On that Wire-Tapping Claim

Well fancy that:

Post-election communications of Donald Trump’s team were swept up in an “incidental collection” by intelligence agencies, a Republican lawmaker says.

Having had his claims that his communications were being monitored ridiculed by all and sundry, and the BBC telling us over and over that his accusations were unsubstantiated, we now find out that Trump was actually having his communications monitored.

Sure, his communications might be collected “incidentally”, but they have nonetheless been collected. That somebody is killed in the collateral damage of an air strike on a military target doesn’t mean they have been murdered in cold blood, but it does not make the person any less dead. Naturally, this story has disappeared from the BBC’s front page and is now buried in the US news section. The Narrative must be maintained, and truth and impartiality be damned.

Share

14 thoughts on “On that Wire-Tapping Claim

  1. BBC
    Bast*rds, Ba*tards, C***s

    I’d laugh, but it’s not funny. And do I believe the ‘incidentally’? Yeah! Oh look who is talking to the Russians! Maybe we should tell the president? 🙂

    And if they were monitoring the Russians, they will have Democrats talking to them as well. Can we have those tapes too?

  2. When we have a definition of what an election “hacked by the Russians” means, I’ll pay attention to the media claiming it.

  3. Surely the whole point of the fake fuss about Russians is that it was the excuse for “monitoring” Trump? I really would rather believe that the US Securitate are sly crooks than that they are stupid hysterics. Though I suppose the two categories aren’t mutually exclusive.

  4. ‘Gathering information incidentally’ is probably Intel-speak for getting dog-crap on your shoe while out walking.

    But it’s when that dog-crap gets passed to a political rival for them to chew on… ah, that’s when it gets interesting.

  5. The Streetwise Prof was bang on the money with this one. Trump was, loosely, right and the Democrats/Media have been playing a game of semantics.

  6. I was wrong then it seems. I think I have to review what i’ve read and heard of trump then.

  7. Trump claimed unambiguously that it was Obama who was targeting him with surveillance. How is this even remotely the same thing?
    There’s clearly a narrative being desperately defended here, but I don’t think it’s the one you think it is.

  8. “Trump claimed unambiguously that it was Obama who was targeting him with surveillance. How is this even remotely the same thing?”

    Do you think that in making that claim Trump meant that Obama was the one in the van with his ear to the headphone?

  9. Sure, his communications might be collected “incidentally”, but they have nonetheless been collected.

    Je deteste left-liberals.

  10. Do you think that in making that claim Trump meant that Obama was the one in the van with his ear to the headphone?

    Do you think that presidents have the power to just order surveillance on anyone, outside of a legitimate investigation carried out by a federal agency?

  11. “Do you think that presidents have the power to just order surveillance on anyone, outside of a legitimate investigation carried out by a federal agency?”

    No president has the ability to do anything that is not legitimate.

    I do not for one second believe that Obama ordered anything specific related to surveillance on Trump or his associated parties.

  12. I do not for one second believe that Obama ordered anything specific related to surveillance on Trump or his associated parties.

    Oh, so you are agreed that Trump’s “wiretapping” claims are not to be taken seriously then. Or is was he uttering one of those postmodernist literal-falsehoods-that-convey-deeper-truths kind of things?

  13. “Oh, so you are agreed that Trump’s “wiretapping” claims are not to be taken seriously then.”

    I take them seriously. Trump is specifically wrong, in typical Trump style he has thrown a grenade into the dark. I believe he did throw it in the right direction.

    “Or is was he uttering one of those postmodernist literal-falsehoods-that-convey-deeper-truths kind of things?”

    Specifically wrong, generally right. The only unknown is just how generally.

  14. Trump is specifically wrong, in typical Trump style he has thrown a grenade into the dark. I believe he did throw it in the right direction.

    That’s a good analogy.

Comments are closed.