Posted on 03/07/2017 4:49:43 AM PST by RoosterRedux
It is now reported that the Obama administration during the campaign went to a FISA court to tap the communications of Trump-campaign officials and unofficial supporters. FISA applications are almost never rejected (and never leaked), but the court rebuffed this one in June 2016, ostensibly for insufficient cause. Ostensibly it is also unprecedented for a sitting president’s administration to order surveillance of campaign personnel of an opposite party before an upcoming election — a fact suggesting that Obama-administration officials may have assumed that a grateful shoo-in successor Clinton Justice Department would not worry greatly about such interference.
News reports further suggested that a frustrated Obama administration may have tried again as the campaign heated up in October 2016, may have found a more sympathetic judge, and may on the second try have begun widely tapping Trump-campaign officials.
In addition, the Obama administration after eight years in power suddenly and deliberately expanded the number of people granted access to such surveillance, apparently in the hope (which soon proved correct) that greater dissemination would increase the likelihood of illegal leaks that in turn would embarrass Trump.
Perhaps from such intelligence leaks, the media reported that Jeff Sessions, Trump’s attorney general, had met in his office with the Russian ambassador, a supposed contradiction of his Senate testimony.
(Excerpt) Read more at nationalreview.com ...
Ping.
Still to be determined.......seeing that Valerie Jarrett dictates a lot of (maybe all of) Obama's actions, it would not be surprising to find out Valerie dictated the details of the FISA operation.
So-o-o-o-o.....did Valerie Jarrett have security clearance high enough to see (or even know about) a FISA warrant request, or that an actual warrant was issued?
Now that's an investigation that should begin ASAP.....one that should certainly bear fruit.
A bombshell in the making, for sure.
You can take President Trump seriously, or you can take him literally.
The media likes to take him literally -- he is inexact and he is clumsy. They portray him as a buffoon or a clown.
The people take President Trump seriously -- he understands the country and he understands his opposition. He's right about almost everything.
The media ought to start taking Trump seriously. Everyone else does.
Excellent comment.
I think Trump’s use of imprecise language is intentional. It baits his enemies (the media and the Democrats and never-Trumpers). They pounce only to have him then fine-tune his language so as to prove the accuracy of his statement...and prove his enemies to be craven opportunists.
Dr. Hanson, a near NeverTrumper, has accordingly been off his game lately but this is a perfect summary of the current situation.
I think he must be a Freeper. Almost everything in the article has appeared here in FreeRepublic from one contributor or another in recent weeks.
One of the most powerful sentences from this spectacular review:
“No wonder that some smarter observers backtracked from the Russian-Trump collusion charges of the past six months, given that the leaks were less likely to be credible than they were criminal.”
He drops nuclear bombs when the other side uses stink bombs.
I bet Trump can extract beneficial meaning from the exact words of a contract clause the other side never paid attention to.
Nixon was an innocent schoolboy compared to Obama on this one. OBAMAGATE = watergate on steroids.
Unless Mika’s deep fears are confirmed, nothing will come from any of this.
Yup.
It bothers me greatly when some people say that Obamagate may be the “biggest scandal since Watergate”. It is obviously greater than Watergate. Worst scandal in the history of the US, in my opinion.
1. Corrupted the DNC
2. By November, the entire MSM (even Fox) unabashedly working for her
3. Obama's spy apparatus undermining Trump
3. The corrupt RNC undermining Trump
And still she lost.
Utterly amazing.
I believe that Obama/Jarrett wanted to hobble her at the very least so that they would remain in control. They certainly had the dirt on her.
That view is vindicated by the surveillance of Trump– Obama/Jarrett have no intention of giving up power.
“I think Trump’s use of imprecise language is intentional.”
That is why Trump’s language is NOT “inexact and clumsy.”
The political world since June of 2015 has been one long episode of Green Acres, with leftists/never-Trumpers as Oliver Wendell Douglas, the “smart” people not in on the joke (them).
4th Amendment, Search & Seizure
does not say, only in SECRET!
FISA NSA, Shut It Down, Lock em Up.
VDH nails it once again. Well worth the read.
This needs to be repeated, almost like a chant, until it becomes part of the daily news lexicon.
Bigger than Watergate.
The short answer is probably “Yes”, given that they lie whenever it profits them.
Nice visual of the NYT. Guess that was before their Truth meme began to appear. Although Truth itself seems compromised. Inasmuch, as you say, the dark gray lady is contradicting herself.
My hope is that once the whole story is out, the public will rally around Trump similar to the way it did with Reagan after Hinckley.
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.