It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

What if Obama didn't order surveillance on Trump, but tried to and was shut down

page: 1
19
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Mar, 6 2017 @ 06:58 PM
link   
ATS and the world has blown up discussing Trump allegations that Obama wiretapped him. I think there are a lot of good threads on this on ATS, and a lot of questions left answered.

Here is the minimum of what we seem to know. There was apparently a Fisa request in June that listed Trump or at least his team as people to be surveilled for alleged connections to Russia. The Fisa court turned this down. Then in October, another Fisa court request was accepted that did not list Trump.

We do not kow who all this listed, but it may have just listed Russian banks.

We also know that Obama encouraged keeping the intelligence about Trump at as low as classification level as possible and encouraged it to be shared among all agencies (something that seems unprecedented), and that there have been tons of leaks coming out about Trump and Russia.

What we don't know is was there other surveillance, did the surveillance include wiretaps, was Trump tower surveilled, who exactly went to the Fisa court, was info given to Hillary or the DNC about the case, etc. There are a lot of unknowns.

The media and many epopel who are skeptical of Trump on ATS have focused on Trumps specific claim, that Obama "wiretapped" his phone. I will be the first to admit that this can not be proven given what we know. Most say IF Obama did this, it would be very bad, but there is no way he did this.

My contention is that no matter if Obama personally ordered the tapping of Trumps phone or not, what we do know is enough to show Obama and his administration acted in a dictatorial, egregious manner which should outrage anyone interested in free elections.

Forget about the second Fisa request in October for a minute, and lets focus on the first June request.

It has been admitted that this request included Trump or at least his team specifically. Fisa courts are designed to protect from foreign threats. Things such as election fraud would not apply.


FISA, 50 USC 1801, et seq., is a very limited method of obtaining surveillance authority. The reason for its strict limits is that FISA evades the regular federal court process, by not allowing regularly, Constitutionally appointed federal judges and their magistrates to authorize surveillance the Fourth Amendment would otherwise forbid. Instead, the Chief Justice handpicks the FISA court members, who have shown an exceptional deference to the executive branch. This is because FISA court members trust the government is only bringing them surveillance about pending terror attacks or “grave hostile” war-like attacks, as the FISA statute limits itself to. Thus, a FISA application can only be used in very limited circumstances.

One important reminder about electronic surveillance. Occasionally, a law enforcement officer will hear or see or record information not allowed by the warrant, but incidental or accidental to otherwise lawful surveillance. Their job is to immediately stop listening, stop recording, and to delete such information. This is what you occasionally see in films where the agent in the van hears the conversation turn away from something criminal to a personal discussion, and the agent then turns off the listening device and stops the recording. Such films simply recognize long-standing legal practice.

FISA can only be used for “foreign intelligence information.” Now that sounds broad, but is in fact very limited under the law. The only “foreign intelligence information” allowed as a basis for surveillance is information necessary to protect the United States against actual or potential “grave” “hostile” attack, war-like sabotage or international terror. Second, it can only be used to eavesdrop on conversations where the parties to the conversation are a foreign power or an agent of a foreign power. An agent of a foreign power cannot be a United States person unless they are knowingly involved in criminal espionage. No warrant is allowed on that person unless a FISA court finds probable cause the United States person is knowingly engaged in criminal espionage. Even then, if it involves a United States person, special steps must be taken to “minimize the acquisition and retention, and prohibit the dissemination, of non publicly available information concerning un-consenting United States persons.”


lawnewz.com...

This means that people in Obamas admin knowingly tried to overeach and get a Fisa warrant ion Trump for an area where it wasn't appropriate.

Now surely they knew this. Yet in their desperation to surveill tgheir political opponent, they tried their damndest to overlook this. This alone is unbelievable!

And then, in an almost unprecedented action, the Fisa court turned dow the warrant. This woulod be the 13th time out of over 33,000 times that the Fisa court said no.

In other words, the attempt to surveill Trump was so desperate, and so without warrant that even the almsot automatic rubber stamp Fisa court thought it was to dirty.

Does it really matter if Obama was successful in surveilling trump? We know for a fact that his amdin was stretching to get surveillance on him. Why isn't this enough to get people furious at a sitting president trying to stretch the law to get surveillance on his opponent?

But it doesn't stop their. We then know that there was a Fisa application in October that was accepted, that apparently didn't mention Trump. Yet through a great stroke of luck (lol) they ended up picking up material from Trumps team that they originally wanted. What a joke.

Now on a side note, keep in mind that with all of the info that has been leaked, there has been zero evidence of Trump wrongdoing, and even people like Clapper admit there is no evidence. This further proves these taps were more than likely just political.

Now you might be thinking that sure, they went after the Fisa warrant and failed, and then rewrote it and succeeded, but they didn't do anything scandalous with the info they got from the surveillance.

But we know that Obama ordered agencies to share this info with as many people as possible. Now keep in mind that Fisa hearings are supposed to be top secret, but he encouraged people to keep all of this info classified as low as possible. This in fact may be illegal.

continued below...




posted on Mar, 6 2017 @ 07:01 PM
link   
he was apparently on the first FISA application



posted on Mar, 6 2017 @ 07:05 PM
link   

That raises the third problem: it seems the FISA-compelled protocols for precluding the dissemination of the information were violated, and that Obama’s team issued orders to achieve precisely what the law forbids, if published reports are true about the administration sharing the surveilled information far-and-wide to promote unlawful leaks to the press. This, too, would be its own crime, as it brings back the ghost of Hillary’s emails — 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.


lawnewz.com...

Lastly, we know that there have been tons of leaks to a Obama and Hillary friendly press, and that press has pushed the narrative of Trump working with Russians non stop (despite even clapper admitting there is zero evidence)



So to recap for those that will not read this because its to long.

We know for a fact that in June Obama's admin sought a Fisa warrant that named Trump or his team, Obama kept all info about Trump and Russia classified as low as possible to share all of this info, and that there have been leaks about this info.

This warrant was so reaching that the Fisa court turned it down, making it the 13th time out of over 33,000.

Obama wanted to surveill his political opponent, and he made it as easy as possible to leak any negative info about Trump.

I think that even if Obama didn't surveill Trump, the fact that we know he tried to is enough top show how unethical Obama was.



posted on Mar, 6 2017 @ 07:06 PM
link   

originally posted by: syrinx high priest
he was apparently on the first FISA application


Yes exactly. This shows the Obama admin at the very least ATTEMPTED to surveill Trump. This abuse of a sitting president attempting to use agencies to spy on his political opponents is outrageous and needs to be called out or we risk it happening again.



posted on Mar, 6 2017 @ 07:07 PM
link   
what does FISA stand for anyway?



posted on Mar, 6 2017 @ 07:11 PM
link   

originally posted by: Grambler
ATS and the world has blown up discussing Trump allegations that Obama wiretapped him. I think there are a lot of good threads on this on ATS, and a lot of questions left answered.

Here is the minimum of what we seem to know. There was apparently a Fisa request in June that listed Trump or at least his team as people to be surveilled for alleged connections to Russia. The Fisa court turned this down. Then in October, another Fisa court request was accepted that did not list Trump.

We do not kow who all this listed, but it may have just listed Russian banks.

We also know that Obama encouraged keeping the intelligence about Trump at as low as classification level as possible and encouraged it to be shared among all agencies (something that seems unprecedented), and that there have been tons of leaks coming out about Trump and Russia.

What we don't know is was there other surveillance, did the surveillance include wiretaps, was Trump tower surveilled, who exactly went to the Fisa court, was info given to Hillary or the DNC about the case, etc. There are a lot of unknowns.

The media and many epopel who are skeptical of Trump on ATS have focused on Trumps specific claim, that Obama "wiretapped" his phone. I will be the first to admit that this can not be proven given what we know. Most say IF Obama did this, it would be very bad, but there is no way he did this.

My contention is that no matter if Obama personally ordered the tapping of Trumps phone or not, what we do know is enough to show Obama and his administration acted in a dictatorial, egregious manner which should outrage anyone interested in free elections.

Forget about the second Fisa request in October for a minute, and lets focus on the first June request.

It has been admitted that this request included Trump or at least his team specifically. Fisa courts are designed to protect from foreign threats. Things such as election fraud would not apply.


FISA, 50 USC 1801, et seq., is a very limited method of obtaining surveillance authority. The reason for its strict limits is that FISA evades the regular federal court process, by not allowing regularly, Constitutionally appointed federal judges and their magistrates to authorize surveillance the Fourth Amendment would otherwise forbid. Instead, the Chief Justice handpicks the FISA court members, who have shown an exceptional deference to the executive branch. This is because FISA court members trust the government is only bringing them surveillance about pending terror attacks or “grave hostile” war-like attacks, as the FISA statute limits itself to. Thus, a FISA application can only be used in very limited circumstances.

One important reminder about electronic surveillance. Occasionally, a law enforcement officer will hear or see or record information not allowed by the warrant, but incidental or accidental to otherwise lawful surveillance. Their job is to immediately stop listening, stop recording, and to delete such information. This is what you occasionally see in films where the agent in the van hears the conversation turn away from something criminal to a personal discussion, and the agent then turns off the listening device and stops the recording. Such films simply recognize long-standing legal practice.

FISA can only be used for “foreign intelligence information.” Now that sounds broad, but is in fact very limited under the law. The only “foreign intelligence information” allowed as a basis for surveillance is information necessary to protect the United States against actual or potential “grave” “hostile” attack, war-like sabotage or international terror. Second, it can only be used to eavesdrop on conversations where the parties to the conversation are a foreign power or an agent of a foreign power. An agent of a foreign power cannot be a United States person unless they are knowingly involved in criminal espionage. No warrant is allowed on that person unless a FISA court finds probable cause the United States person is knowingly engaged in criminal espionage. Even then, if it involves a United States person, special steps must be taken to “minimize the acquisition and retention, and prohibit the dissemination, of non publicly available information concerning un-consenting United States persons.”


lawnewz.com...

This means that people in Obamas admin knowingly tried to overeach and get a Fisa warrant ion Trump for an area where it wasn't appropriate.

Now surely they knew this. Yet in their desperation to surveill tgheir political opponent, they tried their damndest to overlook this. This alone is unbelievable!

And then, in an almost unprecedented action, the Fisa court turned dow the warrant. This woulod be the 13th time out of over 33,000 times that the Fisa court said no.

In other words, the attempt to surveill Trump was so desperate, and so without warrant that even the almsot automatic rubber stamp Fisa court thought it was to dirty.

Does it really matter if Obama was successful in surveilling trump? We know for a fact that his amdin was stretching to get surveillance on him. Why isn't this enough to get people furious at a sitting president trying to stretch the law to get surveillance on his opponent?

But it doesn't stop their. We then know that there was a Fisa application in October that was accepted, that apparently didn't mention Trump. Yet through a great stroke of luck (lol) they ended up picking up material from Trumps team that they originally wanted. What a joke.

Now on a side note, keep in mind that with all of the info that has been leaked, there has been zero evidence of Trump wrongdoing, and even people like Clapper admit there is no evidence. This further proves these taps were more than likely just political.

Now you might be thinking that sure, they went after the Fisa warrant and failed, and then rewrote it and succeeded, but they didn't do anything scandalous with the info they got from the surveillance.

But we know that Obama ordered agencies to share this info with as many people as possible. Now keep in mind that Fisa hearings are supposed to be top secret, but he encouraged people to keep all of this info classified as low as possible. This in fact may be illegal.

continued below...

You've listed a lot of things as facts, without any evidence to back them up.

Do so.



posted on Mar, 6 2017 @ 07:12 PM
link   
So does this mean Trump did or didn't lie about Obama wiretapping him? Trump sounded pretty confident that Obama had wiretapped him.



posted on Mar, 6 2017 @ 07:18 PM
link   

originally posted by: syrinx high priest
what does FISA stand for anyway?


Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act.



posted on Mar, 6 2017 @ 07:18 PM
link   

originally posted by: Greven

You've listed a lot of things as facts, without any evidence to back them up.

Do so.


Can you list them?



posted on Mar, 6 2017 @ 07:19 PM
link   

originally posted by: 3NL1GHT3N3D1
So does this mean Trump did or didn't lie about Obama wiretapping him? Trump sounded pretty confident that Obama had wiretapped him.


It would not make any sense to make the allegation without having info to back it up.
It either happened, or there is sufficient evidence that led him to believe it happened.



posted on Mar, 6 2017 @ 07:20 PM
link   

originally posted by: Grambler

originally posted by: syrinx high priest
what does FISA stand for anyway?


Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act.


So the bigger point here is he (apparently) had reason to believe a foreign intelligence was involved with the republican nominee's campaign ?



posted on Mar, 6 2017 @ 07:22 PM
link   

originally posted by: 3NL1GHT3N3D1
So does this mean Trump did or didn't lie about Obama wiretapping him? Trump sounded pretty confident that Obama had wiretapped him.


It not known yet. Apparently there will be a congressional investigation.

However, the question is rather or not it would be an abuse of power for Obama to have done so. Many people say yes but there is no proof Obama did this.

My argument is that it seems we have enough evidence to know that someone in the Obama admin at least tried to get a Fisa warrant that named and would have surveilled Trump, but it failed.

In other words, even though we don't know if Obama did surveill Trump, we know he tried to. This proves he at at leats attempted to abuse his power.



posted on Mar, 6 2017 @ 07:25 PM
link   

originally posted by: syrinx high priest

originally posted by: Grambler

originally posted by: syrinx high priest
what does FISA stand for anyway?


Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act.


So the bigger point here is he (apparently) had reason to believe a foreign intelligence was involved with the republican nominee's campaign ?


If that were the case, why have we yet to see even one piece of evidence that Trump did something wrong. With Obamas encouragement of the agencies to share this info, and all of the leaks, surely we would have heard something. Instead we get Obamas Director of National Intelligence Clapper saying there is zero evidence.

Secondly, the court shut it down, so clearly he did NOT have enough evidence. This is made obvious by the fact that the Fisa courts in their lifetime had only rejected twelve requests our of 33,000 plus requests, and the one on Trump was the 13th.



posted on Mar, 6 2017 @ 07:29 PM
link   
a reply to: Grambler

tagged to follow...



posted on Mar, 6 2017 @ 07:30 PM
link   
The Patriot act is what allows these things to happen.
Trump should start trying to repeal it.
edit on 2017-03-06T19:39:59-06:002201706America/Chicago3 by c2oden because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 6 2017 @ 07:34 PM
link   

originally posted by: Grambler


If that were the case, why have we yet to see even one piece of evidence that Trump did something wrong. .


Why would we if the committee just got the first raw data today?



posted on Mar, 6 2017 @ 07:45 PM
link   

originally posted by: syrinx high priest

originally posted by: Grambler


If that were the case, why have we yet to see even one piece of evidence that Trump did something wrong. .


Why would we if the committee just got the first raw data today?



What committee? So far we have had tons of leaks, yet nothing remotely showing Trump did anything wrong. Why would the leakers leak info on Flynn or sessions but not Trump if they have the goods? They already have the info on Trumps conversations (unless they are still surveilling Trump) so why would these "noble" leakers hold on to evidence that shows he committed treason.

Again, Clapper would have had access to all of the evidence, and he says there is zero evidence.



posted on Mar, 6 2017 @ 07:53 PM
link   
a reply to: Grambler

Then the system worked.

That said trump has just been complaining about anonymous sources, so I think he decided to use the same Tacitus for deflection.



posted on Mar, 6 2017 @ 07:56 PM
link   
a reply to: Grambler

If I'm right every one of your "we know"s was from one ANONYMOUS source that not only hasn't been verified, but has been shot down by the CIA.



posted on Mar, 6 2017 @ 07:56 PM
link   

originally posted by: JoshuaCox


a reply to: Grambler

Then the system worked.

That said trump has just been complaining about anonymous sources, so I think he decided to use the same Tacitus for deflection.


But did it?

How do we know that the second Fisa request wasn;t to get the info they wanted on Trump but were not allowed to do?

And how about all of the illegal leaks that have been coming out? And what about Obama changing the rules to allow all agencies to see the info?

And even if it did work, we can still admit tghat Obama tried to use his power to spy on a political opponent. Isn't that enough to outrage you?

Wouls you be fine with Trump doing his damndest to use the DOJ, FBI, and FISA courts to spy on all of the democrats? And then even if he was shut down to rework the request to get as much info as possoble on them. And then to change rules to share all of this info witha as many people as possible. And then leaks coming to the media to show all of the dirt on the dems?

I don't think you would be ok with that.




top topics



 
19
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join