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

Forum Index » Political Discussion

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

Subject:

Emoticons





More smilies

Text Color: Font: Close Marks

[quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous]Lol at democrats defending this. Nixon did the same exact thing by wiretapping the DNC headquarters and they went ballistic. [/quote]

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

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.  [/quote]

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?[/quote]

What is the evidence that he has done anything illegal?  Rumors?  [/quote]

They have none. It's a total witch hunt. Now we know Trump is actually super clean after all the scrutiny.

[b]"The idea that FISA could be used against political enemies always seemed far-fetched. Now it might not be."[/b]

To summarize, it appears there were no grounds for a criminal investigation of banking violations against Trump. Presumably based on the fact that the bank or banks at issue were Russian, the Justice Department and the FBI decided to continue investigating on national-security grounds. A FISA application in which Trump was “named” was rejected by the FISA court as overbroad, notwithstanding that the FISA court usually looks kindly on government surveillance requests. A second, more narrow application, apparently not naming Trump, may have been granted five months later; the best the media can say about it, however, is that the server on which the application centers is “possibly” related to the Trump campaign’s “alleged” links to two Russian banks — under circumstances in which the FBI has previously found no “nefarious purpose” in some (undescribed) connection between Trump Tower and at least one Russian bank (whose connection to Putin’s regime is not described).

That is tissue-thin indeed. It’s a good example of why investigations properly proceed in secret and are not publicly announced unless and until the government is ready to put its money where its mouth is by charging someone. It’s a good example of why FISA surveillance is done in secret and its results are virtually never publicized — the problem is not just the possibility of tipping off the hostile foreign power; there is also the potential of tainting U.S. persons who may have done nothing wrong. While it’s too early to say for sure, it may also be an example of what I thought would never actually happen: [u]the government pretextually using its national-security authority to continue a criminal investigation after determining it lacked evidence of crimes[/u].

Read more at: http://www.nationalreview.com/article/443768/obama-fisa-trump-wiretap

[/quote]

Ah, a partisan opinion piece coming to Trump's rescue.  No surprise, they are just fluffing it off without any sound basis for doing so.  Problem with that piece is that it doesn't even begin to scratch the surface of ALL of the inappropriate contacts the Trump team had with Russia, nor the mounting body of unusual, highly suspicious activity and evidence (7 key Russians mentioned in the dossier murdered thus far since it became public) relating to the KOMPROMAT dossier.[/quote]

Options

	Disable HTML in this message
	Disable BB Code in this message
	Disable smilies in this message

Review message

Search Recent Topics Hottest Topics