Home » In case you’re wondering in what manner the Obama administration spied on Trump…

Comments

In case you’re wondering in what manner the Obama administration spied on Trump… — 27 Comments

  1. It seems to me that if there were sufficient evidence of a crime or crimes to justify the surveillance, we would have heard about it long ago, or at the very least, Mueller would have found it.

    They simply thought they could do it and get away with it because Hillary was going to be elected and these outrages would never become known.

  2. Once the criminal prosecutions yield guilty verdicts, I hope that all those who were literally beggared by the legal fees resulting from their being unjustly pursued by these evil Obama administration minions file civil suits to be made whole, with additional penalties for their pain and suffering.

  3. Like the tree falling without someone nearby to hear it, the dinosaur media will not report this. Start talking to people about and watch their eyes glaze over. Most just don’t care.

  4. I fear a hard coup d’etat attempt. These traitorous conspirators are capable of murder.

  5. What Kate said. There is no possible way that damaging evidence against Trump establishing a basis for the spying that followed would *not* have been leaked, given the media environment that exists today and underhanded pieces of sh*t like Schiff in powerful positions in Congress.

  6. One way or another – a reckoning is coming down the road.

    Much gnashing of teeth and rending of garments etc. – but nevertheless it’s coming.

  7. Though I would consider it well deserved for a bunch of Democrats and their minions to do some runway walks in orange jumpsuits, I don’t imagine it will happen.

    However, I think Barr and team can raise a stink which will linger into the 2020 election. I’ll settle for that.

  8. A real investigation of a presidential candidate during an election in the U.S. would start with clear and compelling proof of wrong doing. The investigation would be all about filling in the details. And such an investigation should be done in the strictest secrecy meaning no leaks to the press. The staff would be of the highest caliber, and would be as non-partisan as humanly possible. The resulting charges would be significant and consequential.

    A partisan hack job would launch the investigation on the slimmest of premises, and any and all embarrassing information generated would be immediately leaked to a compliant press. The staff would be unprofessional and highly partisan. The resulting charges would consist predominately of process crimes, people charged with obstruction or lying to the FBI over trivial issues.

    Which investigation did we get?

  9. One thing that jumped out at me from Barr’s testimony was the word “predicate”. Now it may be that I am ignorant, a very strong possibility, but the only context I can recall in which the term appears is in the RICO statute.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Racketeer_Influenced_and_Corrupt_Organizations_Act

    If, emphasis if, there was a wide spread seditious conspiracy then the only way DOJ could possibly proceed, due to resource constraints, is to cast a wide net with RICO.

  10. parker…It saddens me greatly that I agree with your assessment here.
    We will see blood in the streets.
    Barr? President Trump? Another “baseball field” mass shooting?
    I pray that I am wrong.

  11. Sure, there was an adequate predicate: Carter Page, a Trump campaign volunteer advisor, knows a guy who knows a guy who hangs around with Russians who we’ve heard are connected to Russian intelligence agencies,

    Sounds good enough to me!

    Notice that Comey is already preparing for the investigation — he don’t know nothin’!

  12. I knew Stefan Halper was a mole and a spy on the Trump campaign, and that he was connected to the CIA. I did not know he was connected to MI6. Chris Steele had been employed by MI6 but had supposedly retired years earlier.

    Here’s a not terribly original nor deep idea. It is a huge deal for political opponents within a country to spy on each other illegally. On the other hand it is generally accepted practice for the intelligence agency of one nation to spy on the leaders of other nations, even for little cause.

    But what if intelligence on one nation by another is “laundered” back across the border into the source country for political purposes?

    Here is a well known example printed in Spiegel.

    The NSA’s Secret Spy Hub in Berlin October 27, 2013
    According to SPIEGEL research, United States intelligence agencies have not only targeted Chancellor Angela Merkel’s cellphone, but they have also used the American Embassy in Berlin as a listening station. The revelations now pose a serious threat to German-American relations.

    Suppose a German pol wanted to take down Merkel and had a few friends in the NSA or friends who had access to the NSA database. Isn’t that a very clean way to spy?

    The weird thing is that the Obama admin. seems to have used a shotgun approach including smart and stupid tactics.

    Perhaps they were hoping that Chris Steele still had strong ties to MI6 and access to solid intel. Instead the joker just copied a bunch of crap from the internet and a couple Russians.

  13. The “intelligence” investigation was what cops call “bootstrapping.” They initiated the investigation ostensibly because they suspected the Trump campaign was conspiring with Putin to steal the election. This was nothing but a pretext for the Obama administration to use the CIA and FBI to fish for any information that could ruin Trump’s campaign and/or destroy his presidency. I seriously doubt any of those people ever thought there had been Trump collusion with the Russians. That was merely the excuse used to bring the full weight of the US intelligence apparatus in service to a political operation.

  14. no wayis anyone ever going to jail least of all any democrat. remember the beast controls the judicial system, it will never happen,, ever

  15. In support of Jeff’s comments on “bootstrapping.”

    https://www.realclearinvestigations.com/articles/2019/04/11/fbi_mans_testimony_points_to_significant_wrongdoing_beyond_spying.html

    This strange concept of legal alchemy aside, the question remains whether the dossier was used merely as a vehicle to get information on Carter Page, or whether the real quarry was Donald Trump himself. As before, Shen was unintentionally helpful at winkling inadvertent truths out of her cooperative witness. It started with the softest of softballs: “Are you aware of any FBI investigations motivated by political bias?”

    “I am not.”

    “Are you aware of any Justice Department investigations motivated by political bias?”

    “No.”

    And a little later: “Are you aware of any actions ever taken to damage the Trump campaign at the highest levels of the Department of Justice or the FBI?”

    “No.”

    And there Shen might have left it, having elicited basic denials that the FBI and Justice had abused their power. But then she pushed her luck, asking a question that wasn’t worded quite carefully enough: “Are you aware of any actions ever taken to personally target Donald Trump at the highest levels of the Department of Justice or the FBI?”

    Priestap must have pulled quite the face because Shen immediately declared, “I’ll rephrase.” Here’s how she tried it the second time: “Are you aware of any actions ever taken against Donald Trump at the highest levels of the Department of Justice or the FBI?”

    Before Priestap can answer, his lawyer, Mitch Ettinger, interjected: “I think you need to rephrase your question.”

    At which point Shen’s Democratic colleague Janet Kim jumped in to help: “Are you aware of any actions ever taken against Donald Trump at the highest levels of the Department of Justice or the FBI for the purpose of politically undercutting him?”

    At last, Priestap was able to say, “No.”

    That long road to “no” strong suggests that the highest levels of Justice and the FBI personally targeted Trump and took action against him. The only caveat is that Priestap believes none of that targeted action was done to undercut Trump politically. That may be so (however much the savvy observer may think otherwise). But it doesn’t blunt the main takeaway — that the bureau and DoJ targeted Trump.

  16. Trump was the target of illegal spying by Obama’s crooked FBI. Obama is guilty. Few want that truth to be true (I don’t), but given that it IS true, I’d rather we find out the details sooner.

    Yet so many at the top of so many agencies don’t want to admit that their own small crimes were part of such a huge almost coup, and like a mafia, silence and “forgetting” is their main protection.

    There will be a lot of “remembering” when indictments start flowing, but it will be slow until then. Craig getting indicted will be very promising.

  17. New terms to keep an eye out for.
    Artful malapropism
    Willful concealment
    Feigned ignorance.
    And as many metaphors for “domestic spying” as you can shake a “shopped” FICA “judge” at.

  18. What is quite amazing is what this “bootstrapped” two-year proctological-level witch-hunt DID PROVE:
    a)Trump is not only not compromised, but his administration actually is as CLEAN as Obama claimed that his was!
    b) Despite his fatuous claims to the country, Obama’s administration was DIRTY: full of lies, criminality, and bad actors at all levels, all supported by an equally corrupt media!

  19. It’ almost seems like the Deep State Leviathan – including the media— has changed its focus from bringing down Trump to protecting the “scandal-free” legacy of the administration of “no-drama” Obama.
    At all costs.

  20. Has anyone seen this about Anderson? I seem to have missed it when it first came out. There isn’t anything much not known from other people, except high-lighting the unusual nature of the FISA on Page.

    https://www.theepochtimes.com/exclusive-testimony-by-fbi-lawyer-trisha-anderson-reveals-extensive-role-in-trump-clinton-investigations_2806982.html

    A key player in the FBI’s counterintelligence investigation of Donald Trump and his 2016 presidential campaign was Trisha Anderson, who, at the time, was the No. 2 lawyer at the agency’s Office of General Counsel.

    Despite having no specific experience in counterintelligence before coming to the FBI, Anderson was, in some manner, involved in virtually all of the significant events of the investigation.

    Anderson told members of the House Judiciary and Oversight committees in August last year during closed-door testimony that she was one of only about 10 people who had known about the Trump–Russia investigation prior to its official opening.

    Anderson also told lawmakers that she personally signed off on the original application for a warrant to spy on former Trump campaign adviser Carter Page without having read it.

    Anderson also was part of a small group of FBI personnel who got to read then-FBI Director James Comey’s memos about conversations he had with President Donald Trump.

    Besides the investigation into Trump, Anderson also was involved in the FBI’s investigation of Hillary Clinton for sending classified information using a private server.

    During her testimony, Anderson highlighted the unusual nature of the Page FISA application process and the curious roles of McCabe and then-Deputy Attorney General Sally Yates, who provided approvals of the Page FISA before normal FBI and DOJ approvals had been obtained:

    Ms. Anderson: “All necessary approvals, including up through and including the leadership of the FBI and the leadership of the Department, by the time I put that signature on the cover page had already been obtained.”

    These early high-level approvals were distinctly outside of the normal FISA process. Anderson and others were supposed to have provided approvals before the FISA was presented to senior FBI and DOJ officials. Anderson appeared to be fully aware of the uniqueness of this particular application process:

    Ms. Anderson: “There were individuals, all the way up to the Deputy Director and the Deputy Attorney General on the DOJ side, who had essentially given their approval to the FISA before it got to that step in the process. That part of it was unusual, and so I didn’t consider my review at that point in the process to be substantive in nature.”

    Anderson, who was asked her opinion of Clinton’s actions in the use of her server, didn’t hesitate to make her feelings known:

    Ms. Anderson: “We all held a sense that—that it was a pretty stupid thing to do, that anybody who has held a security clearance, anybody who has worked in the government understands that you have—the cardinal rule that you have to do your work on a government system.

    “So we all recognized from the outset that from a commonsense perspective from somebody who has worked—from the perspective of somebody who has worked in the government that it seemed like a pretty dumb thing to do.”

    But Anderson also maintained—as did Page, Baker, and the others—that Clinton shouldn’t have been charged under the “gross negligence” statute, as they lacked evidence of intent.

    As we all know by now, “intent” is not part of the law, and besides, what kind of “intent” are they talking about? She certainly intended to break the laws about classified information.

  21. So what happened to all the people here over the years that thought Ymar was smoking crack and being crazy when bringing up the subject of traitors in the US government all those years ago?

  22. “Halper has ties to the CIA, as well as MI6.”

    I’ve seen stories that have Stefan Halper as working with Italy and a FBI asset.

    While there have been reports that nobody can find him, Halper has been in Italy.

  23. Most interesting will be sanctions imposed on those who duped the FISA judges. For the rule of law this HAS to occur.

    If Roberts was in on the con he will resign.

  24. We have no doupts about Obama and his motives just like with the M.S. Media just about all of them are Democratic Voters and supporters not just the NYT’s and CNN it dont take a Rocket Scientists to figure that out

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

HTML tags allowed in your comment: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <s> <strike> <strong>