Is Lynch About To Go Down ?

originally posted by: Krazysh0t

originally posted by: Grambler

originally posted by: LSU0408
a reply to: Krazysh0t

And let's say you find out Trump's wire tapping claim is accurate. What will you do? Because while you sit there and disregard it as BS, you forget that Trump has more information than you'll ever have. He's a lot smarter than the haters give him credit for, and he's not going to say something like this without having some sort of information about it.

He will not accept it. You can see what will happen based on this thread. This is what many on the left will do.

They will say well Obama didn't personally order it, or Trumps personal cell phone wasn't tapped, or it wasn't a tap as much as it was email surveillance and other things.

No matter what the proof is, they will play a semantic game to justify there certainty that Obama did no wrong.

I'm sorry that I adhere to the mindset of innocent until proven guilty and don't just randomly doubt someone's innocence because some blowhard leveled an accusation against someone. I'm also sorry that you are looking for any excuse to believe this is true so you can hold Obama guilty as you have already prejudged his guilt anyways.

I am glad you feel that way. Then I assume you also refuse to take seriously the hysterics from the democratic party and the media that have not shown one piece of evidence that Trump colluded with the russians.

If you read my posts on the other thread on Trumps accusation, you will see that I said I will wait for more info before I make a decision.

I am not saying I know that Obama definitely tapped Trump. What I am saying is that his spokesman lied in their denial when they said they never surveilled a US citizen. Your refusal to acknowledge this lie proves you are not interested in a truthful discussion, as much as you are interested in cheerleading fro your side.

originally posted by: Grambler
I am glad you feel that way. Then I assume you also refuse to take seriously the hysterics from the democratic party and the media that have not shown one piece of evidence that Trump colluded with the russians.

Except that evidence DOES exist, and new controversies pop up surrounding it all the time. If there is nothing to see here, Trump is making it look like the exact opposite. Controversies like the one we are discussing look like a very OBVIOUS distraction attempt to get us to stop talking about his supposed Russian connections, for instance.

If you read my posts on the other thread on Trumps accusation, you will see that I said I will wait for more info before I make a decision.

Standard guilty until proven innocent talk. You are waiting for Obama to prove his innocence instead of just flat out siding with innocence until evidence is provided to the contrary.

I am not saying I know that Obama definitely tapped Trump. What I am saying is that his spokesman lied in their denial when they said they never surveilled a US citizen. Your refusal to acknowledge this lie proves you are not interested in a truthful discussion, as much as you are interested in cheerleading fro your side.

Excuses. You are splitting hairs over something that is 100% legal if true; thus making it irrelevant to even investigate or bring up. You know damn well that despite the wording Obama was refuting Trump's claim. You just want to believe otherwise because Trump ALWAYS gets the benefit of the doubt in your world.

originally posted by: neformore
I could swear this used to be a board of conspiracy theorists!

There will be no direct links back to Obama even if this claim is true.

Does the term plausible deniability not mean anything to you lot?

Most of the people drooling over the idea that Trump has something here still also believe Obama is a Kenyan-born muslim. You think he could dodge that bullet for 8 years as President but mess up a wiretap?

In short, yes. He's no longer in power and lets be honest. . .if Hillary had been able to cheat her way in, we'd never know about this. And if Trump would have brought it up, it would have been covered up. Obama didn't expect Trump to win so he was careless about his actions.

originally posted by: Krazysh0t

Except that evidence DOES exist, and new controversies pop up surrounding it all the time. If there is nothing to see here, Trump is making it look like the exact opposite. Controversies like the one we are discussing look like a very OBVIOUS distraction attempt to get us to stop talking about his supposed Russian connections, for instance.

Well the you will have no problem showing me proof that Trump worked with Russians to steal the US election. I mean even Clapper said there was no proof, but apparently you have seen it.

Please share it with the rest of us.

Standard guilty until proven innocent talk. You are waiting for Obama to prove his innocence instead of just flat out siding with innocence until evidence is provided to the contrary.

Yet you are considering Trump guilty of lying until proven innocent. I am not waiting for Obama to prove anything. I am waiting for the investigation to see what surveillance there was if any on Trump.

Excuses. You are splitting hairs over something that is 100% legal if true; thus making it irrelevant to even investigate or bring up. You know damn well that despite the wording Obama was refuting Trump's claim. You just want to believe otherwise because Trump ALWAYS gets the benefit of the doubt in your world.

What is legal if true? I am pointing out the Obama spokeman lied. Rather or not this surveillance was legal or not is irrelevant. He said they never surveilled a US citizen when clearly they did. Again, your partisanship will not allow you to admit this. Obama was refuting Trumps claim, and he did so by lying.

I honestly feel bad for you because It think you are so biased that you can't see this clear lie that your own sources showed was a lie.

It seems to me that what Trump said has a small grain of truth, which his supporters are taking to mean the entire thing is true.

The reality is that the spy agencies likely did put Trump under surveilance while he was a candidate. It's standard practice to put all Presidential candidates under surveilance.

That however doesn't mean that what Trump said is true. What Trump alleged was that Obama specifically ordered wiretapping, wiretapping itself is a bit different from surveilance too. It's the difference between listening in on phone calls vs getting the phone records.

The bottom line is that it is extremely unlikely Obama ordered that. Which means that once again Trump is getting his facts confused and alleging something that's not true.

originally posted by: Grambler
Well the you will have no problem showing me proof that Trump worked with Russians to steal the US election. I mean even Clapper said there was no proof, but apparently you have seen it.

Please share it with the rest of us.

Strawman. That isn't what the investigation is about. It isn't about the Russians stealing the election. That is a Trump created strawman because he thinks this investigation implies his Presidency isn't legit. For instance, if Trump were to be found guilty of something in this investigation, it wouldn't suddenly make it so the Democrats hold the Presidency. We also wouldn't be holding new elections to replace Trump. Pence would be the President (provided he wasn't swept up in whatever Trump got caught doing).

Yet you are considering Trump guilty of lying until proven innocent. I am not waiting for Obama to prove anything. I am waiting for the investigation to see what surveillance there was if any on Trump.

Duh. He made the claim minus the evidence. That is called a lie. Trump likes to use the term "fake news".

What is legal if true? I am pointing out the Obama spokeman lied. Rather or not this surveillance was legal or not is irrelevant. He said they never surveilled a US citizen when clearly they did. Again, your partisanship will not allow you to admit this. Obama was refuting Trumps claim, and he did so by lying.

I honestly feel bad for you because It think you are so biased that you can't see this clear lie that your own sources showed was a lie.

Apparently you don't understand the definition of the word "irrelevant" as you keep bringing up this semantics word play like it actually means anything in relation to the investigation. You are just trying to create smoke where there is no fire.

a reply to: Blue_Jay33

Scary thought that, Lynch going down. Oh, you meant legally because if the fisa warrants, hopefully good slick Willy gets wrapped up in that mess along with of course, Hillary.

Cheers - Dave

originally posted by: Krazysh0t

Strawman. That isn't what the investigation is about. It isn't about the Russians stealing the election. That is a Trump created strawman because he thinks this investigation implies his Presidency isn't legit. For instance, if Trump were to be found guilty of something in this investigation, it wouldn't suddenly make it so the Democrats hold the Presidency. Pence would be the President (provided he wasn't swept up in whatever Trump got caught doing).

Then you tell me what the investigation into Trump is about. I thought it was about him potentially colluding with the Russianss to havck the DNC. Given the fact that even Clapper has said there is NO evidence of Trump doing anything wrong with the Russians, I am interested in seeing the proof that you have seen.

Please provide it.

Duh. He made the claim minus the evidence. That is called a lie. Trump likes to use the term "fake news".

There is evidence that there was FISA requests. Plus we don't know what evidence he has. The dems and media have constantly reported that Russia hacked the DNC, yet I have not seen one piece of evidence. So I assume that ytou don't believe that either.

Apparently you don't understand the definition of the word "irrelevant" as you keep bringing up this semantics word play like it actually means anything in relation to the investigation. You are just trying to create smoke where there is no fire.

Nope. I am pointing out that Obama lied through his spokesman. Its has been shown to you over and over again and you are so partisan you can't admit it.

Rather or not it was legal for the government to surveill James Rosen is IRRELEVANT to the fact that they did it, and then lied about it in their statement claiming they didn't surveill Trump.

You know this, but you can't admit it and so you are just choosing to ignore it and hope weaall forget about it too. Sorry, it won't happen, and you are merely sowing yourself to be a partisan who can not admit when his side does anything wrong.

originally posted by: Krazysh0t

Again with this spin... The claim is about wiretapping. NOT surveillance in general.

Trump is waaaay ahead of your kind. Did you not note "wiretapping" was in quotation marks in the tweets?

originally posted by: Grambler
Then you tell me what the investigation into Trump is about. I thought it was about him potentially colluding with the Russianss to havck the DNC. Given the fact that even Clapper has said there is NO evidence of Trump doing anything wrong with the Russians, I am interested in seeing the proof that you have seen.

Please provide it.

The investigation is about possible ties. Any ties between the Trump administration/campaign and Russia. As for my evidence I merely have to point at the Flynn and Sessions fiascos. They may not be direct evidence of wrongdoing, but the lies create questions. The multiple instances imply a pattern.

These are the kinds of things that warrant further investigation. Keep in mind that no one in the Justice Department has said that Trump has done anything wrong. They will tell you that their opinion is too preliminary because the investigation is ongoing. If they had said something like that then there would be a trial occurring and Trump would be in the middle of impeachment proceedings.

There is evidence that there was FISA requests. Plus we don't know what evidence he has. The dems and media have constantly reported that Russia hacked the DNC, yet I have not seen one piece of evidence. So I assume that ytou don't believe that either.

That's because you don't want to look at that evidence. Plenty of that evidence has been posted on ATS. Just because you don't like it doesn't mean it isn't credible or legit.

And how many times do I have to tell you that FISA requests don't prove anything in regards to this claim?

Nope. I am pointing out that Obama lied through his spokesman. Its has been shown to you over and over again and you are so partisan you can't admit it.

Rather or not it was legal for the government to surveill James Rosen is IRRELEVANT to the fact that they did it, and then lied about it in their statement claiming they didn't surveill Trump.

You know this, but you can't admit it and so you are just choosing to ignore it and hope weaall forget about it too. Sorry, it won't happen, and you are merely sowing yourself to be a partisan who can not admit when his side does anything wrong.

*eye roll* Whatever. Enjoy chasing your windmills.

originally posted by: The GUT

originally posted by: Krazysh0t

Again with this spin... The claim is about wiretapping. NOT surveillance in general.

Trump is waaaay ahead of your kind. Did you not note "wiretapping" was in quotation marks in the tweets?

And that means what in Trumpworld?

originally posted by: The GUT
Trump is waaaay ahead of your kind. Did you not note "wiretapping" was in quotation marks in the tweets?

So Trump never claimed wiretapping, which means there was no accusation and it's just business as usual?

originally posted by: Krazysh0t

And that means what in Trumpworld?

That you're not very observant and your semantics argument was negated by the tweets themselves. I responded to your statement:

Again with this spin... The claim is about wiretapping. NOT surveillance in general.

"Wire Tapping" in quotes is OBVIOUSLY about "surveillance" as a whole. Like I said and pay attention: Trump has been steps ahead and the haters continue to underestimate him to their own embarrassment.

originally posted by: Krazysh0t

The investigation is about possible ties. Any ties between the Trump administration/campaign and Russia. As for my evidence I merely have to point at the Flynn and Sessions fiascos. They may not be direct evidence of wrongdoing, but the lies create questions. The multiple instances imply a pattern.

That is not what the investigation is about! Uf it were only about ties to Russia, every person who has ever done business in Russia, or met with a Russian diplomat would be being investigated.

The investigation is about rather or not Trump did anything illegal with his Russian connections, like attempting to influence the outcome of the election.

These are the kinds of things that warrant further investigation. Keep in mind that no one in the Justice Department has said that Trump has done anything wrong. They will tell you that their opinion is too preliminary because the investigation is ongoing. If they had said something like that then there would be a trial occurring and Trump would be in the middle of impeachment proceedings.

So you are ok with no proof yet of any wrong doing of Trump, but want to see the results of an investigation.

Conversely, you find me wanting to see an investigation of how Trump was surveilled and what Obama's admin had to do with it as making him guilty before innocent.

Can you really not see your double standard here?

That's because you don't want to look at that evidence. Plenty of that evidence has been posted on ATS. Just because you don't like it doesn't mean it isn't credible or legit.

And how many times do I have to tell you that FISA requests don't prove anything in regards to this claim?

Why wouldn't the Fisa requests be proof of anything? So people in the DOJ or elsewhere in the Obama admin requesting surevillance on Trump or his people caan not be viewed as proof that Obams admin wanted to surveill Trump?

What sort of crazy double think is this?

*eye roll* Whatever. Enjoy chasing your windmills.

Everyone reading sees exactly what I do. It has been proven that your own links show Obamas spokesman lied, and you can't admit it.

This is really destroying your credibility, because it makes it seem like you are not capable of having a serious discussion. You seem to be only interested in cheerleading for your side, and ignoring anything that makes your side look in the least way bad.

originally posted by: Grambler

originally posted by: LSU0408
a reply to: Krazysh0t

And let's say you find out Trump's wire tapping claim is accurate. What will you do? Because while you sit there and disregard it as BS, you forget that Trump has more information than you'll ever have. He's a lot smarter than the haters give him credit for, and he's not going to say something like this without having some sort of information about it.

He will not accept it. You can see what will happen based on this thread. This is what many on the left will do.

They will say well Obama didn't personally order it, or Trumps personal cell phone wasn't tapped, or it wasn't a tap as much as it was email surveillance and other things.

No matter what the proof is, they will play a semantic game to justify there certainty that Obama did no wrong.

You're exactly right. It'll be spun in such a way that they'll say Obama didn't say the exact words "Tap Trump's phone" and claim Trump lied. I can only imagine how nasty it feels to lose so bad to someone you hate so much and how excruciating it must be to keep waiting for something to bury him with, only to keep losing and failing. It's really gotta suck.

a reply to: network dude

You don't know everything?

So what that post means is that it appears the authority is delegated from the president to the attorney general. It doesn't mean that the President sees/signs/authorises it directly.

originally posted by: The GUT

originally posted by: Krazysh0t

And that means what in Trumpworld?

That you're not very observant and your semantics argument was negated by the tweets themselves. I responded to your statement:

Again with this spin... The claim is about wiretapping. NOT surveillance in general.

"Wire Tapping" in quotes is OBVIOUSLY about "surveillance" as a whole. Like I said and pay attention: Trump has been steps ahead and the haters continue to underestimate him to their own embarrassment.

Lol. Obviously. I'm sure.

Trust me. I'm not underestimating him here. I have him pegged for exactly what he is doing. Manufacturing a scandal to distract from his Russian problems. It's kind of clever, except when you realize that is what he always does. It's not really working here. Sure we'll talk about this idiocy for a few days, but the Russian questions aren't going away.

originally posted by: Krazysh0t

originally posted by: LSU0408
a reply to: Krazysh0t

And let's say you find out Trump's wire tapping claim is accurate. What will you do? Because while you sit there and disregard it as BS, you forget that Trump has more information than you'll ever have. He's a lot smarter than the haters give him credit for, and he's not going to say something like this without having some sort of information about it.

Does he? Where is this information? Why hasn't he provided to anyone? Even the Justice Department is perplexed on this one. Hell. How about telling which department of the government specifically wiretapped the Trump Tower. The FBI denies they did it.

Yes he does, and you don't need to know where. It's as much your business as it is mine. No charges will come forth unless evidence is prevented so you shouldn't jump the gun and claim he's lying unless you have 100% proof that he is, and you don't.

originally posted by: GramblerWhat I am saying is that his spokesman lied in their denial when they said they never surveilled a US citizen.

Who ordered surveilance on James Rosen? Was it Obama?

a reply to: LSU0408

That's a nice assumption on your part, but it is just that, an assumption.

Still, we shall see what plays out in this little game of "distraction".