Bombshell: Nunes Says There Was "Incidental Surveillance" Of Trump During Obama Administration PT.2

If that was the case, why didn't they use it to keep him from becoming President in the first place?

It's on that rock of the Obvious that your theory crashes.

 

Oh really?

I don't recall George W Bush ever standing up and saying that he was wrong about starting an unnecessary war in the wrong country.

I don't recall Donald Trump ever saying he was wrong about anything, and I've been watching his career for 30 years.

Conservatives on this forum never admit they're wrong. Nor does their media.

 

And James Baker made a deal with Tehran to withold release of the US Embassy hostages until Ronald Reagan was being inaugurated.

 

Is that an indirect admission of treasonous Ted Kennedys collusion with the russkies?

 

They thought he was going to lose.

Surveillance Sauce For The Goose. Imagine it’s 2020 and Trump is spying on Democratic candidate Kamala Harris.

Faced with that scenario, who thinks the press would be mocking Harris’s claim that her campaign was wiretapped by its enemies? So why are reporters mocking Trump’s?

Fact is, there’s a very real problem at the bottom of President Trump’s complaints. The Obama administration decided to conduct what was bound to be one-sided surveillance. Any evidence the investigators turned up would hurt the President’s adversary, not his side. The same would be true of any leaks. And widespread distribution of intelligence from the investigation would dramatically increase the risk that his adversary will be hurt by leaks. If you’re the President, or anyone in his administration, what’s not to like?

Who made the decision to expose the Trump campaign to this scrutiny and the risks that came with it? Thanks to FISA, national security surveillance decisions must be made mainly by political appointees. This is meant to be a protection for civil liberties but it’s the reverse in a partisan context.

 

They thought he was going to lose.

Surveillance Sauce For The Goose. Imagine it’s 2020 and Trump is spying on Democratic candidate Kamala Harris.

Faced with that scenario, who thinks the press would be mocking Harris’s claim that her campaign was wiretapped by its enemies? So why are reporters mocking Trump’s?

Fact is, there’s a very real problem at the bottom of President Trump’s complaints. The Obama administration decided to conduct what was bound to be one-sided surveillance. Any evidence the investigators turned up would hurt the President’s adversary, not his side. The same would be true of any leaks. And widespread distribution of intelligence from the investigation would dramatically increase the risk that his adversary will be hurt by leaks. If you’re the President, or anyone in his administration, what’s not to like?

Who made the decision to expose the Trump campaign to this scrutiny and the risks that came with it? Thanks to FISA, national security surveillance decisions must be made mainly by political appointees. This is meant to be a protection for civil liberties but it’s the reverse in a partisan context.

 

Because they didn't think Trump had half a chance of winning, everyone in the media was certain Hillary would prevail, in fact so many pollsters were reporting on her comfortable lead Democrats grew concerned her forecasted overwhelming margin could discourage supporters from casting their presumably unnecessary ballots.

One needs to situate oneself in the proper contextual framework; look back to when the purported collusion took place, consider when Wikileaks was publishing those emails. Look back at what the media was saying about Trump, they most likely were denouncing him for misogynism, racism and xenophobia, there was no concern he would ever seriously challenge Her Eminence.

In this context Obama did appreciate Hillary wasn't drawing the sort of enthusiasm that made his election such a resounding one. Obama set government agents out to watch Trump to help Hillary, he figured that when she won this would all be kept quiet.

It will all come out in the end because ultimately spying on a political opponent for political reasons is simply too primitive for the society people in the US want to live in (regardless of party affiliation).

 

Most Americans, Republicans and Democrats alike, are not fooled by your fake "undisputed facts" and recognize the need for a thorough investigation. As I have averred, in the national interests, every effort must be made to ascertain the truth and let the chips fall where they may.

Do not be afraid.

 

Geez do ya have to draw pictures for everything for the left. It's because there was nothing there to wreck his becoming POTUS.

 

It's already been proven there was no collusion between the Trump people and the Russians. I would however support a special prosecutor to investigate the FISA warrant used to eavesdrop on the Trump transition team and then unmasked them. And before you start yelping about General Flynn, he was not charged with anything but fired for not being honest with Pence and Trump. Now I am going to have to get another artists notebook to draw more pictures that will surely be needed with the left.

 

That's true just ask Mary Jo, oops you can't do that.

 

There would have had to have been evidence that would disqualify him from taking office after he won. Remember, what Nunes is talking about happened after he had won, for they caught the transition team, not the campaign team in spying on foreigners. Instead of masking the transition team, and being minimal in even putting citizens in the report, the opposite was done, and then distributed. Then crimes were committed by apparently democrats in leaking to MSM the incidental info from the transition team. For what purpose? Surly you can reasonably figure the motive out? Plus, this was not Russians being spied on.

William Binney said this week, that his contacts within the NSA told him that there is a faction within the NSA who pull out NSA info on the Supreme Court Justices, and Congress. It seems higher ups in the NSA want to have warning if their funding is to be decreased, so they can of course have time to make their case when it comes up. Illegal. Binney also said that just because a president might request info on particular people, or congress as Nunes is doing, DOES NOT MEAN they will get it. All it takes are higher ups skipping all the info and selectively giving the requested info.

Intel heads under Obama NSA, CIA lied before congress, and the CIA spied on congress. No heads rolled and Obama kept both liars. This is a precedent, and one wonders why Obama kept them? Some would say because the wanted them to spy for him. This is not what you should be seeing in a rule of law constitutional republic. It stinks of something else, and the power of intel is frightening, and all it takes is someone like Obama appointed as heads to make the US look like the old USSR.

 

Flynn got fired by trump for lying to the VP. Thanks to a leaker, and the unmasking, by an Obama higher up. While Obama kept both heads of the CIA and NSA, after they both lied to congress, with the CIA breaking the law also by spying on congress. So, if Obama liked you, you could lie and break US law. I do not recall MSM raising hell about this, calling Obama out on it. What would they have done to trump, IYO? Called for his impeachment? Of course. One dem today called for it, with no evidence involved at all.

 

Cartoons might work better. ha ha Seriously though, they have convinced themselves that what Greenwald called "crazy talk" just has to be true, even if it is loony tunes thinking that good americans would collude with Russia to beat Hillary. But it was the Truth that might have hurt Hillary, pissing off sanders supporters who stayed home or voted for stein. Not like Russia made up a lie, and then somehow were able to sell it to americans. Since the software used for the hacking was old, has Russian finger prints, which McAfee said they would not have done if indeed they did hack, apparently Putin wanted the US to know he was involved in presenting the Truth to the People. What would he gain by that given he knows the neocons and special interests want a cold war with Russia already? And more sanctions to hurt the people of Russia. As McAfee informed us, if Russia hacked, you would not be able to tell it was Russia unless they wanted us to know it. Quite a bit of incoherence here. Russia could have made it look like it was anyone they wanted doing the hacking. They would not autograph the software. But critical thinking gives some dem voters a really bad headache. Much easier to just let MSM think for. them.

 

Your rabid hyper-partisanship is a pathetic substitute for the need to expose the truth. Accordingly, as overwhelmingly supported by decent Americans, the investigations proceed. Extremists that adhere to one dogma or the other will get very pissy, but matters of such gravity must be exposed and addressed without concern for political preferences.

 

Neither the object of their devotion nor the cult of trumpery can accept the amply demonstrated infallibility of their messiah.

When he and reality differ, reality is wrong, wrong, wrong.

Critics should just shut up, and enjoy the fulfillment of his promises for the "immediate" repeal of 'ObamaCare' and his replacement that is "something terrific!" that covers "everybody!"

 

It can never be proven there was no collusion between Trump's team and the Russians, that's the beauty of this investigation ploy; there will always be more to investigate, farther back to go and other more remotely related people on Trump's team to be implicated.

They will never find the evidence of collusion, but the investigation will always remain "inconclusive". It has to remain so because as soon as the investigators determine no collusion ever took place, they need to explain why there was an investigation.

 

I would like to know what that has to do with Trump accusing Obama of spying on him. If Reagan knew of this occurring why did he not do anything about it? I would say that would be a prime case to file charges. Bottom line is that I believe that conspiring with a foreign government to win an election is wrong whether it was thirty years ago or a year ago, but still don't understand what it has to do with this particular topic other than the standard "but you guys!!!" argument.

 

No matter how many representatives of the intelligence community announce to the public that there was no inappropriate connection between Trump and the Russians - and that the Russians did not meddle in our election -- there are, inexplicably, these "tools" of the left propaganda machine that continue to behave like wind-up toys, "Russians Russians Russians". It's just amazing.

 

So, this is all just backlash because you feel Obama has been insulted. Oh the outrage! And you are going to be Crusader Rabbit, fight all the bad guys and do everything and anything possible to prevent success in the current presidency.

 

The desperation with which the cult of trumpery tries to sweep foreign influence in US elections under the rug makes one wonder if they fear what could be revealed.
It is as if the public exposure were of their messiah's promised tax returns.

Nevertheless, despite trump worshippers being in such a tizzy, the investigations will proceed. It's far too important a matter to allow hyper-partisans to quash.

​

 

Well if incidental evidence on Trump was collected while surveilling the Russians I guess that would prove that Trump was colluding with Russia.

Sounds like impeachment time.

 

I await the essential, thorough investigation of all aspects of the tawdry antic of the 2016 election.

 

If he actually had anything it would probably not too hard for him to give it to Comey or Rogers. Since he hasn't been able to provide anyone with any evidence whatsoever it is safe to assume he hasn't got any.

Outright lying is not exactly a newly discovered Trump behavior.

 

You got nothing, Paul Manafort, Roger Stone and Carter Page have all offered to testify in front of Congress. Do you recall just last September, Bryan Pagliano (a Clinton State Dept staffer) ignored a subpoena and two other Clinton staffers refused to testify?