Replies

“If the president of the United States is making these kinds of allegations concerning another president of the United States he at least has a basic obligation to tell us the facts of his allegations and make them clear. He simply has not done so.”

Much too hydra-headed. Do you know of any scandal of this magnitude that has been presented to the public all wrapped up and ready for submission to a court of law? Sort of reminds me of the alleged Russian hacking of the election. No one has bothered to explain just how that can be accomplished. Forget offering any evidence.

I just heard Geraldo Rivera say that “everyone” knows the Russians intervened in the election. He even said that Trump has even acknowledged as much himself.

Incidentally, I also said this in my reply #90:

This revelation has the potential to alter public perception of the Trump presidency on a scale that it changed with the attempted assassination of Ronald Reagan.

It seems to me that Trump has revolutionized the way a president communicates with the people. His exploitation of twitter has been brilliant.

My observation comes from the contents of the these tweets, the absence of specifics, the absence of a charge of specific impropriety but the insistence that we have "Watergate" or "McCarthyism."

It now appears that a FISA warrant was obtained and that is an entirely different matter than naked surveillance. Was the second application for the FISA warrant, which was apparently granted, legitimate? Is this the proper question even to be asked? What did Obama know and when did he know it? These questions are raised by these tweets but they appear that the answers could be a lawful wiretap based on substantial evidence or it could be dirty tricks.

If it is not dirty tricks, Trump will not appear in the best light when the facts are compared to the broad allegations in the tweets. If the eavesdropping was lawful, does that put different cast on the matter than alleged by Trump when he says "McCarthyism" or "Watergate?"