A Political Battle Over Dossiers, FISA Warrants and Surveillance, Clouds A Much Bigger Story…

There is a lot of news amid national headlines but there is only one story. Unfortunately, that story is a complex multidimensional matrix of politics, law enforcement corruption, the DC swamp, and vested interests attempting to hide and manipulate facts, ie. The Russian Election/Collusion Story.

What I am going to introduce today is how the 2016 FISA-702(16)(17) data and surveillance activity issues; and the 2016 FISA Court applications for surveillance and search warrants; and the Christopher Steele (Fusion GPS) Russian Dossier; and the individual actions by DOJ, FBI and IC officials; all connect within the targeted political weaponization of government.

As many of you are aware we have been chasing and researching the fact-trail of this story for over a year. In my opinion this is the biggest story in our lifetime as it relates to government officials, specifically DOJ and FBI leadership, weaponizing their offices to retain political power for their ideological allies. Taken in totality it is a very troubling story. Nonetheless THAT STORY exists regardless of our discomfort.

Additionally, in the downstream aftermath, there are two political forces facing off amid the aggregate “Russian Election/Collusion Story”. One side is trying to find out the details behind the origin therein; the other side is trying to hide the origin therein. When we look at the reason for hiding the origin of the Russian narrative, we enter the rabbit hole of previous intelligence community activity and their weaponization of government.

Yesterday President Trump signed an executive memorandum for the Director of National Intelligence that forces the DNI to develop a responsive plan for any inquiry from a non-public entity about their information being swept up in intelligence gathering operations. Also yesterday, Representative Ron DeSantis wrote a letter to House Speaker Paul Ryan requesting Ryan declassify all documents surrounding the Steele Dossier and its use therein.

Both of yesterdays actions appear connected to the larger battle within the back-story.

If you have not followed the prior research about how NSA Director Admiral Rogers responded to his discoveries in 2016 you might be lost in this discussion. –SEE HERE

This outline builds on that prior research and exposes specific individuals who participated in the scheme.

IMPORTANT – We are no longer taking it for granted a FISA warrant was ever given to the DOJ because NO-ONE can prove a FISA warrant exists. Heck, no-one can even point to anything that directly claims a FISA warrant was even requested.  There are inferences, suspicions, media reports based on anonymous leaks, but no direct or reasonable evidence beyond innuendo.  We are eighteen months past the reported origination dates, and there’s not a single official who will state a 2016 FISA warrant was applied for or granted.  Therefore we must begin to question that basic assumption.

That said, the inability to prove the existence of a FISA warrant does not prove a FISA warrant doesn’t exist. Additionally, the cloud-of-uncertainty conveniently, perhaps purposely, makes it challenging to outline the liars within the intelligence community.

When it comes to questions around the 2016 DOJ/FBI FISA warrant – A key approach to finding the truth is to apply the scientific method during the research; question our underlying assumptions and reverse the hypothesis.

Example: Can we prove the non-existence of the FISA warrant?

  • Well, there is direct and attributable, evidence no FISA warrant existed.
  • And there is no direct, and attributable, evidence a FISA warrant did exist.

However, the absence of evidence is not evidence of its absence. Just because we cannot prove a FISA Warrant exists doesn’t prove the non-existence of the FISA Warrant; which, as you will see, is a critical piece of this puzzle.

It is important, heck, critical, to underscore that all of the currently available evidence indicates that TWO intelligence units participated in the majority of the illegal activity surrounding the 2016 Trump Operation: ♦The Department of Justice National Security Division (DOJ-NSD), and the ♦FBI Counterintelligence Division.

If you have read the prior explanation about compartmented intelligence, and how the process was used to hide illegal intelligence activity, you will more easily connect-the-dots on who/how this was strategically used.

On March 20th 2017 FBI Director James Comey testified to congress. During that congressional testimony James Comey was asked why the FBI Director did not inform congressional oversight, senior leadership, about the counterintelligence operation that began in July 2016.

FBI Director Comey said he did not tell congressional oversight he was investigating presidential candidate Donald Trump because the Director of Counterintelligence, W.H. “Bill” Priestap suggested he not do so. *Very important detail.*

FBI Director James Comey is stating on the record that the FBI Counterintelligence Operation was happening without oversight, and that lack of oversight was intentional.  *Important Detail*

However, for the sake of this review pay attention to his remarks about the Office of the Director of National Intelligence, or DNI.

WATCH the first three minutes:

.

Notice how Director Comey avoids mentioning the 2016 DNI James Clapper.  Clapper was DNI throughout President Obama’s tenure and was DNI during the 2016 counterintelligence operation that James Comey and Bill Priestap intentionally kept hidden from congress.

The obfuscation about James Clapper might not seem like a big deal, and almost everyone missed it at the time, however in hindsight it is another critical part of the evidence against James Comey.

IF THERE WAS a FISA Warrant issued against the Trump Campaign, or Trump Officials, by the FBI (Counterintelligence Unit), or DOJ (National Security Division), James Clapper would have to be notified of it.

Now, let’s look at what happens when James Clapper is questioned about the FISA Warrant, as he explains on NBC March 5th 2017.  This is TWO WEEKS BEFORE the James Comey testimony to congress on March 20th.

Pay close attention to the exact wording Clapper uses, and the thought he puts into explaining himself.

.

Watch it Again. Closely.

There’s no ambiguity in James Clapper in that March 5th 2017 interview.  He can specifically deny any FISA Warrant for Trump Tower, Campaign Officials, or Trump Campaign HQ.

That interview is so critical to Clapper personally – when questioned about FISA Warrants and Wiretaps six months later, September 24th 2017, he refers the questioning back to his NBC answer on March 5th, 2017.

Again, Watch Closely:

.

Do ya think that earlier answer and conversation was parsed carefully between March 5th and September 24th?

Title III requires Federal, state and, other government officials to obtain judicial authorization for intercepting “wire, oral, and electronic” communications such as telephone conversations and e-mails. It also regulates the use and disclosure of information obtained through authorized wiretapping. 18 U.S.C. §§ 2516-18.

An exception to the requirement that government obtain a warrant before intercepting covered communications is provided where:

  • “any investigative or law enforcement officer, specially designated by the Attorney General, the Deputy Attorney General, the Associate Attorney General, or by the principal prosecuting attorney of any State or subdivision thereof acting pursuant to a statute of that State…
  • reasonably determines that an emergency situation exists that involves
    1. immediate danger of death or serious physical injury to any person,
    2. conspiratorial activities threatening the national security interest, or
    3. conspiratorial activities characteristic of organized crime

    that requires a wire, oral, or electronic communication to be intercepted before an order authorizing such interception can, with due diligence, be obtained, and

  • there are grounds upon which an order could be entered under this chapter to authorize such interception.”

In such an emergency situation, the Federal government may begin intercepting communications, provided “an application for an order approving the interception is made in accordance with this section within forty-eight hours after the interception has occurred, or begins to occur.” In this situation, if the warrant is ultimately denied, the intercepted communications are treated as having been obtained in violation of Title III. 18 U.S.C. § 2518(7).  (LINK)

Within this entire enterprise of spying on the Trump Campaign there is no “wiretapping” per se’ because EVERYTHING is being collected by NSA.  The issue is: can you legally “look at” what is already being collected?

That’s where Admiral Mike Rogers comes in because he discovered political operatives were LOOKING AT IT.  Hence, his report to the FISC about FISA-702(17) violations.

Again, all research indicates the DOJ National Security Division (John P Carlin) and FBI Counterintelligence Division (W.H. “Bill” Priestap) were the two DOJ organizations operating in concert with Fusion-GPS and Christopher Steele while simultaneously carrying out the prior known surveillance activity.  Any FISA Warrant stemming from these two entities would have to pass the desk of ODNI James Clapper.

If a FISA Wiretap warrant is factually discovered, against the backdrop of James Clapper stating EMPHATICALLY no Title III FISA Wiretap warrant existed, how would that conflict be resolved?

Additionally, the internal issues with FISA-702(16)(17) unauthorized “About Query” searches being conducted and discovered in 2016 by NSA Director Admiral Rogers, would lend even greater weight to the DOJ-NSD and FBI CoIntel as the origin.  SEE HERE.

We know the FBI Counterintelligence Operation against the Trump Campaign was operating without congressional notification or oversight.

We also know the DOJ-NSD Operation was also operating without oversight:

In 2015 Asst. Attorney General Sally Yates blocked any inspector general oversight of the DOJ National Security Division (SEE Pdf HERE). The Office of Inspector General, Michael Horowitz, requested oversight over the DOJ National Security Division and it was Sally Yates who responded with a lengthy 58-page legal explanation saying, essentially, ‘nope – not allowed.’ (PDF HERE) All of the DOJ is subject to oversight, except the NSD.

It is important to note here that President-elect Trump nominated Senator Dan Coats as ODNI on January 5th, 2017 – however, Democrats held up that nomination until March 16th, 2017.  It is not coincidental that immediately following DNI Dan Coat’s ability to provide information, Intelligence Committee Chairman Devin Nunes first reported his concerns.

After Devin Nunes review the Eisenhower SCIF information March 22nd 2017, two days after James Comey’s testimony, Chairman Nunes stated the intelligence product he reviewed was: “not related to Russia, or the FBI Russian counter-intelligence investigation”.

House Intelligence Committee Chairman, Devin Nunes, then held a brief press conference and stated he has been provided intelligence reports brought to him by unnamed sources that include ‘significant information’ about President-Elect Trump and his transition team.

WATCH:

1.) …”On numerous occasions the [Obama] intelligence community incidentally collected information about U.S. citizens involved in the Trump transition.”

2.) “Details about U.S. persons associated with the incoming administration; details with little or no apparent foreign intelligence value were widely disseminated in intelligence community reporting.”

3.) “Third, I have confirmed that additional names of Trump transition members were unmasked.”

4.) “Fourth and finally, I want to be clear; none of this surveillance was related to Russia, or the investigation of Russian activities.

“The House Intelligence Committee will thoroughly investigate surveillance and its subsequent dissemination, to determine a few things here that I want to read off:”

•“Who was aware of it?”

•“Why it was not disclosed to congress?”

•“Who requested and authorized the additional unmasking?”

•“Whether anyone directed the intelligence community to focus on Trump associates?”

•“And whether any laws, regulations or procedures were violated?”

“I have asked the Directors of the FBI, NSA and CIA to expeditiously comply with my March 15th (2017) letter -that you all received a couple of weeks ago- and to provide a full account of these surveillance activities.”

When you add up the absence of a FISA warrant with the discoveries by NSA Director Mike Rogers, and overlay Devin Nunes concerns, this is the picture:

President Obama’s political operatives within the DOJ-NSD were using FISA 702(17) surveillance “about inquiries” that would deliver electronic mail and phone communication for U.S. people (Trump campaign). The NSD unit (John Carlin) was working in coordination with the FBI Counterintelligence Unit (Bill Priestap, Peter Strzok etc.) to look at this campaign activity. DOJ Attorney Lisa Page was the intermediary between the DOJ National Security Division and he FBI Counterintelligence Division.

In an effort to stop the FISA 702(17) activity NSA Director Mike Rogers initiated a full 702 compliance review. However, before the review was complete the DOJ-NSD had enough information for their Russian narrative; which was built upon FISA-702(17) that began in July ’16 per James Comey.  Mike Rogers stopped the FISA702(17) process on October 26th 2016. As a result of his identifying the activity, Rogers became a risk; DNI James Clapper demanded he be fired.

♦Ten days after the presidential election, November 17th 2016, Admiral Rogers travels to Trump Tower without telling ODNI James Clapper. Rogers likely informs President-elect Trump of the prior activity by the FBI and DOJ, including the probability that all of Trump Tower’s email and phone communication was being collected and reviewed by political operatives within the DOJ-NSD and FBI.

On November 17th, 2016, NSA Director Admiral Mike Rogers went to see President-Elect Donald Trump in Trump Tower, New York. –SEE HERE– Director Rogers never told his boss DNI, James Clapper.

On November 18th, 2016, the Trump Transition Team announced they were moving all transition activity to Trump National Golf Club in Bedminster, New Jersey. –SEE HERE– Where they interviewed and discussed the most sensitive positions to fill. Defense, State, CIA, ODNI.

The transition team was set up in Trump Tower. The very next day, November 18th 2016, Trump moves the entire transition team to Bedminister New Jersey?

Does this make more sense now?

All research indicates the information the DOJ and FBI collected via their FISA-702(16)(17) queries, and the stuff Fusion GPS was creating via Christopher Steele (The “Russian Dossier), was used to create the Russian Narrative, “The Insurance Policy“.

♦Ultimately, the people within all of these unlawful intercepts of information is what Devin Nunes discovered when he looked at the “unmasking requests” which were a result of those FISA 702(17) collections on Team Trump. That’s why Devin Nunes was so stunned at what he saw in February and March 2017.

The ENTIRE SYSTEM of surveillance and data collection was weaponized against a political campaign.  There were no authorizing or accompanying FISA warrants.

RESOURCES:  – The BIG UGLY

IG Stimulated Releases of Information:

♦Release #1 was the FBI Agent Strzok and Attorney Lisa Page story; and the repercussions from discovering their politically motivated bias in the 2015/2016 Clinton email investigation and 2016/2017 Russian Election investigation.

♦Release #2 outlined the depth of FBI Agent Strzok and FBI Attorney Page’s specific history in the 2016 investigation into Hillary Clinton to include the changing of the wording [“grossly negligent” to “extremely careless”] of the probe outcome delivered by FBI Director James Comey.

♦Release #3 was the information about DOJ Deputy Bruce Ohr being in contact with Fusion GPS at the same time as the FISA application was submitted and granted by the FISA court; which authorized surveillance and wiretapping of candidate Donald Trump; that release also attached Bruce Ohr and Agent Strzok directly to the Steele Dossier.

♦Release #4 was information that Deputy Bruce Ohr’s wife, Nellie Ohr, was an actual contract employee of Fusion GPS, and was hired by F-GPS specifically to work on opposition research against candidate Donald Trump. Both Bruce Ohr and Nellie Ohr are attached to the origin of the Christopher Steele Russian Dossier.

♦Release #5 was the specific communication between FBI Agent Strzok and FBI Attorney Page. The 10,000 text messages that included evidence of them both meeting with Asst. FBI Director Andrew McCabe to discuss the “insurance policy” against candidate Donald Trump in August of 2016.

This entry was posted in Big Government, Big Stupid Government, CIA, Clinton(s), Cold Anger, Conspiracy ?, Decepticons, Deep State, Dem Hypocrisy, Dept Of Justice, Desperately Seeking Hillary, Donald Trump, Donald Trump Transition, Election 2016, FBI, Jeff Sessions, media bias, Notorious Liars, NSA, President Trump, Russia, Spying, Susan Rice, THE BIG UGLY, Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

1,147 Responses to A Political Battle Over Dossiers, FISA Warrants and Surveillance, Clouds A Much Bigger Story…

  1. Sylvia Avery says:

    One wonders how many more of these “little” slush funds will be uncovered within various agencies? I think this is the second one uncovered in the CFPB alone.

    “An educational “slush fund” used by the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau has come under the “strictest review” by acting director Mick Mulvaney amid concerns the Obama-era agency has been doling out cash only to Democratic cronies…”

    http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/trump-budget-chief-shuts-down-consumer-protection-bureau-slush-fund/article/2645385

    Liked by 8 people

  2. JAS says:

    The original story was that Obama, and no one else used the Brits to tap onto Trump. Napolitano reported on it and got “suspended”.

    Looking back I found this:

    “British Role Confirmed in Trump Spying Scandal”

    http://www.aim.org/special-report/british-role-confirmed-in-trump-spying-scandal/

    Which ties with this (queued at 1:45):

    Liked by 9 people

    • JAS says:

      SO, the attempt to get the FISA warrant WAS the insurance policy.

      Liked by 8 people

      • Matthew Musson says:

        Does anyone else wonder if Strzok’s wife is reading this blog to find out what else her husband was not telling her besides his affair with Lisa Page?

        Liked by 10 people

      • Katherine McCoun says:

        It wasn’t an insurance policy to have a plan against a potential President a Trump. Getting a FISA warrant was an insurance policy for themselves against their source of info, their surveillance, the *how* they were getting their information was discovered? Interesting idea.

        Liked by 9 people

        • ladypenquin says:

          It’s shocking to learn that a FISA warrant can be obtained “after-the-fact” – as far I know it’s illegal to do that with regular warrants. So only FISA has the fishing expedition allowance first, and the warrant allowed second. That’s unacceptable.

          I’m a little dramatic, but IMO, the “insurance policy” has always meant something even more nefarious, simply because candidate Trump WASN’T colluding with the Russians…I guess they thought they could force him to stepping down due to bad PR and lies – but then they miscalculated, and don’t know President Trump.

          Would they have had a back up plan to a back up plan?

          Liked by 6 people

          • farmhand1927 says:

            If all this were presented at a trial as evidence and We, the People, served as judge and jurors, justice would be done and the guilty would pay.

            Instead, the perps seemingly built in protections for themselves. Wagons were circled long ago. The dots have been connected, the evidence parlayed over and over and still, the only indictments are in regard to Manafort and his associate for unrelated activities. If Horowitz’s report doesn’t provide the indisputable, the most obscene corruption and coverup of our lifetimes will stand as normal operating procedure, fashioned in the image of “Hillary Justice”.

            The DOJ had to be forced to release documents, Paul Ryan had to be ordered to release info, the State Dept reportedly still sits on Hillary emails, and then there’s the FBI.

            The Royal Guard protects the throne of the previous administration at all, and any, cost.

            Liked by 7 people

        • PocaMAGAhontas says:

          Deep state will not go quietly. Remember the truth is being protected by United States counter-intelligence efforts. Possibly by the best counter intelligence personnel in the world. The size and scope of the counter intelligence efforts is unknown. The outcome of the election may have been interfered with, and the interference could have consisted of competing clandestine efforts to manipulate the outcome. Such efforts may have simultaneously included insurance policies to cover up the activities. Analyses of the clandestine activities to date may be based on assumptions that the timing of the Strzok insurance policy was driven by urgency. The beginning of the insurance policy/ policies may pre-date Strzok’s revelation to Page.

          What if “insurance policy” is a series of “counter revelations” pointing to illegal activities. “Revelations” that are planted as bread crumbs and designed as empty onions to create time consuming distractions. The real purpose of the counter intelligence insurance policy may be to serve as a firewall to protect the deep state and its big ugly secrets. The Russian collusion/spying on American citizens / FISA court issues may be a red herring rabbit hole.

          Liked by 2 people

    • Steve in Lewes says:

      So what will the consequences be for the British for trying to undermine our sovereign election process? Talk about leverage! Would love to be a fly on the wall when PDJT has a heart to heart talk with PM May.

      Like

    • jimsung says:

      The Brits seem to have at least 3 roles in this. 1. The Steele dossier/tie-in to Russian Intel/legitimacy for the accusations. 2. The 5-eyes UK allowed spying on US citizens. It appears Obama used the UK’s access to the NSA database to spy on US citizens. 3. I believe the person who set up the Trump Jr meeting is a Brit as well.

      Liked by 1 person

    • B Woodward says:

      JAS, that’s a good comment about Judge Napolitano saying that he had 3 sources tell him that Obama used the British GCHQ to do his spying on Trump. I had forgotten about that.

      Napolitano said, “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.” Hmm, I take that to mean more time with his family rather than in jail.
      http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2017/03/16/andrew-napolitano-did-obama-spy-on-trump.html

      Napolitano also stated, “Can she [Susan Rice] reveal the identity of an American for a purpose other than national security? Absolutely not. Can she ask for more Americans involved and then unmask them and say to her boss, ‘by the way,guess what Trump and Manafort were talking about last night?’ You know what that’s called? That’s called espionage. Judge Napolitano also went on to point out that Susan Rice only has one boss, one person she reports to and that’s Obama.
      http://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2017/04/judge-napolitano-rice-gate-unmasking-americans-reasons-national-security-thats-called-espionage-video/

      Liked by 1 person

  3. georgiafl says:

    The law and Constitution meant nothing to the Obama cabal.

    This was the most brazenly anti-American, pro-Marxist, pro-Islamofascism, pro-totalitarian, oligarchical, corrupt, thieving administration in US history.

    Here is a long continually updated list of Obama/Clinton/Kerry/Holder/Lynch administration abuses of power and lawbreaking.
    http://directorblue.blogspot.com/2011/06/president-barack-obamas-complete-list.html
    If you spot something has been missed – add it to comments to be included in the next update!

    I am still not convinced Obama was legally qualified and believe the whole d4mned tenure should be wiped out and declared invalid. The law plainly states that both parents of a candidate must be citizens at the time of the child’s birth, and the candidate must be born on US soil.

    Neither Obama nor Cruz fit those requirements.

    Liked by 34 people

    • pyromancer76 says:

      Thanks for this most succinct description. You have “nailed it,” Georgiafl, and I think your conclusion is the only one possible if we are to MAGA.

      In addition, some revised Oaths might be established for every single government official, the numbers of which should be reduced substantially, unnecessary departments eliminated.

      All these people, not incarcerated or executed for treason, might actually have to work at something productive (cleaning toilets?) for the rest of their lives instead of plotting and acting to overthrow our government.

      Liked by 8 people

    • standlow says:

      Obama’s own wife referred to him as “Kenyan” in video :https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MLGItF-Y8Uc

      Liked by 3 people

    • MVW says:

      Just because 0bama’s birth certificate is a fraud does not mean both parents were not citizens. One story, and that is all we really have is stories, is that his father was someone else, but was an American citizen. The other half of that story is that, mother, father, were CIA, and he himself was a CIA cutout.

      I would posit that this whole issue is a dangling dead red squirrel on a string, a distraction from treasonous acts (ordered by 0bama? and why would he do it?) involved with SD’s outlined illegal surveillance of Trump.

      I notice that 0Bama is disappearing from the nuwz. Funny that.

      Liked by 6 people

      • georgiafl says:

        Likely – both Mossad and DJT know who the real babydaddy was.

        Liked by 7 people

      • Three-Pound Sledge says:

        No matter which way you dissect the putative presidency of HUSSEIN Obama, you are left with fraud. The 44th presidency should be declared null and void.

        The Post & Email website has continuing articles on this topic.
        https://www.thepostemail.com/

        Further, the apparent attempted coup of the Trump presidency by the DOJ/FBI has its roots in, and has been green-lighted by, the lawlessness of the fraudulent presidency of HUSSEIN Obama.

        Liked by 1 person

      • kiskiminetas says:

        Like a rat going into its hole.

        Like

      • 7delta says:

        Good post, MVW, but IMO, obama’s background is a relevant part of a larger treasonous design and is very important to U.S. sovereignty and national security.

        If Frank Marshall Davis were to turn out to be obama’s real father or he pleaded ignorance of that fact, it doesn’t exonerate Barry or others from the lies promulgated about his background or the activities, some possibly illegal, they employed to silence anyone who questioned or sought redress.

        People, from both sides of the aisle, covered for him, and I don’t believe, for one second, it was because they feared riots. It’s more of the same…when you can’t change the Constitution, because the proper process requires time, debate, transparency and carries the real possibility that the People won’t consent, you just change the meaning. The living-and-breathing Constitution says what TPTB say it means. Repeat a lie often enough…  Someone else wants to select presidents, while deceiving We, the People into thinking we made the choice at the ballot box. Restricting the pool to nbc is too limited for rule over a world with no borders, no state or personal sovereignty and no rights TPTB don’t grant. They’ve been whittling away for decades at this best-case Constitutional protection to appoint an overseer, loyal only to them.

        The process of elimination, according to their narrative, in descending order, shows us their tactic of redefining nbc:

        McCain: born abroad to 2 citizens (reportedly) on a military base. (Best case argument, but still the first cut.)

        Obama: born within U.S. jurisdiction to 1 citizen parent.

        Cruz: born abroad to 1 citizen parent.

        Jindal, Rubio and possibly Haley (don’t know, for certain, her parents’ citizenship at her birth) and a Muslim guy (refugee parents) reportedly being looked at by the Dems as a potential 2020 candidate (anchor babies): born within U.S. jurisdiction to non-citizens (a feudal misapplication of the 14th Amendment citizen.)

        All that’s left is a naturalized citizen born abroad to alien parents and non-citizen aliens.

        If all these birth circumstances are accurate definitions of nbc, it was a waste of ink for the founders to include it in presidential qualifications and a terrible misuse of the word “natural”, both by plain definition, historical and legal precedent and by definition of the natural rights of sovereign jurisdiction.

        However, we know the framers of the Constitution didn’t waste or misuse one single word. None of these birth circumstances create a citizen by his/her own nature. IOW, they are not naturally citizens, but require legislative intervention to make them one. There is no historical evidence to support these claims, but there is a plethora of evidence that defies them.

        Like

    • Jujubes says:

      Educate yourself, Georgiafl. You are spreading nonsense. John McCain doesn’t qualify either, under your crazy rules, but that is immaterial, because you are wrong. If either parent is a US citizen, the child is automatically a US citizen, *regardless* of where they were born. McCain was born on a military base outside the country. Imagine if you were correct… all pregnant US citizens would have to travel back to the US to give birth, otherwise their child would NOT be a citizen. However, you never hear of this, because it isn’t true.

      The idea that you have to be born on US soil is for cases where *neither* parent is a citizen. In that case, the baby is still a US citizen if it is born here.

      Liked by 1 person

      • georgiafl says:

        McCain was born on a US military base. That’s entirely different.

        BOTH PARENTS must be US citizens at time of birth.

        Cruz parents records are sealed – so we don’t know exactly when they married as I recall. Cruz, Sr. was not a citizen for many years after coming to US.

        Educate your own self.

        Liked by 4 people

        • For any child of an American citizen born on foreign soil (not OCONUS), the US citizen parent must “apply” for US citizenship for that child. There is a US government form that must be filled out requesting US citizenship for the child.

          As for Lyin’ Canadian Ted, here is the timeline. The pertinent issues:
          “(1961-1962)
          After graduating college at the University of Texas, and upon the expiration of his student visa, Cruz Sr. applied for and received political asylum and was issued a green card. A green card is a permit to reside and work in the United States, without becoming a citizen of the United States, in this case, under political asylum from Castro’s Cuba. His citizenship status was that of a Cuban national living and working in the United States, under a green card work permit. According to US laws, the green card holder must maintain permanent resident status, and can be removed from the United States if certain conditions of this status are not met.
          (1964-1966)
          Cruz Sr. takes a few odd jobs, marries and moves to Canada to work in the oil fields. The Cruz family resides in Canada for the next eight years. “I worked in Canada for eight years,” Rafael Cruz says. “And while I was in Canada, I became a Canadian citizen.” –
          (from an interview with Peter Spiro, a legal expert on US citizenship at Temple University. Spiro says Rafael Cruz’s multi-country odyssey did not follow traditional models for immigration. “Ted Cruz himself seems to be an advocate of those traditional immigration models. Maybe he should be a little more tolerant of the nontraditional persons, given his own father’s history.”
          (1970)
          Ted Cruz is born in Canada, to two parents who had lived in Canada for at least four years at that time, and had applied for and received Canadian citizenship under Canadian Immigration and Naturalization laws, as stated by Rafael Cruz. As a result, US statutes would have voided the prior green card status which requires among other things, permanent residency within the United States and obviously, not becoming a citizen of another country during the time frame of the green card.
          (1974)
          The Cruz family moves to the United States when Ted is approximately four years old. Rafael Cruz has publicly stated that he remained a citizen of Canada until he renounced his Canadian citizenship when he applied for and became a naturalized US citizen in 2005. As a result, his wife and son were also Canadian citizens, his son being born a citizen of Canada in 1970.
          (2005)
          Rafael Cruz applies for legal US citizenship and renounces his Canadian citizenship. No record of Ted renouncing his Canadian citizenship or applying for US citizenship exists as of 2005.”

          BTW, dual citizenship was NOT legal in Canada when Lyin’ Canadian Ted was born in Canada.

          Liked by 1 person

      • georgiafl says:

        We need to demand there can be NO sealed citizenship, birth, marriage or school records for any candidate for any US elected or appointed office.

        Liked by 5 people

      • georgiafl says:

        “If either parent is a US citizen, the child is automatically a US citizen, *regardless* of where they were born.”

        HOWEVER – there is a difference in citizen and Natural Born Citizen (requirement for POTUS).

        Liked by 6 people

        • Here is the best way I can describe the thinking of the Founders with this “natural born citizen” requirement. As for anyone born on US ground automatically being a “citizen,” that is a gross mis-application and wrong interpretation of the 14th Amendment, which, as argued on the floor of Congress at the time it was ratified, was SOLELY to afford US citizenship protections to the freed slaves. As for McShame, he was born on OCONUS (outside the Continental US) US soil (all foreign-located military bases, embassies are considered to be OCONUS US soil), with two US citizen parents, thereby making him a true “natural born citizen.” Imagine this, if you will: a Chinese woman flies into the US to have her child, who is wrongfully now a US citizen, having been born on US soil. She and her child return to China, where her child is raised to adulthood (with joint Chinese and US citizenship). Forty years later, that US citizen child returns to the US and runs for the Office of President – is THAT child eligible to run for President of the US???? Not on your life!!!!

          Liked by 5 people

        • Paul Revere says:

          Totally AGREE!!! Just read the law and remember the context in which it was written. Women had no vote and no rights at the time of crafting the constitution. If the father is not a legal citizen, no way the child is by virtue of the mothers origin.

          Liked by 1 person

          • Paul Revere says:

            That is no matter the physical location of the birth.

            Like

          • 7delta says:

            Actually, women did have rights. They had the same Constitutional protections as men, unlike Britain, and were held as accountable to the law as men. The Constitution does not grant anyone the right to vote. Voting rules and disabilities are a State authority. The 15th Amendment removed race as a disability to vote, The 19th Amendment removed the disability of gender and the 26th Amendment lowered the voting age to 18, from 21. As long as State laws observe the Amendments, other disabilities still lie within State authority. Women were allowed to vote in some States early on. Such State laws ebbed and waned until the 19th settled the issue.

            Prior to the Cable Act of 1922, women took the husband’s citizenship upon marriage. For an alien woman who married a U.S. citizen man, it usually increased her rights with Constitutional protections. Both parents having the same citizenship was seen as the nature of marital unity. A child born to an unwed mother, with no father to assume responsibility, followed the mother’s citizenship. That was rare, so the vast majority of children followed the father’s, as did the mother. The importance of the mother’s citizenship was not negated by naturalization at marriage or after the Cable Act. The possibility of a child’s citizenship being divided didn’t come about until after the Cable Act.

            Like

      • holly100 says:

        At the time of Cruz’s birth there was no dual citizenship in Canada. So was Cruz’s mother an American or Canadian citizen?

        Liked by 1 person

      • amwick says:

        A very good friend of mine was an Air Force wife.. Her two sons were born in France (not on a base), and they were told, by the Air Force, that this disqualified the boys from becoming POTUS. I think this issue needs to be nailed down, once and for all, because there appears to be way too much ambiguity.
        Personally, I would like the strictest possible interpretations… just me.

        Liked by 1 person

        • I think they are wrong – if both parents were US citizens and the ONLY reason they were in France was due to her husband’s government/AF service, then they are considered to have been born on OCONUS soil. However, she would have been required to request US citizenship for her sons at the time of their birth.

          Like

        • Firefly says:

          The globalists and politicians don’t want that. They want a test case to go to the Supreme Court. It won’t be too long with our ambiguous, convoluted immigration laws and policy before one such person is elected. Lawsuits push it to the sc for an “interpretation”. Scalia looked at it as like the founding fathers. Other judges “interpret” the constitution with more flexibility. Case law decisions are equivalent to writing law. Case by case the law morphs over time.

          Liked by 1 person

          • amwick says:

            I personally couldn’t believe Ted Cruz was considered eligible… Marko Rubio either.. but, what do I know??..Well I know it needs to be straightened out… It should not be this confusing…

            Like

          • Toronto Tonto says:

            When I read that Harry wants to marry an American and invite Obama to the wedding, I raised an eyebrow. I think the monarchy wants America back after all these years.

            Like

          • 7delta says:

            You’re right that globalists don’t want the proper definition to be applied. Considering the current narrative that everybody and their dog is eligible, the best remed is for States to make it a law that proof of natural born status, with the proper definition, is required to be on their ballot.

            Like

      • cjzak says:

        Depends on age of legal parent. His supposed Mother was not old enough to confer citizenship it seems. 17 according to the stories and that’s what his background is— stories made up to make him legit.

        Like

      • Patrick Blasz says:

        Your interpretation of the law is erroneous and an oft repeated misconception. To be a citizen you must be born of a parent subject to the jurisdiction of the United States per the XIV Amendment. “All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside.

        The “. . . , and subject to the jurisdiction thereof,” is not surplusage. Leftist ignore the requirement.

        Liked by 1 person

      • JUJU Bean Georgia Fla. attack is baseless. You need to educate yourself on who is and isn’t a citizen etc to hold OFFICE in the congress and President. The idea if you pop a baby out its a citizen and the parents are not is fraud. It is being allowed, but according to a reading of the requirements set up long ago, that child IS NOT a citizen. As for McCain again learn the rules. He was born of American citizens on foreign soil while in service to the country. THAT is allowed. Try again

        Like

      • Dougq says:

        The difference is that one can be bien a ‘citizen’ yet still not be a “Natural Born Citizen’.

        The ONLY time congress defined Natural Born would preclude Cruz from the presidency and Obama if he in fact was born out of country. Not McCain because the military base could be considered US territory.

        Supreme Court rulings hence allow only congress to define terms in the constitution hence we only have that one 1790 act to go on for what a Natural Born cutizen is supposed to be.

        Like

      • 7delta says:

        I’m afraid you’re mistaken, Jujubes. Anyone, regardless of parentage, born outside U.S. jurisdiction is born alien to the Constitution. It’s common sense, when we look at the rights and limitations of sovereign jurisdiction. We can’t claim anyone or anything originating outside U.S. jurisdiction as “natural” to U.S. jurisdiction. A pathway to citizenship must be established by Congress’ Constitutional authority to “establish a uniform rule of naturalization.” SCOTUS has upheld this repeatedly. 

        Children born abroad to citizen parents are not automatically citizens. Parents must apply for the child’s citizenship and must meet certain legal requirements themselves to have that opportunity. The child is born an alien and if granted citizenship, it’s extended back to the day of birth, but that does not make them a citizen by their own nature. The child is naturalized through a special process afforded to qualifying citizen parents. The talking heads who are touting this new “definition” are either misled or lying. It’s not a new concept. It’s the way natural rights of jurisdiction and its limitations work.

        A child who is a citizen by his own nature is a child born within U.S. jurisdiction to parents who have no conflicting allegiances that could compete for the child’s loyalty. Other countries provide pathways to citizenship for children born to their citizens outside their jurisdiction too.

        Historically, and at the time the Constitution was written and ratified, women took their husband’s citizenship upon marriage. Both parents were always the same citizenship, with few exceptions, if father was unknown or permanently absent (unwed.) Children always assumed the citizenship of the father, as did the mother. Both parents were citizens. That held true until the 1922 Cable Act, which required the wife go through the naturalization process like every other alien seeking citizenship. That Act didn’t alter or amend the definition of nbc, nor did it change the Art. 2 requirements for President. Simple legislation cannot amend the Constitution. Georgiafla is correct about the definition of nbc.

        Like

    • Steve in Lewes says:

      …neither does Rubio! Parents were here in the US but not citizens at the time.

      Liked by 1 person

    • B Woodward says:

      Georgiafl, you’re absolutely correct. In addition to your list of Obama’s abuses and lawbreaking, here is another article on 78 Obama crimes:

      http://thefreethoughtproject.com/list-78-times-president-obama-broke-law-presidency/

      Why would Obama take a personal interest in derailing candidate Trump and using skullduggery to ensure that Hillary continued his legacy? Trump was Obama’s worst nightmare. Trump didn’t buy into Obama’s Hawaiian birth. He offered Obama $50,000,000 to produce his birth certificate, passport, and college records. This was about a year after Sheriff Joe Arpaio’s investigation stated that the “official” birth certificate that Obama put on the White House website was a “100% forgery.” Trump said that college and other records would show whether or not Obama ever accepted scholarship or other aid as a foreign student, which could mean he doesn’t meet the constitutional requirement to be a natural-born citizen.

      Obama knew he was more vulnerable in another regard. The US Senate passed S 511 stating that whereas John Sidney McCain III was born to American citizen parents on US soil (allegedly born on the American military base in Panama), it was therefore resolved that John Sidney McCain, III, is a natural born citizen Obama could never be a natural born citizen because his legal father, Obama Sr, was a Kenyan and British subject–never a US citizen. (A constitutional expert states that even if Obama were to now say his real father was Malcolm X, his legal father remains Obama Sr.) So it appears that Obama violated a number of federal criminal identity fraud laws (such as 18 U.S.C. § 912, 1001, 1003, 1017, 1028, and 1031).

      Now Obama’s entire 8 year legacy as usurper-in-chief is in jeopardy. Constitutional expert and attorney Dr. Edwin Vieira writes regarding the usurper: In 2017 a new Republican Attorney General could prosecute the cases à outrance. Once evidence were adduced to support a charge under these federal laws, Mr. Obama’s “Presidency” would immediately collapse in its own footprint in the manner as World Trade Center Building 7, and crime could then be succeeded by punishment along one of the routes suggested.
      http://www.newswithviews.com/Vieira/edwin269.htm

      So usurper Obama was more motivated than anyone to do whatever was necessary to ensure that his worst nightmare didn’t get elected and start investigating his crimes and ineligibility.

      Liked by 1 person

    • Cliff Richards says:

      You are exactly right because if it takes a law to make you a citizen, you are not natural born, because if the law did not exist, you would not be a Citizen.

      Inside the “Laws of Nature” is where you will find the definition of “Natural Born Citizen”.

      John McCain was only eligible because of SR511 – “Whereas John Sidney McCain, III, was born to American citizens on an American military base in the Panama Canal Zone in 1936: Now, therefore, be it Resolved, That John Sidney McCain, III, is a “natural born Citizen” under Article II, Section 1, of the Constitution of the United States.”

      For instance Ted Cruz is a 14th Amendment Baby, Not born here, but born to one American and one Non, in Ted’s case Cuban Citizen. Ted had (till he dropped it) duel citizenship, Canadian and American.

      According to the Democrats that fought all the way to the Supreme Court to keep slavery in Scott v Sanford (1856) (where the Supreme Court ruled with the Democrats that slaves and Indians were livestock) on page 393 of the ruling ‘The citizens are the members of the civil society; bound to this society by certain duties, and subject to its authority; they equally participate in its advantages. The natives, or natural-born citizens, are those born in the country, of parents who are citizens.”

      In the act of 1790 (superseded by the Act of 1791), the provision as to foreign-born children of American citizens was as follows: “The children of citizens of the United States, that may be born beyond sea, or out of the limits of the United States, shall be considered as natural-born citizens: Provided, that the right of citizenship shall not descend to persons whose fathers have never been resident in the United States.”

      1795: SEC. 3. And be it further enacted, that the children of persons duly naturalized, dwelling within the United States, and being under the age of twenty-one years, at the time of such naturalization, and the children of citizens of the United States, born out of the limits and jurisdiction of the United States, shall be considered as citizens of the United States: Provided, That the right of citizenship shall not descend to persons, whose fathers have never been resident of the United States: Provided also, That no person heretofore proscribed by any state, or who has been legally convicted of having joined the army of Great Britain during the late war, shall be admitted a citizen as foresaid, without the consent of the legislature of the state, in which such person was proscribed.

      Moving forward, there were 8 tries to change the Natural Born clause between 2003 and 2008. I will list the bills and the sponsors below, the list is as follows;

      1. 108th CONGRESS, H.J. RES. 59, Rep Snyder, Vic AR.; Co Sponsors – Rep Conyers, John, Jr. [MI-14] – 9/4/2003, Rep Delahunt, William D. [MA-10] – 6/18/2003, Rep Frank, Barney [MA-4] – 6/11/2003, Rep Issa, Darrell E. [CA-49] – 6/11/2003, Rep LaHood, Ray [IL-18] – 6/26/2003, Rep Shays, Christopher [CT-4] – 6/18/2003

      2. 108th Congress, H.J.RES.67, Rep Conyers, John, Jr. MI; Co Sponsor Rep Sherman, Brad CA

      3. 108th Congress, S.2128, Sen Nickles, Don OK; co sponsors, Sen Inhofe, James M. [OK] – 2/25/2004, Sen Landrieu, Mary L. [LA] – 2/25/2004

      4. 108th Congress, H.J.RES.104, Rep Rohrabacher, Dana CA;

      5. 109th Congress, H.J.RES.42, Rep Snyder, Vic AR; Co Sponsor Rep Shays, Christopher CT

      6. 109th Congress, H.J.RES.15, Rep Rohrabacher, Dana CA

      7. 110th Congress, S.2678, Sen McCaskill, Claire MO; Co Sponsors Sen Clinton, Hillary Rodham [NY] – 3/3/2008, Sen Coburn, Tom [OK] – 3/4/2008, Sen Menendez, Robert [NJ] – 3/3/2008, Sen Obama, Barack [IL] – 2/29/2008

      8. 110th Congress, S.RES.511, Sen McCaskill, Claire MO; Co sponsors Sen Clinton, Hillary Rodham [NY] – 4/10/2008, Sen Coburn, Tom [OK] – 4/10/2008, Sen Leahy, Patrick J. [VT] – 4/10/2008, Sen Obama, Barack [IL] – 4/10/2008, Sen Webb, Jim [VA] – 4/10/2008

      If no one knows what it means to be a NBC, why would they want to change it especially leading up to 2008.

      Below is from Supreme.justia.com

      In Minor v. Happersett, Chief Justice Waite, when construing, in behalf of the court, the very provision of the Fourteenth Amendment now in question, said: “The Constitution does not, in words, say who shall be natural-born citizens. Resort must be had elsewhere to ascertain that.” And he proceeded to resort to the common law as an aid in the construction of this provision. 21 Wall. 88 U. S. 167.

      In Smith v. Alabama, Mr. Justice Matthews, delivering the judgment of the court, said:
      “There is no common law of the United States, in the sense of a national customary law, distinct from the common law of England as adopted by the several States each for itself, applied as its local law, and subject to such alteration as may be provided by its own statutes. . . . There is, however, one clear exception to the statement that there is no national common law. The interpretation of the Constitution of the United States is necessarily influenced by the fact that its provisions are framed in the language of the English common law, and are to be read in the light of its history.”

      Cruz, Rubio, Haley nor Obama are eligible, Cruz because it says “parents” and Obama because his father was never a resident. Rubio and Haley were born to non citizens.

      Also the lawyer for the defendant in NJ in one of the BC eligibility cases across the country then, testified that the LF BC was a fake but that it doesn’t matter anyways because it is not required to be POTUS. Its on youtube.

      There is more but im tired of looking at notes. Hope this helps.

      Liked by 2 people

      • georgiafl says:

        Thank you! Copied for reference!

        Like

      • 7delta says:

        Just a few clarifications: SR511 was a resolution passed by the Senate “in support” of McCain’s eligibility when it was challenged by some Dem guy. It had no force of law and wasn’t the basis of his eligibility.  There may still be a debate to be had about McCain, but the policy has long been that a child born to active duty military citizens (and citizen spouses) on bases abroad are natural born citizens. Bases, contrary to popular belief, are not considered U.S. soil. They’re on foreign soil, but under U.S. military jurisdiction. It’s a special carve out for the military, but still requires both citizen parents and birth within military jurisdiction.

        Cruz was born outside U.S. jurisdiction. The 14th Amendment has no bearing on his citizenship. He’s a citizen by Congress’ Constitutional Authority to “establish uniform rules of naturalization.” Because his mother was a citizen and meet the requirements, at some point, he was naturalized, retroactive to his date of birth. This is a special pathway for children born abroad to citizen parents. Because it’s a legal pathway created by Congress, it could be terminated by Congress at any time and we have had lapses in recognizing children born abroad that were later remedied by Congress. Cruz is a naturalized “at birth” citizen.

        The terminology of 1790 Naturalization Act is a bit confusing where it states “shall be considered as a natural born citizen,” which is why it was changed five years later. “…shall be considered as…” isn’t a statement of natural born birth circumstances, but a hold-over phrase from British law that had to do with rights of classes of subjects. It was important for land ownership, since only subjects could own land, inheritances and the ability to hold offices. The “shall be…” phrase was also unneeded in our law. We don’t have classes of citizenship. Whether a nbc or a naturalized citizen, all citizens have the same rights. There is no right to be president. Being a nbc is a qualification for the office. We have no obligation to be “fair” to anyone who doesn’t qualify. It’s about national security, not fairness and the only time such a distinction is made in the Constitution.. 

        Like

  4. Lburg says:

    From SD’s documentation: “FBI Director Comey said he did not tell congressional oversight he was investigating presidential candidate Donald Trump because the Director of Counterintelligence, W.H. “Bill” Priestap suggested he not do so. *Very important detail.*

    FBI Director James Comey is stating on the record that the FBI Counterintelligence Operation was happening without oversight, and that lack of oversight was intentional. ”

    What if Comey’s intentional purpose for not informing congress WAS congress? What if HRC, Obama, Feinstein and Chucky were part of the incentive? These illegal enterprises were put into motion specifically as ‘insurance’ that HRC would be elected and/or that President Trump and his atomic sledgehammer of truth would get no where near their cabal. Planning this espionage on a citizen would have to have included plausible deniability for congress scum.

    It’s obvious that Comey was trying to throw Preistap (somebody? anybody?) under the bus, but I’m not so sure he was just protecting his own a$$….and it would also explain Feinstein’s BS move to continue the old narrative.

    Liked by 8 people

    • Just_me says:

      Good comments. That said, and at the risk of getting slammed, I am still unclear about Comey. Covering his back end because his knee deep in the corruption? Getting told to shut up by his boss and being compromised himself by earlier behavior, not in the position of saying no? Comey between rock and hard spot because Obama, some in Congress and other high ups are involved?

      Sooner or later we will know the rest of the story…..I hope.

      Like

    • MaryLS says:

      Remember the big fuss over Trump asking Comey if he had his loyalty? Media tried to turn this into a request for personal loyalty. It was not. It was a request for loyalty to the duly elected President. Comey failed a test confirming loyalty to the US and its Constitution. So much deception and the media failing to be honest with the country.

      Like

    • so we will never see the warrants, since” “The ENTIRE SYSTEM of surveillance and data collection was weaponized against a political campaign. There were no authorizing or accompanying FISA warrants”????

      Like

  5. Craig from Scotland says:

    Things are heating up…..

    http://www.justsecurity.org
    9th January, 2018

    “House leadership is about to make another attempt at what it failed to do in December: push through an updated version of the House Intelligence Committee’s FISA Amendments Reauthorization Act of 2017 by claiming the bill is a surveillance reform measure. The bill would reauthorize and expand – rather than reform – Section 702 of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA).

    The provision that allows the government to warrantlessly collect the communications of non-Americans located abroad, INCLUDING their communications with Americans.

    “About” collection is part of upstream surveillance, where the government collects not only communications that are “to” and “from” a target, but also those that are “about” a target, such emails between two non-targets that happen to mention a target’s email address, phone number or other such “selector” in their communication. Not only does this tactic permit collection of communications where no participating communicant is a target, but it vastly increases the risks of collecting purely domestic communications. Last spring, to address substantial non-compliance with privacy safeguards required by the FISA Court, the government was forced to eliminate “about” collection.”

    Liked by 2 people

  6. cdnintx says:

    How many of the gang of eight knew? Specifically Paul Ryan and Mitch McConnell?

    Liked by 4 people

    • Scott says:

      Everyone knows; the biggest hindrance for the entire story to come out in one big disclosure is the necessity of the programs to surveil our enemies (and friends). That’s why they can’t just release everything wholesale and why the Deep State believed they could get away with it. It does appear though enough will be disclosed just prior to the Fall elections (likely by design) to make the Democratic “Wave” election to be a ripple.

      Liked by 2 people

      • daughnworks247 says:

        Which is why we keep on getting resistance from Congress to reveal info. Congress’ argument being based on “sources and methods”, which they do not want to reveal.
        Of course………

        Like

      • ladypenquin says:

        I hope that’s true, Scott. The Democrats believe they’re going to have the “WAVE” election, and if we can’t take some of these criminal critters down, we’ve got a problem.

        Like

    • Kristin says:

      Cdnintx: I would say they knew: because of their silence….,

      Liked by 1 person

    • Tom F says:

      My guess is 7 out of 8 knew what was going on.

      Liked by 1 person

  7. Joe says:

    Does the IG have to first submit their report to the intelligence community for possible security redactions?

    Like

  8. Nonlocality says:

    Reading all of above, what most struck me was the discussion about “Globalists.” I always thought of it as a bad ideology. Is it an organized entity like the Communist Party in J. Edgar’s day, and present? Who’s in charge? I mean who is the top dog? Satan, perhaps (serious question)? Where do they meet? (The UN discussions are all public, although few people pay any attention.) How does such an organized entity communicate? This whole concept seems to me to be a more sinister web than anything going on in our government–not to diminish those crimes.
    So, just how deep does this go?

    Liked by 3 people

    • pyromancer76 says:

      Follow AGW for one clue. When did it begin? When did schemers take over every environmental organization in the U.S. When were the science departments in “every” university weaponized to destroy the career of every scientist following the scientific method. When was Earth Day instituted to celebrate Lenin’s birthday? Etc., Etc., Etc.

      Liked by 5 people

    • MVW says:

      Traceback of the real ownership, control of the media may be the most revealing of the cabal or groups of them. Who ever ‘they’ are they are certainly a gargantuan threat to our republic.

      Round them up, or deal with them in other ways.

      Liked by 2 people

      • Mickey Wasp says:

        “ownership, control of the media” ~ As has been stated and researched their are six controlling factors / families / ‘co-op’ that control something like 92% of the media conglomerates.

        IMO ~ As many know of “Operation Mockingbird” started in the 1950’s by CIA operatives. To me, the real take over of the ‘news cycle / investigative journalism’ went kaput, when the entertainment companies / industry began buying news corporations and made the news cycle more about celebrities and athletes.
        Thus, making news anchors “celebrities” and movie / singer celebrities, along with ‘sports figures’, into esteemed culture warriors of their demented truth. There are exceptions to the rule, but they are usually ostracized and marginalized.

        Like

    • seventhndr says:

      The Globalist Puppet Masters

      Saudi Arabia, currently under reconstruction due to our wonderful President. (Remember when Julian Assange tweeted about “the puppet taking over the hand”?)

      Rothchilds/Big Banking (same thing)/CoC

      Soros family (primarily George but his son is rising to power quickly).

      Liked by 1 person

    • Do some research on the Bilderbergers – you will find your answers. The “globalists” comprise a huge cabal of many like George Soros, the Ford Foundation, the Gates Foundation, the Rothschilds, the Rockefellers and many, many other “elites” around the world who want to collectively rule the world.

      Like

      • Nonlocality says:

        Ty NebraskaFilly I wish I would have added a comment. I should have asked where the line is crossed into full-on Ephesians 6:12–which is a core inspiration for my last novel and will be again on next. I believe 6:12! I would love to hear the CTH community’s opinions about where a Putin-like, Soros-like, and any Bircher-like powerful Human connects with those “…principalities, and spiritual darkness…” I’m not a paranormal writer. But I believe 6:12 is a great premise.
        I will do your suggestion.

        Like

    • Watch this documentary – here is an extended trailer: “AGENDA: Grinding America Down”

      Liked by 1 person

  9. Betty says:

    I didn’t get far before I was enraged. I looked my for Senator Klobuchar’s email address so that I could send this post to her but I couldn’t find it. So I called – twice. I laid this right on her doorstep. She weaponized the Federal Government against the American People, against George Washington, Thomas Jefferson, Madison and Monroe. Who does that put her in league with – Stalin, a functionary of Chairman Mao? I told her “Don’t even try to pretend you don’t know what’s going on.” “Yet you just stand there, don’t want to dirty your hands like Diane Feinstein did yesterday, but willing to allow it as long as you might come out ok.”

    I read some of the first paragraphs into her and I ended by re-reading this sentence:

    “In my opinion this is the biggest story in our lifetime as it relates to government officials, specifically DOJ and FBI leadership, weaponizing their offices to retain political power for their ideological allies.”

    Then I reminded her that the miracle of our Republic was that when his term was finished George Washington stepped away from power. She and her grubby, thieving, lying, power hungry cohorts won’t let go of power, not even for the sake of our Great Nation.

    I didn’t write this to get approval from anyone but to encourage you all to let your representative know that WE KNOW, THEY KNEW. We can do nothing with the media, the best of who will sit and listen to outright lies with out saying a word. But these elected bastards are facing a huge curtailment of their ability to rig an election.

    Liked by 20 people

    • standlow says:

      I believe we can assume that every Democrat knew exactly what Obama was, and is, before selecting him as their nominee. A few may not have realized his Alinsky-clone intentions, but they wanted to win at all costs. We can also probably assume that a number of Republicans knew also and said nothing for reasons of their own.

      Liked by 3 people

    • Kristin says:

      Betty: you did good. You are an upstanding citizen our country is in high need right now.

      Liked by 3 people

    • yellowrosetx says:

      Love your last paragraph. It was bad enough when I thought they had fraudulently obtained a FISA warrant. But if they used information obtained simply by querying the NSA database, NOT for national security reasons because they knew the dossier was a fraud they created, but for POLITICAL reasons, they are saying this to the American people:”We know everything about you, we are powerful, and if you don’t please us we will fabricate evidence that will twist the truth and we can destroy you. We’ll tell everyone its in the interest of national security.” When this all explodes, I will explain it to my less informed friends and tell them to take the Trump name out of the story and put any other name that could have been the opposing candidate in its place—-Stein, Sanders, Bush, Rubio, etc. And let it sink in.
      Like so many have said, this makes Watergate look like a garden party.

      Liked by 6 people

      • Winston says:

        I’m going to repost my earlier comment as the moderator seems to have bounced
        it. I posted it for historical context/precedent reasons, not because I’m some raving leftie.
        Far from it.One of the greatest un-honored American patriots was General Smedley-
        Butler USMC who received the medal of honor twice ..
        Few Americans are aware of what nearly happened to this country in 1933.
        A group of industrialists led by Prescott Bush attempted a military coup against
        FDR.They were all fascist sympathizers.Those chose the wrong General to lead that
        coup.Smedley-Butler pretended to go along with them while reporting to FDR all along.
        It was squashed before it could come to fruition.The whole affair was buried deep and
        there were no trials or punishment.Deals were made.Prescott Bush went on to
        become the father of one president and the grandfather of another.
        I’m trying to say, don’t expect too much here,deals have been made with traitors before,
        and will be again.
        Smedley-Butler became virulently anti-war five years after retiring.
        His pamphlet “War is a Racket” is available on line and may well be why he never
        got his deserved recognition in the history books.
        As the Bible says,there is nothing new under the sun.

        Like

    • Sherbear says:

      Thank you Betty…

      Like

    • Mickey Wasp says:

      Do you know how tied your senator Klobuchar is to senator McCain?

      Challenging Klobuchar on Ukraine War ~
      It is of concern that you would join Senator McCain and the equally belligerent Senator Lindsey Graham on a tour of Russian provocation through the Baltics, Ukraine, Georgia, and Montenegro. The announcement of your trip (December 28, 2016) on the News Releases page of your website renewed the unproven claim of “Russian interference in our recent election”. It also claimed that the countries you were visiting were facing “Russian aggression” and that “Russia illegally annexed Crimea”.

      It is unfortunate that these claims have become truisms by sheer repetition rather than careful examination of the facts. Russia has not invaded eastern Ukraine. There are no regular units of the Russian military in the breakaway provinces, nor has Russia launched any air strikes from its territory. It has sent weapons and other provisions to the Ukrainian forces seeking autonomy from Kiev, and there are most certainly Russian volunteers operating in Ukraine.
      https://consortiumnews.com/2017/02/19/challenging-klobuchar-on-ukraine-war/

      ** I would suggest you read the full article and comments. The letter / article is written by Mike Madden (of St. Paul, Minnesota). **

      Like

  10. trialbytruth says:

    Legal eagles?

    Impeachment is a political process. Are there rules of evidence for an Impeachment trial.?

    Who sets those rules?

    If the intent of the whole enchilada was impeachment. Those are the rules that matter.

    Liked by 1 person

    • Publius2016 says:

      No rules except votes of Congress…Set up by our Founders to stop an out of control Executive and give out of Control additional legal outlet…geniuses. The problem for 90% of Congress RINOs, Nevertrumpers, and Dems is that unlike Coup (assassination of Caesar), THE VOTE IS IN THE LIGHT OF DAY AND RECORDED FOR ALL POSTERITY.

      Liked by 3 people

      • Publius2016 says:

        No rules except votes of Congress…Set up by our Founders to stop an out of control Executive and give out of Control Congress additional legal outlet…geniuses. The problem for 90% of Congress RINOs, Nevertrumpers, and Dems is that unlike Coup (assassination of Caesar), THE VOTE IS IN THE LIGHT OF DAY AND RECORDED FOR ALL POSTERITY.

        Liked by 1 person

      • trialbytruth says:

        That was my understanding

        From the frame of mind of dirty cops, everybody is dirty.

        1.Collect the dirt
        2. Spread the dirt.
        3.have a trial by press
        4. Impeach

        Liked by 3 people

  11. Publius2016 says:

    Makes sense why no FISA…There are now 18 Eyes! Foreign governments who share digital data…the Obama Administration put our most important intelligence information globally…this may be another reason for his now dead “Net Neutrality” The 5 Eyes are US and the Crown (UK, Canada, etc…) now add the Original EU and our allies in Asian plus Israel…basically, Skynet is being re-bourne. This is another reason why the unmasking on Presidential Daily Briefing were necessary.

    Like

  12. imx007 says:

    If there were no authorizing or accompanying FISA warrants, why does Judge Contreras recuse himself from Michael Flynn case? Did he deny a FISA request and know what was happening?

    Liked by 2 people

  13. Jim in TN says:

    Why move the transition team if there was no location specific spying?

    If spying was just queries against all the info the NSA normally collects, it would still be happening in New Jersey. Use a cell phone, always listened in to. Set up a new server, the Internet is always snooped on, no matter where you connect

    Liked by 1 person

    • Publius2016 says:

      21st Century Surveillance tools are being used…infrared digital all encompassing

      Liked by 1 person

    • Cuppa Covfefe says:

      There are encryption tools other than just TOR and Onion…
      And there are snooping tools that “jump” airgaps, on the other hand.

      Spy vs. Spy…

      Aside from the *cough* wiring closets in SF and NYC, there are huge taps off the coast of England. Not just extra “dark cable”… Sad thing is, we’re paying for all this here and there – if only they’d spend so much money, time, and effort on something useful, say, FTTD or other infrastructure projects (bridges, roads, etc.)…

      Like

    • LannyD says:

      Or a ham radio ala Nellie Ohr

      Like

    • NJF says:

      Bongino make an interesting point on his show the other day when outlining SDs research. He’s asks, “why did Rodgers wait 10 days to go to Trump Tower?”

      He explained that a SCIF takes 5-10 days to set up in a new location, and Rodgers would know this. . I found this an interesting tidbit of info.

      Perhaps, he told POTUS, “this SCIF could be compromised as well,” and so they relocate to NJ where he knows he has control over the property.

      Don’t forget his “we found gold behind the walls,” and although he referenced the WH, we know his tweets often contain many layers.

      Just a thought.

      Liked by 3 people

  14. Jim in TN says:

    The Manafort investigation started in 2014. How could there be no FISA warrants against him in all that time?

    Were all the warrants against Manafort just normal court type warrants?

    Liked by 1 person

    • Publius2016 says:

      Wonder if his attorneys may subpoena 5 Eyes and NSA records if they identify him

      Like

    • covfefe999 says:

      Jim you ask some good questions. The initial Manafort investigation was from 2014 into early 2016. He was put back under investigation again in mid-2016 after Trump hired him to assist with the campaign. All reports about this investigation state that there was a FISA warrant and the investigation did involve Manafort’s Russia connections. I think Clapper is lying. I think there were FISA warrants on Manafort, Carter Page, and Trump via his server in Trump Tower. And if they weren’t FISA warrants specifically then there must have been warrants, otherwise the spying was completely illegal and collected data not usable in court, right?

      Like

      • covfefe999 says:

        Someone with knowledge of the situation had CNN publish a story indicating that Manafort was under FISA-authorized surveillance twice, the initial 2014 investigation and the re-opened 2016 investigation. This story is from Sep 19 2017. Clapper didn’t know about this? He was DNI until Jan 20 2017.

        A secret order authorized by the court that handles the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) began after Manafort became the subject of an FBI investigation that began in 2014. It centered on work done by a group of Washington consulting firms for Ukraine’s former ruling party, the sources told CNN.
        The surveillance was discontinued at some point last year for lack of evidence, according to one of the sources.
        The FBI then restarted the surveillance after obtaining a new FISA warrant that extended at least into early this year.
        Sources say the second warrant was part of the FBI’s efforts to investigate ties between Trump campaign associates and suspected Russian operatives. Such warrants require the approval of top Justice Department and FBI officials, and the FBI must provide the court with information showing suspicion that the subject of the warrant may be acting as an agent of a foreign power.

        http://www.cnn.com/2017/09/18/politics/paul-manafort-government-wiretapped-fisa-russians/index.html

        Like

        • covfefe999 says:

          Here’s an Apr 11 2017 WaPo article stating that there was a FISA warrant to surveil Carter Page: Why would someone provide this info to WaPo?

          The FBI obtained a secret court order last summer to monitor the communications of an adviser to presidential candidate Donald Trump, part of an investigation into possible links between Russia and the campaign, law enforcement and other U.S. officials said. The FBI and the Justice Department obtained the warrant targeting Carter Page’s communications after convincing a Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court judge that there was probable cause to believe Page was acting as an agent of a foreign power, in this case Russia, according to the officials. This is the clearest evidence so far that the FBI had reason to believe during the 2016 presidential campaign that a Trump campaign adviser was in touch with Russian agents. Such contacts are now at the center of an investigation into whether the campaign coordinated with the Russian government to swing the election in Trump’s favor. Page has not been accused of any crimes, and it is unclear whether the Justice Department might later seek charges against him or others in connection with Russia’s meddling in the 2016 presidential election. The counterintelligence investigation into Russian efforts to influence U.S. elections began in July, officials have said. Most such investigations don’t result in criminal charges. The officials spoke about the court order on the condition of anonymity because they were not authorized to discuss details of a counterintelligence probe. […] The government’s application for the surveillance order targeting Page included a lengthy declaration that laid out investigators’ basis for believing that Page was an agent of the Russian government and knowingly engaged in clandestine intelligence activities on behalf of Moscow, officials said. […] The application also showed that the FBI and the Justice Department’s national security division have been seeking since July to determine how broad a network of accomplices Russia enlisted in attempting to influence the 2016 presidential election, the officials said.
          Since the 90-day warrant was first issued, it has been renewed more than once by the FISA court, the officials said.
          https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/fbi-obtained-fisa-warrant-to-monitor-former-trump-adviser-carter-page/2017/04/11/620192ea-1e0e-11e7-ad74-3a742a6e93a7_story.html?utm_term=.cf9a8bd3be05

          That’s an awful lot of detail about a FISA warrant that Clapper claims doesn’t exist, eh?

          Now technically it’s possible that the FISA warrants were granted after Manafort was fired (Aug 19 2016) and after Page resigned (Sep 26 2016?), and then Clapper would technically be correct to claim that there were no warrants against Trump’s campaign.

          Liked by 1 person

          • covfefe999 says:

            Interesting:

            The Justice Department obtained a secret court-approved wiretap last summer on Carter Page, a foreign policy adviser to Donald J. Trump’s presidential campaign, based on evidence that he was operating as a Russian agent, a government official said Wednesday. The Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court issued the warrant, the official said, after investigators determined that Mr. Page was no longer part of the Trump campaign, which began distancing itself from him in early August. Mr. Page is one of several Trump associates under scrutiny in a federal investigation. https://www.nytimes.com/2017/04/12/us/politics/carter-page-fisa-warrant-russia-trump.html

            The FISA warrant was granted after Page had resigned. So Clapper was technically correct, there were no FISA warrants against Trump or his campaign. Except he forgot about the Trump Tower server?

            Liked by 1 person

  15. H&HC, 2nd-16th says:

    This is almost too much for a common peasant like myself to absorb.
    To Whom it May Concern: Keep PDJT safe; hang the guilty bastards and call me when its over.

    Liked by 9 people

  16. woohoowee says:

    (Bold mine)

    -snip-

    There is no confirmed evidence that the F.B.I. obtained a court warrant to wiretap the Trump Organization or was capturing communications directly from the Trump Organization.

    During the transition, the F.B.I. — which uses FISA warrants to eavesdrop on the communications of foreign leaders inside the United States — overheard conversations between the Russian ambassador to the United States and Michael T. Flynn, whom Mr. Trump had named national security adviser.

    Mr. Trump has pointedly and repeatedly questioned in conversations how it was that Mr. Flynn’s conversations were recorded, and wondered who could have issued a warrant.

    Liked by 2 people

    • woohoowee says:

      (Bold mine)

      March 5, 2017 (Just one day after the NYT’s article)

      -snip-

      During the summer last year, the Obama administration filed a request with the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court (FISA) to monitor communications involving Trump and several advisers but the request was denied, according to Heat Street former editor, Louise Mensch.

      Just a day before the 2016 election, Mensch reported that ‘sources with links to the counter-intelligence community’ confirmed that a Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court (FISA) had granted a FISA court warrant in October to monitor activities in Trump tower.

      Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-4283336/Trump-taunts-Obama-early-morning-tweet.html#ixzz53mn3PjoF
      Follow us: @MailOnline on Twitter | DailyMail on Facebook

      Not hard to see why the counter-intel unit would want people to think they had a warrant even if they didn’t………

      Liked by 2 people

      • dizzymissl says:

        Wait. Is the crazed Louise Mensch the very first “reporter” who said they had a FISA warrant? She’s close to the number one nutjob on twitter!

        Liked by 3 people

        • woohoowee says:

          Dunno if Mensch was the first. Will look around later – have a doctors appt. in just a few. Will also do some checking around re: Michael Schmidt b/c he would have only been 10 yrs. old in 1993. So that’s either a typo in the letter (will repost the link to that pdf when I get back) or is a different Michael Schmidt.

          Like

        • woohoowee says:

          Ok, Mensch was the first and published an “exclusive” about it in heatstreet on November 7, 2016. The only link I can find to the article itself:

          https://archive.fo/JwNBs

          Fast forward to 02/17/17:

          -snip-

          The Guardian separately confirmed the original request for a Fisa warrant, which had been turned down earlier in the summer, and former officials said they believed that the Mensch and BBC account of the Fisa warrants was correct.

          https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2017/feb/17/louise-mensch-trump-russia-ties-media-scoop

          “Fisa warrant” (singular) gets mangled to “Fisa warrants” (plural) by the end of the sentence. That’s deliberate word games to confuse and mislead. No confirmation of anything, just some unknowns saying they believed something.

          Like

    • MVW says:

      “President Trump called former President Barack Obama a “bad (or sick) guy””
      No hyperbole. Trump is shooting straight here. He knows.

      Liked by 5 people

    • covfefe999 says:

      There is no confirmed evidence that the F.B.I. obtained a court warrant to wiretap the Trump Organization or was capturing communications directly from the Trump Organization.

      Technically this is correct. There were no FISA warrants against Trump himself or Manafort or Page WHILE they were working for Trump. See my posts above, numerous reports about FISA warrants against Manafort and Page but after they departed from the campaign.

      And then there’s the matter of the Trump Tower server which was on the FBI’s radar for two reasons: because the dossier had specific info about Alfa Bank and because the server was allegedly communicating with Alfa Bank. Technically this server wasn’t part of the Trump campaign.

      Liked by 1 person

  17. Jim in TN says:

    Okay, accept that no FISA warrants were even applied for. Not against anybody in Trump team.

    Who are the people who are telling us that there were FISA warrants? Why are they conducting this deception?

    Trump Tower banks, Manafort, Carter Page, stories of FISA warrants against many Trump connected people and banks have been published. Even stories of FISA warrant denials followed by later FISA approvals.

    What reporters were used?
    Who were their sources?
    What were the motives?

    Liked by 2 people

    • woohoowee says:

      Michael Schmidt is one of them. Grassley is wanting any leaks from comey to Schmidt going all the way back to 1993!

      Liked by 3 people

    • covfefe999 says:

      I’m not believing there were no FISA warrants. There is too much detailed info about warrants for Paul Manafort and Carter Page. But it’s looking like maybe they weren’t working for Trump at the time, though there are reports that Manafort was still communicating with Trump and maybe Page was too.

      There’s still the matter of he Trump Tower server which the FBI was reportedly analyzing. They could analyze publicly-acquired data I guess, but it would be easy for them to get a FISA warrant because of the activity and the extra info from the dossier linking Trump to Alfa Bank. I think the dossier WAS used to secure a FISA warrant to surveil the Trump Tower server. I think Clapper screwed up, when asked by Chuck Todd if there was any monitoring of anything at Trump Tower he initially said “Not to my knowledge” and when pressed he swallowed hard and said “No”. Not to my knowledge and no are different answers. He screwed up.

      Like

    • woohoowee says:

      Not Grassley, sorry – it’s Goodlatte and Jordan. Please see page 5 at the link:

      14) Any and all potential leaks originated by Mr. Comey and provide[d] to author Michael Schmidt dating back to 1993.

      https://judiciary.house.gov/wp-content/uploads/2017/07/072717_HJC-Letter-to-AG-DAG.pdf

      Like

  18. Trent Telenko says:

    What are the implications of NSA Chief Admiral Rogers showing up as without permission from the outgoing Administration to the President-Elect?

    As guardian of the NSA vaults, every time one of the “Obama Conspiracy” — yes, that is what it was — used a FISA702 query. They generated a FISA query record in the NSA servers with the time, date, the digital identity of the person making the query and the electronic terminal it was made from.

    And what FISA warrant covered said query, if any.

    This master FISA702 query log is an NSA record, and solely an NSA record.

    Don’t you think that Adm Rogers provided a complete copy of all such illegal surveillance queries up to the time of his Nov 17th 2017 meeting to Pres-Elect Trump?

    And that he made Pres Trump aware of how much the “Five-Eyes” agreement was used to watch Pres-Elect Trump? (IMO, the UK Gov’t stopped providing the Obama Administration and Trump surveillance data the day after the election, per long standing agreements.)

    What are the implications regards AG Sessions and Pres Trump’s actions since Nov 17, 2017 in light of this?

    Consider, it is a lot easier for a Inspector General to look in the right places and ask the right questions to illicit the perjury from the guilty is you have Adm Rogers NSA FISA query file to work with.

    Consider as well that Pres Trump likely asked PM May government for a complete list of all Obama Administration surveillance requests of his campaign after the Adm Roger meeting.

    IMO. we are looking at the biggest legal-political “Sting” operation in the history of the American Republic.

    Liked by 7 people

    • EagleMom says:

      Remember when Samantha Powers was brought into Congress to explain the “hundreds” of request for unmasking? Could this really have been about the use of the “about query” request? I remember thinking at the time it was odd that Powers said she did not make the request, that someone else used her name…..hmmmmm.

      Liked by 2 people

      • Cuppa Covfefe says:

        Interesting. In the real world, if you give someone your logon credentials for ANY purpose, that’s grounds for immediate termination for cause.

        Oh, what a wicked web they weave… spiders from He!! .

        Liked by 2 people

      • Trent Telenko says:

        EagleMom.

        Every classified document is part of a master administrative record that is classified as high as the highest document mentioned.

        This Administrative record cover the birth, life (who looked at it and when, how many copies) and death by destruction of the classified document,

        The administrative record is *forever.*

        Only the head of the NSA and the NSA inspector General have access to the complete administrative record.

        NB: The appointment of an NSA Inspector General signaled the Trump Administration is comparing the NSA 702 master query with the DoJ and FBI SCIF-level administrative files to see how the records were buggered and by whom.

        If someone else was using Amb. Power’s digital ID to unmask Pres-Elect Trump Transition officials, each unmasking was a felony espionage crime. The electronic Administrative record will show where the queries were made from even if the information in the query were later deleted.

        Liked by 5 people

        • thedoc00 says:

          There is a point that needs to be understood about security classification of material, by Federal Code, the President of the US is the “originating authority” for all things classified. He has the authority to delegate classification authority and the president can classify or declassify materials at will. The sanctity of those NSA records may not be as solid as you describe if President Obama made decisions to allow removal of parts of those records.

          Liked by 1 person

        • Joel W Miller says:

          Interesting…..Its the administrivia that trips up the criminal every time. hooray for master logs!!! Lets hope the DOJ, FBI and NSA IGs are cooperating and building the timeline for when unmasking requests occurred under Ms. Powers name and from what SCIF terminal on what dates. Then lets hope the IG lays that information in front of the guilty parties to show them we have you dead to rights. Next stop grand jury indictment….future stop….life – for violation of USC 18 chapter 115 – treason at a Federal SuperMax correctional facility to be determined by the Department of Corrections….Welcome to shangra-la inmates Clinton, Comey, Lynch, Page, Baker, Priestap, McCabe, Strzok, Ohr, Ohr, Simpson, Jacoby, Power, Clapper, Brennan, Rhodes….have I missed anyone??

          Like

    • 21leelee says:

      If there was a long standing agreement with the British government and spying on Trump under the auspices of Five Eyes, then their agreement would run until the inauguration of the new President and not Election Day, I would think. Five Eyes would continue. Spying would continue if doable I would think.

      Like

      • Publius2016 says:

        Foreign governments can spy on everyone…the repercussions are what they have to deal with once discovered. We are dealing with Globalists of the highest order.

        Liked by 1 person

      • thedoc00 says:

        Related to this line of discussion, I recall that there was a single statement made about the Clinton servers by the FBI, and then silence, that said there were NATO HQ classified addresses, links and materials on that server. Wonder what that discussion was about, given Trump’s statements to put pressure on NATO members to actually uphold their obligations and to restructure the alliance.

        Liked by 1 person

    • Admiral Rogers stated that the existing protections weren’t robust enough to prevent misuse of the queries. Was he implying that the box labeled “FISA Warrant #” (or something similar) was being left empty and the queries were being run without the warrant? Is that what this means?

      Like

    • Mary Morse says:

      “and what FISA warrant covered said query, if any.”
      Would the person making the query be able to complete the request without identifying an active warrant? If not, would that be evidence of the existence of a warrant?

      Like

  19. help4newmoms says:

    So, Sundance, what authorization does the govt need to conduct a FISA 702(17) collection? Is the answer, no authorization? In that case, why do FISA warrants even exist if the agencies can get the same info through FISA 702(17) collections ? Thanks for your help.

    Liked by 1 person

  20. Kristin says:

    So we believe Clapper to be truthful. He was quite as a matter of fact stating there was no FISA warrant he knew of.
    Then:
    1) Where fid the FISA warrant originate?
    2) Why did the FISC Judge Contreras resign in the Flynn case?
    3) Can Schumer be brought into the investigation as to be questioned?
    4) When will obama appear in front of congress to answer questions.

    My last to points/questions are somewhat cheeky.

    Like

  21. NYGuy54 says:

    Like

    • Cuppa Covfefe says:

      That’s kind of what I suspect. Him, or Priebus…

      Liked by 1 person

    • pyromancer76 says:

      How interesting. I would like to believe it, but of course we need proof. Any Cruz supporter — I repeat, any Cruz supporter — who, after half a second of due-diligence investigation of his background, doesn’t hold his/her nose over the “Globalist” stink all over Cruz, is part of the cabal.

      Liked by 2 people

      • Cruz appears to be born in Canada, I only say appears because the real records are sealed. The information comes from other documents and people. So how did Cruz pass the muster and became qualified to run. Simple. The courts do not decide who can be on the ballets and preform vetting from my reading.
        Instead EACH PARTY does the vetting and confirms whether the candidate is qualified and a citizen and may hold office. THE PARTY does the vetting. They control the whole process.

        Like

  22. trumpsbamagirl says:

    I have a cousin who works at the NSA. During the campaign she made the only two remarks she has ever said about her job-

    1. That it isn’t the NSA spying on people in America- it is the FBI
    2. She and her co-workers at the NSA were very Pro-Trump

    I didn’t think much about it at the time (other than relief that she and her co-workers were pro-Trump) but after reading this article, her comments seem cryptic.

    Liked by 3 people

  23. KBR says:

    Clapper 1
    Q: “Is there a FISA court order against Trump tower”
    A: “No”

    Clapper 2
    Q: FISA order to “wiretap Paul Manafort?”
    A: “I cannot confirm or deny” (about FISA & Manafort) But I stand by my earlier statement (about Trump Tower)

    So, is he just lying? Confirmed no wiretap in 1, cannot confirm or deny no wiretap in 2?

    Or is it the DIFFERENT QUESTION that makes a difference? (And allows Clapper deniability.)
    1) Confirms no FISA warrant for Trump Tower
    2) Cannot confirm nor deny FISA warrant regarding Manafort.

    Also check the timeline between the two interviews.

    Liked by 1 person

    • Craig from Scotland says:

      KBR,

      It’s the question which is incorrect which is allowing Clapper to not answer or provide an answer by omission [lying].

      FISA [Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act] warrant cannot be instigated toward a US person, and certainly not for political means.
      The purpose is to in-gather foreign intel of a security threat to USA and only non-US persons can be warranted.
      Section 702 and ‘abouts’ queries can be utilised using the FISA court order which could be what happened.

      The other issue could be straight forward FBI ‘abouts’ queries to the same data base with no FISA court order or any judicial order whatsoever, total non-compliance and unlawful acts.

      Liked by 3 people

      • KBR says:

        Yes, the question. Or Rather, the questions.

        What I meant about “his deniability” is just…

        his deniability as to having “answered the SAME question with very different answers in these two interviews.”

        IE: The questions were NOT the same.
        Allowing for obfuscation and his redirection (or deliberate misdirection) to his earlier press statement, even though the questions were different, as were his answers. He does not expect the average viewer to notice that the questions were different.

        Remember this was not an “under oath” statement, just more hogwash for the media and viewers to wallow in.

        Sundance said to pay close attention, watch more than once. This is a point that I picked out for discussion.

        Liked by 1 person

        • KBR says:

          Because some comments here were implying that he answered the SAME question with two very different responses.

          Because he seems to claim that while Trump Tower had no FISA, (although we know it was surveilled anyway) Manafort’s investigation might or might not have had a FISA involved.

          Also notice the first question is whether “Trump Tower”, not whether “Trump persons” were surveilled via FISA. (We now suspect there was no FISA for illegal spying on Trump persons, but we don’t have the for sure answer..yet.)

          His answer then, is that Trump Tower (the whole thing?) didn’t have FISA warrant.

          He did not actually say anything about the individuals therein nor about individual rooms/businesses/apartments therein.
          Again a question that is imprecise as to its meaning can lead to an answer that is meaningless.

          (I think he lies whenever his mouth opens: but he is crafty about it.)

          (If FISA exists re:Manafort, maybe from quite a while back, not at TT, b/c of Manafort’s past Ukraine associations years before, and only in connection with a surveillance op. On a Foreigner.)

          Again. It is all mushy stuff. From a mushy mouth answering mushy questions.

          Liked by 1 person

        • Craig from Scotland says:

          Yes, agreed he did obfuscate about the second question but the point I politely meant was both questions asked by the interviewer are not accurate or viable.

          Let’s face it he knows there was wire tapping / monitoring etc going on but is dancing round the subject.
          It could be he [clapper] is getting on television so much as not to be the fall guy when the music stops.

          Like

          • KBR says:

            Or
            Could it be that since Clapper is no longer officially in charge, he is giving directions to his minions with keywords which we might not know? Or perhaps leading them from his own behind?

            Like

  24. Conundrum says:

    That could mean Comey, Mueller and Rosenstein are all white hats. Comey fingered Priestap and Lynch. He opened the Clinton email scandal a second time before the election which hurt her voting support. The special counsel may just be a sting put together by two FBI heads who saw the corruption and were blackmailed or pressured to fall in line. There is a reason the deal between Mueller and Rosy is under the table. It is one for light not darkness.

    Liked by 1 person

    • Looking at Muellers background, his long ties to the Clintons, and his work on Uranium one. I doubt Comey is anything but a conspirator. Rosenstien, has very long ties to the same people etc. Mueller ditto. If they have had a turn, its to provide cover in my opinion while they work to sabotage, just like Fienstein.

      Like

  25. Mickturn says:

    Where there is this much smoke there is a huge forest fire! I will pay for the gallows, time to hang all the perps at the same time…by the way, the trap doors will open very slowly so they all get to go slowly over minutes!…no fast end for them!

    Like

  26. Justice Warrior says:

    I Agree. The question is how far will the American justice system go to restore our government? I pray for a deep resolve to see this through to completion. And we can regain confidence in our government.

    Liked by 1 person

    • starfcker says:

      The other day when Wray and Rosenstein went to visit Paul Ryan, I think they got told, yeah, we’re going to do this. There’s no sense stonewalling anymore. It’s going to go wherever it goes. Might as well get out of the way of the bus, so it doesn’t run you over, too.

      Liked by 1 person

  27. John says:

    I think the timeline needs some revising. How did Trump find out about the wiretapping before Coats took office, he tweets on March 4th, Coats didn’t come until later. Was it Flynn or was it someone left over in the Obama Administration. Why wait to March 4th. Who in the DOJ notified Trump. Rosenstein makes the most sense since he came on April 26th and has some institutional knowledge. Sessions came on Feb 9th.

    I’m pretty sure the FBI who were not the source of surveillance around Trump tower. I’m going to go out on a limb and state that Mccabe, Comey, Priestap and Baker aren’t that stupid. We do know that the Lynch/Yates and Susan Rice/Evelyn Farkas are stupid. Lynch with the Tarmac meeting and her rant on youtube after Trump got elected. She is an idiot. Yates with the travel ban – another idiot. Susan Rice was the stooge put out there for the Benghazi video – another idiot. Evelyn Farkas – her CNBC interview – another idiot. Idiots do unsophisticated things.

    They were feeding the russian news to Strok and Page which they then leaked to the press. All the leaks from the FBI left the impression Trump were being investigated even though Comey said he wasn’t under investigation privately. That was the insurance policy. To sabotage his presidency in the press. Comey’s problem is he didn’t like Trump and was being too cute by half by not notifying the country the President wasn’t under investigation. I think he knew about the leaking, had some suspicions who but never followed up. Another reason to get fired. Along with the other leadership within the FBI. I think they saw the game but didn’t have the balls to stop it.

    The spying and unmasking seems something that at it’s core was unsophisticated deceitfulness. Something that was done with emotion not logic or intelligence. I think Rosenstein figured it out fairly quickly.

    Like

    • Publius2016 says:

      President Trump was vetted for VP in 1988…he is a more than 40 year brand of power luxury and success…he’s made his fortune twice over in the most duplicitous city in world history…he is a Very Stable Genius…what President Trump learned in year 1 is that Ryan and The Turtle need more nurturing and attention…instead of two scoops, they like 30 year old Dreamers…no problem, we are now the Party of Dreamers and Builders and Farmers…once the witchhunt ends, we’ll be on a rocket ship traveling 10000x the speed of light!!!

      Like

    • Brant says:

      I always thought the “wire tapping ” Trump tweet was sufficiently far in time from the November 2016 Rogers visit so there wouldn’t be a perceived linkage.

      Liked by 1 person

    • Your Tour Guide says:

      I think that the “insurance policy” was the October FISA
      application. I need a bit of help on finessing the timeline
      here.

      Admiral Rogers noticed all the “about” inquiries. Put
      a stop to them.

      1. On what date did he stop the “about” inquiries?

      2. Was it before before his appointment on Oct 26th?

      3. What date was the FISA application ( supposedly)
      okayed?

      4. What date was the text regarding “insurance” sent
      from Strxyz to Page?

      5. Was it right after the stop of the “about” inquiries?

      My timing might be off on this. Feel free to shoot me
      down if this is too out there.

      I suspect that they ( they, being in particular the NSD) had
      been doing “about” inquiries on the sly since 2015. I also
      suspect that they ramped them up exponentially after Yates
      wrote her “War and Peace” homage denying NSD investigation
      to the OIG.

      I also suspect that they were getting fat and lazy, almost
      blatant with the “about” searches during some of this time.
      Room full of fellow travelers when the “about” inquiries were
      being done: “Hey take a look at this!!”

      My other supposition is that they had a “come to Jesus”
      moment when Rogers stopped the “about” searches.
      Scared them ( including, and particularly Yates and Clapper)
      to death. That’s why Yates and Clapper tried to get him fired.

      If my timeline works, then the “about” decision would be first.
      The biggest threat. The “insurance” text in relation to the FISA
      ok ( if it happened) would be a chicken or the egg situation.

      Annnnnd. Why the judge was recused? Maybe they went
      looking, and there was no “there” ( FISA ok) there.

      Finally (whew!)

      I think what possibly terrified Nunes was noticing and
      perhaps viewing hundreds of extremely prying “about”
      inquiries. If they inquiries were set up as described
      a lot of ground could be covered in a very short time.

      Sorry everyone about the long post. Correct anything
      you see not fitting in time line wise.

      Like

  28. starfcker says:

    I always thought Clapper was lying about the FISA warrant. Maybe he was telling the truth. Sundance, you do think about this stuff.

    Like

    • thedoc00 says:

      Clapper and Brennan wasted no time cashing in as CNN employees and their continued bashing of Trump live on CNN. They took materials, legally after declassification by Obama, from the government to clean-up tracks as well as use against Trump.

      To say they were not involved implies they were the most incompetent and self-serving combination of INTEL leads in history.

      Like

  29. 4harrisonblog says:

    “The Big Ugly” as only Sundance can describe and write this story.
    God Bless, President Trump, Admiral Mike Rogers and all others who love theses United States of America, and the rule of law.

    Liked by 2 people

  30. CirclingTheDrain says:

    OK, there’s some confused concepts here.

    Specifically:

    Sundance says “On November 17th, 2016, NSA Director Admiral Mike Rogers went to see President-Elect Donald Trump in Trump Tower, New York. –SEE HERE– Director Rogers never told his boss DNI, James Clapper.

    ♦ On November 18th, 2016, the Trump Transition Team announced they were moving all transition activity to Trump National Golf Club in Bedminster, New Jersey”

    This makes no sense to me. Since we know ALL communications are swept by the NSA, and presumably the 702(17) activity was just querying data that the NSA had in any case, then the specific location makes no difference…unless there was a physical bug/wiretapping in the meeting rooms Trump used. The shutting down of the 702(17) queries would have accomplishe the same thing without the move.

    Like

    • MVW says:

      Yes. I must be missing what was special about Trump Tower. Perhaps Manafort living there and not in NJ was a key factor?

      Like

    • Bulldog84 says:

      Maybe the “insurance policy” was that the FBI had an illegal physical bug dropped at Trump Tower in case the ability to query became compromised. Which it did, after Admiral Rogers tipped off the FISA court about the querying.

      If you were the Admiral and wanted to warn the president-elect, wouldn’t you recommend he not take the chance?

      Liked by 3 people

    • Craig from Scotland says:

      Hi CirclingTheDrain,

      To be fair, if you had been told your premises could been monitored by hostile forces of DOJ / FBI for the last 6 months.

      What would you do ?
      I know what I would do. Vacate the premises for one even to feel better and then begin investigating.

      Liked by 1 person

      • CirclingTheDrain says:

        Hostile monitoring can happen anywhere there is wired/wireless communications. Likewise you can point special very sensitive mics at walls and windows and construct words from the sound wave vibrations or just have a physical mic in a key location transmitting to the FBI etc. All these things.

        The question is, the only thing that makes sense about moving the location of the transition team is that there was a physical bug(s) in areas not otherwise covered by electronic surveillance of the usual type (cell, network packets, analog phone, etc).

        Liked by 1 person

    • covfefe999 says:

      What you are pointing out meshes well with the NYT article and other reports (Slate, WaPo, Hillary Clinton tweet) that a server in Trump tower was communicating with Muh Russia (and it turned out to be marketing email???). Perhaps it was more than just one server in Trump Tower that was being monitored, but it does appear that Trump Tower was a target.

      Like

    • Publius2016 says:

      INSURANCE WAS COUP…ELECTORAL COLLEGE/IMPEACHMENT…Amd. Rogers travelled to NYC WHY? Trump Tower sits in the heart of New York City…it has been homemade for President Trump since the 80s…it is his fortress of solitude…whatever happened had to be delivered personally…President Trump Left publicly for the quiet of New Jersey…could’ve been terrorist threat/plot…could’ve been treason like NY AG charges…there are so many things that the Obama Administration was prepared to do!

      Like

    • Brant says:

      NJ kinda out in the country and could walk the grounds and talk. Can’t do in NYC.

      Like

  31. Jennie P. says:

    I was up so late last night, trying to keep up. Today I’ve got a business to run. Someday I’ll get some sleep!

    Thank you for your tireless, patriotic, brave efforts. Keeping you in my prayers.

    Liked by 1 person

  32. Jennie P. says:

    I was up so late last night, trying to keep up. Today I’ve got a business to run. Someday I’ll get some sleep!

    Thank you for your tireless, patriotic, brave efforts. Keeping you in my prayers.

    Liked by 1 person

  33. CirclingTheDrain says:

    And secondly, since I know the NSA has been collecting data from wiretaps since the 60s at least from all telecom providers, the second question is, why does anyone think the queries only contained requests for data on candidate Trump’s activity since July 16 2016 and they don’t go way back, into the 90s and 80s. After all, most of the dirty personal dirt they think they might have found on Trump was probably in his younger years; the later years might be more focused on business dirt (of which they clearly found none).

    Liked by 1 person

  34. ginaswo says:

    Do not try and bend the spoon obtain the FISA warrant. That’s impossible. Instead, only realize the truth… THERE IS NO SPOON/s> FISA warrant. Then you will see that it not the spoon that bends, it is yourselfthe Deep State.

    Like

  35. covfefe999 says:

    Oh my God, now this is making me even more ill than when I first read it:

    4.) “Fourth and finally, I want to be clear; none of this surveillance was related to Russia, or the investigation of Russian activities.

    I still think a FISA warrant exists for the server in Trump tower, the one that was allegedly communicating to the Mothership in Russia. 🙂 Yes this is a New York Times article but their fake news always contains truthful components, and they published this on Oct 31 2016:

    In classified sessions in August and September, intelligence officials also briefed congressional leaders on the possibility of financial ties between Russians and people connected to Mr. Trump. They focused particular attention on what cyberexperts said appeared to be a mysterious computer back channel between the Trump Organization and the Alfa Bank, which is one of Russia’s biggest banks and whose owners have longstanding ties to Mr. Putin.F.B.I. officials spent weeks examining computer data showing an odd stream of activity to a Trump Organization server and Alfa Bank. Computer logs obtained by The New York Times show that two servers at Alfa Bank sent more than 2,700 “look-up” messages — a first step for one system’s computers to talk to another — to a Trump-connected server beginning in the spring. But the F.B.I. ultimately concluded that there could be an innocuous explanation, like a marketing email or spam, for the computer contacts. https://www.nytimes.com/2016/11/01/us/politics/fbi-russia-election-donald-trump.html

    The would need a warrant to monitor the server, and because it involved communications with Russia I imagine it would need to be a FISA warrant, or that type of warrant would be the easiest one to obtain. Someone fed this info to the New York Times and I really don’t think it was fed to them to cause the public to go off on a FISA tangent when no warrant existed. That would seem pointless to me.

    Like

    • covfefe999 says:

      And, this is odd, after declaring that there was nothing to look at, the following March (2017) suddenly there were reports that the FBI was still monitoring the server. This is CNN’s article dated Mar 9 2017:

      Federal investigators and computer scientists continue to examine whether there was a computer server connection between the Trump Organization and a Russian bank, sources close to the investigation tell CNN. Questions about the possible connection were widely dismissed four months ago. But the FBI’s investigation remains open, the sources said, and is in the hands of the FBI’s counterintelligence team — the same one looking into Russia’s suspected interference in the 2016 election.

      CNN is told there was no Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act warrant on the server.

      Why would they include that specific information? Who told them to include that?

      http://edition.cnn.com/2017/03/09/politics/fbi-investigation-continues-into-odd-computer-link-between-russian-bank-and-trump-organization/index.html

      Like

    • Craig from Scotland says:

      Oct 31 2016:
      “F.B.I. officials spent weeks examining computer data showing an odd stream of activity to a Trump Organization server and Alfa Bank. Computer logs obtained by The New York Times show that two servers at Alfa Bank sent more than 2,700 “look-up” messages — a first step for one system’s computers to talk to another — to a Trump-connected server beginning in the spring.”

      ——————–

      Steele dirty dossier ref ‘Alpha Bank’ instead of Alfa Bank.
      The clown didn’t get the spelling right even with FBI assistance.

      Liked by 1 person

      • covfefe999 says:

        I have to imagine Steele’s misspelling of Alfa was deliberate.

        Maybe this is making more sense now. Fusion claims that it was Popadolopousaf drunk ramblings to an Australian diplomat which kicked off the FBI investigation. But the dossier had dirt (fake or not) on Alfa and there was also the Trump server link. I think the dossier was indeed used as justification to monitor the Trump server. Considering that Alfa is Russian, surely they would have sought a FISA warrant. Is Clapper lying? Why would Chuck Todd specifically ask Clapper if there is a FISA warrant? Why would CNN just a few days later specifically mention that they were told there wasn’t one? Why would this tiny detail (to the majority of the public) matter? I think Clapper is lying. Is there any way they could bury that warrant or application? The info Nunes and his committee received access to came from the FBI, not the FISC. Maybe they need to get the documents directly from the FISC..

        Like

        • KBR says:

          Maybe they did not feel they needed FISC at all:
          If Five Eyes authorized it all, maybe the FISA rules do not overrule Five Eyes.

          Five Eyes is global, not national. Global, as in Globalist.

          Liked by 1 person

        • Craig from Scotland says:

          Ok, here goes.

          Professor Joseph Mifsud of Link Campus, Rome who isn’t really a professor is either a Russian agent or a infiltrator of Trump campaign to dig up dirt.
          Arranges to meet George Pap who is based in London, March 2016 and apparently introduces Vlad Putin’s niece to George Pap who then emails and Skype calls with the young lady.
          During March 2016 George Pap also has discussions with Australia Ambassador and other meetings with Israeli embassy official. They feed this to both US/UK authorities.
          FBI and UK Intel pick this up but as Mifsud operates from Rome, FBI Rome handle the matter. Christopher Steele doesn’t have an old FBI buddy in Rome but has knowledge of the counter-intel operation and visits Rome to debrief. Fusion GPS is cover for the actual intel op going on.

          Like

          • KBR says:

            If Christopher Steele goes to debrief, then Christopher Steele is NOT retired, merely disavowed as an agent of British intelligence?

            Or perhaps Steele has become an agent of the “overseer” of Five Eyes? Ie: no longer representing any one nation, but now an agent for NWO?

            Like

      • Cherie Mitchell says:

        “Alpha” – the first letter of the Greek alphabet. Alpha could mean the “beginning” or “first.”

        Like

  36. Oldschool says:

    The longer this drags on, the more it fits the mold of everything that has come before it and the less likely anything will ever come of it. Was there a FISA warrant? That’s today’s question. They all know the answer to that question, have known for a long time and are keeping it from us. Trump probably knows since he met with Rogers 14 months ago. So we run like rats through a maze chasing after what they already know. While many key people may read here, imo it is to take a pulse, I do not believe for one moment that POTUS, Jr., Rogers, Pompeo, McMaster, Jordan, Nunes and a host of others come here for answers. They have ALL the answers, they are the keepers of the secrets and actors on a stage. Will we ever get our answers? Ever get justice? Ask Tonto

    Thanks to Admiral Rogers, it seems Trump has averted a coup. Thanks to Trump, we have a chance to fight for our Republic and thanks to Sundance we know most of the truth. Imo, that’s as good as it’s gonna get. When folks like comey and difi act in the ways they do, it may not be as some would like to think. It is very possible that difi didn’t dump documents out of fear or to inform someone. It most likely is because they feel untouchable. It is an “in your face” ” F U” action.
    Same with comey tweets, schiff leaks. They simply do not care, have no fear and know they are above the law. Evidence of that: Not one single charge, not even perjury. Imo, that is what is behind their behaviors. Plain and simple. Occum’s Razor.

    This may be the biggest story of our lifetime, but “so what”? Knowing it and doing something about it are two entirely different things. “Awareness is the booby prize”.

    Liked by 4 people

    • Craig from Scotland says:

      Wowser.

      Best comment by a country mile.
      Next time your in Scotland, drinks are on me.

      Liked by 1 person

    • LKA in LA says:

      Oldschool I agree with you. Remember during the election cycle Hillary really did nothing to win and didn’t even try. Too arrogant and thought she had a system in place to guarantee it. Look at Huma. She and Anthony were so arrogant. In your face stuff. I always felt Zero did nothing but sit around and think of things to piss tax payers off. Then go on the news and snear in our face. Lerner. Holder. Lunch. Frankin. The list goes on and on. Same face of pure “I am above the law” face. Lewis, Pelosi, Waters, all same face.

      Liked by 1 person

  37. CorwinAmber says:

    Oh Sundance, there you go again with your “poor” and “clumsy” writing, tsk, tsk. How are we hoi polloi going to keep up unless you become less sesquipedalian in your approach because, y’know, we Trumpists are not too bright and have to join the military since we didn’t go to college…or so Jon Carry once told me, I’m jest sayin’

    Liked by 2 people

  38. Jim Bob says:

    In the formulation of his question, Chuck Todd did not ask about FISA warrants in general, but instead asked about a specific type of FISA warrant: “this idea that President Obama ordered an illegal wiretap of his [Trump’s] offices”.

    Clapper’s answer addressed only a FISA warrant that was 1) personally ordered by President Obama, 2) illegal, and 3) a wiretap.

    Clapper is widely known to be a liar. When interviewed by CNN’s Lemon, he repeatedly says that he stands by his original answers to Todd, but refuses to elaborate. Perhaps that’s because his answers were Clintonian.

    Liked by 1 person

    • Firefly says:

      Why don’t the reporters just ask (1) The documents Congressmen king and nunes refer to are surveillance of PTrump. What is the possible mechanisms that allow that to occur.

      Otherwise we end up with word games. Fisa warrant are issued on a person not a building. So Clapper could easily say no fisa warrant was issued on the trump tower. Then when Clapper is asked if manafort was wiretapped Clapper deflects to I stand by his first statement. And around and around we go.

      Liked by 1 person

  39. benifranlkin says:

    Warrants or not, it was the Clinton campaign, the DNC and Democrat operatives that funneled the Anti-Trump dossier and info to the FBI and DOJ that enabled their surveillance of Trump and Mueller’s witch hunt. Why would they use the competing campaign’s opposition research to justify spying on Trump and family? (rhetorical question). Makes sense now that the FISA courts wouldn’t issue the warrants. The Trump campaign “plant” was Papadopie himself, a probable Clinton plant trying to entrap the Trump campaign into engaging the Russians..same Papadopie that pled to lying to the FBI.

    Like

    • covfefe999 says:

      I just wrote above that I think the dossier plus initial monitoring of the server in Trump tower kicked off the investigation, and I’m believing that there IS a FISA warrant and Clapper is lying about it. Papatsoisdf was just a convenient excuse to be used later, as a dossier alternative. The dossier has a section about Alfa (“Alpha”) bank and the Trump server was supposedly communicating with that bank, and then the FBI started monitoring the server. I believe Papaspdofs had nothing to do with it.

      Like

      • benifranlkin says:

        Clapper is a bona fide liar. Nonetheless all P44-Clinton sympathizers in action to usurp P45. Nothing legitimate about it. Prime rib illegal…all of it. Off with their heads.

        Like

      • John in IN says:

        Clappers words may be true. There may be no FISA warrant on Trump Tower. Perhaps the warrants can’t be directed at a building. So a truthful answer of “no” could still allow for monitoring the communications of whoever the target was. It’s just incidental that the monitoring taking place utilizes equipment located at Trump Tower

        There may be a bug in your car, but there is no warrant issued on your car. It’s issued on a frequent occupant of your car.

        Like

  40. WT#$##$@!!! says:

    “the best way to control the opposition is to lead it ourselves”
    – Vladimir Lenin renowned globalist psychopath

    Liked by 2 people

    • georgiafl says:

      Stalin just killed them.

      Obama/Clinton cabal abused all powers of their offices and weaponized all government agencies to punish, attack, spy upon opponents and steal $$$$$$$$$ billions and trillions!!!

      Liked by 1 person

      • WT#$##$@!!! says:

        that was Stalin, georgia – (if “history” is to be believed) a butcher and tyrant

        LENIN was a definitive author of MIND CONTROL, dis-info, co-intel and propaganda – the PRECISE tactics that have been HONED to perfection by today’s globalist masters of the planet, and that have resulted in their ABSOLUTE control today by way of their leading any opposition…absolutely

        it’s the “illusion of choice” that George Carlin referenced so brilliantly – paper or plastic

        the brutally powerful MSM, along with dopey social media, and a hypnotized, indoctrinated populace EAGER to be divided and controlled, has assured their success

        Liked by 2 people

  41. G. Combs says:

    OldSaltUSNR says:
    “Given Sessions apparent AWOL like inaction, the only real hope is that the Justice IG is a Constitutional patriot, keeps his oath of office, and begins to attack with a grand jury and subpoenas….”

    ERRRrrr, you do not understand all the IG does is INVESTIGATE and then report to Ag Sessions and Congress. We already KNOW congress is useless. What the IG does is UNTIE AG Sessions hands. Remember the spying President Trump CONTINUED AFTER he was elected president.

    And Sessions recused himself from the CAMPAIGN issues and nothing else.
    Read US attorney general Jeff Sessions’ statement recusing himself from investigations into the 2016 presidential campaigns
    Sessions recused himself from the CAMPAIGN issues and nothing else.
    Read US attorney general Jeff Sessions’ statement recusing himself from investigations into the 2016 presidential campaigns

    “During the course of the confirmation proceedings on my nomination to be Attorney General, I advised the Senate Judiciary Committee that ‘[i]f a specific matter arose where I believed my impartiality might reasonably be questioned, I would consult with Department ethics officials regarding the most appropriate way to proceed…
    Having concluded those meetings today, I have decided to recuse myself from any existing or future investigations of any matters related in any way to the campaigns for President of the United States…

    Consistent with the succession order for the Department of Justice, Acting Deputy Attorney General and U.S. Attorney for the Eastern District of Virginia Dana Boente shall act as and perform the functions of the Attorney General with respect to any matters from which I have recused myself to the extent they exist.

    Liked by 1 person

    • WT#$##$@!!! says:

      G. Combs “ERRRrrr, you do not understand all the IG does is INVESTIGATE and then report to Ag Sessions and Congress.”

      EXACTLY – people putting their hopes in obama appointee, puppet horowitz, are in for a let down

      that he has no prosecutorial power, plus the fact that he’s unquestionably a swamp puppet, seems lost on them

      simple as that…

      Like

  42. Kristin says:

    To know IF there was a FISA warrant issued should be very easy: ask the FISC court judges who signed it. If none say they did, there is no warrant issued and/or approved.
    SC Roberts should know.
    Clapper should know
    Priestap should know
    Comey should know
    McCabe should know

    Like

  43. IMO says:

    Feinstein Tampers with Investigation – Deep State Tactic of Desperation

    “Published on Jan 9, 2018It should be clear to everyone that the deliberate and interestingly timed release of the transcripts of the testimony of Fusion GPS founder Glenn Simpson from August 22, 2017 is intended to obstruct justice by tampering with an ongoing investigation. Her actions are beyond the pale and illustrate the desperation of the Deep State.”

    Liked by 3 people

  44. talker2u says:

    This is America so:
    1. I wonder when the Hollywood, full-length, major motion picture in HD with an all-star cast, nominated for TEN Academy Awards®, will be in theaters near us!
    2. If that movie has an extended execution scene with, say, ten or more actors taking part.
    3. Does the script include bullets or rope?

    Liked by 1 person

  45. covfefe999 says:

    Wait a minute … there has been talk that Trump is able to de-classify classified material, including FISA applications and I presume other court applications for surveillance warrants. So Trump knows, right? I speculated last night that he might not be de-classifying this stuff because he himself is currently under investigation and it might be construed as obstruction, and I theorized that this is one reason why Mueller hasn’t closed the investigation. They are tying Trump’s hands. He can’t do or say anything (or much) right now. But he knows everything, I think.

    Liked by 1 person

    • thedoc00 says:

      Great post and the first on this site that recognizes the presidents authority under Federal Code that establishes the President of the US as the “originating authority” for all things classified. The president can delegate responsibility as well as classify and declassify materials at will.

      Yes, Trump has to tread lightly with that authority given the depth of opposition and desire to remove him office that exists within the government and media. Also, recognize that Obama had no compunction about using that authority to weaponized the government as well as to help clean up tracks for himself, Clinton and their closest allies.

      Liked by 1 person

    • woohoowee says:

      We can’t presume anything. The Mensch article is what started all the FISA warrant(s) information which the Guardian built off of in Feb. ’17, and we have no proof anything either wrote is accurate.

      Like

  46. Searkreb says:

    James clappers eyes tell the tale. He is lying several different ways.

    Sundance what is your opinion on chances of prosecution?

    Is this treason?

    Liked by 1 person

  47. Firefly says:

    NSA loophole allows warrantless search for US citizens’ emails and phone https://www.theguardian.com/world/2013/aug/09/nsa-loophole-warrantless-searches-email-calls
    Dianne Feinstein, the California Democrat who chairs the Senate intelligence committee, said in June 2012 that she believed the intelligence agencies and the Justice Department were sufficiently mindful of Americans’ privacy.

    Liked by 2 people

    • Publius2016 says:

      5 Eyes…9 Eyes…14 Eyes…Now, 18 Eyes allow for foreign governments to do as they please…incredible…Sen. Feinstein is a Globalist of the highest order.

      Liked by 1 person

    • Mary Morse says:

      Thank you for this link. Explains a lot.
      What was the NSA’s process, approved by ODNI as required by the “secret glossary” referred to in the article that allows this under limited circumstances? If this process were in place, imo, it’s conceivable that other active fisa warrant numbers could be entered for a query search structured as an “about” query. if I understand correctly, if the query results in information that meets the limited conditions noted in the article, it’s useable. Correct?

      Like

      • Mary Morse says:

        What I m suggesting is that the system maybe simlar to systems used by higher institutions to track internal construction project costs, where employee time is “charged” to a “billable” project number. The system works as long as employees are honest about their time input. Unless controls are in place, it’s possible for employees to log time to projects that they haven’t worked on, to account for the use of their time during a work day. As long as they have a billable number that they can charge, their time is covered for the day; Also known as “dinging the ticket”.

        Like

  48. mothraflies says:

    If/since true, this means elements within UK attempted a coup (or to continue their coup) of the United States.

    Like

  49. lawton says:

    Listening to Clapper double down there was no FISA warrant does make you think there may have never been one approved and that was just spin put out there by leakers.

    Liked by 1 person

    • covfefe999 says:

      He’s vague though. In the Chuck Todd interview he first says “Not to my knowledge” and then says “no” (after swallowing hard!). Those are two very different answers. “Not to my knowledge” means “I can’t say for sure”. But “No” is a definitive answer. He screwed up. Glad he’s gone, he seems to be incompetent if not a liar.

      Liked by 1 person

  50. Texmom says:

    7 months later, we still don’t know who was making unmasking requests under Samantha Powers’ name, nor do we know if anyone ever made any attempt to find out. I think this could be very important.

    Like

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s