Posted on 03/06/2017 2:20:05 PM PST by Jim Robinson
Not just warrant actual recordings/Transcipts, they disappear, then nothing there and Trump looks like a liar. (as does the media who all hyped it)
They did not need a warrant to do the surveillance. They do that all the time anyway. To mine the collected data they legally are required to have a warrant, but that assumes they care about what’s legal.
We also know from O’Keefe that they encourage independent action by their adherents. So, someone in DIA, CIA, FBI or now one of 16 agencies, independently mined and leaked this info.
How do you stop it? Executive order restricting access and disband government worker union restrictions on firing and then hire new people.
I’m sure you’re right, and if that’s the case, then it would behoove Congress to investigate all of the FISA requests submitted by the Obama Administration, to ascertain the validity of those requests. In other words, how many other times did they go beyond what was in the approved request? If they did it with Trump, you know they did it before, but weren’t caught. I’d most definitely like to know in the case of James Rosen, if they were specifically granted the right to include his parents in the tap.
A guest on Hannitys radio just claimed that all citizens are under surveillance, phone and email records are being stored in a mass data base covering many years of historically. Therefore, Clapper and Comey by saying Obama didn’t order it, they are weaseling their way out by omitting it is the data analysis and investigation , which is required by to be authorized by a judge is separate from the collection that they believe they have legacy ongoing authorization, Hannitys guest went on to claim , that even without a court authorization , technically feasible without a judge , yet not legal..
Obama and his henchmen only gave the “law” lip-service when it suited them. They were first and foremost lawless in most of their actions. Fast and furious, IRS-gate, Benghazi gun running and the Obamacare con job, just to name a few examples.
So much was done secretly that was illegal we may never be able to sort it all out.
I have to revise my timeline a bit. It appears that the first FISA was denied. It was then appealed to a three judge panel which approved it around mid July. It would have to be re-approved in 90- days, which was done for the October 15th FISA Warrant.
Talk that SS found bugs in Oval office. Interesting indeed. How would parties know about contents of private conversations Trump had with various heads of state?
....or nearly as CROOKED as HE is!
This scandal further illustrates that if the dreaded hildebeast would have won, they would now be onto the next stages of implementing a 1960’s East German style government to replace our beloved Constitution.
The swamp is worse than most can imagine.
God bless and guide our President Trump.
Yep.
Conservative Treehouse believes Rogers to be one of the IC “White Hats”.
If Obozo didn’t even bother to get a FISA warrant after the first denial, he may have to claim executive priviledge and Lynch is going before Congress...
I see three possibilities:
1. There was a FISA warrant and if we’re lucky it will become public (even though they are normally sealed)
2. There was a warrant that was signed by the AG (the crooked Loretta Lynch) authorizing the survillance without the FISA court’s approval. I’m no lawyer but the pertinent law is 50 USC 1805 that makes it seem that this is possible. Even wikipedia says there are exceptions to FISA authorization “with approval of the AG”. But even in this case there would be a paper trail.
3. There was no warrant and the surveillance was illegal as you suggest. If so, we may never know the truth because there would be no paper trail.
Since it’s a virtual certainty that the intercept was done on a digital line, there has to be an order authorizing the phone company, cable company, ISP, etc to enable data from the devices under surveillance to be sent to the monitoring location. They do this all the time (lawful intercepts for law enforcement purposes) and there’s a prodedure. You can’t just slip Louie the tech at the phone company a few bucks and have him turn on a wiretap. The procecure has checks and balances and is carefully controlled to preserve the integrity of the evidence that is collected. That means there will be a paper trail, although it may take a special prosecutor to uncover it. Paging Rudy....
Therein lies the trap. Would the Obama led DOJ falsify an affidavit to the FISA judges? Of course they would. Now supposedly Comey comes out and practically DARES the DOJ to rebuke Trump - but they cannot because they know its true.
The Obama media is going to get their come to Jesus moment - that was baked into the cake on Saturday morning and they swallowed - hook, line and sinker. Trump has brilliantly played this so far.
Obama Administration Had Restrictions On NSA Reversed in 2011
Yeah, it’s odd. The President can order a FISA tap even without a warrant, so long as it’s ostensibly against a foreigner, which of course they would claim it was (the Russians).
I also thought about a rogue operation, Jim. They were insuring Hillary’s victory and believed they would never pay a price for anything they did. Oops.
>>I am not disagreeing that they are proven dirtbags, but how do we know there is no warrant.<<
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Comey and Clapper told us there were no warrants against the Trump campaign.
The NYT was screaming about the existence of wiretaps.
Only one conclusion: Illegal wiretaps.
As I recall, the main Impeachment case against Nixon was his attempted abuse of power (CIA etc.) against political opponents.
former Obozo secret service agent spilling his guts this week.... http://www.bizpacreview.com/2017/03/06/fmr-obama-secret-service-agent-bongino-shares-info-obama-wiretaps-blow-wide-open-455846
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.