Judge Napolitano: Obama used British spies for Trump wiretap caper

Is anyone surprised at this?

Fox News Judicial Analyst Judge Andrew Napolitano claimed “three intelligence sources” say President Obama looked to British spy agency GCHQ to obtain transcripts of conversations involving President Donald Trump on “Fox & Friends” on Tuesday.

I knew late yesterday when I found out the DOJ requested an extension of the deadline set by the House Intel' Committee that something was up. My guess was (and is) that they're making an immunity deal with someone.

The leftists are definitely scared of something.

Napolitano said, “[T]hree intelligence sources have informed Fox News that President Obama went outside the chain of command. He didn’t use the NSA. He didn’t use the CIA. He didn’t use the FBI, and he didn’t use Department of Justice. He used GCHQ. ... They have 24/7 access to the NSA database. So by simply having two people go to them saying, ‘President Obama needs transcripts of conversations involving candidate Trump, conversations involving president-elect Trump,’ he’s able to get it, and there’s no American fingerprints on this.”

I don't get overly giddy about much these days, but the Democrat Party truly is in free-fall like it's never been before. Can you imagine what one more Big Blow would mean to them? Can you imagine what it would mean if one of their sacred icons like Barack Hussein Obama or Bill Clinton's wife were indicted and tried?

The Libertarian Party would be more of a player at that point.

Of one thing I am certain -- something is going on with this Trump claim of spying. The Left practically went radio-silent on the Trump/Russia issue quickly after the charge of Obama Regime spying was made.

Stay tuned...

FNC

Embarrassing for Britain if true..

originally posted by: Misterlondon
Embarrassing for Britain if true..

I would think so, but the greater issue to me was that the Brits have unfettered access to NSA raw intelligence.

Britain is our closest and most trusted ally, but sharing data of an unfiltered and unvetted nature with any foreign government does not sit well with me.

From what I have been able to ascertain this was not a one way transaction.

originally posted by: CulturalResilience
From what I have been able to ascertain this was not a one way transaction.

Are you referring to this...?

www.abovetopsecret.com...

originally posted by: SBMcG

originally posted by: Misterlondon
Embarrassing for Britain if true..

I would think so, but the greater issue to me was that the Brits have unfettered access to NSA raw intelligence.

Britain is our closest and most trusted ally, but sharing data of an unfiltered and unvetted nature with any foreign government does not sit well with me.

Also using that information against the president of the country whose intelligence it is..

originally posted by: SBMcG
I would think so, but the greater issue to me was that the Brits have unfettered access to NSA raw intelligence.

Britain is our closest and most trusted ally, but sharing data of an unfiltered and unvetted nature with any foreign government does not sit well with me.

en.wikipedia.org...

originally posted by: Misterlondon

originally posted by: SBMcG

originally posted by: Misterlondon
Embarrassing for Britain if true..

I would think so, but the greater issue to me was that the Brits have unfettered access to NSA raw intelligence.

Britain is our closest and most trusted ally, but sharing data of an unfiltered and unvetted nature with any foreign government does not sit well with me.

Also using that information against the president of the country whose intelligence it is..

Well, candidate for president anyway, in Trump's case.

It makes me wonder what other nations have access to our raw intelligence. Please God let it ONLY be the Brits!

The same judge who's " inside sources" told him that they had the goods on Hillary and they were going to indict her any minute now? That judge Napolitano?
FOX news resident uninformed judiciary representative.

originally posted by: BestinShow

originally posted by: SBMcG
I would think so, but the greater issue to me was that the Brits have unfettered access to NSA raw intelligence.

Britain is our closest and most trusted ally, but sharing data of an unfiltered and unvetted nature with any foreign government does not sit well with me.

en.wikipedia.org...

Yes, I am somewhat familiar with ECHELON. But what is news to me is that raw intel gathered by our own NSA domestically is being given to other countries.

I'm beginning to wonder where the hell this whole thing really leads!

a reply to: Misterlondon

Sounds a little out there doesn't it?

originally posted by: SBMcG

originally posted by: CulturalResilience
From what I have been able to ascertain this was not a one way transaction.

Are you referring to this...?

www.abovetopsecret.com...

It looks like this may all be connected. It also might make one wonder lf Prime Minister May being the first head of state to visit the newly elected President Trump lends any further credence to the situation.

a reply to: Sillyolme

Attack the source all you want. You think your leftist heroes are incapable of dirty deeds?

The biggest political criminals in history have been leftists.

originally posted by: CulturalResilience

originally posted by: SBMcG

originally posted by: CulturalResilience
From what I have been able to ascertain this was not a one way transaction.

Are you referring to this...?

www.abovetopsecret.com...

It looks like this may all be connected. It also might make one wonder lf Prime May being the first head of state to visit the newly elected President Trump lends any further credence to the situation.

Wow, I hadn't thought about that angle. PM May was the first HOS to visit Trump, right?

a reply to: SBMcG

We share intelligence with all of our allies. That's what that means. We are there for them they are there for us. We can't have eyes everywhere all of the time so we trust our allies to have our back.

I made a thread in this too but I see you beat me to it.

Here is what I wrote there.

This story just keeps getting more troubling.

I made this thread last week where it appears as if the Obama administration shared info into the investigations into trumps teams connections to the Russians with European allies.
www.abovetopsecret.com...

This is troubling enough.

But now it gets even worse. Obama and his people have all been appalled by the suggestion that they would wiretap Trump. But now intelligence sources are saying that Obama did not order the wiretaps, he instead asked Britain's intelligence services to use the NSA database to provide Obamas people with transcripts of Trump or his teams conversations with Russians.

Fox News Judicial Analyst Judge Andrew Napolitano claimed “three intelligence sources” say President Obama looked to British spy agency GCHQ to obtain transcripts of conversations involving President Donald Trump on “Fox & Friends” on Tuesday.

Napolitano said, “[T]hree intelligence sources have informed Fox News that President Obama went outside the chain of command. He didn’t use the NSA. He didn’t use the CIA. He didn’t use the FBI, and he didn’t use Department of Justice. He used GCHQ. What the heck is GCHQ? That’s the initials for the British spying agency. They have 24/7 access to the NSA database. So by simply having two people go to them saying, ‘President Obama needs transcripts of conversations involving candidate Trump, conversations involving president-elect Trump,’ he’s able to get it, and there’s no American fingerprints on this.”

www.breitbart.com...

The implications of this are astounding. Obama could spy on his political opponents by requesting Britain use the NSA database and give him the info is abhorrent. This will be the end of free elections as we know it. Once this president is set, political groups will ask foreigners to spy and get dirt on political adversaries from every election here out.

Here is another article about how Snowden warned us about the troubling connection between the NSA and Britain's GCHQ.

It looks as if a US government agency might be helping a foreign government spy on US citizens in the name of fighting terrorism. Intelligence agencies have moved beyond their traditional role of gathering information about governments and are now gathering information about individual citizens. They’re also sharing that data with other countries in the so called “Five Eyes eavesdropping alliance.” The alliance’s members are the US, Canada, Australia, New Zealand, and Great Britain.

The NSA’s relationship with GCHQ is troublesome on every level. Not only does it appear to promote illegal activities that could threaten our rights, but it raises issues of national sovereignty.

Has the NSA figured out how to do an end-run around the Constitution with the help of a foreign intelligence agency? If the NSA tapped a US citizen’s phone or intercepted her emails without a warrant, that would violate the Fourth Amendment’s prohibition against unreasonable search and seizure. If the GCHQ did the same, it would not be violating the Constitution, although NSA might be violating it if GCHQ shares that information with it.

www.offthegridnews.com...

This is disgusting. If these intelligence sources are correct, Obama has done something lower than could have ever been imagined. He has circumvented the US system by having foreigners spy on his political opponent, by using the NSA database.

This, if verifiable, will be a scandal like no other.
Alot knew this was possible; I never thought it would actually happen.

a reply to: SBMcG

I'm just saying. He said that over and over again all last spring. His FBI Bffs told him so.
His sources are his own opinions and nothing more. Obviously that or his sources are just plain wrong.
One or the other.
So this source is questionable. Until something backs it up. Sorry. It's not like he's not obviously biased against Obama.

Obamagate keeps growing and growing and ........

originally posted by: Sillyolme
a reply to: SBMcG

We share intelligence with all of our allies. That's what that means. We are there for them they are there for us. We can't have eyes everywhere all of the time so we trust our allies to have our back.

This is different than sharing intelligence. This is using a foreign government to spy on a political opponent so that Obama could claim plausible deniability.