MSM Still Stands By Reports Of Obama Admin Spying On Trump

[GURPS]

Post-Comey Testimony: MSM Still Stands By Reports Of Obama Admin Spying On Trump




As of right now, The BBC, The New York Times, Heat Street, The Guardian, and McClatchy continue to stand by their stories -- all of which were reported contemporaneously -- that the Obama administration not only requested and received a surveillance warrant (FISA) against Team Trump in October, but that the Obama White House itself was looking at intelligence based on actual "wiretaps."

For the record, "wiretaps" is not my word. It is the word used by The New York Times in its story and print headline. And The New York Times has not retracted its story.

[clip]

If that isn't baffling enough, on top of its January 19 report about the Obama White House looking at "wiretap" intelligence related to Trump, just a couple days ago, in an op-ed, The New York Times went even further by publishing the news that the F.B.I., which was overseen by Obama's Attorney General Loretta Lynch, obtained a FISA warrant "to examine" the "communications" of members of the Trump campaign:

In November, I broke the story that a Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act court had issued a warrant that enabled the F.B.I. to examine communications between “U.S. persons” in the Trump campaign relating to Russia-linked banks.​

So now we have no less than The New York Times, not only reporting that the Obama White House was looking at Trump "wiretap intel," but also publishing the news that a branch of the Obama administration's Justice Department obtained a warrant to examine the communications of a number of people on the Trump campaign.

 

[Larry Gude]

And why isn't the GOP raising holy hell?

Because it serves their interests to leave this to Trump to battle out. They'll help when they think it helps the GOP. Hobbling and harming Trump, for now, is in their interest.

 

[tommyjo]

And why isn't the GOP raising holy hell?

Because it serves their interests to leave this to Trump to battle out. They'll help when they think it helps the GOP. Hobbling and harming Trump, for now, is in their interest.

No...its because, as usual, GURPS' sources are horsesh!t. Here is the Jan 19th article from the NY Time that has GURPS opinion writer's panties in a bunch:

WASHINGTON — American law enforcement and intelligence agencies are examining intercepted communications and financial transactions as part of a broad investigation into possible links between Russian officials and associates of President-elect Donald J. Trump, including his former campaign chairman Paul Manafort, current and former senior American officials said.

The continuing counterintelligence investigation means that Mr. Trump will take the oath of office on Friday with his associates under investigation and after the intelligence agencies concluded that the Russian government had worked to help elect him. As president, Mr. Trump will oversee those agencies and have the authority to redirect or stop at least some of these efforts.

It is not clear whether the intercepted communications had anything to do with Mr. Trump’s campaign, or Mr. Trump himself. It is also unclear whether the inquiry has anything to do with an investigation into the hacking of the Democratic National Committee’s computers and other attempts to disrupt the elections in November. The American government has concluded that the Russian government was responsible for a broad computer hacking campaign, including the operation against the D.N.C.

The counterintelligence investigation centers at least in part on the business dealings that some of the president-elect’s past and present advisers have had with Russia. Mr. Manafort has done business in Ukraine and Russia. Some of his contacts there were under surveillance by the National Security Agency for suspected links to Russia’s Federal Security Service, one of the officials said.

Mr. Manafort is among at least three Trump campaign advisers whose possible links to Russia are under scrutiny. Two others are Carter Page, a businessman and former foreign policy adviser to the campaign, and Roger Stone, a longtime Republican operative.

The F.B.I. is leading the investigations, aided by the National Security Agency, the C.I.A. and the Treasury Department’s financial crimes unit. The investigators have accelerated their efforts in recent weeks but have found no conclusive evidence of wrongdoing, the officials said. One official said intelligence reports based on some of the wiretapped communications had been provided to the White House.

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/01/19/us/politics/trump-russia-associates-investigation.html

As is typical with a GURPS cut and paste post from a far right wing political propaganda site...the facts are just wrong or twisted or obfuscated. The NY Times article does not say the Obama admin was wiretapping Trump...it says some of his affiliates were caught talking to Russians who were being watched.

Additionally there is this rebuttal from the WaPo that is the general consensus rebuttal. This also shows how GURPS article (which is a copy of the Trumps administration's current faulty explanation of the President's BS accusation) is false:

The story in question was published on the paper’s front page on Jan. 20 — the day Trump was inaugurated — under the headline, “Wiretapped Data Used in Inquiry of Trump Aides.”

So, in fact, the word “wiretapped” appears. But at no point does the article, produced under the bylines of four reporters, make the assertion that Obama “ordered” a wiretapping of candidate Trump or that any such surveillance took place at Trump Tower in New York.

Instead, the Times story speaks to a broader and more diffuse FBI investigation of possible links between unnamed Russian officials and Trump associates. The article identified the associates under investigation as former campaign manager Paul Manafort and advisers Carter Page and Roger Stone.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/life...0f9bdd74ed1_story.html?utm_term=.1a2dd46b428d

 

[Larry Gude]

No The NY Times article does not say the Obama admin was wiretapping Trump...it says some of his affiliates were caught talking to Russians who were being watched.

Additionally there is this rebuttal from the WaPo that is the general consensus rebuttal. This also shows how GURPS article (which is a copy of the Trumps administration's current faulty explanation of the President's BS accusation) is false:

]

You see the contradiction, yes? The paper is reporting on an ongoing investigation. I won't presume to state I know what the classifications are but it seems safe to say that the thing was not for publication. Read; the NYT was handed what I am only guessing was information that they should not, by law, have had.

Now, as to the motivation, it takes ZERO effort to see it as partisan given the very simple light of what we know about Sec Clinton's on going and various problems, problems that had not one thing to do with Russians doing anything more than revealing what the DNC was sharing in e mails.

So, can you say that there is no reasonable reason for suspicion here? Can you state that the administration, President Obama's, had no clue of this investigation that looks partisan as hell at this point? Can you say there is no reason to suspect what AG Lynch and Presidential hubby to be Clinton were discussing? Can you see non partisan reasons for Sec Clinton to be mentioning a server at Trump's property?

You smell no rats here? I am ZERO fan of Trump's and never have been. That doesn't make a partisan investigation DURING a campaign OK. It requires a suspension of belief that all this reporting on Trump and his allies didn't violate any laws AND it requires a suspension of reason to think the investigation was unknown to them potus and that it was based on actual national security concerns and not partisan politics.

Convince me otherwise.

 

[Midnightrider]

You see the contradiction, yes? The paper is reporting on an ongoing investigation. I won't presume to state I know what the classifications are but it seems safe to say that the thing was not for publication. Read; the NYT was handed what I am only guessing was information that they should not, by law, have had.

Now, as to the motivation, it takes ZERO effort to see it as partisan given the very simple light of what we know about Sec Clinton's on going and various problems, problems that had not one thing to do with Russians doing anything more than revealing what the DNC was sharing in e mails.

So, can you say that there is no reasonable reason for suspicion here? Can you state that the administration, President Obama's, had no clue of this investigation that looks partisan as hell at this point? Can you say there is no reason to suspect what AG Lynch and Presidential hubby to be Clinton were discussing? Can you see non partisan reasons for Sec Clinton to be mentioning a server at Trump's property?

You smell no rats here? I am ZERO fan of Trump's and never have been. That doesn't make a partisan investigation DURING a campaign OK. It requires a suspension of belief that all this reporting on Trump and his allies didn't violate any laws AND it requires a suspension of reason to think the investigation was unknown to them potus and that it was based on actual national security concerns and not partisan politics.

Convince me otherwise.

wasn't the FBI conducting an equally partisan investigation against Hillary at the same time? Didn't Comey come out just weeks before the election and say so in public driving what may have been the last nail in her campaign? wasn't trump saying something about podesta's turn in the barrel just before his emails were leaked? Because that is where the partisan part falls apart. It seems the investigations are pretty nonpartisan, its just that partisans are leaking the info. At least from outward appearance and not knowing the full story of the inner workings.

 

[Larry Gude]

wasn't the FBI conducting an equally partisan investigation against Hillary at the same time? Didn't Comey come out just weeks before the election and say so in public driving what may have been the last nail in her campaign? wasn't trump saying something about podesta's turn in the barrel just before his emails were leaked? Because that is where the partisan part falls apart. It seems the investigations are pretty nonpartisan, its just that partisans are leaking the info. At least from outward appearance and not knowing the full story of the inner workings.

If the reporting was non partisan, you'd have a point. Right now the narrative is the Russians stole the election. No evidence. Trump is complicit. No evidence. Hillary server? Clinton foundation? Its donors? The DNC actually corrupting the d primary, stealing an election? Lynch and Bubba meeting?

 

[Midnightrider]

If the reporting was non partisan, you'd have a point. Right now the narrative is the Russians stole the election. No evidence. Trump is complicit. No evidence. Hillary server? Clinton foundation? Its donors? The DNC actually corrupting the d primary, stealing an election? Lynch and Bubba meeting?

right now trump and his admin are being less than honest about their connections and conversation and there is apparently an FBI investigation ongoing. There was plenty of coverage about Hilary's emails when that was the ongoing investigation and she was still relevant. I remember hearing plenty about the lynch meeting and the D primary issues too :shrug:

in any case it appears the FBI investigations are being handled pretty equitably

 

[Larry Gude]

I have zero doubt some trump person said words to the effect that they'd 'have more flexibility after the election'.
Basically, you're agreeing there was investigation, is investigating of trump which effectively means obama knew about it, yes?

 

[Midnightrider]

I have zero doubt some trump person said words to the effect that they'd 'have more flexibility after the election'.
Basically, you're agreeing there was investigation, is investigating of trump which effectively means obama knew about it, yes?

I think knew about is different from directed. I think the FBI would be remiss if it didn't investigate people who are active in American politics and have ties to foreign countries. Just like they would have been remiss had they not investigated hillarys emails.

 

[Restitution]

You see the contradiction, yes? The paper is reporting on an ongoing investigation. I won't presume to state I know what the classifications are but it seems safe to say that the thing was not for publication. Read; the NYT was handed what I am only guessing was information that they should not, by law, have had.

Now, as to the motivation, it takes ZERO effort to see it as partisan given the very simple light of what we know about Sec Clinton's on going and various problems, problems that had not one thing to do with Russians doing anything more than revealing what the DNC was sharing in e mails.

So, can you say that there is no reasonable reason for suspicion here? Can you state that the administration, President Obama's, had no clue of this investigation that looks partisan as hell at this point? Can you say there is no reason to suspect what AG Lynch and Presidential hubby to be Clinton were discussing? Can you see non partisan reasons for Sec Clinton to be mentioning a server at Trump's property?

You smell no rats here? I am ZERO fan of Trump's and never have been. That doesn't make a partisan investigation DURING a campaign OK. It requires a suspension of belief that all this reporting on Trump and his allies didn't violate any laws AND it requires a suspension of reason to think the investigation was unknown to them potus and that it was based on actual national security concerns and not partisan politics.

Convince me otherwise.

Serious question.....

Being on this forum as long as you have, did you seriously not know that this question would go unanswered when you took the time to type it out?

 

[Larry Gude]

I think knew about is different from directed. I think the FBI would be remiss if it didn't investigate people who are active in American politics and have ties to foreign countries. Just like they would have been remiss had they not investigated hillarys emails.

Hillary's e mail's would have cost her her job and perhaps jail if she were not she, yes? Seems numerous people on here, gummint employees, are quite certain their career would be over. He gave her a pass, didn't she? And aren't we LONG over due for some kind of charges against Trump or his people? isn't it rather obvious than there have been numerous links? I'm ALL for leaks, by the way but I have to call a spade a spade. This is partisan as hell and it stinks to high heaven.

 

[SamSpade]

Normally I have no patience with conspiracy theories - they're always based on a LACK of evidence, and mostly on supposition based on observation.

But red flags go up for me on the myriad of "weasel words" used in the denials - you know, when the accusation is THIS person did it while in fact THAT one did it - and the denial says oh THIS person never did anything.

THAT sort of thing. It's a lie when they make BLANKET denials -

"But I want to say one thing to the American people. I want you to listen to me. I'm going to say this again: I did not have sexual relations with that woman, Miss Lewinsky. I never told anybody to lie. Not a single time. Never. These allegations are false. And I need to go back to work for the American people."

That's a *lie*. That's total denial, and he lied.

But most politicians are smart enough to use words where they're not TECHNICALLY lying but effectively are.

And they're using language like this.

It doesn't make them guilty, but it strongly indicates they are hiding something.

 

[Larry Gude]

Normally I have no patience with conspiracy theories - they're always based on a LACK of evidence, and mostly on supposition based on observation.

But red flags go up for me on the myriad of "weasel words" used in the denials - you know, when the accusation is THIS person did it while in fact THAT one did it - and the denial says oh THIS person never did anything.

THAT sort of thing. It's a lie when they make BLANKET denials -

"But I want to say one thing to the American people. I want you to listen to me. I'm going to say this again: I did not have sexual relations with that woman, Miss Lewinsky. I never told anybody to lie. Not a single time. Never. These allegations are false. And I need to go back to work for the American people."

That's a *lie*. That's total denial, and he lied.

But most politicians are smart enough to use words where they're not TECHNICALLY lying but effectively are.

And they're using language like this.

It doesn't make them guilty, but it strongly indicates they are hiding something.

Donald Trump is an affront and an insult to every single professional politician, from the elected ones to the careerists. It only figures that they ALL want to see him fail.

 

[GURPS]

Normally I have no patience with conspiracy theories - they're always based on a LACK of evidence, and mostly on supposition based on observation.

But red flags go up for me on the myriad of "weasel words" used in the denials - you know, when the accusation is THIS person did it while in fact THAT one did it - and the denial says oh THIS person never did anything.

Obama's statement .... "neither Barack Obama nor any White House official under Obama ever ordered surveillance of any U.S. citizen." - that doesn't say it wasn't going on .... just that Obama did not order it - id bet a 100 bucks Obama KNEW it was going on however

Comey doesn't 'see' any evidence of 'wiretapping' Trump [Towers] - he doesn't say Trump communications were not caught up in the surveillance of other persons

Nunn - President Donald Trump's communications may have been "monitored" during the transition period as part of an "incidental collection." [meaning the Gov. was watching someone else and caught the communications - this is how Flynn was outed]


The BBC, The New York Times, The Guardian ... are no FANS of Trump - but they are not rescinding or changing their stories

 

[Larry Gude]

Obama's statement .... "neither Barack Obama nor any White House official under Obama ever ordered surveillance of any U.S. citizen." - that doesn't say it wasn't going on .... just that Obama did not order it - id bet a 100 bucks Obama KNEW it was going on however ies

So, the question, did he approve it?

 

[SamSpade]

So, the question, did he approve it?

If someone else was doing it - he might not have NEEDED to - giving him deniability.

This is still conjecture - I just am suspicious when politicians DON'T use complete blanket denials - as in absolutely no way, no part, no collusion, absolutely nothing to do with any of it.
When they use weasel words, I know something is up.

 

[GURPS]

So, the question, did he approve it?

They way I understand this ...

The GOV [CIA, NSA, FBI] already have surveillance programs in place, of Russians and others ....
NO Approval required ....
Team Trump caught up in the MASSIVE dragnet ..... someone exposed Flynn's Conversations sinking him .... congressmen have been played Audio 2 yrs after the fact of their communications

Remember Oct[?] 2016 Hillary tweeted about 'Trump Towers Secret Server' - well how did she find out about that ?
It was all the rage in the progressive media when someone remembered it last month .... turned out to be much a do about nothing

 

[Larry Gude]

If someone else was doing it - he might not have NEEDED to - giving him deniability.

This is still conjecture - I just am suspicious when politicians DON'T use complete blanket denials - as in absolutely no way, no part, no collusion, absolutely nothing to do with any of it.
When they use weasel words, I know something is up.

I have ZERO doubt he has deniability. And I guess that's the hang up. The thing was designed so that a potus, ANY potus, can deny involvement and that's why everyone is up in arms; you can't blame the potus for something designed so that he can NOT be blamed. Yeah, maybe Obama had NO idea but he still is potus. It happened on his watch.