FACT CHECK: Yes, Obama Could Have Used British To Wiretap Trump
— FOX & friends (@foxandfriends) March 14, 2017
Pro-Trump former Breitbart employee John Nolte reported this in The Daily Wire Tuesday, alleging that Obama could have gone outside American chains of command to the British to get what he needed without any warrants or FISA judge approval.
As of this morning, however, three sources say this is exactly what Obama did, which would help to finally make sense of this New York Times report from January 19 — a report that clearly stated the Obama White House was receiving reports from Trump wiretaps” [emphasis added with the print headline]
The F.B.I. is leading the investigations, aided by the National Security Agency, the C.I.A. and the Treasury Department’s financial crimes unit. The investigators have accelerated their efforts in recent weeks but have found no conclusive evidence of wrongdoing, the officials said. One official said intelligence reports based on some of the wiretapped communications had been provided to the White House.
Fact check: TRUE
Is this correct? Could this explain everything?Data revealed by none other than traitor Edward Snowden’s PRISM data given to Wikileaks supports the claim. The Guardian reported in 2013:
The details of the NSA payments, and the influence the US has over Britain, are set out in GCHQ’s annual “investment portfolios”. The papers show that the NSA gave GCHQ £22.9m in 2009. The following year the NSA’s contribution increased to £39.9m, which included £4m to support GCHQ’s work for Nato forces in Afghanistan, and £17.2m for the agency’s Mastering the Internet project, which gathers and stores vast amounts of “raw” information ready for analysis.
The NSA also paid £15.5m towards redevelopments at GCHQ’s sister site in Bude, north Cornwall, which intercepts communications from the transatlantic cables that carry internet traffic. “Securing external NSA funding for Bude has protected (GCHQ’s core) budget,” the paper said.
Wired reported in 2015:
Earlier this year the Investigatory Powers Tribunal in the UK ruled that British intelligence services acted unlawfully when they accessed the private communications of millions of people that had been collected by the NSA under its mass-surveillance programs known as PRISM and Upstream and shared with the British spy agency. The PRISM program, which began in 2007, allowed the NSA to collect data in bulk from U.S. companies like Yahoo and Google. The Upstream program involved the collection of data from taps placed on hundreds of undersea cables outside the U.S.
Privacy International, an international movement to protect data privacy and contest state surveillance, wrote in 2014:
Details of previously unknown internal policies, which GCHQ was forced to reveal during legal proceedings challenging their surveillance practices in the wake of the Snowden revelations, reveal that intelligence agencies can gain access to bulk data collected from US cables or through US corporate partnerships without having to obtain a warrant from the Secretary of State. This position seems to conflict with reassurances by the Intelligence Services Committee in July 2013 that whenever GCHQ seeks information from the US a warrant is in place.
The “arrangements”, as they are called by Government, also suggest that intercept material received from foreign intelligence agencies is not subject to the already weak safeguards that are applied to communications that are intercepted by the UK’s Tempora programme. On the face of the descriptions provided to the claimants, the British intelligence agencies can trawl through foreign intelligence material without meaningful restrictions and can keep such material, which includes both communications content and metadata, for up to two years.
There it is, folks, in black and white. The Obama administration oversaw PRISM and Tempura data since 2009, and the former president himself was very familiar with how it worked and what it could do.
It’s looking more and more like Trump’s claims have more legs than the liberal media, Sen. John McCain, and Obama lickspittles give it credit for. Maybe this is why Obama was reportedly “furious” after Trump tweeted his “wiretap” accusations.
They all reported that Trump claims were “without evidence.” Well, here’s some evidence. I suppose the main stream media will now ask for names and on-the-record remarks. Because their anonymous sources are never to be questioned, but Napolitanos are automatically questionable since they don’t support the preferred narrative.
The truth will eventually emerge here, so if there’s some cathartic confessions necessary, now, during a blizzard, would be the best time to bury them. I expect we’ll see more on this development.