Trump Angrily Ends Interview After Questions About Wiretapping Claim
-
President Trump cut short an interview with the host of “Face the Nation” on CBS after being asked about his unsubstantiated claim that President Barack Obama wiretapped his campaign, saying he was entitled to his own “opinions.”
Mr. Trump, speaking during a prerecorded interview in the Oval Office with John Dickerson that was broadcast on Monday on “CBS This Morning,” grew agitated as the host pressed him on a number of issues, and he reached his breaking point when Mr. Dickerson asked about his bombshell Twitter post from early March describing Mr. Obama as a “sick” man.
-
President Trump cut short an interview with the host of “Face the Nation” on CBS after being asked about his unsubstantiated claim that President Barack Obama wiretapped his campaign, saying he was entitled to his own “opinions.”
Mr. Trump, speaking during a prerecorded interview in the Oval Office with John Dickerson that was broadcast on Monday on “CBS This Morning,” grew agitated as the host pressed him on a number of issues, and he reached his breaking point when Mr. Dickerson asked about his bombshell Twitter post from early March describing Mr. Obama as a “sick” man.
Everything you said in this post is nonsense.. including the title.
Obama was certainly interfering with the campaign, trying to help Hillary. NO sitting president has ever interfered in an election until Obama.
As for being "angry"… you made that up. The snarky reporter kept asking the same questions over and over... and Trump simply said "you are entitled to your opinion.... Enough... Thank you very much... " I would hardly characterize that as anger. Just how long is Trump supposed to stand there and volley back and forth with a reporter?One other thing.. about that "wiretapping". The degree to which Obama ordered surveillance is not even the point. The point is.. the extremely partisan state department and others DID do it.. so Obama didn't even HAVE to order it. By the way.. the state department is not supposed to be partisan. People campaigning for a job are partisan.. sitting government officials have no business being partisan because they are representing the ENTIRE country.
-
Everything you said in this post is nonsense.. including the title.
Obama was certainly interfering with the campaign, trying to help Hillary. NO sitting president has ever interfered in an election until Obama.I don't understand why the government has shared this damning evidence with only a handful of citizens and not the entire public at large??
-
It's perfectly reasonable for a reporter to question Trump about a claim he has tweeted about and has spoken about publicly. It's a very damning claim and could possibly lead to criminal charges against Obama. Someone needs to subpoena him and force him to turn over all the evidence that he has.
-
Quit being stupid. Michael Flynn stepped down because of a conversation that was leaked, WHILE IN TRUMP TOWER. Everything is tapped, FYI. Don't try to act like the phone connected to the wall that has a wire through the ground garbage nonsense. That's not the reality anymore.
-
Everything you said in this post is nonsense.. including the title.
Obama was certainly interfering with the campaign, trying to help Hillary. NO sitting president has ever interfered in an election until Obama.I don't understand why the government has shared this damning evidence with only a handful of citizens and not the entire public at large??
It's not a matter of the government sharing anything.. its a matter of the vast majority of the media denying reality and being completely biased against Trump.
-
It's perfectly reasonable for a reporter to question Trump about a claim he has tweeted about and has spoken about publicly. It's a very damning claim and could possibly lead to criminal charges against Obama. Someone needs to subpoena him and force him to turn over all the evidence that he has.
It's reasonable for a reporter to question Trump about a claim… once.. perhaps even twice... but even after Trump told the jerk he was entitled to his opinion.. the reporter continued to ask him over and over and over again. Anybody else would have told the other person to go fuck themselves or punch them in the face. Trump simply said "Enough.. Thank you very much". Hardly showing any anger.
-
I thought that Trump denied reality daily? Certainly the media are biased against him, he does that by doing some bullshit every single day? How there is anyone even defending him is beyond me you, at this point you beed to be utterly thick to not see how unprepared for the job he is.
-
It's perfectly reasonable for a reporter to question Trump about a claim he has tweeted about and has spoken about publicly. It's a very damning claim and could possibly lead to criminal charges against Obama. Someone needs to subpoena him and force him to turn over all the evidence that he has.
It's reasonable for a reporter to question Trump about a claim… once.. perhaps even twice... but even after Trump told the jerk he was entitled to his opinion.. the reporter continued to ask him over and over and over again. Anybody else would have told the other person to go fuck themselves or punch them in the face. Trump simply said "Enough.. Thank you very much". Hardly showing any anger.
Obama tapping Trump is the biggest political scandal of our lifetimes. It's bigger than Watergate and Lewinski. Trump needs to answer the questions so we can lock Obama up…....unless you think he was lying.....
-
Obama did, despite promising to do the complete opposite, expand GWB's spying on Americans. He went way beyond anything GWB wanted.
It does appear that there was some spying on Trump people.
-
I thought that Trump denied reality daily? Certainly the media are biased against him, he does that by doing some bullshit every single day? How there is anyone even defending him is beyond me you, at this point you beed to be utterly thick to not see how unprepared for the job he is.
You can't seriously believe that Trump is worse than Obama or Hillary.
-
It's perfectly reasonable for a reporter to question Trump about a claim he has tweeted about and has spoken about publicly. It's a very damning claim and could possibly lead to criminal charges against Obama. Someone needs to subpoena him and force him to turn over all the evidence that he has.
It's reasonable for a reporter to question Trump about a claim… once.. perhaps even twice... but even after Trump told the jerk he was entitled to his opinion.. the reporter continued to ask him over and over and over again. Anybody else would have told the other person to go fuck themselves or punch them in the face. Trump simply said "Enough.. Thank you very much". Hardly showing any anger.
Obama tapping Trump is the biggest political scandal of our lifetimes. It's bigger than Watergate and Lewinski. Trump needs to answer the questions so we can lock Obama up…....unless you think he was lying.....
Obama wiretapping Trump is very minor compared to all the other corrupt and illegal acts committed by Obama and Hillary.
-
Obama did, despite promising to do the complete opposite, expand GWB's spying on Americans. He went way beyond anything GWB wanted.
It does appear that there was some spying on Trump people.
I'm not a big fan of GWB.. but at least Bush had some good reasons for spying. As you said, Obama went even FURTHER with that. With Obama.. the enemy became those horrible.. evil.. deplorable.. citizens of.. the USA!
By the way.. I think Obama's heavy use of drones did far more to piss off the Muslims than anything else has. I think Obama was trying to give the Muslims some justification to hate the USA.
-
Blowjob-gate was a nothing issue that Repubs "blew" out of proportion in their desperation to find some dirt on Bill.
Cigar-gate is just nasty, though.
-
Obama did, despite promising to do the complete opposite, expand GWB's spying on Americans. He went way beyond anything GWB wanted.
It does appear that there was some spying on Trump people.Your citations for these beliefs of yours from established, reputable, professional-journalist news sources are… where???
. . .
-
President Trump cut short an interview with the host of “Face the Nation” on CBS after being asked about his unsubstantiated claim that President Barack Obama wiretapped his campaign, saying he was entitled to his own “opinions.”
Mr. Trump, speaking during a prerecorded interview in the Oval Office with John Dickerson that was broadcast on Monday on “CBS This Morning,” grew agitated as the host pressed him on a number of issues, and he reached his breaking point when Mr. Dickerson asked about his bombshell Twitter post from early March describing Mr. Obama as a “sick” man.
who's campaign promise was to end the patriot act? ok niggalicious
-
Your citations for these beliefs of yours from established, reputable, professional-journalist news sources are… where???
Let me guess, you will only accept liberal sites like TYT and CNN.
https://www.theatlantic.com/technology/archive/2017/01/obama-expanding-nsa-powers/513041/
https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2017/01/obama-expands-surveillance-powers-his-way-out
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Barack_Obama_on_mass_surveillance (I don't normally post wikipedia, but liberal love it)
Then of course we have Wikileaks and Snowden. You know, the whistleblowers Obama persecuted despite his campaign promise to protect whistleblowers.
Obama promised to end the GWB era mass surveillance but that was a total lie, just like ending no bid contracts.
It was Obama's promises to end GWB era crap (Patriot Act, etc) that got me to vote for him over Hillary. He lied and liberal justified.
-
Your citations for these beliefs of yours from established, reputable, professional-journalist news sources are… where???
Let me guess, you will only accept liberal sites like TYT and CNN.
https://www.theatlantic.com/technology/archive/2017/01/obama-expanding-nsa-powers/513041/
https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2017/01/obama-expands-surveillance-powers-his-way-out
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Barack_Obama_on_mass_surveillance (I don't normally post wikipedia, but liberal love it)
Then of course we have Wikileaks and Snowden. You know, the whistleblowers Obama persecuted despite his campaign promise to protect whistleblowers.
Obama promised to end the GWB era mass surveillance but that was a total lie, just like ending no bid contracts.
It was Obama's promises to end GWB era crap (Patriot Act, etc) that got me to vote for him over Hillary. He lied and liberal justified.
I was given to say that you did not even read the articles but had to hold back knowing that you've probably never been an analyst or just aren't privy to intelligence jargon. Nowhere in those articles does it say anything about expanding surveillance on Americans "that isn't already being done". The crux of these articles is its focus on incidental collection. The NSA has no focus on domestic affairs. The article outright said the information can only be acquired for foreign intelligence and counterintelligence purposes. What does that mean? Most people who fall into those categories are either foreign, an agent of a foreign power, or acting grievously against the US. In order for the NSA to have acquired this information, these people would have had to have either been outside of the US, or had connections outside of the US and were assigned a "federal warrant" against which entails that there is unreasonable doubt that these people are most certainly in violation of the aforementioned.
The core of the articles (I didn't read wikipedia) concerns incidental collections that were previously filtered out by the NSA when sent to sister agencies. The new approach will be to not filter requested information in order avoid obfuscating targeted information. This is all Top Secret information and remains that way. Another agency can't reduce classifications from other sources that classified it. The problem is that while the NSA can't act on this information (literally a mass murderer could be in your home and about to kill your entire family and they would do nothing about it if he doesn't have an FBI warrant and is in the continental US), the FBI can act on incidental collected information concerning US persons since that is their jurisdiction and would be privy to information that is irrelevant and private, but the NSA could already do this and it remains in the TS realm anyway. There are more safeguards and happenstance that the article doesn't mention, but the overwhelming majority of Americans are not effected at all. It still remains concerning within its on context but anything that warrants the FBI to pursue to place a federal warrant on your head isn't irrelevant. The information stays in the TS realm just as it did with the NSA, it literally is in the same place, just another intelligence agency can see it in its raw form just like the NSA always could. Remember, this information is foreign and comes from outside the US. Also, it is illegal for the NSA to collect on a person with the intention of incidentally collecting on a US person.
Incidentally collected information isn't wild and rampant, but will continue to exist as long as we have foreign enemies. Terrorist and Agents of foreign powers will always target american and they will get swooped up in collection. Someone truly nefarious had to have been in connection with you to have been incidentally collected. Though not the intention it helps protect Americans even if by mistake since now the US knows you are a target or of interest. The NSA/"CSS" also is more oriented with the military. They are focused on the war on terror and enemy combatants. Why else is the head always military?
I've said this before, snowden was a traitor. He did not attempt to use any whistle-blower channels at all. He didn't vet the information and didn't understand the difference between capabilities and restraints. People see incidental US person information, but what do you expect if a terrorist once contacted you? How do we prevent a mass bombing if they don't look? Everyone reads what they can do but never read the mountains of legal information,policies, and statutes that govern intelligence conduct. It's boring and takes several reads if you're not a lawyer. Most whistle-blowing doesn't make the news since the information is classified and would harm the US by exposing us to our enemies and thus is held in FISA courts. The policies are adjusted accordingly. All legal matters concerning classified information is held in a FISA court and no regular civilian will ever hear about what goes on in their. This is kept secret from you by consequence since informing you is to inform terrorist, Russia, and all our enemies on how to evade us.
This will just go on and on and I'm not going to continue writing and writing. I think this is enough. I will not tell you to actually look through released policy letters and mundane regulations since leaked information is spillage. Spillage doesn't remove classification levels and thus referencing such information is still illegal.
-
Snowden and Manning are heroes.
What whistleblower channels were/are open to them? Not a single one, because it's the government against it's own people.
They proved Obama was a complete liar, when he promised to end GWB era mass spying. They also proved that Obama lied about no bid contracts and other things. I think this is why virtually all liberals hate them.
-
Snowden and Manning are heroes.
What whistleblower channels were/are open to them? Not a single one, because it's the government against it's own people.
They proved Obama was a complete liar, when he promised to end GWB era mass spying. They also proved that Obama lied about no bid contracts and other things. I think this is why virtually all liberals hate them.
I wouldn't go heaping praise on people like Snowden, Manning, and Assange.. because they tend to be self-serving, arrogant snots..
but it is quite interesting that when truth and secrets are revealed, it's almost always the liberals that wind up looking very bad. By far, the majority of corruption, hypocrisy, and fraud is perpetrated by the left.
