Did Obama Wiretap The Donald?

[iatrogenic]

No. The point was that there was no wire "tapp" ordered by President Obama of the phones of Trump Tower [insert mental image of G. Gordon Liddy placing clips on the lines in the phone closet]. There WAS a FISA warrant issued by a FISA court to investigate two Russian banks operating in Trump Tower that were under sanctions, I think. Trump folks have apparently gotten rolled up into that ish. Remember these names: Manafort, Page, Boris, Stone, and (it seems) Kushner.

What did we learn from Watergate? It's the cover up...

No, the point was the Democrats trying to harass Trump by claiming some type of collusion with the Russians in order to assist in defeating Hillary. I still can't determine what laws were broken even if the claim is true.

While making this, to date, bogus claim of collusion, the Democrats effectively have crapped in their own collective hats, and exposed the fact that they did break laws involving surveillance of American citizens, and the subsequent unmasking of those citizens.

I am not sure what type of banking transaction General Flynn and his Russian friend were engaged in, but I doubt Flynn made a call from either of these previously unheard of "Russian banks operating in Trump Tower". I also find it strange that Trump's conversations with Political leaders in Mexico and Australia were somehow related to "Russian Banking".

Whether the wiretap was done using a test set with alligator clips on a pair of wires is only relevant to democrats, who seem to be using that literal description to deny that a "wiretap" took place. Everyone else understands that a wiretap is a covert method of listening or recording communications, and that the term is used in a general sense.
It seems closer to the truth that the Obama administration, after first being denied a warrant, used a lie to get a warrant ostensibly for national security purposes, and then used such warrant to gain access to Trump campaign and transition personnel communications. Then, for unexplained reasons, Obama decided it was best to spread the raw intel received, in an unannounced expansion of EO12333, from the surveillance to many different government personnel just before he left office.

 

[Joe Fan]

Now there are leaks about the leakers.
It's a little ironic.

"The U.S. intelligence official who “unmasked,” or exposed, the names of multiple private citizens affiliated with the Trump team is someone “very well known, very high up, very senior in the intelligence world,” a source told Fox News on Friday.

Intelligence and House sources with direct knowledge of the disclosure of classified names told Fox News that House Intelligence Committee Chairman Devin Nunes, R-Calif., now knows who is responsible -- and that person is not in the FBI.
*****

Nunes has known about the unmasking controversy since January, when two sources in the intelligence community approached him. The sources told Nunes who was responsible and at least one of the Trump team names that was unmasked. They also gave him serial numbers of reports that documented the activity.

This was long before Trump sent out his now-infamous March 4 tweets claiming then-President Barack Obama “wiretapped” Trump Tower during the 2016 election.

Nunes had asked intelligence agencies to see the reports in question, but was stonewalled.

He eventually was able to view them, but there was only one safe place to see the documents without compromising the sources’ identities -- the old executive office building on White House grounds, which has a Sensitive Compartmented Information Facility (SCIF) required to view classified or top secret reports. The White House did not tell Nunes about the existence of the intelligence reports, but did help him gain access to the documents at his request, the source said....." ​

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/201...p-associates-is-very-high-up-source-says.html

 

[Brad Austin]

Kind of ironic. Obama's midnight order to allow widespread intel sharing across branches now makes it nearly impossible to locate and bury all "unmasking" evidence.

 

[Joe Fan]

Word is it was Susan Rice who ordered the unmasking. So far, this is still unconfirmed.

Rice is the one who came up with idea of blaming the Benghazi massacre on a "protest" over a video. She is one of the top people behind creating the mess in the Ukraine that ended with it losing mass chunks of its territory to Russia. And she defended Obama's deal for deserter Bowe Bergdahl by saying he ‘served admirably.”

If she is the one, no way she did this without consulting and/or informing Obama.

 

[Joe Fan]

Rice is also the person who infamously complained that were "too many white people" in national security

http://insider.foxnews.com/2016/05/...-white-people-top-national-security-positions

 

[OUBubba]

No, the point was the Democrats trying to harass Trump by claiming some type of collusion with the Russians in order to assist in defeating Hillary. I still can't determine what laws were broken even if the claim is true.

While making this, to date, bogus claim of collusion, the Democrats effectively have crapped in their own collective hats, and exposed the fact that they did break laws involving surveillance of American citizens, and the subsequent unmasking of those citizens.

I am not sure what type of banking transaction General Flynn and his Russian friend were engaged in, but I doubt Flynn made a call from either of these previously unheard of "Russian banks operating in Trump Tower". I also find it strange that Trump's conversations with Political leaders in Mexico and Australia were somehow related to "Russian Banking".

Whether the wiretap was done using a test set with alligator clips on a pair of wires is only relevant to democrats, who seem to be using that literal description to deny that a "wiretap" took place. Everyone else understands that a wiretap is a covert method of listening or recording communications, and that the term is used in a general sense.
It seems closer to the truth that the Obama administration, after first being denied a warrant, used a lie to get a warrant ostensibly for national security purposes, and then used such warrant to gain access to Trump campaign and transition personnel communications. Then, for unexplained reasons, Obama decided it was best to spread the raw intel received, in an unannounced expansion of EO12333, from the surveillance to many different government personnel just before he left office.

It's Comey and his staff that are investigating the potential collusion. It's not "the Democrats". I mean, hell, Comey was Trump's biggest friend coming into the election. Turns out he was investigating them at the same time.

I think the guy named Boris is involved...

 

[iatrogenic]

It's Comey and his staff that are investigating the potential collusion. It's not "the Democrats". I mean, hell, Comey was Trump's biggest friend coming into the election. Turns out he was investigating them at the same time.

I think the guy named Boris is involved...

And if they find collusion, what will they do?

 

[OUBubba]

And if they find collusion, what will they do?

I don't know. Given that we're talking funds across borders (national and state) and the potential for unsavory actors, racketeering charges could be in order. The actual actions that initiated the Watergate scandal were fairly concise and minimal. It was the resulting cover up that led to most of the charges and 48 convictions. The irony of them both relating to the DNC shouldn't be lost on people. The current model is simply electronic. The bad news for the Russkies and Trump is that "the cyber" leaves tracks.

 

[iatrogenic]

I don't know. Given that we're talking funds across borders (national and state) and the potential for unsavory actors, racketeering charges could be in order. The actual actions that initiated the Watergate scandal were fairly concise and minimal. It was the resulting cover up that led to most of the charges and 48 convictions. The irony of them both relating to the DNC shouldn't be lost on people. The current model is simply electronic. The bad news for the Russkies and Trump is that "the cyber" leaves tracks.

Blah, blah, blah....

What law, specifically, would have been violated by Trump colluding with the Russians? Maybe one exists.

 

[Clean]

Yup, the Twitter-verse exploding about Susan Rice requests to unmask Trump associates. Poor, stupid Susan Rice. You'd think after Obama sent her on the talk show circuit to spread disinformation about Benghazi she'd have learned her lesson. I guess not.

 

[Brad Austin]

Yup, the Twitter-verse exploding about Susan Rice requests to unmask Trump associates

If true I hope they charge her with multiple felonies. Each name and unmasking incident should be a separate charge. Charge her with double-digit felonies and then offer immunity to expose the real puppet master(s).

Let's watch this corrupt house of cards tumble while Dems continue to witch hunt and find zero evidence of DT involved in collusion.

 

[OUBubba]

Yup, the Twitter-verse exploding about Susan Rice requests to unmask Trump associates. Poor, stupid Susan Rice. You'd think after Obama sent her on the talk show circuit to spread disinformation about Benghazi she'd have learned her lesson. I guess not.

https://www.bloomberg.com/view/arti...ser-sought-names-of-trump-associates-in-intel

"This suggests Rice's unmasking requests were likely within the law."

Twitter is interesting to learn some of these details.

 

[ProdigalHorn]

Twitter is interesting to learn some of these details.

Yeah the article is very careful to try to pretend nothing was going on that anyone should care about, even though they know they can't just ignore the story.

To your point:

Rice's requests to unmask the names of Trump transition officials does not vindicate Trump's own tweets from March 4 in which he accused Obama of illegally tapping Trump Tower. There remains no evidence to support that claim.

Why even say this? They aren't related points at all. The author makes a point of sticking this in so he can remind people that "Trump thinks Obama literally had someone wire-tap his phones, and this doesn't show that." Of course it doesn't - partly because everyone knows Trump wasn't talking about a specific form of surveillance.

Regardless, do you normally take the legal advice of a Bloomberg writer? And even if you take it at its word, you're stretching:

But Rice's multiple requests to learn the identities of Trump officials discussed in intelligence reports during the transition period does highlight a longstanding concern for civil liberties advocates about U.S. surveillance programs. The standard for senior officials to learn the names of U.S. persons incidentally collected is that it must have some foreign intelligence value, a standard that can apply to almost anything. This suggests Rice's unmasking requests were likely within the law.

Not exactly a ringing legal endorsement... Oh, and here's another fun point:

The National Security Council's senior director for intelligence, Ezra Cohen-Watnick, was conducting the review, according to two U.S. officials who spoke with Bloomberg View on the condition of anonymity because they were not authorized to discuss it publicly. In February Cohen-Watnick discovered Rice's multiple requests to unmask U.S. persons in intelligence reports that related to Trump transition activities. He brought this to the attention of the White House General Counsel's office, who reviewed more of Rice's requests and instructed him to end his own research into the unmasking policy.

So the White House general counsel says "stop looking into this." Nope. Nothing to see there at all...

 

[OUBubba]

Yeah the article is very careful to try to pretend nothing was going on that anyone should care about, even though they know they can't just ignore the story.

To your point:



Why even say this? They aren't related points at all. The author makes a point of sticking this in so he can remind people that "Trump thinks Obama literally had someone wire-tap his phones, and this doesn't show that." Of course it doesn't - partly because everyone knows Trump wasn't talking about a specific form of surveillance.

Regardless, do you normally take the legal advice of a Bloomberg writer? And even if you take it at its word, you're stretching:



Not exactly a ringing legal endorsement... Oh, and here's another fun point:



So the White House general counsel says "stop looking into this." Nope. Nothing to see there at all...

Ezra's the guy who leaked the information to Nunes. The one that Trump wouldn't let them fire. Funny!

 

[Brad Austin]

Wow people actually buy that garbage spin job by Bloomberg. So the writer claims an opinion that Rice's unmasking the names was probably legal.

However Nunes publicly stated the intel reports he viewed had unmasked names involved in communications with no foreign intelligence value.

The MSM keeps shoveling their blind sheep spin propaganda and it's devoured like hot cakes.

Dems better hope someone goes down for this. Setting a new precedent that enables future incidental collection and unmasking of candidates and campaign associates is very dangerous.

Go ahead and supply a proven blueprint to monitor the 2020 Dem campaign. Surely none of their team will engage in foreign communications.

It's widely known the intel community is not left dominated like the MSM. Insiders say it's about a 50/50 split. Leaking works both ways.

 

[OUBubba]

Wow people actually buy that garbage spin job by Bloomberg. So the writer claims an opinion that Rice's unmasking the names was probably legal.

However Nunes publicly stated the intel reports he viewed had unmasked names involved in communications with no foreign intelligence value.

The MSM keeps shoveling their blind sheep spin propaganda and it's devoured like hot cakes.

Then Nunes should totally take it to the Intelligence Committee and to the FBI.

 

[Brad Austin]

Then Nunes should totally take it to the Intelligence Committee and to the FBI.

I agree. I believe I read recently he has shared it with his committee now.

Those involved with monitoring and sharing unmasked intel on the Trump campaign must pay for their crimes and kill this practice for the future. I don't want either side having this power and unfair advantage in coming elections.

I also agree anyone who's proven (hard evidence, not just circumstantial) to have colluded with Russia to influence the election should face serious consequences.

Both of these are very serious accusations and have no place in our politics. However, so far only one has unearthed a real crime took place.

 

[Mr. Deez]

Blah, blah, blah....

What law, specifically, would have been violated by Trump colluding with the Russians? Maybe one exists.

It's hard to come up with a specific law, because "collude" isn't very precise and because it's still not entirely clear what Russia specifically did. It depends on what the collusion was. Obviously, it's a crime to hack anybody's e-mail, so if, for example, he paid them or offered some of kind of quid pro quo to do it or somehow assisted in the crime, he could be charged with an inchoate offense (conspiracy, solicitation, accessory, etc.) related to the hacking. However, it could get much bigger than that depending on the specifics of what Russia did (if anything) and what Trump did (if anything) to collude.

However, at this point, this is an "if my grandmother had balls, she'd be my grandfather" discussion. Nobody has found any evidence of collusion.

 

[OUBubba]

It's hard to come up with a specific law, because "collude" isn't very precise and because it's still not entirely clear what Russia specifically did. It depends on what the collusion was. Obviously, it's a crime to hack anybody's e-mail, so if, for example, he paid them or offered some of kind of quid pro quo to do it or somehow assisted in the crime, he could be charged with an inchoate offense (conspiracy, solicitation, accessory, etc.) related to the hacking. However, it could get much bigger than that depending on the specifics of what Russia did (if anything) and what Trump did (if anything) to collude.

However, at this point, this is an "if my grandmother had balls, she'd be my grandfather" discussion. Nobody has found any evidence of collusion.

I think they'll find evidence that the Russia team (Boris, Manafort, Page and Stone) all had some form of communication with Russian/Wikileaks actors running up to the election. There may be circumstantial evidence of coordination such as significant changes in the plank, changes in campaign strategy, investments in advertising in swing states, etc. that line up with wikileaks actions. We'll see if those Russian banks were putting money into the campaign. The real problems will come in relation to the cover up, I think. Firing Yates is an example. I think they saw this all as a long shot/hail mary until the very end and now are kind of like the dog that caught the car.

 

[Mr. Deez]

I think they'll find evidence that the Russia team (Boris, Manafort, Page and Stone) all had some form of communication with Russian/Wikileaks actors running up to the election. There may be circumstantial evidence of coordination such as significant changes in the plank, changes in campaign strategy, investments in advertising in swing states, etc. that line up with wikileaks actions. We'll see if those Russian banks were putting money into the campaign. The real problems will come in relation to the cover up, I think. Firing Yates is an example. I think they saw this all as a long shot/hail mary until the very end and now are kind of like the dog that caught the car.

That's entirely possible, but at this point, you're engaging in speculation. And "communication" isn't enough. I've "communicated" with Cullen Davis, but that doesn't mean I had anything to do with him rubbing out his wife.

 

[Brad Austin]

There may be circumstantial evidence of coordination such as significant changes in the plank, changes in campaign strategy, investments in advertising in swing states, etc. that line up with wikileaks actions. We'll see if those Russian banks were putting money into the campaign. The real problems will come in relation to the cover up, I think.

Prepare to be massively disappointed when exactly NONE of those absurd speculations has a shred of truth or credible evidence.

Changes in campaign actions and strategy in line with Wiki releases? You mean information is released to the public and a campaign reacts to maximize the effect? Wow, never saw the HRC campaign do exactly that when damning info leaked out on DT. That's not circumstantial, that's making sh*t up to fit a narrative.

Russian banks putting money in DT campaign? He'd already be fried if anything that obvious and traceable remotely happened.

Maybe you mean circumstantial claims of round robin type financing. The Clinton Foundation and Dem party has done this in droves, I've yet to see any charges.

The MSM Koolaid has you living on delusions. At most they'll snag an underling for improper activities without any connection to DT being involved in collusion.

 

[Musburger1]

The Surveillamce State Behind Russiagate or Will Trump Choose the Road Less Travelled? Authored by William Binney and James McGovern

http://www.unz.com/article/the-surveillance-state-behind-russia-gate/

 

[Clean]

I sat in the cafeteria at work yesterday during lunch. CNN was on the giant screen TV. Didn't see one byline or any other reference to the Susan Rice "unmasking" revelation. Can you imagine CNN's response if it were Bush doing this to Obama in 2008?

As Rand Paul said, they need to get Susan Rice under oath and do it quickly. Cut a deal for immunity if necessary to get the evidence on Obama.

 

[Joe Fan]

I sat in the cafeteria at work yesterday during lunch. CNN was on the giant screen TV. Didn't see one byline or any other reference to the Susan Rice "unmasking" revelation....

They are awaiting instructions on how to spin it

 

[Joe Fan]

Joseph diGenova says Susan Rice ordered the spy agencies to produce ‘Detailed Spreadsheets’ involving Trump phone calls --

“What was produced by the intelligence community at the request of Ms. Rice were detailed spreadsheets of intercepted phone calls with unmasked Trump associates in perfectly legal conversations with individuals. .... The overheard conversations involved no illegal activity by anybody of the Trump associates, or anyone they were speaking with. In short, the only apparent illegal activity was the unmasking of the people in the calls."
​

Fox News and Bloomberg say Rice requested the intelligence information that was produced in a highly organized operation. Fox said the unmasked names of Trump aides were given to officials at the National Security Council (NSC), the Department of Defense, James Clapper, President Obama’s Director of National Intelligence, and John Brennan, Obama’s CIA Director. Fox also said Ben Rhodes joined with Rice on this activity inside the White House.

 

[Joe Fan]

Retired Col. James Waurishuk (ex of the NSC and former deputy director for intelligence at Centom) says "many" hands had to be involved throughout the Obama administration to launch such a political spying program.

“The surveillance initially is the responsibility of the National Security Agency. They have to abide by this guidance when one of the other agencies says, ‘we’re looking at this particular person which we would like to unmask.’

“The lawyers and counsel at the NSA surely would be talking to the lawyers and members of counsel at CIA, or at the National Security Council or at the Director of National Intelligence or at the FBI. It’s unbelievable of the level and degree of the administration to look for information on Donald Trump and his associates, his campaign team and his transition team. This is really, really serious stuff.”​

 

[Joe Fan]

We have gone pretty quick from --
"there is NO EVIDENCE" Trump was tapped
to
"OK, thousands of people knew the whole time"

 

[Joe Fan]

Michael Doran (former NSC senior director) says --

“...... somebody blew a hole in the wall between national security secrets and partisan politics. This “was a stream of information that was supposed to be hermetically sealed from politics and the Obama administration found a way to blow a hole in that wall.”

This is a leaking of signal intelligence .... That’s a felony.
And you can get 10 years for that. It is a tremendous abuse of the system. We’re not supposed to be monitoring American citizens. Bigger than the crime, is the breach of public trust.”​

 

[Joe Fan]

They are awaiting instructions on how to spin it

 

[Joe Fan]

News breaks that the Obama White House ordered spreadsheets of Trump team's phone calls and CNN's Don Lemon response was to chastise the media not to “aid and abet the people” creating a “diversion” over Susan Rice.

Ben Shapiro disagrees, says the story is "huge" --

1. The Obama Administration Targeted The Trump Team. The story is huge because it’s just more evidence that the Obama administration used government to target its political opposition. There’s no evidence Rice did anything illegal here. But it’s certainly an abuse of power to use the power of unmasking to keep tabs on your political opposition without any evidence of wrongdoing, as Rice reportedly did. If they’d found anything nefarious but non-criminal, what would they have done about it? Would that information have died a quiet death amidst the other intelligence reports spreading around the top levels of the Obama administration? Or would it have made its way to the press, as information about Mike Flynn’s innocuous contacts with the Russian Ambassador did after the election? As The Wall Street Journal editorial board states, “Ms. Rice would have had no obvious need to unmask Trump campaign officials other than political curiosity.”

2. Rice Lied. Last month, Rice told PBS Newshour that she knew “nothing” about surveillance of the Trump team. But she knew that the Trump team was caught up in incidental surveillance, obviously. We know that Rice has a habit of lying to protect her former boss, President Obama. Was this just another instance of such lying?

3. This Makes The Left’s Trump-Russia Theories More Strained. We’ve been hearing for months that Team Trump had nefarious ties with the Russian government, that collusion took place between the Trump campaign and Russian sources in order to coordinate the release of damaging information from the DNC hacks. But if Rice was monitoring all intelligence that came up regarding the Trump campaign, then where’s the evidence that any of this supposedly nefarious activity was occurring?
​

http://www.dailywire.com/news/15070...m_content=news&utm_campaign=twitterbenshapiro