Did Obama Surveil Trump? Sure Looks That Way

Yep the Democrats have been getting slow played since the election and they still havent caught on. Remember hiw wikileaks played them? Release some evidence let the Democrats construct a story around the evidence they have seen then release even more evidence that destroys their contrived story, rinse snd repeat.

Most leftists have ego issues in relation to their own perception of their intellect. That is why they get so easily slow played. They pride themselves on their ability to lie and refuse to believe that they can be outsmarted. This makes them easy targets to be conned.

 

Comey said that there was no evidence to support Trumps claim that Obama wire tapped him. He then went onto explain how the prisident cant order a wiretap. So he didn't deny the existence of taps only that Obama didnt order them as only the court can order a wiretap. Comey is a lawyer and is always carefully parsing his words. Remember him saying that there was no "direct evidence" of intent by Clinton? Same thing, it actually means one thing you interpret it as another.

 

Trump is being truthful as his usual behavior and history of integrity has proven right? And all these investigations are bogus? BENGHAZI was worth over twenty investigations but his one is not even worth any...right? Just want to make sure that I get exactly where you are coming from.

 

It all comes down to intent of those doing the spying. If the intent was to use the FISA to get taps on Trump associates so they can in effect tap Trump than that is illegal.

 

Someone absolutely violated the law(s) against revealing the names/etc. of those "incidentally" gathered in the FISA surveillance.

 

"Vox". Constantly debunked liars...and worse:


Vox editor suspended for encouraging riots at Donald Trump rallies


http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2016/jun/3/vox-editor-suspended-encouraging-riot-trump-rally/

 

Dread?
On the contrary, most democrats would like an option ndependent panel or prosecutor
...

 

It is not a violation of law to have a name, like Flynn's, exposed and not minimized. I've cited this elsewhere, but it seems appropriate for this thread too…

 

They, Nunes and others, have said it repeatedly that whoever leaked Flynn's name to the press committed a felony. The unmasking of names that was in the intel reports that were leaked to the White House and to others was a felony, I am sure of that.

 

Be as sure as you want. What I linked is from the manual on handling FISA transcripts, and it clearly states that the names do not have to be minimized if the name is necessary to understand the context of the intercept. Nunes is a cattle farmer, not a lawyer. Someone told him it was a felony and he repeated it. That doesn't make it so. Schiff is a lawyer. In terms of law, listen to what Shiff says in those committee meetings, not Nunes. Nunes was part of the transition team, of which members are under FBI investigation. Nunes and Gowdy, for that matter, need to come off that committee.

 

They have been discussing it almost non stop. It was a felony to release his name. They are also citing charges now to whoever unmasked the names of Americans caught in Intel reports that were leaked out from the NSA or the FBI. Otherwise, none of this would really be that big of a deal.

Quick Google:

http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2017/02/15/gregg-jarrett-leak-flynns-conversations-is-crime.html

I can bring up a ton of these from all over. It was a crime. Even Comey said it was a felony.

Also, how do you feel knowing the Obama Administration is about the most corrupt Administration we have ever had?? Clinton emails, Clinton taking cash as a Senator and S.O.S, wiretapping, fast and furious, IRS targeting Conservative groups..... The list is just unreal.

There is NO WAY, Obama was not surveilling Trump and his team.

 

Tell ya what… quote me a law, not fox news, and we'll discuss it.

As far as the "Whataboutisms," I don't play that. What Obama or Clinton may have done has nothing to do with whether a name is minimized or unmasked in an intercept.

 

http://www.redstate.com/streiff/2017/03/20/comey.-intelligence-leaks-felonies-not-games/

James Comey himself. I am not going to cite a law. You don't like Gowdy, he is a Federal Prosecutor, or he was. I am sure he knows law better than all of us.

https://theintercept.com/2017/02/14...mitted-serious-and-wholly-justified-felonies/

 

Sounds good to me.

 

You've moved the goalposts a bit. From your link, Comey said the leak of classified information needs to be investigated… nothing about unmasked names. My point was, from the beginning, Flynn's name being unmasked is not a felony. The document with Flynn's name has not been leaked, but it was shown to Trump in a classified briefing. It has not been published anywhere. Sally Yates, Acting AG, briefed Trump and the White House Counsel, on the fact that Flynn was compromised. No one knew anything until then, not even Flynn. That's the point his story changed. If Trump, the White House Counsel, or Flynn told anyone, they are the ones guilty of releasing classified information. When word got back to the media, it was reported.

Trump's White House has been leaking like crazy from the beginning. This is evidenced in Spicer's phone check, that was immediately leaked to the press, and the State Dept. memo on leaks, that was immediately leaked to the press. When there is a leaky bucket of a White House, it's hard to point fingers at those sworn to protect and defend the Constitution of the United States and keep classified information secret under penalty of law and their job. However, that logical fact doesn't stop many from defending Trump, even while he is under investigation for collusion with Russians and is a documented liar.

As far as Gowdy, I don't have a problem with him being a federal prosecutor. He doesn't need to be on the intelligence committee investigating Russian meddling and collusion with Trump's transition team, because Gowdy was on Trump's transition team, just like Nunes. Therefore, he cannot be seen as impartial and needs to not be involved with any decision from that committee.

 

Schiff said he fears it could take 6-8 months to select a panel, and worries about exactly who may select those members. The GOP controls fhe House / Senate. Maybe that's why Graham wants the panel formed too.

 

Schiff also called for Nunes to resign as committee chairman. It's Comedy Central.

 

Come on, you can do better than that.

 

"If." That's the lynch pin of your whole argument. Three paragraphs of hot air.

 

We all know full well that he did. This is now a game of whether or not we can catch him red-handed.
We all knew they were lying about Benghazi.
We all knew Hillary was lying about her server and her emails.
We all knew Obama weaponized the IRS against his political opponents.
They keep thinking they are getting away with everything, but over a 1,000 Democrats have been defeated since Obama took office, and replaced with Republicans. At this rate, how many more of these "victories" can Democrats afford?

 

Tell me what a sitting President legally able to spy on his political opposition means to you. Go.

 

Schiff's openly stated that the Dems "best weapon" will be public opinion. So transparency, (leaks) and circumstantial evidence, (suspicion / inuendo) will be of prime importance to Dems on the committee.

 

How can they leak it if Nunes won't tell them what it is?

 

Refute the "hot air," if you can.
Show me Flynn's name not being masked is a felony, when I've linked the manual for marking FISA intercepts that says it isn't.
Show me a link to the transcript online.
Show me links that dispute Spicer checked his associates phones and the State Dept. issued a memo on leaks, and they both weren't immediately leaked to the press.
Show me a link where FBI agents leaked classified information about this topic.

If you're a Trump fan, I completely understand your desire to not want the White House to be the leakers, but it is known the White House leaks… by those in charge at the White House. It's much more likely the leaks came from that leaky bucket. Most see that, unless partisanship is involved. If you can't find a copy of the Flynn transcript, guess what? Sally Yates didn't leave them a copy. So, how did the press find out? From those gossiping about why she was there or why is Flynn resigning, or from a career lawyer with a spotless reputation that rose to the position of Acting Attorney General of the United States of America? Trump is human and inexperienced in politics, and so are most of his appointees. He's avoided lots of gossip before by using non-disclosure agreements. He can't do that in the White House. However, you keep believing the career investigators and lawyers are all so corrupt they are spreading false information about Trump and his associates, if you like.

 

We don't even know if there was a FISA warrant. Sometimes there was, sometimes there wasn't.