Posted on 03/09/2017 9:08:46 AM PST by LS
In the shifting saga of how members of the Trump campaign/administration ended up having their phone conversations tapped under the Obama administration, the American people have been fed a series of shifting excuses on how the Obama administration would never violate the laws concerning surveillance of US Persons.
We were told the President cannot order such surveillance (which we know is a false statement, see here and here).
Then we were given the impression by the Fake News Media these “intercepts” were under a FISA court warrant. But later we learned the FISA court rejected the application by Team Obama in June 2016.
Apparently, the Obama’s administration tried twice last year to monitor members of Trump’s campaign. Once via the regular (Title III) courts and once through the FISA Court. So let’s stop pretending this was not something Team Obama desperately wanted to do. The fact they failed does not erase the efforts behind the attempts.
But then something else happened in October. What it was is unclear. Speculation was Team Obama tried either a second run at the FISA court with a more focused application, or they possibly appealed to the FIS Review Court. The initial reports were of a successful FISA application and surveillance warrant in October.
But then DNI Clapper publicly stated that there was no FISA Court warrant targeting team Trump. None.
(Excerpt) Read more at strata-sphere.com ...
One technical question I’ve had is can warrants be executed as retro-active. Could a judge say, so you’ve collected data that proves the denied application should have been approved? Then I’ll back date it for you.
This would just be crossing Is and dotting Ts if the judge and requestors were absolutely certain HRC would win, and HRC opening investigations on DJT.
I don’t think that’s the case. I have never seen this argued before.
Bookmark
bookmark
interesting
Probably the only guy outside of government who could tell us would be Tom Fitton.
“But then DNI Clapper publicly stated that there was no FISA Court warrant targeting team Trump.”
Warrantless surveillance on US soil was only meant to be used against suspected terrorists:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NSA_warrantless_surveillance_(2001–07)
The Flynn call with the Russian ambassador should have a warrant or was done illegally.
And it's only a matter of time until this story blows wide open. It's ticking down. This is well on it's way to being one of the biggest political bombshells in American history.
The thing that kills me is that Robby Mook is on record saying that the Hillary campaign knew all about the Obama surveillance of the Trump campaign.
That’s very much like how the DNC worked against the Sanders campaign. You basically have the Democrat president titling the playing field in favor of the Democrat candidate. They do that in banana republics. And now here.
Yes. I have always thought Cankles and Zero would avoid jail.
I still think that’s the case, but it’s looking more and more like Lynch & tier 2 people will go down.
btt
Likely not legally.
Check these blog posts out (Larry Johnson @ No Quarter) regarding the probability that intelligence was gathered by the Brits (GHCQ) & Dutch that would have been illegal for the US to collect, & that info was passed on to US intelligence officials.
http://www.noquarterusa.net/blog/79626/barack-obamas-lawyer-lies-spying-trump/
http://www.noquarterusa.net/blog/79631/clapper-brennan-end-run/
Might be true.
But in serious criminal matter such as this, it changes the dynamics and the penalties. I would assume others won’t be willy nilly going down for this without dragging others down with them. Criminal matters often end like this. And often those who squeal get the deals.
So when the hell is the other shoe gonna drop on this...?
How much more patience do we need??!
That’s all I ask... for now..
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.
