Below are proof how everyone in the mainstream media was not only openly admitting that the Obama administration spied on Team Trump, but they were bragging about how wonderful it was.
In chronological order [emphasis mine throughout]…
The (now defunct) Heat Street – November 7, 2016
EXCLUSIVE: FBI ‘Granted FISA Warrant’ Covering Trump Camp’s Ties To Russia
Two separate sources with links to the counter-intelligence community have confirmed to Heat Street that the FBI sought, and was granted, a FISA court warrant in October, giving counter-intelligence permission to examine the activities of ‘U.S. persons’ in Donald Trump’s campaign with ties to Russia.
If you are wondering who Heat Street is and why you should care, just know that the New York Timesre-published this information in March — you know, the information that the Obama administration spied on Team Trump.
The Guardian has learned that the FBI applied for a warrant from the foreign intelligence surveillance (Fisa) court over the summer in order to monitor four members of the Trump team suspected of irregular contacts with Russian officials. The Fisa court turned down the application asking FBI counter-intelligence investigators to narrow its focus. According to one report, the FBI was finally granted a warrant in October, but that has not been confirmed, and it is not clear whether any warrant led to a full investigation.
In its final days, the Obama administration has expanded the power of the National Security Agency to share globally intercepted personal communications with the government’s 16 other intelligence agencies before applying privacy protections.
The new rules significantly relax longstanding limits on what the N.S.A. may do with the information gathered by its most powerful surveillance operations, which are largely unregulated by American wiretapping laws. These include collecting satellite transmissions, phone calls and emails that cross network switches abroad, and messages between people abroad that cross domestic network switches.
Note the timing of “in the final days of the Obama administration.”
As I wrote at the Daily Wire back in March (where I first published this list): “This is the most important piece of the puzzle, because it explains how the media was getting all of its scoops via leaks via surveillance.”
Lawyers from the National Security Division in the [Obama] Department of Justice then drew up an application. They took it to the secret US court that deals with intelligence, the Fisa court, named after the Foreign intelligence Surveillance Act. They wanted permission to intercept the electronic records from two Russian banks.
Their first application, in June, was rejected outright by the judge. They returned with a more narrowly drawn order in July and were rejected again. Finally, before a new judge, the order was granted, on 15 October, three weeks before election day.
Neither Mr Trump nor his associates are named in the Fisa order, which would only cover foreign citizens or foreign entities – in this case the Russian banks. But ultimately, the investigation is looking for transfers of money from Russia to the United States, each one, if proved, a felony offence.
A lawyer – outside the Department of Justice but familiar with the case – told me that three of Mr. Trump’s associates were the subject of the inquiry. “But it’s clear this is about Trump,” he said.
The agencies involved in the inquiry are the FBI, the CIA, the National Security Agency, the [Obama] Justice Department, the Treasury Department’s Financial Crimes Enforcement Network and representatives of the director of national intelligence, the sources said. …
A key mission of the six-agency group has been to examine who financed the email hacks of the Democratic National Committee and Clinton campaign chairman John Podesta. The London-based transparency group WikiLeaks released the emails last summer and in October.
The working group is scrutinizing the activities of a few Americans who were affiliated with Trump’s campaign or his business empire and of multiple individuals from Russia and other former Soviet nations.
The BBC reported that the FBI had obtained a warrant on Oct. 15 from the highly secretive Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court allowing investigators access to bank records and other documents about potential payments and money transfers related to Russia. One of McClatchy’s sources confirmed the report.
Print headline: “Wiretapped Data Used In Inquiry of Trump Aides” …
The F.B.I. is leading the investigations, aided by the National Security Agency, the C.I.A. and the Treasury Department’s financial crimes unit. The investigators have accelerated their efforts in recent weeks but have found no conclusive evidence of wrongdoing, the officials said. One official said intelligence reports based on some of the wiretapped communications had been provided to the White House.
Yes, that’s right, the Times used WIRETAP in its headline and in its story.
National security adviser Michael Flynn privately discussed U.S. sanctions against Russia with that country’s ambassador to the United States during the month before President Trump took office, contrary to public assertions by Trump officials, current and former U.S. officials said.
Flynn’s communications with Russian Ambassador Sergey Kislyak were interpreted by some senior U.S. officials as an inappropriate and potentially illegal signal to the Kremlin that it could expect a reprieve from sanctions that were being imposed by the Obama administration in late December to punish Russia for its alleged interference in the 2016 election.
Flynn’s communications with Russian Ambassador Sergey Kislyak were interpreted [.]
The New York Times quickly matched the story and said there was a transcript of the discussions.
This is CNN celebrating Flynn being taken down by a transcript of a phone call that the New York Times reported on in a story that used the word “wiretap” under a headline that declared it a “wiretap.”
Embattled National Security Adviser Michael Flynn called Vice President Mike Pence Friday to apologize for misleading him about a conversation with the Russian ambassador to the United States, according to a senior White House official.
Investigators believe that President Trump’s national security adviser, Michael Flynn, privately discussed U.S. sanctions against Russia in a phone call with a Russian official, law enforcement sources told CBS News on Friday.
Multiple sources told CBS News’ Jeff Pegues and Pat Milton that the conversation occurred before Mr. Trump took office and, if true, could be a violation of protocol and could be viewed as a violation of the law.
While a quick Internet search came up with too-many-to-count instances of Antifa committing various acts of personal and property violence, I was able to find no fewer than 10 instances of Antifa assaulting members of the very same media so enamored with Antifa, so eager to defend these leftwing terrorists who stalk, disrupt, and assault everyday Republicans, who (like the media) see no moral difference between a Trump supporter and a neo-Nazi.
Now, don’t be fooled by pleas of ignorance. Our media is very well aware of what is going on here, well aware of the fact that these leftwing hooligans regularly target their colleagues in this manner. Why, then, doesn’t the media — who love to report on themselves as brave victims — go to Defcon 1 against Antifa?
( True Pundit ) The White House is accusing Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell of waging a clandestine smear campaign against President Donald Trump, leaking sensitive internal communications shared with the President to the New York Times and possibly other media, according to administration officials.
“The President knows exactly what the senator (McConnell) has done,” a White House official said. “And the President will address this in his own way. Privately.”
The honeymoon — if you can call it that — appears to be officially over for the GOP leaders. And that might be a very bad thing for McConnell whose popularity is sliding in his home state of Kentucky.
According to White House insiders, President Trump was furious when the New York Times published a long hit piece on the president’s growing feud with McConnell. The piece included detailed communications between Trump and McConnell that, according to White House sources, were almost verbatim. Moreover, it is believe the article was timed to try to steal some of Trump’s thunder from his Monday night address to the nation on military plans in Afghanistan, officials said.
At a time when Trump should have been celebrating his speech from Tuesday night in Arizona — which likewise was well received by supporters — the mood on Wednesday was tamped down by the realization that the GOP leader had ratted out and betrayed the GOP President of the United States to the house organ publication of the Democratic party: The New York Times.
Stopping just short of calling the Kentucky Senator a rat, True Pundit’s White House sources said McConnell either leaked the information to the Times himself or instructed aides to do it for him. Either way, they said, the Senate leader no longer deserves blanket trust from the Trump administration.
Members of the establishment media reacted in horror after President Donald Trump criticized them again during a rally in Phoenix in the wake of the violent Charlottesville protests.
Axios founder Jim VandeHei sent a series of distressed messages on Twitter early Wednesday morning after Trump called the media “bad people” and “sick people” who “don’t like our country.”
To family/friends who support Trump: what he said last night about reporters was despicable, extremely deceptive, dangerous. Claim bias. Fine. Claim elitism. Fine. Claim the press hyperventilates/bloviates. Fine. But to say reporters erase America’s heritage, don’t love America, turn off cameras to hide truth, are to blame for racial tension, is just plain wrong. I worked w/ reporters like Daniel Pearl who died a gruesome death seeking truth; scores die yearly exposing facts. There are great Americans deeply concerned about a changing nation. God forbid one buys Trump’s mad rant and takes action..
MSNBC’s Chuck Todd also expressed worry that journalist’s lives were in danger.
“Whether POTUS means it or not, I don’t know, but this could motivate a crazy,” he said on Twitter. “Dangerous rhetoric. Sad how few elected officials condemn it.”
“Who will Donald Trump blame when a journalist gets severely injured or worse by someone acting in his name?” wrote Tom Namako of Buzzfeed. “’Fake news?’”
“I’ve worked as reporter in China; during riots/protests in Seoul, Rangoon, Manila; civil rights demos in Miss/AL,” wrote the Atlantic’s James Fallows. “Hadn’t seen this.”
“This was incitement, plain and simple,” said ABC’s Cecilia Vega on ABC’s Good Morning America. “This was an assault that went on and on and on, I’ve got to tell you … this one felt different, it really feels like a matter of time, frankly, before someone gets hurt.”
CNN reporters also signaled their distress, after Trump supporters roared “CNN Sucks!” during the rally.
“The attacks from the most powerful office in the world are fundamentally dangerous,” CNN Chief National Security Correspondent Jim Sciutto wrote.
“This is why I keep calling the president’s words ‘poison,’ CNN’s Brian Stelter wrote. “His attacks seep into the country’s bloodstream.”
“That is dangerous rhetoric. It just is. It is dangerous. Something is going to happen,” a distraught CNN reporter Chris Cillizza said on-air. “You cannot vilify the media like this. I know I’m a reporter, but you cannot do this with any profession and expect no consequences.”
CNN political analyst Peter Mathews said Trump’s rhetoric as “dangerous,” comparing it to same rhetoric that Hitler used in Nazi Germany.
Obama’s NSA adviser Ben Rhodes: “They ( experts ) were saying things that validated WHAT WE HAD GIVEN THEM TO SAY.”
The “freshly minted arms-of-control experts” were utilized to create an “echo chamber” at think tanks and social media
The ‘experts’ became key sources for hundreds of reporters to sell Iran deal
Ben Rhodes: “We had test drives to know who was going to be able to carry our message effectively, and how to use outside groups like Ploughshares, the Iran Project and whomever else. So we knew the tactics that worked.”
The involvement of Ploughshares in selling the Iran agreement to the public was revealed in an extensive New York TimesMagazineprofile of Obama’s former deputy national security adviser, Ben Rhodes, titled, “The Aspiring Novelist Who Became Obama’s Foreign-Policy Guru.” The article contains interviews with Rhodes and scores of top Obama administration officials.
Robert Malley, then a senior director at the National Security Council, expounded on the genesis and execution of the marketing plan to sell the Iran deal.
Malley explained to the Times that “experts” were utilized to create an “echo chamber” that disseminated administration claims about Iran to “hundreds of often-clueless reporters” in the news media.
Times author David Samuels wrote:
In the spring of last year, legions of arms-control experts began popping up at think tanks and on social media, and then became key sources for hundreds of often-clueless reporters. “We created an echo chamber,” he admitted, when I asked him to explain the onslaught of freshly minted experts cheerleading for the deal. “They were saying things that validated what we had given them to say.”
Rhodes told Samuels that the marketing strategy took advantage of the “absence of rational discourse” and utilized outside groups, including Ploughshares.
When I suggested that all this dark metafictional play seemed a bit removed from rational debate over America’s future role in the world, Rhodes nodded. “In the absence of rational discourse, we are going to discourse the [expletive] out of this,” he said. “We had test drives to know who was going to be able to carry our message effectively, and how to use outside groups like Ploughshares, the Iran Project and whomever else. So we knew the tactics that worked.” He is proud of the way he sold the Iran deal. “We drove them crazy,” he said of the deal’s opponents.
Ploughshares says it has awarded hundreds of grants “whose aggregate value exceeded $60 million.”
( ACLIJ ) There is clear evidence that the main stream media was colluding with the DOJ to bury the story. A Washington Post reporter, speaking of the Clinton Lynch meeting story, said, “I’m hoping I can put it to rest .” The same Washington Post reporter, interacting with the DOJ spin team, implemented specific DOJ requests to change his story to make the Attorney General appear in a more favorable light.
A New York Times reporter apologetically told the Obama DOJ that he was being “pressed into service” to have to cover the story. As the story was breaking, DOJ press officials stated, “I also talked to the ABC producer, who noted that they aren’t interested, even if Fox runs with it.”
Two days after the meeting, DOJ officials in a chain of emails that includes emails to Attorney General Lynch herself stated that the media coverage of the meeting “looks like all or most are FOX” and that “CBS . . . just says a few lines about the meeting.”
Jared Kushner’s statement and testimony before Congress have made Democrats and many in the media come to the realization that the collusion they were counting on just isn’t there
A Washington Post op-ed by Ed Rogers titled, “The Quest to Prove Collusion is Crumbling”
After his testimony, news producers and editors to realize that the story is fading.
The left is waving the white flag on fake Trump-Russia collusion story.
A Washington Post op-ed by Ed Rogers titled, “The Quest to Prove Collusion is Crumbling”, is a sign the exhausted Russia-deranged media are done with their hoax and just want to move to their next fake news or whatever anti-Trump piece they come up with.
The writer actually admits that the whole Russian collusion narrative is ‘the story that never was’.
While everyone is fixated on President Trump’s unbecoming and inexplicable assault on Attorney General Jeff Sessions, the media has been trying to sneak away from the “Russian collusion” story. That’s right. For all the breathless hype, the on-air furrowed brows and the not-so-veiled hopes that this could be Watergate, Jared Kushner’s statement and testimony before Congress have made Democrats and many in the media come to the realization that the collusion they were counting on just isn’t there.
As the date of the Kushner testimony approached, the media thought it was going to advance and refresh the story. But Kushner’s clear, precise and convincing account of what really occurred during the campaign and after the election has left many of President Trump’s loudest enemies trying to quietly back out of the room unnoticed.
Cable news airtime and in-print word count dedicated to the nonexistent collusion story appear to be dwindling. Democrats and their allies in the media seem less eager to talk about it, and when they do, they say something to the effect of “but, but, but … Kushner didn’t answer every question … He wasn’t under oath … There are still more witnesses … What about this or that new gadfly?” They are stammering. And it hasn’t taken long for news producers and editors to realize that the story is fading.
At last, the story that never was is not happening.