NEED TO KNOW
<><> What information was criminally gained by Obama and Rice?
<><> Details of the scope and dimension of US intel given to assist Hillary?
<><> Detail the multiple ways Hillary’s campaign used criminal information against Trump.
The FBI requested a type of surveillance generally reserved for tracking suspected terrorists, including
<><>wiretaps,
<><> electronic surveillance,
<><> the use of bugs and tracking devices,
<><> physical surveillance,
<><> electronic surveillance
<><> satellite geo-location surveillance
<><> and much more.......
FR POSTED-——AAG Matthew Whitaker Discusses Upcoming IG Report on FISA Abuse and Trump Campaign Surveillance…
Following leaked revelations that former FBI lawyer Kevin Clinesmith manipulated evidence to attain a Title-1 surveillance warrant against U.S. person Carter Page to conduct political espionage against the Trump campaign, former AAG Matthew Whitaker discusses the IG investigation and upcoming IG report.
Whitaker notes the bigger issues are how the FISA process generally has been abused and potentially long-term ramifications.
It is also worth remembering it wasn’t just “wiretaps” that were gained, the FBI requested and received full Title-1 surveillance authority including:
<><>wiretaps,
<><> electronic surveillance,
<><> the use of bugs and tracking devices,
<><> physical surveillance,
<><> electronic surveillance
<><> satellite geo-location surveillance
<><> and much more.
The FBI requested a type of surveillance for spying on Trump generally reserved for tracking suspected terrorists.
When Mr. Clinesmith manipulated evidence to attain the warrant, he was working under the guidance of FBI supervisory agent Peter Strzok. -—snip——rest on FR
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/COINTELPRO
(derived from COunter INTELligence PROgram) (1956–1971) was a series of covert and illegal[1][2] projects conducted by the United States Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) aimed at surveilling, infiltrating, discrediting, and disrupting American political organizations.
...The FBI has used covert operations against domestic political groups since its inception; however, covert operations under the official COINTELPRO label took place between 1956 and 1971.[12] COINTELPRO tactics are still used to this day and have been alleged to include discrediting targets through psychological warfare; smearing individuals and groups using forged documents and by planting false reports in the media; harassment; wrongful imprisonment; and illegal violence, including assassination.[13][14][15][16] The FBI’s stated motivation was “protecting national security, preventing violence, and maintaining the existing social and political order”.[17]
...Illegal surveillance
The final report of the Church Committee concluded:
Too many people have been spied upon by too many Government agencies and too much information has been illegally collected. The Government has often undertaken the secret surveillance of citizens on the basis of their political beliefs, even when those beliefs posed no threat of violence or illegal acts on behalf of a hostile foreign power. The Government, operating primarily through secret and biased informants, but also using other intrusive techniques such as wiretaps, microphone “bugs”, surreptitious mail opening, and break-ins, has swept in vast amounts of information about the personal lives, views, and associations of American citizens. Investigations of groups deemed potentially dangerous—and even of groups suspected of associating with potentially dangerous organizations—have continued for decades, despite the fact that those groups did not engage in unlawful activity.
Groups and individuals have been assaulted, repressed, harassed and disrupted because of their political views, social beliefs and their lifestyles. Investigations have been based upon vague standards whose breadth made excessive collection inevitable. Unsavory, harmful and vicious tactics have been employed—including anonymous attempts to break up marriages, disrupt meetings, ostracize persons from their professions, and provoke target groups into rivalries that might result in deaths. Intelligence agencies have served the political and personal objectives of presidents and other high officials. While the agencies often committed excesses in response to pressure from high officials in the Executive branch and Congress, they also occasionally initiated improper activities and then concealed them from officials whom they had a duty to inform.
Governmental officials—including those whose principal duty is to enforce the law—have violated or ignored the law over long periods of time and have advocated and defended their right to break the law.
The Constitutional system of checks and balances has not adequately controlled intelligence activities. Until recently the Executive branch has neither delineated the scope of permissible activities nor established procedures for supervising intelligence agencies. Congress has failed to exercise sufficient oversight, seldom questioning the use to which its appropriations were being put. Most domestic intelligence issues have not reached the courts, and in those cases when they have reached the courts, the judiciary has been reluctant to grapple with them.[92][93]