Thread: Obama Wire-Tapped Trump at Trump Tower Before the Election!!

Jeanine Pirro
@JudgeJeanine

#Justice exclusive! Kellyanne Conway LIVE answering my Q's about Pres. Trump’s charges. #Justice TONIGHT at 9pm EST on @FoxNews! pic.twitter.com/sX77G6qJGt
12:22 PM - 4 Mar 2017


Twitter
By: Jeanine Pirro @JudgeJeanine

https://mobile.twitter.com/JudgeJean...917313/photo/1

Ann Coulter
@AnnCoulter
37m
WaPo: Trump "Cites no Evidence." "Cites No Evidence" is also WaPo's new slogan.
View details ·



Ann Coulter
@AnnCoulter
38m
NYT: Trump gives no evidence Obama tapped phone. Who does he think he is? The NYT?
View details ·



Ann Coulter
@AnnCoulter
38m
NYT: Trump gives no evidence Obama tapped phone. You know, like the NYT has given no evidence Trump colluded with Russians.
View details ·

https://mobile.twitter.com/AnnCoulter/

Thank you!!!

Sean Hannity
@seanhannity
1m
The Alt Left Propaganda media will run with every leak to help distract from Obamas & Co's role in spying on @POTUS @realDonaldTrump twitter.com/valeriejarrett…
View details ·



Sean Hannity
@seanhannity
3m
On radio I have discussed the "Shadow Government" "Deep state swamp of Obama holdovers and DC lifers" watch for Tons of leaks this week!!!!! twitter.com/valeriejarrett…
View details ·



Sean Hannity
@seanhannity
2h
Attention Irredeemable Deplorable twitter peeps. Should we start a pool on when @LindseyGrahamSC officially becomes a democrat? twitter.com/mediaite/statu…
View details ·



Sean Hannity
@seanhannity
2h
That's what I was saying!! twitter.com/pallamus/statu…
View details ·



Sean Hannity retweeted
Kerry Picket
@KerryPicket
Mar 3
Obama State Department Set Up Russian Ambassador Meeting With Sessions At RNC dailycaller.com/2017/03/03/oba… via @dailycaller
View summary ·



Sean Hannity
@seanhannity
2h
Must read!! twitter.com/its_thereale/s…
View details ·



Sean Hannity
@seanhannity
3h
Why with only 14 days left did OBAMA expand the power of the NSA to share intercepted personal communications with 16 other agencies? twitter.com/valeriejarrett…
View details ·



Sean Hannity
@seanhannity
3h
Did you, Obama, or anyone associated with the administration have a role in leaking the Buzzfeed/CNN dossier that we know had false info? twitter.com/valeriejarrett…
View details ·



Sean Hannity
@seanhannity
3h
It looks like BHO, Ben Rhodes, Valerie and some in the intelligence community have a lot of explaining to do. Surveillance of Opposition? twitter.com/valeriejarrett…
View details ·



Sean Hannity
@seanhannity
3h
After a FISA request is first denied, then a second one is filed and no evidence is found, why did the Government of BHO keep surveillance? twitter.com/valeriejarrett…
View details ·



Sean Hannity
@seanhannity
3h
That July request was denied. Then another FISA request was filed in October, no evidence was found but the wiretaps continued. Why Valerie? twitter.com/valeriejarrett…
View details ·



Sean Hannity
@seanhannity
3h
June 2016: FISA request. The Obama administration files a request with the FISA court to monitor communications involving Donald Trump-- Y? twitter.com/valeriejarrett…
View details ·



Sean Hannity
@seanhannity
3h
Valerie did OBAMA have knowledge of the FISA warrant requests? Did you have knowledge of this? Ben Rhodes? Did the WH coordinate with anyone twitter.com/valeriejarrett…
View details ·



Sean Hannity
@seanhannity
3h
Valerie, who asked for the FISA warrant and Y? What did OBAMA know and when did he know it? Maybe you can knock on his door and ask. twitter.com/valeriejarrett…
View details ·



Sean Hannity
@seanhannity
8h
What did OBAMA know and when did he know it?? twitter.com/realdonaldtrum…
View details ·



https://mobile.twitter.com/SeanHannity

Dan Scavino Jr.
@DanScavino
3h
Mark Levin to Congress: Investigate Obama’s ‘Silent Coup’ vs. Trump: breitbart.com/big-government…
View summary ·



Dan Scavino Jr.
@DanScavino
3h
FISA and the Trump Team: google.com/amp/s/bc.marfe…
View summary ·


https://mobile.twitter.com/DanScavino

FISA and the Trump Team


The idea that FISA could be used against political enemies always seemed far-fetched. Now it might not be.

By Andrew C. McCarthy — January 11, 2017


Remember the great debate over “the Wall” following the 9/11 attacks? “The Wall” was a set of internal guidelines that had been issued by the Clinton Justice Department in the mid 1990s. In a nutshell, the Wall made it legally difficult and practically impossible for agents in the FBI’s Foreign Counter-Intelligence Division (essentially, our domestic-security service, now known as the National Security Division) to share intelligence with the criminal-investigation side of the FBI’s house. Those of us who were critics of the Wall — and I was a strenuous one, beginning in my days as a terrorism prosecutor who personally experienced its suicidal applications — made several arguments against it.



My favorite argument, which I have repeated countless times, centered on how preposterous were the underlying assumptions of the Wall. This was far easier for prosecutors than journalists, academics, and the public to grasp, because we dealt with the Justice Department’s different chains of command for criminal and national-security investigations.



Alas, after 20 years, I may have to revise my thinking.



The theory of the Clinton DOJ brass in imposing the Wall was the potential that a rogue criminal investigator, lacking sufficient evidence to obtain a traditional wiretap, would manufacture a national-security angle in order to get a wiretap under the 1978 Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA). A traditional wiretap requires evidence amounting to probable cause of commission of a crime. A FISA wiretap requires no showing of a crime, just evidence amounting to probable cause that the target of the wiretap is an agent of a foreign power. (A foreign power can be another country or a foreign terrorist organization.)


The reason the Wall theory was absurd was that a rogue agent would surely manufacture evidence of a crime before he’d manufacture a national-security angle. The process of getting a traditional wiretap is straightforward: FBI crim-div agents and a district assistant U.S. attorney (AUSA) write the supporting affidavit; it gets approved by the AUSA’s supervisors; then it is submitted to the Justice Department’s electronic-surveillance unit; after that unit’s approval, the attorney general’s designee signs off; then the AUSA and the FBI present the application to a district judge. FISA wiretaps, by contrast, go through a completely different, more difficult and remote chain of command. In it, the district AUSA and FBI crim-div agents who started the investigation get cut out of the process, which is taken over by Main Justice’s National Security Division and the FBI’s national-security agents. In other words, if we assume an agent is inclined to be a rogue, it would be far easier (and less likely of detection) to trump up evidence of a crime in order to satisfy the probable-cause standard for a traditional wiretap than to manufacture a national-security threat in order to get a FISA wiretap. No rational rogue would do it.



But now, let’s consider the press reports — excerpted in David French’s Corner post — that claim that the Obama Justice Department and the FBI sought FISA warrants against Trump insiders, and potentially against Donald Trump himself, during the last months and weeks of the presidential campaign. It’s an interesting revelation, particularly in light of last fall’s media consternation over “banana republic” tactics against political adversaries, triggered by Trump’s vow to appoint a special prosecutor to investigate serious allegations of criminal misconduct against Hillary Clinton — consternation echoed by Senate Democrats during Tuesday’s confirmation hearing for attorney-general nominee Jeff Sessions.



From the three reports, from the Guardian, Heat Street, and the New York Times, it appears the FBI had concerns about a private server in Trump Tower that was connected to one or two Russian banks. Heat Street describes these concerns as centering on “possible financial and banking offenses.” I italicize the word “offenses” because it denotes crimes. Ordinarily, when crimes are suspected, there is a criminal investigation, not a national-security investigation.


According to the New York Times (based on FBI sources), the FBI initially determined that the Trump Tower server did not have “any nefarious purpose.” But then, Heat Street says, “the FBI’s counter-intelligence arm, sources say, re-drew an earlier FISA court request around possible financial and banking offenses related to the server.”


Again, agents do not ordinarily draw FISA requests around possible crimes. Possible crimes prompt applications for regular criminal wiretaps because the objective is to prosecute any such crimes in court. (It is rare and controversial to use FISA wiretaps in criminal prosecutions.) FISA applications, to the contrary, are drawn around people suspected of being operatives of a (usually hostile) foreign power.


The Heat Street report continues:



The first [FISA] request, which, sources say, named Trump, was denied back in June, but the second was drawn more narrowly and was granted in October after evidence was presented of a server, possibly related to the Trump campaign, and its alleged links to two banks; [sic] SVB Bank and Russia’s Alfa Bank. While the Times story speaks of metadata, sources suggest that a FISA warrant was granted to look at the full content of emails and other related documents that may concern US persons.


(A “US person” is a citizen or lawful permanent resident alien. Such people normally may not be subjected to searches or electronic eavesdropping absent probable cause of a crime; an exception is FISA, which — to repeat — allows such investigative tactics if there is probable cause that they are agents of a foreign power.)


Obviously, we haven’t seen the FBI affidavits (assuming they actually exist), and we do not know lots of other relevant facts. What we have, however, suggests that someone at the FBI initially had concerns that banking laws were being violated, but when the Bureau looked into it, investigators found no crimes were being committed. Rather than drop the matter for lack of evidence of criminal offenses, the Justice Department and FBI pursued it as a national-security investigation.



In June, an initial FISA affidavit (obviously prepared by the FBI and the Justice Department’s National Security Division) was submitted to the FISA court. It is said to have “named Trump” — but we don’t know whether that means (a) his name merely came up somewhere in the text of the affidavit or (b) he was an actual target whom the government wanted to investigate under FISA (meaning eavesdrop, read e-mail, and the like).


Even though the FISA standard is generally thought to be less demanding than the traditional wiretap standard (it is easier to show that someone may be colluding in some way with a foreign government than that he has committed a crime), the FISA court rejected the application that “named Trump.”


Five months later, the Justice Department and FBI submitted a second, more “narrowly” drawn affidavit to the FISA court. The way the Heat Street report is written intimates that Trump is not named in this October application for FISA surveillance. The tie to Trump also appears weak: Heat Street says the FISA court was presented with evidence of a server “possibly related” to the Trump campaign and its “alleged links” to two Russian banks.


To summarize, it appears there were no grounds for a criminal investigation of banking violations against Trump. Presumably based on the fact that the bank or banks at issue were Russian, the Justice Department and the FBI decided to continue investigating on national-security grounds. A FISA application in which Trump was “named” was rejected by the FISA court as overbroad, notwithstanding that the FISA court usually looks kindly on government surveillance requests. A second, more narrow application, apparently not naming Trump, may have been granted five months later; the best the media can say about it, however, is that the server on which the application centers is “possibly” related to the Trump campaign’s “alleged” links to two Russian banks — under circumstances in which the FBI has previously found no “nefarious purpose” in some (undescribed) connection between Trump Tower and at least one Russian bank (whose connection to Putin’s regime is not described).



That is tissue-thin indeed. It’s a good example of why investigations properly proceed in secret and are not publicly announced unless and until the government is ready to put its money where its mouth is by charging someone. It’s a good example of why FISA surveillance is done in secret and its results are virtually never publicized — the problem is not just the possibility of tipping off the hostile foreign power; there is also the potential of tainting U.S. persons who may have done nothing wrong. While it’s too early to say for sure, it may also be an example of what I thought would never actually happen: the government pretextually using its national-security authority to continue a criminal investigation after determining it lacked evidence of crimes.



http://www.nationalreview.com/articl...-trump-wiretap

Trump and His Team are INNOCENT!!

Obama and His Obmaites are GUILTY AS SIN!!

TRUMP: 'SICK' OBAMA HAD MY 'PHONES TAPPED IN TRUMP TOWER'


Ex-president denies, but NSA doesn't need FISA approval to wiretap

March 4, 2017



President Donald Trump shattered Saturday morning’s news cycle with a series of tweets accusing former-President Obama with tapping his phones in Trump Tower prior to the election.




“Terrible! Just found out that Obama had my ‘wires tapped’ in Trump Tower just before the victory. Nothing found. This is McCarthyism,” Trump tweeted.



“Is it legal for a sitting President to be ‘wire tapping’ a race for president prior to an election? Turned down by court earlier. A NEW LOW!” he said later.


Trump tweeted that a “good lawyer could make a great case of the fact that President Obama was tapping my phones in October, just prior to Election!


“How low has President Obama gone to tap (sic) my phones during the very sacred election process. This is Nixon/Watergage. Bad (or sick) guy!” Trump charged.


While Trump did not provide a source for his claim, Fox News pointed to a Friday Breitbart story that said the Obama administration made two Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court (FISA) requests in 2016 to monitor Trump communications and a computer server in Trump Tower in connection with claims of the Republican candidate’s links to Russia and Russian banks, in particular.


Spokesmen for Obama were quick to respond.


“Neither President Obama nor any White House official ever ordered surveillance on any U.S. citizen. Any suggestion otherwise is simply false,” said Kevin Lewis, a spokesman for Obama.


“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,” he added.


Ben Rhodes, a former foreign-policy adviser for Obama, also took issue with Trump’s charge, tweeting, “No president can order a wiretap. Those restrictions were put in place to protect citizens from people like you.”


However, earlier evidence of NSA spying on American citizens calls into question the Obama spokesmen’s protestations, even if technically correct.


Like the reporting you see here? Sign up for free news alerts from WND.com, America’s independent news network.


WND reported in 2013 on congressional hearings where then-Director of National Intelligence James Clapper apologized for lying to Congress over his agency’s surveillance of American citizens.


Technically, a FISA warrant is required to intentionally target the communications of American citizens or people inside the U.S.


When the NSA does get a warrant from the FISA court it can resemble a blank check.


In the case of a 2010 warrant obtained by the London Guardian, the warrant was only one-paragraph long and did not contain detailed legal rulings or explanations.


Signed by a FISA judge, it simply declared “the procedures submitted by the attorney general on behalf of the NSA are consistent with U.S. law and the fourth amendment.”


The procedures let analysts decide for themselves if a person is located overseas, if the agency has no specific information on the target’s location.


The NSA is supposed to use a variety of resources including IP addresses, public information and information from other agencies to determine if the potential target is located outside the U.S.


But, even if it later turns out the target was located in the U.S., analysts are still permitted to listen to calls and look at messages to verify the location.


And warrants aren’t even used to obtain the bulk of the data collected.


ONE NATION UNDER SURVEILLANCE: “Big Brother is watching” in ways Orwell never dreamed


The reason the discretion of the NSA analysts is so broad seems to stem from Section 702 of the FISA Amendments Act (FAA), which was renewed for five years last December.


It allows the NSA to collect large scale data from any country, as long as the target is believed to be overseas.


Former NSA contractor James Snowden, who revealed the data-collection program, claims even low-level analysts at the NSA can access the content of Americans’ phone calls and emails whenever they want without a warrant.


His claims appear to be backed up by documents obtained by the London Guardian and the Washington Post.


The papers reported two documents submitted to the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court (FISA) court by Attorney General Eric Holder on July 29, 2009, detailed the procedures the NSA is to follow to minimize the collection of data on U.S. citizens.


But it showed loopholes so broad the NSA could still collect domestic communications and use them for any number of reasons.


The documents reportedly show the NSA’s own analysts have the power to decide who to target for surveillance without going to the courts or even their superiors.


The guidelines are supposed to provide procedures for guarding Americans’ privacy but they also give the NSA the latitude to keep information obtained by surveillance under certain conditions.


That includes when the information contains “significant foreign intelligence”, evidence of a crime, a threat to harm people or property or is believed be relevant to cybersecurity.


The classified documents also show the NSA’s own guidelines allow analysts to collect and keep the contents of phone calls and emails of American citizens and legal residents under a “wide range of circumstances,” according to the Washington Post.


President Obama has also claimed the NSA does not look at the contents of emails and phone calls unless it goes to a FISA judge and obtains a warrant.


He said the NSA activities “do not involve listening to people’s phone calls, do not involve reading the emails of U.S. citizens or U.S. residents, absent further action by a federal court, that is entirely consistent with what we would do, for example, in a criminal investigation.”


But, as WND reported in June 2013, a key Democrat revealed the president’s account is not accurate.


Rep. Jerrold Nadler, D-N.Y., said he was “startled” to learn NSA analysts can decide for themselves whether to access the content of a domestic phone call.


Nadler emerged from a secret briefing for members of Congress and said the NSA allows analysts to listen to calls without court authorization.


He said the NSA accesses the contents of phone calls “simply based on an analyst deciding that.”


The legal standards for monitoring phone calls also apply to emails, text messages and instant messages, which means the NSA also may be accessing the content of those communications without court authorization.


Declan McCullagh of CNET broke the story and observed, “[I]t also suggests the Justice Department has secretly interpreted federal surveillance law to permit thousands of low-ranking analysts to eavesdrop on phone calls.”


Additionally, the Post disclosed the existence of NUCLEON, a top-secret NSA program which “intercepts telephone calls and routes the spoken words” to a database.


The paper reported top intelligence officials in Obama administration “have resolutely refused to offer an estimate of the number of Americans whose calls or e-mails have thus made their way into content databases such as NUCLEON”.

http://www.wnd.com/2017/03/trump-sic...n-trump-tower/

Oh my God, they've all been lying to US all this time.

Obama Staffers Decline to Rule Out Trump Tower Wiretap


Posted By Kathryn Blackhurst On March 4, 2017



A spokesman for former President Barack Obama responded to President Donald Trump’s accusations of wiretapping in a statement Saturday, saying that “neither President Obama nor any White House official ever ordered surveillance on any U.S. citizen.”


The statement failed to indicate whether or not there could be any truth to Department of Justice or FBI wiretaps on communications to and from Trump Tower during the 2016 election — an omission that left the political world ablaze with speculation Saturday.


“How low has President Obama gone to tapp my phones during the very sacred election process. This is Nixon/Watergate. Bad (or sick) guy!”


The speculation was fueled further when a former speechwriter for Obama warned the media not to suggest the former president was denying the existence of election-time surveillance on Trump.


“I’d be careful about reporting that Obama said there was no wiretapping. Statement just said that neither he nor the WH ordered it,” tweeted former Obama communications staffer Jon Favreau Saturday.


I'd be careful about reporting that Obama said there was no wiretapping. Statement just said that neither he nor the WH ordered it.


— Jon Favreau (@jonfavs) March 4, 2017 [1]
Trump first made waves in the early hours of the morning Saturday morning by firing off a series of tweets alleging his predecessor "had my 'wires tapped' in Trump Tower" during the presidential campaign.


"Terrible! Just found out that Obama had my 'wires tapped' in Trump Tower just before the victory. Nothing found. This is McCarthyism!" Trump tweeted. "Is it legal for a sitting President to be 'wire tapping' a race for president prior to an election? Turned down by court earlier. A NEW LOW!"


Terrible! Just found out that Obama had my "wires tapped" in Trump Tower just before the victory. Nothing found. This is McCarthyism!


— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) March 4, 2017 [2]
Is it legal for a sitting President to be "wire tapping" a race for president prior to an election? Turned down by court earlier. A NEW LOW!


— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) March 4, 2017 [3]
"I'd bet a good lawyer could make a great case out of the fact that President Obama was tapping my phones in October, just prior to Election!" Trump added. "How low has President Obama gone to tap my phones during the very sacred election process. This is Nixon/Watergate. Bad (or sick) guy!"


I'd bet a good lawyer could make a great case out of the fact that President Obama was tapping my phones in October, just prior to Election!


— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) March 4, 2017 [4]
How low has President Obama gone to tapp my phones during the very sacred election process. This is Nixon/Watergate. Bad (or sick) guy!


— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) March 4, 2017 [5]
In response to Trump's allegations, Obama spokesman Kevin Lewis released a statement Saturday saying, "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."


In addition, Ben Rhodes, a former foreign policy adviser to Obama, tweeted earlier in the day, "No President can order a wiretap. Those restrictions were put in place to protect citizens from people like you."


No President can order a wiretap. Those restrictions were put in place to protect citizens from people like you. https://t.co/lEVscjkzSw [6]


— Ben Rhodes (@brhodes) March 4, 2017 [7]
Although Lewis claimed that neither Obama nor any White House officials under him ordered a wiretap on Trump, his statement neither explicitly confirmed nor denied whether or not Trump was under surveillance at any time.


"Obama spox: Trump’s allegation that Obama had him wiretapped is 'simply false' (Doesn't deny wiretapping happened—denies Obama ordered it)," Bradd Jaffy, a senior news editor and writer for NBC News, tweeted Saturday.


Obama spox: Trump’s allegation that Obama had him wiretapped is “simply false”


(Doesn't deny wiretapping happened—denies Obama ordered it) pic.twitter.com/0YyxhL1Twd [8]


— Bradd Jaffy (@BraddJaffy) March 4, 2017 [9]
Errol Barnett, a Washington correspondent for CBS News, also questioned the omission, tweeting, "Note that the statement does not deny a wiretapping of Trump tower, only that Pres. Obama didn't order it."


Note that the statement does not deny a wiretapping of Trump tower, only that Pres. Obama didn't order it.


— errol barnett (@errolbarnett) March 4, 2017 [10]
Trump's Saturday morning tweets came several days after the president said during an interview on "Fox & Friends" that he believed Obama and his officials potentially were behind the string of protests that have unfurled across the country in the wake of Trump's inauguration, as well as the recent onslaught of leaks that have been dogging the administration.


[11]
"I think that President Obama’s behind it because his people are certainly behind it," Trump said Tuesday. "And some of the leaks possibly come from that group, you know, some of the leaks – which are very serious leaks, because they’re very bad in terms of national security."


"But I also understand that’s politics," Trump added. "And in terms of him being behind things, that’s politics. And it will probably continue ... I’m not really surprised because I understand the way the world works. It’s politics. I mean I’m changing things that he’s wanted to do."


Although it is unclear exactly what transpired to prompt Trump to accuse his predecessor of monitoring him Saturday morning, the president may have been referring to an article published Friday by Breitbart analyzing a claim from conservative radio host Mark Levin alleging that the Obama administration applied for two Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court (FISA) requests in 2016 -- the vague purpose of those requests was reportedly to monitor Trump.

https://www.lifezette.com/polizette/...ampaign=buffer