There Could Be Serious Legal Problems if Obama Admin Involved in Illegal Surveillance
Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 10 of 17

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

  1. #1

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

    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."
    The only easy day was yesterday
    Dedicated to my brother in law who died
    doing what he loved being a Navy SEAL

  2.   
  3. #2
    But you said recently.....
    Quote Originally Posted by opsspec1991 View Post
    I’m talking about things that are of concern in today’s world, can’t worry about things that happened in the past, everybody should be concerned that their so called Democrat representatives in Washington are so Butthurt that their Hillary didn’t get elected and can’t understand that President Trump is trying to do what’s best for our country.
    Yet you obsess about things that happened in the past..... I'm confused.....



    On a positive note, your obsession with the past that you can't worry about is at least more normal than another members obsession about what people do with their genitalia.
    “Religion is an insult to human dignity. Without it you would have good people doing good things and evil people doing evil things.
    But for good people to do evil things, that takes religion.” ― Steven Weinberg

  4. #3
    Wow !! You're really eating up DJT's big lie huh ?!

  5. #4
    Join Date
    Oct 2013
    Location
    TN
    Posts
    4,255
    The real question is, could there be serious legal problems for President Trump, accusing a number of people, including a former President, a former Attorney General and the current Director of the FBI, of committing federal felonies, including conspiracy, without any evidence?

  6. #5
    Quote Originally Posted by bofh View Post
    The real question is, could there be serious legal problems for President Trump, accusing a number of people, including a former President, a former Attorney General and the current Director of the FBI, of committing federal felonies, including conspiracy, without any evidence?
    There is NO POSSIBLE WAY this will ever come to bite DJT in the Rump....nope not gonna happen. Washington is one big happy family putting the "fun" in dysfunctional! (Note sarcasm)

  7. #6
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Location
    Saginaw, Michigan
    Posts
    3,800
    Quote Originally Posted by bofh View Post
    The real question is, could there be serious legal problems for President Trump, accusing a number of people, including a former President, a former Attorney General and the current Director of the FBI, of committing federal felonies, including conspiracy, without any evidence?
    Actually the real question is whether or not there is any evidence. And considering the accusation just came out and that us little people don't have access to the information the big shots in government do I would say it is a bit premature to jump to the conclusion that there is............ or isn't..... any evidence.

    But right at this moment, aside from this latest distraction being a very divisive topic to discuss, there isn't any proof of anything having been done by anyone.

    But the attacks upon the brand new Trump administration fit the old Saul Alinsky tactics perfectly... no surprise considering Obama's and Hillary's background...

    Saul Alinsky's Rules for Radicals

    Background information

    "Obama learned his lesson well. I am proud to see that my father's model for organizing is being applied successfully beyond local community organizing to affect the Democratic campaign in 2008. It is a fine tribute to Saul Alinsky as we approach his 100th birthday." --Letter from L. DAVID ALINSKY, son of Neo-Marxist Saul Alinsky

    Obama helped fund 'Alinsky Academy': "The Woods Fund, a nonprofit on which Obama served as paid director from 1999 to December 2002, provided startup funding and later capital to the Midwest Academy.... Obama sat on the Woods Fund board alongside William Ayers, founder of the Weather Underground domestic terrorist organization.... 'Midwest describes itself as 'one of the nation's oldest and best-known schools for community organizations, citizen organizations and individuals committed to progressive social change.'... Midwest teaches Alinsky tactics of community organizing."

    Hillary, Obama and the Cult of Alinsky: "True revolutionaries do not flaunt their radicalism, Alinsky taught. They cut their hair, put on suits and infiltrate the system from within. Alinsky viewed revolution as a slow, patient process. The trick was to penetrate existing institutions such as churches, unions and political parties.... Many leftists view Hillary as a sell-out because she claims to hold moderate views on some issues. However, Hillary is simply following Alinsky’s counsel to do and say whatever it takes to gain power.

    "Obama is also an Alinskyite.... Obama spent years teaching workshops on the Alinsky method. In 1985 he began a four-year stint as a community organizer in Chicago, working for an Alinskyite group called the Developing Communities Project.... Camouflage is key to Alinsky-style organizing. While trying to build coalitions of black churches in Chicago, Obama caught flak for not attending church himself. He became an instant churchgoer." (By Richard Poe, 11-27-07)

    -snip-
    Rules for Radicals

    By Saul Alinsky - 1971
    7. Tactics
    -snip-
    8. "Keep the pressure on, with different tactics and actions, and utilize all events of the period for your purpose."
    9. "The threat is usually more terrifying than the thing itself."
    10. "The major premise for tactics is the development of operations that will maintain a constant pressure upon the opposition. It is this unceasing pressure that results in the reactions from the opposition that are essential for the success of the campaign."
    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

  8. #7
    Join Date
    Oct 2013
    Location
    TN
    Posts
    4,255
    Quote Originally Posted by Bikenut View Post
    Actually the real question is whether or not there is any evidence. And considering the accusation just came out and that us little people don't have access to the information the big shots in government do I would say it is a bit premature to jump to the conclusion that there is............ or isn't..... any evidence.

    But right at this moment, aside from this latest distraction being a very divisive topic to discuss, there isn't any proof of anything having been done by anyone.

    But the attacks upon the brand new Trump administration fits the old Saul Alinsky tactics perfectly...

    Saul Alinsky's Rules for Radicals

    Rules for Radicals

    By Saul Alinsky - 1971
    7. Tactics
    -snip-
    8. "Keep the pressure on, with different tactics and actions, and utilize all events of the period for your purpose."
    9. "The threat is usually more terrifying than the thing itself."
    10. "The major premise for tactics is the development of operations that will maintain a constant pressure upon the opposition. It is this unceasing pressure that results in the reactions from the opposition that are essential for the success of the campaign."
    President Trump, who made these accusations, is one of the few people who would have easy access to such evidence, yet he chose to not to provide it. Meanwhile, you have his minions providing propaganda talking points at various news outlets. Saul Alinsky's Rules for Radicals apply to President Trump as well, you know.

    What evidence exists that shows President Trump isn't lying? None so far! This should scare you, but unfortunately it doesn't. If President Obama had accused President GW Bush of illegal wiretaps without any evidence whatsoever, the right would have called for impeachment proceedings against President Obama. However, since it is President Trump making these baseless accusations, it is OK, I guess.

    There is actually the possibility that legal surveillance was going on using FISA warrants, but such surveillance would not have been ordered by President Obama, would not have broadly wiretapped an entire building, and would have required judicial review. That is what the Bereitbart article is actually talking about. President Trump took that unverified report, didn't care to verify it by himself, and added the lie that President Obama illegally wiretapped him and his building.

    I already posted this in the other thread. This is a must read. From Lawfare | Ten Questions for President Trump:

    Here are my questions, about all of which I am, I want to stress, entirely serious:

    1. Are you making the allegation that President Obama conducted electronic surveillance of Trump Tower in your capacity as President of the United States based on intelligence or law enforcement information available to you in that capacity?
    2. If so—that is, if you have executive branch information validating that either a FISA wiretap or a Title III wiretap took place—have you reviewed the applications for the surveillance and have you or your lawyers concluded that they lack merit?
    3. If you know that a FISA wiretap took place, are you or were you at the time of the application, an agent of a foreign power within the meaning of FISA?
    4. Was anyone else working in Trump Tower an agent of a foreign power within the meaning of FISA?
    5. If you know that a Title III wiretap took place, are you or were you at the time of the application engaged in criminal activity that would support a Title III wiretap or might you have previously engaged in criminal activity that might legitimately be the subject of a Title III wiretap?
    6. Was anyone else working in Trump Tower engaged in criminal activity that would support a Title III wiretap or might another person have previously engaged in criminal activity that might legitimately be the subject of a Title III wiretap?
    7. If you were tweeting not based on knowledge received as chief executive of the United States, were you tweeting in your capacity as a reader of Breitbart or a listener of Mark Levin's radio show?
    8. If so, on what basis are you confident the stories and allegations in these august outlets are true and accurate vis a vis the activity of the government you, in fact, now head?
    9. If you learned of this alleged surveillance from media outlets, did you or anyone on your staff check with any responsible law enforcement or intelligence officials or agencies before making public allegations against your own government?
    10. What exactly does any of this have to do with Arnold Schwarzenegger?


    Author's Note: This tweetstorm episode is an excellent illustration of some of the points Quinta Jurecic and I made yesterday in a lengthy article on the presidential oath of office. I commend it to you.
    On the other hand, you can just not ask any questions and believe what ever propaganda comes out of the WH. You will be no different than those that believed in the propaganda coming out of the Obama WH. I also already posted this in the other thread. There are basically three options:

    1. President Trump was not being wiretapped. He is lying to the American people and accusing President Obama of a crime without evidence.
    2. President Trump was being illegally wiretapped. He is right and President Obama committed a crime.
    3. President Trump was being legally wiretapped. He is misleading the public and there was enough evidence to warrant a wire tap with using FISA.

    Any of these scenarios count as the biggest scandal in Presidential history.

  9. #8
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Location
    Saginaw, Michigan
    Posts
    3,800
    Quote Originally Posted by bofh View Post
    -snip-There are basically three options:

    1. President Trump was not being wiretapped. He is lying to the American people and accusing President Obama of a crime without evidence.
    2. President Trump was being illegally wiretapped. He is right and President Obama committed a crime.
    3. President Trump was being legally wiretapped. He is misleading the public and there was enough evidence to warrant a wire tap with using FISA.

    Any of these scenarios count as the biggest scandal in Presidential history.
    I agree with you that any of those 3 things being proven would be a scandal.

    But at this point in time neither you, nor I, nor the media, have any proof of any of those things happening. And for me, or you, or the media, to expect to be given information that might be needed in a future criminal case is just a little unreasonable.

    But then apparently the Saul Alinsky tactic of using something that has no proof of anything by anyone to cause division and arguments is working quite well.
    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


  10. #10
    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.

Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast

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