Posted on 03/07/2017 1:11:26 AM PST by SteveH
Over the weekend, President Trump accused his predecessor of "wire tapping" communications from Trump Tower in New York, where then-candidate and President-elect Trump lived and worked during the campaign and in the lead-up to the inauguration.
Former President Obama has denied the allegations, as has the former director of national intelligence. A spokesperson for Trump called on Congress to investigate the claim.
The FBI, the House and the Senate are all investigating Russian attempts to influence the U.S. election.
As we have reported, at least three people associated with Trump's campaign communicated with Russian officials before Trump took office in January, but there are not many details about what was discussed in those communications, or details about what drew the U.S. intelligence community's attention. So, where did this all start?
Only Trump knows why he tweeted what he did early on Saturday morning, but there were previous reports and allegations that the Obama administration might have been conducting surveillance on people close to Trump.
Here are some of those reports:
Oct. 31: The New York Times reported that in the summer of 2016 the FBI had investigated whether the Trump Organization had connections to a Russian bank, but concluded that it did not.
Nov. 7, 2016: The website Heat Street posted a piece by former Conservative British politician Louise Mensch stating that "two separate sources with links to the counter-intelligence community have confirmed" that the FBI twice sought warrants to "examine activities of 'U.S. persons' in Trump's campaign with ties to Russia." The article states that a June warrant request was denied, and that a second request in October was approved.
Jan. 11: The Guardian reported that a June application by U.S. intelligence to the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court had been denied, and that the newspaper had not confirmed the Heat Street reporting about an October order.
Jan. 12: The BBC reported that the June application had been denied, and quoted "a lawyer outside the Department of Justice but familiar with the case" saying the court had granted a request by U.S. intelligence to intercept electronic records from two Russian banks, and that the order involved three of then-President-elect Trump's associates.
March 2: Conservative talk radio host Mark Levin accused Obama of using "the instrumentalities of the federal government, intelligence activity, to surveil members of the Trump campaign and put that information out in the public," on his radio show and podcast, The Mark Levin Show.
March 3: The website Breitbart cited Levin in a post about alleged wiretaps dating back to October 2016.
March 4: Trump tweeted, "Just found out that Obama had my 'wires tapped' in Trump Tower."
What do intelligence officials say about the allegations?
The director of the FBI, James Comey, asked the Justice Department to publicly deny the allegation. The Justice Department hasn't said anything. President Trump's Tweets, Annotated Politics President Trump's Tweets, Annotated
On NBC's Meet the Press on Sunday morning, James Clapper, who served as the director of national intelligence under Obama, said that to his knowledge there was no wiretapping on then-candidate Trump or his campaign.
He also explicitly denied that there was any intelligence court order authorizing electronic surveillance of Trump. What is the FISA court again?
The Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, or FISA, court is responsible for considering communication-monitoring requests from U.S. intelligence agencies.
So, if the FBI wanted to listen in on telephone calls or other communications to and from Trump Tower, it might have requested a warrant from the FISA court, if the reasons for the surveillance pertained to foreign intelligence. Why The FISA Court Is Not What It Used To Be Law Why The FISA Court Is Not What It Used To Be
A federal agency can also ask a federal district judge for a warrant to conduct electronic surveillance on U.S. citizens it believes are committing serious crimes. Such a criminal wiretap would go through the regular federal court system, not the special FISA court. Can a U.S. president single-handedly order the surveillance of an American citizen?
As NPR's justice correspondent Carrie Johnson says: "No."
Surveillance of an American citizen by U.S. intelligence or law enforcement requires that a federal judge or the FISA court sign off, and those orders are requested not by the White House, but by the FBI or Justice Department if they believe a crime has occurred.
Because the requests and the FISA court orders are secret, it's difficult to get information about them.
NPR's Mara Liasson reports that, as president, Trump could release any court order allowing surveillance of Trump Tower, if such an order exists. "He's the only one in the United States with that power," she explained. "He could also easily ask the appropriate agencies whether there was a wiretap."
White House press secretary Sean Spicer said such action would be interfering in an investigation, and that Congress should look into it, Mara reported. What about the intercepted calls between Michael Flynn and Russian officials?
U.S. intelligence agents intercepted communications between Russian officials and members of Trump's campaign, including Michael Flynn, who resigned from his post as national security adviser after he lied about the substance of a conversation he had with Russia's ambassador.
As we reported in February:
"Russian intelligence officials made repeated contact with members of President Trump's campaign staff, according to new reports that cite anonymous U.S. officials. American agencies were concerned about the contacts but haven't seen proof of collusion between the campaign and the Russian security apparatus, the reports say.
"Law enforcement and intelligence agencies intercepted the calls at the same time as they investigated Russia's attempts to tamper with the presidential election, according to The New York Times, which first reported the contacts."
So, what now?
Trump's tweets have set off a public argument among the FBI, the White House, and the Department of Justice. On Monday, Spicer tweeted that the president wanted Congress to "determine whether executive branch investigative powers were abused in 2016."
Meanwhile, the FBI is investigating Russia's attempts to influence the 2016 presidential election, and last week Attorney General Jeff Sessions announced he would recuse himself from any DOJ investigations or prosecution decisions involving the campaign.
And the House Intelligence Committee is doing its own investigation into Trump's possible ties to Russia, as is the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence.
And, to muddy the waters even further, the Justice Department is investigating the FBI director's actions leading up to the election. Timeline: Wiretaps' Use and Abuse Warrantless Wiretaps: A Guide to the Debate Timeline: Wiretaps' Use and Abuse
Shortly after this meeting, Loretta Lynch allegedly made her first FISA request to tap Trump’s lines. It was denied. The DOJ was told to narrow its search down (apparently).
In late July, a group of (allegedly) independent and (allegedly) benevolent computer scientists took it upon themselves (allegedly) to investigate a server/DNS associated with Trump Organization and discovered that it was "pinging" a server associated with a bank (ALFA Bank) in Russia. Slate reveals the details of this "independent" investigation on October 31st.
At some point, earlier in the month of October, a second FISA request was made which doesn't specifically name Trump (apparently) and which narrows down the search to the aforementioned server. Nothing illegal is found (apparently). Nothing risng to the level of a FISA warrant is found (apparently).
On Fix last night, Kathryn Harris said that the leaks of the transcripts could only have come from the “highest levels in the Intelligence Community” because they are the only ones who have access to those transcripts.
Not sure if I follow the logic about the level, but I’m pretty clear on which agencies do the listening.
In all this fury about Trump's people having contact with the Russians, and the suspicion that the Russians were attempting to tamper with the election, something is sorely lacking which needs to be considered. And I'm asking FReepers to help me phrase the right questions.
The media parrots the same nonsense about collusion, and election tampering. So my questions to the media are:
What is your working theory on what advice the Russians gave the Trump campaign? Phrased differently, specify what advice from Russians did Trump follow which helped him win? Specify beside advice, what actual help the Russians gave Trump's team.
Give a lucid theory on something that the Russians and Trump's team agreed upon which guaranteed that Trump would win. Give examples of massive public support by the Russians in TV, radio, and print, which would be likely to convince American voters to vote for Donald Trump.
I'm flailing a little here, but what did the Russians actually do? What did they say? How did they get their message out? Where were specific points of election tampering. Where are points demonstrating campaign coordination with Trump's people?
Without a working theory, and plausible examples of advice and coordination, there is no possible path to conclude that the Russians helped Trump win the election.
The timeline omits a couple of things like Lynch’s tete-a-tete with Bilious Clinton.
I think they want it to turn out to be Putin and Trump conspiring to hack the voting machines as well as the DNC and Podesta. As proof, of course, is that several states noted attempts to break into their systems. Of course, the breaker-in was identified as the FedGov.
missing from the timeline:
Oct 31, 2016 @HillaryClinton likes: 16,056 retweets: 12,449
“Computer scientists have apparently uncovered a covert server linking the Trump Organization to a Russian-based Bank” with a snapshot of “A Statement by Jake Sullian on the new report exposing Trump’s secret line of communication to Russia - “the Trump organization felt it had something to hide”
Dec 29, 2016 - Flynn speaks with Russian counterpart. Obama hits Russia with sanctions the same day. (bear in mind that the conversation would have been on a secure line installed in Trump Tower, with intel notified in advance and correct protocol followed by Flynn) Trump tweets: “Doing my best to disregard the many inflammatory President O statements and roadblocks. Thought it was going to be a smooth transition - NOT!”
* from the Russians
Don't ALL organizations??
Even sweet ol' ELSIE has stuff to hide!
btt
Here is another one that gets into some of this. NPR is trying to double down on the “Trump is nuts” bet. I heard one of them yesterday say that Clapper’s word is gold. If he says it, you can take it to the bank.
Yeah, sure...
Oops. the link:
https://theconservativetreehouse.com/2017/03/03/the-shadow-government-timeline/#more-129451
There is that January 20, 2017 front page top of the fold article in NYT as well. “Wiretapped Data Used in Inquiry of Trump Aides.”
Your post got me thinking: Many believe that everyone in DC has dirt on everyone else, which is used to create deals in a “I won’t rat you out if you don’t rat me out” way. But this does not work because there is no “there” there, and even when they tried it with the “grab ‘em by the...” revelation, it failed.
It makes me wonder if all these wiretaps, etc. are a desperate attempt by the #uniparty to find SOME SORT OF DIRT that CAN be used to control him. It looks like he just doesn’t care. He seems to be the most politically free president we’ve had in over a century.
Is that benevolent group of computer scientists “Crowdstrike?”
Their goal is to make Trump look stupid. leaving out certain facts is one way they do this. I’ve seen stories that make no sense (even conservative sources do this), but when I research the FULL story it often turns out that the original source left out critical data (that they obviously had in their posession) that would have made it all make sense, but become a non-story.
I actually caught Kirby Wilbur doing this on a Seattle radio station about a decade ago. People were calling in, outraged by the unfair story, but when all the facts came out, it made perfect sense. What was don was the proper thing to do.
The press loves to get us worked up. It sells papers.
These authors keep ignoring that the NSA sweeps up everything.
The data is there to be abused.
A FISA warrant, therefore, is not to create a legal eavesdrop data set, but it is authorization to delve into that already collected data.
The hard truth that will not be mentioned by this “command state” writer and others is that the data is there already and is ripe for abuse by anyone willing to lie.
“any believe that everyone in DC has dirt on everyone else, which is used to create deals in a “I won’t rat you out if you don’t rat me out” way.”
This whole thing reminds me of the final duel in “For A Few Dollars More” with Eastwood, Van Cleef and Volonte standing there with the pocket watch ticking down to certain death for someone.
I think you might actually be intending to refer to eastwood, van cleef, and wallach and the mexican standoff in “the good, the bad, and the ugly.”
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.