HuntingNet.com Forums

HuntingNet.com Forums (https://www.huntingnet.com/forum/)
-   Politics (https://www.huntingnet.com/forum/politics-16/)
-   -   Obama Wire Taps Trump (https://www.huntingnet.com/forum/politics/412335-obama-wire-taps-trump.html)

steve4102 03-04-2017 04:03 AM

Obama Wire Taps Trump
 
http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/tr...rticle/2616445

President Trump accused his predecessor, Barack Obama, of wiretapping Trump Tower during the campaign in October, in a series of tweets Saturday morning

"Terrible! Just found out that Obama had my "wires tapped" in Trump Tower just before the victory. Nothing found. This is McCarthyism!", Trump firest tweeted. Then the president sent out a tweet about the 22 times the Russian ambassador reportedly visited the White House, including four times last year.

MudderChuck 03-04-2017 06:44 AM

Seriously how stupid are these people? Personally I haven't said anything over a phone worth hearing since 1970. Same with cell phones and e-mail more recently.

I really doubt (but heck anything is possible) that anybody now on days wouldn't automatically assume any form of electronic communication isn't compromised.

One thing I know for certain, if you have a security clearance, you have been monitored at some time or other.

steve4102 03-04-2017 08:13 AM

This has little to do with "what" they got, and everything to do with "Why" they got.

The Democrats and the Media set this up.

They convinced a federal Judge to allow a wiretap of then Candidate Trump.

The content of the tap means nothing.

The Media and the Democrats will spin this.

They will soon report that Trump colluded with the Russians and the evidence is so overwhelming that a Federal Judge was convinced enough to issue a Warrant to Tap Trump's communications.

Then they will report, that due to National Security concerns, we cannot release the tapes, but you can rest assured that they are proof that Trump colluded and should resign or be impeached.

Champlain Islander 03-04-2017 08:59 AM

Poke the bear and you will get bitten. President Trump is a bear and they should have learned by now messing with him has consequences. He doesn't lose!!!

MudderChuck 03-04-2017 09:02 AM


Originally Posted by steve4102 (Post 4296257)
This has little to do with "what" they got, and everything to do with "Why" they got.

The Democrats and the Media set this up.

They convinced a federal Judge to allow a wiretap of then Candidate Trump.

The content of the tap means nothing.

The Media and the Democrats will spin this.

They will soon report that Trump colluded with the Russians and the evidence is so overwhelming that a Federal Judge was convinced enough to issue a Warrant to Tap Trump's communications.

Then they will report, that due to National Security concerns, we cannot release the tapes, but you can rest assured that they are proof that Trump colluded and should resign or be impeached.

Jeez... I'm becoming more and more convinced the only way to drain that swamp is with dynamite. :)

How in the world do they ever get anything constructive done, seems they spend the majority of their time back biting, scheming and planning sabotage.

super_hunt54 03-04-2017 10:57 AM

Mudder, just when did you start believing they EVER get anything done? It's the Government dude! Only thing they get successfully done is robbing us of our hard earned money!

Jenks 03-04-2017 02:43 PM

I have a lot more confidence in the civil servants then I do the elected officials of either party. The civil servants keep things running, the politicians seem to spend their time trying to torpedo the other party.

steve4102 03-04-2017 07:47 PM

http://dcwhispers.com/breaking-huge-...ion-tampering/


UPDATE:
Sources now indicating top Democrats and Republicans were aware of the surveillance (and potential subsequent leaks) being conducted on/against the Trump campaign.

These include, but are not limited to, House Speaker Paul Ryan, Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer, Senator John McCain, and Senator Lindsey Graham.

jerry d 03-05-2017 04:02 AM


Originally Posted by MudderChuck (Post 4296248)
Seriously how stupid are these people? Personally I haven't said anything over a phone worth hearing since 1970. Same with cell phones and e-mail more recently.

Theyre not stupid, theyre above the law, plain and simple. If I was to do it i'd be incarcerated.
Why isn't Clinton in jail?!? She's above the law. It's just the way things are, unfortunately!

jerry d 03-05-2017 04:06 AM


Originally Posted by steve4102 (Post 4296346)
http://dcwhispers.com/breaking-huge-...ion-tampering/


UPDATE:
Sources now indicating top Democrats and Republicans were aware of the surveillance (and potential subsequent leaks) being conducted on/against the Trump campaign.

These include, but are not limited to, House Speaker Paul Ryan, Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer, Senator John McCain, and Senator Lindsey Graham.

You could be sure there's a lot more "in the know" like McConnell, Pelosi, Romney just to mention a few I can think of.

steve4102 03-05-2017 05:12 AM


C. Davis 03-05-2017 05:40 AM

The only thing better than seeing Hillary do a perp walk is Obama doing one.
Trump better have the goods to be this far into it.
Just how deep is Obama's shadow government right now?

C. Davis

steve4102 03-05-2017 07:41 AM


falcon 03-05-2017 02:14 PM

Yep, FBI Director Comey asked the Justice Dep't to rebuke Trump's allegations that he was wiretapped.



Comey apparently argued that Trump’s false allegation implied the FBI had broken the law, could not be supported by evidence, and thus had to be corrected. The attempt seems to have failed, however, since the Justice Department has remained silent about Trump’s wiretap allegations.



http://nymag.com/daily/intelligencer...-wiretaps.html

rockport 03-05-2017 03:22 PM

LOL nothing like fooling the very bunch of dummies that accuse Trump of Russian collusion and anything else they can think of WITH NO PROOF into screaming to anybody who will listen on social media and national TV how insane it is to make accusations WITH NO PROOF.

You really can't make this stuff up

steve4102 03-06-2017 05:50 AM


Alsatian 03-06-2017 08:29 AM


Originally Posted by rockport (Post 4296423)
LOL nothing like fooling the very bunch of dummies that accuse Trump of Russian collusion and anything else they can think of WITH NO PROOF into screaming to anybody who will listen on social media and national TV how insane it is to make accusations WITH NO PROOF.

You really can't make this stuff up

And unlike the NO PROOF Russian collusion story, there are precedents of the Obama administration ordering dubious wiretaps. See the linked article below. Thus, there is at least plausibility in Trump's charge -- plausibility created by a known history of Obama wire taps.

An interesting thing I note is that Obama's defense seems to be a kind of lawyer speak and word parsing. He is saying the white house never interfered with other departments of government carrying on their investigations. Whoa! Wait a minute! Those branches of government ARE the executive branch of government: they are all, as it were, the instruments and tools of the president. Even further of interest -- I misspoke above -- it isn't actually Obama who is denying anything and parsing words, it is a mouthpiece for the former Obama white house that is denying and parsing words.


http://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2017...many-wiretaps/

super_hunt54 03-06-2017 09:24 AM

Of course ole Chuckles had to chime in with his usual stupidity. http://nypost.com/2017/03/05/schumer...g-accusations/

I swear him and his cousin Amy get dumber every time you see them!!

steve4102 03-07-2017 03:56 AM

A Good Read.

https://spectator.org/all-roads-lead-back-to-brennan/


It is “our job,” not Trump’s, to “control exactly what people think,” gasped MSNBC’s Mika Brzezinski last month. This week’s gasp from the media assumes a slightly different form and can be translated as: It is our job, not Trump’s, to push stories about the government investigation of Trumpworld.

For months, the media, drawing upon criminal leaks from Obama holdovers, has been saying in effect: Trumpworld is under investigation for ties to Russia! Then Trump says essentially the same thing on Twitter and the media freaks out. Why does the latter merit condemnation but not the former?

Notice what is happening here: The Obama holdovers are denying the import of the very stories that they planted. Where did the liberal BBC’s story (building on a story first reported by Heat Street) on intelligence agencies receiving a FISA court warrant to investigate Russian-Trumpworld ties come from? It came from a “senior member of the US intelligence community”:


More In Article Linked Above.

Enjoy.

.

Alsatian 03-07-2017 08:00 AM


Originally Posted by steve4102 (Post 4296593)
A Good Read.

https://spectator.org/all-roads-lead-back-to-brennan/


It is “our job,” not Trump’s, to “control exactly what people think,” gasped MSNBC’s Mika Brzezinski last month. This week’s gasp from the media assumes a slightly different form and can be translated as: It is our job, not Trump’s, to push stories about the government investigation of Trumpworld.

For months, the media, drawing upon criminal leaks from Obama holdovers, has been saying in effect: Trumpworld is under investigation for ties to Russia! Then Trump says essentially the same thing on Twitter and the media freaks out. Why does the latter merit condemnation but not the former?

Notice what is happening here: The Obama holdovers are denying the import of the very stories that they planted. Where did the liberal BBC’s story (building on a story first reported by Heat Street) on intelligence agencies receiving a FISA court warrant to investigate Russian-Trumpworld ties come from? It came from a “senior member of the US intelligence community”:

More In Article Linked Above.

Enjoy.

.


Good points. Yes, it is the typical Liberal "repressive tolerance." Actions and positions of the left are tolerated; like actions and positions on the right are repressed. This is how the left/liberal world applies the First Amendment these days. OK for the left/liberal to say anything they want and must be allowed by right to say it, no matter how outrageous, no matter how much it incites criminality or riot. NOT OK for the right/conservative to say what they think, even when it is reasonable, limited, supported by academic research. "Repressive tolerance." It is not an accident. Look this up on-line and you will find an essay on this topic by Herbert Marcuse.


Yes. So far zero substantive evidence that the Trump campaign had any ties with Russians. But the media can ply that story unendingly. Trump alleges Trump tower was wire tapped by the Obama administration and the media's head explodes. Not only that, I see today that Senator John McCain and Senator Lindsey Graham have demanded Trump to present evidence for these claims. If I were Trump I would tell them go s<crew yourself. We'll release our evidence when we see fit, and if we choose to do an investigation of this via branches of the executive first, that's what we'll do. There is a thing, Johnny boy and Lindsey, called independent branches of government.


I see some of these Republican congressmen -- McCain and Graham are good examples -- of deep enemies of Trump. I hope Trump mounts a vigorous campaign to oust these senators when they are next up for election. They are enemies.


By the way. I'm not taking the position above that the position of the media on Trump & Russian election interference is in some sense equally supported with Trump's allegation that the Obama administration wire tapped Trump tower. Unlike the case of the alleged involvement of the Trump campaign with Russians -- where there is no public evidence of either (1) the Trump campaign working with the Russians or (2) that the Russians DID interfere in the election. That is a point which is overlooked. Were IS the evidence the Russians interfered in the election? Did they or is that just a hair-brained theory of Democrats/Liberals/Obama deep-state administrators?


In the case of Trump's allegation, it is not dubious on its face. The Obama administration is on record for having wire tapped various individuals which were highly dubious. They wire tapped a Fox news reporter. They wire tapped Nicholas Sarkozy and Angela Merkel. There are other dubious wire taps. It appears government people hacked into Sheryl Attkinson's personal computer because she was reporting on Benghazi in ways the administration didn't like. In the context of these facts, is it implausible that Obama would order the Trump Tower wire tapped? And let's "word smith" that just a little bit. Is it implausible that a branch of the executive -- during the tenure of Obama -- ordered wire taps on Trump Tower? I don't think it is implausible. To the extent they thought -- and I think this has been said -- that there were links between the Trump campaign and Russian groups, it would seem a certainty they wire tapped Trump.

Well, this is going to be explored further. Those who are pretending that this is some weird paranoia on the part of Trump may be surprised by how this story evolves. The article you linked suggests WHY this story is going to evolve. Something is rotten in the state of Denmark, and it is the Never Trumpers and the deep-state liberals and Democrats. It is, in essence, insurrection and sedition. I do not exaggerate. As I understand the findings of the 9th Court of Appeals' discussion of Trump's original travel ban executive order, they challenged it on the basis that no evidence of the danger which the order purported to remedy was presented and that the order would be effective. That is a political decision, a political judgment. Judges are not empowered constitutionally with that authority or mission statement. They are solely to judge whether the order was lawful: did Trump have the authority to issue the order. That overstepping of the judiciary is an instance of sedition and violating constitutional division of powers. There is a serious battle happening in our country right now. A battle to restore and maintain constitutional governance.

CalHunter 03-07-2017 08:28 AM

I pretty much donate to anybody running against McCain as he is an absolute RINO and sellout. I don't have any use for Graham either.

As for the topic at hand (wiretapping), this entire spectacle seems like Obama is scared to death that his shenanigans are going to come out and is trying like heck to destabilize and obstruct Trump as President.

Like many of us have said before, Obama makes Carter look good. Hillary is evil and drove a stake through the heart of the Dem party in this last election with her defrauding Bernie in the nomination process. Although I think Hillary and Bill are somewhat involved in all of this protest crap, it honestly has Obama's fingerprints all over it. What do you do when you're a community agitator and are no longer President? Why stir up crap and protests in some self imploding way to try to make yourself still relevant.

Ranger77 03-07-2017 09:26 AM

there is no benefit to Trump lying about this

this is absolutely right in line with what the Democrats have done the past 12 months

Alsatian 03-07-2017 10:25 AM


Originally Posted by Alsatian (Post 4296619)
By the way. I'm not taking the position above that the position of the media on Trump & Russian election interference is in some sense equally supported with Trump's allegation that the Obama administration wire tapped Trump tower. Unlike the case of the alleged involvement of the Trump campaign with Russians -- where there is no public evidence of either (1) the Trump campaign working with the Russians or (2) that the Russians DID interfere in the election. That is a point which is overlooked. Were IS the evidence the Russians interfered in the election? Did they or is that just a hair-brained theory of Democrats/Liberals/Obama deep-state administrators?


Just today Wikileaks has released a massive dump of CIA documents. One of the things I saw in passing was that somehow a lot of Russian hacking tools -- software -- has been outed and is available to many hackers. Thus, if you believe that story, ANYONE could have hacked the DNC and made it look like the Russians. The basis of the judgment that it was Russia that hacked the DNC is that Russian hacking tools were used. If those tools were out in the open, there was no telling who actually used them to hack the DNC. This is very new information -- the Wikileaks dump of this story only came out today -- I don't know if this specific aspect of the story will hold up over time. It could be very significant, however. It IS still a question whether it was the Russians who hacked the DNC. This is the sole basis for the claim that Russians tampered in the election. Russia has steadfastly denied this all along. Wikileaks -- the source where the DNC emails were published from -- has steadfastly denied that Russia supplied the emails and that ANY foreign state supplied the emails for that matter. In my judgment -- and I have said this long in the past -- the best reputation for honesty among all these parties is that of Wikileaks. To my knowledge Wikileaks has NEVER been demonstrated to purvey bogus information, unlike just about every other source -- the US government, the Obama administration, the DNC, Hillary Clinton, the Russians.

Bob H in NH 03-07-2017 11:39 AM

The problem is Trump ruined a plan that was in place 8+ years ago. Obama and Clinton ran for president, it was going to get ugly, one was going to break ground, first woman or first black president. Simply put, it was winner take all for history!


Or was it.....


As it fell out it was clear that it was going to be a long drawn out fight, meaning at least of, possibly 2 things:
1) For sure: whomever lost the nomination, Obama or Clinton, they were finished. There'd be no coming back from a nasty fight.


2) Possibly, given a nasty fight, the republicans might just win. Thereby ending BOTH and removing the chance to make history.


In steps Bill (my theory!): IF Hillary bows out before it gets nasty, Obama is a slam dunk win. Obama agrees to make Hillary Secretary of State, so that she gets un-challengeable exposure and experience and then 8 years later runs when Obama is done. They then BOTH make history!


In steps Trump. he throws a monkey wrench in, there by :
1) Taking Clinton's chance at history
2) Threatening Obama's place in history by exposing the crap he did
3) Actually runs the chance of exposing ALL of government and elected officials as idiots and sweeping in massive change.


So here we are, they have to either stop him via obstruction or let him fail. They don't believe for a second he will fail on his own, so they have to obstruct.

Alsatian 03-07-2017 12:58 PM


Originally Posted by Bob H in NH (Post 4296649)
So here we are, they have to either stop him via obstruction or let him fail. They don't believe for a second he will fail on his own, so they have to obstruct.


I think this is relatively on point. I think to some extent at least some of these forces lined up against Trump are independent of each other. For example, I think the "never Trump" people on the Republican side are in the hire -- or otherwise beholden to -- the political establishment and/or economic special interests. Trump is rocking the boat of that establishment, so the "never Trump" attack dogs are fighting him tooth and nail every way they can. John McCain, Lindsey Graham, George Will, Bill Kristol, others. At this point the argument that Trump is not conservative enough and hence "never Trump" is a viable position simply does not withstand scrutiny. Sorry gang, but frankly Trump lines up well on more conservative issues than most other Republicans.


I can imagine the kind of modus vivendi that Bob H in NH mentions, but it doesn't fully address the subject. The election is over. Hillary lost. That isn't going to change. What is in it now for either Obama or for Hillary -- in the context of their initial agreement? Dragging Trump through the mud is unrelated to that earlier plan, if there was such an arrangement of convenience.


I think it is arguable that there are two different armies on the march here and each with different objectives: an army of liberal/progressive/democrat soldiers and an army of Republican political establishment soldiers.


It is quite possible the liberal/progressive/democrat soldiers are fighting a desperate rear-guard action. If they fail, the Democrats become increasingly irrelevant to the vanishing point in our state and national governments. This sounds ludicrous, perhaps, but do bear in mind that Republicans hold 66% of governorships, an overwhelming majority of state legislatures, a dominating majority in the US house or representatives, a majority in the US senate, and the presidency. If the Democrats lose ground in the next election cycle, where are they?


It looks to me like the Democrats are plying a "bet the farm" strategy. If they lose, the farm is gone and they are dispossessed nothings. That seems unwise to me. To my mind they would be better served to adapt their policies -- away from radical leftist policies, away from grievance politics, away from minority identity politics and towards addressing real problems that effect real people. If they double down on radical leftist policies, grievance politics, minority identity politics -- as they appear to be doing -- if they don't succeed, they will have ceded the battleground of prudent, balanced political ideas to the Republicans. At that point, the Democrats can't win by rejoining the fold: they can't shout "Me too! Me too! I'm for that too! Vote for me instead of them!" If the Republicans have staked our incumbency in the fields of rationality and prudent policy the Democrats can't squat there -- they have to position themselves with breathing room between them and Republicans. But what would that breathing room be? The Democrats are base jumping off a building with a parachute of "Delegitimize Trump." If that parachute doesn't function . . . they are going to hit the pavement hard.


The Republican Never Trump soldiers, by contrast, are fighting to keep Trump from effecting his campaign promises because they damage their patrons' interests -- their patrons being the political establishment. This establishment includes people who would make a lot of money from a new cold war with Russia, who would lose money if we altered our trade imbalance, who would lose money by halting the national drift towards globalization, who lose money by ditching the open borders status quo.

steve4102 03-07-2017 03:25 PM


Originally Posted by Alsatian (Post 4296619)


Not only that, I see today that Senator John McCain and Senator Lindsey Graham have demanded Trump to present evidence for these claims. If I were Trump I would tell them go s<crew yourself. We'll release our evidence when we see fit, and if we choose to do an investigation of this via branches of the executive first, that's what we'll do. There is a thing, Johnny boy and Lindsey, called independent branches of government.


I see some of these Republican congressmen -- McCain and Graham are good examples -- of deep enemies of Trump. I hope Trump mounts a vigorous campaign to oust these senators when they are next up for election. They are enemies.


Alsatian 03-08-2017 04:01 AM


Originally Posted by steve4102 (Post 4296662)

Me thinks the Senator doth protest too much . . .

Given the intense fight McCain is giving Trump I wonder if Trump will campaign on behalf of McCain's republican opponent?

Oldtimr 03-08-2017 05:26 AM

For too many years McCain has done nothing but take up space and side with the left. It is time Arizona shows him the door. The political revenue he had from being a prisoner of war has long since been spent.

Bob H in NH 03-08-2017 05:35 AM

RE Alsatian: What's in it for Obama/Clinton now that Clinton lost? Simple, neither can accept that the plan failed.


Obama's is an easier ready. His "legacy" is up for grabs, Trump's stated goals dismantle much of what he would stake his "greatness" on. If Trump succeeds, removes much of it and things improve and our country gets better, then Obama is a miserable failure. However if Trump fails trying to undo-Obama, then well clearly it's because Obama policies were just awesome. Sadly.


Hillary is a bit tougher and longer plan. She NEEDS Trump to fail miserably. She's been VERY quiet since November. She's sitting in the wings waiting and hoping for 4 years of hell, where she can ride in on her white pants-suit and rescue the world. Or she's easing into retirement, only time will tell.

steve4102 03-08-2017 06:16 AM


Alsatian 03-08-2017 06:33 AM


Originally Posted by Bob H in NH (Post 4296742)
RE Alsatian: What's in it for Obama/Clinton now that Clinton lost? Simple, neither can accept that the plan failed.


Obama's is an easier ready. His "legacy" is up for grabs, Trump's stated goals dismantle much of what he would stake his "greatness" on. If Trump succeeds, removes much of it and things improve and our country gets better, then Obama is a miserable failure. However if Trump fails trying to undo-Obama, then well clearly it's because Obama policies were just awesome. Sadly.


Hillary is a bit tougher and longer plan. She NEEDS Trump to fail miserably. She's been VERY quiet since November. She's sitting in the wings waiting and hoping for 4 years of hell, where she can ride in on her white pants-suit and rescue the world. Or she's easing into retirement, only time will tell.


I think Hillary Clinton is used up. She is just too tired, too old, too yesterday. She will never hold high office in the government of the US again. I hear someone has proposed her for Mayor of New York. She could possibly win that. Would she want to? Isn't that a big step down from US Senator and Secretary of State?


Obama is young and may indeed be a "true believer." By that I mean he may be politically sincere and be dedicating himself to achieving principled political ends. Note that his principled ends are not ends or principles I support, but that doesn't change the analysis. There are bad principles and undesirable ends. If Trumpism succeeds, then Obama's vision is dead: he will never achieve his principled ends. For that reason, yes, Obama devotely wishes for Trump to fall flat on his face. Democrats, to the extent they remain dedicated to their politics of Obama years (grievance politics, identity politics, narrow special interest group politics, open borders), need Trump to fall flat on his face.


So far, however, these things don't seem to be working for the anti-Trump folks. He hasn't fallen to a knee yet. And his counter-punching is beginning to take effect. Those who count Trump out are foolish. For example, it looks to me like Trump may be rounding the corner on this "Russian election interference" attack and further that whole orchestration is threatening to fall back heavily upon those who built it -- the media and the CIA.


People don't seem to have noticed an important puzzle piece. The whole "Russian election interference" issue hinges on the notion that Russia did, in fact, interfere in our election. What is the evidence that Russia interfered in our election? The only thing I have heard -- and I heard it quite early on -- was that the hacked DNC emails exhibited "fingerprints" of Russian hacking tools. This opinion -- the DNC emails exhibited fingerprints of Russian hacking tools -- came from someone in the CIA, I think someone who is named and is known, maybe the director of CIA. This, so far, has been taken as determinative and probative bedrock information. I am a patent agent. I write patent applications. I have written a number of patent applications on cyber security tools. In my judgment, based on knowledge and study, it is no easy task to identify a hacker. I want to characterize that further. I'm saying that it is like decrypting a message. I don't care how GOOD you are, if you are going to decrypt a well encrypted message there is no short cut. Get to work, because you just have to randomly try decryption keys till you hit the 1 out of 2^96 different possible encryption keys. Have a nice day, year, life solving that problem. It is a function of the math, not of "how good" the spooks are. All that can generally be said about the identity of a hacker is to infer from the hack what tools were used. And we see this is what has been said. From the get-go my view was that hacking tools move around a lot -- they get in the wild and anyone can use them. There is a short percolation cycle from the day one application of a new hacking tool and when that hacking tool gets distributed. Thus, in my view, attributing the DNC hack to the Russians because it is inferred the hack was perpetrated by Russian hacking tools embeds a dubious assumption: only the Russians have access to those "Russian hacking tools."


Now here is the overlooked bit of information. In the Wikileaks dump yesterday it was said that the Russian hacking tools HAD been released into the wild -- by unknown individuals or sources. If that is true, that really leaves no bedrock -- or even probability -- under the claim by the CIA that Russia hacked the DNC. This is the whole "Russia tampered in the US election and Donald Trump collaborated with them in their effort" issue. If the "Russian fingerprints on the hack" argument goes away, you tell me, what is left?


With reference to the second part of my allegation above -- this attack is about to rebound onto the attackers -- I think the story of wire taps is a case in point. That is going to be investigated. The newspapers themselves have stated their "informed sources" said the information came from wire taps. Now they are going to deny that there were wiretaps? Further, there are records of requests for wiretaps to be approved. Some of these were refused, but that should be interesting reading to see the documentation in the requests. The FISA court refused, but who promoted the request in the first place? The news media stands to lose in this because they have pushed this story so unreservedly, so lacking in objective distance. If it all crumbles and goes away, I'm thinking that will look pretty bad for the news media. And I'm guessing Trump will definitely rub their noses in it. Would you put it past Trump to come out with a lengthy YouTube video laying out this scam that has been perpetrated on the American people, naming names of journalists and how they contributed willfully to the misinformation campaign? George Steppanapolis is on record saying Trump is lying to say that the media itself has printed that Trump was wire tapped. Possibly Trump himself was not directly wire tapped -- but if his campaign, his building, his team was wire tapped and that is witnessed in an article in the establishment media . . . then George is way wrong or is guilty of a crime worse than being mistaken, word smithing with the purpose to deceive and manipulate, which is the main attack on the establishment media: it would simply confirm again that allegation.

CalHunter 03-08-2017 10:17 PM

I think the media is in a very sticky situation. They were lied to by Obama's administration and ran with it. Now those sources are trying to twist the issues in the opposite direction. It's pretty hard for the media not to look like liars unless they burn their sources. They'd like to do that but can't for the simple reason that they would get frozen out of leaks and not have any "unnamed sources" to quote in the future.

Bob H in NH 03-09-2017 04:39 AM

I agree Trump is starting to turn a corner:


- the accusations are starting to recycle and with no proof, they are becoming "old news" and people just don't care after a while. Honestly it will become the Benghazi of the Dems. Did bad things happen? Maybe, but people will simply get tired of hearing about it (yes BAD things happened with Benghazi, but again, people got tired of hearing about it because NOTHING happened to the people who caused it)


- the press is STARTING to feel the pressure. Trump is wearing them down and winning over the people. the press can either start to get a bit more open, or become even more irrelevant


For Clintons to "go away" they have to admit they lost and it's over. I don't think their ego can do so. Most ex-presidents can "go away" because there's no where else to go, they had the #1 job. Hillary was inches from it and had it snatched away. She may "fade" but push Chelsea, but the Clinton legacy isn't over


All times are GMT -8. The time now is 02:30 PM.


Copyright © 2018 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.