Yep.
So... where in those does it say "We wiretapped Trump Tower"? Cause that's the issue. We've known for months that his people were being monitored. HE's known!
Why does it matter if it was Trump Tower specifically, when the warrant gives them broad access to the "US Persons" in question regardless of their location?
Because that's what Trump blew up over.
He didn't care that his people were being monitored. He cared that HE was being monitored. Or more accurately, his tower.
The FBI was doing their job and nothing says Trump himself was in the warrant. Nor did Obama order it, according to the reports.
So again, Trump blew up and we're asking for the evidence of what he said, not what he (should have) already known.
Where did you glean that Trump isn't upset that his entire campaign was targeted? Are you seeing something I didn't see that indicated he's only concerned about whether or not he specifically was under surveillance.
MY wires, MY phones. Nothing about his campaign surrogates or managers or staff. I also checked and this was the first time he's mentioned it despite, as you so very happily pointed out, the information is much older. So it's very likely he JUST saw a fox news article on it and tweeted about it.
The first warrant that got knocked down was specifically named "Trump." Interestingly enough, the FISA court has only denied 11 applications in 33 years, yet someone must have had the foresight to realize that the abuse of authority for political reasons was a bad idea.
Wait... wait wait... so you give me those articles, point to them as a reliable source, and think "Trump" is somehow indicating that it's got nefarious purposes? That "Trump" can't mean 'trump campaign'? You do realize that the other two articles basically said the FBI had enough evidence to show a probable link of Donald and Russia, right? That they feel, based on the evidence, that Donald was being helped by the Russians?
Also, are you suggesting that the FBI shouldn't have probed Hillary Clinton about her e-mails? Cause, you know... that happened while she was campaigning. Or is it ok cause she's the one you hated?
Personally, I think that if there's evidence ANY politician has been compromised by a foreign government, it should be investigated. Obviously you don't think that ways because Trump won. Had he lost, you'd be speaking a different story with different points, trying to justify that Russia made Trump lose so weak Hillary would be in power. Or if Hillary had the "Russia" problems, you'd be demanding the same thing.
Sorry, but your pure hypocrisy is showing.
Either this was done with Obama's approval or he had a rogue AG, he is hiding behind plausible deniability, or he was completely incompetent and had no control over his administration. Nixon resigned for something infinitely less severe.
Pfft.
Yes, because the ONLY explanation is evil and nefarious purposes to make Trump lose and not because people actually saw evidence of interference. Nope, that just doesn't fit your view, does it? Get your head out of Trump's ass. You're only bitching cause this might mean Trump did something illegal or at the very least didn't win on his own merit and you just can't stand the idea that maybe, just maybe, Trump wasn't as great as he claimed.
The Weaponization of Bureaucracy is a terrifying to anyone that values a free and open society.
I'm not sure how to take this.
Yes, but also no.
I mean, defunding Obama care and Planned Parenthood is weaponization of Bureaucracy. Tax laws are weaponized bureaucracy. Hell, any regulation is weaponized bureaucracy. The government is attacking an industry and their practices such as lead paint, child labor, air pollution, and unsafe coal mines.