Political investigation in American style

The fact that the help of Donald Trump’s assistants (and possibly himself) was watched by special services, listened to their telephone conversations and monitored Internet connections, no one doubts it any more. Even the most ardent opponents of the new president.

For a month, minor issues have been hotly debated. Was Trump’s entourage or he himself the target of the investigation? If so, which one? Did they, as a result, get anything on the “Russian cause”? If so, why are they silent? And if not, why are not they still talking about closing the case? Was the wiretapping legal? Have special metadata collection orders been received? What were the intentions of the intelligence community? What did President Obama and his high-ranking subordinates know about this? What was the eavesdropping motive? Who merged the fact of surveillance into the press and for what purpose?

Finally, the question of questions: even if everything was formally done legally, are not spying activities against a political opponent in the election, to put it mildly, inappropriate? And is not it worth following the formal observance of the laws adopted after September 11, the concealment of a special operation to undermine the authority of President Trump and to remove him from power?

The fact that his headquarters were auditioned, Big Donald said in his tweet in early March. For a time, even the president’s allies said that he crossed the line. Like, this is too much …

Democrats and the liberal press openly mocked Trump. And so it lasted almost 20 days, while the head of the US Special Intelligence Committee for Intelligence, Devin Nunez, did not say at an improvised press conference that “under Trump’s words there were certain grounds.” Moreover, he told (without naming the names) that the decipherings of the wiretapping, which had nothing to do with the “Russian cause” (!!!), were issued in violation of the legislation in the field of national security and passed on to the press.

The opponents of the president immediately demanded that Nunez withdraw himself from the investigation. Like, he is biased and does not do it at all – Russians and Trump need to be taken to clean water, and he seeks confirmation of Donald’s words. There were even demands to begin investigations concerning Nunez himself, because he himself for some time cooperated with the transitional administration of the 45th president.

Following on the air of the MSNBC channel, former high-ranking Pentagon official, head of the “Russia, Ukraine and Eurasia” direction in the political department of the military department Evelyn Farkas told that the employees of the White House, the CIA, the NSA and the Ministry of Defense “collected and saved” in the last days of Obama’s rule Documents relating to the intelligence on Trump and his staff.

According to Farkas, this was done so that the new administration could not “hide its Russian connections.” And then she dropped the phrase: “Hence the leakage” …

That is, there was a direct confirmation that (A) the surveillance of Trump’s headquarters was conducted and (B) the wiretapping materials were not only (or still are) in the hands of the currently deprived citizens, but also merged into the press for political reasons.

READ  Andrey Dmitriev: In response to the impudence of the US, Russia should withdraw from sanctions against the DPRK

Evelyn Farkas tried to explain that she “did not mean that.” But everything just got worse. In an attempt to justify it, she gave the lawyers of the White House and conservative journalists a lot of valuable inroads – in which direction to dig.

In the end, on April 3, Bloomberg published information that Susan Rice, an adviser to President Obama on national security, was implicated in the misuse of intelligence and the drain of decrypts of wiretaps into the press.

Before proceeding to the description of the scandal that has erupted, I think it is necessary to tell the reader how the wiretapping of US citizens can be carried out and how the competent authorities should deal with the data obtained as a result of it.

As we all learned from the revelations of Edward Snowden, the NSA monitors everyone. As shown by the recent exposure of WikiLeaks, the CIA also has its own program of wiretapping. Has the appropriate technology and the FBI. However, the law prohibits simply deciphering metadata and using them in operational work.

Moreover, the surveillance of US citizens is possible only on a court warrant, and under the Foreign Intelligence Agents Watch (FISA) Act. Courts issuing such orders are secret, but all procedural formalities are observed on them. In particular, in order to convince the judge of the need to carry out any kind of electronic surveillance for an American citizen, it is necessary to present “sufficient grounds for suspicion”.

However, this law has a “hole”. The fact is that the wiretapping of foreign citizens – in particular diplomats of other countries – can be carried out without any warrant. And there are no restrictions on the decoding of metadata in this case. Except one. If an American speaks with an alien, his name should be hidden in the report, and further disclosure of the person can occur only by a court decision.

So if this or that special service intends to follow an American, it can unlimitedly collect telephone conversations and intercept electronic correspondence of any number of foreign representatives with whom the real object of surveillance is in contact. And it will be 100% legal. That’s only the responsibility of the operatives and their bosses – down to the US president – includes reliable concealment of the personalities of “accidentally tracked” citizens of the United States.

Strictly speaking, these names should not reach even the bosses, except when informing high-ranking officials is required in the interests of national security.

Moreover, no one in this chain (which the law demands to make as short as possible) should not publicize the materials of the wiretapping and the names of Americans whose voice was on the record or whose email was intercepted. In any case, this can not be done until the court decides to disclose the results of the case on the merits. And the case must be serious, espionage – no less.

But Bloomberg told the world that the former national security adviser Susan Rice regularly requested the names of Americans who spoke with foreign representatives or were mentioned by the US special services during the year (until January 2017), and it turned out that only In rare cases, it was about diplomats of the Russian Federation. As a rule, the talks did not concern Russia at all.

READ  Something about animals or the penguins revolution is on the way

Some of these transcripts, with the undisguised names of citizens of the United States, fell into the hands of the head of the special committee of the Congress on Intelligence Nunez. As follows from his words, the names of many members of the Trump team were disclosed, and then the decrypts were merged into the press. This is not just a violation of the rules of surveillance. This is a direct violation of the rights of Americans in accordance with the Fourth Amendment to the Constitution.

Rice, as before Farkas, tried to justify herself. Like, she “did not merge this” (later clarification was made: “I did not merge anything to anyone”), and she personally demanded disclosure of the names in connection with “various issues of national security” that she can not publicly publicize.

But since it is no longer difficult to unite the various points in this case, the scheme of actions of the special services and the press became understandable. From the very top of the Obama administration, political surveillance of Trump and his entourage was ordered, and at that time, when he had just become the leader in the ratings for the republican primaries. Special services have developed a cunning scheme. Carrying out “routine wiretapping” of foreign diplomats and businessmen, they gradually made up a dossier on the members of the team of the future president.

In July 2016, the WikiLeaks group published a correspondence between Assistant Hillary Clinton of John Podesta and the leadership of the Democratic National Committee. This immediately accused “Russian hackers” who allegedly acted on the direct order of the Russian president. The FBI began an investigation on this issue. There were no reliable proofs of the “Russian trace”, but the mainstream press convinced the public that the Russian special services were behind the break-in. Now the FBI had to prove that Trump or members of his team were cooperating with these special services. But, as you know, no evidence of cooperation was found.

Nevertheless, every day the liberal media was reiterating Trump’s “Russian connections”. Despite this, it was not possible to persuade voters to side with Hillary. And then the next stage began – the discrediting of the new president. Since there was no discrediting evidence during the “accidental interceptions” of Big Donald’s encirclement conversations (otherwise it would have been made public long ago), intelligence data began to be used point-by-point, in close interaction with the media.

So, records of conversations between Trump’s adviser Michael Flynn and Russian ambassador Sergey Kislyak were used to quarrel Flynn with Vice President Mike Pence. And the play was played out in two acts. First, the media reported on the very fact of the conversation. Then Penza was provoked to ask a direct question to Flynn and tell him about his answer on the air. And only then did the contents of the conversation, which partly contradicted this answer, were merged. As a result, Trump’s adviser had to resign.

READ  Russia. Gold. US Bonds

This combination tells us about three things. First, the secret services really watched Trump people. Secondly, in the transcripts of the wiretapping, the names of the Americans were not hidden, as required by law. And thirdly, the liberal media and special services cooperated, and electronic surveillance was used exclusively for political purposes – there was no evidence of Flynn’s misdemeanors.

A similar scheme was used against Attorney General Jeff Sessions, but the matter was that he avoided the investigation of the “Russian case”. Eventually, Trump did not allow himself to be deprived of another trusted employee.

Perhaps in the near future there will be “compromising evidence” on someone else, but now everything looks a bit different. It’s time to investigate the illegal activities of the administration of Barack Obama. Several Republican congressmen have already been asked to call Susan Rice to testify under oath to the special committee of the Congress.

However, liberal media are trying to present the case in such a way that the “Rice case” is a wasteland and is used as a distraction of public opinion from the “real deal” – “Russian connections of Trump people”. At the same time, the press and television are trying in every possible way to belittle the significance of recent scandalous exposures. So, on April 4, The Washington Post reported on the unauthorized disclosure of the names of members of the Greater Donald campaign headquarters on the 16th (!!!) page. And the CNN television station said that it would not cover this sensation at all, so as not to “promote the tramp’s hysteria.”

Many leaders of the Democratic Party still insist that the “Russian cause” be investigated with the utmost care and brought to its logical conclusion. Congressman Democrat Huakin Castro said on air that if he were a gambling man, he would have put a considerable amount of money on the fact that as a result of the investigation “one of Trump’s aides will go to jail.”

Conservatives (including even such enemies of Donald as Senators McCain and Graham), on the contrary, argue that all this “investigation” only distracts from the true crimes committed by intelligence officers and members of the Obama administration.

I do not presume to predict who will be sent to prison as a result of all these scandals. But if no one goes, we can assume that the political investigation in the US is de facto legal.

Will the Republican Party have enough willpower to protect the Constitution and not give a blunder to outrageous violations? Will the conscience wake up, if only a part of the Democrats?

Finally, does President Trump not think that he “can do anything now”?

It only at first glance it seems that Russia benefits from all these internal strife in the United States. Like, they weaken America – that’s nice. In fact, if the overseas superpower ceases to observe its constitution, the real power in the country will be finally seized by the heads of special services, the most unscrupulous and cruel of them. Do not need a Russian such a partner …

In : Opinion

About the author

Related Articles

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked (required)

Trending Now