The Media Pretends Not to Know the Wiretapping of Trump They Are Using

Frontpage ^ | March 5, 2017 | Daniel Greenfield

[detective]

It's 2017 and the marketplace of ideas is so deeply degraded that even simple discussions become impossible. And so the media simultaneously reports on the very eavesdropping of Trump and his people carried out under Obama. All the while insisting that Trump's accusation of wiretapping is "unproven", that Trump "offers no evidence" and that he traffics in conspiracy theories. The wiretapping was widely reported by the very media that is now pretending to have no idea what is being discussed.

The only conspiracy theory on the table here is whether Obama and his people played any role in the spying. And considering the IRS being used to target Obama's enemies, the filmmaker behind one Obama movie ending up in jail, the filmmaker behind another movie Obama didn't like also ending up in jail, it's not much of a reach.

The official claim is that the wiretapping was a national security matter. But there's a basic problem with spying on your opponents, then leaking the material to your media allies while pretending that you're only recreating Watergate x 1000 because you're such a patriot. The Watergate buggers thought they were patriots too. And the Democrats had more ties to the Russians than Trump did.   At this point, we know there was extensive spying on Trump's people, both by domestic services under Obama, and also some European services. Their only defense is that there's fire as well as smoke. If there turns out not to be a fire, then what we have is indeed Watergate.   And ought to be treated as such.

[palmer]

seriousness and magnitude concerning his predecessor in office, by name,

Not correct. The name is shorthand for the administration. Nixon did not order the break-in. Obama did not order fast and furious. Obama did not order Lerner to do anything or order her to destroy all her emails. That's not how it works.

[wintertime]

Trump will produce it.

In the meantime, Trump has fully controlled the conversation for Sunday morning talk shows just as he did last Sunday.

[Leep]

My guess is Pres. Trump will not produce the evidence anytime soon.
If i were Team Trump i would demand the dems go first. As they have had many month to accuse the President, and Pres. Elect, of United States of colluding with the Russians.

[nathanbedford]

President Trump in at least two tweets identified Obama by name.

I have no idea what you are talking about

[Vision Thing]

Your demand that our President Trump must reveal his plans and evidence over this issue is like the mainstream media demanding that obama reveal when he will pull the military out of Iraq. Trump will tell you, “I’m not going to tell you.”

He’ll tell us when it’s to our advantage.

Your hatred for Trump and your love for the GOPe and the globalists is clouding your strategic abilities, NBF.

[Flick Lives]

The media is reporting on conversations that could ONLY be learned from "wiretaps".

Bingo!

[nathanbedford]

Gentlemen, We obviously have three varying opinions about whether President Trump can or will produce evidence substantiating his claims. I say we will not know until we know.

I also say that the fact that he has delayed 24 hours to substantiate his claims fuels doubters or at least gives rise to competing guesses as we have just seen among us. As Wallace properly pointed out, it is not incumbent on the Democrats to prove their innocence or to prove a negative, it is incumbent on President Trump as the accuser to come forth with evidence. I say he has to make a prima facie case.

There are dots which we can attempt to connect but those are circumstantial background dots, not even proven facts, and do not show per se a high-level conspiracy, even though there has been indisputably illegal activity in leaking.

[palmer]

Obama didn’t need to order wiretapping. Nixon didm’t need to and didn’t order the watergate wiretapping. As long as someone under Obama or Nixon orders wiretapping, it is the same thing as them ordering it personally.

[nathanbedford]

Rubbish!

See my post #47.

Your mindless hero worship of Donald Trump and your hatred of true conservatism together with a profound misunderstanding of globalism has clouded your strategic abilities.

I could personalize you and your opinions just as easily as you personalize me and my opinions. Frankly, it becomes wearying to fend off personal attacks every time someone with a different opinion who feels that he has exclusive hold on truth resorts to the ad hominem.

[major-pelham]

In 16 hours?

[Vision Thing]

Blah blah blah.

[palmer]

watergate burglary

[nathanbedford]

It is inconceivable that a president of the United States, even a president as uninvolved as Barack Obama, would not be briefed when the United States of America undertakes to spy on a presidential candidate of the opposite party and upon a president elect.

We have no quarrel on this issue, what is your point?

[nathanbedford]

Unless you think that there is no obligation on the part of the president to ever substantiate his charges, we are only quarreling about the amount of time he should remain silent before he does so.

Is this really worth all the personal attacks and childishness?

[palmer]

Obama may or may not have been briefed on Fast and Furious, or Lois Lerner’s doings. It’s hard to prove he had been briefed. My point is that if the Obama administration broke the law, then Obama broke the law.

[Kid Shelleen]

>> The wiretapping was widely reported by the very media that is now pretending to have no idea what is being discussed.<<<

The idiots in the MSM take the bait once again. Trump says something sensational and the press-titutes in their zeal to condemn Trump publicize Democrat corruption.

[MagillaX]

Trump has made this part of the congressional investigation. Any evidence found needs to be also be looked at as legally obtained and authorized by who.

I would think this could go on for years and like you said he would rather for it to go away so he can concentrate on MAGA.

[marron]

I know the official story is that they “accidently” recorded Flynn because they were tapping the ambassador. I believe its the reverse. They were tapping Flynn specifically.

Again, if you know Obama’s history, its what he does. He makes it a point to have the goods on his enemies. So did the Clintons, without fail.

So, let the investigations begin. Of course, they need to take care who runs the investigation. Again, according to history, if you have the “right” people running it, the investigation “is” the cover-up. We’ve seen this movie too many times. I don’t have a lot of faith in official investigations. Too many hidden levers.

[marron]

Its dribbling out.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=91fNfGjZdM0&feature=youtu.be

[glorgau]

offer Obama the choice of living out his days as a respected senior statesman, or be turned into Jimmy Carter.

Obama is too stupid to take that deal. He'll go down hard.