Well done, the Donald, imo.

[redgunamo]

https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/837993273679560704

[Burney]

https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/837993273679560704

The interesting thing is how Obama's representatives responded. They conspicuously did not deny that there had been a surveillance operation running - simply stated that Obama had not ordered or interfered with any such operation.

“A cardinal rule of the Obama administration was that no White House official ever interfered with any independent investigation led by the Department of Justice. As part of that practice, neither President Obama nor any White House official ever ordered surveillance on any U.S. citizen. Any suggestion otherwise is simply false.”

That's a tacit admission that he definitely was being bugged, isn't it?

[redgunamo]

The interesting thing is how Obama's representatives responded. They conspicuously did not deny that there had been a surveillance operation running - simply stated that Obama had not ordered or interfered with any such operation.

“A cardinal rule of the Obama administration was that no White House official ever interfered with any independent investigation led by the Department of Justice. As part of that practice, neither President Obama nor any White House official ever ordered surveillance on any U.S. citizen. Any suggestion otherwise is simply false.”

That's a tacit admission that he definitely was being bugged, isn't it?

That's the genius of it; of course he's being bugged but it's done as a matter of course, routine. A sitting president doesn't *have* to specifically order it, if he doesn't want to. This, of course, Trump will know full-well. Details never even come out mostly (because, naturally, the mere fact of having been under secret service surveillance can be damaging for the innocent individual, even though there is or was nothing in it, so Pennsylvania Avenue keeps it quiet, if they can).

However, the thing certainly *sounds* dodgy and suspicious, not cricket, to the public, in the current climate, even though it actually isn't particularly. "Secretly spying on the presidential candidate of the opposition party, and some of his associates, during the heat of a presidential campaign?" Well, Obama, and Hillary too, will always be deemed to have known about it and approved of it and maybe even encouraged it.

The D has used the fact of this everyday governmental procedure to force his critics onto the back foot. What was it they were saying about Russians hacking the election again? Oh, ah. Never mind ..

[Burney]

That's the genius of it; of course he's being bugged but it's done as a matter of course, routine. A sitting president doesn't *have* to specifically order it, if he doesn't want to. This, of course, Trump will know full-well. Details never even come out mostly (because, naturally, the mere fact of having been under secret service surveillance can be damaging for the innocent individual, even though there is or was nothing in it, so Pennsylvania Avenue keeps it quiet, if they can).

However, the thing certainly *sounds* dodgy and suspicious, not cricket, to the public, in the current climate, even though it actually isn't particularly. "Secretly spying on the presidential candidate of the opposition party, and some of his associates, during the heat of a presidential campaign?" Well, Obama, and Hillary too, will always be deemed to have known about it and approved of it and maybe even encouraged it.

The D has used the fact of this everyday governmental procedure to force his critics onto the back foot. What was it they were saying about Russians hacking the election again? Oh, ah. Never mind ..

Yes, one wonders if the best trick he's pulled is to make his enemies assume he (and his people) are hopelessly stupid?

[redgunamo]

Yes, one wonders if the best trick he's pulled is to make his enemies assume he (and his people) are hopelessly stupid?

If you want to get ahead, act dumb, as the man said.

Although, poor old POTUS43 is making his former fans wish he'd *stayed* dumb, as he'd been for the past eight years :-\

[Peter]

The interesting thing is how Obama's representatives responded. They conspicuously did not deny that there had been a surveillance operation running - simply stated that Obama had not ordered or interfered with any such operation.

“A cardinal rule of the Obama administration was that no White House official ever interfered with any independent investigation led by the Department of Justice. As part of that practice, neither President Obama nor any White House official ever ordered surveillance on any U.S. citizen. Any suggestion otherwise is simply false.”

That's a tacit admission that he definitely was being bugged, isn't it?

No, it directly refutes the accusation that Obama was tapping him, which he clearly wasn't. Any action independent from the White House is, by definition, outside of their jurisdiction and it would be wholly inappropriate for them to comment by either confirming or denying it.

Certainly he was being bugged as President-elect, that is standard practice.

[Burney]

No, it directly refutes the accusation that Obama was tapping him, which he clearly wasn't. Any action independent from the White House is, by definition, outside of their jurisdiction and it would be wholly inappropriate for them to comment by either confirming or denying it.

Certainly he was being bugged as President-elect, that is standard practice.

I realise that. It's carefully worded not to say there was no surveillance in place, merely to distance Obama from the surveillance that clearly was in place, but at the same time implying that they had to know it was in place in order to deny responsibility for it.

[redgunamo]

asked when they didn't know, even though they were *bound* to be asked when they didn't know if they didn't know :-)

Anyway the bugging would've begun sometime before Trump was president-elect, in any case. He himself may not even have been the intended target.


No, it directly refutes the accusation that Obama was tapping him, which he clearly wasn't. Any action independent from the White House is, by definition, outside of their jurisdiction and it would be wholly inappropriate for them to comment by either confirming or denying it.

Certainly he was being bugged as President-elect, that is standard practice.

[Peter]

I realise that. It's carefully worded not to say there was no surveillance in place, merely to distance Obama from the surveillance that clearly was in place, but at the same time implying that they had to know it was in place in order to deny responsibility for it.

If it implies the thing they wish to deny then it isn't very carefully worded is it?

And one does not need to know that something exists in order to know that one is not responsible for it if for no other reason than the obvious fact that if it doesn't exist one cannot possibly have been responsible for it.

It's carefully worded to speak only to the areas of White House responsibility.

[Peter]

asked when they didn't know, even though they were *bound* to be asked when they didn't know if they didn't know :-)

Anyway the bugging would've begun sometime before Trump was president-elect, in any case. He himself may not even have been the intended target.

Or he could be taking his news from idiotic right wing conspiracy nutjobs, again.....

The only solution is a bug enquiry.

[redgunamo]

It says, "We, the people... ", not "We, the pinko punditocracy and lefty intellectuals..."

The Donald understands this better than you, it would seem. Stands to reason, I suppose :-)



Or he could be taking his news from idiotic right wing conspiracy nutjobs, again.....

The only solution is a bug enquiry.

[Peter]

It says, "We, the people... ", not "We, the pinko punditocracy and lefty intellectuals..."

The Donald understands this better than you, it would seem. Stands to reason, I suppose :-)

I watch a bit of David Icke but I don't take to twitter ranting 'reptilian bloodlines rule global economy: a new low'....

A man can seek his truth wherever he finds it. He is not compelled to believe or repeat it.

And that constitution is a load of old **** anyway

[redgunamo]

I watch a bit of David Icke but I don't take to twitter ranting 'reptilian bloodlines rule global economy: a new low'....

A man can seek his truth wherever he finds it. He is not compelled to believe or repeat it.

And that constitution is a load of old **** anyway

You know political animals are in trouble when they start banging on about "truth". lol.

http://cdn.newsbusters.org/styles/blog_body-100/s3/images/nyt_wiretap.jpg?itok=J8I0Qe7o