Spygate: America's Political Police Vs. Donald J. Trump

Tyler Durden's picture

Via Justin Raimondo of AntiWar.com,

Everyone is suddenly talking about the Deep State – the configuration of spy agencies, career bureaucrats, and overseas spooks whose murky omnipresence has been brought to light by President Trump’s contention that he was “wiretapped” by his predecessor.

With his usual imprecision, Trump managed to confuse the issue by ascribing the surveillance to Barack Obama, and so naturally spokesmen for the former President had no trouble batting this charge away. But as a former Obama speechwriter put it:  “I’d be careful about reporting that Obama said there was no wiretapping. Statement just said that neither he nor the [White House] ordered it.”

And then there’s the word “wiretapping”: this brings to mind the old-fashioned physical “bug” that our spooks used to plant on their target’s phone lines, installed in the dead of night. But that isn’t how it’s done anymore. As Edward Snowden revealed, the National Security Agency (NSA) scoops up everyone’s communications, and stores them in a database for later retrieval. Loosely-observed “rules” are supposed to make it hard (but not impossible) for the spooks to spy on American citizens, but the reality is that there are plenty of times when such information is scooped up “incidentally,” and in those cases the identities of those spied on must be redacted.

Except not anymore.

As the New York Times reported on January 12:

“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.


“The change means that far more officials will be searching through raw data…”

And it looks like Obama administration officials made good use of this loosening of the rules after Trump’s victory. As the Times reported on March 1, after Trump won they were combing through the unredacted raw data looking for evidence of Russian collusion with the Trump campaign:

“In the Obama administration’s last days, 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 Donald J. Trump and Russians – across the government.”

Their goal: “to leave a clear trail of intelligence for government investigators.” And they apparently didn’t wait for the investigators, as a stream of reportage about “intercepts” involving Trump associates, such as former National Security Council advisor Michael Flynn communicating with Russian officials, found its way onto the front pages of the nation’s newspapers. The source of this intelligence is the key to understanding what happened. The Times tells us:

“American allies, including the British and the Dutch, had provided information describing meetings in European cities between Russian officials – and others close to Russia’s president, Vladimir V. Putin – and associates of President-elect Trump, according to three former American officials who requested anonymity in discussing classified intelligence.


“Separately, American intelligence agencies had intercepted communications of Russian officials, some of them within the Kremlin, discussing contacts with Trump associates.”

Forget about looking for a FISA court application to spy on Trump & Co.: it wasn’t necessary. Such archaic remnants of a free society as a warrant were blithely bypassed: “Seventeen different government agencies shouldn’t be rooting through Americans’ emails with family members, friends and colleagues, all without ever obtaining a warrant,” warned American Civil Liberties Union lawyer Patrick Toomey at the time the NSA rules were thrown out.

But nobody was listening – including Trump and his supporters, who generally approve of government spying in the name of “national security.” And so the way was cleared for the anti-Trump coup plotters to do their dirty work. As the January 12 Times story reported:

“Under the new system, agencies will ask the N.S.A. for access to specific surveillance feeds, making the case that they contain information relevant and useful to their missions. The N.S.A. will grant requests it deems reasonable after considering factors like whether large amounts of Americans’ private information might be included and, if so, how damaging or embarrassing it would be if that information were ‘improperly used or disclosed.’”

All the leakers had to do was comb through the material gathered by the NSA and cherry-pick what looked incriminating – although, to be sure, if they had a smoking gun we would surely have known about it by now. But the lack of such was no obstacle to their goal, which was to give the #NeverTrump cause a banner around which to rally post-election – “The Russians did it!” – and create a dark cloud of suspicion over Trump’s presidency as being somehow illegitimate.

The new rules on disseminating raw NSA intercepts went into effect on January 3, after then Attorney General Loretta Lynch signed on: the Director of National Intelligence James Clapper had previously signed on December 12. And if we look at the reportage coming out of the media, that’s when the stories detailing the content of intercepts and other intelligence started hitting the front pages.

It’s difficult to see how anyone could deny that the Surveillance State did a number on Trump. Two days after the loosened NSA rules went into effect, the Washington Post ran a story headlined “US Intercepts Capture Senior Russian Officials Celebrating Trump Win”:

“Senior officials in the Russian government celebrated Donald Trump’s victory over Hillary Clinton as a geopolitical win for Moscow, according to U.S. officials who said that American intelligence agencies intercepted communications in the aftermath of the election in which Russian officials congratulated themselves on the outcome.”

Citing "intercepted messages and conversations among senior Russian officials in Putin’s inner circle" a January 6 Reuters report informed us that:

“The CIA has identified Russian officials who fed material hacked from the Democratic National Committee and party leaders to WikiLeaks at the direction of Russian President Vladimir Putin through third parties, according to a new US intelligence report, senior US officials said on Thursday.”

On January 20, the day Trump took power, the New York Times ran a front page story headlined: “Wiretapped Data Used in Inquiry of Trump Aides”:

“American law enforcement and intelligence agencies are examining intercepted communications and financial transactions as part of a broad investigation into possible links between Russian officials and associates of President-elect Donald J. Trump, including his former campaign chairman Paul Manafort, current and former senior American officials said.”

On February 9, the New York Times reported on the conversations between Flynn and the Russian ambassador to the United States, Sergey Kisylak:

“Weeks before President Trump’s inauguration, his national security adviser, Michael T. Flynn, discussed American sanctions against Russia, as well as areas of possible cooperation, with that country’s ambassador to the United States, according to current and former American officials.”

The story cites the transcript of the conversation. How did the Times reporters get hold of this information? They cite “Federal officials who have read the transcript of the call.” How did those officials get hold of the transcript of a private conversation of an American citizen who was not yet a government employee? The new rules governing raw unredacted NSA intercepts made possible an interagency effort to disseminate and examine intercepts and other material, and there was a concerted effort to uncover anything that could be used against Trump.

On January 19, the McClatchy news service reported on the “get Trump” campaign launched by US law enforcement agencies:

“The FBI and five other law enforcement and intelligence agencies have collaborated for months in an investigation into Russian attempts to influence the November election, including whether money from the Kremlin covertly aided President-elect Donald Trump, two people familiar with the matter said.


“The agencies involved in the inquiry are the FBI, the CIA, the National Security Agency, the Justice Department, the Treasury Department’s Financial Crimes Enforcement Network and representatives of the director of national intelligence, the sources said.”

To be clear: during the election, six law enforcement agencies were engaged in a systematic attempt to undermine the Trump campaign, at a certain point utilizing unredacted raw intelligence collected by the NSA and other agencies, all the while leaking like a sieve to their media camarilla.

And this campaign was international in scope, as pro-Clinton nutbag Kurt Eichenwald reported on February 15 in a story headlined: “US Allies Conduct Intelligence Operation Against Trump Staff, Intercepted Communications”:

“The Western European intelligence operations began in August, after the British government obtained information that people acting on behalf of Russia were in contact with members of the Trump campaign. Those details from the British were widely shared among the NATO allies in Europe. The Baltic nation has been gathering intelligence for at least that long, and has conducted surveillance of executives from the Trump Organization who were traveling in Europe.”

In a panic that their free ride would be over if Trump’s “America First” agenda was implemented, our European NATO “allies” worked in close coordination with the Washington cabal to subvert the US election process far more effectively than any Russian effort. And they didn’t need a FISA court to approve their spying on the Trump campaign.

Which brings up an important issue: there has been much ado about reports of a FISA court application, supposedly denied, and one that was narrowed and allegedly approved: the BBC, the Guardian, and the lunatic “reporter” Louise Mensch have all maintained that this was the case. Yet, as I have shown above, no such approval by the FISA court was ever required, although it would have a) made it much easier for the coup plotters to do their dirty work, and b) would have shielded them from any legal consequences. However, the fly in the ointment is that this would leave a paper trail that, once elected, Trump could simply declassify.

So the FISA issue is, I believe, a false trail, a distraction away from what really happened. They didn’t need the FISA court. They didn’t need a warrant. They simply opened a “back door” that, contrary to reports, had not been closed by the “USA Freedom Act,” and – unleashed by the relaxation of the rules previously governing dissemination of NSA intercepts – simply went through it.

Finally, we have another interesting “coincidence”: the brouhaha over NSA chief Admiral Michael Rogers, who top Obama administration officials wanted to fire, which started because Rogers traveled to Trump Tower to meet with the President-elect. The ostensible reasons given – various breaches of security – were odd: after all, why fire him just as Obama was leaving office? In short, the intensity of the campaign to fire him was out of all proportion to his alleged misdeeds. Aside from the security issue, the very fact that he was visiting Trump was supposedly a major issue: we were told “There’s only one President at a time.” But why shouldn’t someone who might be asked to continue to serve meet with the President-elect?

In retrospect, the visit – and the disproportionate anger it provoked from the Obama crowd – makes perfect sense. If the NSA was being used as a source for the campaign to delegitimize Trump, and build a case that the President-elect is a “Russian puppet,” as Hillary Clinton put it, then Rogers’ may have been trying to distance himself from the effort: “It wasn’t me, Boss!”

The campaign to frame up and discredit Trump and his associates is characteristic of how a police state routinely operates. A national security apparatus that vacuums up all our communications and stores them for later retrieval has been utilized by political operatives to go after their enemies – and not even the President of the United States is immune. This is something that one might expect to occur in, say, Turkey, or China: that it is happening here, to the cheers of much of the media and the Democratic party, is beyond frightening.

The irony is that the existence of this dangerous apparatus – which civil libertarians have warned could and probably would be used for political purposes – has been hailed by Trump and his team as a necessary and proper function of government. Indeed, Trump has called for the execution of the person who revealed the existence of this sinister engine of oppression – Edward Snowden. Absent Snowden’s revelations, we would still be in the dark as to the existence and vast scope of the NSA’s surveillance.

And now the monster Trump embraced in the name of “national security” has come back to bite him.

We hear all the time that what’s needed is an open and impartial “investigation” of Trump’s alleged “ties” to Russia. This is dangerous nonsense: does every wild-eyed accusation from embittered losers deserve a congressional committee armed with subpoena power bent on conducting an inquisition? Certainly not.

What must be investigated is the incubation of a clandestine political police force inside the national security apparatus, one that has been unleashed against Trump – and could be deployed against anyone.

This isn’t about Donald Trump. It’s about preserving what’s left of our old republic. I don’t want to live in a country where anonymous spooks with access to my most personal information can collect it and release it to their friends in our despicable media – do you?

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.
NidStyles's picture

So what you are saying is that a bunch fuckers commited blatant treason and are still walking around free as bird.


I would bet many of them are dual citizens of one shitty little country in the middle east as well.

shivura's picture

yeah...there is no sane individual who can think obama committed treason and trump and co have not. but that is why t is taking your meds away--he wants this country to go crazy and burn...

BorisTheBlade's picture

So, Trump took your meds? That somewhat explains the incoherence.

StackShinyStuff's picture

Sometimes I wish the Watergate Hotel had been named the Waterpussy Hotel.

xythras's picture
xythras (not verified) StackShinyStuff Mar 9, 2017 4:17 AM

FBI just jumped in on this, BUT ON THE WRONG SIDE (as always) going after WikiLeaks:

FBI Investigating Wikileaks’ Vault 7 Disclosures on CIA Hacking




beemasters's picture

The people should be going after the CIA/FBI instead.

prime american's picture
prime american (not verified) beemasters Mar 9, 2017 5:30 AM

I'm making over $7k a month working part time. I kept hearing other people tell me how much money they can make online so I decided to look into it. Well, it was all true and has totally changed my life. This is what I do... http://bit.ly/2jdTzrM

NoDebt's picture

God help them if it is shown that there was, indeed, an approved October FISA order.  That would be BEFORE the election, not after.  That would be BEFORE Obama loosened the raw intel-sharing rules, not after.  And that would take this whole "it's just the deep state being the deep state" (which we already knew was happening since Snowden) argument that's being used to try to shield Obama and chuck it right out the window.  


DownWithYogaPants's picture

This author seemed to imply at the beginning Obama was not involved.  Clearly he was.  His actions and demeanor and circumstances all are highly suggestive he was quite aware.

y3maxx's picture

-Is it possible Kim Jung Nan's assasination becomes WW3's Archduke Ferdinand moment?

-Will Trump go down or will he be America's WW3's leader?

Sanity Bear's picture

Should be going after the spies masquerading as journalists.

I'd love to wake up one day and find that every NYT/WaPo/etc. "reporter" who spilled leaked info is suddenly in jail and facing death penalty espionage charges. We'd find out right quick where the info was being leaked from.

Dancing Disraeli's picture

I dunno.  I think there is a split between pro-Israel Jews, who would be in Trump's corner, and globalist Jews who would be out for his blood.  I'm beginning to think the classic monolithic Jew approach may be breaking up.  Keep in mind that Jews are an ethnic group, not necessarily a religion, and that the globalist/leftist/democrat party Jews tend to be atheists.  Dems, including Obama, tried to get rid of Netanyahu, while Trump is firmly in his corner. My assumption is that Mossad will be helping, not hurting Trump.

gellero's picture

It never existed....except in the mind of the Haters...

nightwish's picture

True democracy was swept away when the project for a new american century was employed, and was utterly destroyed during Obamas tenure. The left and deep state have an unholy alliance, and the common denominator is the jews who impose their agenda through our great nation. We hold no power here.

gellero's picture

which one? Andrew Breitbart, Mark Levin, or Michael Savage?.........or is it Yellen and Schumer???? Please be specific, otherwise you sound stupid...

gellero's picture

which one? Andrew Breitbart, Mark Levin, or Michael Savage?.........or is it Yellen and Schumer???? Please be specific, otherwise you sound stupid...

L Bean's picture

The problem we have is that the average westerner has still got the wrong end of the stick about what's been going on in Syria and Ukraine, and what sort of conflagration we've come so close to having, so many times in the past few years. They are all on psych meds, watching the Oscars, where mercenary terrorists are being feted by people dripping in jewels fit for any pre-revolutionary court in history!

No one can really remember when they started to hate the Russians, they just know that they do. It's a surreal fantasy empire at this point, completely bizarre. Can only end in tears.



Giant Meteor's picture

All excellent points. Looks, they're getting their pallatives and daily 2 minutes of hate, 24/7, A double dose combo of Huxley AND Orwell.

detached.amusement's picture

I facepalmed a while back when I said somethinsomethin Georgeous Huxwell and most people had no clue what it meant

TheEndIsNear's picture

"We've always been at war with Eastasia"

beijing expat's picture

I believe it started when the DeepState had it all teed up for Obamma to Bomb Syria, and then Putin defused the situation and sent his navy to sit off the coast of Syria to make sure the bombing didn't happen.

This was a huge violation of the Wolfowitz doctrine which states that the UniPower will never allow any other power or combinitation of powers to challenge it or prevent it from doing whatever the fuck it pleases.

Things really went south after that.

VWAndy's picture

 Still thinkin you have a government? Looks to me they have us.

Giant Meteor's picture

They only have us, IF, you take them seriously.

I fart in their general direction ..

Crude? Yes, why yes it is ... and they deserve every stinking bit of it.


Giant Meteor's picture

17 intelligence agencies, too many. No No, I mean like SEVENTEEN too many ..


Dennisen's picture

No desire for overt cooperation...

Just covert operations.

socalbeach's picture

Trump's "imprecision" when making some statements is probably intentional.  The legacy media plays gotcha by focusing on it, but in so doing they have to spend inordinate amounts of time explaining everything to their viewers. The Obama admin and others like the NYT (since they ran the piece on Jan 19th saying Trump was surveilled) still end up looking bad, and it takes the focus off of the previous Trump-Russian connnection story.  If he had been totally precise the media might have mostly ignored his tweets.  He did this during the campaign also.

Sandmann's picture

Trump is President not Litigator-in-Chief

Koba the Dread's picture

Hey, sport! Remember that old ditty, "Hail to the Chief"? Trump's the chief. In matters of war he's the commander in chief. In matters of law he's the litigator in chief. Think it through champ!

Dancing Disraeli's picture

You got that right, slick!  Nailed it, ace!

Neochrome's picture

I guess NSA still has a log of who requested the raw data, it's not like spooks can just come and help them selves to what ever they want, no questions asked. One way or the other we will get to the bottom of this.

LyLo's picture

That's why everyone's panicked and coming up with all sorts of dumb stories, even going so far as to trash their own reporters and sources.

I'm not saying for sure that someone is going to get in trouble here, but it's honestly the first time in my life TPTB acted like they might.  I've never seen so many fall guys set up so fast.

Sandmann's picture

Wikileaks proves that not everyone in CIA is signed up to Deep State.

There are internal wars going on. The US is overly-bureaucratic and has ended up in the kind of turf wars the Soviets had between GRU and KGB and MVD etc. or that the Nazis had between RSHA and Abwehr.

The CIA and NSA are probably collecting too much data and cannot evaluate it - data overload

Jubal Early's picture

The leaker was almost certainly a contractor, like Snowden.  They are not CIA but merely their prostitutes, albeit expensive.  Booze Hamilton or whatever their employer calls themselves, these 5000 "CIA" hackers are sellouts.  So one guy, or maybe a few out of 5000 decide to whistle blow.  I am in their debt.  But the other 4997 are still douchebag traitors to the rest of us.

SHsparx's picture

The fuc makes people think Trump is against the police state? He loves the police state. The "law and order" president. He hates Snowden, loves torture, loves defense, loves all this counter terrorism intelligence bullshit. He's just against it going against HIM, which is poetic irony of the year.

Liberty2012's picture

Being for law and order is not the same thing as being for a police state. It's just the opposite.

Law and order is implicitly for everyone.

Police state is the perversion of pretending to use law and order which only benefits a few.

sarz's picture

You can be sure some of it is dissimulation. Like the really nasty stuff he said about torturing families of terrorists. He didn't want to leave any space on the right. He's dealing with a brainwashed populace. Then Mattis talks him out of supporting torture in five minutes. The opposition to Iran seems to have been fake from the beginning, and now he has to go through the motions of opposing Russia, to keep the opposition off balance. He might very well dismantle the surveillance state, after using the machinery to deal with the war against America. 

gellero's picture

People change when they are the subject of TYRANNY........ ;-)

alfbell's picture

Poor excuse for a government. Poor excuse for a country. Sad that the American people lost control of their country many decades ago. Fall of the Roman Empire version 2.0.

captain-nemo's picture

With access to this mega database and the things they tought they found there , the liberals went crazy. They were so confident that they could take Trump and his staff down, that they even started to brag about it , and articles of their evildoing started to appear in the mainstream media and all over the place. Even the village idiot himself (Michael Moore) knew about what was going on.

The mainstream media, large part of the Senate, the deep state, CIA,NSA,FBI , The Clintons, Soros, Barach Obama and his former staff and the DOJ ;  THEY WERE ALL IN ON IT.

Today it is Trump and his staff who are sitting on the bench accused for treason and collaborations with the Russians, while it should have been Obama sitting on this bench. It is remarkable how it has been turned upside down.


The  one who have done the crime (obama) is the one who is Judge and the accuser i this case, and the one who hasn't done anything (Trump) is the accused.  Only in a failed Democracy is such madness possible.

Liberty2012's picture

Attacked and failure are not the same thing.

You are also celebrating too early.

Stef1304's picture

Great post. Thanks for sharing.

Fully agree on :

What must be investigated is the incubation of a clandestine political police force inside the national security apparatus, one that has been unleashed against Trump – and could be deployed against anyone.

This isn’t about Donald Trump. It’s about preserving what’s left of our old republic. I don’t want to live in a country where anonymous spooks with access to my most personal information can collect it and release it to their friends in our despicable media – do you?

Definitively NOT.

This new police apparatus trumy is the new STASI 


Only stronger, more efficient. In fact, it's a stasi.20; or even 3.0

To be clear: during the election, six law enforcement agencies were engaged in a systematic attempt to undermine the Trump campaign, at a certain point utilizing unredacted raw intelligence collected by the NSA and other agencies, all the while leaking like a sieve to their media camarilla.

Reflect about this fact !!! All against the official canditate of the Republican party. Isn't that interesting ? Would u call it trying to rig the election ? 

Now, what is even more interesting in this article is this FACT.

In a panic that their free ride would be over if Trump’s “America First” agenda was implemented, our European NATO “allies” worked in close coordination with the Washington cabal to subvert the US election process far more effectively than any Russian effort. And they didn’t need a FISA court to approve their spying on the Trump campaign.

So, it was not the Russian ( Russia national budget is smaller than the budget of Italy !!!), but the EU subordinates; which by the way, are also trying to rig their own elections.

Any doubt, check what is happening in the french election process... ;-)


New_Meat's picture
  • right to confront your accuser
  • right to a fair and speedy trial by a jury of your peers
  • protection against unlawful search and seizure
  • safety in one's body and in one's papers

Dang, them old dead guys wrote our playbook.  How the hell did they know?  Their document is supposed to be old and dusty and out of touch.

- Ned

otschelnik's picture

Turns out FBI paid for Trump's "yellow shower" dossier ! ! ! !   Senator Grassley subpeona-ed the for details. 



Gee, paying for compromising material on a presidential candidate - is that in the FBI's charter ? ? ? 

DuneCreature's picture

Right there is the reason (among a dozen others) that Mr Slippery needs to resign. ........ Or 'be resigned' by his boss, POTUS.

"You're stuck with me for another six and a half years."

“I’m very slippery,” he added.

~ FBI Director James 'Mr Slippery' Comey

Niceeeeee. ... That's just what I wanted to hear from the FBI Director.

Live Hard, I Have ZERO confidence In Our Chief LEO. What Say Ye, President Trump?, Die Free

~ Dc v5.0

LyLo's picture

I'm curious how he thinks we're stuck with him:

"President Clinton fired FBI Director William S. Sessions yesterday, ending a six-month drama during which the former federal judge refused repeated requests from administration officials to resign.  Clinton telephoned Sessions yesterday afternoon to inform him that he had been fired and then called back several minutes later to remind him that the dismissal was "effective immediately." The president told reporters afterwards that he acted after Attorney General Janet Reno "reported to me in no uncertain terms that he {Sessions} can no longer effectively lead the bureau and law enforcement community" and that he agreed with that assessment."

It sounds incredibly easy to fire the head of the FBI, if you ask me.  Just say he's no longer leading well, then fire his ass.  Then call him back to let him know it's effective immediately...  Easy Peasy Japanesey.