The Goat Pen

Professor Tiger wrote:Despite Comey's pleas to the DOJ to dismiss the wiretap story, they haven't so far

Andrew McCarthy wrote:Not taking no for an answer, the Obama Justice Department evidently returned to the FISA court in October 2016, the critical final weeks of the presidential campaign. This time, the Justice Department submitted a narrowly tailored application that did not mention Trump. The court apparently granted it, authorizing surveillance of some Trump associates. It is unknown whether that surveillance is still underway, but the New York Times has identified – again, based on illegal leaks of classified information – at least three of its targets: Paul Manafort (the former Trump campaign chairman who was ousted in August), and two others whose connection to the Trump campaign was loose at best, Manafort’s former political-consulting business partner Roger Stone, and investor Carter Page......

.....Nevertheless, we should not allow the statements of Obama spokesmen to confuse us here. The Justice Department and FBI have two missions: (a) criminal law-enforcement and (b) national security. It would be scandalous (though probably not constitutional unconstitutional) for a president to interfere in the law-enforcement mission by ordering the Justice Department to prosecute someone outside its normal procedures. But it would not be inappropriate even though civil libertarians would raise holy hell — for the president to direct warrantless surveillance against a target, even an American citizen, if the president truly believed that target was functioning as an agent of a foreign power threatening U.S. interests. To be clear, there does not seem to be any evidence, at least that I know of, to suggest that any surveillance or requests to conduct surveillance against then-candidate Donald Trump was done outside the FISA process. Nevertheless, whether done inside or outside the FISA process, it would be a scandal of Watergate dimension if a presidential administration sought to conduct, or did conduct, national-security surveillance against the presidential candidate of the opposition party. Unless there was some powerful evidence that the candidate was actually acting as an agent of a foreign power, such activity would amount to a pretextual use of national-security power for political purposes. That is the kind of abuse that led to Richard Nixon’s resignation in lieu of impeachment. Moreover, it cannot be glossed over that, at the very time it appears the Obama Justice Department was seeking to survey Trump and/or his associates on the pretext that they were Russian agents, the Obama Justice Department was also actively undermining and ultimately closing without charges the criminal investigation of Hillary Clinton despite significant evidence of felony misconduct that threatened national security. This appears to be extraordinary, politically motivated abuse of presidential power.

Andrew McCarthy wrote:— to determine the nature of links between Russian officials (who, remember, helped elect Trump) and Trump associates connected to the Trump campaign. The probe, we’re further told, is “broad” and includes “intercepted communications” — which, to any informed person, strongly suggests that the FBI went to a federal court and laid out probable cause of improprieties, which prompted one or more judges to authorize wiretaps and potentially other forms of electronic surveillance (e.g., e-mail intercepts). Is there an innocent interpretation of all this? Of course there is. After all, the underlying allegation of an election-hacking conspiracy between the Putin regime and the Trump campaign is nonsense, so there must necessarily be an innocent interpretation. And, lo and behold, the Times itself provides it

NYT wrote:— further down in the story, after all the sensational conspiracy mongering: It is not clear whether the intercepted communications had anything to do with Mr. Trump’s campaign, or Mr. Trump himself. It is also unclear whether the inquiry has anything to do with an investigation into the hacking of the Democratic National Committee’s computers and other attempts to disrupt the elections in November.

See? It is entirely possible that the FBI and other investigative agencies are not pursuing, and have never pursued, a Trump-campaign angle on the hacking. It is entirely possible (though I have doubts about this) that there are no FISA national-security wiretaps directed at Trump associates — maybe the “intercepted communications” touted by the Times came from surveillance targeting Russian operatives whom Trump associates, perhaps unwittingly, happened to run into while doing business that had nothing to do with the campaign. I think, based on all the reporting we’ve seen (some of which, as the Weekly Standard’s Steve Hayes observes, is thinly supported), it is more likely that the feds got FISA surveillance authorization for some associates of Trump (the names of Paul Manafort, Roger Stone, and Carter Page are mentioned). But maybe the probable cause for any such surveillance involved those associates’ own business dealings with Russia — having nothing to do with Trump or the Trump campaign. But the innocent interpretation, the more likely interpretation, is not what the media and Democrats have wanted us to believe. For months, they have titillated their audience with the election-hacking conspiracy fantasy. When they cover their behinds by mentioning the possibility of innocence, it is in the fine print. But still, the media and Democrats have always had a serious vulnerability here — one they’ve never acknowledged because they’ve been too swept away by the political success of the fantasy narrative. It is this: At a certain point, if compelling evidence of collusion between the Trump campaign and Russia to steal the election did not materialize, the much more interesting question becomes “How did the government obtain all this information that has been leaked to the media to prop up the story?” The most plausible answer to that question: The Obama administration, through the Justice Department and the FBI, was investigating the associates of the opposition party’s presidential nominee, and perhaps even the nominee himself, during the campaign. Otherwise, what explanation can there be for all of the investigative information — much of it classified, and thus illegal to disclose — that has been funneled to the press? Now that they’ve been called on it, the media and Democrats are gradually retreating from the investigation they’ve been touting for months as the glue for their conspiracy theory. In short, the media and Democrats have been playing with fire for months. The use of law-enforcement and national-security assets to investigate one’s political opponents during a heated election campaign has always been a potentially explosive story.

bluetick wrote:This Former British Lawmaker is at the Heart of the Trump Wiretap Allegations - WaPO
http://www.msn.com/en-us/news/world/thi ... id=U142DHP

There's your source. Cheers, mate. lol

innocentbystander wrote: To Trump (and anyone who voted for Trump) they wire tapped Trump when they wire tapped Manifort. They wanted to link Manifort to Russia because they could link Trump to Manifort. Now everyone knows what the Obama administration did so they are doing the old lawyer's dodge saying they never tapped Trump's phones. They are lying by telling the truth.

bluetick wrote:

innocentbystander wrote: To Trump (and anyone who voted for Trump) they wire tapped Trump when they wire tapped Manifort. They wanted to link Manifort to Russia because they could link Trump to Manifort. Now everyone knows what the Obama administration did so they are doing the old lawyer's dodge saying they never tapped Trump's phones. They are lying by telling the truth.

You are a moron. And I'm telling the truth by telling the truth.

Cletus wrote:Your existence is insulting to the species.

24 hours, the same guy - Andrew McCarthy - wrote the above. Now everything changes - reported BUT NOT PROVED he says, and he "points out" that just because someone was named in an application DOES NOT MEAN THAT PERSON WAS TARGETED FOR EAVESDROPPING. I mean- shit - read your story, then read my followup - did he write those two columns with different sides of his brain?

Professor Tiger wrote:There are reports that Obama's DOJ asked for a FISA wiretap of Trump's staff.

https://www.google.com/amp/s/bc.marfeel ... ance-trump

Professor Tiger wrote:
Please further note that McCarthy is being responsible with his words. He is quoting a source. He is not claiming to have a "smoking gun" on the matter. That compares favorably with irresponsible MSM, that have no evidence at all of some Trump-Putin conspiracy, yet they have liberals soiling themselves convinced that it is proven and true.

Professor Tiger wrote:Tick, so at least we are agreed that Obama's DOJ or IC was listening in on Trump's staff's phone calls. That's progress.

So I assume if, four years from now, you will be okay if Trump's DOJ or IC listens in on the Democrat candidate's campaign manager's phone calls, as long as that manager's phone calls might be part of an infowars conspiracy theory involving foreigners (including those especially sinister foreign diplomats and businessmen)?

If Trump takes millions of dollars in bribes from - the RUSSIANS! - like Hillary did, will that exonerate him?