FISAgate

turkeyfoot · March 9, 2017

The Senate Judiciary Committee's Subcommittee on Crime and Terrorism goes to work.

"For no one but Trump would have the chromium-vanadium steel cojones to take on the Deep State by going straight for its jugular, right for the throat of its emperor. It’s like Alexander going straight for Darius at Gaugamela." Darius was killed by his own men for his cowardly retreat.

The Deep State is being challenged already having been dealt a severe blow by Wikileaks.

http://lawnewz.com/high-profile/yes-obama-could-be-prosecuted-if-involved-with-illegal-surveillance/

william.scherk · March 9, 2017

OLers go deep ...

Donald Trump

william.scherk replied to RobinReborn's topic in Stumping in the Backyard

...President Trump's Allies Keep Talking About the 'Deep State.' What's That? It Looks Like Breitbart News Might Be Turning on Donald Trump Trump’s get-tough policies credited for sharp plunge in illegal immigration Trump-Russia conspirator Michael Flynn registers as foreign agent, admits he took half...
Donald Trump

Michael Stuart Kelly replied to RobinReborn's topic in Stumping in the Backyard

...the unelected regulatorydeep state, the whole governmental climate change structure, Obamacare, etc. If you don't believe President Trump is taking a wrecking ball to the administrative state, ask the civil servants who work there. Michael
Conspiracy theories and Conspiracy theorists

Michael Stuart Kelly replied to KorbenDallas's topic in 2 - Epistemology

Now we get to theDeep State conspiracy theory. David Knight made an interesting distinction between WikiLeaks andDeep State leaks to the left-wing mainstream press. He actually made several distinctions and they are important, but the one that stands out to me is the one that attack...
Conspiracy theories and Conspiracy theorists

Michael Stuart Kelly replied to KorbenDallas's topic in 2 - Epistemology

...it will blow a lid off of thedeep state and let some light in. For now, the Daily Mail: Trump loyalist Roger Stone claims he was POISONED with polonium by political enemies who wanted to kill him before he could expose 'the truth' about Russian hack We stay tuned... Michae...
Galt's Oath

Brant Gaede replied to merjet's topic in 3 - Ethics

...aka crony capitalism and/or the "Deep State." Another problem is the philosophy's "top-downerism." Push out the bad guys and put in the good guys. This is sublimated in the novel by Galt refusing power, as if the bad guys could be starved out leaving the path clear for Galt and his like--the t...
Donald Trump

Brant Gaede replied to RobinReborn's topic in Stumping in the Backyard

...I'll just be a little more rational than thedeep state boys in Washington. It works for me because I live in today's fucked up world, not any Utopian future. --Brant bye bye Hillary, bye bye
war crimes

What does a President Trump mean for Syria?

Brant Gaede replied to william.scherk's topic in 4 - Politics

...Will the "Deep State" suck him in? The 2003 invasion of Iraq continues to pay its ghastly dividends and it's thanks to our boneheaded President Bush. Because Trump won we can continue to play Masters of the Universe. That's better, at least esthetically and/or psychologically, than having...
FBI may re-open Hillary e-mail investigation.

wolfdevoon replied to merjet's topic in 4 - Politics

...(3) someDeep State player has decided that Hillary is unstable or sick or dirty, and gave Comey orders to take her down, or (4) Comey is trying to put down a rebellion inside FBI, because senior field agents were about to go public. In other news, left-leaning MOA has endorsed Trump.
Fifteen years to the day...

Brant Gaede replied to BaalChatzaf's topic in The Garbage Pile

...TheDeep State rules! Fighting fascism doesn't have to mean sending in the troops. It first means knowing what it is and what is going on. Muslims can keep their religion--they are going to anyway. Why bang your head against a stone wall? --Brant
Donald Trump

Brant Gaede replied to RobinReborn's topic in Stumping in the Backyard

...Big money always buys big advantages but the biggest money is already in the state or available to its operators and is constantly sucked into thedeep state. If the book doesn't go into that too, too bad. --Brant
Chatter: Kerry, Biden surrender to Putin

wolfdevoon posted a topic in News and Interesting Articles

...Something strange is going on behind the scenes for sure *** *** The USDeep State has either made a deal with Putin, or some event has taken place which changes the game, and the US being allowed to withdraw gracefully *** *** Kind of explains that "Three Oil Tankers Turning Around" story -- som...
Christian Objectivism?

william.scherk replied to Ryanheartsthedarkness's topic in 1 - Metaphysics

..." Drew: "I am a drone operator for a secretdeep state, nothing to do with my attitude toward Israel 1973 and Israel 2015 or to my relationship with Rand. Why do you call her 'Ayn' anyway? -- did you ever sit on her lap or hold her hand or French kiss her? I guess it could be argued that Rand did n...
Language - The Great Equalizer

syrakusos replied to Robert Baratheon's topic in Objectivist Living Room

...being convicted of harming others would be a deep statement about that person's character, or lack of it. But here and now, when people become criminals for not harming others, such standards cannot apply.
Help with Depression

Xray replied to theandresanchez's topic in Psychology

...It sat in my bag for a few days after being bought as I have been feeling relatively well (I would never have asked for help here while in adeep state of depression). The doctor said they were a hyper-conservative medication/dose until he could figure out the proper treatment and that they wouldn'...
Help with Depression

theandresanchez replied to theandresanchez's topic in Psychology

...It sat in my bag for a few days after being bought as I have been feeling relatively well (I would never have asked for help here while in adeep state of depression). The doctor said they were a hyper-conservative medication/dose until he could figure out the proper treatment and that they wouldn'...
Morality: Who needs it?

Rich Engle replied to Ciro's topic in 3 - Ethics

...deep state of serenity. It even shows to people who have never met her before. I'm always asking her about it (usually when I'm looking for some, when I've hit one of those inevitable "thin places" that life will throw at you). She has had a very unusual and varied life. A good deal of which, from...

Edited March 9, 2017 by william.scherk
Go deep.

Ellen Stuttle · March 9, 2017

1 hour ago, turkeyfoot said:

The Senate Judiciary Committee's Subcommittee on Crime and Terrorism goes to work.

"For no one but Trump would have the chromium-vanadium steel cojones to take on the Deep State by going straight for its jugular, right for the throat of its emperor. It’s like Alexander going straight for Darius at Gaugamela." Darius was killed by his own men for his cowardly retreat.

The Deep State is being challenged already having been dealt a severe blow by Wikileaks.

http://lawnewz.com/high-profile/yes-obama-could-be-prosecuted-if-involved-with-illegal-surveillance/

From the lawnewz article:

Quote

[Emphasis added]

by definition, FISA information is strictly confidential or it’s information that never should have been gathered. FISA strictly segregates its surveilled information into two categories: highly confidential information of the most serious of crimes involving foreign acts of war; or, if not that, then information that should never have been gathered, should be immediately deleted, and never sourced nor disseminated. It cannot be both

Recognizing this information did not fit FISA meant having to delete it and destroy it. According to published reports, Obama’s team did the opposite: order it preserved, ordered the NSA to search it, keep it, and share it; and then Obama’s Attorney General issued an order to allow broader sharing of information and, according to the New York Times, Obama aides acted to label the Trump information at a lower level of classification for massive-level sharing of the information. The problem for Obama is simple — if it could fit a lower level of classification, then it had to be deleted and destroyed, not disseminated and distributed, under crystal clear FISA law. Obama’s team’s admission it could be classified lower, yet taking actions to insure its broadest distribution, could even put Obama smack-middle of the biggest unlawful surveillance and political-opponent-smear campaign since Nixon. Except even Nixon didn’t use the FBI and NSA for his dirty tricks.

Ellen

turkeyfoot · March 9, 2017

Reading like a Vince Flynn plot Wikileaks points to: UMBRAGE

The CIA's Remote Devices Branch's UMBRAGE group collects and maintains a substantial library of attack techniques 'stolen' from malware produced in other states including the Russian Federation.

With UMBRAGE and related projects the CIA cannot only increase its total number of attack types but also misdirect attribution by leaving behind the "fingerprints" of the groups that the attack techniques were stolen from.

The proof the Russkies were the source of the DNC hack.

"The metadata in the leaked documents are perhaps most revealing: one dumped document was modified using Russian language settings, by a user named "Феликс Эдмундович(Felix Edmundovich) ," a code name referring to the founder of the Soviet Secret Police, the Cheka, memorialised in a 15-ton iron statue in front of the old KGB headquarters during Soviet times."

"It was the best of times, it was the worst of times......the epoch of incredulity."

turkeyfoot · March 9, 2017

3 minutes ago, Ellen Stuttle said:

From the lawnewz article:

Ellen

How do you parse the italicized comments, Ellen? Im supposing this information will not come to light because it is compartmentalized. The House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence is inviting heads of agencies to comment on election hacking. My hunch is the truth will lie buried with those who have left office.

Ever since Clapper lied to Congress about the existence of NSA's domestic collection of data Ive had a sickening sense that the truth will never be disclosed in open court by those in positions sworn to secrecy unless offered immunity. Therefore we are left with the breath taking information Snowden laid out.

When Comey said yesterday, "no right to absolute privacy in the US" I thought, well yes there is. Taking the 5th while not offering protection against prosecution does maintain privacy. Also marital privilege can be invoked. However, none of these offer assurances of losing ones privacy by being jailed.

william.scherk · March 9, 2017

FISA lake.

Edited March 9, 2017 by william.scherk
Removed comment. Wrong thread, d'oh!

Ellen Stuttle · March 9, 2017

36 minutes ago, turkeyfoot said:

How do you parse the italicized comments, Ellen? Im supposing this information will not come to light because it is compartmentalized. The House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence is inviting heads of agencies to comment on election hacking. My hunch is the truth will lie buried with those who have left office.

I'm not sure if I understand your question.

The lawnewz article discusses ways Obama could be prosecuted if he did use FISA to seek information on Trump. One of the ways is if he disseminated any information gained. According to FISA requirements (the article's author, Robert Barnes, reports; I don't know if the report is accurate), the only legitimate information to be sought using FISA pertains to foreign acts of war, which anything gotten about Trump clearly wasn't. Any other information acquired is supposed to be destroyed not disseminated.

Ellen

anthony · March 9, 2017

By Judge Andrew P. Napolitano

Published March 9, 2017

Those of us who believe that the Constitution means what it says have been arguing since the late 1970s that congressional efforts to strengthen national security by weakening personal liberty are unconstitutional, un-American and ineffective. The Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, which Congress passed in the aftermath of President Richard Nixon's use of the CIA and the FBI to spy on his political opponents, has unleashed demons that now seem beyond the government's control and are more pervasive than anything Nixon could have dreamed of.

This realization came to a boiling point last weekend when President Donald Trump accused former President Barack Obama of monitoring his telephone calls during the 2016 presidential election campaign. Can a U.S. president legally spy on a political opponent or any other person in America without any suspicion, probable cause or warrant from a judge? In a word, yes.

Here is the back story.

The president can order the National Security Agency to spy on anyone at any time for any reason, without a warrant. This is profoundly unconstitutional but absolutely lawful because it is expressly authorized by the FISA statute.

All electronic surveillance today, whether ordered by the president or authorized by a court, is done remotely by accessing the computers of every telephone and computer service provider in the United States. The NSA has 24/7/365 access to all the mainframe computers of all the telephone and computer service providers in America.

The service providers are required by law to permit this access and are prohibited by law from complaining about it publicly, challenging it in court or revealing any of its details. In passing these prohibitions, Congress violated the First Amendment, which prohibits it from infringing upon the freedom of speech.

The fruits of electronic surveillance cannot be used in criminal prosecutions but can be shared with the president. If they are revealed publicly, the revelation constitutes computer hacking, a federal crime. Nevertheless, some of what was overheard from telephone conversations between the Russian ambassador to the U.S. and former Lt. Gen. Michael Flynn, Trump's former national security adviser, was revealed to the public — a revelation that profoundly disturbed the White House and many in the intelligence community and constituted a crime.

The original purpose of FISA was to place the judiciary as an intermediary between the nation's spies and the foreign agents we all know are among us. The theory was that the NSA would first need to demonstrate to a secret court probable cause that the target of the spying is an agent of a foreign power and this would restrain the NSA from spying on ordinary Americans. This probable cause of foreign agency was a dramatic congressional rejection of the constitutional standard — namely, probable cause of crime — for the issuance of warrants. Foreign agency is not a crime.

This congressional rejection of constitutional norms began the slippery slope in which the foreign agency standard has morphed by legislation and by secret interpretations of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court to probable cause of foreign personhood to probable cause of talking to a foreign person to probable cause of being able to talk to a foreign person to — dropping the probable cause standard altogether — anyone who speaks to anyone else who could speak to a foreign person.

This Orwellian and absurd expansion was developed by spies and approved by judges on the FISA court. The NSA argued that it would be more efficient to spy on everyone in the United States than to isolate bad people, and the court bought that argument.

Hence, FISA warrants do not name particular people or places as their targets as the Constitution requires. Rather, they merely continue in place the previous warrants, which encompass everyone in the country. FISA warrants are general warrants, allowing intelligence agents to listen to whomever they wish and retain whatever they hear. General warrants are expressly prohibited by the Fourth Amendment, which requires that all warrants for all purposes be based on probable cause of crime and particularly describe the person or thing to be seized — e.g., a conversation — or the place to be searched.

Even though the NSA already has the legal, though unconstitutional, authority to capture any phone conversation or computer keystroke it wishes, its 60,000 agents lack the resources to listen to all conversations or read all electronic communications in real time. But it does capture the digital versions of all computer keystrokes made in or to the U.S. and all conversations had within the U.S. or involving someone in the U.S.; it has been doing so since 2005. And it can download any conversation or text or email at will.

That's why the recent argument that Obama ordered the NSA to obtain a FISA warrant for Trump's telephone calls and a judge issued a warrant for them is nonsense. The NSA already has a digital version of every call Trump has made or received since 2005. Because the NSA — which now works for Trump — is a part of the Defense Department, it is subject to the orders of the president in his capacity as commander in chief. So if the commander in chief wants something that a military custodian already has or can create — such as a transcript of an opponent's conversations with political strategists during a presidential campaign — why would he bother getting a warrant? He wouldn't.

All of this leads to information overload — so much material that the communications of evil people are safely hidden in with the mountain of data from the rest of us. The NSA captures the digital equivalent — if printed — of 27 times the contents of the Library of Congress every year.

All of this also leads to the monstrous power of the NSA to manipulate, torment and control the president by selectively concealing and selectively revealing data to him. The Constitution does not entrust such power to anyone in government. But Congress has given it.

All of this also substantially impairs a fundamental personal liberty, the right to be left alone — a right for which we seceded from Great Britain, a right guaranteed by the Fourth Amendment and a right for which we fought wars against tyrants who we feared would take it from us.

Yet after we won those wars, we permitted our elected representatives to crush that right. Those faithless representatives have created a monster that has now turned on us.

Andrew P. Napolitano, a former judge of the Superior Court of New Jersey, is the senior judicial analyst at Fox News Channel. Judge Napolitano has written seven books on the U.S. Constitution

turkeyfoot · March 9, 2017

1 hour ago, anthony said:

By Judge Andrew P. Napolitano

Published March 9, 2017

Those of us who believe that the Constitution means what it says have been arguing since the late 1970s that congressional efforts to strengthen national security by weakening personal liberty are unconstitutional, un-American and ineffective. The Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, which Congress passed in the aftermath of President Richard Nixon's use of the CIA and the FBI to spy on his political opponents, has unleashed demons that now seem beyond the government's control and are more pervasive than anything Nixon could have dreamed of.

This realization came to a boiling point last weekend when President Donald Trump accused former President Barack Obama of monitoring his telephone calls during the 2016 presidential election campaign. Can a U.S. president legally spy on a political opponent or any other person in America without any suspicion, probable cause or warrant from a judge? In a word, yes.

Here is the back story.

The president can order the National Security Agency to spy on anyone at any time for any reason, without a warrant. This is profoundly unconstitutional but absolutely lawful because it is expressly authorized by the FISA statute.

All electronic surveillance today, whether ordered by the president or authorized by a court, is done remotely by accessing the computers of every telephone and computer service provider in the United States. The NSA has 24/7/365 access to all the mainframe computers of all the telephone and computer service providers in America.

The service providers are required by law to permit this access and are prohibited by law from complaining about it publicly, challenging it in court or revealing any of its details. In passing these prohibitions, Congress violated the First Amendment, which prohibits it from infringing upon the freedom of speech.

The fruits of electronic surveillance cannot be used in criminal prosecutions but can be shared with the president. If they are revealed publicly, the revelation constitutes computer hacking, a federal crime. Nevertheless, some of what was overheard from telephone conversations between the Russian ambassador to the U.S. and former Lt. Gen. Michael Flynn, Trump's former national security adviser, was revealed to the public — a revelation that profoundly disturbed the White House and many in the intelligence community and constituted a crime.

The original purpose of FISA was to place the judiciary as an intermediary between the nation's spies and the foreign agents we all know are among us. The theory was that the NSA would first need to demonstrate to a secret court probable cause that the target of the spying is an agent of a foreign power and this would restrain the NSA from spying on ordinary Americans. This probable cause of foreign agency was a dramatic congressional rejection of the constitutional standard — namely, probable cause of crime — for the issuance of warrants. Foreign agency is not a crime.

This congressional rejection of constitutional norms began the slippery slope in which the foreign agency standard has morphed by legislation and by secret interpretations of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court to probable cause of foreign personhood to probable cause of talking to a foreign person to probable cause of being able to talk to a foreign person to — dropping the probable cause standard altogether — anyone who speaks to anyone else who could speak to a foreign person.

This Orwellian and absurd expansion was developed by spies and approved by judges on the FISA court. The NSA argued that it would be more efficient to spy on everyone in the United States than to isolate bad people, and the court bought that argument.

Hence, FISA warrants do not name particular people or places as their targets as the Constitution requires. Rather, they merely continue in place the previous warrants, which encompass everyone in the country. FISA warrants are general warrants, allowing intelligence agents to listen to whomever they wish and retain whatever they hear. General warrants are expressly prohibited by the Fourth Amendment, which requires that all warrants for all purposes be based on probable cause of crime and particularly describe the person or thing to be seized — e.g., a conversation — or the place to be searched.

Even though the NSA already has the legal, though unconstitutional, authority to capture any phone conversation or computer keystroke it wishes, its 60,000 agents lack the resources to listen to all conversations or read all electronic communications in real time. But it does capture the digital versions of all computer keystrokes made in or to the U.S. and all conversations had within the U.S. or involving someone in the U.S.; it has been doing so since 2005. And it can download any conversation or text or email at will.

That's why the recent argument that Obama ordered the NSA to obtain a FISA warrant for Trump's telephone calls and a judge issued a warrant for them is nonsense. The NSA already has a digital version of every call Trump has made or received since 2005. Because the NSA — which now works for Trump — is a part of the Defense Department, it is subject to the orders of the president in his capacity as commander in chief. So if the commander in chief wants something that a military custodian already has or can create — such as a transcript of an opponent's conversations with political strategists during a presidential campaign — why would he bother getting a warrant? He wouldn't.

All of this leads to information overload — so much material that the communications of evil people are safely hidden in with the mountain of data from the rest of us. The NSA captures the digital equivalent — if printed — of 27 times the contents of the Library of Congress every year.

All of this also leads to the monstrous power of the NSA to manipulate, torment and control the president by selectively concealing and selectively revealing data to him. The Constitution does not entrust such power to anyone in government. But Congress has given it.

All of this also substantially impairs a fundamental personal liberty, the right to be left alone — a right for which we seceded from Great Britain, a right guaranteed by the Fourth Amendment and a right for which we fought wars against tyrants who we feared would take it from us.

Yet after we won those wars, we permitted our elected representatives to crush that right. Those faithless representatives have created a monster that has now turned on us.

Andrew P. Napolitano, a former judge of the Superior Court of New Jersey, is the senior judicial analyst at Fox News Channel. Judge Napolitano has written seven books on the U.S. Constitution

I heard Napolitanos lite version saying a president can request any digital comms anytime. Seeing how Clapper and O have parsed their responses it will be interesting to see if they can be shown to have lied or what was the rationale for peering into the opposition party conversations.

william.scherk · March 10, 2017

This guy Spicer. What does he know?

"There is no reason to believe he's the target of any investigation," @PressSec Sean Spicer says, referring to Trump's wiretap tweet.
— Jennifer Jacobs (@JenniferJJacobs) March 8, 2017

turkeyfoot · March 17, 2017

Floating possibilities and considering sources.

http://www.judgenap.com/post/did-obama-spy-on-trump

"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.

The there there.......

Thus, when senior American intelligence officials denied that their agencies knew about this, they were probably being truthful. Adding to this ominous scenario is the fact that three days after Trump's inauguration, the head of GCHQ, Robert Hannigan, abruptly resigned, stating that he wished to spend more time with his family."

_________________________

The Brits

"We've made clear to the US administration that these claims are ridiculous and should be ignored. We've received assurances that these allegations won't be repeated," May's spokesman said. GCHQ: Wiretap claims are 'nonsense'

____________________________

The WH story. "Judge Andrew Napolitano made the following statement, quote, 'Three intelligence sources have informed Fox News that President Obama went outside the chain of command (to spy on Trump). He didn't use the NSA, he didn't use the CIA ... he used GCHQ,'" Spicer told journalists.

"White House press secretary Sean Spicer flatly denied Friday that the White House apologized to the British government after citing an uncorroborated Fox News report to allege that a UK intelligence agency spied on President Donald Trump at the behest of former President Barack Obama.

McMaster also told his counterpart that "their concerns were understood and heard and it would be relayed to the White House."

The official said there were "at least two calls" from British officials on Thursday and that the British ambassador to the United States called Spicer to discuss the comment.

"Sean was pointing to the breadth of reporting, not endorsing any specific story," the official said.

________________________

He said, he said, she said, they said.

In the words of the great Gilda Rader, "Some stories don't have a clear beginning, middle and end.There is no real security except for whatever you build inside yourself."

turkeyfoot · March 17, 2017

Reporter at press conference with Angela Merkle and Trump.

Mr Trump, do you regret your tweeting about tapping and what do you say now that the GHCQ has said they had nothing to do with it.

Trump, well we have great tweeting, and Mrs Merkle and I now share a common experience in how weve been treated by the previous administration.

To which Angela smirked!

TOUCHE! lmao

BAM and just like that I realized Trump CAN think on his feet!

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/europe/germany/10407282/Barack-Obama-approved-tapping-Angela-Merkels-phone-3-years-ago.html

"The president allegedly allowed US intelligence to listen to calls from the German Chancellor’s mobile phone after he was briefed on the operation by Keith Alexander, director of the National Security Agency (NSA), in 2010. Last week, however, Mr Obama assured Mrs Merkel that her phone is not being monitored now – and will not be in future. But the US has pointedly declined to discuss the NSA’s actions in the past."

Serial tapper, commun(ist) organizer in chief.

turkeyfoot · March 19, 2017

Me thinks the judge is a impartial information observer.

http://thehill.com/homenews/324707-ex-intelligence-official-napolitanos-british-wire-tapping-claim-didnt-get-it-right

Johnson, a former CIA analyst and former Fox News contributor, told CNN’s “Reliable Sources” on Sunday that Napolitano made him a source unknowingly and “didn't get it right, [or] accurate either.”

“I think judge should have had a different approach to it,” Johnson added.

Napolitano reportedly directed the New York Times to call Johnson after facing skepticism regarding his U.K. wiretapping claim.

william.scherk · March 21, 2017

On 3/19/2017 at 2:16 PM, turkeyfoot said:

Me thinks the judge is a impartial information observer.

It could be that Fox thinks along similar lines. The GCHQ story sourcing had a lot of sag.

Via Mediaite, which is neither here nor there: Report: Fox News Pulls Judge Andrew Napolitano Following Trump Wiretap Comments

Quote

Judge Andrew Napolitano, Fox News’ senior judicial analyst, has been pulled from the network, according to a new report out tonight.

The L.A. Times reports that Napolitano has been “taken off the air” after comments he made last week about President Trump‘s wiretapping claims became a major issue.

Napolitano said that according to sources, the Obama administration went to British intelligence agency GCHQ to surveil Trump. Sean Spicer cited it at a press briefing, and the end result here was that GCHQ slammed the claim in a statement and Fox anchors had to state for the record that the news division could not corroborate those claims.

Per the L.A. Times:

People familiar with the situation who could speak only on the condition of anonymity said Napolitano is not expected to be on Fox News Channel any time in the near future.

CNN’s Brian Stelter tweeted earlier that his absence was very notable during all the big news today:

Follow

Brian Stelter

✔@brianstelter

SCOTUS confirmation hearing.
FBI director testimony.
Busy day for TV legal analysts.
So where's Judge Napolitano?
He's not on Fox News...

2:59 PM - 20 Mar 2017

We have reached out to Fox News for comment and will update accordingly.

turkeyfoot · March 22, 2017

Spicer reiterated Trumps tweet meant not actual wire tapping and not actually Obama.

Getting down on Trumps level I think what he said was meant literally.

NSA records every phone call, everywhere.

The veracity of his claim is well documented and quite literally true.

Theres not conspiracy, but there is the fact that everyone is tapped. Everyone does not know this.

Not that we have to depend on Spicers clarification.

"The President used the word wiretaps in quotes to mean, broadly, surveillance and other activities."

Wiretapping is a narrowly defined surveillance activity that involves tapping into "a telephone or telegram wire in order to get information," according to Merriam-Webster dictionary.

Spicer also said that Trump was referring to the Obama administration broadly -- and not accusing Obama of personal involvement --

Trump is on the level, his language and the way in which he speaks to his constituency.

My interpretation of Trumps behavior is, he is getting the truth out, that Americans, one and all, have no reasonable expectation to think anything is private any more. He grasped the IC construct and messaged it literally so Americans, the ignorant, the confined, the helpless all hear the same thing. Government knows the content of all your digital communications.

Hes not wrong. The NSA collects data. Period.

Thx, govenor! ;)

FISAgate

Recommended Posts

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

By Judge Andrew P. Napolitano

Link to comment

Share on other sites

By Judge Andrew P. Napolitano

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

Create an account

Sign in