It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

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

page: 5
14
<< 2  3  4    6  7  8 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Mar, 14 2017 @ 10:59 PM
link   
a reply to: digital01anarchy

Dude I don't have a party. I'm sure I've mentioned it before.

I'm not a Democrat.

Once again though, why are you looking at the Dems for answers to what Trump is doing??? There are no answers there. You're just trying to justify the Wrongs Trump is making by pointing out wrongs the Dems have made in the past.

But two wrongs don't make a right so there is no purpose in doing that other than to deflect attention away somewhere else. It's a nice little trick but it's ran it's course now. We all see it and we're sick of it.

Justifying it with "They did it so why can't I do it now." won't work for you.




posted on Mar, 14 2017 @ 11:04 PM
link   
a reply to: seasonal

Why does your title say "Will Find Evidence"? Thought they found it before President Trump tweeted the accusation 10 days ago. (I'm playing quick catch-up tonight on everything)



posted on Mar, 14 2017 @ 11:07 PM
link   

originally posted by: mOjOm
a reply to: digital01anarchy

Dude I don't have a party. I'm sure I've mentioned it before.

I'm not a Democrat.

Once again though, why are you looking at the Dems for answers to what Trump is doing??? There are no answers there. You're just trying to justify the Wrongs Trump is making by pointing out wrongs the Dems have made in the past.

But two wrongs don't make a right so there is no purpose in doing that other than to deflect attention away somewhere else. It's a nice little trick but it's ran it's course now. We all see it and we're sick of it.

Justifying it with "They did it so why can't I do it now." won't work for you.


Well....two negatives DO make a positive. And technically two wrongs can make a right, such as if I took a left turn (one wrong) and meant to take a right, i could make an illegal U-turn (another wrong) and then technically I'd be right....


I keed I keed....

Anywho...enough of my comedy routine...it usually sucks anyways.



posted on Mar, 14 2017 @ 11:25 PM
link   
a reply to: Vasa Croe

Hey you gave it a shot though. I can respect that.



posted on Mar, 15 2017 @ 09:15 AM
link   
a reply to: seasonal

Sorry, so in one breath Spicer said he is confident evidence will be found that Obama arranged for Trump to be wire tapped, and then in the next breath he says that Trump didn't really mean Obama arranged it, and he didn't literally mean wire tapping.

Those two statements are mutually exclusive, which one do you think he actually meant?



posted on Mar, 15 2017 @ 09:18 AM
link   

originally posted by: LesMisanthrope
a reply to: seasonal

Though Trump was using common figures of speech (metonymy, perhaps catachresis, hyperbole, and especially, parrhesia), try explaining that to a literal-minded press and public who are inured to the politicians who put public relations before bluntness. That's Spicer's task.


So if in his next 3am tweet he says "WE ARE GOING TO WAR WITH CHINA!!!" Spicer will be allowed to say that obviously, he didn't literally mean war, and you'd be ok with that? Because to be honest it wouldn't surprise me if sooner or later it happens.



posted on Mar, 15 2017 @ 09:52 AM
link   

originally posted by: LesMisanthrope
a reply to: Phage



I happen to think that a president should not spout to the general public everything that pops into his head. Actually, I don't think anyone should, but the president is in a unique position. That "bully pulpit."


I think the opposite. I think every man, know matter who they are or what position they hold, should be able to speak his mind and share his opinions.


He wasn't sharing his opinion, he was making a direct accusation against a former president. Never mind, I know you may think that should be of little consequence.



posted on Mar, 15 2017 @ 10:36 AM
link   
It is kind of amazing how some folks move the goal posts based off what letter a person has next to their name...

I honestly have not met anyone in my life that takes what a politician says as the literal truth... I thought it was common knowledge... how do you know a politician is lying..their lips are moving.

Wire tapping is a part of surveillance so to me they are interchangeable descriptions.. ETA: also many phones systems in places like Trump tower (big business areas) are run through computer servers... since we do not know exactly what was on the server they were chasing the entire thing is a lot of maybes.

President Obama... ever hear of the buck stops here? It does not matter if he said accomplish XYZ, or if a minion in his administration said it...or even if it was done in the Intel community with no over sight... he sat in the big boy chair it is his fault.

So let us hang on and see what comes from this...
edit on 15-3-2017 by Irishhaf because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 15 2017 @ 11:00 AM
link   
a reply to: uncommitted

And? Tell me the negative affects of his tweets besides the fake outrage of his unscrupulous opponents.



posted on Mar, 15 2017 @ 11:37 AM
link   

originally posted by: LesMisanthrope
a reply to: uncommitted

And? Tell me the negative affects of his tweets besides the fake outrage of his unscrupulous opponents.


It's quite easy really, doesn't that stand as libel if not proven? If you don't believe so, please say why.



posted on Mar, 15 2017 @ 11:46 AM
link   
a reply to: uncommitted

To prove libel Obama would have to show that Trump's statements had a negative impact on his finances. He might be able to get away with defamation.



posted on Mar, 15 2017 @ 11:49 AM
link   

originally posted by: Xcalibur254
a reply to: uncommitted

To prove libel Obama would have to show that Trump's statements had a negative impact on his finances. He might be able to get away with defamation.


Really?


a. The legally indefensible publication or broadcast of words or images that are degrading to a person or injurious to his or her reputation.


From the American Heritage Dictionary.

www.thefreedictionary.com...

I don't see anything that has to prove a financial negative impact on that definition?



posted on Mar, 15 2017 @ 12:03 PM
link   
a reply to: uncommitted

While there are criminal defamation laws in a few states there has never been an actual case tried. As a result all libel cases are civil matters. Thus, Obama would have to prove that Trump's statements negatively affected him. Since things like mental or emotional harm are almost impossible to prove most libel cases come down to financial harm.



posted on Mar, 15 2017 @ 12:09 PM
link   

originally posted by: Xcalibur254
a reply to: uncommitted

While there are criminal defamation laws in a few states there has never been an actual case tried. As a result all libel cases are civil matters. Thus, Obama would have to prove that Trump's statements negatively affected him. Since things like mental or emotional harm are almost impossible to prove most libel cases come down to financial harm.


Fair point, I personally would go with libel if not proven (legally indefensible) and also defamation.



posted on Mar, 15 2017 @ 12:10 PM
link   

originally posted by: LesMisanthrope
a reply to: uncommitted

And? Tell me the negative affects of his tweets besides the fake outrage of his unscrupulous opponents.


The Presiden't Tweets are GOOD. They keep supporters informed, and opponents so distracted that they won't have any candidates for the 2020 race.



posted on Mar, 15 2017 @ 12:38 PM
link   
a reply to: uncommitted




It's quite easy really, doesn't that stand as libel if not proven? If you don't believe so, please say why.


A plaintiff must show that it is a false statement purporting to be fact, the publication of the statement to a third person, a fault amounting to at least negligence, and some harm caused to the target. Also, as a public figure, Obama must show Trump acted with actual malice.



posted on Mar, 15 2017 @ 12:52 PM
link   

originally posted by: LesMisanthrope
a reply to: uncommitted




It's quite easy really, doesn't that stand as libel if not proven? If you don't believe so, please say why.


A plaintiff must show that it is a false statement purporting to be fact, the publication of the statement to a third person, a fault amounting to at least negligence, and some harm caused to the target. Also, as a public figure, Obama must show Trump acted with actual malice.


The statement was published to a third person otherwise we wouldn't have seen it would we. The fault would be alleging negligence if Trump is suggesting that Obama did indeed wire tap without full approval and a court order, and the harm is to the former presidents reputation. Malice would be that Trump did this to denigrate the former president. All that would be needed based on your premise is that Obama didn't approve Trump to be wire tapped.

Not that hard really is it?



posted on Mar, 15 2017 @ 12:58 PM
link   
a reply to: uncommitted



The statement was published to a third person otherwise we wouldn't have seen it would we. The fault would be alleging negligence if Trump is suggesting that Obama did indeed wire tap without full approval and a court order, and the harm is to the former presidents reputation. Malice would be that Trump did this to denigrate the former president. All that would be needed based on your premise is that Obama didn't approve Trump to be wire tapped.

Not that hard really is it?



Actually it is really hard, evidenced by any defamation case.



posted on Mar, 15 2017 @ 01:10 PM
link   

originally posted by: LesMisanthrope
a reply to: uncommitted



The statement was published to a third person otherwise we wouldn't have seen it would we. The fault would be alleging negligence if Trump is suggesting that Obama did indeed wire tap without full approval and a court order, and the harm is to the former presidents reputation. Malice would be that Trump did this to denigrate the former president. All that would be needed based on your premise is that Obama didn't approve Trump to be wire tapped.

Not that hard really is it?



Actually it is really hard, evidenced by any defamation case.


I'm not sure Obama would be that interested in pushing anyway, Trump dribbles such drivel that he makes anything he says on Twitter a joke apart from to his devoted fanbase, but of course some people may want to see Trump actually add substance to his claims by providing truth to them so that he doesn't just come to be seen as a semi senile laughing stock. Won't happen though, he's probably forgot he tweeted it in the first place.



posted on Mar, 15 2017 @ 01:14 PM
link   
is he sure they will find "evidence" or is he sure they will find evidence....



new topics

top topics



 
14
<< 2  3  4    6  7  8 >>

log in

join