Clinton & Trump are criminals and should be in jail. /sarcasm

[Northeast Stinger]

So, I notice that we are wandering further and further away from the question of whether Trump was lying about his phone being tapped. I guess I can assume, from the responses, that a few of you on here believe he was telling the truth. I doubt we will agree on that.

As for his use of wiretapping as a broad metaphor, I think that is really straining at gnats and swallowing camels. I have noticed that Trump uses quotes indiscriminately. After being challenged by AE 87 on this I went back and tried to find some examples and here are just a few:


The FBI is totally unable to stop the national security "leakers" that have permeated our government for a long time. They can't even......

— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) February 24, 2017

Iran is playing with fire - they don't appreciate how "kind" President Obama was to them. Not me!

— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) February 3, 2017

For eight years Russia "ran over" President Obama, got stronger and stronger, picked-off Crimea and added missiles. Weak! @foxandfriends

— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) March 7, 2017

...is all of the illegal leaks of classified and other information. It is a total "witch hunt!"

— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) March 3, 2017

The race for DNC Chairman was, of course, totally "rigged." Bernie's guy, like Bernie himself, never had a chance. Clinton demanded Perez!

— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) February 26, 2017

We must keep "evil" out of our country!

— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) February 3, 2017

My own interpretation is that Trump does not know why he uses quotes or even what they mean exactly. When he says "Fake News" does he mean it really isn't fake, that other people are calling it fake or that he really doesn't mean it is intentionally fake? I have no idea. One could go on and on with whether he thinks "leakers" are literal or not, whether the DNC literally "rigged" Hillary's nomination or not, or whether Obama is "kind" in a literal or metaphorical way.

What I do know is that he is inconsistent. When he referred to variations of wiretapping or wiretapped or tapped, three out of five times he did not use quotes. Once on twitter he did it this like this- "example" and once on twitter he did it like this- 'example.' When he spoke of it publicly he never used air quotes and never qualified what he meant by it by getting more specific. This allows him, I suppose, a certain amount of deniability when it comes to getting caught making stuff up.

 

[Northeast Stinger]

Thanks. The New York Times article comes from before the FBI report in July of last year that discussed the extent of classified information on the Clinton server. The DailySignal article is great and reveals that efforts which avoid FOIA by use of private email were widespread among those who were allegedly up to no good.

I'll take you at your word, but I find it hard to believe that if this was going on under a Bush or Trump administration that you would be so "business as usual." I know that I would be just as bothered by it.

Did go on under the Bush administration.
http://www.newsweek.com/2016/09/23/george-w-bush-white-house-lost-22-million-emails-497373.html

As for the Trump administration, this bothers me far more.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/worl...4f199710b69_story.html?utm_term=.2f9fcacf73da

 

[AE 87]

So, I notice that we are wandering further and further away from the question of whether Trump was lying about his phone being tapped. I guess I can assume, from the responses, that a few of you on here believe he was telling the truth. I doubt we will agree on that.

As for his use of wiretapping as a broad metaphor, I think that is really straining at gnats and swallowing camels. I have noticed that Trump uses quotes indiscriminately. After being challenged by AE 87 on this I went back and tried to find some examples and here are just a few:


The FBI is totally unable to stop the national security "leakers" that have permeated our government for a long time. They can't even......

— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) February 24, 2017

Iran is playing with fire - they don't appreciate how "kind" President Obama was to them. Not me!

— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) February 3, 2017

For eight years Russia "ran over" President Obama, got stronger and stronger, picked-off Crimea and added missiles. Weak! @foxandfriends

— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) March 7, 2017

...is all of the illegal leaks of classified and other information. It is a total "witch hunt!"

— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) March 3, 2017

The race for DNC Chairman was, of course, totally "rigged." Bernie's guy, like Bernie himself, never had a chance. Clinton demanded Perez!

— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) February 26, 2017

We must keep "evil" out of our country!

— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) February 3, 2017

My own interpretation is that Trump does not know why he uses quotes or even what they mean exactly. When he says "Fake News" does he mean it really isn't fake, that other people are calling it fake or that he really doesn't mean it is intentionally fake? I have no idea. One could go on and on with whether he thinks "leakers" are literal or not, whether the DNC literally "rigged" Hillary's nomination or not, or whether Obama is "kind" in a literal or metaphorical way.

What I do know is that he is inconsistent. When he referred to variations of wiretapping or wiretapped or tapped, three out of five times he did not use quotes. Once on twitter he did it this like this- "example" and once on twitter he did it like this- 'example.' When he spoke of it publicly he never used air quotes and never qualified what he meant by it by getting more specific. This allows him, I suppose, a certain amount of deniability when it comes to getting caught making stuff up.

Let me begin by apologizing for the sarcasm in some of what follows. It is not intended as insult or attack but rather as a way of making a point.

So, yeah, I really don't understand why we don't have pages of posts from you about how we don't have any evidence that the land mass of Russia knows how to drive a vehicle let alone hit President Obama with a car. Yet Trump said Russian ran over the president. Why don't you bring out the big guns and say that Trump has not provided any evidence that the leakers believe he's a witch.

You see, I really fear that you are being serious and have no idea how strange your post is. I'm also beginning to wonder if Rachel Maddow did a few shows on how Trump thinks the "Deep State" folk believe he's a witch, you'd buy it.

Seriously, you are aware that when punctuation marks can have different uses, the same person can use them in different ways, right? I think that most people have no problem figuring out what he means in each one of the tweets you posted. I just googled around, and somehow found, a "crazy-right-wing-Trump-loving" website called grammar monster which instructs using quotation marks "to denote alleged or so-called" and "to denote not literally." A person can even use quotes inaccurately without it meaning that what they contain is meant literally. For example, I have no idea whether my use of quotes to be both sarcastic and an allusion to your earlier reference to extreme right wing nut jobs for people who disagree with you on the reliability of politifact is a legitimate usage. However, I clearly don't mean that grammar monster is literally a crazy-right-win-Trump-loving site.

So, he sometimes used quotes to indicate not literal, "wires tapped," and sometimes to indicate a so-called referent, "leakers," "Fake News," and "rigged," each of which had become nearly technical terms or labels in the political campaign. When he says that President Obama was "kind" to Iran, I think it's clear that Trump is construing it that way without trying to suggest that President Obama had seen it as an act of kindness. I really think that any level of generosity of heart, any degree of judgment unclouded by hate, would let you see these things clearly.

Your reference to Trump's comments to Merkel kind of prove the point. Even there, he was alluding to her cell phone calls being intercepted, not to her cell phone being literally tapped. There are no wires to tap!

Again, I very much appreciate that you are discussing this topic in a back-and-forth way. In the past, I've been bothered that you didn't respond to questions. While we may disagree, at least as we continue to talk back and forth, we may come to a better understanding. So, thanks again.

 

[LibertyTurns]

Did go on under the Bush administration.
http://www.newsweek.com/2016/09/23/george-w-bush-white-house-lost-22-million-emails-497373.html

As for the Trump administration, this bothers me far more.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/worl...4f199710b69_story.html?utm_term=.2f9fcacf73da

The other side does it is a beltway excuse that's BS.

I guess where my stand breaks down a bit is the distinction between the highly classified communications being leaked and/or mishandled which largely include exposing collection methods. These are the types of offenses that get our operators compromised. It takes a very long time to develop a presence & these Patriots operate in grave personal danger every minute of their existence in the positions they hold. Their exposure via the crimes committed by those that exposed them should be prosecuted to the full extent of the law.

Our current leader says a lot, more than he should because he's clearly not educated enough in the issues to be the "company spokesman". Much of what he's saying wouldn't be true in a court of law but there's undercurrents of truth there. That being said there's generally a smaller percentage of truths than untruths & he doesn't own that due to having a seemingly thin skin. He's trying to run the country like his business which by the way wasn't all that successful but arguably more successful than they way we've been running the country. It's a team sport and it just doesn't look like that right now. Clearly appeasement has not worked the last 8 years, nor has it ever worked the whole time this nation has been in existence. Saber rattling without backing it up would be just like the "line in the sand" that went unchecked, the "reset" that never was, etc. Guess we'll see if he's got what Reagan had.

I guess time will tell if he ends up better than the alternative. The fact of the matter is that we cannot have the alternative so it's not like IT is an option any more.

Time for some Yellow Jacket football. To Hell with Georgia & Piss on them mutts. Go Jackets!

 

[Northeast Stinger]

Let me begin by apologizing for the sarcasm in some of what follows. It is not intended as insult or attack but rather as a way of making a point.

So, yeah, I really don't understand why we don't have pages of posts from you about how we don't have any evidence that the land mass of Russia knows how to drive a vehicle let alone hit President Obama with a car. Yet Trump said Russian ran over the president. Why don't you bring out the big guns and say that Trump has not provided any evidence that the leakers believe he's a witch.

You see, I really fear that you are being serious and have no idea how strange your post is. I'm also beginning to wonder if Rachel Maddow did a few shows on how Trump thinks the "Deep State" folk believe he's a witch, you'd buy it.

Seriously, you are aware that when punctuation marks can have different uses, the same person can use them in different ways, right? I think that most people have no problem figuring out what he means in each one of the tweets you posted. I just googled around, and somehow found, a "crazy-right-wing-Trump-loving" website called grammar monster which instructs using quotation marks "to denote alleged or so-called" and "to denote not literally." A person can even use quotes inaccurately without it meaning that what they contain is meant literally. For example, I have no idea whether my use of quotes to be both sarcastic and an allusion to your earlier reference to extreme right wing nut jobs for people who disagree with you on the reliability of politifact is a legitimate usage. However, I clearly don't mean that grammar monster is literally a crazy-right-win-Trump-loving site.

So, he sometimes used quotes to indicate not literal, "wires tapped," and sometimes to indicate a so-called referent, "leakers," "Fake News," and "rigged," each of which had become nearly technical terms or labels in the political campaign. When he says that President Obama was "kind" to Iran, I think it's clear that Trump is construing it that way without trying to suggest that President Obama had seen it as an act of kindness. I really think that any level of generosity of heart, any degree of judgment unclouded by hate, would let you see these things clearly.

Your reference to Trump's comments to Merkel kind of prove the point. Even there, he was alluding to her cell phone calls being intercepted, not to her cell phone being literally tapped. There are no wires to tap!

Again, I very much appreciate that you are discussing this topic in a back-and-forth way. In the past, I've been bothered that you didn't respond to questions. While we may disagree, at least as we continue to talk back and forth, we may come to a better understanding. So, thanks again.

Well, O.K., sure.

But here is the problem I have with this. The explanation that he did not mean it literally was something Spicer came up with not Trump. Trump insisted for the longest time that it was literal. But even if we grant him the widest degree of benefit of the doubt we still have a problem. Trump's calls were not intercepted in any way, shape or form, and every source that I know of with the ability to know that says so.

As far as his use of quotes, I never found any rhyme or reason to them. That is why when they decided to shut down TV coverage of the press conference so they could answer this question it all came across as contrived. And, again, Trump himself has never retracted his statement. Which sounds for all the world like what he has done on multiple other occasions, whether the size of his crowds, Obama's birth certificate, recordings of Comey, and multiple times he has promised proof for things and then just quietly forgot about the whole thing.

 

[Northeast Stinger]

The other side does it is a beltway excuse that's BS.

I guess where my stand breaks down a bit is the distinction between the highly classified communications being leaked and/or mishandled which largely include exposing collection methods. These are the types of offenses that get our operators compromised. It takes a very long time to develop a presence & these Patriots operate in grave personal danger every minute of their existence in the positions they hold. Their exposure via the crimes committed by those that exposed them should be prosecuted to the full extent of the law.

Our current leader says a lot, more than he should because he's clearly not educated enough in the issues to be the "company spokesman". Much of what he's saying wouldn't be true in a court of law but there's undercurrents of truth there. That being said there's generally a smaller percentage of truths than untruths & he doesn't own that due to having a seemingly thin skin. He's trying to run the country like his business which by the way wasn't all that successful but arguably more successful than they way we've been running the country. It's a team sport and it just doesn't look like that right now. Clearly appeasement has not worked the last 8 years, nor has it ever worked the whole time this nation has been in existence. Saber rattling without backing it up would be just like the "line in the sand" that went unchecked, the "reset" that never was, etc. Guess we'll see if he's got what Reagan had.

I guess time will tell if he ends up better than the alternative. The fact of the matter is that we cannot have the alternative so it's not like IT is an option any more.

Time for some Yellow Jacket football. To Hell with Georgia & Piss on them mutts. Go Jackets!

Thank you for your measured response.

I certainly agree with you on much of this and I absolutely agree with you that it is time to focus on Tech football. We need to get all the psychic energy, planet alignment, karma and joy juice flowing in the right direction. Go Jackets!

 

[AE 87]

Well, O.K., sure.

But here is the problem I have with this. The explanation that he did not mean it literally was something Spicer came up with not Trump. Trump insisted for the longest time that it was literal. But even if we grant him the widest degree of benefit of the doubt we still have a problem. Trump's calls were not intercepted in any way, shape or form, and every source that I know of with the ability to know that says so.

As far as his use of quotes, I never found any rhyme or reason to them. That is why when they decided to shut down TV coverage of the press conference so they could answer this question it all came across as contrived. And, again, Trump himself has never retracted his statement. Which sounds for all the world like what he has done on multiple other occasions, whether the size of his crowds, Obama's birth certificate, recordings of Comey, and multiple times he has promised proof for things and then just quietly forgot about the whole thing.

Again, I appreciate that you have a litany of complaints. Spicer's explanation of what seemed obvious to me when I first saw the tweet occurred on March 14, 10 days after March 4 tweet. They stopped the audio/video live coverage of press briefings in the middle/end of June iirc, more than 3 months later. Trump never retracted the statement because communication from Trump Tower was intercepted by executive branch under the previous administration. There was nothing to retract.

I think we all understand where you're coming from now.

 

[Northeast Stinger]

I think everyone understands why you feel this way.

If you think you know more than the NSA, the FBI, the CIA, the Senate Intelligence Committee, the House Intelligence Committee and the DOJ about the fact that Donald Trump's conversations were not being monitored in any way then I have nothing else I can say to you.

I also understand why you would think that by the time TV coverage of White House Press Conferences was shut down the issue had been settled. Trump thinks so too.

 

[collegeballfan]

The Trump Justice Department says no record of intercepting Trump Tower:

The Hill, 9/2/17 - "The Justice Department confirmed in a court filing late Friday that neither it nor the FBI has evidence that Trump Tower was the target of surveillance efforts by the Obama administration during the 2016 presidential election.

The Motion for Summary Judgement was filed in D.C. District Court in response to a Freedom of Information Act lawsuit filed by the watchdog group American Oversight, which is seeking government records of surveillance in Trump Tower.

The motion confirms that neither the FBI nor the Justice Department's National Security Division have records documenting wiretaps as alleged by President Trump in a series of tweets earlier this year.

The Friday filing marked the Justice Department's first official denial of the substance of Trump's wiretapping allegations earlier this year."

As an aside, the Trump tweets on "wiretapping" came 3 days after the widespread coverage of the $65 million book deal Barack & Michelle Obama signed
for publication rights to their memoirs. I always figured the two events were connected. Just the way trump has operated for 30 plus years.
The Obama's $65 million is way way more than what Trump made on "The Art of the Deal". Just a personal opinion.

 

[Deleted member 2897]

The Trump Justice Department says no record of intercepting Trump Tower:

The Hill, 9/2/17 - "The Justice Department confirmed in a court filing late Friday that neither it nor the FBI has evidence that Trump Tower was the target of surveillance efforts by the Obama administration during the 2016 presidential election.

The Motion for Summary Judgement was filed in D.C. District Court in response to a Freedom of Information Act lawsuit filed by the watchdog group American Oversight, which is seeking government records of surveillance in Trump Tower.

The motion confirms that neither the FBI nor the Justice Department's National Security Division have records documenting wiretaps as alleged by President Trump in a series of tweets earlier this year.

The Friday filing marked the Justice Department's first official denial of the substance of Trump's wiretapping allegations earlier this year."

As an aside, the Trump tweets on "wiretapping" came 3 days after the widespread coverage of the $65 million book deal Barack & Michelle Obama signed
for publication rights to their memoirs. I always figured the two events were connected. Just the way trump has operated for 30 plus years.
The Obama's $65 million is way way more than what Trump made on "The Art of the Deal". Just a personal opinion.

"Did you surveil Trump or any of this staff?"
"No."

Okay, well that's good to know! Time to move on!

LOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOL

Unfortunately, you have others in the Obama Administration saying differently. Remember the whole unmasking fiasco? Who did it and why?

LOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOL

 

[flounder]

I just wanted to drop in and say that every time this thread pops up in my feed, I think, "Clinton Lynch may have missed the Tenn game, but calling him a criminal is kinda harsh." I felt that was important enough to share.

 

[Whiskey_Clear]

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/201...stions-on-anti-trump-dossier-source-says.html

 

[collegeballfan]

"Did you surveil Trump or any of this staff?"
"No."

Okay, well that's good to know! Time to move on!

LOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOL

Unfortunately, you have others in the Obama Administration saying differently. Remember the whole unmasking fiasco? Who did it and why?

LOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOL

Yeah, I also find the Trump administration activity in this area a LOL. President Trump complains about his administration being investigated, but it is being investigated by the Trump administration.
The President raised the issue of "wiretapping" and his Justice Department filed a Motion for Summary Judgment saying "no record" of the wiretapping. Yet Trump insist it happened. And yeah, they could have filed a false Motion, which would be another LOL and yet another item for Trump's Special Investigator Mr. Mueller to investigate. And yet another LOL. One can get the idea that this stuff feeds on itself. It often gets reduced to "my guy did something wrong but your guy also did something wrong, so there!"

The "unmasking" issue is on Mueller's list per most news reports. Who did the "unmasking" depends on who had the intelligence. The CIA if they had the data, the NSA if they did, etc, etc, etc. The unmasking is done at the request of a "user" of intelligence by the agency that "owns" the data. That is legal. If the names were leaked, that is the illegal part. It appears Flynn's Russian Embassy activity may have been leaked to the press. Who leaked it is a Mueller question along with anything else involving Flynn. The Trump transition team were "users" of intelligence by then and they are on the list of suspects as are some in the Obama WH. Mueller will release the names in due course as he releases his report or files charges. And regardless it will be another LOL moment.

 

[AE 87]

Fwiw, I've seen that some Trump supporters are equating the unmasking with the being surveilled.

 

[Deleted member 2897]

Yeah, I also find the Trump administration activity in this area a LOL. President Trump complains about his administration being investigated, but it is being investigated by the Trump administration.
The President raised the issue of "wiretapping" and his Justice Department filed a Motion for Summary Judgment saying "no record" of the wiretapping. Yet Trump insist it happened. And yeah, they could have filed a false Motion, which would be another LOL and yet another item for Trump's Special Investigator Mr. Mueller to investigate. And yet another LOL. One can get the idea that this stuff feeds on itself. It often gets reduced to "my guy did something wrong but your guy also did something wrong, so there!"

The "unmasking" issue is on Mueller's list per most news reports. Who did the "unmasking" depends on who had the intelligence. The CIA if they had the data, the NSA if they did, etc, etc, etc. The unmasking is done at the request of a "user" of intelligence by the agency that "owns" the data. That is legal. If the names were leaked, that is the illegal part. It appears Flynn's Russian Embassy activity may have been leaked to the press. Who leaked it is a Mueller question along with anything else involving Flynn. The Trump transition team were "users" of intelligence by then and they are on the list of suspects as are some in the Obama WH. Mueller will release the names in due course as he releases his report or files charges. And regardless it will be another LOL moment.

More demonstrably false information.

This should not be a fake news site.

Susan Rice was on the Hill today testifying about unmasking. The intelligence agencies have been investigating Trump and leaking for a long time.

 

[Northeast Stinger]

Fwiw, I've seen that some Trump supporters are equating the unmasking with the being surveilled.

That they thought that was always my assumption. Conflating NSA intercepts of overseas conversations with the idea that Obama wiretapped Trump tower is part of the problem with this narrative.

 

[Deleted member 2897]

That they thought that was always my assumption. Conflating NSA intercepts of overseas conversations with the idea that Obama wiretapped Trump tower is part of the problem with this narrative.

#1, I am not a Trump supporter - I didn't vote for him.
#2, I am referring to the surveillance in regards to saying he was surveilled. The unmasking is just publicly naming him. That part just confirms they were surveilling him in the first place. There has never been any question about that. Tons of Obama administration people have stated and confirmed that.

If you're saying that his tower in particular was not tapped, I'm not going to spend any time nit picking where he exactly is and was when they are listening in. The point is they did. I don't care if he was in his office, his car, a bathroom, or peeing on a bed in a hotel in Russia.

 

[Northeast Stinger]

#1, I am not a Trump supporter - I didn't vote for him.
#2, I am referring to the surveillance in regards to saying he was surveilled. The unmasking is just publicly naming him. That part just confirms they were surveilling him in the first place. There has never been any question about that. Tons of Obama administration people have stated and confirmed that.

If you're saying that his tower in particular was not tapped, I'm not going to spend any time nit picking where he exactly is and was when they are listening in. The point is they did. I don't care if he was in his office, his car, a bathroom, or peeing on a bed in a hotel in Russia.

(1) Foreign surveillance is not the same as Trump tower.
(2) Everyone who is in a position to know says that Trump himself was not under investigation.

I understand that it is difficult to keep all the facts straight. The good news is that we will know in, my guess, about two years what this was all about. That is much, much faster than the Watergate investigation.

 

[Deleted member 2897]

(1) Foreign surveillance is not the same as Trump tower.
(2) Everyone who is in a position to know says that Trump himself was not under investigation.

I understand that it is difficult to keep all the facts straight. The good news is that we will know in, my guess, about two years what this was all about. That is much, much faster than the Watergate investigation.

So now he's not under investigation but earlier in the thread he was. So which is it? I'm saying he was under surveillance. I understand sometimes that can get confusing. The point is they have been surveilling him for over a year and still haven't found a single damned thing. Its like a silent coup. 2 more years left you say? HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA! What are they going to find in 2019 that they don't already know? We didn't have the technology in the 1970s that we do now with regards to electronic surveillance. That anybody would compare investigation timelines without taking that into account on a board related to a school that educates people on technology is eye opening.

 

[OldJacketFan]

So now he's not under investigation but earlier in the thread he was. So which is it? I'm saying he was under surveillance. I understand sometimes that can get confusing. The point is they have been surveilling him for over a year and still haven't found a single damned thing. Its like a silent coup. 2 more years left you say? HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA! What are they going to find in 2019 that they don't already know? We didn't have the technology in the 1970s that we do now with regards to electronic surveillance. That anybody would compare investigation timelines without taking that into account on a board related to a school that educates people on technology is eye opening.

I don't know if the dear leader has done something legally actionable or not but I do know that when the investigation is completed there shouldn't being any lingering questions. The staff Mueller has put together is among the best prosecutors and investigators in the DOJ/FBI. If there is evidence of criminal actions then the indictments will be handed down, if not then no indictments. Unlike the Congressional quasi lynchings we've seen Mueller is not trying the case in the media. So however is comes to pass I have no axe to grind unlike some folks