WIRETAPPING TRUMP--NEW REVELATIONS

O"Reilly Factor (March 16, 2017) reports, according to Congressional sources, that there is "no evidence" of any FISA request by the Obama Administration to "wiretap" President or candidate Trump. But the President and his media spokesperson both inisist that the Presdiednt as a candidate, or elected President prior to inauguration was placed under surveillance by the Obamians. The media insist that the President "has no evidence" and imply that this is just a Trump lie. But what is the truth?

I previously wrote about Mr. Obama's suspicious change of exective directive surrrounding surveillance data. In the last days of his presidency he altered protocols to permit the identity of US citizens "inadvertently" intercepted while conducting foreign surveillance. The change permitted the identity of these Americans to be dispersed widely to all the security agencies before any controls were placed on the actual identity of the hapless victims of the tapping incident. Obama's action permitted the wide circulation of this secret information throughout the government agencies and increased the potential that the identity and personal business of the US citizen would be compromised. That is only circumstantial evidence of Mr. Obama's culpability. But ther is more.

But recently new evidence has bubbled up into the light of day from the murky depths. An interview with former Congressman Dennis Kusinich (D- OH) has added fuel to the Trump allegation against Mr. Obama's Administration. According to Mr. Kucinich, while he was a Congressman his telephone was tapped and his conversations with a Libyan activist---Mr. Ghadaffi--the son the the former dictator, was, unknown to the Congessman, recorded. Two years later, after Mr. Kusinich had retired from Congress he learned of the tapping and was able to get a redacted copy of his own conversations with Ghadaffi. (Congressman Kusinich explained that at the time he was opposed to the Libya intervention policy advanced by Mr. Obama. Kucinich had State Department clearance to discuss the issues between the US and the Ghadiffi regime. But the Obama Administration felt the and advancement of its agggessive and in the end disastrous Libya policy took presecendec eover the Constitutional rights to privacy of a US citizen and Congressman. In this case there was no FISA court decision necessary. Mr. Ghadiffi's telephone was being tapped...Mr. Kucinich was swept up in the surveillance. His name and his conversations should have been protected....but it wasn't. Now one could opine that if Mr. Obama was willing to compromise the Constitutional protections of a sitting Congressman to protect a not-so- earth shattering foreign policy position in far off Libya, to what lengths might a President go to undermine the potential threat of the candidacy of a Mr. Trump who, if elected, would pose an existential theat to his legacy, his legitimacy, and all he accomplished over his eight years? What do you think?

Apparently one way to get information on an American citizen without having to go through the FISA process is to simply tap the phones of all those who the American "target" might communicate with. By the surveillance agency casting a huge net of the target's potential contacts there is high probability they will intercept the American target's calls, without leaving a trail of court orders or other evidences. The process permits complete deniability.
f
Another possible way to achieve the same goal would be to involve the intelligence agency of a close ally, such as the United Kingdom, which has access to our own secret files The President could "request" MI5 or MI6 to tap the telephones of a US citizen based on his concerns, for example, of the "Russian connection". This source of information would again leave no trail, no "fingerprints", no FISA court, and no one in the American intelligence community would have "information or evidence of telephone tapping". The present situation seems to support this last hypothesis. Of course the Brits would deny it, call it "ridiculous" and claim it never happened. They are professional spies! What would you expect them to say?

So the fact that no one in the government claims to know or have any evidence about this incident of illegal surveillance does not mean that it did not happen.