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: 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).