It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Confirmed by Multiple Officials: Obama Admin Was Spying On Trump, Politically

page: 1
51
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join
share:
+21 more 
posted on Apr, 4 2017 @ 08:25 AM
link   
Well here we have it. Susan Rice (Obama's national security advisor) was ordering detailed information about Trump from the intelligence agencies (even before his nomination as the candidate). I'm not sure how anyone can defend this behavior. It's disgusting and 10x worse than the IRS targeting of conservative groups. This is watergate on steroids. Nixon would have had no need to break into the DNC offices if he could have just ordered up the goings on of the opposition. This is true banana republic stuff.

Susan rice ordered spreadsheets of legal phone calls with unmasked data regarding the trump team. This included ivanka, who has no political connection to her father, she's just his daughter. Why spy on her? IDK, Bristol Palin style take down? This is just disgusting.

While Obama himself is not specifically implicated, it's difficult to imagine a situation where he was not aware of and complicit in this spying. I first dismissed his being on the run as nothing more than a desperate conspiracy, but it's getting difficult to continue believing that. How can this not be roundly condemned by the left???? I have to say, if trump does this to his political opponents I hope they throw him in jail.

The funny thing is, all of this spying and really the worst they could get on trump was the access hollywood tape. Just amazing, really. He's the most well vetted president in our nations history.

LINK

Here are some excerpts:



“The overheard conversations involved no illegal activity by anybody of the Trump associates, or anyone they were speaking with,” diGenova said. “In short, the only apparent illegal activity was the unmasking of the people in the calls.”




“It’s unbelievable of the level and degree of the administration to look for information on Donald Trump and his associates, his campaign team and his transition team. This is really, really serious stuff.”




“We’re looking at a potential constitutional crisis from the standpoint that we used an extremely strong capability that’s supposed to be used to safeguard and protect the country,” he said. “And we used it for political purposes by a sitting President. That takes on a new precedent.”

edit on 4-4-2017 by Dfairlite because: (no reason given)




posted on Apr, 4 2017 @ 08:28 AM
link   
What is Mr. DiGenova's source again?



posted on Apr, 4 2017 @ 08:29 AM
link   

edit on 4-4-2017 by intrptr because: redacted



posted on Apr, 4 2017 @ 08:31 AM
link   
a reply to: Gryphon66

I don't think it mentions his source, but there's this:



Other official sources with direct knowledge and who requested anonymity confirmed to TheDCNF diGenova’s description of surveillance reports Rice ordered one year before the 2016 presidential election.



posted on Apr, 4 2017 @ 08:31 AM
link   
What's being said or stated in the public forums compared to what's happening behind the the scenes, is literally the difference between Black & White. (Smile)



Buck


+4 more 
posted on Apr, 4 2017 @ 08:34 AM
link   
a reply to: Dfairlite

This thing is only just beginning to be exposed.
The story-breaking reporters at Bloomberg, FOX, etc. are currently preparing stories that show this is even bigger.



posted on Apr, 4 2017 @ 08:37 AM
link   
a reply to: Gryphon66

Mr. DiGenova is the former U.S. Attorney for the District of Columbia.

edit on 4-4-2017 by flatbush71 because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 4 2017 @ 08:45 AM
link   
a reply to: Dfairlite

So anonymous sources are fine when the story gives Trump cover, and bad when not.

Got it. Thanks.



posted on Apr, 4 2017 @ 08:45 AM
link   

originally posted by: flatbush71
a reply to: Gryphon66

Mr. DiGenova's is the former U.S. Attorney for the District of Columbia.


Two things:

"Former"

And

"Unnamed sources."

Next?


+10 more 
posted on Apr, 4 2017 @ 08:48 AM
link   
a reply to: Gryphon66

I'm not a fan of unnamed sources. Unfortunately it's all we have at this point.

But you don't seem to like any sources on this. When Nunes was the source himself, and publicly confirmed the disturbing abuse, you didn't like that, you demanded the documents yourself.

There's no satisfying you. Maybe you should stop following this story.



posted on Apr, 4 2017 @ 08:49 AM
link   
a reply to: Gryphon66

lol....If it's Anti Trump,the Left claims "unnamed sources" are perfectly legit and they'll run with it every time....but let anything Pro Trump [ or proof the Dems have been up to their underhanded sh** again ] come out, without names, dates, places and video and it's all bullsh**, right?

All we've heard is "could be" "maybe", "if", etc.....
If they had actual evidence, they'd have used it by now, but so far, all we've seen is....the Dems are up to their underhanded sh** again.



posted on Apr, 4 2017 @ 08:50 AM
link   
I don't trust the sources but if true it's legal. Like they say here on ATS , change the law.



posted on Apr, 4 2017 @ 08:52 AM
link   

originally posted by: Dfairlite
a reply to: Gryphon66

I'm not a fan of unnamed sources. Unfortunately it's all we have at this point.

But you don't seem to like any sources on this. When Nunes was the source himself, and publicly confirmed the disturbing abuse, you didn't like that, you demanded the documents yourself.

There's no satisfying you. Maybe you should stop following this story.


Nunes isn't the topic, but I'd be glad to see you quote me "demanding the documents myself."

I.e. Didn't happen. Should have been shared with the House Committee at the time ... but that sideshow is over ... Mr. Nunes went to the White House grounds, to see documents provided by the White House, and then ran back to the White House after three pressers to "reveal" what he'd found to President Trump.

Like I said side-show.

As far as the diGenova claim goes ... from a guy whose known for making failed pronouncements on Fox News, etc., I think I'll wait for something a bit more substantive.

The only problem I have is that so many damn any source that is negative to Trump and eat up the ones that seem to give him cover.

It's hilarious and embarrassing.



posted on Apr, 4 2017 @ 08:52 AM
link   
a reply to: MOMof3

Actually, it's not. As specifically pointed out by a former US Attorney.



posted on Apr, 4 2017 @ 08:52 AM
link   
This is very serious.



Retired Colonel James Waurishuk, an NSC veteran and former deputy director for intelligence at the U.S. Central Command, said that the level of coordination required to pull off such a massive spying operation is staggering and would have required numerous personnel from the White House, NSA, CIA, National Security Council, etc.


Buck



posted on Apr, 4 2017 @ 08:53 AM
link   

originally posted by: DAVID64
a reply to: Gryphon66

lol....If it's Anti Trump,the Left claims "unnamed sources" are perfectly legit and they'll run with it every time....but let anything Pro Trump [ or proof the Dems have been up to their underhanded sh** again ] come out, without names, dates, places and video and it's all bullsh**, right?

All we've heard is "could be" "maybe", "if", etc.....
If they had actual evidence, they'd have used it by now, but so far, all we've seen is....the Dems are up to their underhanded sh** again.


Right back at you Dave. If unnamed sources are bad from NYT, CNN etc. why are they good and trustworthy from FOX, the Daily Caller, etc?

Contemplate that without trying to side-step it.



posted on Apr, 4 2017 @ 08:54 AM
link   
LIE
lī/
noun
noun: lie; plural noun: lies
1) an intentionally false statement.
synonyms: untruth, falsehood, fib, fabrication, deception, invention, fiction, piece of fiction, falsification;
antonyms: honesty
verb
verb: lie; 3rd person present: lies; past tense: lied; past participle: lied; gerund or present participle: lying
1) tell a lie or lies.
----------------------------------
shame·less
ˈSHāmləs/
adjective
1) (of a person or their conduct) characterized by or showing a lack of shame.
synonyms: flagrant, blatant, barefaced, overt, brazen, brash, audacious, outrageous, undisguised, unconcealed, transparent;
------------------------------------

Susan Rice lies followed by being shameless in her lies..




posted on Apr, 4 2017 @ 08:54 AM
link   
a reply to: flatbush71

"Would have"

Not

"Did."

More opining from previous employees.



posted on Apr, 4 2017 @ 08:55 AM
link   
One would think that after lying to the nation in explaining the motivation for the benghazi attack Rice would have been asked to resign. Nope, no way shape or form, the former potus doubled down on the shenanigans and made her National Security Advisor.
Consider that....
Rice was ordered to lie about benghazi, which she did.
www.americanthinker.com...


One of the goals listed in the emails was the need for Rice "to underscore that these protests are rooted in an Internet video, and not a broader failure or policy."


The former potus made a known liar the National Security Advisor.
Sound familiar?

Those who now hammer on flynn had absolutely no problems with Rice. No one in the democratic party objected to her advancement (with no confirmation needed) to National Security Advisor.
She is trash.
She has no problems lying to the american people.
She knowingly committed egregious violations of FISA laws against american citizens.

How many more of these unelected bureaucrats do we have to suffer?



posted on Apr, 4 2017 @ 08:57 AM
link   
Someone big needs to go to jail for corruption. I don't care who. Just someone!




top topics



 
51
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join