Almost every crime show drama has an episode that raises the question, "How do you prove that something did not happen?"
It is always about a criminal-type or nefarious low-life trying to get away with something by pointing the finger at another.
It has also been the subject of numerous lawyer dramas, usually raised as a "plan B" defense, intended to do nothing more than to put doubt in the jury.
T***p has used this ploy numerous times in the past, from the "birther" lie, through many of his campaign allegations about Clinton and, now, against Obama on this wire-tapping allegation.
It is usually effective as a deflection because of the lack of evidence, circumstantial or tangible, disproving the lie or because of the stature of the person telling the lie vis-a-vis the person being accused.
This time, T***p has gone too far.
First, there are three legal means to obtain a warrant for a wiretap. ALL of them require a showing of probable cause based on evidence (circumstantial needs some independent corroboration), meaning the "case" presented to support the warrant must be substantially completed. In the case of FISA requests, the case must be nearly prima facie (the elements presented to charge), a much higher standard. In none of these three cases, under the claim of T***p, could a president be involved.*
Second, if any investigation finds there was a wiretap, it shows that evidence of substantial wrong-doing exists, meaning the investigation would necessarily go further into what was the evidence in obtaining the warrant--which may well require the investigation into, and testimony of, T***p and/or his associates.
Third, an illegal wiretap could be "ordered" by Obama, but, in this case, there must be a finding of evidence before any legitimate charge could be made. If T***p had any evidence of this, it is certain he would have given it up by now.
The simple fact is that T***p has raised this "trumped-up" allegation to turn attention from both Sessions' recusal and the Russia story. "Period".
It is truly an injustice to the American people that those in office who lie/make-up patently false claims cannot be punished for their betrayal of citizens' trust. Waiting for an election is inadequate and inefficient.
We should have someone that reports these quasi-perjury claims.
Wait ... we did--the neutral free press. Now, though, the various media are forced into a kind of advocative press, mimicking the same adversarial process we have in open court. The result is that Americans sit "as a jury" to all being written and said, but rarely do we ever know the "verdict" we have voted on.
Instead, we must settle for surmising that "our" verdict won (or lost) and turn to our "go to" station for corroboration.
* 50 U.S. Code § 1802 (a) (1) [a president may request a wiretap if]
"(A) the electronic surveillance is solely directed at—
"(i) the acquisition of the contents of communications transmitted by means of communications used exclusively between or among foreign powers, as defined in section 1801(a)(1), (2), or (3) of this title; or
"(ii) the acquisition of technical intelligence, other than the spoken communications of individuals, from property or premises under the open and exclusive control of a foreign power, as defined in section 1801(a)(1), (2), or (3) of this title;
"(B) there is no substantial likelihood that the surveillance will acquire the contents of any communication to which a United States person is a party; ... "
T***p claims he (a United States person) (or his communications device(s)) were under surveillance, so he is presumed excluded.
If T***p was thought to be a foreign agent, another statute applies.
§ 1801 (B))
"(1) that the person must be "any person other than a United States person, [who acts or engages in activities listed thereunder].
"(2) "any person who..." [acts or engages in more violent activities]"
The first case obviously excludes T***p.
The second case, if alleged, must be supported by evidence. If there is evidence of any of those listed actions, any of them would be damning to T***p, enough to dismantle his presidency.
However, there is § 1801 (B)(2)(E), which adds "knowingly aids or abets any person in the conduct of activities described in subparagraph (A), (B), or (C) or knowingly conspires with any person to engage in activities described in subparagraph (A), (B), or (C)."
Certainly, there have been suspicions, accusations and allegations of such activities by T***p and/or his associates--it is currently under investigation. But, again, there must be evidence to show the connection as well as the activity. At present, we are told there is none (or, more accurately, none has been revealed). If there is none, then the wiretap could not be authorized. On the other hand, if and when that evidence is unearthed, then tying a wiretap to Obama may be argued. However, so what? T***p's days would be over.