"And nobody ever bit Tree the way I bit Tree, believe me. They say it was the best bite anyone's ever seen, I don't know, that just what I'm hearing."

So this morning trump's Tweet storm basically confirmed that the FISA court granted a warrant to investigate communications between his campaign and Russian assets. FISA court doesn't grant those warrants without probably cause...

(03-04-2017 01:06 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  So this morning trump's Tweet storm basically confirmed that the FISA court granted a warrant to investigate communications between his campaign and Russian assets. FISA court doesn't grant those warrants without probably cause...

You missed the part where the first request was denied in June, then potentially granted in October. And, to be blunt, the FISA taps are known to be somewhat a slam dunk. The standard for a FISA tap falls far short of the standard you quote above. Please get the facts straight amidst the rhetoric. But I understand why bother when the main purpose is to create a smokestorm..... But, Obama needed to go back a second time......

http://www.nationalreview.com/article/44...mp-wiretap

Just going to say it:

If it can be shown that there was collusion between the Trump campaign and the what came out of Podesta's dumb=ss move, then Trump needs to go.

But the implication of if there is no collusion, then Obama has engaged in the biggest and most grotesque abuse of Executive power for political purposes ---- ever. Even more so than the weaponization of the IRS that was undertaken.

But it is amazing that one was turned down in June. Changes the landscape for me. Won't for many though I assume....

(03-04-2017 01:39 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(03-04-2017 01:06 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  So this morning trump's Tweet storm basically confirmed that the FISA court granted a warrant to investigate communications between his campaign and Russian assets. FISA court doesn't grant those warrants without probably cause...

You missed the part where the first request was denied in June, then potentially granted in October. And, to be blunt, the FISA taps are known to be somewhat a slam dunk. The standard for a FISA tap falls far short of the standard you quote above. Please get the facts straight amidst the rhetoric. But I understand why bother when the main purpose is to create a smokestorm..... But, Obama needed to go back a second time......

http://www.nationalreview.com/article/44...mp-wiretap

Just going to say it:

If it can be shown that there was collusion between the Trump campaign and the what came out of Podesta's dumb=ss move, then Trump needs to go.

But the implication of if there is no collusion, then Obama has engaged in the biggest and most grotesque abuse of Executive power for political purposes ---- ever. Even more so than the weaponization of the IRS that was undertaken.

But it is amazing that one was turned down in June. Changes the landscape for me. Won't for many though I assume....

No, I didn't miss the part about the first warrant being denied - to me that was inconsequential since it was eventually granted. Everything I've read about FISA taps is that they require probably cause (hence the likely rejection a feeble months earlier with insufficient evidence). Is that incorrect?

(03-04-2017 01:39 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(03-04-2017 01:06 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  So this morning trump's Tweet storm basically confirmed that the FISA court granted a warrant to investigate communications between his campaign and Russian assets. FISA court doesn't grant those warrants without probably cause...

You missed the part where the first request was denied in June, then potentially granted in October. And, to be blunt, the FISA taps are known to be somewhat a slam dunk. The standard for a FISA tap falls far short of the standard you quote above. Please get the facts straight amidst the rhetoric. But I understand why bother when the main purpose is to create a smokestorm..... But, Obama needed to go back a second time......

http://www.nationalreview.com/article/44...mp-wiretap

Just going to say it:

If it can be shown that there was collusion between the Trump campaign and the what came out of Podesta's dumb=ss move, then Trump needs to go.

But the implication of if there is no collusion, then Obama has engaged in the biggest and most grotesque abuse of Executive power for political purposes ---- ever. Even more so than the weaponization of the IRS that was undertaken.

But it is amazing that one was turned down in June. Changes the landscape for me. Won't for many though I assume....

So I want to address this a bit more, especially the part about the request being turned down in June and that implication.

I read the National Review article, it said what I thought it would, and you can tell which side of the aisle each of us are on, based on our initial reactions to the sequence of events. In my mind, I'm less concerned that the FISA order was used as a political tool because the FISA order was not granted originally, and then after it was revised, and potentially other evidence was produced, it was granted. I imagine that the FISA court wanted to be extra careful in granting the wiretap due to the appearance of, or actual use of, the wiretap to target political enemies. So while it is often a slam dunk, I bet they wanted to have their ducks in a row for this request - hence the initial rejection and subsequent granting.

I agree with you that if it comes out that the FISA request was done to try and sink the Trump campaign, then it will be the biggest abuse of power ever.

However, I'm less inclined to believe that this was the case due to: (1) the fact that Trump won, so man, was this a waste of effort!; (2) the Alfa bank server connection that is referenced in the NR article; (3) all of the connections to Russia that are strewn throughout the Trump administration; and (4) the pivot on Ukraine that has now been verified as coming from Trump himself.

Plus, the NYTimes article about the Obama administration spreading Russia intel out through the intelligence world indicated that they found out too late that some of the Russia connections appeared to have real legs, which helps strengthen the idea that either they went back to get the FISA tap, or perhaps the FISA tap provided significant evidence.

All of those lines of evidence point to me being less worried that this was an overreach by the Obama admin.

But again, if evidence comes out that Big O did this as a political move, I'm onboard with your evaluation of its implications.

(03-04-2017 02:55 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(03-04-2017 01:39 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(03-04-2017 01:06 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  So this morning trump's Tweet storm basically confirmed that the FISA court granted a warrant to investigate communications between his campaign and Russian assets. FISA court doesn't grant those warrants without probably cause...

You missed the part where the first request was denied in June, then potentially granted in October. And, to be blunt, the FISA taps are known to be somewhat a slam dunk. The standard for a FISA tap falls far short of the standard you quote above. Please get the facts straight amidst the rhetoric. But I understand why bother when the main purpose is to create a smokestorm..... But, Obama needed to go back a second time......

http://www.nationalreview.com/article/44...mp-wiretap

Just going to say it:

If it can be shown that there was collusion between the Trump campaign and the what came out of Podesta's dumb=ss move, then Trump needs to go.

But the implication of if there is no collusion, then Obama has engaged in the biggest and most grotesque abuse of Executive power for political purposes ---- ever. Even more so than the weaponization of the IRS that was undertaken.

But it is amazing that one was turned down in June. Changes the landscape for me. Won't for many though I assume....

So I want to address this a bit more, especially the part about the request being turned down in June and that implication.

I read the National Review article, it said what I thought it would, and you can tell which side of the aisle each of us are on, based on our initial reactions to the sequence of events. In my mind, I'm less concerned that the FISA order was used as a political tool because the FISA order was not granted originally, and then after it was revised, and potentially other evidence was produced, it was granted. I imagine that the FISA court wanted to be extra careful in granting the wiretap due to the appearance of, or actual use of, the wiretap to target political enemies. So while it is often a slam dunk, I bet they wanted to have their ducks in a row for this request - hence the initial rejection and subsequent granting.

I agree with you that if it comes out that the FISA request was done to try and sink the Trump campaign, then it will be the biggest abuse of power ever.

However, I'm less inclined to believe that this was the case due to: (1) the fact that Trump won, so man, was this a waste of effort!; (2) the Alfa bank server connection that is referenced in the NR article; (3) all of the connections to Russia that are strewn throughout the Trump administration; and (4) the pivot on Ukraine that has now been verified as coming from Trump himself.

Plus, the NYTimes article about the Obama administration spreading Russia intel out through the intelligence world indicated that they found out too late that some of the Russia connections appeared to have real legs, which helps strengthen the idea that either they went back to get the FISA tap, or perhaps the FISA tap provided significant evidence.

All of those lines of evidence point to me being less worried that this was an overreach by the Obama admin.

But again, if evidence comes out that Big O did this as a political move, I'm onboard with your evaluation of its implications.

A *GRAND* total of 12 FISA requests over 33 f-ing years and over 35 *thousand* applications through 2013 have *ever* been denied.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Sta...ance_Court

Awesome standard to overcome there.... yet the first Obama request didn't make that standard.

Please stop making standards up in your smoke generation machine.

(03-04-2017 02:55 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(03-04-2017 01:39 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(03-04-2017 01:06 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  So this morning trump's Tweet storm basically confirmed that the FISA court granted a warrant to investigate communications between his campaign and Russian assets. FISA court doesn't grant those warrants without probably cause...

You missed the part where the first request was denied in June, then potentially granted in October. And, to be blunt, the FISA taps are known to be somewhat a slam dunk. The standard for a FISA tap falls far short of the standard you quote above. Please get the facts straight amidst the rhetoric. But I understand why bother when the main purpose is to create a smokestorm..... But, Obama needed to go back a second time......

http://www.nationalreview.com/article/44...mp-wiretap

Just going to say it:

If it can be shown that there was collusion between the Trump campaign and the what came out of Podesta's dumb=ss move, then Trump needs to go.

But the implication of if there is no collusion, then Obama has engaged in the biggest and most grotesque abuse of Executive power for political purposes ---- ever. Even more so than the weaponization of the IRS that was undertaken.

But it is amazing that one was turned down in June. Changes the landscape for me. Won't for many though I assume....

I read the National Review article, it said what I thought it would, and you can tell which side of the aisle each of us are on, based on our initial reactions to the sequence of events.

If there is a fire, point the fing fire out.

The fact that the first request fell short of the retard level needed for the FISA court is what I base my opinion on. I did not vote for Trump, need I remind you.

Sorry but I am a skeptic --- of most things. Comes with a science background and a legal background. The simple fact remains that all that is in the air is smoke. Nothing to do with politics or hoped for outcomes.

The Trump outcome is just as bad as a shrew witch administration in differing ways, imo, and just as bad as a narcissistic thin skinned community organizer administration as well.

Quote:In my mind, I'm less concerned that the FISA order was used as a political tool because the FISA order was not granted originally, and then after it was revised, and potentially other evidence was produced, it was granted. I imagine that the FISA court wanted to be extra careful in granting the wiretap due to the appearance of, or actual use of, the wiretap to target political enemies. So while it is often a slam dunk, I bet they wanted to have their ducks in a row for this request - hence the initial rejection and subsequent granting.

All conjecture there. You have no idea what went on, as I have no idea either. All I am saying is that assuming in arguendo if* they were so *careful* as you guesstimate, they failed to clear the 12 in thirty five fing thousand bar. Wow.

Quote:I agree with you that if it comes out that the FISA request was done to try and sink the Trump campaign, then it will be the biggest abuse of power ever.

Given the FISA, the massive last minute changes in NSA policy to spread the Russia thing to all over the fing infrastructure, and the attempt to change the change in succession to the power of the attorney general at the last minute in the event of a recusal sounds like an administration that has a serious stick up its a-- to screw the incoming administration from the get go.

Given the massive last minute changes to do this from Obama administration, I am anxiously awaiting something more than the smoke that seems pervasive.

This will be either a serious screwjob (the most serious one ever imo) that one administration has orchestrated to gut the incoming one, or the current administration needs to leave. No middle ground.

But all there is at this point is smoke, with nothing tangible. So please keep smokemaking....

Tanqtonic, I think you're reading way more into my posts than you should, and acting as if I am dead set on one side of this or the other. I provided a comment on current events and how I am interpreting them, which just happens to be on the other side of the fence from yours. I'm not saying that IS what happened - I think as you said, there are two outcomes possible. At the moment I'm more inclined to believe one over the other, just as you are.

Chill out a bit.

(03-04-2017 03:07 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(03-04-2017 02:55 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(03-04-2017 01:39 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(03-04-2017 01:06 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  So this morning trump's Tweet storm basically confirmed that the FISA court granted a warrant to investigate communications between his campaign and Russian assets. FISA court doesn't grant those warrants without probably cause...

You missed the part where the first request was denied in June, then potentially granted in October. And, to be blunt, the FISA taps are known to be somewhat a slam dunk. The standard for a FISA tap falls far short of the standard you quote above. Please get the facts straight amidst the rhetoric. But I understand why bother when the main purpose is to create a smokestorm..... But, Obama needed to go back a second time......

http://www.nationalreview.com/article/44...mp-wiretap

Just going to say it:

If it can be shown that there was collusion between the Trump campaign and the what came out of Podesta's dumb=ss move, then Trump needs to go.

But the implication of if there is no collusion, then Obama has engaged in the biggest and most grotesque abuse of Executive power for political purposes ---- ever. Even more so than the weaponization of the IRS that was undertaken.

But it is amazing that one was turned down in June. Changes the landscape for me. Won't for many though I assume....

So I want to address this a bit more, especially the part about the request being turned down in June and that implication.

I read the National Review article, it said what I thought it would, and you can tell which side of the aisle each of us are on, based on our initial reactions to the sequence of events. In my mind, I'm less concerned that the FISA order was used as a political tool because the FISA order was not granted originally, and then after it was revised, and potentially other evidence was produced, it was granted. I imagine that the FISA court wanted to be extra careful in granting the wiretap due to the appearance of, or actual use of, the wiretap to target political enemies. So while it is often a slam dunk, I bet they wanted to have their ducks in a row for this request - hence the initial rejection and subsequent granting.

I agree with you that if it comes out that the FISA request was done to try and sink the Trump campaign, then it will be the biggest abuse of power ever.

However, I'm less inclined to believe that this was the case due to: (1) the fact that Trump won, so man, was this a waste of effort!; (2) the Alfa bank server connection that is referenced in the NR article; (3) all of the connections to Russia that are strewn throughout the Trump administration; and (4) the pivot on Ukraine that has now been verified as coming from Trump himself.

Plus, the NYTimes article about the Obama administration spreading Russia intel out through the intelligence world indicated that they found out too late that some of the Russia connections appeared to have real legs, which helps strengthen the idea that either they went back to get the FISA tap, or perhaps the FISA tap provided significant evidence.

All of those lines of evidence point to me being less worried that this was an overreach by the Obama admin.

But again, if evidence comes out that Big O did this as a political move, I'm onboard with your evaluation of its implications.

A *GRAND* total of 12 FISA requests over 33 f-ing years and over 35 *thousand* applications through 2013 have *ever* been denied.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Sta...ance_Court

Awesome standard to overcome there.... yet the first Obama request didn't make that standard.

Please stop making standards up in your smoke generation machine.

I'm not making any standards up - the standard isn't that FISA requires probable cause. That's the only standards.

I provided my thoughts on a very plausible and reasonable situation in which the Obama admin was not acting nefariously with their FISA request.

(03-04-2017 02:55 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  I agree with you that if it comes out that the FISA request was done to try and sink the Trump campaign, then it will be the biggest abuse of power ever.

Why else would it have been done?

(03-04-2017 04:09 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(03-04-2017 02:55 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  I agree with you that if it comes out that the FISA request was done to try and sink the Trump campaign, then it will be the biggest abuse of power ever.

Why else would it have been done?

Perhaps there was evidence of Trump campaign officials communicating with Russian officials in a manner that seemed suspicious?

(03-04-2017 04:06 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(03-04-2017 03:07 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(03-04-2017 02:55 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(03-04-2017 01:39 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(03-04-2017 01:06 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  So this morning trump's Tweet storm basically confirmed that the FISA court granted a warrant to investigate communications between his campaign and Russian assets. FISA court doesn't grant those warrants without probably cause...

You missed the part where the first request was denied in June, then potentially granted in October. And, to be blunt, the FISA taps are known to be somewhat a slam dunk. The standard for a FISA tap falls far short of the standard you quote above. Please get the facts straight amidst the rhetoric. But I understand why bother when the main purpose is to create a smokestorm..... But, Obama needed to go back a second time......

http://www.nationalreview.com/article/44...mp-wiretap

Just going to say it:

If it can be shown that there was collusion between the Trump campaign and the what came out of Podesta's dumb=ss move, then Trump needs to go.

But the implication of if there is no collusion, then Obama has engaged in the biggest and most grotesque abuse of Executive power for political purposes ---- ever. Even more so than the weaponization of the IRS that was undertaken.

But it is amazing that one was turned down in June. Changes the landscape for me. Won't for many though I assume....

So I want to address this a bit more, especially the part about the request being turned down in June and that implication.

I read the National Review article, it said what I thought it would, and you can tell which side of the aisle each of us are on, based on our initial reactions to the sequence of events. In my mind, I'm less concerned that the FISA order was used as a political tool because the FISA order was not granted originally, and then after it was revised, and potentially other evidence was produced, it was granted. I imagine that the FISA court wanted to be extra careful in granting the wiretap due to the appearance of, or actual use of, the wiretap to target political enemies. So while it is often a slam dunk, I bet they wanted to have their ducks in a row for this request - hence the initial rejection and subsequent granting.

I agree with you that if it comes out that the FISA request was done to try and sink the Trump campaign, then it will be the biggest abuse of power ever.

However, I'm less inclined to believe that this was the case due to: (1) the fact that Trump won, so man, was this a waste of effort!; (2) the Alfa bank server connection that is referenced in the NR article; (3) all of the connections to Russia that are strewn throughout the Trump administration; and (4) the pivot on Ukraine that has now been verified as coming from Trump himself.

Plus, the NYTimes article about the Obama administration spreading Russia intel out through the intelligence world indicated that they found out too late that some of the Russia connections appeared to have real legs, which helps strengthen the idea that either they went back to get the FISA tap, or perhaps the FISA tap provided significant evidence.

All of those lines of evidence point to me being less worried that this was an overreach by the Obama admin.

But again, if evidence comes out that Big O did this as a political move, I'm onboard with your evaluation of its implications.

A *GRAND* total of 12 FISA requests over 33 f-ing years and over 35 *thousand* applications through 2013 have *ever* been denied.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Sta...ance_Court

Awesome standard to overcome there.... yet the first Obama request didn't make that standard.

Please stop making standards up in your smoke generation machine.

I'm not making any standards up - the standard isn't that FISA requires probable cause. That's the only standards.

I provided my thoughts on a very plausible and reasonable situation in which the Obama admin was not acting nefariously with their FISA request.

Your idea of what the standard is in your own mind and what it is in practice seems to have a serious air gap. The objective numbers bear that out. Or, maybe, just maybe, what your idea of what "probably cause [sic]" is and what the actual standard that those words actually mean in this context is somewhat different.

The singular fact of less that the numbers of toes and fingers on a non-Appalachian-deplorable person in 35 thousand requests means that the very real world objective standard is frightfully low. Having been tangentially involved with the subject professionally, I can tell you that it truly is.

To be blunt I'm tired of people making stuff up out of thin air ala Atlantic, Breitbart, Vox, HuffPo, then implying something far different with their 'learned' guesses. The fact of this particular matter is that a FISA warrant is retardedly easy for the government to meet the threshold. The application for the Trump one failed. That puts it in the literally the bottom 3 of every 10 thousand.... in which 9997 get approved. You cant get more frigging rubber stamp than that.

So if you want to polish that t-rd with the moniker "probabl[y] cause" since some garbage blog said that was the standard go right on ahead. H=ll, call it barbeque for what I care. Just dont tell me how important and careful it is, because the raw objective numbers and procedures say this is a rubber stamp operation.

(03-04-2017 04:12 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(03-04-2017 04:09 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(03-04-2017 02:55 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  I agree with you that if it comes out that the FISA request was done to try and sink the Trump campaign, then it will be the biggest abuse of power ever.

Why else would it have been done?

Perhaps there was evidence of Trump campaign officials communicating with Russian officials in a manner that seemed suspicious?

'Perhaps' there are martians..... time for the smoke machines and all of the "ancient alien astronaut" 'perhaps' statements to quit. Time for the 'its hard to get a FISA warrant' conjecture cr-p to stop as well.

If there are real facts, get them the f-ck out in the open. I am sure if they exist Obama salted them somewhere to screw Trump over.

But the more the dribble continues in the absence of beef, the more it looks like it is a smoke operation to me. Which, to be blunt, seems to be the perfect red meat (pun on beef, allusion to Wendys) for those who read Vox as their Bible.

(03-04-2017 04:12 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(03-04-2017 04:09 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(03-04-2017 02:55 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  I agree with you that if it comes out that the FISA request was done to try and sink the Trump campaign, then it will be the biggest abuse of power ever.

Why else would it have been done?

Perhaps there was evidence of Trump campaign officials communicating with Russian officials in a manner that seemed suspicious?

'Perhaps' the Obama administration has/had a serious bug up their a-- about a potential Trump administration. Facts (as incomplete as they are on both sides) fit that just as well. That is the problem with the 'perhaps' conjectures --- something I learned from laughing at the ancient alien astronaut series.

Just wanted to point out this finely crafted sentence from our President:

"How low has President Obama gone to tapp my phones during the very sacred election process."

https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/stat...wsrc%5Etfw

Is it a statement or a question. Proper punctuation would help?

And spelling. So confusing. Obama had his spell checker disabled too. Sad!

(03-04-2017 04:41 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(03-04-2017 04:12 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(03-04-2017 04:09 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(03-04-2017 02:55 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  I agree with you that if it comes out that the FISA request was done to try and sink the Trump campaign, then it will be the biggest abuse of power ever.

Why else would it have been done?

Perhaps there was evidence of Trump campaign officials communicating with Russian officials in a manner that seemed suspicious?

'Perhaps' the Obama administration has/had a serious bug up their a-- about a potential Trump administration. Facts (as incomplete as they are on both sides) fit that just as well. That is the problem with the 'perhaps' conjectures --- something I learned from laughing at the ancient alien astronaut series.

You're right - the Obama line of thinking is also plausible as you state. So why get so angry when the other side of the coin is considered?

And by the way, way to be a d*** about an autocorrect of the word probable. My goodness.

(03-04-2017 05:16 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(03-04-2017 04:41 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(03-04-2017 04:12 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(03-04-2017 04:09 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(03-04-2017 02:55 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  I agree with you that if it comes out that the FISA request was done to try and sink the Trump campaign, then it will be the biggest abuse of power ever.

Why else would it have been done?

Perhaps there was evidence of Trump campaign officials communicating with Russian officials in a manner that seemed suspicious?

'Perhaps' the Obama administration has/had a serious bug up their a-- about a potential Trump administration. Facts (as incomplete as they are on both sides) fit that just as well. That is the problem with the 'perhaps' conjectures --- something I learned from laughing at the ancient alien astronaut series.

You're right - the Obama line of thinking is also plausible as you state. So why get so angry when the other side of the coin is considered?

To be blunt, the statement relating to the standard on the FISA struck me as being fairly misleading --- but one has to accept that in any political discussion I guess. Tired of smoke being passed as valid news and that met the test.

As I said, lets get the facts out. This is smokescreen.

But given your very overt anti-Trump bias, I guess this is as good as it gets or will get. So be it. Apologies for the bluntness, and no ill will should be read into the last two sentences, but I understand if it is.

By the way, to be absolutely honest, you really don't 'put things out for consideration' == you push them with a big bias slant. At least be honest and call it for what it is.... and it explains why the urgency to minimize the FISA rejection with the string of 'perhaps' and 'what ifs'. I'm just calling out the obvious alternatives that seems to consistently escape your consideration or inclusion. Not meaning to be an explicit d--k with that characterization, but it may be implicitly. Apologies in advance for that.

Quote:And by the way, way to be a d*** about an autocorrect of the word probable. My goodness.

Apologies for the snark. But you *were* making a serious issue of how stringent the standard was, and that *was* just a tad of an avenue to leverage that the Vox-points may not be as watertight as one might think. Needless though, and apologies again.

(03-04-2017 05:05 PM)JustAnotherAustinOwl Wrote:  Just wanted to point out this finely crafted sentence from our President:

"How low has President Obama gone to tapp my phones during the very sacred election process."

https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/stat...wsrc%5Etfw

Is it a statement or a question. Proper punctuation would help?

And spelling. So confusing. Obama had his spell checker disabled too. Sad!

A 57 states in the USA thingy.... glad to see the lefties get as riled up over no question mark and an extra surgeon-finger 'p' as the righties did over the extra 9 states in the Union....

(03-04-2017 06:56 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(03-04-2017 05:05 PM)JustAnotherAustinOwl Wrote:  Just wanted to point out this finely crafted sentence from our President:

"How low has President Obama gone to tapp my phones during the very sacred election process."

https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/stat...wsrc%5Etfw

Is it a statement or a question. Proper punctuation would help?

And spelling. So confusing. Obama had his spell checker disabled too. Sad!

A 57 states in the USA thingy.... glad to see the lefties get as riled up over no question mark and an extra surgeon-finger 'p' as the righties did over the extra 9 states in the Union....

I have no problem with people having fun with Obama's slip up. (Not including the bat#$% theories that he was referring to the "57 Islamic States".) And in the big picture, yeah, I don't care too much about this one particular set of errors.

But this was not a speech at the end of a long campaign. It was a tweet accusing the previous president of an abuse of power as bad as Watergate. He's the leader of the free world, his words have meaning and consequences. And yet his tweets have the intellectual and emotional maturity of a 12 year old. Maybe he should have staff proofreading him? Not to mention vetting whether what he's saying has any basis in reality. I mean Jason Chaffetz, who could never be accused of being shy about investigating Dems, has even said there's no basis. Then there's the fact that in the middle of this he tweeted AGAIN about Schwarzenegger and the Apprentice.

It seems like people are trying to decide if he's crazy like a fox or just plain crazy. I'm not sure either. I tend to think the latter, but it's working as if it's the former...

And, yes I see what you did with your math there.... :-)

Trump spendings another weekend in Mar-a-lago. Do we still have people like OO who don't think he is actively trying to use the office to profit personally?