[RD] Donald Trump accuses Barack Obama of illegal wiretap; calls for investigation

[Ziggy Stardust]

It has been stated a few times, but for my understanding since I just read about this and am a little puzzled by on the one hand people saying there's no evidence, and on the other hand people seem to take Trump's word for it.

All of this is from a Trump tweet? There is no evidence whatsoever to support that claim?

 

[hobbsyoyo]

It has been stated a few times, but for my understanding since I just read about this and am a little puzzled by on the one hand people saying there's no evidence, and on the other hand people seem to take Trump's word for it.

All of this is from a Trump tweet? There is no evidence whatsoever to support that claim?

Correct, there is no evidence that has been disclosed to the public that Trump's tweets are grounded in reality.

Those of us that exist in reality can at least entertain the idea that there may be facts that haven't been disclosed yet. But again, it's the least likely explanation for all of this. The most likely explanation is that there is nothing whatsoever to it. The next most likely explanation is that there was a wiretap ordered by a FISA court to investigate Trump's underlings for illegal, treasonous connections to the Russians - a process that by law cannot involve Obama (he can't order said wiretaps). Trump could very well be breaking the law by disclosing secret investigations, if they actually do exist.

The least likely explanation is Obama broke federal law and subverted multiple sections of the government to obtain an illegal FISA warrant to get info on Trump that he then withheld from the public during an election year where it would have helped Hillary. But from the alt-right, this must be gospel truth because Obama and Benghazi.

There are reports that the head of the FBI (who took a very public anti-Hillary stance and kept the specter of her emails alive until election day) has been pushing to formally rebuke Trump's tweets for being completely fabricated. Unfortunately, while it's rumored he's been working behind the scenes on this, he hasn't said anything publicly as far as I know.

 

[Ziggy Stardust]

I see, thanks. What a difference 8 years make.

 

[Sommerswerd]

Wouldn't it be needed to investigate if it was actually correctly deemed as "probable cause"?

Since you put it in quotes, and its really kinda an American concept... Probable Cause

TL;DR- If "they" (whoever did the hypothetical wiretapping) got a warrant, that means the "investigation" step into whether they were correct that there was probable cause already happened, by a judge, duly appointed to make such a determination. Any subsequent "investigation" into whether that judge "correctly judged" would 1) not be "investigated" per se, but would be determined by another judge and would 2) necessitate one judge questioning another judge's discretion, which judges are generally loathe to do unless there has been some clear abuse of discretion.

In other words, Congress (or the FBI) can't conduct an investigation to determine that a judge abused his discretion, only another judge can make that determination.

 

[warpus]

Wait, there's people out there who think that Trump isn't making stuff up when he's tweeting?

 

[Sommerswerd]

Right wing activist Mark Levin is calling it police state tactics. One should recall that Levin is an attorney of significant stature.

One should also recall that Levin is referred to as "The Great One" by none other than Sean Hannity, if one were inclined to suggest proper perspective is needed on Mark Levin.

 

[El_Machinae]

This is entirely a separate question as to whether the probable cause was palatably sufficient. AFAIK, there have been serious efforts to vet major candidates after the last election was stolen by a non-citizen secret-muslim plant.

This is all a distraction from the healthcare bill. Trump is their ablative armour. Read 3 articles on the topic. From different news sources. It matters more.

 

[Cutlass]

It has been stated a few times, but for my understanding since I just read about this and am a little puzzled by on the one hand people saying there's no evidence, and on the other hand people seem to take Trump's word for it.

All of this is from a Trump tweet? There is no evidence whatsoever to support that claim?

There's a fake news organization spouts hate and disinformation as their sole reason for being. Trump hires their people and believes their "news". This is where it all comes from.

 

[Sommerswerd]

Wait, there's people out there who think that Trump isn't making stuff up when he's tweeting?

Well I think its just typical made-from-whole-cloth Trump stuff. However, the "Trump says Obama wiretapped him!", "There's no evidence of that so its an utter fabrication by Trump" conversation is boring... so I've moved on to the second rail which hobbsyoyo succinctly describes as:

The next most likely explanation is that there was a wiretap ordered by a FISA court to investigate Trump's underlings for illegal, treasonous connections to the Russians - a process that by law cannot involve Obama (he can't order said wiretaps). Trump could very well be breaking the law by disclosing secret investigations, if they actually do exist.

 

[metalhead]

I'm pretty sure the president has the authority to declassify anything he wants to. So if he "accidentally" disclosed a secret investigation, this just means it has been declassified. I'm not 100% sure on that, but I don't see how the executive chain of command could function any other way.

This is entirely a separate question as to whether the probable cause was palatably sufficient. AFAIK, there have been serious efforts to vet major candidates after the last election was stolen by a non-citizen secret-muslim plant.

This is all a distraction from the healthcare bill. Trump is their ablative armour. Read 3 articles on the topic. From different news sources. It matters more.

But the health care bill is DOA. I guess Paul Ryan probably welcomes distraction from the fact that he won't get his long-promised repeal past the House - after all, they aren't exactly falling over themselves to try to hype this plan - but I wouldn't be overly concerned that that bill will go anywhere, either in its current form or after committee markups.

 

[warpus]

Well I think its just typical made-from-whole-cloth Trump stuff. However, the "Trump says Obama wiretapped him!", "There's no evidence of that so its an utter fabrication by Trump" conversation is boring... so I've moved on to the second rail which hobbsyoyo succinctly describes as:

That's the conclusion I've read elsewhere as well. If Trump is talking about a legit investigation against him, then... it seems he should have just shut up about it so that the media doesn't descend on this bit of information and tries to pry out more, putting the spotlight on all of this.

Maybe Trump just.. doesn't understand the concept of consequences.

 

[onejayhawk]

This doesn't make sense. This is a man who 'remembered' thousands of NJ muslims celebrating 9/11. This is a man who thought Romney won the popular vote. This is a man who hired private investigators and then was a birther for years. This is a man who tweeted a racist infographic.

He has very little credibility. You also have no mechanism by which he got information that is befuddling everyone else. It's not the simpler answer.

Manafort being a Russian operative at the time of the investigation means that there are now public reports on the investigation. Trump spinning paranoia out of wholecloth is by far and away the most probable explanation of nearly anything he says off-script.

This is a better answer. That said, we know of considerable surveillance. He is only alleging that it went outside its purview. The simplest explanation is that he has a point.

J

 

[El_Machinae]

No. You're not using probabilities.

You need the odds that Obama ordered a criminal action
You need the odds that Trump got a seekret report
You need the odds that he read and understood a seekret report at 4 am or whatever

This is a man who thought he won the largest college victory since Reagan. For months.

The odds of him being utterly misinformed are vastly higher.

And now he's committed libel. And took another giant turd on decorum. Yay?

 

[GoodSarmatian]

No. You're not using probabilities.

You need the odds that Obama ordered a criminal action
You need the odds that Trump got a seekret report
You need the odds that he read and understood a seekret report at 4 am or whatever

This is a man who thought he won the largest college victory since Reagan. For months.

And in the best case scenario, giving Trump every benefit doubt, he got a secret report and immediately blurted it out on Twitter.

 

[hobbsyoyo]

I'm pretty sure the president has the authority to declassify anything he wants to. So if he "accidentally" disclosed a secret investigation, this just means it has been declassified. I'm not 100% sure on that, but I don't see how the executive chain of command could function any other way.



But the health care bill is DOA. I guess Paul Ryan probably welcomes distraction from the fact that he won't get his long-promised repeal past the House - after all, they aren't exactly falling over themselves to try to hype this plan - but I wouldn't be overly concerned that that bill will go anywhere, either in its current form or after committee markups.

There is declassification and then there is illegal leaks. Surely there must be reprecussions for disclosing highly sensitive information for political gain.

I don't think the healthcare bill is dead. The Republicans have the votes to ram it through and will.

 

[metalhead]

This is a better answer. That said, we know of considerable surveillance. He is only alleging that it went outside its purview. The simplest explanation is that he has a point.

J

Sometimes I wish you knew something, anything about the things you posted about. If Trump were aware of any such activity, it would mean he or one of his staff went poking around in DoJ and/or FBI business in what would be a gross violation of the independence of federal law enforcement. Frankly, if he actually did have some knowledge about this, it would be an extremely troubling development.

So your "simplest explanation" is that the president engaged in an egregious breach of protocol and possibly tampered with an investigation, and then broadcast this fact over Twitter. Are you sure you want to stick to this?

 

[Cutlass]

No. You're not using probabilities.

You need the odds that Obama ordered a criminal action
You need the odds that Trump got a seekret report
You need the odds that he read and understood a seekret report at 4 am or whatever

This is a man who thought he won the largest college victory since Reagan. For months.

The odds of him being utterly misinformed are vastly higher.

And now he's committed libel. And took another giant turd on decorum. Yay?

The other possibility is that certain Russian government officials are routinely monitored when making calls in or to the US. And someone working for Trump had a phone conversation with a monitored Russian official. Which is a strict no-no.

 

[Gori the Grey]

Wait, there's people out there who think that Trump isn't making stuff up when he's tweeting?

37% of the American populace, by one measure:

http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/...esident-trump-media-quinnipiac-poll/98283962/

 

[JollyRoger]

I think the obvious explanation is that Obama hacked Trump's twitter account to make Trump look foolish.

 

[Sommerswerd]

Thanks Obama!