Tuesday, 07 March 2017

Did DOJ Order the Bugging of Trump Tower?

Written by 

Did the Department of Justice hack the Trump campaign? As the story of possible Obama administration surveillance of the Trump Tower evolves, this has arisen as a distinct possibility.

While dismissed by the Fake News (mainstream) Media as a free-association salvo by a loose-cannon president, Donald Trump’s allegation that Barack Obama monitored communications at his Trump Tower was never too far-fetched.

First, radio host and former DOJ chief of staff Mark Levin pointed out (videos below) that the evidence indicating spying on President-Elect Trump is already on the public record — documented by liberal media.

As to this and quite amusingly, but damnably, the New York Times recently excoriated Trump for leveling his accusations “without offering any proof” despite the fact that the Times published that proof itself in January. As The New American’s C. Mitchell Shaw reported yesterday, “That article, published on January 19 (online under the headline, ‘Intercepted Russian Communications Part of Inquiry Into Trump Associates’) and January 20 (in print under the headline, ‘Wiretapped Data Used In Inquiry Of Trump Aides’) included a reference to ‘some of the wiretapped communications [that] had been provided to the White House.’”

This prompted Shaw to quip, “Apparently the folks at the Times don’t bother to read the Times — though that is probably just as well.”

 

And with evidence for Towergate mounting, some observers are pointing the finger at a possible culprit: The DOJ under former attorney general Loretta Lynch.

First, ex-Secret Service agent Dan Bongino explained in a recent video how Trump could have become aware of Obama administration surveillance. As WND.com related, “‘The Secret Service does ECM sweeps, electronic counter-measures, where they go in frequently and look for listening devices, radio frequencies, all kinds of things to make sure the president or president-elect is not being, in fact, wiretapped or listened in on on specific phone lines,’ Bongino revealed.”

“The former agent, noting Trump had Secret Service protection as a candidate, thinks it’s…likely the Secret Service discovered something while performing one of their ECM sweeps of Trump Tower and later found out it was the DOJ that had ordered the surveillance,” WND continued.

Then National Review, making the case that “the Democrat–media election-hacking narrative just collapsed,” also implicates the DOJ in its analysis:

At a certain point, if compelling evidence of collusion between the Trump campaign and Russia to steal the election did not materialize, the much more interesting question becomes “How did the government obtain all this information that has been leaked to the media to prop up the story?”

The most plausible answer to that question: The Obama administration, through the Justice Department and the FBI, was investigating the associates of the opposition party’s presidential nominee, and perhaps even the nominee himself, during the campaign. Otherwise, what explanation can there be for all of the investigative information — much of it classified, and thus illegal to disclose — that has been funneled to the press?

Finally, American Thinker wonders if the Democrats are “scrambling for a fall guy on the wiretap of [the]Trump campaign” and theorizes “that the denials of any knowledge of wiretapping by [FBI director] James Comey and [ex-director of national intelligence] James Clapper leave lovely Loretta Lynch exposed. Somebody gave the nod. And met secretly with Bill Clinton in her private jet at Phoenix Airport.”

(Note: Mark Levin pointed out that “Clapper's denial ‘contradicts every piece of significant reporting over the last six months,’” Fox News informs.)

Of course, this all is still conjecture. Yet if the DOJ did give the order, it’s a given that Obama would have known. American Thinker writes that the investigation into Towergate “will include the Watergate-like probability that conversations of Trump campaign officials were being listened to and the conversations leaked to the media. There is criminal liability to consider, and the need to pin responsibility on someone. All skillful criminals (the ones that stay out of jail for the big crimes) understand the need for a fall guy.”

No doubt, but is it conceivable that Lynch would fall on her sword and take sole responsibility for ordering possibly illegal surveillance?

Whatever Barack Obama’s culpability in this, or in anything else, he likely didn’t see much of a downside to breaking the law. This is for a simple reason: It’s unlikely he ever thought he’d be held accountable.

It’s not just that Obama had ruled out the possibility of a Trump presidency; it also appears likely he believed that Democrats’ electoral advantage — ever intensified by leftist indoctrination via media, academia and entertainment, and immigration-fired demographic change — would ensure long-term Democrat executive-branch control.

Note when considering this that Obama appears to live in a delusive bubble, having refused to even peruse intelligence reports contrary to his agenda and having found it unfathomable that the Democrats, with him at the helm, could lose the 2010 midterm elections.

And just as he didn’t count on that, he didn’t foresee an anti-establishment wave that would vault into power someone prone to turning over apple carts. Mind you, this is yet another reason the Left might target Attorney General Jeff Sessions: If he lives up to his reputation, he may sift many, many matters to their very bottom.

Bottom-dwellers, beware. 

Please review our Comment Policy before posting a comment

Affiliates and Friends

Social Media