17 posts from Tuesday, July 29, 2025

over eight years ago, when I was doing my radio show on that Thursday night, as I was preparing, I started to pull news articles together, website reports together, and I started to see a pattern. A pattern that there was an effort by the Obama regime during the Trump campaign in 2016 and subsequently during the Trump transition and during his early presidency to interfere with the campaign and then to destroy his presidency. I broke it first on radio, then with Pete Hegseth the following Sunday, I guess that's March 5th or 6th, 2017, and it was a big story. The media attacked me, the media denied it all, but I used all their reports, all their reports, and so I want to give you the context of this this evening as we get into it and what Tulsi Gabbard has done, which is very, very important, and you're hearing people say, "Well, we already knew all this. We didn't know all of it." Or they're out there saying, "What's the big deal? There's not a crime. We have immunity." They're not exactly right about that. So stick with us. It's a full program. We're going to take it from beginning to end. Check it out again. This is March 5th, I believe it is, on Fox & Friends Sunday morning with Pete Hegseth eight and a half years ago. Go. On your Thursday evening radio broadcast, you laid out a devastating case about executive overreach of the Obama administration, which many believe have metamorphosized itself to tweets that President Trump sent out on Saturday morning accusing potential wiretapping in Trump Tower. We want to give you a case here this morning to lay out what you know, what you know about it, the evidence you have for the potential executive overreach of the Obama administration. Well, pleasure to be here. The evidence is overwhelming. This is not about President Trump's tweeting. This is about the Obama administration's spying. And the question isn't whether it's spied. We know they went to the FISA court twice. The question is, who did they spy on, the extent of the spying? That is the Trump campaign, the Trump transition, Trump surrogates. And I want to walk you through this. The American people exhibit one. All right, let's stop right there for a moment. Now, America, keep in mind, this is the first time anybody ever pulled all this together. I didn't have access to classified information. I can't issue subpoenas. I was doing my radio show prepping and I said, wait a minute, something's going on here. I saw a pattern that went over the course of months as a former Chief of Staff to Attorney General. I could tell there had been leaks out of the DOJ and the FBI and the intelligence agencies. This is literally the first time on television anywhere that this was pulled together and explained the first time it was exposed. Go. Head Street, two separate sources with links to the counterintelligence community have confirmed that the FBI sought and was granted a foreign intelligence surveillance act court. This is spying in October, giving counterintelligence permission to examine the activity of, quote, U.S. persons in Donald Trump's campaign with ties to Russia. Let me go on. Since it me, they say the first FISA request, sources say named Trump, was denied back in June, denied by the court. But the second was drawn more narrowly and was granted in October after evidence was presented of a server possibly related to the Trump campaign and its alleged links to two banks. Now, sources suggest that a FISA warrant was granted to look at the full content of emails and other related documents that may concern U.S. persons. Now, I know people are hung up with Trump's word wiretapping. Well, how did they get access to this server information? Does it really matter if it was wiretapping, electronic surveillance or whatever it was? Exhibit two, The Guardian, a well-known right wing British paper. Here it is, quote, The Guardian has learned the FBI applied for a warrant from the foreign intelligence surveillance court over the summer in order to monitor four members of the Trump team suspected of irregular contacts with Russian officials. Keep in mind this is during a presidential election. The sitting president, the incumbent party is now investigating the presidential candidate of the Republican Party and his campaign. To some extent, the FISA court turned down the application asking FBI counterintelligence investigators to narrow its focus. According to one report, the FBI was finally granted a warrant in October. Exhibit three, McClatchy, another well-known right wing newspaper. Here they have the agency's headline. FBI, five other agencies, five other Obama administration agencies, pro possible covert Kremlin aid to Trump. The FBI and five other law enforcement intelligence agencies have collaborated for months in an investigation into Russian attempts to influence the November election, including whether money from Kremlin covertly aided presidential elect Donald Trump. Two people familiar with the matter said the agencies involved in the inquiry are the FBI, the CIA, the NSA, the Justice Department, the Treasury Department's financial crimes enforcement network and representatives of the director of the national intelligence. Are you telling me Barack Obama didn't know it was going on in the six agencies? As you go on, hold on, hold on. Okay, keep going. I'm not done. I need to make the case because the media seems to be confused about their own reporting. New York Times, another well-known liberal outlet, intercepted Russian communications, part of inquiry into Trump associates January 19. The FBI is leading the investigations aided by the NSA, the CIA, Treasury Department's financial crimes unit. The investigators have accelerated their efforts in recent weeks, but have found no exclusive conclusive evidence or wrong to listen to this. One official said intelligence reports based on some of the wiretap communications had been provided to the White House. This is the New York Times. Another right wing outlet. Another right wing outlet. Let's continue. New York Times, again, NSA gets more latitude to share intercepted communications in the final days of the Obama administration. The administration has expanded the power of the NSA to share globally intercepted personal communications with the government, 16 other intelligence agencies before applying privacy protections. Now, why would they do this on the way out the door? Well, March 1, Exhibit 6, Obama administration rushed to preserve intelligence of Russian election hacking. In the Obama administration's last days, listen to this, some White House officials scrambled to spread information about Russian efforts to undermine the presidential election and about possible contacts between associates of President-elect Trump and Russians across the government. I'm not done. Exhibit 7, New York Times. Flynn is said to have talked to Russians about sanctions. Trump took office. Well, where'd they get this information? Well, Mark, you know the FISA court. They're always monitoring the Russian ambassador and so on. How do we know that? Maybe they are, maybe they're not, but there's an awful lot of other activity. Sure. Here we have Washington Post. One more. Washington Post, March 2nd. U.S. investigators have examined contacts Attorney General Sessions had with Russian officials during the time he was advising Donald Trump's campaign. The focus of the U.S. counterintelligence investigation has been on communication between Trump campaign officials in Russia. Listen to this. The inquiry involving Sessions is examining his contacts while serving as Trump's foreign policy advisor in the spring and summer of 2016. This has been going on for a year now. As you do on your radio program, you lay out a devastating case based on public documents, as you point out, and not right-wing sources, but mainstream, left-stream sources. How confident are you that this new, this investigation, which was on Russian, so-called Russian hacking, but now the White House says this morning will be broadened to looking into executive overreach. How confident are you that they will find something there? I don't know, but they already found something. The issue isn't whether the Obama administration spied on the Trump campaign, or transition, or certain of its surrogates. The issue is the extent of it. They went into court a second time. They were so aggressive. They waited four or five months. They go back in October, weeks before the general election. They narrow their request. All of a sudden, we have leaks coming out on Flynn. Then we have a horrible meeting that took place between Sessions and so forth. And I'm telling you, as a former chief of staff to an attorney general of the United States in the Reagan administration, these are police state tactics. Now, what did Barack Obama know? He knew everything I just read to you apart from one or two articles. You know how I know? It's in the newspapers. It's right there. So Barack Obama not only knew this, but he gets a daily intelligence briefing. And let me tell you something about daily intelligence briefings. If your attorney general and your FBI is going to the FISA court to get a warrant to investigate aspects of an opposition party in the middle of a general election campaign, how much do you want to bet the president of the United States knew that? I don't want to bet you on that. How does this play out in the media? How are they going to continue to cover this story? Let me first say this is the case made by the New York Times, The Washington Post, McClatchy, and the rest of them. I just put it together as a former Justice Department official. And Donald Trump here is being attacked for what he tweeted. Donald Trump is the victim. His campaign is the victim. His transition team is the victim. His surrogates are the victim. These are police state tactics. I am telling you this as a former chief of staff to an attorney general. If this had been done to Barack Obama, all hell would break loose. And it should. And Barack Obama's statement is pathetic. Let me just say this. Where does it go from here? They ought to release both FISA court applications where they sought the one, the one in the summer and the one in October. So we know exactly what they were doing. That's number one. Number two, Congress needs to see the daily presidential intelligence briefings over the past year or so. Those are the beginnings of a serious investigation. Number three, for the Republicans in Congress, you control the majority. If the Democrats do not want to assist and they won't, because I'm starting to think Chuck Schumer and the others are participating in all this cover up activity, then plow ahead without them. But this is important to the country. We cannot have a sitting presidential administration unleashing six federal agencies, intelligence and law enforcement. I don't mean the president personally sitting there and saying, you know what, Valerie, let's go get them. Obviously the attorney general and the FBI were involved in this. This is how you get a FISA court application prepared and submitted. Do you think former President Obama was involved in this? And if so, how much was he involved? I'm not Nostradamus here. I just think that we ought to find out. But I will tell you this. He's more involved than he says. I mean, it's his executive branch. It's his justice department. Mine's for the IRS. All of a sudden, the IRS is targeting American citizens. I don't know anything about it. We have reporters, including James Rose and the AP, where the Obama administration did more investigations of reporters than any administration in American history. They're quite capable of these things, but it doesn't matter. We want to know what took place. And there ought to be public hearings on this stuff too. I agree with the Democrats. Let's get to the bottom of this. So join me.

Transcribed automatically. Expect errors in names and numbers.

This is a massive Obama scandal, massive. What took place here is disgusting and it's outrageous. Now, December 9, 2016, President Trump is elected. He's not sworn in yet. Obama asks for a new intelligence reassessment report showing how Russia influenced the 2016 election. So now they want to rewrite history with their media and create the idea that this was an illegitimate election. December 9, 2016, thank you Tulsi Gabbard for pointing this out. January 6, 2017, new assessment released. They get it done in less than a month. That contradicts the previous assessment that said, well there may have been Russian involvement but it didn't have any great impact whatsoever. It's based mostly on Hillary's dossier. So there's that and there's actually much more. Here I have the dorm report. There's one analyst out there that says we didn't learn anything new. We have the dorm report and so I reread this damn thing and it is thorough and he condemns what took place in the administration. It was called crossfire hurricane. Facts and circumstances that were inconsistent with the premise that Trump and/or persons associated with the Trump campaign were involved in a collusive or conspiratorial relationship with the Russian government were ignored or simply assessed away. He says they were false, flatly false and he goes through the report and he lists it all very very thorough. But who's not questioned? Obama. Who doesn't have to provide any documents? Obama. Obama has been able to hide under the radar this entire time even though way back eight and a half years ago I suggested he was to Sven Gali. Tulsi Gabbard has now demonstrated through evidence in the possession of the government that he was in fact involved and heavily so. Here's what she said the other night on Fox. Russia did not have the intended capability to try and impact the outcome of the US election leading up to Election Day. Now people can quibble over that. That's not my focus. The same assessment was made after Donald Trump was elected by the American people as president in 2016. She said defeating Hillary Clinton and it wasn't until after that president's daily brief document that the principal's committee was called in the National Security Council. President Obama then directed his DNI James Clapper to lead the effort to create this new intelligence community assessment. That's right and that's what they did and Obama wanted it. Why? To undermine the Trump presidency. To raise serious questions about the election. Then we have part of the cover-up. Here we have Susan Rice in this email that was discovered basically by the Senate on January 5 following a briefing by IC leadership on Russia hacking during the 2016 presidential election. President Obama had a brief follow-up conversation with FBI Director Jim Comey, Deputy Attorney General Sally Yates in the Oval Office, Vice President Biden and I were also present right Susan Rice. President Obama began the conversation by stressing his continued commitment to ensuring that every aspect of this issue is handled by the intelligence and law enforcement communities by the book. They knew the Trump people were coming in. They didn't know if they were able to cover up enough of it. They knew at some point somebody would find out something. Tulsi Gabbard in this case six months later. The president stressed that he's not asking about initiating or instructing anything from a law enforcement perspective. He reiterated that our law enforcement team needs to proceed as it normally would by the book. But they didn't. Did they? Now we get these legal analysts out there. They're all like sheep. We have an immunity decision almost exactly a year ago when it comes to the President of the United States and they say well even if you do an investigation you can't really prosecute him. What's happened to these lawyers? Have they become illiterate? Do they not know how to read a Supreme Court decision? Let me help them out which I always feel an obligation to do. This decision says a federal grand jury indicted former President Donald Trump on four counts for conduct that occurred during the presidency following the November 2020 election. The indictment alleged that after losing the election Trump conspired to overturn it by spreading knowingly false claims of election fraud to obstruct the collecting, counting, and certification of election results. Trump moved to dismiss the indictment based on presidential immunity arguing that a president has absolute immunity from criminal prosecution for actions performed within the outer perimeter of his official responsibilities and that the indictments allegations fell within the core of those official duties and the court agreed with him. But the court explained under our constitutional structure of separation of powers the nature of presidential power entitles a former president to absolute immunity from criminal prosecution ready for actions taken within his conclusive and preclusive constitutional authority and he's entitled to at least presumptive immunity from prosecution for all his official acts. There is no immunity for unofficial acts. Wow so that takes you to this issue of presumptive immunity because what Barack Obama didn't what he did was it within his official acts what he did was he he moved from his official acts and he asked the CIA and the others to do something that was corrupt not part of his official act part of his official acts would be as if Obama ordered taking out a terrorist in Yemen which he did and it turns out that he takes out the terrorists but also kills his 15 year old son who's a US citizen. Obama can't be prosecuted for that that's part of its official acts that's fine but when a President of the United States says I need a new assessment effectively telling the agencies and the rest I need to get Trump that's not within your official action so what would happen in court if they brought some charges you would have this presumptive immunity allegation and then you would have to overcome the presumption so that people say there's absolute immunity when it comes to what this is alleging what Toby Gabbard has released there's not absolute immunity there's presumptive immunity that can be overcome so I explained this now what else they say well what crime was committed and what about the statute of limitation now this is pretty funny coming from the people who went after Donald Trump for two years in the second massive Obama Biden scandal and that's this you conduct an investigation you don't need probable cause you just need some reasonableness to think that some crimes have been committed by Obama maybe a surrogates maybe a staff and so forth and you open your investigation which is what the Department of Justice has done we have these things that we call process crimes right potential obstruction false statements destruction of records and that sort of thing during the course of the investigation so there's always that there's no statute of limitations on that and furthermore there may be criminal activity that we're not aware of that specifically addresses what Obama did we don't know you know why we don't know nobody's ever asked them nobody's ever questioned him nobody's ever gotten his records not the FBI not prosecutors at DOJ not Congress nobody has ever questioned investigated gotten documents from Barack Obama why not why not he was the mob boss and the president in investigating Donald Trump there's no need anymore to withhold an investigation to stop an investigation to prevent an investigation he's a private citizen you don't even have to charge him with anything maybe he has information relevant to other people you might want to charge or maybe not but you need to conduct your investigation Barack Obama needs to be investigated he needs to be thoroughly investigated there need to be document requests that includes emails text everything else same with his cabinet the people involved who are named same with them to get to the bottom of this this is a real scandal it is massive congratulations to Tulsi Gabbard who is focused on the fact that it was Obama who was the ringmaster and the fact that as I'm pointing out now he's never been questioned under oath he's never been forced to provide any information nothing that needs to end tonight

Transcribed automatically. Expect errors in names and numbers.