Trump Tower Wiretapped?

[Claire.]

GOP refuses to back Trump's wiretap claim.
Several Republican senators said the president again stepped on his messaging with an unfounded accusation.

President Donald Trump will have to look somewhere besides Republican-controlled Capitol Hill for backup to his explosive and unsubstantiated charge that former President Barack Obama wiretapped Trump Tower before the election.

Trump was reportedly incensed Sunday that Republicans didn’t defend his allegations on the Sunday shows — in fact, several pointedly refused to lend Trump a lifeline when pressed. And more than 48 hours after the initial allegation, Republicans in Congress remained mostly mum as the controversy flared and threatened to create a lingering distraction for them as they try to pass major legislation in the coming weeks.

Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell and House Speaker Paul Ryan offered no comment on the matter. And some of the chief critics of the Obama administration on Capitol Hill said they were aware of no evidence to support Trump’s claim.

Read more: POLITICO

Edited March 7, 2017 by Claire.
Fixed quotation box.

[Frank Merton]

That Trump is rather stupid and needs help governing is obvious, the problem is he also seems to be too arrogant to admit it.  Now one of the smartest presidents was Obama, and he accepted help all the time.  Another smart president was Carter, who was like Trump in his arrogance and wanted to do it all on his own.  That Obama governed well (considering his problems with Congress) and Carter made a mess of things is pretty obvious.

I kinda feel sorry for Trump.  He loses his temper and starts swarming Twitters, with no one around to cool him off and give him advice, and he says things he has no evidence for, and then is challenged, and won't back off and admit he might have gone too far out of his ego.  

[Frank Merton]

6 minutes ago, F3SS said:

Third parties are great but just aren't a realistic choice. I'd like to see them and I love the idea of a meritocracy (even though I think cliques, think committees, would form then join up with other cliques until everything snowballs into two discernible groups again) but that just is not our current reality. Voting Hillary would have been voting to be the writer guy tied to the bed in Misery and she is Kathy Bates. The people had a choice between that and hopefully not that and chose not that.

Multiple parties often lead to situations where an extremist party gets power and then becomes a dictatorship.  We have seen it over and over and over.

[F3SS]

2 minutes ago, Frank Merton said:

Multiple parties often lead to situations where an extremist party gets power and then becomes a dictatorship.  We have seen it over and over and over.

I'd agree and have thought that three parties would be the practical maximum. That's also the other conundrum with the meritocracy I like so much and that's the potential for 50 different committees or organizations or something like that forming and creating chaos and confusion and not all necessarily by intent but it would happen and like I said in time those 50 would join similar groups and so on until we are back to where we are. Maybe two parties is inevitable outside of a system like where you come from.

[F3SS]

I think term limits are the single most important and coercive measure to creating more honesty and altruism from our reps.

[BlackBearWolf]

6 minutes ago, F3SS said:

I'd agree and have thought that three parties would be the practical maximum. That's also the other conundrum with the meritocracy I like so much and that's the potential for 50 different committees or organizations or something like that forming and creating chaos and confusion and not all necessarily by intent but it would happen and like I said in time those 50 would join similar groups and so on until we are back to where we are. Maybe two parties is inevitable outside of a system like where you come from.

Add to it a competition based on how bad you make someone look and how good you can make yourself look. Its leads to exaggerations , personal insults, a game of one liners and gotchas.

Very little substance or thought in policies

Its devolving into crap shoots....

[Frank Merton]

10 minutes ago, F3SS said:

I'd agree and have thought that three parties would be the practical maximum. That's also the other conundrum with the meritocracy I like so much and that's the potential for 50 different committees or organizations or something like that forming and creating chaos and confusion and not all necessarily by intent but it would happen and like I said in time those 50 would join similar groups and so on until we are back to where we are. Maybe two parties is inevitable outside of a system like where you come from.

Legally Vietnam is a one-party state but the reality is that it is a no-party state since when there is only one party there is really no party.  The different thing I would like is that party membership be open to all, or, in effect, automatic for all citizens.  What is evolving is a meritocracy where pretty much anyone who has a college degree and seems ideologically acceptable is asked to become a member, but the present situation is more of an aristocracy where the children of party members become party members almost automatically.  One needs to remember that in fact the North conquered the South, so most party members are from the North.

Cambodia has two parties; although I live here I am not well informed.  The present government is really a benign autocracy, holding its position largely through representing the views of a large majority and engaging in vote buying (which both parties do).  The government here is far more open and easier to deal with than the Vietnamese bureaucrats, who enjoy unchallengeable power. The main party difference seems to be the ruling party is internationalist and the minority party (which suffers few restrictions on its activity) is more chauvinist.  Elections here are actively real, but there is little doubt who will win.

I have to think that there is something better than any of the present arrangements, and I kinda like the experiments going on in California (and I think Washington State), with non-party primaries, term limits, and controls on the money parties can spend.

 

 

[Frank Merton]

I might mention, as an aside, that Vietnam is suffering a severe brain drain, and I think it is because opportunities for those who are not party members are limited.  Hence most people who get a college education but aren't related to party members end up leaving.  I think in the highest circles this is recognized, but the party itself is ingrained and prevents meaningful change.

[CrimsonKing]

39 minutes ago, Frank Merton said:

I might mention, as an aside, that Vietnam is suffering a severe brain drain, and I think it is because opportunities for those who are not party members are limited.  Hence most people who get a college education but aren't related to party members end up leaving.  I think in the highest circles this is recognized, but the party itself is ingrained and prevents meaningful change.

That's really sad Frank,even sadder that some spots in the US seem to be headed down the road of "if you aren't my party we can't be friends" so to speak...

Here in the States it's becoming pathetic how people can't even meet a stranger recently without politics coming up and then a argument starts happening outta nowhere lol.

I'm losing my patience with this party idiocy and when politics come up i shut that s*** down right away!

We are all people,yeah we all aren't going to agree on everything but this left/right party robot garbage isn't what "civil society" is supposed to be...

 

[Raptor Witness]

Rachael Maddow burned Trump's little hands tonight.

He is going to be impeached or resign.

http://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2017/03/13/donald-trumps-worst-deal

 

Edited March 7, 2017 by Raptor Witness

[+and-then]

11 hours ago, Captain Risky said:

...that's not a reasonable or fair argument. Trump has lost two members of his cabinet for lying under oath about connections to Russian officials already and we have no idea how many more will also be forced from office in the months to come. It was the media that exposed this. You're just mad that they made Trump and his administration look bad. They deserved it. There is nothing undemocratic about that.  

1

Who was the second one?  Where is your proof?

[+and-then]

7 hours ago, thedutchiedutch said:

 

http://lidblog.com/same-ny-times-reporter/

On January 19th and 20th 2017, The NY Times reported that wiretaps of people on the Trump team were passed along to the Obama White House, one of the story’s authors was Michael S. Schmidt. On Saturday that same Michael S. Schmidt was one of the reporters who wrote the story, “Trump, Offering No Evidence, Says Obama Tapped His Phones.” That’s right, the same NY Times reporter who was one of the sources for the President’s claim, said that there was no evidence for the claim.

The first story by Mr. Schmidt appeared on the NY Times website the evening of January 19, 2017 and appeared on the front page of the paper the morning of Inauguration Day, January 20, 2017:

Trump's "team" were subjected to taps looking for crimes.  When none were found, the DoJ made the issue on of national security and the FISA court judge issued a warrant for wiretapping.  You can spin that any way you like but the bottom line is that a sitting US president asked for and received permission to wiretap a presidential candidate from the opposition.  Obama's DoJ does NOTHING without his approval.  This may seem funny to you folks across the pond but when real violence breaks out in this country, you're apt to be paying a lot more for everything.  Global markets get jittery when the Fed chair breaks wind without advanced warning.  Imagine the effect of civil unrest and bloodshed in multiple US cities over the perceived lawlessness of this coup attempt.  All it will take is an exchange of gunfire at a protest and then it will be ON.

 

[+and-then]

38 minutes ago, Raptor Witness said:

Rachael Maddow burned Trump's little hands tonight.

He is going to be impeached or resign.

http://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2017/03/13/donald-trumps-worst-deal

 

 

He may be impeached and removed but if it happens it won't be due to a bad business deal.  And it won't be cost free for Republicans.  It can't happen unless they betray him.  Frankly, most of them haven't shown the guts for such a brave move.  Maddow is a real hater of the first order.  Maybe it's her penis envy that makes her so nasty.

[Frank Merton]

1 minute ago, and then said:

He may be impeached and removed but if it happens it won't be due to a bad business deal.  And it won't be cost free for Republicans.  It can't happen unless they betray him.  Frankly, most of them haven't shown the guts for such a brave move.  Maddow is a real hater of the first order.  Maybe it's her penis envy that makes her so nasty.

I don't see an impeachment, nor an offense that calls for it.  If this were a Parliamentary system, a no-confidence vote would be called for, but an impeachment requires more serious stuff -- like treason.  The Constitution here is vague ("high crimes and misdemeanors") but it is obvious they aren't referring to stupid mistakes but much more serious things.  I think Trump is a disaster as a President and as a person, but with things as they are I would oppose impeachment on Constitutional grounds.

[+and-then]

13 hours ago, Pop It and Shove It said:

Educate yourself. Another Trumpet who ignores the intelligence communities and what they say.

I figured as much.  Just another punk, talking ****.  Carry on.

[alibongo]

8 hours ago, Paranormal Panther said:

In other words, you're not willing to give him a chance before you declare his month-long presidency the worst. Nice!

Well, it is the worst, isn't it.

The best you can say about Mr Trumps presidency so far is that it has supplied a rich vein of comedy to the rest of the world.

[Farmer77]

12 hours ago, F3SS said:

 

Sorry don't know them and I know there's some decent stuff out there but I don't think there's anything out there today that's going to be widely recognized and getting airplay in 30-40-50 years if even 20. Maybe that's the bias of my age but I really think I'm right.

Oh you totally are right. Nothing will ever touch the music from the anti war movement of the 60's and 70's ..........cept Zeppelin! 

[Unusual Tournament]

3 hours ago, and then said:

Who was the second one?  Where is your proof?

Sessions is all but expired. Nor has it escaped my notice that Trump is fighting back with baseless allegations to protect even more of his cronies. Kushner is the prize that the democrat's covert for obvious reasons.  

[Unusual Tournament]

2 hours ago, Frank Merton said:

I don't see an impeachment, nor an offense that calls for it.  If this were a Parliamentary system, a no-confidence vote would be called for, but an impeachment requires more serious stuff -- like treason.  The Constitution here is vague ("high crimes and misdemeanors") but it is obvious they aren't referring to stupid mistakes but much more serious things.  I think Trump is a disaster as a President and as a person, but with things as they are I would oppose impeachment on Constitutional grounds.

Trump has a chance to rectify his mistakes but the window of opportunity is fast closing. He could start by tossing his phone and twitter into the Potomac. 

[Unusual Tournament]

11 hours ago, Paranormal Panther said:

What is wrong with you people? You and I agree on how this should be handled. Yet, you have this weird need to be argumentative. In one of my posts, I even say that Pence should replace Trump if the charge is bogus, but you reality-impaired leftists will ignore that too.

If i come across as argumentative then it isn't by design. I agree, Pence would make a more acceptable president and certainly one with less baggage. Just a shame that Trump is his own worse enemy. I like the fact that he has great idea's and that he proposed an alternative direction than the current fake political custodians. But he's acting like a goose. That's dangerous. He has to go.   

[ellapenella]

 

 

[ellapenella]

5 hours ago, and then said:

http://lidblog.com/same-ny-times-reporter/

On January 19th and 20th 2017, The NY Times reported that wiretaps of people on the Trump team were passed along to the Obama White House, one of the story’s authors was Michael S. Schmidt. On Saturday that same Michael S. Schmidt was one of the reporters who wrote the story, “Trump, Offering No Evidence, Says Obama Tapped His Phones.” That’s right, the same NY Times reporter who was one of the sources for the President’s claim, said that there was no evidence for the claim.

The first story by Mr. Schmidt appeared on the NY Times website the evening of January 19, 2017 and appeared on the front page of the paper the morning of Inauguration Day, January 20, 2017:

Trump's "team" were subjected to taps looking for crimes.  When none were found, the DoJ made the issue on of national security and the FISA court judge issued a warrant for wiretapping.  You can spin that any way you like but the bottom line is that a sitting US president asked for and received permission to wiretap a presidential candidate from the opposition.  Obama's DoJ does NOTHING without his approval.  This may seem funny to you folks across the pond but when real violence breaks out in this country, you're apt to be paying a lot more for everything.  Global markets get jittery when the Fed chair breaks wind without advanced warning.  Imagine the effect of civil unrest and bloodshed in multiple US cities over the perceived lawlessness of this coup attempt.  All it will take is an exchange of gunfire at a protest and then it will be ON.

 

 

 

[Lilly]

I also found what Homeland Security Sec John Kelly had to say about all this: http://thehill.com/homenews/administration/322615-dhs-head-trump-has-convincing-wiretap-proof

“If the president of the United States said that, he’s got his reasons to say it,” Kelly said Monday on CNN’s “The Situation Room." "[Trump’s] got some convincing evidence that that took place.”

[Merc14]

16 hours ago, Derek Willis said:

I am asking this as a non-American, but is anyone really leaking anything? Or is the media and others just pretending there are leaks to make up stories and attempt to discredit people?

Derek, the leak is that people inside the intelligence community with access to classified wiretaps are leaking the fact that those wiretaps overheard an American citizens communications with a Russian politician.   This is against the law as that info, acquired over a FISA approved wiretap, is in fact classified and should never be disseminated to the public.  Also, the identity of any American in conversation on that FISA approved wiretap should not be disclosed as it is illegal for the intelligence community to wiretap US citizens, that is the FBI's job with a wiretap secured through the American legal system.   The Person should only be referred to as an American and the case, if espionage is involved, turned over to the FBI for further investigation.   

Basically what we have here is someone or some group inside our foreign intelligence gathering community has unilaterally taken it upon themselves to use information acquired over a highly classified intelligence gathering network to damage a politician or political party.   This is a first in my experience and it goes directly against the espionage act and is incredibly dangerous because it allows a political party to utilize the power of the American intelligence gathering agencies to attack their political rivals. 

Andrew McCarthy has a good article on this subject at NRO  http://www.nationalreview.com/article/445522/russian-election-hacking-fbi-not-investigating-trump-campaign?utm_source=Sailthru&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=Daily Trending Email Reoccurring- Monday to Thursday 2017-03-06&utm_term=NR5PM Actives

where he makes the point that suddenly the hacked the election gibberish has disappeared from the headlines. 

Edited March 7, 2017 by Merc14

[RavenHawk]

This vitriol is enough to make anyone crazy but as usual, there is always something that comes along to balance it out.  These two clips are them.  Something to bring a clear voice to the issue.  I refer to perhaps the best journalism we’ve seen in a long time and it comes from the entertainment sector.  We elected Trump to drain the swamp.  I suppose that my beloved Military Industrial Complex is the place to start.  Mind you that the vast majority of the MIC are hardworking, dedicated, loyal, patriots.  For years, people have been so paranoid of this mythical unwarranted influence that the MIC could wield over the government.  It never has materialized.  How little did we know that it would end up being the other way around?  Like all machines, if you give it faulty programming, it will act erratically.  I believe that this explains Comey’s actions.  Here is a dedicated, loyal servant and he is fed corrupt programming.  The same thing happened to the Banking sector 10 years ago when Frank-Dodd was introduced.  And then there is Clapper.  You can tell he’s CYA.  You notice that in his interview he only mentions about 4 (of the 17) agencies when he uses Plausible Deniability to say that he is not aware of a FISA request. 

 

Because of EO 12333, which was issued just weeks before the end of Obama’s Presidency, the way intel is disseminated was changed.  Before, raw data would be given to the NSA and they would disseminate the info to where they thought it should go.  It would be date-time stamped as to when and from who.  Now, raw data is available to any of the 17 agencies and no one can be sure the source.  So a wiretap could have been performed by any of the other 13 that Clapper never mentioned and it gets dropped into the pipeline to all.  This is going to be one of those follow-the-paper-trail exercises.  Just need to find which of the other 13 agencies the Washington Post/New York TImes had an inside contact with?  Then heads will roll.  So for those of you dis’n Trump, enjoy your fun for the moment you will soon be experiencing gnashing of teeth.  The underlying question still remains, where did the leak come from (of which we still do not know the content – just metadata (another clue)).  ETA: Where was Flynn when he was tapped?  Pick your poison, there are felonies any way you slice it.  Trump called your bluff and now the MSM doesn’t know what it’s doing.  Trump will have enough to not only hang Hilary on her corruption but also Obama and his apparatus which includes the MSM.  I wonder how many ignorant replies this is going to get and they won’t even view these two clips completely??