Whether it came from the WH is kind of a cardinal point, though. Because that would be illegal.
Sure. That's not the point though. It's about responsibility and accountability. It's not like Obama would have to go through official channels to make it clear that he wanted the source of leaks (like say that Podesta emails), looked into, or that he wanted to see if there was something to rumors of connections between Trump and Putin. The reality is that, whether done legally or not, the whole thing looks
If it came from the DoJ, through channels, then it's perfectly legit, since they'd have to have, you know, probable cause and stuff.
What channels though? The only reason one would be looking at the Trump campaign would be in response to rumors and speculations, all of which came about in the context of the current political campaign. You really can't step away from the political aspect of this. And it's hard to imagine that the DoJ, working for Obama, would not perhaps accept a lower bar for "sufficient evidence to proceed" when the target is Trump, versus say, if the target were Clinton.
Remember the IRS delaying conservative group's tax filing applications? I'm sure Obama didn't have to directly tell anyone to do that either. But it's very suspicious when it does, since it makes it obvious that otherwise "legitimate" actions just so happen to have beneficial political effects for the party in power in the White House.
And I am reasonably certain that Trump was in fact, and in words, accusing Obama personally. Since, you know, he called him out by name and compared the allegation to Watergate, wherein Nixon actually did order wiretaps personally.
Huh? Nixon didn't order any wiretaps (well, not specific to Watergate anyway). The taps were in his own office, because he recorded everything said there for his own records. The issue with taps was that there were missing records when the investigation demanded them, and that looked, not illegal, but suspicious
The speculation wasn't about Nixon wiretapping, but that he had intelligence operatives break into the DNC headquarters and steal documents during his re-election campaign. It was never proven that he personally ordered this (it was almost certainly done by a subordinate in his administration and/or campaign), but what got him was that he attempted to cover up the whole thing (hence the issue of the missing tapes).
The comparison is that if surrogate of Obama, even operating independently (but on his behalf), decided to "help along" taps of the Trump campaign, it would be similar in effect to what happened under Nixon during Watergate. An attempt to spy on the other party during an election year and using the resources of the federal government to do it. Except as far as we know, the actions taken during Watergate were all done "off the books", so to speak. Someone in his campaign knew some guys who did work for <insert covert intelligence agency here>, and hired them out of a campaign fund to break into the DNC and gather dirt. All totally illegal. If what is being speculated about the taps in this case is true, it may be even worse, since this would be misusing actual official federal intelligence gathering tools to target a political enemy. At least back in 1972, Nixon's people had to go outside the official government processes to do this. Apparently, our system has evolved to the point where they can get such things done through what appears to be "legal" and "legitimate" channels.
Again, this is also pure speculation, since we don't know for sure if taps were requested, or allowed, and if so how broad they were, or who specifically was targeted. But the mere act of attempting to do so is very suspicious and rife with claims of using our intelligence services for political purposes. If they actually did put taps in place? That actually is as bad as what happened during Watergate (or arguably worse, as mentioned above).
It was *also* illegal for the White House to order operatives to steal documents from the DNC back then. Any such order clearly was done secretly,right? The idea that someone at the DoJ would go so far as to seek wiretaps of Trump's campaign without some kind of quiet nudge or wink or nod from Obama and/or his staff seems very unlikely. They usually go as far out of their way to avoid even the appearance of such things. No one's saying that Obama wrote an official executive order demanding this. But a quiet request behind the scenes? You and I would never have any way to know about this. Just was we'd never have known about it with Nixon (and still don't), except that he used to record everything in his office. I suspect Obama doesn't do that, right? So we can't know if he did or didn't, and we can't know if there was a "gap" in a recording, because now there aren't recordings for us to use in any form of investigation.
But I'm sure I'm just being silly since perfectly objective people have insisted that we shouldn't listen to what the President SAYS, but what he MEANS. Cause we can discern what he means, only apparently not from what he says.
No. I'm sure what he meant was exactly what I, and frankly most conservatives, got from his statement. That Obama wanted Trump to be tapped, and magically, his administration found a way to do it. Again, no one's saying that he ordered it officially, because he can't do so legally. Um... But that doesn't stop it from being done unofficially (well, the request anyway). Again, the big issue is that the odds of such a tap having been done for any reason other than political seems incredibly tiny. Which leaves us to this having been done on behalf of Obama, at the very least, if not as a result of his request.
Obama's administration has had too many of these "convenient" actions taken by "someone else" in the administration, and "the White House had nothing to do with it" as the excuse, for the suspicion not to be there. I'll point out the whole Susan Rice thing. In that case, we also had the excuse that they were just reacting to the intelligence, and not generating it. But how lucky for them that the intelligence happened to help their political narrative in an election year. And how lucky that said false intelligence just magically inserted itself somewhere between the field operative reports and the white house intelligence briefing.
So yeah, you'll have to forgive me for immediately assuming that Obama had to have had something to do with such a thing (again, if it happened). He surrounded himself with people who did a great job at protecting him from the backlash of any action that went poorly, but after several such firewalls being hit, it starts to become obvious that he had structured his administration for just that purpose. Nothing that went wrong was ever Obama's fault. It was always someone else's decision, or intelligence he didn't control, or whatever. Always. So when I see a spokesperson say something like that? My BS detector goes off. Hard.