It is a documented FACT that all of the conversations of Trump and his associates were recorded -- because ALL conversations over US phone / data lines are recorded!
In case you want another source, here is the "Electronic Freedom Foundation"
"Secret government documents, published by the media in 2013, confirm the NSA obtains full copies of everything that is carried along major domestic fiber optic cable networks."Since ALL of our communications are digital these days, that is ALL. Here is the key paragraph from the linked article.
Thus, in 2016, when Trump says the surveillance of him took place, Obama needed only to ask the NSA for a transcript of Trump's telephone conversations to be prepared from the digital versions that the NSA already possessed. Because the NSA has the digital version of every telephone call made to, from and within the U.S. since 2005, if President Obama last year wanted transcripts of Trump's calls made at any time, the NSA would have been duty-bound to provide them, just as it would be required to provide transcripts of Obama's calls today if President Trump wanted them.
I disagree that the NSA would currently provide the information to Trump ... at least not without leaking that they provided it and that Trump is misusing the security apparatus of BOistan. I believe the Administrative State (AS) is the last (and arguably the most important) Democrat held part of the US government. The AS may or may not be the "enemy of the people", but it is certainly the enemy of Trump!
So Trump needs "evidence" to make the claim that BO spied on him. The FBI is investigating Trump for possibly having "connections to Russia". EVERYONE ought to have this video locked in their brain!
So did the FBI investigate Obama? In 2013 he WELCOMED the Russian proposal to get more involved in Syria. I assume the FBI has LOTS of tapes from conversations between BO and his surrogates on the topic of Russia, "Red Lines" and Syria! Why were none of those "leaked"?
Hillary, Podesta and the DNC set up insecure servers and they were hacked. The PROBLEMS came from:
- Hillary clearly stated there was nothing secret on her server (because it was illegal for there to be anything classified on the server) -- there were at least 10's, if not hundreds of documents found to be classified on the server AFTER Hillary had made multiple illegal attempts to "wipe" it. For anyone else, this was JAIL TIME for a FELONY!
- The problem with what was leaked was THE CONTENT for the DNC and Podesta. It proved they rigged the primary for Hillary, cheated on the debates, that the "Clinton Fund" was a quid pro quo "diving for dollars" for the Clintons, and a bunch of other seedy stuff.
Did "the Russians" even do the hacking? If the MSM had covered the latest Wikileaks dump of CIA capability, pretty much nobody would be thinking that any more.
So BO directly tells the Russian ambassador in '12 that he is going to "have more flexibility after the election". Gee ... Did he know he was going to win? Maybe the Russians were helping him. Why not? Is this the sort of accusatory stream that only runs one way? What "evidence" did anyone have about Trump INFLUENCING the supposed "hacking" prior to the eavesdropping on the phone conversations -- which BTW didn't provide any evidence of "collusion" either.
One of the most interesting disclosures concerns how the CIA can cover its tracks by leaving electronic trails suggesting the hacking is being done in different places — notably, in Russia. In fact, according to WikiLeaks, there’s an entire department dedicated to this. Its job is to “misdirect attribution” by leaving false fingerprints. If you’ve been at all skeptical about the recent levels of Russia-related hysteria, promoted heavily by U.S. intelligence agencies, alarm bells are probably going off in your head.
And what would "collusion" be? "I'll have more flexibility to work with you after the election"?
WHOMEVER did the hacking and leaking of Hillary, her staff and the DNC, it was the result of:
- Either their illegal servers, or their insanely poorly protected servers.
- The ISSUE was about what was ON the servers and in the emails -- that they had classified documents on private servers, shook down campaign contributors and rigged their own primary.
In the case of Trump however, he and his incoming administration were using phone lines that OUGHT to not have been tapped -- or even if you are OK with the government recording all the calls and emails that flow, should not have been EXPOSED -- the leaks were from THIS country, and in the BO administration / Administrative Sate. Were there to be any sort of even handed treatment here, the PROBLEM (according to the media and the D's) would be the SOURCE OF THE LEAKS, not the CONTENT. BO DEFINITELY relaxed classified restrictions, basically encouraging "leaks", and the source is the NY Times.
As Inauguration Day approached, Obama White House officials grew convinced that the intelligence was damning and that they needed to ensure that as many people as possible inside government could see it, even if people without security clearances could not. Some officials began asking specific questions at intelligence briefings, knowing the answers would be archived and could be easily unearthed by investigators — including the Senate Intelligence Committee, which in early January announced an inquiry into Russian efforts to influence the election.
The "blaming the Russians" for "manipulation" is blaming their (supposed) intelligence gathering -- we are supposed to pay no attention to the content of what was leaked in those cases.
In the Trump case, there has been NO CONTENT beyond "they talked", and that "looks bad" -- to Democrats, the left, and cranks like McCain.
So where was that standard when the video above was happening?
'via Blog this'