So Called President Trump Accuses Obama of Tapping His Phone Calls
-
The orange snowflake is at it again. This time he is accusing Obama of tapping his phone during the campaign. I believe Obama could have done it but this is just a way for Trump to distract the press on what is going on with Sessions.
Sessions must really be guilty of some awful stuff.
https://www.nytimes.com/2017/03/04/us/politics/trump-obama-tap-phones.html
-
The orange snowflake is at it again. This time he is accusing Obama of tapping his phone during the campaign. I believe Obama could have done it but this is just a way for Trump to distract the press on what is going on with Sessions.
Sessions must really be guilty of some awful stuff.
https://www.nytimes.com/2017/03/04/us/politics/trump-obama-tap-phones.html
I believe this is the original story:
https://heatst.com/world/exclusive-fbi-granted-fisa-warrant-covering-trump-camps-ties-to-russia/
A decent read, if it's true.
-
Regardless of the Trump story, let's not forget that Obama promised to end the mass surveillance if he was elected President. Instead, he expanded it.
-
I tought the buffoon was denoucing the whole fake news thing, not producing it… ::)
-
I wouldn't say it's "fake news" since we know that Obama lied to get elected and massively increased mass surveillance.
If Obama was so willing to lie about that, then wouldn't he be willing to lie about other things?
-
I wouldn't say it's "fake news" since we know that Obama lied to get elected and massively increased mass surveillance.
If Obama was so willing to lie about that, then wouldn't he be willing to lie about other things?
Dude, it was fake news… Give me a break man ...
Every part of your post is massively warped...
Trump isn't cutting intelligence agencies and Trump is lying 80% of the time. So, if Trump is willing to lie 80% of the time, then wouldn't he be willing to lie about Obama? Who is no longer president and is still getting blamed for things he didn't do…
Lets look at Donald's fact check score card, which I'm sure you are going to tell me is liberal BS, because it doesn't say what you want it to.
Oh, Look. 16% of his statements are true or mostly true.
www.politifact.com/personalities/donald-trump/
50% of the time, his statements are flat out lies with no shred of truth at all.
And you think Obama's lies are the problem …
-
If there's no evidence of wiretapping, is the NYT fake news?
Trump's tweet storm make people want to dismiss its validity but I don't think you can dismiss his assertion as there most certainly appears to have been electronic surveillance. Just give it time, he will be proven accurate.
-
Every part of your post is massively warped…
Obama lied about mass surveillance to get elected. TRUTH
Obama got butt hurt at Snowden over letting the cat out of the bag. TRUTH
The FBI hasn't always been honest. TRUTH
Dude, it was fake news… Give me a break man ...
Do your research. Michael S Schmidt wrote both articles in the NY Times. You'll see his name in the picture posted above.
So who is guilty of fake news?
Trump tweeted what Michael S Schmidt wrote in one article, then Michael S Schmidt writes a 2nd article saying that Trump tweets lies about being wiretapped and has no proof it happened.
I don't like Trump, but this crap is pretty fucked up.
-
Trump tweeted what Michael S Schmidt wrote in one article, then Michael S Schmidt writes a 2nd article saying that Trump tweets lies about being wiretapped and has no proof it happened.
That isn't what happened …
The story was created by Mark Levin and was discussed on his radio show.
Joel B. Pollak wrote this along with all of the other fake news and complete vomit (See 'The Truth About Antisemitism, Far-Left and Far-Right') he writes on March 3rd. Oh I see Joel, Antisemitism is totally acceptable because it's been a problem all along, that makes complete sense … Nice citation to /wp-admin … Edit: If you don't believe me, go look, he really is citing Breitbart.com/wp-admin as a source, very professional stuff they have going on over there at Breitbart.
On that Friday, Trump read the article, made his tweets, that WSJ article was written on the 4th.
Edit: Here we go again… https://www.businessinsider.nl/trump-blames-obama-for-guantanamo-prisoners-returning-to-battlefield-2017-3/
-
Did you look at that picture of the NY Times front page?
Michael S Schmidt co-wrote that article, which was published on Jan 20, 2017.
Michael S Schmidt wrote the article criticizing Trump for claiming he was being wiretapped with no evidence.
In which article was MSS being totally dishonest?
-
Did you look at that picture of the NY Times front page?
Michael S Schmidt co-wrote that article, which was published on Jan 20, 2017.
Michael S Schmidt wrote the article criticizing Trump for claiming he was being wiretapped with no evidence.
In which article was MSS being totally dishonest?
What are you even talking about now?
The articles WSJ articles that Michael S. Schmidt contributed to on Jan 20,2017 are as follows:
Inauguration Protesters and Police Clash on Washington’s Streets
Intercepted Russian Communications Part of Inquiry Into Trump Associates
Before Emptying the White House, Obama’s Glittering Round of FarewellsThe article written by Michael S. Schmidt that was criticizing Donald over the wiretaps was published on March 4th, 2017…
Are you just mashing random facts together?
Edit: Also, after I just reread https://www.nytimes.com/2017/03/04/us/politics/trump-obama-tap-phones.html please explain to me what's dishonest about that ?? That's exactly what happened, the responses from the people they asked, seem legitimate… Please elaborate...
-
We know this is fake because if this actually happened the Trump scandals would have been much more damaging.
This is a situation where we have a crazy man who sits on the couch watching cable news all day. He hears a small piece of information and then can't stop ranting about it. Then he declares that all news is fake but still continues to believe that one thing he heard today. My elderly dad has been doing the same thing for a few years now.
-
We know this is fake because if this actually happened the Trump scandals would have been much more damaging.
This is a situation where we have a crazy man who sits on the couch watching cable news all day. He hears a small piece of information and then can't stop ranting about it. Then he declares that all news is fake but still continues to believe that one thing he heard today. My elderly dad has been doing the same thing for a few years now.
Be fair now, he obviously doesn't sit on the couch watching cable news all day, he spends a lot of his time flying to his vacation getaway and golfing as well.
-
Why are you fixated on the articles Michael S Schmidt did for the Wall Street Journal?
I said the articles he did for the NY Times. Look at the picture of the NY Times cover posted in this thread. Jan 20, 2017 and the first name in the by line is Michael S Schmidt.
-
Why are you fixated on the articles Michael S Schmidt did for the Wall Street Journal?
I said the articles he did for the NY Times. Look at the picture of the NY Times cover posted in this thread. Jan 20, 2017 and the first name in the by line is Michael S Schmidt.
My fixation has absolutely nothing to do with Michael S Schmidt.
I can't figure out if you're confused, are trolling me, or both…
There is no NY Times cover posted in this thread …
I went through every single link twice ...
This is the article you are describing and it explicitly says "TRUMP ASSOCIATES" ... https://www.nytimes.com/2017/01/19/us/politics/trump-russia-associates-investigation.html
You're sitting here telling me to do my own research when you don't even know what you are talking about…
Did you look at that picture of the NY Times front page?
Michael S Schmidt co-wrote that article, which was published on Jan 20, 2017.
Michael S Schmidt wrote the article criticizing Trump for claiming he was being wiretapped with no evidence.
In which article was MSS being totally dishonest?
You are the one being totally dishonest…
Those are two separate reports about two different people/persons and they are both accurate.
Did you miss that critical detail and were unintentionally conflating the two issues?
Somebody brought this important point up about the entire Russia issue, if they didn't do anything wrong, then why do they keep lying about it?!?
-
You seriously don't see that giant picture in this thread? You need to check your settings. Look for the post dated 6 March @ 19:32.
WIRETAPPED DATA USED IN INQUIRY OF TRUMP AIDES; is what the newspaper headline is for the story the day after the internet article is dated.
If you could see the picture, you'd know the article headline isn't the same as the internet article headline even though they both seem to be the same story.
The article says it's unclear how much of the data and investigation is about Trump and his campaign.
If the article was about Hillary's associates, then you would be screaming for blood. You'd be claiming it was about getting at her.
-
You seriously don't see that giant picture in this thread? You need to check your settings. Look for the post dated 6 March @ 19:32.
WIRETAPPED DATA USED IN INQUIRY OF TRUMP AIDES; is what the newspaper headline is for the story the day after the internet article is dated.
If you could see the picture, you'd know the article headline isn't the same as the internet article headline even though they both seem to be the same story.
The article says it's unclear how much of the data and investigation is about Trump and his campaign.
If the article was about Hillary's associates, then you would be screaming for blood. You'd be claiming it was about getting at her.
Alright dude. I quit. I'm not going to sit here and be trolled by the moderator of any site, especially this one. I've told you multiple times now that I'm not a liberal and I'm not a Hillary supporter.
I'm not going to be insulted by some random person online. If I wanted that, I could easily go hit up the comment section of any un-moderated site.
As far as that article goes. Ok, you're still wrong… You read it wrong, you are responsible for that, that's not my problem.
You are suggesting that Trump tweeted about what Michael S. Schmidt wrote, the problem with that is, he never stated that Trump was wire tapped and you even admitted that. And that's certainly not what Trump tweeted about, since the dates don't even close to match. What you did there is totally dishonest.
It's apparent to me, that somebody has made a big mistake about who they have moderating this forum.
As far as the image goes:
Aren't hot-linked images not allowed?
It's completely obvious you only enforce the rules when people are saying things you personally don't want to read.
The resource at “https://pbs.twimg.com/media/C6QST8PWUAA_NHD.jpg” was blocked because tracking protection is enabled. 1 index.phpYeah I really want twitter reading my cookies while I'm on this site…
Edit: You do realize how epically stupid that is right?… They can literally tie your user name here to your real twitter account and if you phone verified your twitter, they can tie your account here to you. This isn't some paranoid rant, I actually know how the tracking cookies work. If you could see that picture, you probably outed yourself in the data. Since you don't need an account to read the forum, they can just match it up via the timestamps. This is really bad since the site prints the seconds and if it syncs with an NTP server, it's probably accurate within a second. So, there will be a matching time stamp on the site when the user posts the image, in the log and on this forum, with a log of the unique ID being read, matching the time stamps. The site does use HTTPS, so the referrer isn't passed to twitter, but they can just Google the image and figure out that you're a pirate…
Have a great time with the vomit you spew all over this forum.
-
It's kind strange that Trump is getting his news from the "failing" New York Times…...
-
How sad. You think you are being "trolled" because someone doesn't believe you are a conservative based on your posts.
The picture was/is there and apparently you saw the link, so I'm confused why you kept claiming it didn't exist.
It's completely obvious you only enforce the rules when people are saying things you personally don't want to read.
LOL, do you realize how many people I would have to ban if I didn't allow people to disagree with me.
As an example, RoyalCrown would be muted on the forums because of a little rant he went on, which even he admits he violated the rules. He got no punishment because he admitted he did wrong.
The only people who get "banned", actually muted on the forums, are those that only post personal attacks, while never joining in on the discussion. And spammers, of course.
One person got a total site ban because he fought with so many people and not a single staff member wanted him around.
-
how is it that the media just doesnt come right out and say this man is completely off his rocker,hours after he accused Obama he then went on to say Hillary was spying on him,both said to deflect from all the russian allegations how teh fuck did he con so many people into voting for him :cheesy2:
