"Trump the Establishment" is now on sale! Click to order.

And the Kindle version is here.

Friday, March 31, 2017

Did Obama spy on Romney?

Barack Obama's regime used the National Security Administration to conduct espionage on President Trump's campaign, under the guise of protecting the nation from Russians.

As chilling as that abuse of power by Obama is, a remark by Rush Limbaugh on Thursday raises the specter of something even more sinister by Obama.



Did Obama use the NSA to spy on Mitt Romney and steal the 2012 election?

Limbaugh used an on-air statement by Obama aide Evelyn Farkas to lay out the timeline of Obama's political espionage of Donald Trump.

Before, we knew Obama's spying on Trump went back to a failed attempt in June 2016 to get a warrant to wiretap from a federal judge under the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act of 1978.

Andrew McCarthy reported this in the National Review on March 3.

But McCarthy reported that a judge later issued a FISA warrant in October -- weeks before the election.

However, when Farkas went on MSNBC, she pushed the timeline back even further.

Her purpose was  to urge her fellow aides to tell what they know, because when she was part of the Obama administration, she had seen intelligence information linking Trump to Russia.

Limbaugh added one to one, came up with two, and said:
She left the Obama administration, left the Pentagon, in September 2015. So let me tell you what that means. Contrary to it meaning that she was out of the loop, it means that this intell collection against the Trump campaign had to be going on from the very earliest days. Remember, Trump’s trip down the escalator was in June of 2015 — or was it July? June 16th, yeah. That trip down the escalator, June of 2015.
Limbaugh also said:
Remember, this is the period of time, you know, Trump’s June the 16th announcement, that’s where everybody was laughing themselves silly thinking he couldn’t possibly be serious. He’s just come out here and basically called every Mexican a rapist and said he doesn’t respect McCain ’cause he doesn’t like military people that get captured, doesn’t respect, all that. This is back in the day when people thought Trump was gonna implode and crater with every public appearance. And that went on for the two months. They were not taking Trump seriously. That’s what’s amazing about this. They were still surviving the guy and his campaign, according to Evelyn Farkas.
That's an indication that the immoral political espionage pre-dated the announcement.

And this pre-dated Paul Manafort's involvement in the campaign by almost a year, so that cannot be the cover for the political spying by Obama.

From Limbaugh:
Why would anybody be colluding with Trump? Nobody thought Trump was gonna win. Probably Trump didn’t think he was gonna win. Although he says he did. But June, July, August 2015, folks, we’re coming up on a year and a half ago now. And at that time everybody thought it was gonna be Jeb. Jeb! With the exclamation point. Everybody thought it was gonna be Jeb. Am I right about that? And there was some attention being paid to Ted Cruz. But not Trump.
So why weren’t the Russians trying to engineer some deal with Jeb? Why wasn’t there any intel on that? Why weren’t the Russians trying to strike a deal with Cruz? Why isn’t there any intel on that? Why haven’t there been any leaks about that? ‘Cause nobody in 2015 thought that it was gonna be the Trumpster.
Now it may be that Obama just went after Trump because of the birther thing. That is a plausible scenario. But that would push the timeline back even further to 2011.

But maybe the political espionage -- the abuse of the NSA's power -- was modus operandi for Obama.

If Obama never spied on political opponents before, why would Obama suddenly risk being caught wiretapping someone just to elect Hillary Clinton, whom he despises?

Congress should look into possible espionage and sabotage by Obama in the 2012 election.



"Trump the Establishment" is now on Kindle.

"Trump the Establishment" is also available in paperback.

This is the sequel to "Trump the Press," which covered the nomination. The original -- "Trump the Press" -- is available on Kindle, or in paperback on Amazon.

Autographed copies are available by writing me at DonSurber@GMail.com

Please follow me on Twitter.

Friend me on Facebook.

17 comments:

  1. Of course. Obama has been spying on his opponents and enemies (and, I daresay, his friends) from the day he got his grubby paws on the levers of power. That's what fascist do. He was well insulated by his fellow travelers and the MSM and just wasn't caught. But now the cat is out of the bag. Former Obama people are getting loose lips. Sooner or later it will be criminal charges and sworn testimony. Tell me again: Why is he taking a long vacation outside the U.S.? - Elric

    ReplyDelete
  2. Farkas has desperately tried to backtrack from her admittedly ambiguous statements on-air (ambiguous in the sense of her personal participation in SpyGate), but I think Limbaugh has raised an interesting point. It wouldn't surprise me if the spying was far more intrusive and expansive than we suspect or can even imagine. After Obama's re-election in 2012, his crew must have felt pretty invincible, and combined with their unbounded Machiavellian arrogance, the temptation to spy on the political "opposition" would have been overwhelming, too powerful an urge to resist.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Fargas was a stylish, spoiled, privileged, leftist social promotee who can't add or spell, and was out of her depth from Day 1. What field is her PhD in? She is a moron and makes that more obvious every time she opens her mouth. More affirmative action, with the usual entirely predictable result. Fargas looks like a corpse b/c she knows she is out of her depth, and in doo doo that she probably will lie submerged in for the rest of her life. Couldn't happen to a more pleasant, patriotic, reliable sarc collectivist communist open borders obozo worshiping zombie.

      Delete
  3. Time for Ms. Farkas to elaborate on her very interesting comments in front of a Congressional committee.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. If you are after the truth, that would be a waste of time, don't you think? Congressional committee hearings are for show, nothing more. Yesterday's opening hearings before the Senate Intelligence Committee on the purported Russian government hacking are a good example of that. Despite what the WaPo and NYT may have written about the day's activities, we have no more solid information about the truth of such claims than we had months ago. Lots of hot air, not much light, from alleged cyber experts who are unlikely to have first hand information. It's more DC kabuki.

      Delete
  4. I think the Republicans are afraid to put Obama under the microscope because they are afraid of two things: one is the backlash from the blacks in attacking an object of worship for them; the other is the backlash from their constituents when they see the ugly truth and are disgusted by the pusillanimity of the congress when they fail to prosecute him.
    Just look at him now. He is daring anyone to try and come after him.
    I say do it.
    Then make judicious use of grapeshot to quell the rioters.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Grapeshot, yes, and lots of flash-bang grenades. And for the survivors: Sodium Pentothal. Let's get to the bottom of who is organizing the thugs and who is paying them. This is sedition bordering on treason. - Elric

      Delete
    2. I like the way you think, Elric!
      -Fred

      Delete
  5. Rush: "They were still surviving the guy and his campaign, according to Evelyn Farkas."

    Don, I believe that "surviving" is supposed to be "surveiling".

    ReplyDelete
  6. It goes back way, way before Obama. J. Edgar Hoover was the most feared man in Washington because of the dossiers he had on everyone, including the chauffeurs. It probably goes back to the time the homo sapiens and the neanderthals were playing cowboys and indians.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Irony, a guy named Hoover who could suck a tennis ball through a garden hose.

      Delete
  7. Well, Don, we know for an absolute fact that Obama deliberately disabled donor verification on his campaign website so that Hamas, for example, found it feasible to run a phone bank from the West Bank.

    He did it in 2008 and 2012, and there were complaints filed about it with Lerner's FEC. Strangely, nothing was done. /sarc.

    How difficult would the Russians found it to funnel money the same way?

    ReplyDelete
  8. I don't think there's been a series of worthwhile Congressional investigations since the Watergate hearings of the seventies. Beginning with the Kefauver hearings of the fifties, it's really been all about politicians wanting free face time on TV.
    -Fred

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Washington, DC is way too corrupt to investigate itself. When they set up the 9/11 Commission, somebody smart said Jamie Gorelick should have been the first witness called instead of one of the Commissioners.

      Delete
  9. "But maybe the political espionage -- ......... -- was modus operandi for Obama."

    The Chicago Way.

    ReplyDelete
  10. ^^^Agree there. Its become the new McCarthy sort of thing. No laws broken? No problem. Just suggest any contact with Russia is the same as illegal. The damage is done.
    Also a simple and logical explanation of what Nunes probably did that may look strange but isnt: He receives info from sources within intel community. They tell him where it can be found. But to examine that info he must go to Langley or NSC computers because that info isnt shared at Congress computers. He visits that location at NSC at the WH grounds..not inside WH itself. The two WH people assist him in locating and looking at the info. We dont know if they actually observed the info. Nunes sees the info and leaves. He returns the next day to inform the press andTrump.
    Also its not unusual for Intel Committee chairs to look and use the NSC for certain info.

    ReplyDelete
  11. Lemme add to all that ^^. How would we act if you now knew who authorized the unmasking and ok the sharing of the info?
    Maybe we would seem to act "strange" as well.
    People have vanished for less.

    ReplyDelete