Apparently, when you appear on Fox News Channel’s morning show, “Fox and Friends,” with friends like those, you don’t need any enemies.
Last week, Mr. Napolitano, Fox News Channel’s Senior Legal Analyst and a former New Jersey Superior Court judge, reported on the morning show “Fox and Friends” that the Obama administration had asked British intelligence to wiretap Mr. Trump during the 2016 presidential campaign.
His firing by Fox News Channel is the last straw. It’s been a long while since I’ve suffered FNC to appear on my television. I have it on right now only because they’re reporting on today’s terrorist attack on Westminster Bridge and on Parliament in London. I regard that duplicitous news network as now just another member of the Deep State Media (since the word “Mainstream Media” really doesn’t represent Mainstream America at all, as some wag pointed out yesterday).
Fox News has leaned so far to the Left, that I’ve switched to Fox Business News for my political news. I believe Napolitano was on Fox Business Network, discussing the possibility that Obama employed the services of British Intelligence – the Government Communications Headquarters, known as GCHQ – to carry out his dirty deeds.
I was watching the broadcast. The entire conversation was speculation. Napolitano was unapologetic in stating that he wouldn’t put it past Obama to do such a thing. However, prodded by the host, he was careful to explain this spy-world caper theoretically. He stated that he had to be very careful in what he said because he had no actual facts, but that this was the most likely scenario.
A few days later, Fox News suspended the judge indefinitely after Pres. Trump cited Napolitano’s interview. The GCHQ was furious that they should be implicated in such a crime. Napolitano also published his theory on his website, which hasn’t been updated since the incident.
Published on Mar 16, 2017
The question of whether former President Barack Obama actually spied on President Donald Trump during the 2016 presidential campaign and transition has been tantalizing Washington since President Trump first made the allegation nearly two weeks ago. Since then, three investigations have been launched — one by the FBI, one by the House of Representatives and one by the Senate. Are the investigators chasing a phantom, or did this actually happen?
Here is the back story.
Obama would not have needed a warrant to authorize surveillance on Trump. Obama was the president and as such enjoyed authority under the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act to order surveillance on any person in America, without suspicion, probable cause or a warrant.
FISA contemplates that the surveillance it authorizes will be for national security purposes, but this is an amorphous phrase and an ambiguous standard that has been the favorite excuse of most modern presidents for extraconstitutional behavior. In the early 1970s, President Richard Nixon used national security as a pretext to deploying the FBI and CIA to spy on students and even to break in to the office of the psychiatrist of Daniel Ellsberg, one of his tormentors.
FISA was enacted in the late 1970s to force the federal government to focus its surveillance activities — its domestic national security-based spying — on only those people who were more likely than not agents of a foreign government. Because FISA authorizes judges on the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court to make rules and establish procedures for surveillance — essentially lawmaking — in secret, the public and the media have been largely kept in the dark about the nature and extent of the statute and the legal and moral rationale for the federal government’s spying on everyone in the U.S.
The mass spying that these judges have ruled FISA authorizes is directly counter to the wording, meaning and purpose of FISA itself, which was enacted to prevent just what it has in fact now unleashed.
We now know indisputably that this secret FISA court — whose judges cannot keep records of their own work and have their pockets and briefcases checked by guards as they enter and leave the courthouse — has permitted all spying on everyone all the time.
The FISA court only hears lawyers for the government, and they have convinced it that it is more efficient to capture the digital versions of everyone’s phone calls, texts, emails and other digital traffic than it is to force the government — as the Constitution requires — to focus on only those who there is reason to believe are more likely than not engaging in unlawful acts.
When FISA was written, telephone surveillance was a matter of wiretapping — installing a wire onto the target’s telephone line, either inside or outside the home or business, and listening to or recording in real time the conversations that were audible on the tapped line.
Today the National Security Agency has 24/7 access to the mainframe computers of all telecom providers and all computer service providers and to all digital traffic carried by fiber optics in the U.S. The NSA has had this access pursuant to FISA court orders issued in 2005 and renewed every 90 days. The FISA court has based its rulings on its own essentially secret convoluted logic, never subjected to public scrutiny. That has resulted in the universal surveillance state in which we in America now live. The NSA has never denied this.
Thus, in 2016, when Trump says the surveillance of him took place, Obama needed only to ask the NSA for a transcript of Trump’s telephone conversations to be prepared from the digital versions that the NSA already possessed. Because the NSA has the digital version of every telephone call made to, from and within the U.S. since 2005, if President Obama last year wanted transcripts of Trump’s calls made at any time, the NSA would have been duty-bound to provide them, just as it would be required to provide transcripts of Obama’s calls today if President Trump wanted them.
But if Obama did order the NSA to prepare transcripts of Trump’s conversations last fall under the pretext of national security — to find out whether Trump was communicating with the Russians would have been a good excuse — there would exist somewhere a record of such an order. For that reason, if Obama did this, he no doubt used a source on which he’d leave no fingerprints.
Enter James Bond.
Sources have told Fox News that the British foreign surveillance service, the Government Communications Headquarters, known as GCHQ, most likely provided Obama with transcripts of Trump’s calls. The NSA has given GCHQ full 24/7 access to its computers, so GCHQ — a foreign intelligence agency that, like the NSA, operates outside our constitutional norms — has the digital versions of all electronic communications made in America in 2016, including Trump’s. So by bypassing all American intelligence services, Obama would have had access to what he wanted with no Obama administration fingerprints.
Thus, when senior American intelligence officials denied that their agencies knew about this, they were probably being truthful. Adding to this ominous scenario is the fact that three days after Trump’s inauguration, the head of GCHQ, Robert Hannigan, abruptly resigned, stating that he wished to spend more time with his family.
I hope the investigations of Trump’s allegation discover and reveal the truth — whatever it is. But the lesson here is terribly serious. We face the gravest threat to personal liberty since the Alien and Sedition Acts of 1798 proscribed criticism of the government. We have an unelected, unnamed, unaccountable elite group in the intelligence community manipulating the president at will and possessing intimate, detailed knowledge about all of us that it can reveal. We have statutes that have given the president unconstitutional powers that have apparently been used. And we have judges on secret courts facilitating all this as if the Constitution didn’t exist.
For how much longer will we have freedom?
Strangely, no Conservative friends have come to the judge’s defense, except for Glenn Beck’s The Blaze. At least they’re willing to consider his side of the story. Citing Mediaite, The Blaze reported this:
Mediaite reports that a Fox News “source” is denying this report. TheBlaze has reached out to Fox News for clarification and will update this story further when and if the company releases an official statement on the matter.
According to the LA Times, Fox News judicial analyst Judge Andrew Napolitano has been suspended from the network due to his comments centered around President Donald Trump’s wiretapping claims.
While the LA Times did not receive a statement from Fox about Napolitano’s status, anonymous sources claim that it will be a while before we see the judge again.
Given Fox News Channel’s decided turn to the Left, one might ask whether Napolitano was set up on that morning show? FNC’s chief anchors, Shepherd Smith and Chris Wallace, are declared Democrats. We know what to expect from them.
If you watched the program (which most of you certainly did not, as you were working – ah, the benefits of unemployment), you’d know that Napolitano was trying to be careful. But the reporters kept pressing him on the subject. ‘Yeah, but can you tell us this?” and “Yeah, but can you tell us that?”
I admit to being a little nervous for the judge, myself. He was clearly nervous. Time and again he stressed the theoretical nature of what they were discussing because he, personally, didn’t have the facts. That’s when he cited the “Fox News Sources.” This is how it could have happened, not that it did happen, necessarily.
Speculation is a dangerous temptation in journalism, especially when you’re giving an opinion. The Democrats engage in it wholesale, joyfully: “The Russians ‘hacked’ the elections (poor choice of words on their part)!” “The Russians interfered with the elections!!” “Hillary really won but lost because the Putin Propaganda machine outmaneuvered her and brainwashed millions of voters into voting for Trump!” “Trump has ties to Russia (through a third-rate publicist and a former oil company president who’s been on speaking terms with Russia for decades)!” “Trump’s cabinet appointees met with the Russian ambassador!! (Are we at war with Russia yet? Have we broken off diplomatic relations with them?)”
Therefore, it’s important for them to keep up the drumbeat for impeaching Trump, as ridiculous as it sounds. Anyone who champions Trump, like the esteemed Judge Andrew Napolitano, must be thrown under the bus and silenced. He just can’t go around giving away national security secrets like that, that the recently past president may have been spying on his political opponent before the election.
They were wiretapping a Russian gambler who conveniently enough resided in the Trump Towers? That’s a matter of a national security? Please. That doesn’t mean the past administration wasn’t also wiretapping Trump, the more likely scenario.
But according to Comey, he’s not obliged to answer any questions from Congress on the grounds that it involves “national security.” Now that’s Deep State. Since he’s begun the investigation, Trump can’t fire him. Jeff Sessions had to stand aside. If Trump were to fire him, he would immediately be charged with obstruction of justice, just as Richard Nixon was.
At least we can say Richard Nixon did something wrong. Sort of. Trump claims that his phones – his phones, not some Russian’s dudes, were tapped. He’s the President of the United States and he can’t get justice. In fact, he’s being persecuted through the Deep State Press without any evidence of wrongdoing.
I do hope someone with national clout will take up Judge Andrew Napolitano’s cause. The Judge has been an honorable and conscientious defender of the U.S. Constitution. Someone wants him out. What’s all very ironic about this is, if I recall correctly, he was opposed to the Patriot Act, which allowed the government to spy on American citizens.
We American Conservatives want him back and vindicated for wrong-doing.