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 AthanasiusKircher on Sunday March 05 2017, @04:14PM (16 children)
I get you're hoping beyond hope that Trump is some insane imbecile.
NO ONE is hoping that. As someone else said, NO ONE wants the guy who can launch nuclear weapons or start an aggressive war to be an "insane imbecile."
What many people ARE concerned about and realize is that Trump has made a lot of political progress over the past two years by making outrageous claims and statements against his opponents. He has one primary rhetorical strategy -- ad hominem. Don't talk about policy. Don't address your critics. Just ATTACK, ATTACK, ATTACK. If someone asks you a substantive question or brings up a serious issue with you, say something awful about your opponent: "I like people who don't get captured," "Stuff coming out of her... whatever..." etc. His whole campaign was launched on the idea that Mexico was sending rapists and other criminals to the U.S., despite the fact that there are no statistics showing that immigrants (legal OR illegal) are significantly more likely to commit crimes in the U.S. To the contrary, statistical analysis generally shows immigrants are slightly LESS likely to commit violent crimes (probably because they're scared of being caught and deported -- we DO actually deport people for violent crime).
Anyhow, it's an ingenious strategy. I don't think Trump's an "imbecile" -- he has just learned the way to play the media war is to deflect substantive discussion and debate by making insane claims about other people.
Thus, given his history, when Trump makes an outrageous claim about Obama's past behavior, it's perfectly logical to assume he's just trying to get the media to stop talking as much about actual problems. He got a few hours of decent coverage after his speech earlier this past week, until the whole Sessions controversy erupted, and then it was all Sessions all the time for a few days. Trump needed to "change the story," so he folllowed his playbook -- make outrageous claim about Obama, and the media will spend a couple days trying to refute that, rather than continuing its drumbeat on potential Russian connections with his cabinet, etc. (I do have to say that I've been skeptical all along of the supposed Russian connections and claims of election interference, but the number of unnecessary contacts with Russian officials is now getting a bit weird.)
I don't think Trump is stupid. He may be mentally ill in some way, but this is a clear strategy that he's used multiple times before. Until we see detailed proof, it's safe to assume he's just making stuff up to "change the story" to him.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday March 05 2017, @04:43PM
Just because Trump has found one weird trick to win the presidency doesn't make him smart, it makes him lucky.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday March 05 2017, @07:11PM
Actuallu, new developments re Sessions was tunning dry, at least for.a few.more days. Trump provides the perfect segway, and still allows the, Trump is trying to distrsct from Rusdia become the new meme in discussion. Trump doing.something sane and normal would have been the better distrsction.
(Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday March 05 2017, @09:10PM (4 children)
100% of the illegal aliens who crossed the border without authorization have committed a crime. The second offense is a felony.
Nearly all illegal aliens have committed additional crime in support of their illegal status, usually including felonies. Identity theft is used to obtain housing, medical care, and employment. This is not a victimless crime; people's lives get fucked up. You may get giant medical bills that ruin your credit. You may get arrested for a crime you didn't commit.
I suspect your "statistical analysis" is leaving these out. In any case, you shouldn't be lumping illegal aliens in with legitimate immigrants.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday March 06 2017, @07:52AM (1 child)
You unAmerican bastard! You Nationalist Scum Racist! I spit right down your throat, and squeeze it back up only to watch you choke!
100% of the illegal aliens who crossed the border without authorization have committed a crime. The second offense is a felony.
Yeah, it would be a violation of American law, if they were fucking Americans!!!! But you see, they are not, so they are not bound by the US Legal system. The break no law, except the racist law inside your racist head, you racist asshole of a nation to which you do not belong!!! All Americans have crossed the border illegally, without the permission of the native nations of the continent. So take your fucking Eurocentric perspective and stuff it up your fucking white pointy hood, because the Native American Border Control Agency will soon be coming for your white ass. No as for those brothers and sisters from the south, born of the soil of the Americas? We will cut them some slack. America!! Love it, or give it back!!!
(Score: 1) by khallow on Tuesday March 07 2017, @10:10PM
Yeah, it would be a violation of American law, if they were fucking Americans!!!! But you see, they are not, so they are not bound by the US Legal system.
The obvious rebuttal is that one doesn't have to be a US citizen in order to be bound by US law.
(Score: 2) by urza9814 on Monday March 06 2017, @07:12PM
...which is at most about half of all undocumented or "illegal" immigrants. The rest have not necessarily committed any crime at all.
Got any evidence of that?
(Score: 2) by AthanasiusKircher on Monday March 06 2017, @09:11PM
In any case, you shouldn't be lumping illegal aliens in with legitimate immigrants.
I wasn't. I said "legal OR illegal" specifically to note that I was considering the analysis separately, though it's hard to find good statistics (since many studies admittedly do tend to lump the two together). If I had said "legal AND illegal," I would be lumping them together, but I specifically included the parenthetical for a reason.
Second, you miss the whole point of Trump's declaration, which was that Mexico is SENDING rapists and criminals to the U.S. Here, again, was the exact quotation:
When Mexico sends its people, they’re not sending their best. They’re not sending you. They’re not sending you. They’re sending people that have lots of problems, and they’re bringing those problems with us. They’re bringing drugs. They’re bringing crime. They’re rapists. And some, I assume, are good people.
The most straightforward way of parsing his sentences is that (1) Mexico has people who commit rapes (and other crime) in Mexico, (2) they "send" them to the U.S., and (3) they commit rape in the U.S. by "bringing" it to the U.S. Or maybe some of the non-rapists (e.g., the drug dealers?) are "bringing" other Mexicans who then proceed to commit the rapes. I suppose you could read it that way too. Do you have any evidence that this is the case?
Anyhow, it doesn't make sense to apply Trump's declaration of "bringing crime" to things like crossing the border. That's not a crime you can "bring" to the U.S., unlike drug-dealing or rape. I'm NOT defending illegal crossings -- I'm pointing out that doesn't seem to be what Trump was talking about, which is the point under discussion. (For that matter, note that Trump himself made no distinctions in his statement between legal vs. illegal immigrants, so I expect you'll call out him for that too??)
For those immigrants who commit crimes like identity theft, I'll join you in condemnation. But again, that's not the kind of stuff Trump was talking about. Note in your quotation from my post that I repeatedly said "violent crime," which is typically the examples that Trump has brought up. If he were talking about ID theft and specifying illegal immigrants stealing IDs or whatever, we would be having a completely different discussion here.
Again, go back and read my whole post, which was about inflammatory language and ad hominem. Trump said "rapists" as his primary example of crime Mexico "sends" to the U.S. (again, no distinction made between illegal vs. legal immigrants). I'm NOT defending illegal immigration, nor identity theft or whatever. But that has nothing to do with whether Trump's statements were both inaccurate and deliberately inflammatory.
(Score: 1) by khallow on Monday March 06 2017, @12:20AM
NO ONE is hoping that. As someone else said, NO ONE wants the guy who can launch nuclear weapons or start an aggressive war to be an "insane imbecile."
To the contrary, I think everyone ravening merely because someone hasn't agreed that Trump is stupid and crazy is precisely that. They're emotionally invested in the story.
It's just like virtually all of of the story-telling arts. No one watches a Hamlet play because they hope this time, that Hamlet gets his act together in Act III, preventing the tragedy of the latter part of the play. No one watches action movies, hoping that the story works itself out without conflict and nobody gets hurt. We want stories of conflict, good versus evil, exciting explosions, and similar fare.
That's all fine until you start seeing those stories in mundane real life and treating it the same way.
What many people ARE concerned about and realize is that Trump has made a lot of political progress over the past two years by making outrageous claims and statements against his opponents. He has one primary rhetorical strategy -- ad hominem. Don't talk about policy. Don't address your critics. Just ATTACK, ATTACK, ATTACK. If someone asks you a substantive question or brings up a serious issue with you, say something awful about your opponent: "I like people who don't get captured," "Stuff coming out of her... whatever..." etc. His whole campaign was launched on the idea that Mexico was sending rapists and other criminals to the U.S., despite the fact that there are no statistics showing that immigrants (legal OR illegal) are significantly more likely to commit crimes in the U.S. To the contrary, statistical analysis generally shows immigrants are slightly LESS likely to commit violent crimes (probably because they're scared of being caught and deported -- we DO actually deport people for violent crime).
Another story. I don't disagree that he does this. I do disagree that it's normally a successful strategy or is "ingenious". It isn't ingenious to have a weak opponent through happenstance.
Thus, given his history, when Trump makes an outrageous claim about Obama's past behavior, it's perfectly logical to assume he's just trying to get the media to stop talking as much about actual problems. He got a few hours of decent coverage after his speech earlier this past week, until the whole Sessions controversy erupted, and then it was all Sessions all the time for a few days. Trump needed to "change the story," so he folllowed his playbook -- make outrageous claim about Obama, and the media will spend a couple days trying to refute that, rather than continuing its drumbeat on potential Russian connections with his cabinet, etc. (I do have to say that I've been skeptical all along of the supposed Russian connections and claims of election interference, but the number of unnecessary contacts with Russian officials is now getting a bit weird.)
What is weird about it? There is considerable opportunity for shenanigans and message passing, but Russia is a big player and there's going to be a lot of contacts naturally.
(Score: 2) by GreatAuntAnesthesia on Monday March 06 2017, @12:50AM (7 children)
Here's my question: Can't people take him to court for these outrageous claims? I mean if I went on national TV here (UK) and started accusing prominent people of serious crimes I'd find myself up on libel / slander charges pretty quickly. Don't Obama or any of Trump's other targets have similar recourse?
Also, is nobody else worried by the fact that Rupert Murdoch apparently has a direct, unfiltered puppet-string via Fox 'News' into the brain of the Commader-in-Chief of the world's most expensive military?
(Score: 1) by Demena on Monday March 06 2017, @12:59AM (5 children)
Not while he is a sitting president I believe.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday March 06 2017, @07:17AM (4 children)
You are correct. He can't be sued for anything he does in his job as president and if this shit is true its totally something a president would care about.
He can still be sued for stuff he does as a private citizen, while in office like if the restaurant at his country club gives everyone food poisoning. But even then the courts will almost certainly let him delay the case until he's out of office because the business of running the country is very important.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday March 06 2017, @08:37AM (2 children)
You are correct. He can't be sued for anything he does in his job as president and if this shit is true its totally something a president would care about.
False. All this changed when cases against Pres. Clinton were allowed to go forward, and then further allowed to become the basis for impeachment proceedings. Republicans, not too bright, and what they have sown will be reaped, and they will be raped with what they have reaped, in the rotunda of the circle of life and limiting Obama to a single terms, because Trump is, well, a liability. Why do we have just so many constitutional scholars right here on SoylentNews? Do they all have their degrees from Liberty or Regent Universities? Bush era DOJ, dumb as a bag of rocks, but very religious rocks.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday March 06 2017, @10:21AM (1 child)
No. The investigation against clinton was a special prosecutor authorized by congress, not a libel lawsuit. It was totally politically motivated, but at the time it was authorized it was nominally about fraud with the whitewater real estate boondoggle. When that turned up nothing, as all of the "investigations" into the clintons have, Starr went fishing for something to justify his job and came up with lying about blowjobs.
There is no chance that congress is going to authorize a special prosecutor to go after trump for stupid shit he says on twitter. If for no other reason than the republicans hold a majority in congress. Maybe they will do one on Russia's interference in the election, and maybe it will lead into going after Trump himself. But even then its not going to be for libel.
> Why do we have just so many constitutional scholars right here on SoylentNews?
lol, look at you. No, really, look at you in the mirror.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday March 06 2017, @10:36AM
Wrong again. Paula Jones. Different case, prior to any special prosecutor. Yes, it's legal stuff, so it's complicated and confusing. Perhaps you should seek a professional opinion?
(Score: 2) by GreatAuntAnesthesia on Monday March 06 2017, @11:29AM
Perhaps then the solution is for some crowdfunded organisation to start suing the shit out of Fox, Brietbart for each and every provable falsehood they publish. I'd throw some money into that bucket. Perhaps when they are constantly tied up in legal battles either they will start being more careful about what they publish or their viewers might start to question the veracity of their 'news' source.
(Score: 2) by AthanasiusKircher on Monday March 06 2017, @09:26PM
The standard for libel in the U.S. for statements against public figures is called "actual malice." What this generally means legally is that you write something against someone publicly that you KNOW for certain is not true, but you write it anyway. The problem with statements like Trump makes is that he could likely claim there was some sort of uncertainty -- he saw a report about X, which he assumed also applied to Y or whatever.
The "actual malice" standard also includes the possibility of "reckless disregard" for whether the statement is true or false. I think there would be a strong argument that Trump frequently has made statements that would fall under the "reckless disregard" category.
Anyhow, as to whether this could actually lead to a suit (and it would have to be a lawsuit, since criminal libel is basically dead in the U.S.) -- there are court cases that say presidents are immune to civil damages and liability when they are conducting official presidential acts. But the law has never really tested whether tweeting about a conspiracy theory qualifies as part of Trump's official "presidential duties." I doubt Obama would bring a suit. Eventually, though, Trump may cross the line and someone might actually try to sue him.