Discussion:
Evelyn Farkass Six Revelations about Obama, Trump & the Deep State
(too old to reply)
Joe Cooper
2017-04-02 14:00:34 UTC
Permalink
Unsurprisingly, President Donald J. Trump was correct.

Though he originally spoke, or tweeted, clumsily, the gist of his claim
was correct: The administration of his predecessor, Barack H. Obama, had
indeed been surveilling Trump and those close to his campaign.

As I showed in a previous article, The New York Times, Slate, Mother
Jones, and Heat Street—i.e. Democratic Party propaganda organs—are among
the media outlets that confirmed months ago the President’s claim. Theses
surveillance efforts had been transpiring from at least the time of last
summer.

It’s true that it has not yet been proven that either Trump or any other
private American citizens in his orbit were subjects or targets of these
surveillance efforts. Ostensibly, foreigners, specifically, Russians,
were the subjects. But it is equally true that arrangements were made by
those within Obama’s government—the so-called “Deep State”—to illegally
unmask and leak public information regarding those private citizens that
allegedly got swept up in these spying operations.

For those still not convinced by this, Evelyn Farkas should remove all
doubt.

Under Obama, Farkas was Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defense for
“Russia/Ukraine/Eurasia,” according to the website for the U.S.
Department of Defense. She left her position in 2015 to become an adviser
to Hillary Clinton’s campaign. Earlier in March, she appeared on MSNBC
and made the following comments on Morning Joe:

“I was urging my former colleagues and, frankly speaking, people on the
Hill…[to] get as much information as you can, as much intelligence as you
can, before President Obama leaves the administration.”

Farkas admitted that she “had a fear that somehow that information would
disappear with the senior people [from the Obama administration] who
left.” She feared that it would disappear into the abyss of “the
bureaucracy,” and “that the Trump folks, if they found out how we knew
what we knew about…the Trump staff’s dealing with Russia, that they would
try to compromise those sources and methods.”

There are several telling insights to glean from Farkas’ remarks.

First, Farkas here acknowledges that the Obama administration,
essentially, had indeed been gathering intelligence, or spying, on
private citizens.

Second, being the Democrat partisan that she obviously is, Farkas’
intention in making these comments, and making them in the left-friendly
venue of MSNBC, was to suggest that the Democrats’ “The Russians Made Us
Do It (Lose)” narrative has substance.

Yet, notice, Farkas never said that the intel proved anything so much as
resembling “collusion” between Putin or “the Russians” and Trump. Had
there been anything there, she would have done what no one has yet to do
and offer at least a scintilla of evidence to substantiate this charge.

Third, in fact, Farkas never even mentions any correspondence between
Trump and “the Russians.” No, she instead references “Trump folks” and
“the Trump staff” when talking about Russia.

Fourth, while Farkas obviously wanted for audiences to think that Obama’s
government discovered some nefarious connection between “Trump folks” and
those dastardly Russians, the only allusion that she ever manages to make
is to the “dealings” that she alleges transpired between these groups.

In other words, Farkas’s wording here is profoundly vague.

Fifth, Farkas unwittingly confesses that she worried about “the Trump
folks” discovering “how we knew what we knew….” Is it not eminently
reasonable to infer from this statement that the “how” in question, the
methods by which intelligence was supposedly gathered, consists of
surveillance of the “Trump folks?”

Finally, Farkas admits to being worried about how the Trump
administration would react when it found out “how we knew what we knew….”
Who is this “we?” Farkas was no longer in the government as of 2015. Yet
her choice of words would have us think that she is still very much
involved in and allied with bureaucrats in the Deep State. Moreover,
given her standing as a Democrat and her position in the Obama
administration, it’s all too sensible to think that Farkas’ selection of
the first person-plural in this context refers to Farkas and her fellow
partisans that remain embedded in the bureaucracy over which her former
boss presided.

Farkas has tried retreating from her comments. The left-leaning media has
been busy spinning them away. But the cat is out of the bag:

The Deep State, under Obama, surveilled American citizens, in this case,
Trump and his “folks.” They wanted the information that they had gathered
to be as widely disseminated—leaked—as possible.

Source: http://bit.ly/2oNuEO4
--
"You will never understand today's rage on the left, or its real effort
to overthrow American constitutional government, if you do not understand
lynch mobs -- KKK, Leninist, Soros-sponsored, and Obama-controlled."--
James Lewis, "Lynch Mobs of the Left," http://bit.ly/2lwmH2y
#BeamMeUpScotty
2017-04-02 16:10:31 UTC
Permalink
Post by Joe Cooper
Unsurprisingly, President Donald J. Trump was correct.
Though he originally spoke, or tweeted, clumsily, the gist of his claim
was correct: The administration of his predecessor, Barack H. Obama, had
indeed been surveilling Trump and those close to his campaign.
As I showed in a previous article, The New York Times, Slate, Mother
Jones, and Heat Street—i.e. Democratic Party propaganda organs—are among
the media outlets that confirmed months ago the President’s claim. Theses
surveillance efforts had been transpiring from at least the time of last
summer.
It’s true that it has not yet been proven that either Trump or any other
private American citizens in his orbit were subjects or targets of these
surveillance efforts. Ostensibly, foreigners, specifically, Russians,
were the subjects. But it is equally true that arrangements were made by
those within Obama’s government—the so-called “Deep State”—to illegally
unmask and leak public information regarding those private citizens that
allegedly got swept up in these spying operations.
For those still not convinced by this, Evelyn Farkas should remove all
doubt.
Under Obama, Farkas was Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defense for
“Russia/Ukraine/Eurasia,” according to the website for the U.S.
Department of Defense. She left her position in 2015 to become an adviser
to Hillary Clinton’s campaign. Earlier in March, she appeared on MSNBC
“I was urging my former colleagues and, frankly speaking, people on the
Hill…[to] get as much information as you can, as much intelligence as you
can, before President Obama leaves the administration.”
Farkas admitted that she “had a fear that somehow that information would
disappear with the senior people [from the Obama administration] who
left.” She feared that it would disappear into the abyss of “the
bureaucracy,” and “that the Trump folks, if they found out how we knew
what we knew about…the Trump staff’s dealing with Russia, that they would
try to compromise those sources and methods.”
There are several telling insights to glean from Farkas’ remarks.
First, Farkas here acknowledges that the Obama administration,
essentially, had indeed been gathering intelligence, or spying, on
private citizens.
Second, being the Democrat partisan that she obviously is, Farkas’
intention in making these comments, and making them in the left-friendly
venue of MSNBC, was to suggest that the Democrats’ “The Russians Made Us
Do It (Lose)” narrative has substance.
Yet, notice, Farkas never said that the intel proved anything so much as
resembling “collusion” between Putin or “the Russians” and Trump. Had
there been anything there, she would have done what no one has yet to do
and offer at least a scintilla of evidence to substantiate this charge.
Third, in fact, Farkas never even mentions any correspondence between
Trump and “the Russians.” No, she instead references “Trump folks” and
“the Trump staff” when talking about Russia.
Fourth, while Farkas obviously wanted for audiences to think that Obama’s
government discovered some nefarious connection between “Trump folks” and
those dastardly Russians, the only allusion that she ever manages to make
is to the “dealings” that she alleges transpired between these groups.
In other words, Farkas’s wording here is profoundly vague.
Fifth, Farkas unwittingly confesses that she worried about “the Trump
folks” discovering “how we knew what we knew….” Is it not eminently
reasonable to infer from this statement that the “how” in question, the
methods by which intelligence was supposedly gathered, consists of
surveillance of the “Trump folks?”
Finally, Farkas admits to being worried about how the Trump
administration would react when it found out “how we knew what we knew….”
Who is this “we?” Farkas was no longer in the government as of 2015. Yet
her choice of words would have us think that she is still very much
involved in and allied with bureaucrats in the Deep State. Moreover,
given her standing as a Democrat and her position in the Obama
administration, it’s all too sensible to think that Farkas’ selection of
the first person-plural in this context refers to Farkas and her fellow
partisans that remain embedded in the bureaucracy over which her former
boss presided.
Farkas has tried retreating from her comments. The left-leaning media has
The Deep State, under Obama, surveilled American citizens, in this case,
Trump and his “folks.” They wanted the information that they had gathered
to be as widely disseminated—leaked—as possible.
Source: http://bit.ly/2oNuEO4
Flynn was NOT the target and was masked....?

And anytime the key word TRUMP was used in a foreign officials call the
intelligence agencies kicked out that conversation to be looked at like
using the words "NUCLEAR ATTACK JIHAD" might trigger a flag. But then
they also unmasked the people to see who and what the TRUMP team was
discussing and they also used what the foreign officials were saying to
find out what TRUMP was planning to do. The spying was on TRUMP's
strategy through secondary targets.


Foreign officials using the key word "TRUMP" were monitored and that
means the TRUMP teams calls were all flagged as they discuss that they
were going to be in the TRUMP administration and wanting to connect and
start a dialogue as their jobs would require with foreign officials.

The ObamaRegime was targeting, unmasking and flagging the Republicans
and only the Republicans on purpose. The Obamanistas and Hillary Shadow
Government wanted to find out what TRUMP's plans were. What the TRUMP
team was thinking. So that Obama/Hillary and the Shadow Government
would be able to stop that agenda once it began.

What we have is the Obama/Hillary Shadow Government caught spying on the
Transition team of the legitimate incoming government by using the power
to track and listen to the Foreign officials by Federal intelligence
agencies.

The motive and the pattern of the crimes are evidence of what the goal
was, and it was premeditated surveillance NOT an " *incidental* "
collection of data at all. This shows the same premeditation as a
murderer does when they plan to be at the same place at the same time as
another person so they can kill them, in this case they wanted to be
listening to the TRUMP people and to do that they listened to the
foreign officials that triggered the flags with the word "TRUMP" or
"transition" or any other key words that would be conveniently unique
enough to allow listening to the TRUMP team.

We now have Motive and opportunity....and we have evidence of leaks and
fingerprints that place the ObamaRegime at the crime scene. And they
are conspiring with the Shadow Government that apparently wanted to do
damage to the incoming Administration and there by do damage to the
United States. It still looks like a coup D`tat conducted from within,
but what can only be called a Shadow government.
--
That's Karma
Sally Anne
2017-04-02 16:41:55 UTC
Permalink
Post by Joe Cooper
Unsurprisingly, President Donald J. Trump was correct.
Trump's never wrong.

The only problem is that Evelyn Farkass has a video of Obama
personally wiretapping Trump's office, then tieing him up and
buttfucking him silly.


It's going to make a great porno tape for all you Gays who love
The Donald.


Obama's black, so he's got a 12" schlong and he shoves it into
Trump's puckered mouth and then takes him from behind. Negroes
really like ramming it up a white boys ass, and Trump doesn't seem
to care. Some say that he hasn't had a good one up the rear
since his second marriage.


That's why Flynn's pleading the 5th.


It's all true. Just go to the American Thinker website to
confirm. It's their job to tell the truth.
Rudy Canoza
2017-04-02 17:30:53 UTC
Permalink
Post by Joe Cooper
Unsurprisingly, President Donald J. Trump was correct.
Not surprisingly, Trumpolini was completely full of shit. Trumpolini
was not the subject of surveillance - end of story. Farkas did not
"admit" what you fucking idiots claim she did.

Even less surprisingly, you, being a blind-faith Trumpolini blackshirt,
were suckered. You always will be.
NoBody
2017-04-03 10:21:48 UTC
Permalink
Post by Rudy Canoza
Post by Joe Cooper
Unsurprisingly, President Donald J. Trump was correct.
Not surprisingly, Trumpolini was completely full of shit. Trumpolini
was not the subject of surveillance - end of story. Farkas did not
"admit" what you fucking idiots claim she did.
Even less surprisingly, you, being a blind-faith Trumpolini blackshirt,
were suckered. You always will be.
Once again, you clearly did not comprehend what you read.
Rudy Canoza
2017-04-03 14:45:29 UTC
Permalink
On 4/3/2017 3:21 AM, a fucking shit-4-braincell *wage slave* nobody
Post by NoBody
Post by Rudy Canoza
Post by Joe Cooper
Unsurprisingly, President Donald J. Trump was correct.
Not surprisingly, Trumpolini was completely full of shit. Trumpolini
was not the subject of surveillance - end of story. Farkas did not
"admit" what you fucking idiots claim she did.
Even less surprisingly, you, being a blind-faith Trumpolini blackshirt,
were suckered. You always will be.
Once again,
I proved yet another bullshit right-wingnut fake news source to be
exactly that. Yes.

Loading...