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 an expanded version of that case, including events that Levin did not mention specifically but are important to the overall timeline. June 2016: FISA request. The Obama administration files a request with the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court (FISA) to monitor communications involving Donald Trump and several advisers. The request, uncharacteristically, is denied. July: Russia joke. Wikileaks releases emails from the Democratic National Committee that show an effort to prevent Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-VT) from winning the presidential nomination. In a press conference, Donald 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. October: Podesta emails. In October, Wikileaks releases the emails of Clinton campaign chair John Podesta, rolling out batches every day until the election, creating new mini-scandals. The Clinton campaign blames Trump and the Russians. October: FISA request. 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, Andrew McCarthy at National Review later notes. The Obama administration is now monitoring an opposing presidential campaign using the high-tech surveillance powers of the federal intelligence services. January 2017: Buzzfeed/CNN dossier. Buzzfeed releases, and CNN reports, a supposed intelligence “dossier†compiled by a foreign former spy. It purports to show continuous contact between Russia and the Trump campaign, and says that 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 and that it had been circulating in Washington. January: Obama expands NSA sharing. As Michael Walsh later notes, and as the New York Times reports, 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, could make it easier for intelligence on private citizens to be circulated improperly or leaked. January: Times report. The New York Times reports, on the eve of Inauguration Day, that several agencies — the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI), the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA), the National Security Agency (NSA) and the Treasury Department are monitoring several associates of the Trump campaign suspected of Russian ties. Other news outlets also report the exisentence of “a multiagency working group to coordinate investigations across the government,†though it is unclear how they found out, since the investigations would have been secret and involved classified information. February: Mike Flynn scandal. Reports emerge that the FBI intercepted a conversation in 2016 between future National Security Adviser 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 would later fire as acting Attorney General for insubordination, is involved in the investigation. In the end, Flynn resigns over having misled Vice President Mike Pence (perhaps inadvertently) about the content of the conversation. February: Times claims extensive Russian contacts. The New York Times cites “four current and former American officials†in reporting that 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. March: the Washington Post targets Jeff Sessions. The Washington Post reports that Attorney General Jeff Sessions had contact twice with the Russian ambassador during the campaign — once at a Heritage Foundation event and once at a meeting in Sessions’s Senate office. The Post suggests that 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 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 really means “disseminateâ€: officials spread evidence throughout other government agencies “to leave a clear trail of intelligence for government investigators†and perhaps the media as well.In summary: 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.
Saw this today. Interesting stuff. Will be interested to see how all this is going to go down. Not looking good for the dems. I know...Levin, right wing conspiracy, blah blah blah...But why did Obama make two FISA request to monitor Trump? That can't be good.
What's the source? Because if it's Levin, then it's pretty much accepted as garbage.Any link to, or substantiation for, any of that?
Accepted by whom? You and Joy Behar? Better do your research. This guy isn't "garbage."He's just compiling info from your beloved New York Times and other pinko yellow commie rags.
Garbage was too strong. I think you can generously call him "biased."
What are you disputing? That there were FISA requests?
There wasn't a link anywhere in your post and your source was unclear. Just trying to see the evidence behind the block quote.
Trump’s ‘evidence’ for Obama wiretap claims relies on sketchy, anonymously sourced reportsBy Glenn Kessler March 5 Trump accuses Obama of ordering Trump Tower wiretap Play Video2:28President Trump accused former president Barack Obama of wiretapping his calls in Trump Tower. Here's a timeline of their relationship since inauguration. (Video: Thomas Johnson, Claritza Jimenez, Monica Akhtar/Photo: Jonathan Newton/The Washington Post)“How low has President Obama gone to tapp [sic] my phones during the very sacred election process. This is Nixon/Watergate. Bad (or sick) guy!â€â€” President Trump, tweet, March 4, 2017“Reports concerning potentially politically motivated investigations ahead of the 2016 election are very troubling.â€â€” White House press secretary Sean Spicer, statement, March 5President Trump’s explosive allegation that former president Barack Obama wiretapped him is based on — what?That has been the question ever since Trump sent provocative early-morning tweets over the weekend, because he and his staff have provided no evidence.At The Fact Checker, we require the accuser to provide the evidence for a dramatic claim. We asked Saturday and received no answer.However, in calling for a congressional investigation of apparent Russian meddling in the election to also look into Trump’s allegation, White House press secretary Sean Spicer on March 5 referred to “reports concerning potentially politically motivated investigations.†That suggests the tweets were based on media reports, not information the president might have received from inside the government.Our colleague Robert Costa has reported that White House aides have internally circulated an article on Breitbart titled “Mark Levin to Congress: Investigate Obama’s ‘Silent Coup’ vs. Trump.†Breitbart is a right-leaning news organization that is a rather unreliable source of information. Often the material that is published is derivative and twisted in misleading ways.However, a White House spokesman told The Fact Checker that the White House instead is relying on reports “from BBC, Heat Street, New York Times, Fox News, among others.†He provided a list of five articles.Let’s explore the sources of the president’s claim.The FactsWe are going to start with the Breitbart article, which lists two key data points that appear to relate to the president’s claim:June 2016: FISA [Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act] request. The Obama administration files a request with the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court to monitor communications involving Donald Trump and several advisers. The request, uncharacteristically, is denied.October: FISA request. 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, Andrew McCarthy at National Review later notes. The Obama administration is now monitoring an opposing presidential campaign using the high-tech surveillance powers of the federal intelligence services.But these data points are not based on reporting by Breitbart. Instead, Breitbart links to a report that appeared in Heat Street, another right-leaning news organization: “EXCLUSIVE: FBI ‘Granted FISA Warrant’ Covering Trump Camp’s Ties To Russia.†It was written by Louise Mensch, a former Tory member of the British Parliament and an independent journalist. This is one of the news reports identified by the White House, and it’s the most important one.This article claimed: “Two separate sources with links to the counter-intelligence community have confirmed to Heat Street that the FBI sought, and was granted, a FISA court warrant in October, giving counter-intelligence permission to examine the activities of ‘U.S. persons’ in Donald Trump’s campaign with ties to Russia.â€Mensch claimed that the warrant was related to an FBI investigation of a possible secret channel of email communication from the Trump Organization to two Russian banks — an investigation that apparently went nowhere. Her article makes no mention of a wiretap.“The FISA warrant was granted in connection with the investigation of suspected activity between the server [in Trump Tower] and two banks, SVB Bank and Alfa Bank. However, it is thought in the intelligence community that the warrant covers any ‘US person’ connected to this investigation, and thus covers Donald Trump and at least three further men who have either formed part of his campaign or acted as his media surrogates,†Mensch wrote.(Note: While Heat Street says the server in question is in Trump Tower, other reports have suggested the server actually was located in Philadelphia. That’s because the Trump domain was controlled by a company that outsourced emails to another company called Listrak, which actually operates the physical server in a data center in Philadelphia.)The Washington Post for months has sought to confirm this report of a FISA warrant related to the Trump campaign but has been unable to do so. Presumably, other major news organizations have tried to do so as well. So one has to take this claim with a huge dose of skepticism. Indeed, the New York Times reported before the election that the FBI “ultimately concluded that there could be an innocuous explanation, like a marketing email or spam, for the computer contacts†with the Russian banks.Interestingly, as far as we can tell, only two other reports have touched on this FISA claim, and they also have British connections. One is a report in the BBC from January, which the White House cited as a source. The BBC reported:Lawyers from the National Security Division in the Department of Justice then drew up an application. They took it to the secret US court that deals with intelligence, the FISA court, named after the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act. They wanted permission to intercept the electronic records from two Russian banks.Their first application, in June, was rejected outright by the judge. They returned with a more narrowly drawn order in July and were rejected again. Finally, before a new judge, the order was granted, on 15 October, three weeks before election day.Neither Mr Trump nor his associates are named in the FISA order, which would only cover foreign citizens or foreign entities — in this case the Russian banks. But ultimately, the investigation is looking for transfers of money from Russia to the United States, each one, if proved, a felony offense.A lawyer — outside the Department of Justice but familiar with the case — told me that three of Mr Trump’s associates were the subject of the inquiry. “But it’s clear this is about Trump,†he said.Finally, there was a report in the Guardian, which reported on the supposed June FISA request but could not confirm the October one. (The White House did not cite the Guardian.)The Guardian has learned that the FBI applied for a warrant from the foreign intelligence surveillance (FISA) court over the summer in order to monitor four members of the Trump team suspected of irregular contacts with Russian officials. The FISA court turned down the application asking FBI counter-intelligence investigators to narrow its focus. According to one report, the FBI was finally granted a warrant in October, but that has not been confirmed, and it is not clear whether any warrant led to a full investigation.Separately, McClatchy, in a January article mostly focused on whether money from the Kremlin covertly aided Trump’s campaign, reported one source had confirmed “the FBI had obtained a warrant on Oct. 15 from the highly secretive Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court allowing investigators access to bank records and other documents about potential payments and money transfers related to Russia.†This echoed the BBC report, but is much different than the Heat Street account. (The White House also did not mention this report as a source for Trump’s claim.)The White House provided three other sources. Two, a National Review article and a Fox News interview, are simply derivative of the Heat Street article, with no independent confirmation. (The National Review article first speculated about wiretaps, and was cited by Breitbart.) The third is a New York Times report that intelligence agencies “are examining intercepted communications and financial transactions†as part of a probe of possible links between Russian officials and Trump campaign aides. (We recall that the president has previously deemed Times reporting on this matter as “fake news.â€)So what do we have here?Only one article, with British roots, reported that a FISA court order was granted in October to examine possible activity between two Russian banks and a computer server in the Trump Tower. This claim has not been confirmed by U.S. news organizations. Moreover, no article says that Obama requested the order or that it resulted in the tapping of Trump’s phone lines. The server, in fact, may not have even been in Trump Tower.(Our colleague Ellen Nakashima reported how difficult it is to obtain a wiretap of a U.S. citizen as part of a foreign intelligence investigation.)Moreover, the articles do not support the White House’s claim that these were “potentially politically motivated investigations†led by Obama. The articles all suggest that the FISA requests — if they happened — were done by the intelligence agencies and the FBI. The BBC says the investigation was prompted by a tip from a Baltic country about possible criminal activity:Last April, the CIA director was shown intelligence that worried him. It was — allegedly — a tape recording of a conversation about money from the Kremlin going into the US presidential campaign.It was passed to the US by an intelligence agency of one of the Baltic States. The CIA cannot act domestically against American citizens so a joint counter-intelligence task force was created.We should also note that a spokesman for Obama has denied the allegation that the former president ordered a wiretap on Trump.Moreover, James Clapper, the former director of national intelligence under Obama, told NBC’s “Meet the Press†on Sunday that in the national intelligence activity he oversaw, “there was no such wiretap activity mounted against the president, the president-elect at the time, as a candidate or against his campaign.†Clapper said as intelligence director he would have known about a “FISA court order on something like this. Absolutely, I can deny it.â€Asked again whether there was a FISA court order to monitor Trump Tower, Clapper replied: “Not to my knowledge.â€Update: FBI Director James B. Comey asked the Justice Department to issue a statement refuting President Trump’s claim that Obama ordered a wiretap of Trump’s phones before the election, U.S. officials told news organizations.Update, March 6: Mensch, the author of the Heat Street article cited by the White House, tweeted she never reported there was wiretap and instead pointed the finger at Breitbart (which as we noted above, appears not to have done independent reporting).Quote@LouiseMenschI see a lot of panic from Trumpers now I'm pointing out Paul Wood, Julian Borger and I did not report any 'Wiretap' https://heatst.com/world/exclusive-fbi-granted-fisa-warrant-covering-trump-camps-ties-to-russia/ …Quote@LouiseMenschBBC, @McClatchyDC, @JulianBorger and I, none of us report wire at Trump Tower, just warrant. If there IS one, who leaked to @BreitbartNews?The Pinocchio TestWhile the Trump White House cited five news reports to justify its request for a congressional investigation, only two actually are relevant.It’s certainly ironic that the Trump White House — which has heavily criticized articles relying on anonymous sources — now relies on articles based on anonymous sources that cite information that has not been confirmed by any U.S. news organization. It would be amusing if it were not so sad.After all, Clapper, who presumably would be aware of a FISA court order, has issued an on-the-record denial.Even if these media reports are accepted as accurate, neither back up Trump’s claims that Obama ordered the tapping of his phone calls. Moreover, they also do not back up the administration’s revised claim of politically motivated investigations.We’re still waiting for the evidence. In the meantime, Trump earns Four Pinocchios.Four Pinocchios
@LouiseMenschI see a lot of panic from Trumpers now I'm pointing out Paul Wood, Julian Borger and I did not report any 'Wiretap' https://heatst.com/world/exclusive-fbi-granted-fisa-warrant-covering-trump-camps-ties-to-russia/ …
@LouiseMenschBBC, @McClatchyDC, @JulianBorger and I, none of us report wire at Trump Tower, just warrant. If there IS one, who leaked to @BreitbartNews?
Demonstrably false.Link to those "pinko yellow commie rags".https://twitter.com/GlennKesslerWP/status/838769010044993537
It has been debunked.
Not in the least. Read that pandering shit. "If it was true we probably would have already reported on it. Since we didn't? It must not be true...."When are you going to learn? Trump is way smarter than you think.
Wrong. Here's something from the guy who was in Less Than Zero. http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/445504/obama-camp-disingenuous-denials-fisa-surveillance-trump?utm_content=buffer07b53&utm_medium=social&utm_source=facebook.com&utm_campaign=buffer
I'm going to level with you and say the claim itself has not been debunked, but the Breitbart article and its "sources" have.It hasn't been proven one way or another at this point, and the burden of proof is on Trump, especially given the incendiary nature of the allegation.
1 the claim itself has not been debunked2 Breitbart article and its "sources" have3 It hasn't been proven one way or another at this point, and the burden of proof is on Trump, especially given the incendiary nature of the allegation.
You think National Review is "pinko libruhl" bullshit?
My Twitter was hacked would be the excuse I'd use.
82 Replies
20340 Views