So Called President Trump Accuses Obama of Tapping His Phone Calls
-
Did you look at that picture of the NY Times front page?
Michael S Schmidt co-wrote that article, which was published on Jan 20, 2017.
Michael S Schmidt wrote the article criticizing Trump for claiming he was being wiretapped with no evidence.
In which article was MSS being totally dishonest?
What are you even talking about now?
The articles WSJ articles that Michael S. Schmidt contributed to on Jan 20,2017 are as follows:
Inauguration Protesters and Police Clash on Washington’s Streets
Intercepted Russian Communications Part of Inquiry Into Trump Associates
Before Emptying the White House, Obama’s Glittering Round of FarewellsThe article written by Michael S. Schmidt that was criticizing Donald over the wiretaps was published on March 4th, 2017…
Are you just mashing random facts together?
Edit: Also, after I just reread https://www.nytimes.com/2017/03/04/us/politics/trump-obama-tap-phones.html please explain to me what's dishonest about that ?? That's exactly what happened, the responses from the people they asked, seem legitimate… Please elaborate...
-
We know this is fake because if this actually happened the Trump scandals would have been much more damaging.
This is a situation where we have a crazy man who sits on the couch watching cable news all day. He hears a small piece of information and then can't stop ranting about it. Then he declares that all news is fake but still continues to believe that one thing he heard today. My elderly dad has been doing the same thing for a few years now.
-
We know this is fake because if this actually happened the Trump scandals would have been much more damaging.
This is a situation where we have a crazy man who sits on the couch watching cable news all day. He hears a small piece of information and then can't stop ranting about it. Then he declares that all news is fake but still continues to believe that one thing he heard today. My elderly dad has been doing the same thing for a few years now.
Be fair now, he obviously doesn't sit on the couch watching cable news all day, he spends a lot of his time flying to his vacation getaway and golfing as well.
-
Why are you fixated on the articles Michael S Schmidt did for the Wall Street Journal?
I said the articles he did for the NY Times. Look at the picture of the NY Times cover posted in this thread. Jan 20, 2017 and the first name in the by line is Michael S Schmidt.
-
Why are you fixated on the articles Michael S Schmidt did for the Wall Street Journal?
I said the articles he did for the NY Times. Look at the picture of the NY Times cover posted in this thread. Jan 20, 2017 and the first name in the by line is Michael S Schmidt.
My fixation has absolutely nothing to do with Michael S Schmidt.
I can't figure out if you're confused, are trolling me, or both…
There is no NY Times cover posted in this thread …
I went through every single link twice ...
This is the article you are describing and it explicitly says "TRUMP ASSOCIATES" ... https://www.nytimes.com/2017/01/19/us/politics/trump-russia-associates-investigation.html
You're sitting here telling me to do my own research when you don't even know what you are talking about…
Did you look at that picture of the NY Times front page?
Michael S Schmidt co-wrote that article, which was published on Jan 20, 2017.
Michael S Schmidt wrote the article criticizing Trump for claiming he was being wiretapped with no evidence.
In which article was MSS being totally dishonest?
You are the one being totally dishonest…
Those are two separate reports about two different people/persons and they are both accurate.
Did you miss that critical detail and were unintentionally conflating the two issues?
Somebody brought this important point up about the entire Russia issue, if they didn't do anything wrong, then why do they keep lying about it?!?
-
You seriously don't see that giant picture in this thread? You need to check your settings. Look for the post dated 6 March @ 19:32.
WIRETAPPED DATA USED IN INQUIRY OF TRUMP AIDES; is what the newspaper headline is for the story the day after the internet article is dated.
If you could see the picture, you'd know the article headline isn't the same as the internet article headline even though they both seem to be the same story.
The article says it's unclear how much of the data and investigation is about Trump and his campaign.
If the article was about Hillary's associates, then you would be screaming for blood. You'd be claiming it was about getting at her.
-
You seriously don't see that giant picture in this thread? You need to check your settings. Look for the post dated 6 March @ 19:32.
WIRETAPPED DATA USED IN INQUIRY OF TRUMP AIDES; is what the newspaper headline is for the story the day after the internet article is dated.
If you could see the picture, you'd know the article headline isn't the same as the internet article headline even though they both seem to be the same story.
The article says it's unclear how much of the data and investigation is about Trump and his campaign.
If the article was about Hillary's associates, then you would be screaming for blood. You'd be claiming it was about getting at her.
Alright dude. I quit. I'm not going to sit here and be trolled by the moderator of any site, especially this one. I've told you multiple times now that I'm not a liberal and I'm not a Hillary supporter.
I'm not going to be insulted by some random person online. If I wanted that, I could easily go hit up the comment section of any un-moderated site.
As far as that article goes. Ok, you're still wrong… You read it wrong, you are responsible for that, that's not my problem.
You are suggesting that Trump tweeted about what Michael S. Schmidt wrote, the problem with that is, he never stated that Trump was wire tapped and you even admitted that. And that's certainly not what Trump tweeted about, since the dates don't even close to match. What you did there is totally dishonest.
It's apparent to me, that somebody has made a big mistake about who they have moderating this forum.
As far as the image goes:
Aren't hot-linked images not allowed?
It's completely obvious you only enforce the rules when people are saying things you personally don't want to read.
The resource at “https://pbs.twimg.com/media/C6QST8PWUAA_NHD.jpg” was blocked because tracking protection is enabled. 1 index.phpYeah I really want twitter reading my cookies while I'm on this site…
Edit: You do realize how epically stupid that is right?… They can literally tie your user name here to your real twitter account and if you phone verified your twitter, they can tie your account here to you. This isn't some paranoid rant, I actually know how the tracking cookies work. If you could see that picture, you probably outed yourself in the data. Since you don't need an account to read the forum, they can just match it up via the timestamps. This is really bad since the site prints the seconds and if it syncs with an NTP server, it's probably accurate within a second. So, there will be a matching time stamp on the site when the user posts the image, in the log and on this forum, with a log of the unique ID being read, matching the time stamps. The site does use HTTPS, so the referrer isn't passed to twitter, but they can just Google the image and figure out that you're a pirate…
Have a great time with the vomit you spew all over this forum.
-
It's kind strange that Trump is getting his news from the "failing" New York Times…...
-
How sad. You think you are being "trolled" because someone doesn't believe you are a conservative based on your posts.
The picture was/is there and apparently you saw the link, so I'm confused why you kept claiming it didn't exist.
It's completely obvious you only enforce the rules when people are saying things you personally don't want to read.
LOL, do you realize how many people I would have to ban if I didn't allow people to disagree with me.
As an example, RoyalCrown would be muted on the forums because of a little rant he went on, which even he admits he violated the rules. He got no punishment because he admitted he did wrong.
The only people who get "banned", actually muted on the forums, are those that only post personal attacks, while never joining in on the discussion. And spammers, of course.
One person got a total site ban because he fought with so many people and not a single staff member wanted him around.
-
how is it that the media just doesnt come right out and say this man is completely off his rocker,hours after he accused Obama he then went on to say Hillary was spying on him,both said to deflect from all the russian allegations how teh fuck did he con so many people into voting for him :cheesy2:
-
how is it that the media just doesnt come right out and say this man is completely off his rocker,hours after he accused Obama he then went on to say Hillary was spying on him,both said to deflect from all the russian allegations how teh fuck did he con so many people into voting for him :cheesy2:
Many members of the media do say just that. The red hats don't care. They view Trump as a victim.
-
If Trump was wiretapped, he could simply reveal the information pertaining to this. As president, trump is an originating authority when it comes to classified information, which means he could simply declassify the information or segments to prove his point. He hasn't done that. Also, the president hasn't had the power to wantonly wiretap people for over 45 years. Those powers were stripped from the president and solely reside within a FISA court. A FISA court cannot choose wiretap an American citizen unless they have probably cause and suspicion that the person in question is likely an agent of a foreign power or acting in a related capacity. If this was approved by a FISA court then we have alot more to worry about in Trump if they had reason enough to suspect him. Regardless, Obama could not have invoked a wiretap since it is not a power within his arsenal as president. Trump is outright lying here and this should be concerning, especially that there are so many people willing to believe these lies.
-
There are a lot of things Presidents aren't legally allowed to do but they still do it; Iran - Contra for example.
-
How sad. You think you are being "trolled" because someone doesn't believe you are a conservative based on your posts.
The picture was/is there and apparently you saw the link, so I'm confused why you kept claiming it didn't exist.
It's completely obvious you only enforce the rules when people are saying things you personally don't want to read.
LOL, do you realize how many people I would have to ban if I didn't allow people to disagree with me.
As an example, RoyalCrown would be muted on the forums because of a little rant he went on, which even he admits he violated the rules. He got no punishment because he admitted he did wrong.
The only people who get "banned", actually muted on the forums, are those that only post personal attacks, while never joining in on the discussion. And spammers, of course.
One person got a total site ban because he fought with so many people and not a single staff member wanted him around.
Funny how you mentioned me in this response when I've been called personal names on here by other users such as when user amicusets called me a "flaming queen of libtards" in the thread related to Racist Elf (aka Jeff Sessions) and absolutely nothing was done about it. And while I did admit I should not have used the language I did in the rant you mentioned, the rant itself was 100% justified. The basis of all my arguments are that everyone should have the very basic opportunities and I do not have a belief that one person's rights or even their very own lives are worth less or more than others. Your arguments on the other hand can be paraphrased as, "all women believe men should die; therefore, feminism is toxic" or "all blacks are racists unless they're completely identical to the one type of black I agree with; therefore, only blacks I agree with deserve to be treated as human beings." I will continue to deem 95-98% of your arguments as wholly irrational. The other 2-5% depend on you saying things that are undeniable facts, such as the American immigration system being unfair to people like you and your partner.
-
There are a lot of things Presidents aren't legally allowed to do but they still do it; Iran - Contra for example.
President Obama did not tap Agent Orange's phones and Agent Orange has no proof of it, simple as that. Once again, we're back to Agent Orange not providing proof to either support or dismiss a claim. His credibility is as low as his approval numbers at this point. He should keep it up though, I truly have never seen this amount of people coming together in South Carolina. Do you know how long it has been since I've seen a bumper sticker supporting #45 and #48? Senator Tim Scott and former Governor Mark Sanford were booed at a townhall by people who voted for them just because they defended Agent Orange. He's become very, very toxic here. I cannot wait for the big coordinated anti-#45 march headed by a republican teacher here. Exciting to see Democrats, Republicans and Independents coming together against the unpopular Cheeto with bad hair.
-
I would liken the insane mango to Daffy Duck, except that Daffy is ineffectual and does not have the ability to reign horror upon the world. If we aren't careful, we're fucked.
-
Funny how you mentioned me in this response when I've been called personal names on here by other users such as when user amicusets called me a "flaming queen of libtards" in the thread related to Racist Elf (aka Jeff Sessions) and absolutely nothing was done about it. And while I did admit I should not have used the language I did in the rant you mentioned, the rant itself was 100% justified. The basis of all my arguments are that everyone should have the very basic opportunities and I do not have a belief that one person's rights or even their very own lives are worth less or more than others. Your arguments on the other hand can be paraphrased as, "all women believe men should die; therefore, feminism is toxic" or "all blacks are racists unless they're completely identical to the one type of black I agree with; therefore, only blacks I agree with deserve to be treated as human beings." I will continue to deem 95-98% of your arguments as wholly irrational. The other 2-5% depend on you saying things that are undeniable facts, such as the American immigration system being unfair to people like you and your partner.
Did you use the report button?
LOL, you can't even get your lies even partly believable.
I do believe that feminism is toxic and I've given countless examples of your religion being vile, but I never said all women.
Nor did I say all blacks are racist. I said that blacks, like you, who view everything as being about race, are racist. You pulled the "but blacks can't be racist" BS. I point out that a certain Congressman lied and that makes me a racist who hates MLK,Jr by some twisted black racist imagination.
I voted for a black woman as my Congressperson in the last 12 elections and that somehow makes me a racist and a woman hater. Fucking hell, you do have a fucked up mentality.
-
Funny how you mentioned me in this response when I've been called personal names on here by other users such as when user amicusets called me a "flaming queen of libtards" in the thread related to Racist Elf (aka Jeff Sessions) and absolutely nothing was done about it. And while I did admit I should not have used the language I did in the rant you mentioned, the rant itself was 100% justified. The basis of all my arguments are that everyone should have the very basic opportunities and I do not have a belief that one person's rights or even their very own lives are worth less or more than others. Your arguments on the other hand can be paraphrased as, "all women believe men should die; therefore, feminism is toxic" or "all blacks are racists unless they're completely identical to the one type of black I agree with; therefore, only blacks I agree with deserve to be treated as human beings." I will continue to deem 95-98% of your arguments as wholly irrational. The other 2-5% depend on you saying things that are undeniable facts, such as the American immigration system being unfair to people like you and your partner.
Did you use the report button?
LOL, you can't even get your lies even partly believable.
I do believe that feminism is toxic and I've given countless examples of your religion being vile, but I never said all women.
Nor did I say all blacks are racist. I said that blacks, like you, who view everything as being about race, are racist. You pulled the "but blacks can't be racist" BS. I point out that a certain Congressman lied and that makes me a racist who hates MLK,Jr by some twisted black racist imagination.
I voted for a black woman as my Congressperson in the last 12 elections and that somehow makes me a racist and a woman hater. Fucking hell, you do have a fucked up mentality.
Oh, okay. Whatever. Where's an irrationality trophy when you need one? You sir should be deemed "Irrational Man of the Year." ;D
-
Oh, okay. Whatever. Where's an irrationality trophy when you need one? You sir should be deemed "Irrational Man of the Year."
LOL. You are just a sad little person.
And why should I care what a person like you thinks about anything?
-
According to that Jan. 20 NYT article (Jan 19 version at hxxps://www.nytimes.com/2017/01/19/us/politics/trump-russia-associates-investigation.html), there were perfectly valid, and scary, reasons for some of these investigations of Trump's associates to take place (the Jan. 20 version may be available through your public library's website in the USA - ProQuest Newsstand, Infotrac Newstand, and many other services carry it).
Excerpt 1:
The F.B.I. investigation into Mr. Manafort began last spring, and was an outgrowth of a criminal investigation into his work for a pro-Russian political party in Ukraine and for the country’s former president, Viktor F. Yanukovych. In August, The Times reported that Mr. Manafort’s name had surfaced in a secret ledger that showed he had been paid millions in undisclosed cash payments. The Associated Press has reported that his work for Ukraine included a secret lobbying effort in Washington aimed at influencing American news organizations and government officials.
Excerpt 2:
Mr. [Roger] Stone, a longtime friend of Mr. Trump’s, said in a speech in Florida last summer that he had communicated with Julian Assange, the founder of WikiLeaks, the anti-secrecy group that published the hacked Democratic emails. During the speech, Mr. Stone predicted further leaks of documents, a prediction that came true within weeks.
So I can finally agree with Trump - let's by all means have a full airing of what these investigators did and exactly what they found.
OT to rawr: I use CookieCuller (for Firefox) to clear all unwanted cookies and BetterPrivacy to clear all LSO cookies before I come to sites like this. Is that enough?
Hello! It looks like you're interested in this conversation, but you don't have an account yet.
Getting fed up of having to scroll through the same posts each visit? When you register for an account, you'll always come back to exactly where you were before, and choose to be notified of new replies (either via email, or push notification). You'll also be able to save bookmarks and upvote posts to show your appreciation to other community members.
With your input, this post could be even better 💗
Register Login