Exactly How Many Presidential Candidates Did President Obama Spy On?

 

Because of its implications, this is an uncomfortable question; let me first briefly outline the framework against which the question is asked.

The following are facts that do not appear to be in dispute by anyone who isn’t a card-carrying member of Team Obama:

  • President Obama weaponized for political purposes the intelligence and law enforcement apparatus of the federal government, including the Department of Justice, Federal Bureau of Investigation, and Central Intelligence Agency.
  • President Obama spied on Congress.
  • President Obama spied on journalists.

The following assertions are open for debate but are backed by significant evidence and quickly moving to the indisputable fact column:

Against this background it seems reasonable, albeit uncomfortable, to ask: In addition to spying on the Trump campaign, did President Obama spy on the campaigns of other Republican presidential candidates? After all, if he was willing to spy on one rival campaign why wouldn’t he go ahead and spy on others?

This is a serious question with serious implications if the answer is affirmative. A few weeks or even perhaps a few days ago this would have been a fringe question. Not long ago Senator Rand Paul wondered aloud whether his presidential campaign had been spied on by the Obama team. For the most part, Paul was ridiculed for even bringing up the possibility. However, based on everything we know now about the way President Obama used the DOJ, FBI, CIA and various other agencies for political purposes, this is not only a legitimate but a necessary question.

We need to know the full width and breadth of the political corruption of these agencies. Trust in our institutions is crumbling, largely due to the unaccountable, untrustworthy, and in many cases unlawful and unconstitutional, actions of senior leaders of those institutions. It is absurd that we have arrived at a place where it is not absurd to publicly inquire whether the President of The United States in 2016 used the FBI and CIA to spy on multiple rival presidential campaigns. For public trust to be restored, these institutions and their leaders past and present must be exposed to the cleansing light of day and must be held fully accountable.

As an aside, I will note that I debated whether in my statements above to say “The Obama Administration” rather than name the former president directly. I decided to lay the blame directly at the feet of President Obama because to the extent that James Clapper, James Brennan, James Comey, and a host of other Jameses, Andrews, Peters, Lisas, Lorettas, Sallys, etc., acted in a politically corrupt manner while occupying senior offices of government they did so at the behest of their boss, one President Barack Obama.

Published in General
Like this post? Want to comment? Join Ricochet’s community of conservatives and be part of the conversation. Join Ricochet for Free.

There are 39 comments.

Become a member to join the conversation. Or sign in if you're already a member.
  1. Stad Coolidge
    Stad
    @Stad

    Cato Rand (View Comment):

    I think you are letting undeniably disturbing facts subtly blur into unsupported innuendo in this piece. No one would be happier than I to see the Obama administration remembered in the same light as the Nixon administration for its corruption. And clearly there are some well documented, if contained, fires (most notably the IRS/Tea Party harassment), as well as a good bit of smoke of uncertain origin. But the claim that all these agencies were “weaponized” by “team Obama” for “political purposes” is as yet unproven.

    Was the IRS harassment a political order? Or the overzealous partisanship of an agency hack?

    Was the Trump campaign spied on for political purposes? Or did an investigation of illicit Russian behavior lead to some folks on the periphery of the Trump campaign?

    We don’t know the answers to these questions and others like them. I hope we find out. I think there’s enough there to be worth looking, and filling in the narrative with facts. But it’s too soon to jump to the end of the story.

    You are correct that much is yet to be proven.  However, I believe the rhetoric is meant to get someone to start looking.  Congressional committees?  Been there, done that.  DOJ?  They may be a big part of the problem.  IG?  Possibly.

    Independent Counsel?  Hmmmmmm . . .

    • #31
  2. Larry Koler Inactive
    Larry Koler
    @LarryKoler

    PHCheese (View Comment):

    How about the 2012 election.

    That was my first thought, too. We know he was gathering data and using his abuse of power against the tea parties. As someone said above, we have to look at everything from 2009 on.

    Mitt seemed to throw in the towel in that last debate. Did Obama have dirt from spying?

    That really surprised me, also. He folded too soon and too easily. 

    We must always remember that Marxists have a higher set of principles and Obama’s oath of office is worth nothing compared to that.

    • #32
  3. PHCheese Inactive
    PHCheese
    @PHCheese

    Larry Koler (View Comment):

    PHCheese (View Comment):

    How about the 2012 election.

    That was my first thought, too. We know he was gathering data and using his abuse of power against the tea parties. As someone said above, we have to look at everything from 2009 on.

    Mitt seemed to throw in the towel in that last debate. Did Obama have dirt from spying?

    That really surprised me, also. He folded too soon and too easily.

    We must always remember that Marxists have a higher set of principles and Obama’s oath of office is worth nothing compared to that.

    Don’t you mean Obama was an oaf in office .

    • #33
  4. philo Member
    philo
    @philo

    Hoyacon (View Comment):

    philo (View Comment):

    Hoyacon (View Comment): Obama’s role, as I see it, was more passive, and terms like “weaponized” and “at the behest of” go too far.

    With much respect, I could not disagree more.

    Thanks, and I don’t know about the respect part. But IMO going further with that requires at least some concrete innuendo (oxymoron?). If there’s more than “It’s Obama, he did this in other situations”, I’m unaware of it. Is there something beyond mere suspicion?

    Short answer: No…and yes.

    I claim no special expertise beyond being a news junkie / keen observer (?) of American politics for the last thirty years or so but it is very hard for me to sign up to the term “passive” in the line above. While Mr. Obama clearly didn’t have to micromanage this broad weaponization, and maybe, very shrewdly, didn’t even have to say anything about it outside of certain very private areas of the White House, I do not believe what I observed over those eight years was a natural, organic devolution of responsible, professional conduct across the entire system caused simply by the Executive [deliberately] turning his back. There is no doubt in my mind that a very active operation on this front could have been hard at work right out in the open with the full knowledge that, on the very worst day, the reliably incurious media would be just that. If the Executive appeared to be passive maybe you just aren’t looking at him from the right angle.

    CONSPIRATORIAL HINT OF THE DAY: Did Valerie Jarrett wear a Fitbit?

    • #34
  5. Larry Koler Inactive
    Larry Koler
    @LarryKoler

    philo (View Comment):

    Hoyacon (View Comment):

    philo (View Comment):

    Hoyacon (View Comment): Obama’s role, as I see it, was more passive, and terms like “weaponized” and “at the behest of” go too far.

    With much respect, I could not disagree more.

    Thanks, and I don’t know about the respect part. But IMO going further with that requires at least some concrete innuendo (oxymoron?). If there’s more than “It’s Obama, he did this in other situations”, I’m unaware of it. Is there something beyond mere suspicion?

    Short answer: No…and yes.

    I claim no special expertise beyond being a news junkie / keen observer (?) of American politics for the last thirty years or so but it is very hard for me to sign up to the term “passive” in the line above. While Mr. Obama clearly didn’t have to micromanage this broad weaponization, and maybe, very shrewdly, didn’t even have to say anything about it outside of certain very private areas of the White House, I do not believe what I observed over those eight years was a natural, organic devolution of responsible, professional conduct across the entire system caused simply by the Executive [deliberately] turning his back. There is no doubt in my mind that a very active operation on this front could have been hard at work right out in the open with the full knowledge that, on the very worst day, the reliably incurious media would be just that. If the Executive appeared to be passive maybe you just aren’t looking at him from the right angle.

    CONSPIRATORIAL HINT OF THE DAY: Did Valerie Jarrett wear a Fitbit?

    I’m suspicious as well: I consider Obama the Soviet Union’s last stab at America — sneaky, conspiring, evil, and traitorous.

    • #35
  6. Columbo Inactive
    Columbo
    @Columbo

    Larry Koler (View Comment):

    philo (View Comment):

    Hoyacon (View Comment):

    philo (View Comment):

    Hoyacon (View Comment): Obama’s role, as I see it, was more passive, and terms like “weaponized” and “at the behest of” go too far.

    With much respect, I could not disagree more.

    Thanks, and I don’t know about the respect part. But IMO going further with that requires at least some concrete innuendo (oxymoron?). If there’s more than “It’s Obama, he did this in other situations”, I’m unaware of it. Is there something beyond mere suspicion?

    Short answer: No…and yes.

    I claim no special expertise beyond being a news junkie / keen observer (?) of American politics for the last thirty years or so but it is very hard for me to sign up to the term “passive” in the line above. While Mr. Obama clearly didn’t have to micromanage this broad weaponization, and maybe, very shrewdly, didn’t even have to say anything about it outside of certain very private areas of the White House, I do not believe what I observed over those eight years was a natural, organic devolution of responsible, professional conduct across the entire system caused simply by the Executive [deliberately] turning his back. There is no doubt in my mind that a very active operation on this front could have been hard at work right out in the open with the full knowledge that, on the very worst day, the reliably incurious media would be just that. If the Executive appeared to be passive maybe you just aren’t looking at him from the right angle.

    CONSPIRATORIAL HINT OF THE DAY: Did Valerie Jarrett wear a Fitbit?

    I’m suspicious as well: I consider Obama the Soviet Union’s last stab at America — sneaky, conspiring, evil, and traitorous.

    Indeed. 0bama mocked Mitt Romney over Russia … and pledged flexibility to Medvedev.

    And yet somehow Trump is the Russia colluder?

    • #36
  7. Nathanael Ferguson Contributor
    Nathanael Ferguson
    @NathanaelFerguson

    Columbo (View Comment):
    Indeed. 0bama mocked Mitt Romney over Russia … and pledged flexibility to Medvedev.

    This!

    • #37
  8. Stad Coolidge
    Stad
    @Stad

    The Scarecrow (View Comment):
    And he couldn’t have done all this by himself – he’s not that smart.

    Exactly.  Obama never released any of his high school and college transcripts.  While good grades do not necessarily reflect high intelligence (I know a lady whose daughter is only average smart, but gets great grades in college because she studies 24/7), withholding such information makes one wonders what’s there.

    The Dems have used this concept to demand Trump publish his tax returns.  However, Trump’s basis for not doing so is significantly more reasonable and logical than Obama hiding his grades . . .

    • #38
  9. OccupantCDN Coolidge
    OccupantCDN
    @OccupantCDN

    Nathanael Ferguson (View Comment):

    Columbo (View Comment):
    Indeed. 0bama mocked Mitt Romney over Russia … and pledged flexibility to Medvedev.

    This!

    And since the election, Ive been waiting for someone to say “The 1950’s called, they want their foreign policy back!”

    I think the easy answer of which candidates did the Obama spy on? All of them!

    • #39
Become a member to join the conversation. Or sign in if you're already a member.