New Details In Obama Admin Unmasking FISA Abuse Scandal

It seems as though there is some push back from the community in which the Obama Foundation wishes to construct its monstrosity:

The month before he mounted an all-out resistance to both the Keystone XL pipeline and the Dakota Access pipeline—two projects that offered more reliable delivery of oil and fewer adverse environmental effects than the railcars and trucks that they displaced.

Citizen Obama uses a different playbook now that he is embroiled in his own personal land-use controversy. The Obama Foundation is in a fierce struggle over its proposal, now before The Chicago Parks Commission, to locate the new Obama Presidential Center (OPC) in the high-rent district of Jackson Park on the South Side of Chicago. The park is now a scenic area near Hyde Park, originally designed by the great landscape architect Frederick Law Olmsted.

...

The scale of the major and auxiliary buildings requires closing a six-lane north-south artery, Cornell Avenue, which winds its way through the park. As a result, the city of Chicago, which is hard-pressed for cash, will have to spend untold millions to make major alterations to expand two nearby arteries, Lake Shore Drive on the east and Stony Island Avenue on the west.

Additional parking facilities will have to be built somewhere inside the park. Meanwhile, an initial OPC proposal to build a massive structure above ground was withdrawn after it was met with a chorus of boos. But Chicago’s high water table makes it an expensive proposition to build a substitute facility below grade. The tight boundaries around the complex will make it difficult to develop complementary businesses in the immediate neighborhood.

There are, as the critics point out, a number of less fancy sites on the South Side that present none of the planning tangles of the proposed OPC project. Washington Park, for example, is a larger tract of largely undeveloped space located just west of Hyde Park that could easily house the OPC, leaving it room to grow.

...

It is an open secret the Obama forces are doing what’s best for themselves by trying to locate the facility in a posh neighborhood without regard to the negative consequences on the rest of the community.

...

The instrument of choice to extract these benefits is the community benefits agreement ( CBA ), which is a contract between a developer and representative community organizations that set out binding obligations that the developer owes the community.

...

So far, the Obama Foundation has played hardball, refusing to sign any such agreement, knowing of course that formally assuming these duties will drive up the cost of the project and raise concerns from present and future donors that their gifts are being diverted to purposes they do not share.

The ironies here are clear. The Obama Foundation is using techniques against the community that the Obama administration would never have tolerated by other well-heeled groups.

At the same time, the OPC may well be done in by the exact type of CBAs that the administration routinely accepted. Given the location and expense of the OPC, let us hope that the Parks Commission will slap down the grandiose plan.

Newsweek

That's Sharyl Attkisson, the ex CBS presenter...is there some reason that there was a need to change the name to another person.

originally posted by: Stevenjames15
a reply to: AndyFromMichigan

This guy is a traitor and will do anything to cover his tracks! Are you seriously that foolish? Why are so many conservatives stepping down or not running for reelection? Because they know whats really going on. And they are afraid of the blue wave. Which is def coming. Starting this November and culminating with Trump's embarrassing loss in 2020.

It's nice that you folks finally let go of the "Impeach 45" business.

originally posted by: loam

When the right defended the abuses of the Bush administration without regard to the consequences and the precedents being set, they made the left's job that much easier. Obama didn't investigate or prosecute the malfeasance of the Bush administration, because they intended to do the same in the name of their own world vision and agenda.

Oh, I agree Loam.

Bush was dealt a bad deck with 9/11, he had to do something.

But what we ended up with is a monster, far beyond what we needed
for protection of the country.

My ideal's would be more in line with Rand Paul.

originally posted by: RazorV66

originally posted by: Stevenjames15
a reply to: AndyFromMichigan

This guy is a traitor and will do anything to cover his tracks! Are you seriously that foolish? Why are so many conservatives stepping down or not running for reelection? Because they know whats really going on. And they are afraid of the blue wave. Which is def coming. Starting this November and culminating with Trump's embarrassing loss in 2020.

And as I have said at least a dozen times, for you Leftists to have a snowball’s chance in hell of even coming close to anything in 2020, you better start concentrating on finding someone to run on the ticket that has a shred of credibility left.

You'd think they'd take a break from sowing division and discord at least long enough to find someone to unite their own party behind. I think it's gonna be Oprah by default. PLEASE make it so!

a reply to: howtonhawky

I wonder if the unmasking is really illegal or do we just believe it is?

It's illegal... and it's been going on a looooooooong time... and they know better:

From Nov 2013: Fisa court documents reveal extent of NSA disregard for privacy restrictions

From May 2017: Secret court rebukes NSA for 5-year illegal surveillance of U.S. citizens

originally posted by: loam

originally posted by: burntheships
Can you just imagine if Bush had done this?

NSA warrantless surveillance (2001–07)

From 2001 to 2007, he didn't need to unmask anything.

Hardly the high road.

Just sayin.

I agree, perhaps there is a difference though.

Not defending the Bush Admin on that, however it
was not for a political campaign....

Unless there is evidence brought forth that proves
otherwise, Obama did this to ensure his successor.

Unless he was being controlled by someone higher?

Any thoughts on that?

a reply to: burntheships



What blows my mind is how many from the left, even on these boards, used to scream bloody murder about these issues.

But now it's a completely different tune.

Culturally, we are nothing more than a means-justifies-the-ends society. We've clearly lost sight of what keeps us free.

RIP rule of law. It was a good effort.

originally posted by: Boadicea
a reply to: howtonhawky

I wonder if the unmasking is really illegal or do we just believe it is?

It's illegal... and it's been going on a looooooooong time... and they know better:

From Nov 2013: Fisa court documents reveal extent of NSA disregard for privacy restrictions

From May 2017: Secret court rebukes NSA for 5-year illegal surveillance of U.S. citizens

I understand what you say to be true. I will be completely sure when accountability rears its head. Till then something very fishy is happening.

originally posted by: jadedANDcynical

Find The Company

Why would a small security broker/ real estate holding company be entrusted with presidential papers?

If I had to guess, it is so important things like the unmasking
records can be dissapeared.

Downright creepy what he is getting away with.

originally posted by: loam
a reply to: burntheships

What blows my mind is how many from the left, even on these boards, used to scream bloody murder about these issues.

But now it's a completely different tune.

Culturally, we are nothing more than a means-justifies-the-ends society. We've clearly lost sight of what keeps us free.

RIP rule of law. It was a good effort.

agree 100%
ALOT of posters here were against the patriot act
ALOT of posters here predicted this would be the outcome of the patriot act
it was just expected that the right would be the abusers

originally posted by: burntheships
Not defending the Bush Admin on that, however it
was not for a political campaign....

That we know of.

Since the left was unsuccessful- in fact, the Democrats in government were complicit at the time- in reigning in the Bush administration surveillance abuses, how would we ever know?

And it's not like accusations of political purpose weren't made at the time:

See for example: The Bush administration's CIA smear campaign

There are plenty more examples.

Unless he was being controlled by someone higher?

Any thoughts on that?

I believe 'someone higher' to be monied interests, and in that regard, ALWAYS a factor in any administration. But use of the verb "controlled" is also always subject to debate. Was any President ever an honest broker that later lost control? Or were they each just another 'taker' successful at attaining the seat of the Presidency?

Who knows? That's why without defending the Rule of Law, we don't have a prayer of remaining in a free and just society.

So rather than the actual documents, there will be digitized versions of the documents.

Enter Russia hackers!

originally posted by: carewemust
a reply to: burntheships

Good post! And what most media idiots forget is that Congress created the FBI and doj.

Those agencies are under and answer to Congress, not the other way around.

And right now, the msm news media parrots the other way around
"Oh the poor FBI victims of the terrible congressional oversight"

a reply to: burntheships

I remember before intelligence committee voted to release the Nunes memo, the doj and FBI were telling them not to release that memo to the public.

The news media and Democrats were endlessly repeating that warning, as if the doj and the FBI were congress's boss.

a reply to: burntheships

Let's just remain focused on who was the central, prime, #1 figure being pushed by the DNC and MSM from mid 2015 through to Nov 9th 2016 as POTUS because I have no doubt that Obama, at that stage of his tenure, was simply following orders from who he said would be the next POTUS, 'because no-one is more qualified'.

Now, I'll say it again - she dodgy, she's always been dodgy and I bet my bottom dollar she was directing and coordinating the whole shooting match.

originally posted by: loam
See for example: The Bush administration's CIA smear campaign

Thanks for the link, interesting stuff I did not know.

What blows my mind is how many from the left, even on these boards, used to scream bloody murder about these issues.

But now it's a completely different tune.

Yep, I wonder where those same journalists are now?

The left has become a champion of the surveillance state,
not too surprising....it confirms a lot in my mind.

The word chameleon comes to mind.

That's why without defending the Rule of Law, we don't have a prayer of remaining in a free and just society.

We are just about there imo.

This is what the Special Counsel is all about, protecting Obama and Clinton.
Comey knew that, I am sure this was the plan or the Insurance Policy.

imho....

originally posted by: carewemust

The news media and Democrats were endlessly repeating that warning, as if the doj and the FBI were congress's boss.

Seems they still are, the nerve.

Well, we have to outlast them for sure to see this end.

originally posted by: burntheships

originally posted by: carewemust
a reply to: burntheships

Good post! And what most media idiots forget is that Congress created the FBI and doj.

Those agencies are under and answer to Congress, not the other way around.

And right now, the msm news media parrots the other way around
"Oh the poor FBI victims of the terrible congressional oversight"

All of the answers are right here -

originally posted by: Sublimecraft

Now, I'll say it again - she dodgy, she's always been dodgy and I bet my bottom dollar she was directing and coordinating the whole shooting match.

She certainly has had more people killed comparatively speaking.

And there is The Clinton Foundation, which leads to a global
network of collusion.

Don't look now mate, she is coming your way.
Visiting your fair land on a book tour!