Trump Is 100% Vindicated On Wiretapping, and 7 Other Things You Should Know

GURPS

INGSOC
PREMO Member
Trump Is 100% Vindicated On Wiretapping, and 7 Other Things You Should Know


Yeppers, I said 100% vindicated, and those who disagree are either being stubbornly hyper-literal about the word "wiretap," or the placing of a "physical wiretap," or Obama himself placing the wiretap, or standing by the point Ben Shapiro makes that Trump is still wrong because the surveillance was "incidental."

I'll touch on the "incidental" issue at length in the points below, but to immediately address Ben's argument, even if the collection was incidental, once the unmasking and dissemination of that "incidental" information occurs, that is the Obama administration illegally targeting Trump using surveillance, and that is the exact same thing as outright spying. And being illegally spied on was, of course, Trump's overall claim.

As far as the THIS WASN'T A WIRETAP nonsense, it reminds me of someone accusing a 70-year-old (Trump's age) of lying when he claims someone stole his record collection after the bad guy is found only with the old man's iPod. You said records! Where's the vinyl! Where's the vinyl! Where's the vinyl!

Not for a second did I imagine Trump meant an actual physical phone tap – you know, like you'd see Mike Connors do on "Mannix." Welcome to the 21st Century, pedants!

Anyway, if we're going to obsess over definitions, this is an excerpt from a 2010 MIT book called "Privacy On The Line," which clearly shows that the word "wiretap" fits the exact definition we are talking about:

Wiretapping is the traditional term for interception of telephone conversations. This should not be taken too literally. The word is no longer restricted to communications traveling by wire, and contemporary wiretaps are more commonly placed on radio links [ed. cell phones] or inside telephone offices. The meaning has also broadened in that the thing being tapped need no longer be a telephone call in the classic sense; it may be some other form of electronic communication, such as a fax or data.

Compared with the more precise but more general phrase "communications interception," the word "wiretapping" has two connotations. Much the stronger of these is that a wiretap is aimed at a particular target, in sharp contrast to the "vacuum cleaner" interception widely practiced by national intelligence agencies. The weaker connotation is that it is being done by the police. [ed. Big hat tip to Stuart Dean]
 

tommyjo

New Member
Wrong...as usual....

This is what the President put in writing:

Terrible! Just found out that Obama had my "wires tapped" in Trump Tower just before the victory. Nothing found. This is McCarthyism!

and this:

Is 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!

and this:

How low has President Obama gone to tapp my phones during the very sacred election process. This is Nixon/Watergate. Bad (or sick) guy!

There is no evidence...none, even Mr. Nunes stated there is NO evidence (NONE)...that Mr. Obama wiretapped or ordered surveillance of Mr. Trump inside or outside of Trump Tower. The director of the FBI, the Depart of Justice and the intelligence agencies have all unanimously and unambiguously stated that there are no facts to support Mr. Trump's claim...NONE.

The definition one chooses to use for "wiretap"...or trying to redefine the word "incidental" doesn't change the facts that there is no evidence to support Mr. Trump's claim.

So you can post all the horsesh!t you want from your propaganda sheets...the facts aren't going to change...there is no evidence to support Mr. Trump's claim that he was the subject of an illegal surveillance operation that was ordered by the previous President.
 

SamSpade

Well-Known Member
The definition one chooses to use for "wiretap"...or trying to redefine the word "incidental"

To no surprise you are doing PRECISELY what the article describes - splitting hairs over word definitions.
He was spied upon or surveilled. Illegally and somehow through the behest of the former administration.

The rest is word games.
 

Wishbone

New Member
To no surprise you are doing PRECISELY what the article describes - splitting hairs over word definitions.
He was spied upon or surveilled. Illegally and somehow through the behest of the former administration.

The rest is word games.

It's like arguing with children... Or Bubba... "Depends on what your definition of the word "is" is"
 

Chris0nllyn

Well-Known Member
To no surprise you are doing PRECISELY what the article describes - splitting hairs over word definitions.
He was spied upon or surveilled. Illegally and somehow through the behest of the former administration.

The rest is word games.

Taking the man for what he said. Not only what he said, but what he typed, multiple times, isn't playing word games.

He wants to be right, his voters want him to be right, but it doesn't change the fact that no matter how much someone twists what he meant....he's still wrong.
 

vraiblonde

Board Mommy
PREMO Member
Patron
There is no evidence...none, even Mr. Nunes stated there is NO evidence (NONE)...that Mr. Obama wiretapped or ordered surveillance of Mr. Trump inside or outside of Trump Tower. The director of the FBI, the Depart of Justice and the intelligence agencies have all unanimously and unambiguously stated that there are no facts to support Mr. Trump's claim...NONE.

The definition one chooses to use for "wiretap"...or trying to redefine the word "incidental" doesn't change the facts that there is no evidence to support Mr. Trump's claim.

So you can post all the horsesh!t you want from your propaganda sheets...the facts aren't going to change...there is no evidence to support Mr. Trump's claim that he was the subject of an illegal surveillance operation that was ordered by the previous President.

:lol:

Does that hurt?
 

vraiblonde

Board Mommy
PREMO Member
Patron
Taking the man for what he said. Not only what he said, but what he typed, multiple times, isn't playing word games.

Sure it is. Or more accurately, it's splitting hairs.

The new excuse is, "Oh, we weren't trying to spy on Trump, we were only spying on his campaign people and advisors. We just happened to get him in the process."

Doesn't matter. Still illegal.

"Oh, Obama didn't set up the surveillance, his people did."

Doesn't matter. Still illegal and he's still responsible.

"Oh, Obama didn't order the surveillance, his Chief of Staff did."

Doesn't matter. Still illegal and he's still responsible.

So sure, we can go through some legalistic multipage explanation...which will be a really tedious way of saying "Obama had Trump under surveillance and tapped his phones." No matter how you spin it, it's still an invasion of privacy, unethical and most likely illegal, an enormous abuse of power., and at Obama's direction. Oh, and? Obama and his Democrat cronies shouldn't be allowed to get away with it. I get tired of these people abusing their power and walking away scot free like some ####ing third world dictator.
 

Larry Gude

Strung Out
So, we know 'we', under President Obama, spied on numerous foreign leaders including their cell phone conversations.

We know 'we', under President Obama, spied on the press.

We know 'we', under President Obama, spied on sitting members of congress.

We know 'we', under President Bush, merrily accepted the TSA, DHS and Patriot Act along with numerous revisions and amendments specifically to be able to spy on ourselves and everyone else and that he, and his successor, didn't create all this power for nothing. We didn't accept subordinating numerous parts of the US Constitution, effectively making it useless, just very legally, other than that pesky amendment process, expressly and specifically to spy on everyone and everything, all in the name of national SECURITY, just to leave that bad boy sitting on a lift in the garage.

What are the chances that Donald Trump, in a massively contentious election, and having won it against most of our governing systems wishes, was the ONLY person on the planet NOT tapped???


We're playing word games here. One of the things that Obama probably told Trump in their visits was "Hey, bro. Nothing personal but you might wanna be a little more careful about a few things in the future. The cool part is that you'll be the one reading and hearing about all this stuff now. Just keep in mind it's how we keep one another honest to some extent. To #### up the franchise, know what I'm saying? It's how we keep some sort of control around here. Have fun!"
 

Chris0nllyn

Well-Known Member
Sure it is. Or more accurately, it's splitting hairs.

The new excuse is, "Oh, we weren't trying to spy on Trump, we were only spying on his campaign people and advisors. We just happened to get him in the process."

Doesn't matter. Still illegal.

"Oh, Obama didn't set up the surveillance, his people did."

Doesn't matter. Still illegal and he's still responsible.

"Oh, Obama didn't order the surveillance, his Chief of Staff did."

Doesn't matter. Still illegal and he's still responsible.

So sure, we can go through some legalistic multipage explanation...which will be a really tedious way of saying "Obama had Trump under surveillance and tapped his phones." No matter how you spin it, it's still an invasion of privacy, unethical and most likely illegal, an enormous abuse of power., and at Obama's direction. Oh, and? Obama and his Democrat cronies shouldn't be allowed to get away with it. I get tired of these people abusing their power and walking away scot free like some ####ing third world dictator.

It's not splitting hairs, nor is it illegal.

This is the same intelligence apparatus' power no one cared about until now. "If [Trump] has nothing to hide, what's the problem?"
 

SamSpade

Well-Known Member
It's not splitting hairs, nor is it illegal.

Then if it is found to be true, that will be their defense, no doubt. As in, yeah, so - we lied about it. It's still legal.

This is the same intelligence apparatus' power no one cared about until now. "If [Trump] has nothing to hide, what's the problem?"

Guessing you wouldn't have anything to hide if they spied on YOU, then?

I don't agree with that defense.
IF he has something illegal to hide, then spying might be justified.
But if he has NOTHING to hide, spying is not justified.
 

Chris0nllyn

Well-Known Member
Then if it is found to be true, that will be their defense, no doubt. As in, yeah, so - we lied about it. It's still legal.



Guessing you wouldn't have anything to hide if they spied on YOU, then?

I don't agree with that defense.
IF he has something illegal to hide, then spying might be justified.
But if he has NOTHING to hide, spying is not justified.

The NSA, CIA, and FBI HAVE been spying on us. Almost ALL of us. That's my point.

These revelations aren't new. They came out with Snowden, Manning, Wikileaks, etc. Multiple times it's been said that they can, and do, spy on Americans under the guise of spying on a foreign person.

I agree no American should be subject to warrantless spying, but when it was brought up multiple times over the years, many across the country and many on this very forum simply didn't care because "if you have nothing to hide, you shouldn't care."
 

PsyOps

Pixelated
But this isn't remotely the same thing as Watergate, is it?

If it was, either Obama sucks at it, or Trump has nothing that could be used against him.

Just so I understand you... because there are some that take the position that they have nothing to hide, therefore being snooped on is no big deal, you have decided that the surveillance of Trump - a guy you adamantly oppose - is now suddenly no big deal. Given your past outrage at our government's overreach, why the lack of outrage here?
 

Chris0nllyn

Well-Known Member
Just so I understand you... because there are some that take the position that they have nothing to hide, therefore being snooped on is no big deal, you have decided that the surveillance of Trump - a guy you adamantly oppose - is now suddenly no big deal. Given your past outrage at our government's overreach, why the lack of outrage here?

Oh, don't mistake what I've been saying as me agreeing or thinking it's suddenly no big deal.

The cows are finally coming home, and civil libertarians have warned big government citizens that this power given to the government could lead to instances like this.

We were the ones wary when Bush pushed the TSA. We were worried when FISA act was established (including Section 702, which gives the govt. the ability to gather info on American citizens as long as their target is foreign). Democrats, ACLU, etc. warned about this and everyone believed that this act and these abilities were there to protect them.

I've NEVER agreed with it. What I don't want to happen is confusion on what went on here. Trump was not wiretapped by Obama. Twist his words or meanings all you (royal "you") want, but Obama did not spy on Trump and as much as many want to believe it, Obama doesn't have that much power over an intelligence apparatus with seemingly little to no oversight. It's not "wiretapping" in the sense of Watergate, but it is our govt. spying on American citizens. The same thing happened with Obama (reports say Obama's calls were intercepted over 1,200 times) and if a govt. agency abused their power and leaked information that was legally obtained, that's a problem. A problem some of us saw coming.

So now what? Is Trump going to curtail the powers of the FBI, NSA, or CIA? Will he focus his Tweets to something a bit more factual like the powers of his intelligence agencies?
 

Midnightrider

Well-Known Member
To no surprise you are doing PRECISELY what the article describes - splitting hairs over word definitions.
He was spied upon or surveilled. Illegally and somehow through the behest of the former administration.

The rest is word games.

Even nunes says whatever he saw was collected legally. The evidence of said surveillance is supposed to be provided today.
 

Larry Gude

Strung Out
Even nunes says whatever he saw was collected legally. The evidence of said surveillance is supposed to be provided today.

I haven't heard anyone say otherwise. I have heard people say it never happened, Trump is wrong, nothing to see here, move along.

So, "It never happened and even if it did, OK, it did but it was legal and even if it was illegal to 'unmask people' OK, it was illegal to unmask people, and even if it was, no law's were broken in giving it to reporters, OK, so a few laws were broken but Barack Obama didn't know anything about it...OK, so, he had to know that someone in the WH got ahold of this, OK, so, he probably knows but HE would NEVER personally go to Trump Tower and set up the actual, specific equipment to spy on Trump so, no story here!"

Gosh, if only these folks were around to defend Nixon. "He didn't do the break in, ergo..."
 

vraiblonde

Board Mommy
PREMO Member
Patron
I haven't heard anyone say otherwise. I have heard people say it never happened, Trump is wrong, nothing to see here, move along.

So, "It never happened and even if it did, OK, it did but it was legal and even if it was illegal to 'unmask people' OK, it was illegal to unmask people, and even if it was, no law's were broken in giving it to reporters, OK, so a few laws were broken but Barack Obama didn't know anything about it...OK, so, he had to know that someone in the WH got ahold of this, OK, so, he probably knows but HE would NEVER personally go to Trump Tower and set up the actual, specific equipment to spy on Trump so, no story here!"

Gosh, if only these folks were around to defend Nixon. "He didn't do the break in, ergo..."

This exactly ^^^
 
Top