Trump accuses Obama of tapping his phone

[detbuch]

Originally Posted by wdmso

your to funny looking for answers based on implication of each must be equivalent .. then say I am using the playing the equivalency card.

please show me.... you and Scott are playing that Hand not I

Please clarify.

I warned of the pitfalls of the right supporting the Snowden leaks against Hillary and the DNC .. and how the right would react when the barrel of the same gun was pointing at them ... And true to form now they play the victim demanding evidence of wrong doing or its a witch hunt .. burn the leakers at the stake it very telling..

Who the Hades are you talking about? Who is DEMANDING evidence? I am saying what is being said--there is no evidence. That is not a demand for evidence. I am wondering why there is such a frenzied fuss when there is no evidence.

And yes Trump is dangerous

Because you say so? OK . . . that's an opening for you to come up with another of your chicken little accusations.

but one must ask are the leaks against Trump Treason if they expose treason ...(we'll find out after the investigation concludes )

Why must one ask if the leaks are treason? It is illegal to pass classified information to those not authorized to receive it. The investigation does not have to conclude in order to know that classified information has been leaked to unauthorized persons. That it was leaked is the only evidence that a crime has been committed--the leaks.

The leaks, as they are, show NO treason by Trump. If there had been something treasonous discovered by surveilling Trump, why was that not leaked? Why was only innocuous stuff leaked (ILLEGALLY) and not the real supposedly treasonous stuff? And why was the not treasonous stuff, the kind of thing that has happened before even by Democrats, a reason for "implication" and investigation?

then we can move on to prosecution of leakers.. if warranted I love how The right dont like due process

It is not due process to investigate a crime if there is no evidence that a crime has been committed. That is the opposite of due process.

What should happen to Trump if his claim is found to be false
"even though there is no evidence that they did" Tap his phones ??

thats Statement you used to defend Trump about collusion

I don't recall defending Trump if his claim is false. I don't know if he should be prosecuted because a claim of his is false. I don't think someone can be prosecuted for making a false claim unless he is under oath at the time, and actually knew that the claim is false.

I don't know if his claim is passing on classified information. Maybe the investigation will show that his claim has revealed classified information. If so, then, like the leakers against Trump, he and they should be prosecuted.

[scottw]

Originally Posted by detbuch

I don't recall defending Trump if his claim is false.

me either

[scottw]

Originally Posted by detbuch

I don't know if he should be prosecuted because a claim of his is false.

almost never happens in Washington

[wdmso]

I am wondering why there is such a frenzied fuss when there is no evidence.

Ask Trump he made the claim: Trump Administration Asks For More Time To Provide Proof That Obama Wiretapped Trump Talk about move the goal posts

[scottw]

Originally Posted by wdmso

I am wondering why there is such a frenzied fuss when there is no evidence.

answer the question yourself...you continually bring it up here and it's the "frenzied" leftist media and democrats that "fuss" about it on a daily basis

for Trump...it's like throwing a steak to the guard dog while you do whatever you want

[wdmso]

Originally Posted by scottw

answer the question yourself...you continually bring it up here and it's the "frenzied" leftist media and democrats that "fuss" about it on a daily basis

for Trump...it's like throwing a steak to the guard dog while you do whatever you want

that was detbuch quote not mine

and now we have the same old same old now they are again telling us what Trump ment ..

Sean Spicer said Mr Trump had broadly meant "surveillance and other activities" when he made the allegation in a tweet earlier this month.
He also suggested the president was not accusing his predecessor specifically.

I understand it must get getting old to have to defend or excuse trumps comments day in and day out ... heres an Idea maybe he can stop lying every time he opens his mouth or shoots off a Tweet

[scottw]

Originally Posted by wdmso

that was detbuch quote not mine

then you should use "quotes"...

[detbuch]

Originally Posted by wdmso

that was detbuch quote not mine

why are the media and the Dems making such a frenzied fuss over something for which there is no evidence? Can you answer that? Doubt that you will. As for Trump's fuss over something for which there is no evidence, I am sure you will incessantly have something to say about that

and now we have the same old same old now they are again telling us what Trump ment ..

Sean Spicer said Mr Trump had broadly meant "surveillance and other activities" when he made the allegation in a tweet earlier this month.

That's an answer to a question. Something you mostly avoid doing. Your choice if you don't want to believe it. His answer sounds reasonable to me.

He also suggested the president was not accusing his predecessor specifically.

It was clarified right after he said Obama did it, not only by Trumps staff, but by various media outlets that when the President's name is attached to an action, it most often means his administration, not specifically or only Obama.

I understand it must get getting old to have to defend or excuse trumps comments day in and day out ... heres an Idea maybe he can stop lying every time he opens his mouth or shoots off a Tweet

Not as tiring as having to answer stuff that is politically motivated to make Trump look bad. Even stuff like calling everything he says is a lie . . . that he's a racist . . . a homophobe . . . an anti-Semite . . . blah, blah, blah.

And it gets tiresome to give detailed answers to your questions or posts which refute, point by point, all of your statements, but from which you pick only one point, if any, to respond to--as you did again here.

[PaulS]

Originally Posted by detbuch

Not as tiring as having to answer stuff that is politically motivated to make Trump look bad. Even stuff like calling everything he says is a lie . . . that he's a racist . . . a homophobe . . . an anti-Semite . . . blah, blah, blah.

And it gets tiresome to give detailed answers to your questions or posts which refute, point by point, all of your statements, but from which you pick only one point, if any, to respond to--as you did again here.

nm