Judge Andrew Napolitano: Obama 'Went Outside Chain of Command,' Used British Spy Agency to Surveil Trump

[Emjay]

I thought unnamed sources were bad? 

This isn't from an un-named source.  Napolitano is a name.

[Maj. Bill Martin]

Come on, Maj. Bill.

The relationship between the intelligence communities is touchy as best and the CIA really doesn't want to piss off the source of 95% of it's humint in the middle east. Saying the British Secret Services interfered in some way in the internal matters of the USA is one way to guarantee a complete lack of co-operation in the future.

The unwillingness to identify the Brits clearly didn't restrain these three leakers from leaking that information to a media personality.  Obviously, those three leakers wanted it to get out there.   I'm not sure there's much of a difference in terms of touchy intelligence relationships between leaking information to the press about the Brits specifically, and a general statement that doesn't identify the particular source country.

[Maj. Bill Martin]

This isn't from an un-named source.  Napolitano is a name.

But he's just a secondary source, and his sources are unnamed, so they do us little good.

[Emjay]

I think it's beginning to turn into something not even close to resembling a government by the people of the people and more of a "he who has the gold makes the rule" kinda thing.

You are quick to toss in your two cents worth but it is rapidly becoming a one-cent worth thing.

[Emjay]

Absent evidence, it doesn't matter who believes it is plausible. This is simply an assertion.

I know and an interesting one.  I'm in the camp of those who believe anything nefarious is possible where Obama is concerned.  I love to read bad stuff about him.

By the way, I have so many people on ignore that my first page was mostly blank.

[Emjay]

If the CIA director comes out and says (or even just tells the intelligence committees) that the Brits were used to gather this information, how is that worse than making no statement of support at all?  Heck, if the issue is sensitivity about it being the Brits, then he wouldn't even have to identify the country in question other than to say it is an "ally". 

I just don't see the downside to defending the claim publicly.

Me, neither ... except that maybe they've become a little paranoid ... except it ain't paranoid if they are after you and they dang well are.

[Emjay]

But he's just a secondary source, and his sources are unnamed, so they do us little good.

I know.... I was just trying to tweak his highness (TXradioguy).

[Maj. Bill Martin]

Me, neither ... except that maybe they've become a little paranoid ... except it ain't paranoid if they are after you and they dang well are.

They're definitely after him -- Never seen anything like it.  I hate to be overly-dramatic, but it actually feels like an attempted coup.  The Democrats went nuts over McConnell's statement of making Obama a "one-term" president, but at least that statement showed appropriate deference to the electoral process.  The Dems don't even want to let Trump complete his first term.

[Weird Tolkienish Figure]

They're definitely after him -- Never seen anything like it.  I hate to be overly-dramatic, but it actually feels like an attempted coup.  The Democrats went nuts over McConnell's statement of making Obama a "one-term" president, but at least that statement showed appropriate deference to the electoral process.  The Dems don't even want to let Trump complete his first term.

There's no attempted coup. They're opposing Trump like we opposed Obama. Don't be silly.

[Maj. Bill Martin]

There's no attempted coup. They're opposing Trump like we opposed Obama. Don't be silly.

No, it is not like we -- or at least most of us -- opposed Obama.  Aside from the Birthers -- which didn't include a single member of Congress -- the opposition consisted of 1) fighting his legislative proposals in Congress, 2) trying to win seats at the 2010 midterms, and 3) defeating him in 2012.

In contrast, you have a lot of Democrats arguing that Trump should be removed from office right now.  You have House Minority Leader Pelosi making all sorts of outrageous, inflammatory claims, including that all the sex allegations against Trump in Moscow are true.  What did Boehner ever say that remotely compares to the stuff that's been spewing from her?  They have been publicly calling for impeachment from his very first week in office.  Heck, you had one of the country's major newspapers, the Washington Post, run an editorial two weeks before the inauguration stating that Trump should be removed from office, and how it should be done.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/how-to-remove-trump-from-office/2017/01/09/e119cc36-d698-11e6-9a36-1d296534b31e_story.html?utm_term=.655119affcd0

I've been following politics since casting my first vote in 1980, and have never seen anything even close to this.  A planned, organized effort, endorsed by leading members of the opposition party, to remove a sitting President who has barely even taken office.

[r9etb]

I've been following politics since casting my first vote in 1980, and have never seen anything even close to this.  A planned, organized effort, endorsed by leading members of the opposition party, to remove a sitting President who has barely even taken office.

I tend to agree with you on this, though I'd suggest that this is more a culmination of something that's been building for many years, rather than some sudden decision by disgruntled Democrats who hate Trump.  To take but one example, Pelosi has been making the same sorts of insane accusations since before GW Bush took office.  The Democrat/media smear machine has been operational at least since the Reagan days. 

Perhaps the internet and social media have made this more virulent, but it's not really new.  And, let's be honest, with his stream of reality-TV invective, Trump persists in making himself a perfect target for this sort of campaign.

[Weird Tolkienish Figure]

No, it is not like we -- or at least most of us -- opposed Obama.  Aside from the Birthers -- which didn't include a single member of Congress -- the opposition consisted of 1) fighting his legislative proposals in Congress, 2) trying to win seats at the 2010 midterms, and 3) defeating him in 2012.

In contrast, you have a lot of Democrats arguing that Trump should be removed from office right now.  You have House Minority Leader Pelosi making all sorts of outrageous, inflammatory claims, including that all the sex allegations against Trump in Moscow are true.  What did Boehner ever say that remotely compares to the stuff that's been spewing from her?  They have been publicly calling for impeachment from his very first week in office.  Heck, you had one of the country's major newspapers, the Washington Post, run an editorial two weeks before the inauguration stating that Trump should be removed from office, and how it should be done.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/how-to-remove-trump-from-office/2017/01/09/e119cc36-d698-11e6-9a36-1d296534b31e_story.html?utm_term=.655119affcd0

I've been following politics since casting my first vote in 1980, and have never seen anything even close to this.  A planned, organized effort, endorsed by leading members of the opposition party, to remove a sitting President who has barely even taken office.

I dunno. Still different than a "coup". The coup talk scares the bejeezus out of me for some reason.


Last thing I want is Trump or his successor to start locking people up because of an "attempted coup". We cease to be a Republic at that point.

[Wingnut]

What the hell is your problem, son?

Nope.

[r9etb]

Removed by MOD.

Sigh.

You're really a piece of work, aren't you?  Do you ever have anything useful to say?

[Emjay]

No, it is not like we -- or at least most of us -- opposed Obama.  Aside from the Birthers -- which didn't include a single member of Congress -- the opposition consisted of 1) fighting his legislative proposals in Congress, 2) trying to win seats at the 2010 midterms, and 3) defeating him in 2012.

In contrast, you have a lot of Democrats arguing that Trump should be removed from office right now.  You have House Minority Leader Pelosi making all sorts of outrageous, inflammatory claims, including that all the sex allegations against Trump in Moscow are true.  What did Boehner ever say that remotely compares to the stuff that's been spewing from her?  They have been publicly calling for impeachment from his very first week in office.  Heck, you had one of the country's major newspapers, the Washington Post, run an editorial two weeks before the inauguration stating that Trump should be removed from office, and how it should be done.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/how-to-remove-trump-from-office/2017/01/09/e119cc36-d698-11e6-9a36-1d296534b31e_story.html?utm_term=.655119affcd0

I've been following politics since casting my first vote in 1980, and have never seen anything even close to this.  A planned, organized effort, endorsed by leading members of the opposition party, to remove a sitting President who has barely even taken office.

This is so obvious I'm amazed that all on this forum do not agree.  I've been around a while myself and have never seen anything like it.  They ARE attempting some sort of coup but not sure what.

Maybe they are just trying to destroy Trump via public opinion and make him unable to accomplish anything.

What can they really do?  There are no grounds for removing Trump from office that I can see.

[Maj. Bill Martin]

I dunno. Still different than a "coup". The coup talk scares the bejeezus out of me for some reason.

Let me put it this way -- I think that if the Democrats thought they could convince the military to remove him from power, they would. 

Last thing I want is Trump or his successor to start locking people up because of an "attempted coup". We cease to be a Republic at that point.

Neither do I -- but I think there is a much greater risk of left-wing thugs in the streets and government overreach by a leftist government silencing opposition ending our status as a Republic, the there is of it happening under Trump.  Fact is, conservatives/Republicans have a lot more respect for the Constitution than does the left, which is why they present a much greater risk of tossing it out the window one day.

Obama won, we lost.  Our response was to try to win the next election.  Their response has been...something different, and legitimately of real concern.

[Emjay]

Let me put it this way -- I think that if the Democrats thought they could convince the military to remove him from power, they would. 

Neither do I -- but I think there is a much greater risk of left-wing thugs in the streets and government overreach by a leftist government silencing opposition ending our status as a Republic, the there is of it happening under Trump.  Fact is, conservatives/Republicans have a lot more respect for the Constitution than does the left, which is why they present a much greater risk of tossing it out the window one day.

Obama won, we lost.  Our response was to try to win the next election.  Their response has been...something different, and legitimately of real concern.

I only read quotes from WTF but his fear of some kind of military takeover is ridiculous.  We haven't even tried very hard to control riots by leftists on campus and at political forums even though a lot of us want them to be more forceful in this regard.

Surely there is some law these people are breaking even if it's only disturbing the peace.  I see no signs of an over-reach by the government.

And under-reach maybe.

[LonestarDream]

Plausible. Yeah right. You all checked your damned brains at the login box?

Why the hell would the UK co-operate with the Worm? It is of absolutely zero benefit to us.

Far more plausible - the three anonymous sources are from the US intel community taking the heat off themselves.

Sorry mate, GCHQ has been doing this end round since Blair/Clinton and echelon. 

Davie and Obama go on splendidly as well.  Which raises the question if Obama exercised comity for Cameron.   

 

[LonestarDream]

This isn't from an un-named source.  Napolitano is a name.

A beautiful name.

[LonestarDream]

If this is true, then it seems likely that those three leakers disapprove of using the Brits to spy on our own people.  That would mean they are aligned with the Administration on this.  So why wouldn't those "leakers" simply pass that information up to someone at the White House, or to the pro-Administration head of the CIA?

Maybe they did. Maybe sources and methods get burned if this gets too public.   Which is why obama's penchant for misusing wire taps and surveillance is so damaging.   

[LonestarDream]

Tony Blair’s government gave America permission to store and analyse the email, mobile phone and internet records of potentially millions of innocent Britons. At the same time US security officials drew up plans to spy on British citizens unilaterally, without the knowledge of the UK government.

The revelations have emerged in leaked documents obtained by the National Security Agency (NSA) whistleblower Edward Snowden.

The documents reveal that in 2004 the UK allowed the US to store and target any UK landline numbers of people linked to a suspected person. In 2007 this was expanded to include mobiles, faxes, email and IP addresses. The deal meant that British citizens could be spied on even if they only had a tangential link with a terrorist suspect. US intelligence uses a practice called “contact chaining” – gathering data not just on surveillance target, but that of their friends and their friends, too. There is no evidence that the practice has been discontinued.

The documents, which have been seen by Channel 4 News and The Guardian, confirm for the first time that the American intelligence is able to spy on UK citizens who are not terror suspects. One, a January 2005 draft memo, was split into two different versions: one for sharing with US “five eyes” allies, including Britain, and one for US intelligence eyes only.

The version shared with Britain said the US could spy on British citizens “with the full knowledge and cooperation” of our government, and when it was “in the interests of both nations”.

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/spying-on-innocent-britons-by-us-intelligence-was-allowed-by-tony-blair-s-government-and-still-goes-8952747.html

[LonestarDream]

No just a plausible scenario, a likely scenario. 

[LonestarDream]

@Comment removed by MOD.

Napolitano is a credible broker.  And I trust his sources.   

[LonestarDream]

Nasty little end run around the law,  isn't it?

Proof of the wire tapping AND abuse of the same

http://www.cnn.com/2017/03/15/politics/house-intelligence-committee-unmasking/index.html


An informed source told CNN that if Russian Ambassador Sergey Kislyak was being surveilled, Flynn's name should not necessarily have been included on the intelligence report. Rather, "American Citizen 1" or a similar anonymous term should have been used.
"However, as recent news stories, seem to illustrate, individuals talking to the media would appear to have wantonly disregarded these procedures," Nunes and Schiff wrote. The congressmen also asked the names of individuals or agencies who "requested and/or authorized the unmasking and dissemination" of these identities.


@don-o

[Sanguine]

Proof of the wire tapping AND abuse of the same

http://www.cnn.com/2017/03/15/politics/house-intelligence-committee-unmasking/index.html


An informed source told CNN that if Russian Ambassador Sergey Kislyak was being surveilled, Flynn's name should not necessarily have been included on the intelligence report. Rather, "American Citizen 1" or a similar anonymous term should have been used.
"However, as recent news stories, seem to illustrate, individuals talking to the media would appear to have wantonly disregarded these procedures," Nunes and Schiff wrote. The congressmen also asked the names of individuals or agencies who "requested and/or authorized the unmasking and dissemination" of these identities.

Yes, I heard that on the radio.