Archived material Access restricted Article
Rantburg

Today's Front Page   View All of Tue 03/07/2017 View Mon 03/06/2017 View Sun 03/05/2017 View Sat 03/04/2017 View Fri 03/03/2017 View Thu 03/02/2017 View Wed 03/01/2017
1
2017-03-07 Home Front: Politix
Mark Levin: Open Letter to CNN's Brian Stelter
Archived material is restricted to Rantburg regulars and members. If you need access email fred.pruitt=at=gmail.com with your nick to be added to the members list. There is no charge to join Rantburg as a member.
Posted by Besoeker 2017-03-07 08:41|| || Front Page|| [11129 views ]  Top

#1 President Obama's statement is not a definative statement of anything other than he, personally, did not order a wiretap, which I never claimed.

Your right Mark you never made that claim. But you know who did make that claim? That would be POTUS Trump. And if he doesn't conclusively prove, at the very least, collusion from the Obama WH (Not some agency - The WH itself) his credibility as President will be forever damaged.

Posted by DepotGuy  2017-03-07 09:53||   2017-03-07 09:53|| Front Page Top

#2 There is ample evidence that it did happen. Nyt reported it last year and Hillary referenced last year as well. Trumps game is to throw it out there, let everyone deny it and call him a liar. And then own them as it proves to be true. He does this time and time again. The media, fox included, research an inch deep and go to press. They, oriley specifically, will get imbarased as this all comes to light.
Posted by 49 pan 2017-03-07 10:43||   2017-03-07 10:43|| Front Page Top

#3 But you know who did make that claim? That would be POTUS Trump.

Remember we are talking Twitter here and not a legal brief. While it would have been more correct for Trump to say "Obama's Justice Dept , headed by Loretta Lynch, obtained a FISA warrant, tapped comms in the Trump Tower and then illegally leaked the transcripts", that's a bit wordy for a tweet.

And you are right that without evidence, this is just he said/she said. Call me Shirley skeptical, but the over-lawyered denials make me suspicious. And remember that Trump has access to info that you and I don't. The next few weeks should be both interesting and entertaining.
Posted by SteveS 2017-03-07 11:24||   2017-03-07 11:24|| Front Page Top

#4 I hate when Trump pulls that crap because no matter how true it is, the Left waves the sentence around like Chamberlain waving around the treaty and loudly proclaims the whole thing is false and we needn't talk about it any more.
Posted by Herb McCoy7309 2017-03-07 11:52||   2017-03-07 11:52|| Front Page Top

#5 Remember we are talking Twitter here not a legal breif.

WADR, the vehicle of communication is irrelevant. It's his statements that are important. Most everyone views President Trump's tweets as an accusation that his predecessor had a hands on role in surveillance of his personal communication. To quote former VP Biden "This is a big fucking deal". Any attempts to explain this one away as simply imprecise language will be met with justifiable indignation. Here's hoping there's meat on that bone.
Posted by DepotGuy  2017-03-07 12:02||   2017-03-07 12:02|| Front Page Top

#6 Depot guy are you really saying that the DoJ would undertake such a purely political attack without clearance from Obama?

If you want to devolve into semantics the only person that can "order" this "tapping" is a FISA judge. Now who asked for this ? The DoJ? Who asked, suggested or surmise that it happen?

Even on the off chance that Lynch did it on her own hook Obama is responsible. That's where the buck stops whether he liked it or not.
Posted by AlanC 2017-03-07 13:10||   2017-03-07 13:10|| Front Page Top

#7 Jerry Pournelle offers an interesting point.
We know they've listened to Flynn's conversation - from Trump's Tower, with Russian ambassador - from Russian embassy. So they had either Trump's Tower or Russian embassy wiretapped. Now, Pournelle doesn't believe they could wiretap Russian embassy.
Posted by g(r)omgoru 2017-03-07 13:10||   2017-03-07 13:10|| Front Page Top

#8 Depot guy are you really saying the DoJ would undertake such a purely political attack without clearance from Obama?

AlanC I've made no suggestion whatsoever. First I made an observation; Trump's tweet accuses Obama of being complicit in what many would consider to be an illegal wiretap. Next I made a prediction; If Trump can't provide clear evidence of his charges his credibility will suffer greatly. Finally I offerd an opinion; This is POTUS speaking not some high school slumber party. And dismissive excuses of out of context twitter rants ain't gonna cut it on allegations this serious.
Posted by DepotGuy  2017-03-07 14:29||   2017-03-07 14:29|| Front Page Top

#9 First I made an observation; Trump's tweet accuses Obama of being complicit in what many would consider to be an illegal wiretap.

See - Fast and Furious. Someone put Holder and the AZ AG on the mission. Did we ever get that cleared up?
Posted by Procopius2k 2017-03-07 14:38||   2017-03-07 14:38|| Front Page Top

#10 Well as I see it the Obamites said they didn't wiretap Trump.

Wiretaps are old technology and easily detected. Electronic surveillance by a variety of gizmos and gadgets are more effective and less easily detected.

So they are playing with semantics and word choices and always with "to the best of my knowledge"...

This whole mess goes further up the food chain than some second echelon US Attorney and a FISA magistrate. The danged request has to be signed by the AG.

I'm beginning to think the reason the FBI didn't go after Shillary was because their best evidence came from sources that could not be used as evidence.

I think the President is giving the whole bunch of them enough rope to hang themselves.
Posted by Sock Puppet of Doom 2017-03-07 15:08||   2017-03-07 15:08|| Front Page Top

#11 They "did not have sex with that woman", SPOD?
Posted by g(r)omgoru 2017-03-07 15:15||   2017-03-07 15:15|| Front Page Top

#12 Darth, it is good to remember that a Trump tweet is not a legal brief. When the time comes to quote chapter and verse as it was, then we will see.

However, what evidence did the NYT have when they put it on their front page, etc. etc.? If it quacks like a duck, looks like a duck, walks like a duck and tastes good with orange sauce it is probably time to believe the menu.
Posted by AlanC 2017-03-07 15:38||   2017-03-07 15:38|| Front Page Top

#13 And if he doesn't conclusively prove, at the very least, collusion from the Obama WH (Not some agency - The WH itself) his credibility as President will be forever damaged.

The Democrats have claimed that Trump is working for the Russians. So far, they've offered no conclusive proof. Is their credibility forever damaged?
Posted by Zhang Fei 2017-03-07 21:58||   2017-03-07 21:58|| Front Page Top

23:51 CrazyFool
23:32 Skidmark
23:30 Skidmark
23:28 Skidmark
22:16 Iblis
22:01 Zhang Fei
21:58 Zhang Fei
21:50 Ptah
20:34 trailing wife
20:32 trailing wife
20:26 Bobby
20:23 Bobby
20:20 Bobby
20:16 Bobby
20:08 Frank G
20:06 Frank G
20:03 CrazyFool
19:33 Alaska Paul
19:29 Whavish Thusoling5684
19:24 magpie
19:22 Frank G
19:21 DarthVader
19:18 DarthVader
19:17 Whavish Thusoling5684









Paypal:
Google
Search WWW Search rantburg.com