Trump surveilled: update

Her?

House Intelligence Committee Chairman Devin Nunes created a firestorm when he released information earlier last week which tended to confirm that members of Donald Trump’s team had been surveilled and names unmasked for political purposes. Please see my two posts about the event here and here. Sotto voce, I’d care to point out this is the same Devin Nunes who, in May of 2013, revealed, as I wrote here:

Congressman Devin Nunes: the DOJ tapped phones in the House gallery

Fornicalia Congressman Devin Nunes of the 22nd district spoke on the Hugh Hewitt show Wednesday afternoon, and revealed a bombshell: not only did the DOJ tap the phones of reporters, but Nunes indicated the DOJ tapped the telephones of the House of Representatives in the gallery area — where not only reporters use the phones, but various DC politicians.

That said, here is Chairman Nunes’s initial revelation regarding the surveillance of President Trump, made on March 22nd.

This led to various products by Crane and Summit being pounded out of Demorat and American Media Maggot sphincters nationally, initially bent because Chairman Nunes dared to do his job and notify President Trump of his findings before the rest of the committee. This did not sit well with Adam Schiff, Little Chuckie Schumer, Nancy Pelosi et al.

Simultaneously, someone began to actually pay attention to a broadcast made on MSNBC’s “Morning Joe” roughly a month ago, which included a revelation so large that it had been hiding in plain sight for some time. Please listen to Evelyn Farkas, a former Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defense in the Obama Administration, “out” that administration regarding the Trump campaign.

What she said was essentially this: the Obama administration ensured the leakage occurred and then tried to hide both the source of the leak as well as how the information was being shipped to “the hill,” otherwise known as the AMM.

There was only one purpose: political. The obvious intent was to damage the Trump campaign as much as possible and then undermine, minimize and block the president-elect’s ability to conduct the business necessary to assemble his team and move forward.

I can think of no other words than this: a conspiracy.

LifeZette.com writes:

Fmr. FBI Asst. Director: Farkas Exposed ‘Conspiracy Cabal’ on Trump Surveillance

by Brendan Kirby

Law enforcement experts say Obama official must testify on ‘unmasking,’ may have admitted crime

The discussion with MSNBC host Mika Brezinski on March 2 focused on a New York Times story that appeared the day before under the headline, “Obama Administration Rushed to Preserve Intelligence of Russian Hacking.”

The story quoted unnamed former government officials who described efforts to “leave a clear trail of intelligence for government investigators.” The information included evidence passed along by U.S. allies of meetings between Russian officials and Trump’s associates, and communications — intercepted by American intelligence agencies  among Russians — among Russians discussing contacts with Trump officials.

The spice must flow and the evidence must be preserved. Why?

“It was more actually aimed at telling the [Capitol] Hill people, ‘Get as much information as you can and get as much intelligence as you can before President Obama leaves the administration,’ because I had a fear that somehow that information would disappear with the senior people who left,” she said. “So it would be hidden away in the bureaucracy.”

Read this once, and then read it again, more slowly and deliberately.

“The Trump folks, if they found out how we knew what we knew about the staff, the Trump staff’s dealings with Russians, that they would try to compromise these sources and methods, meaning we would no longer have access to that intelligence,” she said. “So I became very worried because not enough was coming out in the open, and I knew that there was more.”

She added, “That’s why you have the leaking. People are worried.”

She knows there’s a leak, the reason for the leak, the means of the leak and its justification. Which led to this little joust between Sean Spicer and a journalista.

Of course, this is nothing more than fetid navel-gazing on the part of the Republicans, right? The people subject to “unmasking” were no more plain civilians than Jello is a food group, right? This has nothing to do with privacy, right? Wrong.

Joseph diGenova, who served as U.S. attorney for the District of Columbia under Ronald Reagan, said Farkas and the former administration officials she referred to should be questioned under oath.

“Ms. Farkas made a major blunder and, in fact … probably confessed to a crime or knowledge of people who committed a crime,” he said. “It was a remarkable interview and amazing it went unnoticed at the time.”

We can only hope; but we know that with all of the Benghazi hearings under Trey Gowdy no one was fired or breathes air behind bars today.

But here are questions that, as per normal, no one — and I mean no one — in the American Media Maggot queue is asking.

James Kallstrom, a former assistant director of the FBI, told LifeZette it is troubling that Farkas even knew about the intelligence reports that she urged officials to spread to congressional staffers.

“How does somebody who’s not even in the administration anymore, who’s in civilian life, have access to this information?” he asked. “What kind of conspiracy cabal is this?”

What indeed? Let’s go to Circa.com for this news story.

Obama’s rule changes opened door for NSA intercepts of Americans to reach political hands

by John Solomon and Sara Carter

As his presidency drew to a close, Barack Obama’s top aides routinely reviewed intelligence reports gleaned from the National Security Agency’s incidental intercepts of Americans abroad, taking advantage of rules their boss relaxed starting in 2011 to help the government better fight terrorism, espionage by foreign enemies and hacking threats, Circa has learned. (More on this below.)

Dozens of times in 2016, those intelligence reports identified Americans who were directly intercepted talking to foreign sources or were the subject of conversations between two or more monitored foreign figures. Sometimes the Americans’ names were officially unmasked; other times they were so specifically described in the reports that their identities were readily discernible. Among those cleared to request and consume unmasked NSA-based intelligence reports about U.S. citizens were Obama’s national security adviser Susan Rice, his CIA Director John Brennan and then-Attorney General Loretta Lynch.

I hope you read that quite closely. Who could unmask American names? John Brennan. Loretta Lynch. Susan Rice. Remember that.

Today, the power to unmask an American’s name inside an NSA intercept — once considered a rare event in the intelligence and civil liberty communities — now resides with about 20 different officials inside the NSA alone. The FBI also has the ability to unmask Americans’ names to other intelligence professionals and policymakers.

Stop. That power exists within, to my estimation, roughly all 17 alphabet agencies in the American intelligence community. Because I have not yet done so, I enumerate those agencies now and here:

  1. Office of the Director of National Intelligence 
  2. Central Intelligence Agency 
  3. National Security Agency
  4. Defense Intelligence Agency
  5. Federal Bureau of Investigation
  6. Department of State – Bureau of Intelligence and Research
  7. Department of Homeland Security – Office of Intelligence and Analysis
  8. Drug Enforcement Administration – Office of National Security Intelligence
  9. Department of the Treasury – Office of Intelligence and Analysis
  10. Department of Energy – Office of Intelligence and Counterintelligence
  11. National Geospatial Intelligence Agency
  12. National Reconnaissance Office
  13. Air Force Intelligence, Surveillance and Reconnaissance
  14. Army Military Intelligence
  15. Office of Naval Intelligence
  16. Marine Corps Intelligence
  17. Coast Guard Intelligence

All that’s missing is your local dental board’s intelligence unit. “You sir, slowly put down the amalgam.” Shh. Keep that one under your hat.

The ACLU, an ally of Obama on many issues, issued a statement a few months ago warning that the president’s loosened procedures governing who could request or see unmasked American intercepts by the NSA were “grossly inadequate” and lacked “appropriate safeguards.”

Put on your thinking caps. Ask: why would Obama do this? And why only two weeks from the end of his second term?

Nunes, as well as Trump supporters, will be trying to determine if that access was warranted or a backdoor form of political espionage by an outgoing administration trying to monitor its successor on the world stage.

Any proof Obama aides were using NSA-enriched intelligence reports to monitor his transition on the world stage could embolden the new president. But perhaps the most consequential outcome of the new revelations is that it may impact the NSA’s primary authority to intercept foreigners: Section 702 of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act is up for renewal at the end of the year.

Ah, wait. A touchy subject for the intelligence community. Because who holds the purse-strings? Congress. Circa then nails it with this revelatory paragraph.

For years, the NSA has been required to follow strict rules to protect the accidental intercepts of Americans from being consumed or misused by other government agencies. The rules required a process known as minimization, where the identity and information about an American who was intercepted is redacted or masked with generic references like “American No. 1.”

The number of senior government officials who could approve unmasking had been limited to just a few, like the NSA director himself.

Wait. This conflicts with what we know now.

And in his final days in office, Obama created the largest ever expansion of access to non-minimized NSA intercepts, creating a path for all U.S. intelligence to gain access to unmasked reports by changes encoded in a Reagan-era Executive Order 12333.

The government officials who could request or approve an exception to unmask a U.S. citizen’s identity has grown substantially. The NSA now has 20 executives who can approve the unmasking of American information inside intercepts, and the FBI has similar numbers.

And executives in 16 agencies — not just the FBI, CIA and NSA — have the right to request unmasked information.

Thank you ever so kindly, Barack Hussein Obama. Stellar decision. Smashing. Brilliant.

“This raises serious concerns that agencies that have responsibilities such as prosecuting domestic crimes, regulating our financial policy, and enforcing our immigration laws will now have access to a wealth of personal information that could be misused. Congress needs to take action to regulate and provide oversight over these activities,” ACLU legislative counsel Neema Singh Giuliani warned in January.

Even when an American’s name isn’t included in a report, the NSA’s intercept information could be so specific that it identifies them.

I think you see both the problems and the reasons. CNN insists, however, that Farkas revealed nothing and the GOP has nothing.

Better yet (sorry for the poor audio), Farkas takes back her words and than attributes their repetition to — you guessed it — fake news.

I frequently have to remind myself that I inhabit the planet Earth, and not Zephron.

It’s interesting to note that Fred Fleitz, a former CIA officer, said:

He also questioned why so many in Washington regard as “established fact” the conclusion of U.S. security agencies that Russia meddled in the election in order to help Trump and hurt Democratic nominee Hillary Clinton. He said he does not think Russia believed Trump could win.

Fleitz pointed to reports that Russian agents tried to hack into the computer systems of both major parties but succeeded only with the Democrats.

“Maybe all they did was exploit the fact that the Democrats left the barn door open,” he said.

Fleitz said the Obama administration did little to counter cyber threats, not just from Russia but from China, as well.

Then, finally, there is this pivotal information.

FOX: Trump Surveilled Before Nomination, Agencies with Info Blocked Nunes for Weeks

by Michelle Moons

A Friday breaking Fox News report on surveillance of President Trump’s team that began before he became the Republican presidential nominee claimed a very senior intelligence official was responsible—as well as for the unmasking of the names of private U.S. citizens.

The report cited sources which also indicated that House Intelligence Committee Chairman Devin Nunes (R-CA) knew of the existence of the information in January, but one or more intelligence agencies blocked him, and there were only two locations where he could view the information that he called “very troubling.”

On Thursday, the New York Times began reporting what they claimed were the identities of two White House officials who were the sources of the information disclosed to Nunes.

Nunes met with sources on White House grounds on the day before he announced to reporters striking news that he had seen new and disturbing information indicating intelligence officials under the Obama administration “unmasked” the names of Trump team members who were incidentally surveilled.

Who might this “very senior intelligence official” be? Mike Cernovich writes:

Susan Rice Requested Unmasking of Incoming Trump Administration Officials

Susan Rice, who served as the National Security Adviser under President Obama, has been identified as the official who requested unmasking of incoming Trump officials, Cernovich Media can exclusively report.

The White House Counsel’s office identified Rice as the person responsible for the unmasking after examining Rice’s document log requests. The reports Rice requested to see are kept under tightly-controlled conditions. Each person must log her name before being granted access to them.

Upon learning of Rice’s actions, H. R. McMaster dispatched his close aide Derek Harvey to Capitol Hill to brief Chairman Nunes.

This reporter has been informed that Maggie Haberman has had this story about Susan Rice for at least 48 hours, and has chosen to sit on it in an effort to protect the reputation of former President Barack Obama.

Who is Maggie Haberman? She is a political correspondent for the New York Times. To whom is Susan Rice married? That would be ABC Executive Producer Ian Cameron, since 1992. He left ABC in 2010. He, of course, kept his links to news and newsrooms. She was Obama’s US Ambassador to the UN and finally his National Security Advisor. She also carried Obama’s heavy water when she went of most every Sunday show possible following the Benghazi attack to claim it occurred because of a video made in the United States when, in fact, Hillary Clinton and others — as well as her daughter, Chelsea Clinton — knew and had information that was not the case at all. She knew that very night.

Here, Susan Rice speaks at length to MSNBC’s Andrea Mitchell and both hedges and commits to nothing.

Perfect. But perhaps I should just defer to my fallback experts: Trey Gowdy and Tucker Carlson. Think ”wiretapped” vs “surveilled.”

Please note that at no point did Trey Gowdy — or has anyone trustworthy — denied that the NSA is not Hoovering every bit of digital take available in the US and abroad. If for no other reason than to make it available to certified authorities when requested.

You can’t request it if it isn’t there.

Judge Napolitano — now back on Fox News — weighs in as well.

Don’t forget, the spying of Donald Trump actually began back in 2011. Why would that be? Because Donald Trump was seriously considering running for president in 2012. Trump was causing headaches for Obama because of the birth certificate issue and became involved in opposing Obama’s policies. Trump spoke at CPAC in 2011; that’s called a clue.

The issue was so important to Barack Hussein Obama that he decided to attend the May 1st, 2011 White House Correspondents Dinner where Donald Trump would be in attendance, in lieu of monitoring the assault and capture of Osama Bin Laden’s compound in Abbottabad, Pakistan the same night by SEAL Team 6 — of course, a singularly-important event. Obama spent most of his speech at that dinner attacking Donald Trump. Jack Posobiec indicates that Obama had, at that time, Donald Trump under surveillance as a private citizen for political purposes only; no security issues were involved.

2011 was a significant year for the Obama administration overall because he was simultaneously spying on Angela Merkel and other world leaders. This is also, 2011, when Obama changed the rules of intercept material by the US government. You see how this all ties together.

But here’s the bottom line, in my opinion. What started out in the Grand Scheme of Life under the Imperial Obama as an intent to link Trump and his assistants to Mother Russia in order to delegitimize his entire presidency and keep him from conducting the business necessary to enable his goals, Obama and his sniveling jackanapes may have inadvertently laid a path of digital and oral wreckage right back to themselves which could yield depositions, subpoenas, grand juries, indictments and perhaps even criminal prosecutions.

In other words, his little arrangement of mines and minefields may have supremely backfired.

BZ

P.S.

Michael Flynn requesting immunity? Let us not forget that he was chucked under the proverbial political bus just a few minutes ago. He’d be a DC moron not to lawyer up. Let us also not forget how many persons in the Obama Administration requested either immunity or invoked the Fifth Amendment.

First, 5 million illegals were granted immunity under Obama.

Second, how many Obama officials pleaded the Fifth in major cases? Seven?

1. Jeff Neely, the former Pacific Rim regional commissioner for the General Services Administration, pled the fifth on April 16, 2012 when Congress asked him to testify about overly-lavish spending on GSA conferences. He was eventually sentenced to prison for fraud anyway.

2. John Beale, a former official at the EPA, pled the fifth on October 1, 2013 when Congress probed into Beale’s theft of nearly $900,000 worth of salaries and bonuses from his own agency.

3. John Sepulveda, a former VA official, pled the fifth on October 30, 2013 after Congress subpoenaed him to testify as to why the department spent $6 million on conferences in Florida.

4. Diana Rubens and Kimberly Graves, two senior officials in the Department of Veterans Affairs, each pled the fifth before Congress on November 2, 2015 when asked to testify about $400,000 they had allegedly milked out of a VA relocation expense program. They were eventually given back their jobs.

5. Greg Roseman, a deputy director of the IRS, pled the fifth on June 26, 2013, after Congress asked him to testify about why the largest contract in IRS history was awarded to a close friend of his.

6. Patrick Cunningham, chief of the Criminal Division of the U.S. Attorney’s Office in Arizona, pled the fifth when Congress asked him to testify about Operation Fast and Furious, which trafficked more than 2,000 guns along the U.S.-Mexico border.

7. Lois Lerner, an IRS director in charge of tax-exemptions, pled the fifth numerous times during Congress’ investigation into the IRS’ targeting of conservative groups.

We’re supposed to assume nothing from that.

Right?

 

Sources: Obama went outside US to surveil Trump

From FoxNewsInsider.com:

The Justice Department on Monday asked lawmakers for more time to gather evidence related to President Trump’s claim that former President Obama ordered wiretaps on Trump Tower’s phones during last year’s presidential campaign.

The House Intelligence Committee said it would give the Justice Department until March 20 to comply.

Current and former administration officials have been unable to provide any evidence of the Obama administration wiretapping Trump Tower, yet the president’s aides have been reluctant to publicly contradict their boss.

I wrote at length about the situation here, on March 6th. Other sources have confirmed the allegation.

Continuing, there are additional sources tending to lend credence to the wiretapping, as revealed by Judge Andrew Napolitano.

Napolitano said, “[T]hree intelligence sources have informed Fox News that President Obama went outside the chain of command. He didn’t use the NSA. He didn’t use the CIA. He didn’t use the FBI, and he didn’t use Department of Justice. He used GCHQ. What the heck is GCHQ? That’s the initials for the British spying agency. They have 24/7 access to the NSA database. So by simply having two people go to them saying, ‘President Obama needs transcripts of conversations involving candidate Trump, conversations involving president-elect Trump,’ he’s able to get it, and there’s no American fingerprints on this.”

One video I was told to watch was this, wherein Mark Levin sets an argument for the wiretapping of Trump.

Senator Rand Paul also happens to think it would have been relatively easy to wiretap Donald Trump.

I’d like to make this point obvious for those who may not know. The days of trying to access some kind of big closet or room with lots of copper connectors are over. You no longer have to physically access that room covertly and then attach any number of alligator clips and check your buttset. Most phone systems in business and agencies run VOIP, which is Voice Over Internet Protocol. Right. The internet. Go figure.

Folks, this is not yet done, not by a long shot.

BZ

 

Source: Obama White House did have Trump campaign wiretapped

So Mr Obama, while a sitting president, had Trump Tower bugged and surveilled whilst he still sat in the Oval Office?

Impossible, the Demorats and American Media Maggots bleat.

I say: show me the proof that Mr Obama did not do that. Tables turned. Just like “the Russians.”

After all, Mr Obama has an historic pattern of bugging and surveilling the offices and technology of sitting presidents. Why not an individual running for US president? Too far fetched?

What about Mr Obama attempting to undermine and influence the elections in Israel, because he didn’t want to see Benjamin Netanyahu elected? It seems to me the Obama administration was playing politics with a presidential election.

What about Jason Chaffetz who, during the Obama administration, had Secret Service agents combing through his personal records in a politically-driven revenge attack?

What about James Rosen, an American journalist, who had his emails and calls on roughly 20 phones exposed as a result of Obama’s minion, Eric Holder? Obama claimed he never ordered surveillance on any American citizen — but Holder wouldn’t have conducted something of this import without keeping his melanin-related BFF updated.

We know, via Wikileaks, that Obama did in fact surveil and violate the rights and privacy of American journalists. Here is a copy of a search warrant indicating so.

Wait. How about this set of Obama wiretaps?

WikiLeaks released the following list on February 23rd of Obama Administration wire taps:

* The US National Security Agency bugged a private climate change strategy meeting; between UN Secretary General Ban Ki-Moon and German Chancellor Angela Merkel in Berlin;
* Obama bugged Chief of Staff of UN High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR) for long term interception targetting his Swiss phone;
* Obama singled out the Director of the Rules Division of the World Trade Organisation (WTO), Johann Human, and targetted his Swiss phone for long term interception;
* Obama stole sensitive Italian diplomatic cables detailing how Israel’s Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu implored Italy’s Prime Minister Silvio Berlusconi to help patch up his relationship with US President Barack Obama, who was refusing to talk to Netanyahu;
* Obama intercepted top EU and Japanese trade ministers discussing their secret strategy and red lines to stop the US “extort[ing]” them at the WTO Doha arounds (the talks subsequently collapsed);
* Obama explicitly targeted five other top EU economic officials for long term interception, including their French, Austrian and Belgium phone numbers;
* Obama explicitly targetted the phones of Italy’s ambassador to NATO and other top Italian officials for long term interception; and
* Obama intercepted details of a critical private meeting between then French president Nicolas Sarkozy, Merkel and Berluscon, where the latter was told the Italian banking system was ready to “pop like a cork”.

In addition to the above list we also know now that Obama wire tapped various individuals in the US media that were reporting information not flattering to the Obama Administration.  It is widely known that Obama’s Justice Department targeted journalists with wiretaps in 2013:

* In 2013 the liberal Washington Post expressed outrage after the revelation that the Justice Department had investigated the newsgathering activities of a Fox News reporter as a potential crime in a probe of classified leaks.  The reporter, Fox News’ James Rosen and his family, were part of an investigation into government officials anonymously leaking information to journalists. Rosen was not charged but his movements and actions were tracked.
* Also in 2013, members of the Associated Press were also a target of the surveillance.  The ultra liberal New Yorker even noted that “In moderate and liberal circles, at least, the phone-records scandal, partly because it involves the dear old A.P. and partly because it raises anew the specter of Big Brother, may well present the most serious threat to Obama’s reputation.”
* Reporter Sharyl Attkisson said in 2014 that her personal computer and CBS laptop were hacked after she began filing stories about Benghazi that were unflattering to the Obama administration.  A source who checked her laptop said the hacker used spyware “proprietary to a government agency,” according to an article in the New York Post.

Hell, the CIA spied on the United States SENATE under Barack Hussein Obama:

All Obama’s oppressive actions seem to be forgiven. Yet, now all the Demorats and American Media Maggots require to elevate an allegation to a fact, if it concerns President Trump, conservatives or the GOP is.  .  .

The slightest of suppositions.

The official response of Obama, by former 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.”

What Lewis doesn’t do, however, is offer that same level of denial regarding the FBI or the DOJ. What Lewis specifically didn’t do is unequivocally state that Obama did not have Donald Trump tapped. It’s a proverbial non-denial denial. Gorgeous. Further, do you think Obama was so laissez-faire about his administration that he was unaware of what was occurring around him at all times? I do not.

On Sunday during Meet The Press, Obama’s Director of National Intelligence (DNI, a position above the CIA Director) James Clapper stated no agency operating under him — including the FBI — wiretapped the Trump concerns. Clapper added: “to my knowledge.” Equivocation.

Let us not forget this is the same James Clapper who lied nakedly to all of America when he testified under oath that the NSA never collected phone data on millions of Americans — when in fact the NSA Hoovered personal data like a baleen whale with krill. Clapper massages his pate and says “not wittingly.” Edward Snowden proved that Clapper was lying his political ass off.

But are these mere suppositions of wiretapping?

NO. THEY ARE NOT.

Fox’s Kimberly Guilfoyle spoke to a left-leaning journalist named Cathy Areu on Saturday the 4th, who told Guilfoyle that a source inside the White House said, about the tap:

There were concerns that Trump and his surrogates may have been colluding with the Russians as a possible bargaining chip to influence the election. Therefore a wiretap was conducted.

Areu’s female source said she was unsure who secured the warrant, but that it was granted. Areu said her female Obama administration source stated:

“The intelligence community did its due diligence given the threat of the Russian influence. The (Obama) White House was aware of it.”

Meaning two critically important thingies:

  • 1. The wiretap occurred, and
  • 2. The president had to know.

Let me repeat that at the risk of becoming a member of the Department of Redundancy Dept:

“The (Obama) White House was aware of it.”

Says the source.

Because, after all, we don’t need anything more to substantiate an allegation of corruption or abuse against President Trump other than an “unnamed source,” do we? Of course not. Turnabout is fair play.

Also: there was in fact a FISA request by the Obama Administration in June of 2016 and then in October of 2016, to monitor communications involving Donald Trump, not yet president-elect.

Former UN Ambassador John Bolton remarks to Fox’s Eric Shawn that James Comey should have been removed as FBI Director. I stated that myself back on February 17th: Trump should have ripped James Comey out of the FBI by his roots because Comey would do nothing but provide heartache. James Comey is a prevaricating hack whose opinions fluctuate with the prevailing political prairie winds. Let’s listen.

This is the same James Comey who didn’t wish to assist Sean Spicer in knocking down the Trump/Russia stories, but now wants the DOJ to bail his own ass out and dispute Trump’s claims of wiretapping. Comey wants what’s convenient for him when it’s convenient for him yet, when pressed with the job of simply moving a case over to the DOJ — with regard to the recommendation of an indictment for Hillary Clinton — Comey made a flawed, politically-based and self-serving decision. James Comey has no fidelity, no bravery, no integrity.

Who to replace the bereft-of-courage James Comey? Might I suggest John Bolton? Rudy Giuliani? Perhaps even Sheriff David Clarke? One does not have to be an attorney to be director. One must only have a keen managerial skill, fortitude and reverence for the law as opposed to naked politics.

Judge Andrew Napolitano reveals an important aspect of Obama’s presidential power.

“Because of the unique interpretation of a Ronald Reagan executive order, 13222, and because of the language in the USA Freedom Act, the successor to much of the FISA law, NSA now has the ability to capture in real time the digital copies of everybody’s phone calls. Everybody, cell and landline, everybody’s keystroke, mobile device and desktop.”

“All digital information going over fiber optics, into the US, out of the US or within the US. NSA works for the President. If the President asks for a transcribed copy of any of that, they’ll give it to him. As well, the FISA statute says in it, ‘not withstanding all of the rules above and below.’ The President of the United States can order surveillance on any person in the United States in conjunction with a certificate or a certification filed by the Attorney General.”

Napolitano admits that it’s legal but not constitutional from his point of view, describing it as “profoundly unconstitutional but it is legal because the statute says it. So think about this, if you’re Barack Obama and you have the ability by making a phone call to hear what Donald Trump is saying, are you going to bother with trying to get a warrant? Why would you get the warrant?”

National security expert Jim Hanson stated:

“The bottom line is, they did wiretap Trump Tower. They tapped a server they thought was communicating somehow with Russia. This is a legitimate charge and we need a serious investigation.”

Former Bush AG Mike Mukasey believes Trump is correct about the tapping, as does former NSA employee/whistleblower William Binney, who stated:

Asked whether he believes the NSA is tapping Trump, Binney replied: “Absolutely. How did they get the phone call between the president and the president of Australia? Or the one that he made with Mexico? Those are not targeted foreigners.”

Corey Lewandowski asserts the Obama administration wiretapped then-sitting Senator Jeff Sessions in 2016.

Please consider: how did anyone know the context of Michael Flynn’s phone calls from the Trump tower absent a wiretap? How did anyone know the context of President Trump’s phone calls to Australian Prime Minister Malcolm Turnbull absent a wiretap?

How?

The shoe is now on the other foot with regard to the Demorats, Leftists, American Media Maggots and, more pointedly, on Barack Hussein Obama.

All of this is occurring predominantly because President Trump fundamentally threatens the sinecure of all the DC bureaucrats making bank on jobs that produce nothing but yield financial splendor and fiscal independence for life. Mel Brooks, from the film Blazing Saddles, sums it up best.

In the midst of an incredibly-serious election, to wiretap the communications of the leading Republican candidate for President of the United States?

Remember, Captain Kirk’s last words on film were: “Oh my.”

BZ

P.S.

Who says the actors responsible for the wiretapping went through a FISA court anyway?

 

Trump’s mistake: he kept Comey

[Note: I have been away from blogging and my various radio broadcasts since last Sunday, due to the fact that I was smacked with the flu. My apologies. I will be attempting to ramp things up as the days go on.]

When I voted for Donald Trump I did so with my eyes wide open. My vote was cast primarily because he was not Hillary Clinton or Bernie Sanders. I also voted for Trump because I sensed he would make more sensible nominations for SCOTUS; first to replace Antonin Scalia then to fill what I suspect will be another two to possibly three additional jurists in the next four years.

I’ll be honest. I can only hope that SCOTUS truly is stacked with moderate or conservative jurists that will keep the court on a common sense track for at least another generation, perhaps two.

As an adult I knew Trump would do things with which I’d disagree. He has done so. From the WashingtonPost.com:

FBI Director James Comey to stay on in Trump administration

by Matt Zapotosky, Ellen Nakashima and Greg Miller

FBI Director James B. Comey was among the senior U.S. officials who had the unpleasant task of traveling to Trump Tower last month to inform the president-elect that Russia had interfered in the election process to help him win office.

Then Comey asked his colleagues — including the CIA director — to step outside so that he could discuss something even more awkward: a dossier in wide circulation in Washington that alleged that Moscow had gathered compromising financial, political and personal material about the incoming U.S. president.

That Comey was asked after that encounter, described by U.S. officials briefed on its details, to stay on as FBI director speaks to his survival instincts and ability to inspire confidence. But the meeting may also have provided a preview of the perilous position he occupies serving in the Trump administration while his agents pursue investigations that seem to lead to the president’s associates.

That was a poor decision, Donald John Trump, and I believe you’ll regret it. Director Comey allows politics to intervene in critical decisions where politics should be the very last consideration. Case in point: Hillary Rodham Clinton.

Make no mistake. James Comey is a country-destroying weasel, first for not recommending the prosecution of Hillary Clinton, and second for not placing Hillary Clinton under oath or recording her in any fashion when interviewed on the July 4th weekend of 2016.  There is, thusly, no transcript of her interview. Though that’s general FBI policy, in this critical case, an exception should have been made.

To me it is quite clear that FBI Director James Comey, about whose probity I wrote quite a number of times on the blog, has dishonored his law enforcement oath, showing that he has no fidelity, no bravery and no integrity with regard to his decision to not recommend prosecution of Hillary Rodham Clinton.

But in the July 2016 hearing with Trey Gowdy and Jason Chaffetz as documented at Politico, James Comey revealed his flawed and craven, cowardly political thinking when one is familiar with law enforcement prosecutorial thresholds as I am. First:

Director Comey determined a manner in which to weasel his way out of recommending the prosecution of Clinton.  At one hearing he went out of his way — again, just like the previous day — to make his own case and then fall back on a position/decision that isn’t his to make.

FBI director: Clinton’s statements were not true

by Nick Gass

FBI Director James Comey confirmed on Thursday that some of Hillary Clinton’s statements and explanations about her email server to the House Benghazi Committee last October were not true, as evidenced by the bureau’s investigation into whether she mishandled classified information.

During an extended exchange with Rep. Trey Gowdy (R-S.C.), Comey affirmed that the FBI’s investigation found information marked classified on her server even after Clinton had said that she had neither sent nor received any items marked classified.

“That is not true,” Comey said. “There were a small number of portion markings on, I think, three of the documents.”

Asked whether Clinton’s testimony that she did not email “any classified material to anyone on my email” and “there is no classified material” was true, Comey responded, “No, there was classified material emailed.”

“Secretary Clinton said she used one device. Was that true?” Gowdy asked, to which Comey answered, “She used multiple devices during the four years of her term as secretary of state.”

Comey admits that Clinton lied.  But here is the difference (that we won’t know precisely because there was no oath and no recording).

You can lie publicly all you want, if people are sufficiently stupid to believe it — like much of the electorate and the American Media Maggots are doltish enough.  But you should not lie to the FBI.  My guess is that Hillary Clinton came relatively clean in 3.5 hours.  And that is why I believe she was not placed under oath and the interview was not recorded.  Things like that make it easier to dispute later when politically necessary.  There is no record and it is not completely official.  As the Church Lady would have said, “how con-veee-nient.”

Gowdy asked whether Clintons’ lawyers read every one of her emails as she had said. Comey replied, “No.”

But here, ladies and gentlemen, comes the crux of the proverbial biscuit.  Please read this carefully, though through Gowdy’s bit of humor:

“In interest of time, because I have a plane to catch tomorrow afternoon, I’m not going to go through anymore of the false statements but I am going to ask you put on your old hat. False exculpatory statements, they are used for what?” Gowdy inquired.

Wait for it.

“Exactly. Intent and consciousness of guilt, right? Is that right?” Gowdy asked. “Consciousness of guilt and intent.”

Please read the rest of the article here, because we are going to jump to another Politico article.  Politico purposely does not let you make this link.  You have to be smarter than Politico and make the link as I now display to you.  We continue:

Comey: Clinton did not lie to the FBI

by Nick Gass

Hillary Clinton did not lie to FBI investigators during their probe into her use of a private server as secretary of state, FBI Director James Comey testified Thursday.

“We have no basis to conclude she lied to the FBI,” Comey told House Oversight Chairman Jason Chaffetz (R-Utah) during one of the hearing’s opening exchanges.

Chaffetz then asked whether Clinton lied to the public. “That’s a question I’m not qualified to answer. I can speak about what she said to the FBI,” Comey said.

Weasel words.  Mealy-mouthed.  Word pablum.  You cannot determine that Clinton lied to the public?  You just made your best case that she did.  If she didn’t lie to your agents under oath, and you’re unsure if she lied to the public, then why didn’t you simply say so?  Instead, you went out of your way to say the opposite.  Your statements are conflicting and make no sense whatsoever.

But the most insightful part has arrived.  Comey outs himself:

Chaffetz then asked whether it was that he was just not able to prosecute it or that Clinton broke the law.

“Well, I don’t want to give an overly lawyerly answer,” Comey said. “The question I always look at is there evidence that would establish beyond a reasonable doubt that somebody engaged in conduct that violated a criminal statute, and my judgment here is there is not. “

And that was how James Comey attempted to rationalize his decision.  He stated he did not believe his case established guilt “beyond a reasonable doubt.”

NEWSFLASH: It is not UP to YOU, Director Comey, to assemble a case that yields a determination of “beyond a reasonable doubt.”  That threshold is up to the DOJ or more pointedly a Grand Jury, not you or your organization.  All you need to compile a case for submission is “probable cause.”  That’s what real cops and real DAs in America do.  Their jobs.  They stay in their lanes and do their jobs.

As I have said time and again, there are two kinds of crimes as written by statute: those of general intent and those of specific intent. Comey stated that HRC had to have possessed a very specific intent to commit her crimes. EXCEPT that the US codes applicable are not those of specific intent because they do not include the phrase “with the intent to.”

That is how a crime of specific intent is crafted. It is stated.

Even more disturbing: Attorney General Lynch did not recuse herself from the final decision on whether to prosecute the case — nor did she give that decision to a career prosecutor at the Department of Justice. She instead prejudged the case by supposedly blindly accepting the FBI’s recommendation. She stepped back and placed the festering pile of shite in the lap of Comey.

FBI Director James Comey figured out how to cover his own ass by revealing some truths about Hillary Clinton whilst simultaneously making nice with those in DC power positions who could hurt him seriously.  This is Comey’s false justification for his decision.  And it is clearly wrong and damaging.  He created his “out.”

Or did he just believe he “took one for the team”?

In my opinion: no.  He dishonored his oath.

Agents were directed to identify exculpatory instead of incriminatory evidence in the Hillary Rodham Clinton illegal server email case “conducted” by the FBI.

And trust me: that grated in the craw of every good line-level FBI agent remotely connected with the investigation.

As it grates with regard to DOJ special agents and some of the attorneys who aren’t yet full Leftist sycophants.

From FoxNews.com:

FBI, DOJ roiled by Comey, Lynch decision to let Clinton slide by on emails, says insider

by Malia Zimmerman and Adam Housley

The decision to let Hillary Clinton off the hook for mishandling classified information has roiled the FBI and Department of Justice, with one person closely involved in the year-long probe telling FoxNews.com that career agents and attorneys on the case unanimously believed the Democratic presidential nominee should have been charged.

The source, who spoke to FoxNews.com on the condition of anonymity, said FBI Director James Comey’s dramatic July 5 announcement that he would not recommend to the Attorney General’s office that the former secretary of state be charged left members of the investigative team dismayed and disgusted. More than 100 FBI agents and analysts worked around the clock with six attorneys from the DOJ’s National Security Division, Counter Espionage Section, to investigate the case.

“No trial level attorney agreed, no agent working the case agreed, with the decision not to prosecute — it was a top-down decision,” said the source, whose identity and role in the case has been verified by FoxNews.com.

Read that again: “No trial level attorney, no agent working the case agree, with the decision not to prosecute — it was a top-down decision.”

Precisely. That decision came directly from the Oval Office via a telephone call to Loretta Lynch and then a call to Director James Comey. It all dovetails and ties up neatly. I wrote about “connecting the dots” of corruption in the Obama administration here. Please take time to read the article — it explains most everything you’ve seen and heard.

Comey can’t stand political or personal heat. From anyone. He instead wants to please everyone, somehow keep his job, and does real justice no service whatsoever. If there ever were an indecisive, cowardly and misdirected man, it is James Brien Comey.

A) Following his July decision to forego a recommendation of either an indictment or a grand jury impaneled regarding Hillary Clinton’s private server and disregard for US security and intelligence protocols (not to mention laws), FBI Director James Comey created a firestorm not just within his own agency but the American public — and it affected his private as well as public or work life. Letters of resignation from good and true FBI line level agents began to pile up on his desk, and even Comey’s wife Pat told him he must make amends.

B) Under mounting pressure, on October 28th Director Comey indicated he was re-opening the investigation into more of Hillary Clinton’s emails — an estimated 650,000 of them, stemming from the examination of a case involving Anthony Wiener, husband of Huma Abedin, close assistant and confidant of HRC. The American Media Maggots and the Clinton campaigners moo’d in unison: “bad decision, Jim, bad decision.”

C) Following his determination to re-open the Clinton email case, the OSC (Office of Special Counsel) received complaints about Director Comey regarding violations of the Hatch Act, which is a “law designed to prevent federal officeholders from abusing their power to influence an election.” This complaint was filed Saturday, October 29th with the OSC by lawyer Richard Painter.

D) Nine short days later, armed with a team of miracle workers, FBI Director James Comey reaffirmed his original July decision: yeppers, nothing to see here. No corruption, no collusion, move along. The American Media Maggots and the Clinton campaigners moo’d again in unison: “great decision, Jim, great decision.”

You cannot convince me that James Comey can take political heat. He has instead bent and broken to whatever prevailing political prairie winds were coursing through DC at any given time. He is still sitting in a dark leather chair in his corner orifice whilst the bulk of his peers have left DC — including former AGs Holder and Lynch, as well as the former president. Comey, by appearing confused and/or conciliatory and utilizing his finest set of pablum-packed weasel words, is still standing.

Comey vacillates, he is a flawed thinker, and has proven that he is untrustworthy. Those are now his best qualities.

You keep Comey, President Trump, at your own peril.

Be forewarned, President Trump.

BZ

 

Cops despised, ambushed, killed = rising crime

And yes, there is a correlation.

Let’s first listen to America’s Sheriff, David Clarke.

Sheriff Clarke: Look, this guy continually for eight years has rubbed the stain of slavery,  has rubbed white people’s nose in the stain of slavery. He’s done it for eight years. He’s about 150 years removed from slavery. Nobody said forget about it but you have to move on at some point and he will not allow America to do that. And until he leaves the White House we’re going to continue to have to put up with this nonsense. People are tired of it, they’ve proved it on November 8th that Latinos, black people, white people, and other ethnicities have said we’ve had enough of this racial divide in America, and they really want to move on from it. But this president will not allow them to do that.

Obama has consistently taken the immediate side of American blacks. From, first, 2009:

“But I think it’s fair to say, No. 1, any of us would be pretty angry; No. 2, that the Cambridge police acted stupidly in arresting somebody when there was already proof that they were in their own home; and, No. 3 … that there’s a long history in this country of African-Americans and Latinos being stopped by law enforcement disproportionately.”

The part the American Media Maggots conveniently forgot to include:

“I don’t know, not having been there and not seeing all the facts, what role race played,” Obama said Wednesday night while taking questions after a White House news conference.

But that’s okay, the Divider-In-Chief had a job to do and a meme to follow. The American Media Maggots owed total obeisance and provided same, blindly and without question.

What was later said:

The President has acknowledged that he fueled the controversy when he said that the police “acted stupidly” for arresting Prof Gates after he protested vociferously about Sgt Crowley’s actions during a burglary investigation.

Despite that, black Communist Van Jones said

Van Jones: The right wing and the law enforcement establishment brought the wrath of God down on the White House. I was there, and suddenly he’s (Obama) forced to do a beer summit to sit eye-to-eye with a racist police officer. As a black man, even the most powerful man in the world cannot speak about race and, if he does, he’s then forced to sit humbly across the table from a racist police officer.

And therein the tone was set for eight extremely difficult and costly years. Barack Hussein Obama sought not to unite, but to divide on as many levels as he could construct.

As the Divider-In-Chief, Obama’s entire agenda revolved around striating people by class, sex, race, religion, earnings, region, state, city, county, clothing, music, laws, wages, bathroom, healthcare, culture, employment, family, mode of transport, piercings, energy consumption, food, cable channels watched, tattoos, light bulbs, media consumed, social settings, the way you view America, even your writings, statements and thoughts.

Then let’s examine the cold, hard statistics.

From the ChicagoTribune.com:

Few answers as Chicago hit with worst violence in nearly 20 years

by Jeremy Gorner

A persistent reality for some of Chicago’s toughest neighborhoods, violence unnerved far reaches of the city in 2016 as shootings and homicides soared. Not since the drug-fueled bloodshed of the mid-1990s had the city witnessed such a toll.

Some neighborhoods, already scarred and gutted by years of violence, suffered inordinately. But the danger spread into more neighborhoods, too, and randomness became an all-too-familiar element to many shootings.

Grim milestones added up: The deadliest month in 23 years. The deadliest day in 13 years. 4,300 people shot. As the year wound down, with the promise of a new year coming soon, a violent Christmas Day.

Perhaps it might be said that Leftist and Demorat policies are finally catching up with reality.

In 2016, about 91 percent of Chicago’s homicides were committed with a firearm, up from 88 percent last year, the study showed. When you compare that with 1998, the last time Chicago recorded over 700 homicides, about 76 percent of those victims were killed with guns, official Police Department statistics show.

Los Angeles’ homicides committed with guns averaged 72 percent from 2011 to 2015, and 60 percent in New York City, the study noted.

Then there is this.

Looking back to 1998, when Chicago recorded 704 homicides, the city was in the midst of a homicide decline from more than 900 earlier in the decade. The turn of the millennium saw a bottoming out, with homicides dropping to 453 at the end of 2004 — around the time the Police Department began relying on computerized data to know where to deploy officers where they’re needed the most. The tally rose again somewhat, then went down again in 2014, when the city recorded 416 slayings.

Continue reading. About this time you should be asking yourself one profound and fundamental question. Yet let us continue, from the AP.org:

1 of Chicago’s bloodiest years ends with 762 homicides

by Don Babwin

CHICAGO (AP) — One of the most violent years in Chicago history ended with a sobering tally: 762 homicides, the most in two decades in the city and more than New York and Los Angeles combined.

Please let that brain-soak a moment. More than NY and LA combined.

From the LATimes.com:

Violent crime in L.A. jumps for third straight year as police deal with gang, homeless issues

by Cindy Chang and Maya Lau

Violent crime increased in Los Angeles for the third straight year as police tried to stem a rash of homicides and gang-related shootings while dealing with a growing homeless population.

With more than 290 people killed in the city this year, homicides also rose for the third year in a row. Still, the city remains far safer than a decade ago, when 480 people were killed and there were 46% more robberies than this year.

Relatively speaking, Los Angeles doesn’t have shite on the major eastern high-rise, high-population, low-footprint, urban rat cages because it is so spread out. Except:

According to statistics from the Los Angeles Police Department, robberies were up by 13%, aggravated assaults were up by 10% and rapes were down by 4% through Dec. 17, compared with the same period last year. Homicides were up by 5%.

Overall, violent crime was up by 10% over last year and 38% over two years ago.

Imagine that. After the passage of AB 109, Prop 47 and Prop 57, Californians are shocked — shocked, I tell you — that crime is rising.

Marijuana is lawful. The threshold for property crimes amounting to a felony has risen from $400 to $950. Stealing a firearm out of a car is only — ho-hum — a misdemeanor. Property crime is therefore rising. Juvenile prostitution is now legal. California cities exist as social petri-dish experiments where actual citizen safety and common decency is secondary. Disdain for any form of authority is likewise rising.

The once-beautiful city of San Francisco is now a piss-and-shite-ridden open-air toilet. Courts in SF are ignoring — literally — thousands of quality of life citations issued by the SFPD because to support those summonses would be harsh and judgmental.

A year ago, the Superior Court judges who hear such cases stopped issuing bench warrants for no-show defendants. And just last month, Judge Christopher Hite in the court’s traffic division — where quality-of-life citations are handled — flushed all 64,713 outstanding warrants that had been issued for such cases from January 2011 through October 2015.

The judge who did that, by the way, is a former public defender. Please commence with the “I didn’t see that coming” comments.

What might that make the officers issuing those citations think? Perhaps that their work is unvalued, completely disregarded? Perhaps law enforcement might be realizing that “if that’s the kind of law enforcement you want, that’s the kind of law enforcement you’re going to get”?

The anti-police climate is clearly emboldening criminals of all stripes, from murderers to anarchists to teenagers.

I can tell you unequivocally why crime in certain cities and areas is rising. There are currently over 20 agencies being monitored by the feds and operating under a consent decree. Law enforcement agencies nationwide are being told that they “over-police.” They are being told they cannot stop and frisk. Their administrations are, because of social politics, becoming indifferent. Support is vanishing. Cops are guilty first. Micromanaging is the norm. Discretion is removed. Public concern for the lives of LEOs is not as strong as its concern for the lives of suspects.

Additionally, ambushes of police are at their highest in over a decade, more than 20 deaths in 2016 due to ambush. This helps to create a climate where people feel justified in assaulting law enforcement officers. People are beginning to think they possess not just a right but a duty to resist any form of arrest or hands-on involvement by law enforcement.

A bulletin last week by the Bureau of Justice Assistance, a federal agency that supports local police departments, counted the number of officers killed by ambush as 20 so far this year, up from six in 2015. Organizations that record police officer deaths, such as the FBI and the National Law Enforcement Officers Memorial Fund, vary in their exact numbers, but all agree that fatal ambush attacks have reached the highest level in more than ten years.

Consequently, because of directives and the obvious, officers are pulling back from what is known as “self-initiated activity.”

Yes, officers are handling the calls to which they are dispatched with professionalism and integrity, but in terms of digging into the neighborhood or the community, they have withdrawn because they have been told explicitly to do so by their administrators, and/or via pressure from community leaders, societal pressure, and self-interest.

Crime rates and statistics are also trending up because of little follow-up by prosecutors on impolitical cases, and by recent propositions and laws that have decriminalized some acts, reduced them from felonies to misdemeanors, or eliminated them wholesale. I again point out AB 109, Prop 47 and Prop 57 in California. Property crimes and crimes involving drugs have skyrocketed because criminals are not stupid.

Law enforcement officers realize they are already targeted for ambush, injury and death. Their situations are to the point where they must recognize and handle not only officer survival but, examining the long run, career survival. Just like anyone else they have bills to pay, mortgages, families, children, personal obligations.

UNITED STATES – JANUARY 5: A controversial painting by Missouri student David Pulphus depicting police as animals hangs in the tunnel connecting the U.S. Capitol to the Cannon House Office building as part of the annual student art exhibit on Thursday, Jan. 5, 2017. The painting was selected as the 2016 Congressional Art Competition winner from Rep. William Lacy Clay’s district in the St. Louis area. (Photo By Bill Clark/CQ Roll Call)

I wonder why law enforcement thinks this painting, created by a black NFL player, might be offensive and denigrates officers nationwide?

I have always said that America gets the kind of policing it deserves. The Ferguson Effect truly does exist and was acknowledged by FBI’s Director James Comey.

Cops are human. They respond to pressure and directives. They also want to go home to their families and loved ones at the end of watch. Accused of over-policing? Yes, many are saying, we are responding to your demands.

Yes, there is a correlation. It pleases Leftists but, perhaps soon, they may not be quite so pleased.

Prognostications for 2017?

Cloudy, with a chance of severe turbulence.

BZ