When Is the Republibunny Congress Going to Investigate Obama and Friends??

When is the Republican Congress going to investigate Barack Obama to determine if he and George Soros are engaged in seditious acts?? • "Sedition : the crime of creating a revolt, disturbance, or violence against lawful civil authority with the intent to cause its overthrow or destruction -- compare criminal syndicalism, sabotage." (Merriam-Webster). Sedition is a crime under 18 US Code 2384 : "If two or more persons in any State or Territory, or in any place subject to the jurisdiction of the United States, conspire to overthrow, put down, or to destroy by force the Government of the United States, or to levy war against them, or to oppose by force the authority thereof, or by force to prevent, hinder, or delay the execution of any law of the United States, or by force to seize, take, or possess any property of the United States contrary to the authority thereof, they shall each be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than twenty years, or both." • • • THE REPUBLIBUNNIES. The 2017 Congress was voted into power by an America with one goal in mind -- eliminate the un-American policies and practices of Barack Obama's presidency. So, how are the Republibunnies' doing??? If they were Peter Cottontail, they'd still be looking for Farmer Brown's garden patch. • THE DEMOCRATS' FAKE SCANDAL. American Thinker published an article on Saturday saying : " in the waning days of his administration, Obama began surveilling, illegally, numerous people with the Trump campaign and sharing the information gathered, like transcripts of private phone conversations, with numerous agencies previously not privy to [such] classified material. The plan to leak these classified documents to the press was then executed. It does not matter if the leaked info is fake, it just has to get out to the gullible public, the people they believe are so stupid they will swallow it hook, line and sinker. So what if they have to print a retraction; the damage will have been done. This, this purposeful and treasonous action undertaken by the Obama administration in order to undermine the incoming Trump team, is the real crime, perhaps the crime of the century. It makes Watergate seem like a faculty lounge spat." The author, Patricia McCarthy, adds : " And they, the Democrats, are all in on it. They know it is a fabricated scandal, unlike the oh-so-numerous real scandals of the Obama administration, but not one of them has the guts or the ethical sense to call it off. Joe Manchin at least had the courage to admit that all Senators meet with ambassadors; it's part of their job. Not so the rest of them. No. They are all in on the plan, all willing to lie, cheat and to destroy a man's reputation if it serves their purpose. The cowardly party, the Republicans had better get their collective act up and running. So far only Ted Cruz, Devin Nunes and Trey Gowdy have publicly defended Sessions! The rest of them, Representative Jason Chaffetz, Senator Lindsay Graham, Senator John McCain, etc., capitulate quickly and call for an 'investigation.' An investigation of what? Of one of their own whom they know is a good and decent man. Will they never learn?" • • • THE 'SOFT COUP' SCENARIO. What was Patricia McCarthy talking about when she called out Obama acts at the end of his presidency meant to "undermine" Trump and his administration? • • • THE FACTS. National Review's Andrew McCarthy put the scenario of a 'soft coup' together in a January 11 article. McCarthy said : "The idea that FISA [Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act] could be used against political enemies always seemed far-fetched. Now it might not be....'The Wall' was a set of internal guidelines...issued by the Clinton Justice Department in the mid 1990s. In a nutshell, the Wall made it legally difficult and practically impossible for agents in the FBI’s Foreign Counter-Intelligence Division (essentially, our domestic-security service, now known as the National Security Division) to share intelligence with the criminal-investigation side of the FBI’s house....The concern of the Clinton DOJ...was the potential that a rogue criminal investigator, lacking sufficient evidence to obtain a traditional wiretap, would manufacture a national-security angle in order to get a wiretap under the 1978 FISA. A traditional wiretap requires evidence amounting to probable cause of commission of a crime. A FISA wiretap requires no showing of a crime, just evidence amounting to probable cause that the target of the wiretap is an agent of a foreign power. (A foreign power can be another country or a foreign terrorist organization.)" • McCarthy notes that the idea of twisting of an ordinary criminal investigation into a national security investigation had to do with the procedure to get warrants. McCarthy lays it out : "...the theory was absurd [because] a rogue agent would surely manufacture evidence of a crime before he’d manufacture a national-security angle. The process of getting a traditional wiretap is straightforward : FBI crim-div agents and a district assistant US attorney (AUSA) write the supporting affidavit; it gets approved by the AUSA’s supervisors; then it is submitted to the Justice Department’s electronic-surveillance unit; after that unit’s approval, the attorney general’s designee signs off; then the AUSA and the FBI present the application to a district judge. FISA wiretaps, by contrast, go through a completely different, more difficult and remote chain of command. In it, the district AUSA and FBI crim-div agents who started the investigation get cut out of the process, which is taken over by Main Justice’s National Security Division and the FBI’s national-security agents. In other words, if we assume an agent is inclined to be a rogue, it would be far easier (and less likely of detection) to trump up evidence of a crime in order to satisfy the probable-cause standard for a traditional wiretap than to manufacture a national-security threat in order to get a FISA wiretap. No rational rogue would do it." -- Right. • But, says McCarthy, we should : "consider the press reports...that claim that the Obama Justice Department and the FBI sought FISA warrants against Trump insiders, and potentially against Donald Trump himself, during the last months and weeks of the presidential campaign....From the three reports, from the Guardian, Heat Street, and the New York Times, it appears the FBI had concerns about a private server in Trump Tower that was connected to one or two Russian banks. Heat Street describes these concerns as centering on 'possible financial and banking offenses [i.e.,crimes].'....Ordinarily, when crimes are suspected, there is a criminal investigation, not a national-security investigation. According to the New York Times (based on FBI sources), the FBI initially determined that the Trump Tower server did not have 'any nefarious purpose.' But then, Heat Street says, 'the FBI’s counter-intelligence arm, sources say, re-drew an earlier [refused] FISA court request around possible financial and banking offenses related to the server.' Again, agents do not ordinarily draw FISA requests around possible crimes. Possible crimes prompt applications for regular criminal wiretaps because the objective is to prosecute any such crimes in court. (It is rare and controversial to use FISA wiretaps in criminal prosecutions.) FISA applications, to the contrary, are drawn around people suspected of being operatives of a (usually hostile) foreign power. The Heat Street report continues : The first [FISA] request, which, sources say, named Trump, was denied back in June, but the second was drawn more narrowly and was granted in October after evidence was presented of a server, possibly related to the Trump campaign, and its alleged links to two banks : [sic] SVB Bank and Russia’s Alfa Bank. While the Times story speaks of metadata, sources suggest that a FISA warrant was granted to look at the full content of emails and other related documents that may concern US persons. (A “US person” is a citizen or lawful permanent resident alien. Such people normally may not be subjected to searches or electronic eavesdropping absent probable cause of a crime; an exception is FISA, which -- to repeat -- allows such investigative tactics if there is probable cause that they are agents of a foreign power." • McCarthy concludes that Obama was using FISA to wiretap a political opponent. McCarthy suggests that the evidence suggests "someone at the FBI initially had concerns that banking laws were being violated, but when the Bureau looked into it, investigators found no crimes were being committed. Rather than drop the matter for lack of evidence of criminal offenses, the Justice Department and FBI pursued it as a national-security investigation....Even though the FISA standard is generally thought to be less demanding than the traditional wiretap standard...the FISA court rejected the application that 'named Trump.' Five months later, the Justice Department and FBI submitted a second, more 'narrowly' drawn affidavit to the FISA court." The warrant was granted. • ANONYMOUS SOURCES KEY IN THE TIMELINE. Here is where we get into the notoriously abundant use by the New York Times of "unnamed official sources." McCarthy says : "The way the Heat Street report is written intimates that Trump is not named in this October application for FISA surveillance. The tie to Trump also appears weak : Heat Street says the FISA court was presented with evidence of a server 'possibly related' to the Trump campaign and its 'alleged links' to two Russian banks." • It seems there were no 'probable cause' grounds for a criminal investigation of banking violations against Trump. But, apparently because the bank or banks were Russian, the DOJ and the FBI decided to try to get surveillance authority on national-security grounds. We cannot be sure of this because FISA court records are routinely sealed. And, the best the media can or will say is that the server on which the application centers is “possibly” related to the Trump campaign’s “alleged” links to two Russian banks -- even though the FBI has previously found no “nefarious purpose” in an undescribed connection between Trump Tower and at least one Russian bank (whose connection to Putin’s regime is not detailed). • Andrew McCarthy states : "...FISA surveillance is done in secret and its results are virtually never publicized -- the problem is not just the possibility of tipping off the hostile foreign power; there is also the potential of tainting US persons who may have done nothing wrong. While it’s too early to say for sure, it may also be an example of what I thought would never actually happen : the government pretextually using its national-security authority to continue a criminal investigation after determining it lacked evidence of crimes." • Bill Clinton's DOJ worries were probably justified. • • • THE FISA WARRANT -- STEP ONE IN THE OBAMA SOFT COUP. Last Friday, Breitbart reported on radio host Mark Levin's Thursday evening show in which Levin outlined the known steps taken by President Obama’s administration in its last months to undermine Donald Trump’s presidential campaign and, later, his new administration. Levin called Obama’s effort “police state” tactics, and suggested that Obama’s actions, rather than conspiracy theories about alleged Russian interference in the presidential election to help Trump, should be the target of a congressional investigation. Drawing on sources including the New York Times and the Washington Post, Levin described the case against Obama so far, based on what is already publicly known. • The following is the fact summary of Breitbart's Joel Pollak, expanding Levin's case to include events that Levin did not mention specifically but that Pollak considers important to the overall timeline : In 2016 -- (1). June : The Obama administration files a request with the FISA court to monitor communications involving Donald Trump and several advisors. The request is denied. (2). July : Wikileaks releases emails from the Democratic National Committee that show efforts to prevent Senator Bernie Sanders from winning the presidential nomination. In a press conference, Trump refers to Hillary Clinton’s own missing emails, joking : “Russia, if you’re listening, I hope you’re able to find the 30,000 e-mails that are missing.” That remark becomes the basis for accusations by Clinton and the media that Trump invited further hacking. (3). October : Wikileaks begins releasing the emails of Clinton campaign chair John Podesta, continuing every day until the election, creating new mini-scandals. The Clinton campaign blames Trump and the Russians. (4). October : The Obama administration submits a new, narrow request to the FISA court, now focused on a computer server in Trump Tower suspected of links to Russian banks. No evidence is found -- but the wiretaps continue, ostensibly for national security reasons. [See Andrew McCarthy at National Review,above.] The Obama administration was now monitoring an opposing presidential campaign using high-tech surveillance powers of the federal intelligence services for political purposes. In 2017 -- (5). January : Buzzfeed releases, and CNN reports, a supposed intelligence “dossier” compiled by a foreign former spy purporting to show continuous contact between Russia and the Trump campaign, and saying the Russians have compromising information about Trump. None of the allegations can be verified and some are proven false. Several media outlets claim that they had been aware of the dossier for months, that it had been circulating in Washington but could not be verified and used. (6). January : Obama expands National Security Agency (NSA) sharing, as reported by the New York Times -- the outgoing Obama administration “expanded the power of the National Security Agency to share globally intercepted personal communications with the government’s 16 other intelligence agencies before applying privacy protections.” The new powers, and reduced protections, make it easier for intelligence on private citizens to be circulated improperly or leaked. (7). January : The New York Times reports, just before Inauguration Day, that the FBI, CIA, NSA and Treasury Department are monitoring several associates of the Trump campaign "suspected" of Russian ties. Other news outlets report the existence of “a multiagency working group to coordinate investigations across the government,” although how the media found out is unclear since such investigations would have been secret, involving classified information. (8). February : Reports emerge that the FBI intercepted a conversation in 2016 between future National Security Advisor Michael Flynn -- then a private citizen -- and Russian Ambassador Sergey Kislyak. The intercept supposedly was part of routine spying on the ambassador, not monitoring of the Trump campaign. The FBI transcripts reportedly show the two discussing Obama’s newly-imposed sanctions on Russia, though Flynn earlier denied discussing them. Sally Yates, whom Trump later fired as acting Attorney General for insubordination [refusing to enforce the immigration executive order], was involved in the Flynn investigation. Finally, Flynn resigns for having misled Vice President Mike Pence (perhaps inadvertently) about the content of the conversation. (9). February : The New York Times reports that “four [unnamed] current and former American officials” told it the Trump campaign had “repeated contacts with senior Russian intelligence officials." The Trump campaign denies the claims -- and the Times admits that there is “no evidence” of "coordination" between the campaign and the Russians. The White House and some congressional Republicans begin to raise questions about illegal intelligence leaks. (10). March : The Washington Post reports that Attorney General Jeff Sessions had contact twice with the Russian ambassador during the campaign -- at a Heritage Foundation event and at a meeting in Sessions’s Senate office. The Post suggests the two meetings contradict Sessions’s testimony at his confirmation hearings that he had no contacts with the Russians, though in context [not presented by the Post] it was clear he meant in his capacity as a campaign surrogate, and that he was responding to claims in the “dossier” of ongoing Trump campaign contacts. The New York Times, in covering the story, adds that the Obama White House “rushed to preserve” intelligence related to alleged Russian links with the Trump campaign. By “preserve” it meant “disseminate” : officials spread evidence to other government agencies, and perhaps the media, “to leave a clear trail of intelligence for government investigators.” • • • BOTTOM LINE -- OBAMA POLITCAL WIRETAPS. Pollak, named as one of the most influential people in news in 2016, summarizes : "the Obama administration sought, and eventually obtained, authorization to eavesdrop on the Trump campaign; continued monitoring the Trump team even when no evidence of wrongdoing was found; then relaxed the NSA rules to allow evidence to be shared widely within the government, virtually ensuring that the information, including the conversations of private citizens, would be leaked to the media." • Levin called the effort a “silent coup” by the Obama administration and demanded that it be investigated. In addition, Levin castigated Republicans in Congress for focusing their attention on Trump and Attorney General Sessions rather than Obama. • • • RUSH LIMBAUGH WEIGHS IN. Friday on his radio show, conservative Rush Limbaugh argued there was a “silent coup” underway against President Trump. Limbaugh accused former President Obama of putting it in place before leaving office and said that it is currently being executed. He pointed to the fake controversy about Attorney General Jeff Sessions associations with the Russian government and Senate Democrats slow-walking Trump’s cabinet appointees. Limbaugh said : “We’re watching a silent coup that was put in place by Obama and the Democrats during the transition and before and after the election. I think what is happening here is a full-fledged effort here to deny Trump the actual control of governing and the government by leaving so many Obama career people appointed, by going so slowly on confirming Trump’s cabinet appointees and other lesser bureaucratic position that remain open....And that’s why it appears the Democrats are still running the show.” • • • TRUMP TWEETS AND THE WASHINGTON POST. In February, author James Hirson reported that days before Trump's inauguration, Obama issued an executive order allowing the National Security Agency to share raw communications with other intelligence agencies including the FBI, the DEA, and the Department of Homeland Security. Former Education Secretary Bill Bennett told Fox News : "Nobody could have conceived that a sitting President or administration would use it [FISA] to spy on a candidate from the opposing party." • President Trump, in a series of early Saturday morning tweets, accused former President Obama of wiretapping his phones at Trump Tower in October -- he was alluding to the Obama DOJ and FBI FISA warrants against Trump's campaign insiders and Trump in the last months of the 2016 campaign, and Obama expanding the ability of intelligence agencies to share unfiltered telephone surveillance information. • A Washington Post on Saturday article co-authored by Trump-detractor Robert Costa, who has been publicly reprimanded by Trump at news conferences, said : "President Trump on Saturday angrily accused former President Barack Obama of orchestrating a 'Nixon/Watergate' plot to tap the phones at his Trump Tower headquarters last fall in the run-up to the election. While citing no evidence to support his explosive allegation [the evidence is all over the internet, Costa -- google it !!], Trump said in a series of four tweets sent Saturday morning that Obama was 'wire tapping' his New York offices before the election in a move he compared to McCarthyism. 'Bad (or sick) guy!' he said of his predecessor, adding that the surveillance resulted in 'nothing found.' ” The Washington Post said Trump offered no citations and pointed to no credible news report [WP must mean the WP or the NYT. Credible???] to back up his accusation, "but he may have been referring to commentary on Breitbart and conservative talk radio [NOTE to WP -- also reported by National Review, American Thinker, and - OMG!! - the NYT and BBC], suggesting that Obama and his administration used “police state” tactics to monitor the Trump team. The WP said : "The Breitbart story, published Friday, has been circulating among Trump's senior staff, according to a White House official who described it as a useful catalogue of the Obama administration's activities. Kevin Lewis, a spokesman for Obama, said in a statement early Saturday afternoon : 'A cardinal rule of the Obama Administration was that no White House official ever interfered with any independent investigation led by the Department of Justice. As part of that practice, neither President Obama nor any White House official ever ordered surveillance on any US citizen. Any suggestion otherwise is simply false.' ” [And if you want to keep your doctor, you can...Actually, it would have been the DOJ and FBI -- and who orders them? The President - Obama] Another of WP's "unnamed sources and officials close to" the situation told the WP : "A wiretap cannot be directed at a US facility without finding probable cause that the phone lines or Internet addresses were being used by agents of a foreign power -- or by someone spying for or acting on behalf of a foreign government. 'You can't just go around and tap buildings.' " Senior "US officials with knowledge of the wide-ranging federal investigation into Russian interference in the election" -- no names given by the WP -- told the WP Saturday that there had been no wiretap of Trump. Officials at DOJ and the FBI declined to comment. [The refusals to comment probably occurred because the FBI / DOJ would either have to say 'yes we did' or 'no we didn't' -- not likely -- or explain that they cannot comment on ongoing investigations, and that would fuel the fire that there were wiretaps.] • The WP also reported that Trump left Washington "in a fury" on Friday, after a senior staff meeting in the Oval Office about Sessions' decision to recuse himself. An [allegedly] angry Trump told his top aides that he disagreed with the Attorney General's decision and thought the White House and DOJ should have done more to counter the suggestion that Sessions needed to step away. The WP said the President told staff he wanted to see them fight back against what he saw as a widespread effort to destabilize his presidency, according to senior White House officials who were not authorized to speak publicly." [Another leak that is probably illegal.] • But, the unnamed White House source said what most Americans are thinking -- fight back against these Progressive sharks who are determined to kill the Trump presidency. • CNBC wrote on Saturday : "last October, The New York Times reported that the FBI pursued a broad inquiry into Trump's links to Russia and Putin, but the investigation failed to yield any incriminating evidence. However, that hasn't stopped speculation from festering, particularly as Trump has repeatedly gone out of his way to praise Putin." [Another fake news slant, by suggesting Trump was "going out of his way" with Putin, even though the FBI found No Evidence.] • THE BBC AND GUARDIAN WROTE EARLIER ACCOUNTS OF TRUMP WIRETAPS. The Guardian in its 'soft coup' story published Trump Saturday morning tweets not reported by the US media, including : “The first meeting Jeff Sessions had with the Russian Amb was set up by the Obama Administration under education program for 100 Ambs...” Trump then tweeted : “Just out: The same Russian Ambassador that met Jeff Sessions visited the Obama White House 22 times, and 4 times last year alone.” • And, the Guardian included evidence that Trump has more than Breitbart and Levin as sources for the wiretap story. In another article, the Guardian stated : "Just before last November’s election, however, the British former MP and novelist Louise Mensch reported that the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) court had granted a warrant to enable the FBI to conduct surveillance of 'US persons' in an investigation of possible contacts between Russian banks and the Trump Organization. Two months later, the BBC published an article backing up Mensch’s original story about the FISA court warrant issued in October to allow the Justice Department to scrutinise transfers and communications between Trump associates and Russian banks. US intelligence agencies were investigating the link." The Guardian reported in January that the FISA court had turned down an application, asking the FBI to narrow the terms of inquiry. You can read the Guardian article at < https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2017/mar/04/donald-trump-wiretap-barack-obama-coup > • • • THE REPUBLIBUNNIES. On Friday, Fox's Brett Baier asked House Speaker Paul Ryan if he was concerned "that the Obama Administration may have been surveilling members of the Trump campaign in a pretty detailed investigation during the election?" Ryan responded : "I don't think that's the case." [If Ryan knows anything positive about Obama, which is doubtful, he ought to cite chapter and verse. If he doesn't know, then he ought to stop playing the innocent debutante and do his job by getting to the bottom of the grim possibilities.] • The Guardian talked to Lindsey Graham, the Republican Senator from South Carolina, who said : “I am very worried that our President is suggesting that the former President has done something illegally. I would be very worried if, in fact, the Obama administration was able to obtain a warrant lawfully about the Trump campaign activity with foreign governments. It’s my job as a United States Senator to get to the bottom of this -- I promise you I will.” And when asked if Obama had been able to legally obtain a warrant for the wiretaps, Graham said : "It would be the biggest scandal since Watergate." [Yes -- but Senator Graham is a rabid anti-Trump Republican whose word on anything 'Trump' is tainted. Will he really investigate the wiretap allegations? And will he investigate Trump instead of Obama? • • • DEAR READERS, this is the real story -- there are credible sources saying that Barack Obama apparently used presidential powers to wiretap presidential candidate Donald Trump, during the election period. It further appears that Obama and George Soros conspired to send out Move.On and BLM paid and unpaid zombie marchers to protest, sometimes violently and destructively, whatever Trump and the Republicans were doing or saying about Obama. Obama and Soros together are apparently engaging in a serious, well-planned effort to unseat the duly-elected President of the United States. The time for Republibunny dilly-dallying is over. Congress must investigate the alleged acts of Barack Obama and George Soros under US sedition conspiracy laws.