Home FAQ Search Memberlist User Groups Register Login   

BloggingTories.ca Forum IndexBloggingTories.ca Forum Index
    Index     FAQ     Search     Register     Login         JOIN THE DISCUSSION - CLICK HERE      

*NEW* Login or register using your Facebook account.

Not a member? Join the fastest growing conservative community!
Membership is free and takes 15 seconds


CLICK HERE or use Facebook to login or register ----> Connect



  

Post new topic   Reply to topic Page 1 of 1
View previous topic :: View next topic  
Author Message
Bugs





Joined: 16 Dec 2009
Posts: 4393
Reputation: 245.7
votes: 8

PostPosted: Fri Mar 03, 2017 9:23 pm    Post subject: Mark Levin: Democrats organizing a 'silent coup' vrs Trump Reply with quote

The Heritage Foundation is the group that 'found' Hillary's illegal server and uncovered the email scandal through Freedom of Information queries. They work by mobilizing the power of the courts to uncover information about powerful political adversaries. They're a serious outfit.

This is a 'time line' they constructed about the organized anti-Trump protests, which they argue shows the Obama administration preparing to leave power be putting spies and saboteurs in place.

Quote:
Mark Levin to Congress: Investigate Obama’s ‘Silent Coup’ vs. Trump

Radio host Mark Levin used his Thursday evening show to outline the known steps taken by President Barack Obama’s administration in its last months to undermine Donald Trump’s presidential campaign and, later, his new administration.

Levin called Obama’s effort “police state” tactics, and suggested that Obama’s actions, rather than conspiracy theories about alleged Russian interference in the presidential election to help Trump, should be the target of congressional investigation.

Drawing on sources including the New York Times and the Washington Post, Levin described the case against Obama so far, based on what is already publicly known. The following is an expanded version of that case, including events that Levin did not mention specifically but are important to the overall timeline.

1. June 2016: FISA request. The Obama administration files a request with the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court (FISA) to monitor communications involving Donald Trump and several advisers. The request, uncharacteristically, is denied.

2. July: Russia joke. Wikileaks releases emails from the Democratic National Committee that show an effort to prevent Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-VT) from winning the presidential nomination. In a press conference, Donald Trump refers to Hillary Clinton’s own missing emails, joking: “Russia, if you’re listening, I hope you’re able to find the 30,000 e-mails that are missing.” That remark becomes the basis for accusations by Clinton and the media that Trump invited further hacking.

3. October: Podesta emails.
In October, Wikileaks releases the emails of Clinton campaign chair John Podesta, rolling out batches every day until the election, creating new mini-scandals. The Clinton campaign blames Trump and the Russians.

4. October: FISA request. The Obama administration submits a new, narrow request to the FISA court, now focused on a computer server in Trump Tower suspected of links to Russian banks. No evidence is found — but the wiretaps continue, ostensibly for national security reasons, Andrew McCarthy at National Review later notes. The Obama administration is now monitoring an opposing presidential campaign using the high-tech surveillance powers of the federal intelligence services.

5. January 2017: Buzzfeed/CNN dossier. Buzzfeed releases, and CNN reports, a supposed intelligence “dossier” compiled by a foreign former spy. It purports to show continuous contact between Russia and the Trump campaign, and says that the Russians have compromising information about Trump. None of the allegations can be verified and some are proven false. Several media outlets claim that they had been aware of the dossier for months and that it had been circulating in Washington.

6. January: Obama expands NSA sharing. As Michael Walsh later notes, and as the New York Times reports, the outgoing Obama administration “expanded the power of the National Security Agency to share globally intercepted personal communications with the government’s 16 other intelligence agencies before applying privacy protections.” The new powers, and reduced protections, could make it easier for intelligence on private citizens to be circulated improperly or leaked.

7. January: Times report. The New York Times reports, on the eve of Inauguration Day, that several agencies — the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI), the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA), the National Security Agency (NSA) and the Treasury Department are monitoring several associates of the Trump campaign suspected of Russian ties. Other news outlets also report the exisentence of “a multiagency working group to coordinate investigations across the government,” though it is unclear how they found out, since the investigations would have been secret and involved classified information.

8. February: Mike Flynn scandal. Reports emerge that the FBI intercepted a conversation in 2016 between future National Security Adviser Michael Flynn — then a private citizen — and Russian Ambassador Sergey Kislyak. The intercept supposedly was part of routine spying on the ambassador, not monitoring of the Trump campaign. The FBI transcripts reportedly show the two discussing Obama’s newly-imposed sanctions on Russia, though Flynn earlier denied discussing them. Sally Yates, whom Trump would later fire as acting Attorney General for insubordination, is involved in the investigation. In the end, Flynn resigns over having misled Vice President Mike Pence (perhaps inadvertently) about the content of the conversation.

9. February: Times claims extensive Russian contacts. The New York Times cites “four current and former American officials” in reporting that the Trump campaign had “repeated contacts with senior Russian intelligence officials. The Trump campaign denies the claims — and the Times admits that there is “no evidence” of coordination between the campaign and the Russians. The White House and some congressional Republicans begin to raise questions about illegal intelligence leaks.

10. March: the Washington Post targets Jeff Sessions. The Washington Post reports that Attorney General Jeff Sessions had contact twice with the Russian ambassador during the campaign — once at a Heritage Foundation event and once at a meeting in Sessions’s Senate office. The Post suggests that the two meetings contradict Sessions’s testimony at his confirmation hearings that he had no contacts with the Russians, though in context (not presented by the Post) it was clear he meant in his capacity as a campaign surrogate, and that he was responding to claims in the “dossier” of ongoing contacts. The New York Times, in covering the story, adds that the Obama White House “rushed to preserve” intelligence related to alleged Russian links with the Trump campaign. By “preserve” it really means “disseminate”: officials spread evidence throughout other government agencies “to leave a clear trail of intelligence for government investigators” and perhaps the media as well.

In summary: the Obama administration sought, and eventually obtained, authorization to eavesdrop on the Trump campaign; continued monitoring the Trump team even when no evidence of wrongdoing was found; then relaxed the NSA rules to allow evidence to be shared widely within the government, virtually ensuring that the information, including the conversations of private citizens, would be leaked to the media.

Levin called the effort a “silent coup” by the Obama administration and demanded that it be investigated.

In addition, Levin castigated Republicans in Congress for focusing their attention on Trump and Attorney General Sessions rather than Obama.

http://www.breitbart.com/big-g.....ine-trump/


There seems to be a rebellion in the 'deep state', that is, amongst that class of people who move from position in the civil service, depending on where the action is, and who seem to be 'in control' of what our social alternatives are. Polls show that most people do not believe the Russians 'hacked' the election.
Bugs





Joined: 16 Dec 2009
Posts: 4393
Reputation: 245.7
votes: 8

PostPosted: Sat Mar 04, 2017 3:22 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

More shots in this war. Trump tweeted that he just found out that he was under electronic surveillance during the hot part of the election.

Spokespeople for Obama denied the charges.

The problem is -- it didn't need to be Obama that ordered it. The officials themselves might have done it. In other words, the spokesman might be telling the truth, and it still happened.

Quote:
Obama administration denies Towergate: Insiders blast Donald Trump's claims Obama wire-tapped his phones at Trump Tower before the election in 'Nixon/Watergate' style scandal

Trump has accused Obama of wire tapping his phones at Trump Tower on Twitter
The president tweeted that Obama had been spying on him in October
He claims the phones in Trump Tower were 'tapped' before his election victory
But Obama's spokesman, Kevin Lewis, said those claims were 'simply false'
Lewis released a statement Saturday saying 'neither President Obama nor any White House official ever ordered surveillance on any U.S. citizen'
Ben Rhodes, the former policy advisor for Obama, also blasted Trump's claims
He responded to Trump in a tweet that said 'no president can order a wiretap'
A former senior intelligence official said 'it's highly unlikely there was a wiretap'
According to official, wiretap can't be directed at US facility, without probable cause the phone lines were being used by agents of a foreign power
By Dailymail.com Reporter
PUBLISHED: 12:25 GMT, 4 March 2017 | UPDATED: 18:49 GMT, 4 March 2017

The Obama administration has strongly denied President Donald Trump's claims that Barack Obama wire-tapped his phones at Trump Tower before the election.

Obama's spokesman Kevin Lewis released a statement Saturday afternoon refuting Trump's wire-tapping claims.

'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,' Lewis wrote.

'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.'

Lewis' statement comes shortly after Trump fired off a flurry of tweets early Saturday morning claiming that the former president had been spying on him in October, a month before his election victory.

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



Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/new.....z4aOGStO65

Follow us: @MailOnline on Twitter | DailyMail on Facebook
Bugs





Joined: 16 Dec 2009
Posts: 4393
Reputation: 245.7
votes: 8

PostPosted: Sat Mar 04, 2017 10:32 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

It should be pointed out that this surveillance was done by those who get special license because their mandate includes investigating issues important to the American national security.

So when the 'ins' can use these extraordinary powers to evade normal constitutional provisions, something has obviously gone wrong. This may be the worst part of this scandal. The national security apparatus has become a partisan political force. And that is banana republic stuff.

http://www.nationalreview.com/.....ey-kislyak

For the Conservatives presently weighing the relative merits of Kellie Leitch's resume vrs that of ... say ... Maxime Bernier, it might be prudent to look at what is happening in the world. If all these trends continue, particularly if they are exacerbated by a wrenching depression, we are going to have a whole new set of problems.

The American government bureaucracies have often had their allegiances, and even work together. The EPA understood -- even though Nixon set it up -- that it was the lapdog of the Democrats, for example. The military looked to the Republicans to protect their funding. So these tendencies are probably inevitable, as government gets so huge.

But the security bureaucracy has been more professional than that. If Trump's allegations are true, then it means that they, too, have been captured by the Democratic Party. That the NSA would reveal wiretaps of a Russian ambassador in order to stop a nomination -- routine, and before he took office -- is professional misconduct.

The immediate future of this country will be in the hands of those who best understand the turmoil to come. If the American state has been 'captured' by one political position, even if they include figures from both parties, the rotation of power will become a farce. These are not dry philosophical issues. They are, in some form or another, on the time horizon.
Post new topic   Reply to topic Page 1 of 1

  


 
Jump to:  
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
You can attach files in this forum
You can download files in this forum


Mark Levin: Democrats organizing a 'silent coup' vrs Trump

phpBBCopyright 2001, 2005 phpBB