Did the Obama Administration's Abuse of Foreign Intelligence start before Trump?

It is all starting to get clearer and clearer!

The Iran Deal was a big deal for Barack Obama. We all know the extent he went to to make it happen and the many things he did to confuse the public, pressure Congress, and sell the deal. Much was done in secret and without consultation with the relevant congressional leaders. If you need to know the details of that, you can research it fairly easily. That's not what this thread is about, however. It is just background for why Obama did what he did and crossed a serious legal and ethical line.

It is no secret that Obama and Netanyahu were not the best of friends. Obama's disdain for Israel's PM was more than obvious, especially as Netanyahu expressed strong opposition to Obama's Iran nuclear deal.

This article sheds light on why this spying probably started in 2015, and why it targeted more than just Donald Trump, and what the Obama's "team" was really up to.

Did Obama abuse our foreign intelligence collection system to spy on political opponents in Congress and elsewhere that opposed the Iran nuclear Deal?

Did Trump really have dealings with FSB officers? Thanks to the administration’s whisper campaigns, the facts don’t matter; that kind of contact is no longer needed to justify surveillance, whose spoils could then be weaponized and leaked. There are oligarchs who live in Trump Tower, and they all know Putin—ergo, talking to them is tantamount to dealing with the Russian state.

Yet there is one key difference between the two information operations that abused the foreign-intelligence surveillance apparatus for political purposes. The campaign to sell the Iran deal was waged while the Obama administration was in office. The campaign to tie down Trump with the false Russia narrative was put together as the Obama team was on its way out.

It would be a felony offense to leak the names of U.S. citizens to the press, yet they did.

What would happen if the White House leaked your phone call with the Israeli ambassador to a friendly reporter, and you were then profiled as betraying the interests of your constituents and the security of your nation to a foreign power? What if the fact of your phone call appeared under the byline of a famous columnist friendly to the Obama administration, say, in a major national publication?

To make its case for the Iran Deal, the Obama administration redefined America’s pro-Israel community as agents of Israel. They did something similar with Trump and the Russians—whereby every Russian with money was defined as an agent of the state. Where the Israeli ambassador once was poison, now the Russian ambassador is the kiss of death—a phone call with him led to Flynn’s departure from the White House and a meeting with him landed Attorney General Jeff Sessions in hot water.

www.tabletmag.com...

This article is well-written and worth reading.

So a other political hit piece with no proof as usual, do you understand the difference between a fact and someones opion.

a reply to: queenofswords
I'm quite certain that EVERY administration abuses their ability to spy on foreign governments and entities (and domestic entities and individuals, too).

originally posted by: queenofswords
It is all starting to get clearer and clearer!

What is? This article is like reading a tabloid article. It asks a bunch of outrageous questions to bring you in then never satisfies with an answer to the question. No proof. Just all opinion. Great confirmation bias fodder though. So I'm not surprised why you think it was worth reading.

a reply to: dukeofjive696969

Do you not understand his question marks imply opinion, not fact?

Is that Rice I smell cooking ?

Where is the big man now ?

I thought he was staying in DC...

S&F

originally posted by: whyamIhere
Is that Rice I smell cooking ?

Where is the big man now ?

I thought he was staying in DC...

S&F

The coward? He's in the Tahiti area.

thegrio.com...

a reply to: dukeofjive696969

Thus, my title is in the form of a question, as is the article itself. Jeeze!!

I did not post it for anything other than to put additional facts into the discussion to consider.

originally posted by: MysticPearl
a reply to: dukeofjive696969

Do you not understand his question marks imply opinion, not fact?

So why post it then, most of the political hit
Pieces from the right always claims alot
But theres never proof, also it dosent stop people for claiming it as proof.

originally posted by: queenofswords
I did not post it for anything other than to put additional facts into the discussion to consider.

Additional facts? Even you just admitted it was an opinion article. It isn't providing additional facts. It is providing someone's viewpoint.

originally posted by: MysticPearl
a reply to: dukeofjive696969

Do you not understand his question marks imply opinion, not fact?

Thank you! You beat me to it. Some folks don't have "eyes to see" nor "ears to hear". They have knee jerk reactions. There is no way they had time to read the very informative article that contained lots of facts and also food for thought.

a reply to: queenofswords

I read the whole thing. You underestimate people's ability to read quickly.

originally posted by: Krazysh0t

originally posted by: queenofswords
I did not post it for anything other than to put additional facts into the discussion to consider.

Additional facts? Even you just admitted it was an opinion article. It isn't providing additional facts. It is providing someone's viewpoint.

There are facts in the article, which you did not read.

a reply to: queenofswords

Thanks for telling me that you consider opinions to be facts when you agree with them.

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
a reply to: queenofswords

Thanks for telling me that you consider opinions to be facts when you agree with them.

????

Many a truth is revealed by starting out with the question.

Here we go, again!! A topic worth discussion, but being derailed because the usual suspects get sidetracked by arguing a totally irrelevant point.

If you don't have thoughts about the facts that were included in the article and the possible relationship to the subject of this OP, then kindly move on.

originally posted by: queenofswords
????

Many a truth is revealed by starting out with the question.

Not in this article, which again opinion.

Here we go, again!! A topic worth discussion, but being derailed because the usual suspects get sidetracked by arguing a totally irrelevant point.

If you don't have thoughts about the facts that were included in the article and the possible relationship to the subject of this OP, then kindly move on.

You aren't my boss. I can talk about whatever I want in regards to the topic and I'm choosing to talk about the flimsiness of the logic in your argument and the fact that it is mostly just an opinion from some dude on the internet. Thus the article will only appeal to people who already believe along these lines. Which is baring out with the people who have already responded. All the believers have responded with generic agreements without actually analyzing the content of your article either. Because both sides know it is a partisan fluff article.

And since we know about other spying, such as that on journalists, their pattern is starting to look both obvious and undeniable. Maybe once somebody makes a deal all bets are off.

The campaign to sell the Iran deal was waged while the Obama administration was in office. The campaign to tie down Trump with the false Russia narrative was put together as the Obama team was on its way out.

The intelligence gathered from Iran Deal surveillance was shared with the fewest people possible inside the administration. It was leaked to only a few top-shelf reporters, like the authors of The Wall Street Journal article, who showed how the administration exploited a loophole to spy on Congress…

The reason the prior abuse of the foreign-intelligence surveillance apparatus is clear only now is because the Russia campaign has illuminated it. As The New York Times reported last month, the administration distributed the intelligence gathered on the Trump transition team widely throughout government agencies, after it had changed the rules on distributing intercepted communications.

…The Obama team seems not to have understood that in proliferating that material they have exposed themselves to risk, by creating a potential criminal trail that may expose systematic abuse of foreign-intelligence collection.

Link

a reply to: queenofswords

Here's a question without a smidgen of proof for the sticklers... Because.... I'm posing a question.

I wonder if this goes all the way back to John Roberts?

a reply to: queenofswords

it is a good article

The Obama team seems not to have understood that in proliferating that material they have exposed themselves to risk, by creating a potential criminal trail that may expose systematic abuse of foreign-intelligence collection.

how many in congress have said the investigation will go where ever it leads?

a reply to: The GUT





All facts.

All contained in the article.

It is all becoming clearer and clearer.