Recommend
 
 Thumb up
 Hide
13 Posts

BoardGameGeek» Forums » Everything Else » Religion, Sex, and Politics

Subject: What we knew all along about "wiretapping" rss

Your Tags: Add tags
Popular Tags: [View All]
Andre
United States
Connecticut
flag msg tools
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
http://www.cnn.com/2017/03/14/politics/wiretapping-congressi...

How credible can we assume the President to be, when he cannot produce the evidence that substantiate his tweets? More importantly, can our allies or enemies assume him to be credible when he tells them something? This is a slippery slope. No confidence in the President, and what he says, is dangerous to both our internal, and foreign policy.

I am glad that fellow Republicans have had the fortitude to call Trump to the mat on those claims, and ultimately hold him accountable.
10 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
J.D. Hall
United States
Oklahoma
flag msg tools
Remember all those people who claimed Trump was not up to the job of president? Maybe they were right after all...
10 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Jon Badolato
United States
Connecticut
flag msg tools
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Quote:
Remember all those people who claimed Trump was not up to the job of president? Maybe they were right after all...


ftfy

3 
 Thumb up
0.05
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Scott Russell
United States
Clarkston
Michigan
flag msg tools
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Did anyone ever really believe what any President said without other evidence backing it up? They are politicians after all?
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Andrew Bartosh

Sunnyvale
California
msg tools
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
qzhdad wrote:
Did anyone ever really believe what any President said without other evidence backing it up? They are politicians after all?


Er, yes?

Tons of people. I'd be inclined to say probably the majority of people take what they see without actually bothering to confirm it. Casual observation certainly indicates it.
8 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Wendell
United States
Yellow Springs
Ohio
flag msg tools
Si non potes reperire Berolini in tabula, ludens essetis non WIF.
badge
Hey, get your stinking cursor off my face! I got nukes, you know.
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
AndrewRogue wrote:
qzhdad wrote:
Did anyone ever really believe what any President said without other evidence backing it up? They are politicians after all?


Er, yes?

Tons of people. I'd be inclined to say probably the majority of people take what they see without actually bothering to confirm it. Casual observation certainly indicates it.


During the Cuban missile crisis, Charles De Gaulle (President of France) waived away evidence of what the Soviets were up to in Cuba, brought to him by a senior diplomat on behalf of President Kennedy. De Gaulle said (paraphrasing), "I don't need to see it. The word of the president is good enough."
7 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Mac Mcleod
United States
houston
Texas
flag msg tools
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
abadolato01 wrote:
http://www.cnn.com/2017/03/14/politics/wiretapping-congressi...

How credible can we assume the President to be, when he cannot produce the evidence that substantiate his tweets? More importantly, can our allies or enemies assume him to be credible when he tells them something? This is a slippery slope. No confidence in the President, and what he says, is dangerous to both our internal, and foreign policy.

I am glad that fellow Republicans have had the fortitude to call Trump to the mat on those claims, and ultimately hold him accountable.


Isn't that supposed to be "wiretappping" or "wiretapppping"?
3 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Scott O'Brien
United States
Connellsville
PA
flag msg tools
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
According to what I saw on the news tonight, the evidence is supposed to be released to the house committee on 3/20.


The claim is President Obama went outside the chain of command and used GCHQ to acquire transcripts of conversations involving candidate Trump, ensuring that there is no American fingerprints on this and no evidence of the alleged surveillance.

Three intelligence sources have come forward with information that corroborates this -- he didn't use the NSA, he didn't use the CIA, he didn't use the FBI, and he didn’t use the Department of Justice because there would be a record of the intelligence request.

The GCHQ has 24/7 access to the NSA database. And President Obama can simply request transcripts of conversations involving Trump from the British government without question, nor record of order.


Larry C. Johnson, credited as a "former CIA analyst and State Department official," alleged that "there was some collusion overseas between U.S. intelligence and Britain’s own GHCQ to derail the candidacy of Donald Trump." Citing very good friends, Johnson alleged that "GCHQ actually passed information to John Brennan, and it was disseminated within the U.S. government."

Its all heresay at the moment... but I guess we will find out in 4 days.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Mac Mcleod
United States
houston
Texas
flag msg tools
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
sao123 wrote:
According to what I saw on the news tonight, the evidence is supposed to be released to the house committee on 3/20.


The claim is President Obama went outside the chain of command and used GCHQ to acquire transcripts of conversations involving candidate Trump, ensuring that there is no American fingerprints on this and no evidence of the alleged surveillance.

Three intelligence sources have come forward with information that corroborates this -- he didn't use the NSA, he didn't use the CIA, he didn't use the FBI, and he didn’t use the Department of Justice because there would be a record of the intelligence request.

The GCHQ has 24/7 access to the NSA database. And President Obama can simply request transcripts of conversations involving Trump from the British government without question, nor record of order.


Larry C. Johnson, credited as a "former CIA analyst and State Department official," alleged that "there was some collusion overseas between U.S. intelligence and Britain’s own GHCQ to derail the candidacy of Donald Trump." Citing very good friends, Johnson alleged that "GCHQ actually passed information to John Brennan, and it was disseminated within the U.S. government."

Its all heresay at the moment... but I guess we will find out in 4 days.


Given the multi day advance notice instead of releasing it now I also expected to be accompanied with an advertisement for Trump hotels.

This is all a distraction from the Russian issue. Don't believe that Trump woke up at 6 in the morning and received this information. And then tweeted ababout it and then tweeted about Arnold Schwarzenegger.
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Mac Mcleod
United States
houston
Texas
flag msg tools
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
sao123 wrote:
According to what I saw on the news tonight, the evidence is supposed to be released to the house committee on 3/20.


The claim is President Obama went outside the chain of command and used GCHQ to acquire transcripts of conversations involving candidate Trump, ensuring that there is no American fingerprints on this and no evidence of the alleged surveillance.

Three intelligence sources have come forward with information that corroborates this -- he didn't use the NSA, he didn't use the CIA, he didn't use the FBI, and he didn’t use the Department of Justice because there would be a record of the intelligence request.

The GCHQ has 24/7 access to the NSA database. And President Obama can simply request transcripts of conversations involving Trump from the British government without question, nor record of order.


Larry C. Johnson, credited as a "former CIA analyst and State Department official," alleged that "there was some collusion overseas between U.S. intelligence and Britain’s own GHCQ to derail the candidacy of Donald Trump." Citing very good friends, Johnson alleged that "GCHQ actually passed information to John Brennan, and it was disseminated within the U.S. government."

Its all heresay at the moment... but I guess we will find out in 4 days.


Apparently this is from one man named napalatino on Fox News.

http://thedailybanter.com/.amp/2017/03/fox-commentator-says-...

 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Jon Badolato
United States
Connecticut
flag msg tools
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Fox News isn't doing to well with their sources lately. Just a few weeks back they used a "Swedish government expert" who it turns out, had never actually worked for the Swedish government and was a questionable "expert" as well.

There is little doubt though that a few years from now on a random internet website there will be a thread of loyal Trumpistas ranting on about how the Brits once helped Obama spy on Trump. shake
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Steve
Thailand
flag msg tools
jonb wrote:
Fox News isn't doing to well with their sources lately. Just a few weeks back they used a "Swedish government expert" who it turns out, had never actually worked for the Swedish government and was a questionable "expert" as well.

There is little doubt though that a few years from now on a random internet website there will be a thread of loyal Trumpistas ranting on about how the Brits once helped Obama spy on Trump. shake

Although Trumpistas will not think so, it seems strange that Pres. Obama didn't do a better job of using the info obtained with his illegal wiretaps* on the Trump campaign to defeat candidate Trump.
. * . If there really were any.

We know Pres. Obama is very smart because he was Editor of the Law Review newspaper while at Harvard Law school.
Trumpistas OTOH "know" he is quite dumb *because* they think all Black people are dumb.

 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls

Pennsylvania
msg tools
badge
Bitter acerbic harridan
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
qzhdad wrote:
Did anyone ever really believe what any President said without other evidence backing it up? They are politicians after all?


This is a rather strange thing to say. And you're not the only person to have said it recently. Several commentators have said that it doesn't really matter that Trump made an unsubstantiated claim that our former president was guilty of Watergate level of misconduct during the election, because no one reasonable would ever believe what he was saying. I.e., we all know he wasn't telling the truth, so ergo, it doesn't matter if he lies about whatever he wants because he's a politician.

I have to tell you that I don't understand this kind of reasoning. There are many things that a President can claim during his term that are far more serious than this. Do we seriously want to take the stance that it's okay for a President to lie blatantly about things that would essentially involve criminal penalties or worse for others?

1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Front Page | Welcome | Contact | Privacy Policy | Terms of Service | Advertise | Support BGG | Feeds RSS
Geekdo, BoardGameGeek, the Geekdo logo, and the BoardGameGeek logo are trademarks of BoardGameGeek, LLC.