Talk:Barack Obama Controversies

From Conservapedia
Jump to: navigation, search

As we discuused at Main Page talk, the wiretapping is legal. Heck, Obama could've droned Trump legally. I would suggest for the subheading, "domestic spying controvercy". RobSCIA v Trump updated score:CIA 3, Trump 1 09:12, 13 March 2017 (EDT)

I changed it to "Wiretapping the 2016 election." PeterKa (talk) 15:10, 13 March 2017 (EDT)

British surveillance

Despite all the heated denials, it's a safe bet that the British were in fact eavesdropping on Trump. He didn't have the level of security a government official does, so it would have been easy enough for them to do it. Judging from all the leaks that appeared in the British press, the Brits were obviously interested in this issue. If they are not surveilling the obvious targets, what's an electronic surveillance agency for? That surveillance agencies do surveillance is hardly remarkable. The story here is, why did the FBI want a FISA warrant and why did this information leak to so many media outlets? PeterKa (talk) 00:01, 20 March 2017 (EDT)

It's called a reciprocal sharing agreement. They have been in use since 1938, when the US lacks probable cause for a warrant, or MI5 vice-versa under British law, they ask each other's intelligence unit to for it for them. It's a loophole that provides a 'legal' way to violate a person's civil rights under the guise of national security laws and foreign intelligence sharing agreements. The need for secrecy in a high-profile case weighs, too. The US had no interest or need in wiretapping Lady Di, but the British government did considering she was pregnant with a Muslim child who could have a claim on the throne. So too here, UK's interest in Trump is marginal or peripheral, so they can act almost as independent unbiased observers, returning a favor. RobSCIA v Trump updated score:CIA 3, Trump 1 01:55, 20 March 2017 (EDT)
Now that Obama has shown us how to evade FISA, the law seems a bit pointless. It was a Watergate-inspired reform, like the independent counsel statute. Clinton's treatment of Ken Starr revealed the independent counsel as toothless, at least with respect to Democratic presidents. The FBI was able to blame 9/11 on a FISA screw up, so there is a definite downside to the law. PeterKa (talk) 01:39, 21 March 2017 (EDT)
If you point out that Obama evaded FISA, here is what happens to you: "Andrew Napolitano absent from Fox after citing anonymous spying claims". PeterKa (talk) 17:38, 21 March 2017 (EDT)
US intelligence sharing predates World War II. In 1939, British intelligence was concerned about American citizens living in New York and New Jersey who would monitor the time of day a ship carrying Lend Lease aid to Britain would leave port. These times were transmitted by code to Nazi Germany, which in turn transmitted via Ultra to U-boats estimated times and locations where a ship would be in transit. British intelligence asked FDR to wiretap these American citizens, but since the US was officially neutral, they had violated no law and there was no probable cause for a wiretap. Through a series of Executive Orders, FDR allowed a foreign government to violate the civil rights of American citizens - clearly an impeachable offense. Through a series of Executive Orders over many decades, the practice has become legitimized as cooperative reciprocal intelligence sharing agreements in the interests of national security originating in the face of acommon enemy, the Nazi threat. The Snowdon leaks reveal how massive this practice has become. And it is legal, under the guise of national security, outside the purview of FISA courts, cause it isn't the US doing the wiretapping on a common enemy. It remains as secretive and classified as FISA, as you can see (1) Snowden's exile, (2) pressure from the US IC on Fox to fire Napolitano for disclosing classified information, and (3) Mark Levin's reluctance to discuss anything about FISA beyond what has been leaked already. RobSCIA v Trump updated score:CIA 3, Trump 2 19:18, 21 March 2017 (EDT)
Here's a better link, and I would recommend this page and a half Summary to any serious student of FISA. Because of the political climate of his day (1974), Sullivan, who was eyewitness to the abuses from the beginning as early as 1941, was ignored. Hence today you have the modern FISA Act with all its inherent contradictions and flaws. recommends a "board" which is the FISA court. But counterintelligence and security matters remained in FBI's hands. RobSCIA v Trump updated score:CIA 3, Trump 2 20:03, 21 March 2017 (EDT)
I'd be surprised if Britain's GCHQ was not wiretapping Donald Trump. GCHQ has been wiretapping vast numbers of people since around 2010.[1] Desmonduk (talk) 20:23, 21 March 2017 (EDT)
Indeed. There are two possibilities here. (1) They did it on their own out of concern for national security based on Trump's statements about NATO and known Russian contacts between people close to Trump. Having secured an intelligence product, they passed it along to their American counterparts who responded, "Please keep us apprised" (all totally legal). (2) As a disinterested 3rd party in a reciprocal favor agreement to skirt domestic law, controversy, and politics, as the US was in the Diana Spencer case. RobSCIA v Trump updated score:CIA 3, Trump 2 21:12, 21 March 2017 (EDT)
  • Fox needs British approval to buy a satellite service, which is probably why they caved.[2] That the British put the screws on Fox shows that there is an intelligence relationship that was endangered by Napolitano's relevations. Otherwise, why would they care? PeterKa (talk) 05:31, 24 March 2017 (EDT)
Yes, open discussion of this program, which is intended to circumvent and violate a citizens civil rights on both sides of the Atlantic, and is the only reason it exists, can threaten a news gathering organization's ongoing relationship with government agencies whom they really are dependent on for their bread and butter-information and news. RobSCIA v Trump updated score:CIA 3, Trump 2 10:04, 24 March 2017 (EDT)
Napolitano vindicated: "British spies were first to spot Trump team's links with Russia." He's back on Fox, too. Is it a scandal for the U.S. president to use British intelligence to spy on Republicans? The MSM doesn't seem to think so. If it's this easy to dodge FISA, what's the point of the law? Bill Clinton showed that the independent counsel statute could never be enforced against Democrats. Now it's expired. FISA should be put in the same category. PeterKa (talk) 05:14, 16 April 2017 (EDT)
Napolitano is indeed vindicated, yet that headline still is deceptive: "British spies were the first", but when you delve into the article, they weren't the first. The information came from a Baltic intelligence sharing agreement. Presumably, the headline is intended to mask further facts.
What is unclear is, was Brennan handed unadultered intel from the Baltics (rumored to be Estonia), or did he get it laundered thru GCHQ, or did he recieve both reports, Estonia's and GCHQ. RobSCIA v Trump updated score:CIA 3, Trump 2 17:40, 16 April 2017 (EDT)

Legal status

Under any provision of the law, including cooperative sharing, the legal status can only be justified as part of a foreign intelligence surveillance operation, or terrorist or narcotics trafficing. Somewhere the term "foreign" should be inserted, cause Obama is specifically forbidden from domestic political spying. Even if Obama learned later an administration agency was involved in that activity, and failed to intervene, he and all his cohorts would be in a world of trouble. RobSCIA v Trump updated score:CIA 3, Trump 2 12:48, 24 March 2017 (EDT)

Albuquerque Tea Party gains tax exempt status ... after 8 years

It's taken 8 years and a major IRS controversy for a single group, among numerous others, to be given tax-exempt status.[3] --1990'sguy (talk) 22:53, 20 July 2017 (EDT)