4 ms·

> He has been behind several other high-profile conspiracy theories, including allegations that U.S. security agencies wiretapped Trump Tower while Mr. Trump wa

> He has been behind several other high-profile conspiracy theories, including allegations that U.S. security agencies wiretapped Trump Tower while Mr. Trump was running for president in 2016. I mean, that was proven. There's an entire wikipedia page dedicated to it [1]. I don't trust this Lindell guy, but I trust the press even less. 1: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crossfire_Hurricane_(FBI_investigation) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crossfire_Hurricane_(FBI_inves...

wedn3sday 5y ago
If I recall correctly, isnt this the episode where the trump staffer got drunk at a bar and was bragging to an Australian diplomat about all the illegal shit they were doing? And then the Australian went to the FBI, and now the staffer is in prison because of said illegal shit? Or was that another time?
- linuxftw 5y ago
  I'm not familiar with this specific story, but the FBI did spy on the Trump campaign, it's not a 'conspiracy theory.'
- Falandafa2021 5y ago
  All according to Clinton foundation donor no conflict of interest there...
ggggtez 5y ago
That only counts as a "hit" if you ignore everything in the conspiracy that was wrong. The very first paragraph says that Trump wasn't under investigation. That was a central part of the conspiracy theory. The other part of the conspiracy was that it was opened to dig up dirt on Trump. But the second paragraph contradicts that as well, saying it was opened because of public statements from George Papandopolous that the Trump team had dirt on Clinton, obtained from Russia. In some sense, it would be hard to imagine that after making statements like that there wouldn't be an investigation opened. Just because an investigation happened, doesn't mean that it was political or malicious (which was the claim from Lindell). The very wikipedia page that you linked goes over all of this, including the fact that the claims it was improper were investigated, and dismissed. You don't even have to read the whole thing, it's in the introduction.
- linuxftw 5y ago
  > The very first paragraph says that Trump wasn't under investigation. That was a central part of the conspiracy theory. That's not what the Washingtontimes wrote. That's a lot of words that could be been summed up as 'the FBI spied on the Trump campaign.' Was it legal, justified, moral? Those things are all debatable. I'm firmly on the side that a thin pretense such as 'foreign interference' is no justification for spying on a political campaign. > including the fact that the claims it was improper were investigated, and dismissed. What a surprise, the government found itself innocent. Unfathomable.
pionar 5y ago
This is poorly worded on the Times' part. The conspiracy is that Obama ordered it, or that it was politically motivated.
smhenderson 5y ago
The article you link to literally says The OIG investigation found no support for Trump's claims that President Obama had ordered the wiretapping of Trump Tower. I don't always trust the press either and some sources much less than others but nothing about how the article characterized Montgomery seems either incorrect, or even exaggerated, to me. He has a history of making sensational claims and then being unable to back them up with actual evidence.

wedn3sday 5y ago

If I recall correctly, isnt this the episode where the trump staffer got drunk at a bar and was bragging to an Australian diplomat about all the illegal shit they were doing? And then the Australian went to the FBI, and now the staffer is in prison because of said illegal shit? Or was that another time?

linuxftw 5y ago
I'm not familiar with this specific story, but the FBI did spy on the Trump campaign, it's not a 'conspiracy theory.'
Falandafa2021 5y ago
All according to Clinton foundation donor no conflict of interest there...

ggggtez 5y ago

That only counts as a "hit" if you ignore everything in the conspiracy that was wrong. The very first paragraph says that Trump wasn't under investigation. That was a central part of the conspiracy theory. The other part of the conspiracy was that it was opened to dig up dirt on Trump. But the second paragraph contradicts that as well, saying it was opened because of public statements from George Papandopolous that the Trump team had dirt on Clinton, obtained from Russia. In some sense, it would be hard to imagine that after making statements like that there wouldn't be an investigation opened. Just because an investigation happened, doesn't mean that it was political or malicious (which was the claim from Lindell). The very wikipedia page that you linked goes over all of this, including the fact that the claims it was improper were investigated, and dismissed. You don't even have to read the whole thing, it's in the introduction.

linuxftw 5y ago
> The very first paragraph says that Trump wasn't under investigation. That was a central part of the conspiracy theory. That's not what the Washingtontimes wrote. That's a lot of words that could be been summed up as 'the FBI spied on the Trump campaign.' Was it legal, justified, moral? Those things are all debatable. I'm firmly on the side that a thin pretense such as 'foreign interference' is no justification for spying on a political campaign. > including the fact that the claims it was improper were investigated, and dismissed. What a surprise, the government found itself innocent. Unfathomable.

pionar 5y ago

This is poorly worded on the Times' part. The conspiracy is that Obama ordered it, or that it was politically motivated.

smhenderson 5y ago

The article you link to literally says The OIG investigation found no support for Trump's claims that President Obama had ordered the wiretapping of Trump Tower. I don't always trust the press either and some sources much less than others but nothing about how the article characterized Montgomery seems either incorrect, or even exaggerated, to me. He has a history of making sensational claims and then being unable to back them up with actual evidence.