President Trump

[RhythmDawg]

Obama didn't spy or wiretap Trump. That's just another of Trump's lies, like he won the popular vote.

You're doing it again. How do you know Obama didn't spy or wiretap Trump?

[Guisslapp]

You're doing it again. How do you know Obama didn't spy or wiretap Trump?

What evidence is there that he did ?

[Guisslapp]

I mean, the IC has said they have seen nothing to corroborate Trump's claim.

[saltydawg]

You're doing it again. How do you know Obama didn't spy or wiretap Trump?

Because POTUS cannot order the CIA, NSA or FBI to spy on or wiretap a US citizen.

[RhythmDawg]

What evidence is there that he did ?

I'm not aware of any. But for some people that doesn't matter. He said it so it must have happened. Right? That's how it works on both sides.

[RhythmDawg]

Because POTUS cannot order the CIA, NSA or FBI to spy on or wiretap a US citizen.

As far as you know. But you and I both know that the likelihood that very thing has happened throughout our history is high. The POTUS doesn't have to, nor would he, give that direct order. But just because one legally can't...you assume it didn't happen?

Do you realize the double standard you use?

[Guisslapp]

I'm not aware of any. But for some people that doesn't matter. He said it so it must have happened. Right? That's how it works on both sides.

But Trump is a proven liar. And on this one - the IC has stated they have no evidence of it. When pressed, Trump couldn't prove it. Then it evolved into this "improper unmasking" thing - which simply involves identifying names in a communication following a certain protocol. The evidence that any unmasking was improper - nada!

At some point you just have to call a spade a spade until something more credible comes along showing something different.

[saltydawg]

As far as you know. But you and I both know that the likelihood that very thing has happened throughout our history is high. The POTUS doesn't have to, nor would he, give that direct order. But just because one legally can't...you assume it didn't happen?

Do you realize the double standard you use?

There are a lot more laws and protections against somebody being Richard Nixon again. I seriously doubt that Obama would even think of doing such a gutsy thing, let alone attempt to do it. An no, I don't realize that I'm employing some double standard. Care to explain?

[RhythmDawg]

But Trump is a proven liar. And on this one - the IC has stated they have no evidence of it. When pressed, Trump couldn't prove it. Then it evolved into this "improper unmasking" thing - which simply involves identifying names in a communication following a certain protocol. The evidence that any unmasking was improper - nada!

At some point you just have to call a spade a spade until something more credible comes along showing something different.

Everyone is a liar...including Obama. Trump is just reckless.

[RhythmDawg]

There are a lot more laws and protections against somebody being Richard Nixon again. I seriously doubt that Obama would even think of doing such a gutsy thing, let alone attempt to do it. An no, I don't realize that I'm employing some double standard. Care to explain?

All he had to do was tell someone off the record. It would be easy to make sure he had no liability in it.


And for democrats you use the logic: because of A, B can't and didn't happen. You don't assume that logic for republicans.

[saltydawg]

All he had to do was tell someone off the record. It would be easy to make sure he had no liability in it.


And for democrats you use the logic: because of A, B can't and didn't happen. You don't assume that logic for republicans.

First, who is he going to tell "off the record"? You really think that the CIA, NSA, and the FBI would break criminal laws on a wink and a nod? The problem with your assumption is that there are SO many leakers today in the WH and the IC that nobody in their right mind would violate a federal criminal statute without a written order by POTUS or Attorney General or DOD secretary.

Secondly, I apply the same logic to Demos as I do to Repubs. Perhaps you are the one who has a difficulty in being impartial?

[RhythmDawg]

First, who is he going to tell "off the record"? You really think that the CIA, NSA, and the FBI would break criminal laws on a wink and a nod? The problem with your assumption is that there are SO many leakers today in the WH and the IC that nobody in their right mind would violate a federal criminal statute without a written order by POTUS or Attorney General or DOD secretary.

Secondly, I apply the same logic to Demos as I do to Repubs. Perhaps you are the one who has a difficulty in being impartial?

On the first point...yes I do.

Secondly...no, you don't. It's absurd that you actually think that. You've even demonstrated it in this thread.

[saltydawg]

On the first point...yes I do.

Secondly...no, you don't. It's absurd that you actually think that. You've even demonstrated it in this thread.

Let's run with your assumption that Trump is correct and Obama wiretap his phone. What in the world would be Obama's motive for doing such an impeachable offense?

[dawg80]

Well, for starters, the IC is completely convinced that they attempted to tilt the election against HRC and to Trump. They do this in other countries as well.

Well if Putin wanted Trump to win he is stupider than you.

For starters, Trump is standing up to Putin's puppet, Assad, in Syria. We just bombed the chit out of Assad's forces. Trump is also getting NATO to shake off the dust and start acting like a credible organization again. So, Putin effed up!

Of course, those of us with IQs higher than 75 (which excludes most libtards) know Putin/Russia had absolutely ZERO influence on the 2016 election. Krooked Killary lost mostly because she's a vile, lying witch, and people hate her.

Joe Biden, on the other hand (even though he's a goofball), might have beaten Trump in the general election. Oh well....

[RhythmDawg]

Let's run with your assumption that Trump is correct and Obama wiretap his phone. What in the world would be Obama's motive for doing such an impeachable offense?

You have concluded incorrectly. I do not assume that. I have no idea...nor am I going to conjure up an idea without proof.

That's part of your problem. You assume too much.