Obama White House Spied On Trump And Lied About It, Says CNN — Is This Worse Than Richard Nixon?
White House Spied On Trump And Lied About It, Says CNN — Is This Worse Than Richard Nixon?
Wiretapping: The U.S. government under President Obama wiretapped former Trump campaign Chair Paul Manafort in New York's Trump Tower under "secret court orders before and after the election," CNN reported, citing "three sources familiar with the investigation." Assuming CNN's report is true, it means President Trump, who was ridiculed earlier this year for claiming that his iconic building had been wiretapped, has been massively vindicated. But don't hold your breath waiting for an apology.
Just months ago, Trump was called a liar and worse for his tweets alleging that Obama had Trump Tower wiretapped. "Terrible!" Trump tweeted on March 4. "Just found out that Obama had my "wires tapped" in Trump Tower just before the victory. Nothing found. This is McCarthyism!"
Some suggested he was paranoid, had lost his mind or was flat-out lying, and CNN — which, to its credit, broke the wiretapping story — was among the worst in the mainstream media.
Actor James Woods, active on Twitter, compared the shifting headlines from CNN on the allegations over the past six months:
CNN, Sunday, March 5, 2017: "Trump's baseless wiretap claim"
September 5, 2017: "Donald Trump just flat-out lied about Trump Tower wiretapping"
September 18, 2017: "Exclusive: US government wiretapped former Trump campaign chairman"
That about says it all. And on that last headline, it's important to note that not only was Manafort working out of Trump Tower, he was living there. So the claim, again if true, means Trump was 100% correct about being wiretapped.
This is more than just "I told you so." The entire investigation into alleged Trump campaign ties to Russian meddling in the 2016 presidential election appears to center on the wiretaps of Manafort, whose consulting work included some foreign political groups, including in Ukraine.
Even so, top U.S. intelligence officials have steadfastly and adamantly denied any wiretap of Trump.
"With respect to the president's tweets about alleged wiretapping directed at him by the prior administration, I have no information that supports those tweets, and we have looked carefully inside the FBI," former FBI Director James Comey told the House Intelligence Committee last March. Comey was under oath.
National Intelligence Director James Clapper also denied any wiretap, telling NBC in March that he would have known about a "court order on something like this." Clapper denied to Congress that any of the intelligence agencies he oversaw wiretapped Trump, and said the FBI did not get a court order from the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court (FISA) — the only court that can grant a domestic wiretap on grounds of national security — to tap Trump's phones.
A host of others, including some Republicans in Congress, likewise publicly dissed Trump's claims.
If CNN's report proves true, those who lied will no doubt say, "We didn't wiretap Trump; we wiretapped Manafort." But that cutesy, specious logic comes up short, both legally and ethically. In tapping Manafort, they knew they were getting Trump's many intimate conversations with him. That's how they could go to FISA and say it wasn't about Trump, but about Manafort. It was in fact a roundabout way of getting Trump in trouble, possibly even impeached.
As the CNN report said, "The government snooping continued into early this year, including a period when Manafort was known to talk to President Trump."
And the wiretaps were used to feed the ongoing investigation of Robert Mueller of the Trump campaign's alleged ties to Russian interference in the 2016 election.
This, by the way, puts a new gloss on why President Obama did nothing at all when first presented with evidence in the summer of 2016 that the Russians might be hacking our election. It was a way to take down the Democrats' biggest threat, the unpredictable Donald Trump.
As has been noted previously, President Obama didn't have authority on his own to request a wiretap of a U.S. citizen. That requires the Justice Department. But that doesn't mean he didn't make it happen.
The Justice Department was then headed by Loretta Lynch — one of the most politicized Attorneys-General in U.S. history, known for repeatedly bending the truth in her public comments. So it's not a stretch to think that, with a nod and a wink, Obama encouraged Lynch to go after Trump. He had every reason to do so, given that Hillary Clinton at the time seemed to be the only hope for Obama's progressive legacy to live on.
"It was the Comey-led FBI in the Lynch-led DOJ, in the Obama presidency, that reportedly used the FISA Court to obtain a warrant, quite possibly based on the phony (Russian) dossier, that has provided material to get Manafort and pressure him to find something to squeal about and catch a higher-up," wrote Thomas Lifson at the American Thinker. "The legitimacy of that warrant now is in question."
We'll take that a step further. The entire Russia investigation, which was manipulated into being by Obama administration holdovers working with congressional Democrats, now appears to be a fraud. More than a year after the government began looking into the charges, no proof of any wrongdoing or crime has been produced.
This is a tragic turn in American democracy, when a sitting president has a political foe spied upon by our own intelligence agencies. It's time to wind down the Russia probe and begin looking into the real scandal: Whether the Obama administration illegally used the intelligence apparatus of the U.S. to try to neutralize a political opponent. If it did, it's a serious crime that warrants a real criminal investigation — not Mueller's political witch hunt. http://www.investors.com/politics/editorials/white-house-spied-on-trump-and-lied-about-it-says-cnn-is-this-worse-than-richard-nixon/
Tags
Who is online
55 visitors
If any of the Manafort tapes involves a conversation with Donald Trump, then Trump will indeed be vindicated.
What is Unique about Trump is that he so often says things based on very good instincts. Something early on during his administration gave him the impression that the Obama administration was spying on him. He may soon be proven right.
Even though it was on CNN, you'll never get an admission. Will there be a movie about it, like about Woodward and Bernstein? Actually, Hollywood was happy to nail Nixon, but will the liberal entertainment industry want to do the same to nail Obama? I doubt it.
Does anyone remember how Obama responded to Trump's wiretapping 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,” Kevin Lewis, an Obama spokesman, said in a Saturday afternoon statement. “As part of that practice, neither President Obama nor any White House official ever ordered surveillance on any U.S. citizen.”
A spokesman for Obama said that neither Obama or any of his officials ordered the surveillance. However, it looks more & more like they at least took advantage of an ongoing investigation.
Would Obama lie? ABSOLUTELY
We will eventually find out more about this evil, radical regime
Manafort has asked that transcripts of the wiretaps be released.
Once again it is a felony to leak about a FISA wiretap. When will anyone be charged?
The Obama White House never spied on the Rump.
And, how would you know this for a fact?
I put this on another article, but it applies here as well.
Mark Levin lays out 'overwhelming' case on Obama admin’s spying
Well that settles it then.
I wasted 15 minutes looking at this crap. To try and be fair.
The article contains 5 or 6 short videos. There is not a single word in any of those videos that contains EVIDENCE of any wrong doing on the part of the Obama administration.
Disgraceful comment on NT.
And, how would you know this for a fact?
There is no evidence to support President Donald Trump's claim that President Barack Obama ordered the wiretapping of Trump Tower during the 2016 presidential campaign, the Justice Department said in a new court filing.
The DOJ made the statement in a motion for summary judgment filed Friday in response to a Freedom of Information Act lawsuit by the watchdog group American Oversight.
Once again, an individual without the knowledge of the facts asks a rhetorical gotcha question!
I'm through with this post … the story is a misrepresentation based on a logical fallacy that Trump sycophants and Obama-detractors wish was true …
But it's not!
I'm glad that you agree.
Assuming CNN's report is true, it means President Trump, who was ridiculed earlier this year for claiming that his iconic building had been wiretapped, has been massively vindicated. But don't hold your breath waiting for an apology.
No! That's not what it means!
It means that when a FISA Court believes there is probable cause regarding an American interacting illegally with a foreign hostile power, it authorizes a wiretap!
CNN reported Monday night that the FBI obtained a warrant to listen in on Manafort’s phone calls back in 2014. The warrant was part of an investigation into U.S. firms that may have performed undisclosed work for the Ukrainian government. The surveillance reportedly lapsed for a time but was begun again last year when the FBI learned about possible ties between Russian operatives and Trump associates.
This news is a big deal primarily because of what it takes to obtain such a wiretap order. The warrant reportedly was issued under the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act. A FISA warrant requires investigators to demonstrate to the FISA court that there is probable cause to believe the target may be acting as an unlawful foreign agent.
A FISA warrant … means investigators have demonstrated probable cause to an independent judicial authority. Obtaining a warrant actually says much more about the strength of the underlying allegations than issuing a grand jury subpoena.
That’s also why the search warrant executed at Manafort’s home in July was such a significant step in the investigation. Unlike a grand jury subpoena, the search warrant required Mueller’s team to demonstrate to a judge that a crime probably had been committed.
But it’s important not to get too far in front of the story. The FBI surveillance of Manafort reportedly began in 2014, long before he was working as Trump’s campaign manager. So the initial allegations, at least, appear to have involved potential crimes having nothing to do with the Trump campaign. And most or all of the surveillance apparently took place before Mueller was even appointed and was not at his direction.
___________________________________________________
I comment in these threads less and less frequently because of misleading posts, outright lies and the failure of dupes, willing and otherwise, to have honest dialogue.
On whose authority or request ?
"So the initial allegations, at least, appear to have involved potential crimes having nothing to do with the Trump campaign."
Yet the Liberal types will willfully try to make you see differently, day-in and day-out !
On that of the FBI!
That's so cute !
"You come with no knowledge as reflected in the very question you ask … then project your ignorance on anyone who sets you straight … don't play "gotcha'" with me …"
Read your own paste :
"Such requests are made most often"
What about the less often used ?
Regurgitating rules and regulations from some website, doesn't make it a legal thing. It all depends on the 3 W's.
You know the ones.......What, Who and Why !
It's almost funny watching you flailing and ranting. Almost.
Kathy ?
I have always wanted to see the true answer to "What is an HONEST dialogue ?"
Is it a dialogue with agreement ?
Is it a dialogue with disagreement ?
Is it ONLY one of the above ?
Is it all of the above ?
Is it none of the above ?
"Such requests are made most often"
What about the less often used ?
Once again, because you cannot satisfy the burden of proof of the seeds allegation … but happily run with it because it deflects the actual issue to the joy of salivating Obama-haters, you ask rhetorical questions with gotcha implications.
If you can't answer your own questions, it's because you lack the knowledge to defend your argument!
Those who cry "fake news" when the inconvenient truths appear … are the actual perpetrators of fake news.
Your out of your league if you think you're going to debate with me.
Done with you.
Seems "Rhetorical" is in the eye of the beholden?
If a statement notes "Most", any common sense person would ask.....Why isn't it "ALL".
If you find that "MOST" means "ALL", then the media is for you. When "I" see that word "MOST, "I" know, as a common sense person, there is some wiggle room there.
Besides, are you of the type that thinks politicians follow the letter of the written law ?
"I" as a common sense person knows, that the letter of the law can be circumvented at any time. Getting caught is a different story. In politics, a few, very few, do get caught, but "MOST" don't get caught, whether do to lack of interest or just flat out political Ideological leanings.
You didn't read ALL my words did you.
Why shouldn't we consider your comment trolling?
Why would you ?
Opposites attract dialog.
If one agrees ALL the time, there is no need for dialog. Didn't you know that ?
You surely DID !
You didn't like my answer, so dialog....in your mind....isn't happening.
I surely did. You just thought it was....how did you put it.....ahhh yes....that's what you posted....Pee Wee Hermanish in your mind !
You didn't say "PEOPLE" in your postings. You were just worried about ONE comment....MINE !
So NO....you didn't use "PEOPLE".
Your posts are up and readable. Maybe you should do a double take on your comments.
That is incorrect; "Pee Wee Herman" defense refers to, in essence, "the attempt to use one member's comment/argument back on that member without offering any substantive rebuttal content."
I gave you a substantive rebuttal (Most times, so not ALL times), which you chose to ignore (Didn't fit YOUR narrative), and just pasted more regurgitation from a web site.
Again, I surely did !
Ignoring, or not understanding, IS NOT AN EXCUSE to keep rambling on to make Yourself sound relevant !
As far as the article goes, I have a question for you, and Amac.
If there was no wiretapping going on, as the DOJ says there supposedly is NO evidence of, how are there transcripts and recordings of conversations from "Trump" people that were supposedly not wire tapped ?
I not only rebut the utter bullshit posted in some of these threads, I back my rebuttals … and in this case, I not only called you and the boys on the misrepresented/mischaracterized seeded article, but I …
• explained the very protocol regarding wiretaps
• explained that THE TRUMP JUSTICE DEPARTMENT concluded there WAS NO WIRETAPPING OF TRUMP'S OFFICE by Obama!
The peril in which Trump and his minions have placed American democracy is frightening … and all for the purpose of championing a POTUS who panders to haters, who lies, who may very well have sold out to a foreign power …
The method was not in question. The motive is !
The DOJ and the FBI will only confirm what they want to confirm.
As your own post said many moons ago.."MOST TIMES".
I know this is a scary thought, but....AGAIN.....what happens the other times ?
How so ?
By the way....am I in "YOUR LEAGUE" yet ?
Well said, it is me.
I feel you. In this case, the seed starts out with an overt lie.
As you know, the headline for the CNN article reads:
Exclusive: US government wiretapped former Trump campaign chairman
The CNN article doesn't even contain the word 'spied'. It would be kind to call the linked article disingenuous.
If you're going to claim that source of this 'story' is CNN, why didn't the seeder just post the CNN link and let the reader interpret it for themselves?
I think your analysis is accurate...
There is no evidence of President Obama ordering a wiretap on candidate Trump. There is evidence of the FBI tapping Manafort from '14-'16 and again in late '16 to early '17. Trump and Manafort are buddies and communicate. If any of those tapes have President Trump on them that would be explosive and damaging to the Obama FBI.
Given the sensitive nature of tapping a presidential candidate I would tap someone the candidate talks to and hope to catch the candidate. If I am smart enough to figure that out I am sure there are those in the Obama DOJ that can as well.
Manafort wants the transcripts released. Let's see if it happens. Then we will know if Trump was caught on a wiretap.
Once again the issue is who leaked? That is the felony.
The secret court seems to not be so secret. It's time for FISA to go.
The seeded article here is very dishonest.
And who cares if Trump got caught up in surveillance of Manafort's wrong doing?
I remember 18 months or so ago when the right was salivating over the possibility that Clinton sent classified emails from an unsecured server to President Obama.
If Trump was dumb enough to hire Manafort to head his campaign, that's his problem.
There will be political consequences for tapping the campaign of the opposing party. Dems will pay a heavy price if Trump is on one of those intercepts and there are no charges filed against Manafort.
Once again the real felony is being ignored. The leak of FISA information. Doesn't anyone on the left care about that?
"If CNN's report proves true, those who lied will no doubt say, "We didn't wiretap Trump; we wiretapped Manafort." But that cutesy, specious logic comes up short, both legally and ethically. In tapping Manafort, they knew they were getting Trump's many intimate conversations with him. That's how they could go to FISA and say it wasn't about Trump, but about Manafort. It was in fact a roundabout way of getting Trump in trouble, possibly even impeached. "
THAT'S CALLED THE BACK DOOR WIRETAP
THAT'S CALLED THE BACK DOOR WIRETAP
No; it's not!
A wiretap precipitated by FISA authorization will sometimes yield information from conversations the TARGET has with individuals who may or may not have any direct connection to the suspected crime associated with the TARGET.
They are referred to as "intercepts".
Justice Department Confirms: No Evidence Obama Wiretapped Trump Tower
On a Friday afternoon before a three-day holiday weekend, the Justice Department threw cold water on one of President Trump’s most incendiary claims since moving into the White House, that he was the victim of surveillance by his predecessor . Trump’s claims in March that “Obama had my ‘wires tapped’ in Trump Tower just before the victory” have long been seen as utter nonsense, and in a court filing the Justice Department confirmed that’s exactly what they were .
The TRUMP Justice Department!
FYI: It is not known outside of Mueller's investigation, etc., whether or not Manafort spoke to Trump while he was being wiretapped! So it's pure political bullshit to claim that Trump was picked up via any wiretapped conversation!
_____________________________________________________
See ya' around, folks.
Ok. 👋
This assertion that because Manafort was wiretapped over the course of a couple years it proves Trump was right about himself having been wiretapped is one of the more dishonest we have seen from the right lately (and , as always, that is really saying something).
Manafort was the subject of a criminal investigation long before he went to work for Trump. If Trump is dumb enough or crooked enough to hire someone who is the subject of a criminal investigation by the FBI then maybe he deserves whatever incidental blowback falls on him.
If the Trump campaign was targeted, where is the evidence of wiretaps on individuals in that campaign, aside from Manafort? Manafort left the Trump campaign in the late summer. Did Obama lose interest in wiretapping Trump after Manafort left? rofl.
All seeds like this one make me do is hope more that they nail Trump and his gang on criminal charges to watch all these rw heads explode on NT.
Yes worse than Nixon but so was Hillary's Email debacle. No one cared about that either.
How can it be worse than Nixon if it didn't happen?
All I can say at this time is I believe that neither side wants the content of those wiretap tapes to come out....
The T-Rump side for what they might reveal about the campaign, and the Democrat side for fear about what they will reveal about them using the powers of the extra-judicial FISA court for something other than gathering evidence against terrorists. And the fact that they did record conversations related to the campaign with the Presidential candidate in the middle of an election. (nice going democrats)
Unless they want to make the claim that Manafort, acting as T-Rumps campaign manager, (period of the second FISA warrant) is a terrorist.
Excuse me, Presidential campaigns are off limits to the government, at least they were when I was there.
But tie that in with the IRS being used against conservative groups? Would that administration refuse to use information against the oppo gathered this way, I sincerely doubt that.
You all want to hang your hat on the idea that nothing done was wrong cause they didn't specifically target T-Rump.
Therefore T-Rump was and is still lying.
In the world of politics? surveillance of the candidates campaign manager during an election is surveillance the campaign. It is also indirect surveillance of the candidate themselves.
On that basis if the information published by CNN is accurate (questionable I know) then T-Rump was telling the truth.
Couple that with the fact that CNN reported it as a false allegation, and is now reporting that is did take place? Why? to suit their political agenda? Of course.
A FISA warrant only needs a claim of probable cause, A judicial warrant not only requires a claim, it required actual evidence submitted to an open court. A judicial wiretap warrant also requires all parties being recorded be named in the warrant and what they are seeking be spelled out with specificity.
A FISA warrant specifically does not require any of this. Anyone on the phone with the subject and anything they talk about is fair game.
This was an abuse of power. Maybe not the first wiretap warrant, but the second one, after Manafort was named campaign manager, surely was without any doubt.
But the only way we will know the truth is to release the tapes, we will then see exactly what was being recorded and did they record the Candidate talking about his campaign, or as president.
That is why neither side wants said tapes to be released. Much in the same way the criminal investigation into the IRS was quashed.
Such things are so wrong, a veritable destruction of what this nation is supposed to represent that they hurt both sides to much to let the facts come to the light of day.
The warrant was part of an investigation into U.S. firms that may have performed undisclosed work for the Ukrainian government. The surveillance reportedly lapsed for a time but was begun again last year when the FBI learned about possible ties between Russian operatives and Trump associates.
From Trump's DOJ!
Justice Department and former FBI Director James Comey have said there is no proof of Trump’s wiretap claim. On September 2, Politico reported that the Department of Justice (DOJ) found “no evidence to support President Donald Trump’s claim” that Obama wiretapped Trump Tower. Former FBI Director James Comey had also said in his testimony to Congress that neither the FBI or the DOJ had any information that would support Trump’s claim, according to Politico :
There is no evidence to support President Donald Trump's claim that President Barack Obama ordered the wiretapping of Trump Tower during the 2016 presidential campaign, the Justice Department said in a new court filing.
The DOJ made the statement in a motion for summary judgment filed Friday in response to a Freedom of Information Act lawsuit by the watchdog group American Oversight.
"Both FBI and NSD confirm that they have no records related to wiretaps as described by the March 4, 2017 tweets," the government said, referring to the Justice Department’s National Security Division.
James Comey, who was FBI director at the time Trump made the statements, also said, in sworn testimony before Congress, that neither the FBI nor the Justice Department had information to support the tweets. Trump later fired Comey, a move that has come under increasing scrutiny amid federal investigations into Russian interference in the 2016 campaign. [ Politico , 9/2/17]
Then they should have spoke up and told T-Rump that Manafort was under investigation and should not be named as his campaign manager. That would have been the above board honorable thing to have done.
There is no evidence they made any attempt to do such. In fact it could easily be argued that they saw it as a a never before seen opportunity that was just dropped into their laps. (which is what I personally believe given my understanding of how the government works politically at that level)
Continuing to surveil Manafort while he was Campaign Manager is wrong. And would not only be damning to the Obama Administration, but quite possibly criminal. (especially if it can be established that any information gained was used in the Clinton campaign strategy, and yes T-Rump's ties to Russia were part of the Clinton campaign strategy)
I know we are on opposite sides of the fence here my friend, but you at least HAVE to admit that.
Neither side has clean hands here.
Do you really believe that either side wants the truth to come out on this?
Disagree … that could compromise the investigation by tipping off Manafort who then might have destroyed evidence.
It's not up to the FBI to vet campaign choices for a campaign …
… and in retrospect, Manafort's Russia connections and the fact that the ONE PLANK REMOVED FROM THE REPUBLICAN PLATFORM at the RNC Convention had to do with U.S. support for Ukraine against Putin … and apparently one of Manafort's Russian GRU Operative associates was responsible for its removal … pretty much tells a big part of the tale!
The Trump campaign worked behind the scenes to make sure the Republican platform would not call for giving weapons to Ukraine to fight Russian and rebel forces, contradicting the view of almost all Republican foreign policy leaders in Washington.
Throughout the campaign, Trump was dismissive of calls for supporting the Ukraine government as it fights an ongoing Russian-led intervention.
Trump’s campaign chairman, Paul Manafort, worked as a lobbyist for the Russian-backed former Ukrainian president Viktor Yanukovych for more than a decade.
Aside from which, when Sally Yates had information on Flynn's vulnerability to Russian blackmail, she warned Trump who hired Flynn nevertheless and it wasn't until that information hit the press, that Flynn was fired. And now there is information that Flynn was dealing while in the White House.
It is all coming together … and even if Trump stupidly fires Mueller … the investigation will continue and go to completion.
As my friend, I ask you to take me on my word on this … and if it turns out that I am shown to be wrong … I promise that I will admit to such wrong immediately in large, bold type!
Well then political interests are superior to honesty and integrity.
Adding in that it is the opposition candidate that it is justified against just shows how far down the hate and division road we have gone.
The one thing I find humorous in all this, they had a line directly into the heart of then T-Rump campaign, usually that is death to a campaign. They came up with nothing but speculations and still lost the election.
Personally I wonder, all deflection and outrage aside, just what is on those tapes, if they exist, and who it will condemn.
All I'm saying is it condemns both sides at this point as less than honorable ethical people.
But then being honorable and ethical is antithetical to being in politics, it's why I quit.
And my friend as I have told you, if the current speculation turns out to be true, I will be the first in line to pull the lever on the trap door, that was and is still my promise.
So all someone has to do to be exempt from surveillance it to become a part of a political campaign?
That's ludicrous. Politicians, candidates and all of their minions are fair game when it comes to them breaking the laws of the US, especially if they are doing so to further the agenda of a foreign entity.
The person they are working for should know about such an investigation into a subordinate.