Posted on 03/06/2017 4:08:38 AM PST by SteveH
did not see this posted; good interview
"If they (the obama administration) were actually wiretapping a (sitting) united states senator (sessions), that is a very serious problem..."
--newt gingrich
I think it was eavesdropping via a bug planted in Sessions’ office. They were listening to conversations taking place in Session’ office. Wires may have been tapped, as well.
Wiretapping Senator Sessions...
Wow. That is a new charge.
This is the reason why congress will investigate. Obama was wire tapping them!
But... but... like Hillary using her own non-government email server to thwart FOIA laws and mishandle confidential information, we can be certain that Obama only found out about it when he read it in the newspaper.
He wouldn’t lie, would he?
Wait, wut?
Why do you say that?
made by corey levandowski in an interview on saturday evening. see here
Lewandowski: Obama Bugged Senator Sessions While He Was STILL SENATOR Last Year (VIDEO)
Gateway Pundit ^
Posted on 3/5/2017, 9:20:59 AM by bryan999
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/3531623/posts
How do we know the fisa court turned down a request in July
How do we know rhe fisa court granted the request in October
When you consider what all the US government did to cover up after Benghazi - arresting the maker of the obscure “terrible video,” lying about it to the UN and to the families of the Benghazi casualties, and on and on - exactly what assures me that Obama didn’t tap Mitt Romney’s phone in 2012???
How do we know the fisa court turned down a request in July
How do we know rhe fisa court granted the request in October
++++
We don’t know and won’t know until Trump declassifies some FBI or FISA Court records. Why he hesitates to do so is a mystery to me.
It is hard for me to believe that Trump would make the fuss he has via his Tweets if he didn’t know he could back up his claim. The whole episode looks like Cart First, Horse Second. Not very Bannonesque.
this is my understanding (ianal).
fisa is the official guardian at the gate for nsa style wiretapping within usa federal jurisdiction.
if the wiretapping happened at all and could be admissible as evidence for any criminal wrongdoing, it had to have fisa approval. —else, it would have been what is commonly designated as a “black bag” job (a la the watergate breakin in 1972). however, black bag jobs largely went out of style in the mid 1970s, roughly after nixon resigned in 1974.
MSM newspapers such as the (failing) NYT and the WaPo understand the difference between authorized and unauthorized wiretaps very well, and between admissible and inadmissible evidence vis a vis the rights of anyone allegedly suspected of any criminal wrongdoing. If they print that some wiretaps demonstrated wrongdoing by trump in collusion with russians, then it needs to have been admissible evidence, legally gathered, and therefore fisa approved. so by inference, the MSM newspaper articles of the wiretapping are convincing circumstantial evidence that a fisa court order eventually succeeded. whether it is one or two or three and exactly when the order/orders was/were applied for is somewhat secondary.
basically trump is twisting the NYT and the liberal deep state into a gordian knot of a contradiction. if the fisa court order exists, either trump, jarrett, or lynch probably knew of it. probably all three knew about it. trump went directly to the head of the snake saturday morning and called out obama on it.
obama can now either claim trump is a liar, or not. jarrett and lynch report to obama, and obama is figuratively where the buck stops. so if all the preceding holds, then obama can either claim he did not know the fisa order existed (throwing either jarrett, lynch, or both under the bus), or he can admit that he did know about it, indicating an extremely bad case of Nixon-style appearance of impropriety.
When Obama’s response is parsed, it seems he is angling towards denying that he knew of the wiretapping of Trump. This correspondingly puts pressure on high level minions Jarrett and Lynch. This is why people took note when Lynch suddenly started seeming to advocate violence in a recent speech.
Fmr AG Loretta Lynch alludes to blood and death on streets; Says rights being ‘rolled back’ (video)
New Zeal blog ^ | March 4, 2017 | Trevor Loudon
Posted on 3/5/2017, 5:05:32 AM by wtd
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/3531660/posts
advocating violence is something very bizarre for a formal US AG to do.
One caveat is that Obama did not make a direct statement, so he can be presumed to be lawyered up and letting surrogates do the denials for him in public, and those do not quite count in the legal sense one way or another since they are not direct statements from him, nor are they sworn statements, but nevertheless it does count in the court of public opinion from the political standpoint.
if there is something to allegations of criminal collusion between the russians and trump, it probably would have come out by now by leakers (it probably would have come out before the election, if any existed then, when there was still time to influence the election). someone knows whether or not that was the case, including trump. trump is on the political attack, and so that presumably clears him, otherwise he is advocating an investigation that would certainly uncover any wrongdoing on his part, and we can probably presume that he would not willingly advocate that.
I believe that in addition, trump is squeezing the MSM into grudgingly reporting that it is a bad thing for obama or his minions to have ordered the wiretaps of trump in the first place.
my impressions only, ymmv.
“When you consider what all the US government did to cover up after Benghazi - arresting the maker of the obscure “terrible video,” lying about it to the UN and to the families of the Benghazi casualties, and on and on - exactly what assures me that Obama didn’t tap Mitt Romney’s phone in 2012???”
Bingo. Benghazi has been on my mind but BECAUSE of the media reaction to Trump’s tweet. Suddenly they cannot see anything to investigate or report as to what actually happened. Like Benghazi, there isn’t evidence they say (Jake Tapper). Like every other issue favorable to Democrats, they repeat the faxed responses on every occasion.
Saturday night and Sunday, were most people's days off. Today, is when those who assist in making evidence public, come back to work. Also, Mark Levin proved Trump's case yesterday with a string of Liberal press news stories that go back more than a year.
#4, They already know that. Diane Fienstien had a spat with the Spooks a little over a year ago about them hacking into her Computer.
They came out and admitted it.
I surmise that Trump is
1 trying to de-legitimize the MSM in the eyes of the American public. one way to do this is to force them to state that their earlier reporting was somehow mistaken or incorrect or massively incomplete.
2 trying to force the issue by attacking the head of the snake. i imagine that this is some kind of political tactic. trump’s presumed allies seem to be claiming that there is virtually no way that obama himself did not know about this stuff. either he did know, or he very well should have known since it happened under him. making a direct accusation flushes obama out one way or another, and also indirectly puts a lot of pressure on obama’s direct chain of command, and in particular, those who approved of the trump tower wiretaps.
3. leading the country to the next step which trump proposed is a congressional investigation.
congressional investigations go in one of two directions—
3a. impeachment of current officials; or
3b. long drawn out hearings damaging to one party or another.
since the republicans are in control of congress, and since trump initiated the call for congressional hearings, we can readily dispose of the possibility that congress will discover significant wrongdoing by republicans, at least in the matter of the wiretaps.
personally, i imagine trump and his staff have by now seen most of the investigation paperwork. trump and his staff have decided that the best way to deal with it is to dribble it out piecemeal in leaks for the next several months. doing so would in theory help trump retain control of the narrative fed to the public by the media and help trump shepherd his agenda through congress. it would also presumably help bolster republican chances (as the party of reform) in the upcoming congressional elections. so it is how trump chooses to spend this political capital strategically for maximum political effect.
to get his agenda passed, trump must cut off the head of the snake (obama), allegorically speaking. trump’s tweets place responsibility for the wiretapping approval directly on obama. now obama is tagged with accusations easily conjured up by trump defenders in response to any objections that obama can make to trump’s proposed agenda.
from trump’s perspective, obama invited this trouble by (1) allowing the wiretaps to occur, whether or not he knew about it personally— they occurred during his watch with the active planning of people who worked for him in the executive branch; and (2) by inserting himself into politics so quickly after relinquishing the office of president to trump on Jan. 20. so it is political karma, writ large.
trump wins not by creating a political martyr (a jailed obama, who then becomes the usa’s mandela) but by passing his agenda in congress— ideally with at least token bipartisan support.
hoisting obama up by his own petard could be trump’s way of giving trump’s few but important blue dog and other democrat allies in congress the fig leaf they would need to justify to their constituencies for voting for pieces of trump’s agenda in upcoming weeks and months.
I surmise that Trump is
1 trying to de-legitimize the MSM in the eyes of the American public. one way to do this is to force them to state that their earlier reporting was somehow mistaken or incorrect or massively incomplete.
2 trying to force the issue by attacking the head of the snake. i imagine that this is some kind of political tactic. trump’s presumed allies seem to be claiming that there is virtually no way that obama himself did not know about this stuff. either he did know, or he very well should have known since it happened under him. making a direct accusation flushes obama out one way or another, and also indirectly puts a lot of pressure on obama’s direct chain of command, and in particular, those who approved of the trump tower wiretaps.
3. leading the country to the next step which trump proposed is a congressional investigation.
congressional investigations go in one of two directions—
3a. impeachment of current officials; or
3b. long drawn out hearings damaging to one party or another.
since the republicans are in control of congress, and since trump initiated the call for congressional hearings, we can readily dispose of the possibility that congress will discover significant wrongdoing by republicans, at least in the matter of the wiretaps.
personally, i imagine trump and his staff have by now seen most of the investigation paperwork. trump and his staff have decided that the best way to deal with it is to dribble it out piecemeal in leaks for the next several months. doing so would in theory help trump retain control of the narrative fed to the public by the media and help trump shepherd his agenda through congress. it would also presumably help bolster republican chances (as the party of reform) in the upcoming congressional elections. so it is how trump chooses to spend this political capital strategically for maximum political effect.
to get his agenda passed, trump must cut off the head of the snake (obama), allegorically speaking. trump’s tweets place responsibility for the wiretapping approval directly on obama. now obama is tagged with accusations easily conjured up by trump defenders in response to any objections that obama can make to trump’s proposed agenda.
from trump’s perspective, obama invited this trouble by (1) allowing the wiretaps to occur, whether or not he knew about it personally— they occurred during his watch with the active planning of people who worked for him in the executive branch; and (2) by inserting himself into politics so quickly after relinquishing the office of president to trump on Jan. 20. so it is political karma, writ large.
trump wins not by creating a political martyr (a jailed obama, who then becomes the usa’s mandela) but by passing his agenda in congress— ideally with at least token bipartisan support.
hoisting obama up by his own petard could be trump’s way of giving trump’s few but important blue dog and other democrat allies in congress the fig leaf they would need to justify to their constituencies for voting for pieces of trump’s agenda in upcoming weeks and months.
One of the threads here on FR on Sunday contained thhe words, “monitored Sessions’ talks with the Russian ambassador in Sessions’ office.” That sounds like a bug. It’s not a big hairy distinction. Either is illegal. But will anyone be punished?
It is to be assumed that contacts with the ambassador are being surveilled. The question is if/when they need to disengage from the surveillance or scrub information if an American not being tracked is in the conversation. And if there were more.
There was some really nasty pro-Obama woman on with Judge Jeanine this weekend, claiming that the tracking began in June, 2015 (the month Trump announced) — http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/3531721/posts — and that seems incredibly relevant and suspect if true.
That’s why I ask.
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.