I will agree emphatically that the Clintons put a whole lot more thought into their devious wordsmithing, but Trump being "overbroad and imprecise" ain't exactly what I would call a positive quality considering the power of the office amd title he holds. It lends to the criticism that he is not a thoughtful man.
I read the Times article and it seems you were correct, I think it was you, when you said that the Obama admin approved a relaxation in NSA surveillance rules "on the way out the door." If you read the Times article carefully, its clear that the relaxed rules allow wider sharing of information between agencies when intercepted communications involve people outside the U.S. This could very much affect the FBI investigation of Russian Hacking , and would explain surveillance of Trump and his associates incidental to this investigation. This is not what Trump referred to in his tweeting. His tweet was clear and unambiguous. We know now that when the hacking investigation led not only to Russia but incidentally to Trump's colleagues as well, that the outgoing Obama administration acted swiftly to make it well neigh impossible for the incoming Trump administration to bury the evidence already turned up. I would imagine that the FBI is now attempting to verify the allegations in the report McCain passed on to them. (That report as of yesterday was available on the net for all to see.) In that report it is alleged that the Russian government has material to blackmail Trump, and the nature of the material is identified. Also, the manafort connection seems to be key. I doubt we have heard the end of this by any means. Regardless, there is no evidence whatsoever that Obama ordered anyone to spy on Trump. It is now becoming quite clear what must have happened. Investigation of the Russian hacking into the DNC computers and interception of communications between foreign operatives and persons in the U.S. has led, incidentally, to Trump and his associates. Where there is smoke there is often fire.
Seriously? I think you are just baiting us because the alternative is you are beyond gullible. The "dossier" on Trump has already been thoroughly debunked. McCain should have been forced to resign or at least grovel publicly over his role in disseminating it. The Russian hacking narrative is falling apart before our eyes. If there were a shred of evidence that Trump or his team had done anything improper, don't you think it would have been leaked by now? Whatever. Believe what you will.
That's for sure. The deep state investigators and all their backers tell us our very democracy is at stake, and yet they apparently couldn't get a warrant to look at the evidence for the greatest crime in history. Or, they didn't really want to look at it. For some reason.
I am not suggesting that Trump, or anyone involved in his campaign, did anything illegal with regard to this incident. I would want to leave that possibility open, pending the findings of the current investigation. I am suggesting that the on-going investigation of whether there was Russian involvement in the U.S. election led to the apparently legal, and likely incidental, surveillance of Trump and/or is colleagues. It was not an order from Obama to spy on Trump, as Trump has claimed. This is just another one of Trump's endless lies. When the FBI investigates they would be remiss not to follow wherever their investigative trail leads. One would have to be deaf, dumb, and blind not to notice that the trail appears to be leading to a connection among Russia, Trump and his colleagues.
This is just like the Valerie Plume affair. They want someone close to Trump. Even if they have to pin something ridiculous on someone like they did on Scooter Libby, who had nothing to do with the leak. If they find out who's actually committed the only real, known crime involved in this investigation, the leaking of confidential information, they won't do anything at all to him or her just like they didn't do anything to Richard Armitage, who actually was the person that leaked Valerie Plume's name that started the investigation. Armitage worked for Colin Powell. They didn't want to get him! They needed someone in the White House to prosecute!
Well by your own admission, you lack sufficient evidence of that one way or the other. So despite the media narrative, Trump could just as easily be correct as you. In fact, all the evidence is beginning to point to Trump being right, morally if not literally. We know three key things. One, Trump, his family and/or his close advisors were surveilled. The claim is that it was incidental. Maybe, maybe that was a pretext. Two, we know that Obama removed existing restrictions on accessing raw NSA files in the last few weeks of his administration, ie after they knew Trump had won. Three, we know from the interview of that DOD woman that there was an organized effort to widely disseminate the raw intercepts, with identifies unmasked, to facilitate leaking. That by itself is almost certainly criminal. By contrast, there has been no evidence of Trump doing anything improper. When it appeared that one Trump appointee, Gen. Flynn, was behaving deceptively, Trump immediately canned him.
To tell you the truth I am totally OK with the complete lack of evidence, bolstered by the irrationality of Trumps tweet. That's more than enough proof for me.
♦ Obviously Chairman Devin Nunes has placed himself outside the rails of Deep State. ♦ The UniParty now wants him removed. ♦ Nunes has become a risk. ♦ Brutally obvious questions being ignored by media become focus of wider electorate. 2017 Congressional Intelligence Oversight “Gang of Eight” Chairman Nunes is the only member of the Intelligence Oversight Gang-of-Eight who has reviewed the executive level intelligence product which caused him concern. Nunes alleged in the last week he received evidence that Obama administration political figures gained access to unmasked American identities through foreign intercepts involving the Trump transition team between November 2016 and January 2017. Media and congressional leadership intentionally skip the obvious questions: ♦ Why don’t the other seven members also go look at the same executive intel? • Why, instead of looking at the same data, does the entire UniParty political apparatus and DC media now seem intent on eliminating Devin Nunes? • Why doesn’t Adam Schiff, Nancy Pelosi, Chuck Schumer or Mark Warner simply go look at the same executive intelligence product? • Why doesn’t Paul Ryan, Mitch McConnell or Richard Burr simply go look at the same executive intelligence product? • Why doesn’t any member of the DC media ask such brutally obvious questions? • Why is the DC UniParty both intent on not looking at the intelligence and simultaneously intent on removing Nunes, and getting the investigation removed from the House Intelligence Committee (Nunes/Schiff) and over to the Senate Intelligence Committee (Burr/Warner)? • What is it about that Executive Office Level Intelligence Product the gang-of-eight are all so desperately afraid of? • Why would the Senate launch another entire congressional intelligence inquiry, when the head of the Senate Intelligence Committees, Burr and Warner, are desperate NOT to see the intelligence product that causes Nunes such concern? • What does that say about the intent of a committee when they refuse to even look at the intelligence reports they are supposed to be investigating? more: https://theconservativetreehouse.co...rats-refuse-to-review-oversight-intelligence/