Did the Obama Administration spy on Trump?

[Seventeen76]

There’s enough detail here for the average reader to see that you’re just cutting and pasting your Google searches while I explicitly detail how you conflate investigation and warrant...and how you naively shared a Guardian headline that blatantly misrepresented the actual Comey quote and on and on.


You’re in over your head which is perfectly acceptable and understandable. Your pride and intellectual dishonesty however is not.

 

[Bible2+]

Tom Farebrother said in post #25:

That's Steele's job, he is a former MI5 agent who now runs his own security firm.

Why do you believe that he is only a former (should be MI6) agent, instead of a current one with the cover of being only a former one?

Also, if it is his job to dig up dirt on Trump by colluding with supposedly Russian agents, then is it not the job of Assange to dig up dirt on Clinton by colluding with Russian agents? And if so, then why is only Assange being charged with a crime and not Steele?

Also, if it is okay for Clinton to receive dirt on Trump from Steele from supposedly Russian agents, then is it not okay for Trump to supposedly receive dirt on Clinton from Assange from Russian agents? And if so, then why is only Trump being investigated and not Clinton?

 

[Bible2+]

disciple Clint said in post #26:

Why is there such a blatantly obvious double standard?

Because U.S. intel is utterly dependent on British intel.

 

[Tom 1]

Why do you believe that he is only a former (should be MI6) agent, instead of a current one with the cover of being only a former one?

Also, if it is his job to dig up dirt on Trump by colluding with supposedly Russian agents, then is it not the job of Assange to dig up dirt on Clinton by colluding with Russian agents? And if so, then why is only Assange being charged with a crime and not Steele?

Also, if it is okay for Clinton to receive dirt on Trump from Steele from supposedly Russian agents, then is it not okay for Trump to supposedly receive dirt on Clinton from Assange from Russian agents? And if so, then why is only Trump being investigated and not Clinton?

Yes, sorry you are right, he was MI6, not MI5, my mistake.

As for the rest really you can just look this stuff up, there's no great mystery to any of it. I don't really have the time to rehash and type all of the freely available information that will answer your questions. If you've got anything much more specific that wouldn't take up so much time and might be considered debatable then that might be interesting.

 

[The Barbarian]

I dont think you're dishonest, but you're clearly over your head here.

I think your pride is hurt that Comey never found a criminal offense, and you're trying to gin up some kind of cover story to make up for it.

You are trying to argue about complex legal/political issues in a forum and when I illustrate your errors of conflation and point out the Guardian's blatant misrepresentation of Comey's quote, you shake your head and repeat yourself. Try a bit of humility and read it all again.Right. Just like the CIA NSA recording our calls and emails. Its not 'spying'...its 'surveillance'.

Without warrants. It's not "just like" an investigation where a warrant was obtained. You seem unable to distinguish between legal and illegal action. Bush's move to warrantless surveillance is not the same as the FBI's action in obtaining a judge's warrant.

And no, thats NOT the same as an investigation.

Yes, it is. A wiretap, for example, can be the entire investigation.

You LITERALLY just cut and paste the same misleading piece of the article after I provided the FULL QUOTE which did not include the words 'she committed no criminal wrongdoing'

As you learned, Comey never said that Clinton commited any crime. I realize your pride is hurt, and you're looking for a way out. But there isn't one. He described Clinton as careless but did not find any criminal behavior:
FBI Director Says Clinton Emails Were Careless, Not Criminal—Won't Recommend Charges

That's just the way it is. No amount of fudging will change it.

 

[Seventeen76]

I think your pride is hurt that Comey never found a criminal offense, and you're trying to gin up some kind of cover story to make up for it.

You seem accustomed to bullying people around and just repeating yourself no matter how much evidence is presented to you. You're obviously adept at using Google...now you just need to read and comprehend instead of linking.

Comey, in his statement, part of which I already quoted for you, explicitly said there WAS evidence that she violated the statutes. You failure to read and comprehend his findings doesn't grant you the liberty to simply state your own convenient facts.

Without warrants. It's not "just like" an investigation where a warrant was obtained. You seem unable to distinguish between legal and illegal action. Bush's move to warrantless surveillance is not the same as the FBI's action in obtaining a judge's warrant.

Another strawman. I never compared the legality of the two. I simply compared the essence of the two. Neither did I dispute the legality of the FISA warrant..I simply illustrated that the warrant was a separate PIECE of an investigation and that the warrant was prompted in great part by the dossier which was purchased via the DNC and falsely presented to FBI because they failed to disclose that THEY PAID FOR IT and lied about it being vetted by a third party.

I don't know why you're bringing Bush into this now. While the government surveillance dragnet probably was put into effect by the 9/11 charade and Patriot Act, it was under Obama that we discovered how extensive it had become and it was Brenner and Clapper who lied under oath about it.

As you learned, Comey never said that Clinton commited any crime. I realize your pride is hurt, and you're looking for a way out. But there isn't one. He described Clinton as careless but did not find any criminal behavior:
FBI Director Says Clinton Emails Were Careless, Not Criminal—Won't Recommend Charges
That's just the way it is. No amount of fudging will change it.

Not exactly. You're the average American who Googles and links just enough info so you can arrogantly troll the net and preserve your Utopian vision of your dear leaders. But you don't read and comprehend. (Im giving the benefit of the doubt...its possible that you're just a dishonest person)

Just as I illustrated the blatant dishonesty of the other Guardian article, this one also tells half the story. keep in mind...this is what lawyers and politicians do...they spin words to obfuscate the truth.

Yes, Comey said she was careless.
He NEVER said it wasn't criminal.
He specifically said they found evidence that the statutes were violated.
He said they couldn't prove INTENT.
The statute does not specifically require intent as many laws do because this is a national security relevant statute maximizing the obligation of those entrusted with access to top security clearance.
Thats why Comey was very precise and careful in stating that the statute was violated...he NEVER said there was no criminal wrongdoing. He carefully stated that they just DECIDED not to recommend indictment because 'it had never been done before'.

You're creating quite a trail of your own lack of comprehension here and it is a great informative tool for those who have the humility to actually learn and witness the great disparity between propaganda and facts.

 

[Erose]

Why is there a poll at the beginning of this thread? The fact that the Obama administration used national intelligence agencies to spy on the Trump campaign is already known, and no longer in dispute by anyone.

 

[Seventeen76]

Why is there a poll at the beginning of this thread? The fact that the Obama administration used national intelligence agencies to spy on the Trump campaign is already known, and no longer in dispute by anyone.

Ha...thats what I said about 25-30 posts ago and then I discovered the resident troll in this forum. Have fun reading the last 2 pages!

 

[Yarddog]

Why is there a poll at the beginning of this thread? The fact that the Obama administration used national intelligence agencies to spy on the Trump campaign is already known, and no longer in dispute by anyone.

A lot boils down to how one looks at the word spy. We can say that the Obama administration did legal surveillance on targets involved in Russian connections to election interference during the 2016 Presidential election. If one wants to call it spying, then that is within the definition. But it was legal. Maybe they can change the poll to reflect the legality of the "spying". Oh wait, that wouldn't do either because it is fact that it was legal.

 

[Seventeen76]

A lot boils down to how one looks at the word spy. We can say that the Obama administration did legal surveillance on targets involved in Russian connections to election interference during the 2016 Presidential election. If one wants to call it spying, then that is within the definition. But it was legal. Maybe they can change the poll to reflect the legality of the "spying". Oh wait, that wouldn't do either because it is fact that it was legal.

Legal yes. But there should be a whole new investigation into the DNC paying Fusion via Steele and Russian intelligence to acquire the dossier and submit it FBI without disclosing that THEY paid for it and LYING about it being vetted...all to get surveillance on an opposing Presidential Candidate.

It’s pretty damning and it’s astounding how so many are willing to overlook this while cheering Manifort being convicted for misstating or lying about the dates on a legal, unrelated real estate negotiation.

 

[Yarddog]

Legal yes. But there should be a whole new investigation into the DNC paying Fusion via Steele and Russian intelligence to acquire the dossier and submit it FBI without disclosing that THEY paid for it and LYING about it being vetted...all to get surveillance on an opposing Presidential Candidate.

I'm sure that Mueller has looked into many of these sources, so we may be shocked when the investigation is completed as to what exactly happened, on both political fronts.

It’s pretty damning and it’s astounding how so many are willing to overlook this while cheering Manifort being convicted for misstating or lying about the dates on a legal, unrelated real estate negotiation.

LOL, talk about slapping that with a bucket of white wash. Manafort was found guilty of 8 counts of the 18 count indictment. Just those could have gotten him 80 years in prison. He pled guilty, then, to keep from having to face another trial on the remaining 10 counts.

I do hope that Mueller has investigated this whole issue and if the DNC has done anything illegal in the matter, those involved should get time as well. Unless Trump starts throwing pardons arounds and then no one should face time.

 

[The Barbarian]

You seem accustomed to bullying people around and just repeating yourself no matter how much evidence is presented to you.

The truth doesn't change. No matter how much you deny it, there it is. And personal abuse doesn't do you any good at all.

You're obviously adept at using Google...

Google is useless if you don't know what you're looking for. No different than the scientific literature, really. If you know what you want to find, it's a lot easier.

Comey, in his statement, part of which I already quoted for you, explicitly said there WAS evidence that she violated the statutes.

As you know, he merely said that there was no evidence she committed a crime.

The FBI has determined that a new batch of emails linked to Hillary Clinton’s private email server “have not changed our conclusion” that she committed no criminal wrongdoing, FBI director James Comey told congressional leaders in a letter on Sunday.
FBI has found no criminal wrongdoing in new Clinton emails, says Comey

Not exactly. You're the average American who Googles and links just enough info so you can arrogantly troll the net and preserve your Utopian vision of your dear leaders. But you don't read and comprehend. (Im giving the benefit of the doubt...its possible that you're just a dishonest person)

You're upset and embarrassed. I get that. But being personally abusive won't help you.

Calm down a little, and think about what you're doing, and why you're ignoring these facts. And you'll do better, I think.

 

[The Barbarian]

Legal yes. But there should be a whole new investigation into the DNC paying Fusion via Steele and Russian intelligence to acquire the dossier and submit it FBI without disclosing that THEY paid for it and LYING about it being vetted...all to get surveillance on an opposing Presidential Candidate.

Why would they investigate something that wouldn't even be a crime? And as you learned, they did vet the dossier, and much of it has already been verified. Would you like me to show you again?

It’s pretty damning and it’s astounding how so many are willing to overlook this while cheering Manifort being convicted for misstating or lying about the dates on a legal, unrelated real estate negotiation.

Turns out, lying under oath is a crime. Go figure.

 

[Seventeen76]

As you know, he merely said that there was no evidence she committed a crime.

The FBI has determined that a new batch of emails linked to Hillary Clinton’s private email server “have not changed our conclusion” that she committed no criminal wrongdoing, FBI director James Comey told congressional leaders in a letter on Sunday.
FBI has found no criminal wrongdoing in new Clinton emails, says Comey

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news...nton-email-investigation-criminal-james-comey

Nope. Already been through this but you're in so much of a hurry to show everyone how right you are that you dont even read carefully.

This is the dishonest Guardian spreading propaganda.
The only part Comey said is "have not changed our conclusion”...but then the Guardian ADDED the words 'that she committed no criminal wrongdoing' to the end of it. Comey never spoke those words. It's the Guardian purposely misrepresenting Comey's words to further the narrative that partisan, uninformed people like you want to hear.

Comey's ACTUAL quote: “Based on our review, we have not changed our conclusions that we expressed in July with respect to Secretary Clinton."

So what WAS his actual conclusion in July?
"Although there is evidence of potential violations of the statutes..."

This is the same Guardian claiming Manefort visiting Assange 3 times and has already backtracked on its story because everyone gets checked into the embassy and Ecuador stated he was never there, there are no logs and no video.

You're been duped and you're so full of pride and unreasonable resentment toward the GOP that you're incapable of intellectual honesty at this point.

 

[Seventeen76]

And as you learned, they did vet the dossier, and much of it has already been verified. Would you like me to show you again?

The dossier was not vetted when submitted to FBI. The submitted it to Yahoo News and told Yahoo it had been vetted, which was a lie and Yahoo stated they didnt vet it before running it. Then they submitted to FBI claiming Yahoo ran it. They also failed to inform the judge that THEY paid for the dossier.

The dossier wasnt 'vetted' until AFTER the warrant was issued and the dossier became a controvery within the greater investigation.

Turns out, lying under oath is a crime. Go figure.

Correct. I never absolved Manefort of anything. But look at the hypocrisy. Brennan, Comey and Clapper lied about significant material facts on CIA/NSA sureveillance and in Comey's case about leaking the information. All walked.
Because democrats are generally hypocrites.

 

[The Barbarian]

Barbarian chuckles:
And as you learned, they did vet the dossier, and much of it has already been verified. Would you like me to show you again?

The dossier was not vetted when submitted to FBI.

So guess what they did. Right. That's how we know all of the parts that were verified. Would you like to see those again?

The dossier wasnt 'vetted' until AFTER the warrant was issued and the dossier became a controvery within the greater investigation.

As you learned, the dossier, although much of it has been since demonstated to be true, was not why the investigation began.

You're upset and embarrassed. I get that. But the fact are what they are. As you learned, Comey never said that Clinton committed any crimes. That's just a fact.

 

[The Barbarian]

It’s pretty damning and it’s astounding how so many are willing to overlook this while cheering Manifort being convicted for misstating or lying about the dates on a legal, unrelated real estate negotiation.

Barbarian observes:
Turns out, lying under oath is a crime. Go figure.

I never absolved Manefort of anything.

Then it's hard to see why you tried to make the equivalence in your statement.

Brennan, Comey and Clapper lied about significant material facts on CIA/NSA sureveillance and in Comey's case about leaking the information.

Show us that. What they lied about specifically. Checkable sources. Not that we are likely to see that.

Because democrats are generally hypocrites.

Comey has been, for most of his adult life, a republican. Clapper is an independent. "Democrat" seems to be your way of saying "boogeyman."

 

[Seventeen76]

As you learned, the dossier, although much of it has been since demonstrated to be true, was not why the investigation began.

You're upset and embarrassed. I get that. But the fact are what they are. As you learned, Comey never said that Clinton committed any crimes. That's just a fact.

You keep repeating yourself because you seem unable to differentiate between the investigation and the 'spying' or surveillance'. I never said the investigation started due to the dossier. I said the surveillance did. You cant simply spy on someone because you're investigating. You still need a warrant which is what FISA did...when applied for via the dossier.

As for committing crimes...you changed your wording. Initially you implied that Comey flat out STATED that she committed no criminal act. He said no such thing as I explicitly showed you via his own quote that they DID find evidence of criminal wrongdoing. They simply chose not to recommend indictment.
Now your saying that he NEVER SAID she did commit a crime. Right. Nice subtle change of tune!

 

[The Barbarian]

You keep repeating yourself because you seem unable to differentiate between the investigation and the 'spying' or surveillance'.

As you learned, surveillance is an investigation.

I never said the investigation started due to the dossier. I said the surveillance did.

As you learned, surveillance is investigation.

You still need a warrant which is what FISA did...when applied for via the dossier.

But as you learned, that's not why the investigation began. That was because earlier, a Trump staffer made a tipsy admission to a diplomat, who passed the information on.

As for committing crimes...you changed your wording. Initially you implied that Comey flat out STATED that she committed no criminal act.

Nope. Reade it again. I pointed out that he found no criminal act on her part.

Barbarian's statements:
As you know, he merely said that there was no evidence she committed a crime.

As you learned, Comey never said that Clinton commited any crime.

Now your saying that he NEVER SAID she did commit a crime. Right. Nice subtle change of tune!

Nice try. Did you really think no one would check?

 

[Seventeen76]

Show us that. What they lied about specifically. Checkable sources. Not that we are likely to see that.

Sen.Grassley asked ‘have you ever been an anonymous source...or known someone else to be an anonymous source...?’ Comey said, "never, no."
Comey later told Congress, ""I asked a friend of mine to share the content of the memo with a reporter, I didn't do it myself for a variety of reasons but I asked him to because I thought that might prompt the appointment of a special counsel."

Comey also told Congress that Huma Abedin had made “a regular practice” of forwarding “hundreds and thousands” of Clinton messages to Weiner. It was found that she only forwarded a handful of messages.

Clapper: 2013 Sen. Ron Wyden asked Clapper whether the NSA collected "any type of data at all on millions or hundreds of millions of Americans” — to which Clapper said "No, sir ... not wittingly.” 3 months later documents leaked by Edward Snowden revealed that the NSA was in fact collecting in bulk domestic call records, along with various internet communications.

Brennan: “Let me assure you the CIA was in no way spying on [the committee] or the Senate,” he said. Whoops. CIA inspector general’s report completely contradicted Brennan’s statements, and Brennan privately apologize to intelligence committee.

You're goodd at Google cut and paste. There are all over...Guardian...DailyKos...Wash Post. Have fun