Trump’s Wire Tap Claims

Are you hearing anything from the other side?

It’s interesting that when one group of congressmen say that wiretapping DID NOT happen, the mainstream media jumps on it and reports it for days, weeks.

But, when other congressmen say the opposite, things like “it’s highly probable given the CIA’s history”, “We’ve done this before so why not now?”, etc. then it’s crickets… all you can hear are crickets.

“All we hear from you are crickets” — Sean Spicer

So, it ends up sounding like there is only one side and it’s decided that the incident did not happen. But that’s not entirely true.

Let’s see, here’s what we do know…

Jan 12th, 2017, NY Times reports, In its final days, the Obama administration has 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 rules significantly relax longstanding limits on what the N.S.A. may do with the information gathered by its most powerful surveillance operations, which are largely unregulated by American wiretapping laws………………….……increasing the risk that officials will see private information about innocent people. Read The Full Report

March 3rd, Fox new, Bret Baier said the following, there is a report in 2016, that a FISA request was asked for by the Obama administration to monitor communications from Donald Trump and several other campaign officials. They got turned down, then they tried again in OCT and was allowed a FISA to monitor Trump, a computer at trump tower and Russian Banks.
Nothing was revealed, no wrong doing was done by trump and Russia, but the wiretaps continued even after the reason for the tap was no longer valid…hmm, curious.

On NOV 11th, Heat Street reports, two separate sources from the Counter Intelligence community confirms that there had been a FISA and a wiretap granted to the FBI in OCT, to conduct surveillance of Trump’s people with ties to Russia. A previous one was denied back in JUNE 2016. FISA Warrant was to look at in full context the documents that concern US persons and 2 Russian Banks. This may as well include Donald Trump and 3 other persons of his campaign.
Read The Full Report

Jan 19th, NY Times, American Law Enforcement agencies are investigating intercepted communications and financial transactions between Russian Officials and President Elect Donald J. Trump. One official said that intelligence reports based on communications of some of the wiretaps were sent to the White House. The legal standard for opening these investigations is low.

Andrew C. McCarthy, National review, said from three reports, The Guardian, NYT, Heatstreet, it appears the FBI has concerns about a private server in trump tower that was connected to one or two Russian Banks.
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.
Read The Full Report

During the final days of the Obama Administration, Executive Order 12333 was expanded giving people unfettered access to all kinds of information that was previously accessible to only a few hands.

Now, it was a free-for-all.

Larger than normal briefings about Russia was being held and any person from any number of agencies could have access to the information and leaked it. So, not only is it difficult to trace the leak, it’s impossible now.

Again, very curious.

It’s committees like these that said Benghazi wasn’t Hilary’s fault, Losing Classified Emails don’t matter, and Russia rigged the election.

If you read the reports, it clearly was Hillary’s fault, Classified materials were intentionally mishandled, and in the report of Russian hacking, it clearly states that “there is no evidence of Russia rigging the election”.

So, are these committees knowingly misleading the public?


No comments:

Powered by Blogger.