Discussion:
Why is the BBC News such a "beauty"?
(too old to reply)
lo yeeOn
2017-03-05 20:48:42 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
The BBC News has a top story today quoting former National
Intelligence director James "Tapper" Clapper as saying that he could
"deny" the charge that he spied on Trump - an American citizen - and
then following the report/quote with an "analysis" by Laura Bickle
saying:

Let's face it, Donald Trump is not your run-of-the-mill president.
He's unorthodox. It's what his supporters love about him and why
they elected the political outsider.

But accusing your predecessor of an abuse of power without proof
isn't just throwing out the presidential rule book, it's blowing it
up.

. . .

Blowing up the rule book: Analysis by Laura Bicker, BBC News,
Washington

First, why should anyone believe James Clapper regarding surveillance
after he publicly lied to Congress under oath about not spying on
American citizens?

In fact, Clapper's blatant lying to Congress under oath was the
"breaking point" for Edward Snowden to tell the American people how
our government has been spying on us with impunity.

In January 2014, Snowden said his "breaking point" was "seeing the
Director of National Intelligence, James Clapper, directly lie under
oath to Congress".

In fact, Clapper's blatant lying to Congress under oath had led to
Senator Rand Paul's famous quote:

"I'd put Clapper and Snowden in the same jail cell ..." [Senator Paul]

So, why should whatever Clapper said on TV carry any credibility?

Now, the "beauty" of the BBC News article is: It closes with a quote
from another Obama administration talking about some "cardinal rule",
as if it carries any weight.

Mr Obama's spokesman, Kevin Lewis, called the accusations "simply
false".

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", he said.

Should we all believe that Obama never sent any kind of signal to his
Attorney General to interfere in the FBI investigation of Hillary's
email scandal? Should we all believe that Obama actually gave Loretta
Lynch a call and instructed her explicitly not to interfere and maybe
better yet recuse herself from the Clinton probe - but the AG refused?

Why did AG Lynch meet Clinton's husband Bill at the airport and in his
plane at length one night and the next day or so the AG's subordinate
FBI chief James Comey came out and announced that he would close the
Clinton probe without indictment - even though he also raised all
kinds of flags about her conduct?

Finally, the BBC as a "beauty" is the term "blowing up the [rule
book]" about presidents should relate to one another. The words are
incendiary but serve no purpose other than to inflame rather than to
inform!

President Trump was correct in referring to the BBC news as another
"beauty". It's hit pieces about China are well known to be egregious!

lo yeeOn

P.S.: The Democrats like Adam Schiff want to investigate all things
Trump but demurred on something that might reveal the Democrats' dirty
linen - how cynical!

There was a mixed reaction to Mr Trump's calls for the inquiry into
alleged abuse of executive power.

Arkansas Republican Senator Tom Cotton said: "I'm sure that this
matter will be a part of that inquiry."

But Adam Schiff, the most senior Democratic member of the House
Select Committee on Intelligence, said Mr Trump's wire-tapping claim
had been taken from "little more than... conspiracy-based news".

He said: "For a president of the United States to make such an
incendiary charge - and one that discredits our democracy in the
eyes of the world - is as destructive as it was baseless."

---------------------------------------------------------------------

Trump wire-tap claim denied by ex-intelligence chief Clapper
http://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-39172719

James Clapper, who left his post when Mr Trump took office on 20
January, told NBC's Meet the Press: "There was no such wire-tap
activity mounted against the president-elect at the time, as a
candidate, or against his campaign."

He said that as intelligence director he would have known about any
"court order on something like this. Absolutely, I can deny it".

But he added: "I can't speak for other authorised entities in the
government or a state or local entity."

Some media reports had suggested the FBI had sought a warrant from the
foreign intelligence surveillance court (Fisa) in order to monitor
members of the Trump team suspected of irregular contacts with Russian
officials.

Mr Clapper's comments appear to contradict the reports, which said
that a warrant was at first turned down, but then approved in October.

Under Fisa, wire-tapping can only be approved if there is probable
cause to believe that the target of the surveillance is an agent of a
foreign power. Mr Obama could not lawfully have ordered such a
warrant.

'Simply false'

In his interview, Mr Clapper also said that no evidence had been found
of collusion between the Trump team and the Russian government.

Mr Trump, who has faced intense scrutiny over alleged Russian
interference in support of his presidential bid, made his wire-tapping
allegation in tweets written from his weekend home in Florida early on
Saturday.

. . .

There was a mixed reaction to Mr Trump's calls for the inquiry into
alleged abuse of executive power.

Arkansas Republican Senator Tom Cotton said: "I'm sure that this
matter will be a part of that inquiry."

But Adam Schiff, the most senior Democratic member of the House Select
Committee on Intelligence, said Mr Trump's wire-tapping claim had been
taken from "little more than... conspiracy-based news".

He said: "For a president of the United States to make such an
incendiary charge - and one that discredits our democracy in the eyes
of the world - is as destructive as it was baseless."

What are the Congressional committees looking at?

Both the House and Senate intelligence committees are currently
looking into the possibility of Russian interference during the 2016
election, both launched in January.

They have promised wide-ranging investigations, carried out on a
bipartisan basis, which will not shy away from looking into potential
links between the Trump campaign and the Kremlin, as well as Russian
"cyber activity".

Meanwhile, the Senate Armed Services Committee is going to look at how
to protect the US from cyber-attacks in the wake of the election.

Mr Trump's tweets followed allegations made by conservative radio host
Mark Levin and later carried in Breitbart News, of which Mr Trump's
chief strategist Steve Bannon is a former executive chairman.

Mr Obama's spokesman, Kevin Lewis, called the accusations "simply
false".

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", he said.

-----

James Clapper and Edward Snowden should 'share a prison cell'
dailycaller.com/.../rand-paul-james-clapper-and-edward-snowden-should-share-a-pris...

Jan 4, 2014 - You've got all of these people, like James Clapper and
others, beating the table and saying 'We want to put Edward Snowden in
jail for life,' ...

Rand Paul: 'I'd put Clapper and Snowden in the same jail cell' : all ...

video.todaysfarmer.ca/...put-clapper-and-snowden-in-the-same-jail-cell/42766774930...

Rand Paul: 'I'd put Clapper and Snowden in the same jail cell'. Rand
Paul: 'I'd put Clapper and Snowden in the same jail cell'. June 4,
2015 20:30.

Pardon Snowden, Prosecute Clapper | MishTalk
https://mishtalk.com/2016/11/26/pardon-snowden-prosecute-clapper/

Nov 26, 2016 - Instead he faces 30 years in prison for leaking
surveillance secrets. ... lists, searching email content, tracking and
mapping the location of cell phones, ... the agency was using cookies
to "piggyback" on the same tools used by internet .... official told
BuzzFeed "I would love to put a bullet in Snowden's head".

In December 2013, upon learning that a U.S. federal judge had ruled
the collection of U.S. phone metadata conducted by the NSA as likely
unconstitutional, Snowden stated: "I acted on my belief that the NSA's
mass surveillance programs would not withstand a constitutional
challenge, and that the American public deserved a chance to see these
issues determined by open courts ... today, a secret program
authorized by a secret court was, when exposed to the light of day,
found to violate Americans' rights. It is the first of many."

In January 2014, Snowden said his "breaking point" was "seeing the
Director of National Intelligence, James Clapper, directly lie under
oath to Congress". This referred to testimony on March 12, 2013 -
three months after Snowden first sought to share thousands of NSA
documents with Greenwald, and nine months after the NSA says Snowden
made his first illegal downloads during the summer of 2012 in which
Clapper denied to the U.S. Senate Select Committee on Intelligence
that the NSA wittingly collects data on millions of Americans.

Snowden said, "There's no saving an intelligence community that
believes it can lie to the public and the legislators who need to be
able to trust it and regulate its actions. Seeing that really meant
for me there was no going back. Beyond that, it was the creeping
realization that no one else was going to do this."
TT
2017-03-05 22:19:09 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by lo yeeOn
First, why should anyone believe James Clapper
Why should anyone believe Trump's tweets?
Total deflection, a squirrel.

Obama ordered no wiretapping, according to Comey:
https://www.nytimes.com/2017/03/05/us/politics/trump-seeks-inquiry-into-allegations-that-obama-tapped-his-phones.html

There is one troubling part in the article though:

"Along with concerns about the potential attacks on the bureau’s
credibility, senior F.B.I. officials are said to be worried that the
notion of a court-approved wiretap will raise the public’s expectations
that the federal authorities have significant evidence implicating the
Trump campaign in colluding with Russia’s efforts to disrupt the
presidential election."

...Comey being worried having to actually present some evidence instead
of trying to hide it and not pursue leads against Trump's treasonous
activity. A Republican through thick and thin.
TT
2017-03-05 22:28:21 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by TT
Why should anyone believe Trump's tweets?
Total deflection, a squirrel.
And US media truly is the pits, falling for that distraction.
Not talking about Sessions any more... wow.

Loading...