posted April 05, 2017 12:53 PM            

It's no longer even disputable that the Obama Administration spied on Trump and his campaign...even his children. Now, it's blown up in democrat faces. They're screeching and howling for a...so called "independent commission" to investigate. What they really want is a far reaching fishing expedition to take the heat off the Obama Administration, Obama's leakers and the press.

posted April 05, 2017 02:44 PM            

quote:

---

Let's also not forget the documents Nunes saw were not documents related to spying on Russians. Those were not intercepts of conversations between Trump campaign/transition team members and Russians.

---

How did you get to see them and I didn`t

posted April 06, 2017 01:46 PM            

Ann Coulter: The Russian Emperor’s New Clothes
Ann Coulter
5 Apr 2017

The Susan Rice bombshell at least explains why the Democrats won’t stop babbling about Russia. They need a false flag to justify using national intelligence agencies to snoop on the Trump team.
Every serious person who has tried to locate any evidence that Russia attempted to influence the 2016 election — even Trump-haters at the New York Review of Books and Rolling Stone magazine — has come away empty-handed and angry. We keep getting bald assertions, unadorned with anything resembling a fact.

But for now, let’s just consider the raw plausibility of the story.

The fact-less claim is that (1) the Russians wanted Donald Trump to win; and (2) They thought they could help him win by releasing purloined emails from the Democratic National Committee showing that the Democrats were conspiring against Hillary Clinton’s primary opponent, Bernie Sanders.

First, why on earth would Russia prefer a loose cannon, untested president like Trump to an utterly corrupt politician, who’d already shown she could be bought? The more corrupt you think Russia is, the more Putin ought to love Hillary as president.

The Russians knew Hillary was a joke from her ridiculous “reset” button as secretary of state. They proceeded to acquire 20 percent of America’s uranium production, under Hillary’s careful management — in exchange for a half-million-dollar speaking engagement for her husband and millions of dollars in donations to the Clinton Foundation.

(Politifact rates this claim FALSE! — LIAR, LIAR PANTS ON FIRE! — because Trump referred to 20 percent of America’s “uranium,” not to 20 percent of America’s “uranium capacity.” This is the sort of serious reporting we get from our watchdog media.)

The last thing our enemies want is unpredictability in an American president, and Trump is nothing if not unpredictable. Actually, that’s only the second-to-last thing Putin wants. Russia’s only export is energy: The last thing Putin wants is a president who vows to drill and frack, driving down the world oil price.

But let’s say the Russians were morally offended by a woman who could be bought (by them) for a $500,000 speaking fee, and what they really longed for was a bellicose American president promising to put our interests first.

Why would anyone, least of all trained spies, think that it would help Trump to release emails showing the DNC had its thumb on the scale against Bernie Sanders?

How was that supposed to work again? I forget.

Accepting everything else the most deranged Trump-hater believes, normal people lose the thread of the conspiracy at the moment when the Russians are supposed to have said to themselves, “HEY, I KNOW — LET’S TRY THIS!”

Even experts in American politics haven’t the first idea how to affect an election. The best minds of the GOP bet $140 million of their own money that Jeb! would be the nominee. (Maybe they should have hired Putin.)

Throughout the primaries, Democrats were openly praying that the GOP would nominate Trump. Democrats had the same hope in 1980 for Ronald Reagan. In 2008, Republicans hooted at the idea of Al Franken running for the U.S. Senate.

Days before the election, America’s premier journal of liberal opinion, The New York Times, gave Hillary a 91 percent chance of winning. The Princeton Election Consortium calculated her chances at 99 percent. The Huffington Post’s polling aggregator put Hillary’s odds at 98 percent.

But we’re supposed to believe that a country practiced in spycraft was confident that it not only knew what was likely to happen in a U.S. presidential election, but also knew how to swing it? And no one in Moscow thought to ask: “What will be the predictable, certain outcome of releasing the DNC’s ‘Get Bernie’ emails?”

The DNC leaks might have ended up being the best thing that ever happened to the Democrats. What if they had pulled a Torricelli, and forced Hillary to drop out, so they could run Joe Biden instead? Biden is a lot more popular than Hillary!

Isn’t the more logical leaker someone within the DNC who’d had enough with David Brock and Debbie Wasserman Schultz steering the party into a ditch? The actual leaker probably thought: I’ve got to save the party! She’s going to destroy us!

Wikileaks founder Julian Assange, as well as his associate, former British ambassador Craig Murray, both say that the DNC emails came from a whistleblower within the DNC. Murray has even identified the precise location where a DNC insider passed him the emails — a park near American University.

Assange may be a misguided zealot, but neither his friends nor his enemies call him a liar. His image is very nearly the opposite: a self-righteousness fanatic — not a slippery con man.

Hey, did anyone else notice that last week, very quietly, every single staffer at the DNC was fired?

The claim that Russia hacked the DNC’s emails to help Trump is the sort of crackpot theory that can only be concocted after the fact.

They would prefer to say that North Korea or ISIS “hacked” our election and somehow installed Trump. But unfortunately, Trump has no business dealings with ISIS or the Pyongyang regime. He — or people he knows — have had some vague business dealings with Russia. So the left is stuck with its insane Russia conspiracy.

posted April 28, 2017 08:25 AM            

Obama, The Marxist Messiah spied on the Trump campaign. No longer is the question..."did Obama spy on Trump"! The new Socialist meme is..."we had to spy on Trump".

Now, it's time for those who did so to be hauled before a federal grand jury for indictments.

April 28, 2017, 12:04 am
It is clear from it that she is still proud of spying on Trump.
George Neumayr

Susan Rice’s Twitter account is one of many windows on her partisanship. Even in the midst of an investigation into her political espionage, she can’t resist a few feverish re-tweets. The most remarkable one came on Thursday. It was a re-tweet of a reckless column by E.J. Dionne that seeks to revive, sans evidence, the fable of Trump-Russia collusion in last year’s election.

It is clear from this re-tweet that Rice remains proud of the Obama administration’s spying on Trump and his aides. Notice that the dispute has shifted from whether spying occurred to why it occurred. Both sides say it happened. The difference is that the Dems applaud the spying and the Republicans condemn it.

Recall the evasive denial of Obama after Trump’s initial tweet. Obama never denied the surveillance. He just denied ordering it. Shortly thereafter, one of his speechwriters, Jon Favreau, punctuated this distinction: “I’d be careful about reporting that Obama said there was no wiretapping. Statement just said that neither he nor the WH ordered it.”

Of course, that too was a falsehood, predicated on, at best, an exceedingly narrow definition of the “White House.” In fact, the White House in any honest sense of the term — from John Brennan to Loretta Lynch to Susan Rice — did order it. These White House officials acted in Obama’s name and with his knowledge. Or are we supposed to believe that he was wholly unaware of a months-long investigation (which ran on multiple tracks, from the FBI investigation to a multi-agency investigation launched by Brennan) into the opposing party’s presidential nominee?

Susan Rice has said that she needed to spy on Trump and his aides in order to conduct responsible briefings, which invites the question (that MSNBC’s Andrea Mitchell studiously avoiding asking her): Who exactly was she briefing at the White House? The janitors? Obviously, she was briefing the president. In other words, Obama knew everything from the unmasked info that she did.

To press flunkies, Susan Rice casts her espionage as high-minded, national-security-based vigilance. But on her Twitter account she doesn’t bother to keep up that charade. That she would re-tweet the partisan hackery of E.J. Dionne indicates the depth of partisanship behind her espionage.

Dionne’s column is based on blatant question-begging, treating as an outrage that “We are not talking much about whether Russia colluded with Trump’s campaign to help elect him.” Look at the absurd shading of that statement, as if people are obligated to talk about something that hasn’t been established.

Dionne peppers the rest of his column with dark references to the Russia “story,” without telling us what the story is. Trump’s greatest achievement, he ludicrously argues, is his ability to “keep the Russia story at bay.” Again, what story? How do you keep something that doesn’t exist at bay?

In this Orwellian vein, Dionne thunders about the “core Trump principle: A lie is as good as the truth as long as you can get your base to believe it. And sure enough, the new Post-ABC News poll conducted last week found that 52 percent of Republicans believe that ‘the Obama administration intentionally spied on Trump and members of his campaign during the 2016 election campaign.’”

How is that a lie? And why would they need to “believe” something that has already been confirmed? No matter what weasel word is used (“unmasking,” etc.), the Obama administration did spy on Trump and his people. The Dionne principle is: A lie is as good as the truth as long as you can get Jeff Bezos to pay for it and Susan Rice to re-tweet it.

And no Dionne column is complete without reference to all the right people who swallow the media’s regnant propaganda: “Thoughtful souls, conservatives as well as liberals, saw something terribly off about Trump swinging so wildly and with such indifference to verifiable fact.” He concludes the column with a final note of question-begging: “Every day he can postpone his reckoning with Russia is a victory.” What reckoning? How do you postpone an event that doesn’t exist.

To paraphrase Dionne, thoughtful logicians see something terribly off in his Op-Ed. But Susan Rice obviously found it all very impressive and re-tweeted it — a sign that her coming defense will rest upon cleaving to the collusion claim.

Meanwhile, the Democrats, whose silence about Obamagate speaks volumes, have shown no interest in examining the “unmasked” information collected by Rice, even though they had complained bitterly about the Republicans “not sharing it with them” earlier. It turns out that most of the House Intel Dems don’t want to see Rice’s activity, lest that complicate their stance, according to the Daily Caller:

Connecticut Rep. Jim Himes is the only Democrat on the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence other than Rep. Adam Schiff, the panel’s ranking minority member, to review intelligence files showing former White House National Security Adviser Susan Rice “unmasked” aides to President Donald Trump during his transition to the Oval Office, The Daily Caller News Foundation’s Investigative Group has learned.

The apparent lack of interest among the remaining seven Democrats on the intelligence panel is in striking contrast to their earlier vocal demands that they see the documents after committee chairman Rep. Devin Nunes disclosed he had read them at the White House complex.

According to a source with knowledge of congressional visits to the National Security Agency, the classified documents have been available to committee members for three weeks, but Himes and Schiff are the lone Democrats to review them.

The Democrats are at once proud of the spying and hesitant to know its details. Schiff, normally so talkative, has turned taciturn after seeing them, relying on his legal training to avoid difficult questions. That is easy enough to pull off since the media, composed almost entirely of Democrats, is reluctant to put him on the spot. They just nod, Andrea Mitchell-style, at his parsing and move on.

There was once a time when the Dionne’s would approvingly quote Michael Kinsley’s dictum that “the scandal in Washington is not what’s illegal but what’s legal.” They don’t quote that anymore. Now they lecture people on the merits of “legal surveillance” and instruct the public that “unmasking is not spying” and so forth. And since the target of it all was the odious Donald Trump, who cares anyways? It is that attitude which the Susan Rices trust will save them from scrutiny.

This is why she can let it all hang out on Twitter. And she is not alone. Ned Price, another Obamaland partisan hack who worked at the CIA and NSC, recently re-tweeted the conspiracy theory that Jason Chaffetz is quitting Congress due to Russian blackmail.

posted May 26, 2017 01:18 PM            

There's a good reason for that.

The Marxist Messiah, O'Bomber did spy on Trump...and, members of Congress, and other presidential candidates too.

May 26, 2017
Why did Trump say that Obama spied on him? Because he did.
Jack Hellner

What is the likelihood that the Washington Post, the New York Times, the Associated Press, USA Today or other major news outlets will cover the fact that the Obama administration repeatedly violated the law by spying on Americans from 2011 until they were almost out of office, when they finally admitted it?

Is it any surprise that an administration that would target political opponents through the IRS would do this, or an administration that would start monitoring a political opponent four months prior to the election? Does anyone think they didn’t spy on other Republicans running against Hillary? Or for that matter, her socialist challenger, Bernie Sanders?

posted May 26, 2017 02:50 PM            

quote:

---

Why did Trump say that Obama spied on him? Because he did.

---

Every time I read that I laugh at the image of Obam hiding in the microwave peeping out the timer hole.

posted May 27, 2017 11:22 PM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by juniperb:
Every time I read that I laugh at the image of Obam hiding in the microwave peeping out the timer hole.

---

posted May 27, 2017 11:27 PM            

How Team Obama tried to hack the election
Paul Sperry
May 26, 2017

New revelations have surfaced that the Obama administration abused intelligence during the election by launching a massive domestic-spy campaign that included snooping on Trump officials.

The irony is mind-boggling: Targeting political opposition is long a technique of police states like Russia, which Team Obama has loudly condemned for allegedly using its own intelligence agencies to hack into our election.

The revelations, as well as testimony this week from former Obama intel officials, show the extent to which the Obama administration politicized and weaponized intelligence against Americans.

Thanks to Circa News, we now know the National Security Agency under President Barack Obama routinely violated privacy protections while snooping through foreign intercepts involving US citizens — and failed to disclose the breaches, prompting the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court a month before the election to rebuke administration officials.

The story concerns what’s known as “upstream” data collection under Section 702 of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, under which the NSA looks at the content of electronic communication. Upstream refers to intel scooped up about third parties: Person A sends Person B an e-mail mentioning Person C. Though Person C isn’t a party to the e-mail, his information will be scooped up and potentially used by the NSA.

Further, the number of NSA data searches about Americans mushroomed after Obama loosened rules for protecting such identities from government officials and thus the reporters they talk to.

The FISA court called it a “very serious Fourth Amendment issue” that NSA analysts — in violation of a 2011 rule change prohibiting officials from searching Americans’ information without a warrant — “had been conducting such queries in violation of that prohibition, with much greater frequency than had been previously disclosed to the Court.”

A number of those searches were made from the White House, and included private citizens working for the Trump campaign, some of whose identities were leaked to the media. The revelations earned a stern rebuke from the ACLU and from civil-liberties champion Sen. Rand Paul.

We also learned this week that Obama intelligence officials really had no good reason attaching a summary of a dossier on Trump to a highly classified Russia briefing they gave to Obama just weeks before Trump took office.

Under congressional questioning Tuesday, Obama’s CIA chief John Brennan said the dossier did not “in any way” factor into the agency’s assessment that Russia interfered in the election. Why not? Because as Obama intel czar James Clapper earlier testified, “We could not corroborate the sourcing.”

But that didn’t stop Brennan in January from attaching its contents to the official report for the president. He also included the unverified allegations in the briefing he gave Hill Democrats.

In so doing, Brennan virtually guaranteed that it would be leaked, which it promptly was.

In short, Brennan politicized raw intelligence. In fact, he politicized the entire CIA.

Langley vets say Brennan was the most politicized director in the agency’s history. Former CIA field-operations officer Gene Coyle said Brennan was “known as the greatest sycophant in the history of the CIA, and a supporter of Hillary Clinton before the election. I find it hard to put any real credence in anything that the man says.”

Coyle noted that Brennan broke with his predecessors who stayed out of elections. Several weeks before the vote, he made it very clear he was pulling for Hillary. His deputy Mike Morell even came out and publicly endorsed her in The New York Times, claiming Trump was an “unwitting agent” of Moscow.

Brennan isn’t just a Democrat. He’s a radical leftist who in 1980 — during the height of the Cold War — voted for a Communist Party candidate for president.

When Brennan rants about the dangers of strongman Vladimir Putin targeting our elections and subverting our democratic process, does he not catch at least a glimpse of his own reflection?

posted May 28, 2017 05:18 AM            

cir·ca

ˈsərkə/

preposition

(often preceding a date) approximately.

"built circa 1935"

synonyms:approximately, around, about, roughly,something like, on the order of, or so, or thereabouts, more or less, in the region of, give or take; 

informalin the ballpark of

"the year of his birth is circa 1612"

The only source cited here is an outlet that tells you exactly what it is.. in its name!

Owned by Sinclair Group - Trump media in other words
Published here by theNY POST - Rupert Murdoch and sleazy sons

Remember News of the World? The late great Approxi News of England who finally got caught with their pants so far down No one could wash the mud off ?

posted May 29, 2017 08:06 PM            

Guess you were right He should have vetoed it despite the time waste just so snipers couldn't make it all about him down the road? And thereWAS a warrant, remember?

posted May 29, 2017 09:43 PM            

The review in question - of whether the NSA was in compliance with required procedure -

was sought by the DOJ LAST YEAR and so far the court has found everything to be kosher (as of p 10)

This is not a review sought by Sessions or Trump admin but by the Obama DOJ. Which was postponed due to administration change.

So I'm wondering how this document bears out the article and who this woman is and what her qualifications are?

Like the news you complain about and much i see elsewhere it seems someone has taken liberties and assumed no one would look into the actual case.

posted May 30, 2017 08:21 AM            

quote:

---

By his own words he expressed that he wanted Hillary in order to keep his legacy intact.

---

I want a 69 chevy Chevelle SS too but that ain`t happening either. Nor is it illegal to want it.

Granny always said poo in one hand and want in the other and see which one gets full first..

posted May 30, 2017 12:02 PM            

And as FORMER DIRECTOR he would no longer be in a position to answer current questions anyway.

I watched him say this live

I.E. fake news