PDA

View Full Version : Limbaugh's Valid Question




osan
03-20-2017, 07:25 PM
Today Limbaugh brought up a very sound point relating to the various shriekings by the "left" regarding the allegations of election hacking by Russia: if the hacking happened, then where is the evidence? By now, the lefties would have had it in hand, screaming so the Martians would hear their cacophanous haranguing. But there is nothing.

He related that when asked for evidence, Limbaugh reported that Comey refused, citing "ongoing investigations". Limbaugh then asked the very astute question about the nature of the hack. If the election was hacked, what was the general nature of the attack? Vote flipping? Something else? It is not only a key and valid question, it is one that could be answered without compromising any possible investigation.

A body is found and the death is reported as a murder. On what basis is murder asserted? The evidence could be reported in general terms without giving away anything essential about it. Were there gunshot wounds? Evidence of blunt force? Knife wounds? That much could usually be stated, and most often is, without compromising ongoing investigations. The same could be said about the allegations of Russian interference in the most recent presidential election. Doing so would boost the nearly non-existent credibility of both Comey and his FBI. And yet, the hold their otherwise copious noisemaking. This suggests to me not that they are the intrepid, honorable, and capable investigators seeking the truth for the benefit of "the people", but a raft of transparently biased hacks who are using the prerogatives concomitant with their positions for the purposes of advancing an agenda the agency from which the agency is supposed to be wholly separated. To my eyes, the only thing Comey is succeeding at is to make himself look like a rank criminal, not even rising to the standard and status of a lowly and vile street criminal.

The question in my mind is, why? Why is he seeming so transparently corrupt? Someone must have him by the spheres. Or perhaps he is just another cheap and artlessly corrupt political hack, so confident of his ability to waggle his thing in the face of America with impunity that he simply stooges on no matter what "we" think, say, or want.

One can but wonder about the truth behind all this.

Anti Federalist
03-20-2017, 07:35 PM
Comey is closely tied to the Clinton machine.

And when you cross them, you're liable to wind up dead.

CPUd
03-20-2017, 07:35 PM
Rand has talked about it a few times- when these intel guys come to committee, you have to ask them very specific questions that are not always directed to what you are wanting to find out.

juleswin
03-20-2017, 07:55 PM
Today Limbaugh brought up a very sound point relating to the various shriekings by the "left" regarding the allegations of election hacking by Russia: if the hacking happened, then where is the evidence? By now, the lefties would have had it in hand, screaming so the Martians would hear their cacophanous haranguing. But there is nothing.

He related that when asked for evidence, Limbaugh reported that Comey refused, citing "ongoing investigations". Limbaugh then asked the very astute question about the nature of the hack. If the election was hacked, what was the general nature of the attack? Vote flipping? Something else? It is not only a key and valid question, it is one that could be answered without compromising any possible investigation.

A body is found and the death is reported as a murder. On what basis is murder asserted? The evidence could be reported in general terms without giving away anything essential about it. Were there gunshot wounds? Evidence of blunt force? Knife wounds? That much could usually be stated, and most often is, without compromising ongoing investigations. The same could be said about the allegations of Russian interference in the most recent presidential election. Doing so would boost the nearly non-existent credibility of both Comey and his FBI. And yet, the hold their otherwise copious noisemaking. This suggests to me not that they are the intrepid, honorable, and capable investigators seeking the truth for the benefit of "the people", but a raft of transparently biased hacks who are using the prerogatives concomitant with their positions for the purposes of advancing an agenda the agency from which the agency is supposed to be wholly separated. To my eyes, the only thing Comey is succeeding at is to make himself look like a rank criminal, not even rising to the standard and status of a lowly and vile street criminal.

The question in my mind is, why? Why is he seeming so transparently corrupt? Someone must have him by the spheres. Or perhaps he is just another cheap and artlessly corrupt political hack, so confident of his ability to waggle his thing in the face of America with impunity that he simply stooges on no matter what "we" think, say, or want.

One can but wonder about the truth behind all this.

My red flag went up the moment you said Limbaugh "brought up a good point". I immediately checked the skies to see if there was a blue moon and when I didn't see one, I decided to dissect what he said.

The problem with his line of thinking is that he doesn't actually know what the argument is or he is just trying to build a strawman which he can then easily burn down to make himself look smart. You see, when the democrats say the Russians hacked the elections, they are primarily talking about the hack of the DNC emails, nobody is saying that they hacked the voting machines. For the website, the CIA/FBI said that it was hacked using a well known Russian govt hacking program. Why the Russians would use a well known Russian hacking program to hack into the DNC. or how they came to the idea that hacking the DNC would somehow help Trump is a much better question to ask.

For the evidence, we just kinda have to take their word for it cos its not like anyone here can tell the difference between the so called evidence and the 1 and 0 code from the matrix.

This is Limbaugh at his best, pretending to be smart by asking questions that can be answered with google search engine. In conclusion, the hack in question is the hack of the DNC, the evidence is probably a bunch of codes non programmer people like Limbaugh cannot understand and the man is not astute.

jmdrake
03-20-2017, 08:34 PM
My red flag went up the moment you said Limbaugh "brought up a good point". I immediately checked the skies to see if there was a blue moon and when I didn't see one, I decided to dissect what he said.

The problem with his line of thinking is that he doesn't actually know what the argument is or he is just trying to build a strawman which he can then easily burn down to make himself look smart. You see, when the democrats say the Russians hacked the elections, they are primarily talking about the hack of the DNC emails, nobody is saying that they hacked the voting machines. For the website, the CIA/FBI said that it was hacked using a well known Russian govt hacking program. Why the Russians would use a well known Russian hacking program to hack into the DNC. or how they came to the idea that hacking the DNC would somehow help Trump is a much better question to ask.

For the evidence, we just kinda have to take their word for it cos its not like anyone here can tell the difference between the so called evidence and the 1 and 0 code from the matrix.

This is Limbaugh at his best, pretending to be smart by asking questions that can be answered with google search engine. In conclusion, the hack in question is the hack of the DNC, the evidence is probably a bunch of codes non programmer people like Limbaugh cannot understand and the man is not astute.

Right. But there's a question behind the question. Is a hack that shows the democrats cheated Bernie Sanders out of the primary really a hack of the general election? Why should a hack that exposes illegal activities itself be illegal? Is this the rare case where two wrongs actually do make a right? Every time I hear honest democrats get incensed about the so called Russian hack of the election and I bring up "But was what Hillary and her allies did to Bernie Sanders okay" they typically lower their voices and say "Well you have a point there."

osan
03-20-2017, 08:38 PM
My red flag went up the moment you said Limbaugh "brought up a good point". I immediately checked the skies to see if there was a blue moon and when I didn't see one, I decided to dissect what he said.

The problem with his line of thinking is that he doesn't actually know what the argument is or he is just trying to build a strawman which he can then easily burn down to make himself look smart. You see, when the democrats say the Russians hacked the elections, they are primarily talking about the hack of the DNC emails, nobody is saying that they hacked the voting machines. For the website, the CIA/FBI said that it was hacked using a well known Russian govt hacking program. Why the Russians would use a well known Russian hacking program to hack into the DNC. or how they came to the idea that hacking the DNC would somehow help Trump is a much better question to ask.

For the evidence, we just kinda have to take their word for it cos its not like anyone here can tell the difference between the so called evidence and the 1 and 0 code from the matrix.

This is Limbaugh at his best, pretending to be smart by asking questions that can be answered with google search engine. In conclusion, the hack in question is the hack of the DNC, the evidence is probably a bunch of codes non programmer people like Limbaugh cannot understand and the man is not astute.

Huh... I would not have given him so much credit for oblique strategies.

Are you certain of this? Not saying you're wrong, just wondering how sure you are. I am generally not that good at the personality analysis thing. Limbaugh surprised me with the seeming sobriety of what he said, as well as how. Now you toss a wrench in it, exposing my possible inadequate skepticism. Perhaps I may excuse myself due to the shock and attendant cognitive dissonance at hearing what I thought was rational, sober speak by Mr. Limbaugh. :)

But seriously, because I do not listen to such people, save on rarest occasions, I am not familiar with their common modes and, perhaps, tricks. I, therefore, often suck at judging their sincerity, honesty, and capacities.

juleswin
03-20-2017, 09:02 PM
Huh... I would not have given him so much credit for oblique strategies.

Are you certain of this? Not saying you're wrong, just wondering how sure you are. I am generally not that good at the personality analysis thing. Limbaugh surprised me with the seeming sobriety of what he said, as well as how. Now you toss a wrench in it, exposing my possible inadequate skepticism. Perhaps I may excuse myself due to the shock and attendant cognitive dissonance at hearing what I thought was rational, sober speak by Mr. Limbaugh. :)

But seriously, because I do not listen to such people, save on rarest occasions, I am not familiar with their common modes and, perhaps, tricks. I, therefore, often suck at judging their sincerity, honesty, and capacities.

Again, I haven't seen the evidence that showed that the program used for the DNC hack was similar to the program Russian govt uses but I have read articles from people opposed to the FBI/CIA story and they don't even argue against this evidence. Their point is that anyone could have used the program and that it is not exclusive to the Russian govt.

But again, Limbaugh is missing the point of contention. Regardless of the word choice, the democrats are not actually saying that the Russians rigged the voting boxes when they say "the Russians rigged the election". What they are saying is that they hacked the DNC website and together with Russia today (which nobody not a news junkie watches) and outfits like wikileaks put on a disinformation campaign that then fooled the American people into voting for Trump. This is where all the fake news meme originated.

For Limbaugh, I have listened to him long enough to know that his intentions are bad. The few times I agree with him our rationales for coming to the same conclusion was always different. The man is a controlled and compromised opposition.

oyarde
03-20-2017, 11:16 PM
Rand has talked about it a few times- when these intel guys come to committee, you have to ask them very specific questions that are not always directed to what you are wanting to find out.

That is because they have no intention of talking about anything in detail they do not wish to . Quite frankly the mouthpeice himself no matter how high up does not even know exactly what is going on in the field at various stations .

CPUd
03-20-2017, 11:18 PM
That is because they have no intention of talking about anything in detail they do not wish to . Quite frankly the mouthpeice himself no matter how high up does not even know exactly what is going on in the field at various stations .

Sometimes they go for the "least untruthful" answer.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rt4wjL1IvSY

jmdrake
03-21-2017, 01:28 AM
But again, Limbaugh is missing the point of contention. Regardless of the word choice, the democrats are not actually saying that the Russians rigged the voting boxes when they say "the Russians rigged the election". What they are saying is that they hacked the DNC website and together with Russia today (which nobody not a news junkie watches) and outfits like wikileaks put on a disinformation campaign that then fooled the American people into voting for Trump. This is where all the fake news meme originated.

But that's just it. It wasn't disinformation. Nobody has tried to claim that anything put out from Wikileaks or RT regarding the shenanigans of Hillary et all aren't true. Donna Brazille fed debate questions to Hillary. Debbie Wasserman Shultz did all she could to swing everything to Hillary. What am I missing?

H. E. Panqui
03-21-2017, 05:22 AM
What am I missing?

...ruse limbaugh is a propagandist working to promote the stinking republican party inc...always has...

...republican party inc. radio $ale$men use any method available to them to promote the stinking rotten bank$ter-owned republican party inc...and/or to demote the stinking rotten bank$ter-owned democrat party inc..OR TO SHIFT THE FOCUS AWAY FROM GUILTY/CORRUPT ORANGE TEAM-MATE$...

...the loud, peckerhead limbaugh has had a major microphone for close to thirty years...and still the republican-cheerleading fool has NEVER, to my knowledge, uttered an honest intelligent sentence as to the monetary fraud under which we are en$laved, abu$ed, etc..

...imagine what an honest, intelligent monetary realist [who took HONEST phone calls from participants/listeners] could've done with the thousands of hours filled by limbaugh's absolute monetary ignorance, all-around peckerheadedness...

jmdrake
03-21-2017, 06:40 AM
...ruse limbaugh is a propagandist working to promote the stinking republican party inc...always has...

...republican party inc. radio $ale$men use any method available to them to promote the stinking rotten bank$ter-owned republican party inc...and/or to demote the stinking rotten bank$ter-owned democrat party inc..OR TO SHIFT THE FOCUS AWAY FROM GUILTY/CORRUPT ORANGE TEAM-MATE$...

...the loud, peckerhead limbaugh has had a major microphone for close to thirty years...and still the republican-cheerleading fool has NEVER, to my knowledge, uttered an honest intelligent sentence as to the monetary fraud under which we are en$laved, abu$ed, etc..

...imagine what an honest, intelligent monetary realist [who took HONEST phone calls from participants/listeners] could've done with the thousands of hours filled by limbaugh's absolute monetary ignorance, all-around peckerheadedness...

Ummmm....no I haven't missed that. I don't like Limbaugh. But broken clocks are right twice a day. And in this case Limbaugh is right that exposing DNC corruption in the primary process is not the same as hacking the general election and it sure as hell isn't a "disinformation campaign."

Madison320
03-21-2017, 08:06 AM
What would happen if the FBI found a "smoking gun" call between Trump and a Russian? Then they'd have to admit they "wiretapped" him. My guess is they'd say they weren't "wiretapping" him, they were "blah, blah, blah ..."

TheCount
03-21-2017, 08:24 AM
What would happen if the FBI found a "smoking gun" call between Trump and a Russian? Then they'd have to admit they "wiretapped" him. My guess is they'd say they weren't "wiretapping" him, they were "blah, blah, blah ..."

If they were wiretapping the Russians, then they would have collected the communications anyway. This is what happened to Flynn.

Jan2017
03-21-2017, 08:34 AM
If they were wiretapping the Russians, then they would have collected the communications anyway. This is what happened to Flynn.

Exactly . . . Russian whoever Flynn was talking to was being wiretapped.

According to Gowdy/Comey at yesterday's hearing, some authority would usually have to ask that the US citizen in those conversations be unmasked -
the agency that actually did the wiretap would have to do the unmasking to get Flynn's name. Not usually the FBI if foreigner is outside US.

The felony is that someone went to the media with that name then . . . I'll guess Loretta Lynch's department.

Rand has also said over the weekend in Stephanapolous interview, that person(s) should go to jail.

Madison320
03-21-2017, 08:35 AM
If they were wiretapping the Russians, then they would have collected the communications anyway. This is what happened to Flynn.

Yeah, I guess they can always use that excuse. "We weren't wiretapping you, we were wiretapping the other guy!"

timosman
03-21-2017, 08:47 AM
If they were wiretapping the Russians, then they would have collected the communications anyway. This is what happened to Flynn.

The trolls are working overtime. Another battle? :cool:

TheCount
03-21-2017, 09:17 AM
Yeah, I guess they can always use that excuse. "We weren't wiretapping you, we were wiretapping the other guy!"That's how wiretaps work, unless you'd like to argue that a single wiretap against anyone is actually wiretapping the entire world because theoretically anyone could call that person.

timosman
03-21-2017, 09:24 AM
That's how wiretaps work, unless you'd like to argue that a single wiretap against anyone is actually wiretapping the entire world because theoretically anyone could call that person.

The likelihood of this excuse working for the entire world - 0.0%. There was something special about both Flynn and Trump so they could get caught by the innocent dragnet setup for the limited purpose of catching a few bad Russians.:cool:

TheCount
03-21-2017, 09:31 AM
The likelihood of this excuse working for the entire world - 0.0%. There was something special about both Flynn and Trump so they could get caught by the innocent dragnet setup for the limited purpose of catching a few bad Russians.:cool:I would imagine that the government would wiretap all of the foreign agents operating within the United States as a matter of course.

The special thing about Flynn and other members of Trump's campaign staff was that they communicated with foreign agents. Flynn himself was on the payroll of multiple foreign countries.

timosman
03-21-2017, 09:35 AM
I would imagine that the government would wiretap all of the foreign agents operating within the United States as a matter of course.

The special thing about Flynn and other members of Trump's campaign staff was that they communicated with foreign agents. Flynn himself was on the payroll of multiple foreign countries.

What is a foreign agent? Should I change my kebab vendor? :eek:

TheCount
03-21-2017, 09:39 AM
What is a foreign agent? Should I change my kebab vendor? :eek:
A foreign agent is anyone who actively carries out the interests of a foreign country while located in another host country

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Foreign_agent



The Foreign Agents Registration Act (FARA) is a United States law (22 U.S.C. § 611 et seq.) passed in 1938 requiring that agents representing the interests of foreign powers in a "political or quasi-political capacity" disclose their relationship with the foreign government and information about related activities and finances.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Foreign_Agents_Registration_Act

Madison320
03-21-2017, 10:04 AM
That's how wiretaps work, unless you'd like to argue that a single wiretap against anyone is actually wiretapping the entire world because theoretically anyone could call that person.

If they can get a court order to investigate one guy, and they can use all the incoming calls as evidence against the incoming callers, then yes, you are theoretically wiretapping the entire world. Are you allowed to use incoming calls as evidence? I honestly don't know.

Anyway it seems like a helluva coincidence. Right before the election they just happen to inadvertently record Trump while they were investigating a totally unrelated matter. And why did the NY Times article say they were investigating Trump? Why didn't say they were investigating a Russia guy? Why would Trump make it up? The whole thing makes no sense.

Anyway, like I've said before, this is meaningless. Wake me up when Trump does something worse than all the horrible things that occurred under Obama's watch. I'm not a fan of Trump and my guess is he will so some things that are as bad. But not yet.

TheCount
03-21-2017, 10:32 AM
If they can get a court order to investigate one guy, and they can use all the incoming calls as evidence against the incoming callers, then yes, you are theoretically wiretapping the entire world. Are you allowed to use incoming calls as evidence? I honestly don't know.Wiretaps at one time were literally tapping the wire to their phone. Yes, it records both incoming and outgoing calls. No, they do not need a new warrant for every single person who contacts or is contacted by the subject of the original warrant.



Anyway it seems like a helluva coincidence. Right before the election they just happen to inadvertently record Trump while they were investigating a totally unrelated matter. And why did the NY Times article say they were investigating Trump? Why didn't say they were investigating a Russia guy? Why would Trump make it up? The whole thing makes no sense.

I haven't heard anyone say that Trump himself was wiretapped or investigated - except Trump himself and his various mouthpieces. They're denying claims that no one is making to build up a series of strawmen in order to distract the conversation from the actual topic.

Nobody claims Trump did something directly - "Trump was wiretapped! He didn't do anything!" - investigation reveals information about other people in Trump campaign but not Trump - "See, we told you Trump didn't do anything!"

Nobody claims Russia directly affected voting machines - "Russia didn't hack the election to change the votes!" - investigation reveals Russia tried to affect the election but not by hacking voting machines - "See, we told you the Russians didn't change the votes!"

Madison320
03-21-2017, 10:45 AM
Wiretaps at one time were literally tapping the wire to their phone. Yes, it records both incoming and outgoing calls. No, they do not need a new warrant for every single person who contacts or is contacted by the subject of the original warrant.




I haven't heard anyone say that Trump himself was wiretapped or investigated - except Trump himself and his various mouthpieces. They're denying claims that no one is making to build up a series of strawmen in order to distract the conversation from the actual topic.

Nobody claims Trump did something directly - "Trump was wiretapped! He didn't do anything!" - investigation reveals information about other people in Trump campaign but not Trump - "See, we told you Trump didn't do anything!"

Nobody claims Russia directly affected voting machines - "Russia didn't hack the election to change the votes!" - investigation reveals Russia tried to affect the election but not by hacking voting machines - "See, we told you the Russians didn't change the votes!"

Like I said, this is a big story about nothing. Let me know when Trump actually does something remotely in the same league as all the horrible things that happened under Obama's watch.

TheCount
03-21-2017, 10:55 AM
Like I said, this is a big story about nothing. Let me know when Trump actually does something remotely in the same league as all the horrible things that happened under Obama's watch.#1: It's not about Trump.

#2: Caring about Obama vs. Trump is juvenile. Obama is Obama. Trump is Trump. If we only oppose the things of current leaders which are worse than what past leaders did, then over time eventually everything will become acceptable. Should we not complain about Trump's health care plan because we should only judge it on the basis of Obamacare? Obviously not.

We should support or oppose things on their own merits and not on the basis of comparison.

timosman
03-21-2017, 11:24 AM
We should support or oppose things on their own merits and not on the basis of comparison.

You sound awfully suspicious today. Has your account been hijacked? I much preferred your comedy routine. :cool:

Madison320
03-21-2017, 12:48 PM
#1: It's not about Trump.

#2: Caring about Obama vs. Trump is juvenile. Obama is Obama. Trump is Trump. If we only oppose the things of current leaders which are worse than what past leaders did, then over time eventually everything will become acceptable. Should we not complain about Trump's health care plan because we should only judge it on the basis of Obamacare? Obviously not.

We should support or oppose things on their own merits and not on the basis of comparison.

I agree, but in this case what did Trump do wrong?

Also I have another question that's bugging me. You've claimed that Trump was inadvertently snagged while they were "wiretapping" a Russian guy. How do you know that? How do you know they weren't "wiretapping" Trump and inadvertently snagged the Russian guy?

Edit: Actually now that I think about it, comparing Trump to Obama, Bush, etc, is important. You have to have some perspective. You can't treat a parking ticket the same as murder. It's all relative.

Do you agree that up to this point Trump has done nothing serious compared to past presidents?

CPUd
03-21-2017, 01:19 PM
I agree, but in this case what did Trump do wrong?

Also I have another question that's bugging me. You've claimed that Trump was inadvertently snagged while they were "wiretapping" a Russian guy. How do you know that? How do you know they weren't "wiretapping" Trump and inadvertently snagged the Russian guy?

The FBI all but admitted a few weeks ago that Kislyak's calls were intercepted as a matter of procedure, which implies Americans were not the target. Sally Yates went to the White House to inform them that Flynn was on some of the calls.

Madison320
03-21-2017, 01:32 PM
The FBI all but admitted a few weeks ago that Kislyak's calls were intercepted as a matter of procedure, which implies Americans were not the target. Sally Yates went to the White House to inform them that Flynn was on some of the calls.

Because the FBI said so? That's the proof?

TheCount
03-21-2017, 05:01 PM
I agree, but in this case what did Trump do wrong?


#1: It's not about Trump.



You've claimed that Trump was inadvertently snagged while they were "wiretapping" a Russian guy.

Please show me where I claimed that.



Do you agree that up to this point Trump has done nothing serious compared to past presidents?


#1: It's not about Trump.

Madison320
03-22-2017, 08:38 AM
Please show me where I claimed that.

"If they were wiretapping the Russians, then they would have collected the communications anyway. This is what happened to Flynn. "

TheCount
03-22-2017, 11:42 AM
"If they were wiretapping the Russians, then they would have collected the communications anyway. This is what happened to Flynn. "404: Trump not found.

The only person claiming that this investigation is about Trump himself is... Trump himself. And his surrogates. As I mentioned earlier, likely to distract from any actual results regarding his campaign staff.



#1: It's not about Trump.

Madison320
03-22-2017, 12:03 PM
404: Trump not found.

The only person claiming that this investigation is about Trump himself is... Trump himself. And his surrogates. As I mentioned earlier, likely to distract from any actual results regarding his campaign staff.

You can't be serious. I'm starting to feel like I'm getting trolled.

"Intercepted Russian Communications Part of Inquiry Into Trump Associates"

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/01/19/us/politics/trump-russia-associates-investigation.html?_r=0

"Donald Trump is under investigation for ties to Russia. What happens now?"

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2017/mar/21/fbi-trump-russia-house-intelligence-committee


"FBI Director Comey confirms probe of possible coordination between Kremlin and Trump campaign"

https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/fbi-director-to-testify-on-russian-interference-in-the-presidential-election/2017/03/20/cdea86ca-0ce2-11e7-9d5a-a83e627dc120_story.html?utm_term=.e1d5ad25c8ca

TheCount
03-22-2017, 12:19 PM
You can't be serious. I'm starting to feel like I'm getting trolled.

"Intercepted Russian Communications Part of Inquiry Into Trump Associates"

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/01/19/us/politics/trump-russia-associates-investigation.html?_r=0

"Donald Trump is under investigation for ties to Russia. What happens now?"

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2017/mar/21/fbi-trump-russia-house-intelligence-committee


"FBI Director Comey confirms probe of possible coordination between Kremlin and Trump campaign"

https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/fbi-director-to-testify-on-russian-interference-in-the-presidential-election/2017/03/20/cdea86ca-0ce2-11e7-9d5a-a83e627dc120_story.html?utm_term=.e1d5ad25c8caAgai n: Literally no one is claiming that there was some kind of direct communication between Trump himself and the Russians. Trying to make the story about wiretaps on Trump himself is an obvious preparation for the investigation to release things that are unfavorable to the Trump campaign and administration.

Madison320
03-22-2017, 12:31 PM
Again: Literally no one is claiming that there was some kind of direct communication between Trump himself and the Russians. Trying to make the story about wiretaps on Trump himself is an obvious preparation for the investigation to release things that are unfavorable to the Trump campaign and administration.

So if Trump would've said the FBI was wiretapping "his associates", that would've been ok?

TheCount
03-22-2017, 12:43 PM
So if Trump would've said the FBI was wiretapping "his associates", that would've been ok?Only if he's right. He still probably would have been wrong, unless there were warrants for those people. As I said in my original post, more than likely their communications were collected when they contacted foreign agents and not as a result of wiretap orders upon them personally.

Weston White
03-23-2017, 12:47 AM
https://www.infowars.com/house-intelligence-committee-chairman-trump-transition-team-was-under-surveillance/
https://www.infowars.com/fox-news-pulls-napolitano-after-his-trump-wiretap-claims/
https://www.infowars.com/rand-paul-somebody-was-spying-on-the-trump-campaign-flynn-lost-his-job-because-of-it/
https://www.infowars.com/maxine-waters-to-trump-get-ready-for-impeachment/