When Richard Nixon was President he asked a group of professional burglars to wiretap the Democrats’ phones at Democrat headquarters at the Watergate Hotel in Washington. He was later impeached and resigned from office.
During the 2016 Trump campaign, Trump said he thought his phone was being tapped at Trump Tower. People ridiculed him and called him paranoid. Now it has come out that his phone was tapped after all at the direction of Obama and Hillary.
In a series of tweets posted in the early morning hours of 4 March 2017, President Donald Trump accused former president Barack Obama of having “wire tapped” phones at his Trump Tower headquarters in October 2016, just weeks before that year’s presidential election. President Trump likened this alleged activity to “McCarthyism” and “Nixon/Watergate”:
Hillary and the DNC paid a foreign spy Christopher Steel anywhere between one and ten million dollars to come up with a phony Russian dossier on Trump so they could present it to a FISA court and get a warrant to tap Trump’s aid’s (Carter Page) phone. Trump’s phone in Trump Tower was allegedly also tapped.
“How low has President Obama gone to tap my phones during the very sacred election process. This is Nixon/Watergate. Bad (or sick) guy!” Trump tweeted.
“Is it legal for a sitting President to be ‘wire tapping’ a race for president prior to an election? Turned down by court earlier. A NEW LOW!… I’d bet a good lawyer could make a great case out of the fact that President Obama was tapping my phones in October, just prior to Election!,” he continued.
Trump is “absolutely right” to claim he was wiretapped and monitored, a former NSA official claimed Monday, adding that the administration risks falling victim to further leaks if it continues to run afoul of the intelligence community.
“I think the president is absolutely right. His phone calls, everything he did electronically, was being monitored,” Bill Binney, a 36-year veteran of the National Security Agency who resigned in protest from the organization in 2001, told Fox Business on Monday. “Everyone’s conversations are being monitored and stored,” Binney said.
Binney resigned from NSA shortly after the U.S. approach to intelligence changed following the attacks of Sept. 11, 2001. He “became a whistleblower after discovering that elements of a data-monitoring program he had helped develop — nicknamed Thin Thread — were being used to spy on Americans,” PBS reported.
On Monday he came to the defense of the president, whose allegations on social media over the weekend that outgoing President Barack Obama tapped his phones during the 2016 campaign have rankled Washington.
Binney seemed to go further than the assessment of former Attorney General Michael Mukasey, a George W. Bush administration official, who offered a tacit defense of Trump to ABC on Sunday.
“This is the difference between being correct and right,” Mukasey said. “The president was not correct in saying President Obama ordered a tap on a server in Trump Tower. However, I think he’s right in that there was surveillance and that it was conducted at the behest of the attorney general – at the Justice Department through the FISA court.”
But Binney told Sean Hannity’s radio show earlier Monday, “I think the FISA court’s basically totally irrelevant.”
The judges on the FISA court are “not even concerned, nor are they involved in any way with the Executive Order 12333 collection,” Binney said during the radio interview. “That’s all done outside of the courts. And outside of the Congress.”Binney told Fox the laws that fall under the FISA court’s jurisdiction are “simply out there for show” and “trying to show that the government is following the law, and being looked at and overseen by the Senate and House intelligence committees and the courts.”
“That’s not the main collection program for NSA,” Binney said.
What Binney did not delve into, however, was if President Obama directed surveillance on Trump for political purposes during the campaign, a core accusation of Trump’s. But Binney did say events such as publication of details of private calls between President Trump and the Australian prime minister, as well as with the Mexican president, are evidence the intelligence community is playing hardball with the White House.
Meanwhile with the 2020 elections fast approaching there is going to be plenty of cheating, skullduggery and underhandedness by the Dems. There are already petitions by Elizabeth Warren to do away with the electoral college. That would indeed be a travesty. If the Dems had won due to the electoral college there wouldn’t be this outcry to get rid of it.
Warren states on her petition “My view is that every vote matters, and the way we can make that happen is to have a national popular vote – and that means getting rid of the electoral college. But it’s only going to be possible if all of us join the fight.
Let’s make it clear that a national popular vote has support from all across the country. It’s the only way we’ll win.”
An article on Encyclopedia.com explains that: Nominated persons, known as electors, from the states and the District of Columbia, who meet every four years in their home state or district and cast ballots to choose the president and vice president of the United States.
In the popular election, the American people actually vote for electors, not for the candidates themselves. The candidate who receives the majority of votes from electors takes office. Although the Constitution allows the electors to vote for any candidate, they usually vote for the candidate of the political party that nominated them
Any of the major reform proposals—direct election, proportional representation by state, and election by congressional district—arguably would change outcomes of close elections. John F. Kennedy would have lost the 1960 election, with the same votes cast, under the proportional or district systems. But surely the same vote would not have been cast, for any alternative system would have changed voting and campaign strategies. The district system might have given more weight to rural voters, the direct or proportional systems to third parties. Changes in the party system, in either case, could have been profound.
These complexities may explain why Congress, which considers proposing an amendment to abolish the Electoral College after most close elections, has never actually done so. The Supreme Court has been likewise acquiescent, upholding state delegate allocations against all challenges and refusing, in Delaware v. New York (1966), to hear Delaware’s complaint that New York voters had 2.3 times better odds of affecting the outcome of a presidential election.
If the electoral college was eliminated then states like New York, New Jersey, Illinois Colorado. Oregon,New Mexico, Nevada, Massachusetts and California decide all the elections since that is where most of the population lies and are blue states. Do you think the Dems don’t know this?
To see what the USA would be like without the Electoral College just look at NY and California. In both states, citizens from sparsely-populated areas are run over by the dense cities, who can ignore the legitimate interests of some citizens. The same would happen if the national popular vote determined who became president.
The 2020 election will have to be watched very, very closely. It could be the difference between freedom or government control of your life by socialism.
Wake up Right! Subscribe to our Morning Briefing and get the news delivered to your inbox before breakfast!