Dog Brothers Public Forum

HOME | PUBLIC FORUM | MEMBERS FORUM | INSTRUCTORS FORUM | TRIBE FORUM

Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
July 24, 2017, 01:51:27 AM

Login with username, password and session length
Search:     Advanced search
Welcome to the Dog Brothers Public Forum.
103743 Posts in 2386 Topics by 1091 Members
Latest Member: Phorize
* Home Help Search Login Register
+  Dog Brothers Public Forum
|-+  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities
| |-+  Politics & Religion
| | |-+  The Trump-Russia Accusations and the possible Silent Coup
« previous next »
Pages: 1 [2] Print
Author Topic: The Trump-Russia Accusations and the possible Silent Coup  (Read 2187 times)
Crafty_Dog
Administrator
Power User
*****
Posts: 40597


« Reply #50 on: March 23, 2017, 07:19:41 PM »

http://www.msn.com/en-us/news/opinion/%E2%80%98there%E2%80%99s-a-smell-of-treason-in-the-air%E2%80%99/ar-BByCgjM?li=BBnb7Kz

PS:  He forgot to mention Teddy Kennedy and the Russians in 1979 or '80 and the accusations against Reagan with the Iranians in 1980.
« Last Edit: March 23, 2017, 07:27:32 PM by Crafty_Dog » Logged
ccp
Power User
***
Posts: 7228


« Reply #51 on: March 23, 2017, 08:33:11 PM »

"He forgot to mention Teddy Kennedy and the Russians in 1979 or '80 and the accusations against Reagan with the Iranians in 1980."

If Trump makes a claim he is a lying scumbag who is crazy and a BS artist.

but the LEFT has no problems with "unnamed sources" .  There must be a LOT of dirty money changing hands to get or make up or information or make unsubstantiated claims and the rest.
You not going to tell me the Post or the Times do not bribe "sources" to come up with stuff.

No way they don't.

 
Logged
Crafty_Dog
Administrator
Power User
*****
Posts: 40597


« Reply #52 on: March 24, 2017, 11:06:21 PM »

Did Obama Abuse Raw Intelligence?

I couldn’t have seen those transcripts when I led the House intel committee.
By Peter Hoekstra chairman of the House Intelligence Committee, 2004-07.
March 23, 2017 6:56 p.m. ET
WSJ

It was remarkable when Devin Nunes, chairman of the House Intelligence Committee, revealed Wednesday that Trump campaign officials were caught up in the inadvertent collection of intelligence. Read between the lines with a clear understanding of the intelligence community, and it’s positively astonishing.

Starting with the premise of Mr. Nunes’s announcement, there’s evidence to show that communications involving people connected with the Trump transition were collected by America’s intelligence apparatus. We don’t know the particulars, but it could include conversations between Trump transition staff and foreign officials whose conversations were subject to intelligence monitoring.

Things begin to get a little frightening when we learn that this inadvertent collection of Trump staff conversations was followed up with transcriptions of those conversations and the disclosure (or unmasking) of the persons involved in the conversation. These transcripts would be considered raw intelligence reports.

When I was chairman of the House Intelligence Committee, I was routinely involved in briefings as a member of the “Gang of Eight”—both parties’ leaders in the House and Senate and on the intelligence committees. I cannot recall how many times I asked to see raw intelligence reporting and was refused because that stuff is just not made available to policy makers.

But according to Mr. Nunes, such information made its way to the Obama White House before Inauguration Day. Few if any people working in the White House would ever need to see raw intelligence. Like intelligence committee members, they are typically consumers of intelligence products, not raw intelligence.

The raw transcripts of masked persons—or unmasked persons, or U.S. persons who can be easily identified—making their way to the White House is very likely unprecedented. One can only imagine who, at that point, might be reading these reports. Valerie Jarrett? Susan Rice? Ben Rhodes? The president himself? We don’t know, and the people who do aren’t talking at the moment.

Then we have the testimony earlier this week from FBI Director James Comey and National Security Agency Director Adm. Mike Rogers. Mr. Comey said there was no basis to support the tweet from President Trump that his “wires” had been tapped by Barack Obama. What he didn’t say—and wasn’t asked—was whether information was collected on Trump staff by other means. Mr. Trump was a little inarticulate in the context of Twitter’s 140-character limit, but it seems he got the general picture right.

Then there’s Mr. Comey’s testimony that the FBI had been investigating Trump staff for eight months. It almost certainly included surveillance; an investigation without surveillance would approach farcical.

Adm. Rogers told the House Intelligence Committee that there are strict controls in place for masking and unmasking the identities of people caught up in the inadvertent collection of information and the distribution of this kind of material. It now appears he either misled the committee or doesn’t know what’s happening inside his own agency. If Mr. Nunes is right, the rules either weren’t followed or were much less stringent than Adm. Rogers let on.

Last, and rather damningly, I believe that Mr. Comey and Adm. Rogers would have to have known that raw transcripts of captured conversations that included members of the Trump team were at the White House. It is inconceivable that people in those positions of power would not know. While this may not be criminal, it is at least a cause for them to be fired.

My greatest concern—the one that keeps me awake at night—is that the awesome powers of our intelligence community might have been corrupted for political purposes. While we’re not witnessing broad, Stasi-style surveillance of citizens, it’s clear there have been serious errors of judgment and action among our otherwise professional intelligence community. This is truly scary. We have to learn the entire truth before anyone, in or out of Congress, can again have confidence in our intelligence community.

Mr. Hoekstra, a Michigan Republican, was chairman of the House Intelligence Committee, 2004-07.
Logged
Crafty_Dog
Administrator
Power User
*****
Posts: 40597


« Reply #53 on: March 26, 2017, 07:44:56 AM »

http://www.rawstory.com/2017/03/cnn-analyst-sources-say-mike-flynn-has-turned-on-trump-and-become-witness-for-the-fbi/

Whoops!

http://twitchy.com/gregp-3534/2017/03/26/never-mind-cnn-analyst-juliette-kayyem-clarifies-on-michael-flynn-fbi-deal-theory/
« Last Edit: March 26, 2017, 07:44:34 PM by Crafty_Dog » Logged
Crafty_Dog
Administrator
Power User
*****
Posts: 40597


« Reply #54 on: March 29, 2017, 10:46:48 AM »

http://www.nationalreview.com/article/446148/russian-farce-trump-collusion-hysteria-diverts-attention-surveillance-scandal
Logged
Crafty_Dog
Administrator
Power User
*****
Posts: 40597


« Reply #55 on: March 29, 2017, 01:26:44 PM »

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=B1VXmdrDVv8&app=desktop
Logged
Crafty_Dog
Administrator
Power User
*****
Posts: 40597


« Reply #56 on: March 29, 2017, 03:36:51 PM »

He stands by what he said that got him in trouble.
Logged
ccp
Power User
***
Posts: 7228


« Reply #57 on: March 29, 2017, 03:59:58 PM »

Good to see him back but I am not sure that what got him into trouble (A theory based on infromation he got that Obama was behind surveillance of Trump for political  gain) is exactly what he is standing by :

He stands by his concern of government overreach with regards to surveillance which he did talk about but says nothing here about Obama or Obama "administration officials":


http://video.foxnews.com/v/5377622450001/?#sp=show-clips

I think he may have backed off the Obama part or at least seems to not mention that here.
« Last Edit: March 29, 2017, 04:06:03 PM by ccp » Logged
Crafty_Dog
Administrator
Power User
*****
Posts: 40597


« Reply #58 on: March 30, 2017, 12:39:52 PM »

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cVGp2FZmVA4

Mark Levin analyzes:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xfSES06rlIU

Hannity:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K6GB45nRBOk
« Last Edit: March 30, 2017, 12:46:10 PM by Crafty_Dog » Logged
Crafty_Dog
Administrator
Power User
*****
Posts: 40597


« Reply #59 on: March 30, 2017, 12:48:41 PM »

http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2017-03-29/if-evelyn-farkas-resigned-2015-how-did-she-have-access-trump-russian-intelligence
Logged
Crafty_Dog
Administrator
Power User
*****
Posts: 40597


« Reply #60 on: March 30, 2017, 01:20:18 PM »

Interesting the connection to Flynn-- whose DIA background likely made him unusually well-informed about how these things work.

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/03/30/us/politics/devin-nunes-intelligence-reports.html?emc=edit_na_20170330&nl=breaking-news&nlid=49641193&ref=cta
Logged
Crafty_Dog
Administrator
Power User
*****
Posts: 40597


« Reply #61 on: March 30, 2017, 07:38:11 PM »

https://www.wsj.com/articles/mike-flynn-offers-to-testify-in-exchange-for-immunity-1490912959
Logged
Crafty_Dog
Administrator
Power User
*****
Posts: 40597


« Reply #62 on: March 30, 2017, 11:03:57 PM »

https://pjmedia.com/trending/2017/03/29/russiagate-hillary-clinton-and-john-podestas-troubling-ties-to-russia/

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qrXivDENEF4
Logged
Crafty_Dog
Administrator
Power User
*****
Posts: 40597


« Reply #63 on: March 31, 2017, 03:43:02 PM »

What Devin Nunes Knows
Team Obama was spying broadly on the incoming administration.
Intelligence Committee Chairman Rep. Devin Nunes in the U.S. Capitol, March 24.
Intelligence Committee Chairman Rep. Devin Nunes in the U.S. Capitol, March 24. Photo: Reuters
By Kimberley A. Strassel
March 30, 2017 6:53 p.m. ET
1068 COMMENTS

California Rep. Adam Schiff may not offer much by way of substance, but give him marks for political flimflam. The ranking Democrat on the House Intelligence Committee was so successful at ginning up fake outrage over his Republican counterpart that he successfully buried this week’s only real (and bombshell) news.

Mr. Schiff and fellow Democrats spent this week accusing Chairman Devin Nunes of carrying water for President Trump, undermining the committee’s Russia investigation, and hiding information. The press dutifully regurgitated the outrage, as well as Mr. Schiff’s calls for Mr. Nunes to recuse himself from the investigation into possible Russian electoral meddling.

All this engineered drama served to deep-six the important information Americans urgently deserve to know. Mr. Nunes has said he has seen proof that the Obama White House surveilled the incoming administration—on subjects that had nothing to do with Russia—and that it further unmasked (identified by name) transition officials. This goes far beyond a mere scandal. It’s a potential crime.
––

We’ve known since early February that a call by former national security adviser Mike Flynn to the Russian ambassador was monitored by U.S. intelligence. There’s nothing improper in tapping foreign officials. But it was improper that Mr. Flynn’s name was revealed and leaked to the press, along with the substance of his conversation. The media nonetheless excused all this by claiming one piece of Mr. Flynn’s conversation (sanctions) was relevant to the continuing investigation into Trump-Russia ties.



Around the same time, Mr. Nunes’s own intelligence sources informed him that documents showed further collection of information about, and unmasking of, Trump transition officials. These documents aren’t easily obtainable, since they aren’t the “finished” intelligence products that Congress gets to see. Nonetheless, for weeks Mr. Nunes has been demanding intelligence agencies turn over said documents—with no luck, so far.

Mr. Nunes earlier this week got his own source to show him a treasure trove of documents at a secure facility. Here are the relevant details:

First, there were dozens of documents with information about Trump officials. Second, the information these documents contained was not related to Russia. Third, while many reports did “mask” identities (referring, for instance, to “U.S. Person 1 or 2”) they were written in ways that made clear which Trump officials were being discussed. Fourth, in at least one instance, a Trump official other than Mr. Flynn was outright unmasked. Finally, these documents were circulated at the highest levels of government.

To sum up, Team Obama was spying broadly on the incoming administration.

Mr. Schiff’s howls about Mr. Nunes’s methods are bluster; the Republican was doing his job, and well. Mr. Nunes has spent years cultivating whistleblowers and sources as part of his oversight responsibilities, and that network scored him information that has otherwise remained hidden. It isn’t clear if the White House itself attempted to obtain these documents, but even if it did, the Senate has confirmed few Trump political appointees, which means there aren’t many loyal staffers among the Obama holdovers to attempt it. It’s also possible the Trump White House was wary of making such a demand, since it would inevitably leak. The last thing the administration wants is wild speculation that it was interfering with the FBI’s Russia probe.

Meantime, few things match the ludicrous furor over Mr. Nunes’s source-meeting place, or his visit to brief Mr. Trump. Congress members must view most classified material on executive-branch grounds, since that’s the only way to access it physically. Having discovered the former administration’s surveillance of Trump officials, Mr. Nunes had a duty to let the White House know. (Imagine if he’d sat on it.) He could hardly let Democrats know first, since their only interest these days is in leaking and twisting stories. And the reason he held press briefings before and after his meeting with Mr. Trump was to be transparent about his purpose.

Hint to the press corps: If Mr. Nunes wanted to tip off the White House about his Russia probe, it’d be a lot easier to speed-dial Steve Bannon secretly from his office.

If Mr. Schiff wants to be trusted with important information, he might start by proving he is trustworthy—rather than rumor-mongering that there is “more than circumstantial evidence” of Trump-Russia collusion. He might voice some concern that a prior White House was monitoring its political opponents. He might ask whether Obama officials had been “reverse monitoring”—tracking foreign officials solely so they could spy on the Trump team.

Mr. Nunes has zero reason to recuse himself from this probe, because he is doing his job. It’s Mr. Schiff who ought to be considering recusal, for failing to do his own.

Write to kim@wsj.com.
Logged
Crafty_Dog
Administrator
Power User
*****
Posts: 40597


« Reply #64 on: March 31, 2017, 06:59:20 PM »

http://thehill.com/policy/national-security/326809-five-questions-investigators-want-to-ask-michael-flynn
Logged
Crafty_Dog
Administrator
Power User
*****
Posts: 40597


« Reply #65 on: March 31, 2017, 11:09:50 PM »

fourth post

https://pjmedia.com/trending/2017/03/31/prof-stephen-cohen-not-one-piece-of-factual-evidence-that-russia-hacked-the-election/



Stephen F. Cohen, professor emeritus of Russian studies at New York University and Princeton, spoke Thursday evening with Fox News' Tucker Carlson about the latest shoes to drop in the investigations into the Trump campaign's possible ties to Russia.

The Wall Street Journal reported late Thursday that Michael Flynn, President Trump's former national security advisor, has told the FBI and congressional investigators that he is willing to be interviewed in exchange for a grant of immunity from prosecution -- not a particularly good sign for the Trump White House.

Cohen, one of the country's foremost experts on Russia, has been arguing for months that the anti-Russia hysteria in Washington, D.C., is becoming a "grave national security threat."

Carlson began the discussion by bringing up what he sees as the core issue --  the allegations that the Russian government "hacked our election" by breaking into email accounts at the DNC and the Clinton campaign office.
Sponsored

"Everyone assumes this is true," he said. "We're all operating under the assumption that it's true. Do we know it's true?"

"No," Cohen answered flatly. "And if you listen to the hearings at the Senate today, repeatedly it was said -- particularly by Senator Warner, the Democratic co-chair of the proceedings -- that Russia had hijacked our democracy. What he means is that, the Russians, at Putin's direction, had gone into the Democratic National Committee's  emails, which were embarrassing to Mrs. Clinton, given them to Wikileaks, Wikileaks then released them to damage Mrs. Clinton and put Trump in the White House."

He noted, "This is a very dramatic narrative and they're saying in Washington that this was an act of war.... So whether or not it's true is existential. Are we at war?"

After studying Russian leadership for 40 years, focusing on Putin in particular, Cohen said it was hard for him believe that the Russian president would have done such a thing.

"I could find not one piece of factual evidence," he said. "The only evidence ever presented was a study hired by the Clintons -- the DNC -- to do an examination of their computers. They [Crowdstrike] concluded the Russians did it. Their report has fallen apart." He added, "Why didn't the FBI do their own investigation?"

Tucker pointed out that even Republicans say that seventeen U.S. intelligence agencies (including Coast Guard Intelligence!) have concluded that Russian intelligence was behind this.

"They say that, but it's bogus," Cohen argued. "When Clapper, the director of national intelligence, signed that report in January, technically he represents all seventeen. I'll bet you a dime to a nickel you couldn't get a guest on, unprepared, who could name ten of them. This figure -- seventeen -- is bogus!"

The professor made one more critical point: "The one agency that could conceivably have done a forensic examination on the Democratic computers is a national security agency," he said.
Sponsored
Logged
Crafty_Dog
Administrator
Power User
*****
Posts: 40597


« Reply #66 on: April 02, 2017, 01:07:22 PM »

http://www.tabletmag.com/jewish-news-and-politics/228242/manafort-scandals-trump-russia?utm_source=tabletmagazinelist&utm_campaign=41a49f7b75-EMAIL_CAMPAIGN_2017_04_02&utm_medium=email&utm_term=0_c308bf8edb-41a49f7b75-207194629
Logged
Crafty_Dog
Administrator
Power User
*****
Posts: 40597


« Reply #67 on: April 02, 2017, 09:20:16 PM »

https://www.youtube.com/watch?time_continue=2&v=jgB1AoYzsWA

Logged
G M
Power User
***
Posts: 14995


« Reply #68 on: April 02, 2017, 10:08:34 PM »


Yeah, there sure isn't.
Logged
Crafty_Dog
Administrator
Power User
*****
Posts: 40597


« Reply #69 on: April 03, 2017, 01:38:49 PM »

https://www.bloomberg.com/view/articles/2017-04-03/top-obama-adviser-sought-names-of-trump-associates-in-intel

The following was written prior to the above but has some interesting stuff on Flynn:

https://patriotpost.us/articles/48323
« Last Edit: April 03, 2017, 01:46:10 PM by Crafty_Dog » Logged
DougMacG
Power User
***
Posts: 8937


« Reply #70 on: April 03, 2017, 02:18:28 PM »

From Crafty's post: https://www.bloomberg.com/view/articles/2017-04-03/top-obama-adviser-sought-names-of-trump-associates-in-intel

Eli Lake is a reliable reporter.

Susan Rice is a potential Felon.
http://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/2017/04/susan-rice-in-crosshairs-as-potential-felon.php
Logged
Crafty_Dog
Administrator
Power User
*****
Posts: 40597


« Reply #71 on: April 03, 2017, 03:15:20 PM »

Again , , ,  rolleyes
Logged
Crafty_Dog
Administrator
Power User
*****
Posts: 40597


« Reply #72 on: April 03, 2017, 04:53:08 PM »

https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/blackwater-founder-held-secret-seychelles-meeting-to-establish-trump-putin-back-channel/2017/04/03/95908a08-1648-11e7-ada0-1489b735b3a3_story.html?utm_term=.881adb163d29
Logged
ccp
Power User
***
Posts: 7228


« Reply #73 on: April 03, 2017, 07:25:43 PM »

"Susan Rice is a potential Felon."

So she was Brock's henchwomen.

IT sound to me that Judge Napolitano is vindicated

Of course obama was in on it and probable directed the whole thing.

Rice will walk.  The MSM will do nothing as Spicer suggested today a the WH press conference.
Logged
G M
Power User
***
Posts: 14995


« Reply #74 on: April 04, 2017, 09:21:28 AM »

http://www.thediplomad.com/2017/04/on-spying-again.html

Monday, April 3, 2017

On Spying, Again

The details keep coming out fast and furious. I've written several prior posts about Russian spying and the story that the Russians "hacked" the election to favor Trump. Please review my golden words (here, here, and here, for example) if you have the stomach. I just want to make a few quick observations  in light of recent developments.

Let me cite from something I wrote almost three weeks ago,
The Dems claim that Trump is in bed with the Russians; Trump denies it and countercharges that the Dems had him under surveillance. We have here a problem. If the Dems have official intel on Trump's connections with Russia, how did they get it? . . . I think there was surveillance of Russian activity, probably by the NSA, and it found nothing to show that Trump had contacts with the Russians; the Obamistas and the Clintonistas then made up the accounts of Russian interference.
We now have coming out that former National Security Advisor Susan "video killed our people" Rice was apparently involved up to her neck in the Obama administration's surveillance of the Trump campaign and, later, of the Trump transition team. As more information appears, the details will change so let's keep to a bird's eye view.

It seems Rice demanded that names of Americans, apparently those working for Trump, be "unmasked" and sent around to the various intel agencies in Washington. Those Americans had their names collected, it is claimed, incidental to legitimate surveillance of foreign targets, especially Russians. Rice, it seems, asked that the names be shared around--no explanation given. It seems (that word) a piece with one of Obama's last executive decisions allowing NSA raw data to be distributed to all intel agencies.

Why would they do this?

Well, if you pass around political names to hundreds of people, you know, you absolutely know, that the names will leak. It's a way of not leaving your own fingerprints on the leak. You know that the names will leak and give the aura of a massive criminal enterprise underway by the Trump people to sell out the USA to Russia. It is sabotage of President Trump of the grossest kind.

We still have no evidence of the Russians hacking the election to favor Trump. No evidence has been provided as to why the Russians would want Trump to win. No evidence has been provided of how it the Russians would know something the pollsters did not, to wit, that Trump would, in fact, win the November election. Above all, there is no evidence that Trump or his cohorts were in league with Russia--what would they get out of it?

I think, furthermore, that my initial impression that the Democrats made up the story proves the best explanation. This Russia story provided the excuse to conduct surveillance of Trump and his campaign and transition. Just as the Obama people sold guns to Mexican drug cartels and then sought to blame the gun trafficking on the second amendment ("the drugs flow north, but the guns flow south"), they justified their surveillance of political opponents with the Russia story. The overwhelming conceit was that they assumed Hillary would win the election and the story would remain buried.Once they saw she had lost, presto!, Obama's executive order spreading the info all over town making it hard to find the culprit leaker/unmasker.

This is getting very nasty, and the Trump-Russia story is blowing up in the face of the Dems.
Logged
ccp
Power User
***
Posts: 7228


« Reply #75 on: April 04, 2017, 01:58:29 PM »

"I leaked nothing to nobody!"

From a grammatical point of view this is a double negative which thus is a positive, or "I leaked something to somebody"?


The LEFT appears to be a deer in the headlights.


CNN looks even more an arm of the DNC than they did during the Clinton era.
Logged
DougMacG
Power User
***
Posts: 8937


« Reply #76 on: April 05, 2017, 08:31:54 AM »

"I leaked nothing to nobody!"

   - I was caught by that too.  Like when President Clinton said there is no relationship there and no reporter dared to ask him if there was. Then he had the gall to say that whether or not he lied depends on what the meaning of is is.

Rice went on to say that unmasking is not leaking which is also not a denial of the accusation.


"The LEFT appears to be a deer in the headlights."

   - That's right, and the Right is a little too giddy for what little we know about the facts. This is still the shiny object away from policy. The real work is confirming Gorsuch, healthcare reform and tax reform, on which only one is moving right now.
Logged
Crafty_Dog
Administrator
Power User
*****
Posts: 40597


« Reply #77 on: April 11, 2017, 09:15:38 AM »

The Conflicts of J. Edgar Comey
The FBI chief refuses to tell Congress who requested to ‘unmask’ Mike Flynn’s name.
By Kimberley A. Strassel
April 6, 2017 7:20 p.m. ET
627 COMMENTS

We interrupt the Russia-scandal program to ask two simple questions of one of the nation’s top law-enforcement officers: What exactly is FBI Director Jim Comey doing about the only crime that has so far been revealed in this Russia probe? And is he too conflicted even to be doing it?

That crime is of course the leaking that toppled Donald Trump’s first national security adviser, Michael Flynn. The media and Democrats have done their best to avoid covering this, for the simple reason that some of them were complicit. Yet in the entire speculative drama over Russian interference in American elections, so far this is the only crime that is beyond any doubt.

It’s a serious crime, too. Someone in the U.S. government obtained highly classified information about a conversation between an incoming presidential adviser and a foreign official. Someone then leaked Mr. Flynn’s name and the contents of that conversation to the press, resulting in his resignation. As even Mr. Comey recently confirmed, the leaking of such material is an “extraordinarily unusual event.” It is also a felony, punishable by up to 10 years in federal prison.

Why? Because such leaks expose American intelligence sources and methods, putting national security at risk. Moreover, leaking the names of private citizens under surveillance (with the express intent to cause harm) is among the grossest violations of civil liberties. It is what police states do.

    Podcast Name

    The Path to ObamaCare Repeal

    Paul Gigot, Kim Strassel, and Joe Rago discuss the path to ObamaCare repeal and James Comey's future.

    Click to Listen
    WSJ Podcasts

    Lessons From Obama’s Failure

    Republicans must sell their replacement to ObamaCare—the way the president didn’t.

    Click to Read Story

    Obama’s Midnight Regulation Express

    The president’s final goal is to issue more regulatory rules and executive orders than the new administration could ever find time to repeal.

    Click to Read Story

    Advertisement

    Trump’s Federalist Revival

    Donald Trump’s nominee to head the EPA, Scott Pruitt, will restore balance to the federal-state relationship.

    Click to Read Story

    Steve Bannon on Politics as War

    Strassel interviews Trump adviser Steve Bannon on the winning campaign and why the media attacks against him and Breitbart News are ‘just nonsense.’

    Click to Read Story

More By Kimberley Strassel

The Washington Post story about Mr. Flynn’s conversation cited as its sources “nine current and former officials” who “had access to reports from U.S. intelligence and law enforcement agencies.” That means at least nine current or former Obama administration officials or bureaucrats should be looking at criminal charges.
Opinion Journal Video
Opinion Journal: Devin Nunes Did His Job
Main Street Columnist Bill McGurn on the chairman of the House Select Committee on Intelligence. Photo credit: Getty Images.

Which brings us to Mr. Comey. Leaks are in the FBI’s purview, and this case ought to be a slam dunk. Unlike in some leak investigations, Mr. Comey has a trail of bread loaves to follow. Someone in the U.S. government had to take the first step of “unmasking”—requesting the identity of—Mr. Flynn. There are records of such requests, easily accessible by the FBI.

The process is then straightforward: March the unmasker to the FBI and require that official—under oath—to confess if he or she passed Mr. Flynn’s name to the media. If not, demand to know to whom that person gave the information. Track down the leakers. Ask a grand jury to indict.

But there’s also the obvious fact that the FBI is one of only a few agencies with the power to grant an unmasking request. Mr. Comey may well have been involved in granting the request to unmask Mr. Flynn. It’s possible he has known the name of the unmasker for months.

Yet the incredibly political Mr. Comey came to Capitol Hill and refused even to confirm the existence of a leak investigation (in contrast to his eagerness to confirm a probe into possible Trump ties to Russia). Worse, sources tell me that Mr. Comey is willfully obstructing Congress’s own investigation into the leaks. He has refused requests for documents that would show who unmasked Mr. Flynn. He has refused to provide that name in a closed meeting to the speaker of the House or the leaders of intelligence committees.

This is enormously problematic, since Mr. Comey has glaring conflicts of interest here. After all, it is possible Mr. Comey’s staff are among the leakers. He has an interest in avoiding an agency scandal.

Mr. Comey is, in fact, obstructing oversight of his own agency. It is Congress’s duty to investigate failings in the intelligence system. It is Congress that authorizes surveillance programs in the first place. And one of its main jobs is to assure itself and the public that intelligence and law-enforcement agencies aren’t abusing surveillance, violating citizens’ privacy. Can anyone say J. Edgar Hoover ? Mr. Comey should not have the power to stymie an outside investigation into his own agency’s practices.

The obvious answer here is for Mr. Comey to start being transparent to congressional oversight. You’d think his fellow heads of intelligence agencies would be pressuring him to get straight, given the grave risk he’s posing to their own organizations. Section 702 of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, one the government’s most vital snooping tools, expires at the end of this year. I’m told that—given the appalling leak mess, and the Obama administration’s likely abuse of its spying authority—not a single Republican is yet committed to reauthorization.

If the FBI director won’t open up, maybe it’s time for a Justice Department attorney with the appropriate jurisdiction to start an investigation. Because no matter how much Mr. Comey acts the boy scout, he is not above supervision.

Write to kim@wsj.com.
Logged
Crafty_Dog
Administrator
Power User
*****
Posts: 40597


« Reply #78 on: April 12, 2017, 01:50:22 PM »

https://www.rushlimbaugh.com/daily/2017/04/12/trump-was-right-obama-got-fisa-warrant-to-spy-on-trump-team/
Logged
G M
Power User
***
Posts: 14995


« Reply #79 on: April 14, 2017, 02:13:21 PM »

Whether or not Trump was eavesdropped on by OBama or his warriors we will NEVER know.   The only way we could would be if someone directly involved came forward and admitted it AND offered up some hard core evidence to back it up (lest he/she be tarred and feathered by the entire LEFT.  And we know that would not happen.  At that high level there is not going to be any hardcore evidence, everyone would deny it (and get rewarded with jobs, board appointments , get their kids into Columbia, their spouse get a nice juicy grant, etc.

The normally very careful Judge went out on a limb and the entire apparatus of the LEFT and now thanks to Trump's bashing of our intelligence divisions and thus the wrath of them too Fox is forced to make the Judge eat his words.

https://www.yahoo.com/finance/news/fox-pulls-napolitano-air-trump-report-023807823--politics.html

That's a $400K/yr gig the Judge now lost.

And the worst part of it is, I believe the Judge and  Not everyone else who is denying it.
 Obama could absolutely be part of and eaves dropping conspiracy that obviously exists to get rid of Trump.


https://pjmedia.com/trending/2017/04/14/report-british-spy-agency-was-surveilling-trump-team/
Report: British Spy Agency Was Surveilling Trump Team
 BY DEBRA HEINE APRIL 14, 2017

Robert Hannigan steps down. File photo dated 17/11/15 of the director of GCHQ Robert Hannigan who has has decided to step down, the intelligence agency has announced. Issue date: Monday January 23, 2017. Ben Birchall/PA Wire
A month ago, Fox News senior legal analyst Judge Andrew Napolitano claimed that three intelligence sources had informed him President Obama used a British intelligence organization to spy on then-candidate Trump's associates.

Napolitano reported on his website:

Sources have told Fox News that the British foreign surveillance service, the Government Communications Headquarters, known as GCHQ, most likely provided Obama with transcripts of Trump's calls. The NSA has given GCHQ full 24/7 access to its computers, so GCHQ -- a foreign intelligence agency that, like the NSA, operates outside our constitutional norms -- has the digital versions of all electronic communications made in America in 2016, including Trump's. So by bypassing all American intelligence services, Obama would have had access to what he wanted with no Obama administration fingerprints.
When White House Press Secretary Sean Spicer cited the report during a daily White House briefing, international shock waves and furious denials from the British intel agency ensued:

The agency described the allegations first made by a former judge turned media commentator, Andrew Napolitano, as “nonsense”.
“They are utterly ridiculous and should be ignored,” a spokesperson for GCHQ said.

Fox News temporarily took Napolitano off the air until the dust settled. Yet when he came back two weeks later, Judge Nap stood by his story, saying "a lot more is going to come."

A lot more did come Thursday in a new report published by The Guardian. The report indicates that Napolitano was on the right track: GCHQ and other European spy agencies did pass on incidental electronic surveillance (SIGINT) to the Obama administration revealing "contacts between members of Donald Trump’s campaign team and Russian intelligence operatives." But according to the Guardian's anonymous sources, the intelligence was passed on to the United States "as part of a routine exchange of information" -- not at the behest of the Obama administration, as Napolitano had suggested.
 
So there are two versions of this story now, both based on anonymous sources.

The Guardian reports that the surveillance began in late 2015, when British spooks "first became aware in late 2015 of suspicious 'interactions' between figures connected to Trump and known or suspected Russian agents":

Over the next six months, until summer 2016, a number of western agencies shared further information on contacts between Trump’s inner circle and Russians, sources said.
The European countries that passed on electronic intelligence -- known as sigint -- included Germany, Estonia and Poland. Australia, a member of the “Five Eyes” spying alliance that also includes the US, UK, Canada and New Zealand, also relayed material, one source said.

Another source suggested the Dutch and the French spy agency, the General Directorate for External Security or DGSE, were contributors.

It is understood that GCHQ was at no point carrying out a targeted operation against Trump or his team or proactively seeking information. The alleged conversations were picked up by chance as part of routine surveillance of Russian intelligence assets. Over several months, different agencies targeting the same people began to see a pattern of connections that were flagged to intelligence officials in the US.

According to The Guardian, intelligence sources in both U.S. and UK:

... acknowledge that GCHQ played an early, prominent role in kickstarting the FBI’s Trump-Russia investigation, which began in late July 2016.
One source claimed that U.S. intelligence was “very late to the game,” and FBI Director James Comey didn't become interested until after the election:

Comey’s apparent shift may have followed a mid-October decision by the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) court to approve a secret surveillance order. The order gave permission for the Department of Justice to investigate two banks suspected of being part of the Kremlin’s undercover influence operation.
According to the BBC, the justice department’s request came after a tipoff from an intelligence agency in one of the Baltic states. This is believed to be Estonia.

The Washington Post reported on Wednesday that the same order covered Carter Page, one of Trump’s associates. It allowed the FBI and the justice department to monitor Page’s communications. Page, a former foreign policy aide, was suspected of being an agent of influence working for Russia, the paper said, citing U.S. officials.

The application covered contacts Page allegedly had in 2013 with a Russian foreign intelligence agent, and other undisclosed meetings with Russian operatives, the Post said. Page denies wrongdoing and complained of “unjustified, politically motivated government surveillance”.

According to one of the Guardian's sources, the investigation is making progress:

They now have specific concrete and corroborative evidence of collusion. This is between people in the Trump campaign and agents of [Russian] influence relating to the use of hacked material.
Carter Page, appearing on the Fox News' The O'Reilly Factor Thursday night, decried the "false accusations" against him that are being pushed by Democrats, but said he was encouraged because the truth was beginning to come out about the surveillance scandal.
Logged
ccp
Power User
***
Posts: 7228


« Reply #80 on: April 14, 2017, 05:00:57 PM »

Thanks GM

Nothing convincing to me the OBamster and all were not using this "Russian connection " thing as cover to spy on Trump et al.

"A lot more did come Thursday in a new report published by The Guardian. The report indicates that Napolitano was on the right track: GCHQ and other European spy agencies did pass on incidental electronic surveillance (SIGINT) to the Obama administration revealing "contacts between members of Donald Trump’s campaign team and Russian intelligence operatives." But according to the Guardian's anonymous sources, the intelligence was passed on to the United States "as part of a routine exchange of information" -- not at the behest of the Obama administration, as Napolitano had suggested."


"according to one of the Guardian's sources, the investigation is making progress:
They now have specific concrete and corroborative evidence of collusion. This is between people in the Trump campaign and agents of [Russian] influence relating to the use of hacked material."

Always a lot of unnamed "sources"
I still do not see any proof  of collusion between Russians and Trump people on wikileaks.
Just "corroborative evidence" ->

some Trump guy met with some Russian guy.......... The usual Leftist crap story line .

Didn't Clinton people meet with Russians.  
For God sake.  I have worked with Russian doctors.  



« Last Edit: April 14, 2017, 08:02:41 PM by ccp » Logged
Crafty_Dog
Administrator
Power User
*****
Posts: 40597


« Reply #81 on: April 19, 2017, 10:16:46 PM »

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/04/19/us/politics/carter-page-russia-trump.html?emc=edit_na_20170419&nl=breaking-news&nlid=49641193&ref=cta&_r=0
Logged
Pages: 1 [2] Print 
« previous next »
Jump to:  

Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.21 | SMF © 2015, Simple Machines Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!