Free Republic
Browse · Search
General/Chat
Topics · Post Article

To: Bob Ireland
I didn't speak my mind well, in "I didn't think I could prove it." What I meant was that unlike somebody changing FBI 302's, unlike the representations made in the FISA warrant applications directed to Carter Page, or 702 unmasking requests, I don't think there is any sort of paper trail that directly implicates Obama.

Being even more specific, _Vachel speculates that 50 USC 1802 was used - this requires a signed approval by the AG, and this represents the president's approval ...

Notwithstanding any other law, the President, through the Attorney General, may authorize electronic surveillance without a court order under this subchapter to acquire foreign intelligence information for periods of up to one year if the Attorney General certifies in writing under oath ...

50 USC 1802

I don;t believe this statute was used to spy on the Trump campaign. Like Bush's "TSP" before, the snooping was just done by identifying targets, with no resort to anything resembling judicial process as 50 USC 1802 does.

I believe Obama at least knew and allowed snooping on the Trump campaign (was kept in the loop, possibly directed it be undertaken), and if testimony from those around him could be elicited, that testimony would prove it. But I don't think I could identify any hinky paperwork that I think might implicate him. That is my "I don't think I could prove it."

As you point out, too many high level people are aware of and participating in complementary schemes to believe Obama was unaware.

732 posted on 05/26/2018 12:37:27 PM PDT by Cboldt
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 727 | View Replies ]


To: Cboldt
***too many high level people are aware of and participating in complementary schemes to believe Obama was unaware***

I think it is impossible to prove [not legally] that Obama was not aware... such hi level international cooperation would have to be sanctioned. Having said that, I agree that legally it would never reach the 'bamster because too many near his seat would take the fall... Besides, I doubt it will ever get that far. AND, as you say, no paper lying around; and electronic paper has a history of being volatile.

A sad day on many fronts for a great country!

747 posted on 05/26/2018 1:15:24 PM PDT by Bob Ireland (The Democrat Party is a criminal enterprise)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 732 | View Replies ]

To: Cboldt

too many corrupted

Anybody only needs to own less than 1000 people in DC to own all of Fed.gov. Remember the Hildebeast stole 900 FBI files in 1997. She rode that horse about as far she could.

435 congresscritters, 100 senators, 9 SC justices-only need 5 of them-and the heads of the Federal Agencies and the spooks.

Congress was “fixed” in size about 1894. (funny how that had to happen first, before the 16th and 17th amendments could happen) Original apportionment was 1:30000-would give us 10000 congresscritters today meeting on-line from their districts-and virtually impossible to corrupt so many simultaneously. Senators elected by their state legislatures as originally intended were another firewall against corruption in DC

the Founders gave us a gift. We need to use it


750 posted on 05/26/2018 1:18:55 PM PDT by mo (If you understand, no explanation is needed. If you don't understand, no explanation is possible.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 732 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
General/Chat
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson