Law prof. Lawrence Tribe: Falsely accusing Obama of wiretapping ‘qualifies as an impeachable offense’

[AURaptor 1,122]

3 minutes ago, homersapien said:

In Raptor's mind, asking Trump for evidence is the same as making a charge against him.

You lack the mental capacity to understand what's in MY mind, homer. 

[homersapien 11,357]

2 minutes ago, AURaptor said:

You lack the mental capacity to understand what's in MY mind, homer. 

OK, then help me out.

What did you mean by saying the burden of proof is on those who make the charge?

How does it pertain to the topic?

[TitanTiger 20,472]

1 minute ago, AURaptor said:

Guess I'll have to keep repeating this until it sinks in. 

Jan 19th, the NYT already reported that Trump had been wiretapped, and that Obama had been briefed.  Now, you may reply with " that's not PROOF ! " , to which I'd reply.... of course not. ESPECIALLY with the media today. But the over all POINT of this entire NON story is that Russia hacked our election, and that some how Trump was in collusion w/ Putin, Russia,  or some semblance there of.

WHERE IS THE PROOF ???? 

There is none. 

You seem confused.  We are talking about the claims Trump made.  Trump made an accusation that Obama had Trump Tower wiretapped.  He hasn't provided any proof of said accusation.  If he has proof that Obama had Trump Tower wiretapped, then he should put it forth.  But this NYT story does not prove that for him.

Here is the story you keep referring to:

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/01/19/us/politics/trump-russia-associates-investigation.html

Nothing in that says that Trump was the target of a wiretap.  It says that communications between some Trump campaign associates and the Russians were intercepted.  In other words, the Russians were.  We routinely intercept communications between the US and foreign countries, especially places like Russia.  Plus at the time, there was an investigation into the possible Russian hacking of the DNC.  So of course any communications going out to Russia were going to be scrutinized.  

[AURaptor 1,122]

15 minutes ago, homersapien said:

OK, then help me out.

What did you mean by saying the burden of proof is on those who make the charge?

How does it pertain to the topic?

That should be about as self evident as anything can get, but because you're....well, YOU, I'll explain. 

Burden of Proof

noun

1.

Chiefly Law. the obligation to offer evidence that the court or jury could reasonably believe, in support of a contention, failing which the case will be lost.

2.

the obligation to establish a contention as fact by evoking evidence of its probable truth.

 

 

The premise of Trump having to been wiretapped ( spied on, eavesdropped, etc.. ) starts w/ the idea or belief that he was,  in some way,  complicit and or  in collusion with " Russians " , illegally, that in some form or fashion tipped the scales of the election towards him instead of Hillary.

 

3 things we know about that claim. 

 

1. The NYT has reported it as fact. REPORTED, doesn't PROVE anything, but because the press have put it out in the public arena, it's fair game to conclude it has merit. Unless, of course, it's just more FAKE news, by the NYT. 

2. President Obama was , REPORTEDLY ( see aforementioned NYT article ) briefed on the matter, which at the very least, indicates his KNOWLEDGE of some sort of surveillance, by OUR govt,  involving the Trump campaign. 

3. To date, there has been ZERO evidence connecting Trump w/ any Russians, what so ever, w/ regards to the 2016 Presidential election. 

 

Now... where did I lose you ? 

 

( Note, not a question of IF, but simply...where  ) 

[AUDub 11,143]

42 minutes ago, TitanTiger said:

He's the one making the charge.  He went on Twitter and accused Obama of wiretapping his phones.  It is up to him to put forth evidence proving that accusation.

You and Homer might as well be trying to explain quantum mechanics to my dog. 

[Strychnine 1,802]

15 minutes ago, Bigbens42 said:

You and Homer might as well be trying to explain quantum mechanics to my dog. 

 

I have tried to explain that to both of them, on more than one occasion.

[homersapien 11,357]

1 hour ago, AURaptor said:

That should be about as self evident as anything can get, but because you're....well, YOU, I'll explain. 

Burden of Proof

noun

1.

Chiefly Law. the obligation to offer evidence that the court or jury could reasonably believe, in support of a contention, failing which the case will be lost.

2.

the obligation to establish a contention as fact by evoking evidence of its probable truth.

 

 

The premise of Trump having to been wiretapped ( spied on, eavesdropped, etc.. ) starts w/ the idea or belief that he was,  in some way,  complicit and or  in collusion with " Russians " , illegally, that in some form or fashion tipped the scales of the election towards him instead of Hillary.

 

3 things we know about that claim. 

 

1. The NYT has reported it as fact. REPORTED, doesn't PROVE anything, but because the press have put it out in the public arena, it's fair game to conclude it has merit. Unless, of course, it's just more FAKE news, by the NYT. 

2. President Obama was , REPORTEDLY ( see aforementioned NYT article ) briefed on the matter, which at the very least, indicates his KNOWLEDGE of some sort of surveillance, by OUR govt,  involving the Trump campaign. 

3. To date, there has been ZERO evidence connecting Trump w/ any Russians, what so ever, w/ regards to the 2016 Presidential election. 

 

Now... where did I lose you ? 

 

( Note, not a question of IF, but simply...where  ) 

Huh?  You are sort of overlooking the obvious.

The "premise" of Trump being wiretapped is based on the claim Trump made himself that he was wiretapped.  That is the subject issue.

The Russian connection is a different issue which may or may not be related.

And lose the attitude.  You are the one obfuscating the discussion.

[homersapien 11,357]

1 hour ago, Bigbens42 said:

You and Homer might as well be trying to explain quantum mechanics to my dog. 

One big difference.  I actually like and respect dogs.   

[homersapien 11,357]

1 hour ago, Strychnine said:

 

I have tried to explain that to both of them, on more than one occasion.

Arf?

[TitanTiger 20,472]

5 hours ago, AURaptor said:

That should be about as self evident as anything can get, but because you're....well, YOU, I'll explain. 

Burden of Proof

noun

1.

Chiefly Law. the obligation to offer evidence that the court or jury could reasonably believe, in support of a contention, failing which the case will be lost.

2.

the obligation to establish a contention as fact by evoking evidence of its probable truth.

 

 

The premise of Trump having to been wiretapped ( spied on, eavesdropped, etc.. ) starts w/ the idea or belief that he was,  in some way,  complicit and or  in collusion with " Russians " , illegally, that in some form or fashion tipped the scales of the election towards him instead of Hillary.

 

3 things we know about that claim. 

 

1. The NYT has reported it as fact. REPORTED, doesn't PROVE anything, but because the press have put it out in the public arena, it's fair game to conclude it has merit. Unless, of course, it's just more FAKE news, by the NYT. 

2. President Obama was , REPORTEDLY ( see aforementioned NYT article ) briefed on the matter, which at the very least, indicates his KNOWLEDGE of some sort of surveillance, by OUR govt,  involving the Trump campaign. 

3. To date, there has been ZERO evidence connecting Trump w/ any Russians, what so ever, w/ regards to the 2016 Presidential election. 

 

Now... where did I lose you ? 

 

( Note, not a question of IF, but simply...where  ) 

A trained logician would eviscerate this.

[AURaptor 1,122]

2 hours ago, TitanTiger said:

A trained logician would eviscerate this.

That leaves you out...  

Seems you and homer are in the same state of denial. 

[Auburnfan91 1,407]

7 hours ago, TitanTiger said:

You seem confused.  We are talking about the claims Trump made.  Trump made an accusation that Obama had Trump Tower wiretapped.  He hasn't provided any proof of said accusation.  If he has proof that Obama had Trump Tower wiretapped, then he should put it forth.  But this NYT story does not prove that for him.

Here is the story you keep referring to:

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/01/19/us/politics/trump-russia-associates-investigation.html

Nothing in that says that Trump was the target of a wiretap.  It says that communications between some Trump campaign associates and the Russians were intercepted.  In other words, the Russians were.  We routinely intercept communications between the US and foreign countries, especially places like Russia.  Plus at the time, there was an investigation into the possible Russian hacking of the DNC.  So of course any communications going out to Russia were going to be scrutinized.  

And Obama claimed he and his administration had nothing to do with the alleged wiretap. Are you going to say Obama lied too?

 

Quote

"A cardinal rule of the Obama administration was that no White House official ever interfered with any independent investigation led by the Department of Justice," Obama spokesman Kevin Lewis said in a statement Saturday. "As part of that practice, neither President Obama nor any White House official ever ordered surveillance on any U.S. citizen. Any suggestion otherwise is simply false.

 

That claim is going to be proven false if indeed a FISA application for electronic surveillance was approved, because Loretta Lynch would have had to sign the application before sending it to the FISA court.

[Mims44 1,867]

Damn man....

I hate that people are putting out information in tweets, which have to be short. So they end up shortening all their words and having to release the information through multiple tweets.

[TexasTiger 12,828]

7 hours ago, Auburnfan91 said:

And Obama claimed he and his administration had nothing to do with the alleged wiretap. Are you going to say Obama lied too?

 

 

That claim is going to be proven false if indeed a FISA application for electronic surveillance was approved, because Loretta Lynch would have had to sign the application before sending it to the FISA court.

You don't understand FISA warrants.

[TitanTiger 20,472]

8 hours ago, AURaptor said:

That leaves you out...  

Seems you and homer are in the same state of denial. 

It's not denial.  It's that you couldn't follow a coherence train of thought if the tracks ran through your living room.

[AURaptor 1,122]

14 hours ago, TitanTiger said:

It's not denial.  It's that you couldn't follow a coherence train of thought if the tracks ran through your living room.

Why would I have track in my living room ? That's just weird 

[TitanTiger 20,472]

9 hours ago, AURaptor said:

Why would I have track in my living room ? That's just weird 

What's even weirder is how you can convince yourself that your convoluted way of steering a topic to one more to your liking is actually the original conversation that was being had, and when everyone else calls bull**** on it, they are the ones avoiding the subject.

[Mikey 16,568]

This is nothing but more Demmie whining. If the Dems think this is an impeachable offense, then shut up and start the process. See just how far you can run with that.

[AURaptor 1,122]

8 minutes ago, TitanTiger said:

What's even weirder is how you can convince yourself that your convoluted way of steering a topic to one more to your liking is actually the original conversation that was being had, and when everyone else calls bull**** on it, they are the ones avoiding the subject.

The facts are the facts, and I don't apologize for seeing things as they are, instead of how YOU would prefer I see them. 

The NYT report of Obama knowing of the wiretap on Trump and then being briefed on the info is inescapably enough for me to honestly and soundly make the claim that this premise of Trump making a FALSE claim is in any way " impeachable " is itself debunked. 

Secondly, you have  Senator Coons  ( D-DE ) ,claiming there are TRANSCRIPTS , which can't even exist unless there's some actual auditory record in the first place. 

The wild goose chase you're engaging in , with the praising of this 'esteemed' law professor who is HIMSELF promoting a completely false narrative and one which is wholly void of fact or reason. 

Don't believe me -  

 

 

[TitanTiger 20,472]

6 minutes ago, AURaptor said:

The facts are the facts, and I don't apologize for seeing things as they are, instead of how YOU would prefer I see them. 

But it's not how they are.  It's avoidance of the subject so that you can argue other points instead.

 

6 minutes ago, AURaptor said:

The NYT report of Obama knowing of the wiretap on Trump

I linked to the story you keep referencing.  It doesn't say that.

 

6 minutes ago, AURaptor said:

and then being briefed on the info is inescapably enough for me to honestly and soundly make the claim that this premise of Trump making a FALSE claim is in any way " impeachable " is itself debunked. 

You keep conflating our surveillance of Russian officials and diplomats in the wake of the DNC hacking with tapping Trump's phones.  The first part of that is known, expected and completely reasonable.  The latter is unproven poppycock from a POTUS obsessed with tinfoil hat conspiracy theories and over-enamored with vomiting his every thought out on Twitter.

 

6 minutes ago, AURaptor said:

Secondly, you have  Senator Coons  ( D-DE ) ,claiming there are TRANSCRIPTS , which can't even exist unless there's some actual auditory record in the first place. 

The wild goose chase you're engaging in , with the praising of this 'esteemed' law professor who is HIMSELF promoting a completely false narrative and one which is wholly void of fact or reason. 

Don't believe me -  

 

 

Of course there are transcripts.  We were monitoring the Russians, and especially looking for any communication from the US to them.  They hacked the network of one of our two major political parties in an attempt to influence the election.  Some of Trump's people were in communication with Russian officials, thus those communications would be intercepted.  That is not the same as claiming Obama had his phones tapped.

[AURaptor 1,122]

8 minutes ago, TitanTiger said:

But it's not how they are.  It's avoidance of the subject so that you can argue other points instead.

 

Oh , absolutley ! I refuse to get bogged down in a fairy tale version of events.  Bothering w/ such nonsense only sucks the air out of the room. Entertaining all these irrelevant side issues is a ploy to distract from the primary point - Obama had Trump wiretapped. 

 

Quote

I linked to the story you keep referencing.  It doesn't say that.

I also have linked that story, and it says exactly that. 

 

Quote

You keep conflating our surveillance of Russian officials and diplomats in the wake of the DNC hacking with tapping Trump's phones.  The first part of that is known, expected and completely reasonable.  The latter is unproven poppycock from a POTUS obsessed with tinfoil hat conspiracy theories and over-enamored with vomiting his every thought out on Twitter

. In part, that 's because the MSM does that as well, ON PURPOSE.  The first part is NOT known ! We only know the DNC was hacked, or phished, and that their e-mails were made public. We do NOT know who did it. We've been TOLD who did it, but I do NOT buy the premise on face value that it was the Russians, and ONLY the Russians.  The latter is equally as unproven, but it HAS been reported, not by FOXNews, but by the NYT. 
 

Quote

Of course there are transcripts.  We were monitoring the Russians, and especially looking for any communication from the US to them.  They hacked the network of one of our two major political parties in an attempt to influence the election.  Some of Trump's people were in communication with Russian officials, thus those communications would be intercepted.  That is not the same as claiming Obama had his phones tapped.

 

Transcripts involving the TRUMP campaign ? You're use of the term ' monitoring ' is different from wiretapping - how ?  And again, you're going on pure faith that what we've been told is valid, that " THE RUSSIANS " did this and some how ( magically, I presume ) were going to influence the election.  This is all just nonsense you've been fed, and are regurgitating it back , as if you KNOW it to be true or something. You really don't. 

Nothing has come of this. There's nothing here. It's all one big massive bait and switch, by those who WERE in power, and now are on the outside looking in , looking to undercut the Trump campaign - for good or for bad. 

[TitanTiger 20,472]

2 minutes ago, AURaptor said:

Oh , absolutley ! I refuse to get bogged down in a fairy tale version of events.  Bothering w/ such nonsense only sucks the air out of the room. Entertaining all these irrelevant side issues is a ploy to distract from the primary point - Obama had Trump wiretapped. 

It's not a fairy tale.  It's rather simple and concrete:  Trump made a claim that Obama had his phones tapped.  He's offered no proof.  Neither have you.  Everything else is just your typical flurry of red herrings.

 

2 minutes ago, AURaptor said:

I also have linked that story, and it says exactly that. 

Then you should have no problem quoting the exact portion of the article that does.  I'm waiting.

 

2 minutes ago, AURaptor said:

In part, that 's because the MSM does that as well, ON PURPOSE.  The first part is NOT known ! We only know the DNC was hacked, or phished, and that their e-mails were made public. We do NOT know who did it. We've been TOLD who did it, but I do NOT buy the premise on face value that it was the Russians, and ONLY the Russians.  The latter is equally as unproven, but it HAS been reported, not by FOXNews, but by the NYT. 

Bull****.  The only ones calling it into any doubt are a cadre of right wing paranoia blogs and it's been reported by everyone, including Fox News:

http://www.foxnews.com/tech/2016/06/14/russian-government-affiliated-hackers-breach-dnc-take-research-on-donald-trump.html

https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/russian-government-hackers-penetrated-dnc-stole-opposition-research-on-trump/2016/06/14/cf006cb4-316e-11e6-8ff7-7b6c1998b7a0_story.html?utm_term=.06db2f2012ee

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2017/01/06/trump-to-be-briefed-on-russia-hacking-report-as-unclassified-version-set-for-release.html

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2016/07/26/russian-ties-ex-intel-official-says-evidence-on-hacked-dnc-servers-points-to-nation-state.html

https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2016/oct/07/us-russia-dnc-hack-interfering-presidential-election

http://www.wired.co.uk/article/dnc-hack-proof-russia-democrats

http://time.com/4600177/election-hack-russia-hillary-clinton-donald-trump/

 

2 minutes ago, AURaptor said:

Transcripts involving the TRUMP campaign ? You're use of the term ' monitoring ' is different from wiretapping - how ?

Transcripts of communications to Russian officials, especially between Russian officials and persons in the US.  And to the extent that Trump people contacted Russian officials, yes, they would have transcripts of those communications.  The distinction is, if we were monitoring the Russians and Trump's people don't contact them, then none of the Trump campaign's communications get intercepted because they weren't the target.  But if the Russians are being watched and the Trumpsters communicate with them, it will be intercepted.

As far as how monitoring and wiretapping differ, it's rather simple.  Monitoring includes, but is not limited to, wiretapping.  It can include any and all forms of communication including calls, texting, emails, instant messages and so on.

 

2 minutes ago, AURaptor said:

And again, you're going on pure faith that what we've been told is valid, that " THE RUSSIANS " did this and some how ( magically, I presume ) were going to influence the election.  This is all just nonsense you've been fed, and are regurgitating it back , as if you KNOW it to be true or something. You really don't. 

No, that's you reinterpreting what I think to fit a line of argumentation you wish to make.  I don't know if they were going to influence the election or not.  I'm simply stating that our intelligence agencies as well as private security companies all point to the Russians as being the ones who hacked the DNC.  The most likely reason being that they were attempting to influence the election by damaging Hillary.  Whether they were ultimately successful in moving the needle of public opinion and swaying votes isn't the central point.  

 

2 minutes ago, AURaptor said:

Nothing has come of this. There's nothing here. It's all one big massive bait and switch, by those who WERE in power, and now are on the outside looking in , looking to undercut the Trump campaign - for good or for bad. 

The Russians hacked the DNC and leaked emails for some reason.  Whatever it is, they did.  Only nutters are arguing otherwise.  

But the main subject of this thread remains: Trump claimed Obama had his phones tapped.  With zero proof.

[homersapien 11,357]

Thanks Titan for making such an effort in what we all know is a totally futile cause.

 

 

[AURaptor 1,122]

 Titan-  your lengthy reply did nothing at all but repeat what you've already said. You can fill an entire volume of repetitive nonsense, I don't care. You have no case.  There is no substantial support that proves Russia in anyway influence the election. 

 I am sorry to gore your sacred ox, but this fairytale that you have completely bought into is just that. A  total fairytale. 

 And yes, Trump does have proof. This has already been settled. 

[TitanTiger 20,472]

16 minutes ago, AURaptor said:

 Titan-  your lengthy reply did nothing at all but repeat what you've already said. You can fill an entire volume of repetitive nonsense, I don't care. You have no case.  There is no substantial support that proves Russia in anyway influence the election. 

Again, you're mischaracterizing my statements to continue deflecting.  I didn't say they influenced the elections.  I simply said it appears they attempted to.

Regardless, that's not my "case."  My case is that Trump made claims he has not put forth any proof for.

 

Quote

 I am sorry to gore your sacred ox, but this fairytale that you have completely bought into is just that. A  total fairytale. 

 And yes, Trump does have proof. This has already been settled. 

Nope.  You still can't even quote the section of the article you cite.  Put up or shut up.  Or in terms you understand better, every post you make after this that restates that you've proven something without said quotes will be deleted on sight.  I would proceed cautiously.  I've hit my limit on dealing with your bull**** tactics here.  You are welcome to post your views, but if you cannot or will not back them up when asked, you're done here.