Did Trump Inadvertently Admit to Wrongdoing?

calamity · Mar 5, 2017

Hmmm...thoughts.

Trump’s wiretap claims, then, carry presumably inadvertent implications. First, based on previous reporting and the nature of FISA courts, any wiretaps within Trump Tower would be legal. And they would stem from overwhelming evidence that the Trump campaign, or someone within it, has unsavory ties to Russia or another foreign power. Otherwise, it’s unlikely those wiretaps would exist at all.

If federal authorities did have cause to listen in on Trump Tower, though, and they provided enough evidence for a FISA court to approve the snooping, Obama is not the one who ought to worry.

https://www.wired.com/2017/03/feds-wiretap-trump-tower-not-obama-worry/

Mr Person · Mar 5, 2017

Now he's backing away and trying to tuck the need to prove his assertions behind the investigations congressional Republicans are largely already resisting:

In a statement from his spokesman, Mr. Trump called “reports” about the wiretapping “very troubling” and said that Congress should examine them as part of its investigations into Russia’s meddling in the election. “President Donald J. Trump is requesting that as part of their investigation into Russian activity, the congressional intelligence committees exercise their oversight authority to determine whether executive branch investigative powers were abused in 2016,” Sean Spicer, the White House press secretary, said in the statement. Mr. Spicer, who repeated the entire statement in a series of Twitter messages, added that “neither the White House nor the president will comment further until such oversight is conducted.”

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/03/05/...ations-that-obama-tapped-his-phones.html?_r=0

It's probably just wishful thinking, but maybe one day he'll finally accumulate enough egg on his face to keep his mouth shut until he has vetted facts in front of them, rather than a lapdog media source's paraphrase of conservative entertainment radio babble (That is, he seems to be basing these accusations on a Breitbart article that took at face value and merely paraphrased a Mark Levin radio broadcast).

But we should bear in mind that if a FISA court did authorize a warrant based on evidence provided to it, that would not be accepted as evidence of Trump's potential guilt in anything by Trump supporters. They will do as trained: turn it around and aim it right back at where it's coming from.

The FISA courts will be implicated, not Trump. Never Trump.

SenorXm/Sirius · Mar 5, 2017

The Intelligence Agencies and the Military, not to mention his staff and lawyers, probably **** their pants, every time Trump opens his mouth and/or tweets. He's such a loose cannon and such a thin skinned egomaniac that just to put the blame for his mistakes on someone else he'll blab secrets and sensitive info without thinking twice.

I hope we survive this guy, he's dangerous.

joG · Mar 5, 2017

calamity said:
Hmmm...thoughts.

My first thought was that the title implies something other than the quote.
The second is that the only intent of such posts seems to be slander, as it is clear to everyone here that the allegations and substance must be made transparent and the OP brings nothing to the table but repetition of badmouthing.

This is always a pity as it undermines the posters' credibility.

katzgar · Mar 5, 2017

if there were authorized FISA court warrants Obama didnt authorize them and such warrants do require probable cause. Trump pooched himself making the situation public.

JANFU · Mar 5, 2017

joG said:
My first thought was that the title implies something other than the quote.
The second is that the only intent of such posts seems to be slander, as it is clear to everyone here that the allegations and substance must be made transparent and the OP brings nothing to the table but repetition of badmouthing.

This is always a pity as it undermines the posters' credibility.

Well the continuous dribble of Russian contacts, denials by Trump and Staff, lies by Flynn to the VP, I would give Sessions the benefit of the doubt on his 1st testimony, but he and his Sherpa's had time to correct that when he submitted written answers.
With his thin skin & how he overreacts, I am glad Trump does not perform circumcisions.

Cigar · Mar 5, 2017

I've ben saying this since day one of Donny's election, just sit back and let him do all the talking and let his supporters do all the denying and everything will take care of it's self.

Puigb · Mar 5, 2017

Yes he has, but his die hard supporters, led by Trump's minions at Breitbart are all over the internet this weekend shrieking "BUT Obama!".

At first I wasn't convinced that Trump wouldn't complete 4 years, but now I am. As much as I hate to say it, Pence will be our next president.

calamity · Mar 5, 2017

joG said:
My first thought was that the title implies something other than the quote.
The second is that the only intent of such posts seems to be slander, as it is clear to everyone here that the allegations and substance must be made transparent and the OP brings nothing to the table but repetition of badmouthing.

This is always a pity as it undermines the posters' credibility.

lol...someone here obviously does not understand why a FISA warrant would have been issued. :lol:

joG · Mar 6, 2017

JANFU said:
Well the continuous dribble of Russian contacts, denials by Trump and Staff, lies by Flynn to the VP, I would give Sessions the benefit of the doubt on his 1st testimony, but he and his Sherpa's had time to correct that when he submitted written answers.
With his thin skin & how he overreacts, I am glad Trump does not perform circumcisions.

Are you sure he doesn't?

joG · Mar 6, 2017

calamity said:
lol...someone here obviously does not understand why a FISA warrant would have been issued. :lol:

It would be part of the inquiry. All we seem to know now is, what people believe happened and their assumptions of due procedure having been maintained. Don't you see, that posts like your's are exactly the reason, why we need this to be cleared up?

holbritter · Mar 6, 2017

calamity said:
Hmmm...thoughts.

Well that depends. Was there a wiretap? One side says yes, on says no.

If there was a wiretap, then maybe he did. But that takes admitting there was one.

If you don't believe there was a wiretap, then no. It's the "you can't have your cake and eat it to" theory

Athanasius68 · Mar 6, 2017

katzgar said:
if there were authorized FISA court warrants Obama didnt authorize them and such warrants do require probable cause. Trump pooched himself making the situation public.

A FISA authorized investigation is not about finding evidence for a criminal prosecution. It's not about throwing somebody in jail for being an agent of a foreign power. It's about determining whether that person is an agent of a foreign power. Which means, standards of probable cause are much lower. It also means the court is about national security issues, which it falls under the purview of the president, and as he is accountable for national security, it's also a POLITICAL act as well.
To suggest that Obama was not asked to take responsibility for a national security investigation into the campaign of the GOP candidate for president is absurd.

calamity · Mar 6, 2017

holbritter said:
Well that depends. Was there a wiretap? One side says yes, on says no.

If there was a wiretap, then maybe he did. But that takes admitting there was one.

If you don't believe there was a wiretap, then no. It's the "you can't have your cake and eat it to" theory

I know there were warrants sent to the court. I do not know if any of those warrants were approved. If they were, then it indicates to me that there was enough evidence against Trump's team to support eavesdropping on them.

Athanasius68 · Mar 6, 2017

calamity said:
Hmmm...thoughts.

Probable cause for a FISA warrants are at a lower threshold than for a criminal investigation.
We know that the FBI found no evidence during a criminal investigation of Trump/Russia contact in 2016.
And we also know that afterwards the Obama Admin went to the FISA court twice with its lower threshold for probable cause. They kept pursuing the issue.

But we also know that in its criminal investigation of Mrs. Clinton last year, the FBI concluded that she had broken the law, but that no prosecution would normally be done in such circumstances. The Obama admin did not pursue.

Why did President Obama keep pushing to find evidence of Russia/Trump connection of a GOP candidate for president, yet left alone the FBI conclusion that the Democratic candidate HAD broken the law?

calamity · Mar 6, 2017

Athanasius68 said:
Probable cause for a FISA warrants are at a lower threshold than for a criminal investigation.
We know that the FBI found no evidence during a criminal investigation of Trump/Russia contact in 2016.
And we also know that afterwards the Obama Admin went to the FISA court twice with its lower threshold for probable cause. They kept pursuing the issue.

But we also know that in its criminal investigation of Mrs. Clinton last year, the FBI concluded that she had broken the law, but that no prosecution would normally be done in such circumstances. The Obama admin did not pursue.

Why did President Obama keep pushing to find evidence of Russia/Trump connection of a GOP candidate for president, yet left alone the FBI conclusion that the Democratic candidate HAD broken the law?

Colluding with Russia to swing an election is much more serious than having a few classified emails on a private server. Duh.

Athanasius68 · Mar 6, 2017

calamity said:
Colluding with Russia to swing an election is much more serious than having a few classified emails on a private server. Duh.

There was a criminal investigation into Trump which found nothing there.
Obama kept up the pursuit.

These was a criminal investigation into Mrs. Clinton, which found something these.
Obama did not pursue.

Abuse of power anyone?

calamity · Mar 6, 2017

Athanasius68 said:
There was a criminal investigation into Trump which found nothing there.
Obama kept up the pursuit.

These was a criminal investigation into Mrs. Clinton, which found something these.
Obama did not pursue.

Abuse of power anyone?

Lol...there obviously was something there re: Trump. Duh.

Common Sense 1 · Mar 6, 2017

calamity said:
Hmmm...thoughts.

Fromer DNI James Clapper was on Meet the Press Sunday and said the following:

"Clapper was also asked on "Meet the Press" if he had any evidence that the Trump campaign was colluding with the Russian government while the Kremlin was working to influence the election.

"Not to my knowledge," Clapper said, based on the information he had before his time in the position ended."

"We did not include anything in our report … that had any reflect of collusion between members of the Trump campaign and the Russians. There was no evidence of that included in our report," he said. "We had no evidence of such collusion."

calamity · Mar 6, 2017

Common Sense 1 said:
Fromer DNI James Clapper was on Meet the Press Sunday and said the following:

"Clapper was also asked on "Meet the Press" if he had any evidence that the Trump campaign was colluding with the Russian government while the Kremlin was working to influence the election.

"Not to my knowledge," Clapper said, based on the information he had before his time in the position ended."

"We did not include anything in our report … that had any reflect of collusion between members of the Trump campaign and the Russians. There was no evidence of that included in our report," he said. "We had no evidence of such collusion."

Well, when a man refuses to come clean, it's easy to shoot bullets at his denials.

Russia mystery threatens to consume Washington - CNNPolitics.com

The mystery over Donald Trump and Russia is taking a corrosive hold on his presidency, sowing accusations and hysteria that threaten to overwhelm his White House and drain his personal credibility.

Washington has become a hall of mirrors, where it's impossible to distinguish between rumor and fact as conspiracy theories and partisan paroxysms rage -- all arising from an alleged Russian spy plot to sway last year's election that is now clouding the new administration.

...the conduct of the President himself often undercuts that message. Some observers have noted that while there may be nothing nefarious going on, the President often acts in a way that suggests there is.

Did Trump Inadvertently Admit to Wrongdoing?

calamity

Privileged

Mr Person

A Little Bitter

SenorXm/Sirius

joG

katzgar

JANFU

Land by the Gulf Stream

Cigar

Puigb

calamity

Privileged

joG

joG

holbritter

Athanasius68

calamity

Privileged

Athanasius68

calamity

Privileged

Athanasius68

calamity

Privileged

Common Sense 1

calamity

Privileged