Why would President Obama order surveillance of the Trump campaign?

originally posted by: neo96

originally posted by: Gryphon66

originally posted by: neo96
a reply to: Gryphon66

Sure when yall provide proof Trump was a rapist, and cheated on his taxes, and is a Russian puppet.

Well "y'all" have never said any of that, so ... like I guessed no difference at all.

Puppets have strings or a hand up their ass.

Trump is more like one of those wind-up toys that just runs around in circles til it runs out of juice.

And people wonder why Trump critics aren't taken seriously.

Yall have nothing but ad homenims.

You still don't seem to realize how funny it is when you say stuff like that.

Trump supporters are becoming more rare by the minute, Neo. You may want to look ahead on those tracks.

a reply to: neo96

Trump's habit of settling out of court and imposing non-disclosure agreements makes it difficult to prove anything about him.

a reply to: DJW001

Answering your OP title. To dig up dirt on Trump, pass it on to Hillary or the media in hopes that Clinton would win the election. Duh.

Now now, everybody just calm down!

We will find out why, at his trial.

originally posted by: WeAreAWAKE
a reply to: DJW001

Answering your OP title. To dig up dirt on Trump, pass it on to Hillary or the media in hopes that Clinton would win the election. Duh.

Then why wasn't it deployed? They certainly knew about the dossier? Why wasn't that at least "leaked?"

originally posted by: DJW001

originally posted by: WeAreAWAKE
a reply to: DJW001

Answering your OP title. To dig up dirt on Trump, pass it on to Hillary or the media in hopes that Clinton would win the election. Duh.

Then why wasn't it deployed? They certainly knew about the dossier? Why wasn't that at least "leaked?"

..because even someone trying to push propaganda wouldn't bring themselves to push that rubbish. They know it only appeals to the tiny group of extremists that believe anything as long as it is anti-Trump.

originally posted by: UKTruth

originally posted by: DJW001

originally posted by: WeAreAWAKE
a reply to: DJW001

Answering your OP title. To dig up dirt on Trump, pass it on to Hillary or the media in hopes that Clinton would win the election. Duh.

Then why wasn't it deployed? They certainly knew about the dossier? Why wasn't that at least "leaked?"

..because even someone trying to push propaganda wouldn't bring themselves to push that rubbish. They know it only appeals to the tiny group of extremists that believe anything as long as it is anti-Trump.

But it was already known, for example, that Flynn was accepting money from RT. Why not play that fact up?

originally posted by: DJW001

originally posted by: UKTruth

originally posted by: DJW001

originally posted by: WeAreAWAKE
a reply to: DJW001

Answering your OP title. To dig up dirt on Trump, pass it on to Hillary or the media in hopes that Clinton would win the election. Duh.

Then why wasn't it deployed? They certainly knew about the dossier? Why wasn't that at least "leaked?"

..because even someone trying to push propaganda wouldn't bring themselves to push that rubbish. They know it only appeals to the tiny group of extremists that believe anything as long as it is anti-Trump.

But it was already known, for example, that Flynn was accepting money from RT. Why not play that fact up?

What is wrong with accepting money from a media outlet? Doesn't sound like much of a revelation.

originally posted by: UKTruth

originally posted by: DJW001

originally posted by: UKTruth

originally posted by: DJW001

originally posted by: WeAreAWAKE
a reply to: DJW001

Answering your OP title. To dig up dirt on Trump, pass it on to Hillary or the media in hopes that Clinton would win the election. Duh.

Then why wasn't it deployed? They certainly knew about the dossier? Why wasn't that at least "leaked?"

..because even someone trying to push propaganda wouldn't bring themselves to push that rubbish. They know it only appeals to the tiny group of extremists that believe anything as long as it is anti-Trump.

But it was already known, for example, that Flynn was accepting money from RT. Why not play that fact up?

What is wrong with accepting money from a media outlet? Doesn't sound like much of a revelation.

What is wrong with accepting money from an investment bank? And yet that seemed to be considered a crime in the blogosphere. Why not do a full court press with Manafort and Flynn? You cannot show anything that indicates that the investigation was politically motivated.

originally posted by: DJW001

originally posted by: UKTruth

originally posted by: DJW001

originally posted by: UKTruth

originally posted by: DJW001

originally posted by: WeAreAWAKE
a reply to: DJW001

Answering your OP title. To dig up dirt on Trump, pass it on to Hillary or the media in hopes that Clinton would win the election. Duh.

Then why wasn't it deployed? They certainly knew about the dossier? Why wasn't that at least "leaked?"

..because even someone trying to push propaganda wouldn't bring themselves to push that rubbish. They know it only appeals to the tiny group of extremists that believe anything as long as it is anti-Trump.

But it was already known, for example, that Flynn was accepting money from RT. Why not play that fact up?

What is wrong with accepting money from a media outlet? Doesn't sound like much of a revelation.

What is wrong with accepting money from an investment bank? And yet that seemed to be considered a crime in the blogosphere. Why not do a full court press with Manafort and Flynn? You cannot show anything that indicates that the investigation was politically motivated.

We don't know if the investigation is politically motivated.
We do know there is nothing wrong with taking money from a media outlet as a private citizen.

originally posted by: DJW001

originally posted by: WeAreAWAKE
a reply to: DJW001

Answering your OP title. To dig up dirt on Trump, pass it on to Hillary or the media in hopes that Clinton would win the election. Duh.

Then why wasn't it deployed? They certainly knew about the dossier? Why wasn't that at least "leaked?"

Well...Clinton started talking about Russians before the vote. There were also some personal stories about women, etc. All of which may have come from spying on these American citizens.

So maybe it was deployed. Or...maybe they decided to save it as a bomb only IF Trump won. In which case...it is being deployed now. I have no doubt the government is spying on us and other American's high-up positions. It only makes sense at least from a liberal side. They would have no problem blackmailing someone in some powerful position. Anything to force others to follow their agenda.

Don't get me wrong...the truth is the truth even if it is obtained illegally, immorally, etc. I for one was happy to hear what the DNC had been up to after Wikileaks. But Wikileaks dumping data and our government dumping data are two completely different things. And while I think anyone in government spying on us should be jailed...I think Wikileaks' hackers should also be jailed. They simply aren't as easy to identify and capture.

originally posted by: UKTruth

originally posted by: DJW001

originally posted by: UKTruth

originally posted by: DJW001

originally posted by: UKTruth

originally posted by: DJW001

originally posted by: WeAreAWAKE
a reply to: DJW001

Answering your OP title. To dig up dirt on Trump, pass it on to Hillary or the media in hopes that Clinton would win the election. Duh.

Then why wasn't it deployed? They certainly knew about the dossier? Why wasn't that at least "leaked?"

..because even someone trying to push propaganda wouldn't bring themselves to push that rubbish. They know it only appeals to the tiny group of extremists that believe anything as long as it is anti-Trump.

But it was already known, for example, that Flynn was accepting money from RT. Why not play that fact up?

What is wrong with accepting money from a media outlet? Doesn't sound like much of a revelation.

What is wrong with accepting money from an investment bank? And yet that seemed to be considered a crime in the blogosphere. Why not do a full court press with Manafort and Flynn? You cannot show anything that indicates that the investigation was politically motivated.

We don't know if the investigation is politically motivated.
We do know there is nothing wrong with taking money from a media outlet as a private citizen.

Unless that private citizen is a retired general. They have rules about stuff that includes not taking money from foreign groups without notifying DOD and getting approval.

originally posted by: DJW001
There have been a lot of allegations thrown around, but no coherent narrative has come together. President Trump has claimed that Obama personally ordered his campaign spied upon. No evidence has been provided to support that claim. Instead, we have learned that members of Trump's campaign were caught up in routine surveillance of Russian agents. This looks very suspicious, so now the White House is trying to create a distraction by "leaking" the fact that the National Security Adviser wanted to know who these individuals were. This is not an unreasonable request. The question is: how would she have known that the individuals who were caught in this way were involved in the Trump campaign? Did the recordings mention the Trump campaign? If they did, that would be evidence for collusion.

The timeline is also unclear. When was the initial surveillance done? Was it done before Trump's candidacy, in which case, did Trump know he was recruiting possible foreign agents?

The narrative the White House seems to be selling is that a President who was not up for re-election ordered government assets to spy on a potential candidate who was being given a 0% chance of winning. Why did he not focus his illegal efforts on the more likely winners: Jeb Bush and Ted Cruz? Why have their campaigns not come forward?

If intelligence was gathered, why was it not used? Was it not passed on to the Clinton campaign? Why not? And if it was, why was there no mention of it in the DNC "leaks?" Remember, the fact that no negatives about Trump were published by WikiLeaks is one of the bits of circumstantial evidence for Russia's manipulating the election! If illegally obtained dirt were obtained, it somehow got scrubbed out by whoever gave the emails to WikiLeaks.

Then there is the kompromat. Whether or not the dossier is completely factual, its existence seems to have been known. Where does it fit in? Why no mentions in the leaked material?

Would some Trump supporters please knit these tweets and leaks into a coherent narrative and answer some of these fundamental questions? I am posting here because it is not the Mud Pit. I expect reasoned responses.

A man with German blood and a Russian wife why wouldn't he?

originally posted by: dfnj2015
a reply to: DJW001

Because Democrats are responsible for everything that is bad in this country. Democrats have destroyed this country. Everyone hates Congress. Everyone loves the military. What the right wingers want is STRONG leadership that can only come from having a right wing military style dictatorship. Clearly, as Congress has shown, Democracy just doesn't work.

It would be much more accurate if you had said that the brand of democracy that the DNC and the
Hillary campaign practiced doesn't work. Unless you count what they did to Bernie Sanders, but that wasn't really democratic either. In fact, nothing they did in any fashion resembles democracy in any way. You know what it actually does resemble don't you? Tyranny.

You loved it then, so you should be loving it now under Trump! HA-HA!

a reply to: NoCorruptionAllowed

Are you saying that liberal democracy is inherently corrupt? What system would you prefer to be living in?

a reply to: DJW001

10 Alternatives To Conventional Liberal Democracy

Now the real question is : why do you consider at this stage that USA still qualifies as 'liberal democracy' ?

The argument can be made that the US ceased being a liberal democracy on December 31, 2011 – the day the NDAA 2012 was signed into law by Obama. This legalizes the indefinite detention of US citizens by the military on the mere suspicion that the suspect is “associated with” terrorism or committed “belligerent acts” against the US or its allies. Bearing in mind the incredibly broad and flexible definition of what “terrorism” actually means, this could potentially encompass any number of anti-elite groups: Anonymous, Wikileaks, Occupy Wall Street, the Tea Party, Dakota pipeline protests, etc.

a reply to: theultimatebelgianjoke

You do not understand what liberal democracy is, do you?

a reply to: DJW001

I do.
Even if I didnt, that shouldn't prevent you from answering why you consider at this stage that USA still qualifies as 'liberal democracy' ?

originally posted by: theultimatebelgianjoke
a reply to: DJW001

I do.
Even if I didnt, that shouldn't prevent you from answering why you consider at this stage that USA still qualifies as 'liberal democracy' ?

Yes, because the indications are that the abuses of the system will be corrected by the system. Sorry, but your dreamed of Fascist state has been postponed.

a reply to: DJW001

You shouldn't reply with Yes or No when someone asks you why ...

WHY do you consider at this stage that USA still qualifies as 'liberal democracy' ?