Why would President Obama order surveillance of the Trump campaign?

a reply to: ColdWisdom

So why are you going after these Americans who are whistleblowing?

a reply to: DJW001

He only had a zero chance of winning is because you believed the msm, who was colluding (and still is) with the opposing party. Everyone else, including Obama, knew that wasn't true.

a reply to: DJW001

You ask for evidence then, in the next breath, make a baseless claim. Let's see your evidence of Rsmussian tampering.

originally posted by: bender151
a reply to: DJW001

You ask for evidence then, in the next breath, make a baseless claim. Let's see your evidence of Rsmussian tampering.

Will this do? (Second time posted on this thread.)

originally posted by: bender151
a reply to: DJW001

He only had a zero chance of winning is because you believed the msm, who was colluding (and still is) with the opposing party. Everyone else, including Obama, knew that wasn't true.

Really? Where does Obama say that Trump was going to win? In fact, the DNC strategy preferred that Clinton run against Trump:

www.abovetopsecret.com...

Thanks, UBJ!

a reply to: DJW001

You're welcome.

originally posted by: DJW001
A Clinton victory seems all but certain: even if Donald Trump somehow manages to win a plurality, that is, more of the popular vote than Clinton, the Clinton campaign's strategy seems certain to deliver the Electoral College. In other words, Trump can "win" the popular vote and still lose the election.

Here are my questions to Trump supporters:

1. Do you intend to monitor the polling places on election day, looking for voter fraud? What would you look for? If you suspect voter fraud, what would you do? Have you familiarized yourself with the election laws in your state? (They vary from state to state.)

2. How do you think Trump will react on election night as the media predicts a Clinton victory?

3. How do you think Trump would react if the election is officially called in Clinton's favor, although Trump had a larger share of the popular vote? Would he concede graciously? Would he contest it in the Supreme Court?

4. How would you react? Would you shrug and say to yourself "ya win some, ya lose some," or would you take to the street?

5. What if the Supreme Court, all of whom were appointed by the "mainstream" parties, ruled in Clinton's favor? How do you think Trump would react? How would you react?

All of this is hypothetical, of course, but I am curious as to how Trump supporters feel. It is easy for Trump skeptics to predict chaos and rioting, but I am hoping to see honest, thoughtful, and conciliatory reactions from my fellow ATS members.

Source : What If Trump Loses The Election?

LOL.

Trump received 45% of the popular vote. 55% of those who voted, voted against him.

He won in the Electoral College by the smallest margin of any recent President other than GW Bush.

The Electoral College victory is attributable to three swing states, PA, MI and WI where Trump won by 107K votes total or about 0.007% of the total votes cast.

He lost the popular vote by nearly 3 million, one of the largest margins of loss ever.

originally posted by: ColdWisdom


The dossier was proven to be a complete fabrication.

Far from it.

As for mocking the disabled reporter, he was...sadly only an idiot would think otherwise, you don't need to be told that.

Still waiting for someone to answer the questions I posed in the OP.

originally posted by: Krazysh0t

originally posted by: ColdWisdom
Even though Obama, when he was president at the time, said that there was no evidence of any compromised voting machines, somehow it was Russia that got him elected.

You do know that no one is accusing the Russians of hacking election machines right?

Ummm...no...what we know is that they're not accusing them of it...anymore...


YouSir

originally posted by: YouSir

originally posted by: Krazysh0t

originally posted by: ColdWisdom
Even though Obama, when he was president at the time, said that there was no evidence of any compromised voting machines, somehow it was Russia that got him elected.

You do know that no one is accusing the Russians of hacking election machines right?

Ummm...no...what we know is that they're not accusing them of it...anymore...

YouSir

That reminds me ... someone else was crying and wailing about impending election fraud... until they won.

Who was it again? Hmmmm ...

Oh that's right, the current President of the United States.

originally posted by: YouSir

originally posted by: Krazysh0t

originally posted by: ColdWisdom
Even though Obama, when he was president at the time, said that there was no evidence of any compromised voting machines, somehow it was Russia that got him elected.

You do know that no one is accusing the Russians of hacking election machines right?

Ummm...no...what we know is that they're not accusing them of it...anymore...

YouSir

Who cares about a bandwagon appeal of the Democrat voting base? They aren't the ones running the investigation. Here's the first line from your link:

Despite repeated assurances to the contrary from the Obama administration, and despite the lack of any supporting evidence, a majority of Democrats believe a conspiracy theory in which Russia tampered with the voting tallies in last month’s election to rig the outcome in favor of Donald Trump

So you just proved that Obama and co were never making this claim.

a reply to: o0oTOPCATo0o

There is truth, the problem is finding it and interpreting it without bias.

The only thing I trust to be as it has always been is gravity and the sun rising in the morning.

...And now I'll be proved wrong for trusting that to be as it always has been for my entire existence here so far...

Shame on me.

originally posted by: YouSir

originally posted by: Krazysh0t

originally posted by: ColdWisdom
Even though Obama, when he was president at the time, said that there was no evidence of any compromised voting machines, somehow it was Russia that got him elected.

You do know that no one is accusing the Russians of hacking election machines right?

Ummm...no...what we know is that they're not accusing them of it...anymore...

YouSir

By a remarkable coincidence, the same poll shows that 52% of Republicans believe that "millions of illegal votes were cast."





The original source, of course. Neither party has a monopoly on credulity.

a reply to: Gryphon66

You realize that the Bush White House utilized a private server, and that the Trump White House is doing the same thing, correct?

Source?

State.gov accounts aren't private, they're state sanctioned emails.

originally posted by: TheMadTitan
a reply to: DJW001

The simplest way to put it would be the Obama Administration was terrified of Trump winning because they (Obama Admin) are in cahoots with the Clintons and they knew that if the Clintons won it would help further their collective nefarious agenda/s. Spy on Trump to help Clinton.

It's known that Obama Admin had no problem using government agencies against his political opponents (IRS for example; why else did Lerner plead the 5th?). It's not stretch at all to think that willingness extended to using those powers to help sway elections too.

And why does everyone assume this was *only* used against Trump?

It might have been used against Sanders, Webb, and the other Republican nominees in an effort to make sure the election was safely put in the hands of the chosen candidate. There is good evidence the DNC conspired against Sanders with the Clinton Campaign.

a reply to: DJW001
Why would President Obama order surveillance of the Trump campaign?

Because he is a jealous crook.

FISA evidence was well known by the night after the tweets came out. It was just covered up by the Obama bun kissing news networks. The same ones who lied to you about Trump having no chance of winning.

If you had gone to other TV networks or the web you would have known this.

a reply to: ketsuko

It's known that Obama Admin had no problem using government agencies against his political opponents (IRS for example; why else did Lerner plead the 5th?). It's not stretch at all to think that willingness extended to using those powers to help sway elections too.

Known? Do you have any proof of that? The investigation only revealed that Conservative groups were more likely to be audited. That may be statistical rather than political.

And why does everyone assume this was *only* used against Trump?

As I pointed out in the OP, no-one else has come forward. You would think that other Republicans would support Donald Trump by exposing what they know of his spying on them. Either it didn't happen, or they want Trump to fail. Take your pick.

It might have been used against Sanders, Webb, and the other Republican nominees in an effort to make sure the election was safely put in the hands of the chosen candidate. There is good evidence the DNC conspired against Sanders with the Clinton Campaign.

Yes, the DNC used their usual bag of tricks against Sanders, which did not, apparently, include using government intelligence assets to spy on him. If it did, you can bet that would have been the topic of a massive document dump to WikiLeaks. In fact, don't you think it strange that there have been no leaks to that organization that might support the President's allegations?

originally posted by: ColdWisdom
a reply to: DJW001

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.

It's already been established that information was gathered from the Trump campaign via the FISA warrant and then handed to the Clinton campaign.

And 0%? Really? 60 million votes is a lot for someone who was given a 0% chance of winning, don't you think?

Who gave him this 0% chance of winning?

You?

Seems ironic considering that he was the leading candidate in the GOP primaries from the moment he announced he was running all the way through to the nomination. All of this and before anything from Wikileaks.

But no, somehow all of this overwhelming support that Trump had amassed before he was nominated is irrelevant because Russia got him elected.

Even though Obama, when he was president at the time, said that there was no evidence of any compromised voting machines, somehow it was Russia that got him elected.

The people who said he had 0% chance of winning are the same idiots pushing propaganda now.

The surveillance started in the summer according to Comey and also according to Rice, at which point Trump was already the Primary winner. It is then fairly obvious as to why Obama's administration was not spying on Cruz, Rubio et al.

Spying on him was more than likely to get information to use against him during the campaign - but they clearly found nothing.

The timelines are pretty well known, so not sure where the confusion is coming from.