When it comes to telling the Truth--The difference between Bill Clinton and Donald Trump

Clinton had a way of telling half truth sometimes convincingly.  He was like the witches in MacBeth  who told the title character that he would not be killed by any man of woman born, only to find out at the end that he was in a fight with a guy who had a cesarean birth are as Shakespeare wrote, "I was from the womb untimely plucked."

Trump, on the other hand, is a layman in a political office, but he still speaks like a lot of Americans.  When he talks about being wiretapped he is not speaking in legalese, but speaking about the fact that conversations of his and his campaign workers keep showing up in transcripts given to the media, and knows that just does not happen by itself.  In other words, the so-called fact checkers are applying a different standard to him and in the process misreading the situation and trying to protect their sources, i.e. the leakers.

Johnathon Turley captures the essence of the situation with the surveillance.
Now, Rep. Devin Nunes (R-Calif.), chairman of the House Intelligence Committee (who previously said he knew of no evidence to support the allegation) has disclosed that he has seen evidence that Trump presidential transition officials had their communications monitored during the Obama administration (though Nunes later suggested that he might not have actually seen the evidence of the surveillance).

He also said that the inadvertent interceptions were then subject to “unmasking” where intelligence officials actively and knowingly attached the names of the parties to transcripts and then circulated the information widely within the intelligence community. If true, that would clearly support a part of the president’s allegations and raise very serious questions about the improper use of surveillance. It would be Trump’s ultimate “redrum” moment.

Yet, when this disclosure was made by the chair of the House Intelligence Committee, CNN and other news outlets immediately proclaimed that it did not prove anything about the Trump allegations — again emphasizing that he said Obama “wiretapped” Trump’s phone. That is like saying that an alleged victim is not to be believed because he said that some “second story man broke into my home” when the evidence showed that there was no second story on the house and the burglar entered through an open window. The point is whether Trump campaign staff were subject to surveillance under the Obama administration.
There is reason to believe that those responsible for the unmasking and subsequent leaks to the media are in serious jeopardy of criminal prosecution.


Popular posts from this blog

Democrats worried about 2018 elections

Obama's hidden corruption that enriched his friends

The Christmas of the survivors of Trump's first year in office?