SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
President Trump has accused former President Obama of... something:
In a string of tweets posted early Saturday morning, President Trump let loose a barrage of accusations at his predecessor. He alleged that former President Obama had his "wires tapped" in Trump Tower before Election Day last year, accusing Obama of "McCarthyism" and being a "bad (or sick) guy."
Trump, who is under significant scrutiny for his administration's contacts with Russia before he took office, offered no evidence to support his claims Saturday morning. Neither the White House nor Obama's office has responded immediately to NPR's requests for comment.
[...] Terrible! Just found out that Obama had my "wires tapped" in Trump Tower just before the victory. Nothing found. This is McCarthyism!
— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) March 4, 2017Is it legal for a sitting President to be "wire tapping" a race for president prior to an election? Turned down by court earlier. A NEW LOW!
— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) March 4, 2017I'd bet a good lawyer could make a great case out of the fact that President Obama was tapping my phones in October, just prior to Election!
— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) March 4, 2017How low has President Obama gone to tapp my phones during the very sacred election process. This is Nixon/Watergate. Bad (or sick) guy!
— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) March 4, 2017
Also at WaPo, NYT, Reuters, Fox News, BBC, and Snopes, which hints that it may be related to this story.
(Score: 5, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday March 05 2017, @01:14PM (11 children)
He would have the resources to verify that independently, say by interrogating FBI staff directly and looking at the actual warrant in question (if there is one).
Yes. He's tried that. And doing that is a HUGE violation of the FBI's independence.
And so the reports of him trying that have been leaking all over and were also mentioned in that same NYT article,.
But a senior White House official said that Donald F. McGahn II, the president’s chief counsel, was working to secure access to what Mr. McGahn believed to be an order issued by the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court authorizing some form of surveillance related to Mr. Trump and his associates.
The official offered no evidence to support the notion that such an order exists. It would be a highly unusual breach of the Justice Department’s traditional independence on law enforcement matters for the White House to order it to turn over such an investigative document.
Any request for information from a top White House official about a continuing investigation would be a stunning departure from protocols intended to insulate the F.B.I. from political pressure. It would be even more surprising for the White House to seek information about a case directly involving the president or his advisers, as does the case involving the Russia contacts.
After the White House received heavy criticism for the suggestion that Mr. McGahn would breach Justice Department independence, a different administration official said that the earlier statements about his efforts had been overstated. The official said the counsel’s office was looking at whether there was any legal possibility of gleaning information without impeding or interfering with an investigation. The counsel’s office does not know whether an investigation exists, the official said
The fact that you think you have any idea what's going on but haven't even read the reporting on it is totally believable. The reporting could be in error. But you have your head so far up your butt that, like Trump, you don't think you need to even do the research before running your mouth like a total moron. You are the ideal trump supporter, ignorant as shit and happy to stay that way.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by khallow on Sunday March 05 2017, @01:46PM (10 children)
The fact that you think you have any idea what's going on but haven't even read the reporting on it is totally believable. The reporting could be in error. But you have your head so far up your butt that, like Trump, you don't think you need to even do the research before running your mouth like a total moron. You are the ideal trump supporter, ignorant as shit and happy to stay that way.
Sounds like I can just quote this back at you. Thanks for a little insight, but we do need to remember that there is no such insulation of the FBI from the executive branch. It is a tool of the President for good and evil.
I'm quite aware that the President may be acting solely on the basis of the Breibart story. That still doesn't mean he is as stupid and crazy as hoped by the many detractors in this thread. There is an obvious pretext to interfere with the workings of the FBI here. After all, how does Trump know that the FBI has acted in a lawful manner without investigating it in some way?
(Score: 1, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday March 05 2017, @01:55PM (5 children)
Thanks for a little insight, but we do need to remember that there is no such insulation of the FBI from the executive branch.
Are you in the habit of asserting falsehoods just because they reinforce your biases?
Or is your knowledge of how the US government works limited to the first week of a high-school civics class?
Because the fact that the FBI is in the executive branch does not mean there are no barriers between the president and the FBI.
Just because they aren't as strong as the barriers between the president and the judiciary doesn't mean there are none.
(Score: 1, Flamebait) by Runaway1956 on Sunday March 05 2017, @04:06PM (4 children)
You have your own habits. You insist on being a tiresome tool. The Donald may prove to be a total fuckup, but you could at least let him prove it. You do realize that you have two ears, two eyes, and only the one mouth? Use your ears and eyes, and give the mouth a break, alright?
Meanwhile, I'm still grateful that Hillary didn't win. She would have invaded Syria by now, and we'd be nose-to-nose with the Russians. The same Russians who "hacked" the election, LMAO!!
Abortion is the number one killed of children in the United States.
(Score: 3, Funny) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday March 05 2017, @04:36PM (2 children)
The Donald may prove to be a total fuckup, but you could at least let him prove it. You do realize that you have two ears, two eyes, and only the one mouth? Use your ears and eyes, and give the mouth a break, alright?
Awwww, runaway wants a safe-space free of trump criticism.
(Score: 2) by Runaway1956 on Sunday March 05 2017, @04:50PM (1 child)
No stupid - criticize the fool. Just try to make some sense when you do. The endless rant is tiresome.
Abortion is the number one killed of children in the United States.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday March 05 2017, @05:02PM
Lol, you literally complained about "ranting" in a rant of your own.
Do as I say, not as I do!
(Score: 1, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday March 05 2017, @06:45PM
The Donald may prove to be a total fuckup, but you could at least let him prove it.
He seems to be continuing Bush's and Obama's unconstitutional mass surveillance of the populace. That's strike one and you're out. But he also doesn't show any signs of scrapping the TSA, doesn't want to shut down Gitmo, has supported asset forfeiture, has supported the drug war, and has appointed numerous corrupt people to positions of power. Trump has already proven himself to be garbage, just like Obama and Bush did, and he did so almost immediately. Doing the occasional good thing (scrapping the TPP) does not make up for continuing the previous policies of violating our fundamental liberties. To me, if a politician violates the Constitution, that is treason; they are nearly all traitors.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday March 05 2017, @06:35PM
I'm quite aware that the President may be acting solely on the basis of the Breibart story. That still doesn't mean he is as stupid and crazy as hoped by the many detractors in this thread.
The stupid runs strong in this one! Listen, you poor, pathetic excuse for a conservative, basing anything on a Brietbart is the classic definition of crazy and stupid! The only possible alternative (oh noes, that word again?) explanation is that he knows he is lying, because he knows Brieffart is lying and does not actually believe the story. Why are you defending such obvious idiots? It only makes you look bad, khallow!
(Score: 2) by FakeBeldin on Sunday March 05 2017, @08:15PM
That still doesn't mean he is as stupid and crazy as hoped by the many detractors in this thread.
I, for one, certainly hope he is not as stupid and crazy as the current "filter-bubble" view of him is.
But it's not looking good on that score.
(Score: 2) by DeathMonkey on Monday March 06 2017, @05:37PM (1 child)
...but haven't even read the reporting on it is totally believable
Sounds like I can just quote this back at you.
Generally, if someone is using direct quotes from the reporting it's a pretty good bet that they did in fact read the reporting.
On the other hand, when someone post's absolutely zero evidence for their claims, it's a good bet that they didn't.
(Score: 0, Troll) by khallow on Monday March 06 2017, @07:21PM
The vacancies at Justice required Trump to name successors, and he took the opportunity to shuffle the succession plan released as recently as Jan. 13 by then-President Obama.
[...]
Obama, by contrast, had named as successors to the main attorneys general and deputies not Boente but the U.S. attorney for the District of Columbia (Channing Phillips); followed by Fardon; followed by the U.S. attorney for the Central District of California (Eileen Decker).
The game here is that including partisan Democrats in the chain of succession for the Attorney General allows for the opportunity to do embarrassing things to the president such as frivolously create investigations and leaks when Sessions is out of the office.
Incidentally, this reminds me of the pointless scolding I received from an AC on "norms" [soylentnews.org].
What you fail to understand, which is completely understandable since you are so ignorant of how the world works, is that the office of presidency has been guided by norms. One of those norms is that arbitrarily undoing the actions of a previous president is only done under exceptional circumstances. In other words, there is a huge difference between ability do something and actually doing it.
So here we have yet more norms which aren't really norms. A department reshuffle solely for the purpose of causing grief for a successor. And an investigation which isn't really an investigation (even if you do consider FISA courts to be a valid means to issue warrants).