Did Obama Wiretap The Donald?
- Thread starter iatrogenic
- Start date
Joe Fan
10,000+ Posts
And also -- who was Obama NOT tapping?
We already know he approved the tapping of Angela Merkel's phone
This is from Oct 2013
"Barack Obama 'approved tapping Angela Merkel's phone 3 years ago"
President Barack Obama was told about monitoring of German Chancellor in 2010 and allowed it to continue, says German newspaper
"The president allegedly allowed US intelligence to listen to calls from the German Chancellor’s mobile phone after he was briefed on the operation by Keith Alexander, director of the National Security Agency (NSA), in 2010.
The latest claim, reported in the German newspaper Bild am Sonntag, followed reports in Der Spiegel that the surveillance of Mrs Merkel’s phone began as long ago as 2002, when she was still the opposition leader, three years before being elected Chancellor. That monitoring only ended in the weeks before Mr Obama visited Berlin in June this year, the magazine added.
Citing leaked US intelligence documents, it also reported that America conducted eavesdropping operations on the German government from a listening post at its embassy beside the Brandenburg Gate in Berlin, one of more than 80 such centres worldwide....."
The latest claim, reported in the German newspaper Bild am Sonntag, followed reports in Der Spiegel that the surveillance of Mrs Merkel’s phone began as long ago as 2002, when she was still the opposition leader, three years before being elected Chancellor. That monitoring only ended in the weeks before Mr Obama visited Berlin in June this year, the magazine added.
Citing leaked US intelligence documents, it also reported that America conducted eavesdropping operations on the German government from a listening post at its embassy beside the Brandenburg Gate in Berlin, one of more than 80 such centres worldwide....."
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/wor...tapping-Angela-Merkels-phone-3-years-ago.html
Joe Fan
10,000+ Posts
texas_ex2000
2,500+ Posts
CNN Headline - With no proof, Trump says Obama wiretapped him.
Trump's communications were wiretapped by the US Government. The Justice Department went to the FISA Court for a warrant.
No proof???? Am I taking crazy pills?
Trump's communications were wiretapped by the US Government. The Justice Department went to the FISA Court for a warrant.
No proof???? Am I taking crazy pills?
Clean
5,000+ Posts
San Antonio Express-News down plays it this morning, which is no big surprise. They bleed blue blood that only makes left turns. They say Trump made the accusations based solely on a Breitbart article. They don't mention Mark Levin's devastating case based on articles from The NY Times, WaPo, and other sources.
Joe Fan
10,000+ Posts
Clapper has issued a 'lawyerly' denial along the lines of what Obama said
But Clapper is a known perjurer (never prosecuted).
Moreover, the leaks on Trump's and his team's phone calls plus all the media reports of the existence of actual transcripts suggest this is not completely truthful.
But Clapper is a known perjurer (never prosecuted).
Moreover, the leaks on Trump's and his team's phone calls plus all the media reports of the existence of actual transcripts suggest this is not completely truthful.
Last edited:
What's amazing is that Obama is seemingly running this shadow government in an effort to take down the Trump administration. However, he couldn't run the actual government worth a crap when he was in office. I guess what is going on now is more like community organizing, so it makes sense.
Puts into perspective the charade that was the "transition" and all the glad handing and BS Obama was spewing about wanting to help in every way to make the Trump team successful.
Puts into perspective the charade that was the "transition" and all the glad handing and BS Obama was spewing about wanting to help in every way to make the Trump team successful.
Joe Fan
10,000+ Posts
It sounds like Clapper is attempting to wiggle out by saying no FISA warrant was sought for "Trump or Trump Tower"
One of the necessary elements for this type of warrant (which are wholly different from the normal 4th Amendment criminal warrant) is the presence of a foreign actor. Indeed, this is the main idea behind the FISA stuff. So, the FISA warrant (assuming there was one) was probably sought against the Russians not Trump. Collecting all the same information. If so, then Clapper is being a weasel today.
Also, Clapper says "I can deny" any wiretap of Trump Tower. It's possible the server in question was not actually inside Trump Tower.
One of the necessary elements for this type of warrant (which are wholly different from the normal 4th Amendment criminal warrant) is the presence of a foreign actor. Indeed, this is the main idea behind the FISA stuff. So, the FISA warrant (assuming there was one) was probably sought against the Russians not Trump. Collecting all the same information. If so, then Clapper is being a weasel today.
Also, Clapper says "I can deny" any wiretap of Trump Tower. It's possible the server in question was not actually inside Trump Tower.
It is obvious to me that a wiretap was ordered by a judge at the request of the DOJ's FBI. The DOJ under Obama towed the Obama liberal political line regardless of the law. Josh Earnest called the scumbags at Obama's DOJ "patriots" today as a means to try and justify the wiretap. The only question is who were they targeting and was the reason legitimate or not, because the target was an excuse to get inside baseball data on the Trump organization. They first tried and failed in June 2016. My first thought is the culprit is Manafort based on his scum-bagginess and ties with Yanukovych and Russia's dirty dealings in Crimea. If it is Manafort, who lived in Trump Tower, the wiretap is probably justified- as long as they kept the surveillance limited to Manafort and Russia, which is very doubtful.
texas_ex2000
2,500+ Posts
Exactly...it's semantics.
You have to get a FISA warrant because you want foreign COMINT from a US citizen's conversations (generally FBI CI operations) or there is a very high likelihood that US citizens' communications will be collaterally captured from foreign collections programs (NSA operations).
Either way, it's complete bull for Clapper to claim that the administration didn't request (effectively ordering) a FISA warrant to tap Trump's communications.
Last edited:
ProdigalHorn
10,000+ Posts
Actually makes perfect sense. You don't have to build consensus, manage a federal bureaucracy according to constitutional authority or have any solutions to any problem whatsoever to be an agitator. What Obama is doing now is basically right in his wheelhouse. Getting results by governing? Not so much.
Precisely what I was trying to say, but I am an idoit. Uphauling.
Joe Fan
10,000+ Posts
So guess what? Ben Rhodes is wrong again.
A President can order a FISA wiretap even without a court order. FWIW, before Obama hired him, Ben Rhodes was a Creative Fiction writer. If you can believe it, Obama hired him to be his "Deputy National Security Advisor." Much of the current mess we see in the Middle East was due directly to the fictions of Ben Rhodes.
http://college.cengage.com/polisci/...ases/schubert_9e_additional_cases_ch04_03.pdf
Chapter 36 of Title 50 of the US Code *War and National Defense", Subchapter 1, Section 1802 --
A President can order a FISA wiretap even without a court order. FWIW, before Obama hired him, Ben Rhodes was a Creative Fiction writer. If you can believe it, Obama hired him to be his "Deputy National Security Advisor." Much of the current mess we see in the Middle East was due directly to the fictions of Ben Rhodes.
http://college.cengage.com/polisci/...ases/schubert_9e_additional_cases_ch04_03.pdf
Chapter 36 of Title 50 of the US Code *War and National Defense", Subchapter 1, Section 1802 --
(1) 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 that—
(A) the electronic surveillance is solely directed at—
(i) the acquisition of the contents of communications transmitted by means of communications used exclusively between or among foreign powers, as defined in section 1801(a)(1), (2), or (3) of this title; or
(ii) the acquisition of technical intelligence, other than the spoken communications of individuals, from property or premises under the open and exclusive control of a foreign power, as defined in section 1801(a)(1), (2), or (3) of this title;
(B) there is no substantial likelihood that the surveillance will acquire the contents of any communication to which a United States person is a party; and
(C) the proposed minimization procedures with respect to such surveillance meet the definition of minimization procedures under section 1801(h) of this title; and
if the Attorney General reports such minimization procedures and any changes thereto to the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence and the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence at least thirty days prior to their effective date, unless the Attorney General determines immediate action is required and notifies the committees immediately of such minimization procedures and the reason for their becoming effective immediately.
(A) the electronic surveillance is solely directed at—
(i) the acquisition of the contents of communications transmitted by means of communications used exclusively between or among foreign powers, as defined in section 1801(a)(1), (2), or (3) of this title; or
(ii) the acquisition of technical intelligence, other than the spoken communications of individuals, from property or premises under the open and exclusive control of a foreign power, as defined in section 1801(a)(1), (2), or (3) of this title;
(B) there is no substantial likelihood that the surveillance will acquire the contents of any communication to which a United States person is a party; and
(C) the proposed minimization procedures with respect to such surveillance meet the definition of minimization procedures under section 1801(h) of this title; and
if the Attorney General reports such minimization procedures and any changes thereto to the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence and the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence at least thirty days prior to their effective date, unless the Attorney General determines immediate action is required and notifies the committees immediately of such minimization procedures and the reason for their becoming effective immediately.
Last edited:
Joe Fan
10,000+ Posts
The Guardian reported back in early January that Obama did apply to the FISA Court
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news...-mccain-alleging-secret-trump-russia-contacts
The Guardian has learned that the FBI applied for a warrant from the foreign intelligence surveillance (Fisa) court over the summer in order to monitor four members of the Trump team suspected of irregular contacts with Russian officials. The Fisa court turned down the application asking FBI counter-intelligence investigators to narrow its focus. According to one report, the FBI was finally granted a warrant in October, but that has not been confirmed, and it is not clear whether any warrant led to a full investigation.
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news...-mccain-alleging-secret-trump-russia-contacts
Joe Fan
10,000+ Posts
Trump's two possible outcomes --
(1) either the wiretaps exist, which Trump can then use to attack both the Obama Admin and media for political overreach
or
(2) there were no wiretaps, which would suggest the previous administration had no reason to suspect any alleged collusion with "the Russians."
(1) either the wiretaps exist, which Trump can then use to attack both the Obama Admin and media for political overreach
or
(2) there were no wiretaps, which would suggest the previous administration had no reason to suspect any alleged collusion with "the Russians."
Last edited:
Joe Fan
10,000+ Posts
The NYT from Saturday afternoon --
"...... a senior White House official said that Donald F. McGahn II, the president’s chief counsel, was working on Saturday to secure access to what the official described as a document issued by the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court authorizing surveillance of Mr. Trump and his associates....."
https://www.nytimes.com/2017/03/04/us/politics/trump-obama-tap-phones.html?_r=0
https://www.nytimes.com/2017/03/04/us/politics/trump-obama-tap-phones.html?_r=0
Joe Fan
10,000+ Posts
"...... Out of 35,000+ requests for surveillance, the FISA court has only ever rejected a whopping 12. Apparently, according to published reports, you can add one more to that — even the FISA court first rejected Obama’s request to spy on Trump’s team under the guise of an investigation into foreign agents of a pending war attack, intelligence agents apparently returned to the court, where, it is my assumption, that they did not disclose or divulge all material facts to the court when seeking the surveillance the second time around, some of which they would later wrongfully disseminate and distribute to the public. By itself, misuse of FISA procedures to obtain surveillance is itself, a crime.
This raises the second problem: Obama’s team submission of an affidavit to to the FISA court. An application for a warrant of any kind requires an affidavit, and that affidavit may not omit material factors. A fact is “material” if it could have the possible impact of impacting the judicial officer deciding whether to authorize the warrant. Such affidavits are the most carefully drawn up, reviewed, and approved affidavits of law enforcement in our system precisely because they must be fully-disclosing, forthcoming, and include any information a judge must know to decide whether to allow our government to spy on its own. My assumption would be that intelligence officials were trying to investigate hacking of DNC which is not even a FISA covered crime, so therefore serious questions arise about what Obama administration attorneys said to the FISA court to even consider the application. If the claim was “financial ties” to Russia, then Obama knew he had no basis to use FISA at all.
Since Trump was the obvious target, the alleged failure to disclose his name in the second application could be a serious and severe violation of the obligation to disclose all material facts. Lastly, given the later behavior, it is evident any promise in the affidavit to protect the surveilled information from ever being sourced or disseminated was a false promise, intended to induce the illicit surveillance. This is criminalized both by federal perjury statutes, conspiracy statutes, and the FISA criminal laws themselves.
That raises the third problem: it seems the FISA-compelled protocols for precluding the dissemination of the information were violated, and that Obama’s team issued orders to achieve precisely what the law forbids, if published reports are true about the administration sharing the surveilled information far-and-wide to promote unlawful leaks to the press. This, too, would be its own crime, as it brings back the ghost of Hillary’s emails — by definition, FISA information is strictly confidential or it’s information that never should have been gathered. FISA strictly segregates its surveilled information into two categories: highly confidential information of the most serious of crimes involving foreign acts of war; or, if not that, then information that should never have been gathered, should be immediately deleted, and never sourced nor disseminated. It cannot be both......"
This raises the second problem: Obama’s team submission of an affidavit to to the FISA court. An application for a warrant of any kind requires an affidavit, and that affidavit may not omit material factors. A fact is “material” if it could have the possible impact of impacting the judicial officer deciding whether to authorize the warrant. Such affidavits are the most carefully drawn up, reviewed, and approved affidavits of law enforcement in our system precisely because they must be fully-disclosing, forthcoming, and include any information a judge must know to decide whether to allow our government to spy on its own. My assumption would be that intelligence officials were trying to investigate hacking of DNC which is not even a FISA covered crime, so therefore serious questions arise about what Obama administration attorneys said to the FISA court to even consider the application. If the claim was “financial ties” to Russia, then Obama knew he had no basis to use FISA at all.
Since Trump was the obvious target, the alleged failure to disclose his name in the second application could be a serious and severe violation of the obligation to disclose all material facts. Lastly, given the later behavior, it is evident any promise in the affidavit to protect the surveilled information from ever being sourced or disseminated was a false promise, intended to induce the illicit surveillance. This is criminalized both by federal perjury statutes, conspiracy statutes, and the FISA criminal laws themselves.
That raises the third problem: it seems the FISA-compelled protocols for precluding the dissemination of the information were violated, and that Obama’s team issued orders to achieve precisely what the law forbids, if published reports are true about the administration sharing the surveilled information far-and-wide to promote unlawful leaks to the press. This, too, would be its own crime, as it brings back the ghost of Hillary’s emails — by definition, FISA information is strictly confidential or it’s information that never should have been gathered. FISA strictly segregates its surveilled information into two categories: highly confidential information of the most serious of crimes involving foreign acts of war; or, if not that, then information that should never have been gathered, should be immediately deleted, and never sourced nor disseminated. It cannot be both......"
Clean
5,000+ Posts
Deez' article states that Bush got in trouble after 9-1-1 for doing just that, surveilling suspected terrorists without a warrant.
Joe Fan
10,000+ Posts
The conclusion --
".... Moreover, it cannot be glossed over that, at the very time it appears the Obama Justice Department was seeking to surveil Trump and/or his associates on the pretext that they were Russian agents, the Obama Justice Department was also actively undermining and ultimately closing without charges the criminal investigation of Hillary Clinton despite significant evidence of felony misconduct that threatened national security.
This appears to be extraordinary, politically motivated abuse of presidential power."
This appears to be extraordinary, politically motivated abuse of presidential power."
The idea of the dubious timing bolstered here --
[/INDENT]
Last edited:
Weekly Prediction Contest
* Predict HORNS-HOGS *
Sat, Nov 16 • 11:00 AM on ABC
Recent Threads
-
Senate Leader vote
- Started by BrntOrngStmpeDe
- Replies: 22
- West Mall
-
The Media Industry
- Started by texas_ex2000
- Replies: 8K
- West Mall
Prediction Results Threads
