Trump Fires Back

[Proud Tiger 4,261]

Mess with my boy Sessions and I will mess with your boy Obama. That's now the attention getting story today. It's like a ping pong match. Lets get a special prosecutor for all tis mess now, settle it once and for all. Lock up anyone who committed a criminal offense. A SP has almost free reign to pursue whatever he wants so it could be interesting.

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2017/03/04/trump-accuses-obama-administration-wiretapping-trump-tower-phones.html

[TitanTiger 18,800]

16 minutes ago, Proud Tiger said:

Mess with my boy Sessions and I will mess with your boy Obama. That's now the attention getting story today. It's like a ping pong match. Lets get a special prosecutor for all tis mess now, settle it once and for all. Lock up anyone who committed a criminal offense. A SP has almost free reign to pursue whatever he wants so it could be interesting.

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2017/03/04/trump-accuses-obama-administration-wiretapping-trump-tower-phones.html

I think the difference is, we know for a fact that Sessions had conversations with Russian envoys.  Trump is accusing Obama of wiretapping while offering no evidence of it.

[Proud Tiger 4,261]

As I understand it, Obama requested permission but was denied by a court. They would indicate intent at least The question then is did they go ahead with the bugging anyhow... That's why I say lets go with a SP now on the whole mess. Have a problem with that?

[TitanTiger 18,800]

36 minutes ago, Proud Tiger said:

As I understand it, Obama requested permission but was denied by a court. They would indicate intent at least The question then is did they go ahead with the bugging anyhow... That's why I say lets go with a SP now on the whole mess. Have a problem with that?

That has been speculated, but no one has offered any proof of such. I think something more substantial than an article from Breitbart and some radio speculation from Mark Levin would need to be shown to warrant a special prosecutor. 

[AURaptor 1,114]

When those who are in charge have it in their own self interest to not reveal ALL the facts, how the hell are we suppose to trust ANYONE in govt ? 

 

Examples - When Loretta Lynch met Bill Clinton on the tarmac , that was textbook 101 definition of appearance of impropriety. But did she recuse herself ? Hell no. 

But it gets even better ! - 

Quote

 

On Wednesday, CNN’s Don Lemon spread more fake news when he falsely claimed that former Attorney General Loretta Lynch recused herself from the investigation into Hillary Clinton’s use of an illegal email server.

“Loretta Lynch recused herself from any decision regarding Hillary Clinton because of that meeting of Hillary [sic: Bill] Clinton and Loretta Lynch, who was attorney general at the time, on the tarmac,” he said during a panel discussion.

But it turns out that’s not correct.

 

- When Lois Lerner took the 5th, and simply shut up on the matter of IRS targeting of citizens, even after it was proven there was wide spread involvement, and ti wasn't just some rogue office in one location, was anyone held accountable ? Hell no. 

[homersapien 10,918]

Well, for once I agree with you PT. This accusation against Obama needs to be investigated. 

I would also include Trump's claim of 3 million illegal votes which denied him from winning the popular vote.  

Maybe we need more than one special prosecutor to cover unrelated claims.

It's a very dangerous precedent to 'normalize' such statements from the POTUS. We cannot preserve our democracy by trying to run it on a fact-free basis.

 

[homersapien 10,918]

5 minutes ago, AURaptor said:

When those who are in charge have it in their own self interest to not reveal ALL the facts, how the hell are we suppose to trust ANYONE in govt ? 

That's exactly why we need a free press.

[AURaptor 1,114]

1 minute ago, homersapien said:

That's exactly why we need a free press.

I wish we had one. 

[homersapien 10,918]

15 minutes ago, TitanTiger said:

That has been speculated, but no one has offered any proof of such. I think something more substantial than an article from Breitbart and some radio speculation from Mark Levin would need to be shown to warrant a special prosecutor. 

When the POTUS says it, that automatically qualifies it for a formal investigation.

 

   

[homersapien 10,918]

2 minutes ago, AURaptor said:

I wish we had one. 

Who is it then you've been complaining about?  

[Proud Tiger 4,261]

1 hour ago, TitanTiger said:

That has been speculated, but no one has offered any proof of such. I think something more substantial than an article from Breitbart and some radio speculation from Mark Levin would need to be shown to warrant a special prosecutor. 

I didn't mean a SP for just this accusation of wiretapping Trump is referring to. I mean the whole broad question of Russian involvement in the election. Neither party can conduct an unbiased investigation and it will go on and on ad nauseam until a SP handles it. FYI worth an Obama spokesman said earlier the Obama WH had never had an American citizen wiretapped. The DOJ did illegally seize the e-mails of FOX reporter James Rosen.

So question of the moment.....should a SP be named to investigate the whole mess?

[TitanTiger 18,800]

Yes, I think a special prosecutor should investigate it. But unless someone can offer some solid evidence beyond a mere fishing expedition, they should focus on aspects that have something of substance to them. 

[homersapien 10,918]

Apparently, Donald has yet to grasp what it means to be POTUS.  This sounds "unhinged" to me:

 

Donald J. Trump ✔@realDonaldTrump

Terrible! Just found out that Obama had my "wires tapped" in Trump Tower just before the victory. Nothing found. This is McCarthyism!

6:35 AM - 4 Mar 2017

--------------------------------------

Donald J. Trump ✔@realDonaldTrump

Just out: The same Russian Ambassador that met Jeff Sessions visited the Obama White House 22 times, and 4 times last year alone.

6:42 AM - 4 Mar 2017

--------------------------------------

Donald J. Trump ✔@realDonaldTrump

Is it legal for a sitting President to be "wire tapping" a race for president prior to an election? Turned down by court earlier. A NEW LOW!

6:49 AM - 4 Mar 2017

--------------------------------------

Donald J. Trump ✔@realDonaldTrump

I'd bet a good lawyer could make a great case out of the fact that President Obama was tapping my phones in October, just prior to Election!

6:52 AM - 4 Mar 2017

--------------------------------------

Donald J. Trump ✔@realDonaldTrump

How low has President Obama gone to tapp my phones during the very sacred election process. This is Nixon/Watergate. Bad (or sick) guy!

7:02 AM - 4 Mar 2017

 

 

[homersapien 10,918]

5 minutes ago, TitanTiger said:

Yes, I think a special prosecutor should investigate it. But unless someone can offer some solid evidence beyond a mere fishing expedition, they should focus on aspects that have something of substance to them. 

If such accusations come from the mouth of the POTUS, that's substance enough for an investigation.

I don't think a single accusation should be overlooked, no matter how outrageous it seems on the surface.  There should be more than one special prosecutor.  Even if it only documents and verifies what most people think is obvious.

Trump is president.  We can either take the president seriously or we don't.  If we cannot, then we need to remove him from office and let Pence take over.

 

[homersapien 10,918]

https://www.theatlantic.com/news/archive/2017/03/trumps-unfounded-claims-of-a-nixonwatergate-wiretapping-scheme/518625/

..........It has been widely reported that the FBI sought approval last summer to monitor members of the Trump team suspected of having irregular talks with the Russians. Ali Soufan, chair of the Soufan Group security firm and a former FBI agent, noted that such requests must be sanctioned by federal judges.

“The president cannot order criminal wiretaps or any other kind of wiretaps,” said Soufan. “No president can."

The process for obtaining a federal wiretap, either for domestic crimes or for foreign intelligence purposes, involves the approval and supervision of a federal judge. Those requests are made by investigators themselves, and the president is ultimately briefed on them only if Justice Department officials believe it is necessary.

“They deliberately withhold that because they don't want the president to get involved in an ongoing investigation," said Clint Watts, a fellow at the Foreign Policy Research Institute and a former FBI special agent. "They play by a really strict rulebook at DoJ."

Bruce Green, a law professor at Fordham and a former federal prosecutor said a president ordering a wiretap would be unusual, to say the least.

“It would obviously be improper for the government to seek wiretap authorization for partisan political purposes, rather than legitimate criminal investigative or national security purposes as set out in the application to the court,” said Green. “In prior administrations, if a President directed the Attorney General or another government lawyer to seek wiretap authorization for illegitimate reasons, the lawyer would have been expected to try to dissuade the President and, if the President persisted in giving this order, to refuse and/or resign.”

A judge would also likely refuse such a request. “An ethical government lawyer would be expected to disclose the President's involvement to the court, which could then be expected to deny authorization,” Green said.

If, hypothetically, a judge did approve a warrant for electronic surveillance of Trump officials, that would mean the judge was persuaded there was probable cause to believe they were going to commit a crime or were communicating with agents of a foreign power––and that the gravity of the circumstances justified approving the request, even in the face of the massive potential political fallout.

Reports have also suggested that former National Security Adviser Mike Flynn’s conversations with the Russian Ambassador Sergey Kislyak were picked up during surveillance of Kislyak. The FBI sometimes eavesdrops on foreign leaders while in the U.S., and it is possible that agents overheard Flynn’s conversation while monitoring Kislyak’s phone line. Flynn ultimately resigned, after it was reported that he misled administration officials about the content of his conversations with Kislyak.

Another possible impetus for the president’s tweets could have come from comments made Thursday by conservative radio host Mark Levin. On his show, Levin said Obama had tried to undermine the Trump campaign by eavesdropping, calling the former president’s administration a “police state.” Levin then demanded a Congressional investigation, and his comments were picked up by Breitbart, the website founded by Steve Bannon, Trump’s chief strategist.

According to The Washington Post, the Breitbart story was being circulated among Trump’s senior staff before the weekend. Trump’s mood before he left to his resort Friday, The New York Times reported, seemed to “be explosive”, and the president reportedly railed about leaks in his staff and among federal intelligence agents.

But Trump’s ire did not end with Obama Saturday morning.

Trump capped off his tweetstorm with a comment on his reality TV show replacement, Arnold Schwarzenegger.

[AURaptor 1,114]

1 hour ago, homersapien said:

Who is it then you've been complaining about?  

Not a FREE press, for sure. We have a arm of the DNC posing as the free press. 

[Grumps 3,357]

4 hours ago, TitanTiger said:

I think the difference is, we know for a fact that Sessions had conversations with Russian envoys.  Trump is accusing Obama of wiretapping while offering no evidence of it.

But do we care what the conversations with the Russians were? Maybe they were just talking about their grandkids like Ms. Lynch and Mr. Clinton were. Where is the evidence that Sessions said ANYTHING worrisome? So, is there really a difference?

Either way, I like PT's idea. Let's get a special prosecutor for the Russia situation to explore ALL of congress's visits/discussion. Let's investigate Obama and wiretaps. Let's investigate EVERYBODY! Drain the swamp, right?

[homersapien 10,918]

1 hour ago, AURaptor said:

Not a FREE press, for sure. We have a arm of the DNC posing as the free press. 

Absurd

[homersapien 10,918]

14 minutes ago, Grumps said:

But do we care what the conversations with the Russians were? Maybe they were just talking about their grandkids like Ms. Lynch and Mr. Clinton were. Where is the evidence that Sessions said ANYTHING worrisome? So, is there really a difference?

Either way, I like PT's idea. Let's get a special prosecutor for the Russia situation to explore ALL of congress's visits/discussion. Let's investigate Obama and wiretaps. Let's investigate EVERYBODY! Drain the swamp, right?

Why explore "all" of congress's discussions with the Russian ambassador?  It's been stipulated that such routine visits are normal. 

The issue here is whether or not Trump's campaign coordinated - or were otherwise involved with - Russian meddling in the recent election.

[Proud Tiger 4,261]

4 hours ago, TitanTiger said:

Yes, I think a special prosecutor should investigate it. But unless someone can offer some solid evidence beyond a mere fishing expedition, they should focus on aspects that have something of substance to them. 

Again Ilet me say.......I am not suggesting a SP for just Trump's latest allegations. I am suggesting a SP with the broad powers to look into the whole mess beginning with the Hillary e-mails and covering everything in between. Other wise it's just going to be GOP vs, Dems ad nauseam.

[AURaptor 1,114]

3 hours ago, homersapien said:

Absurd

And once again, you display your cluelessness - 

Two New MSNBC Hosts Bring News Media-Obama Revolving Door to 30

1) David Axelrod: political reporter for the Chicago Tribune, late 1970s-1984 >>> chief strategist for the Obama presidential campaign, 2007-2008; Senior Adviser to the President, 2009-2011; Senior Strategist, Obama-Biden Re-Election Committee, 2011-12 >>> Senior Political Analyst for MSNBC, 2013-

2) Roberta Baskin: former senior investigative producer for the ABC News magazine 20/20, chief investigative correspondent for CBS’s 48 Hours and senior Washington correspondent for PBS's Now with Bill Moyers >>> Director of Media Communications for the Office of Inspector General at the Department of Health and Human Services, 2009- (2009 Washington Post item)

 

3) Stephen Barr: Washington Post reporter, 1979-2008, including as “Federal Diary” author 2000-2008 >>> Senior Managing Director of the Office of Public Affairs at the Department of Labor, February 2012- (Washington Post item on his new position at Labor)

 

4) Warren Bass: Washington Post “Book World” Senior Editor and then Deputy Editor of the “Outlook” section >>> Director of Speechwriting and Senior Policy Adviser to U.N. Ambassador Susan E. Rice, 2009-2011.

 

5) Laura Blumenfeld, Washington Post reporter, 1990s-2012 >>> State Dept., head of strategic communications for the Middle East peace process, 2013- (Daily Beast post)

 

6) Daren Briscoe: Los Angeles Times reporter, 2002-2004; Newsweek Washington correspondent, 2004-2009 >>> Deputy Associate Director of Public Affairs for the Office of National Drug Control Policy, 2009-2011; Deputy Press Secretary and then Press Secretary at the Department of Education, 2011-2013. (Education Week post on his departure from government)

 

7) Jay Carney, updated: Time magazine Washington correspondent, 1993-2005; Time Washington bureau chief, 2005-2008 >>> Assistant to the Vice President and Director of Communications for Vice President Joe Biden, December 2009-December 2010; White House Press Secretary, January 2011-June 2014.

[UPDATE: In September of 2014, Carney joined CNN as senior political commentator.]

 

8) Eric Dash: New York Times business reporter, 2004-2012 >>> Senior Advisor for Policy and Communications at the Treasury Department for Secretary Jacob Lew, 2012- (New York Observer article on Dash's career change)

 

9) Linda Douglass: CBS News Washington correspondent, 1993-98; ABC News Washington correspondent, 1998-2006 (image of her on ABC's World News Tonight) >>> senior strategist and senior campaign spokesperson on the road for the Obama campaign, 2008; Assistant Secretary for Public Affairs at the Department of Health and Human Services and Communications Director for the White House’s Health Reform Office, 2009-2010 >>> Vice President at The Atlantic/National Journal, 2010-2013.

In August 2013 her husband, John Phillips, was named U.S. Ambassador to Italy, and she joined him in Rome. (U.S. Embassy in Rome, Italy video on YouTube)

 

 

10) Ronan Farrow: Special Adviser for Humanitarian and NGO Affairs in the Office of the Special Representative for Afghanistan and Pakistan, 2009-2011; Special Adviser to the Secretary of State, Office of Global Youth Issues, July 2011 to June 2012 >>> Host of MSNBC’s Ronan Farrow Daily, February 2014-February 2015 (State Dept. bio)

[UPDATE: After his show was canceled, Farrow was named a special correspondent for MSNBC and the NBC News Investigative Unit.]

 

http://www.mrc.org/media-reality-check/two-new-msnbc-hosts-bring-news-media-obama-revolving-door-30

[TitanTiger 18,800]

13 hours ago, Proud Tiger said:

Again Ilet me say.......I am not suggesting a SP for just Trump's latest allegations. I am suggesting a SP with the broad powers to look into the whole mess beginning with the Hillary e-mails and covering everything in between. Other wise it's just going to be GOP vs, Dems ad nauseam.

That's fine, but it should start with things we have good evidence for.  If evidence is uncovered that warrants a deeper dive into other aspects, so be it.  But I'm not for turning this into some unfocused fishing expedition following every tinfoil hat wacko rumor Breitbart and their ilk can come up with.  Just because some talk radio host is willing to spew rumor without any documentation to back it up doesn't make it worth investigating.  All that the calls for such a thing are is a way to introduce noise and static into the investigation and obfuscate known issues.

[homersapien 10,918]

15 hours ago, AURaptor said:

And once again, you display your cluelessness - 
 

http://www.mrc.org/media-reality-check/two-new-msnbc-hosts-bring-news-media-obama-revolving-door-30

OK, I admit it.  You're right raptor.  

There is no free press.  They are all working directly for the democrats.

I am "clueless".

[homersapien 10,918]

2 hours ago, TitanTiger said:

That's fine, but it should start with things we have good evidence for.  If evidence is uncovered that warrants a deeper dive into other aspects, so be it.  But I'm not for turning this into some unfocused fishing expedition following every tinfoil hat wacko rumor Breitbart and their ilk can come up with.  Just because some talk radio host is willing to spew rumor without any documentation to back it up doesn't make it worth investigating.  All that the calls for such a thing are is a way to introduce noise and static into the investigation and obfuscate known issues.

That's all very well Titan, but the key fact here is that it is the POTUS that made these allegations.

Are you suggesting we should just ignore what the POTUS says because it's not credible?

If so, who gets to decide what he says that should be ignored and what should  be taken seriously?

[TitanTiger 18,800]

I would say that even the POTUS needs to produce some evidence to warrant spending taxpayer money on an investigation. .