Posted on 04/04/2019 1:13:46 PM PDT by Liz
A secret memo granted broad rights to the FBI to share information gathered under the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act with foreign officials. Two-way exchange of information with foreign officials could allow the politicized targeting of Americans, since foreign nations aren’t obligated to uphold the U.S. Constitution. The efforts by the Justice Department to gather information on Trump aides repeatedly involved figures associated with foreign agencies.
Foreign allies strongly opposed President Donald Trump declassifying information illuminating the investigation into Russian collusion. A 2012 Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court motion contained a little-noticed provision expanding the FBI’s ability to share information with foreign officials, which could have laid the groundwork for abuses against U.S. citizens, Rep. Louie Gohmert said. “This motion and order would allow the FBI to collude with foreign governments about U.S. citizens,” Gohmert, a Texas Republican on the House Judiciary Committee, told The Daily Caller News Foundation. The potential for the U.S. government to spy on citizens — including for potentially political purposes — by partnering with foreign governments has come under renewed scrutiny following a pattern of Trump campaign associates being seemingly targeted abroad or by using their contacts with foreigners.
Republicans who believed the Russia probe improperly targeted a political opponent urged President Donald Trump to declassify documents related to the investigation months ago. But Trump ultimately declined, with two foreign countries adamantly opposed to the release.
In a 70-page motion to the court dated April 23, 2012, the Obama administration asked to modify “Section IV.C (Dissemination of Foreign Intelligence Information Concerning United States Persons To Foreign Governments).” “The following underlined text will be inserted into the first sentence: ‘The FBI may disseminate FISA-acquired information concerning United States persons, which reasonably appears to be foreign intelligence information, is necessary to understand foreign intelligence information or assess its importance, or is evidence of a crime being disseminated for a law enforcement purpose, to foreign governments as follows,'” it says (emphasis theirs).
Gohmert told TheDCNF: “‘Reasonably necessary to understand foreign intelligence or assess its importance?’ That’s pretty vague.There’s nothing they could obtain on American citizens that John Brennan or James Clapper couldn’t say ‘it helped me understand other intelligence,'” he continued, referring to the former directors of the CIA and of national intelligence, respectively.
Sidney Powell, a former federal prosecutor, told TheDCNF “this language is very concerning. There is ever-mounting evidence that our ‘allies’ in the ‘Five-Eyes’ world were part of the conspiracy to destroy President Trump,” she said, referring to the intelligence alliance between the U.S., Australia, Canada, New Zealand and the U.K. “This amendment only exacerbates the likelihood of abuses.”
In September 2018, Trump ordered the “immediate declassification” of key documents that would illuminate the Russia probe — which ultimately found no collusion between the Trump campaign and Russia — but reversed himself days later. He said two unnamed countries, described as “very good allies,” called to express concern. The New York Times reported that the British government expressed “grave concern.”
Foreign governments do not have the same restrictions on monitoring U.S. citizens as the Department of Justice does, since foreign governments are not beholden to the U.S. Constitution. Allowing a two-way exchange of information significantly expands the ability of the U.S. to work with other governments on topics dealing with Americans. The 2012 motion, which was mostly declassified in 2015, also requested additional powers to share intelligence with foreign governments that are still unknown because the relevant portion was redacted. “In addition, the following underlined text is inserted into Section IV.C.2: [redacted],” it said. “To facilitate the dissemination of evidence of a crime to foreign governments, the amendments permit FBI to [redacted].” Gohmert railed against the document on the House floor on March 28, saying the secret nature of the years-old motion meant Congress didn’t know what it voted to reauthorize. “I don’t know anyone that did know back in 2012 that our Obama Justice Department was throwing the door open with this vague and ambiguous language,” he said.
With special counsel Robert Mueller finding no collusion between the Trump campaign and Russia despite an aggressive monitoring effort, Republicans are now looking into the potential abuse of powers originally granted for anti-terrorism purposes to spy on Americans for political reasons. Department of Justice officials used the Democrat-funded Steele dossier and a news article relying on the same source to obtain warrants under the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA).“We now know FISA Court, at least one, perhaps more, courts were lied to … this basically a star chamber where the public is not allowed to know what went on,” Gohmert said.
--SNIP--
Former President Barack Obama and former national security adviser Susan Rice are pictured. (Joshua Roberts/REUTERS) When it emerged in early 2017 that Obama officials including former national security adviser Susan Rice made dozens of requests to unmask the identities of associates of Trump, it triggered an uproar. (RELATED: UNMASKED: Susan Rice Requested Intelligence On Trump Associates) “We thought it was bad that they were unmasking so many American citizens to additional American officials, but now we find out they got authority to even share it with foreign governments without our approval,” Gohmert told TheDCNF. “It seems like they were setting the stage for the FBI to become more politically operative. In what other places might it have been helpful?
Luke Rosiak, a Daily Caller News Foundation investigative reporter, authored “Obstruction of Justice: How the Deep State Risked National Security to Protect the Democrats.” Send news tips to luke@dailycallernewsfoundation.org.
My FRiend, this is bigger than the swamp....this is the global socialist swamp....meaning the socialists in the EU plus the friendly islamist nations all working together to undercut individual liberty and capitalism.
bttt on Obama
The first can be refuted by simply considering the Founders' POV. I find it very hard to believe any would accept the position that an enemy must first be declared and known. If that were the case, then wholesale insurrection and other unlawful activities committed by previously unknown domestic enemies would therefore be immune from the stated constitutional stipulations.
Two, as was evidenced by the collaborators executed for conspiracy to assassinate Lincoln, a coordinated attempt to unlawfully murder, overthrow or otherwise disrupt the legally mandated US government can be - and has been - subject to military law.
This is the position Trump needs to take: The coup attempt was a coordinated conspiracy by enemies of the constitution, as comprised by Obama and his former team, to unlawfully overthrow the government of the USA. And two, military tribunals are the proper and correct venues to prosecute this illegal conduct of the aforementioned parties as a de facto declaration of war against the American people.
You’re once - twice - Five Eyes a’FISA. And I lo-o-ove yoou...
18 U.S. Code § 8239;2385. Advocating overthrow of Government
U.S. Code---Whoever knowingly or willfully advocates, abets, advises, or teaches the duty, necessity, desirability, or propriety of overthrowing or destroying the government of the United States or the government of any State,Territory, District or Possession thereof, or the government of any political subdivision therein, by force or violence, or by the assassination of any officer of any such government; or
Whoever, with intent to cause the overthrow or destruction of any such government, prints, publishes, edits, issues, circulates, sells, distributes, or publicly displays any written or printed matter advocating, advising, or teaching the duty, necessity, desirability, or propriety of overthrowing or destroying any government in the United States by force or violence, or attempts to do so; or Whoever organizes or helps or attempts to organize any society, group, or assembly of persons who teach, advocate, or encourage the overthrow or destruction of any such government by force or violence; or becomes or is a member of, or affiliates with, any such society, group, or assembly of persons, knowing the purposes thereof---
Shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than twenty years, or both, and shall be ineligible for employment by the United States or any department or agency thereof, for the five years next following his conviction.
If two or more persons conspire to commit any offense named in this section, each shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than twenty years, or both, and shall be ineligible for employment by the United States or any department or agency thereof, for the five years next following his conviction.
As used in this section, the terms “organizes” and “organize”, with respect to any society, group, or assembly of persons, include the recruiting of new members, the forming of new units, and the regrouping or expansion of existing clubs, classes, and other units of such society, group, or assembly of persons.
(June 25, 1948, ch. 645, 62 Stat. 808; July 24, 1956, ch. 678, § 8239;2, 70 Stat. 623; Pub. L. 87–486, June 19, 1962, 76 Stat. 103; Pub. L. 103–322, title XXXIII, § 8239;330016(1)(N), Sept. 13, 1994, 108 Stat. 2148.)
Don’t forget New Zealand, the place visited most often by the actors in this play.
These people better not get off.
Here's an example of a treason prosecution that would fall apart very quickly for obvious reasons ...
Suppose it was 2016, and it was learned shortly after Election Day that Donald Trump and his senior campaign leaders DID conspire with the Russian government -- not only to "meddle" in the 2016 election, but to actually rig it ... by using Russian intelligence methods to hack voting machines and change results, for example.
Now they'd all be guilty of a whole lot of crimes, but TREASON wouldn't be one of them. Here's why:
If Donald Trump is a defendant in a Federal court in 2018 on a treason charge, the first thing his lawyer are going to do is make a very compelling case that Russia doesn't even meet any objective definition of an "enemy" of the U.S.
Here's the case laid out right here in a satirical piece I posted last year:
BREAKING NEWS: Three U.S. Military Personnel Under Investigation for Collaborating with the Russians
Seriously ... someone in the position of a Federal prosecutor is going to explain how the Russians are an "enemy" of the United States -- even while the U.S. has had its military personnel taking orders from RUSSIAN MILITARY OFFICERS for years?
Forget it. LOL.
“Investigate the FISA judges. They HAD to be in with the deep state.”
It’s the only thing that makes sense.
Deep State Conspirators Shared Unmasked Targets With Foreign Intelligence Services
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/bloggers/3739790/posts?page=1
For example, where does your argument stand with respect to Lincoln's decisions and actions during CWI? What precedent, in term of cases, incidents or other civil disruptions, guided Lincoln leadership during that conflict?
More relevant, however, is considering Trump's actual position in relationship to the first instance of an extant administration conspiring against a presidential candidate. And not only that, but then collaborating with electors to thwart having him seated, and then subsequently mounting an unlawful attack with internal state apparatus engaged in a legal coup?
The answer of course is that there aren't any preceding instances, therefore this is completely virgin territory where decisions will be made by those who have the power to establish and enforce original principle(s).
You're a very good and logical thinker/poster, but I believe you're doing yourself a disfavor here. By insisting on standing on established precedence, and then continuing to point to the courts as if they have ultimate power denies both theory and practical reality.
Lastly, I cannot believe you advanced a hypothetical as support for your position. You're way too experienced and clever for that- that's auto forfeit in debate 101; what's going on?
“In a 70-page motion to the court dated April 23, 2012, the Obama administration asked to modify ...” law.
Gee, I thought the Legislature wrote, and modified, laws.
The Obama administration thought the Executive and the Judiciary did.
Thx for the link.
“The CIA has shared info with friendly foreign intelligence agencies since their birth - and visa versa.”
Secretly, and in violation of US law that clearly prohibits them from domestic spying. The early CIA came up with this evasion of the law. It was never a treaty or legal agreement. It is no more legal than if the CIA hired Blackwater to spy on Americans so they could claim their hands were clean.
It’s un-American for a US intel agency to hire a foreign government to spy on US citizens. To paraphrase Andy Jackson, “the CIA is a damned nest of vipers”.
“There’s no law in the US against England spying on us or the information we give them privileged access to. We even ask them to tell us what they found while spying,”
That is a conspiracy to evade US law. Under the law, constructively, the CIA is still spying on Americans. The Five eye agreement was never approved by legislation or by treaty. It was a shady hidden Dulles deal to get around US law that clearly prohibited them from spying on Americans. It didn’t mean they could conclude secret deals to subcontract the job.
“...prohibits them from domestic spying.....”
Yes, and when domestic spying is involved, the CIA will tell you that is only as an extension of foreign espionage, that they are linked. I have heard it before, in my younger years.
Exactly...
p
BTTT!
bttt
the facts laid out:
18 U.S. Code § 8239;2385. Advocating overthrow of Government
hat tip to Liz
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.