Honestly, and I’m not trying to be difficult I swear, I’m just trying to understand, I don’t see how you arrive at “extensively surveilled” from the source you provided. And, I’m not saying you’re wrong, I’m just saying that to me, more facts are necessary to determine if this surveillance was “baseless” and “extensive.”
And generally, investigations are like that. You can’t conclude them with one journalist’s or even one media outlet’s take on the matter. Investigations are long and complex and involve extensive fact-finding and the application of certain legal standards to those facts.
Always America surveils foreign countries, that’s the whole point of intelligence. At what point does it become “extensive?” What’s the standard for that, and how would anyone in the general public have any idea what that standard would be? They wouldn’t.
As far as the surveillance being baseless, I am truly astounded by the number of people asserting this. It just seems that large numbers of people are offering up this whole: there’s nothing wrong with Russia, there’s no reason to distrust Russia, without a whole lot of concrete information (or any information) to back this up.
As someone who has conducted and overseen a variety of investigations involving employee misconduct, I can tell you this for certain: the truth is never a certain or general proclamation, but is hidden deeply in shades of gray and layers and layers upon layers of complex information.
If it’s like this for General employee misconduct, I can’t even begin to imagine how much more complex all this must be with regard to National Security amongst nations which, by their very nature, seek to be adversarial with one another.
So people in the Trump campaign were conversing with Russian officials. What exactly were they talking about? Why? Who exactly was surveiling them? Why? What was The surveillance team hoping to find? Did they find it? Would they even ever answer these questions to the general public, or would they decline to do so “in the interest of National security.”
The “interest of national security” allows for surveillance and secrecy about that surveillance for our own protection, but at the same time it can also provides cover for rampant corruption. So it could be that the surveillance was “extensive” and “baseless” but it could also be the case that it was totally warranted, and if it was, no one would tell you. Why? Because that would not be in the best interest of national security.
It’s almost impossible to know what’s really going on, but I don’t think it’s wise for anyone to jump to any conclusions about it, without all the information. (Which we will never get.)
And the part about the Obama administration leaking the info, those federal agencies are their own entities, their own ecosystems entirely. They don’t care to be disturbed by any president and are very skilled at fighting back when they are. So yes, that’s definitely happening, a lot of leaking going on, there, but this idea that Obama is sitting back somewhere pulling puppet strings, quite honestly credits Obama with far more power than he ever had. It sounds crazy to me.
And many leaks are actually coming from the Whitehouse directly…people in the Trump administration don’t like each other. When you have a situation like that, it can work as a business model in a certain type of corporation, but it’s a disaster in Washington D.C. — which is an entirely different sort of beast.
In a corporation, you can’t hurt an enemy by leaking to the press, because the press doesn’t care about your company’s corruption. But you can certainly do it in Washington D.C.
Because I have worked inside the beltway, I knew that this was exactly what was going to happen to the Trump administration, I just didn’t know the vehicle was going to be Russia gate. But it wouldn’t matter, if not the Russia thing, it was going to be some other scandal, and anyone who knows how Washington works could clearly see this coming. And if Hillary had won, it would have been the exact same thing with her. Some scandal would have blown up on her, probably within the first six months. Anyone who understands D.C. gets why. The various political factions are really skilled at battling one another and the 2016 election was all out war. It wasn’t going to end just because one or the other got elected.