President Trump has stated that he found out former President Obama wiretapped him and has evidence to prove it. He has called for Congress to investigate.
Question: Why would President Trump ask Congress to investigate when he already has the evidence to prove his claim?
Because regardless of what he says, the liberal half of the nation will call him a liar? Think back to when Obama "proved" he was born in Hawaii and the response to his absolute proof that he was.
Wildnerness - WHAT?!?
Trump says he has evidence. Yes, he's being called a liar. All he has to do is provide the evidence. Why call for an investigation when you have the evidence? Nobody will call him a liar if he provides the evidence he says he has.
Ironic you should bring up the birth certificate issue. Trump promised he had explosive evidence proving that Obama was not born in this country. Where is it? We're still waiting.
Obama said he was a citizen. The naysayers demand proof and he supplied it in the form of a state birth certificate. Whereupon he was called a liar within hours and the naysayers said it wasn't true.
The point is that the haters don't want truth, they won't accept truth. They will ONLY accept what they want to hear, so why bother to try and provide evidence when it is a foregone conclusion that it will be declared a lie unless it "proves" what the listener wants it to?
Evidence is evidence. Instead of wasting taxpayer money on an investigation into evidence he already has, why not just supply it? Otherwise, it makes sense for Congress to request it from the President.
It was stupid for the idiots to make the charge that Obama was not a citizen based on the mindless rants of Trump and the rabid Right. There was no basis for such an assault, as there is none for this allegation from the Trump crew, now.
Didn't Trump have the nerve to ask for the President's transcripts, such temerity. Which former holder of the office was subject to such gall?
Ignoring the Trump bashing, yes it was stupid. The first time I saw it I thought "Oh, come on - the GOP hasn't taken care of the question already? The Justice Dept? Somebody has, when he first filed to run for President".
And yet it went on and on and on (without help from Trump), while he insisted he was a citizen. And proved it, without stopping a thing. Which is the point.
"Instead of wasting taxpayer money on an investigation into evidence he already has, why not just supply it? "
At the risk of repeating myself, "Because regardless of what he says, the liberal half of the nation will call him a liar?" And again, paraphrased: Because those claiming he lies will claim he lies regardless of what proof he provides. Nothing Trump can say, show or do will convince them otherwise.
This is disingenuous, so where is the proof for the outrageous allegation made by Trump? Or does he just receive automatic credibility for what ever he says?
Don't dare to compare this with that stupid birther thing. The burden to prove that Obama was not born on the country fell upon him which he never proved and was at the greatest height of stupidity to think that HEknew more than all those whose task it was to verify such things long before Obama took the oath of office.
http://hubpages.com/politics/forum/1404 … ost2877411
My comment isn't about evidence; it is about the unwillingness of Trump haters to accept any truth that does not "prove" what they want to hear. Exactly as it was with the birther thing.
The misfit chick has it right, your idea that the left is not willing to accept the Truth just because it involves Trump is incorrect. Both she and I are just saying PROVE it. Is that asking so much?
Why do you spend so much time dancing around this, what truth without evidence? Is that not important to you?
Evidence is evidence so prove it, already.
"Both she and I are just saying PROVE it. Is that asking so much?"
I repeat myself: "Because regardless of what he says, the liberal half of the nation will call him a liar?" Personally, I don't think you would accept anything he provided, claiming it either a lie or fake. But either way, there is a huge number of Trump haters that won't whether you do or not, so why bother? Let someone else provide it.
Is it important to me? No. I don't believe for a second that anything would be done if it IS proven true, so why bother? Proving once more that major political parties, and their members, violate the law isn't worth the time, money or effort - we already know quite well that such things are happening on a daily basis. Including illegal wire taps.
Your opinion is mere conjecture on your part with no real basis in reality. No, I don't like Trump, but if Trump is right we have cause for concern as this is a bombshell charge. So why are we being evasive and not asking for the same thing that you would have asked from Obama without all of the 'I believe that the facts and truth are irrelevant to those that are not in favor in Trump' stuff, that, in itself, is arrogance on its face.
"Your opinion is mere conjecture on your part with no real basis in reality. "
Except that we saw that very thing (disbelief in the face of positive proof) in the birthers. And more every day as people believe the garbage they're being fed by politicians and media (Trump banned Muslims, for instance, or doesn't think women can do the job even as he hired one to run his campaign). It's called "reality" and pretending it doesn't happen doesn't change anything.
'I believe that the facts and truth are irrelevant to those that are not in favor in Trump'
But I haven't said that, insinuated that or even hinted at it. Indeed, I've made it very clear that party affiliation doesn't affect it at all, and neither does liking Trump. In the big picture, of course, not in specific cases; in those cases it is ALL about party politics.
There is a lot of cognitive dissonance on the part of people who will only believe what supports their own beliefs. How can people learn anything new or enlightening?
Before expecting them to learn, one must assume that they want to learn. A very poor assumption to make in too many cases.
Hmm... "Cognitive dissidence" what exactly is that?
Like you don't see it my way, so you have "Cognitive dissidence." Or could it be just that I disagree with your perspective - so I am wrong because I just don't understand?
I'm going to have to start using that one!
How many words is a picture worth?
A FISA application in which Trump was “named” was rejected by the FISA court as overbroad, notwithstanding that the FISA court usually looks kindly on government surveillance requests. A second, more narrow application, apparently not naming Trump, may have been granted five months later; the best the media can say about it, however, is that the server on which the application centers is “possibly” related to the Trump campaign’s “alleged” links to two Russian banks — under circumstances in which the FBI has previously found no “nefarious purpose” in some connection between Trump Tower and at least one Russian bank (whose connection to Putin’s regime is not described). This is an example of something that should never actually happen: the government pretextually using its national-security authority to continue a criminal investigation after determining it lacked evidence of crimes. Aside from this there are many other reasons why Trump should have asked congress to investigate which answers Crank's Question: "Why would President Trump ask Congress to investigate when he already has the evidence to prove his claim?"
It's more than that. Trump said in his tweet that he learned of this. How did he learn of it? His handlers said that he has evidence others don't. It doesn't make any sense. He's asking Congress to investigate (spend taxpayer dollars) when he has the evidence in his possession. Isn't that just a waste?
Smoke and mirrors....just a diversion to get the latest on the Russian scandal out of the news.
Trump is like all sleazy CEOs. He simply believes in a CEO entitlement to lie and "recreate" facts. When he was asked by Tucker Carlson where he got the information he used to accuse President Obama of wiretapping, Trump said, "I got it from the paper." When pressed "which" paper, he admitted it was the National Enquirer. He considers the National Enquirer "real news" when this paper regularly prints and has cover pages that often borderline on sci fi bizarre.
That is one thing he certainly did not lie about. When asked where he gets his advice from, he proudly said, "The show!"
Unbelievable! No time for security briefings. The shows tell him ever thing he needs to know.
One wonders if Trump will consult the National Enquirer when Kim Jung Un of North Korea is nuking the entire East Coast and Trump Tower with it.
I don't blame Trump. I believe he is ill.
The scary thing is that people would vote for him, knowing what has been revealed. It was a scary election. It's too bad he was such an excellent marketeer.
Diane, the real scary thing is that anyone would ever even consider voting for Hillarity knowing what has (and hasn't) been revealed - still under investigation you know (let alone nominate her as the best they have to offer?). What's even a scarier "thing" is how blacks would vote over 90% Democrat when the Democrats were the biggest advocates of slavery, founded the KKK, were against civil rights and have never done a thing to earn the black vote! Everywhere, city and state governments, where Democrats have been in control for the last 30 or 40 years their plight has never gotten better but always worse, just look at the statistics. Fact is they are worse off after 8 years of Obama than they were before "their" black man took office. Rub the sleep from your eyes and wake up.
Are you black, how are you qualified to say that 'everything' is worse since Obama? So many others seem to know what is in our best interests outside of ourselves.
What does the GOP have to offer? We certainly lost ground under Bush, so what is your point? With Obama there was an advocate, with Trump, not so much.
The other issue is I wish your sort would stop talking about a Democratic Party that was in existence over a century ago. Is there anything that hasn't changed in a century and a half?
You don't have to be black to read the statistics -
http://www.nationalreview.com/article/4 … dent-obama
http://www.lifezette.com/polizette/blac … der-obama/
of course you don't care about the facts, they can't be facts if it isn't a black pointing them out? Another kooky liberal tactic, you can't use the facts if you aren't black or whatever race or gender or minority they pander to solely for votes. Republicans don;t help blacks? it was the Republicans that passed civil rights while the Democrats opposed it. What black votes did it get them? Why should they do anything for blacks when blacks won;lt vote for them no matter what they do, but then vote for a party who has never done anything for them?
And 100 year ago Democrats? another straw man - most everything I say about the Democrats is about modern day democrats, not the democrats of a century ago so nice try once again at a straw man and mischaracterizing everything I say. Keep it up, this is not going your way.
Jump into the current decade. Democrats support social programs, which lower income Americans need with the wealth gap that currently exists.
Considering Obama doesn't make laws, putting the blame on him and not on Congress is ridiculous..
No one blamed him, plain and simple he did nothing to help them. I didn't blame him for their plight, but since you brought congress up in his first term he and his party had control of both houses of congress and what did "they" do? Pass Obamacare under which the uninsured rate among Hispanics and blacks has fallen by a far larger percentage than whites. Exiting the fourth quarter 2015, the uninsured rate among Hispanics and blacks dropped by 7.8% and 7.4%, respectively. The fact Obama ignored his promises to Hispanics and blacks when he controlled congress just proves the Democrats will do nothing but provide lip services to get votes from those constituents.
You say Democrats support social programs, as if Republicans don't? That's intellectually dishonest. There would be no social programs without Republican support, the difference is the Democrats promise and never deliver, liberal programs have only made the plight of blacks worse, they don't care, they just want to appear caring to get the votes while Republicans are more interested in providing safety nets and helping people get back on their feet like the welfare reform congress passed in the 90's, NOT making people more dependent on Government which is the only motivation for Democrat liberal policies.. there is much you need to learn.
Trump has made promises to the underserved communities, let's see how well he delivers?
Sure, the democrats controlled Congress for the first two years. You seem to be truly ignorant about the state of the economy left by his predecessor. First was to heal the broken, collapsing economy left behind by previous presidents, and I'd include Clinton in that. Second, passing the ACA which took at least nine months to accomplish.
As for failing minorities, 24 states, all held by Republicans chose not to take the Medicaid expansion. Those include Texas and Florida. That's who failed to help the Hispanic population.
Oh, blame Bush, as if that's not predictable? Truth is the state of the economy wasn't the result of the Bush administration (the causes of the collapse were firmly rooted in the liberal policies of Democrats) who actually tried to head the Fannie Mae problem off earlier but was stonewalled by the Democrats.
Yes some states chose not to expand medicare because they could not afford it when the federal money stops and no surprise only the Republicans cared about their states financial viability. Unlike at the federal level, states are required to balance their budgets. State lawmakers must therefore balance competing spending priorities (K-12 education, Medicaid, transportation, etc.) as well as make decisions about the amount of revenue to collect. Balancing these competing priorities creates an ever present tension. Analysis of past proposals has showed that changes could result in substantial shifts in costs to states, beneficiaries or providers or reductions in coverage or benefits if, to reduce federal spending, Medicaid funding is set below expected levels. Pre-determined levels of funding would make the program less responsive to changing program needs, such as when demand increases during economic downturns, epidemics or natural emergencies.Federal programs that operate under a block grant structure have shown challenges in setting and maintaining funding levels to meet program needs across states and across time.You know nothing, so they were supposed to bankrupt their state to help Hispanics? Obama promised Hispanics immigration reform and amnesty - did nothing when he had control of congress and could and you raising the straw man of Republican Governors and medicaid has nothing to do with that. Obama thumbed his nose at Hispanics throughout his 8 years and they know it even if you don't.
Go back and learn to read - I said collapsing economy left by previous presidents. That's a plural. For someone who's thinks they are God's gift to knowledge, your reading skills seem really off.
You didn't even try to counter that it was a broken collapsing economy that had to be one of two main focal points early in Obama's presidency, which was the real point there. Talk about straw man arguing.
As for Medicaid expansions that took place, two-thirds of those newly insured were minorities. I wouldn't call that Obama thumbing his nose at them at all.
Nice try, Your first statement so " left by his predecessor." singular means every president? So what? you added Clinton in the next sentence, like that means you aren't blaming Bush? Nice try, you liberals are always back peddling because you always use the same old transparent tactics. lol the cats out of the bag, everybody but you knows it.
The economy wasn't in bad shape when Clinton left office, so using the plural of predecessors wasn't applicable. But the blame for the collapse was due to both Presidents, so that did deserve a plural.
That's called understanding, which you clearly lack. Look, I can insult at the end of a post too like a good little troll!
Clinton was obviously the job king and that was largely on the back of his 'evil' trade deals. Reagan did pretty well, partly as a result of financial liberalization and the impetus that gave to investment.
Obama just got things back to some kind of normal after the financial crisis.
Don't know what you can say about the Bushs. Asleep at the wheel?
Damn Will, since I am an ardent Pres. Reagan fan, your Reagan comment just got you on my Christmas card list. If you will write your mailing address on a $20-bill, and send it to my personal P.O. box, I will gladly include you in my Yule-tide mailings. ;-0
And there we have it, the final retort when a liberal has run out of lies, smoke and mirrors and deflection from what they've already said and can't take back, they name call the messenger a troll. Something they like to think is offensive but don't mind if I am.
Except the National enquirer is the darling model for liberals left-stream news media these days !
Funny that there is mounting evidence the Obama administration did spy on the Trump team. I guess Men in Black was just ahead of their time.
Of course they did. When it was the NY Times and others who already reported they did from leaks weeks before Trump tweeted it and then the same medias called Trump the liar you know it was true. NO different than when the fact checker media said their was no dancing in the streets of Jersey on 911 calling Trump the liar when their own newspaper reported on the very same occurrence. http://gotnews.com/fact-check-muslims-d … -ny-times/
It's the media who are the liars, not Trump.
The US has made a formal apology to Britain after the White House accused GCHQ of helping Barack Obama spy on Donald Trump in the White House.
"Mr Spicer had earlier repeated claims that Barack Obama used GCHQ to spy on Mr Trump before he became president.
"He’s able to get it and there’s no American fingerprints on it," Mr Spicer said of the intelligence supposedly provided to Mr Obama by Britain.
"Three intelligence sources have informed Fox News that President Obama went outside the chain of command - he didn't use the NSA, he didn't use the CIA, he didn't use the FBI and he didn't use the Department of Justice - he used GCHQ."" - http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2017/03 … retapping/
Oh this is ridiculous. Tripling down in a torte of lie upon lie. Sad & dangerous.
And what price should Trump pay for the brazen lies and fabrications in this case? I suppose that all the Trumpets will quietly move on as if nothing has happened....
And what price should Obama pay for lying to the American public taxpayer dozens of times , The Obama Care costs will driven down , " ............The coverage's will increase ......... the publics choices of health care providers will ALWAYS be there ......... the costs will go down not up ........blah blah blah ........For implementing a colossal tax nightmare that will never go away .
All of what you say is debatable, the point is that NOW Trump is President and he is going the pay the piper for stupidly stirring a cauldron of his own making.
Trumpcare has not exactly gathered a great deal of support, haven't you noticed?
Trump care or any care other than the previous versions of Medicaid, SSI , Medi-Care should very well ALL be dumped . what , les han 100 days and you want Trump too clean up the messes , many messes , created over the last eight years or more ? You still cannot dispute the fact that Trumps accomplishing more than Obama did in a whole year or more .
The competition in the regular economy is by far the best resolution for " Any-name " Health Care , open the state borders to insurance company competing and federally regulate overall care and performance !
"You still cannot dispute the fact that Trumps accomplishing more than Obama did in a whole year or more"
On the contrary, I do dispute it. You sure did not allow Obama to blame Bush for the biggest economic meltdown of the economic in 80 years on his watch. So we need to avoid hypocrisy and take the same attitude toward Trump, after does not the 'buck stops here'?
His accomplishments to date:
- Sowing violence against minorities and foreigners using angry rhetoric.
- Disparaging the former president with made up conspiracy theories.
- Rolling back environmental protections that will cause more incidents like Flint.
- Cutting social programs that will hurt ordinary citizens such as Meals on Wheels.
Wow. "Sowing violence" yet! Outside of a few terrorists, who has been subjected to Trump's "violence"?
At this point one would have to ask for proof they are "made up" (bearing in mind that ignorance is not proof). Or is the statement equally made up?
"that will cause more incidents like Flint." I would surely love to have your crystal ball that can see the future! It would be invaluable in playing the lottery.
Which social programs has he cut? Not adjusted in a proposed budget, but actually cut, that will hurt ordinary citizens?
Yep, great job, Donnie. This man continues to astonish by the day.
Now Great Britain and Germany are being drawn into the drama.
I saw the traditional after-meeting photo-op between Chancellor Merkel and Pres. Trump. I don't recall ever seeing one with such obvious negativity - on our president's side.
Words don't fail me here, but caution does restrain my two typing fingers.
And you just have to love the Brits for their use of "rubbish." I like that almost as much Biden's "malarkey."
Who can be serious to think that this man is Presidential material? At least when Nixon lied he had plausible explanations to serve as diversion. This Trump guy is not even smart enough to do that. What is he hiding? I know that he did not listen to anybody before he started running his mouth. While Pence is a deplorable rightwinger in his own right, he probably was prudent enough to suggest to Trump to exercise prior restraint before he made his administration look foolish. He must be insane and it is obvious that he simply lacks the temperament for the job. It does not matter, any number of contentious issues are closing in on Trump and as I said earlier, in time we will get him out!!!
This is the stuff of sit-coms, not real life.
It appears that he is a good salesman. He lies more than he breaths.
Thank you for being on topic. I know it's not my foturm but I like to stay on topic!
You dispute it , are you dipping into the wine tonight ?, You make no sense. The difference ,Obama blamed bush after Obama's failure of 3- 4- years ---Trumps been in office for less than a hundred days ...............?
After the stupid accusation against Obama without a shred of evidence to support it, your man has shown his ample a$$ to the entire world. An apology is in order from the Stupid Orange one to Great Britain and Russia as well as Mr. Obama.
But I know that his arrogant ego would never permit him to humble himself in such a way, he will leave the crow eating to Pense and his other assorted henchmen.
Cred, I will always be here to pull you back from that pure Blue abyss. But I must admit; my Purple is having a difficult time resisting jumping on your anti-Trump bandwagon. Fortunately, my optimism that 'hope springs eternal', is able to restrain my "hunt and peck" fingers - so far.
GA, it ain't easy being me. But this so called experiment must have many in a state of buyers remorse and it has not been 60 days.
You don't have to hold back, no point in resisting when giving in is as natural as going down a playground slide. So, let nature take its course.
This guy is not right, it goes beyond politics, ideology and such. I am not keen on much within the GOP. But my problems with Bush and Reagan were ideological. This Trump is different, he has wolves within his own party that are going to have to deal with him before he brings down the whole she-bang.
Oh my! I just had a mental picture of my Mom marching over to your Mom's cloud and asking why she never taught you that 'Two wrongs don't make a right."
Legally, the process would start with the DOJ or Congress to investigate. He could submit evidence but they have to verify it, either way.
@ ahorseback I don't get what you said - are you calling Trump a liberal? The National Enquirer has an umbilical cord tethered to Team Trump, and only writes what Trump wants them to write.
While the president labels many outlets “fake news,” he speaks with nothing but respect about the National Enquirer. He did so in his recent interview with Time magazine, whose Washington bureau chief brought up the tale of the Cruz family and the JFK assassination.
Just in case anyone is interested in data. Jobs lost/created under Obama.
and an overview:
http://sc.cnbcfm.com/applications/cnbc. … 20jobs.JPG
President Trump was having a doubt that former President have wiretapped him.
actually is is not having any proper evidence to prove that.
I know a lot of people r still unsure about President Trump. I am still unsure about him myself. He has done some things that Former President Obama didn't accomplish,, But.. With President Trump being a businessman(not a politician) he's gonna do what it takes to get the job done. I do believe he is trying but.. on the other hand I think things r getting a little hairy for him due to the fact that 1: he's not a politician, 2: he's a businessman(a successful one) 3:He has nooo clue how the Government works. He needs to concentrate on the things important instead of the crap that is unimportant like the "wiretapping claims", The media writing bs about him. people r gonna talk and people r gonna protest. But... things like this shouldn't stop him from doing what he was elected to do and that is help America get back on it's feet, to help the Veterans who fought for us who have come home and no medical, no home, no jobs for them. He needs to get companies to make more jobs so people who r able to work can have a job and raise their families and get them off of welfare.
*I'm sorry if I mad anyone mad but this is just my opinions.
no problem, I agree, get the real deal medical care for vets - that's just a start.
by Mike Russo4 months ago
Isn't interesting at the same time Jeff Sessions has said that he talked to Russia, Trump is accusing Obama of wire tapping him? And Trump has no evidence to support his claims. I believe this is another one...
by Susie Lehto2 months ago
“Let me be clear here. The president is not and has not been under investigation for obstruction." said Jay Sekulow, a member of the president’s legal team. I'm not sure everyone in the US or in these...
by Susie Lehto8 months ago
Now, before you deny the findings, spend some time listing to the evidence with an open mind. This is not going away anytime soon by the looks of the evidence this investigation found. Sheriff Joe & his posse...
by Scott Bateman3 months ago
It was allegedly because of the Clinton email investigation, which Trump had previously let go. We'll see if it ends the FBI investigation into Flynn and other Trump campaign connections with...
by My Esoteric4 months ago
Maybe. The 17th Century term High Crimes and Misdemeanors may not mean what you think it might be after seeing President Clinton impeached, but not convicted. A common interpretation is as follows:The...
by Grace Marguerite Williams4 days ago
Was the racial climate in America better under President Obama or is it better under President Trump? Is President Trump responsible for the overt escalation of racism in America?
Copyright © 2017 HubPages Inc. and respective owners.
Other product and company names shown may be trademarks of their respective owners.
HubPages® is a registered Service Mark of HubPages, Inc.
HubPages and Hubbers (authors) may earn revenue on this page based on affiliate relationships and advertisements with partners including Amazon, Google, and others.