Image 01 Image 03

Rep. Peter King Confirms Members of Trump Transition Team Surveilled by Obama Administration

Rep. Peter King Confirms Members of Trump Transition Team Surveilled by Obama Administration

The plot thickens

Wednesday, Chairman of the House Intelligence Committee, Rep. Devin Nunes (R-CA), held a press conference where he claimed he possessed proof that “U.S. citizens involved in the Trump transition” were “incidentally” surveilled by the Obama administration. Nunes clarified that the evidence he’d reviewed was not related to, “Russia, the investigation of Russian activities, or the Trump team.”

Rep. Nunes’ announcement came as a shock to ranking committee Democrats, who learned the news via the press conference. The White House was also unaware of Nunes’ findings until the press conference.

An Intelligence Community (IC) insider approached Rep. Nunes with the bombshell evidence after FBI Director Comey’s testimony before Congress Monday. Or at least that’s what Nunes claims.

As Nunes explained, members of Trump’s transition team were surveilled “incidentally”, but what concerned him most was that transition team members had been “unmasked”. Rather than being referred to as “American A” (or something of the like) in surveillance reports, their identities were listed. Unmasking requires specific request and approval.

This “incidental” intelligence contained personal information about members of Trump’s transition team was then disseminated to other IC members, “but this had no intelligence significance at all…and that would include people in the White House getting it,” said Rep. Peter King (R-NY), House Intel Committee member.

Joining Fox News’ Bill O’Reilly Wednesday night Rep. King reiterated Rep. Nunes’ previous statements. It’s worth noting that at the time of his interview with O’Reilly, King had not personally seen the information in Nunes’ possession, but had been briefed “in detail” by Nunes.

King claimed the reports they’ve sifted through are just the beginning and that there’s much more. Seemingly contradicting one of Nunes’ claims, King indicated (again, second-hand knowledge here) that the intelligence reports read like surveillance reports, detailing where the subjects went and with whom they spoke.

According to King, this is not an isolated incident. There are “many” reports with same type of intel collection.

When questioned, Trump said he felt “somewhat” vindicated and was glad Nunes found what he did.

Hours later, CNN published a story with the following headline:

Even though, “officials cautioned that the information was not conclusive and that the investigation is ongoing.”

It’s almost like the FBI swatted back. Almost.

Follow Kemberlee on Twitter @kemberleekaye


Donations tax deductible
to the full extent allowed by law.


I sense a narrative shift coming, from “there is no evidence” to “it wasn’t intentional”.

    MattMusson in reply to BillyHW. | March 23, 2017 at 8:48 am

    We did not spy on Donald Trump. We just spied on everyone he talked to.

    Then we unmasked the names and sent the information to anyone we thought who might leak it.

Bucky Barkingham | March 23, 2017 at 7:54 am

Time for FoxNews to reinstate Judge Napolitano.

MaggotAtBroadAndWall | March 23, 2017 at 8:40 am

Something tells me this is going to come back and bite Nunes somehow. This seems like brand new info and he probably should have taken more time to consider it, evaluate it, and wait until he had all the info that he claims is coming on Friday before going public.

When a natural disaster hits or a terrorist attacks, the initial reporting is almost always incomplete or wrong. It takes a couple of days to get it right. He is on the intelligence committee so I hope he is neck deep in this stuff and it does not come back to bite him.

Have to be honest and admit that they have succeeded in totally confusing me. One article I read says “no proof that Trump/his people were spyed on” – the next says “oh maybe some incidential monitoring”. Then we get “no collusion with the Russians” competing with “Trump associates may have worked to impact election.”

The only think that seems clear to me is that the Dems think they can stretch this fiasco out and hinder Trump for his entire term or until they can force an impeachment charge.

Fox needs to apologize to Judge Napolitano and reinstate him.

“The FBI has information that indicates associates of President Donald Trump communicated with suspected Russian operatives to possibly coordinate the release of information damaging to Hillary Clinton’s campaign, US officials told CNN…”

The House GOP needs to march Comey’s arse back before the committee and have him explain himself. If the FBI is leaking this on Wednesday, why didn’t Comey tell Congress about it on Monday? I leave open the possibilities that CNN is making this up, or that the officials are not FBI, or that we’re talking about former Obama court toadies and throne sniffers.

CNN is not a reliable source. CNN loves nothing more than getting in bed with Obama. And other dictators.

CNN fun fact:

“CNN’s Nic Robertson Interviews Brother of Blind Sheik

Here is an excerpt of an interview that CNN’s Nic Robertson did outside the U.S. embassy in Cairo, Egypt on Sept. 10, 2011 (sic). During this interview it is revealed that the protest that later turned violent was initiated to push for the release of The Blind Sheik. This protest WAS NOT formed to protest any American movie! CNN KNOWS this, yet they are still pushing the false claim that the protests were about some bad U.S. movie.”

The interview actually took place in 2012; 2011 is just a typo.

The Obama administration was lying about both the attack on the Benghazi diplomatic facility and the attack on the Cairo embassy. One individual I follow religiously is Raymond Ibrahim. His parents are Egyptian Copts, so he can read, write, and speak Arabic fluently. If you really want to gain insight into the minds of Salafi terrorists I can’t recommend his “Al Qaeda Reader (2007)” more highly. He wrote the book after interning at the Congressional Library, where he discovered AQ documents authored by OBL and al Zawahiri that hadn’t been translated into English. He requested, and was given, permission to do so.

He also follows the Arabic press. On the same day Nic Robertson was interviewing the Blind Sheikh’s son, Ibrahim posted:

Jihadi groups in Egypt, including Islamic Jihad, the Sunni Group, and Al Gamaa Al Islamiyya have issued a statement threatening to burn the U.S. Embassy in Cairo to the ground.

According to El Fagr, they are calling for the immediate release of the Islamic jihadis who are imprisonment and in detention centers in the U.S. including Guantanamo Bay: “The group, which consists of many members from al-Qaeda, called [especially] for the quick release of the jihadi [mujahid] sheikh, Omar Abdul Rahman [the “Blind Sheikh”], whom they described as a scholar and jihadi who sacrificed his life for the Egyptian Umma, who was ignored by the Mubarak regime, and [President] Morsi is refusing to intervene on his behalf and release him, despite promising that he would. The Islamic Group has threatened to burn the U.S. Embassy in Cairo with those in it, and taking hostage those who remain [alive], unless the Blind Sheikh is immediately released.”

I won’t go into how frustrating it was knowing, for a fact, that the Obama administration was lying about Cairo and Benghazi. I knew this by 12 September 2012.

But more relevant to the current topic, CNN knew what the Cairo riot was about. But when Obama officials called them and said, “We need this to be about a video” even knowing what was really going on CNN tailored their reporting to make the Cairo riot about a video. CNN was in on the lie.

CNN hasn’t ever changed changed. They are the most willing of all the willing tools of the DNC. Recall that every news outlet knew the price of having a Baghdad bureau under Saddam Hussein was reporting what the Hussein regime told you to report. And CNN was not only willing but eager to do it, just for the tagline, “This is CNN, Baghdad.”

So I’m not surprised to see this story. Someone is losing control of the narrative, and CNN is their willing whore.

So take this story with a large sack of salt. I can guarantee you with 99% certainty there is no such information.

But I’d still march Comey up to the hill for a come to Jesus meeting. I’d like to confirm the FBI isn’t in open revolt against the elected branches of government, and demand to know what he intends to do about it.

OT but possibly of general interest: When I log in to this site in Chrome, the “Leave a Comment” header shows, but not the box to enter the comment or the buttons / checkboxes. Firefox 45.7 esr has no issue.

Rep. Peter King Confirms

Repeating what Nunes told him is not confirming what Nunes said.

    Petrushka in reply to Zachriel. | March 23, 2017 at 10:23 am

    Just the same, there are no actual denials. Particularly interesting is the claim that the NSA is cooperating. There has long been a rivalry between the NSA and CIA.

      dmi60ex in reply to Petrushka. | March 23, 2017 at 5:13 pm


      There were reports that Admiral Rogers had went to see Trump on NOV 17 th . Perhaps he is playing on Trumps side or at least both sides for now .

    4fun in reply to Zachriel. | March 23, 2017 at 5:13 pm

    Nunes convinced him, and the “reports read like surveillance reports” is an interesting take by King.

    King had not personally seen the information in Nunes’ possession, but had been briefed “in detail” by Nunes.

    King claimed the reports they’ve sifted through are just the beginning and that there’s much more. Seemingly contradicting one of Nunes’ claims, King indicated (again, second-hand knowledge here) that the intelligence reports read like surveillance reports, detailing where the subjects went and with whom they spoke.

    According to King, this is not an isolated incident. There are “many” reports with same type of intel collection.

This should get much more interesting, if the information proves to be accurate. As we get more information, it begins to appear that surveillance may not have been limited to electronic communications. And, charges are now being made that it does not appear that these actions were in support of any investigation into collusion with the Russian state.

As I have said, the NSA monitors virtually all of the electronic communication in the country. So intercepting the communications of a particular subject or group is not difficult at all. What gives most people anonymity is the computer filters used to monitor the communications traffic. Certain words, phrases and names will flag a specific communication as possibly being of interest. Most people’s conversations rarely, if ever, trigger any of the filters. If a communication is recorded, proper search parameters can unearth it. So, eavesdropping on electronic communications is relatively easy.

But, if, has been suggested, there was some type of physical surveillance of a given subject or subjects, by intelligence agents, this is a different kettle of fish. Physical, non-intrusive surveillance is generally legal, even without a warrant. However, if directed against a political candidate, by a government administration controlled by the opposing party, this would be morally reprehensible, unless it was part of a criminal or national security investigation.

So, let us suppose that the FBI was engaged in active surveillance of the Trump campaign, its members and Trump himself and continued that surveillance after the election. Now, it becomes critical to find out who conducted it, who ordered it, what was the purpose of it, what information was gleaned, to whom was it delivered and how was it used, if it was used.

And, it is very interesting that this alleged information was “slipped under the chairman’s door” right after the Director of the FBI testifies before the committee and, essentially, says that there was an investigation, but that it was directly targeting Russian contact with the campaign.

Hollywood can’t make up this kind of drama. Stay tuned.

I still believe the name of the unnamed person who released it rhymes with Tonald Gump.

Something no one ever mentions, Robbie Mook stated to Fox the Clinton campaign was aware of the wiretaps thru public knowledge and SECURITY BRIEFINGS
Could this have been a back channel to funnel political espionage to Hillary ?

The NYT ran a couple of really interesting and, coincidentally, completely conflicting articles about this over the last couple of months. One, more recent, talks about “no surveillance” of President Trump or his people, while the earlier one tells about General Flynn resigning after a “wiretap” of a phone call between him and a Russian was made public! Why hasn’t someone jumped on this little faux pas?

The left is many things, but consistent they are not!!

Perhaps now people are starting to understand why Obama changed the distribution rules for classified material at the eleventh hour. While Obama’s claims he did that to “preserve classified intelligence”, an excuse that is laughable even on the best of days, the real reason was to take the surveillance reports and distribute them far and wide assuring they would both be leaked thereby hurting Trump and making the leaker almost impossible to find. For Obama, this will surely become one of his most incredibly stupid moves because it shows him to clearly to be in the middle of this mess. But, then again, none of this will mean anything until people start going to jail.