With the mainstream media mocking what they describe as President Trump’s delusional claim that former President Obama ordered Trump Tower’s phones to be tapped, I thought it would only be fair to invite readers to look at the other side. In a 12-minute video, Mark Levin, a lawyer who was a chief of staff for Attorney General Edwin Meese during the Reagan administration, has laid out what appears to be overwhelming evidence that backs up Trump’s wiretapping claims. Newt Gingrich offers his take here. Matthew Vadum’s article, Obama’s Wiretaps?, in FrontPage magazine, makes for very disturbing reading. Vadum doesn’t pull any punches:
Now the outlines of a Watergate-like conspiracy are emerging in which a sitting Democrat president apparently used the apparatus of the state to spy on a Republican presidential candidate. Watergate differed in that President Nixon didn’t get involved in the plot against the Democratic National Committee until later as an accomplice after the fact. Here Obama likely masterminded, or oversaw someone like the diabolical Benghazi cover-up artist Ben Rhodes, masterminding the whole thing…
Obama used the IRS to target conservative and Tea Party nonprofits, along with Catholic, Jewish, and pro-Israel organizations. He brazenly lied about it, too. His Justice Department surreptitiously obtained telephone records for more than 100 reporters. He did nothing while Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius repeatedly violated the Hatch Act, an anti-corruption statute.
And if anyone still has doubts, I’d invite them to ask James Rosen and Angela Merkel about former President Obama’s spying. By the way, former Obama speechwriter Ben Rhodes’ claim that “No President can order a wiretap” is factually incorrect.
Those who think President Trump is concealing his connections with Russia need to check out this article, which pours cold water on that claim.
I’ve also been following mainstream media coverage of another issue that has been in the news lately: Sthe links between crime and immigration in Sweden. Regarding the statistics, I’d invite readers to have a look at these two articles: What Is the Truth about Crime and Immigration in Sweden? and The Truth about Sweden. What does it feel to be a woman in today’s Sweden? Katie Holmes answers that question in two hard-hitting articles in the Daily Mail: Where females fear to tread and The Swedish town where migrant gangs have killed multiculturalism stone dead and laugh at laws they despise and defy.
The mainstream media has ridiculed claims of a link between sexual assault crimes and immigration from Arabic-speaking countries. After reading the four articles linked to in the preceding paragraph, I’m more convinced than ever that the MSM is merely trying to obfuscate the truth – and in so doing, betraying its purpose, which is to report the truth without fear or favor.
So, what do readers think? Who’s crazy: the media or President Trump – or both?
Actually, the IRS did target conservative organizations disproportionately. There is plenty more documentation from mainstream newspapers, not just conspiracy rags.
Hunh. Always there to defend Trump, and then pretend it’s due to libertarian scruples. Why not just admit you like the guy–it’s been pretty obvious for half a year now.
But Trump can make government policies on the assumption that you will like them.
dazz,
FYI:
What Is the Truth about Crime and Immigration in Sweden?
(NRO, by TINO SANANDAJI February 25, 2017 4:00 AM)
http://www.nationalreview.com/article/445237/sweden-crime-rates-statistics-immigration-trump-fox-news Excerpts:
While the homicide rate inevitably varies in a small country year by year, Sweden appears to have transformed from one of the lower-crime countries in Western Europe to above average. We cannot say for certain how much immigration contributes to violent crime in Sweden. The numbers are collected by statistical agencies in Sweden, but they have not been reported since 2005 because of the informal taboo on linking immigration to crime...
The Washington Post cites criminologist Felipe Estrada Dörner: “Overall, Sweden’s average crime rate has fallen in recent years, Dörner said. That drop has been observed for cases of lethal violence and for sexual assaults.”
This is either incompetence or manipulation. The text in the Washington Post discusses “sexual assault,” which spiked recently in Sweden in the NTU survey. The graph instead displays instances of “assault,” a non-sexual crime.
In quantitative terms, the NTU data on sexual assault show a rising victimization level from the first survey in 2005 to the last reported year, 2015. The legal definition of rape in Sweden, suddenly a hot topic in U.S. political discourse, is irrelevant here. These numbers are from a self-reported survey of sexual-crime victimization with the same definition over time. The number of sexual crimes reported to the police has also increased in recent decades, although here crime definitions and reporting rates become factors and make comparisons over time and with other countries difficult. There is no source pointing to a decrease in sexual crime over the long term in Sweden, and the increase in sexual assaults in official sources was grudgingly acknowledged by the Swedish media prior to Donald Trump’s comments.
Finally, it is worth emphasizing that the focus on overall crime statistics avoids the actual question being discussed: the situation in immigrant-dominated areas with low socioeconomic status. Around 95 percent of the Swedish population lives outside these areas. Hence, it takes a lot for crime trends in the “ghettoes” of Sweden to dominate overall trends. Four fifths of the population in Sweden are not immigrants. The overall crime trend and the effect of immigration on crime are therefore two different topics.
To isolate the effect of immigration on crime, we need data on crimes committed by immigrants. Obtaining this type of data is easy in the United States or Denmark, but not in Sweden. The last time there was an official report breaking down crime statistics by immigrant status and origin was in 2005, for the years 1997 to 2001. These statistics confirmed that immigrants were significantly overrepresented amongst offenders, in particular in committing violent crimes. The foreign born were four times more likely to be suspects in homicide cases than those with Swedish origin, and 4.5 times more likely to be suspects in rape cases.
Since then, Swedish criminologists and politicians have made sure that no new statistics have been released. Not a single recent research study in Sweden has attempted to estimate the causal effect of immigration on sexual assault or homicide rates. Parliament recently defeated a motion to produce up-to-date crime statistics based on national origin. We simply do not know what percentage of sexual assaults or homicides were committed by immigrants last year in Sweden. The Swedish criminologists and government officials who adamantly deny the effect of immigration on crime don’t know these figures, and strikingly don’t want to know. Americans who are interested in this topic should focus on this surreal taboo against statistics, not cartoonish exaggerations that falsely portray Sweden as a war zone.
The commitment to secrecy is a perfect example of how Western governments are fueling populism and distrust in established politicians. In order to get a less Trump-based and more fact-based debate, reasoned discussion based on current statistics would be a good start.
(Bolding mine – VJT.)
Hi everyone,
I find it difficult to understand the mindset of someone who has no trouble swallowing the latest Wikileaks revelation that American intelligence agencies have infiltrated nearly every computer and smartphone on the planet with spyware, but who doesn’t believe they spied on Trump last year.
Let’s suppose he was wiretapped. If he was wiretapped only as much as everybody else is, then he has no reason to whine. And to whine that Obama did it is absolutely ludicrous. Obama is himself wiretapped as much as everybody else is!
Anyway, where is the evidence that Obama did it (rather than CIA or FBI or IRS)? I find it difficult to understand the mindset of someone who has no trouble swallowing whatever Trump says without the slightest attempt at critical thinking. Trump is the president now, a politician. You are trusting a politician without evidence here. Do you realize that?
vjtorley,
I suppose this isn’t strictly relevant, but I have to admit that it’s somewhat surprising to me that a Trump supporter should care much about sexual assault. Maybe the increase in incidence of such events is actually a function of more people there emulating Trump. Do any of the charts break these events into “pussy grabbing” and “other”?
In your mind, is rude guy talk about what might be interpreted as depicting sexual assault “the same as” actual sexual assault?
Well, he might have been lying. (He does do that a lot, admittedly). But he obviously thought that such activities were something to brag about. That was quite clear to anybody who cares about such things. Bragging about rape is not “locker room talk.”
No. What we’re doing is looking at leaked information that could only have been achieved via some form of wiretapping and claims by the mainstream media that the information came from wiretaps, and agreeing that it should be investigated. We also agree that the buck stops at the same place whether we are talking about the CIA, the NSA, or the FBI – at the White House.
One needn’t trust Trump or even like him to agree that wiretapping a presidential candidate’s team and then leaking that information to damage or undermine his administration is a very serious possibility that should be investigated.
Is there no end to what you will defend as long as it is detrimental to Trump?
I’m not familiar with where Trump bragged about rape. Could you direct me to that? If we’re talking about the MSNBC tape, what he bragged about was what women will let him do. It’s still ugly, but then I think we’re all guilty of saying some pretty ugly or stupid things that we don’t really mean that, if recorded, would be really harmful to how others see us. Do you not agree with that?
Do you really think it odd that a Trump supporter would have a problem with sexual assault, or were you just trying to make a mean-spirited comment at someone you disagree with?
Why not just admit you hate the guy and hate anyone who supports him?
When have I not admitted that I hate the guy?! He’s awful. And you like him: good for you. What bothers me most is people who like him but won’t admit it. There are some of those here.
BTW, that tape was about grabbing the genitalia of strangers. Apparently nobody screamed or called the police or slugged him. If he actually wasn’t lying (for a change) they were probably too scared or shocked. (Or maybe he bought some of them off–he does that, you know?) Anyhow, it’s sexual assault–clear and simple–and he bragged about it. He’s that kind of disgusting asshole. Learned a lot from his mentor, Roy.
And you like the guy. As I said–good for you.
vjtorley,
Yep, there are currently 3 CIA agents assigned per individual on the planet, sifting through all that personal data … 21 billion CIA agents can’t all be wrong.
Allan Miller,
A couple of people here actually have FOUR assigned to them!
walto,
Now that’s just paranoid.
Anyhow, William, I can cut slack to those, like you, who are more concerned about entirely fabricated pizza scenarios than bragging on camera about sexual assaults they have conducted. You have your priorities right!
Here is a transcript of that tape.
He didn’t say anything about strangers. What the tape is “about” is clearly what women will let him do because of his celebrity status, comments (or similar such) that probably countless celebrities have made in private, most of which would never accost a perfect stranger in such a way.
It is only the most uncharitable of readings that would interpret those statements the way you have, and it is IMO highly inappropriate to intimate that if one is a Trump supporter they must be less concerned about sexual assault than non-Trump supporters.
BTW, I’m a Trump supporter strictly because of his policy positions. I’m happy he’s anti-PC, but IMO Trump says some pretty stupid shit. But then, all politicians do. To equate what he said on that tape to “rape” is, IMO, way over the top and diminishes what rape actually is.
Actually, what I’m more concerned about is potential high-level pedophile rings connected to high-level and highly-connected actual, convicted pedophiles (Hastert, Savile, Epstein) than 2 minutes of recorded private conversation where a celebrity brags about what women will let him do because he’s a celebrity.
It’s too bad you you don’t have the same priorities, but it seems there is no basement to your Trump Derangement Syndrome.
I also find it disturbing, Walto, that you would ridicule someone’s concern about pedophilia. Surely you realize that ridiculing concerns about pedophilia and pedo rings doesn’t exactly help create a good environment for victims, witnesses and those who might actually have evidence/information on such things?
You’re not one of those “progressives” that are attempting to normalize pedophilia, are you Walto?
William J. Murray,
Surely you realise that ‘fantasist’ paedophilia has the potential to divert attention and resources away from genuine cases? You’re not one of those ‘reactionaries’ attempting to use Paedophilia Concern to make political points, are you William?
What incredibly stupid posts, William. Even for you. Maybe a concern about genocide is evben more imortant than one about pedophilia.! So let’s fabricate a Clinton connection with THAT to get votes. That’s an even better strategy. You’re obvioisly a perfect target for Bannon.
Re the pussy tape. That you will defend that pig–and then bring up utterly fabricated pedophilia as a reason for your attitude–says all anyone needs to know about yoiur character.
Yesterday pedophilia, today mass wire-tapping. What will the distraction be next week? There’s no accusation Trumpsters won’t believe about the evil left, obviously.
BTW, how’s the ‘massive voter fraud’ investigation coming?
What political point do you think I might be trying to score, Allan? What do you mean by “fantasist” pedophilia? Is that another attempt to apply a term of ridicule to those genuinely concerned and troubled by the issue?
I find it very weird that so many here ridicule such concerns and also strange that this site broke its own rules to take down a legitimate, by-the-rules post expressing such concerns.
More dismissive trivialization. Disturbing. Why do you think that the wiretapping or the pedophilila concerns are strictly about the left? As far as I know, they’re not. Trump is hardly a conservative and several republicans and conservatives are implicated in the pedophilia issue. Have you forgotten about Bush’s illegal wiretapping and the furor that created?
Is America great again now?
There is no ‘pedophilia issue,’ William. It was a baseless, nonsensical ploy, aimed at boobs. (Note to self: should one feel sorry for such boobs forbeing used–or despise them?)
I don’t think it’s started yet.
How did you arrive at this conclusion?
Headed in that direction!
As I said, there’s not one you wouldn’t believe (‘put past them’). You’re Breitbart’s perfect guy! Congrats!
Re–it’s not the guy, it’s his ‘policies’: you’re in luck. The ACA is going down, right along with Dodd-Frank. If you’re rich, happy days are coming!
Walto, I don’t believe any of it.
I don’t believe there is massive voter fraud, but I also do not believe there isn’t massive voter fraud. I don’t know if there is or there isn’t, but I don’t see what harm an investigation would do. I don’t understand why anyone would be against such an investigation unless they’re for voter fraud.
I don’t know if Obama had Trump wiretapped, but I think an investigation is in order.
I don’t know if there is a high-level pedo ring in Washington and beyond, but I think an investigation is in order.
If you think I’m 100% pro-everything Trump does, you’re wrong. There are several appointments he’s made that I think are bad appointments. I was troubled by his support of the Paul Ryan Obamacare replacement. I think some of his appointments and initiatives need to be watched carefully to see that they don’t engage in crony capitalism.
Maybe you’re just trolling me?
What information, specifically?
Trump Aides Address His Wiretap Claims: ‘That’s Above My Pay Grade’
So, what information, other than empty thoughtless unsubstantiated tweet-threats?
Honestly, face it: You are defending a total windbag.
I believe William is being ironic, I call for an investigation
William J. Murray,
I have no problem with investigations being conducted on these issues either–after all, I expect them to turn up nothing. But, obviously, it’s silly and wasteful to conduct “investigations” every time some nitwit on Breitbart makes a baseless charge. The point, however, isn’t whether investigations ought to be conducted. The point is that every time Trump gets in trouble for saying or doing something stupid, another absurd accusation mysteriously comes to the surface. These are planted circuses. By the time the investigation has been concluded or–more likely–the idea for one dropped, the next distraction has arisen. That this is a good ploy became obvious to your friends back in the Lewinsky days. But at least back then, there wasn’t a newer and sillier accusation made every freaking week.
I read a tweet that said so
Trump’s top aides don’t know of any basis for his charge, but it was good enough for Vincent, William, and Patrick anyhow. They’re the true Americans.
Hi walto,
You write:
Honestly, I have no idea whether Trump has ever been guilty of sexual assault. It’s certainly quite possible. What I do know, however, is that Hillary Clinton’s treatment of Kathy Shelton back in the 1970s completely undermined any criticisms she made of Trump’s behavior during last year’s Presidential campaign, so for me it was “six of one, half a dozen of the other.”
I also know that even morally bad Presidents are capable of morally praiseworthy accomplishments. I judge Presidents by their deeds, while they are in office. If Trump, during his presidency, enacts measures which have the effect of reducing the incidence of sexual assault in the U.S., then that will improve my opinion of him.
Haha Hillary again.
Trump was right when he said he could shoot someone in broad daylight on 5th Ave and he wouldn’t lose a single supporter. It’s okay if he lies and cheats and redlines and assaults and doesn’t pay his workers and bilks Trump University students. He’ll be great against liars, cheaters, racists sexual assaulters and bilkers. And the end will justify his means!
And besides, think of Hillary and Obama and Bill! They’re the real source of evil.
Hi Erik,
You write:
You’re kidding me. So if Obama wiretapped Trump and every other politician last year, the Trump has no reason to complain? Wiretapping is wiretapping.
No-one’s denying that intelligence agencies did the actual wiretapping. But if you’ve watched Mark Levin’s video, you’ll realize there’s no way Obama couldn’t have known about it, after the FISA hearings.
Like I said, who needs Spicer or Sessions or any of the rest of Trump’s top aides when they’ve got Vincent, William and Patrick.
It’s the people, baby!
Yes, wiretapping is wiretapping. And whining without evidence is whining without evidence.
So there was wiretapping. Then there must be evidence for it too, not just a say-so. Let’s have the evidence. If you have none, then Trump is fake news and you are a fake news amplifier, along with WJM.
Oh, BTW, is the swamp drained?–
http://www.politico.com/story/2017/03/michael-flynn-lobby-turkey-235843
Erik,
Eric & Walto,
Obviously, you two and I are coming from two different information structures. We can blast each other’s information structures all day long but that really isn’t going to do much.
So, let’s say that you have information sources you consider valid that:
(1) insist there is no illegal wiretapping of Trump by the Obama admin;
(2) Insist there is nothing to the pedo ring allegations;
(3) Insist there is no massive voter fraud giong on;
(4) Insist Trump and/or surrogates are illegally involved with the Russians;
(5) Insist the Russians have “hacked’ our election;
(6) Insist that Trump has sexually assaulted women in the past.
Okay, let’s say that I have information sources I consider valid that represent the opposite of those allegations.
I am in favor of investigating all of them, not just the ones that might reveal information damaging to my political opponents. I’m for the truth being brought out, regardless of if it favors Trump or not.
Again–I don’t care if they investigate any or all of them. I just point out that when the investigations are called for without basis, it’s obviously for the purpose of political distraction. And it certainly works on you.
And, other than Trump’s tweets, those information sources are…….?
Trump’s tweets is all you have.
His “information sources” are the same as Trump’s: Breitbart, Drudge, etc. You see, those are accurate (rather than “fake”) because they don’t do stuff the mainstream media do, like check sources, have sources, not just make up stuff for effect, actually have an interest in finding out what’s true, etc.
Do you not realize that it is the mainstream media, NY Times, back in January, that broke the news that the surrogates of Trump had been recorded on wiretaps? Do you not realize that unless there is a specific FISA warrant for Trump’s surrogates, a neutral agent must be the first to review all data collected and destroy unwarranted recordings of US citizens as per NSA minimization procedures?
Again, WJM, can you give any specifics? Which story are you referring to? Who were the “Trump’s surrogates” that were wiretapped? The way you are, one must doubt and double-check your every word.
The best that Torley could come up with was that Geraldo Rivera believes Trump’s tweets. You?
Erik, what part of this:
Does not comport with this:
Earilier in the thread, Walto asked:
I responded:
Now, the muting or “not listening” is when there is live listening; when the recording is gathered in an automatic way for later examination, the NSA minimizing protocol is that a disinterested/uninvolved 3rd party agent excise the US citizen side and destroy it to make sure it doesn’t get out.
Eric asks:
If that’s what it takes for you to actually read and comprehend my position and what I write here, perhaps it would be wise for you to do so. Please take note: even if intelligence agents were surveilling foreign agents, holding and disseminating any information concerning the US citizen side of the conversation is ILLEGAL.
Is there some part of this you are failing to understand?