Quote:They already found out that Nunes got his info from the Trump administration at the White House.


The Senate intelligence committee has even cleared Barack Obama.

That's completely irrelevant where Nunes got the info.  I know you need to cling to that like it's some sort of scandal, but it's not.  You act like that's the entire story, and it's not.  That information was LEAKED by the OBAMA administration back in November.  Trump had nothing to do with the leaking of unmasked data.  What they gave to Nunes, which was perfectly legal for them to to do, was the evidence that there was surveillance being done.  I find it absolutely amazing that you liberals just can't seem to grasp what the issue is here, or you simply refuse to do so because "RUSSIA!  TAXES!"  Facing the facts, and admitting your messiah's administration did something illegal for political gain would go against your core beliefs.  I understand. 

 

Once again, "cleared Barack Obama" is a highly subjective thing to say.  Nobody is saying Barack Obama went to Trump Tower and bugged the place except for liberal loons who need to interpret every single syllable of Trump's tweets as literally as possible.  Someone in the Obama administration submitted TWO FISA requests to run surveillance against the Trump campaign.  The first was rejected.  The second was approved.  That's a fact.  You can't deny it, so you must ignore it.  So, we know the administration was monitoring communications. 

 

We know that nothing that is ordered by the administration would be done without at least the knowledge of the chief executive, so we know that Obama was most likely aware of the FISA requests, AND the intended targets, AND the results of those efforts.  Again, fact.  Feel free to ignore it since it doesn't satisfy your lack of curiosity.

 

We know that the content of this surveillance was leaked by the Obama administration, and that this data was unmasked prior to doing so.  Otherwise, the NY Times wouldn't have known it was Flynn who was in contact with the Russian Ambassador for LEGITIMATE purposes as the incoming National Security Advisor.  If that bit of surveillance was swept up incidentally as they monitored the communications of the Russian Ambassador as they claimed, it was still illegal to unmask the content of the participants in the call.  Another fact you'll need to ignore for sure.

 

We know that Obama issued an order expanding the list of federal officials who would have access to surveillance transcripts and other sensitive intelligence.  That expansion was ordered right before the first wave of leaks came out about Flynn's conversation with the Russian Ambassador.  Convenient timing that you'll need to ignore for the sake of keeping your head firmly planted in that orifice of yours.

 

Fixate on Nunes getting proof that the Trump campaign was under surveillance.  That's perfectly legal, but it sure sounds more nefarious than an administration spying on a political adversary, doesn't it?

---