Trump II

[Farmer]

Why did Trump just send a carrier task force to sail  around the South China Sea if China is no threat?   What is the purpose of those islands that China just fortified militarily while our last President was asleep at the switch?  Are the American taxpayers wasting our money?  Should we pull back or bases and fleet and end ANZUS?   Why did the Japanese prime minister rush to play golf with Trump after trump suggested Japan defend itself?  Why did the European leaders s**t in the pants when trump originally said that NATO was obsolete?   Why do so many (europeans mainly) criticize us until they need us?

I said there's no threat of China invading Australia.  There's a significant economic threat to the US (in particular) and to Japan and other South East Asian countries (mostly economic, although Taiwan is probably at a sovereign risk).

As for ANZUS, you're getting logistical and operational support in an area of the world that has strategic and economic significance to the US.  Whether you think it's worth it or not is up to you.  Whether you think an ally who has always supported you is worth it or not is up to you (Mattis apparently set Trump straight on that fact pretty early on).

Japan is definitely at threat from China, but the loss of Japan economically would have a huge impact on the US, too.  You see, this is where isolationism fails.  It had a significant impact leading up to WWII, too.

EU and NATO didn't shit their pants and again I'll point out that the US spend in Europe is (obviously) only a fraction of your total defence expenditure.  As others have pointed out, the US very much has vested interests in stopping Russia from expanding.  This constant prattle that the US is spending all this money to look after Europe as if there's no benefit to the US is tiresome.  For the record, actual spend toward NATO/Europe by the US is about 1.1% of US GDP - about 30% of your total expenditure.  A discussion as to whether that's a good investment or not is a reasonable discussion, so long as the numbers are kept accurate (and stop quoting total US expenditure) and reflect your very significant economic and political and cultural investment in preventing Russian expansion.

Oh, and back to ANZUS.  Australia is the 13th ranked in terms of military expenditure (dollars) in the world (12th by some estimates, actually) which lines up with us being the 13th largest economy in the world (again, 12th by some measures), and 20th (compared to the US in 10th) as a percentage of GDP.  Again, if you don't think there's a worthwhile contribution then that's a matter for the US, but I suspect the likes of Mattis understand the value - it just remains to be seen whether Trump will go bat-shit crazy like today's tweets about Obama wiretapping him (there's no evidence, just some fake news from Brietbart and the like) or whether he can be puppetted to act more like a President as he did in his speech to congress.  It took him less than a week to fall from the level he'd clambered to with that speech, so I'm not betting on a much improved performance really.

[Farmer]

Then we could take the money we spend on NATO and pay for our health care.

You spend about $195B toward NATO, including stationing about 100,000 personnel.  If you pull out, that's either 100,000 people looking for a job (if you cut spending) or you'll deploy them elsewhere in which case you'll save very little.

Let's assume you put them all out of work and consider how that $195B stacks up.  The US spends about $3.2T per year on health care, so that $195B is about 6%.  Pretty sure increasing expenditure by 6% isn't going to cover current private insurance payments - not by a long shot.  So pulling out from Europe wouldn't fix your health care but it would put 100,000 people out of work (or some combination in between, but less out of work means less towards healthcare).

Of course, pulling out of Europe would not only put all those people out of work, but the flow on effect for suppliers and so on would be a significant hit to the US economy (and EU and others, of course).

The problem with addressing issues in the way Trump does is that he never looks at the detail.

[Alan Klein]

I said there's no threat of China invading Australia.  There's a significant economic threat to the US (in particular) and to Japan and other South East Asian countries (mostly economic, although Taiwan is probably at a sovereign risk).

As for ANZUS, you're getting logistical and operational support in an area of the world that has strategic and economic significance to the US.  Whether you think it's worth it or not is up to you.  Whether you think an ally who has always supported you is worth it or not is up to you (Mattis apparently set Trump straight on that fact pretty early on).

Japan is definitely at threat from China, but the loss of Japan economically would have a huge impact on the US, too.  You see, this is where isolationism fails.  It had a significant impact leading up to WWII, too.

EU and NATO didn't shit their pants and again I'll point out that the US spend in Europe is (obviously) only a fraction of your total defence expenditure.  As others have pointed out, the US very much has vested interests in stopping Russia from expanding.  This constant prattle that the US is spending all this money to look after Europe as if there's no benefit to the US is tiresome.  For the record, actual spend toward NATO/Europe by the US is about 1.1% of US GDP - about 30% of your total expenditure.  A discussion as to whether that's a good investment or not is a reasonable discussion, so long as the numbers are kept accurate (and stop quoting total US expenditure) and reflect your very significant economic and political and cultural investment in preventing Russian expansion.

Oh, and back to ANZUS.  Australia is the 13th ranked in terms of military expenditure (dollars) in the world (12th by some estimates, actually) which lines up with us being the 13th largest economy in the world (again, 12th by some measures), and 20th (compared to the US in 10th) as a percentage of GDP.  Again, if you don't think there's a worthwhile contribution then that's a matter for the US, but I suspect the likes of Mattis understand the value - it just remains to be seen whether Trump will go bat-shit crazy like today's tweets about Obama wiretapping him (there's no evidence, just some fake news from Brietbart and the like) or whether he can be puppetted to act more like a President as he did in his speech to congress.  It took him less than a week to fall from the level he'd clambered to with that speech, so I'm not betting on a much improved performance really.

You're being disingenuous.  You only gave reasons why the US wants ANZUS.  But why does Australia want it?  You didn't say.  No one stays in a treaty unless they get something out of it.  So, what does Australia want from the ANZUS treaty even assuming that it's true that China will never militarily attack Australia?  Does the US Navy protect your suppliers, your customers, your trade routes?    Does the US Navy being there allow you to negotiate better deals?  Maybe it's the money American sailors spend on shore leave there?  What are the ANZUS reasons for Australia? 

[Farmer]

You're being disingenuous.  You only gave reasons why the US wants ANZUS.  But why does Australia want it?  You didn't say.  No one stays in a treaty unless they get something out of it.  So, what does Australia want from the ANZUS treaty even assuming that it's true that China will never militarily attack Australia?  Does the US Navy protect your suppliers, your customers, your trade routes?    Does the US Navy being there allow you to negotiate better deals?  Maybe it's the money American sailors spend on shore leave there?  What are the ANZUS reasons for Australia?

Partly historical - we've always stood with the US and, for the foreseeable future, will continue to do so almost certainly regardless of ANZUS or otherwise.  NZ, for example, is not part of ANZUS because they won't allow nuclear armed ships into port and the US won't confirm which ships carry them.  Both perfectly valid positions, so ANZUS was suspended in terms of NZ.

Do we derive benefits?  I'm sure there's some economic benefit (US ships don't actually dock here very often, but the marines up in Darwin probably help out a bit).  There's joint exercises (which include NZ, Singapore, and other nations in the region - not part of ANZUS or any formal alliance).  There's cooperation on intelligence and other military matters which provide day to day benefits.  Of course there's the benefit of a powerful ally should something happen and, whilst unlikely, it is still a tangible benefit.  Of course, having the treaty doesn't actually mean the US would come to our aid - that's far more likely as a result of the overall relationship, but ANZUS (or any other similar treaty) certainly adds to it.

So, I'm not being disingenuous - I'm pointing out that constantly suggesting it's some sort of one-way street with no benefit to the US is demonstrably wrong and just silly.  The value of the *relationship* with the US is far, far more valuable than ANZUS.

Oh, and to answer specific questions - no, the US navy doesn't protect our suppliers, customers, or trade routes by and large.  The US navy isn't "here", and their overall presence has zero impact on our ability to negotiate trade deals (Trump pulled the TPP, but Australia still has very favourable trade relations with pretty much the whole of SEA and the Pacific).

Again, I think you have a very inaccurate view of the reach and impact of the USN this side of the Pacific.  Obama wanted to increase that presence in response to China in last year of his term - Trump seems ambivalent in that he wants to pressure China but he doesn't want to increase presence (sending a CBG for a FONOP isn't really a general increase in presence).

[Alan Klein]

You spend about $195B toward NATO, including stationing about 100,000 personnel.  If you pull out, that's either 100,000 people looking for a job (if you cut spending) or you'll deploy them elsewhere in which case you'll save very little.

Let's assume you put them all out of work and consider how that $195B stacks up.  The US spends about $3.2T per year on health care, so that $195B is about 6%.  Pretty sure increasing expenditure by 6% isn't going to cover current private insurance payments - not by a long shot.  So pulling out from Europe wouldn't fix your health care but it would put 100,000 people out of work (or some combination in between, but less out of work means less towards healthcare).

Of course, pulling out of Europe would not only put all those people out of work, but the flow on effect for suppliers and so on would be a significant hit to the US economy (and EU and others, of course).

The problem with addressing issues in the way Trump does is that he never looks at the detail.

I'm not familiar with the numbers, so I'll use yours.  Saving $195 Billion would pay for the 30 million Americans who didn't have heath care before Obamacare ($6,500 per person).  So we could eliminate Obamacare totally and go back to the system we had and every American would now have health care. 

Also, let me explain how an economy works.  Spending money on the military does nothing for civilians.  It takes away from them.  (That's why the Europeans like the current arrangement with NATO where America pays for the military Europe doesn't have to buy).  Money saved on military expenditures goes to consumer items.  The tax money that I could save that pays for some soldier to drive around in a tank could go for my kid's education or maybe a summer in camp.  Soldiers out of work can still work except they'll find jobs making civilian products and doing civilian services.  Manufacturers of civilian goods will pickup the slack from military producers because civilians will have more money to spend on civilian goods because their taxes are lower.  Corporations will be able to expand and provide more jobs because their taxes are lower too. 

As Sanders liberals keep reminding conservatives, America spent US$6 trillion dollars on foreign wars since 911.  Do you realize how many aspirins that buys? 

[Alan Klein]

Partly historical - we've always stood with the US and, for the foreseeable future, will continue to do so almost certainly regardless of ANZUS or otherwise.  NZ, for example, is not part of ANZUS because they won't allow nuclear armed ships into port and the US won't confirm which ships carry them.  Both perfectly valid positions, so ANZUS was suspended in terms of NZ.

Do we derive benefits?  I'm sure there's some economic benefit (US ships don't actually dock here very often, but the marines up in Darwin probably help out a bit).  There's joint exercises (which include NZ, Singapore, and other nations in the region - not part of ANZUS or any formal alliance).  There's cooperation on intelligence and other military matters which provide day to day benefits.  Of course there's the benefit of a powerful ally should something happen and, whilst unlikely, it is still a tangible benefit.  Of course, having the treaty doesn't actually mean the US would come to our aid - that's far more likely as a result of the overall relationship, but ANZUS (or any other similar treaty) certainly adds to it.

So, I'm not being disingenuous - I'm pointing out that constantly suggesting it's some sort of one-way street with no benefit to the US is demonstrably wrong and just silly.  The value of the *relationship* with the US is far, far more valuable than ANZUS.

Oh, and to answer specific questions - no, the US navy doesn't protect our suppliers, customers, or trade routes by and large.  The US navy isn't "here", and their overall presence has zero impact on our ability to negotiate trade deals (Trump pulled the TPP, but Australia still has very favourable trade relations with pretty much the whole of SEA and the Pacific).

Again, I think you have a very inaccurate view of the reach and impact of the USN this side of the Pacific.  Obama wanted to increase that presence in response to China in last year of his term - Trump seems ambivalent in that he wants to pressure China but he doesn't want to increase presence (sending a CBG for a FONOP isn't really a general increase in presence).

I didn't mean to imply that America wasn't getting something out of our relationship.  I think we've both done well together over the years.  I was just trying to understand what Australia gets out of it and you've given some reasons.  One comment though.  I believe America does protect your suppliers, customers and trade routes.  If America isn't around the Pacific, China would put pressure on Japan and other Pacific nations where trade deals might not be so favorable to you.  China will want to sell their stuff to them rather than allow you too.  With a Chinese gun to Japan's head, your trade officials and companies might not be as welcomed there.   

I'm curious about your perspective about the carrier group Trump just sent through the South China Sea.  You don't feel it made much impact to China?  That's not good.  Personally, I think Trump made a huge mistake when he went back to a two China policy without getting anything for changing his position.  By giving away that chip so quickly, he showed China his weakness.  Another Obama?  He did a similar thing with NATO and his requirement to Europe to pay more.  He might not be such a great deal maker he thinks he is. 

 

[Alan Klein]

make the last post ...a one-China policy....

[Farmer]

I'm not familiar with the numbers, so I'll use yours.  Saving $195 Billion would pay for the 30 million Americans who didn't have heath care before Obamacare ($6,500 per person).  So we could eliminate Obamacare totally and go back to the system we had and every American would now have health care. 

Also, let me explain how an economy works.  Spending money on the military does nothing for civilians.  It takes away from them.  (That's why the Europeans like the current arrangement with NATO where America pays for the military Europe doesn't have to buy).  Money saved on military expenditures goes to consumer items.  The tax money that I could save that pays for some soldier to drive around in a tank could go for my kid's education or maybe a summer in camp.  Soldiers out of work can still work except they'll find jobs making civilian products and doing civilian services.  Manufacturers of civilian goods will pickup the slack from military producers because civilians will have more money to spend on civilian goods because their taxes are lower.  Corporations will be able to expand and provide more jobs because their taxes are lower too. 

As Sanders liberals keep reminding conservatives, America spent US$6 trillion dollars on foreign wars since 911.  Do you realize how many aspirins that buys?

It's about $10k per person on healthcare, for reference.

As to explaining how an economy works, thanks.  My decades in international trade finance and banking, a master's degree, and so on, never taught me anything to do with that...  You're wrong.  Spending money on anything affects everything.  A large portion of people employed as a result of the military are not military personnel.  Their supplies aren't made by the military, they're made by civilian contractors, other businesses and so on.  Yes, you might be taxed less, but overall the economy contracts because 100,000 people suddenly don't have an income.  Also, don't bet that you'll be taxed less - the US is already running at a loss - savings ought to go to paying down that enormous debt before you just hand it back to people who may or may not spend it (it's far more complicated than you're making out - not everyone spends more when they have more - a lot of people pay down debt, increase savings, or and so on).  If you really want a discussion on the economics of this, start a new thread, because we have so many pages of discussion to add it really should stand alone.

$6T is a lot more than $195B and that $195B doesn't count the real economic cost of losing all those jobs and contracts and so on.

[Alan Klein]

It's about $10k per person on healthcare, for reference.

As to explaining how an economy works, thanks.  My decades in international trade finance and banking, a master's degree, and so on, never taught me anything to do with that...  You're wrong.  Spending money on anything affects everything.  A large portion of people employed as a result of the military are not military personnel.  Their supplies aren't made by the military, they're made by civilian contractors, other businesses and so on.  Yes, you might be taxed less, but overall the economy contracts because 100,000 people suddenly don't have an income.  Also, don't bet that you'll be taxed less - the US is already running at a loss - savings ought to go to paying down that enormous debt before you just hand it back to people who may or may not spend it (it's far more complicated than you're making out - not everyone spends more when they have more - a lot of people pay down debt, increase savings, or and so on).  If you really want a discussion on the economics of this, start a new thread, because we have so many pages of discussion to add it really should stand alone.

$6T is a lot more than $195B and that $195B doesn't count the real economic cost of losing all those jobs and contracts and so on.

You're $10,000 in medical costs may be correct as an mean average.  But that would include people over 65 years who have much larger medical expenses than those under 65.  The 30 million people without insurance have to be under 65.  Otherwise they would already be covered by Medicare, a government program.  So the medical cost aggregate for the 30 million would be a lot less than $10,000 each, especially when you consider that the young in that group have really smaller health costs.  Regardless of the actual amount, the savings would provide a huge amount of money for the government to pay medical expenses for people without health insurance.

Your arguments about jobs and the economy are also incorrect.  The government and the tax payers save the taxes going for salaries for personnel whether they're soldiers or civilians working for the military.  Those tax savings will be spent on civilian cars made by General Motors rather than for fighter jets built by Lockheed.  Sure, jobs would have to shift.  But that's happening all the time in a dynamic economy like ours.    Regarding no jobs for 100,000 is wrong too.  When WWII ended, 95% of 12 million American soldiers and sailors were fired back into civilian life.  The American economy boomed.  100,000 would be easily absorbed in no time.  You wouldn't even notice it. 

You are right that we may be taxed the same.  Well, that means we can lower the deficit and maybe start to pay down the debt.  The bottom line is a military costs a society and does not benefit it beyond the protection it provides the country.  Finally, if it is such a great deal for a country's economy, why don't the Europeans spend more on their military rather than ask us to pick up the slack?

[kers]

You are right that we may be taxed the same.  Well, that means we can lower the deficit and maybe start to pay down the debt.  The bottom line is a military costs a society and does not benefit it beyond the protection it provides the country.  Finally, if it is such a great deal for a country's economy, why don't the Europeans spend more on their military rather than ask us to pick up the slack?

Well as it seems Trump will raise the USA debt by great margin... ( and that has nothing to do with Europe or any other external cause)
You will not hear him about lowering the debt again if he wants to spend an extra 50.000.000.000$ on defence and needs more nuclear heads so he can destroy the earth an extra time more than the Russians. At the same time he cuts on clean water and pollution by cars... In the mean time he twitters his ears of with anything that came to his mind ... accusing people without any evidence...
I have never heard Obama talk about badly about the Bush administration... stop nagging and do what you are elected for...

[Alan Goldhammer]

You're $10,000 in medical costs may be correct as an mean average.  But that would include people over 65 years who have much larger medical expenses than those under 65.  The 30 million people without insurance have to be under 65.  Otherwise they would already be covered by Medicare, a government program.

There are people who never worked and therefore never paid Medicare taxes and thus are not eligible for Medicare.  They can pay for Part A (hospitalization, the normally free part of Medicare) and of course Part B & D, the parts that cover doctor visits and prescription drugs. 

[Alan Goldhammer]

Your arguments about jobs and the economy are also incorrect.  The government and the tax payers save the taxes going for salaries for personnel whether they're soldiers or civilians working for the military.  Those tax savings will be spent on civilian cars made by General Motors rather than for fighter jets built by Lockheed.  Sure, jobs would have to shift.  But that's happening all the time in a dynamic economy like ours.    Regarding no jobs for 100,000 is wrong too.  When WWII ended, 95% of 12 million American soldiers and sailors were fired back into civilian life.  The American economy boomed.  100,000 would be easily absorbed in no time.  You wouldn't even notice it. 

There was very large inflation because consumer goods were in very short supply and also there was rationing and price controls on lots of stuff.  The changeover from a military to civilian economy did not happen overnight.  there was a big dislocation as not only the American military but also all the civilians who were employed in the military economy also lost their jobs.  My dad was a project manager at in the aircraft industry and he and another fellow were pretty lucky in that they were able to start up an architecture and engineering firm right after the war's end.  It took them about two years before there was significant business in San Diego which whose economy was close to 100% dependent on the military during WWII.  It remained heavily dependent on the military for almost two decades after the war.  When I was in elementary school our field trips were to submarines, aircraft carriers, and the local marine base.  We had regular military parades on Memorial day.  the big transition started around 1960 when the new University of California campus opened and new spin off industries developed.

[Alan Klein]

There are people who never worked and therefore never paid Medicare taxes and thus are not eligible for Medicare.  They can pay for Part A (hospitalization, the normally free part of Medicare) and of course Part B & D, the parts that cover doctor visits and prescription drugs. 

That doesn't change the point I was making at all.  The extra tax money saved on military reduction would go a long way to help people without healthcare or used for other government services.  Liberals have been arguing that for decades.  Now that Trump is President, suddenly they've become military hawks and want to go to war with Russia.  Pass the ammunition!

[Alan Klein]

There was very large inflation because consumer goods were in very short supply and also there was rationing and price controls on lots of stuff.  The changeover from a military to civilian economy did not happen overnight.  there was a big dislocation as not only the American military but also all the civilians who were employed in the military economy also lost their jobs.  My dad was a project manager at in the aircraft industry and he and another fellow were pretty lucky in that they were able to start up an architecture and engineering firm right after the war's end.  It took them about two years before there was significant business in San Diego which whose economy was close to 100% dependent on the military during WWII.  It remained heavily dependent on the military for almost two decades after the war.  When I was in elementary school our field trips were to submarines, aircraft carriers, and the local marine base.  We had regular military parades on Memorial day.  the big transition started around 1960 when the new University of California campus opened and new spin off industries developed.

But that was 10 million people in a population of 130 million.  Here, we're talking about 100,000 people in a population of 330 million and the economy is more civilian oriented then after the war.  The 100,000 would be absorbed so quickly.  You'd never notice it. 

[Farmer]

There are a little under 8,000,000 unemployed people in the US (those figures are under baked because of how it's reported, but we'll use the official figures).  Sure, another 100,000 isn't a huge percentage of that, but to suggest they'd be easily absorbed and would suddenly find employment ignores the existing pool of unemployed people.  To suggest that they would also be able to replace their incomes (which includes medical cover, often housing and meals and so on as part of the overall package) right away is also wrong.  If you did it in anything less than 10 years you'd sure as hell notice it.  The US economy has far less capacity to absorb and is far less dynamic and agile than post WWII.

Also, a great many of the people returning from WWII had jobs prior to the war, many of which were put on hold.  When they came back, they resumed those jobs as the economy shifted back to a peacetime footing.  They also weren't competing with a large existing unemployment base.

Basically, the two situations are not comparable.

[Alan Klein]

There are a little under 8,000,000 unemployed people in the US (those figures are under baked because of how it's reported, but we'll use the official figures).  Sure, another 100,000 isn't a huge percentage of that, but to suggest they'd be easily absorbed and would suddenly find employment ignores the existing pool of unemployed people.  To suggest that they would also be able to replace their incomes (which includes medical cover, often housing and meals and so on as part of the overall package) right away is also wrong.  If you did it in anything less than 10 years you'd sure as hell notice it.  The US economy has far less capacity to absorb and is far less dynamic and agile than post WWII.

Also, a great many of the people returning from WWII had jobs prior to the war, many of which were put on hold.  When they came back, they resumed those jobs as the economy shifted back to a peacetime footing.  They also weren't competing with a large existing unemployment base.

Basically, the two situations are not comparable.

It is different than WWII.  Soldiers are not laid off today like they were after WWII.  Today, soldiers rotate back to civilian life when their enlistment (contract) is over.  Some will re-enlist for another term.  In any case, the reduction of 100,000 will come from not hiring new recruits over 2 or 3 years, not layoffs.  There won't be a sudden increase to the labor pool.   The same could be done for civilians that work for the military.  In any case, many of these are non-American employees who work at American foreign military bases.    In any case, the US Government isn't a charity.  If we don't need the services of a federal employee, they should be laid off and have to find a civilian job.

I'm not suggesting to leave Europe unprotected.  A phasing could also be set up so American forces rotate out of Europe while European countries increase their own military establishment until they can protect themselves.  Russia is no longer the Soviet Union with its client states of East Europe.   Certainly Europe has the resources today to protect itself.  Don't you think so?

[Alan Klein]

On the other hand, maybe General (Secretary of State) Mattis told Trump it would be a bad idea to pull out of NATO for another reason beside Russia.  After the experiences of WWI and WWII, it seems Europeans have trouble getting along with each other.  Maybe we need to stay there to stop them from shooting at each other.  With the EU slipping into a more distinct nation-state situation a la Brexit like before the wars, this might be the worse time to pull out, but not because of Russia.  If war again breaks out among the European states, we'd be dragged back in again for a third time, certainly more costly than now.  NATO would keep the lid on things. 

[Farmer]

Mattis isn't Sec State, but to be honest he'd be a great choice if he wasn't busy being Sec Def.

Europe is extremely unlikely to fight amongst itself outside of Russia being a protagonist.  NATO will continue regardless of the state of the EU.

The point of sacking 100,000 people is that there are far more consequences than your suggestion that it will just save money.  In the short term, it won't.  Until the economy adjusts and they and related industries become productive again, it won't help.

Of course you should reduce your military in areas that you don't need them, but just pointing at Europe and saying you're paying too much without considering what you're really getting is very myopic.

[Alan Klein]

The Russian Caper Round 4:

Regarding the tap of Trump Tower, former Director of National Intelligence James Clapper (2010-2017) on Sunday denied any suggestion that Trump Tower communications were wiretapped before the election. 
 
Regarding Russian collusion, he also stated: "We did not include anything in our report … that had any reflect of collusion between members of the Trump campaign and the Russians. There was no evidence of that included in our report," he said. "We had no evidence of such collusion." 
 
The whole Russia thing is all BS on both sides. Obama holdovers started the controversy about the Russians by releasing info about Trump from unsubstantiated sources. And Trump responded by accusing their boss with similar unsubstantiated sources.  What's good for the goose is good for the gander.
 
http://www.nbcnews.com/politics/politics-news/former-dni-james-clapper-i-can-deny-wiretap-trump-tower-n729261

[Bart_van_der_Wolf]

The Russian Caper Round 4:

Regarding the tap of Trump Tower, former Director of National Intelligence James Clapper (2010-2017) on Sunday denied any suggestion that Trump Tower communications were wiretapped before the election. 
 
Regarding Russian collusion, he also stated: "We did not include anything in our report … that had any reflect of collusion between members of the Trump campaign and the Russians. There was no evidence of that included in our report," he said. "We had no evidence of such collusion." 
 
The whole Russia thing is all BS on both sides. Obama holdovers started the controversy about the Russians by releasing info about Trump from unsubstantiated sources. And Trump responded by accusing their boss with similar unsubstantiated sources.  What's good for the goose is good for the gander.
 
http://www.nbcnews.com/politics/politics-news/former-dni-james-clapper-i-can-deny-wiretap-trump-tower-n729261

And 3 hours ago this was published:
http://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-trump-idUSKBN16C0MG

Cheers,
Bart