Posted on 03/06/2017 6:09:39 AM PST by pgkdan
Yesterday, in 14 short and exciting minutes of televised explanation, Mark Levin pointed out the evidence already on the public record indicating spying on President-Elect Trump. In two early-morning segments on Fox and Friends, Levin cited chapter and verse with his characteristic high energy and incisiveness.
(Excerpt) Read more at americanthinker.com ...
Good or bad, if NO ONE does anything against those who break our laws, they are JUST AS GUILT as those who do or did.
And Levin was essentially using info. published in the media to make his case, much of it liberal leaning sources.
That characterization was carried on every television network and front page, back in 1974.
Opps, theft of the “Y” in guilty.
We know who many of the guilty collaberators are. They are the ones in the news attacking Trump over it, namely Comey, Sheumer, CNN, NY Times, and of course Obama.
Wouldn’t it just be easier to just throw Obama, Clintoon and Podesta’s asses in jail and save the taxpayers some money?
Mark, we need you, My Friend. Now more than every. Please join us.
Mark laid out evidence that was already published in the liberal press. He didn’t conjecture anything.
I've already seen James Claptrap former 0bama spy, and heard that James Comey [hopefully soon to be former] FBI chief, come forward and claim that they didn't tap Trump. My question is:
When Hussein 0bama and his criminal regime were turned down by the FISA court for a legal(?) wiretap, what makes ANYONE think that he didn't turn to illegal methods for wiretapping?
When did the law ever stop the disbarred kenyan usurper with the stolen SS number?
I agree with you This is the Mark Levin we've known and loved for so long. Forget the NeverTrump crap. Nobody is better at digging this kind of stuff up and presenting the case than Levin!
Excellent point. The obama administration had NO respect for the rule of law. I don't think they saw the FISA Court's refusal as even a speed bump.
But, but... Levin said it was right leaning sources like the Times and W. Post!
If you watched Judge Napolitano on “Varney” this AM one can only conclude: We live in a Police State.
Thanks.
Check my tagline for this Nixonian bs by Obama.
He’s going on Hannity’s show tonight. When’s the last time he was on?
except news paper stories by communists are not evidence. we need the fisa court records. we need the internal FBI briefings. we need all of comey, clapper, brennan email/ communications. We need Hillary tweets and the newspaper leaked stories which will show that the raw information on the wiretapping was leaked. That is where we start. then we go to article III court.
TrumpTowerGate, the shredding of our constitution by the following criminals like Nixon!
When Hussein 0bama and his criminal regime were turned down by the FISA court for a legal(?) wiretap, what makes ANYONE think that he didn’t turn to illegal methods for wiretapping?
Excellent point. The obama administration had NO respect for the rule of law. I don’t think they saw the FISA Court’s refusal as even a speed bump.
***********************************************************
A second request, more “narrowly” drawn was put in and approved. The issue now becomes .... what did they do to get that second request approved? Did they lie to the FISC? Did they leave out material evidence?
From link http://lawnewz.com/high-profile/yes-obama-could-be-prosecuted-if-involved-with-illegal-surveillance/ :
The stories currently are three-fold: first, that Obama’s team tried to get a warrant from a regular, Article III federal court on Trump, and was told no by someone along the way (maybe the FBI), as the evidence was that weak or non-existent; second, Obama’s team then tried to circumvent the federal judiciary’s independent role by trying to mislabel the issue one of “foreign agents,” and tried to obtain a warrant from the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act “courts”, and were again turned down, when the court saw Trump named (an extremely rare act of FISA court refusal of the government, suggesting the evidence was truly non-existent against Trump); and so, third, Obama circumvented both the regular command of the FBI and the regularly appointed federal courts, by placing the entire case as a FISA case (and apparently under Sally Yates at DOJ) as a “foreign” case, and then omitted Trump’s name from a surveillance warrant submitted to the FISA court, which the FISA court unwittingly granted, which Obama then misused to spy on Trump and many connected to Trump. Are these allegations true? We don’t know yet, but if any part of them are then Obama and/or his officials could face serious trouble.
Here are the problematic aspects of the Obama surveillance on Trump’s team, and on Trump himself. First, it is not apparent FISA could ever be invoked. Second, it is possible Obama’s team may have perjured themselves before the FISA court by withholding material information essential to the FISA court’s willingness to permit the government surveillance. Third, it could be that Obama’s team illegally disseminated and disclosed FISA information in direct violation of the statute precisely prohibiting such dissemination and disclosure. FISA prohibits, under criminal penalty, Obama’s team from doing any of the three.
At the outset, the NSA should have never been involved in a domestic US election. Investigating the election, or any hacking of the DNC or the phishing of Podesta’s emails, would not be a FISA matter. It does not fit the definition of war sabotage or a “grave” “hostile” war-like attack on the United States, as constrictively covered by FISA. It is your run-of-the-mill hacking case covered by existing United States laws that require use of the regular departments of the FBI, Department of Justice, and Constitutionally Senate-appointed federal district court judges, and their appointed magistrates, not secretive, deferential FISA courts.
Out of 35,000+ requests for surveillance, the FISA court has only ever rejected a whopping 12. Apparently, according to published reports, you can add one more to that — even the FISA court first rejected Obama’s request to spy on Trump’s team under the guise of an investigation into foreign agents of a pending war attack, intelligence agents apparently returned to the court, where, it is my assumption, that they did not disclose or divulge all material facts to the court when seeking the surveillance the second time around, some of which they would later wrongfully disseminate and distribute to the public. By itself, misuse of FISA procedures to obtain surveillance is itself, a crime.
This raises the second problem: Obama’s team submission of an affidavit to to the FISA court. An application for a warrant of any kind requires an affidavit, and that affidavit may not omit material factors. A fact is “material” if it could have the possible impact of impacting the judicial officer deciding whether to authorize the warrant. Such affidavits are the most carefully drawn up, reviewed, and approved affidavits of law enforcement in our system precisely because they must be fully-disclosing, forthcoming, and include any information a judge must know to decide whether to allow our government to spy on its own. My assumption would be that intelligence officials were trying to investigate hacking of DNC which is not even a FISA covered crime, so therefore serious questions arise about what Obama administration attorneys said to the FISA court to even consider the application. If the claim was “financial ties” to Russia, then Obama knew he had no basis to use FISA at all.
Since Trump was the obvious target, the alleged failure to disclose his name in the second application could be a serious and severe violation of the obligation to disclose all material facts. Lastly, given the later behavior, it is evident any promise in the affidavit to protect the surveilled information from ever being sourced or disseminated was a false promise, intended to induce the illicit surveillance. This is criminalized both by federal perjury statutes, conspiracy statutes, and the FISA criminal laws themselves.
More at the link such as this issue:
That raises the third problem: it seems the FISA-compelled protocols for precluding the dissemination of the information were violated, and that Obama’s team issued orders to achieve precisely what the law forbids, if published reports are true about the administration sharing the surveilled information far-and-wide to promote unlawful leaks to the press.
Great graphic but it barely scratches the surface of the lawless Federal Leviathan and its relentless implementation of the police state.
When they said “9/11 changes everything” they weren’t kidding.
Read Matt Bracken’s(Travis McGee)books, people.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.