Don’t be so quick to laugh at Trump’s Wiretap Claims
Trump said, “wiretap.”
The national media laughed, headlines blazed, “without evidence,” and CNN flatly denied it could have happened.
Then, some former intelligence agents explained to any journalist willing to listen that while “wiretap” is the wrong word, it did happen.
They know this through friendships and contacts they have maintained in the various intelligence agencies.
Larry Johnson, who retired from the CIA and the State Department, keeps his hand “in the business” by consulting individuals, governments and deep-pocketed global businesses on avoiding and responding to terrorism and money-laundering, described what went on for my listeners.
Partisans in the intelligence communities aren’t necessarily conservative, liberal, Republican or Democrat. Their goal is to maintain the intel communities’ power.
Obama’s National Intelligence Director James Clapper and other partisans tried twice and failed to gain FISA warrants to surveil (not “wiretap”) the Trump campaign.
They did not want Trump to win, Johnson says, because he is against arming Syrian jihadis, whether or not they are “friendly” at any particular moment.
Johnson says Hillary was “all in” for arming them, advocating in favor of the policy in a August 2014 memo released by Wikileaks, which is what was happening at the CIA facilities in Benghazi.
So, if the CIA couldn’t get those two FISA warrants, and allegedly only got a judge to award one that was too limited for their desires, how could they access Trump communications without leaving themselves open for possible convictions should they be caught?
Answer: Contact their good friends at the British equivalent of our NSA, known as the GCHQ.
As it’s certainly illegal for the CIA to surveil American citizens, the GCHQ might more readily get away with it, as the CIA has reportedly done the same for their British counterparts.
Johnson maintains his contacts active in the intel communities did just that.
And, Obama knew. President Obama simply needs to wink, nod and walk away to let Clapper know he has no problem with this extraordinary violation of the U.S. Constitution.
And why not? Remember, this is the President whose Department of Justice spied on a journalist and the journalist’s family because he was doing his job:
reporting on Obama Administration activities with North Korea.
This is the President whose IRS illegally targeted perfectly legitimate organizations whose educational messaging was counter to the President’s agenda: an open and smaller federal government and free market capitalism.
President Obama has a history of using executive power to override the will of the people and a history of using federal agencies to exert his will.
Johnson explained that GCHQ surveilled the Trump campaign and shared the information with the CIA and the Director of National Security.
Now, this is where the real crimes come in to play.
It is inarguably illegal for any of this sort of intel on American citizens to be released to the public. It was.
It was given to reporters. This is a felony. Another piece of Johnson’s evidence is that Prime Minister Theresa May “retired” the head of the GCHQ just days after Trump’s inauguration, having confirmed the GCHQ’s spying on the now-President of her nation’s greatest ally.
Former federal prosecutor Andrew McCarthy and former CIA Officer Philip Giraldi have offered similar stories.
Equally stunning is the press-conference confession by former Director of National Intelligence James Clapper that there is no evidence of any collusion between the Trump campaign and the Russians.
In an interview with Chuck Todd on NBC’s Meet the Press on March 5th, Clapper said, “We did not include any evidence in our report —— and I say ‘our,’ that’s NSA, FBI and CIA, with my office, the Director of National Intelligence —— that had anything, that had any reflection of collusion between members of the Trump campaign and the Russians. There was no evidence of that included in our report.”
“I understand that,” said Todd. “But does it exist?” “Not to my knowledge.” Still, Democrats such as Delaware Senator Chris Coons want an investigation into whether or not there was collusion.
Neither Coons nor other Democrats have exhibited the same enthusiasm for an investigation into alleged felonious, unconstitutional activities perpetrated against American citizens. Why?
Trump.