The FBI has declassified portions of the notorious James
Comey Memo which allegedly spurred the appointment of Robert Mueller by Assistant
Attorney General Rod Rosenstein. For purposes of this blog post, here is a Scribd version:
I never watch the Leftist Media spin doctors because they
lie. I have watched the Conservative implications of this Comey Memo on Fox
News. And most of those commentators suggest President Trump was being what
all we Conservatives were already aware; viz., the President and Russia had no
connection to each to scam Trump’s election victory. Indeed, the Memo
implicates a lot of collusion amongst the Obama DOJ and FBI. Sadly, there are
many Obamanites still lingering around the DOJ/FBI. The lingering Obamanites
explains the obstructionism that has prevented Congress from acquiring
subpoenaed documents.
Uploaded under "Fair Use"
provisions for discussion and commentary at http://PolitiBrew.com
Below is a Daily Wire post written by Ryan Saavedra
who sources Molly Hemingway primarily and a bit of Daily Caller adding
perspective that the current DOJ/FBI is free enough of Obamanite corruption to
act upon.
Memos written by former FBI director James Comey reveal that
CNN may have helped orchestrate a possible setup of then-president-elect Donald
Trump.
According to multiple published reports, the memos seem to
indicate that a meeting Comey had with Trump was prompted by pressure from CNN
and then was used to launch the media frenzy over the anti-Trump dossier, which
was funded by the Democratic National Committee and Hillary Clinton's
presidential campaign. Mollie Hemingway at The
Federalist writes:
In multiple memos, Comey
specifically mentioned that CNN had the dossier and wanted a “news hook” that
would enable the network to report on its most salacious allegations even
though they had not been verified.
Writing on the conversation he had with Trump, Comey wrote
in a classified memo: “I said the Russians allegedly had tapes involving him
and prostitutes at the Presidential Suite at the Ritz Carlton in Moscow from
about 2013.”
As Hemingway notes, no reports had been published by any
media outlet at the time Comey met with Trump and briefed him on the
allegations contained in the dossier.
“I said media like CNN had [the allegations] and were
looking for a news hook,” Comey specifically told Trump and noted in his
memo. The Daily
Caller reports:
Four days after that meeting, CNN
published a story revealing the existence of a salacious report alleging the
Russian government had compromised Trump. The CNN story was referring to what’s
now known as the dossier — an unverified 35-page report written by former
British spy Christopher Steele.
“I explained again why I had thought it important that he
know about it,” Comey wrote in another classified memo on January 28, 2017. “I
also explained that one of the reasons we told him was that the media, CNN in
particular, was telling us they were about to run with it.”
CNN's January 10, 2017 report on the salacious and unproven
allegations contained in the dossier was extremely significant, as Hemingway
explains:
Extremely well-placed sources told
CNN that the Obama administration’s top intelligence appointees had briefed
Obama, Biden, and Trump all about a dossier they took incredibly seriously and
considered credible. And it sounded really bad, as the headline [of CNN's
report] indicated.
“Russian operatives claim to have compromising personal and
financial information about Mr. Trump,” CNN reported in an article
written by Jake Tapper, Evan Perez, Jim Sciutto, and Carl Bernstein. What's
notable about the authors is that CNN's Perez had undisclosed
ties to Fusion GPS, the firm that compiled the Democrat-funded
dossier. Perez later falsely
reported that the Republicans were the ones who funded the
dossier, even after the facts had been made public which proved he was not
telling the truth. Hemingway continues:
BuzzFeed published the actual
dossier within minutes of CNN’s story going live, showing the world that the
dossier was riddled with salacious gossip that lacked even a possibility of
corroboration.
Among the most important facts revealed in
Comey's memos, which the Justice Department released on Thursday, is the fact
that there were seven memos compiled by Comey, four of which were classified.
This is significant because Comey leaked four memos to his friend for him to
turn around and leak to the media, which means that at least one of the memos
had to have been classified.
As noted by Hemingway and the Washington Examiner's Byron
York, one of the biggest takeaways from Comey's January 6, 2017 memo is that
Comey indicates in the memo that the briefing was the idea of then-Director of
National Intelligence James Clapper.
Comey writes in memo that 'Clapper
wanted' him to tell Trump about Moscow sex stuff in 1/6/17 meeting.
Isikoff/Corn write that 'a few days earlier' Susan Rice wanted
Clapper to tell Obama about Moscow sex stuff. pic.twitter.com/Mf66S5B9gj
And Comey says that Clapper wanted him to brief POTUS. A
briefing that immediately leaked to CNN. And did we mention that Clapper gave
inconsistent answers to Congress about his chats with ... CNN about the
dossier?
"I said there was something that Clapper wanted me to
speak to [Trump] about alone or in a very small group," Comey wrote.
"I then executed the session exactly as I had planned."
Comey then went on to tell Trump that CNN had the
allegations and was looking for a "news hook" so they could publish
the salacious and unproven allegations.
"I said it was important that we not give them the
excuses to write that the FBI has the material or [REDACTED] and that we were
keeping it very close-hold," Comey wrote in his memo. As The Federalist
and The Daily Caller both noted, CNN ran the story just a few days after
Comey's meeting with Trump.
Given Clapper's connection to Comey's meeting with Trump,
Hemingway notes an important finding from the House Permanent Select Committee
on Intelligence (HPSCI) final report on Russia. The committee's report found:
Finding #44: Former Director of
National Intelligence James Clapper, now a CNN national security analyst,
provided inconsistent testimony to the Committee about his contacts with the
media, including CNN.
Hemingway continues:
So Comey, at Clapper’s expressed
behest, told Trump that CNN was "looking for a news hook" to publish
dossier allegations. He said this in the briefing of Trump that almost
immediately leaked to CNN, which provided them the very news hook they sought
and needed.
The briefing on January 6, 2017 was the catalyst for a
series of events that ultimately led to where the Russia investigation
currently sits. The briefing was immediately leaked to CNN, which attempted to
legitimize the dossier, and in the process ignited a media firestorm. Hemingway
concludes:
During the freakout, Comey
deliberately refused to say in public what he acknowledged repeatedly in
private — that the President of the United States was not under investigation.
He even noted in his memos that he told the president at least three times that
he was not under investigation. Comey’s refusal to admit publicly what he kept
telling people privately led to his firing.
That led to Comey leaking multiple
memos in order to get a special counsel appointed out of revenge.
Hemingway's assertion that Comey leaked the memos out of
revenge is not without factual basis. During an interview with NBC's Savannah
Guthrie this week, Comey admitted that
he had an "obvious" bias against Trump because "he fired
me."
____________________________
Let’s Hope the Comey Memo
is Coffin Nail in Deep State
Ryan Saavedra is a staff
writer at The Daily Wire who covers a range of subjects, particularly focusing
on media bias, politics, and the convergence of politics and
culture.
Judge Andrew Napolitano has caused quite a stir amongst the
Media, the UK’s Government Communications Headquarters
(GCHQ), and officials in the U.S. government when the Judge stipulated that
GCHQ surveilled the Trump campaign for the treasonous President Barack Hussein
Obama. Here is the segment on Fox & Friends Tuesday March 14
morning:
[Blog Editor 4/27/18: I just discovered the HX Video was not only removed by Youtube but apparently the entire Youtube Account was removed which I chalk up censoring Conservatives. The video that was above was Judge Nap's appearance on Fox & Friends making the GCHQ connection. Here is Youtube's fake reasoning that I discovered by click the above HX Video Youtube Channel link: "This account has been terminated due to multiple or
severe violations of YouTube's policy against spam, deceptive practices, and
misleading content or other Terms of Service violations."]
Very shortly after the Judge
said he had three sources, the Judge mysteriously - without comment – was
removed from Fox News air time. Incidentally, if you listened to the
segment, the Judge remarked that the GCHQ person who complied with Obama
resigned after Trump was inaugurated. Fox’s censorship means Napolitano
can neither name the three intelligence sources nor the name of the person who
resigned from GCHQ. ALSO, Fox News used later-in-the-day news anchors to
walk back Napolitano’s GCHQ/Obama assertion.
Fox censorship, Napolitano
silence on suspension, GCHQ public denial and an U.S. apology is a set-up the
typically credible Napolitano to look like a tinfoil conspiracist.
AND YET, is Judge Andrew Napolitano a discredited source on
Obama surveillance of President Trump’s campaign? Since I have contended that
Barack Hussein Obama was a crooked President from day one of his
Administration, I am not prepared to throw the Judge under the bus as all
others have seeming done.
Below are two articles that
should give you pause before you consider throwing Napolitano under the bus.
The first article is from today (3/22/17) from Bob Unruh and the second is from
Cliff Kinkaid of AIM posted on 3/21/17.
The first is close to
breaking news corroborated by Fox News. The second article pretty much
elaborates the details that Judge Andrew Napolitano alluded to in his 2-minute
50-second Fox & Friends segment. In fact, there is so much detail in
the second article it is a bit lengthy. You may want to come back a few times
to complete and digest the information that demonstrates a Crooked Obama and a
nefarious Intel community, not to mention an extremely untrustworthy Director
James Comey of the FBI.
The lawyer who founded
Judicial Watch and later Freedom Watch, Larry
Klayman, has sent a letter to Rep. Devin Nunes, R-Calif., chairman of the
Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence, asking him to look at a
whistleblower’s evidence of “systematic illegal surveillance on prominent
Americans, again including the chief justice of the Supreme Court, other
justices, 156 judges, prominent businessmen such as Donald Trump, and even
yours truly.”
That spying was done,
Klayman’s letter contends, by the FBI.
It’s become a major issue
following President Trump’s assertion that he and Trump Tower were spied upon
by the federal government, and the subsequent denials by intelligence and
law-enforcement officials, including FBI Director James Comey, who famously
cleared Hillary Clinton on accusations she mishandled classified information as
secretary of state.
Klayman has been working with
Dennis Montgomery, a former NSA and Central Intelligence Agency contractor who
“left the NSA and CIA with 47 hard drives and over 600 million pages of
information, much of which is classified.”
Montgomery then “sought to
come forward legally as a whistleblower to appropriate government entities,
including congressional intelligence committees, to expose that the spy
agencies were engaged for years in systematic illegal surveillance on prominent
Americans.”
Explained Klayman: “Working
side by side with former Obama Director of National Intelligence James Clapper,
who lied in congressional testimony, and former Obama Director of the CIA, the
equally ethically challenged John Brennan, Montgomery witnessed ‘up close and
personal’ this “Orwellian Big Brother’ intrusion on privacy, likely for
potential coercion, blackmail or other nefarious purposes.”
But he said the testimony has
been essentially ignored.
Now, however, with the issue
pending before Congress, there even are media reports that appear to
substantiate the general claims that the government has been spying. The New
York Times in January referenced wiretapping at Trump Tower, and just this
week ABC News documented that
the FBI monitored Trump Tower.
The report claimed, “But it
was not placed at the behest of Barack Obama, and the target was not the Trump
campaign of 2016. For two years ending in 2013, the FBI had a court-approved
warrant to eavesdrop on a sophisticated Russian organized crime
money-laundering network that operated out of unit 63A in Trump Tower in New
York.”
It resulted in the
indictments of more than 30 people, ABC said.
Explained the report: “The
FBI investigation did not implicate Trump. But Trump Tower was under close
watch. Some of the Russian mafia figures worked out of unit 63A in the iconic
skyscraper – just three floors below Trump’s penthouse residence – running what
prosecutors called an ‘international money-laundering, sports gambling and
extortion ring.'”
Klayman, a Washington
watchdog who repeatedly took on the Clinton political machine to investigate
suspicion of wrongdoing, explained in his letter to Nunes, which was copied to
other members of Congress, that he previously won a judgment from U.S. District
Judge Richard Leon preliminarily halting the “illegal, warrantless, and
massive surveillance of U.S. citiznes [sic] and lawful residents” in 2015.
As part of Nunes’ hearing on
claims of government spying, he invited “anyone who has information about these
topics to come forward.”
Klayman said that is exactly
what Montgomery has done.
“There is a myriad of
evidence, direct and circumstantial, of the illegal and unconstitutional
surveillance disclosed to the FBI by Montgomery,” said Klayman, describing
how his client made an on-camera interview with the agency about the misdeeds
some time ago.
He said Montgomery “holds
much of the roadmap to ‘draining the swamp’ of this corruption of our
democracy.”
Montgomery, Klayman said, has
information “that the spy agencies were engaged for years in systematic illegal
surveillance on prominent Americans.”
During Montgomery’s interview
with FBI General Counsel James Baker, under grants of immunity, he “laid out
how persons like then businessman Donald Trump were illegally spied upon by
Clapper, Brennan, and the spy agencies of the Obama administration.”
“He even claimed that these
spy agencies had manipulated voting in Florida during the 2008 presidential
election, where illegal tampering resulted in helping Obama to win the White
House.”
But that interview,
“conducted and videotaped by Special FBI Agents Walter Giardina and William
Barnett, occurred almost two years ago, and nothing that I know of has happened
since.”
Klayman wrote that it appears
to have been “buried” by Comey, possibly because “the FBI itself
collaborates with the spy agencies to conduct illegal surveillance.”
He said he previously
visited with a staff lawyer, Allen Souza, to inform Nunes of questions that
needed to be put to Comey while under oath.
“My expressed purpose: to
have Chairman Nunes of the House Intelligence Committee ask Comey, under oath,
why he and his FBI have seemingly not moved forward with the Montgomery
investigation while, on the other hand, the FBI director recently claimed
publicly, I believe falsely, that there is ‘no evidence’ of surveillance on
President Trump and those around him by the Obama administration.
“Indeed, there is,” he wrote.
He tells members of Congress
that Comey needs to be grilled during a subsequent hearing, now set for March
28. He asks Nunes to respond by March 24 to let “the American people, and Mr.
Montgomery … know where you and the other members of your
committee stand.”
“Do you intend to get at and
investigate the full truth, or as has regrettably been the case for many years
in government, sweep the truth under the carpet?”
Other recipients of the
letter were Reps. Adam Schiff, Mike Conaway, Peter King, Frank LoBiondo, Tom
Rooney, Ileana Ros-Lehtinen, Michael Turner, Brad Wenstrup, Chris Stewart, Rich
Crawford, Trey Gowdy, Elise Stefanik, Will Hurd, Jim Hines, Terri Sewell, Andre
Carson, Jackie Speier, Mike Quigley, Eric Swalwell, Joaquin Castro and Denny
Heck.
A special report from
the Accuracy in Media Center for Investigative Journalism; Cliff Kincaid,
Director.
[AIM CIJ Director's Note:
UPDATE: Former NSA/CIA contractor Dennis Montgomery has told
Accuracy in Media through his attorney Larry Klayman that it is entirely
possible that the British Government Communications Headquarters (GCHQ) was
used as a back channel to collect and pass information-based on electronic
surveillance of Trump associates and Donald J. Trump personally-to officials in
the Obama administration. Montgomery said the procedure known as shell-game
eavesdropping, in which the NSA can deny they are wiretapping, and the GCHQ can
also deny that they are wiretapping, could have been used in this case. In
other words, the NSA, CIA or FBI would ask the British to conduct the
surveillance on behalf of the U.S. government so that U.S. officials could deny
their own involvement.
Montgomery said that he has
provided extensive evidence of illegal wiretapping by U.S. intelligence
agencies to the FBI, but that the Bureau has failed to act on the evidence
since he provided it almost two years ago.
Judge Andrew Napolitano of
Fox News had said, "The NSA has given GCHQ full 24/7 access to its
computers, so GCHQ - a foreign intelligence agency that, like the NSA, operates
outside our constitutional norms - has the digital versions of all electronic
communications made in America in 2016, including Trump's." [Bold Text
Editor JRH] However, it may be
difficult to find Obama's personal "fingerprints" on what happened,
Napolitano warned. Under these circumstances, the House Intelligence Committee
should ask FBI Director James Comey about Montgomery's evidence of illegal
wiretapping and then call in Montgomery for his own personal testimony. Klayman
says Montgomery can shed important light on how Trump and many other innocent
people can be targeted.
ØPlease call the office of
Rep. Devin Nunes at 202-225-4121 and urge that Congress question FBI Director
Comey about the Dennis Montgomery case.]
(Editor's Note: Public
hearings on this controversy are scheduled for March 20 and 28 by the House
Intelligence Committee.)
Senate Intelligence Committee
leaders from both parties, Senators Richard Burr (R-NC) and Mark Warner (D-VA),
have issued a disingenuous statement[1] that
"no element of the United States government" surveilled "Trump
Tower." They dishonestly evade the fact that media reporting[2] two
days earlier had said that British intelligence operating at U.S. behest had
likely been implicated in wiretapping Trump and Trump associates, all at the
instigation of the U.S. government.
White House Press Secretary
Sean Spicer said on March 16 that Fox News[2] sources
have reported[3] through
retired Judge Andrew Napolitano that then-President Obama had used two
officials to arrange with the British NSA, called GCHQ or Government
Communications Headquarters, to carry out the wiretapping of both Trump and
Trump associates. (See this AIM[4]guest
column.) The British now dispute this claim.
This evasive use of British
spying is done in order to leave no American "fingerprints[5]"
on the highly illegal operation, as the White House quoted Judge Napolitano. It
is a long-standing practice under treaty-like intelligence agreements that
British intelligence can use NSA facilities, and vice versa, for
shell-game eavesdropping.
The trick is for the two
agencies to swap places so that the NSA can deny they are wiretapping, and the
GCHQ can deny that they are wiretapping. The Brits are trying to escape in
between these moves of what a key expert has called the US-UK "wiretapping
shell game."
This is the first time
that news sources[2] have
explicitly stated that Obama personally ordered the wiretapping of Trump
himself, through Obama officials going to the British, though it has been
implied in the past by the suspicious lack of any circumspect denials, even
when The New York Times said on January 19 and 20 that "wiretapped
communications" went to the Obama White House. No one in the article said
"Obama White House-but not Obama personally."
Consider how one important
person-President Trump-got the clear media message that he was indeed the
target of the spying: President Trump told Fox News's Tucker Carlson that he
read this New York Times story of January 20 before he tweeted about Obama
"wiretapping" him. White House spokesman Spicer quoted from this
article.
President Trump told Carlson
on Fox[6] on
March 15 why he tweeted what he did: "Well, I've been reading...I think it
was January 20...New York Times article where they were talking about
wiretapping....I think they used that exact term."
NEW
YORK TIMES (print edition) Jan. 20, 2017, Headline:
"Wiretapped Data
Used in Inquiry of Trump Aides"
"found no
conclusive evidence of wrongdoing ... [but]
"... Wiretapped communications had
been provided to the [Obama] White House." [Emphasis added;
bracketed [ ] text added.]
Remember, this is the same
New York Times, along with other hostile media, that is attacking President
Trump for making what it calls "baseless" and
"unsubstantiated" claims of Obama administration wiretapping of
Trump. It is its own reporting that President Trump was referring to.
The Times hypocritically
suppresses its own front-page headline stories about "Wiretapped Data Used
in Inquiry of Trump Aides" which claimed that these "wiretapped
communications" reports went to the Obama White House (New York Times[7],
Jan. 20, 2017).
White House spokesman Spicer
forcefully made this point to the press, which viciously dodged his points to
continue insisting[8] that
"there's no evidence of this" at all, repeatedly and rudely
interrupting Spicer in an acrimonious confrontation.
Again, the question is: What
did Obama know and when did he know it?
How the "Wiretap
Shell Game" Works
Some reports claim that the
Obama administration sought and/or obtained FISA Court warrants to tap phone
calls and hack emails in Trump Tower.
But FISA warrants are
routinely avoided by a little-known intelligence trick of using U.S.-British
intelligence "reciprocity agreements" to dodge U.S. laws and vice
versa. There are now direct reports[5] of
this Obama-orchestrated British wiretapping of Trump, cited by the White House
to back up President Trump's statements and tweets.
The British are issuing denials[9].
But it is well-known that U.S. intelligence agencies can routinely arrange
for British intelligence officers to use NSA facilities to spy on Americans, so
that the U.S. agencies can claim that "they" (the U.S.) did no
wiretapping or surveillance of Americans. It is a type of "plausible
denial" government lie (see more on this in the appendix to this
article). [Bold Text Editor JRH]
The strange involvement of an
"ex" British MI6 agent, Christopher Steele, in conducting
"opposition research" during a U.S. election has raised no questions
in the left-wing media. It bears consideration, as it could represent in
reality a British "reciprocity" covert operation on behalf of Obama's
CIA, one to fabricate discrediting disinformation about Trump, not a mere intelligence-gathering
or wiretapping operation.
The exact means and exact
agency by which this wiretapping, or much of it, has been done had been left
unclear until now, when the claimed British connection surfaced. These types of
British surveillance wiretaps are known as operations under "UKUSA"
and "BRUSA" intelligence "reciprocity" agreements, which
are the functional equivalent of formal treaties in the spy world.
Such
"reciprocity" operations are designed to evade the laws of each
country, the U.S. and the UK, by having the British spy on Americans who the
Americans want spied on, and having the Americans spy on the British who the
Brits want spied on. [Bold Text
Editor JRH] Each side then exchanges the wiretap and other data the other
side wants, thus without directly incriminating themselves. UKUSA reciprocity
treaty "requests" have the force of direct orders to the other
country's intelligence agencies.
The wiretap data is exchanged
under bogus traditional claims of the "extreme sensitivity" of
"foreign liaison" intelligence, in order to obstruct outside
oversight and thus in reality conceal surveillance of questionable legality.
The UKUSA arrangements go beyond mere data searches and exchanges, by having,
for example, British agents use NSA equipment and facilities on a rental lease
basis to spy on the Americans that U.S. agencies want surveilled (and vice
versa) so that the best equipment in the best position of access is used.
Former Justice Department
Nazi-hunter John Loftus has documented how this British-U.S. "wiretap
shell game" works, and pointed out how it is used to spy on political
candidates in elections, and is covered up from Congress. Loftus reported:
"Over
the years the British back-channel inside the NSA was used for a variety of
political dirty tricks. A large number of American candidates for public office
have been placed under electronic surveillance by British intelligence officers
sitting at their ‘temporary listening post' at [NSA] Fort Meade." [Loftus[10], Secret War Against the Jews[11], 1997,
p. 195]
The media have been saying
that their government sources report that the CIA-NSA-FBI intercept targeting
of Russians shifted to the targeting of the Trump team by September,
2016-possibly as early as June, 2016. There are reports of rejected FISA court
applications in June[12] and July[13] of 2016 which would indicate
that change of focus. (Incidentally, rejections by the FISA court are normally
almost unheard-of.)
The BBC's twist on the third
alleged try at a FISA warrant, allegedly granted on October 15, was that it was
narrowly drawn against only two Russian banks. But the BBC was at pains to
assure us that they had an unnamed source who said that "three of Mr. Trump's
associates were the subject of the inquiry."
"But it's clear this is
about Trump," the source told the BBC[13].
New York Times Lies About
Its Own Reporting
Meanwhile The New York Times[14] is
doubling down on its lies, pretending it never reported that Trump or his aides
had been wiretapped[7],
and with supreme chutzpah claims, "It is not clear why Mr. Trump thought
he was wiretapped or what led him to make the claim." Again, look at the
front-page New York Times headline.
The New York Times has been
forced by confused readers to grudgingly admit[15] that
President Trump's tweets on Obama's wiretapping actually do "echo certain
aspects of The New York Times's reporting from recent weeks." But they try
to offer up sorry excuses to explain away the glaring contradiction in their
own reporting of Obama administration wiretapping of Trump and/or Trump people-and
then their denials of it. The New York Times claims[16] that
what they originally said was that Obama officials merely investigated past
wiretap data in archives of "routine" surveillance already done, but
did not wiretap into future data.
But the New York Times stated
in January[7] that
after past recordings of phone calls of Trump people had been checked, that the
FBI "asked" the NSA to continue to "collect as much information
as possible"-evidently without restraint or limitations-in what were
clearly all future wiretapped calls between Russians and Trump people. It's
known as an intelligence "collection requirement." (New York Times
on January 20[7] and February 14[17];
see also the BBC[13] on
January 12.)
White House spokesman Spicer,
days before the Times' excuse-making, clearly explained[16] that
President Trump's tweets on March 4 were based on open-source news media
reporting of the wiretaps-thus including The New York Times-over the last few
months.
In fact, the news media have
been reporting[18] since
at least September 23, 2016, that U.S. intelligence has been "actively
monitoring" the "talks" (conversations), "wiretapping"
the phone "calls," and intercepting other communications of Trump
aides or Trump himself-communications allegedly made with the Russians.
"Active monitoring"
means wiretapping and surveillance of future phone calls, emails, texts, and
other communications on an ongoing basis.
Not a shred of any New York
Times or other reporting since September, 2016 on the "wiretapping"
of Trump and/or his aides has demonstrated any concern whatsoever for Trump's
civil rights or the sanctity of the election process. No concern was expressed
by the CIA, FBI, NSA or other agencies, or by the Obama White House-or by the
media doing the reporting. In fact, they have been quite excited and eager
about the prospect of illegal snooping on Trump.
As White House spokesman
Spicer pointed out, efforts were made by Obama officials during their last days
in office to lessen the protections of wiretap data in order to spread more widely
any highly-sensitive wiretap data on Trump. The New York Times reported[19] on
March 1 that the Obama administration's lowering of "classification
levels" of NSA data was done to "spread" the Trump wiretaps
around various agencies and even foreign governments (see Obama DNI James
Clapper's orders lowering security protections of raw NSA intercept data,
December. 15, 2016).
The New York Times had originally reported[20] on
January 12 that this massive lowering of NSA wiretap data security was in
contrast to Obama's previous tightening of regulations in 2014, after the
Snowden mass leak, to give "privacy protections to foreigners," like
they were Americans. But not for Trump.
The New York Times
headline story[19] on
March 1 that said Obama officials had "Rushed to Preserve Intelligence of
Russian Election Hacking" also admitted that officials say that alleged
Trump collusion with Russia "has not been confirmed" in any of that
intelligence wiretap data.
So what were they
"rushing" to "preserve?" It is the purported Trump
"conspiracy" with Russia that is utterly unsubstantiated and
baseless. Wiretapping one's political opponents in an election, as Obama or his
minions have done, is a classic Watergate-style threat to the democratic
process.
The Fake "Trump
Dossier"
"As part of the
inquiry," wrote The New York Times, this "wiretapping" was done
by the CIA, FBI and/or NSA to try to "investigate" the alleged
Trump-Russian connections claimed in what is known as the (fake) "Trump
dossier"-within a broader investigation of alleged Russian hacking and
other supposed election interference (NY Times, January 20[7], February 14[17],
2017).
This "Trump
dossier" is the controversial document composed by ex-British agent Christopher
Steele, who had been paid by Hillary Clinton's still unidentified backers to do
election "opposition research" against then-candidate Trump. It is
riddled with absurd self-contradictions and vile allegations against President
Trump.
The "dossier[21]"
cannot even make up its mind, so to speak, as to whether the Russians did spend
"years" passing political dirt on Hillary Clinton to Trump to help
"cultivate" relationship with him-or did not in fact ever pass such
info to Trump (Steele report[21],
June 20, 2016). There are at least eight different origins of the hacked or
leaked DNC emails claimed in the "dossier," including that Trump
hacked them, not the Russians, or that they were all just "created"
or "made up."
The one-party opposition
media have managed to ignore the ridiculous contents of the bogus "Trump
dossier" with its raving lunatic absurdities.
For example, thousands of
Russian retirement "pensioners," according to the
"dossier," did the hacking of the DNC emails and passed them on to
Russian officials, apparently in secret meetings at (we infer) park benches and
shuffleboard affairs in Miami and elsewhere (Steele reports 095 and 111[21] and Newsweek[22], November
4, 2016).
These Russian retirement
pensioners living in the U.S. are "hacking...cyberoperatives"
according to Newsweek, in its pre-election article[22] heavily
based on Steele's "Trump dossier," oblivious to the patent absurdity
of the claim.
You will not hear about that
from the anti-Trump media, which so desperately wants the "Trump
dossier" to be believed, regardless of whether any of it is true.
Appendix:
Former Justice Department
Nazi-hunter, John Loftus, has explained how this US-British reciprocity
scheme-or "wiretap shell game," as he calls it-works. Loftus'
evidence of the top secret trick of US-British, NSA-GCHQ wiretapping of
Americans is based on numerous NSA sources and others from many agencies
stretching back decades, including censorship of this information from his and
another expert's early book manuscripts because of "classification" (Loftus[10], Secret War Against the Jews[11], 1997,
pp. 188-195, 548-9).
According to Loftus this is
how the illegal wiretapping "game" is played:
"...
the NSA headquarters [at Fort Meade, Md.] is also the chief British espionage
base in the United States. The presence of British wiretappers at the keyboards
of American eavesdropping computers is a closely guarded secret...."
"The
NSA is a giant vacuum cleaner. It sucks in every form of electronic
information, from telephone calls to telegrams, across the United States. The
presence of British personnel is essential for the American wiretappers to
claim plausible deniability.
"Here's
how the game is played. The British liaison officer at [NSA Hq] Fort Meade
types the [NSA-supplied] target list of ‘suspects' into the American computer.
The NSA computer sorts through its wiretaps and gives the British officer the
recording of any American citizen he wants.
"Since
it is technically a British target of surveillance, no American search
warrant is necessary. [Loftus' italics] The British officer then simply hands
the results over to his American liaison officer. Of course, the Americans
provide the same service to the British in return...."
"According
to our sources, this duplicitous, reciprocal arrangement disguises the most
massive, and illegal, domestic espionage apparatus in the world....
"Through
this charade, the intelligence services of each country can claim that they are
not targeting their own citizens. The targeting is done by an
authorized foreign agent, the intelligence liaison resident in Britain or the
United States" [Loftus, pp. 189-190; endnotes omitted].
Loftus describes how the
courts tried to shut down some of the domestic wiretapping abuses, and how the
FBI succeeded in evading the judiciary. Then the Bureau got its dream come true
with the FISA law, which only applied to U.S. agencies, not the British:
"In
1978 Congress finally passed the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance (FIS) Act
[or FISA], a feeble attempt to stamp out some of the worst excesses of domestic
espionage.... [But FISA] was restricted only to targeting by American agencies,
leaving the British liaison officer with a major loophole. The restrictive
language added to the FIS Act [FISA] left unchanged the arrangement under which
the British wiretapped American suspects and then passed on the information to
the NSA."
"To
this day Congress does not realize that the British liaison officers at the NSA
are still free to use American equipment to spy on American citizens. And, in
fact, they are doing just that. Congress has been kept in the dark
deliberately" [Loftus, pp. 191-2].
Naturally, such dirty-trick
U.S.-British spying schemes have led to political abuses. In a comment of eerie
timeliness today, with the claims of Obama directing the wiretapping of candidate
Trump through British intelligence, Loftus states that:
"Over
the years the British back-channel inside the NSA was used for a variety of
political dirty tricks. A large number of American candidates for public office
have been placed under electronic surveillance by British intelligence officers
sitting at their ‘temporary listening post' at [NSA] Fort Meade." [Loftus,
p. 195]
The views expressed in the
articles published in FamilySecurityMatters.orgare those of the authors. These views should
not be construed as the views of FamilySecurityMatters.org or of the Family
Security Foundation, Inc., as an attempt to help or prevent the passage of
any legislation, or as an intervention in any political campaign for public
office. COPYRIGHT 2016 FAMILY SECURITY MATTERS INC.
