Sean Spicer says Trump is 'extremely confident' that DOJ will find evidence of wiretapping

a reply to: brutus61

In that case both parties are in the wrong then.

The Dems doing doesn't mean it's ok for Trump to do it.

Just like Bush lying doesn't make it ok for Obama to lie.

But I'm not comparing the two. Only you are doing that. You're bringing up the Wrongs of the Dems as justification for the Wrongs of Trump. But they don't justify each other. They are both still wrong.

I'm not making the claim that it's ok when the Dems do it. You are making that claim by implying that I'm saying that. I'm not saying that at all.

I'm not discussing the wrongs of the Dems here because that isn't what this thread is about. It's about this one thing that Trump has done.

Comparing this event to other events whatever those events are won't justify this one. All it does is string together one wrong action after another and claiming that each previous wrong justifies the next one. It doesn't.

originally posted by: brutus61


Well it is good that you decided to intercede for MoJoM since after calling me out to state my case he/she has not responded.

People have lives...I am off to dinner..

The problem is that 8 months ago when all of these Russian allegations started there was zero evidence of anything.

Wrong...I have followed the evidence for a long while...lets just test your 8 months claim? July 2016?

That was after Flynn's pics with Putin at dinner went public and Carter Page, while advising Trump, had been caught by CIA meeting with FSB in Moscow...I can google for a full timeline accounting of various stories if you like?

a reply to: FelisOrion

It's frustrating. I understand that for some it's simply making logical mistakes or getting out of step in the process of reasoning and breaking down what the problem is.

For others though, they know exactly what they're doing and they're doing it on purpose. Since they can't win the argument they just try and muddy up the whole debate until it's too much trouble to even bother with it.

The problem is it's hard to figure out who's doing what. Who the honest mistakes are vs. the ones being willing misleading.

We spend more time getting though that than actually discussing the real issues most times.

originally posted by: mOjOm
a reply to: brutus61

In that case both parties are in the wrong then.

The Dems doing doesn't mean it's ok for Trump to do it.

Just like Bush lying doesn't make it ok for Obama to lie.

But I'm not comparing the two. Only you are doing that. You're bringing up the Wrongs of the Dems as justification for the Wrongs of Trump. But they don't justify each other. They are both still wrong.

I'm not making the claim that it's ok when the Dems do it. You are making that claim by implying that I'm saying that. I'm not saying that at all.

I'm not discussing the wrongs of the Dems here because that isn't what this thread is about. It's about this one thing that Trump has done.

Comparing this event to other events whatever those events are won't justify this one. All it does is string together one wrong action after another and claiming that each previous wrong justifies the next one. It doesn't.

I am not saying that one or the other is right or wrong. My statements are about how "horrible" Trump supposedly is for making statements without providing proof of his allegations. How can one be ok and the other "horrible"?

a reply to: Indigo5

I actually enjoy his post. Yours? No so much.

Actually, I'll call your bluff and would like to see your "google" research on claims about Flynn and Russian and supporting documents that outline that evidence.

...or perhaps you're blowing hot air.

a reply to: brutus61

Who's saying one is ok and one isn't??? I'm not.

I'm saying a wrong is a wrong regardless of who does it.

I'm not comparing one to another.

I'm looking at just this one thing Trump is doing. That's it.

And by "extremely confident" of course the President means adequately confident of ,many things and by "wire tapping" the president of course isn't talking about wiretaps specifically, but about a whole range of official steps Obama has taken throughout his presidency, of which some may or may not be related to any form of surveillance by the president or on his behalf, of which I mean any means during his tenure that data may have been collected on Trump by any intelligence organization of which Obama would have been ultimately in charge and responsible.

Part of me dazzles before the spectrum of semantics :Simon Spicer says " " justifys as far as Trump can see .. allegedly...

Hmm mm
Covering bases

Let's not forget here, Trump wasn't the initial target
his people seem have gotten dragged in

It's not surprising that Trump and his entire team are basically all bullsh#tters. That's just a fact of their character and it's obvious to everyone. What surprises me is how many Trump supporters are okay with being represented by obvious bullsh#tters, thus making their entire platform look like a platform of fakers and bullsh#t. Trump supporters make themselves look dumb by not demanding more integrity and better representation.

originally posted by: mOjOm
a reply to: AppreIron

You're still not getting it.

The justification for what Trump is saying and doing should have already been established before he acted, not after.

What we have here is him acting then afterward trying to justify his actions. That's not how it's done.

Even if it comes out that his Theory was correct, at the time he acted it would still have just been a theory. If you act and then later you find out it was justified it still doesn't change the fact that when you acted you did so on a hunch and just got lucky you were right.

There's a reason courts of law depose witnesses under oath and subject evidence to standards, because in the interest fair play and substantial justice that is the best practice. Far better than an accuser holding Court in the forum of public opinion. When Trump proves his claims it will done through depositions of sworn testimony and admissible evidence, something he can not procure without at least congressional hearings. You can then dismiss his claims as a lucky fishing expedition, but I believe the general public will then have proof that Trumps claims were correct and that the left and media have been wrong.

a reply to: AppreIron

Then what was his basis for making those statements as FACT if it requires all those other statements and investigative information to prove it???

He didn't have all those things when he made the statement. It may be required in a court, which is good and I can accept that. But that isn't what he based his claim on to start with.

So what info did he have then when he claimed it as FACT?? Because either he had something then or he didn't. I'm more concerned what he had then not what else he can find.

All evidence found after then isn't what he had when he made the claim.

a reply to: mOjOm

Neither of us know the answer to that. But we both know whatever evidence he put forth would have not been believed by about half the country, as should be the case when impartial evidence is put forth by the accuser, especially one with as much power as the President. But to believe he made such a claim without any evidence is foolish and no doubt the public will view this issue in the same light, no matter the outcome.

I know most of us don't need proof to know the truth..
a reply to: seasonal

a reply to: journeyonfire

Cryptic, will you expand?

Go After the Ball, Not the Player!

All rules for polite political debate will be enforced.
Reaffirming Our Desire For Productive Political Debate (REVISED)

You are responsible for your own posts.


and, as always:

Do NOT reply to this post!!

originally posted by: mOjOm
a reply to: seasonal

Why do they need to Find it???

He made the claim as a fact. Which means whatever they're looking for he already has or knows. That is how it works. You can't state something is a fact then look for the poof to make it so. You have the proof first then make that statement.

If they're looking to validate his statement then that means he lied when stating it was a fact and is now hoping someone will be able to prove him right.

That is called a lie. Plain and simple.

Like russian collusion? Lol are you paying attention to your own party.