Obama wiretapping claim: US Justice Department says 'no comment' whether Donald Trump is being inves
- Thread starter moe
- Start date
Dang, you right wingers listen to and watch too much fake news. You can't even get basic facts straight.
Oh sure of course countryroads89. The conversations the NYT reported on that were "intercepted" which you just claimed two posts ago they never reported on, were done so by them decoding hand signals?
Why do you always insist on giving me credit 1st owed to yourself countryroads89? Stop being so generous with me. It's OK, you can share your wealth. I won't accuse you of not paying your "fair share" or of being "greedy" hogging all of the stupidity available for display on any day here in this forum.
countryroads89 pontificating out of both sides of the mouth (only a true Leftist has this incredible skill)
then countryroads89 said:
then countryroads89 turned right back around and said:
then coutryroads89 takes credit for accusing the right of what countryroads89 practices:
Mind you now, countryroads89 manages to pull off this exciting display of double speak all in the same thread!
Amazing demonstration of Leftist ambidextrous hypocrisy.
then countryroads89 said:
then countryroads89 turned right back around and said:
then coutryroads89 takes credit for accusing the right of what countryroads89 practices:
Mind you now, countryroads89 manages to pull off this exciting display of double speak all in the same thread!
Amazing demonstration of Leftist ambidextrous hypocrisy.
countryroads89, do you still stand behind this?
You wrote:
"The NY Times article never said Trump was wire tapped."
So then how did they get this information (which you also wrote countryroads89)?
"Let me break it down for you since you are slow (and that's putting it mildly). They were investigating Russia with a FISA warrant. They have people from Trump's campaign on audio tape as a result of investigating Russia (legal with a FISA warrant)."
Explain to the board countryroads89 the methods and sources used to "intercept" conversations on tape without "tapping" the phone lines or listening in on Trump Tower with bugging devices?
By the way, this is exactly what Trump has claimed. He didn't specify only that his phone lines were tapped. He said Trump Tower was "bugged" and folks were listening in on their private conversations...phones and apparently otherwise if tape recordings exist of private conversations that weren't over the phone.
Even you've admitted to this countryroads89.
You wrote:
"The NY Times article never said Trump was wire tapped."
So then how did they get this information (which you also wrote countryroads89)?
"Let me break it down for you since you are slow (and that's putting it mildly). They were investigating Russia with a FISA warrant. They have people from Trump's campaign on audio tape as a result of investigating Russia (legal with a FISA warrant)."
Explain to the board countryroads89 the methods and sources used to "intercept" conversations on tape without "tapping" the phone lines or listening in on Trump Tower with bugging devices?
By the way, this is exactly what Trump has claimed. He didn't specify only that his phone lines were tapped. He said Trump Tower was "bugged" and folks were listening in on their private conversations...phones and apparently otherwise if tape recordings exist of private conversations that weren't over the phone.
Even you've admitted to this countryroads89.
Words have meaning. I suggest you go back and re-read those posts very carefully, paying close attention to the words used.
As they say.."the proof is in the puddin',and Ovomit is full of "puddin "..ijs
Good advice countryroads89, and I'd suggest you use your words more carefully insisting the New York Times reporting is anything other than what it is in this case.
Specifically what you initially tried to deny is that they did indeed report on intercepted conversations from Trump Tower countryroads89, and you're trying to parse words over how that information was gathered?
If I were firmly planted on the Left like you are, I'd be much more worried about that, as well as what is actually contained in those possibly illegally collected conversations rather than parsing words over whether it was through "tapped phone lines" or not?
But we shall see.
countryroads89... this is either a simple "yes" or a "no" question.
Is the Left's charge over Trump's collusion with the Russians to disrupt or otherwise interfere with the past Presidential election true?
"Yes" or "No"?
Let's cut to the chase here.
Who knows but I have seen nothing that says there isn't an active investigation by our intelligence agencies......unless I missed something.
There is an ongoing investigation. Here are a few facts we know at this point.
Flynn was caught lying about communicating with the Russians.
Sessions lied under oath providing testimony during the Senate confirmation process.
Carter Page, Paul Manafort, Jared Kushner and JD Gordon all communicated with Russia.
Trump denied his campaign members met with and communicated with Russia.
This is misleading if not being flat out untrue countryroads89. Flynn was apparently captured on tape (however it was done) saying things to a Russian diplomat that he didn't mention to V.P. Pence when asked. There is still no proof (they do have the taped convo) that what was discussed was about the election, and Flynn didn't "lie" about what he said, he just didn't tell Pence. If he was guilty of lying about something, he'd be under indictment for perjury right now.
Sessions did not "lie" under oath countryroads89. He admitted he did indeed have regular meetings with Russian diplomats in his Official capacity as a member of the U.S. Senate, as he met with other Foreign nationals in that job. He never denied the meeting, nor denied his discussions except to insist they had nothing to do with coordinating activities between the Russians and the Trump campaign. If you know otherwise, let's hear it? Words mean things countryroads89. Saying Sessions "lied" under oath has to be backed up with the "lie" he allegedly told. What was it?
True countryroads89. So what? Once again, there is no evidence or no suggestions any of those meetings had anything to do with colluding with the Russians to change the direction or outcome of the election. They were regular business meetings, and had nothing to do with Trump's campaign directly or indirectly. If you know otherwise, link us so we can catch up to you or what you know factually that proves otherwise?
Again, this is not true regarding any coordination between them and his official campaign. Have Trump supporters ever met Russians? Yes. Probably. Definitely. Has he or anyone on his staff coordinated with the Russians on any aspect of this campaign either to smear Hillary, or assure an advantage for himself using them to disrupt the normal operations of the election?
No, there is no evidence that is true and many investigating the matter have specifically said so.
Again countryroads89, if you have any of this evidence, or know of any investigations going on now that have secured it, link us. You advised me to be careful with words because they mean things and you are 100% correct.
The Democrats and the Left have been making these specific charges against Trump since November and to date nothing concrete has either been proven or is True about it.
These are strong words & charges countryroads89 and if they are false, you and Left who have placed so much of your credibility onto them will look very foolish and immaterial trying to stop Trump's agenda if this Russian hysteria turns out to be just a bunch of meaningless baseless charges as it appears likely the longer these investigations go on without any proof that it's legit.
Last edited:
Yes, this is true OM 1, but the investigation of the allegation does not make it true. The Left says there was collusion. Do you believe that charge? Or do you go even further to say it is True?
What is 100% True is that so far, there has been no solid, indisputable, concrete evidence that has emerged to substantiate this charge from the Left. It's not like it would be this hard to find if there was even a small chance any of it was true.
I think countryroads89 knows there is nothing backing up this speculation, but to let it go is to cede Trump a giant megaphone with no opposition to unravel the Left's cherished Statist edifice.
Make no mistake TarHeelEer, this is what they(Left) really are fighting against...Trump's agenda to dismantle Leviathan. That's it.
They don't give a damn about the Russians because they know that's not why Hillary lost that election to Trump...they know it is the only way to discredit Trump's surprising victory.
So the idea is to stir up as much uncertainty about Trump as possible, so he can't effectively advocate for his policies without at least a question of opposition being raised among the uninformed.
Ignore them.
Democrats don't care if it is true or not and neither does the media. They WANT it to be true but mostly they want Trump to fail so they will spread whatever BS they can spread hoping enough people will believe it.
Honestly, they are trying their hardest to make it the equivalent of Benghazi. The only difference here though is Hillary really did all of the stuff that was suspected and she lied repeatedly about it.
He (Trump) does that all by himself. He doesn't need any help. He has told so many lies that he has no credibility.
Well countryroads89 if Trump has "no credibility" then all of his claims about surveillance should prove false, and all of the Left's claims about his collusion with Russians to steal the election from Hillary should prove true.
Won't take long to see where the evidence leads, but if you're charting progress of known facts to date and known evidence to this point, I'd offer Trump's claims appear to be leading towards the Truth.
You see it differently?
All I can say countryroads89 is you won't be laughing if his claims about being illegally bugged are true. You'll be one of the loudest on the board screaming "Well, there is still no proof Obama knew about it!!!!"
I have an issue with Russia trying to influence the election. I'm sorry, comrades.At this point....
Coop at this point, the whole sordid affair is so convoluted, I almost want them to conclude there are no actionable determinations to make here...just to get rid of the silly issue.
The only things I want real answers to is did the Russians infiltrate our election and disrupt the results either with or without Trump's help?
And did the Dems or the Left order secret surveillance on Trump's campaign, and was that legal?
The rest is simply canon fodder for anti-Trump/Pro-Trump supporters.
You'd be naive to think that they haven't wanted to **** with our elections for decades. But like your concerns, valid that they are, others had valid concerns about Benghazi that deserved more consideration from Hillary.
So we should just sit back and act like gimps? lmao. No thanks. F Russia and F Putin. I love changing the subject to Dem Dam Clintons though. I believe Benghazi was investigated a few times.
No. I don't think we sit back at all. The CIA wikileaks highlighted how vulnerable we are as a nation, and as the left mocks KellyAnn for his Microwave quip, there exists a real danger of our connected devices being compromised in some way or another. Such as IP cameras people have been installing like candy being used in DDoS attacks.
I've said all along, I'd love to see the evidence that these "17 agencies" have proving Russian Government involvement in the DNC hacks, but even if they have zero hard proof, we still need to take our digital security more serious than we currently do.
The change to Clinton and Benghazi was done to show the hypocrisy of the stories and the parties. The election is over. It's done. So "What does that matter now?" It matters because it's time to move on and focus on the future and preventing any future issues that would undermine our election.
Do you really think they are going to declassify the evidence for you? I wouldn't hold my breath. Thanks for reminding me, F Wikileaks