Obama Performed Espionage on Trump prior to election

[Tiberius]

Actually, no he shouldn't. If there were a legal wiretap on Trump, Obama's people should disclose it. "While we can't discuss the details of an investigation, we will confirm that yes, we executed a warrant to wiretap Trump Towers." Put the ball back in Trump's court, let him explain it.

 

That they haven't done that is the main reason I believe this is all bull ****.

Why would they do that when two Republican senators are doing that for them? The story is out and the press will be asking the Trump p pole about it. Obama just needs to stay no drama Obama and let Trump answer the questions

[North Buffalo]

If there's no proof, why does Valarie Jarrett feel the need to come out and tweet an obvious, unabashed lie?

 

Not defending Trump, but the Obama administration -- which ran on cutting back the surveillance state's powers -- abused that power more than any previous administration and was ruthless in its pursuit of leakers. So when Jarrett comes on Twitter, lying and hoping no one was paying attention for the past 16 years, it makes her and Obama look far shadier than anything the cheeto tweets.

 

 

 

That too... and yup.

 

 

 

Bingo. But of course that's by design. The left has been cheering on a soft coup by unelected intelligence officers for the past several months, of course they don't care about subverting our laws or our democracy, so long as they get justice for their election let-down.

 

 

 

Yup.

 

 

 

And the die hards who hate him fail to see how they're playing right into the IC's hands, supporting a soft coup with no evidence just because they don't like how the election turned out. That's not American values... that's fascism.

 

 

 

Bingo.

 

 

 

Again, one of the least transparent administrations in history, which broke nearly every campaign promise Obama ran on in regards to illegal surveillance of American citizens, trots out a man with blood on his hands to vouch for the former administration.

 

Obama supporters and Trump haters will lap it up -- because they're too emotional to be rational and look at the situation dispassionately.

 

You're being had.

 

Obama stunk and lied and Trump is now making us Ruskies... one was incompetent and next a sell out to a foreign power... dont defend Trump by pointing out Obamas failings. That just makes you look dumber than than this bimbo. Edited March 5, 2017 by North Buffalo

[Deranged Rhino]

Obama stunk and lied and Trump is now making us Ruskies... one was incompetent and next a sell out to a foreign power... dont defend Trump by pointing out Obamas failings. That just makes you look dumber than than this bimbo.

 

Again, not defending Trump.

 

There's a difference between being upset that unelected intelligence officers from our own IC are undermining our democratic processes and defending Trump.

 

To date there has been ZERO evidence proffered that "Trump is now making us Ruskies". None. Zip. Zilch.

 

So, I'd say you should look in the mirror. If you're really so concerned that Russians influenced the election (again, there's zero evidence of this) then shouldn't you be equally concerned about American intelligence officers doing the same?

 

The difference is there's far more proof that American intelligence officers are the ones performing the psyop on our country than FSB or GRU.

[DC Tom]

Why would they do that when two Republican senators are doing that for them? The story is out and the press will be asking the Trump p pole about it. Obama just needs to stay no drama Obama and let Trump answer the questions

 

And that's why they should. Make the flat, declarative statement justifying the legality of the wiretapping, and step back and hoist Trump on his own petard. The main source of the drama is the "he said/he said" bull ****...so confirm Trump's statement, defuse the drama, and pin him down with confirmation of an investigation. He'll either squirm under the heat of the lights, or - more likely, I think - start trying to interfere with whatever the investigation's for.

 

(Note that all presumes he was legally wiretapped, of course.)

[Deranged Rhino]

Jarrett's response: which we know is a bald faced lie considering everything learned from Snowdens leaks...

 

https://mobile.twitter.com/valeriejarrett/status/838083755168382976

 

Just to prove what a crock this statement really is:

 

https://www.nytimes.com/2016/12/30/opinion/sunday/if-donald-trump-targets-journalists-thank-obama.html?_r=0

"Under Mr. Obama, the Justice Department and the F.B.I. have spied on reporters by monitoring their phone records, labeled one journalist an unindicted co-conspirator in a criminal case for simply doing reporting and issued subpoenas to other reporters to try to force them to reveal their sources and testify in criminal cases."

 

http://www.politico.com/story/2015/12/spying-israel-congress-netanyahu-217207

[Magox]

I tend to lean towards Krauthammer's take of all this:

 

 

 

I don’t think there is any question that the former president was intent on leaving behind landmines. And you are right, the NSA stuff is curious. Normally, when NSA is listening in on a foreigner, they take great care to redact any American involved. The NSA is not supposed to spy on Americans. Here it was the reverse, and there was an obvious attempt as was reported in the New York Times to make sure that this was spread as widely as possible, that it would become a problem for the Trump administration. I wouldn’t call it the “deep state,” it gives it a le Carré feel that there is this ominous enemy of the United States hidden in bureaucracy. What this is, is the revenge of the losers. These are people who wanted to make trouble for an administration of a guy who they thought wasn’t going to win and shouldn’t have won, and to see what happens. That is what I think is going on. To some extent, it has happened in other administrations. But I think it’s more obvious and we are going to get to the bottom of it, because there are going to be a lot of investigations.

 

 

[Deranged Rhino]

I tend to lean towards Krauthammer's take of all this:

 

 

 

 

I'd buy that take more if the main thrust of this current narrative had started with Trump's campaign.

 

But it predates the election by at least 3 years, and goes well beyond sore losers. There has been an escalation in rhetoric coming from mouthpieces of this Deep State long before Trump announced he was running.

 

Not that that can't be used to explain some of this, it more than likely can. But certainly not everything we're seeing.

[North Buffalo]

Obama was born in Kenya.

Thousands of Muslims in New Jersey were celebrating after 9/11.

3 million illegal voters in the election.

His sleeve must be Yuge to carry all that proof.

This thread is redundant with the alternative facts thread.

Gator that you?

[richstadiumowner]

 

I hear you and I'm not trying to hammer you into choosing... just expounding. But I will say this sure feels like one of those times in history (imo) where choosing a side is going to become an inevitability.

 

Inaction will lead to the death of our Republic and the end of our democracy as we know it.

"Do I answer the knock at 4 AM or hide?""Do I jump from the world trade center or die in this fire?" "Do I fight this smelly savage standing over me with the video camera and knife or sit here and let him cut my head off? The quality of choices one is forced to choose from go downhill before you know it.

Edited March 5, 2017 by richstadiumowner

[North Buffalo]

Again, not defending Trump.

 

There's a difference between being upset that unelected intelligence officers from our own IC are undermining our democratic processes and defending Trump.

 

To date there has been ZERO evidence proffered that "Trump is now making us Ruskies". None. Zip. Zilch.

 

So, I'd say you should look in the mirror. If you're really so concerned that Russians influenced the election (again, there's zero evidence of this) then shouldn't you be equally concerned about American intelligence officers doing the same?

 

The difference is there's far more proof that American intelligence officers are the ones performing the psyop on our country than FSB or GRU.

 

Bull crap there is plenty and Trump's financial dealing... what we know about them are enough... in politics follow the money... Clinton's with Saudi's and Trump and the Russians. Common get your head outta the ostrich..

[Deranged Rhino]

Bull crap there is plenty and Trump's financial dealing... what we know about them are enough... in politics follow the money... Clinton's with Saudi's and Trump and the Russians. Common get your head outta the ostrich..

 

What do we know that isn't speculation coming from unnamed sources citing unnamed methods?

 

...I'll wait.

[boyst]

 

What do we know that isn't speculation coming from unnamed sources citing unnamed methods?

 

...I'll wait.

I will buy that the IC and Obama had a rift. There was clearly that issue to be seen. The IC wants control of the country and Obama was going to let them do what he knew they could to enact that - knowing he would be out of power soon and not responsible when they begin to fall under their own weight because of the nature of things when it comes to such overthrows and power struggles.

 

Meanwhile Obama can let the federal government as is fail. When it continues to fail he can help reform our beliefs from a republic to a socialist society promising change and trust and all of such things ultimately becoming a true fascist state. Obama set up landmines to empower himself in the coming years and ensure his community activism ability runs rampant. He will take down our government from both the inside and outside.

[Azalin]

What seems to be missing here is the possibility that there could have been illegal wire tapping going on.

 

 

 

Was listening to the news on the radio this morning, and ALL the coverage was about how the president can't order wiretaps, and doesn't sign warrants for wiretaps because the warrants have to be requested by the Justice department issued by a judge, and how there's an entire legal process that has to be followed to get a wire tap...

 

And I kept thinking exactly what you posted.

 

I remember a few years ago when Obama's justice department was embarrassed for wiretapping the AP and reporter James Rosen. I think it's at least reasonable to consider that there is an effort to wiretap Trump based on past behavior.

[Magox]

Tgreg,

 

This is from the Intercept, you often source them.

 

Essentially they speculate the same things DC Tom and I believe to be the case:

 

IF IN FACT Trump Tower was wiretapped during the 2016 presidential campaign, as President Trump claimed in several tweets Saturday morning, he can do much more than say so on twitter: Presidents have the power to declassify anything at any time, so Trump could immediately make public any government records of such surveillance.

 

 

 

The most likely explanation is that there was never any wiretapping of Trump Tower – or as Trump put it in another tweet, “my phones” — but the FISA court did allow surveillance of the Philadelphia server and the Justice Department ultimately decided there was nothing to it.

Or perhaps the Justice Department decided there was something to it and is still investigating it.

Or perhaps there were FISA court warrants but for surveillance of people around Trump that had nothing to do with the Philadelphia server and the Russian bank.

Or perhaps Trump never read the Breitbart article but instead learned there was significant surveillance of Trump Tower in the way you’d expect a president would, from the massive intelligence apparatus he commands.

Or perhaps Trump has simply gotten all of this wrong.

Whatever the case, Trump has the power to clarify it and everything else about the Russia story right now by declassifying whatever surveillance records exist of contacts between people in his orbit and Russia. If he and his associates did nothing wrong, he has every incentive to do so as soon as possible.

 

Edited March 5, 2017 by Magox

[Benjamin Franklin]

I tend to lean towards Krauthammer's take of all this:

 

 

 

Klaro.

 

Deep State is such a better screenplay than disgruntled employees and angry voters. People love stories more than facts. See Cochran, Johnny.

Edited March 5, 2017 by Benjamin Franklin

[Nanker]

I haven't seen anything like this since that Anita Bryant concert....

Yes. The left went crazy and orange juice futures plummeted.

[Wacka]

Yes. The left went crazy and orange juice futures plummeted.

Isn't that the time when Senator AL Franken put the DNC operative in the cage with the gorilla?

[B-Man]

To summarize, reporting indicates that, prior to June 2016, the Obama Justice Department and FBI considered a criminal investigation of Trump associates, and perhaps Trump himself, based on concerns about connections to Russian financial institutions. Preliminary poking around indicated that there was nothing criminal involved. Rather than shut the case down, though, the Obama Justice Department converted it into a national-security investigation under the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA). FISA allows the government, if it gets court permission, to conduct electronic surveillance (which could include wiretapping, monitoring of e-mail, and the like) against those it alleges are “agents of a foreign power.” FISA applications and the evidence garnered from them are classified – i.e., we would not know about any of this unless someone had leaked classified information to the media, a felony.

 

In June, the Obama Justice Department submitted an application that apparently “named” Trump in addition to some of his associates. As I have stressed, it is unclear whether “named” in this context indicates that Trump himself was cited as a person the Justice Department was alleging was a Russian agent whom it wanted to surveil. It could instead mean that Trump’s name was merely mentioned in an application that sought to conduct surveillance on other alleged Russian agents. President Trump’s tweets on Saturday claimed that “President Obama . . . tapp[ed] my phones[,]” which makes it more likely that Trump was targeted for surveillance, rather than merely mentioned in the application.

 

In any event, the FISA court reportedly turned down the Obama Justice Department’s request, which is notable: The FISA court is notoriously solicitous of government requests to conduct national-security surveillance

 

Not taking no for an answer, the Obama Justice Department evidently returned to the FISA court in October 2016, the critical final weeks of the presidential campaign. This time, the Justice Department submitted a narrowly tailored application that did not mention Trump. The court apparently granted it, authorizing surveillance of some Trump associates. It is unknown whether that surveillance is still underway, but the New York Times has identified – again, based on illegal leaks of classified information – at least three of its targets

{snip}

 

Trump’s tweets on Saturday prompted some interesting “denials” from the Obama camp. These can be summarized in the statement put out by Obama spokesman Kevin Lewis:

 

A cardinal rule of the Obama Administration was that no White House official ever interfered with any independent investigation led by the Department of Justice. As part of that practice, neither President Obama nor any White House official ever ordered surveillance on any U.S. citizen. Any suggestion otherwise is simply false.

 

This seems disingenuous on several levels.

 

Moreover, it cannot be glossed over that, at the very time it appears the Obama Justice Department was seeking to surveil Trump and/or his associates on the pretext that they were Russian agents, the Obama Justice Department was also actively undermining and ultimately closing without charges the criminal investigation of Hillary Clinton despite significant evidence of felony misconduct that threatened national security.

http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/445504/obama-camp-disingenuous-denials-fisa-surveillance-trump

[Tiberius]

And that's why they should. Make the flat, declarative statement justifying the legality of the wiretapping, and step back and hoist Trump on his own petard. The main source of the drama is the "he said/he said" bull ****...so confirm Trump's statement, defuse the drama, and pin him down with confirmation of an investigation. He'll either squirm under the heat of the lights, or - more likely, I think - start trying to interfere with whatever the investigation's for.

 

(Note that all presumes he was legally wiretapped, of course.)

I totally disagree. If you are accused of something the last thing you do is to start talking. The fifth amendment exists not just as a right but as a sound defense against stupid accusations. Trump made the charge, its his burden to supply the evidence. His justice department knows the truth, its on them.

[FireChan]

Oh, about that.

 

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/01/19/us/politics/trump-russia-associates-investigation.html?_r=1

 

The F.B.I. is leading the investigations, aided by the National Security Agency, the C.I.A. and the Treasury Department’s financial crimes unit. The investigators have accelerated their efforts in recent weeks but have found no conclusive evidence of wrongdoing, the officials said. One official said intelligence reports based on some of the wiretapped communications had been provided to the White House.