Trump Accusing Obama of Tapping Phones at Trump Tower

[Anonymous]

Can someone with legal ease explain this to me and whether if it is true was it legal for Obama to do so?

[Anonymous]

I wish he would focus on being Potus versus blaming Obama for everything from leaks to wiretapping. I mean focus on making this country Great again.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I say Kushner or Bannon crafted that tweet storm to deflect from the news Kushner met with the Ambassador.

Does Trump really think it's knews that the sitting president met with the ambassador in the actual white house? Lol

He still doesn't get that politicians in office who meet with ambassadors openly is not the same thing as his team interacting with them during an election in which it's proven they interfered and lying about it, incessantly, even under oath.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I wish he would focus on being Potus versus blaming Obama for everything from leaks to wiretapping. I mean focus on making this country Great again.

Hilarious you think he's even close to being capable of that

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Can someone with legal ease explain this to me and whether if it is true was it legal for Obama to do so?

I don't think you need legalese to understand that a FISA warrant is only granted, by a judge, if there's sufficient evidence that a US citizen is working against US interests.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Can someone with legal ease explain this to me and whether if it is true was it legal for Obama to do so?

I don't think you need legalese to understand that a FISA warrant is only granted, by a judge, if there's sufficient evidence that a US citizen is working against US interests.

OK. Let's say that the Obama administration had some such evidence. They got the warrant. They tapped the phones. They collected the conversations and such.

Whatever they gathered still exists, unless it was destroyed by the previous administration.
-What did they collect and where is it?
-If it was destroyed, why?

And, if the Obama administration did this, they must not have found anything actionable or incriminating because we would certainly know about it. This is not something they would keep under wraps.

So, we can assume they found nothing actionable. Which begs the question - what was this "sufficient evidence" they had to begin with?

This all smells pretty fishy to me.

[Anonymous]

As usual, Trump releases a flurry of unhinged tweets on the weekend when his precious Ivanka and Jared aren't around to stop him.

Who travels with him to Mar-a-lago when he goes?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Can someone with legal ease explain this to me and whether if it is true was it legal for Obama to do so?

I don't think you need legalese to understand that a FISA warrant is only granted, by a judge, if there's sufficient evidence that a US citizen is working against US interests.

OK. Let's say that the Obama administration had some such evidence. They got the warrant. They tapped the phones. They collected the conversations and such.

Whatever they gathered still exists, unless it was destroyed by the previous administration.
-What did they collect and where is it?
-If it was destroyed, why?

And, if the Obama administration did this, they must not have found anything actionable or incriminating because we would certainly know about it. This is not something they would keep under wraps.

So, we can assume they found nothing actionable. Which begs the question - what was this "sufficient evidence" they had to begin with?

This all smells pretty fishy to me.

That's not how any of this works.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I say Kushner or Bannon crafted that tweet storm to deflect from the news Kushner met with the Ambassador.

Does Trump really think it's knews that the sitting president met with the ambassador in the actual white house? Lol

+1

Don't get distracted. Call your representatives and the heads of the Congressional committees that can demand an investigation into Kushner's ties with Russia and Flynn.

[jsteele]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Can someone with legal ease explain this to me and whether if it is true was it legal for Obama to do so?

I don't think you need legalese to understand that a FISA warrant is only granted, by a judge, if there's sufficient evidence that a US citizen is working against US interests.

I disagree with this assessment. I think the record shows that the FBI can almost always get a FISA warrant regardless of the evidence. But, I am pretty sure that we don't know whether a FISA warrant was even granted in this case. I'm not sure that we want to put all of our eggs in Louise Mensch's basket.

Trump is most likely reacting to Mark Levin's Breitbart post. If so, Trump doesn't really know if his phones were tapped.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Can someone with legal ease explain this to me and whether if it is true was it legal for Obama to do so?

I don't think you need legalese to understand that a FISA warrant is only granted, by a judge, if there's sufficient evidence that a US citizen is working against US interests.

OK. Let's say that the Obama administration had some such evidence. They got the warrant. They tapped the phones. They collected the conversations and such.

Whatever they gathered still exists, unless it was destroyed by the previous administration.
-What did they collect and where is it?
-If it was destroyed, why?

And, if the Obama administration did this, they must not have found anything actionable or incriminating because we would certainly know about it. This is not something they would keep under wraps.

So, we can assume they found nothing actionable. Which begs the question - what was this "sufficient evidence" they had to begin with?

This all smells pretty fishy to me.

That's not how any of this works.

Then, please enlighten us as to how it works.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Can someone with legal ease explain this to me and whether if it is true was it legal for Obama to do so?

I don't think you need legalese to understand that a FISA warrant is only granted, by a judge, if there's sufficient evidence that a US citizen is working against US interests.

OK. Let's say that the Obama administration had some such evidence. They got the warrant. They tapped the phones. They collected the conversations and such.

Whatever they gathered still exists, unless it was destroyed by the previous administration.
-What did they collect and where is it?
-If it was destroyed, why?

And, if the Obama administration did this, they must not have found anything actionable or incriminating because we would certainly know about it. This is not something they would keep under wraps.

So, we can assume they found nothing actionable. Which begs the question - what was this "sufficient evidence" they had to begin with?

This all smells pretty fishy to me.

That's not how any of this works.

Then, please enlighten us as to how it works.

For starters, the FBI taps phones, not the president.

Second of all, just because you, ignorant American citizen, don't know what they discovered doesn't mean they didn't discover anything.

[Anonymous]

Trump has lost his mind. Obama doesn't tap phones.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Can someone with legal ease explain this to me and whether if it is true was it legal for Obama to do so?

I don't think you need legalese to understand that a FISA warrant is only granted, by a judge, if there's sufficient evidence that a US citizen is working against US interests.

OK. Let's say that the Obama administration had some such evidence. They got the warrant. They tapped the phones. They collected the conversations and such.

Whatever they gathered still exists, unless it was destroyed by the previous administration.
-What did they collect and where is it?
-If it was destroyed, why?

And, if the Obama administration did this, they must not have found anything actionable or incriminating because we would certainly know about it. This is not something they would keep under wraps.

So, we can assume they found nothing actionable. Which begs the question - what was this "sufficient evidence" they had to begin with?

This all smells pretty fishy to me.

That's not how any of this works.

Then, please enlighten us as to how it works.

For starters, the FBI taps phones, not the president.

Second of all, just because you, ignorant American citizen, don't know what they discovered doesn't mean they didn't discover anything.

Oh, please. You think that if they found something, it would be kept under wraps? You don't think anything found wouldn't have been shared with Obama?

[Anonymous]

I wish he would focus on being Potus versus blaming Obama for everything from leaks to wiretapping. I mean focus on making this country Great again.

How can America be great without the Apprentice?