Some curious language in both Trump’s ‘wiretap’ accusation and Obama’s defense

Will our side get enough good information out to enough Americans? We’ll see. “Curious language…” — here are a few links, then an excerpt from a Legal Insurrection post and a segment of the Mark Levin radio show. Enjoy.

Mark Levin breaks down Trump wiretapping claims

FISA Is Not Law-Enforcement – It’s Not Interference with Justice Department Independence for White House to Ask for FISA Information

New York Times Trashes Its Own Reporting on Obama Admin Wiretapping

Mark Levin to Congress: Investigate Obama’s ‘Silent Coup’ vs. Trump

Some curious language in both Trump’s “wiretap” accusation and Obama’s defense
By William A. Jacobson

This may turn on what the meanings of “wiretap” and “order” are.

The hot dispute of the weekend is Donald Trump’s tweets this morning about alleged “wiretapping” by the Obama administration. Some thoughts below.

I don’t think you can view today’s tweets in isolation.

For the past several months (at least) we have lived in a world of non-stop innuendo suggesting that Donald Trump and/or his closest associates are compromised in some way by the Russians

There is no proof, just innuendo attributed to the intelligence community, as I explained in The fact-free Intelligence Community-Media trial of Trump by innuendo:

I don’t know whether Donald Trump or his aides had any improper contacts with Russian Intelligence officers.

Neither do you, or the media. The Intelligence Community might know, but they have provided zero facts either officially or through leaks to prove any improper, much less illegal, conduct took place.

Instead, we have trial by innuendo based on there being “contacts” between Trump campaign aides and Russian intelligence….

In this fact-free environment, imaginations and malicious intentions can run wild. We have round-the-clock media and social media speculation and frenzy throwing around terms like impeachment, treason, and so on.

It is, in some ways, worse than harmful facts, because there is no clear accusation against which to defend, and no factual basis upon which the public can judge.

I can’t prove the innuendo is wrong, because there are no facts to evaluate. I also can’t prove it’s right, because there are no facts to evaluate.

Read more: Legal Insurrection

Image credit: