Free Republic

NOTE:This is a 40 page PDF: obviously too big to post here. Conclusions from the article: Conclusions Historically, incumbent Presidents order espionage (to include eavesdropping) against the candidate of the party that opposes them. This election linked espionage may include illegal eavesdropping from one political party against the other party, or it may involve espionage inside the respective parties. Historically, the NSA has been used for this sort of eavesdropping, but other agencies may be involved as well. It would have been astoundingly unusual for President Obama not to order the eavesdropping of Candidate Trump, or Candidate Sanders. The NSA...

This is NOT breaking news. It's old news, maybe even #FakeNews because what Vargas said isn't really an admission but a corroboration of a New York Times story that was written "according to three former American officials who requested anonymity in discussing classified intelligence".

If the Obama Justice Department used a weak legal pretext to justify surveillance against Trump, that is a gigantic scandal When you follow any ongoing news story, especially one with Donald Trump at the middle of it, it’s important to recognize patterns the media will use in establishing narratives. They will never officially tell you in a story that they’re assuming a position that’s oppositional to Trump, but you call tell whose side their on by comparing their language to what a lawyer would use in a courtroom.