By Douglas J. Hagmann
There is a large storm brewing over Washington, DC right now – a storm that could dwarf anything ever seen in recent times. It is growing stronger by the hour as new information is being disclosed that strongly suggests that it is possible, even likely, that Obama and his Department of Justice maliciously and criminally misused the FISA process to collect intelligence on Presidential candidate Donald J. Trump. Additionally, Obama personally relaxed the limitations on how such information collected could be disseminated in the weeks before leaving office.
The political ramifications from this, if proved correct, could be unprecedented in scope. Once fully exposed, it would explain the curious actions of Obama as he prepared to vacate the White House. It would also explain, in context, the actions and statements of not only Barack Hussein Obama, but others in key positions of power including Loretta Lynch, Sally Yates, John Brennan, and others within the media.
At issue is Obama’s insistence to secure a federal wiretap warrant of Donald J. Trump, the candidate, using the federal court system as the mechanism to do so. The ostensible probable cause was alleged ties between Donald J. Trump and/or his associates with Russia.
The first warrant application was made in June 2016, according to reports published by The New York Times and elsewhere, but was rejected due to the lack of probable cause of criminal activity.
When the request was denied in regular federal court, Obama and his Justice Department attempted an “end around” by citing the existence of a “foreign actor” and made a similar surveillance warrant application through the more specialized Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) court in October of 2016. According to published reports, that warrant application was rejected as well, a rare occurrence in the FISA venue, which strengthens claims that no evidence of any foreign involvement ever existed. It has been reported that the initial warrant application to the FISA court specifically named Donald J. Trump.
It is also relevant to note here that this is the type of activity that led to the creation of the infamous “Wall” that was referenced after the 9/11 attacks. Its relevance to this specific instance is explained well by former federal prosecutor Andrew McCarthy in this January 11, 2017 column.
Apparently undeterred, the Obama Justice Department submitted yet another application to the FISA court, this time omitting the name of Donald J. Trump and submitting it as a FISA specific case. The FISA court reportedly approved the application under the new and more narrow scope. Specifically, ties to two Russian banks: Russia’s SV bank and Alfa Bank. The alleged target was a computer server reportedly situated inside the Trump Tower.
Based on the lack of action consequential to that warrant and wiretap, it has been stated (and can be reasonably determined) that no actionable evidence was found.
Shortly before leaving office, Obama expanded the power of the National Security Agency (NSA) as detailed in the unclassified document titled Procedures for the Availability or Dissemination of Raw Signals Intelligence Information by the National Security Agency (NSA). As detailed in that document, limitations were changed on what the NSA could do with the information they collected through their surveillance operations. These changes effectively relaxed the restrictions on the dissemination of information collected on private citizens by broadening the access to such information.
It is also notable that on January 3, 2017, U.S. Attorney General Loretta Lynch signed off on rule changes for phone taps.
It appears that President Trump has been provided the evidence of a paper trail leading to a FISA court that substantiates his assertions that Barack Hussein Obama, working in concert with others including those wielding the full might and power of various federal agencies, improperly obtained authorization to eavesdrop on the Trump campaign under the pretense of a national security investigation, and continued such monitoring beyond its tenuous scope even when no evidence of wrongdoing was found.
This is as serious as it gets.
By Douglas J. Hagmann
What’s one of the most effective and expedient methods of taking a true incident and making it not only appear false but outrageously and demonstrably false? You know the kind of false I mean… the “urban legend” type of false, causing anyone who hears about the incident to immediately dismiss it and attack the messengers as conspiracy nuts?
The answer is playing out, in real-time, right before all of us, and we all need to understand the methods that are being used to cover the lie. To answer the question, though, is for a government official or agency to take what is true, and wrap it in the bait of a more significant lie where the larger, more outrageous lie is proven untrue. Soon, people don’t know what to believe, so they discount the entire story, even (and especially) the kernel of truth covered by the lie. Then, when anyone refers to the incident, they are told that the entire story was proven false.
I am referring to the allegations that the Holder Justice Department “wiretapped” the cloakrooms or the private, “members-only” areas just off the floor of the House and Senate. The story originated with the disclosure that the Associated Press received a letter from the Holder Justice Department last week stating that the government had obtained two months of telephone records that included each incoming and outgoing telephone number and the length of each call for over 20 different lines used by reporters. Additionally, the records also included personal lines for reporters and phones in the congressional press gallery.
Since the story broke, some lawmakers and others have gone public to decry the allegations that the Holder Justice Department “wiretapped” the Cloak Room. Wiretapping indicates real-time telephonic surveillance of the phone lines by Holder’s agents. Wiretapping is, of course, the incorrect word to describe the DOJ’s attack on our separation of powers through the questionable, if not illegal, use of his agency’s powers in a manner that seems to summon the ghost of J. Edgar Hoover during the darkest of times. The incorrect use of the word wiretapping was about all the tyrannical despots within the Obama regime needed to immediately and forcefully deny that any such surveillance had taken place—and be technically correct. Thus began the clever word games.
The truth, however, is even far more disturbing than the big lie. According to one intelligence official close to the situation who provided information specific to this incident, Holder’s Justice Department not only attacked the sacred separation of powers through his agency’s actions by obtaining the aforementioned telephone records, but what has yet to be disclosed is that all electronic communications data was included in this overreach. According to this source, the records not only included those within the cloakroom but in other areas throughout and within the Capitol. Not in real-time, of course, to maintain the infamous Nixonian plausible deniability amid the semantics serving to sully the truth.
The purpose is to identify the media contacts used by members of the House and Senate as they look for leaks in the house of the people. Do not fall for the redefinition of the word “is,” and don’t dismiss the lengths to which the Obama regime is going, through Holder’s Justice Department, to identify the leaks that might expose what’s really going on behind the scenes.
There will be more to follow.