Posted tagged ‘Wiretapping Trump campaign HQ’

If you strike at a presidential candidate, you better defeat him.

March 15, 2017

If you strike at a presidential candidate, you better defeat him, SpectatorGeorge Neumayr, March 14, 2017

(Did Obama unleash a perpetual motion machine? — DM)

Confirmations of the Obama administration’s investigation of the Trump campaign keep trickling out. Naturally, the media has shown no interest in them. It wants evidence of Trump-Russia collusion, not evidence that Obama’s embeds were sniffing around Trump’s computer server — an abuse of power no different than LBJ wiring Nixon’s campaign plane to see if he was colluding with the Vietnamese.

In light of these new confirmations, an honest media would have called James Clapper back to explain his elliptical denial. “The FBI investigated a Trump server in its Russia probe,” reports the online publication Circa News in a piece co-authored by John Solomon, the respected former Washington Post reporter and Washington Times editor. Can Clapper deny that the FBI investigated a Trump server? Can Comey? Can Lynch? Can Brennan? They have all fallen silent. Comey pathetically tried to confuse people by leaking out to friendly reporters that he wanted the controversy addressed by Justice Department officials. But what would he want them to deny? The investigation into Trump’s server that he had his officials conduct?

According to Circa News, the FBI “used traditional investigative techniques to review a computer server tied to the the [sic] soon-to-be-president’s businesses in Trump Towers in New York but located elsewhere.”

Traditional investigative techniques? That sounds even more ominous than the FBI just wiretapping individual members of Trump’s campaign. Using “traditional investigative techniques to review” Trump’s computer server could mean anything. Did agents talk to Trump’s employees? What did these employees say to them or show them? How do you use traditional investigative techniques to review Trump’s computer server without dislodging information about him? That is the abuse to which Trump, with his crafty intuition, was drawing attention with his tweets.

If you strike at a king, you better kill him. To apply that adage to this scandal, if you investigate a presidential candidate’s campaign and business, you better find something. And the Obama embeds didn’t. That compounds the scandal of their criminal leaks. It is bad enough that they planted stories in the press to the effect that the Trump campaign was under government investigation for ties to Russia. But now it is coming out that they did so knowing full well that that investigation had turned up nothing. That gives the Justice Department an even stronger reason to investigate these criminal leakers. They were breaking the law for the sake of inflicting maximum political damage on a candidate (and then president) by leaving the impression of wrongdoing while knowing that none had occurred.

“Agents were examining allegations of computer activity tied to Russia,” reports Circa News. “Very quickly, they concluded the computer activity in question involved no nefarious contacts, bank transactions or encrypted communications with the Russians, and likely involved routine computer signals.”

So in the month before the election the FBI was investigating a presidential candidate’s computer server and found nothing—and all at the bidding of John Brennan, Obama’s Trump-hating CIA director, who had urged it on the pretext of “intelligence” from a Baltic state, and at the bidding of Hillary’s campaign, which desperately wanted attention diverted from Comey’s investigation into her. On October 31, the New York Times reported, “Hillary Clinton’s supporters, angry over what they regard as a lack of scrutiny of Mr. Trump by law enforcement officials, pushed for these investigations.” The headline on that story was: “Investigating Donald Trump, F.B.I. Sees No Clear Link to Russia.”

That wasn’t the headline the Obama embeds and Hillary supporters wanted. So they continued leaking. Then lo and behold, the day before the election, an article appeared in Heat Street, written by the anti-Trump journalist, which stated:

Two separate sources with links to the counter-intelligence community have confirmed to Heat Street that the FBI sought, and was granted, a FISA court warrant in October, giving counter-intelligence permission to examine the activities of “U.S. persons” in Donald Trump’s campaign with ties to Russia.

Contrary to earlier reporting in the New York Times, which cited FBI sources as saying that the agency did not believe that the private server in Donald Trump’s Trump Tower which was connected to a Russian bank had any nefarious purpose, the FBI’s counter-intelligence arm, sources say, re-drew an earlier FISA court request around possible financial and banking offenses related to the server. The first request, which, sources say, named Trump, was denied back in June, but the second was drawn more narrowly and was granted in October after evidence was presented of a server, possibly related to the Trump campaign, and its alleged links to two banks; SVB Bank and Russia’s Alfa Bank. While the Times story speaks of metadata, sources suggest that a FISA warrant was granted to look at the full content of emails and other related documents that may concern US persons.

Heat Street’s sources wanted Americans to think Trump’s computer server had a nefarious purpose. Notice the misleading construction of the opening sentence in the second paragraph cited above. The second part of the sentence is not “contrary” to the first. No matter how many warrants the FBI was pursuing, it wasn’t finding anything. But Obama’s embeds and Hillary’s supporters needed voters to think it was. Yes, a powerful government tried to tip the election — ours.

By now, it is clear that the essence of Trump’s tweet — that the Obama administration investigated his campaign/business — is true. But by the time this is all over, it may even come out that his direct communications were compromised, either by FBI agents interviewing Trump employees about his computer server (a cagey FBI agent can get employees of a company to share anything) or through “backdoor searches” that the intelligence community exploits, as related in this Hill story:

The intelligence community may legally conduct so-called “backdoor searches” of Americans’ communications, without a warrant, if the target of the surveillance is not a U.S. citizen.

If Trump or his advisors were speaking directly to foreign individuals who were the target of U.S. spying during the election campaign and the intelligence agencies recorded Trump by accident, it’s plausible that those communications would have been collected and shared amongst intelligence agencies, surveillance law experts say.

Thanks to Obama’s last-minute executive order, 16 government agencies now have access to that data. That is how Michael Flynn’s chat with the Russian ambassador ended up on the front page.

The Obama embeds were fiendishly busy in October, at once investigating Trump’s computer server and leaking to the press about it, all on the gamble that their exertions would help catapult Hillary into the White House. They gambled wrong.

What happens if Obama was involved in illegal surveillance?

March 9, 2017

What happens if Obama was involved in illegal surveillance? Fox News via YouTube, March 7, 2017

 

Retired NSA Official: Every Phone Call You Make Is Recorded And Stored | Hannity Fox News

March 8, 2017

Retired NSA Official: Every Phone Call You Make Is Recorded And Stored | Hannity Fox News, Fox News via YouTube, March 6, 2017

 

Trump’s wiretapping tweets, the media and reality

March 7, 2017

Trump’s wiretapping tweets, the media and reality, Rebel Media via YouTube, March 6, 2017

(A very good summary of the information now available. — DM)

 

Remember When Obama Spied on Congressmen Opposed to Iran Deal?

March 6, 2017

Remember When Obama Spied on Congressmen Opposed to Iran Deal? Front Page Magazine, Daniel Greenfield, March 5, 2017

obamanixon

When the media puts on its befuddled face over Trump’s allegations, remember what Obama was doing little more than a year ago.

The National Security Agency’s (NSA) continued surveillance of Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and Israeli leaders may also have swept up private conversations involving members of Congress, the Wall Street Journal reported Tuesday night.

Further, the Journal reports that intercepted conversations between Israeli leaders confirmed Israel’s knowledge of the talks, as well as its intent to undermine any nuclear deal with Iran by leaking its details. When Netanyahu and his top aides came to Washington to talk with Jewish-American groups and members of Congress to lobby against the deal, the NSA was there to pick up the conversations.

Senior officials told the WSJ that those conversations collected by the NSA raised fears “that the executive branch would be accused of spying on Congress.” The White House wanted the information anyway, however, because it “believed the intercepted information could be valuable to counter Mr. Netanyahu’s campaign.”

So in order to avoid leaving a trail, the White House left it to the NSA to figure out what to share, and the NSA obliged, deleting names of members and any personal attacks on the administration.

To summarize…

1. Obama Inc. used surveillance of an ally and of domestic groups, even members of Congress, to defend its own political agenda

2. It did so relying on plausible deniability

3. The information was shared across the administration and planted in the media

Kerry justified his accusation by pointing to Israeli media reports, but those reports were a convenient source, given that “Intelligence officials said the media reports allowed the U.S. to put Mr. Netanyahu on notice without revealing they already knew his thinking. The prime minister mentioned no secrets during his speech to Congress,” wrote the Journal.

There was no firewall between spying for national security and for a political agenda. That was the most important point here. Everything else is plausible deniability.

White House officials believed the intercepted information could be valuable to counter Netanyahu’s campaign. They also recognized that asking for it was politically risky. So, wary of a paper trail stemming from a request, the White House let the NSA decide what to share and what to withhold, officials said. “We didn’t say, ‘Do it,’ ” a senior U.S. official said. “We didn’t say, ‘Don’t do it.’ ”

When you hear the current Obama denials, remember that they almost certainly played another variation of the same game.

#ObamaGate Is a Lot More than a Hashtag

March 6, 2017

#ObamaGate Is a Lot More than a Hashtag, PJ MediaRoger L Simon, March 5, 2017

(Please see also, Yes, There Could Be Serious Legal Problems if Obama Admin Involved in Illegal Surveillance. — DM)

obama_security_risk_feature_4-11-16-1-sized-770x415xt

If I were a Democrat, I’d be afraid.  I’d be very afraid.

Forget the usual smokescreen of hyper-partisan blather from Chuck Schumer on “Meet the Press” or the myriad calls for Trump’s head from the usual press suspects and consider the situation:  Congressional committees, the FBI, not to mention numerous avid media organizations and who knows who else (NSA? CIA? ASPCA?) have been investigating putative Trump-Russia collusion for some time now and come up with… exactly nothing.

Are they likely to come up with something of significance at this point?  Almost certainly not.

So now we have Trump’s bold, brash, “unhinged” Twitter accusations that Obama wiretapped him.  This came after Mark Levin, Breitbart, Andrew C. McCarthy, Louise Mensch and others I’ve forgotten about or am unaware of reported about two appeals to FISA courts (one denied last summer and one approved in October) for permission to tap phones in Trump Tower. Did they happen?

It seems that tapping of some sort actually occurred because it was virtually acknowledged  in tweets from Obama speechwriter Jon Favreau,  who sprang to action only hours after Trump tweeted, writing : “I’d be careful about reporting that Obama said there was no wiretapping. Statement just said that neither he nor the WH ordered it.” Kevin Lewis, a spokesman for the former president, had almost simultaneously declared:  “Neither President Obama nor any White House official ever ordered surveillance on any U. S. citizen.”  Ordered?  That’s what we used to call plausible deniability and now is known as a wiggle word.

Trump wants this possible surveillance to be investigated along with the rest of the supposed Russia mess — the little that’s left of it to be cleared up.  Meanwhile, that Democratic Party house organ The New York Times is reporting that James Comey himself wants the Justice Department to issue a denial that such a wiretap ever existed — or so the paper’s ubiquitous “sources” say.  Of course the Times itself saw it differently only a couple of months ago. Meanwhile, former DNI James Clapper — who famously told all his fellow citizens a boldface lie about the NSA — has assured the media regarding this particular tap, “I can deny it.” (Yes, you can.)

All this while Barack and Michelle Obama, rather than graciously depart the D. C. scene in the manner of previous presidents, recent ones anyway, have moved into a local estate with their constant companion Valerie Jarrett in some kind of Ménage à Medici as if Barack never had an intention to leave and expects to serve a third term.

My guess is this will all come down to whether our former president knew about this wiretapping — whoever authorized it and wherever it came from — and, if so, when. And also how he reacted to it and what he did from there.  It’s all, in the grand Clintonian tradition, about what the definition of “ordered” is.

Interviewed on “Fox News Sunday,” Sen. Tom Cotton — as close an approximation to “Mr. Smith” as we have in Congress — was asked if the Senate Intelligence panel would address Trump’s wiretapping claim and his answer was a Jimmy Stewart-like “sure.”

Now to why, if I were a Democrat, I’d be afraid.  To explore that you don’t need to be some super-experienced attorney like Andrew McCarthy, although that doesn’t hurt.  Rusty old Occam’s Razor will do — just change the blade and ask some obvious questions somehow overlooked by the MSM in this weekend’s chat shows.  These questions, needless to say, might best be asked under oath by a congressional committee. Later, they might even have to be dealt with in a court of law, as attorney Robert Barnes details well in this article.

Would an attorney general (in this case Loretta Lynch) normally inform the White House of a decision to go to a FISA court for approval of the tapping of a political presidential opponent?  Did Ms. Lynch so inform the White House?  Was there any discussion of this decision between the WH and the DOJ?  Why did the Justice Department decide to go back to the FISA court in October for a second try at approval? Whose idea was that? Did they did have additional information?  What was that?  Was Trump’s name included in the brief the first time but omitted in the second?  Why?  If none of this happened, who made it up and why?  That makes no sense, considering how easy it would be to disprove. Unless, of course, although it’s not supposed to happen, the NSA just regularly taps everything and everybody, including presidential candidates, the president elect, and the president himself.  But why then on Jan 12 of this year, again according to the New York Times, did the Obama administration suddenly broadly extend the powers of the NSA?

I could go on, but you get the point.  The possibilities here are endless. And WikiLeaks already revealed Obama’s extensive use of wiretaps.  It’s a long list.  Nothing particularly new here except this one, if it happened, was aimed at his most important adversary in our democratic republic, threatening the very underpinnings of our country and making Nixon seem like an amateur.  No doubt the Democrats will hide behind national security, but that can only go on for so long.  People in leadership positions like Sen. Cotton are entitled to the facts — and they will get them eventually, perhaps quickly since this is a Trump administration finally, even if so many appointments are being held up.  Also — and this is what the sleaze-artists like Schumer and my own Rep. Adam Schiff know well — Trump has obviously been wiretapped up the you-know-what, probably from numerous sources.  If not, where have all these leaks come from?  Mars?

Former Bush AG Mukasey: Trump ‘Right’ That There Was Surveillance

March 6, 2017

Former Bush AG Mukasey: Trump ‘Right’ That There Was Surveillance, ABC News via YouTube, March 5, 2017

H/t Conservative Tree House for the link to the video and for this insight:

Here’s what’s going on, that almost everyone seems to be missing.

President Trump cannot publicly disclose anything relating to his first hand knowledge of national security issues, specifically intelligence gathering, without opening himself up to accusations of the mishandling of classified information…. which naturally his opposition would use to: #1) drive a media narrative, #2) demand an investigation of him as a leaker of classified intel, and #3) ultimately lead to pearl-clutching calls for impeachment etc. [Emphasis added.]

President Trump cannot publicly discuss anything related to his knowledge of classified information or intelligence.  His opposition (Dems and Media) know this, and therefore use his inability to discuss these matters as a tool to shape their chosen narratives.

The Alinsky accuser can run to the microphones, but the accused has a constitutional gag order.  See how that works?

Absent of the President’s ability to discuss or defend himself, he enters into the media matrix at a disadvantage.  The media can claim anything, and President Trump cannot provide evidence to refute their claims without compromising his position.   The media knows this. The media use this dynamic to their advantage.

The President cannot publicly discuss anything provided to him from the intelligence community.  However, President Trump CAN publicly discuss, or draw attention to, media reports which contain stories about leaks as derived from classified intelligence leaks.

Please read the entire article.