The Media Pretends Not to Know the Wiretapping of Trump They Are Using

Frontpage ^ | March 5, 2017 | Daniel Greenfield

[nathanbedford]

The ultimate "breaking of the law" is a criminal conviction of individuals. Obama cannot be convicted unless he was an active participant, a co-conspirator, or conceivably, a member of a criminal conspiracy or otherwise in violation of the RICO laws.

If Obama was merely briefed that the application was being made to FISA, later that the application was granted, and even later the wiretap proceeded, it is hard to attach criminal liability to him simply for that state of knowledge. He has the cover of the FISA court. If, on the other hand, someone breaks and testifies that there was a general conspiracy it might be that Obama himself could be held criminally responsible.

I am all for pursuing this as far as it will go and that is why I call for a grand jury instead of, or perhaps in parallel with, a congressional investigation.

My call for facts is prompted not out of skepticism of Trump's allegations so much but out of a desire to see this thing vigorously pursued. I have taken this position from the moment the news broke-or at least from the time Trump tweeted which may or may not mean there is new news behind the tweets.

[VideoDoctor]

Would not surprise me in the least if the Trump Train has known about this since before the election and has been spoon feeding the eavesdroppers all kinds of misinformation.

I would totally agree with you.

He's playing the cards that were dealt to him and it looks like he may have a "ROYAL FLUSH."

[bonehead4freedom]

I used to watch Fox News Sunday out habit every Sunday and then turned it off one Sunday after Chris Wallace went into his usual douchebaggery. I then asked myself how did I get sucked into watching this show every Sunday? I then remembered it was because of Tony Snow and how he actually brought to the table a decent show without the socialist agenda. I was watching a horrible show out of habit long after the reason for watching it was history.

[vladimir998]

Your posts in this thread are logical and reasonable.

I want hard evidence. I believe news reports about the Obama administration pursuing a FISA court’s permission for electronic surveillance are probably true. The FISA court turned them down the first time. It’s what happened after that that isn’t clear to me.

I want evidence, real, rock-solid evidence. I want it presented in public. If a crime was committed I want someone jailed. If no crime was committed, I still want the Democrats shamed for their hubris.

Thanks for posting logical, reasonable posts amid the chaos on this issue.

[etcb]

The fake story Trump campaign colluded with the Russians is obvious now was made up as an excuse to have a federal judge ok the wiretapping whose real purpose was to meddle with the opposing political parties run for office.

You raise a good point. In looking at this, we need to keep in mind that at the time these actions were taken, everyone expected Sec. Clinton to win the election and had that occurred, everything would have remained hidden. Then candidate Trump had made clear that he would not automatically accept the result of the election if he considered it unfair. That was a big deal to the democrats and would have been a major motivation for wanting any dirt they could accumulate on the person they expected to question their victory.

The FISA Court determination to issue or not issue a warrant was not based on a separate independent inquiry by the court but rather on the specific information presented in the application. At this point, those are the most important documents in determining political motivation. While the President may now know who signed the applications and what they contain, from a practical and political standpoint, he can not be the one to make them public. He can, and has, set up a situation where the congressional committees with oversight of the FISA Courts will have no alternative but to review the matter. As an added benefit, anyone who acted improperly now knows their misconduct will be revealed. It will take some time, but the information will come out.

[nathanbedford]

Thank you very much for the kind words.

[sargon]

Please review Mark Levin's presentation in this video and get back to me about your skepticism as to whether this story is true:

Mark Levin PROVES Obama Wiretapping on President Donald Trump | Fox & Friends 3/5/17

[sargon]

To quote Levin:

"These are police state tactics."

"The issue isn't whether the 0bama administration spied, but the extent of it."

Mark Levin doesn't seem to be breathlessly waiting for President Trump to make his case to skeptics such as yourself. There is already ample evidence for the President's assertion, and Levin does a great job of summarizing it the video I linked to.

Now either you've seen that video or you haven't. If you haven't, you might be forgiven for taking umbrage at the President's tweets.

If, on the other hand, you have seen that video, then why aren't you as angry as Mark Levin is regarding its contents, and the substantial evidence he presented? Why are you instead whining about the President's tweets as if they were unfounded?

Never mind. The answer is obvious: you have little respect and goodwill towards the President, and it taints virtually every post you make on the subject.

Levin is obviously "on board" with this story. He seems to be much further along than you...

[nathanbedford]

As usual you have me as well as reality upside down.

My replies concerning the espionage revelations are available for all to see merely by reading through my posts which will give the reader the advantage of the whole truth rather than distorted snippets provided by you.

For example, you accuse me in essence of insufficient zealotry but my very first reply on the subject advocated a point man who will "pursue a RICO case of criminal conspiracy." Anyone who reads any of my replies can be in no doubt about the seriousness with which I take these allegations.

In fact it is the very seriousness of the subject, a constitutional crisis of the first order, which requires a sober approach by a president of the United States when he accuses his predecessor of felonies or at least of "Watergate" behavior.

Since writing those observations about the need for specificity and for answers to basic questions, we have the following: 1) the denial by the Obama its spokesman that he ordered wiretaps (yes, we know that Obama would not have ordered them that goes through the FBI, the DOJ and finally a FISA judge) 2) the statement of James Clapper on Meet the Press that he knows of no FISA order for surveillance and he knows of no surveillance, and such had occurred he would have known about it 3) the reports from more than one source besides The New York Times that James Comey is importuning the Department of Justice to deny eavesdropping as alleged by Trump.

Who knows what the truth is? Against this we have the connecting the dots done by several individuals, Mark Levin among them, a "connecting the dots" analysis which I have several times referred to in my replies, which replies, again, are available to the reader, which makes the point that connecting the dots are circumstantial. They point to a conspiracy but they are not direct evidence of a conspiracy.

Because the president has failed to come forward with specificity of his original tweets, indeed has even issued a statement that he will not comment again, vindicates my calls from hour one that the president make at least a prima facie case. His failure to do so weakens his allegations and makes his tweets look erratic.

The three events outlined in the preceding paragraph are why I was so eager for the president to make a case. It is not the responsibility of the accused to prove his innocence, that is, it is not the responsibility of alleged Democratic conspirators to prove their innocence anymore than it is legitimate to demand they prove the negative. Nevertheless, the three items outlined in the preceding paragraph show them undertaking to do so. I have no idea whether Clapper is telling the truth, or whether the New York Times story about James Comey is accurate, but the perception is now out there. Much of the sting, that is the political impact of Trump's allegations, have as a result been mitigated. That is unfortunate but predictable.

I invite the reader to examine my replies. Any fair observer will see that Sargon again has attempted to make me the issue. I seem to be living rent free in his head. I hasten to point out that when I direct replies to Sargon it is to deal with new information not to attack him personally and sometimes I offer information in support of his position contrary to my own or contrary to what he has characterized mine to be.

[sargon]

MARK LEVIN: The evidence is overwhelming. This is not about President Trump’s tweeting. This is about the Obama administration spying, and the question is not whether it spied. We know they went to the FISA court twice. The question is who they did spy on and the extent of the spying that is the Trump campaign, the Trump transition, Trump surrogates.

[sargon]

"This is not about President Trump’s tweeting." - Mark Levin

[sargon]

I have no idea whether Clapper is telling the truth

I presume you're aware of Clapper's dubious reputation regarding just such questions?

[nathanbedford]

Of course, that was one of the considerations in expressing reservations about whether I believed Clapper.

Equally, I am aware that the New York Times has gotten other Russia espionage stories wrong.

That does not mean that they are not accurate this time it simply means that it is part of judging their credibility.

[sargon]

Have you not seen Mark Levin's appearance on Fox? It's on YouTube. It was so interesting that thehost kept him late and into the next segment.

In the appearance, Levin lays out at least 7 tangible, documented items of evidence which support President Trumps tweet, and the general notion of a surveillance agenda targeting both President Trump and associated staff.

It appears as if the 0bama administration (under whatever auspices) may have initially been rejected by having Trump's name involved in the request, and then they narrowed the scope and/or removed Trump's name in order to gain approval.

I believe Mr. Levin was chief of staff for Attorney General Edwin Meese, wasn't he?

So for you to claim that President Trump has to get down into the weeds and "make his case" is just silly.

President Trump will make his case in his own way and in his own time; meanwhile, many more, such as Mark Levin, and others both in and out of government, will have the President's back.

You should try it sometime...

[nathanbedford]

I believe that Mark Levin is made significant contributions to conservatism not the least of which has been his insistence on holding Donald Trump's campaign and administration to account for its fidelity to conservative values.

I do not judge Mark Levin as being my "hero" because he agrees with me, in fact I do not judge him a hero at all. I hold them in high regard for his fidelity to conservatism and for his rigorous analysis. It is not my habit to demonize those with whom I disagree or to canonize those with whom I do agree. I leave that to the ever-Trumpers.

In this case, Levin has rendered a very valuable service in connecting the dots and he has been early in this as he has been in other issues where he has led. But as I said, connecting the dots is not proof, or at least not conclusive proof.

We are as capable as Mark Levin of judging the quality of the evidence when the dots are connected. We should not abandon our God granted powers of discernment either to Mark Levin or to Donald Trump.

[nathanbedford]

It appears that the Obama administration made a second FISA application for a surveillance warrant which was granted. It is imperative that we learn the representations made by the government to the judge in securing that warrant. If they were not true we have real criminality. If they were true we have probably no criminality in that respect, although there is clear criminality elsewhere in leaking the contents of other surveillance.

When we consider the real criminality in the context of the dots which Mark Levin and others have connected, it smells like a conspiracy, especially when all the evidence and all of the statements made by authorities is to the effect that there was no improper Trump campaign interaction with Russia. But we do not have a conspiracy yet. I want to prove it.

How do you suppose we should go about that? By tweeting at five o'clock in the morning or by marshaling evidence and pursuing both a legal and a political reckoning in a professional manner?

Because we have erratic tweets at five o'clock in the morning we have a 24-hour story that is already being undermined. Because we have no substantiation of the firestorm created by these tweets, the implication of the connect the dots exercise is being squandered. We are losing credibility by the minute.

I am not opposing Trump in this, I am trying to make his cause more effective. I might be wrong but my motives are not to be impugned merely because I have a tactical disagreement about how our side can win.

[sargon]

The tweet wasn’t erratic. It was absolute perfection...

[Pic7]

LOL

[nathanbedford]

If the world did not know that Donald Trump was a teetotaler, the Democrats by now would be asserting that these tweets were not "erratic" but the product of a wee hour of the morning drunk.

[sargon]

Yes; the Democrats would. And the vast majority of the People would laugh at them...