Replies

If the eavesdropping was lawful, does that put different cast on the matter than alleged by Trump when he says "McCarthyism" or "Watergate?"

It can be legal but still inappropriate. The entire affair smacks of partisan politics. The Obama administration was turned down earlier because the request was too broad and they couldn't make their case, They came back again in October after the DNC was hacked and used the pretext of Russian banks to wiretap Trump Towers.

What McCarthy did was legal, but some believe unethical. This is far more insidious and dangerous. The ability to use the intelligence agencies to go after your political enemies is frightening stuff. We have already had something similar with the IRS scandal with Lois Lerner taking the 5th.

You can put lipstick on a pig, but it is still a pig. I hope Trump gets the FISA requests redacted and declassified. The timing of all of this is suspect.

Obama and Hillary started blaming the Russians right after the DNC hack. Hillary used the Russian connection against Trump in the debates. Obama requests an Intelligence Community review of the Russian hacking and the results provided before he leaves office. He expands the uninverse of agencies that can be provided the raw data from NSA eavesdropping. Obama levies additional sanctions on the Russians three weeks prior to leaving office. Why? This is all a setup carefully orchestrated to hurt Trump and complicate any overtures Trump might make to Russia to improve bilateral relations.

Thank you, grandpa Dave, for the link to that valuable information. Having read it and accepting all the inferences outlined by Kabar, one has to ask, is there anything new that would justify a blast of tweets this morning?

The state of play as we now know it is that Obama's administration tapped only a computer in Trump Tower and that only after obtaining a FISA warrant. It is not clear whether any data obtained from that surveillance of the computer was disseminated under the new regulation signed by Obama on the way out the door which Kabar with some justice implies was part of a plan to undermine the Trump presidency by disseminating surveillance evidence widely.

What do we have here? Was it an attempt to derail the Trump campaign converted into a conspiracy to undermine the Trump presidency? Why did Trump generate all of this commotion at five o'clock this morning? Because what we have here has been shown by new evidence to be not a legitimate surveillance in pursuit of national security, but dirty tricks? If there was nothing damaging produced by the surveillance at Trump Tower, is this a case of no harm to Trump and therefore no foul committed by Obama? Certainly the Democrats will take that line and they will say that everything they did was lawful and pursuant to court order. Again, why the tweet bursts this morning?

Is Trump in possession of new facts which are unknown to us? If not, the tweets seem erratic. If he is in possession of such facts, the dignity of the office requires that more be made known in support of very radioactive accusations.