Phx-Suns.Net

we did not not do it

https://pjmedia.com/video/josh-earnest- ... -campaign/

RIP, this thread. Ruined by one poster's incessantly spamming the thread.

Marty [Mori Chu] wrote:RIP, this thread. Ruined by one poster's incessantly spamming the thread.

I wonder who that could be?

You can't make this stuff up!
Trump claims Obama had his phones wiretapped.

Donald J. Trump ✔@realDonaldTrump
Terrible! Just found out that Obama had my "wires tapped" in Trump Tower just before the victory. Nothing found. This is McCarthyism!
4:35 AM - 4 Mar 2017
50,810 50,810 Retweets 144,503 144,503 likes

Donald J. Trump ✔@realDonaldTrump
Is it legal for a sitting President to be "wire tapping" a race for president prior to an election? Turned down by court earlier. A NEW LOW!
4:49 AM - 4 Mar 2017
36,689 36,689 Retweets 124,512 124,512 likes

Donald J. Trump ✔@realDonaldTrump
How low has President Obama gone to tapp my phones during the very sacred election process. This is Nixon/Watergate. Bad (or sick) guy!
5:02 AM - 4 Mar 2017
53,165 53,165 Retweets 163,667 163,667 likes

He offers no proof. The House Intelligence Committee gives him until today to give his evidence or STFU. What does Trump say today?

Spicer: Trump didn't mean wiretapping when he tweeted about wiretapping
http://www.cnn.com/2017/03/13/politics/ ... index.html

The White House on Monday walked back a key point of President Donald Trump's unsubstantiated allegation that President Barack Obama wiretapped his phones in Trump Tower during the 2016 election.

Namely, White House press secretary Sean Spicer said Trump wasn't referring to wiretapping when he tweeted about wiretapping.
"I think there's no question that the Obama administration, that there were actions about surveillance and other activities that occurred in the 2016 election," Spicer said. "The President used the word wiretaps in quotes to mean, broadly, surveillance and other activities."
Spicer also said that Trump was referring to the Obama administration broadly -- and not accusing Obama of personal involvement -- when he tweeted that "Obama had my 'wires tapped' in Trump Tower" and accused Obama of being a "bad" or "sick guy."

When i said Obama I wasn't talking about Obama.
When I said wiretapping I wasn't talking about wiretapping.

Busted.... AGAIN.

Seems like some legal retribution should be in order. Isn't there a name for allegations without evidence or proof?

Also, from Wikipedia:

Psychopaths and narcissists
Smear campaigns have been identified as a common weapon of psychopaths[1][4] and narcissists.[5][6][7]

Sounds right on in this case.

Seems like some legal retribution should be in order. Isn't there a name for allegations without evidence or proof?

Defamation is a false statement someone makes about you, which is published (or spoken) as a statement of fact, and which harms your personal and/or professional reputation or causes you other damages. Intentionally falsely accusing an ex President of a crime against you just to give you some cover from a scandal you are hiding from is pretty low even for Trumps standards.

How about damage to Obama's reputation or damage to our Democracy this BS does?

http://www.alllaw.com/articles/nolo/civ ... ander.html
A “defamatory statement” is any statement that an ordinary person would find damaging to their reputation and character. Typically, a judge will determine if the statement is actually defamatory. Only if it is unclear whether the statement is defamatory, either because of the context in which it was made or because of multiple possible interpretations, will the jury be asked to make the assessment.

If the defamatory statement falls into the category of libel, the plaintiff only needs to prove the essential elements, i.e. 1) the defendant published a defamatory statement about the plaintiff in written or another form 2) and other people were exposed to the statement. There are no additional requirements because the law presumes that once the publication of a defamatory statement has been made in written or other formats, the statement will remain in the public sphere for a long time and continue to do damage.

Damages for Defamation

Once the plaintiff has successfully proved defamation, "general damages" are presumed. The plaintiff is not simply limited to damages reflecting his or her economic losses, but the mental anguish and other emotional harm that the law presumes to result from having one’s reputation harmed. Depending on what the plaintiff proves about the defendant’s intentions, and the type of defendant, punitive damages may also be awarded to the plaintiff.

Trump will get away with it because he will claim his words can be interpreted to say the BS Spizer said earlier.

http://www.cnn.com/2017/03/14/politics/ ... index.html

So I guess, just, never mind. I'm sure Trump's supporters will say this whole story is no big deal and that we should just move on. But it's extremely dangerous when the President of the US can accuse another politician of a high crime, stir up a media frenzy about it, with absolutely no evidence presented whatsoever, and then just drop it a few weeks later. This time he went after ex-President Obama, who is powerful and strong enough to weather such a charge. But if Trump goes after someone less fortunate, what will they be able to do to stop him? This dangerous man has the power to ruin lives with his behavior.

As Walt Clyde Frazier might say, he is inflammatory and defamatory.

I came across this and thought it contained a lot of info about the whole investigation/hacking/russia thing. Not sure who they are. It seems like a law site of some kind.

What Do We Know About Investigations Into Trump Associates’ Ties to Russia?
https://www.lawfareblog.com/what-do-we- ... ies-russia

Marty [Mori Chu] wrote:http://www.cnn.com/2017/03/14/politics/ ... index.html

So I guess, just, never mind. I'm sure Trump's supporters will say this whole story is no big deal and that we should just move on. But it's extremely dangerous when the President of the US can accuse another politician of a high crime, stir up a media frenzy about it, with absolutely no evidence presented whatsoever, and then just drop it a few weeks later. This time he went after ex-President Obama, who is powerful and strong enough to weather such a charge. But if Trump goes after someone less fortunate, what will they be able to do to stop him? This dangerous man has the power to ruin lives with his behavior.

As Walt Clyde Frazier might say, he is inflammatory and defamatory.

So, Obama's not going to jail? Huh, I'm shocked.

Mori wrote:As Walt Clyde Frazier might say, he is inflammatory and defamatory.

Best post of the day. Even if it was yesterday.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2017/03 ... retapping/


Just seen the footage of spicer now - seriously, what in the Jesus fucking Christ names god of allah is trump playing at?

Death to the USA infidels! (just kidding but c'mon man this is ridiculous).


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

So Obama made the UK spy on Trump now?

How are we going to make it through 4 years of this BS?

With difficulty!

repeat after me: There is no Deep State!

http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/bob-w ... le/2618185

Marty [Mori Chu] wrote:
As Walt Clyde Frazier might say, he is inflammatory and defamatory.

I wonder what Obama and his minions are thinking right now.

and can you pls return the thread title back to it's original form? thank you!

FBI was not allowed to examine hacked DNC servers but Crowdstrike had access
http://edition.cnn.com/2017/01/05/polit ... owdstrike/

and now?

http://www.voanews.com/a/crowdstrike-co ... 76067.html

Come on, man. This story died on the vine. Trump was completely rebuffed by everyone who was interviewed. Multiple sources in the know from the FBI, CIA, NSA, etc. have come out saying that Trump was -not- wiretapped or bugged. You want me to restore your phony thread title? The whole story is fake news invented by a paranoid delusional President who got the idea from reading a conspiracy theory web site.

Marty [Mori Chu] wrote:Come on, man. This story died on the vine. Trump was completely rebuffed by everyone who was interviewed. Multiple sources in the know from the FBI, CIA, NSA, etc. have come out saying that Trump was -not- wiretapped or bugged. You want me to restore your phony thread title? The whole story is fake news invented by a paranoid delusional President who got the idea from reading a conspiracy theory web site.

the trump campaign was wiretapped, at a minimum manafort (and god knows who else) and likely trump if he communicated with manafort in any way electronically or thru the phone. but you can keep the thread title.

https://twitter.com/Stephe96/status/909931296603983874

I think it's worth noting that Manafort was (a) wiretapped with a FISA warrant, so it was with probable cause and legal; (b) was wiretapped long before he was ever involved with the Trump campaign; and (c) was apparently *not* wiretapped while he did work on the campaign. Crucially, nobody had any tap on him during the fateful meeting in Trump Tower in June 2016 with the Russian agents.

So, no.