MSM/Dems Insists their own reports of Obama admin Wiretapping / Investigation of Trump are #FakeNews

Readability

MSM/Dems Insists their own reports of Obama admin Wiretapping / Investigation of Trump are #FakeNews

Pres­i­dent Merkin Muf­fley: But this is absolute mad­ness, Ambas­sador! Why should you *build* such a thing?
Ambas­sador de Sadesky: There were those of us who fought against it, but in the end we could not keep up with the expense involved in the arms race, the space race, and the peace race. At the same time our peo­ple grum­bled for more nylons and wash­ing machines. Our dooms­day scheme cost us just a small frac­tion of what we had been spend­ing on defense in a sin­gle year. The decid­ing fac­tor was when we learned that your coun­try was work­ing along sim­i­lar lines, and we were afraid of a dooms­day gap.
Pres­i­dent Merkin Muf­fley: This is pre­pos­ter­ous. I’ve never approved of any­thing like that.
Ambas­sador de Sadesky: Our source was the New York Times.

Dr. Strangelove or How I Learned to Stop Wor­ry­ing & Love the Bomb 1964

While Don­ald Trump has only been in office a few weeks it’s already pretty easy to see the pat­tern of how he oper­ates, he’ll put some­thing out there, the left/​media will loudly denounce/​disclaim what’s been said and then within a few days or weeks events end up show­ing Trump right. The best exam­ple of this is Swe­den where Trump talked about their prob­lems con­cern­ing Islamic immi­gra­tion. The media , which spent years ignor­ing sto­ries con­cern­ing this, pro­nounced it all phony and right on cue a new set of riots took place for the peo­ple who had not been pay­ing atten­tion before to see.

The media’s deci­sion to go all in on denials of Obama Admin­is­tra­tion wire­tap­ing of the Trump cam­paign, which is notable for the phase “with­out pre­sent­ing any evi­dence” fol­low­ing any men­tion of the cur­rent president’s claims high­lighted by the repeated. You can’t go to a MSM site with­out see­ing peo­ple loudly say­ing that Obama did not or could not have ordered the bug­ging of the Trump campaign.

The first prob­lem for the MSM nar­ra­tive came when Glenn Reynolds pointed out in his USA Today piece that the Obama admin­is­tra­tion has a his­tory of this kind of thing

It’s cer­tainly not impos­si­ble to believe that the Obama admin­is­tra­tion spied on Trump. Obama wouldn’t be the first pres­i­dent to engage in ille­gal sur­veil­lance of oppo­si­tion can­di­dates, and his admin­is­tra­tion has been noted for its great enthu­si­asm for domes­tic spy­ing. In an effort to plug embar­rass­ing leaks, the Obama admin­is­tra­tion spied on Asso­ci­ated Press reporters and seized the phone records not only of a Fox News reporter but also of his par­ents. Obama’s polit­i­cal allies even alleged that his CIA spied on Con­gress.

Nor is it unbe­liev­able that under the Obama admin­is­tra­tion, sup­pos­edly non-​partisan civil ser­vants would go after polit­i­cal oppo­nents. After all, the noto­ri­ous IRS scan­dal was about exactly that.

This must have been news to USA Today’s read­ers who nor­mally aren’t treated to the sto­ries the MSM has done it’s best to ignore.

The next blow came from old friend Yid with Lid who noticed an inter­est­ing coin­ci­dence, at the New York Times

On Jan­u­ary 19th and 20th 2017, The NY Times reported that wire­taps of peo­ple on the Trump team were passed along to the Obama White House, one of the story’s authors was Michael S. Schmidt. On Sat­ur­day that same Michael S. Schmidt was one of the reporters who wrote the story, “Trump, Offer­ing No Evi­dence, Says Obama Tapped His Phones.” That’s right, the same NY Times reporter who was one of the sources for the President’s claim, said that there was no evi­dence for the claim.

This post not­ing the NYT argu­ing with itself got him not only the atten­tion of Bre­it­bart and oth­ers but the well deserved atten­tion of Rush Lim­baugh which spread this evi­dence even further.

And Jef­frey Lord a CNN reg­u­lar put the icing on the cake at the Amer­i­can Spectator:

Oba­m­a­gate is here.

And Mark Levin is on the case. First on his Thurs­day radio show and then in his appear­ance on Fox and Friends over the week­end, Mark laid out in chap­ter and verse the main­stream media’s own report­ing that the Obama admin­is­tra­tion was respon­si­ble for using gov­ern­ment agen­cies to spy on its polit­i­cal oppo­nents — namely Don­ald Trump, his aides, and then-U.S. Sen­a­tor Jeff Ses­sions, now the Attor­ney Gen­eral of the United States.

Said the for­mer chief of staff to U.S. Attor­ney Gen­eral Edwin Meese III:

This is not about Pres­i­dent Trump’s tweet­ing; this is about the Obama admin­is­tra­tion spy­ing.… The issue isn’t whether the Obama admin­is­tra­tion spied on the Trump cam­paign or tran­si­tion of sur­ro­gates; the issue is the extent of it…. Don­ald Trump is the vic­tim. His cam­paign is the vic­tim. His tran­si­tion team is the vic­tim. His sur­ro­gates are the victim.

To the ques­tion of whether for­mer Pres­i­dent Obama was involved? After not­ing that there were repeated sto­ries on the government’s spy­ing of Trump and oth­ers in the New York Times and the Wash­ing­ton Post — news­pa­pers unques­tion­ably well-​read by the Obama White House — the talk radio host added: “I will tell you this, he’s more involved than he says; it’s his exec­u­tive branch.”

Bingo!

It will be a fun week on CNN as the pan­els he’s on explain where all the “Trump Rus­sia” stuff comes from while at the same time deny­ing any wire­tap­ping, of course as Andrew McCarthy noted the demise of that line of attack might be an inter­est­ing side effect of this whole busi­ness:

Here’s the most inter­est­ing part: Now that they’ve been called on it, the media and Democ­rats are grad­u­ally retreat­ing from the inves­ti­ga­tion they’ve been tout­ing for months as the glue for their con­spir­acy the­ory. It’s actu­ally quite amus­ing to watch: How dare you sug­gest Pres­i­dent Obama would ever order sur­veil­lance! Who said any­thing about FISA orders? What evi­dence do you lunatic con­ser­v­a­tives have — uh, other than what we media pro­fes­sion­als been report­ing — that there was any inves­ti­ga­tion of the Trump campaign?

But have you noticed? While all this head-​spinning legal jibber-​jabber goes back and forth, the foun­da­tion of the false nar­ra­tive we’ve been hear­ing since Novem­ber 8 has van­ished. Now that we’re sup­posed to believe there was no real inves­ti­ga­tion of Trump and his cam­paign, what else can we con­clude but that there was no real evi­dence of col­lu­sion between the cam­paign and Rus­sia . . . which makes sense, since Rus­sia did not actu­ally hack the elec­tion, so the pur­ported objec­tive of the col­lu­sion never existed.

How bad is it, so bad you have law pro­fes­sor & Obama voter Ann Alt­house writ­ing this short post which I quote in full

I’m tired of read­ing things like “Pres­i­dent Trump’s aston­ish­ing and reck­less accu­sa­tion that he was wire­tapped on orders from Pres­i­dent Barack Obama should finally be the tip­ping point in how the coun­try views him and his pres­i­dency.” (That’s E.J. Dionne in The Wash­ing­ton Post.)

From what I’ve read, “ordered” is the weasel word that allows anti-​Trumpsters to make flat state­ments por­tray­ing Trump as out of his mind. But the noto­ri­ous Trump tweets do not say that Obama “ordered” a wire­tap­ping. They ask if it is “legal for a sit­ting Pres­i­dent to be ‘wire tap­ping’ a race for pres­i­dent prior to an elec­tion?” and refer to what a court had done. Though Trump didn’t pre­cisely say this, any “order” came from the court. He then said “Pres­i­dent Obama was tap­ping my phones,” which isn’t to say that he “ordered” it. I think the story Trump is rely­ing on is that the FISA court granted a war­rant (after some funny busi­ness to get around a pre­vi­ous denial), not that Obama just “ordered” it. Then, Trump tweeted that Obama had gone “low… to tapp my phones dur­ing the very sacred elec­tion process.” Trump por­trays Obama as doing some­thing, not “order­ing” it.

Unless the anti-​Trumpsters can speak clearly avoid the safety of that word, I will not trust what they say.

Well that’s log­i­cal, after all the MSM is appar­ently assert­ing that they’re past report­ing can’t be trusted either.

Exit Ques­tion 1. How bad is it for the left when even Erick Erick­son, the orig­o­nal Trump foe hit­ting the attacks on him.

Exit Ques­tion 2. How long before we see the first Judi­cial Watch FOIA Suit on the subject?

Update: There’s a rea­son why I per­fer paper books to elec­tronic it makes it much harder for the NYT to change this:

into this


and pre­tend they never said what they did.

I’d be very inter­ested in dis­cov­er­ing when this change took place. If it was after the President’s charge against the Obama admin then it speaks vol­umes about the left try­ing to re-​write history.

On the bright side it pro­vides an actual legit rea­son for a con­ser­v­a­tive to buy the dead tree ver­sion of the Times


2016 Fabulous 50 Blog Awards

If you like and you trust what you see here and want to help pay for it (not to men­tion mit­i­gate the costs of hos­pi­tal bills and debt from work that both my wife and miss­ing as she recov­ers from her “rou­tine” surgery please con­sider hit­ting DaTipJar




[olimome­ter id=3]

Please con­sider Sub­scrib­ing. You can be listed as a Friend of DaT­e­chguy blog for as lit­tle as $2 a week. If only 130 of the 209K+ unique vis­i­tors who came in 2016 .07% sub­scribed at the same lev­els as our cur­rent sub­scrip­tion base we would make our cur­rent annual goal with ease. If we could boost that num­ber to 260 I could afford to cover major events in per­son all over the country.

Remem­ber all sub­scribers get my weekly pod­cast emailed directly to you before it goes up any­where else.


Choose a Sub­scrip­tion level



If you are not in the posi­tion to hit DaTip­Jar We will be very happy to accept your prayers

President Merkin Muffley: But this is absolute madness, Ambassador! Why should you *build* such a thing?
Ambassador de Sadesky: There were those of us who fought against it, but in the end we could not keep up with the expense involved in the arms race, the space race, and the peace race. At the same time our people grumbled for more nylons and washing machines. Our doomsday scheme cost us just a small fraction of what we had been spending on defense in a single year. The deciding factor was when we learned that your country was working along similar lines, and we were afraid of a doomsday gap.
President Merkin Muffley: This is preposterous. I’ve never approved of anything like that.
Ambassador de Sadesky: Our source was the New York Times.

Dr. Strangelove or How I Learned to Stop Worrying & Love the Bomb 1964

While Donald Trump has only been in office a few weeks it’s already pretty easy to see the pattern of how he operates, he’ll put something out there, the left/media will loudly denounce/disclaim what’s been said and then within a few days or weeks events end up showing Trump right. The best example of this is Sweden where Trump talked about their problems concerning Islamic immigration. The media , which spent years ignoring stories concerning this, pronounced it all phony and right on cue a new set of riots took place for the people who had not been paying attention before to see.

The media’s decision to go all in on denials of Obama Administration wiretaping of the Trump campaign, which is notable for the phase “without presenting any evidence” following any mention of the current president’s claims highlighted by the repeated. You can’t go to a MSM site without seeing people loudly saying that Obama did not or could not have ordered the bugging of the Trump campaign.

The first problem for the MSM narrative came when Glenn Reynolds pointed out in his USA Today piece that the Obama administration has a history of this kind of thing

It’s certainly not impossible to believe that the Obama administration spied on Trump. Obama wouldn’t be the first president to engage in illegal surveillance of opposition candidates, and his administration has been noted for its great enthusiasm for domestic spying. In an effort to plug embarrassing leaks, the Obama administration spied on Associated Press reporters and seized the phone records not only of a Fox News reporter but also of his parents. Obama’s political allies even alleged that his CIA spied on Congress.

Nor is it unbelievable that under the Obama administration, supposedly non-partisan civil servants would go after political opponents. After all, the notorious IRS scandal was about exactly that.

This must have been news to USA Today’s readers who normally aren’t treated to the stories the MSM has done it’s best to ignore.

The next blow came from old friend Yid with Lid who noticed an interesting coincidence, at the New York Times

On January 19th and 20th 2017, The NY Times reported that wiretaps of people on the Trump team were passed along to the Obama White House, one of the story’s authors was Michael S. Schmidt. On Saturday that same Michael S. Schmidt was one of the reporters who wrote the story, “Trump, Offering No Evidence, Says Obama Tapped His Phones.” That’s right, the same NY Times reporter who was one of the sources for the President’s claim, said that there was no evidence for the claim.

This post noting the NYT arguing with itself got him not only the attention of Breitbart and others but the well deserved attention of Rush Limbaugh which spread this evidence even further.

And Jeffrey Lord a CNN regular put the icing on the cake at the American Spectator:

Obamagate is here.

And Mark Levin is on the case. First on his Thursday radio show and then in his appearance on Fox and Friends over the weekend, Mark laid out in chapter and verse the mainstream media’s own reporting that the Obama administration was responsible for using government agencies to spy on its political opponents — namely Donald Trump, his aides, and then-U.S. Senator Jeff Sessions, now the Attorney General of the United States.

Said the former chief of staff to U.S. Attorney General Edwin Meese III:

This is not about President Trump’s tweeting; this is about the Obama administration spying.… The issue isn’t whether the Obama administration spied on the Trump campaign or transition of surrogates; the issue is the extent of it…. Donald Trump is the victim. His campaign is the victim. His transition team is the victim. His surrogates are the victim.

To the question of whether former President Obama was involved? After noting that there were repeated stories on the government’s spying of Trump and others in the New York Times and the Washington Post — newspapers unquestionably well-read by the Obama White House — the talk radio host added: “I will tell you this, he’s more involved than he says; it’s his executive branch.”

Bingo!

It will be a fun week on CNN as the panels he’s on explain where all the “Trump Russia” stuff comes from while at the same time denying any wiretapping, of course as Andrew McCarthy noted the demise of that line of attack might be an interesting side effect of this whole business:

Here’s the most interesting part: Now that they’ve been called on it, the media and Democrats are gradually retreating from the investigation they’ve been touting for months as the glue for their conspiracy theory. It’s actually quite amusing to watch: How dare you suggest President Obama would ever order surveillance! Who said anything about FISA orders? What evidence do you lunatic conservatives have — uh, other than what we media professionals been reporting — that there was any investigation of the Trump campaign?

But have you noticed? While all this head-spinning legal jibber-jabber goes back and forth, the foundation of the false narrative we’ve been hearing since November 8 has vanished. Now that we’re supposed to believe there was no real investigation of Trump and his campaign, what else can we conclude but that there was no real evidence of collusion between the campaign and Russia . . . which makes sense, since Russia did not actually hack the election, so the purported objective of the collusion never existed.

How bad is it, so bad you have law professor & Obama voter Ann Althouse writing this short post which I quote in full

I’m tired of reading things like “President Trump’s astonishing and reckless accusation that he was wiretapped on orders from President Barack Obama should finally be the tipping point in how the country views him and his presidency.” (That’s E.J. Dionne in The Washington Post.)

From what I’ve read, “ordered” is the weasel word that allows anti-Trumpsters to make flat statements portraying Trump as out of his mind. But the notorious Trump tweets do not say that Obama “ordered” a wiretapping. They ask if it is “legal for a sitting President to be ‘wire tapping’ a race for president prior to an election?” and refer to what a court had done. Though Trump didn’t precisely say this, any “order” came from the court. He then said “President Obama was tapping my phones,” which isn’t to say that he “ordered” it. I think the story Trump is relying on is that the FISA court granted a warrant (after some funny business to get around a previous denial), not that Obama just “ordered” it. Then, Trump tweeted that Obama had gone “low… to tapp my phones during the very sacred election process.” Trump portrays Obama as doing something, not “ordering” it.

Unless the anti-Trumpsters can speak clearly avoid the safety of that word, I will not trust what they say. 

Well that’s logical, after all the MSM is apparently asserting that they’re past reporting can’t be trusted either.

Exit Question 1. How bad is it for the left when even Erick Erickson, the origonal Trump foe hitting the attacks on him.

Exit Question 2. How long before we see the first Judicial Watch FOIA Suit on the subject?

Update: There’s a reason why I perfer paper books to electronic it makes it much harder for the NYT to change this:

into this


and pretend they never said what they did.

I’d be very interested in discovering when this change took place. If it was after the President’s charge against the Obama admin then it speaks volumes about the left trying to re-write history.

On the bright side it provides an actual legit reason for a conservative to buy the dead tree version of the Times


2016 Fabulous 50 Blog Awards

If you like and you trust what you see here and want to help pay for it (not to mention mitigate the costs of hospital bills and debt from work that both my wife and missing as she recovers from her “routine” surgery please consider hitting DaTipJar




Olimometer 2.52

Please consider Subscribing. You can be listed as a Friend of DaTechguy blog for as little as $2 a week. If only 130 of the 209K+ unique visitors who came in 2016 .07% subscribed at the same levels as our current subscription base we would make our current annual goal with ease. If we could boost that number to 260 I could afford to cover major events in person all over the country.

Remember all subscribers get my weekly podcast emailed directly to you before it goes up anywhere else.


Choose a Subscription level



If you are not in the position to hit DaTipJar We will be very happy to accept your prayers