Trump Accuses Obama of Wiretapping Trump Tower

[Felya]

He'll either keep saying Obummer wiretapped his microwave or pretend he "ended" the rumor.

I don't think most folks are actually realizing what the current explanation is alluding to. Trump's team is generalizing his statement and are aiming for folks to pick up the mantra of 'they spy on everyone and Trump is included'. Of course his followers are having troubles articulating it, instead going with 'he meant Obama's administration and not specifically wiretapping'. Basically, remember evil Obama and NDAA? I think that's his way out, at least as soon as his support realizes it.

I think the troubles he is having with it, is that tying Obama to NDAA surveillance controversy, without pointing at his honest media that justified the FEMA camp conspiracy with the same logic. I think Bannon and Trump are not able to present that controversy to the public, because the results predicted by InfoWars and Breitbart never happened. It would be as close as admitting Trump's version of honest media, has been wrong for 8 years... on nearly a daily basis...

[Paranoid Android]

He'll either keep saying Obummer wiretapped his microwave or pretend he "ended" the rumor.

Eventually Trump will probably start a war or major conflict. Best way to divert attention and he will think that every American will have to get behind him and support him then.

Will it be a minor conflict or will he go Full Cheeto and strike say N. Korea.

[Felya]

Hammerfest tends to post the most unbelievable shit.

I hate that he uses the Question as his avatar. Saying the things he does, while using that avatar, is the antithesis of the question. This wasn't a character that would defend politicians... he is a symbol of objectivism, something that is explicitly the opposite of posting blogs that hinge on feeling over substance. The funnier part is that his previous avatar was even better... he would complain about the oppression and mockery of Christianity, with an avatar of Thor... the son of Odin...

- - - Updated - - -

Eventually Trump will probably start a war or major conflict. Best way to divert attention and he will think that every American will have to get behind him and support him then.

Will it be a minor conflict or will he go Full Cheeto and strike say N. Korea.

He needs a terrorist attack, just like Bush did. Can you imagine what Trump could justify, if the nightclub shooting happened on his term?

[Belize]

Eventually Trump will probably start a war or major conflict. Best way to divert attention and he will think that every American will have to get behind him and support him then.

Will it be a minor conflict or will he go Full Cheeto and strike say N. Korea.

Tillerson already made a Press Conf. saying military action against NK is on the table.

Don't jynx it

[Breccia]

Eventually Trump will probably start a war or major conflict.

There is no other way to justify his large, peacetime increase in military spending.

The smart money is Yemen. N Korea is misbehaving, but not yet to the point China will cut them off. Iran is in Russia's pocket and buying fuel from them, plus, haven't violated the nuclear deal yet. And nobody expects Trump to do anything about Ukraine.

[LaserSharkDFB]

Mark Levin critically examines the validity of Trump's wiretapping claim...

Wrong video.

[Glorious Leader]

Im curious could obama sue the president? Would he have a case?

[Shadowferal]

Lawsuits against a sitting president can't legally happen.

[LaserSharkDFB]

Im curious could obama sue the president? Would he have a case?

For libel? Almost certainly not. One of the things they consider is how the accused has previously comported himself. Trump has always been a loud-mouthed, bombastic liar, therefore there's no reason a sane person should assume his tweets are for real, therefore claims of libel have no basis.

And for the Trumpkins that want to scoff, I'm basing this off the fact that this is exactly what happened earlier this year:

The judge explores the context of the tweets and how Trump has used the medium. She notes "Trump's regular use of Twitter to circulate his positions and skewer his opponents and others who criticize him, including journalists and media organizations whose coverage he finds objectionable."

"His tweets about his critics, necessarily restricted to 140 characters or less, are rife with vague and simplistic insults such as 'loser' or 'total loser' or 'totally biased loser,' 'dummy' or 'dope' or 'dumb,' 'zero/no credibility,' 'crazy' or 'wacko' and 'disaster,' all deflecting serious consideration," she continues.

"And yet," the judge adds, "the context of a national presidential primary and a candidate's strategic and almost exclusive use of Twitter to advance his views arguably distinguish this case from those where heated rhetoric, with or without the use of social media, was held to constitute communications that cannot be taken seriously.... These circumstances raise some concern that some may avoid liability by conveying positions in small Twitter parcels, as opposed to by doing so in a more formal and presumably actionable manner...."

The judge then writes that nevertheless, and "with the spirit of the First Amendment," she finds a reasonable reader would recognize Trump's schoolyard type squabble as rendering statements of "opinion, even if some of the statements, viewed in isolation, could be found to convey facts."

The judge concludes, "Thus, although the intemperate tweets are clearly intended to belittle and demean plaintiff, any reasonable reading of them makes it 'impossible to conclude that [what defendants said or implied]...could subject...[plaintiff] to contempt or aversion, induce any unsavory opinion of [her] or reflect adversely upon [her] work,' or otherwise damage her reputation as a partisan political consultant and commentator.... Indeed, to some, truth itself has been lost in the cacophony of online and Twitter verbiage to such a degree that it seems to roll of the national consciousness like water off a duck's back."

[Traveler Voltin]

No one would ever admit to wiretapping someone.

[Barnabas]

Im curious could obama sue the president? Would he have a case?

There is no gain for obama doing that.

[h8stylist]

For libel? Almost certainly not. One of the things they consider is how the accused has previously comported himself. Trump has always been a loud-mouthed, bombastic liar, therefore there's no reason a sane person should assume his tweets are for real, therefore claims of libel have no basis.

The only problem with that is these "baseless" tweets distract our government costing taxpayer resources in debunking the presidents late-night twitter ramblings. I don't disregard that his tweets historically have been void of fact and filled with verbs and adjectives that are there for the sole purpose of 'shock and awe'. The idea of libel is determining whether his statements caused damage, and I do think there is hard evidence that it did, and not the "undue pain and suffering" type either.

That said, I would find it extremely hard to believe that there would even be a court case brought over it, as he is still the president.

[Kujako]

There is no gain for obama doing that.

I don't know... could use a law suite to get Trump kicked off Twitter.

[Barnabas]

I don't know... could use a law suite to get Trump kicked off Twitter.

Twitter needs trump more than trump needs twitter. It's to twitter's benefit to have him tweet as often as possible. It's free advertising. They probably gain new users that want to join and leave snarky comments or agree.

[Noxx79]

No one would ever admit to wiretapping someone.

That's nice. They weren't asking Obama though.

[Belize]

No one would ever admit to wiretapping someone.

Keep digging. Maybe you'll prove whether the earth is flat or not.

[Kujako]

No one would ever admit to wiretapping someone.

And yet, here in 'merica we have this thing called the FISA court that has to sign off on wire taps. So there's a paper trail. Which is "admitting" that it was done. Or in this case, not done.

[Traveler Voltin]

Need evidence for his claims though.

Just stating the obvious.
I am waiting on evidence from both sides on everything claimed

[Bodakane]

Just stating the obvious.
I am waiting on evidence from both sides on everything claimed

The Russian claims and Trump's claims against Obama aren't starting at the same point, though.

The Russian stuff has every single US intelligence agency saying it happened, while the Obama wiretaps have all been proven false so far.

[PACOX]

Cheeto still won't let it go, presidential.
http://www.cnn.com/2017/03/17/politi...kel/index.html