Trump Delivers Documented Evidence of Obama Wiretaps To House Panel–58jh.,b58
Throughout his time in office, Barack Obama associated with many political operatives who were real lowlifes, and who often walked a tightrope between the world of what was considered legal behavior (however, unethical), and what was considered criminal behavior. There’s an old saying I’m sure you’re familiar with that goes:
‘If you hang around the barbershop long enough, you’re going to get a haircut…’ Are we about to learn next week that Obama got a haircut, and we’re all going to find out?
Last week, the House Intelligence Committee asked the Justice Department to submit any evidence it had pertaining to President Donald Trump’s claims of surveillance by the Obama administration. The plot thickens, as on Friday, the DOJ made its submission to the committee.
The Department of Justice (DOJ) sent documents to the House Intelligence Committee on Friday in response to a request for evidence backing up President Trump’s claim that former President Obama wiretapped Trump Tower. The committee is currently reviewing the documents, an aide confirmed to The Hill.
It’s unclear what’s in the documents, which CNN reported separately had also been delivered to the Senate Intelligence Committee, though that report could not be immediately confirmed. White House spokesperson Sean Spicer clarified Trump’s original wording, saying that when he used the term “wiretapping” in quotation marks in his tweet, he was referring to surveillance in a broader sense.
Trump also didn’t back off the claim of surveillance, even joking about it with Angela Merkel who was spied on by the Obama administration. The House Intelligence Committee will hold an open meeting on Monday discussing Russian interference and the claims of Obama administration surveillance.
MEET TEAM OBAMA WITH THE AMNESIA
While some have disputed the claims of surveillance, if there was no surveillance, how then were Trump’s conversations with the Presidents of Mexico and Australia picked up and the transcripts later leaked specifically to undermine him? The media appears to have completely suffered amnesia about those reports. It will be fascinating to see what evidence, if anything, the DOJ submitted…
In that article, Douglas J. Hagmann reported that President Trump had in his possession evidence of the paper trail leading to a FISA court that substantiates his assertions that Obama, obtained authorization to eavesdrop on the Trump campaign under the pretense of a national security investigation. For anyone not familiar with Douglas J. Hagmann, he has been a licensed investigator in the private sector for the last 30 years, where he’s worked on well over 5,000 cases, and he’s considered a surveillance specialist within his industry.
Often, his vast expertise has been sought out as either an informational or operational asset on various federal and state law enforcement agencies. In addition to his investigating duties, Hagmann is also an author, runs four websites, and has a successful talk radio show. Bottom line: If law enforcement agencies trust Hagmann’s investigative abilities, then I’m certainly going to trust them long before I believe a mainstream media that suffers from amnesia about the very stories THEY reported on previously.
There is a large storm brewing over Washington, DC right now – a storm that could dwarf anything ever seen in recent times. It is growing stronger by the hour as new information is being disclosed that strongly suggests that it is possible, even likely, that Obama and his Department of Justice maliciously and criminally misused the FISA process to collect intelligence on Presidential candidate Donald J. Trump. Additionally, Obama personally relaxed the limitations on how such information collected could be disseminated in the weeks before leaving office.
The political ramifications from this, if proved correct, could be unprecedented in scope. Once fully exposed, it would explain the curious actions of Obama as he prepared to vacate the White House. It would also explain, in context, the actions and statements of not only Barack Hussein Obama, but others in key positions of power including Loretta Lynch, Sally Yates, John Brennan, and others within the media.
At issue is Obama’s insistence to secure a federal wiretap warrant of Donald J. Trump, the candidate, using the federal court system as the mechanism to do so. The ostensible probable cause was alleged ties between Donald J. Trump and/or his associates with Russia.
WAS JUST DAYS AFTER THE INFAMOUS MEETING ON THE TARMAC!
When the request was denied in regular federal court, Obama and his Justice Department attempted an “end around” by citing the existence of a “foreign actor” and made a similar surveillance warrant application through the more specialized Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) court in October of 2016. According to published reports, that warrant application was rejected as well, a rare occurrence in the FISA venue, which strengthens claims that no evidence of any foreign involvement ever existed. It has been reported that the initial warrant application to the FISA court specifically named Donald J. Trump.
It is also relevant to note here that this is the type of activity that led to the creation of the infamous “Wall” that was referenced after the 9/11 attacks. Its relevance to this specific instance is explained well by former federal prosecutor Andrew McCarthy an article. The Wall” was a set of internal guidelines that had been issued by the Clinton Justice Department in the mid 1990s. In a nutshell, the Wall made it legally difficult and practically impossible for agents in the FBI’s Foreign Counter-Intelligence Division (essentially, our domestic-security service, now known as the National Security Division) to share intelligence with the criminal-investigation side of the FBI’s house. Those of us who were critics of the Wall — and I was a strenuous one, beginning in my days as a terrorism prosecutor who personally experienced its suicidal applications — made several arguments against it.
The theory of the Clinton DOJ brass in imposing the Wall was the potential that a rogue criminal investigator, lacking sufficient evidence to obtain a traditional wiretap, would manufacture a national-security angle in order to get a wiretap under the 1978 Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA). A traditional wiretap requires evidence amounting to probable cause of commission of a crime. A FISA wiretap requires no showing of a crime, just evidence amounting to probable cause that the target of the wiretap is an agent of a foreign power. (A foreign power can be another country or a foreign terrorist organization.) The reason the Wall theory was absurd was that a rogue agent would surely manufacture evidence of a crime before he’d manufacture a national-security angle. The process of getting a traditional wiretap is straightforward: FBI crim-div agents and a district assistant U.S. attorney (AUSA) write the supporting affidavit; it gets approved by the AUSA’s supervisors; then it is submitted to the Justice Department’s electronic-surveillance unit; after that unit’s approval, the attorney general’s designee signs off; then the AUSA and the FBI present the application to a district judge.
But now, let’s consider the press reports — excerpted in David French’s Corner post — that claim that the Obama Justice Department and the FBI sought FISA warrants against Trump insiders, and potentially against Donald Trump himself, during the last months and weeks of the presidential campaign. It’s an interesting revelation, particularly in light of last fall’s media consternation over “banana republic” tactics against political adversaries, triggered by Trump’s vow to appoint a special prosecutor to investigate serious allegations of criminal misconduct against Hillary Clinton.
But now, let’s consider the press reports — excerpted in David French’s Corner post — that claim that the Obama Justice Department and the FBI sought FISA warrants against Trump insiders, and potentially against Donald Trump himself, during the last months and weeks of the presidential campaign. It’s an interesting revelation, particularly in light of last fall’s media consternation over “banana republic” tactics against political adversaries, triggered by Trump’s vow to appoint a special prosecutor to investigate serious allegations of criminal misconduct against Hillary Clinton
From the three reports, from the Guardian, Heat Street, and the New York Times, it appears the FBI had concerns about a private server in Trump Tower that was connected to one or two Russian banks. Heat Street describes these concerns as centering on “possible financial and banking offenses.” I italicize the word “offenses” because it denotes crimes. Ordinarily, when crimes are suspected, there is a criminal investigation, not a national-security investigation. According to the New York Times (based on FBI sources), the FBI initially determined that the Trump Tower server did not have “any nefarious purpose.” But then, Heat Street says, “the FBI’s counter-intelligence arm, sources say, re-drew an earlier FISA court request around possible financial and banking offenses related to the server.” Again, agents do not ordinarily draw FISA requests around possible crimes. Possible crimes prompt applications for regular criminal wiretaps because the objective is to prosecute any such crimes in court. (It is rare and controversial to use FISA wiretaps in criminal prosecutions.).
While the Times story speaks of metadata, sources suggest that a FISA warrant was granted to look at the full content of emails and other related documents that may concern US persons. (A “US person” is a citizen or lawful permanent resident alien. Such people normally may not be subjected to searches or electronic eavesdropping absent probable cause of a crime; an exception is FISA, which — to repeat — allows such investigative tactics if there is probable cause that they are agents of a foreign power.) Agents do not ordinarily draw FISA requests around possible crimes. Possible crimes prompt applications for regular criminal wiretaps, because the objective is to prosecute any such crimes in court. Obviously, we haven’t seen the FBI affidavits (assuming they actually exist), and we do not know lots of other relevant facts. What we have, however, suggests that someone at the FBI initially had concerns that banking laws were being violated, but when the Bureau looked into it, investigators found no crimes were being committed.
Even though the FISA standard is generally thought to be less demanding than the traditional wiretap standard (it is easier to show that someone may be colluding in some way with a foreign government than that he has committed a crime), the FISA court rejected the application that “named Trump.” Five months later, the Justice Department and FBI submitted a second, more “narrowly” drawn affidavit to the FISA court. The way the Heat Street report is written intimates that Trump is not named in this October application for FISA surveillance. The tie to Trump also appears weak: Heat Street says the FISA court was presented with evidence of a server “possibly related” to the Trump campaign and its “alleged links” to two Russian banks. To summarize, it appears there were no grounds for a criminal investigation of banking violations against Trump.
More FBI The Millstones of the Gods Grind Late, but They Grind Fine . . . What Exactly Is Scandalous about Trump’s ‘Russia Scandal’? The Susan Rice ‘Unmasking’ Scoop: We Don’t Know Enough To Be Outraged (Yet) That is tissue-thin indeed. It’s a good example of why investigations properly proceed in secret and are not publicly announced unless and until the government is ready to put its money where its mouth is by charging someone. It’s a good example of why FISA surveillance is done in secret and its results are virtually never publicized — the problem is not just the possibility of tipping off the hostile foreign power; there is also the potential of tainting U.S. persons who may have done nothing wrong.
source–michael depinto, freedom outpost, doug hagmaann, canada free press, the hill, nyt, andrew mccarthy, frenchs corner, guardian, heat street, national review