[tumblindice]

“An Obama spokesperson vehemently denied the former president’s involvement”

https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/50/1802

So he’s throwing Lynch under the bus? He’s saying she acted without authorization, as required by the above statute?

(a)
(1) Notwithstanding any other law, the President, through the Attorney General, may authorize electronic surveillance without a court order ...

(b) Applications for a court order under this subchapter are authorized if the President has, by written authorization, empowered the Attorney General to approve applications to the court having jurisdiction ...

And why would they do this, if they were in fact not actually trying to ensure national security by surreptitiously monitoring the communications of foreign countries and their agents?
Who would benefit by knowing what candidate Trump was saying, believing his conversations to be confidential?

[SeekAndFind]

The law, as you cited in the Cornell link gives SPECIFIC LIMITATIONS AS TO HOW AND WHY you could do this. To wit:

1) The acquisition of the contents of communications transmitted by means of communications used exclusively between or among foreign powers

2) The acquisition of technical intelligence, other than the spoken communications of individuals, from property or premises under the open and exclusive control of a foreign power

If Obama ordered the surveillance of Trump, BOTH of the above conditions were violated.

1. Trump is NOT a foreign Power

2. The Trump Tower is NOT a property under the exclusive control of a foreign power ( in this case, Russia ).