"Trump the Establishment" is now on sale! Click to order.

And the Kindle version is here.

Friday, April 14, 2017

Napolitano vindicated. Britain meddled in our election.

When Fox News suspended Judge Andrew Napolitano for saying British intelligence helped Barack Obama spy on Donald Trump's campaign, the New York Times went out of its way to make the judge look like a mad man.

The British meddled in our election.



From the New York Times on March 17:
The saga began on Tuesday on “Fox & Friends,” the chummy morning show, where Mr. Napolitano made a bizarre and unsupported accusation: Citing three unnamed sources, he said that Britain’s top spy agency had wiretapped Mr. Trump on behalf of President Barack Obama during last year’s campaign.
Cable news blather, especially at that hour, usually vanishes at the commercial break. But on Thursday, Mr. Trump’s press secretary, Sean Spicer, repeated the claim from the White House podium, infuriating British officials.
On Friday, Fox News was forced to disavow Mr. Napolitano’s remarks. “Fox News cannot confirm Judge Napolitano’s commentary,” the anchor Shepard Smith said on-air. “Fox News knows of no evidence of any kind that the now-president of the United States was surveilled at any time, any way. Full stop.”
What did the judge say?
“Three intelligence sources have informed Fox News that President Obama went outside the chain of command.  He didn’t use the NSA, he didn’t use the CIA, he didn’t use the FBI, and he didn’t use the Department of Justice.  He used GCHQ. 
“What the heck is GCHQ? That’s the initials for the British spying agency. They have 24/7 access to the NSA database. 
“So by simply having two people go to them saying, ‘President Obama needs transcripts of conversations involving candidate Trump, conversations involving president-elect Trump,’ he’s able to get it, and there’s no American fingerprints on this."
Always in such a controversy, go to the exact words -- not some partial quote.

But weeks later, the truth came out, vindicating Napolitano.

From the Guardian this week:
Britain’s spy agencies played a crucial role in alerting their counterparts in Washington to contacts between members of Donald Trump’s campaign team and Russian intelligence operatives, the Guardian has been told.
GCHQ first became aware in late 2015 of suspicious “interactions” between figures connected to Trump and known or suspected Russian agents, a source close to UK intelligence said. This intelligence was passed to the US as part of a routine exchange of information, they added.
Over the next six months, until summer 2016, a number of western agencies shared further information on contacts between Trump’s inner circle and Russians, sources said.
We now have proof that Britain meddled in our election.

Britain spied on Trump's campaign and gave the information to Barack Obama's political operatives.

Obama deliberately tried to cover-up his illegal, immoral, and unconstitutional spying.

This is wire-tapping by the United States, but sneakily found a way around it.

That was no conspiracy theory by Napolitano.

That was the truth.

The New York Times must hate the truth.

By the way, what's up with Shep Smith still being on the air? He was wrong. More and more, Fox News acts like CNN.

By the way, the British government needs to apologize, investigate, and fire whoever approved this.




The original, "Trump the Press" chronicled and mocked how the media missed Trump's nomination.

It is available on Kindle, and in paperback.
Then came "Trump the Establishment," covering the election, which again the media missed.

It is available on Kindle, and in paperback.

Autographed copies of both books are available by writing me at DonSurber@GMail.com

Please follow me on Twitter.

Friend me on Facebook.

31 comments:

  1. Obama, channeling Lour Costello, has been a "baaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaad boy".

    ReplyDelete
  2. Shep is gay & you can't fire gay people no matter how incompetent or biased.

    ReplyDelete
  3. Mr Surber, you've become "Now the Rest of the Story"
    Sometime we wait a couple of hours sometimes a couple of days and sometimes longer, but we end up finding out 'alternate facts' eventually. Thank You.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Used to be Paul Harvey was the only reason to turn on a radio.
      Now Surber is almost as indispensable on the net. Others report, but no one else quite puts them in the needed perspective.

      Delete
    2. FNC and FBN need to make Don an on-air contributor, it's as simple as that! They can make room for him by poop-canning the Architect of Disaster, Karl Rove!
      -Fred

      Delete
    3. Yes, that's a great idea, they should. At this point though, I'm relying more and more on sources other than Fox, and I'm not the only one. Fox management better watch their step, because they could easily go the same way as the INYT - The Irrelevant New York Times.

      Delete
  4. You can see Russia from the New Yahk Slimes building

    ReplyDelete
  5. We need to seriously consider unfriending the UK. After all the blood we've spilled for them? They rolled over for Barack The Magic Negro? This should have been a no-brainer. They get the request and immediately respond, There is NO WAY we comply. We have no business getting involved with your election...

    And then DJT voiced his support for Brexit and reinstated Churchill's bust in the Oval Office. Fookin ungrateful Limey wankers. What a betrayal.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. "After all the blood we've spilled for them?"
      What blood was that? And don't say WW2. In Europe, the Yanks sat on their hands while the Brits held the line and only joined in when the result, thanks to the Soviets, was inevitable.

      Delete
    2. The Brits seemed to be rather enthusiastic about us getting involved at the time.

      Delete
    3. ben, exactly HOW was the result inevitable?

      Delete
    4. Dumbest comment on the internets.

      Check Churchill for the truth.

      Barry

      Delete
  6. I understand it was GCHQ's duty to monitor the US election and report to their masters (UK Foreign Minister and PM). That's what intelligence services do. But sharing that info with one side in the political contest was an error. Denying that they did so was to be expected.

    ReplyDelete
  7. Whatever happened to the guy demanding "proof"?
    Still waiting for a pic of Obama wearing earphones?
    Probably searching the interwebs desperately for evidence that Pence is being derelict about investigating voter fraud so he has "proof".

    ReplyDelete
  8. Damn Don, the way you have rolled over like a dog and sold out all your principles to conform to the newest powerful man is really embarrassing. You're just a Trumpista version of MSNBC, performing journalistic fellatio on your chosen big man, no matter how pathetic it makes you look. The story you cite shows the Brits doing their job. They didn't pass info to "the other side," they passed it to the then-president. Wouldn't you be upset if, in 2020, friendly spooks had info that the Dem nominee was working with our enemies and they kept it from DJT? Talk about spin! The story shows that Trump's associates are a bunch of treasonous sellouts of the worst kind: mercenaries for hire, not even ideologues. I would laugh at how quickly Republicans sold out their dignity to become Trump's self-deluding asskissers if it weren't so sad.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. in 2020, friendly spooks had info that the Dem nominee was working with our enemies and they kept it from DJT? Talk about spin!


      The difference is that in the case of the Democrats it would be true, as it has been before.

      Delete
    2. Whatever you need to tell yourself in order to resolve the cognitive dissonance. Like I said, "self-deluding."

      Delete
    3. If you don't believe, as I do, that our then-President actually had great sympathy and admiration for "the other side" (I.e. Che Guevara-flavored Communism) and modeled his actions and words accordingly (e.g. Obamacare, "you didn't build that), then we got nothin more to talk about. Have a nice Easter weekend.

      Delete
    4. Oh, I do believe it (although I admit to having been unaware of Che Guevara's involvement in the 2016 election). I do appreciate, however, the admission that all this boils down to "my side right or wrong" and "it's different when we do it." At least that's an honest, if not rationally defensible, position to take. I merely object to the mental acrobatics, as people try to convince themselves that they are actually standing on principles and facts as opposed to base tribalism. Happy Easter.

      Delete
    5. I agree. I recall all of your takedowns of Hillary and Podesta selling out to the Russians. You were all over the internet about it.
      Or was it someone else?

      Delete
    6. I think Hillary is a treasonous mercenary sellout, too. And yes I complained loudly about it. Does her sliminess mean that I have to approve of it--and indeed rationalize it--when Republicans do it too?

      Delete
    7. We have evidence that these guys talked to Russians and that some of them accepted consulting fees (are any still in the administration). We do not, on the other hand have evidence that any of them profited as agents in the transfer of American assets or were active agents of the Russian government.
      Now, give us some links where we can find your discussion of Democrat duplicity in dealing with them.

      Delete
    8. Goalposts shifted. The issue is not whether there was foul play by Trump associates. There is, as of yet, no evidence of anything illegal, just evidence that there are a lot of creepy lobbyists in DC with too much influence who sell their services to foreign governments. Rather, the issue is whether Obama spied on the Trump campaign by way of British intelligence services. This was the claim tweeted by Trump after he watched Fox and Friends over breakfast one morning.

      The article Don links shows nothing of the sort, but Don tried to spin it as if it had. That was what I was arguing against, the dishonest spin.

      If you require evidence that I'm not pro-Hillary, I would invite you to speak to any of my friends and family, who are sick of my many many tirades against her and other insincere, dishonest, and corrupt Democrats. But I would ask you to consider what it means, in your own mind, that you simply cannot believe that someone can be disgusted by Republican dishonesty without somehow justifying Democrat corruption. Is it really either-or? In fact, if I seem overly emotional regarding Republican sellouts like Don, it's because I feel betrayed by them. I *expect* Democrats to be dishonest and corrupt, and for pro-Dem media figures to spin for them dishonestly. That's why it hurts so much to see people I used to respect, like Don S, shaming themselves and bending over backward to conform to the new party line, like something out of Soviet Russia or the Chinese Cultural Revolution.

      No, we have NOT always been at war with Eastasia, I f--king refuse to pretend otherwise.

      Delete
    9. You've misstated the nature of the conflict, because all it is, is fanning smoke. Let's cut through all of the bullshit for a second. Let's consider what we've already seen; leaks that border on treason *and no evidence for crimes that would justify that level of betrayal.*

      Now, I was an intel analyst in a previous life. It /cannot/ be overstated how much these leaks horrify and many of my friends. We'd have gone to jail FOREVER for doing this. It's serious.

      So before I take any of the russia stuff seriously...where is the actual crime? What did Trump or his associates do that justifies literal treason like this?

      ...Exactly. Show me that, and I'll take it seriously. Until then, I will go with the safe conclusion that it was politically motivated, because the parties had the motive, means, and thought they could get away with it.

      Delete
    10. "There is, as of yet, no evidence of anything illegal..."

      LOL, keep your head deep in the behind of obambi.

      Barry

      Delete
  9. I would bet yuuuugely that Shep Smith will not comment on this story.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. No bet here. His job is to bring up ratings from the left coast during lunch. Pretty much a stupid move unless you're one of the Murdoch boys doing nose candy with the Soros boy.

      Delete
  10. What the Judge originally said was possible. Now maybe it is what happened.
    Since the 1960's the West has had agreements about sharing information from other countries spying that has evolved into spying on other countries citizens to get around their domestic spying laws. ECHELON, originally a secret government code name, is a surveillance program (signals intelligence/SIGINT collection and analysis network) operated on behalf of the five signatory nations to the UKUSA Security Agreement - Australia, Canada, New Zealand, the United Kingdom and the United States, also known as the Five Eyes.

    ReplyDelete
  11. @the quietist: I think you're missing the point of what Don has posted and also the larger point.

    The NYT misquoted Nepolitano---possibly intentionally in order to discredit him---as having claimed that the Obama White House ASKED the Brits to surveil the Trump campaign. In fact, Nepolitano claimed nothing of the sort. What the judge claimed, as the second quote in Don's post demonstrates, is that someone in the Obama administration (possibly Obama himself or on Obama's orders) may have asked the Brits to hand over written TRANSCRIPTS of (legally) intercepted conversations the Brits had accessed in the NSA database.

    Now it's possible GCHQ had found the alleged Trump-Russian contacts themselves as they rummaged through the NSA database, and had notified US officials of those contacts.

    However, what happened next is important, and we don't yet know the answer: did the Brits voluntarily offer transcripts of the conversations to the US, or did someone in the Obama administration specifically ASK for them? Why would someone in the Obama administration ask for them? Was it because the administration found it difficult to get approval from the FISA court to spy on Trump's campaign team and so the Brits were used to get around the FISA law? I don't recall the exact timing, but when the Brits handed over the transcripts, had the FISA court already turned down at least one application by the administration to spy on Trump's organization?

    There are a number of unanswered questions about the British involvement in this affair. Were they doing what they normally would do when analyzing the NSA database? Did they go out of their way to inform the US of what they had found regarding matters that seemed to involve Trump's people? Or were they ASKED to go out of their way because US law stymied someone in the Obama administration who wanted to engage in a bit of political spying? We just don't know yet.

    ReplyDelete