Was it appropriate for Obama to actively investigate presidential campaign during election

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Lol at democrats defending this. Nixon did the same exact thing by wiretapping the DNC headquarters and they went ballistic.

Again, Nixon was a candidate. Obama was not and the candidate was not a member of the administration at the time.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:NY Times did a story in January about Obama relaxing rules for sharing intel. They classified the wiretapping to be the lowest intelligence level so it can be easily obtained by many sources within IC. The existence of the eavesdropping by the Obama administration has not been challenged by anyone for months.

Great move (by B. Obama) - I always knew he was very smart!

[Anonymous]

Great move (by B. Obama) - I always knew he was very smart!

So was Nixon.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Lol at democrats defending this. Nixon did the same exact thing by wiretapping the DNC headquarters and they went ballistic.

Again, Nixon was a candidate. Obama was not and the candidate was not a member of the administration at the time.

It doesn’t matter if he wasn’t a candidate. He was actively campaigning for Clinton. Trump was the opposing party.
If the Trump campaign was wiretapped and if he played any part in it, there is a problem.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This is sort reminiscent of J Edgar Hoover.

This.

Obama was meddling in the democratic process. He is a hypocrite accusing Russians of interfering in our election but at the same time doing the exact same thing.

Why did his administration ask for the wiretapping of Trump's communication in the first place?

So many unanswered questions ... Was there an approved warrant to tap Mike Flynn's phone? Who else on the trump team was the government listening to their communications?

If Paul Ryan has any spine, he should call for an investigation into the Obama administration's meddling in our democratic process.

Warrants were given based on evidence, not a political witch hunt. There are a lot of unanswered questions, but don't worry, in America we generally get our answers during a trial.

Obama can't hide behind the FISA court. His administration is the only one in history that eavesdropped the opposing team's campaign. I am glad you agree there should be a trial for the Obama administration's abuse of power.

You sound just like Trmp. Assertions without any evidence,

No one is denying the eavesdropping anymore. The democrats are using the FISA court as their get-out-of-jail-free card. Do you know any other president eavesdropped his opponent? Richard Nixon (Watergate) ...

Were you involved and know beyond a doubt that the FBI wiretapped Trump's phones? If not, where's your proof that it happened?

FYI: Nixon ordered 2 burglaries of the DNC headquarters. Highly illegal. He also approved secret, ILLEGAL wiretapping of the DNC looking for something incriminating to use against his adversary in the 1972 election. The Nixon administration did not have the FBI go to a judge with evidence that the DNC was doing something illegal and say, "Can we get an order to eavesdrop?" If the FBI came to Obama and said, we are going to ask for a permit to wiretap RNC / Trump campaign phones because there is something going on between them and Russia , well I expect the FBI went to court and secured the proper permissions to do that. Do you think the FBI should ignore evidence of wrong doing and not go after something questionable? Did you also think they should not be going after Hillary's emails?

Gotta say, you republicans sure like your false equivalences.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Lol at democrats defending this. Nixon did the same exact thing by wiretapping the DNC headquarters and they went ballistic.

Again, Nixon was a candidate. Obama was not and the candidate was not a member of the administration at the time.

It doesn’t matter if he wasn’t a candidate. He was actively campaigning for Clinton. Trump was the opposing party.
If the Trump campaign was wiretapped and if he played any part in it, there is a problem.

Why? If the Trump campaign is involved in something illegal, why do they get a free pass not to be investigated by the FBI? Just because they were running a campaign against Clinton, you think Obama should say, sorry, no investigations of wrongdoing, no matter what the evidence is? What kind of twisted logic is that?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Lol at democrats defending this. Nixon did the same exact thing by wiretapping the DNC headquarters and they went ballistic.

Again, Nixon was a candidate. Obama was not and the candidate was not a member of the administration at the time.

It doesn’t matter if he wasn’t a candidate. He was actively campaigning for Clinton. Trump was the opposing party.
If the Trump campaign was wiretapped and if he played any part in it, there is a problem.

Why? If the Trump campaign is involved in something illegal, why do they get a free pass not to be investigated by the FBI? Just because they were running a campaign against Clinton, you think Obama should say, sorry, no investigations of wrongdoing, no matter what the evidence is? What kind of twisted logic is that?

What is the evidence that he has done anything illegal? Rumors?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Lol at democrats defending this. Nixon did the same exact thing by wiretapping the DNC headquarters and they went ballistic.

Again, Nixon was a candidate. Obama was not and the candidate was not a member of the administration at the time.

It doesn’t matter if he wasn’t a candidate. He was actively campaigning for Clinton. Trump was the opposing party.
If the Trump campaign was wiretapped and if he played any part in it, there is a problem.

You need to understand - and this is important - the President cannot simply say to the FBI, "you need to conduct surveillance on Donald Trump." There has to be probably cause, and it has to be the FBI/DOJ going to the judicial branch with evidence to grant the authority. There are checks and balances and it doesn't and cannot come from the President.

Maybe the bigger question you should be asking, rather than blaming Obama, is what evidence did the DOJ have such that the judicial branch gave the authority to tap Trump? During the summer, all of the Trump supporters said that the method for the Wikileaks wasn't important, it was the content. In that vein, if you want to be consistent, the content here, as it relates to the Trump campaign and administration, the money connections and whatever quid pro quo, is what is of significance.

And in this case, we are talking about the integrity of our republic, our election and our freedom.

Do you want to ensure that our election process was sound and that our politicians are not compromised?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Lol at democrats defending this. Nixon did the same exact thing by wiretapping the DNC headquarters and they went ballistic.

Again, Nixon was a candidate. Obama was not and the candidate was not a member of the administration at the time.

It doesn’t matter if he wasn’t a candidate. He was actively campaigning for Clinton. Trump was the opposing party.
If the Trump campaign was wiretapped and if he played any part in it, there is a problem.

Why? If the Trump campaign is involved in something illegal, why do they get a free pass not to be investigated by the FBI? Just because they were running a campaign against Clinton, you think Obama should say, sorry, no investigations of wrongdoing, no matter what the evidence is? What kind of twisted logic is that?

What is the evidence that he has done anything illegal? Rumors?

Why do you think the FBI is going to come out and show you their evidence in an active, ongoing investigation? If the FBI requested to wiretap someone I would expect they have evidence to do so. Or are you calling our courts corrupt that they would approve something like this on the basis of rumors? Are you saying the FBI is amateur?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Lol at democrats defending this. Nixon did the same exact thing by wiretapping the DNC headquarters and they went ballistic.

Again, Nixon was a candidate. Obama was not and the candidate was not a member of the administration at the time.

It doesn’t matter if he wasn’t a candidate. He was actively campaigning for Clinton. Trump was the opposing party.
If the Trump campaign was wiretapped and if he played any part in it, there is a problem.

Why? If the Trump campaign is involved in something illegal, why do they get a free pass not to be investigated by the FBI? Just because they were running a campaign against Clinton, you think Obama should say, sorry, no investigations of wrongdoing, no matter what the evidence is? What kind of twisted logic is that?

What is the evidence that he has done anything illegal? Rumors?

The FBI provided evidence to the FISA Court to gain legal access to monitor the people of interest. That was following the law that Bush 43 proposed and the Congress approved after 9/11 that most democrats and civil libertarians opposed. Karma is a bitch, isn't it?

[Anonymous]

Trump confirmed that he is either deranged or else is in fact the subject of a FISA action. Either one is scary, but if it is the latter, then he is the source of any future leaks and confirmation of the action.

Also, if it is true that there was evidence to grant the wiretap, then that puts Trump squarely at the center of the scandal. All of the others, Flynn, Sessions, Page etc are not going to be patsies to protect Trump.

I would wager that this presidency will be over before the end of the summer. The only question will be if he forces a legal proceeding and/or releases his private security force to fight within the White House to extract him.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Trump confirmed that he is either deranged or else is in fact the subject of a FISA action. Either one is scary, but if it is the latter, then he is the source of any future leaks and confirmation of the action.

Also, if it is true that there was evidence to grant the wiretap, then that puts Trump squarely at the center of the scandal. All of the others, Flynn, Sessions, Page etc are not going to be patsies to protect Trump.

I would wager that this presidency will be over before the end of the summer. The only question will be if he forces a legal proceeding and/or releases his private security force to fight within the White House to extract him.

I would like to see that happen, but how damning does the evidence has to get before the Republican-controlled House and Senate turn against him? Because right now it's pretty damning, yet Congress is still in lock step behind him. How highly was Nixon regarded by his Congress at the time of his impeachment?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Trump confirmed that he is either deranged or else is in fact the subject of a FISA action. Either one is scary, but if it is the latter, then he is the source of any future leaks and confirmation of the action.

Also, if it is true that there was evidence to grant the wiretap, then that puts Trump squarely at the center of the scandal. All of the others, Flynn, Sessions, Page etc are not going to be patsies to protect Trump.

I would wager that this presidency will be over before the end of the summer. The only question will be if he forces a legal proceeding and/or releases his private security force to fight within the White House to extract him.

I would like to see that happen, but how damning does the evidence has to get before the Republican-controlled House and Senate turn against him? Because right now it's pretty damning, yet Congress is still in lock step behind him. How highly was Nixon regarded by his Congress at the time of his impeachment?

He has to fall in polls of republican voters. They are still in denial.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Trump confirmed that he is either deranged or else is in fact the subject of a FISA action. Either one is scary, but if it is the latter, then he is the source of any future leaks and confirmation of the action.

Also, if it is true that there was evidence to grant the wiretap, then that puts Trump squarely at the center of the scandal. All of the others, Flynn, Sessions, Page etc are not going to be patsies to protect Trump.

I would wager that this presidency will be over before the end of the summer. The only question will be if he forces a legal proceeding and/or releases his private security force to fight within the White House to extract him.

I would like to see that happen, but how damning does the evidence has to get before the Republican-controlled House and Senate turn against him? Because right now it's pretty damning, yet Congress is still in lock step behind him. How highly was Nixon regarded by his Congress at the time of his impeachment?

The rumor is that the Russians hacked both the RNC and DNC and released the DNC emails to Wikileaks at choice times in 2016. That means they have the GOP emails which can also be released at any time, so it is forcing the GOP Congress to stay in line with the Russians. Again, that is the rumor, so who knows.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Trump confirmed that he is either deranged or else is in fact the subject of a FISA action. Either one is scary, but if it is the latter, then he is the source of any future leaks and confirmation of the action.

Also, if it is true that there was evidence to grant the wiretap, then that puts Trump squarely at the center of the scandal. All of the others, Flynn, Sessions, Page etc are not going to be patsies to protect Trump.

I would wager that this presidency will be over before the end of the summer. The only question will be if he forces a legal proceeding and/or releases his private security force to fight within the White House to extract him.

I would like to see that happen, but how damning does the evidence has to get before the Republican-controlled House and Senate turn against him? Because right now it's pretty damning, yet Congress is still in lock step behind him. How highly was Nixon regarded by his Congress at the time of his impeachment?

He has to fall in polls of republican voters. They are still in denial.

This is true. His supporters are the only weapon he has now and he'll use them to keep Republicans in line.

It might just end up working against all of them, though. I haven't seen this much action and activism on the left - everyday citizens, not politicians - in my 47 years. And the reasons to stay active aren't dying down. The more Trump tries to rally his base, the stronger the resistance gets.

How'd that March4Trump go?