Something-gate: Trump claims Obama bugged Trump Tower.

[Xing]

So... are we ever getting that evidence? No? Cool, tells me all that I need to know.

[EnglishPete]

So... are we ever getting that evidence? No? Cool, tells me all that I need to know.

You can see the evidence here if you're interested

https://youtube.com/watch?v=91fNfGjZdM0

The evidence above isn't disputed and certainly warrants further investigation. Its certainly more solid  than the deeply flimsy 'evidence' for the alleged Trump/Russian hacking links accusations.

The question now is are Congressional Republicans going to protect Obama and his administration from serious investigation of these matters whilst going after Trump? Its not just Trump supporters but even well known conservative commentators from the 'Trump sceptic' wing of the party, like Hugh Hewett and National Review who are saying that the evidence against Obama here merits further serious investigation.

How are Republicans facing mid term primary and general election campaign next year going to explain it if they support protecting Obama from such investigation?

[Dr. Arch]

So... are we ever getting that evidence? No? Cool, tells me all that I need to know.

You can see the evidence here if you're interested

https://youtube.com/watch?v=91fNfGjZdM0

The evidence above isn't disputed and certainly warrants further investigation. Its certainly more solid  than the deeply flimsy 'evidence' for the alleged Trump/Russian hacking links accusations.

The question now is are Congressional Republicans going to protect Obama and his administration from serious investigation of these matters whilst going after Trump? Its not just Trump supporters but even well known conservative commentators from the 'Trump sceptic' wing of the party, like Hugh Hewett and National Review who are saying that the evidence against Obama here merits further serious investigation.

How are Republicans facing mid term primary and general election campaign next year going to explain it if they support protecting Obama from such investigation?

Your unbalanced standard of evidence is the cutest things ever, really.

[Hindsight was 2020]

So... are we ever getting that evidence? No? Cool, tells me all that I need to know.

You can see the evidence here if you're interested

https://youtube.com/watch?v=91fNfGjZdM0

The evidence above isn't disputed and certainly warrants further investigation. Its certainly more solid  than the deeply flimsy 'evidence' for the alleged Trump/Russian hacking links accusations.

The question now is are Congressional Republicans going to protect Obama and his administration from serious investigation of these matters whilst going after Trump? Its not just Trump supporters but even well known conservative commentators from the 'Trump sceptic' wing of the party, like Hugh Hewett and National Review who are saying that the evidence against Obama here merits further serious investigation.

How are Republicans facing mid term primary and general election campaign next year going to explain it if they support protecting Obama from such investigation?

Your unbalanced standard of evidence is the cutest things ever, really.

Seriously, I called him out in that yesterday. His partisan hypocrisy is mind numbing

[Absentee Voting Ghost of Ruin]

Spicer: WH/President will not comment further until "politically motivated investigations" are looked into by Congress alongside Russian influence

https://twitter.com/PressSec/status/838386005459763200 (1/4 in a thread)

So, they're gagging Pussygrabber and putting him in a straightjacket?

Either way, I'm pretty sure that going a week without ranting on twitter or in public will give him a stroke. So, win for the good guys, I guess?

[EnglishPete]

So... are we ever getting that evidence? No? Cool, tells me all that I need to know.

You can see the evidence here if you're interested

https://youtube.com/watch?v=91fNfGjZdM0

The evidence above isn't disputed and certainly warrants further investigation. Its certainly more solid  than the deeply flimsy 'evidence' for the alleged Trump/Russian hacking links accusations.

The question now is are Congressional Republicans going to protect Obama and his administration from serious investigation of these matters whilst going after Trump? Its not just Trump supporters but even well known conservative commentators from the 'Trump sceptic' wing of the party, like Hugh Hewett and National Review who are saying that the evidence against Obama here merits further serious investigation.

How are Republicans facing mid term primary and general election campaign next year going to explain it if they support protecting Obama from such investigation?

Your unbalanced standard of evidence is the cutest things ever, really.

Doesn't matter what my standard of evidence is or your standard of evidence is. Various major Republican commentators such as Hugh Hewitt, Mark Levin and Rush Limbaugh all think that the evidence heavily indicates serious wrongdoing on the part of Obama that merits further serious investigation. You might not like any of those people but they are more popular and well read and well respected amongst Republican supporters than others like Bill Kristel and David Brooks who might disagree. The former are likely to be much more representative of popular opinion on this matter amongst Republican voters than the latter. I suspect that when the first polling evidence comes out on this question it will confirm that.

Republican lawmakers are going to come under significant pressure to extend the investigation into questions of possible wrongdoing by the Obama administration. I'm really not sure what you think their great motivation for resisting that pressure would be?

[Absentee Voting Ghost of Ruin]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

http://foreignpolicy.com/2017/03/03/trump-white-house-shopping-for-technology-to-plug-leaks/

I'm not super familiar with the mechanisms that have been used for leaks, but isn't there only so much you can do within the White House itself? What's to stop a staffer going home and e-mailing someone in the press with their home computer?

Honestly, nothing. Could also meet media in, say, a parking garage at night

There's more to it than that. While a private employer has a great deal of leeway in how they treat their employees, the government does not. While random phone searches on Trump Organization employees (with a penalty of firing with case for those refusing), doing the same thing to White House staff without explicitly invoking national security is almost certainly illegal.

 are almost certainly illegal.

[Crumpets]

So... are we ever getting that evidence? No? Cool, tells me all that I need to know.

You can see the evidence here if you're interested

https://youtube.com/watch?v=91fNfGjZdM0

The evidence above isn't disputed and certainly warrants further investigation. Its certainly more solid  than the deeply flimsy 'evidence' for the alleged Trump/Russian hacking links accusations.

The question now is are Congressional Republicans going to protect Obama and his administration from serious investigation of these matters whilst going after Trump? Its not just Trump supporters but even well known conservative commentators from the 'Trump sceptic' wing of the party, like Hugh Hewett and National Review who are saying that the evidence against Obama here merits further serious investigation.

How are Republicans facing mid term primary and general election campaign next year going to explain it if they support protecting Obama from such investigation?

Your unbalanced standard of evidence is the cutest things ever, really.

Doesn't matter what my standard of evidence is or your standard of evidence is. Various major Republican commentators such as Hugh Hewitt, Mark Levin and Rush Limbaugh all think that the evidence heavily indicates serious wrongdoing on the part of Obama that merits further serious investigation. You might not like any of those people but they are more popular and well read and well respected amongst Republican supporters than others like Bill Kristel and David Brooks who might disagree. The former are likely to be much more representative of popular opinion on this matter amongst Republican voters than the latter. I suspect that when the first polling evidence comes out on this question it will confirm that.

Republican lawmakers are going to come under significant pressure to extend the investigation into questions of possible wrongdoing by the Obama administration. I'm really not sure what you think their great motivation for resisting that pressure would be?

I can't wait to see the Trey Gowdy and Jason Chaffetz hearing of Obama. That would be flippin' fantastic. Plus, even if there is something there, it would almost certainly have been part of a legal investigation, in which case we would get a tremendous amount of dirt on Trump.

[EnglishPete]

Spicer: WH/President will not comment further until "politically motivated investigations" are looked into by Congress alongside Russian influence

https://twitter.com/PressSec/status/838386005459763200 (1/4 in a thread)

So, they're gagging Pussygrabber and putting him in a straightjacket?

Either way, I'm pretty sure that going a week without ranting on twitter or in public will give him a stroke. So, win for the good guys, I guess?

No. They're putting pressure on Congressional Republicans to extend their investigations to questions of the Obama administration's role and possible wrongdoing in all this. If Congressional Republicans get growing pressure both from the White House and from the party in the country (which they will) then what on earth do you think will be their big motivation for resisting that pressure?

[Torie]

Pete, you seem to be mixing up politics and evidence. Just who is popular with Trump fans and/or enablers, and who is not, does not seem to have any nexus, as to who is more creditable as to the current lay of the land as to the gravitas of Trump's so far undocumented allegations. And Trump has a track record of never letting accuracy get in the way of generating buzz, so that he dominates the news cycle, particularly if there is another cycle in play (like the Sessions fiasco), that he wants to get off the front page.

[EnglishPete]

Pete, you seem to be mixing up politics and evidence. Just who is popular with Trump fans and/or enablers, and who is not, does not seem to have any nexus, as to who is more creditable as to the current lay of the land as to the gravitas of Trump's so far undocumented allegations.

I've already linked to the evidence. As for who is more credible the question is who is more credible with whom. The people pushing the line that these are baseless accusations are liberal media outlets (NBC, CNN, NYT etc) which polling shows have extremely low credibility with Republican voters.

[Mad Deadly Worldwide Communist Gangster Computer God]

Pete, you seem to be mixing up politics and evidence. Just who is popular with Trump fans and/or enablers, and who is not, does not seem to have any nexus, as to who is more creditable as to the current lay of the land as to the gravitas of Trump's so far undocumented allegations.

I've already linked to the evidence. As for who is more credible the question is who is more credible with whom.

No it isn't.  Credibility isn't a matter of personal beliefs or preferences.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Doesn't matter.

[The_Doctor]

Pete, you seem to be mixing up politics and evidence. Just who is popular with Trump fans and/or enablers, and who is not, does not seem to have any nexus, as to who is more creditable as to the current lay of the land as to the gravitas of Trump's so far undocumented allegations. And Trump has a track record of never letting accuracy get in the way of generating buzz, so that he dominates the news cycle, particularly if there is another cycle in play (like the Sessions fiasco), that he wants to get off the front page.

Also any investigation of Trump would need a sign off from FBI Director James Comey, who voted Romney in 2012 and is a registered Republican. If there was in fact an investigation of Trump it came with Comey authorising the wiretap request before a federal judge. Given Comey; a role in 2016 he wouldn't have ever made that judgment unless he could justify it before Congress.

In short: either there's a smoking gun and Comey knows it in which case Trump is in trouble or there's nothing as Tom Cotton acknowledges.

[Virginiá]

Doesn't matter what my standard of evidence is or your standard of evidence is. Various major Republican commentators such as Hugh Hewitt, Mark Levin and Rush Limbaugh all think that the evidence heavily indicates serious wrongdoing on the part of Obama that merits further serious investigation.

Why didn't you say before that many prominent conservative talk radio hosts such as Rush Limbaugh believed this conspiracy was true? This accusation clearly has merit. Congress would be foolish to not act now.

[Dr. Arch]

Jake Tapper just now on twitter:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

So Trump has zero evidence he was wiretapped. He got the story completely from Breitbart/Levin. This man's stupidity knows no bounds.

Trump needs to go back to Obama's birth certificate/ Vaccines/ Ted Cruz's father & Lee Harvey Oswald / crowd sizes/ Vince Foster / Murder rate / 3-5 illegal votes

lol  lol  lol

This is just downright sad for us as a country.

[Frodo]

So Sanchez what are your thoughts on the best response to the Bowling Green Massacre and the recent terrorist attack in Sweden.

Trump's history of making stuff up goes way beyond those two stories.   There was a documentary on PBS referencing a story about a horrible rape in New York City in the late 1980s, in which five black men were wrongfully accused by the police of brutally gang-raping, beating, and murdering a white woman doing her evening jog in Central Park -and of course, Trump egged them on in the press, calling them 'animals'.  To this day, even though they were exonerated, he still believes they did it. 

http://www.newyorker.com/news/amy-davidson/donald-trump-and-the-central-park-five

[SteveRogers]

Imagine if someone tweeted something like this about Trump. He'd be threatening a defamation suit right now. Trump is lucky Obama is too classy for that

[Middle-aged Europe]

Jake Tapper just now on twitter:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

So Trump has zero evidence he was wiretapped. He got the story completely from Breitbart/Levin. This man's stupidity knows no bounds.

So, it's basically the same thing as the "last night in Sweden" stuff.

Trump distrusts the intelligence agencies. So, instead of getting his information from them he chooses to watch Fox News and read Breitbart. And since Fox News and Breitbart only say good things about him and his administration they must be reliable sources, right? So, when he sees something on Fox News or Breitbart he agrees with, he assumes that it must be true. And then he writes about it on Twitter...

[ApatheticAustrian]

like all others too, FBI chief Comey asks the justice department to reject Trump's claims.


Comey Asks Justice Dept. to Reject Trump’s Wiretapping Claim
https://www.nytimes.com/2017/03/05/us/politics/trump-seeks-inquiry-into-allegations-that-obama-tapped-his-phones.html?smprod=nytcore-iphone&smid=nytcore-iphone-share

[Hindsight was 2020]

like all others too, FBI chief Comey asks the justice department to reject Trump's claims.


Comey Asks Justice Dept. to Reject Trump’s Wiretapping Claim
https://www.nytimes.com/2017/03/05/us/politics/trump-seeks-inquiry-into-allegations-that-obama-tapped-his-phones.html?smprod=nytcore-iphone&smid=nytcore-iphone-share

So much for that

[Virginiá]

Trump's history of making stuff up goes way beyond those two stories.   There was a documentary on PBS referencing a story about a horrible rape in New York City in the late 1980s, in which five black men were wrongfully accused by the police of brutally gang-raping, beating, and murdering a white woman doing her evening jog in Central Park -and of course, Trump egged them on in the press, calling them 'animals'.  To this day, even though they were exonerated, he still believes they did it. 

Trump is the personification of confirmation bias. He is not a curious man, at least in the idea that he wants to know how things are. He believes he knows how things are already, and he only is curious about things that confirm what he has deluded himself into believing. It's hard to find a better example that is as comprehensive as The Donald.

[Dr. Arch]

Trump is going full mental illness:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

25th coming soon.

[EnglishPete]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

http://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2017/03/hillary-tipped-off-trump-wiretap-tweeted-one-week-prior-election/

[ApatheticAustrian]

not sure if i could trust any information coming from gatewaypundit, reliable source reaganbattalion is most critical of them.

[Trapsy]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

http://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2017/03/hillary-tipped-off-trump-wiretap-tweeted-one-week-prior-election/

jesus christ if you read the italic paragraph this is clearly a response to the slate article.

http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/cover_story/2016/10/was_a_server_registered_to_the_trump_organization_communicating_with_russia.html