WAS IT ILLEGAL POLITICAL SURVEILLANCE?
If you have 45-minutes to spare and are interested in understanding how President Obama and his Administration’s National Security Adviser (Susan Rice), Director of National Intelligence (James Clapper), CIA Director (John Brennan), and FBI Director (James Comey) likely abused their authority in spying on the Trump campaign, we highly recommend watching the American Thought Leaders’ interview of Tony Shaffer, who was a senior intelligence officer in the Department of Defense, and is now acting president of the London Center for Policy Research. He’s also an advising producer for National Geographic, and a member of the Trump 2020 advisory board.
May 8, 2019
Shaffer, who is very knowledgable about counter-intelligence operations, having 30+ years of personal experience in such operations, makes astute observations that will send chills down your spine and should guide investigations into the origins of, what he believes was, inappropriate and illegal spying on the Trump campaign by the Obama Administration, FBI and CIA.
SUSAN RICE CYA MEMO
On 20 January 2017 — President Trump’s Inauguration Day — President Obama’s former National Security Advisor (NSA) Susan Rice sent a strange email to herself.
Rice appears to have used this email to document a January 5, 2017 Oval Office meeting between President Obama, former FBI Director James Comey and former Deputy Attorney General Sally Yates regarding Russian interference in the 2016 Presidential election.
In particular, Rice wrote: “President Obama began the conversation by stressing his continued commitment to ensuring that every aspect of this issue is handled by the intelligence and law enforcement communities ‘by the book.’ The President stressed that he is not asking about, initiating or instructing anything from a law enforcement perspective. He reiterated that our law enforcement team needs to proceed as it normally would ‘by the book.’ ”
‘By the book’ refers to Executive Order 12333 that governs all U.S. intelligence and counter-intelligence activities:
Part I – Goals, Directions, Duties, and Responsibilities with Respect to United States Intelligence Efforts
Part II – Conduct of Intelligence Activities
Part III – General Provisions
Pertinent provisions are noted below (italicized emphasis is ours):
1.1(a) All means, consistent with applicable Federal law and this order, and with full consideration of the rights of United States persons, shall be used to obtain reliable intelligence information to protect the United States and its interests.
1.1(b) The United States Government has a solemn obligation, and shall continue in the conduct of intelligence activities under this order, to protect fully the legal rights of all United States persons, including freedoms, civil liberties, and privacy rights guaranteed by Federal law.
2.5 Attorney General Approval. The Attorney General hereby is delegated the power to approve the use for intelligence purposes, within the United States or against a United States person abroad, of any technique for which a warrant would be required if undertaken for law enforcement purposes, provided that such techniques shall not be undertaken unless the Attorney General has determined in each case that there is probable cause to believe that the technique is directed against a foreign power or an agent of a foreign power. The authority delegated pursuant to this paragraph, including the authority to approve the use of electronic surveillance as defined in the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act of 1978, as amended, shall be exercised in accordance with that Act.
2.13 Limitation on Covert Action. No covert action may be conducted which is intended to influence United States political processes, public opinion, policies, or media.
3.2 Implementation. The President, supported by the NSC, and the Director shall issue such appropriate directives, procedures, and guidance as are necessary to implement this order. Heads of elements within the Intelligence Community shall issue appropriate procedures and supplementary directives consistent with this order.
Why did Susan Rice, who oversaw all intelligence activity from the White House, write such an unusual memo on her last day in office? Was it to provide cover for possible Obama Administration violations of EO 12333 provisions?
MISSING PREDICATES AND DEFENSIVE BRIEFINGS
Shaffer acknowledges that the FBI conducts counter-intelligence operations, but never against U.S. citizens without one or more of the following predicates:
U.S. citizen is linked to a terrorist organization
U.S. citizen is in contact with a foreign intelligence officer
U.S. citizen has suspicious family member(s) overseas
The second predicate is what may be in play here. However, Special Prosecutor Mueller did not indict Trump or any of his campaign advisors for conspiring with a foreign government, so contacts with Russian foreign intelligence officers must have been “incidental.” So what was the predicate for authorizing surveillance of a U.S. citizen?
The FBI is required to brief U.S. citizens if incidental contact either will happen or has occurred. The only way for the FBI to waive such a defensive briefing is for the White House / National Security Advisor (Susan Rice) to agree … which would have been known and approved by President Obama.
But if the Obama Administration thought one of Trump’s advisors (Papadopolous and/or Page) had nefarious intentions, why didn’t the FBI provide a defensive briefing to President Trump or one of his senior campaign officials who were former U.S. attorneys (Giuliani, Christie, Sessions)?
ILLEGITIMATE INTELLIGENCE
According to Andrew McCabe, former acting FBI Director, testified that the FISA warrant to spy on the Trump campaign wouldn’t have been approved without the “Steele Dossier.” But the dossier was Democrat funded opposition research that may have been purposely fed to Steele by Russian intelligence sources as disinformation to hurt then candidate and now President Trump. Yet no one has investigated the origins of the dossier? Not the FBI, not the CIA, not Special Prosecutor Bob Mueller? Why?
CIA / FBI JOINT TASK FORCE
In late-2015 / early-2016, John Brennan formed a CIA / FBI joint task force to investigate Trump / Russia connections with a DoD asset by the name of Stefan Helper, who applied for a job with the Trump administration and approached Trump adviser Papadopolous and others. Why was the CIA involving itself with domestic political spying operations when that is strictly against U.S. law?
UNMASKING FIASCO
As reported by Sara Carter, “American names are ordinarily redacted or minimized in electronic communication intercepts conducted by the National Security Agency (NSA) before being shared with outside intelligence sources. The names of Americans communicating with foreign persons are considered highly classified and are rarely unmasked. However, many senior officials in the Obama Administration unmasked more frequently than previous administrations. Sara Carter and others revealed in 2017 that senior Obama officials, including Susan Rice, former United Nation’s Ambassador Samantha Powers, former CIA Director John Brennan, and former Director of National Intelligence James Clapper had made thousands of requests. Rice and Powers had made unmasking requests of private communications of members of the Trump campaign. Those unmasking requests appeared to begin in July 2016 around the time Trump secured the GOP nomination and accelerated after Trump’s election in November and through the transition in January.” Why haven’t the Office of the Director of National Intelligence and the National Security Agency granted access to lawmakers to review the hundreds of unmasking requests made on Americans by Senior Obama Administration officials? Why hasn’t anyone been prosecuted for leaking to the press the unmasking of General Flynn? Why isn’t anyone investigating electronic communication spying by one political party against another?
CHANGING NARRATIVES
Shaffer finds it amusing that the Democratic and left-wing media narrative has recently changed …
Then: President Trump is crazy, we didn’t spy on him!
Now: President Trump is crazy, we had to spy on him!
Once Attorney General Barr announced that he was looking into the origins of the Trump / Russia investigation, the FBI had to come clean. Someone in the FBI suddenly leaked secret intelligence information to the friendly NY Times that acknowledged the FBI had sent a “honeypot” undercover operative dangling money and sex in the hope of entrapping George Papadopolous in a crime.
Even James Clapper now admits there was spying on the Trump campaign, as recorded in an interview on CNN two days ago.
Besides the examples of spying described above, there were most likely other CIA / FBI undercover operatives (e.g., Stefan Halper, Josef Mifsud, Alexander Downer, et al) sent to spy on the Trump campaign.
So, Trump was right — he and his campaign were spied on.
INQUIRING MINDS WANT TO KNOW
According to a May 2019 CNN poll, more than two-thirds of Americans believe Congress should investigate the origins of the Justice Department’s inquiry into Russian meddling in the 2016 election. But we believe Congress is too partisan to conduct a fair investigation. We think it is better left to career government attorneys with impeccable reputations.
DOJ’s Attorney General Barr and Inspector General Horowitz are such men. They should thoroughly investigate the origins of spying against the Trump campaign by Obama Administration senior officials and FBI / CIA leadership. We must learn if they violated EO 12333, Paragraph 2.13 Limitation on Covert Action. No covert action may be conducted which is intended to influence United States political processes, public opinion, policies, or media.
Speeches and TV interviews by Clapper, Brennan and Comey since their departure from government have validated Americans’ concerns about extreme partisanship and lack of objectivity in leaders who hold tremendous intelligence gathering power over our basic rights and freedoms.
We must find out exactly what happened, hold any wrongdoers accountable, and take proper and immediate action to prevent spying for political purposes from ever happening again.