Another Democrat Rats On Obama: We’ve Been Spying On Trump Since 2015

The main reason I post this is because Trump announced his run for POTUS in June; the investigation started in the spring 2015...which sounds pretty darn close to June to me..... With some of the hanky Panky that went on during the campaign I would assume if there was a smoking gun it would have been brought out during Trump's campaign to diminish his chances of winning. Yep I know that just about no one on the democratic side thought he had a chance.. But when has that ever stopped a political campaign from smearing an opponent ?

See link for the short video of Mary Ann Marsh and her statement:

The democrats are throwing everything against the wall and hoping that it sticks. This Russian collusion conspiracy gets more confusing and convoluted everyday. There is NO evidence.

If Marsh’s statements are true then it actually calls into question the testimony of James Comey to the House Intel Committee. Was he lying? Did he have no knowledge of a prior investigation? Why?

yournewswire.com...
alt-rewrite.com...

For those who do not want to click on the link for the short video here is Marsh's statement in the longer video starting at 4:35 youtu.be...

I do not like Comey simply because I do not trust him.. He strikes me as a J.Edger Hover wantabe; not someone to strive to be like IMO .

Mary Ann Marsh was not the first to squeal....The other DNC insider was a lady by the name of Evelyn Farkas:

Evelyn Farkas, an Obama administration insider, has become the latest Democrat to roll over and squeal on her former comrades, telling MSNBC that she helped spy on Trump for Obama before he left office, and that Trump, not Russians, was the target of the illegal surveillance.

yournewswire.com...

Nothing happens fast or fast enough in some cases and I can only guess that the investigations will drag out until either side is assured of presenting a case they can win.. Either way I will be glad when all is exposed one way or the other by either side....and if laws were broken those guilty be prosecuted to the full extent the law provides for.

If Trump is colluding with the Russians shouldn't the security apparatus being spying on him?

in a day and age where everyone is being spied on to some extent, why are people so easy to dismiss trump;s wire-tapping claims?
90% of this community is convinced that some amount of their personal information is being collected and stored in some bunker somewhere, but when trump says it's well that's just him being the usual idiot.
I guess political ideologies negate the need for personal internal consistency

a reply to: dfnj2015
There is no collusion. The entire story is a legal fabrication of propaganda authorized and signed by President Obama twice during his administration which allows them to make stuff up in order to influence populations AND governments.

Obamaganda
“Identifying current and emerging trends in… information obtained from print, broadcast, online and social media, support for third-party outlets such as think tanks, political parties, and nongovernmental organizations… and the use of covert or clandestine special operators and agents to influence targeted populations and governments…”
— §1259C, b4

That was an interesting term I just coined up, Obamaganda lol!I wonder if that could catch on?

a reply to: 727Sky

Who is she?

originally posted by: Sillyolme
a reply to: 727Sky

Who is she?

She has been interviewed on several news outlets which gives her bio in the introduction. Big DNC Obama supporter

originally posted by: dfnj2015
If Trump is colluding with the Russians shouldn't the security apparatus being spying on him?

Ummm...my mom used to tell me...If wishes were fishes we'd all have a fry...If beggars we're horses we'd all have a ride...

She was schooling me on that Obama...if,if,if,if,if,if...if,if,if,if,if if...


YouSir

telling MSNBC that she helped spy on Trump for Obama before he left office,

Details please. What did she do when she said spying? Was she listening to wiretaps, reading emails, or running the operation? And her points are vague, take a look.

1- She helped spy on Trump for Obama before he left the White House.
2- Trump, not Russians, were the targets of surveillance.
3- She was concerned about hiding their methods from Trump.
4- She encouraged leaks because she was “worried” about Russians.
5- “People on the Hill” (Congress) knew about Obama’s spy plot

That's all vague and worse it tells nothing but reinforces what people in certain camps want to hear. I'm in neither and I want some evidence and so far there hasn't been any.

If she was "in charge" (which I doubt because according to her, not only was she involved with doing it, she was also involved in the cover up and telling people to leak info about Trump) then surely she can provide some concrete evidence besides running her mouth right? An email, a voice recording, some pictures, hell at this point i take the take recording from the pocket sized recorder you get a Radioshack (RIP). Nothing.

Until some hard evidence is found, everyone is blowing smoke. Show us something, then get ravenous.

I think there are many real Democrats that understand the Party needs to change fast or it's curtains.

originally posted by: dfnj2015
If Trump is colluding with the Russians shouldn't the security apparatus being spying on him?

At the same time shouldn't the security apparatus be spying on Obama and Clinton for colluding with the N. Korean gov't??? No??? Why not??? No evidence???

Obama's been spying on Trump then for almost two years without any evidence...Don't ya think it's time they stop ???

a reply to: cenpuppie

What is vague about #2?????

a reply to: 727Sky

Looks like just another person trying to cash in and get their five minutes of fame by fanning the flames of confusion with more murky evidence of nothing incriminating to me. Though your mileage may vary.

originally posted by: cenpuppie

telling MSNBC that she helped spy on Trump for Obama before he left office,

Details please. What did she do when she said spying? Was she listening to wiretaps, reading emails, or running the operation? And her points are vague, take a look.

1- She helped spy on Trump for Obama before he left the White House.
2- Trump, not Russians, were the targets of surveillance.
3- She was concerned about hiding their methods from Trump.
4- She encouraged leaks because she was “worried” about Russians.
5- “People on the Hill” (Congress) knew about Obama’s spy plot

That's all vague and worse it tells nothing but reinforces what people in certain camps want to hear. I'm in neither and I want some evidence and so far there hasn't been any.

If she was "in charge" (which I doubt because according to her, not only was she involved with doing it, she was also involved in the cover up and telling people to leak info about Trump) then surely she can provide some concrete evidence besides running her mouth right? An email, a voice recording, some pictures, hell at this point i take the take recording from the pocket sized recorder you get a Radioshack (RIP). Nothing.

Until some hard evidence is found, everyone is blowing smoke. Show us something, then get ravenous.

I have to agree with you here. We need the actual proof so we can shut this down without a doubt. if this is as good as proof gets, it just won't pass the test and we will have crybabies tearing up for months and months.

originally posted by: IShotMyLastMuse
in a day and age where everyone is being spied on to some extent, why are people so easy to dismiss trump;s wire-tapping claims?
90% of this community is convinced that some amount of their personal information is being collected and stored in some bunker somewhere, but when trump says it's well that's just him being the usual idiot.
I guess political ideologies negate the need for personal internal consistency

Maybe because there is a BIG difference between bulk data collection and individually targeted surveillance that even an idiot can see. Saying the latter is happening because the former is happening is a false equivalency.

a reply to: network dude

A Democrat operative admits what they were doing....
Still not enough proof.
If Obama himself would admit it, would we still have calls for proof?

originally posted by: xuenchen
I think there are many real Democrats that understand the Party needs to change fast or it's curtains.

Ummm...ahhhhh...picture the twilight saga of lil Chuckie Schumer and Nancy Pelosi...riding that beat dead nag of the democrat party...off into the sunset...

The Walking Dead...never had it so good...


YouSir

originally posted by: Krazysh0t

originally posted by: IShotMyLastMuse
in a day and age where everyone is being spied on to some extent, why are people so easy to dismiss trump;s wire-tapping claims?
90% of this community is convinced that some amount of their personal information is being collected and stored in some bunker somewhere, but when trump says it's well that's just him being the usual idiot.
I guess political ideologies negate the need for personal internal consistency

Maybe because there is a BIG difference between bulk data collection and individually targeted surveillance that even an idiot can see. Saying the latter is happening because the former is happening is a false equivalency.

Yeah cause we all know they were completely honest about the bulk surveillance and spying, oh wait we found that out through a leak. Yeah we can't say one is happening because of the other but we can rest assured that if it was up to "them" we wouldn't know about either.

a reply to: keenmachine

Furthermore, saying that you don't trust someone or something isn't evidence of anything.

Hmmmm and they just *now* decided to come clean about this.

Hmmm how convinient is that.

I also enjoy how your source says "If her claims are true," key word here being "if."

This is why you Trump cult members make me laugh. You take "if," statements like these as absolute fact, and then start making up imaginary reactions by the POTUS or the typical deflection to those libtards or Hillary/Obama.

This lady didn't have anything to say regarding her spying previously - but conveniently comes forward now?

Remember how all the Trump cultists dismissed any/every allegation against Trump because "people were cashing in because Trump is in the spotlight?"

It's funny how that same precedent is then dropped when it comes to statements that *may* be true from someone that's cashing in on what's popular right now.

Also - where's the proof? Something of this magnitude surely there is some proof, yes? Ah, again the cultists don't care - all they need are statements that *may* be true and their confirmation bias stops them from thinking clearly.

originally posted by: RomeByFire
Hmmmm and they just *now* decided to come clean about this.

Hmmm how convinient is that.

I also enjoy how your source says "If her claims are true," key word here being "if."

This is why you Trump cult members make me laugh. You take "if," statements like these as absolute fact, and then start making up imaginary reactions by the POTUS or the typical deflection to those libtards or Hillary/Obama.

Keep in mind if it were a left leaning source reporting someone's claims like this the yells would be "FAKE NEWS!"