• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Understanding Obama's "Legal" Wiretaps on Trump

We should care because Trump's rights would have been violated and the law would have been broken.

If they made use of a legal loophole, then the law wasn't broken. Trump can tell you all about that from his business dealings.


There is no "plausible deniability" for those who revealed the names (if incorrectly) and for those who leaked the information.

If caught, they go to jail.

Who got caught?
 
I guess I missed the part where you or anyone else actually provided even a single shred of evidence that Obama wiretapped Trump.

I missed the part where you explained how those reporters who wrote hit pieces on people associated with Trump got the classified information on which they based their stories. They claimed they had gotten it from unidentified government sources. I suppose it's possible those sources could have been members of Congress, but it is more likely they were officials in the Executive Branch--after all, that is the branch all our intelligence agencies belong to. Or, maybe you imagine no official in the Obama administration ever said a word to reporters about any of this, but instead a little bird told them.
 
It's brutally simple, but there still seems to be a lot of confusion about it.

Excerpt from: The Artful Deceiver's Handbook (Crooked Surveillance 101).

Here's how you do ILLEGAL Trump wiretapping legally. This from someone who held the highest level Top Secret Clearance and drank beer with NSA Spooks for many years.

You identify people that talk with Trump on the phone often.

You wiretap all of these that you can make up an excuse to wiretap--foreigners, immigrants, suspected jaywalkers, anyone with a foreign accent, people who read Russian spy novels, those who made suspicious FaceBook posts, those who travel to foreign countries often, suspected tax evaders and TV and movie stars and those who eat at Russian restaurants and drink vodka.

THEN.......as you listen to these notorious threats to motherhood and apple pie........you cannot avoid listening to Trump's conversations and, OF COURSE, it's ONLY BY ACCIDENT--so it's totally OK!!!! It's just incidental.

It's totally legal.
No, it's not. First..wiretapping would be done by the FBI, and they would need a warrant. So your broad claim of targeting anyone fails. Secondly, even if you're talking other lawful intercept outside the U.S, such reverse targeting is illegal. A legit foreign intelligence purpose would have to be given for the target, and targeting someone in order to collect on a U.S. person is illegal.
 
I guess I missed the part where you or anyone else actually provided even a single shred of evidence that Obama wiretapped Trump.

That would depend on your definition of "wiretapped". It would be almost impossible for his telephone calls with overseas not to have been intercepted. Rand Paul indicated that over 1,200 of Obama's own telephone calls were intercepted. I am not sure his source on that. Collateral to this was the complaint during the campaign that Clinton using her personal devices overseas made them vulnerable to spying because they were not as secure as normal government classified communications would be. There have been so many mass surveillance revelations in this country, that one can safely assume that if you live in the United States, the NSA knows or is capable of knowing how often you call your mother, what your favorite porn is, and how often you whack it.
 
Incidental surveillance doesn't prove the conspiracy though, that's just supposition.

Doesn't disprove it either though we weren't talking conspiracy. We were talking abou wiretapping of Trump Tower. That has been pretty well discredited. But surveillance that included communications with those in Trump Tower and then were spread around seem to be something that did happen and those intercepted communications may or may not have been a conspiracy to undermine the election.

The intellectually honest allow the President some leeway in how he expresses himself which would include 'wiretapping' used as a general term for people 'listening in' on conversations by whatever means. The intellectually dishonest focus on the literal meaning of the word and won't allow the actual issue to be discussed.
 
Yeah, I think it's clear that Trump regarded wiretapping other people's phones in order to listen to him as wiretapping.

I'd regard it the same way. Even if no Spooks ever sneaked listening devices into Trump Towers (which has still not been proven one way or the other) the fact that government operatives were listening to his calls is clearly enough to call it wiretapping in the general sense.

I'd call it that if they did it to me.

Those who want to deny it are getting far too technical in their intensely partisan and rather desperate efforts to attack Trump.

:2usflag:
 
Back
Top Bottom