snopes.com  

Go Back   snopes.com > SLC Central > Soapbox Derby

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old 03 September 2017, 07:43 AM
BrianB's Avatar
BrianB BrianB is offline
 
Join Date: 03 March 2000
Location: Camarillo, CA
Posts: 3,535
Icon18 U.S. Justice Department affirms no evidence Obama wiretapped Trump

https://in.reuters.com/article/usa-t...-idINKCN1BE040

Quote:
The FBI and the Justice Department's National Security Division "confirm that they have no records related to wiretaps as described" by tweets from Trump posted on March 4, the department said in a court filing in Washington.
Brian
Reply With Quote
  #2  
Old 03 September 2017, 01:36 PM
Mochrie99's Avatar
Mochrie99 Mochrie99 is offline
 
Join Date: 26 April 2005
Location: Sarnia, Ontario
Posts: 460
Default

So, once again, the Orange One was lying. Dear lord, would someone PLEASE take that Twitter account away from that twit?!
Reply With Quote
  #3  
Old 03 September 2017, 01:45 PM
Sue's Avatar
Sue Sue is offline
 
Join Date: 26 December 2011
Location: Ontario, Canada
Posts: 9,023
Default

And once again his loyal base will either insist this is "fake news" or that Trump never said anything in the first place. How they can manage to do that when his own words damn him is a question future historians will probably write books about.
Reply With Quote
  #4  
Old 03 September 2017, 02:46 PM
diddy's Avatar
diddy diddy is offline
 
Join Date: 07 March 2004
Location: Plymouth, MN
Posts: 10,926
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Sue View Post
And once again his loyal base will either insist this is "fake news" or that Trump never said anything in the first place. How they can manage to do that when his own words damn him is a question future historians will probably write books about.
No, his loyal base will say that Obama was super duper Sekret with such things and just give the order and is covering up the whole thing. They will just throw out the old "absence of evidence is not evidence of absence" and say either the DOJ is incompetent and or covering up out of Obama loyalty.

Seriously. His base will use pretzel logic here. IMO, conspiracy theorists tend to double down in the face of opposition information. Or they just will ignore this which is also what people tend to do.
Reply With Quote
  #5  
Old 03 September 2017, 03:19 PM
thorny locust's Avatar
thorny locust thorny locust is offline
 
Join Date: 27 April 2007
Location: Upstate NY
Posts: 9,014
Default

My first thought was, didn't Justice say that quite a while ago? and yes, they did. But apparently they just had to formally say it all over again.

I think the people making these claims are just trying to distract away from the Russia investigation, myself -- both by trying to keep Justice busy elsewhere, and by trying to increase the impression some of Trump's supporters have that whatever Trump and his cronies do is no big deal because, they seem to think, absolutely all politicians are equally guilty of malfeasance anyway.
Reply With Quote
  #6  
Old 04 September 2017, 08:07 PM
jimmy101_again jimmy101_again is offline
 
Join Date: 29 December 2005
Location: Greenwood, IN
Posts: 6,876
Default

Of course, if the Turnip or his henchman had been bugged for national security reasons the statement by the FBI would still be correct. They specifically say that matters of national security are not revealed for FOIA requests.
Reply With Quote
  #7  
Old 05 September 2017, 02:09 AM
ganzfeld's Avatar
ganzfeld ganzfeld is offline
 
Join Date: 05 September 2005
Location: Kyoto, Japan
Posts: 23,518
Default

There are lots of exemptions to FOIA but "confirm that they have no records" doesn't correspond to any of them. (The other agency did say they could neither confirm nor deny.)

I think the more likely route of plausible deniability is that they used the word "wiretaps" (even adding "as described"). Wiretaps are a very specific form of surveillance not likely to be used and no longer necessary in most cases.

Last edited by ganzfeld; 05 September 2017 at 02:15 AM.
Reply With Quote
  #8  
Old 05 September 2017, 01:56 PM
DawnStorm's Avatar
DawnStorm DawnStorm is offline
 
Join Date: 11 March 2003
Location: Montgomery County, MD
Posts: 16,400
Roll eyes

This whole "issue" sounds like something you'd see in the Weekly World News. What next? Bat Boy as a White House aide?
Reply With Quote
  #9  
Old 05 September 2017, 06:05 PM
jimmy101_again jimmy101_again is offline
 
Join Date: 29 December 2005
Location: Greenwood, IN
Posts: 6,876
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by ganzfeld View Post
There are lots of exemptions to FOIA but "confirm that they have no records" doesn't correspond to any of them. (The other agency did say they could neither confirm nor deny.)

I think the more likely route of plausible deniability is that they used the word "wiretaps" (even adding "as described"). Wiretaps are a very specific form of surveillance not likely to be used and no longer necessary in most cases.
An investigation at sufficiently high security levels may not actually have any "records" that are accessible by the FBI employee responding to the FOIA request. So, if the FBI's Joe Agent is looking for records regarding a sufficiently secret FBI investigation that Joe can't access then he has the perfectly plausible (and probably legal) ability to say that "no such records exist".

In many cases the FBI certainly can't come back and say "we can't tell you that because it is a classified investigation".
Reply With Quote
  #10  
Old 05 September 2017, 10:03 PM
ganzfeld's Avatar
ganzfeld ganzfeld is offline
 
Join Date: 05 September 2005
Location: Kyoto, Japan
Posts: 23,518
Default

Well, I think that's all rather speculative. I mean, sure, anything's possible. All we know is what's been previously done in cases that have been made public. And we know that the response of the different agencies has been very different in this case.
Reply With Quote
  #11  
Old 06 September 2017, 01:09 AM
Mouse's Avatar
Mouse Mouse is offline
 
Join Date: 10 July 2003
Location: Oklahoma
Posts: 7,260
Mouse

Now, now, it isn't stuff like facts and evidence that determines whether or not something is true. It all comes down to whether Donald Trump really believes it's true.
Reply With Quote
  #12  
Old 06 September 2017, 02:01 AM
RichardM RichardM is offline
 
Join Date: 27 March 2004
Location: Las Cruces, NM
Posts: 4,282
Default

What the tweet chief believes or doesn't believe has nothing to do with facts.
Reply With Quote
  #13  
Old 06 September 2017, 04:22 AM
jimmy101_again jimmy101_again is offline
 
Join Date: 29 December 2005
Location: Greenwood, IN
Posts: 6,876
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by ganzfeld View Post
Well, I think that's all rather speculative. I mean, sure, anything's possible. All we know is what's been previously done in cases that have been made public. And we know that the response of the different agencies has been very different in this case.
But like you said previously, "wiretap" is a specific term. And of course the original tweet said Obama did it. So if the FBI did it in the normal course of an investigation then they can honestly say they did nothing under orders from Obama.

But, there is zero possibility of the FBI (or CIA, or NSA, or ...) admitting that the Trump Tower or any of the Turnip's associates' contacts with foreign governments (and Russian oligarchs are essentially the same as the Russian gov't) were being monitored. Ongoing national security investigations are not released and are not subject to FOIA requests. If anyone was being monitored that fact wont come out until charges are brought. Or they might never come out if the agencies decide that pursuing charges would compromise future investigations.

What is clear is that some telecom out of Trump tower was monitored. It is hard to imagine that not happening. Trump tower is a huge building and all telecom with Russian nationals is monitored to some extent.

Plus we know that at least a couple of the Turnip's associates were being monitored. Kushner and Flynn were both certainly monitored.
Reply With Quote
  #14  
Old 06 September 2017, 08:14 AM
ganzfeld's Avatar
ganzfeld ganzfeld is offline
 
Join Date: 05 September 2005
Location: Kyoto, Japan
Posts: 23,518
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by jimmy101_again View Post
But like you said previously, "wiretap" is a specific term. And of course the original tweet said Obama did it. So if the FBI did it in the normal course of an investigation then they can honestly say they did nothing under orders from Obama.
Sure. They could say that. I don't get your point here.
Quote:
But, there is zero possibility of the FBI (or CIA, or NSA, or ...) admitting that the Trump Tower or any of the Turnip's associates' contacts with foreign governments (and Russian oligarchs are essentially the same as the Russian gov't) were being monitored. Ongoing national security investigations are not released and are not subject to FOIA requests. If anyone was being monitored that fact wont come out until charges are brought. Or they might never come out if the agencies decide that pursuing charges would compromise future investigations.
This is all speculative. There are many exemptions for FOIA, including national security. None of them are mandatory. There's nothing that says security investigations aren't released. In fact, some information has been released about this very investigation. So I don't think your line of reasoning is sound here.
Quote:
What is clear is that some telecom out of Trump tower was monitored. It is hard to imagine that not happening. Trump tower is a huge building and all telecom with Russian nationals is monitored to some extent.
Yes, it's possible. Perhaps even likely. So?
Quote:
Plus we know that at least a couple of the Turnip's associates were being monitored. Kushner and Flynn were both certainly monitored.
Please elaborate. I don't recall either of the agencies mentioning that.

I'm not sure what you want to say.
Reply With Quote
  #15  
Old 06 September 2017, 06:03 PM
jimmy101_again jimmy101_again is offline
 
Join Date: 29 December 2005
Location: Greenwood, IN
Posts: 6,876
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by ganzfeld View Post
Sure. They could say that. I don't get your point here. This is all speculative. There are many exemptions for FOIA, including national security. None of them are mandatory. There's nothing that says security investigations aren't released. In fact, some information has been released about this very investigation. So I don't think your line of reasoning is sound here. Yes, it's possible. Perhaps even likely. So?Please elaborate. I don't recall either of the agencies mentioning that.

I'm not sure what you want to say.
Simply that the statement from the FBI is basically a non-statement. It does not mean Trump or Trump tower was not monitored since it would not be a requirement that that info be released. In addition, security info would not be released during an ongoing investigation. So again, what the FBI said has relatively little real meaning. What info we do have would suggest that the Turnip or his associates have or are being monitored every time they speak to a Russian national. To be fair though, pretty much everyone in the US is monitored when they call Russia or a Russian national known to work for the Russian gov't.
Reply With Quote
  #16  
Old 06 September 2017, 06:09 PM
jimmy101_again jimmy101_again is offline
 
Join Date: 29 December 2005
Location: Greenwood, IN
Posts: 6,876
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by ganzfeld View Post
Please elaborate. I don't recall either of the agencies mentioning that.
Neither agency would have to mention that since it is a national security concern. Someone revealed that both Flynn and Kushner were monitored in some way and that info is clearly being looked at by the various investigations. Since it is unlikely that Flynn or Kushner volunteered the info on the calls means someone (FBI, CIA, NSA, ...) was monitoring them.
Reply With Quote
  #17  
Old 06 September 2017, 11:18 PM
ganzfeld's Avatar
ganzfeld ganzfeld is offline
 
Join Date: 05 September 2005
Location: Kyoto, Japan
Posts: 23,518
Default

Well, again, I think you're just adding speculation to speculation. Sure, they can deny anything they want, pretty much, with no consequences because we've seen outright falsehoods told right to congress. So it's sort of like saying "nothing they say means anything!" which also is not necessarily true.

About your speculation of those two being "monitored in some way" - that's more of a non-statement than the one the OP. In fact, they have both volunteered lots of information in public. They may have volunteered quite a bit more in private. As for the suggestion that that's the only way other than "some kind of monitoring" that that information could be revealed, that's utter nonsense. They were talking to someone. (Just because they may be Russian doesn't mean they can't or won't communicate with Virginia.) Other people almost certainly knew of those calls even in the unlikely event that no one else was present on either side when they were made. So, no, we know nothing about even a vague "some kind of monitoring" at this time and the claim doesn't really jibe with your suggestion that they don't reveal information about investigations involving national security. So, again, I don't think the reasoning behind this speculation is sound.
Reply With Quote
  #18  
Old 07 September 2017, 12:37 AM
Mouse's Avatar
Mouse Mouse is offline
 
Join Date: 10 July 2003
Location: Oklahoma
Posts: 7,260
Mouse

Quote:
Originally Posted by RichardM View Post
What the tweet chief believes or doesn't believe has nothing to do with facts.
I thought the eyeroll made it clear that I was being sarcastic. Sorry
Reply With Quote
  #19  
Old 07 September 2017, 11:06 PM
RichardM RichardM is offline
 
Join Date: 27 March 2004
Location: Las Cruces, NM
Posts: 4,282
Default

Actually now that I look at it again, we are saying the same thing Mouse - anything out of Trump is unrelated to fact even if it is true. As you say, it is a fact only if Trump thinks it is a fact. And the trumpettes believe him.
Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is On

Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Trump administration asks top State Department officials to leave TallGeekyGirl Social Studies 1 26 January 2017 07:25 PM
Justice Department: No Darren Wilson charges TallGeekyGirl Police Blotter 1 05 March 2015 12:02 AM
A rare peek into a Justice Department leak probe A Turtle Named Mack Soapbox Derby 0 20 May 2013 02:40 PM
Justice Department memo reveals legal case for drone strikes on Americans Il-Mari War, What Is It Good For? 52 15 March 2013 03:58 AM
Justice department sues "We the People" to stop tax scam snopes Business 1 04 April 2007 01:19 PM


All times are GMT. The time now is 04:38 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2018, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.