You claim an investigation that had no legal, direct surveillance (because that might bolster Trump, so you can't admit that)...which is a weird investigation, if you ask me. You claim the intentional investigation was actually an intentional (and illegal) review, aggregation and unmasking of previously incidentally gathered foreign intelligence. The unofficially leaked information which you call evidence for your position was either (1) intentionally unmasked intelligence in violation of the law on the one hand, or (2) unmasked through loosened policies allowed by Obama in a scandal of epic proportions. You believe this "evidence" helps you, but it actually makes Trump the victim, and strengthens him, because it proves that he was being spied upon by the Obama administration.
This information you claim as evidence is leaked through unofficial channels, but when people you disagree with claim the same type of evidence, you attack them for having unreliable sources. That is very funny.
You said, "Any surveillance as part of that investigation was of foreigners.... Now who surveilled who in your fantasy realm?" I ask the same of you.
"What names were discovered and were unmasked?" I ask the same of you. If there were US civilians (e.g., people in the Trump campaign or Trump himself) named in the evidence that you base your opinions on, then there is your answer.
"Who collected the information, did the unmasking and disseminated it?" I'm assuming it was Obama appointees or agents left behind in the Trump administration, but it could be anyone who wants to weaken Trumps presidency. But please, why don't you tell me. You are the one who is claiming to have the only valid evidence.
"Evidence please" Give me your evidence. Then, I will point out my evidence among your evidence. That may be the easiest way to go here.