There Could Be Serious Legal Problems if Obama Admin Involved in Illegal Surveillance - Page 2
Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 12
Results 11 to 17 of 17

Thread: There Could Be Serious Legal Problems if Obama Admin Involved in Illegal Surveillance

  1. Quote Originally Posted by opsspec1991 View Post
    Yes, There Could Be Serious Legal Problems if Obama Admin Involved in Illegal Surveillance
    .
    By Robert Barnes
    .
    President Trump recently tweeted claiming that former President Obama wiretapped him during his campaign. One can only imagine how nuts the media would have gone if the roles had been reversed: President Trump wiretapping either Obama or the Clintons, though his DOJ could have authority to do just that given the expansive leaks of intelligence information by Obama and Clinton supporters the last few months. Heck, he could wiretap the media at this point, legally and legitimately, as the sources of these unlawful leaks, for which Obama himself set precedent. Do liberals understand what Pandora’s Box Obama opened up by Obama using the powers of the NSA, CIA and FBI to spy on his political opponents? Even Nixon never did that.
    .
    If the stories are correct, Obama or his officials might even face prosecution. But, we are still early in all of this and there are a lot of rumors flying around so the key is if the reports are accurate. We just don’t know at this time. The stories currently are three-fold: first, that Obama’s team tried to get a warrant from a regular, Article III federal court on Trump, and was told no by someone along the way (maybe the FBI), as the evidence was that weak or non-existent; second, Obama’s team then tried to circumvent the federal judiciary’s independent role by trying to mislabel the issue one of “foreign agents,” and tried to obtain a warrant from the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act “courts”, and were again turned down, when the court saw Trump named (an extremely rare act of FISA court refusal of the government, suggesting the evidence was truly non-existent against Trump); and so, third, Obama circumvented both the regular command of the FBI and the regularly appointed federal courts, by placing the entire case as a FISA case (and apparently under Sally Yates at DOJ) as a “foreign” case, and then omitted Trump’s name from a surveillance warrant submitted to the FISA court, which the FISA court unwittingly granted, which Obama then misused to spy on Trump and many connected to Trump. Are these allegations true? We don’t know yet, but if any part of them are then Obama and/or his officials could face serious trouble.
    .
    Can a President be charged with a crime? Only once out of office. While in office, impeachment remains the exclusive remedy in order to avoid a single judicial branch trying to overturn an election, such as a grand jury in any part of the country could. Once out of office, a President remains immune from civil liability for his duties while President, under a 1982 decision of the United States Supreme Court. However, as the Nixon pardon attests, nothing forecloses a criminal prosecution of the President after his presidency is complete for crimes against the country. Obama, the Constitutional lawyer, should know that.
    .
    What crimes could have been committed? Ironically, for Democrats falsely accusing Attorney General Sessions, perjury and conspiracy to commit perjury, as well as intentional violations of FISA. Rather shockingly, no law currently forbids misusing the power of the presidency to spy on one’s adversaries. What the law does forbid is lying to any judicial officer to obtain any means of surveillance. What the law does forbid, under criminal penalty, is the misuse of FISA. Both derive from the protections of the Fourth Amendment itself. Under section 1809, FISA makes it a crime for anyone to either “engage in” electronic surveillance under “color of law” under FISA without following the law’s restrictions, or “disclose” or “use” information gathered from it in contravention of the statute’s sharp constrictions.
    .
    FISA, 50 USC 1801, et seq., is a very limited method of obtaining surveillance authority. The reason for its strict limits is that FISA evades the regular federal court process, by not allowing regularly, Constitutionally appointed federal judges and their magistrates to authorize surveillance the Fourth Amendment would otherwise forbid. Instead, the Chief Justice handpicks the FISA court members, who have shown an exceptional deference to the executive branch. This is because FISA court members trust the government is only bringing them surveillance about pending terror attacks or “grave hostile” war-like attacks, as the FISA statute limits itself to. Thus, a FISA application can only be used in very limited circumstances.
    .
    One important reminder about electronic surveillance. Occasionally, a law enforcement officer will hear or see or record information not allowed by the warrant, but incidental or accidental to otherwise lawful surveillance. Their job is to immediately stop listening, stop recording, and to delete such information. This is what you occasionally see in films where the agent in the van hears the conversation turn away from something criminal to a personal discussion, and the agent then turns off the listening device and stops the recording. Such films simply recognize long-standing legal practice.
    .
    Read More:
    .
    Yes, There Could Be Serious Legal Problems if Obama Admin Involved in Illegal Surveillance | Law News
    .
    My Thoughts:
    .
    "The stories currently are three-fold: first, that Obama’s team tried to get a warrant from a regular, Article III federal court on Trump, and was told no by someone along the way (maybe the FBI), as the evidence was that weak or non-existent; second, Obama’s team then tried to circumvent the federal judiciary’s independent role by trying to mislabel the issue one of “foreign agents,” and tried to obtain a warrant from the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act “courts”, and were again turned down, when the court saw Trump named (an extremely rare act of FISA court refusal of the government, suggesting the evidence was truly non-existent against Trump); and so, third, Obama circumvented both the regular command of the FBI and the regularly appointed federal courts, by placing the entire case as a FISA case (and apparently under Sally Yates at DOJ) as a “foreign” case, and then omitted Trump’s name from a surveillance warrant submitted to the FISA court, which the FISA court unwittingly granted, which Obama then misused to spy on Trump and many connected to Trump. Which parts of these stories are true is not yet fully known, but if any part of them then Obama could face serious trouble."




    Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

  2.   
  3. #12
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Location
    Saginaw, Michigan
    Posts
    3,800
    Quote Originally Posted by S&W29 View Post
    The whole problem with this "conspiracy theory" is it falls apart when you consider that if Obama had truly wanted to derail Trump, he just had to leak his federal tax returns. Job done, less paperwork, and Hillary would be in the oval office. None of that happened. Trump is simply being stupid, this distraction gains him nothing and if congress follows through on the requested investigation, opens him up to lots of questions his administration doesn't want to answer.
    Yet another "conspiracy theory" is that Trump's tax returns could provide evidence of financial wrong doing. They might and then again, they might not.

    I am tired of all the accusations from the Democrats, the media, the righteously indignant protesters, the loyal supporters, and even from Trump himself. I want to see some proof of wrong doing instead of just a bunch of little kids pointing fingers.
    Character is doing the right thing when nobody's looking. There are too many people who think that the only thing that's right is to get by, and the only thing that's wrong is to get caught. - J. C. Watts

  4. #13
    James Clapper on Meet The Press unequivocally stated there was no wire tap of any kind.

    Ergo DJT pulled this idea completely out of his azz.

    Can a former POTUS sue a current POTUS for slander? I think the POTUS is immune from legal actions while in office.

    Trump is safe for now.

    BHO and Michelle are probably laughing. So is Putin. So is Xi. So is Kim, Jongun.

    Reince Priebus is probably drinking heavily. So is Mike Pence. And all the JCS.

  5. #14
    Join Date
    Oct 2013
    Location
    TN
    Posts
    4,255
    You just cited the story that President Trump is apparently basing his accusation on. It comes from a single, unnamed and unverified source. There is nothing"busted" here.

  6. Had Trump not been elected president we would never know that the sitting government used secret courts, the FBI and other agencies to gain intelligence on their own political rivals.

    Hopefully the new government doesn't return the favor.

  7. #16
    Quote Originally Posted by HKS View Post
    James Clapper on Meet The Press unequivocally stated there was no wire tap of any kind.

    Ergo DJT pulled this idea completely out of his azz.

    Can a former POTUS sue a current POTUS for slander? I think the POTUS is immune from legal actions while in office.

    Trump is safe for now.

    BHO and Michelle are probably laughing. So is Putin. So is Xi. So is Kim, Jongun.

    Reince Priebus is probably drinking heavily. So is Mike Pence. And all the JCS.
    You said James Clapper on Meet The Press unequivocally stated there was no wire tap of any kind. You would do yourself well to remember when Clapper under oath to the senate elect committee stated that NSA isn't recording ANYTHIG regarding public E-mail's and phone conversations and then was proven to have lied to them. So what makes you think he wouldn't lie again to cover up this wire tapping?
    The only easy day was yesterday
    Dedicated to my brother in law who died
    doing what he loved being a Navy SEAL

  8. #17
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    ARIZONA-a short distance from the sun
    Posts
    8,908
    ~ God Hates Religion ~
    "But even if we or an angel from heaven should preach to you a gospel contrary to the one we preached to you, let him be condemned to HELL"

Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 12

Tags for this Thread

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  
Quantcast