecutor to look into this and clear Trump's good name, then.All this is simply culled from justifications for claims about Trumps supposed involvement with the Ruskies.
Last edited by astralis; 05 Mar 17, at 18:48.
There is a cult of ignorance in the United States, and there has always been. The strain of anti-intellectualism has been a constant thread winding its way through our political and cultural life, nurtured by the false notion that democracy means that "My ignorance is just as good as your knowledge."- Isaac Asimov
I couldn't give a monkeys arse about Trump Eric, but a full investigation as to who recorded whom, what justifications for those recordings exist and who disseminated that information would be fabulous. The cleansing nature of light on all factions of the United States State is to be welcomed.Originally Posted by astralis
Last edited by Parihaka; 05 Mar 17, at 19:03.
In the realm of spirit, seek clarity; in the material world, seek utility
Gottfried Leibniz
That's odd, because if it was a recording of the ambassadors calls, isn't it illegal to not redact the American citizens name?
In the realm of spirit, seek clarity; in the material world, seek utility
Gottfried Leibniz
I watched former director of national intelligence James R. Clapper Jr. interview from meet the press. and linked the following from the WP
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/...=.77b2d4973203 On the broader question of apparent Russian interference in the 2016 election, Clapper urged congressional investigators to attempt to settle the issue, which he said has become a “distraction” in the political sphere.
The intelligence community found no evidence of collusion between the Trump campaign and the Russian government — at least until the end of the Obama administration, the nation’s former top spy said Sunday.
“We had no evidence of such collusion,” The same former Obama administration director of national intelligence James R. Clapper Jr., who , denied that a wiretap was authorized against Trump or his campaign during his tenure.
Last edited by Dazed; 05 Mar 17, at 19:24.
Yeah it's funny watching the dance happen around this. Of course it's public already that Trumps server was monitored, and now several statements from current and former officials that no evidence of collusion was found, even though they weren't monitoring Trump or his campaign.
We also have several statements from the same players that no monitoring of Trump or his campaign was authorized. In other words, we monitored a machine, not the individuals involved in Trumps election, including Trump himself.
The fallacy of this argument is of course that a phone is a device, independent of who uses it. "we were monitoring an electronic device, not the individual or organisation that was using it for communications. We just happened to pick up those communications as part of our monitoring of the device."
In the realm of spirit, seek clarity; in the material world, seek utility
Gottfried Leibniz
pari,
the revelations came out via (multiple) leaks, not officially. the leakers can of course be prosecuted if found, although I suspect the Trump team probably has little interest in revisiting this affair even if they find the leakers, considering the end result was the firing of a National Security Adviser whom had been deceiving the Vice President, among others.That's odd, because if it was a recording of the ambassadors calls, isn't it illegal to not redact the American citizens name?
in any case, tbm3fan's original assertion that Trump was essentially making outrageous claims regarding phone wiretapping without any evidence still remains true. you shifted the conversation to the separate issue of the Trump server, but again, there's nothing about any of this that is "Nixon/Watergate" as POTUS is claiming.
There is a cult of ignorance in the United States, and there has always been. The strain of anti-intellectualism has been a constant thread winding its way through our political and cultural life, nurtured by the false notion that democracy means that "My ignorance is just as good as your knowledge."- Isaac Asimov
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/...-defending-it/
Trump’s claim about Obama wiretapping him is indefensible. So his aides aren’t even defending it.
By Aaron Blake March 5 at 12:07 PM
White House press secretary Sean Spicer issued a statement Sunday calling for an investigation into President Trump's allegation — without evidence — that his predecessor in the White House, Barack Obama, wiretapped him.
And then Spicer concluded it by saying that the White House would offer no further comment. That included, apparently, any comment actually substantiating Trump's claim.
But shortly thereafter, another White House spokesman, Sarah Huckabee Sanders, did comment further. And she showed exactly why Spicer didn't really want to talk about this.
During an at-times-painful interview with ABC's Martha Raddatz, Huckabee Sanders repeatedly suggested that Trump's allegation was worth looking into but declined to vouch for it. Raddatz pointed this out repeatedly, and Huckabee Sanders responded by saying “if this happened,” “if this took place,” “if it did” and “let's find out.”
Here's a snippet, with Huckabee Sanders's equivocations in bold:
RADDATZ: Was the principal source the Breitbart story, which links to the New York Times? But the New York Times doesn't say anything definitive. Donald Trump does. There is nothing equivocating about what he says. “I just found out that Obama had my wires tapped.” That's not “look into something.” He says it happened.
HUCKABEE SANDERS: Look, I think the bigger thing is you guys are always telling us to take the media seriously. Well, we are today. We're taking the reports that places like the New York Times, Fox News, BBC, multiple outlets have reported this. All we're saying is, let's take a closer look. Let's look into this. If this happened, if this is accurate, this is the biggest overreach and the biggest scandal.
RADDATZ: The president of the United States is accusing the former president of wiretapping him.
HUCKABEE SANDERS: I think that this is, again, something that if this happened, Martha …
RADDATZ: “If,” “if,” “if,” “if.”
HUCKABEE SANDERS: I agree.
RADDTAZ: Why is the president saying it did happen?
HUCKABEE SANDERS: Look, I think he's going off of information that he's seen that has led him to believe that this is a very real potential. And if it is, this is the greatest overreach and the greatest abuse of power that, I think, we have ever seen and a huge attack on democracy itself. And the American people have a right to know if this took place.
…
RADDATZ: Okay. Let me just say one more time. The president said, “I bet a good lawyer could make a great case out of the fact that President Obama was tapping my phones in October.” So the president believes it is true?
HUCKABEE SANDERS: I would say that his tweet speaks for itself there.
At one point later in their conversation, Huckabee Sanders even said, "I will let the president speak for himself" -- to which an exasperated Raddatz responded: "You're his spokesperson."
This is a familiar dance from the White House. Trump sees a piece of information from a less-than-reputable news source that fits into his conspiracy theory-oriented worldview. He then states it as fact to rile up his supporters and cast himself as the victim of an effort to undermine him. Then his spokesmen go out there and don't really vouch for him but say what he said should be investigated.
The exact thing happened with Trump's allegations that millions of illegal votes were cast for Hillary Clinton in the 2016 campaign: Trump drops a bomb, offers no proof and then leaves it to those around him to investigate it. And, in this case, Congress is in the unhappy position of possibly having to fold this claim into its existing Russia investigations, while the White House attempts to wash its hands of Trump's conspiracy theory-mongering.
But the fact remains that the White House is defending a President Trump who doesn't exist. They're not defending a man who thinks his claim is worth investigating; they're defending a man who says what he claimed actually happened. And it's a claim that is so over its own skis that even his top spokesmen won't attach their names to it.
There is a cult of ignorance in the United States, and there has always been. The strain of anti-intellectualism has been a constant thread winding its way through our political and cultural life, nurtured by the false notion that democracy means that "My ignorance is just as good as your knowledge."- Isaac Asimov
What can I say but...LMAO
Yes, but it can be dragged out for months and month and months. As Nunes said
Broad as broad can be and constantly drip-fed. Trump again dominates the air-waves with his agenda, the democrat drip feed of ruskies under the bed is subverted, Trumps disapproval rating soars."One of the focus points of the House Intelligence Committee's investigation is the U.S. government's response to actions taken by Russian intelligence agents during the presidential campaign," Nunes said in a statement Sunday. "As such, the Committee will make inquiries into whether the government was conducting surveillance activities on any political party's campaign officials or surrogates, and we will continue to investigate this issue if the evidence warrants it.
As somebody put it this morning
'Trumps not really doing his job unless 100% of democrats and journalists are screaming how much they hate him'.
It really is worth reading Scott Adams, I thoroughly recommend it. Alinsky is sooo last century.
Last edited by Parihaka; 05 Mar 17, at 22:46.
In the realm of spirit, seek clarity; in the material world, seek utility
Gottfried Leibniz
Just forgot to mention it? Didn't see it as important or relevant? They tried to interfere in your election and when asked about what you might do if it were proven that the Trump campaign was in collusion he volunteered a lie about not having had any contact himself rather than answer the actual question. This guy knowingly lied, as sadly have so many of the Trump 'team' or if he is truly that confused needs to retire himself. Any court would convict a normal person for unbelievable testimony under oath. This does not end well for Trump.
As regards the monitoring of Trump or some server in his home Clapper says it did not happen - and honestly that would be the best news Trump could get because if some service DID get a court to allow them to do this there must have been reasonable cause.
Last edited by snapper; 05 Mar 17, at 22:48.
Nope, it was irrelevant to the question. It's like you're accusing him because he didn't include the colour of his underwear which might or might not have been Red. You know, COMMUNIST red. Shhhh.
In the realm of spirit, seek clarity; in the material world, seek utility
Gottfried Leibniz
Spicer: Mission accomplished, Sir. Decoy deployed."Neither the White House nor the President will comment further until such oversight is conducted," Spicer added. He did not provide any further details on the President's request to Congress.
Trump: Well done men. The less we now say the better.
Precisely.
In the realm of spirit, seek clarity; in the material world, seek utility
Gottfried Leibniz
When you step outside the realm of opinion to state a fact, you had better know what you're talking about. Perjury is rarely prosecuted in the US. That mainly because the burden of proof is so great. A prosecutor has to prove intention to lie. How is it possible you know Session's state of mind at the time he testified?
To be Truly ignorant, Man requires an Education - Plato
You know what they say When you argue with the an idiot you look like an idiot. Jon Stewart had the right idea “This breakup with Donald Trump has given you, the media, an amazing opportunity for self-reflection and improvement,” he said. “Instead of worrying whether Trump is un-American, or if he thinks you’re the enemy, or if he’s being mean to you, or if he’s going to let you go back into the briefings—do something for yourself. Self-improvement! Take up a hobby: I recommend journalism.” also Hey guys. Hey media. So, I heard Donald Trump broke up with you. Stings a little, doesn’t it? Finally thought you’d met your match: a blabber mouth who’s as thin-skinned and narcissistic as you are. Well, now it’s over. Well, good riddance I say! Kick him to the curb, media! It is time to get your groove back, media. ‘Cos let’s face facts: You kind of let yourself go a little bit for these past few years.
There are currently 2 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 2 guests)
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
Share this thread with friends: