DeepStateGate: Democrats’ ‘Russian Hacking’ Conspiracy Theory Backfires

[rmstock]

White House Photo

DeepStateGate: Democrats' 'Russian Hacking' Conspiracy Theory Backfires
by JOEL B. POLLAK | 5 Mar 2017 | 7,397
http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2017/03/05/deepstategate-obama-trump-surveillance-fisa-investigation-russia/

  "Democrats' efforts to raise suspicions about alleged — and, thus far,
   imaginary — links between President Donald Trump's campaign and the
   Russian government may have backfired spectacularly.
   
   The spotlight is now on President Barack Obama and his administration's
   alleged surveillance of the Trump campaign, as well as his aides'
   reported efforts to spread damaging information about Trump throughout
   government agencies to facilitate later investigations and, possibly,
   leaks to the media.
   
   On Sunday morning, the White House released a statement indicating that
   https://twitter.com/CBSNews/status/838389998604935169
   the president would ask the congressional committees investigating
   Russian hacking theories to add the question of "whether executive
   branch investigative powers were abused in 2016."
   
   Media outlets continued to repeat that the story was based on "no
   evidence," though the evidence was plain.
   
   President Donald Trump originally tweeted about the alleged
   surveillance — which radio host Mark Levin called a "silent coup" by
   Obama staffers keen to undermine the new administration — on Saturday.
   Levin's claims, reported at Breitbart News early Friday, were in turn
   based on information largely from mainstream outlets, including the New
   York Times and the Washington Post. Heat Street was one non-mainstream
   source, but the BBC also reported similar information in January. So,
   too, did the UK Guardian, which is a mainstream source (albeit with a
   decidedly left-wing slant, hardly favorable to Trump).
   
   President Obama responded — and Obama aide Valerie Jarrett tweeted:
   https://twitter.com/ValerieJarrett/status/838083755168382976
   
      A cardinal rule of the Obama Administration was that no White House
      official ever interfered with any independent investigation led by the
      Department of Justice. As part of that practice, neither President
      Obama nor any White House official ever ordered surveillance on any
      U.S. citizen. Any suggestion otherwise is simply false.
   
   As Breitbart News' Matthew Boyle noted, however, it was a "non-denial
   denial." It is worth examining the statement in detail.
   
         * "A cardinal rule of the Obama Administration was that no White House
             official ever interfered with any independent investigation led by the
             Department of Justice."
     
      Note that this sentence does not dispute any of the key factual
      allegations at issue: that the DOJ approached the FISA court for
      permission to spy on Trump aides; that surveillance, once granted,
      continued after no evidence was found of wrongdoing; that the Obama
      administration relaxed National Security Agency rules to facilitate the
      dissemination of evidence through the government; and that Obama
      staffers allegedly did so, the better to leak damaging (and partial)
      information to the media.
     
      In addition, there is reason to doubt the claim that the White House
      never "interfered": the New York Times reported in January that
      "intelligence reports based on some of the wiretapped communications
      had been provided to the White House."
     
      Moreover, the first part of the sentence raises doubts about Lewis's
      entire statement. Lewis could simply have said: "No White House
      official ever interfered with any independent investigation led by the
      DOJ." That would have been a clear denial. Instead, he referred to a
      "cardinal rule" that supposedly existed.
     
      All that does is create deniability for the rest of the White House in
      the event that evidence turns up that someone was, in fact, involved
      with a Department of Justice probe. (No doubt Obama will be outraged to
      find out if someone broke the "cardinal rule," and will claim to have
      found out through the media, rather than directly.) The Obama
      communications operation is notoriously careful with the way denials
      are worded.
     
      "As part of that practice, neither President Obama nor any White House
      official ever ordered surveillance on any U.S. citizen."
     
      This is a meaningless denial, since the FISA court deals with
      communications with foreigners, with U.S. citizens potentially swept up
      in the investigation. It would have been possible for the DOJ to
      approach the FISA court with a request to monitor foreign entities
      allegedly communicating with the Trump campaign, using those intercepts
      as a way to monitor the Trump campaign itself. According to news
      reports cited by Andrew McCarthy, that could have been precisely what
      happened.
     
      And, again, this sentence does not deny that someone in the Obama
      administration may have ordered such surveillance.
     
      "Any suggestion otherwise is simply false."
     
      What we have here is a blanket denial crafted to protect President
      Barack Obama himself, but allowing him to admit later — once the facts
      emerge — that his administration was, in fact, up to something. In
      addition, the Democrats have been adept at constructing elaborate
      chains of communication to create plausible deniability for higher-ups.
      That is how the "bird-dogging" scheme — through which left-wing
      activists instigated violence at Donald Trump's rallies — was arranged
      for the Clinton campaign. (The organizer behind that scheme visited
      Obama's White House 340 times, meeting Obama himself 45 times.)
   
   As the New York Times — supposedly the paper of record — recently
   reported, there is "no evidence" that the "Trump campaign was colluding
   with the Russians on the hacking or other efforts to influence the
   election." But there is ample evidence that the outgoing Obama
   administration could have used intelligence agencies to carry out a
   political agenda against Trump. The media, as Mark Levin pointed out
   again on Sunday's Fox and Friends, simply refuse to report their own
   earlier reports.
   
   Even without Trump's more sensational accusations of wiretapping, it
   is, so far, undisputed that there have been many leaks of classified
   information to damage Trump, and that the Obama administration took
   steps that could have made such leaks more likely. (Charles Krauthammer
   — who is skeptical of "deep state" theories — called this the "Revenge
   of the Losers" on Friday.) Those are serious allegations that the
   former administration is likely going to have to explain to Congress.
   
   But if the Obama administration did order surveillance of the Trump
   campaign during the election; and if Obama or any other White House
   officials knew about it (or created a "plausible deniability" scheme to
   allow such surveillance while preventing themselves from knowing about
   it directly); then there is an even bigger problem.
   
   It would then seem that the "Russia hacking" story was concocted not
   just to explain away an embarrassing election defeat, but to cover up
   the real scandal.
   
   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.
   
   READ MORE STORIES ABOUT:
   Big Government, Big Journalism, National Security, BBC, Department of
   Justice, fisa, Kevin Lewis, Mark Levin, New York Times, obamagate,
   Russia, Russian hacking, surveillance, Valerie Jarrett, Washington Post "

See also :
https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/837989835818287106

Mark Levin: Was Obama Using NSA Against Trump During 2016 Campaign?