Trump accuses Obama of wiretapping

 Pages PREV 1 2 3
 

Mr.Mattress:

Lil devils x:

I am afraid Trump may be the only hope they have at not passing the AHCA that will leave millions unable to afford their life saving treatments and medications.

Think again. He's one of 2 Republicans who's really pushing for the thing to pass! Even though he doesn't want his name on it, he's bullying both Republicans and Democrats to pass it or to face his wrath!

Yea yea, he says that today and then changes his mind like he should change his underwear. Everything is negotiable with Trump, so at least there is the chance for him to change his mind once he sees the actual numbers of people who will lose healthcare. Trump goes off half cocked all the time, he rants about everything and would sell his own mother before he realized that was what he was doing. There is always the potential for Trump to change his mind due to how erratic he is.

He tries to bully everyone on everything.. even bullying Chis Christie to eat meatloaf... That is just his personality, though he ALSO changes his mind about things all over the place so if the hospitals and doctors can get him to change his mind there is hope.

Lil devils x:

Fox12:
Well, he's not wrong.

Obama was just too busy wiretapping you and me to focus on Trump. Fuck the both of them.

Yes, he is wrong and No Obama was not worried about wiretapping you or me. He was too busy with his terror Tuesday's picking out who to kill next with drones to concern himself with tapping you.

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/05/29/world/obamas-leadership-in-war-on-al-qaeda.html

Implying that wiretapping and domestic spying programs didn't grow under his watch? When the Snowden leaks occured during his presidency, and the recent vault 7 reveal? He's no better then Bush or, I'll say it, Trump.

Fox12:

Lil devils x:

Fox12:
Well, he's not wrong.

Obama was just too busy wiretapping you and me to focus on Trump. Fuck the both of them.

Yes, he is wrong and No Obama was not worried about wiretapping you or me. He was too busy with his terror Tuesday's picking out who to kill next with drones to concern himself with tapping you.

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/05/29/world/obamas-leadership-in-war-on-al-qaeda.html

Implying that wiretapping and domestic spying programs didn't grow under his watch? When the Snowden leaks occured during his presidency, and the recent vault 7 reveal? He's no better then Bush or, I'll say it, Trump.

Of course I am not implying they didn't grow under his watch. They did so under both Republicans and democrats. The issue I was stating was he could care less about wiretapping you or me.. he was too busy concerning himself with ordering the killing more than 30,000 terrors suspects to worry about what regular people are chatting about.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2015/12/07/president-obama-likes-to-brag-about-the-terrorists-he-has-taken-out-how-many-is-that-exactly/?utm_term=.9b4e41054218

Oh and if you want someone to really be pissed at, look to congress, who will not even allow people to bring a case against AT&T.
https://www.wired.com/2008/03/att-whistle-blo/
https://www.wired.com/2013/06/nsa-whistleblower-klein/

1) I don't think Bush was a bad guy. Not all that bright, but not a bad guy.

2) Can't say Bush or Obama are as bad as Trump. No way no how are they even comparable. Both Obama and Bush have good intentions. The same cannot be said of Trump. Trump has let his selfish and greedy intentions very well known and is using his position for profit. He has no problem with abuse of power, that is how he has always been. He treats this as no different than his lifetime of abuse of power.

3) Obama increased transparency. Trump has been trying to remove it so people cannot see what he is doing. His ranting about the media was because he does not want them to report what he is doing, he wants them to report what he sends them to report and nothing more, just like he black outed the EPA and parks dept.

4) I do not think Snowden should be prosecuted and see what he did as a service to the US people and constitution.

5) There is no such thing as "privacy" anymore, at least not outside those sitting in the room with you. Online is public space, the thought of being anonymous is an illusion, it isn't real. If someone wants to find you online they will. With cell phones, Smart phones, voip phones, nothing you say on them is private anymore. Calls are intercepted all the time by amateurs these days (google cell phone call intercepted) Kids are doing this these days. It is no surprise the government does too. I do feel bad for those being forced to grow up in a world where everything they ever do is recorded and used against them, but that is the reality we live in now and not necessarily due to the government, but the kids, people did it/ do it to themselves. People are recording others and themselves all over the place now. They do not even need the government to spy on them , hell, people are spying on themselves and others and posting it online now.

Lil devils x:

Yea yea, he says that today and then changes his mind like he should change his underwear. Everything is negotiable with Trump, so at least there is the chance for him to change his mind once he sees the actual numbers of people who will lose healthcare. Trump goes off half cocked all the time, he rants about everything and would sell his own mother before he realized that was what he was doing. There is always the potential for Trump to change his mind due to how erratic he is.

He tries to bully everyone on everything.. even bullying Chis Christie to eat meatloaf... That is just his personality, though he ALSO changes his mind about things all over the place so if the hospitals and doctors can get him to change his mind there is hope.

I'm glad you have even an ounce of confidence left in Trump eventually doing the right thing. Personally, I think he's got it in his head that this is as good as it will get, and that if this fails, either by becoming law and failing or not passing Congress, then he will lose, which he can never allow. And Trump might flip flop on certain issues, but then there are other issues that he absolutely refuses to change his position on despite people telling him it's a bad idea: The Wall, the Immigration Bans, the EPA having too much power, so on and so on. This might be one of those ideas he has that he won't change his mind on.

Considering he doesn't want his name on it, though, that might be a good sign that he'd be willing to abandon it, but until I hear otherwise, I don't think he will abandon it anytime soon...

Mr.Mattress:

Lil devils x:

Yea yea, he says that today and then changes his mind like he should change his underwear. Everything is negotiable with Trump, so at least there is the chance for him to change his mind once he sees the actual numbers of people who will lose healthcare. Trump goes off half cocked all the time, he rants about everything and would sell his own mother before he realized that was what he was doing. There is always the potential for Trump to change his mind due to how erratic he is.

He tries to bully everyone on everything.. even bullying Chis Christie to eat meatloaf... That is just his personality, though he ALSO changes his mind about things all over the place so if the hospitals and doctors can get him to change his mind there is hope.

I'm glad you have even an ounce of confidence left in Trump eventually doing the right thing. Personally, I think he's got it in his head that this is as good as it will get, and that if this fails, either by becoming law and failing or not passing Congress, then he will lose, which he can never allow. And Trump might flip flop on certain issues, but then there are other issues that he absolutely refuses to change his position on despite people telling him it's a bad idea: The Wall, the Immigration Bans, the EPA having too much power, so on and so on. This might be one of those ideas he has that he won't change his mind on.

Considering he doesn't want his name on it, though, that might be a good sign that he'd be willing to abandon it, but until I hear otherwise, I don't think he will abandon it anytime soon...

Not so much having " confidence" in him, but rather having " less confidence" in pence.

So, the Obama wiretap saga continues, against all odds. Congress had given the Justice Department a deadline of this Monday (so today/yesterday depending on your timezone,) to provide whatever evidence they had that any sort of illegal monitoring was afoot. Or, hey, monitoring at all. The Justice Department, surprise surprise, requested that they receive an extension on that deadline because, and I do here quote from their spokesperson, they wanted; "additional time to review the request in compliance with the governing legal authorities and to determine what if any responsive documents may exist."

Interpret that as you will; I choose to interpret it as "We're still trying to find proof other than 'He Read It On Breitbart!'"

****

On the PR front, Spicer and Conway are in full spin to try and support Trump's position without digging the hole any deeper. Their tactic of choice is to take issue with the idea that Trump meant 'wire tap' literally, by pointing out that there are many possible means of surveillance, and that Trump was just using the term as a catch-all for them. Spicer even took the time to lecture journalists on the President's use of quotation marks, and how it totally proved he didn't mean wire tapping literally. Conway has gone on at great lengths about how there are many means of surveillance that these organizations can use that have nothing to do with tapping wires.

While it is obviously true that there are a multitude of exciting ways to spy on people, and indeed that if Trump were put under surveillance it wouldn't have literally involved a wiretap, it misses the point by a vast margin. The shocking part of Trump's statement wasn't that he used a technically outdated, but nonetheless common bit of vernacular. It was that he was accusing his predecessor of illegally monitoring him during the election, and seeking to raise a big stink against it, all without providing (to this day) a shred of evidence.

So what's the benefit to Spicer and Conway's focus on a seemingly silly and inconsequential bit of trivia? Two theories. One, Spicer's trying to make Trump's claim as broad and vague as possible, because then it'll be far easier to find something, anything, to point at as 'proof.' This has happened before, where Trump makes a very specific, very clear statement, and the White House insists he meant something far more vague, and more difficult to conclusively disprove. ("The Media Doesn't Report Terrorist Attacks Anymore" from Trump became "The Media Under-reports Some Attacks, Here's A List Of Oodles Of Attacks, Including The REALLY Heavily Covered Ones!" from the White House.)

One of Spicer's statements was "I think there's no question that the Obama administration, that there were actions about surveillance and other activities that occurred in the 2016 election. The President used the word wiretaps in quotes to mean, broadly, surveillance and other activities."

Surveillance AND 'other activities' could mean... pretty much anything. Literally anything.

It also has the benefit of changing the narrative in their favor. Right now the pertinent question is, (obviously,) did Obama place Trump under illegal surveillance, and where's the evidence? But Conway's appearances in particular push a different message; that Obama could have done it. The technology exists, the methodology exists, an intelligence agency 'can' put someone like Trump under surveillance! Oh, no, she's not saying a specific one of these methods WAS used to monitor Trump, she couldn't tell you how they might have put Trump under surveillance, but you have to admit, one of these methods could have been used! It's possible, right?!

---

Oh, Spicer has also claimed that Trump was talking about the Obama administration as a whole in his tweets, not accusing Obama himself. I mean, that directly contradicts the tweets, one of which reads 'How low has President Obama gone to tapp (his typo) my phones during the very sacred election process. This is Nixon/Watergate. Bad (or sick) guy!'

But you know how it goes by now; Trump says something, his damage control team insists he meant something different, despite the English language not being nearly flexible enough to conform to that interpretation. =P

Once again, I invite people t tell me again how the Democrats were really so bad. Be warned, I have basically everything Trump says or does as evidence against such statements. That body of information grows by day, like an unruly dragon. You'd have basically no argument that couldn't be answered with 'Trump is worse', followed by pointing to the entire internet-full of stuff about him. In short, I'd be trumping everything (with the little 't', not the big one). Everything this man does gets increasingly more ridiculous and potentially hazardous every time we hear a thing. Even if we were to include embellishments of the press, statistics alone says the guy is made of shit and supported by assholes.

FalloutJack:
Once again, I invite people t tell me again how the Democrats were really so bad.

Because they wouldn't chuck Muslims out of the country, build a wall on the Mexican border, and vastly increase military funding to fight non-existent wars.

If that's what a voter really wants, he or she can easily overlook the president offering it also being a mendacious, incompetent, gibbering twit. They may regret their decision a few years down the line, but we'll see when we get there.

Agema:

FalloutJack:
Once again, I invite people t tell me again how the Democrats were really so bad.

Because they wouldn't chuck Muslims out of the country, build a wall on the Mexican border, and vastly increase military funding to fight non-existent wars.

If that's what a voter really wants, he or she can easily overlook the president offering it also being a mendacious, incompetent, gibbering twit. They may regret their decision a few years down the line, but we'll see when we get there.

That's really more a statement underlining how people are stupid, IMO...

Lol the very sacred election process?

I am very upset that they are actaully investigating Trump's claims. This is a smoke screen.

So, the Senate Intelligence Committee has joined the list of folks who are concluding that they've seen no evidence whatsoever to support Trump's claims. Sean Spicer apparently got a liiiiittle upset at a press conference when pushed on this. >.>

In any case, interestingly Trump has finally got pinned down in a recent interview and questioned about the claims.

I'll link to the full transcript, plenty of other stuff in there on various topics. <.<

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2017/03/16/donald-trump-explained-twitter-the-universe-and-everything-to-tucker-carlson/?utm_term=.4d008be7ab6f

Personally I adore the way he said 'But hey, you know, it's fine if I make a mistake here or there. Not that this is a mistake, the wiretapping thing, totally true, I'm going to be submitting evidence! They'll all see!' Also curious as to exactly what, if anything, he intends to submit; he's made vague Obama related promises before (*cough*birther*cough*) only to quietly drop the matter later on. But I doubt he'll get away with it this time, and since it seems more and more likely that he had no evidence on hand when he made the claim, whatever he DOES come up with is going to end up being dug up at the last minute. =P Which doesn't usually bode well in terms of its credibility or even its relevance.

Second place goes to him bragging about the Apprentice s'more.

SeventhSigil:

Holy shit that is the rambling of an insane nutbar. The pathetic justifications are the epitome of self-delusion, fucking hell, just, eugh.
I live for the day someone would finally call him out to his face instead of smiling politely and nervously because he's full of petty vengeances.
http://www.politico.com/story/2017/03/donald-trump-rick-snyder-never-forget-236139.
My bile sacs cannot cope for much longer.

Kwak:

SeventhSigil:

Holy shit that is the rambling of an insane nutbar. The pathetic justifications are the epitome of self-delusion, fucking hell, just, eugh.
I live for the day someone would finally call him out to his face instead of smiling politely and nervously because he's full of petty vengeances.
http://www.politico.com/story/2017/03/donald-trump-rick-snyder-never-forget-236139.
My bile sacs cannot cope for much longer.

This might distress your bile sacs, but in a press conference today alongside the German Chancellor, Trump defended the most recent faux pas, where Sean Spicer's quotation of a claim on Fox News that the British agency GCHQ helped Obama wiretap Trump. The British, obviously, weren't pleased, with GCHQ coming out to publicly slam the revelations; the White House has apparently confirmed it will not repeat these allegations, but insist they hold no responsibility for broadcasting them. I.e. that it was something said on Fox News (part of their commentator lineup, not their news lineup) and that therefore the administration shouldn't be held accountable for signal boosting it without independent verification or, you know, evidence.

"Don't ask me, ask Fox News" is basically paraphrasing Trump on the matter. (For the record, Fox News has come out to say they cannot corroborate or provide any evidence that what their guest was saying vis a vis wiretapping is true.)

This is ironic on a multitude of levels, most of all because in that transcript I had provided, Trump uses the New York Times as one of his justifications. He hates the New York Times, rags on them every chance he gets (he was ragging on them WHILE citing them to justify his claims,) and yet doesn't exercise even the slightest bit of restraint or critical thinking when it comes to acting based on some news report or editorial, such as the Breitbart article that almost certainly led to his initial Obama outburst. And this is a man who actually has access to vast resources that could let him investigate a matter far more effectively than any layman.

Fox News said it? Must be true IMMA TWEET ABOUT IT.

He is simultaneously the loudest and most vocal critic against 'Fake News,' and the most gullible mark when it comes to believing it.

SeventhSigil:

Kwak:

SeventhSigil:

Holy shit that is the rambling of an insane nutbar. The pathetic justifications are the epitome of self-delusion, fucking hell, just, eugh.
I live for the day someone would finally call him out to his face instead of smiling politely and nervously because he's full of petty vengeances.
http://www.politico.com/story/2017/03/donald-trump-rick-snyder-never-forget-236139.
My bile sacs cannot cope for much longer.

This might distress your bile sacs, but in a press conference today alongside the German Chancellor, Trump defended the most recent faux pas, where Sean Spicer's quotation of a claim on Fox News that the British agency GCHQ helped Obama wiretap Trump. The British, obviously, weren't pleased, with GCHQ coming out to publicly slam the revelations; the White House has apparently confirmed it will not repeat these allegations, but insist they hold no responsibility for broadcasting them. I.e. that it was something said on Fox News (part of their commentator lineup, not their news lineup) and that therefore the administration shouldn't be held accountable for signal boosting it without independent verification or, you know, evidence.

"Don't ask me, ask Fox News" is basically paraphrasing Trump on the matter. (For the record, Fox News has come out to say they cannot corroborate or provide any evidence that what their guest was saying vis a vis wiretapping is true.)

This is ironic on a multitude of levels, most of all because in that transcript I had provided, Trump uses the New York Times as one of his justifications. He hates the New York Times, rags on them every chance he gets (he was ragging on them WHILE citing them to justify his claims,) and yet doesn't exercise even the slightest bit of restraint or critical thinking when it comes to acting based on some news report or editorial, such as the Breitbart article that almost certainly led to his initial Obama outburst. And this is a man who actually has access to vast resources that could let him investigate a matter far more effectively than any layman.

Fox News said it? Must be true IMMA TWEET ABOUT IT.

He is simultaneously the loudest and most vocal critic against 'Fake News,' and the most gullible mark when it comes to believing it.

The bolded part is especially cute. Wasn't Trump particularly unhinged about a report that CNN released without full evidence or corroboration a couple of months back. I believe that event cenmented his whole "fake news" shtick. If it wasn't certain that he was GOP before it is now. They are the only ones who play the "it's OK if we do it but not if they do it" game. Then again the Russian connection is something to be sensitive about. That is the thing that could legitimately end his time in office.

In the meantime, if FOX keeps talking this rot about Obama without evidence,they don't have Trump's legal protections. Cheap tabloids get sued all the time and that's what they are acting like here.

Kwak:

Holy shit that is the rambling of an insane nutbar. The pathetic justifications are the epitome of self-delusion, fucking hell, just, eugh.
I live for the day someone would finally call him out to his face instead of smiling politely and nervously because he's full of petty vengeances.

It's hard and frightening to find out the godfather is a fool. Because they are still the godfather. You're talking about an insane nutbar with millions of people of which a good percentage have to have equal degrees of nuttiness that voted him in. Like, you know .... how everyone not a Trump supporter said his presidency would go off the fucking rails ... and now all-terrain trains is the new normal. Journalism, particularly investigative journalism, requires a certain degree of courage to look madness in the eye and query it... challenge it. I do not envy the journalist, before and after, committed to outrightly being the tip of the spear that attempts to directly impale a presidency to their face.

Sure, not as frightening as, say, doing it to Putin. Because that journo will not see another dawn. You're still talking about a nutbar that knows other nutbars will actually listen to him when he screams 'fake news' and that will cost their networks and corporations millions. And let's face it ... how many independent journos will actually get a one-on-one with Trump?

jklinders:

The bolded part is especially cute. Wasn't Trump particularly unhinged about a report that CNN released without full evidence or corroboration a couple of months back. I believe that event cenmented his whole "fake news" shtick. If it wasn't certain that he was GOP before it is now. They are the only ones who play the "it's OK if we do it but not if they do it" game. Then again the Russian connection is something to be sensitive about. That is the thing that could legitimately end his time in office.

In the meantime, if FOX keeps talking this rot about Obama without evidence,they don't have Trump's legal protections. Cheap tabloids get sued all the time and that's what they are acting like here.

"It's OK if we do it but not if they do it" is pretty much spot-on, even if only due to the sharp disconnect between Trump's criticism of Clinton for her ties to Goldman Sachs, followed subsequently by his very Sachs-y administrative picks. =P Although I might actually tweak it in Trump's case to 'It's not OK if they do it, and even though it looks like I'm doing it too, that's FAKE NEWS.'

Sean Spicer says that the White House is still confident that Trump was hacked by Obama and the FBI illegally, despite 2 Major Intelligence Heads have outright stated there is no evidence of any such action.

Okay, this is going on too long. At this point, I am willing to let the Democrats in the House begin impeachment proceedings over this when they take it over in 2018, regardless of whether the Senate is Democrat or not. It was terrible when he made these ridiculous allegations in the first place, but now that it's OBVIOUS that the allegations are 100% FALSE, and considering Sean Spicer, only a week or so ago, HAD TO READ A PAPER FROM THE WHITE HOUSE SAYING TRUMP WAS NOT UNDER INVESTIGATION DURING HIS CAMPAIGN, him continuing this OUTRIGHT LIE should be enough ground for a proper Impeachment.

Pin your hopes on this. The FBI is investigating the Russian connection between Trump and and his campaign and Russia. A breach of criminal law is about the only thing that makes impeachment even viable. https://uk.news.yahoo.com/five-things-we-learnt-about-donald-trump-from-the-fbi-directors-testimony-171305872.html

these baboons are only making this much noise about a non existent wiretapping because they are desperately trying to drown out this investigation in a blast of white noise. I don't think that simply benefiting from the interference is enough. They must be shown to be complicit in it. If that happens, we likely won't have to wait for the midterms. The sitting GOP will be afraid for their seats if they have an effective traitor in charge of the country. their voters are the ones who still cry "red threat" and say things like "I don't read communist" when they see print in Russian Cyrillic. Cuddling up to Putin can backfire in very real terms.

FalloutJack:
If that's what a voter really wants, he or she can easily overlook the president offering it also being a mendacious, incompetent, gibbering twit. They may regret their decision a few years down the line, but we'll see when we get there.

That's really more a statement underlining how people are stupid, IMO...[/quote]
If there were a Democratic equivalent of Trump promising a whole bunch of stuff that you wish Democrats were more enthusiastic about versus, say, Jeb Bush, who would you vote for? The possibly unhinged man who promotes what you love but may not be able to follow through on it or the staid politico who won't even put it on the table?

Veylon:

If there were a Democratic equivalent of Trump promising a whole bunch of stuff that you wish Democrats were more enthusiastic about versus, say, Jeb Bush, who would you vote for? The possibly unhinged man who promotes what you love but may not be able to follow through on it or the staid politico who won't even put it on the table?

An equivalent to Trump? I'll take the politico every time, I've been burned enough by dipshits promising me the moon and not only failing to deliver but swinging the public opinion pendulum so far in the other direction that it takes another 4-8 years just to get people to at least cautiously start supporting said goals without being associated with said political dipshit. What's the point of accomplishing the political goals I support if they piss off so many people that those political goals are promptly dismantled and reversed out of spite.

I'm in favor of sensible border security, Bush's border fence expansions along high traffic areas was something I could see working, but political firebrands running roughshod over protected species, tribal land, and running eminent domain on landowners I know in Texas and Arizona, turned up to the locals and made unhinged demands, citing security and patriotism. They weren't even close to as unhinged as Trump, and they still turned so many people off that they started sabotaging even attempts at negotiation out of spite, people that would have sold land ended up fighting the government's eminent domain claims out of spite and hurt pride.
In the end we got a half assed attempt at border security that was behind schedule, over budget, and made people loathe to support another attempt for close to a decade. Some are even now gearing up to fight getting eminent domained for Trump's wall tooth and nail despite being die-hard Republicans.

This firebrand attitude also ignores that a President isn't just there to push partisan agendas, they are also there to act as commander in chief and the face of America, so also our chief diplomat. It doesn't matter how many political opinions of mine they line up with perfectly if they are both an incompetent and embarrassing diplomat, and potentially an unhinged commander in chief.

Veylon:
Snip

I'm skeptical all around. Just happens that one side is being more sane than the other. *Shrugs*

EternallyBored:
It doesn't matter how many political opinions of mine they line up with perfectly if they are both an incompetent and embarrassing diplomat, and potentially an unhinged commander in chief.

You sound like a nice sane man.

Mr.Mattress:
Fox's Senior Judicial Analyst, Andrew Napolitano, was pulled from their Network over his unsubstantiated claims that Britain Helped Obama illegally 'wiretap' Trump Tower, and was then quoted by President Trump.

At least someone got into trouble over this!

Fox News: We have standards. Low standards (I mean, we still have multiple people that engaged in long term sexual harassment), but standards nonetheless...

You know what the funny thing is?

Even if Trump Tower/Trump WAS wiretapped...you still have to prove that it was an unjustified wiretapping. If you were tapped because the government suspected you had illicit dealings/criminal activity (such as in this case election fraud and collusion with a foreign government to influence an election) YOU'RE THE ONE WITH EGG ON YOUR FACE, NOT THE GOVERNMENT.

The Gentleman:

Mr.Mattress:
Fox's Senior Judicial Analyst, Andrew Napolitano, was pulled from their Network over his unsubstantiated claims that Britain Helped Obama illegally 'wiretap' Trump Tower, and was then quoted by President Trump.

At least someone got into trouble over this!

Fox News: We have standards. Low standards (I mean, we still have multiple people that engaged in long term sexual harassment), but standards nonetheless...

Napolitano broke the #1 rule of "Don't make Republicans look bad." Pretty much anything else seems to get a pass there.

Just thought I'd throw this in here because it seems to be as good a place as any. Trump is defending his evidence free claims with "instinct" and "I'm president and you're not."

https://www.yahoo.com/news/time-presses-trump-on-his-slew-of-evidence-free-and-false-claims-142255475.html

The American people elected a fucking six year old.

erttheking:
Just thought I'd throw this in here because it seems to be as good a place as any. Trump is defending his evidence free claims with "instinct" and "I'm president and you're not."

https://www.yahoo.com/news/time-presses-trump-on-his-slew-of-evidence-free-and-false-claims-142255475.html

The American people elected a fucking six year old.

And realizing this, many of them want to point fingers at anyone but themselves so they don't get lynched.

Okay, so it turns out that there was surveillance on Trump Tower. Specifically, on the Russian Mafia money-laundering ring operating there, three floors below Trump's personal residence: http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/us-politics/fbi-russia-mafia-trump-tower-two-years-2016-presidential-election-us-money-laundering-alimzhan-a7642851.html

And now, because of his obsession with, we all know about it. Does this guy just not know how to avoid making things worse for himself?

renegade7:
Okay, so it turns out that there was surveillance on Trump Tower. Specifically, on the Russian Mafia money-laundering ring operating there, three floors below Trump's personal residence: http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/us-politics/fbi-russia-mafia-trump-tower-two-years-2016-presidential-election-us-money-laundering-alimzhan-a7642851.html

And now, because of his obsession with, we all know about it. Does this guy just not know how to avoid making things worse for himself?

Read the very first comment on that article. It accuses Obama of engineering the whole thing.

So he's right. It doesn't really matter what the FBI uncovers. He's already president, and that claim he made earlier that he could shoot someone dead on 5th avenue and still not lose his supporters' loyalty seems pretty valid now.

I am now legit scared of these people.

 Pages PREV 1 2 3

Reply to Thread

Log in or Register to Comment
Have an account? Login below:
With Facebook:Login With Facebook
or
Username:  
Password:  
  
Not registered? To sign up for an account with The Escapist:
Register With Facebook
Register With Facebook
or
Register for a free account here