Skip to comments.Democrats Hoped to Hurt Trump, but Raised Suspicions of Obama
Posted on 03/21/2017 6:41:50 AM PDT by Rockitz
The mainstream media have been doing a victory lap since the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) and the National Security Agency (NSA) confirmed on Monday in testimony before the U.S. House Intelligence Committee that President Barack Obama did not wiretap Trump Tower. But that was already known.
There was only one new revelation at the hearing, and it was a bombshell: senior Obama administration officials could have known the identities of surveillance targets.
One of those targets, retired General Michael Flynn, lost his job after it was revealed that his conversation with the Russian ambassador had been monitored, and that he had discussed sanctions relief, contrary to his early private an public claims.
Yet Flynns identity was never supposed to have been revealed. The surveillance of the Russian ambassador, routine though it may have been, yielded classified information, and the identity of any U.S. citizen swept up in it should have been redacted.
But Flynns name was leaked to the media.
Mondays debunked Trumps wiretapping tweets but left his underlying claim intact: that there was surveillance of the Trump campaign; that the results were shared throughout the government even possibly reaching the Obama White House; and that intelligence was leaked, illegally, to the mainstream media.
Rep. Gowdys questioning revealed an astonishing list of potential suspects. And given that the FBI and NSA testified that there was still no evidence of collusion between the Trump campaign and the Russian government, the fact remains that the only crime that is known to have occurred with absolute certainty was the leaking of Flynns name and the contents of his conversation with the Russian ambassador.
Democrats hoped to hurt Trump. Instead, they raised more questions about Obamas role.
(Excerpt) Read more at breitbart.com ...
True, so don’t WARN them.
A few DUmmies are known to lurk these hallowed halls.
That fact alone is grounds for prosecution and underscores the legal quicksand the Obama team is in is evidenced by the paper trail left by Obama and his minions, aside from the electronic trail.
Two FISA oks were requested to tap Trump....and apparently, one, perhaps two were granted. There is no doubt that Trump was tapped by Obama (that is to say, his minions).
June 2016: FISA request. The Obama administration files a request with the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court (FISA) to monitor communications involving Donald Trump and several advisers. The request, uncharacteristically, is denied.
October 2016: FISA request. The Obama administration submits a new, narrow request to the FISA court, now focused on a computer server in Trump Tower suspected of links to Russian banks. No evidence is found but the wiretaps continue, ostensibly for national security reasons.
The Obama wire-tapping gang WILL have to face the music.
(JIM0216 hat tip)......the issue isn't whether Trump was wiretapped (Obama admitted such and there's a FISA paper trail...... warrants issued for the wiretapping). The issue is whether there was probable cause to issue a warrant. Probable cause is defined as the reasonable likelihood that a crime is or has been committed by the person or at the place designated........
(REAGANGENERATION2 HAT TIP)---Trump should be able to review all 2 or 3 FISA requests (if he hasnt already), and then let Congress determine if the requesters lied about the probable cause justifying them......then (1) youd prove perjury, and, even worse, (2) the intent was to abuse executive power.
A good beginning....and then it gets downright lethal for the Obama gang:
Via Breitbart, JOHN HAYWARD observed that the FISA court may have approved a warrant submitted without Trumps name but which Obama then misused to spy on Trump and many connected to Trump.
Ergo the most serious legal jeopardy that might be faced would be (a) perjury for lying to the FISA court, and, (b) the dissemination of collected intelligence that should have been kept tightly classified.
It is also entirely possible that Obama and his legal team may have perjured themselves before the FISA court by willfully withholding material information in order to manipulate the FISA courts willingness to permit the government surveillance.
FALSIFYING GOVT DOCUMENTS would fall under the Crimes Act of 1958. Moreover, falsifying official documents is the criminal MO to hide larger crimes.
EXCERPT A person falsifying documents can be held criminally liable if they are deliberately acting with the intention of deceiving or defrauding another party.
Falsifying documents is a very serious offense and is generally classified as a felony. This means that a person charged with falsifying documents may be subject to the following legal penalties:
◾Having to pay a monetary fine
◾Incarceration in a prison facility
Depending on the gravity of the offense, as well as individual state laws, falsifying documents can result in a prison sentence of 5-10 years.
And if official government documents or govt authorities were involved, the legal penalties may be more severe. Legal penalties may increase with repeat offenses.
Many different types of acts can be considered as falsifying a document, including:
◾Altering or misrepresenting fact-based information
◾Stating false information when requested to provide truthful statements
◾Forging a signature
◾Using official letterheads without authorization
◾Knowingly using or distributing a fake document
The penalty for falsifying government documents is outlined in the Crimes Act of 1958. (excerpt)
“...confirmed on Monday in testimony before the U.S. House Intelligence Committee that President Barack Obama did not wiretap Trump Tower. But that was already known.”
Not clear. Is he saying that the intelligence agencies confirmed, or that Obama did not wiretap Trump Tower. Two different concepts.
This idiocy about wiretapping has got to stop; Trump obviously meant surveillance when he put quotes around “wiretap”.
Every politician I have heard speak on the subject is careful to avoid the term “surveillance”. Always issue denial using the term “wiretap”. Why?
Has the Speaker been held to account for allowing a full blown espionage ring to operate in the House. He needs to resign immediately and a proper investigation of the Pakistani infiltration of the Intelligence and Foreign Affairs Committees needs to commence. Was that operation responsible for the death of the Seal in Yemen?
Difficult to do, since Comey is nothing but an asswipe for Clinton and the Globalists.
Monday’s testimony didn’t “debunk” anything. What Comey and Rogers should have been asked is, “If there weren’t any surveillance, electronic or otherwise, where did the transcript of Mike Flynn’s conversation with Ambassador Kislyak come from?”
Follow up to Rogers: “Admiral, if neither the NSA nor the FBI engaged in surveillance of now-President Trump, where else could that transcript have originated?” (He would not answer, but it would bring considerable doubt into the “There was no surveillance” narrative.)
Follow up to Comey: “Director, do you acknowledge the fact that the transcript of the conversation between General Flynn and Ambassador Kislyak could only have been obtained through physical (very unlikely) or electronic surveillance? Furthermore, would you agree that the transcript, however obtained, would be classified and, if so, what agency would be responsible for investigation of the leaking of that transcript to the media or anyone else without a clearance and a need to know?” Answer: the FBI. “So what are you doing about it?”
And yet the ever-disappointing Gowdy failed to ask the two men before him, under oath, if they were the one who disclosed Flynn’s identity or the information from the surveillance he was caught on.
Thanks for posting!
Ping to dems uncovering embarrassing info about surveillance of Pres. Trump.
They also read Breitbart, nothing new copied and posted over to FR.
True, they’re stupid, but they’re not that stupid.
Every politician I have heard speak on the subject is careful to avoid the term surveillance. Always issue denial using the term wiretap. Why?
Because they know, if not as a certainty already, that the liklihood that Trump, his campaign & anything related to Trump, was surveilled illegally far exceeds the possibility that it was not & they don’t want to open that can of worms (especially if it means defending Trump). Obama was SO SURE that Hilly would be in the WH that he and his thugs thought they could do whatever they wanted to do illegally & they would not be caught because no one was going to be looking from Hilly’s administration & if anything accidentally leaked, then no one would be prosecuted, especially if Lynch continued on as Attorney General & that was the plan. If Obama thought Hilly would be elected, why would he do this to Trump? Because the thin-skinned narcissist wanted the means/ability to destroy Trump, not just politically, but personally (family included) & professionally as well.
Leave the drag on the reel real loose. Hook is usually set by the catchee rather than the catcher.
I wonder what on earth they have on Comey that makes him so sleazy on any things the democrats do...
The same with Supreme court Chief Justice Roberts...
THIS *IS* THEIR STANDARD MO, after all...
Connecting the dots, the only question is whether Obama ordered it or didn't stop it. I hope those 'pubs who are on are side start getting answers to that.
It is the hubris of those that believe they are above the law that will be their own destruction.
Trump’s wiretapping tweets were NOT debunked. Comey said he had seen no evidence of that wiretapping and neither had the Justice Department. That is not equivalent to debunking Trump’s claims.
Gowdy is a self-serving bed-head hick. Put no hopes in him.
In the past, the reason has been suggested to be a couple of illegal or irregular "adoptions" in his past.
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.