Why would President Obama order surveillance of the Trump campaign?

Well there is still the unanswered question of why the f#ck was Trump being allowed to get elected in the first place. If he is so evil than why did 16 Agencies clear him and stated that there was no collusion with russia. The 16 agencies were still under Obamas control when they took that statement. There is no russian collusion there never was. Nobody had a problem with Turmp before he decided to run as the GOP nominee. The FBI,NSA and CIA look like total idiots now because of there inability to present absolute proof for Trumps russian collusion. They had what 1 and a half year to prevent him from ever being elected and they decided to just watch him winning the nomination and advanace to a serious candidate for president elect? Sorry but that is a whole new level of stupidity. That is just beyond retarded. The russian narrative makes no f#cking sense if you really think about it.

Btw russians didn't help him winning the debates against a cheating Hillary. He won because he was authentic and that's why he stomped Hillary into dust. They clearly underestimated him and well the Nazi,bigot,fascist,dictator bs and so forth didn't help them either.

Obama kept tabs on a few world leaders that is a fact. Why Merkel was okay with it is beyond me but hey she is just a stupid useless bitch who bends over backwards for someone like Erdogan it wasn't that surprising. I'm convinced that Obama and Hillary were in cahoots to hatch a plan to derail Trump and his campaign. They thought it was a done deal and the american people were so gullible and would fall in line like sheeps. There was only one problem. Hillary is a lying corrupt pos and that's when the plan went sideways. I came to the conclusion that Obama is not only hiding from Trump but from the Clinton's as well. Obamas aides already spilled the beans and i don't think they are too happy about it.I'm still scratching my head why Rice and Farkas came forward but i guess he had some rogue elements in his administration too and they were pissed about his abuse of power.

This whole charade shows that certain people are scared of Trump and they have been for a long time. Project Dragnet stated that the surveillance dated back to 2008. I believe Andrew Breitbart gave Trump evidence of all the shady deals that took place in DC right before he was killed. Trump has an ulterior motive but it's not what most people think. I do hope i'm right because if he does what i think he plans to do then the whole world could be changed forever. The whole russian collusion is just a character assassination plot to prevent him from exposing all of them. I guess they can't outright kill him because he certainly has some contingencies in place if anything happens to him or his family. I'm torn between keeping him and his family safe but on the other hand i kinda want him to go nuclear and blow a new hole in the DC area when push comes to shove. Well some causes are worth dying and It's pretty similar to what happened with JFK.

originally posted by: ColdWisdom
a reply to: Gryphon66

LOL.

Nunes is stepping aside and guess who is replacing him?

Trey Gowdy.

This should be great.

I look forward to it. Suggested this weeks ago.

Nunes is a dunce and a White House puppet. He pulled his little side-show act to provide cover for the White House and has now paid for it.

Gowdy at least is relatively intelligent and has experience with the actual law and legal procedures.

I welcome his addition.

originally posted by: ColdWisdom
Such as?

We'll find out when the investigation is over.

Well I'm certainly not the one that accused Trump of colluding with Russia, nor am I making the allegation that Russia intervened at all. There's still no evidence that Russia intervened, just smoke and mirrors.

The investigation continues. I hear that Devin Nunes just recused himself from the investigation by the way.

originally posted by: ColdWisdom
Nunes is stepping aside and guess who is replacing him?

Trey Gowdy.

This should be great.

Rep Trey Gowdy grills FBI's Comey on wiretapping, Russia

Rep. Gowdy: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Director Comey, you and I were discussing the felonious dissemination of classified material during the last round. Is there an exception in the law for current or former U.S. officials who request anonymity?

Director Comey: To release classified information?

Gowdy: Yes, sir.

Comey: No.

Gowdy: Is there an exception in the law for reporters who want to break a story?

Comey: Well, that's a harder question, as to whether a reporter incurs criminal liability by publishing classified information, and one probably beyond my ken. I'm not as good a lawyer as Mr. Schiff said I used to be.

Gowdy: Well, I don't know about that, but the statute does use the word publish, doesn't it?

Comey: It does, but that's a question I know the Department of Justice has struggled with through administration after administration.

Gowdy: I know the department struggled with it, the fourth circuit struggled with it, lots of people struggled with it, but you're not aware of an exception in the current dissemination of classified information statute that carves out an exception for reporters?

Comey: No, I'm not aware of anything carved out in the statute. I don't think a reporter's been prosecuted, certainly in my lifetime, no.

Gowdy: Well, there have been a lot of statutes at bar in this investigation for which no one's ever been prosecuted or convicted, and that does not keep people from discussing those statutes, namely, the Logan Act. In theory, how would reporters know a U.S. citizen made a telephone call to an agent of a foreign power?

Comey: How would they know legally?

Gowdy: Yes.

Comey: If it was declassified and then discussed in a judicial proceeding or a congressional hearing, something like that.

Gowdy: And assume none of those facts are at play, how would they know?

Comey: Someone told them who shouldn't have told them.

Looks promissing, indeed.

originally posted by: FauxMulder

How else can you explain the leaks?

Americans doing what they think is right.

a reply to: Krazysh0t

Americans doing what they think is right.

Yup.

I think that's the best explanation for the DNC leaks, as well.

a reply to: theultimatebelgianjoke

Gowdy, at least, is not a dunce like Nunes.

He does need to get the stink of the failed Clinton investigations off him though, eh?

I'll be glad to see what he does.

a reply to: Perfectenemy

Well there is still the unanswered question of why the f#ck was Trump being allowed to get elected in the first place. If he is so evil than why did 16 Agencies clear him and stated that there was no collusion with russia. The 16 agencies were still under Obamas control when they took that statement. There is no russian collusion there never was. Nobody had a problem with Turmp before he decided to run as the GOP nominee. The FBI,NSA and CIA look like total idiots now because of there inability to present absolute proof for Trumps russian collusion. They had what 1 and a half year to prevent him from ever being elected and they decided to just watch him winning the nomination and advanace to a serious candidate for president elect? Sorry but that is a whole new level of stupidity. That is just beyond retarded. The russian narrative makes no f#cking sense if you really think about it.

Sixteen intelligence agencies did not clear Trump of collusion; Trump only tweeted that they did. Sixteen intelligence agencies agreed that Russia was meddling in the election through propaganda and weaponized social media:

www.dni.gov...

Many, many people had nothing but trouble with Trump long before he ever ran for President, but that is a matter for another thread. (There are dozens to choose from.)

The most damning thing about your post is that in America, any natural born citizen over the age of thirty five years is "allowed" to run for President. The irony is that from the outset, American intelligence and security agencies have been designed to be apolitical. Even if the FBI had film of a candidate swearing allegiance to a foreign power, they would need to have obtained it with a proper warrant. They could not just release it to the press. Even if the CIA had recordings of a candidate cutting a deal with a foreign power, they could not release them in an attempt to affect the political process without major legal and political blowback.

a reply to: Gryphon66

He does need to get the stink of the failed Clinton investigations off him though, eh?

The only failure from that investigation was on the part of Comey and the FBI for not indicting Clinton after she was repeatedly caught lying about her emails.

originally posted by: ColdWisdom
a reply to: Gryphon66

He does need to get the stink of the failed Clinton investigations off him though, eh?

The only failure from that investigation was on the part of Comey and the FBI for not indicting Clinton after she was repeatedly caught lying about her emails.

Pfft.

Eight investigations, no results in terms of illegal actions by Clinton.

Only a true partisan like you could see it otherwise.

a reply to: theultimatebelgianjoke

You do realize that the White House has been the source of the most recent leaks of classified material, right?

a reply to: Gryphon66

Yes me the partisan, the one that's registered as a Non Party Affiliate.

You realize that even the existence of a private email server with classified information held on it is a violation of the law, correct?

originally posted by: ColdWisdom
a reply to: Gryphon66

Yes me the partisan, the one that's registered as a Non Party Affiliate.

You realize that even the existence of a private email server with classified information held on it is a violation of the law, correct?

What does that have to do with anything? Oh yes... deflect on to Hillary. Got it. Carry on.

a reply to: DJW001

No.
Unless you consider the WH under the Obama presidency.

a reply to: DJW001

Interesting i didn't know about the 35 years thing. If it's a national security risk they sure would come forward despite risking legal consequences? Sorry but it doesn't add up for me and i know what Trump did with his businesses but that doesn't make him evil. Being rich has his price. Sure he wasn't really nice back then but he did nothing illegal.

originally posted by: theultimatebelgianjoke
a reply to: DJW001

No.
Unless you consider the WH under the Obama presidency.

Who "leaked" that Rice had the subjects "unmasked?"

originally posted by: ColdWisdom
a reply to: Gryphon66

Yes me the partisan, the one that's registered as a Non Party Affiliate.

You realize that even the existence of a private email server with classified information held on it is a violation of the law, correct?

Well, if you walk, talk and quack like a right-wing duck ... I'm a registered Independent as well.

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

a reply to: DJW001

Is this a rethorical question or do you really happen to have the answer ?

a reply to: Perfectenemy

If it's a national security risk they sure would come forward despite risking legal consequences?

The stakes are extremely high. We are seeing the decisions made unrolling before our eyes.

I like Gowdy and i'm already looking forward to him crushing Comey and Rogers. I still think Comey is playing both sides but his end game is shrouded in mystery.