Trump

[Mikey]

Just sayin'.

[Mikey]

Why would Obama want to tapp dat shit?

[Diego in Seattle]

Why would Obama want to tapp dat shit?

Because he is afraid. Like all rats on that sinking ship.

So tell me why the USSS would allow such a thing with this protectee?

[The Big Pickle]

From Atty General calling for BLOOD IN THE STREETS!

Sedition!
Treason!

Lock that kunt up!

[Rooster]

I haven't delved too deep into this yet, but if Mark Levin is to believed, the Obama administration went twice to the FISA court to get the tap installed.

http://www.breitbart.com/video/2017/03/ ... ng-claims/

That being said, to discover that Obama placed an illegal wiretap on a political opponent is bush league stuff, considering that he's gone and purposefully killed two American citizens without due process or given them their day in court before sentencing them to death.

[The Big Pickle]

That being said, to discover that Obama placed an illegal wiretap on a political opponent is bush league stuff, considering that he's gone and purposefully killed two American citizens without due process or given them their day in court before sentencing them to death.

Justice Scalia and Breitbart???

[Rooster]

While that might not be entirely out of the question :wink: I was referring to Anwar al-Awlaki and his teenaged son. Obama droned him in Yemen without a trial in absentia or by any other Constitutional mandated due process. Unlike this most recent raid where his daughter was killed, the purpose of the drone attack was to expressly kill al-Awlaki. It doesn't get any worse than that: Our former president killing US citizens for his personal pleasure.

[Diego in Seattle]

Why would Obama want to tapp dat shit?

Because he is afraid. Like all rats on that sinking ship.

So tell me why the USSS would allow such a thing with this protectee?

Rooster, I'll ask the same thing to you.

Why would the USSS allow an illegal wiretap?

[Rooster]

Like I wrote earlier, I haven't gotten into this particular story yet, so I am unaware of the details. That being said, I'm not certain that the Secret Service would be involved in this. On the surface of it, it would seem to be a DoJ issue, one for whom the highly politicized department might not have had any qualms based on its' prior activity on behalf of Obama.

As a governmental entity, formerly of the Treasury, now of DHS, the SS has been criticized for being either sloppier or having grown incompetent due to the structural reassignment. Because of this, if they were responsible for initiating a wiretap, then, yes, our praetorian guard has, indeed, fallen.

[Rooster]

Ok, I'm digging into this now. From the FISA court documents that are public, the FBI lead an interagency investigative team which included the CIA, Treasury (financial crimes division), DoJ, and the NSA. The FISA court rejected the first attempt, but the second request for a wiretap of the Trump campaign was granted. No conclusive evidence was found. Two sources close to the investigation say that the request for the wiretap grew from the Obama administration's desire to find ties between Trump and Russian banks and had the scope of including Trump himself, his campaign team, and personal staff/advisors.

The question that needs to be asked is, should a sitting president be investigating the opposition party's candidates? And if so, how should it be conducted? Who should be leading the investigation? Who should be informed of the investigation?

Obviously, the fallout of such activity is grave. The comparison to Watergate-- as overused as that is --is not off the mark, particularly since no conclusive evidence was found. If nothing else, it points to the danger of politicizing various agencies in the act of impressing them to do a particular political party's dirty work. We've already seen how the DoJ was corrupted from the top, first by Eric Holder, then by Loretta Lynch (as evidenced by her interaction with Bill Clinton in Las Vegas on the plane).

Additionally, if the "Deep State" stories are to be believed (which is debatable), the planting of subversives in the government's agencies to counter the incoming administration's activities is likewise abominable. If any of this is true, it goes to show just how far our government has moved from the one which our Founding Fathers worked so assiduously to produce and preserve.

However, as I said in a previous post in this thread, that our president would actually kill two American citizens without due process gives all the proof we need that he believed the law and the Constitution did not and does not apply to him. Every action he took before and after must be seen in this light, from executive actions to the fundamental transformation of America. He believed he was above the law and every citizen who calls this land our own.
/spits

[Rooster]

Finally, it needs to be pointed out that in direct contradiction to the Obama spokeswoman who claimed no spying occurred, that the FISA request was granted and spying did occur. Furthermore, and this bears repeating, no conclusive evidence was found that Trump or his campaign had any connections with the Russians, nor their banks.

So, who's lying?

[Wolfman]

Who lies? Don't know about you, but I'm still waiting for the $2500 or so a year savings on my health insurance costs to materialize. Guess I'll have a very long wait.

[Rooster]

This is a concise article about what is going on in regard to the wiretap.

http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/44 ... ance-trump

It appears very damning for the Obama administration.

[Mikey]

This is a concise article about what is going on in regard to the wiretap.

http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/44 ... ance-trump

It appears very damning for the Obama administration.

Politically you're just like my wife. Only on opposite sides.

[Rooster]

White House sources acknowledge that they have no idea if Trump's claims are true. This is pretty much Trump's modus operandi, where he throws everything against the wall and sees what sticks. There may be a modicum of truth to his claims or there may be just a whiff of scandal, but he knows the media cannot help but bite on his outbursts, so he controls the tempo and the content of the story. Trump may be many things, but one thing for certain is, he knows how to manipulate the press.

Politically you're just like my wife. Only on opposite sides.

Thanks?

[Mikey]

White House sources acknowledge that they have no idea if Trump's claims are true. This is pretty much Trump's modus operandi, where he throws everything against the wall and sees what sticks. There may be a modicum of truth to his claims or there may be just a whiff of scandal, but he knows the media cannot help but bite on his outbursts, so he controls the tempo and the content of the story. Trump may be many things, but one thing for certain is, he knows how to manipulate the press.

Politically you're just like my wife. Only on opposite sides.

Thanks?

She'll take just about any conspiracy theory that matches her opinion on Trump, and run with it.

This at least as plausible as some of the stuff you've linked.

https://www.reddit.com/r/MarchAgainstTr ... _russians/

[Rooster]

Touché.
In my defense, I'm not much of a conspiracy theorist. In truth, I'm actually much more of a skeptic on nearly every topic, which includes Obama. When he first got into office I was open to what he had to say and do, despite the whole fundamentally changing of America thing-- which I put down to campaign rhetoric. However, I was soon dissuaded of that idealistic nonsense by Obamacare and then, as I have mentioned numerous times in this thread already, when he killed Americans without due process.

I am always amazed at how the vast majority of people simply don't give a shit that, while al-Awlaki needed killing, nobody went through the trouble of doing it Constitutionally and legally. What, does the government need to break in through your front door and shoot your families before you care that the government can slay US citizens without cause? Because that is exactly what happened.

[Moving Sale]

White House sources acknowledge that they have no idea if Trump's claims are true. This is pretty much Trump's modus operandi, where he throws everything against the wall and sees what sticks.

Yes he is pathological liar, but you don't care because you are a lying POS too.

[Mikey]

White House sources acknowledge that they have no idea if Trump's claims are true. This is pretty much Trump's modus operandi, where he throws everything against the wall and sees what sticks.

Yes he is pathological liar, but you don't care because you are a lying POS too.

Trump is a clown and should be treated as such. Too bad so many people actually take him seriously.

[Rooster]

On a different subject, did we actually join this board within 24 hours of each other 12 years ago or is that some kind of administrative clock/date setting under our nice?

Never mind. I see Shorty joined back then too. Question answered.

[Moving Sale]

The government (local, state and national) extra-judicially kills people everyday and you never bat an eye, so take your fake outrage and shove it up your ass.

[Rooster]

I don't know that he's a pathological liar so much as he is determined not to play by the established rules. I've known plenty of people who in the telling of a story take artistic license to make it more interesting for the listener, but wouldn't consider that lying. Trump could very well be someone who says lots of stuff tongue in cheek to get a rise out of the recipient, but not see that as lying. It almost an animal cunning that he displays when it comes to the media and self promotion.

Understand that I did not vote for him, but marvel at the way he takes all those things that the Left took for granted as being theirs alone and bends them to his purposes. Favorable media coverage for liberal candidates? He turns that on his head and makes them chase their tails with so much stuff they can't keep up. Dominate the news cycle? See that last sentence. Blue collar workers? They're Trump's now. Fundamentally change America? Muslim ban, erase all those Obama executive orders with a whole slew of his own, stack the court with his own nominees, protectionism, populism, and a cult of personality that one-ups his predecessor-- he controls it all.

The media is compelled to cover him obsessively no matter how much they despise him like a heroin junkie going back for another fix. So on and so forth.

I am wary of Trump because I recognize that while I applaud much of what he does now, I suspect he could turn on a dime and do something I abhor because I don't believe he has anything that guides him except himself. But that's just me because like I said, I'm a skeptic.

[Rooster]

The government (local, state and national) extra-judicially kills people everyday and you never bat an eye, so take your fake outrage and shove it up your ass.

Give me an example of what you are describing.

[Mikey]

I don't know that he's a pathological liar so much as he is determined not to play by the established rules. I've known plenty of people who in the telling of a story take artistic license to make it more interesting for the listener, but wouldn't consider that lying. Trump could very well be someone who says lots of stuff tongue in cheek to get a rise out of the recipient, but not see that as lying. It almost an animal cunning that he displays when it comes to the media and self promotion.

Understand that I did not vote for him, but marvel at the way he takes all those things that the Left took for granted as being theirs alone and bends them to his purposes. Favorable media coverage for liberal candidates? He turns that on his head and makes them chase their tails with so much stuff they can't keep up. Dominate the news cycle? See that last sentence. Blue collar workers? They're Trump's now. Fundamentally change America? Muslim ban, erase all those Obama executive orders with a whole slew of his own, stack the court with his own nominees, protectionism, populism, and a cult of personality that one-ups his predecessor-- he controls it all.

The media is compelled to cover him obsessively no matter how much they despise him like a heroin junkie going back for another fix. So on and so forth.

I am wary of Trump because I recognize that while I applaud much of what he does now, I suspect he could turn on a dime and do something I abhor because I don't believe he has anything that guides him except himself. But that's just me because like I said, I'm a skeptic.

He's the (cough...cough) President. What he says is supposed to matter, and the press is supposed to cover it. You might thinks it's cute and funny now, but what happens a couple of years down the road, or sooner, when something really important happens and people have stopped listening to him because he's constantly feeding the public unmitigated bullshit to cover his corruption and incompetence.




Is this a guy you want in office when the next 9/11 happens?

[trev]

They all lie. Obama: Benghazi. And many other things.

So, shut up about it, Mikey.

[Mikey]

They all lie. Obama: Benghazi. And many other things.

So, shut up about it, Mikey.

What a wonderful defense of Trump.
You should be proud of yourself. Really.

[Rooster]

I agree, what a president says should matter. He should be circumspect, scrupulously law abiding, diplomatic, truthful, courteous, and should adhere to his oath of office. But what we have, both now and previously since Eisenhower, is something entirely different. However, like it or not, this is what we have, because the alternative was Hillary Clinton, Bernie Sanders, Obama, John McCain clones, and pizza magnates.

We desire political dynasties, temporary royalty to lord over us, tell us what to think, spend our money for us, and fence us in so that we are physically, financially, and emotionally safe.

Trump is just all these conflicting desires coming home to roost: The embodiment of entertainment and a throat punch all rolled into a charicature of bluster and defiance. He is simply the non-radical Left's response to all the ridiculousness and bullshit that we've been fed for decades.

It doesn't excuse debasing ourselves to the Left's methods, but it certainly has been effective.

[Mikey]

"It appears?" Come on Sam, it appears to whom?

Shortly before leaving office, Obama expanded the power of the National Security Agency (NSA) as detailed in the unclassified document titled Procedures for the Availability or Dissemination of Raw Signals Intelligence Information by the National Security Agency (NSA).

Yep that was a pretty nefarious anti-Trump move, seeing as how he was LEAVING OFFICE, with Trump taking over.

[Mikey]

Believe it or not, I didn't always agree with everything Obama did while in office. I'm not aware of the history behind the rule change, but I'm sure that there's some sort of logical explanation. Not sure I'd agree with it but these things usually don't just happen.

Do you find it at all interesting that the Press is going gangbusters trying to identify some sort of a link between Russia and the Trump campaign, but doesn't seem to have the least bit of interest investigating this issue, which if true, seems very sinister?

At least there's some evidence of some links between Trump, his business, his campaign and some of his appointees with Russia. It may be totally innocent and it may not be, but they sure seem to be fighting any kind of disclosure. Almost like they're afraid of what might come out.

The "issue" of Obama instigating some sort of "wiretapp" on Trump appears to be made up out of thin air as a deflection and intentional distraction, something that Trump seems to do any time he wants to change the subject. Comey has denied it. Clapper and others in the "Intelligence Community" have denied it. it would have been against the law and pretty hard to cover up. I don't think Obama really had much of any reason even to want to do something like that. If every off the wall claim that Trump came up with was reason for a Congressional investigation, they might be spending all of their time investigating. Maybe not such a bad idea after all.

Wouldn't it be great if we could haul all these slimy fucks into a chamber where they had to tell the truth, and if they didn't they would be vaporized?

Agreed.

[Mikey]

I would go with (1), though with a slightly different interpretation.

There was evidence of Russian meddling leading up to the election, with possible collusion by the Trump campaign and/or business associates, however not nearly enough to amount to "compelling" actionable evidence of illegal activity. This evidence continued to expand after the election. Obama reasoned, correctly, that to go public before the election would be seen as irrresponsibly trying to influence the election with false or incomplete information - something that Trump himself would never stoop to ( ). To go public after the election, but before the inauguration, would have been seen as trying to sabotage the new Administration.

With an incomplete investigation, and the White House about to change hands, the Obama Administration took steps to preserve the information that had been uncovered from being destroyed by the Trump team, which probably would have happened. I don't think Obama himself ever went public with this but left it up to the agencies involved, who are supposed to be non-partisan.

BTW, (2) is NOT what Trump is accusing Obama of doing. He is accusing Obama specifically of having tapped Trumps phones, which would have been illegal. Nobody has ever presented any evidence of this or cited any source besides some right-wing conspiracy pushing nutjob. You know, Trump's handy "people are saying" level of evidence. Obama is not playing "dirty politics." He's out of the picture at this point. Trump is just trying to cover his own ass.

[Mikey]

I guess you interpret Trump's use of English differently than I do.
They can try and walk back his tweets all they want to but what he wrote was pretty explicit.

- Terrible! Just found out that Obama had my "wires tapped" in Trump Tower just before the victory.

- Is it legal for a sitting President to be "wire tapping" a race for president prior to an election?

- How low has President Obama gone to tapp my phones during the very sacred election process.

If the Obama or anybody in his Administration was "listening in" to Trump's phone calls, it would bother me bigly. You seem to accept this as established fact when, in fact, there is no evidence that it ever happened.

[Moving Sale]

He said Obama wire tapped him. Try and follow along.

[Diego in Seattle]

If the Obama or anybody in his Administration was "listening in" to Trump's phone calls, it would bother me bigly. You seem to accept this as established fact when, in fact, there is no evidence that it ever happened.

I don't accept anything as fact until it is proven as such. That is why I'm skeptical of the assertions that Trump coordinated his election campaign with Russia. I want to see some proof of that before I believe it to be true. I feel the same way about Trump's claims that he was "wiretapped" or bugged by Obama's administration. I haven't seen or heard of anything that would constitute proof of that. I have only seen stories published in the Press, which I generally do not trust. I want to see the source docs and make my own determinations.

You want proof that Russia aided Trump in the election in a coordinated effort? One thing that would go a long ways towards resolving the issue is for Trump to release his tax returns.

What is he hiding?

[Rooster]

Trump's tweets are by their very nature imprecise. And yes, before you liberals get your panties all bunched up, that's nobody's fault but his. But it doesn't change the fact that a tweet is not a media that lends itself to precision and conciseness despite the 140 character limit. So claiming Trump said something about something or someone on Twitter and complaining about the imprecise delivery is like complaining about a casserole not being a single ingredient.

[Diego in Seattle]

You want proof that Russia aided Trump in the election in a coordinated effort? One thing that would go a long ways towards resolving the issue is for Trump to release his tax returns.

What is he hiding?

Are you suggesting that over the past few years, Trump has been putting information on his tax returns that he was coordinating (or planning to coordinate) his election campaign with Russia?

"I could shoot somebody and not lose voters." 1/23/16

Not exactly the words of someone worried about repercussions, especially something as little as where his money was coming from.

If not, how would his tax returns go a long ways toward resolving the issue, as you have stated above?

It would establish whether or not he had ties to Russia, the nature of them, and who he had contract with.

Roach, a POTUS should never give incomplete messages. ALL the presidents words matter, and if he or she makes inaccurate statements because of a certain medium, they shouldn't be using it.

[The Big Pickle]

Underlord of darkness to thee I pray
May a certain poster meet his day
He's a pedo that needs to die
If he posts again make him FRY!

[Mikey]

Trump's tweets are by their very nature imprecise. And yes, before you liberals get your panties all bunched up, that's nobody's fault but his. But it doesn't change the fact that a tweet is not a media that lends itself to precision and conciseness despite the 140 character limit. So claiming Trump said something about something or someone on Twitter and complaining about the imprecise delivery is like complaining about a casserole not being a single ingredient.

You might want to look up the meaning of "precise."

[Rooster]

Hmm, precise vs concise. To be precise requires a larger amount of words, at least to adequately cover a topic's nuance, as opposed to 140 letters and symbols which could be concise if used with talent.

[Moving Sale]

The New Yorker just opened a new can of whoop ass on the orange pedo.

What a POS shit you voted for 88LS.

[Diego in Seattle]

"He who lies down with dogs gets up with fleas."