Featured Caught! Barack outsmarts himself

http://topsecretleaks.com/obama-fur...ying-scandal-everyone-missing-game-set-match/


OBAMA FURIOUS After Mark Levin LEAKS DEVASTATING SECRET Concerning His SPYING SCANDAL EVERYONE IS MISSING … GAME. SET. MATCH


The most damning question that can be asked of a president is “what did he know and when did he know it?” And now we know that Barack Obama has a lot of explaining to do. Mark Levin laid out a compelling case against the ex-president while being interviewed by Pete Hegseth earlier this morning.


Levin: “The evidence is overwhelming…this is about the Obama administration’s spying, and the question is not whether it spied. We know they went to the FISA court twice. The question is who they did spy on and the extent of the spying that it did on the Trump campaign, the Trump transition, Trump surrogates, and I want to walk you through this – the American people.”




“What did Barack Obama know? He knew everything I just read to you apart from one or two articles. You know how I know? “IT’S IN THE NEWSPAPERS!!!” So Barack Obama not only knew this but he gets a daily intelligence briefing! And, let me tell you something about daily intelligence briefings, if your Attorney General and your FBI is going to a FISA court to get a warrant to investigate aspects of an opposition party in the middle of a general election campaign how much you want to bet the president of the United States knew that?”

 

Even Hillary knew about it. Could be Lynch told Bill about it at their airport meeting.

 

http://www.dailywire.com/news/14110...102516-podcast&utm_campaign=beingconservative


Narrative Change: 'Evidence Is Overwhelming' Obama Spied On Trump


dence is overwhelming," said Mark Levin, that the Obama administration directed federal intelligence agencies to surveil then-presidential candidate and subsequent Republican presidential nominee Donald Trump and his team.

Joining Fox News Channel's Peter Hegseth for an interview on Sunday's Fox & Friends, Levin cited seven articles - almost entirely from left-wing and Democrat-aligned news media outlets - suggesting that the Obama administration sought authorization from a Federal Intelligence Surveillance Court to intercept the communications of Trump and his campaign-turned-transition team.

 

It was on the warrant request in June, but the judge would not issue the warrant. Since Hillary was killing Trump in the polls , they just kinda dropped the subject.

The Obama administration had to retool the warrant to get it approved. They did so at the end of October when they realized Trump was catching Hillary. They were desperate for something to get rid of Trump, or to sideline him if he was elected.

 

The second warrant, as far as I can tell, named no one. It was a fishing expedition warrant to electronically eavesdrop on a server located in Trump Tower. That warrant entitled them to read any and all correspondence, including Donald Trump's, that come across the server.

There's not much doubt that the Obama administration hoped to snare Trump. The lamestream media, led by the New York Times ran with the story. Even if they found nothing on Trump , they could smear him by association and innuendo. It's evident that they found nothing demonstrating collusion of any kind, but the smear and innuendo was out there and democrat politicians have been running with it ever since...without a shred of proof of wrongdoing.

Trump just knocked them back on their heels.

 

http://www.breitbart.com/radio/2017...-drone-bombed-american-citizens-around-world/

Attorney Robert Barnes appeared on Monday’s Breitbart News Daily to talk about President Trump’s allegation that the Obama administration wiretapped him during the 2016 presidential campaign. Barnes’s latest article on the subject for LawNewz is entitled “Yes, There Could Be Serious Legal Problems if Obama Admin Involved in Illegal Surveillance.”

“The allegations that Trump raises are allegations that derive directly from what the newspapers have reported – the Guardian, BBC, Heat Street, the New York Times, the Washington Post, where they all talk about there being an interagency panel of people who were involved in an investigation, who purportedly requested and obtained various means of intercepting phone calls,” Barnes explained.


“The issue goes right to: why, at any time, was anybody’s phone calls being intercepted that were on the Trump team, that are American citizens?” he said. “The various news stories that are out, including one by Andrew McCarthy, who recounts them for the National Review, there’s just no legal grounds for any of that surveillance to be taking place. There’s no legal grounds for any of those calls to be intercepted.”

“The original pretext was that FISA warrants were obtained in October for some limited capacity of Trump surrogates,” Barnes recalled. “The problem is FISA’s a very limited law, especially if you are talking about U.S. citizens. If you’re talking about foreigners, then the breadth of the law is very broad, and the president can, in fact, intercept and surveil foreign activities at a much wider degree because of a limited application of the Fourth Amendment – although the Ninth Circuit doesn’t seem to understand the limits of the Constitution as to foreigners, but that’s another story.”

“The issue he raises is critical and essential, and it’s been ever since these stories started leaking out,” he said of McCarthy’s writing. “Aside from the criminality of the leaks, it was that this is information that never should have been gathered in the first place. What FISA requires is that if you’re going to intercept a call where an American is on the line at any level, then what you have to do is you have to go through certain protocols, and you have to establish basically probable cause that the person is involved in criminal conduct of some sort. Just the fact that I, as a U.S. citizen, am talking to a foreigner does not allow magically the Fourth Amendment to disappear as to my right to privacy.”

“And yet, purportedly, that’s what effectively took place here because here you had Sally Yates discussing a transcript of a call that involved former NSA assistant Michael Flynn, and that’s information that never should have been in her possession or custody,” he observed.

“Just because one of the people on the phone call may have been not a U.S. citizen, that’s no legal grounds to intercept an American’s communications. Another way to think of it is, sometimes you’ll see in the movies where the guy is sitting in a van, and he’s listening in on a phone conversation on a wiretap, and the person he’s listening to shifts to some personal conversation, maybe of an intimate nature, that has nothing to do with the criminal investigation going on. You’ll see him turn off the recording device and put down his headphones,” he explained.

“If it happens that the manner and method of interception was something that you couldn’t physically do that, then what you’re supposed to do is to scrub the information and delete it from the record. In fact, an ex-CIA officer wrote an article for American Conservative documenting that that was always the protocol and procedure, whenever they were involved in an intelligence-gathering investigation. Yet apparently here, according to published reports, what they actually did is they went and they not only kept the information, didn’t scrub it or delete it, they deliberately went back and saved it, and then shared it with a bunch of other people who had no authority to ever look at it,” said Barnes.

“FISA is very particular about this,” he noted. “It requires protection of any innocent American’s information that ever may be gathered through this process. You have to not only scrub it and delete it; you cannot disseminate it to people. You can’t identify the individual that’s being sourced in the investigation. And the failure to follow FISA’s strict procedures is actually a crime. FISA section 1809 of Title 50 makes it a criminal penalty to either gather the information outside of FISA’s procedures or to disseminate it outside of FISA’s procedures.”

“So President Trump is correct that it appears that’s what took place here, based on published reports, headlines in the New York Times that use the words ‘intercepted calls’ involving Trump advisers who are American citizens. It raises very serious issues, and he’s absolutely right to raise them,” Barnes said.

 

Obama's timing.

Just before the inauguration, he signed EO 12333 that allows the National Security Agency to share information it gleans from its vast international surveillance apparatus with the 16 other agencies that make up the U.S. intelligence community.

With the new changes, which were long in the works, those agencies can apply for access to various feeds of raw, undoctored NSA intelligence. Analysts will then be able to sift through the contents of those feeds as they see fit, before implementing required privacy protections. Previously, the NSA applied those privacy protections itself, before forwarding select pieces of information to agencies that might need to see them.

Why then? Just days away from Trump's inauguration? Was it to make sure any damaging information on Trump that might be found made it's way to Obama loyalists before it was sanitized?

Well, that's how Flynn was brought down. Illegally obtained information was then illegally leaked. Flynn's 4th amendment rights were blatantly violated and no one has paid for it. Instead, the left gloats over it.

They planned to do the same to Trump. The only reason they haven't is they have found nothing. Nada. Nothing at all.