All errors should be reported to

Saturday, March 04, 2017

Media protects Barack's spying

First a few tweets to set the mood for the domestic spying by the Barack Obama regime.

And of course, President Obama through his henchman Eric Holder went after reporter James Rosen of Fox News by tracking his visits to the State Department, through phone traces, timing of calls and his personal emails.

Obama again through Eric Holder made up some excuse of a conspiracy in order to obtain a search warrant and called Rosen a "flight risk."

This morning, President Trump complained that Obama (likely through minion Loretta Lynch, who replaced Eric Holder) used a FISA warrant to wiretap Trump Tower.

Now you know why Obama and his supporters made up this phony story about a Putin-Trump conspiracy -- to cover political espionage.

This story is playing out like I predicted this morning: Trump tweets, media leaps, truth comes out and Trump wins.

To cover his tracks, Obama sent Ben Rhodes -- the flunky who sold the Iranian arms deal to reports by openly lying about the deal.

True, Obama did not issue a warrant -- but that does not mean the Obama administration did not seek the wiretaps.

And read them...
The Obama administration sought permission to spy on Team Trump in June. The court said no. The Obama administration tried again in October and the court approved spying on a server in Trump Tower.

The media wagons have circled Obama to once again protect him from the truth.

The Washington Post said prove it: "Trump, citing no evidence, accuses Obama of ‘Nixon/Watergate’ plot to wiretap Trump Tower."

From Andrew McCarthy of National Review on Friday:
To rehearse briefly, in the weeks prior to June 2016, the FBI did a preliminary investigation, apparently based on concerns about a server at Trump Tower that allegedly had some connection to Russian financial institutions.
Even if there were such a connection, it is not a crime to do business with Russian banks — lots of Americans do. It should come as no surprise, then, that the FBI found no impropriety and did not proceed with a criminal investigation.
What is surprising, though, is that the case was not closed down. Instead, the Obama Justice Department decided to pursue the matter as a national-security investigation under the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA).
In June, it sought the FISA court’s permission to conduct surveillance on a number of Trump associates — and perhaps even Trump himself. It has been reported that Trump was “named” in the application, but it is not publicly known whether he (a) was named as a proposed wiretap target, or (b) was just mentioned in passing in the application. Understand the significance of this: Only the Justice Department litigates before the FISA court; this was not some rogue investigators; this was a high level of Obama’s Justice Department — the same institution that, at that very moment, was whitewashing the Clinton e-mail scandal.
And when Justice seeks FISA surveillance authority, it is essentially telling that court that there is probable cause to believe that the targets have acted as agents of a foreign power — that’s the only basis for getting a FISA warrant. In this instance, the FISA court apparently found the Obama Justice Department’s presentation to be so weak that it refused to authorize the surveillance.
That is telling, because the FISA court is generally very accommodating of government surveillance requests. Unwilling to take no for an answer, the Obama Justice Department came back to the FISA court in October — i.e., in the stretch run of the presidential campaign. According to various reports (and mind you, FISA applications are classified, so the leaks are illegal), the October application was much narrower than the earlier one and did not mention Donald Trump. The FISA Court granted this application, and for all we know the investigation is continuing.
A minute of Google is all it took to find.

Perhaps the Washington Post could not recognize it because it is Real News.

CNN had the same problem:
But two former senior US officials quickly dismissed Trump's accusations out of hand.
"Just nonsense," said one former senior US intelligence official.
Another former senior US official with direct knowledge of investigations by the Justice Department under the Obama administration said Trump's phones were never tapped.
"This did not happen. It is false. Wrong," the former official told CNN.
Never happened.

And then CNN said if it did happen, Trump deserved it:
A federal judge would only have approved a warrant to wiretap Trump's phones if he or she had found probable cause that Trump had committed a federal crime or was a foreign agent.
So it didn't happen but it is a good thing that it happened, according to CNN.

Other outlets went with reaction -- from the Democrats.

From the Hill: "Dems tear into Trump over Obama wiretapping claims."

The minority party always gets deference from the Hill, except when Democrats are in power. Then it is the majority party whose opinion matters. However, not all Democrats sided with Obama.

From the Hill:
“I’m very worried that our president is suggesting the former president has done something illegal,” Graham said at a town hall in Clemson, S.C.
“I’d be very worried if in fact the Obama administration was able to obtain a warrant lawfully about Trump campaign activity with foreign governments. It’s my job as United States senator to get to the bottom of this."
Here, I though he though his job was to go on TV and attack "fellow" Republicans.

The New York Times also went with the no evidence take, adding:
Mr. Trump’s decision to lend the power of his office to such a claim — without offering any proof — was remarkable, even for a leader who has repeatedly shown himself willing to make assertions that are false or based on rumors.
It would have been difficult for federal agents, working within the law, to obtain a wiretap order to target Mr. Trump’s phone conversations. It would have meant that the Justice Department had gathered sufficient evidence to persuade a federal judge that there was probable cause to believe he had committed a serious crime or was an agent of a foreign power, depending on whether it was a criminal investigation or a foreign intelligence one.
Actually, no, Obama's minions used FISA to obtain the warrant.

And Michael S. Schmidt -- one of the two reporters who wrote today's story -- led a team of four reporters who wrote in January 19, 2017, "Intercepted Russian Communications Part of Inquiry Into Trump Associates."

So we are intercepting these messages, but there is no proof of wiretapping.


The key passage:
The F.B.I. is leading the investigations, aided by the National Security Agency, the C.I.A. and the Treasury Department’s financial crimes unit. The investigators have accelerated their efforts in recent weeks but have found no conclusive evidence of wrongdoing, the officials said. One official said intelligence reports based on some of the wiretapped communications had been provided to the White House.
Counterintelligence investigations examine the connections between American citizens and foreign governments. Those connections can involve efforts to steal state or corporate secrets, curry favor with American government leaders or influence policy. It is unclear which Russian officials are under investigation, or what particular conversations caught the attention of American eavesdroppers. The legal standard for opening these investigations is low, and prosecutions are rare.
“We have absolutely no knowledge of any investigation or even a basis for such an investigation,” said Hope Hicks, a spokeswoman for the Trump transition.
So the New York Times reporters knew that indeed evidence of wire-tapping of Team Trump had taken place.

Now President Trump knows too -- without having to rely on New York Times reporting.

Nearly nine years ago, the New York Times editorialized against FISA:
Congress has been far too compliant as President Bush undermined the Bill of Rights and the balance of powers. It now has a chance to undo some of that damage — if it has the courage and good sense to stand up to the White House and for the Constitution.
The Senate should reject a bill this week that would needlessly expand the government’s ability to spy on Americans and ensure that the country never learns the full extent of President Bush’s unlawful wiretapping.
That editorial ended:
Senator John McCain, the presumed Republican nominee for president, has supported the weakening of FISA. Senator Barack Obama vowed in January (when he was still fighting for the Democratic nomination) that he would filibuster against immunity. Now he says he will vote for an “imperfect” bill and fix it if he wins. Sound familiar?
Proponents of the FISA deal say companies should not be “punished” for cooperating with the government. That’s Washington-speak for a cover-up. The purpose of withholding immunity is not to punish but to preserve the only chance of unearthing the details of Mr. Bush’s outlaw eavesdropping. Only a few senators, by the way, know just what those companies did.
Restoring some of the protections taken away by an earlier law while creating new loopholes in the Constitution is not a compromise. It is a failure of leadership.
I guess the Gray Lady has dementia now because it has forgotten all about FISA.

President Trump is fighting the bastards. He needs our help. Please pray for him.

"Trump the Establishment" is now on Kindle!

"Trump the Establishment" is also available in paperback.

This is the sequel to "Trump the Press," which covered the nomination. The original -- "Trump the Press" -- is available on Kindle, or in paperback on Create Space.

Autographed copies are available by writing me at

Please follow me on Twitter.

Friend me on Facebook.


  1. Praying hard. Thank God we have a true fighter as President. I always knew Obama was bad, but this is beyond what I ever thought.

  2. Oh, I knew even before Obama was elected, that "Transforming America" meant Dismantling America - and it sure looks like I was right.

    AND - although it's supposed to be "Settled Science" I am still unconvinced that Obama is even a citizen.

    1. Yep, that's the last shoe to drop.

    2. Right on both points, Erik.

      Phony documents don't convince me of much, just that the one offering those documents has some 'splainin' to do.

  3. Yup.

    McCain Yup.
    He also passed on the fake Dosier that the FBI wouldn't even pay for.


    What would our founding fathers have done?

    Yup (involves termination of breathing).

  4. It's jaw-dropping that the media merely accepted the Obama team's denial as incontrovertible "proof" it didn't happen.

    It's not journalism anymore, is it?

    1. Nope; it's steno work. Now that Trump's POTUS, I'm pretty sure he can get the evidence.

    2. 'It's not journalism anymore, is it?'.....

      No, its unabashed cheerleading.


    3. They once were reporters.
      Now they are merely repeaters.

    4. The MSM is the Democrats' duplicating polygraph.

      (Who remembers the toy versions of those as a kid?)

    5. "jaw dropping"? More like completely predictable.

  5. Three things.

    1. Trump is not Hillary. He understands telecommunications and computer security, and would not, as a pre-President civilian say anything over a phone he wouldn't want overheard.

    2. One of these days, the MSM is going to work out that attack dogs that go up against Trump tend to wind up unemployed.

    3. There's someone gonna do time, and it's not gonna be Trump.

  6. Obama didn't order the wire taps like Nixon didn't order the Watergate break-in.

    If Trump is vindicated by the cache of relevant documents that is surely on file at the DoJ, what can be done about it now? Obama cannot be impeached and there's nothing he could be indicted for, having immunity for just about every imaginable act he took as President.

    If Trump is wrong, then VP Pence should not unpack his household goods at the Naval Observatory and he should ask the moving company to stand-by for an imminent move of his family belongings to 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue.

  7. BTW, Don, you probably thought you could rest on your residuals after the publication of your second book on Trump. Guess again, in no time flat you will have more material than you need for Volumes III, IV, and V.

  8. If true, it will be truly consequential. Even if not true, it's a brilliant counter-play by Trump against the specious Russian charges put up by the Democrats. Trump's opponents and the MSM (b.i.r.m.) shout, 'where's the evidence of this wiretapping by Obama? You haven't presented any!' Well, neither has any evidence been presented about Sessions or any other member of Trump's team. Trump was hired to fight. We cannot spare him - he does fight. "It's not the nature of the evidence, it's the seriousness of the charge."

  9. Notice that Obama didn’t deny it happened, he just denied giving the order.

    1. The Order likely came from ValJar. It's not like she asks his permission before manipulating his mouth.

  10. You sure Obama didn't order some sort of tap on McCain?

    Lately he always seems as if he has a bug up his ass.

  11. Woman’s “Top 10 Reasons I Am No Longer A Leftist” Goes Viral

  12. When you dig into the underlying sources of Andrew McCarthy's NRO piece, you discover that this is old news first covered by HeatStreet and The Guardian on November 7. The details discovered back then found that the FISA court approved a renew of the earlier NSA adventure with a Trump Tower computer communicating with two Russian banks but information subsequently proved that this scenario never happened. Named on the October 15 FISA renew were former Trump advisors, Carter Page and Paul Manafort - Trumps name was never used . The request for NSA megadata come from the FBI - thank you very much Mr. James Comey.

  13. As POTUS Trump has the authority to de-classify the relevant FISA requests. If he does that and the "wire tapping" charge is verified how will the Obamedia cover up that?

  14. Does anyone think the Democrats realize that their best possible outcome at this point is a Mexican standoff? I don't. And I think that the main reason why is that they suddenly began to realize the weakness of their overall position the night of November 8.

    So their position now is that it is unconscionable to throw unsubstantiated claims at a US president, but then go on talking about the conspiracy between Trump and Putin to steal the US election.

    Theater of the absurd.

  15. We hardly ever play card games at our house. My wife is one of those people who, after the first hand is played suddenly seems to know what everyone else has in their hands and what hasn't been played, to boot.
    I'm getting the same feeling about Trump that I get when I've tried to play games with her.
    I suspect that he pretty much knew beforehand what was going to happen when he accepted that 14% interest rate on the Trump Tan Mahal.
    Perhaps the reason for the utter shrillness of the Dem/media attacks from day one was in part because they knew that there was this one card in the kitty that the didn't want him to be able to pick up. They wanted the game to be over before that.
    Now he has that card.

    1. Yeah, Doc. I do believe Mr. Trump has already amassed documents, including notarized statements from security experts who were physically investigating Trump Tower, showing that this did happen. The Donald is not a fool. He's just waiting for the right moment to throw that card and win the pot.

      If I were Valerie Jarrett, I'd lawyer up.

    2. I eagerly await the surprise ending Mr. Trump will reveal when he plays that Trump card.

    3. This entire episode makes me think of that scene in "Goff Fellows" when Joe Pesci's character thought he was being "made" (but wasn't). This is so easily verifiable -- through the court orders -- that it reeks of Obama being set up as a patsy. I mean, this is just the end for jughead's resistance fantasy. He will be doing well to stay out of jail.

  16. As far as I'm concerned every single phone - landlines and cell phones - in the U.S. is tapped 24/7. That's one reason I don't have one. I think President Trump knew this all along. It was just a matter of waiting to see how Obama and crew would try to foment some kind of BS against him. Now we know. - Elric

  17. Please pray for him.

    And I do. I dedicate a rosary every day for President Trump and his family and his cabinet & staff and the Secret Service people guarding them. I've been doing this for over a year now.

  18. A Pearl Harbor gambit. You win or you are dead. Time to schedule Barry's funeral.

    1. Is that before or after Donald Trump is buried? I think Trump may have gone too far this time with his undisciplined tweeting. If he doesn't have evidence, not just suspicions but real evidence, then he has just sent his presidency up in flames.

  19. A wealth of information in this article that the media isn't reporting on; I was surprised about the FISA limitations. And we know the Obama DoJ was caught lying to a federal judge on one of his immigration EOs when challenged in court. An ex-president can be prosecuted for crimes committed when in office.
    Snippet: First, it is not apparent FISA could ever be invoked. Second, it is possible Obama’s team may have perjured themselves before the FISA court by withholding material information essential to the FISA court’s willingness to permit the government surveillance. Third, it could be that Obama’s team illegally disseminated and disclosed FISA information in direct violation of the statute precisely prohibiting such dissemination and disclosure. FISA prohibits, under criminal penalty, Obama’s team from doing any of the three. . . . If the claim was “financial ties” to Russia, then Obama knew he had no basis to use FISA at all.

  20. This comment has been removed by the author.