Wire Tap: Was There or Wasn’t There, That is the Question

by Jack

On march 2nd, 2017, President Trump tweeted that he had been wire tapped prior to his election.  The tweet: “ Terrible! Just found out that Obama had my “wires tapped” in Trump Tower just before the victory. Nothing found. This is McCarthyism!”  This was followed by a second tweet and I quote again, “How low has President Obama gone to tapp my phones during the very sacred election process. This is Nixon/Watergate. Bad (or sick) guy!

Less than two days later the Atlantic magazine (also an online presence) declared that Trump had made a false accusation.  Wow, a verdict already?   In order for the Atlantic to reach this speedy conclusion a number of assumptions had to made, all of which favored the Obama Administration.  It was all based on opinions, no actual evidence relevant to the charge.  For that part, it could take weeks or months to sort out.

For example, the Atlantic wrote, “If, hypothetically, a judge did approve a warrant for electronic surveillance of Trump officials, that would mean the judge was persuaded there was probable cause to believe they were going to commit a crime or were communicating with agents of a foreign power–and that the gravity of the circumstances justified approving the request, even in the face of the massive potential political fallout.”

Already they (Atlantic) have made an incorrect statement fact.  (See wire tap requirements as noted in the previous article).

However, this is not about the Atlantic, this is about the President and the allegations at hand.  Was there or wasn’t there a wire tap, that is the question?

We’ve heard the pundits talk about probable cause, FISA, the DOJ, FBI, etc., but it’s these are complicated areas that can be sorted out later.  Trump made a very serious charge, now it’s up to him to show us some proof.   This is how the American justice system works and this is what we the people expect from our president.  The charges are monumentally serious, so President Trump better have his ducks in order, but so far we’ve not even heard a quack.

The passing of time without a showing of substantive evidence does not help the President’s case, particularly in the court of public opinion where perceptions are quickly formed into something akin to concrete.   In the latter instance, perceptions can be long lasting and are very difficult to undue.  Trump must show us that he had at the very least some “probable cause” to believe the allegation were true, anything short of that is not very presidential.

On a related note, I found it unfathomable and therefore unsettling, that right after President Trump dropped this nuclear bomb of a tweet, that he moved on to glibly commenting about his former TV show, The Apprentice.  Wha?  That’s like saying, “We’ve decided to nuke North Korea, and oh by the way, did you see the latest episode of the Bachelor, wasn’t that a hoot?”

Well, looking on the bright side, we did enjoy 4 days of relative calm following the president’s address to Congress where he scored a home run.   So, until this scandal is brought under control, I pray that President Trump stops with the tweeting and let’s his team earn their money.



This entry was posted in Uncategorized and tagged , , , , , , . Bookmark the permalink.

18 Responses to Wire Tap: Was There or Wasn’t There, That is the Question

  1. Libby says:

    “On march 2nd, 2017, President Trump tweeted ….”

    Actually, it was 3:35 a.m. on March 4 … when he declared: “Just found out ….”

    I think a coven of tooth fairies told him all about it, and I don’t think he’s gonna last the year.

    • Post Scripts says:

      Libby, lets keep in mind that the Donald is not a politician, he does not think or act like a politician. He often times shoots from the hip and in part, that’s why we elected him. We have to take the good with the bad now. Arguably, this could have been handled better and it probably would have been, if he ran it by his staff first. But, as you have pointed out he made a quick decision at 3 a.m. while everyone else was asleep. However, let’s not ASSUME he was wrong. Let’s give him a chance to prove his case – at least lets wait to hear what he based his allegation on! That would be fair and prudent – you are all about being fair and prudent right? Sure. So let’s not jump to one side or the other, lets give him a chance and hear what’s behind this charge.

      • Libby says:

        Wouldn’t he have produced any evidence right off, if there were any? There ain’t diddly behind the charge, and you know it.

        Geez. Let’s not ALL lose what sense we have left. I’m quite shocked at Harold, falling so very hard for this … on nothing but The Donald’s say-so, which, if we know nothing else … we know ain’t worth diddly.

        • Post Scripts says:

          Libby, see what RHT has found? Lemme know what you think about it, these are all public records.

          • Harold says:

            The only problem so far as I listen to it, is the archaic word “Wire Tap” used by President Trump. Even though it is a basic description of being spied on and notability recognized by us all, however if your a liberal trying to install some misdirection, it is not succinct enough to actually describe what took place, after all plausible deniability is what politics is all about these days isn’t it!

            Candidate Trump was being spied on and by one of the departments under Obamas control during Obamas administration, and the Liberals are using semantics as the only tool they have in a cheap attempt to discredit President Trumps current allegations.

            Once more the Liberal side of the Swamp is starting to reveal it’s true smell of fear as they attempt to redirect President Trump agenda from a successful job of returning the governments service back to benefiting the people.

            If the Liberals keep this up, Mid term elections can not get here too soon…..

        • Harold says:

          Geez Lippy , fall for what, don’t you read this stuff ? the article was posted to explain a bit of how and what FISA is and how it worked. It made no reference to how I considered the opinion of the authors, although I do believe that your Obama had more to do with it than not. It had links and counter points as well. But not being a Salon article, or from the Comrade daily you would immediately dismiss it, much like you did with Jacks posting back on the 3/2/2017 where you stepped on your tongue big time.

          At some point maybe you will get your brain running BEFORE you throw your mouth into gear.

        • Tina says:

          Or there’s “diddly” that he DOES know but can’t reveal at this time.

          And Harold is not ” falling so very hard” as you assert.

          Harold has plenty of reasons to think this scandalous activity entirely fathomable.

          The administration and bureaucracy in question have a record of using underhanded and deceitful methods, of lying, of covering up, and of targeting private citizens through various government agencies and through the media in the court of public opinion.

          The more that’s revealed, the smellier it gets.

          The thing that is out of whack is your giddy unconcerned pretense.

      • Bryan H. says:

        It’s one thing to not behave like a politician, it’s another to not behave like a sensible adult. I’m glad you agree that he isn’t acting presidential here, but let’s not mince words. The president is acting like a child.

        I imagine Trump will provide as much evidence for this allegation as he did for the claim that got him into politics, that Obama’s birth certificate was fake. Or as much as he’s provided for his claim that Rafael Cruz had something to do with JFK’s death. Or as much as he’s provided for his claim that 3-5 million illegals voted in California. Or as much as he’s provided for his claim that his inauguration crowd size was bigger than Obama’s.

        So, nothing.

        This guy is a conspiracy theorist who bases his view of reality on whatever best suits him at the time, and nothing else. Having someone like this in the White House is dangerous.

  2. Jim says:

    I think the American people deserve to know the extent that the Russian Government was involved in the Trump campaign and is currently involved in his Administration. The sooner the truth comes out, the better.

    • Bryan H. says:

      Could it be any more obvious that Trump made the baseless wiretap accusations in order to deflect from the Russia allegations? This is what Trump does. It’s who he is. “I’m rubber, you’re glue.” “No puppet. You’re the puppet.” What a child.

  3. Peggy says:

    Note the major pivot the left-wingers have made. A month ago they were all adamant that those on their side of the aisle had been hacked, without any evidence to support their claim. Now it’s they’re saying no way was Trump hacked, because there is no evidence and are demanding he provide it.

    • Peggy says:

      Here’s a perfect example of the pivot I mentioned above.

      From Rush.

      “Now, I want to share something with you about the actual story accompanying this headline, “Wiretapped Data Used in Inquiry of Trump Aides.” And this comes from a blog called Yid With Lid. “In January Michael S. Schmidt perpetuated the rumor that Team Trump had Russian connections, and to support his point he said that Trump’s people were wiretapped –” Michael S. Schmidt in the New York Times perpetuating the rumor that Trump had Russian connections and maybe affected the election, “and to support his point he said that Trump’s people were wiretapped.”

      Well, how does he know? Somebody in the Regime, in the outgoing Regime, somebody had to share with him the data on the wiretaps, somebody had to tell him there were wiretaps, somebody had to tell him what the wiretaps had produced, ’cause he’s writing about it in the New York Times. But yet when Trump over the weekend claims they were wiretapped, this same guy, Michael S. Schmidt who wrote the piece in January, said there was no evidence that Trump had been wiretapped.

      Now, folks, January 20th, New York Times, Michael Schmidt wrote that Team Trump had Russia connections, and to support his point, said that Trump’s people were wiretapped, and that’s in the New York Times in January. So Trump tweets over the weekend that Obama’s wiretapping him, and how low that is and what Trump thinks of it and so forth. This same reporter comes back and says there’s no evidence of that. Trump’s a lunatic. There’s no evidence that. Trump’s insane.”

    • Bryan H. says:

      Peggy, are you actually saying there was no evidence that the DNC was hacked? All those hacked e-mails we read…those didn’t exist?

  4. RHT447 says:

    Interesting times.

    “One thing to take away from these revelations, if they’re true (which has yet to be established, of course), is that the CIA may have had sufficient copies of Russian and former Soviet computer malware to disguise any of its own activities as Russian, rather than US, operations. If that’s the case, it will blow wide open allegations that Russia tried to influence the US elections last year.”

    Read the rest here–


    • Tina says:

      I would think it might also lead to corrupt Obama administration agent activists posing as Russians for political porpoises.

      Breitbart’s summation of Mark Levin’s remarks: “…the Obama administration sought, and eventually obtained, authorization to eavesdrop on the Trump campaign; continued monitoring the Trump team even when no evidence of wrongdoing was found; then relaxed the NSA rules to allow evidence to be shared widely within the government, virtually ensuring that the information, including the conversations of private citizens, would be leaked to the media.”

      Computer Weekly:

      Civil liberties organisations express concern at US move to disseminate raw NSA communications surveillance to 16 other government agencies

      Just days before Donald Trump becomes president of the US, the Obama administration has relaxed rules for sharing raw personal data gathered by the National Security Agency (NSA).

      The new rules enable the NSA to share personal communications raw data gathered through its surveillance operations with 16 other US intelligence agencies before applying privacy protections.

      The move reduces the risk that the NSA will filter out data important to other agencies, but increases the risk of exposing the private data of innocent people, reports the New York Times.

      Agencies including the CIA, FBI and Drug Enforcement Agency (DEA) will now get access to all the NSA’s raw communications surveillance data, including the personal information of innocent people. …

      …Attorney general Loretta Lynch approved the new rules permitting the NSA to disseminate “raw signals intelligence information” on 3 January 2017 and made it public just over a week later.

      However, the rules were signed by national intelligence director James Clapper on 15 December 2016, according to a largely declassified copy of the procedures, just two weeks after the US introduced wide new hacking powers for federal agents.

      Changes to rule 41 of the US federal rules of criminal procedure allow judges to issue search warrants that authorise the FBI to remotely access computers in any jurisdiction.

  5. Dewster says:

    So today it was vetted

    Trump knew this evidence was coming. The Obama wiretapping claim was a smokescreen to deliberately confuse the issue


    Here’s what Trump was actually talking about when he claimed Britain’s GCHQ tapped his wires for Obama.


    ANd I say a second vetting is still warranted But seems that several countries picked up the stuff and forwarded it to the USA. gang of 8 was briefed.

    They KNEW Pelosi, Mcturtle ect ect Obama surely knew too as well as Trump

    They are all crooks and war criminals

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *