Trump accuses Obama of tapping his phone

[detbuch]

Originally Posted by scottw

Snowden is charged with two counts of violating the Espionage Act of 1917 and theft of government property.

So you are saying those currently within our government leaking info should be charged similarly ....right?

I couldn't get him, (or PaulS) to answer that question. Maybe you can.

He accuses others of "verbal gymnastics, yet he regularly does the verbal jumps and flips. He accuses others of the "chicken little" ploy, yet he regularly warns of the dangers of Trump.

So it's no surprise that he'll evade a simple question by playing the equivalency card. After all, the leaks and contacts with Russians IMPLY (as wdmso said) that Trump and his people colluded with the Russians, even though there is no evidence that they did (nor any reason to imply so unless we just want to).

Can't remember, but it seems the leaks re Hillary and the Dems were specific, not mere implications. And the contents of the leaks were provided, not implied. One wonders, if the leaks re Trump had actual content that showed collusion, why was that content not revealed? Oh well, that only leaves us room to imply. And demand investigations to satisfy concocted implications. Gee, I wonder if I'm doing verbal gymnastics.

Not sure, but isn't there a far greater national security threat when our own security agencies leak stuff about us than when the Russians do it? Naahh . . . the implication of each must be equivalent. Even so, it's the Russian stuff that should worry us and must be investigated.

[wdmso]

Originally Posted by detbuch

I couldn't get him, (or PaulS) to answer that question. Maybe you can.

He accuses others of "verbal gymnastics, yet he regularly does the verbal jumps and flips. He accuses others of the "chicken little" ploy, yet he regularly warns of the dangers of Trump.

So it's no surprise that he'll evade a simple question by playing the equivalency card. After all, the leaks and contacts with Russians IMPLY (as wdmso said) that Trump and his people colluded with the Russians, even though there is no evidence that they did (nor any reason to imply so unless we just want to).

Can't remember, but it seems the leaks re Hillary and the Dems were specific, not mere implications. And the contents of the leaks were provided, not implied. One wonders, if the leaks re Trump had actual content that showed collusion, why was that content not revealed? Oh well, that only leaves us room to imply. And demand investigations to satisfy concocted implications. Gee, I wonder if I'm doing verbal gymnastics.

Not sure, but isn't there a far greater national security threat when our own security agencies leak stuff about us than when the Russians do it? Naahh . . . the implication of each must be equivalent. Even so, it's the Russian stuff that should worry us and must be investigated.

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

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..

And yes Trump is dangerous

but one must ask are the leaks against Trump Treason if they expose treason ...(we'll find out after the investigation concludes ) then we can move on to prosecution of leakers.. if warranted I love how The right dont like 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