Fox News pulls Judge Napolitano over his Trump wiretap claims
Fox News senior judicial analyst Judge Andrew Napolitano is being kept off the air indefinitely amid the controversy over his unverified claims that British intelligence wiretapped Trump Tower at the behest of former President Obama. [President Trump has provided documentation that he was ‘wiretapped’. The LA Times and other Corp media refuse to accept the truth that he and his family have been illegally wiretapped for 8 years.]
Fox News did not respond to inquiries about Napolitano’s status Monday. Napolitano was conspicuously missing from the network’s coverage of the confirmation hearings on Supreme Court nominee Neil Gorsuch — an event in which he typically would have played a significant role. He has not been on the air since Thursday.
People familiar with the situation who could speak only on the condition of anonymity said Napolitano is not expected to be on Fox News Channel any time in the near future. Napolitano was not available for comment.
On March 4, President Trump first tweeted the accusation that Obama ordered his “‘wires tapped’ in Trump Tower just before the victory.”
“Nothing found,” Trump tweeted. “This is McCarthyism!”
The tweet has been widely discredited, but last week, Napolitano heightened the controversy — and caused a major embarrassment for Fox News — when he presented a scenario on several programs that backed the accusation.
The former New Jersey Superior Court judge, citing unnamed sources, said that the British foreign surveillance agency, the Government Communications Headquarters, “most likely” provided Obama with transcripts of Trump’s recorded calls.
“By bypassing all American intelligence services, Obama would have had access to what he wanted with no Obama administration fingerprints,” Napolitano wrote in a column on FoxNews.com.
White House press secretary Sean Spicer cited Napolitano’s charge last week when asked why President Trump continues to stand by his initial claim. The British spy agency sharply denounced Napolitano’s allegations, saying they are “utterly ridiculous and should be ignored.”
That rebuttal did not stop President Trump from citing Napolitano as a source again when he was asked about the wiretapping claims at a Friday news conference with German Chancellor Angela Merkel.
“You shouldn’t be talking to me; you should be talking to Fox News,” said Trump, who described Napolitano as “a very talented lawyer.”
Fox News gives its analysts much more latitude than correspondents and anchors in regard to what they can say on the network.
But Napolitano said on one program that “Fox News has spoken to intelligence community members who believe that surveillance did occur, that it was done by British intelligence.”
Fox News, however, did no such thing, forcing its anchors to walk back Napolitano’s statement.
“Fox News knows of no evidence of any kind that the now-president of the United States was surveilled at any time, in any way,” Shepard Smith told viewers Friday.
In a statement read on the Fox News program “MediaBuzz” on Sunday, Napolitano defended his comments. He said he “reported what the sources told me, reported it accurately and I do believe the substance of what they told me.”
On Monday, FBI Director James Comey testified before Congress that he had “no information” supporting Trump’s claims. National Security Director Michael Rogers also refuted Trump’s claim. He testified that the Obama administration did not ask the British agency to spy on Trump — nor would it ever make such a request because it would be “expressly against the construct” of intelligence agreements between the U.S. and its allies.
Napolitano: Was candidate Trump spied on?
Judge Napolitano explains CIA wiretapping
Judge Napolitano – Trump is the Enemy of the Deep State, 1549
It Took a Freshman GOP Congresswoman To Pull The Mask From FBI Director Comey…
FBI Director James Comey unmasked as a Deep State Black Hat Operative.
Representative Elise M. Stefanik is a young, freshman republican congresswoman from the Albany New York area. And using a probative questioning timeline, she single-handily pulled the mask from FBI Director James Comey, yet no-one seemed to notice.
Obviously Ms. Stefanik has not been in the swamp long enough to lose her common sense.
In the segment of the questioning below Rep. Stefanik begins by asking director Comey what are the typical protocols, broad standards and procedures for notifying the Director of National Intelligence, the White House and senior congressional leadership (aka the intelligence Gang of Eight), when the FBI has opened a counter-intelligence investigation.
The parseltongue response from Comey is a generalized reply (with uncomfortable body language) that notification of counter-intel investigations are discussed with the White House, and other pertinent officials, on a calendar basis, ie. “quarterly”.
With the statement that such counter-intel notifications happen “generally quarterly”, and against the backdrop that Comey stated in July of 2016 a counter-intel investigation began, Stefanik asks:
…”when did you notify the White House, the DNI and congressional leadership”?
BOOM! Watch an extremely uncomfortable Director James Comey outright LIE… by claiming there was no active DNI -which is entirely false- James Clapper was Obama’s DNI.
Watch it again.
Watch that first 3:00 minutes again. Ending with:
…”Because of the sensitivity of the matter” ~ James Comey
Director Comey intentionally obfuscates knowledge of the question from Rep Stefanik; using parseltongue verbiage to get himself away from the sunlit timeline.
The counter-intel investigation, by his own admission, began in July 2016. Congress was not notified until March 2017. That’s an eight month period – Obviously obfuscating the quarterly claim moments earlier.
The uncomfortable aspect to this line of inquiry is Comey’s transparent knowledge of the politicized Office of the DNI James Clapper by President Obama. Clapper was used rather extensively by the Obama Administration as an intelligence shield, a firewall or useful idiot, on several occasions.
Anyone who followed the Obama White House intel policy outcomes will have a lengthy frame of reference for DNI Clapper and CIA Director John Brennan as the two primary political operatives. Brennan admitted investigating, and spying on, the Senate Intelligence Committee as they held oversight responsibility for the CIA itself.
The first and second questions from Stefanik were clear. Comey’s understanding of the questions was clear. However, Comey directly evaded truthful response to the second question. When you watch the video, you can see Comey quickly connecting the dots on where this inquiry was going.
There is only one reasonable explanation for FBI Director James Comey to be launching a counter-intel investigation in July 2016, notifying the White House and Clapper, and keeping it under wraps from congress. Comey was a participant in the intelligence gathering for political purposes – wittingly, or unwittingly.
As a direct consequence of this mid-thought-stream Comey obfuscation, it is now clear -at least to me- that Director Comey was using his office as a facilitating conduit for the political purposes of the Obama White House.
Unfortunately, a slightly nervous Stefanik, never forced Comey to go back to the non-answered question and respond by saying:
No, Mr. Comey, there WAS a DNI in place in 2016, please answer the question of when did you notify him (Clapper) and the White House?
….. then it would get a little ugly:
Why did you notify Clapper and the White House but delay congressional notification?
With all the banter about these hearings, and against this slight moment of clarity of purpose, it bears repeating:
There is only ONE KNOWN Factual and CRIMINAL activity currently identified: the unmasking and leaking of Mike Flynn’s name to the media.
FBI Director Comey states his organization is “investigating”. Fair enough, however – not a single congresscritter asked HIM if he is the source of the unmasking or leaks.
♦ How can a congressional committee conduct an investigation if they don’t know if the primary witness, the lead investigator, is the source of the leaks?
♦ Wouldn’t the very first step, the actual basis of the foundation for the investigation itself, be to ensure the person conducting the investigation did not participate in the illegality of the conduct being investigated?
Avoid the shiny things.
Why wouldn’t congress ask this simple question?
Admiral Mike Rogers answers that approximately 10-20 people within his NSA organization had the potential to unmask and/or leak to the media. Fair enough.
♦ Wouldn’t the first question as follow-up be to ask Admiral Mike Rogers if he is one of those numbered possibilities?
♦ Wouldn’t the second follow-up question, in an authentic inquiry, be to ask Mike Rogers: if he is one of the possibilities with access to that information, then was he actually the person who unmasked or leaked?
If Mike Rogers and James Comey admit they are in charge of two of the possible source organizations for leak activity (expressly known illegal behavior)… then what affirmative confidence has either person expressed to congress to ensure the inquiring body that they personally were not the originating source?
And why didn’t congress ask them?
There is NO PEA in this shell game of distraction.
Why didn’t congress ask them?
Occam’s Razor – Because the question(s), the brutally obvious question(s), then lead to the follow-up: If the only criminal activity is the sourcing of the leak, and the two people giving testimony are potential suspects in that criminal activity, then: A) How can we trust their testimony, and B) Why are we even having this hearing”? (with two people who are suspects in an ongoing investigation)…
The answers reveal the current intention of the intelligence committee is not to actually investigate, but rather to give the outward illusion of investigation.
If they were not merely giving an illusion…. Congress would be pointing out that FBI Director James Comey has a direct and specific conflict of interest that is so glaringly obvious it’s unfathomable no-one see it.
Director Comey, and to a lesser extent Rogers, would have been in direct contact with the prior administration individuals, and entities acting on their behalf, who were politicizing the information being gathered and lying about (ie. leaking to the media) the content therein.
“Because of the sensitivity of the matter” ~ James Comey
Didn’t Comey further claim in this hearing that lying about the content of (or even the existence of) a counter-intelligence investigation was not itself a criminal act? Hello?
That said, James Comey has an expressed interest in claiming an ongoing investigation exists (even if it doesn’t) just to ensure the prior administration contact and behavior was shielded behind the wall of “an ongoing investigation”. Comey says: “Because of the sensitivity of the matter”.. Where “the matter” is the politicized and entirely false information from the White House.
FBI Director James Comey has singularity of knowledge and has cleverly placed himself in a position where there is no “oversight” of his claims.
…”Because of the sensitivity of the matter” ~ James Comey
See how that works?
At one point in his political life Comey may have been a White Hat, but there’s no doubt his behavior is exactly what a black hat operative would be doing to shield his connection to the black hat activity of the prior administration.
Summary: Hillary Clinton political operatives manufactured the illusion of a computer connection between Russian entities (financial banks) and the Trump campaign/organization. Those manufactured points of evidence were then passed along to White House entities who used the political intel community (Clapper to Comey) to open an investigation of nothingness – to nowhere. The mere existence of that investigation was then used as the originating point for a series of media intel leaks (the narrative) intended to cloud and damage the Trump campaign/organization. FBI Director James Comey, as head of one of the investigative agencies, became part of that political apparatus. Now, usefulness exhausted and with the media engaged, it’s CYA time all around for the originating entities.
“Because of the sensitivity of the matter” ~ James Comey
Senator on Wiretapping: “We Know One Thing for Sure… Obama…did Spy on” Trump Team Member
Mar 20, 2017 By Onan Coca
Senator Rand Paul appeared on ABC’s This Week with George Stephanopoulos on Sunday to discuss a handful of important issues including the debate over our healthcare system and the ongoing brouhaha about whether or not President Trump was under surveillance by the Obama administration. The entire conversation is well worth watching as Senator Paul gives a concise summary of the reasons that every Republican should be against the healthcare bill, but the most interesting part came when the discussion turned to spat between President Trump and President Obama over government surveillance.
Stephanopoulos does his part as a good little liberal to attempt to smear President Trump while clearing President Obama of any wrongdoing, but Senator Paul doesn’t allow Stephanopoulos to get his way. After being asked about Trump’s credibility “problem” with our foreign partners, Senator Paul replies that while we don’t know if Trump was spied upon… we do know that his first National Security Advisor, Michael Flynn was. He then goes on to say that we also know someone in the intelligence community committed a felony and released Flynn’s name to the media and that the real SCANDAL of all of this is the role that the intelligence community is currently playing in our politics.
George Stephanopoulos: “Finally, sir, you’re also a member of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee. We see the president standing by that claim about President Obama. It’s caused a rift now with British intelligence over the weekend. How big a problem is this for the president’s credibility? How does he fix it?”
Rand Paul: “I think that we know one thing for sure, that the Obama administration did spy on Flynn. Now, whether it was direct or indirect, somebody was reading and taking — a transcript of his phone calls and then they released it. It is very, very important that whoever released that go to jail, because you cannot have members of the intelligence community listening to the most private and highly classified information and then releasing that to The New York Times. There can only be a certain handful of people who did that, I would bring them all in and they’d have to take lie detector tests… we need to get to the bottom of who’s releasing these highly classified conversations. If the President was surveilled he probably wasn’t the target… they probably targeted someone in a foreign government and then they listened to the conversation with Americans… we can’t allow people in the intelligence community to release the content of that information to the media or we will get a deep state and we will have an intelligence community that has enormous power if that happens.”
The relevant portion begins around 4:15 into the video.
George Stephanopoulos: “But you don’t believe that President Obama ordered a wiretap of President Trump?”
Rand Paul: “Well, what happens is it’s different than that. We target foreigners all the time, but they talk to Americans. They talk to the president. They talk to the national security advisers. And they’re supposed to be masked. But there was something alarming the other day. General Hayden admitted that people all the way down to some of the lowest analysts can unmask who the American is. So, someone unmasked General Flynn and they’re a low-level analyst, we need to be looking at their computer and find out if they unmasked that conversation and if they spoke with The New York Times you have got to put those people in jail, because you cannot allow this to happen, or we will have presidents being blackmailed or national security advisers being blackmailed. This is a huge, huge problem, bigger than anything else that’s being discussed is the fact that private conversations from the intelligence community’s perspective are being leaked to the press. That’s not like a leak that says, oh, the president watches TV in his bathrobe, this is important to national security, you can’t let it happen.”
Dems Hoped to Hurt Trump, but Raised Suspicions of MB Obama
The mainstream media have been doing a victory lap since the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) and the National Security Agency (NSA) confirmed on Monday in testimony before the U.S. House Intelligence Committee that President Barack Obama did not wiretap Trump Tower. But that was already known.
There was only one new revelation at the hearing, and it was a bombshell: senior Obama administration officials could have known the identities of surveillance targets.
One of those targets, retired General Michael Flynn, lost his job after it was revealed that his conversation with the Russian ambassador had been monitored, and that he had discussed sanctions relief, contrary to his early private and public claims.
Yet Flynn’s identity was never supposed to have been revealed. The surveillance of the Russian ambassador, routine though it may have been, yielded classified information, and the identity of any U.S. citizen swept up in it should have been redacted.
But Flynn’s name was unmasked and leaked to the media. Moreover, the New York Times reported on Jan. 19 — with a front-page, top-of-the-fold headline on Inauguration Day — that “intelligence reports based on some of the wiretapped communications had been provided to the White House.” And the Times also reported in February that surveillance of Trump aides suspected of ties with Russia had been disseminated widely throughout the government, without privacy protections, by order of the lame duck Obama administration under newly-relaxed NSA rules, which the Times had already reported earlier in January.
Monday’s hearing “debunked” Trump’s wiretapping tweets, but left his underlying claim intact: that there was surveillance of the Trump campaign; that the results were shared throughout the government — even possibly reaching the Obama White House; and that intelligence was leaked, illegally, to the mainstream media.
In an extraordinary exchange with FBI Director James Comey on Monday, Rep. Trey Gowdy (R-SC) explored what that meant — that Obama aides could have broken the law:
GOWDY: Do you know whether Director [of National Intelligence] James Clapper knew the name of the U.S. citizen that appeared in the New York Times and Washington Post?
COMEY: I can’t say in this forum because again, I don’t wanna confirm that there was classified information in the newspaper.
GOWDY: Would he have access to an unmasked name?
COMEY: In — in some circumstances, sure, he was the director of national intelligence. But I’m not talking about the particular.
GOWDY: Would Director [of the Central Intelligence Agency James] Brennan have access to an unmasked U.S. citizen’s name?
COMEY: In some circumstances, yes.
GOWDY: Would National Security Adviser Susan Rice have access to an unmasked U.S. citizen’s name?
COMEY: I think any — yes, in general, and any other national security adviser would, I think, as a matter of their ordinary course of their business.
GOWDY: Would former White House Advisor Ben Rhodes have access to an unmasked U.S. citizen’s name?
COMEY: I don’t know the answer to that.
GOWDY: Would former Attorney General Loretta Lynch have access to an unmasked U.S. citizen’s name? COMEY: In general, yes, as would any attorney general.
GOWDY: So that would also include Acting AG Sally Yates?
COMEY: Same answer.
GOWDY: Did you brief President Obama on — well, I’ll just ask you. Did you brief President Obama on any calls involving Michael Flynn?
COMEY: I’m not gonna get into either that particular case that matter, or any conversations I had with the president. So I can’t answer that.
Gowdy’s questioning revealed an astonishing list of potential suspects. And given that the FBI and NSA testified that there was still no evidence of collusion between the Trump campaign and the Russian government, the fact remains that the only crime that is known to have occurred with absolute certainty was the leaking of Flynn’s name and the contents of his conversation with the Russian ambassador.
Democrats hoped to hurt Trump. Instead, they raised more questions about Obama’s role.
Joel B. Pollak is Senior Editor-at-Large at Breitbart News. He was named one of the “most influential” people in news media in 2016. His new book, How Trump Won: The Inside Story of a Revolution, is available from Regnery. Follow him on Twitter at @joelpollak.
DEMS THROW OBAMA UNDER BUS TO ATTACK TRUMP
Desperate Dems attack Trump for adopting Obama’s Ukraine policy
Mar 21, 2017 by Clifford Cunningham
Democrats in Congress, who once supported President Obama’s policy of not providing lethal aid to Ukraine, are now attacking President Trump for promoting the same policy in an effort to appear sufficiently “anti-Russia” for their Russian witch-hunt.
Despite previously supporting President Obama’s policy over fears it would give Russia “pretext for further incursions,” Congressional Democrats are now changing their tunes to appear “anti-Russian” in opposition to Trump.
Democrats on the House Intelligence Committee, led by Rep. Adam Schiff of California, alleged that a pledge to provide lethal aid to the Ukrainian government was removed from the Republican Party’s platform at the “insistence of the Trump campaign” because of alleged ties between campaign officials and the Russians.
The committee hearing featured FBI Director James Comey and Admiral Mike Rogers, director of the National Security Agency.
The basis for such claims appears to be a single article from the Washington Post that alleged the Trump campaign “orchestrated a set of events” to change the party’s platform.
“Is it possible that the removal of the Ukraine provision from the GOP platform is a coincidence?” Schiff said. “It is possible. But it is also possible, maybe more than possible, that they are not coincidental.”
The claims made in the Post article have been disputed by Byron York of the Washington Examiner, who examined the platform’s draft language prior to the change and indicated the change strengthened the platform’s language relating to Russia’s involvement in Ukraine.
The Republican delegate who proposed the “lethal defensive weapons” amendment, Diana Denman of Texas, told the Examiner she was fine with how the language in the platform turned out.
“The platform ended up tougher than it started,” she said.
Schiff suggested a proposal to provide lethal aid to Ukraine has bipartisan support and called for an official inquiry into whether there was “any communication between the Russians and the Trump campaign that resulted in the defeat of an amendment that was against Russian interest.”
“Trump himself changed the Republican Party platform to no longer arm Ukraine,” said Representative Andre Carson of Indiana, adding that campaign officials and advisors like Paul Manafort and General Michael Flynn were hired only “because of their Russian connections.”
It is ironic that Democrats are questioning the language of the Republican Party’s platform relating to Russia and Ukraine while the toughest language in Democratic Party’s platform relating to Russia is directed at Donald Trump.
“Russia is engaging in destabilizing actions along its borders, violating Ukraine’s sovereignty and attempting to recreate spheres of influence that undermine American interests. It is also propping up the Assad regime in Syria, which is brutally attacking its own citizens,” the Democratic Party’s platform said.
“Donald Trump would overturn more than 50 years of American foreign policy by abandoning NATO partners—44 countries who help us fight terrorism every day—and embracing Russian President Vladimir Putin instead.”
David Horowitz: The Achilles Heel Of The Democratic Party Revealed
Related previous posts on this blog