Mark Levin to GOP: Investigate Obama's 'Silent Coup' vs. Trump

Search

Rx Normal
Joined
Oct 23, 2013
Messages
48,643
Tokens
Mark Levin to GOP: Investigate Obama's 'Silent Coup' vs. Trump

JOEL B. POLLAK 3 Mar 2017

Radio host Mark Levin used his Thursday evening show to outline the known steps taken by President Barack Obama’s administration in its last months to undermine Donald Trump’s presidential campaign and, later, his new administration.


Levin called Obama’s effort “police state” tactics, and suggested that Obama’s actions, rather than conspiracy theories about alleged Russian interference in the presidential election to help Trump, should be the target of congressional investigation.

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.

1. 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.

2. 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.

3. 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.

4. 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.

5. 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.

6. 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.

7. 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.

8. 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.

9. 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.

10. 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 “disseminate”: 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.


Levin called the effort a “silent coup” by the Obama administration and demanded that it be investigated.


In addition, Levin castigated Republicans in Congress for focusing their attention on Trump and Attorney General Sessions rather than Obama.

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.

https://www.breitbart.com/politics/...zaiUbeKFxDL6BubCv8mTx_NO1a495xTTa3We2jhw2TKQs

 

Rx Normal
Joined
Oct 23, 2013
Messages
48,643
Tokens
DVdEmvyUMAU9JeS.jpg
 

Member
Joined
Nov 23, 2004
Messages
16,094
Tokens
As president, Trump has the power to direct the FBI to investigate such things. Why doesn't he?
 

Life's a bitch, then you die!
Joined
Jul 10, 2007
Messages
28,910
Tokens
As president, Trump has the power to direct the FBI to investigate such things. Why doesn't he?
Good question, I've been wondering that myself. Maybe he figures Mueller will get around to it eventually.
 

Nirvana Shill
Joined
Oct 20, 2001
Messages
28,476
Tokens
timing is everything in life.. my guess , this damn will burst sooner or later
 

Member
Joined
Nov 23, 2004
Messages
16,094
Tokens
timing is everything in life.. my guess , this damn will burst sooner or later

That is my theory on why we haven't seen anyone indicted with conspiracy charges. All of those charges and all of those involved will be indicted in one big conspiracy indictment, possible RICO case.

But who knows, I've been wrong before. I'm content to see how this all plays out assuming that Mueller is thorough and nabs everyone. If he snatches up the Clintons, Obama, or any deep-state conspirators that's all for the better in my book.
 

Nirvana Shill
Joined
Oct 20, 2001
Messages
28,476
Tokens
That is my theory on why we haven't seen anyone indicted with conspiracy charges. All of those charges and all of those involved will be indicted in one big conspiracy indictment, possible RICO case.

But who knows, I've been wrong before. I'm content to see how this all plays out assuming that Mueller is thorough and nabs everyone. If he snatches up the Clintons, Obama, or any deep-state conspirators that's all for the better in my book.

for me , DOJ and FBI officials resigning or getting fired from this agencies are more of a red flag , then process crimes after the investigation began
 

Member
Joined
Nov 23, 2004
Messages
16,094
Tokens
for me , DOJ and FBI officials resigning or getting fired from this agencies are more of a red flag , then process crimes after the investigation began

I agree that DOJ and FBI officials getting fired or resigning is a red-flag. Andrew McCabe thought so anyway when Comey was fired by Trump and then went on TV to tell everyone he did it because of Russia. Good point.

You keep saying "process crimes" but Manafort was charged with:

The defendant stands convicted of the serious crimes of tax fraud, bank fraud, and failing to file a foreign bank account report. Manafort was the lead perpetrator and a direct beneficiary of each offense. And while some of these offenses are commonly prosecuted, there was nothing ordinary about the millions of dollars involved in the defendant’s crimes, the duration of his criminal conduct, or the sophistication of his schemes.1 Together with the relevant criminal conduct, Manafort’s misconduct involved more than $16 million in unreported income resulting in more than $6 million in federal taxes owed, more than $55 million hidden in foreign bank accounts, and more than $25 million secured from financial institutions through lies resulting in a fraud loss of more than $6 million. Manafort committed these crimes over an extended period of time, from at least 2010 to 2016. His criminal decisions were not momentary or limited in time; they were routine.
...
Finally, Manafort pled guilty in September 2018 in the United States District Court for the District of Columbia to others crimes committed over an even longer period.

Millions in tax fraud, bank fraud and millions in foreign bank accounts. Sounds like more than "process crimes" to me. Unless of course you are referring to how Manafort fucked himself and his plea deal by, again, LYING to prosecutors about Russian contacts.


III.
OSC has established by a preponderance of the evidence that the defendant
intentionally made multiple false statements to the FBI, the OSC, and the grand
jury concerning matters that were material to the investigation: his interactions and
communications with Kilimnik.

IV.
OSC has established by a preponderance of the evidence that on October 5, 2018,
the defendant intentionally made false statements that were material to another DOJ
investigation.
 

Nirvana Shill
Joined
Oct 20, 2001
Messages
28,476
Tokens
I agree that DOJ and FBI officials getting fired or resigning is a red-flag. Andrew McCabe thought so anyway when Comey was fired by Trump and then went on TV to tell everyone he did it because of Russia. Good point.

You keep saying "process crimes" but Manafort was charged with:



Millions in tax fraud, bank fraud and millions in foreign bank accounts. Sounds like more than "process crimes" to me. Unless of course you are referring to how Manafort fucked himself and his plea deal by, again, LYING to prosecutors about Russian contacts.

Manafort crimes have nothing to do with Trump and collusion. these tax fraud cases were 10 years earlier.. and the only reason he went after Manafort was to some how flip on Trump.. problem for Mueller , nothing to flip with .. came up empty on that
 

Member
Joined
Nov 23, 2004
Messages
16,094
Tokens
Manafort crimes have nothing to do with Trump and collusion. these tax fraud cases were 10 years earlier.. and the only reason he went after Manafort was to some how flip on Trump.. problem for Mueller , nothing to flip with .. came up empty on that

Manafort was Trumps campaign manager. The special counsels directive:

The Special Counsel is authorized to conduct the investigation confinned by then-FBI Director James 8. Corney in testimony before the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence on March 20, 2017, including:
(i)

any links and/or coordination between the Russian government and individuals
associated with the campaign of President Donald Trump
; and

Seems perfectly within the scope of the investigation to me.
 

Nirvana Shill
Joined
Oct 20, 2001
Messages
28,476
Tokens
Manafort was Trumps campaign manager. The special counsels directive:



Seems perfectly within the scope of the investigation to me.

the crimes that he's plead out to are crimes from a decade ago.. No crime is alleged during his campaign stay.. Unless , you have one to point out that I missed.
 

Member
Joined
Nov 23, 2004
Messages
16,094
Tokens
the crimes that he's plead out to are crimes from a decade ago.. No crime is alleged during his campaign stay.. Unless , you have one to point out that I missed.

One of the indictments against Manafort was regarding money he got while lobbying for a Pro-Russian political party in Ukraine. If the argument is "no collusion with Russia" OK, well is it at least looking into the fact that the Trump campaign manager was lobbying for a Pro-Russia political party?

I don't know if there is another indictment that shows a direct link between trump campaign and Russia, but I thought I read somewhere that Manafort provided 2016 voter polling data to a Russian national. Not sure if that is a court indictment though.

Mueller investigation has completed yet and we don't know what other indictments are out there and under seal. I'm willing to wait and see how this plays out. Maybe trump is innocent but Manafort looks guilty af.

Sorry for any typos, I'm on mobile
 

I'm from the government and I'm here to help
Joined
Sep 21, 2004
Messages
32,958
Tokens
As president, Trump has the power to direct the FBI to investigate such things. Why doesn't he?
he tweeted about it last may but don't think there was every an official order from the White House. would be typical Trump...use big words but not back them up

[FONT=&quot]“I hereby demand, and will do so officially tomorrow, that the Department of Justice look into whether or not the FBI/DOJ infiltrated or surveilled the Trump Campaign for Political Purposes—and if any such demands or requests were made by people within the Obama Administration!”[/FONT]

 

Life's a bitch, then you die!
Joined
Jul 10, 2007
Messages
28,910
Tokens
he tweeted about it last may but don't think there was every an official order from the White House. would be typical Trump...use big words but not back them up

“I hereby demand, and will do so officially tomorrow, that the Department of Justice look into whether or not the FBI/DOJ infiltrated or surveilled the Trump Campaign for Political Purposes—and if any such demands or requests were made by people within the Obama Administration!”

It must be a bitch to be ignored by the people you direct. Or maybe not.
 

New member
Joined
Jan 18, 2005
Messages
6,890
Tokens
If he snatches up the Clintons, Obama, or any deep-state conspirators that's all for the better in my book.

We all know you will not be happy or approve if something like that happens...
 

Member
Joined
Nov 23, 2004
Messages
16,094
Tokens
We all know you will not be happy or approve if something like that happens...

You must be new. I have never voted for a Clinton and absolutely despise them -- wouldnt bother me a bit to seem them go down.

No I wouldn't be any happier about Obama going down than you would if Trump goes down. I didn't like everything Obama did, but he did an alright job of it all things considered. I think we had much more global influence under Obama than anyone else before him and certainly at the present.

And say what you want, but he authorized the call to send the seal team in to kill Bin Laden.
 

Life's a bitch, then you die!
Joined
Jul 10, 2007
Messages
28,910
Tokens
You must be new. I have never voted for a Clinton and absolutely despise them -- wouldnt bother me a bit to seem them go down.

No I wouldn't be any happier about Obama going down than you would if Trump goes down. I didn't like everything Obama did, but he did an alright job of it all things considered. I think we had much more global influence under Obama than anyone else before him and certainly at the present.

And say what you want, but he authorized the call to send the seal team in to kill Bin Laden.
 

New member
Joined
Jan 18, 2005
Messages
6,890
Tokens
You must be new. I have never voted for a Clinton and absolutely despise them -- wouldnt bother me a bit to seem them go down.

No I wouldn't be any happier about Obama going down than you would if Trump goes down. I didn't like everything Obama did, but he did an alright job of it all things considered. I think we had much more global influence under Obama than anyone else before him and certainly at the present.

And say what you want, but he authorized the call to send the seal team in to kill Bin Laden.

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

Man you are a good comedian...
 

Forum statistics

Threads
1,108,114
Messages
13,448,589
Members
99,393
Latest member
jaybone34
The RX is the sports betting industry's leading information portal for bonuses, picks, and sportsbook reviews. Find the best deals offered by a sportsbook in your state and browse our free picks section.FacebookTwitterInstagramContact Usforum@therx.com