45 posts from Sunday, August 31, 2025

March 3, 2017, Breitbart News. Mark Levin to Congress investigate Obama's silent coup versus Trump. Now, ladies and gentlemen, 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 gonna 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, and 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. Alright, let's stop right there for a moment. Now, America, keep in mind this is the first time anybody ever pooled 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. There's 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 counter intelligence 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'd 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 have been provided to the White House. This is the New York Times my exhibit for. Another right wing outlet, yeah. 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 and 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 how do we know that? Maybe they are, maybe they're not, but there's an awful lot of other activity. 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 adviser 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 they will find something there? I don't know, but I don't know. They already found something. The issue isn't whether the Obama's 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. No, what did Barack Obama know? He knew everything I just read 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 you want to bet the President of the United States knew that I don't want to read his opinion. 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 warrant. 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. You know what, Valerie, let's go get him. 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 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 in the AP where 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. So this was the first that this was ever presented on broadcast media and television on that Sunday morning in March. The next night I was on Hannity and further elaborated on it. But before that, that Thursday before, on March 3rd, I went on radio, as I mentioned, and I was pulling it together. And Breitbart did an excellent job. Joel Pollack, radio host Mark Levin, used his Thursday evening show to outline the known steps taken by President Obama's administration in the last months to undermine Donald Trump's presidential campaign and later his administration. Levin called Obama's effort "police state tactics," suggested that Obama's actions rather than conspiracy theories about alleged Russian interference in the presidential election to help Trump should be the target of congressional investigation. Drawing on sources, including the New York Times and the Washington Post, Levin described the case against Obama so far based on what is already publicly known. The following is an expanded version of that case, including events that Levin didn't mention specifically, and it goes on some length. Now, let's bring it up to date, like today. They interfered with the Trump campaign in 2016, they tried to take him out. They interfered with the Trump presidency early on, they tried to take him out. There was never any evidence of any kind from anywhere of collusion between Russia and Trump or Russia and the Trump campaign. July 2016 CIA Director Brennan briefs Obama and Biden that the CIA uncovered evidence that Hillary Clinton approved in her campaign to try and tie Trump to Putin and to the Russians to distract from her email scandal. Others briefed also knew who were they. It included Attorney General Lynch, DNI Director Clapper, FBI Director Comey. Hillary Clinton in carrying out this this horrendous event, her campaign paid for the still dossier that was a complete 100% fabrication. The dossier was used as the key basis for the FBI opening a criminal investigation. They launched it in record time. Typically it might take six months or a year, they launched it within a month. And who launched it? Deputy Director of the FBI McCabe and FBI Assistant Director Stroke. And it was Comey who seized authority around the same time to drop the case against Hillary Clinton, even though they had her dead to rights. It was a slam-dung case, but they dropped it. They were working to help Hillary, they knew that she was responsible.

Transcribed automatically. Expect errors in names and numbers.

New reporting reveals the DOJ is expanding its investigation into the Russia hoax and one former Obama official at the centre of the scandal is speaking out. Hello everyone I'm Miranda Devine along with Raymond Arroyo, David Webb and Molly Line and this is the big weekend show. James Comey and John Brennan are under the microscope again. According to multiple reports the DOJ is investigating senior FBI officials who may have covered up wrongdoing by the two former Obama officials. Prosecutors are reportedly determining whether documents from Brennan and Comey were secretly hidden or destroyed that would have undermined their narrative on Trump and Russia. Brennan blasted the investigation earlier today. That seems to be the intention which is to damage individuals. You can damage them reputationally, you can damage them financially, professionally and so on and so by putting out these investigations who are making these referrals or whatever it does a lot of damage already even if it then never goes to trial or it doesn't go to a conviction or whatever and that's the intent and unfortunately Donald Trump who you know president United States has tremendous authority and and ability to use the instruments of government. This week I spoke with Senate Judiciary Chairman Chuck Graslie on Podforce One and he revealed a shocking conversation that he had in 2017. I remember a conversation I had with a friend of mine who had talked to a Democratic senator. He said that Trump will not be around past September of 2017. Do you think there will be accountability in the end? Do you think that anyone will go to jail? John Brennan and Jim Comey? Too early to tell but I'll tell you what they did to keep Trump from being getting elected president and then particularly after he was elected they accomplished that through that Russia, Russia, Russia stuff. Joining us now is House Intelligence Committee Chairman Rick Crawford. Congressman Crawford you were on the House Intel Committee when lawmakers just compiled a report on that Russian hoax that DNI Gabbard has since declassified. I want to ask you the same question that I just asked Senator Graslie and that is do you think there will be accountability for people like John Brennan and James Comey? Well we're certainly hoping for that I mean that was the reason why we actually released the report and DNI Gabbard declassified it so everybody could get a look at just exactly what happened what what under President Obama's direction and and with you know a complicit director Comey and CIA director Brennan and others what they were able to do I mean they they hobbled President Trump in his first term and went on and really impaired his ability to secure a second term in 2020 and it's it's really high time that someone was held to account. Congressman if I could just add it's Raymond Arroyo as you look at this anew my question is what's changed since John Durham did an investigation and prosecuted this case. Durham looked at this extensively he was the special prosecutor they named he explored it there were two prosecutions I believe both ended in acquittals what's different now what do you know now that Durham didn't know? I think it's classified annex is the difference maker and the fact that it has been reviewed and declassified so that now we get a look at it these are things that we knew on the Intel Committee but really couldn't talk about obviously because it was classified and so anyway can you know in our world we can our job is to oversee the intelligence community and we can do investigations but we can't prosecute we can make criminal referrals where it's necessary but you recall the Durham investigation took a long long time but it was limited to you know just the unclassified stuff so when the classified annex was declassified using the appropriate procedure to do so. Tell people what that is Congressman. They don't know the viewers of information. The viewers don't know what a classified annex is tell them what that that secure room was and how it was discovered. Sure so the so the classified annex basically had all that information that he couldn't go public with that was you know classified so it was prepared in an annex to the report that is the you know appended to the report that essentially it was never released to the public so most everybody didn't realize the extent of that investigation so if all you did was look at the unclassified material what they deemed was appropriate to share you would probably come to the same conclusion but when you look at the classified material that was since been released you have a completely different picture a more fulsome picture exactly what happened.

Transcribed automatically. Expect errors in names and numbers.

has just compiled a report on that Russian hoax that DNI Gabbard has since declassified. I want to ask you the same question that I just asked Senator Graslie and that is do you think there will be accountability for people like John Brennan and James Comey? Well we're certainly hoping for that. I mean that was the reason why we actually released the report and DNI Gabbard declassified it so everybody could get a look at just exactly what happened, what under President Obama's direction and with a complicit Director Comey and CIA Director Brennan and others, what they were able to do. I mean they hobbled President Trump in his first term and went on and really impaired his ability to secure a second term in 2020 and it's really a hot time that someone was held to account. Congressman if I could just add, it's Raymond Arroyo, as you look at this anew my question is what's changed since John Durham did an investigation and prosecuted this case? Durham looked at this extensively. He was the special prosecutor they named. He explored it. There were two prosecutions I believe both ended in acquittals. What's different now? What do you know now that Durham didn't know? I think it's classified annex is the difference maker and the fact that it has been reviewed and declassified so then now we get a look at it. These are things that we knew on the intel committee but really couldn't talk about obviously because it was classified and so you know we can you know in our world we can our job is to oversee the intelligence community and we can do investigations but we can't prosecute. We can make criminal referrals where it's necessary but you recall the Durham investigation took a long long time but it was limited to just the unclassified stuff so when the classified annex was declassified using the appropriate procedure to do so. Tell people what that is. They don't know the world of information. The viewers don't know what a classified annex is. Tell them what that that secure room was and how it was discovered. Sure so the classified annex basically had all that information that he couldn't go public with that was you know classified so it was prepared in an annex to the report that is the you know appended to the report that essentially it was never released to the public so most everybody didn't realize the extent of of that investigation so if all you did was look at the unclassified material what they deemed was appropriate to share you would probably come to the same conclusion but when you look at the classified material that was since been released you have a completely different picture a more fulsome picture exactly what happened. Congressman Chairman thank you so much for your time on the Saturday Night Molly line here. Also on the investigative front but this time about these violent riots that have erupted all across the country this year. There's reporting that some of the organizers have ties to Soros funded groups. Now the president is calling for George Soros and his friend and his son Alexander to be brought up on potentially RICO charges over these allegations. There was a statement to Fox Soros open society foundations denies any involvement in this violence so the question is should the FBI other intel agencies be investigating potential ties with these Soros groups? I would think that would certainly be in the FBI's lane to look at that because the reality is you know there's the old saying you know follow the money and you know I want to start by saying in this country you're innocent until proven guilty but you know most of the time where there's smoke there's fire and there's a lot of smoke here and and it's the endless supply of money that they've been able to provide candidates up and down the ballot across the country. I mean how is that even possible? I think these are valid questions and and you know Soros has had his hands in this for a long long time so I do think it's entirely appropriate to investigate thoroughly what's taking place there. Congressman David Webb here. Thanks for joining us. Scale and scope to add to what Molly asked about. George Soros has been very clear with the open society foundation. He's given over 32 billion dollars through the foundation. He supported Biden, Hillary, various other organizations numerous organizations and it goes to the question of whether there is a potential for federal or equal or even state level. Also it's been very effective in the judicial space beginning in 2015 with his money that was put into various prosecutors and getting judges elected and still ongoing today with organizations that are literally training judges. We see legal warfare underway with all of this. This is why so many people to your point when they see all this smoke ask how can you not find the fire. I understand it's difficult but the C3 versus C4 structure are you going to look into this at the federal level and then work with state partners where there may be violations not only of federal IRS code potential reco statutes or even state non-profit statutes. Yeah I think that's a good point. Federal and state ought to be working you know together on this but I have every confidence that FBI Director Patel and Attorney General Bondi will definitely take this on aggressively and to your point I mean all up and down the ticket it seems like it just appears it gives the appearance of a giant money laundering operation whether it's act blue or whether it's the open society foundation or whatever it is you have to start asking the question where is all this money coming from how do they do it and what other organizations are involved to help continue to fund those organizations. Are there other NGOs involved in this and those are things that I think are right in the FBI's lane and they show

Transcribed automatically. Expect errors in names and numbers.