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

You are corect.

It was all done legally, and Mr trump has some scum in the pond that deserve fbi investigations as well as nsa.

It's amazing how partisan people use the excuse your people did it, when their folks turn out just as bad as the last ones.

It is amusing.

It must be all perfectly innocent.
I'm sure Obama has probably already commented on the Susan Rice affair. Right?

a reply to: IAMTAT

So far the only info is that his national security advisor asked for Intel documents.

That is literally the only evidence. It's from government databases even, where she filed the requests.

Is there new evidence?

originally posted by: Vector99
a reply to: theantediluvian

And a lot of credible people are saying the same, (D)'s included.

Can't make a hit piece on KOS or ATS with that though right? So DISCREDIT DISCREDIT DISCREDIT!!!

A lot of credible people???

Fox Talking Heads are credible?

To some I suppose..

Not to all.

Let's just use the same standards you guys do when it's something you think is "left" eh?

Unnamed sources are fake news until confirmed.

I'd be happy with that.

originally posted by: IAMTAT
It must be all perfectly innocent.
I'm sure Obama has probably already commented on the Susan Rice affair. Right?

Why would he comment on Fox News infotainment Hannity's latest boondoggle?

You guys know that's where the hubbub is coming from, that and the seed-piece in the Daily Caller?

Or do you not monitor your own right-wing news sources?

a reply to: MOMof3

The dissemination of the classified material is not legal, the gathering of the information while legal, the unmasking and subsequent wide spread dissemination including to news organizations for which Mrs. Rice's husband works for is very illegal.

We are talking about classified information again with Democrats and their inept handling of this material. Mrs. Rice is already one record as saying she knew nothing about it and was surprised but her fingerprints are on the smoking gun so to speak.

I will wait for the actual evidence to surface before passing judgement just as I have refrained from condemning President Trump for colluding with the Russians for which their is no evidence and also no evidence the Russians influenced the election. There is evidence that the DNC influenced the election and acted against their own candidate but no one wants to talk about that.

Funny how there are tons of stories about Trump and the Russian stories but on CNN, ABC, and MSNBC, not a single story about the Susan Rice angle nor how the DNC torpedoed their own candidate...I guess they decide on what is actually news.

originally posted by: Gryphon66

originally posted by: Vector99
a reply to: theantediluvian

And a lot of credible people are saying the same, (D)'s included.

Can't make a hit piece on KOS or ATS with that though right? So DISCREDIT DISCREDIT DISCREDIT!!!

A lot of credible people???

Fox Talking Heads are credible?

To some I suppose..

Not to all.

Let's just use the same standards you guys do when it's something you think is "left" eh?

Unnamed sources are fake news until confirmed.

I'd be happy with that.

Is there new info or is this about rice asking for to unmask trump folks?

There is literally nothing illegal about that. Not only that it's already been on record for months.

originally posted by: Sillyolme
a reply to: rickymouse

No it doesn't. You and every other person arguing that point are totally incorrect. This doesn't prove that or even indicate that.
Better read up on this before eating a bunch of shoe leather.

LOL seriously? You throw that comment out while you have eaten more crow (unadmittedly) than probably anyone on these boards?

Facts are coming out, (D)'s are jumping ship in droves.

Dunno how you cannot see this.

a reply to: Gryphon66

I fixed the link in my post. Take a look at some of these:

DiGenova Was Involved In Discredited And Retracted Article About President Clinton. DiGenova and Toensing were involved in a retracted Dallas Morning News article claiming that a Secret Service agent had witnessed President Clinton and Lewinsky in a "compromising situation." From the February 27, 1998, report byThe Washington Post's Howard Kurtz:

The melodrama began when Toensing was approached by an intermediary for a Secret Service agent who was said to be willing to testify that he saw Clinton and Lewinsky in a compromising situation. DiGenova passed this on to Morning News reporter David Jackson ("Joe and I exchanged a few words over that," Toensing says), and the paper published the story in its Internet edition, attributing the account to an unnamed lawyer "familiar with the negotiations." But by then the intermediary had told Toensing the agent was backing off. Hours later, the Morning News retracted the report, saying the "longtime Washington lawyer" had said the information was "inaccurate."

(Toensing is his wife and they're in legal practice together)

DiGenova Baselessly Alleged That Obama Administration Tried To Cover Up Theft Of Hundreds Of Surface-To-Air Missiles In Benghazi. In October 2013, diGenova claimed on WMAL that the Obama administration was trying to cover up the theft of 400 surface-to-air missiles that were somehow linked to the American presence in Benghazi. While diGenova told WMAL that he didn't whether the missiles were physically at the CIA annex the night of the attack, "it is clear that the annex was somehow involved in the process of the distribution of those missiles." DiGenova did not name his sources for this claim, acknowledged that some of his information is not "verifiable," and provided no evidence to back up the allegation. [Media Matters, 8/13/13; CNS News, 8/13/13]

DiGenova Falsely Claimed Members Of The Military Were "Relieved Of Their Duty Because They Insisted That There Be A Military Response" To Benghazi Attacks. On October 28, 2013, diGenova claimed on WMAL that some members of the military were "relieved of their duty because they insisted that there be a military response" the night of the September 2012 Benghazi attacks, despite the fact that a military response was ordered by then-Secretary of Defense Leon Panetta. These military forces included a Marine anti-terrorism team deployed from Spain and special operations forces that were stationed in Croatia and the United States, but they did not arrive until after the attacks were over. [Media Matters, 10/29/13; Media Matters, 10/28/13]

Joseph DiGenova: Hillary Clinton Will Not "Be Able To Complete Her Campaign" After Indictment For Committing "Numerous Federal Crimes" With Private Email Use. On the January 5 edition of Courtside Entertainment Group's The Laura Ingraham Show, host Laura Ingraham interviewed discredited Republican lawyer and longtime critic of the Clintons, Joseph diGenova, who claimed that Hillary Clinton and her staff "have committed numerous federal crimes involving the negligence and improper handling of classified information" through her use of a private email account and server. DiGenova asserted that the FBI is "not going to be able to walk away from this," claiming that the evidence is "so overwhelming" and stating that the FBI would "revolt" and "intelligence community will not stand for" it if Clinton is not indicted:

He's got a history of saying things that aren't true for media attention.

a reply to: Gryphon66

No, these are actual democrats coming out and admitting it. Not the unnamed sources you seen to favor.

a reply to: DJMSN

LOL ...

TL;DR "I'm going to hold judgement but Susan Rice, Obama and all Democrats are guilty as hell."

The jokes continue to write themselves.

originally posted by: Vector99

originally posted by: Sillyolme
a reply to: rickymouse

No it doesn't. You and every other person arguing that point are totally incorrect. This doesn't prove that or even indicate that.
Better read up on this before eating a bunch of shoe leather.

LOL seriously? You throw that comment out while you have eaten more crow (unadmittedly) than probably anyone on these boards?

Facts are coming out, (D)'s are jumping ship in droves.

Dunno how you cannot see this.

I am an independant libertarian and all I see is deflection as to why there is an investigation to begin with.

Is there more info then the national security advisor asked to unmask documents?

This is info everyone in the investigation already had.

Honestly the more scumbags arrested or called out the better so if actual evidence comes forward I would love to see dirty birds go down on any party.

The Russian thing if blown open would expose both parties skirting ethics lines for campaign funds and off shore banking.

I would love for that to happen. But trump would suffer for the scum he hired as well. If he is innocent he is an idiot who never vetted his cabinet properly.

originally posted by: Vector99
a reply to: Gryphon66

No, these are actual democrats coming out and admitting it. Not the unnamed sources you seen to favor.

Really? Which Democrats have "come out and admitted" that Susan Rice illegally unmasked anything?

Care to provide that evidence?

originally posted by: Vector99
a reply to: theantediluvian

And a lot of credible people are saying the same, (D)'s included.

Can't make a hit piece on KOS or ATS with that though right? So DISCREDIT DISCREDIT DISCREDIT!!!

A lot of credible people are making the exact claims of DiGenova? Well hell, why aren't THEY the sources of this Daily Caller piece then? Because DiGenova isn't credible.

a reply to: theantediluvian

Thanks Ante, I was aware of some of that, but it's good to know that instincts are still working.

Anytime a "former" anything comes out and makes grand-sweeping statements that fulfill the fondest dreams of right-wing propaganda ... it's always just more right-wing propaganda.

Here's a question:

What documents at what times were supposedly "unmasked by Susan Rice.

DiGenova waves frantically at nothing as far as I can tell.

Are these supposed to be the same docs that Nunes got from the White House and ran back to the White House with? like a good little puppy?

What documents were unmasked?

a reply to: Vector99

Are they just limelighters or real? Lots of trump harassment claims came forth during his campaign, were they all real? I mean they were women so that makes it credible right?

Meanwhile ignore the Russian counterintel program.

For all you know there are assets in place and a huge sting is going to happen....

How long did it take for nixon to go down again......

a reply to: Gryphon66

Your remarks are nonsensical and lack any credible bearing.
Are you defending an unelected bureaucrat who took orders to knowingly lie to the american people?
Are you calling Retired Colonel James Waurishuk a liar?

Any comments from you about someone who lies being appointed to NSA?

a reply to: Dfairlite

No. Why bring him or her up?
Surely you don't think that any conversation of US citizens was being recorded do you?

Are you pretending you have something?

a reply to: Gryphon66

Evelyn Farkas.

Mary Anne Marsh.

Fish jumping ship.