Potential 'Smoking Gun' Showing Obama Administration Spied On Trump Team, Source Says

Potential 'smoking gun' showing Obama administration spied on Trump team, source says​

By James Rosen
23 Mar 2017

Republican congressional investigators expect a potential “smoking gun” establishing that the Obama administration spied on the Trump transition team, and possibly the president-elect himself, will be produced to the House Intelligence Committee this week, a source told Fox News.
Classified intelligence showing incidental collection of Trump team communications, purportedly seen by committee Chairman Devin Nunes, R-Calif., and described by him in vague terms at a bombshell Wednesday afternoon news conference, came from multiple sources, Capitol Hill sources told Fox News. The intelligence corroborated information about surveillance of the Trump team that was known to Nunes, sources said, even before President Trump accused his predecessor of having wiretapped him in a series of now-infamous tweets posted on March 4.
The intelligence is said to leave no doubt the Obama administration, in its closing days, was using the cover of legitimate surveillance on foreign targets to spy on President-elect Trump, according to sources.
The key to that conclusion is the unmasking of selected U.S. persons whose names appeared in the intelligence, the sources said, adding that the paper trail leaves no other plausible purpose for the unmasking other than to damage the incoming Trump administration.
The FBI hasn’t been responsive to the House Intelligence Committee’s request for documents, but the National Security Agency is expected to produce documents to the committee by Friday. The NSA document production is expected to produce more intelligence than Nunes has so far seen or described – including what one source described as a potential “smoking gun” establishing the spying.
Some time will be needed to properly assess the materials, with the likely result being that congressional investigators and attorneys won’t have a solid handle on the contents of the documents – and their implications – until next week.

(Excerpt)

Read more: http://www.foxnews.com/politics/201...stration-spied-on-trump-team-source-says.html

Here's one piece of evidence that is factual. How were the transcribed phone calls between Trump and the president of Mexico and prime Minister of Australia leaked to the press. You have to know Trump was 'Wiretapped'. So is the answer that our intelligence agencies were surveilling both the president of Mexico and Prime Minister of Australia? The other option is that they were listening into Trump's conversation.
Keep in mind this was supposedly “incidental”. I wonder if they will have several documents full of “incidental” only information, which would mean that they regulatory took the incidental and collected that for use.
“Schiff blasted Nunes for not coming first to the Intelligence Committee with the information.”
Both Schiff and Democrats whining, How dare Nunes destroy our anti-Trump narrative!
As an after thought, it's kind of fitting that James Rosen wrote this piece. He, of all people, should appreciate what the Obama administration was capable of and the extent.

 

Michael Morell, former CIA director, and Clinton supported who initially propogated the Russian / Trump conspiracy, now has this to say: http://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news...oke-no-fire-no-russia-trump-collusion-n734176 The real conspirators are starting to be revealed, and the rats are jumping ship. Expect more heroic acts of self preservation in the coming days, as the investigation draws nearer the facts.

 

Jesus dude even Nunes himself said the communications of Trump were perfectly legal incidental interceptions. They happen constantly, every single day.

How can you be so gullible? Oh wait, you voted Trump....

 

Susan Rice was on NPR recently claiming that there was never any surveillance of Trumps communication apparatus.

Susan Rice: The world wonders and worries if the White ...
netnebraska.org/node/1070376
... some tough words for President Trump and his administration led the opinion pages. ... lawful surveillance, ... SUSAN RICE: I’m not aware of any connection.

~~~~~~~~~~~~​

Washington Post's Poster Child For Criticizing Trump White ...
www.newsbusters.org/.../2017/03/...criticizing-trump-white-house-susan
Mar 22, 2017 · Susan Rice? Skip to main content ... read mentioned Russia or Russians and he was unsure whether the surveillance occurred at Trump Tower ... NPR Promotes ...

~~~~~~~~~~~~​

Susan Rice on Trump's wiretapping claim: 'Nothing of the ...
newsbout.com/id/17151197385
Former National Security Adviser Susan Rice pushed back Wednesday against President Donald Trump's claim that he was wiretapped by the Obama ... NPR TMZ TIME KVIA ABC ...

 

Do you really expect us to pick through those garbage sites for the POSSIBLE kernel of truth that has been corrupted by those trash sites that you let rot out your mind?

 

They never expected Trump to win and now there's who knows how many hard drives in the intelligence agencies that haven't been wiped (and not like with a cloth). They didn't have nearly enough time to get rid of the evidence - this is going to be interesting.

 

This Susan Rice? http://www.mediaite.com/tv/susan-rice-on-60- minutes-nsa-officials-didn%E2%80%99t-lie-they-%E2%80%98inadvertently-made-false-representations/


UPDATE *** link functional! ***

 

What did Obama know? And when did he know it?

 

He knew republicans were about to humiliate and expose themselves as the dangerous, incompetent, corporate shilling frauds they are, and he knew it the day Trump won.

There you go.

PS - He probably also knew Trump wouldn't make it 6 months without impeachment, but we all knew that.

 

What does "legal" mean today? It seems to mean whatever the Deep State wants it to mean. James Comey decreed that people do not have a right to privacy in response to the revelations of Vault 7 from Wikileaks. The fact that these "incidental" interceptions happen everyday, and strongly favor the Deep State, is a concern to me. It should concern everyone.

 

Legal means what it has always meant, in accordance with the law.

Are you suggesting you DONT want, lets say, Russian operatives in this country monitored by our intelligence agencies?

And are you suggesting that if that foreign agent calls an American on the phone, that the nature of the conversation should be of no concern?

Seriously, are you a child?

If I were you, I wouldn't worry about the deep state, I'd worry about the deep right wing bubble you are living in which is polluting your mind.

Here we have a mountain of evidence that our sitting president surrounded himself at the highest levels with paid, secret operatives and sympathizers of a hostile foreign government, our largest foreign enemy.....and you're worried about perfectly normal, inconsequential, legally acquired incidental surveillance.

 

But when laws are selectively enforced, especially for political gain, the enforcers/creators of laws begin to lose credibility, and the definition of "legal" becomes farcical. For example, when Obama openly solicits "undocumented immigrants" (aka illegal aliens) to turn out on for the presidential election (doubly illegal), I begin to question his integrity and the meaning of "legal." When James Comey, an un-elected official, decrees that we do not have a right to privacy, the definition of "legal" is damaged even further. If what is "legal" is determined by the caprice of Obama and the Deep State, then the word, and the rule of law, tends to lose its value. I say that Obama's wiretapping of Trump was illegal because there doesn't seem to be any reason I can't that. Everybody else is living by their own rules, so why can't I?

I do. What I don't want is for gathered intelligence to be released selectively to damage political opponents. Especially when that intelligence amounts to nothing but fodder for the Deep State MSM.

If that conversation is standard business conducted by heads of state, as it was in the case of General Flynn, then why should it be a concern?

No.

What hostile government? Russia? What have they done to us? Hillary and many other Democrats never had a problem with Russia until it was convenient to portray Russia as the big bad wolf, and Trump its puppet. Well, that was before the election. Now the theory is Russia wanted to damage Trump because....I'm not sure why. The whole narrative doesn't make any sense.

 

Your hilarious conspiracies about Obama publicly calling for illegals to vote pretty much immediately discredits and disqualifies you from serious discussion.

That being said, hate to break it to you, but Trump and/or republicans are ones who released those transcripts to Nunes. It was all an obvious ploy to distract.

I also can only assume that you are under 30 if you think "suddenly Russia is an enemy". Putin HATES Hillary, you'd know this if you read the intelligence reports and got out of your right wing bubble. He hates her for her anti-Putin comments and blames her for many of the unrest and protests in their country.

But it really doesn't matter whether you think they're an enemy or not, the fact that any foreign government has secret operatives in our White House is obviously a massive threat and the biggest scandal in our history.

My God man can you imagine if this was Hillary and her people? If you guys learned her campaign manager was paid $10 million dollars by Russia to secretly influence American politics!!!????

Impeachment hearings would have started long ago. And everyone knows it.

You guys have lost all credibility, going to knew lows, in fact demonstrating you just as soon look the other way on treason in the White House for political power.

 

​

 

Lol, Obama derangement syndrome is a terrifying thing to see up close. Thanks for sharing your problem, God speed on getting help.

 

The video was grossly misinterpreted by people with possible learning disabilities. They actually believe that Obama was advocating for non-citizens voting when it clear that he was not when one with a rational mind views this.
It also appears to be edited and dubbed at certain points.

Here we go...

The claim originates from an interview with Obama published on 3 November 2016, in which millennial actress Gina Rodriguez asked the president about a number of issues facing young Latinos. Many of the outrage posts were written around a video in which the majority of the president’s response was edited out to give the misleading impression that Obama was urging undocumented immigrants to vote illegally:


false

http://www.snopes.com/obama-encouraged-illegal-aliens-to-vote/

 

They hear what they want to hear, or more accurately, what they're told to hear.

 

Did you watch this video? I had done so awhile back and it's so obvious that it was tampered with. I cannot believe that people are unable to see this.

 

Really.. You should watch the whole clip in context. You have jumped to the wrong conclusion again.

 

I need to get to the store to get some popcorn.

Yup.That's what we need to know.

It should definitely be of concern to everyone.

You have managed to do a good job misrepresenting what people are worried about. Yes, the surveillance was legal. Yes, when a foreign agent speaks with an American, the nature of the conversation is of interest. However, we do NOT allow the identities of those American citizens to be revealed to the public, especially if it's done in order to further some political agenda. That is what is problematic, and that is what should be of concern to everyone. This is not politics as usual, this is a whole nother thing altogether.

 

Funny stuff.

 

Yeah I've seen it, it's an oldey but goody in the "emails from my crazy uncle" file.

Seriously, the hard right is a cult. Kinda wild to see 1st hand how Hitler came to power. Thankfully this isn't Germany in the 30's, and I'm quite confident our democratic institutions will chew up and spit out Trump in a timely manner.

 

And THAT doesn't rank in the top 20 things to be concerned about at the moment when considering the treasonous malfeasance being exposed at the highest levels of our government.

Perhaps if Hillary emailed about it over a private server people in the right would care.

 

You act as if truth and clarity is what they are seeking.

 

I agree. Kinda reminds me of this at the point where Shere Khan the tiger smacks down Kaa the snake