Why would President Obama order surveillance of the Trump campaign?

a reply to: DJW001

"Power corrupts. Absolute powers corrupts absolutely."
That's a funny nature of most humans, it has a basis in survival instincts that leads to materialism and control over others.

a reply to: FauxMulder

This is wrong. Many of the unmasking was on things that had absolutley nothing to do with Russia. A transistion team would be in touch with many different representatives from different countries.

But the surveillance allegedly goes back over a year. Once the individuals were caught dealing with Russia, their other contacts would be scrutinized as well. To address your other points, the information was only leaked to the New York Times after the election, when it would not have affected the political process. This suggests that the information was leaked by career intelligence officers, not former White House staff.

Also, where did the people claiming that Rice "made detailed spreadsheets" get their information?

a reply to: Aliensun

"Power corrupts. Absolute powers corrupts absolutely."

I suggest you read the Constitution. Unlike Vladimir Putin, the President of the United States does not have absolute power, as Donald Trump is now discovering. [/mudpitmode]

originally posted by: ColdWisdom
That could be the only way to construe any 'election interference,' and it was denounced by then president Obama.

There are many ways an election could be interfered with other than vote tampering.

Even if you believe that Russia gave Clintons emails to Wikileaks, that's still not election interference, no more than it was in 1972 when The Washington Post broke the Watergate scandal.

So it must dawn on you that Trump's Presidency isn't under assault from these allegations. Proving Russian interference isn't going to magically overturn the election. This is a strawman you guys invented. Well Trump invented it. Even if Trump gets wrapped up in some collusion scandal and gets kicked out of office, that STILL leaves you guys in charge. Pence would take over.

It would help if you attempted to understand the actual situation.

originally posted by: DJW001
a reply to: FauxMulder

This is wrong. Many of the unmasking was on things that had absolutley nothing to do with Russia. A transistion team would be in touch with many different representatives from different countries.

To address your other points, the information was only leaked to the New York Times after the election, when it would not have affected the political process.

Right, but before Obama left office. The point was to embarrass / bog down the incoming administration.

a reply to: DJW001

No evidence has been provided to support that claim

It's important that we hold this gauge against all those who cast allegations aimed at their opponents.

IMO, given Obama openly campaigned for Hills, it wouldn't surprise me if he also ordered the spying of team-Trump. Only an idiot couldn't see that from the moment of his nomination, he was the force to be reckoned with in the 2016 election, if I could see it, I'm sure Obama and Hillary could see it too.

Now, with that being said, imo, the reason that the intelligence gathered was not used is because no evidence was found of collusion between the Russian government and the incoming President (possibly to be at that stage).

After all, in the words of Maxine Waters, Trump will be impeached.

originally posted by: FauxMulder

originally posted by: DJW001
a reply to: FauxMulder

This is wrong. Many of the unmasking was on things that had absolutley nothing to do with Russia. A transistion team would be in touch with many different representatives from different countries.

To address your other points, the information was only leaked to the New York Times after the election, when it would not have affected the political process.

Right, but before Obama left office. The point was to embarrass / bog down the incoming administration.

This is such bull#. Obama actually went out of his way to help Trump transition easier. During their first meeting after Trump was elected, Obama spent an extra four hours than he we supposed to explaining to a utterly shocked Donald Trump how the transition process worked and what he needed to do. This even extended to Obama's people who complained incessantly that they never received paperwork from the Trump team and were waiting for them so they could hand over.

To accuse Obama of bogging down the Trump transition/administration is pure history revisionism.

originally posted by: DJW001
a reply to: FauxMulder

This is wrong. Many of the unmasking was on things that had absolutley nothing to do with Russia. A transistion team would be in touch with many different representatives from different countries.

But the surveillance allegedly goes back over a year. Once the individuals were caught dealing with Russia, their other contacts would be scrutinized as well. To address your other points, the information was only leaked to the New York Times after the election, when it would not have affected the political process. This suggests that the information was leaked by career intelligence officers, not former White House staff.

Also, where did the people claiming that Rice "made detailed spreadsheets" get their information?

So, let's say someone was caught 'dealing with Russia' as you say. They would not be able to just start surveilling him/her and scrutinizing other contacts. That information would then have to be used to properly request a warrant to surveille that person. In order to actively surveille an American citizen that was caught 'incidentally' they would have to:

1. Unmask the person because the incidental surveillance uncovered illegal activity or national security issues.
2. Use that information to request a warrant.
3. Have a judge sign off on that warrant.

Would that warrant be broad enough to cover anyone that was in contact with the original unmasked individual?

originally posted by: Sublimecraft
IMO, given Obama openly campaigned for Hills, it wouldn't surprise me if he also ordered the spying of team-Trump. Only an idiot couldn't see that from the moment of his nomination, he was the force to be reckoned with in the 2016 election, if I could see it, I'm sure Obama and Hillary could see it too.

This isn't evidence. Your suspicions don't count as evidence.

a reply to: Sublimecraft

Now, with that being said, imo, the reason that the intelligence gathered was not used is because no evidence was found of collusion between the Russian government and the incoming President (possibly to be at that stage).

But if it were spying for political purposes, collusion with Russia would not be the only dirt they potentially could have found. Trump's closet is probably stuffed with skeletons that professional intelligence agencies could have brought to light. The Russian angle was exposed only after the election. It should have been deployed earlier if it was for political reasons; even if there were no proof of Russian collusion, the controversy could have stopped the Trump campaign in its tracks.

a reply to: Krazysh0t

There are many ways an election could be interfered with other than vote tampering.

Such as?

So it must dawn on you that Trump's Presidency isn't under assault from these allegations.

Well I'm certainly not the one that accused Trump of colluding with Russia, nor am I making the allegation that Russia intervened at all. There's still no evidence that Russia intervened, just smoke and mirrors.

It would help if you attempted to understand the actual situation.

This aint the mudpit, fella.

originally posted by: Krazysh0t

originally posted by: Sublimecraft
IMO, given Obama openly campaigned for Hills, it wouldn't surprise me if he also ordered the spying of team-Trump. Only an idiot couldn't see that from the moment of his nomination, he was the force to be reckoned with in the 2016 election, if I could see it, I'm sure Obama and Hillary could see it too.

This isn't evidence. Your suspicions don't count as evidence.

You've misinterpreted my post as attempting to provide evidence where I was simply providing my opinion. IMO.

I welcome any actual evidence of Obama wiretapping or Trump dating Vlad.

a reply to: Khaleesi

So, let's say someone was caught 'dealing with Russia' as you say. They would not be able to just start surveilling him/her and scrutinizing other contacts. That information would then have to be used to properly request a warrant to surveille that person. In order to actively surveille an American citizen that was caught 'incidentally' they would have to:

1. Unmask the person because the incidental surveillance uncovered illegal activity or national security issues.
2. Use that information to request a warrant.
3. Have a judge sign off on that warrant.

Would that warrant be broad enough to cover anyone that was in contact with the original unmasked individual?

That would depend. If an individual is being surveilled legally, anyone he or she talks to could potentially be recorded. Conceivably, that could include Donald Trump... but that is not the same as wiretapping Trump himself. As President, Trump is now in a position to declassify all of the relevant information. Instead, the White House is leaking dribs and drabs. Why?

originally posted by: Krazysh0t

originally posted by: FauxMulder

originally posted by: DJW001
a reply to: FauxMulder

This is wrong. Many of the unmasking was on things that had absolutley nothing to do with Russia. A transistion team would be in touch with many different representatives from different countries.

To address your other points, the information was only leaked to the New York Times after the election, when it would not have affected the political process.

Right, but before Obama left office. The point was to embarrass / bog down the incoming administration.

This is such bull#. Obama actually went out of his way to help Trump transition easier. During their first meeting after Trump was elected, Obama spent an extra four hours than he we supposed to explaining to a utterly shocked Donald Trump how the transition process worked and what he needed to do. This even extended to Obama's people who complained incessantly that they never received paperwork from the Trump team and were waiting for them so they could hand over.

To accuse Obama of bogging down the Trump transition/administration is pure history revisionism.

I never said Obama didn't help with the transition. I said things were leaked to the press for political purposes. To damage the political capital of an incoming Republican administration. To help his (Obama's) party out in the coming years where their political power in Washington has shrunk.

How else can you explain the leaks?

a reply to: ColdWisdom

Such as?

www.abovetopsecret.com...

www.abovetopsecret.com...

www.abovetopsecret.com...

Well I'm certainly not the one that accused Trump of colluding with Russia, nor am I making the allegation that Russia intervened at all. There's still no evidence that Russia intervened, just smoke and mirrors.

Have you ever relied on RT, globalresearch.ca, or zerohedge.com? Apparently not. How about Alt-right web pages and blogs? No? That's the only way you can not have seen Russia's interference.

In order to distract us from the fact that Trump is also part of the establishment.

a reply to: FauxMulder

How else can you explain the leaks?

Please explain why the revelations were not made during the campaign? As I have pointed out, even in the allegations are not true, the controversy could have changed the outcome of the election.

originally posted by: DJW001
a reply to: FauxMulder

How else can you explain the leaks?

Please explain why the revelations were not made during the campaign? As I have pointed out, even in the allegations are not true, the controversy could have changed the outcome of the election.

Why? Flynn wasn't running for anything. How would leaks about Flynn change the election? It was leaked after Trump put him in the administration to damage Trump.

ETA: you kind of prove the point of there is no evidence about Trump. If they were unmasking him for so long and didn't leak anything, its because they didn't find anything. Except for things against Flynn.

The number of stars some of these posts are getting suggests a lot of people are following this thread. Could someone actually answer the challenge I presented in the OP?

a reply to: DJW001


That's a good question. I don't have the answer. Only Trump knows why he does what he does. LOL. I'm still trying to piece everything together. Legal vs illegal, national security vs political spying. I really don't know yet.