White House asks Congress to probe Trump's accusation of Obama wiretap

[wreckingcountry]

What an absolute whacko. Rarely, if ever, have I heard such utter twaddle. And this is your evidence? Of a Coup D'Etat? Seriously? It's Laughable.
When Trump is impeached, it will not hand the Presidency to Obama, or even to the Democrats. It goes to the  Republican V.P. No one can change that. Not even Obama with a magic hat.
Additionally Obama has served two terms. That's it, finished. Can't come back.
Sorry, but this post sums up everything that is wrong with the mindset in Donalds fanatical supporters, who believe every story about the terrible Democrats, regardless of how crazy.
Focus on the issues of the day, which are numerous and stop looking for a conspiracy in every cupboard.
We've got an idiot at the helm already, not going to help if the crew go crazy too.
 

The "crew" is 60 million who voted for him. Most them are wingnuts


Sent from my iPhone using Thaivisa Connect

[Jingthing]

He's clutching at straws becuae he cannot understand why he is so unpopular... It is everyone else fault but his own... 

 

what a clown!Sad!

Yes he imagines he's doing us a big favor by acting as president and I do mean acting as in acting badly. He could resign and do us a real favor. Much as I oppose Pence's ideology at least need could bring back a measure of sanity and normalcy to the country and foreign policy as well.

[Jingthing]

Probably trump's craziest most dangerous Twitter rant to date?

Seriously how do rational people see him as a legitimate president?

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/worldviews/wp/2017/03/06/trumps-twitter-feed-is-a-gateway-to-authoritarianism/?utm_term=.89f4ca45e188&hpid=hp_hp-top-table-main_trumpdebrief-530pm%3Ahomepage%2Fstory#comments

[craigt3365]

13 hours ago, Pakboong said:

 

Levin is far from credible.  And there's zero evidence, except as has been reported (created) by nut-job websites as click bait.  And it seems to be working.  These click bait websites draw some like moths to a light.

 

http://money.cnn.com/2017/03/06/media/mark-levin-joel-pollak-breitbart-trump-obama/index.html

Quote

An incendiary idea first put forward by right-wing radio host Mark Levin is now burning across Washington, fanned by President Trump's tweets and a huge number of supportive commentators and websites -- even though the facts don't back up the conclusion.

 

[Pakboong]

5 hours ago, craigt3365 said:

Levin is far from credible.  And there's zero evidence, except as has been reported (created) by nut-job websites as click bait.  And it seems to be working.  These click bait websites draw some like moths to a light.

 

http://money.cnn.com/2017/03/06/media/mark-levin-joel-pollak-breitbart-trump-obama/index.html

 

I don't consider Fox News a credible source either.

[craigt3365]

4 minutes ago, Pakboong said:

I don't consider Fox News a credible source either.

Neither do I.  So why did you put this up?  More fake news?

[Jingthing]

5 minutes ago, kowpot said:

Again,  Not an impeachable offense.          

There are plenty of those already related to the emoluments clause but the republican party isn't there yet to put country over party.

As far as the Russian connection, we will see. It's not all out there yet. Treason charges might be in order depending on the evidence, but no point yet in jumping the gun. 
To add, please pay attention. I didn't only say impeachment. trump is acting now like he's CORNERED and there is something really bad that the press and investigators are coming close to uncovering. In such a case, trump may be FORCED to resign or face impeachment. Pence would pardon him anyway, the clown president will never go to prison. 

Edited March 7, 2017 by Jingthing

[rijb]

7 minutes ago, kowpot said:

Again,  Not an impeachable offense.          

Not for lack of trying.

 

grounds for impeachment cover allegations of misconduct peculiar to officials, such as perjury of oath, abuse of authority, bribery, intimidation, misuse of assets, failure to supervise, dereliction of duty, conduct unbecoming, and refusal to obey a lawful order. - - Google

[opalred]

he is running scared as they are slowly finding the truth about the greatest conman

he owes more than his assets are 

will not show any tax returns that would prove that

history will show Putin and his mafia mob loaned him billions

so to get moneys out of there own country and invest in usa

 my experience in life and after employing 1000s people in that time

anyone that sits up of a night in a room by themselves tweeting

are on drugs  or mentally unstable 

i would say both

 

 

[kowpot]

17 minutes ago, Jingthing said:

There are plenty of those already related to the emoluments clause but the republican party isn't there yet to put country over party.

As far as the Russian connection, we will see. It's not all out there yet. Treason charges might be in order depending on the evidence, but no point yet in jumping the gun. 
To add, please pay attention. I didn't only say impeachment. trump is acting now like he's CORNERED and there is something really bad that the press and investigators are coming close to uncovering. In such a case, trump may be FORCED to resign or face impeachment. Pence would pardon him anyway, the clown president will never go to prison. 

OK folks a little civics lesson in U.S. government.  

First of all as has been shown,  Liberals go to Google for their information on how the United States government operates and by what laws it must govern. Notice I say must. There is no second options even though the democrats would like you to think so. 

 I as a Conservative,  go to the U.S. Constitution for my answers. It is the law of the land and the document that I swore to uphold and defend.  Don't care what happens to Google not my problem.

 The Constitution clearly states as what was affirmed by none other than Nancy Pelosi.

  

To modern readers, the text of the Constitution strongly supports Pelosi. It says that a president may be removed only for "Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors." The reference to treason and bribery, together with the word "other," suggests that the president must have violated the law — and that the violation must be quite egregious ("high Crimes"

[Opl]

17 hours ago, Jingthing said:

Probably trump's craziest most dangerous Twitter rant to date?

Seriously how do rational people see him as a legitimate president?

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/worldviews/wp/2017/03/06/trumps-twitter-feed-is-a-gateway-to-authoritarianism/?utm_term=.89f4ca45e188&hpid=hp_hp-top-table-main_trumpdebrief-530pm%3Ahomepage%2Fstory#comments
 

 

From your link above,  thanks for sharing ... so true - Kasparov : " The tradition of going after one’s predecessor in power is very familiar to anyone from an authoritarian regime. Purges, scapegoating, etc." ,

 

 

Follow

 

Garry Kasparov

 

✔ @Kasparov63

One of the fixed contradictions of the strongman ethos is that he and his followers must always play the victim, even when holding power.

8:29 PM - 5 Mar 2017

 

 

[kowpot]

8 minutes ago, opalred said:

he is running scared as they are slowly finding the truth about the greatest conman

he owes more than his assets are 

will not show any tax returns that would prove that

history will show Putin and his mafia mob loaned him billions

so to get moneys out of there own country and invest in usa

 my experience in life and after employing 1000s people in that time

anyone that sits up of a night in a room by themselves tweeting

are on drugs  or mentally unstable 

i would say both

 

 

There is no legal requirement of any kind that presidential candidates release tax returns from any year. Indeed, there is a strict, strong constitutional right to privacy for all tax returns. Thus, tax returns can be released by an individual taxpayer, but cannot released by the IRS to the public.

[Jingthing]

Impeachment isn't the only way for a president to leave office.

[Jingthing]

Let's get real. If it gets to the point of trump being impeached by his own party, he would probably just RESIGN. 

 

Also it's no secret that a large part of the agenda of most people supporting the anti-trump RESISTANCE (from the left, right, and middle) is to push trump out of the office. He is simply unfit for the job. A nutcase like that with the nuclear codes is simply NOT OK. Getting rid of that demagogue clown from the presidency may not be possible, but it's honorable to TRY to make that happen. 

Yes, for progressives Pence is technically more right wing than trump ... but country over ideology in this case.

Edited March 7, 2017 by Jingthing

[kowpot]

13 minutes ago, Jingthing said:

Let's get real. If it gets to the point of trump being impeached by his own party, he would probably just RESIGN. 

 

Also it's no secret that a large part of the agenda of most people supporting the anti-trump RESISTANCE (from the left, right, and middle) is to push trump out of the office. He is simply unfit for the job. A nutcase like that with the nuclear codes is simply NOT OK. Getting rid of that demagogue clown from the presidency may not be possible, but it's honorable to TRY to make that happen. 

Yes, for progressives Pence is technically more right wing than trump ... but country over ideology in this case.

Finally, something we agree on.

[ilostmypassword]

38 minutes ago, kowpot said:

In fact she is a Constitutional Scholar

 

 

Really? The only place google shows that is on some bizarre right wing websites.  Nancy has a B.A. in political science and that's it. Good to know where you get your information from.

[ilostmypassword]

2 hours ago, kowpot said:

There is no legal requirement of any kind that presidential candidates release tax returns from any year. Indeed, there is a strict, strong constitutional right to privacy for all tax returns. Thus, tax returns can be released by an individual taxpayer, but cannot released by the IRS to the public.

No, there isn't a strict strong constitutional right to privacy for tax returns. There may be statutory reasons for privacy, but not strict, strong constitutional rights.

[rice555]

3 hours ago, ilostmypassword said:

No, there isn't a strict strong constitutional right to privacy for tax returns. There may be statutory reasons for privacy, but not strict, strong constitutional rights.

Fourth Amendment

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, ""papers"", and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

 

Are not his papers protected?

rice555

[Jingthing]

Nobody is saying that trump is legally required to show his tax returns. But that's been the custom for presidential candidates and presidents for a very long time, and trump not showing is being seen by many as him having something important to hide specifically about his connections to RUSSIA. 

[stevenl]

Nobody is saying that trump is legally required to show his tax returns. But that's been the custom for presidential candidates and presidents for a very long time, and trump not showing is being seen by many as him having something important to hide specifically about his connections to RUSSIA. 

I can think of quite a few plausible reasons for Trump not showing his tax returns, but a Russia connection seems far fetched to me.

sent using Tapatalk

[Jingthing]

1 minute ago, stevenl said:

I can think of quite a few plausible reasons for Trump not showing his tax returns, but a Russia connection seems far fetched to me.

sent using Tapatalk
 

Not to me. There are likely multiple reasons and most likely we'll never know as it's quite clear now he never intended to ever show them.

 

[Srikcir]

1 hour ago, rice555 said:

Fourth Amendment

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, ""papers"", and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

 

Are not his papers protected?

rice555

Not always. There may be limited review by certain congressional committees. But Republicans currently control all such committees.

http://money.cnn.com/2017/02/07/news/economy/trump-tax-returns/

See Rule 19

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2017/2/11/1632589/-New-Jersey-congressman-invokes-1924-tax-law-giving-Congress-power-to-examine-Trump-s-tax-returns

However, if there is reasonable cause to suspect Trump has committed a federal offense that justifies review of his tax returns, the Department of Justice can access his tax returns directly from the IRS (subject of course to any lawsuit brought by Trump to prevent disclosure). But Republicans hold the Secretary of the Justice Department. It would then require Secretary Session to be nonpartisan in finding the truth about Trump's financial complicities.

[rice555]

19 minutes ago, Srikcir said:

Not always. There may be limited review by certain congressional committees. But Republicans currently control all such committees.

http://money.cnn.com/2017/02/07/news/economy/trump-tax-returns/

See Rule 19

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2017/2/11/1632589/-New-Jersey-congressman-invokes-1924-tax-law-giving-Congress-power-to-examine-Trump-s-tax-returns

However, if there is reasonable cause to suspect Trump has committed a federal offense that justifies review of his tax returns, the Department of Justice can access his tax returns directly from the IRS (subject of course to any lawsuit brought by Trump to prevent disclosure). But Republicans hold the Secretary of the Justice Department. It would then require Secretary Session to be nonpartisan in finding the truth about Trump's financial complicities.

Yes, thats through the legal system, but thats not why people keep talking about seeing

his tax returns! 

rice555

[Jingthing]

The Putin - trump nexus.

Just drink it in ...

 

 

[Srikcir]

On 3/6/2017 at 5:47 AM, webfact said:

The White House asked the U.S. Congress on Sunday to examine whether the Obama administration abused its investigative authority during the 2016 campaign, as part of an ongoing congressional probe into Russia's influence on the election.

That is an unnecessary request!

 

If Trump has evidence that Obama committed a criminal offense, he need only request the US Department of Justice to investigate it. And provide the DOJ with his evidence. Albeit Session might have to recuse himself once again.

 

But on the other hand should Trump's allegations prove to be wrong, he himself may have committed a federal crime by making a seriously false accusation against POTUS Obama! Trump is not protected by freedom of speech given his position as the highest ranking law enforcer in the US and he has been very adamant that he has unequivocal believable evidence to prove his accusation.

[Rhys]

..the members of the C lub will find at wire and leak in 45s Porcelain throne...flush him out, to the sea making the country great again...what did he partake at diner?  Falhitas...

[iReason]

The Trump White House is totally changing its tune on wiretapping and hoping you don’t notice

 

"On Tuesday afternoon, in his first on-camera briefing in a week, White House press secretary Sean Spicer said this when asked for proof of Trump's wiretapping claims: “It’s not a question of new proof or less proof or whatever.” Instead, he insisted, the goal of Trump's tweets was simply to get congressional investigators to look into the possibility of wiretapping. Congress is now doing this, so, in Spicer's mind, mission accomplished."

 

"Except that what Trump tweeted and what Spicer is now saying aren't the same thing. Not at all. And it is a question of “new proof.” Or, at the very least, some — any? -- proof."

 

"But Trump already stated definitively that it had! Why does Congress need to investigate something the president of the United States already has evidence of?"

 

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2017/03/07/the-trump-white-house-is-changing-its-tune-on-wire-tapping-and-hoping-you-dont-notice/?utm_term=.d3ef2e55bfc6

[Jingthing]

Investigate!

trump

 

Quote

 

Trump Knows the Feds Are Closing In on Him

The president’s recent tweets aren’t just conspiratorial gibberish – they’re the erratic ravings of a guilty conscience.
...

There is a good reason why Trump and his partisans are so apoplectic about the prospect of a special counsel, and it is precisely why it is imperative to appoint one: because otherwise we will never know the full story of the Kremlin’s tampering with our elections and of the Kremlin’s connections with the president of the United States. As evidenced by his desperate attempts to change the subject, Trump appears petrified of what such a probe would reveal. Wonder why?

 

https://foreignpolicy.com/2017/03/06/trump-knows-the-feds-are-closing-in-on-him/

[redwinecheese]

I think the boss smokes shit man if he thinks so

[ilostmypassword]

On ‎3‎/‎8‎/‎2017 at 6:49 AM, Srikcir said:

That is an unnecessary request!

 

If Trump has evidence that Obama committed a criminal offense, he need only request the US Department of Justice to investigate it. And provide the DOJ with his evidence. Albeit Session might have to recuse himself once again.

 

But on the other hand should Trump's allegations prove to be wrong, he himself may have committed a federal crime by making a seriously false accusation against POTUS Obama! Trump is not protected by freedom of speech given his position as the highest ranking law enforcer in the US and he has been very adamant that he has unequivocal believable evidence to prove his accusation.

Why would he not be protected by freedom of speech?  In fact what would be slander or libel if said or written by a private citizen would actually be much harder to prosecute a President for.