by Ruby Henley
You can expect many links to sources in this report, as I have found it difficult to get straight answers on this subject. For the most part, it has gone unreported by MSM. The only reason I found reference to it at all, is the fact I am following the Russia investigation by Special Counsel Robert Mueller.
First of all, I want to start out by listing links to information concerning a finding by a FISA Court judge on the illegal spying by the NSA,FBI, and the Obama Justice Department on the Trump Team.
The document, signed by Judge Rosemary M. Collyer, said the court had learned in a notice filed October 26, 2016, that National Security Agency analysts had been conducting prohibited queries of databases “with much greater frequency than had previously been disclosed to the court.” It said a judge chastised the NSA’s inspector general and Office of Compliance for Operations for an “institutional lack of candor” for failing to inform the court. It described the matter as “very serious Fourth Amendment issue.”
The court document also criticized the FBI’s distribution of intelligence data, saying it had disclosed raw surveillance data to sectors of its bureaucracy “largely staffed by private contractors.” The “contractors had access to raw FISA information that went well beyond what was necessary to respond to the FBI’s requests,” it said, adding that the bureau discontinued the practice on April 18, 2016.
The NSA announced that change publicly on April 28, two days after the court filing, saying the agency would limit its sweep to communications either directly to or from a foreign intelligence target. END OF QUOTE
We know that the Fourth Amendment protects us from unreasonable searches and seizures by the government, and is a constitutional right of American citizens. I pray as I am writing this, my Fourth Amendment Right will be upheld, as I pray our Constitution will survive the horrifying times we are currently living in.
2. www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/fbi-obtained-fisa-warrant-to-monitor-former-trump-adviser-carter-page/2017/04/11/620192ea-1e0e-11e7-ad74-3a742a6e93a7_story.html?utm_term=.4622e48efee1 QUOTE
The FBI and the Justice Department obtained the warrant targeting Carter Page’s communications after convincing a Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court judge that there was probable cause to believe Page was acting as an agent of a foreign power, in this case Russia, according to the officials.
Page has not been accused of any crimes, and it is unclear whether the Justice Department might later seek charges against him or others in connection with Russia’s meddling in the 2016 presidential election. The counterintelligence investigation into Russian efforts to influence U.S. elections began in July, officials have said. Most such investigations don’t result in criminal charges.
Comey has declined to discuss the details of the Russia probe, but in an appearance last month, he cited the process for getting FISA warrants as proof that the government’s surveillance powers are very carefully used, with significant oversight.
“It is a pain in the neck to get permission to conduct electronic surveillance in the United States. And that’s good,’’ he told an audience at the University of Texas in Austin.
Officials have said the FBI and the Justice Department were particularly reluctant to seek FISA warrants of campaign figures during the 2016 presidential race because of concerns that agents would inadvertently eavesdrop on political talk. To obtain a FISA warrant, prosecutors must show that a significant purpose of the warrant is to obtain foreign intelligence information.
Page is the only American to have had his communications directly targeted with a FISA warrant in 2016 as part of the Russia probe, officials said. END OF QUOTE
QUOTE More than 5 percent, or one out of every 20 searches seeking upstream Internet data on Americans inside the NSA’s so-called Section 702 database violated the safeguards Obama and his intelligence chiefs vowed to follow in 2011, according to one classified internal report reviewed by Circa. The Obama administration self-disclosed the problems at a closed-door hearing Oct. 26 before the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court that set off alarm. Trump was elected less than two weeks later. Sen. Rand Paul (R-KY) said there was an apparent effort under the Obama Administration to increase the number of unmaskings of Americans. “If we determine this to be true, this is an enormous abuse of power,” Paul said. “This will dwarf all other stories.” “There are hundreds and hundreds of people,” Paul added. END OF QUOTE
4. www.washingtonpost.com/news/post-politics/wp/2017/03/05/trump-seeks-congressional-probe-into-politically-motivated-investigation-during-2016-campaign/?utm_term=.94ae0c10163a QUOTE
FBI Director James B. Comey asked the Justice Department this weekend to issue a statement refuting President Trump’s claim that President Barack Obama ordered a wiretap of Trump’s phones before the election, according to U.S. officials, but the department did not do so.
Comey made the request Saturday after Trump accused Obama on Twitter of having his “ ‘wires tapped’ in Trump Tower.” The White House expanded on Trump’s comments Sunday with a call for a congressional probe of his allegations.
“President Donald J. Trump is requesting that as part of their investigation into Russian activity, the congressional intelligence committees exercise their oversight authority to determine whether executive branch investigative powers were abused in 2016,” Spicer said. “Neither the White House nor the President will comment further until such oversight is conducted,” the statement added.
When asked about Trump’s allegations, Senate Intelligence Committee member Tom Cotton (R-Ark.) declined to comment on the tweets but said he has “seen no evidence of the allegations.”
“Whether that’s a FISA court application or denial of that application or a re-submission of that application, that doesn’t mean that none of these things happened. It just means we haven’t seen that yet,” Cotton added, speaking on “Fox News Sunday.”
Sen. Marco Rubio (R-Fla.) said he is not aware of evidence to back up the president’s claim. “I have no insight into exactly what he’s referring to,” he said on “Meet the Press.” “The president put that out there, and now the White House will have to answer for exactly what he was referring to.”
Obama’s allies were more blunt, denying flatly that the former president had ordered a wiretap of Trump’s campaign. END OF QUOTE
5. www.breitbart.com/big-government/2017/05/29/court-criticizes-obama-admin-for-illegal-spying-on-u-s-citizens/ QUOTE
Intelligence agencies violated the constitutional rights of American citizens through illegal surveillance during the Obama administration, recently declassified documents from the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court (FISC) show.
Writing the 99-page opinion for FISC, Judge Rosemary Collyer castigated the Obama administration for failing to follow the Section 702 procedures designed to ensure that the government does not violate Americans’ civil rights as it is performing work that is vitally important to national security. Collyer declared that the previous administration’s cavalier violations of Section 702’s requirements created “a very serious Fourth Amendment issue.”
Collyer sharply criticized the National Security Agency’s inspector general and the NSA’s Office of Compliance for Operations for their “institutional ‘lack of candor,’” signaling that in addition to ignoring legal constraints, the Obama administration was not being honest with the court about its violations of federal law.
Under President Trump, the NSA decided on March 30 that it would stop certain collection activities that FISC was then reviewing. Collyer noted this change for the better in her opinion, and adding that the court granted “approval of the amended certifications and accompanying targeting and minimization procedures.” END OF QUOTE
6. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Foreign_Intelligence_Surveillance_Court QUOTE
On March 2, 2017, broadcaster Mark Levin said on his syndicated evening radio program, “We have a prior administration – Barack Obama and his surrogates who were supporting Hillary Clinton and her party, the Democratic Party – who were using the instrumentalities of the federal government – intelligence activities – to surveil members of the Trump campaign and to put that information out in the public” and asked, “Were the president of the United States – the now-president of the United States, Donald Trump – were his phone calls recorded? … How many phone calls by Donald Trump – if any – have been intercepted by the Obama administration and recorded by the Obama administration?” Levin claimed that Obama had been involved in a “silent coup” against the Trump campaign using “police state” tactics during the election campaign. The next day, Joel Pollak writing in Breitbart, summarized and expanded on Levin’s argument. He repeated Levin’s claim that the Obama administration had initiated the FISA court requests but did not touch on the question of whether Trump’s phone had been tapped.
On the following morning, March 4, 2017, President Trump sent various Twitter messages claiming Barack Obama had bugged his phones during the “very sacred election process”. Trump charged that Obama was behind the 2016 FISA court order requests, likened the situation to 1950s McCarthyism and the 1970s Watergate scandal and called his predecessor a “Bad (or sick) guy!” Obama spokesperson Kevin Lewis and various Obama surrogates including Valerie Jarrett subsequently denied that President Obama or the Obama White House initiated the FISA court order requests.END OF QUOTE
7. www.nationalreview.com/article/443768/obama-fisa-trump-wiretap-may-have-been-sought QUOTE
Obviously, we haven’t seen the FBI affidavits (assuming they actually exist), and we do not know lots of other relevant facts. What we have, however, suggests that 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.
n June, an initial FISA affidavit (obviously prepared by the FBI and the Justice Department’s National Security Division) was submitted to the FISA court. It is said to have “named Trump” — but we don’t know whether that means (a) his name merely came up somewhere in the text of the affidavit or (b) he was an actual target whom the government wanted to investigate under FISA (meaning eavesdrop, read e-mail, and the like).
Even though the FISA standard is generally thought to be less demanding than the traditional wiretap standard (it is easier to show that someone may be colluding in some way with a foreign government than that he has committed a crime), 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 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. END OF QUOTE
I told you there would be plenty of links in this report. I had to back up my own conclusion with facts. The fact is the Obama Administration and namely Ex-FBI Director James Comey illegally spied on the Trump Team going against the FISA Court. Further the Obama Justice Department conspired with them to do so.
After this occurred, they lied about what they did, making President Trump appear absurd when he tweeted of this incident.
The only FISA warrants that were given were used on Paul Manafort and Carter Page. Manafort’s issues are not associated with the Trump campaign.
Carter Page has been not been found of any wrongdoing thus far in the Mueller investigation.
It has been impossible to find direct information on the fact that Obama was found guilty by a FISA Court of illegally spying on the Trump Team.
Because of the development of the Russia/Trump investigation by Special Counsel Robert Mueller, it is imperative that Mueller is receiving legally documented evidence.
If he is using the Trump dossier as evidence, or the illegal spying of the Trump Team as evidence, does this not make his findings a moot point?
The law forbids under criminal penalty the misuse of FISA.
This law was birthed to protect 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.
lawnewz.com/high-profile/yes-obama-could-be-prosecuted-if-involved-with-illegal-surveillance/ QUOTE: 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. END OF QUOTE
I hope you read the entire article, as it explains it all.
If the FISA Court found the Obama Administration guilty of illegally spying on the Trump Team, what charge does Obama get? Surely he will be charged. He took it upon himself to disregard the law of the United States of which he was the highest officer. The FISA Court turned him down, but he found his way around that, because in his eyes, he was above the law.
It is the same with the DNC and the Clinton camp…even James Comey…they considered themselves to be above the law. Are they?
by Ruby Henley