John R. Houk
© March 6, 2017
The Dems have tried to frame President Trump with getting
the Russians to fix the November elections to Trump’s favor. Indeed, traitor
former President Obama has been exposed with his own self trying to sway the
election with the Russian Fake News story combined with some Watergate style
campaign spying in the name of National Security.
FINALLY! President Trump is pushing back! Our President is
letting the cat out of the bag and the Dems are trying to obfuscate the push
back with typical denials in their defense of treasonous Obama.
Here is some more Obama/Dem Deep State documentation of the
travesty of pulling a legal coup against President Trump. I have to wonder.
WHEN the legal coup fails, will the Obama/Dems begin a violent coup as
evidenced in the streets with violence against Pro-Trumpers? Can you say Loretta Lynch?
VIDEO: Loretta
Lynch Calls for MARCHING, BLOOD and even DEATH in Resistance to Trump in new
Facebook Video
Posted by The Tolerant Left
Published
on Mar 4, 2017
As to the push back against
Obama, Mark Levin outlines the very same thing Trump refers to on Fox &
Friends yesterday. The irony! The sources cited by Levin are Left oriented rags
(Levin uses the term “another Right Wing” in a tongue-in-cheek fashion to
get his point across).
Posted
by KagenOfficial
Published
on Mar 5, 2017
Mark
Levin interview on Fox News Fox & Friends on March 5, 2017 3/5/17 and
provides proof of Obama Administration Wiretapping Spying by FBI and NSA. Mark
Levin proves wiretap trump tower
If you are foolish enough to
watch other news outlets castigate President Trump for his tweets against
treasonous Obama, YOU have to see the hypocrisy that Levin sources the Left for
Obama meddling in the 2016 election cycle!
************
SPYGATE: Mark Levin
Provides The Timeline And Proof Of The Obama Administration Using Police
Tactics Against Trump [VIDEO]
By Terresa Monroe-Hamilton
March 5, 2017
Mark Levin is on a tear and it is a wonder to behold. I just watched him
provide solid proof on Fox News on how all these police tactics against
President Trump did indeed occur. The media provided most of the proof
themselves that the two FISA requests were sought by Obama… the first one in June of last year, which mentioned
Trump directly and was denied, and a second that occurred in October last year
and was narrowed in scope, then was approved. It looks like it may have been
targeting a server in the White House that was emailing Russian banks
supposedly. No wrongdoing was found, unless of course you count what Obama did.
Levin has laid out exactly
how this should be investigated and he has the full attention of the White
House. His findings and recommendations have been circulated to
several White House staffers, according to Washington Post reporter Robert
Costa. The FISA orders and transcripts should now be made public and hearings
should begin over all this. The media is still insisting there is no proof,
when they provided said proof. This is insane.
From Conservative Review:
Mark
Levin, Conservative Review’s editor-in-chief, recommends the Trump
administration open an investigation into Barack Obama. Levin states the former
president’s team used police-state tactics against then-candidate Trump during
the 2016 election.
“The
gravity of this is unparalleled. It appears that during the course of a
presidential election, the Obama administration used both intelligence and law
enforcement agencies to investigate the Republican nominee’s campaign and
certain surrogates,” Levin tells Conservative Review.
Levin
– who served as chief of staff for President Reagan’s Attorney General Ed Meese
– explained the potential
scandal on his Thursday evening radio show:
“We
have a prior administration – Barack Obama and his surrogates – who are
supporting Hillary Clinton and her party, the Democratic Party. Who were using
the … intelligence activities to surveil members of the
Trump campaign, and to put that information out in the public.”
“The
question is: Was Obama surveilling top Trump campaign officials during the
election?” Levin asked on “The Mark Levin Show.”
Mark Levin is calling this a silent coup.
And he is correct. I’ve looked right at this evidence for months and I never
connected the dots. I’m so glad Levin did. It is obvious to me that
Barack Obama did know about all this and had Lynch at the DOJ once again do his
dirty work. There was and is an orchestrated plan to sabotage the Trump
presidency and not only stop him from getting his appointees approved, but stop
him from accomplishing anything of merit or that would hurt the Obama legacy.
A myriad of things now look
very connected. The protests and riots, Valerie Jarrett moving into Obama’s
mansion, Jarrett’s daughter being hired by CNN to cover the DOJ and Jeff
Sessions when she’s not even a journalist, the attack on Jeff Sessions himself,
and on and on and on. When do we wake up and realize we are at war within? And
that Obama and his activists must be stopped and held accountable. You’ve got Loretta Lynch literally
calling for blood and death in our streets: “…They’ve
marched, they’ve bled and yes, some
of them died. This is hard. Every good thing is. We have done this before. We
can do this again…” – Loretta Lynch, February 28 2017 This is who we are fighting and we must now see
this through and show the left that we will not stand for police state tactics
against Americans like this and especially against an elected President.
[Noisy Room Video
posted above]
Full Interview [Fox & Friends Weekend]: http://insider.foxnews.com/2017/03/05/mark-levin-donald-trump-barack-obama-wiretapping
+++
WAS OBAMA'S TAP OF TRUMP
LEGAL, AMERICAN?
Exclusive: Joseph Farah
reveals why scandal is 'bigger and worse than Watergate'
By JOSEPH FARAH
March 5, 2017
After Donald Trump blew the
whistle on the eavesdropping of his 2016 campaign headquarters by Barack
Obama’s administration, few in the media or elsewhere seem to be asking the
obvious questions:
Was it legal?
Was it ethical – in the
American way?
One thing is for certain: If
the roles were reversed and the Trump administration bugged Democrats, you can
imagine the media would take a much different view.
Let’s first take a look at
how the media reported this travesty of justice, political decorum, the
Constitution and American legal tradition:
o
Washington Post: President
Trump on Saturday angrily accused former President Barack Obama of
orchestrating a “Nixon/Watergate” plot to tap the phones at his Trump Tower
headquarters in the run-up to last fall’s election, providing no evidence to
support his explosive claim and drawing a flat denial from Obama’s office.
o
CNN: Trump’s baseless
wiretap claim
o
Atlantic: Trump’s Unfounded
Claims of a “Nixon/Watergate” Wiretapping Scheme
o
Huffington Post: Obama
Refutes Allegation that He Wiretapped Trump Tower During Campaign
o
New York Daily News:
Trump’s poor understanding of national security investigations may prove
dangerous
o
New York Times: President
Trump on Saturday accused former President Barack Obama of tapping his phones at
Trump Tower the month before the election, leveling the explosive allegation
without offering any evidence.
The emphasis of all of these “fake news” reports is
disingenuous to say the least. Obama didn’t deny his administration wiretapped
Trump. He said no one at the White House did. That is a virtual admission that
his administration did, probably Justice Department, meaning the “apolitical Loretta Lynch” who
just called for “blood and death” in the streets to stop Trump, much to the
approval of Senate Democrats. It’s an obvious parsing of words by
the slick Obama.
The accusation is indeed bigger than Watergate, which began
with an attempt not to eavesdrop directly on Richard Nixon’s opponent in the
1972 presidential election, but on Larry O’Brian, the head of the DNC, whose
offices were in the Watergate Hotel. He was the Debbie Wasserman-Schultz of his
day, but she and Hillary Clinton campaign Chairman John Podesta didn’t bother
securing their email communications, and you could read them all on WikiLeaks.
And that brings us to the excuse for Trump’s campaign being
undoubtedly bugged – the elusive evidence for Russian hacking and interference
in the 2016 U.S. election.
If you doubt there is no evidence, just carefully read every
New York Times story on the fake scandal. Way down near the bottom of every
story, the paper that has trumpeted this story the most admits there’s no
evidence.
So, here’s the way this thing obviously went down.
Obama’s team first tried to get a broad FISA warrant to
investigate the Russian fantasy. The judge turned it down.
It tried again with a narrower FISA warrant request. The
judge turned it down.
Then it tried a third time, and the judge approved it in
October. Coincidentally, that is the exact time Trump says the wiretapping
began.
Not one of these big news organizations will tell you that.
It’s the attorney general who would request such wiretap
authorizations for heavy-duty, politically charged requests such as this – not
that any have ever been requested or authorized in the history of the republic.
Do news organizations really want to be covering up stuff
like this? Don’t they understand the same tactics can be used against them?
Obama, or (wink-wink) Lynch, just set the precedent.
Nixon never did anything remotely like this – and he was
forced from office as a result. Obama or Lynch could well be prosecuted by the
Trump administration. And one or both probably should be.
Misuse of FISA statutes is a clear violation of the law.
FISA can only be used for “foreign intelligence information”
as the basis for surveillance to protect the U.S. against a “grave” or
“hostile” attack, war-like sabotage or international terror.
Does anyone suggest such a thing with regard to Russian
hacks?
That’s what makes this scandal, pardon the expression,
“bigger than Watergate.”
Out of more than 35,000 FISA court requests, only 12 have
ever been rejected. But two out of three requested by the Obama administration
to investigate the Russia deal were. What does that tell you?
It tells me this was a political fishing expedition to build
a case against Trump if or when he beat Hillary.
Since the election, the hysteria over Russia’s role in the
election has only increased exponentially.
And that’s why:
1)
I believe Trump.
2)
I don’t believe Obama.
3)
I don’t believe the “fake
news cartel,” which is all in for finding the elusive Trump-Russia link.
What we’ve got here at first glance is a prima facie case for
“bigger and worse than Watergate.”
But the Washington Post and New York Times have already
signaled they won’t be investigating. They are already publishing front-page
editorials that stake out a rather shrill “see-no-evil, hear-no-evil,
speak-no-evil” approach.
Was it legal? No.
Was it ethical in the American political tradition? No.
Is it one of the most dangerous developments in American
political history? Yes.
+++
The Obama Camp’s
Disingenuous Denials on FISA Surveillance of Trump
Originally NATIONAL
REVIEW
March 5, 2017
Posted by Ted Belman
President Trump’s early Saturday morning tweeting has
exploded to the forefront an uncovered scandal I’ve been talking about since
early January (including in this weekend’s column): The fact that the Obama
Justice Department and the FBI investigated associates of Donald Trump, and
likely Trump himself, in the heat of the presidential campaign.
To summarize, reporting indicates that, prior to June 2016,
the Obama Justice Department and FBI considered a criminal investigation of
Trump associates, and perhaps Trump himself, based on concerns about
connections to Russian financial institutions. Preliminary poking around
indicated that there was nothing criminal involved. Rather than shut the case
down, though, the Obama Justice Department converted it into a
national-security investigation under the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act
(FISA). FISA allows the government, if it gets court permission, to conduct electronic
surveillance (which could include wiretapping, monitoring of e-mail, and the
like) against those it alleges are “agents of a foreign power.”
FISA applications and the evidence garnered from them are
classified – i.e., we would not know about any of this unless someone had
leaked classified information to the media, a felony. In June, the Obama
Justice Department submitted an application that apparently “named” Trump in
addition to some of his associates.
As I have stressed, it is unclear whether “named” in this
context indicates that Trump himself was cited as a person the Justice
Department was alleging was a Russian agent whom it wanted to surveil. It could
instead mean that Trump’s name was merely mentioned in an application that
sought to conduct surveillance on other alleged Russian agents. President
Trump’s tweets on Saturday claimed that “President
Obama . . . tapp[ed] my phones[,]” which makes it more
likely that Trump was targeted for surveillance, rather than merely mentioned
in the application.
In any event, the FISA court reportedly turned down the
Obama Justice Department’s request, which is notable: The FISA court is
notoriously solicitous of government requests to conduct national-security
surveillance (although, as I’ve noted over the years, the claim by many that it
is a rubber-stamp is overblown).
Not taking no for an answer, the Obama Justice Department
evidently returned to the FISA court in October 2016, the critical final weeks
of the presidential campaign. This time, the Justice Department submitted a
narrowly tailored application that did not mention Trump. The court apparently
granted it, authorizing surveillance of some Trump associates.
It is unknown whether that surveillance is still underway,
but the New York Times has identified – again, based on illegal leaks of
classified information – at least three of its targets: Paul Manafort (the
former Trump campaign chairman who was ousted in August), and two others whose
connection to the Trump campaign was loose at best, Manafort’s former
political-consulting business partner Roger Stone, and investor Carter Page.
The Times report (from mid-January) includes a lot of heavy
breathing about potential ties between the Trump campaign and Russia; but it
ultimately concedes that the government’s FISA investigation may have nothing
to do with Trump, the campaign, or alleged Russian efforts to interfere in the
U.S. election by hacking e-mail accounts. Trump’s tweets on Saturday prompted
some interesting “denials” from the Obama camp. These can be summarized in the
statement put out by Obama spokesman Kevin Lewis:
A cardinal rule of the Obama
Administration was that no White House official ever interfered with any
independent investigation led by the Department of Justice. As part of that
practice, neither President Obama nor any White House official ever ordered surveillance
on any U.S. citizen. Any suggestion otherwise is simply false.
This seems disingenuous on several levels. First, as Obama
officials well know, under the FISA process, it is technically the FISA court
that “orders” surveillance. And by statute, it is the Justice Department, not
the White House, that represents the government in proceedings before the FISA
court. So, the issue is not whether Obama or some member of his White House
staff “ordered” surveillance of Trump and his associates.
The issues are (a) whether the Obama Justice Department
sought such surveillance authorization from the FISA court, and (b)
whether, if the Justice Department did that, the White House was aware of or
complicit in the decision to do so. Personally, given the explosive and
controversial nature of the surveillance request we are talking about – an
application to wiretap the presidential candidate of the opposition party, and
some of his associates, during the heat of the presidential campaign, based on
the allegation that the candidate and his associates were acting as Russian
agents – it seems to me that there is less than zero chance that could
have happened without consultation between the Justice Department and the White
House. [Blog Editor’s bold text]
Second, the business about never ordering surveillance
against American citizens is nonsense. Obama had American citizens killed in
drone operations. Obviously, that was not done in the U.S. or through the FISA
process; it was done overseas, under the president’s commander-in-chief and statutory
authority during wartime.
But the notion that Obama would never have an American
subject to surveillance is absurd. Third, that brings us to a related point: FISA
national-security investigations are not like criminal investigations. They are
more like covert intelligence operations – which presidents personally
sign off on. [Blog Editor’s bold text]
The intention is not to build a criminal case; it is to
gather information about what foreign powers are up, particularly on U.S. soil.
One of the points in FISA proceedings’ being classified is that they remain
secret – the idea is not to prejudice an American citizen with publication
of the fact that he has been subjected to surveillance even though he is not
alleged to have engaged in criminal wrongdoing. Consequently, there is nothing
wrong, in principle, with a president’s ordering national-security surveillance
of a potential foreign agent who may be helping a foreign power threaten
American security and interests.
That is one of the president’s main jobs – there would
be something wrong if a president, who truly believed the nation was threatened
by a foreign power, failed to take action. Prior to FISA’s enactment in 1978,
courts had no formal role in the surveillance of foreign agents for
national-security purposes – it was a unilateral executive-branch
function. Beginning with the Carter administration during FISA’s enactment, it
has been the position of presidential administrations of both parties that,
despite the enactment of the FISA process, the president maintains inherent
authority under Article II of the Constitution to order surveillance even in
the absence of court authorization. [Blog Editor’s bold text]
Of course, doing so is controversial, as President Bush
learned after he directed the NSA to conduct warrantless wiretapping of
suspected terrorists following the 9/11 attacks. Nevertheless, we should not
allow the statements of Obama spokesmen to confuse us here. The Justice
Department and FBI have two missions: (a) criminal law-enforcement and (b)
national security. It would be scandalous (though probably not constitutional
unconstitutional) for a president to interfere in the law-enforcement mission
by ordering the Justice Department to prosecute someone outside its normal
procedures.
But it would not be inappropriate e–ven though civil
libertarians would raise holy hell — for the president to direct warrantless
surveillance against a target, even an American citizen, if the president truly
believed that target was functioning as an agent of a foreign power threatening
U.S. interests. To be clear, there does not seem to be any evidence, at least
that I know of, to suggest that any surveillance or requests to conduct
surveillance against then-candidate Donald Trump was done outside the FISA
process.
Nevertheless, whether done inside or outside the FISA
process, it would be a scandal of Watergate dimension if a presidential
administration sought to conduct, or did conduct, national-security
surveillance against the presidential candidate of the opposition party. Unless
there was some powerful evidence that the candidate was actually acting as an
agent of a foreign power, such activity would amount to a pretextual use of
national-security power for political purposes. That is the kind of abuse that
led to Richard Nixon’s resignation in lieu of impeachment. [Blog Editor’s bold
text]
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. [I
have updated the post, as indicated, to reflect that I meant “not
unconstitutional” in a passage in which I erroneously said “not
constitutional.] -[Blog Editor’s bold text]
__________________
Dem Propaganda & Deep
State Coup?
John R. Houk
© March 6, 2017
_______________
SPYGATE: Mark Levin
Provides The Timeline And Proof Of The Obama Administration Using Police
Tactics Against Trump [VIDEO]
______________
WAS OBAMA'S TAP OF TRUMP
LEGAL, AMERICAN?
_______________
The Obama Camp’s Disingenuous Denials on FISA
Surveillance of Trump
© 2005-2017 by Ted Belman. Some Rights Reserved. All views expressed here are
those of the author and do not necessarily represent the views of the site
owner or the rest of its participants.
No comments:
Post a Comment