Anyone still doubt Obama administration had surveillance on Trump?

[darb72]

How else did it get to the media?

It was leaked. That's how everybody found out that he talked to the Russian.

What Flynn did wasn't illegal. He was not under any suspicion and there was no warrant to expose his name. He got fired for lying to the VP, which is far different from being fired for breaking the law.

[GreatWhiteNorthRaven]

Again, can't believe people saying trump didn't collude with Russia because no evidence. Yet say Obama wiretapped Trump with no evidence.

Sometimes I just can't fathom people's political opinions. It's one thing to defend a party. It's another to consistently contradict yourself. Like I said, party identification be damned. Makes for entertaining reading though.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Dade]

Again, can't believe people saying trump didn't collude with Russia because no evidence. Yet say Obama wiretapped Trump with no evidence.

Sometimes I just can't fathom people's political opinions. It's one thing to defend a party. It's another to consistently contradict yourself. Like I said, party identification be damned. Makes for entertaining reading though.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

:word

[HoustonRaven]

Again, can't believe people saying trump didn't collude with Russia because no evidence. Yet say Obama wiretapped Trump with no evidence.

Sometimes I just can't fathom people's political opinions. It's one thing to defend a party. It's another to consistently contradict yourself. Like I said, party identification be damned. Makes for entertaining reading though.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Yep.

Their party does no wrong, the other party is always wrong.

This country is LONG overdue for a third, fourth and fifth political party.

[wickedsolo]

Again, can't believe people saying trump didn't collude with Russia because no evidence. Yet say Obama wiretapped Trump with no evidence.

Sometimes I just can't fathom people's political opinions. It's one thing to defend a party. It's another to consistently contradict yourself. Like I said, party identification be damned. Makes for entertaining reading though.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Here are the facts (as we know them through various reports):

1) Multiple people within the current and recent past Trump administration have had ties and/or contact with foreign individuals that are/were employed by foreign governments or were affiliated with foreign governments.

2) At this time, there has not been any indication of any wrong doing by any of those within Trump's administration (past or present) regarding their interactions with foreign individuals.

3) At this time, there is no evidence supporting Trump's claim that he was "wiretapped" by the Obama administration. [Note that "incidental surveillance" and "wiretapping" are not the same].

4) There is a current investigation happening into the connections between Trump, his administration, and the Russian government.

5) There is/was an investigation into Trump's "wiretapping" claims.

6) There IS evidence indicating that Trump and his administration members were, at least for a short period of time during the election and prior to the election, captured incidentally during authorized (under Obama) FISA surveillance operations.

7) There IS evidence indicating that those members' (US Citizens) identities were purposefully revealed and disseminated throughout the intelligence community and the White House.

8) Revealing incidentally collected identities of US Citizens (aka "Unmasking") is NOT illegal. [From my experience, typically these types of intelligence reports will use generic terms for US citizens such as "USPERSON1" or "USCITIZEN_A". However, it is a well known practice within the intelligence community to only request raw intelligence that would reveal identities in extreme circumstances typically involving potential terrorists or viable threats to national security].

9) There is evidence suggesting that Susan Rice (Obama's former National Security Advisor) was encouraging surveillance of Trump and those close to him.

10) Susan Rice lied about Trump and his colleagues being captured incidentally. She indicated that she "had no knowledge" of anything related.

11) There is evidence showing that Susan Rice made multiple requests for raw intelligence that would effectively identify those Trump colleagues.

12) Susan Rice now claims that the "unmaskings were routine" and they were not done for "political reasons". However, according to other reports the collected FISA intelligence in question was inconsequential at best in terms of what the intelligence community considers to be "meaningful information". [From my experience this is basically saying even though it was collected under FISA surveillance, there wasn't anything in there. The thing with FISA surveillance is that it casts a wide net and intelligence analysts then are tasked with sorting everything out to find the most meaningful information. If there was any meaningful information within the Trump incidental collection, then it was minimal at best.]

13) Susan Rice and President Obama were reportedly "very close".

If I missed any facts, I'd appreciate it if someone could post them. However, I'm pretty sure that this basically covers everything.

Bottom line -
There is a lot of smoke, but no fires regarding collusion between Trump and Russia.
There is a lot of smoke, but no fires regarding collusion between Trump's administration and Russia.
Trump is a dumb-dumb and doesn't understand what "wiretapping" actually implicates.
Trump is a dumb-dumb for constantly taking to Twitter to make accusations and unsubstantiated claims.
At least one high level Obama administration member has lied about intelligence efforts pertaining to Trump and his administration.
At least one high level Obama administration member submitted multiple requests for raw intelligence that would reveal identities of incidentally collected US citizens.

Take from that what you will.

[NCRAVEN]

Nice recap Wicked. The main thing that sticks out to me is Rice lying.

[HoustonRaven]

9) There is evidence suggesting that Susan Rice (Obama's former National Security Advisor) was encouraging surveillance of Trump and those close to him.

10) Susan Rice lied about Trump and his colleagues being captured incidentally. She indicated that she "had no knowledge" of anything related.

Where are you getting this from? Not insinuating you're wrong. I'd just like to read further on it since I cannot seem to find anything that backs up your claim here.

12) Susan Rice now claims that the "unmaskings were routine" and they were not done for "political reasons". However, according to other reports the collected FISA intelligence in question was inconsequential at best in terms of what the intelligence community considers to be "meaningful information". [From my experience this is basically saying even though it was collected under FISA surveillance, there wasn't anything in there. The thing with FISA surveillance is that it casts a wide net and intelligence analysts then are tasked with sorting everything out to find the most meaningful information. If there was any meaningful information within the Trump incidental collection, then it was minimal at best.]

Everything I've read, including the Bloomberg piece that Trump's supporters posted earlier in the thread, all state this is true that unmasking of persons is a rather routine thing.

[wickedsolo]

Where are you getting this from? Not insinuating you're wrong. I'd just like to read further on it since I cannot seem to find anything that backs up your claim here.



Everything I've read, including the Bloomberg piece that Trump's supporters posted earlier in the thread, all state this is true that unmasking of persons is a rather routine thing.

It is routine, but there has to be a (for lack of a better term) business case to do so. In other words, was the context of the collected intelligence of a high enough value to fully identify US Citizens involved in the transactions/communications.

[HoustonRaven]

It is routine, but there has to be a (for lack of a better term) business case to do so. In other words, was the context of the collected intelligence of a high enough value to fully identify US Citizens involved in the transactions/communications.

Which is a very low bar from what I read, thus making it a routine thing.

And points 9 & 10?

[wickedsolo]

Where are you getting this from? Not insinuating you're wrong. I'd just like to read further on it since I cannot seem to find anything that backs up your claim.

I don't know if WND is left or right leaning. But, here is an article summarizing Susan Rice's role in this:

http://wnd.com/2017/04/susan-rice-ta...out-unmasking/



Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[HoustonRaven]

I don't know if WND is left or right leaning. But, here is an article summarizing Susan Rice's role in this:

http://wnd.com/2017/04/susan-rice-ta...out-unmasking/

Very right leaning

EDIT: And good God, talk about hyperbole. Yeah, I cannot take that seriously. They're taking two things out of context, trying to make a connection and then using a former Congresswoman Michele Bachman, who has been discredited 8 ways to Sunday on a whole litany of issues, as their support.

I'd no sooner take what WND says seriously as I would MSNBC or CNN.

[wickedsolo]

Very right leaning

Leaving out the whah whah drama, I still think the point is that she said in March that she said she had no knowledge about "unmasking" Mike Flynn and others captured with incidental collections.

Then, she says something different a week ago.




Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk