We invite commentaries from writers all over. The subject is about Ghana and the world. We reserve the right to accept or reject submissions, but we are not necessarily responsible for the opinions expressed in articles we publish......MORE

Responsible responses to articles on our pages are welcome.  Response should not be less than 200 words. Write to The Editor:

Obama wiretapping Trump?

E. Ablorh-Odjidja

March 26, 2017

The moment President Trump said that Obama “wiretapped” him, the assertion was met promptly with derision from many quarters.

FBI Director Comey was one of the powers from the erstwhile Obama administration, still left serving the new administration, who flatly contradicted Trump's claim.

As it appeared from recent Congressional hearings, Trump could have been right all along, as was revealed by the chairman of the House Intelligence Committee, Rep. Devin Nunes.


Rep. Nunes said four days ago that, “during surveillance of legitimate targets, (intelligence services) picked up the names of Trump transition officials …. “unmasked” their identity, and spread their names around, virtually assuring they would be leaked.”

It has turned out that the FBI has secretly and continuously been investigating Donald Trump since July of 2016.

This revelation prompted Charlie Hurt of Washington Times to write, “ While Mr. Comey’s investigation into Hillary Clinton... was enough to make even the most anti-Clinton partisan cringe...It is his Ahab-like pursuit of Donald Trump (since July 2016) that is a thousand times more sinister...”

It bears emphasis to state that Director Comey was appointed by the Obama administration.


And that, Comey had to have had some reason for promptly contradicting President Trump, knowing all along what  the House Intelligence Committee came to know.

“It is one thing for the Obama administration to investigate a political ally like Hillary Clinton …. It is entirely another to have the Obama administration using all its powers of investigation to go after a political opponent," Charlie Hurt wrote..

Herein lies the mischief of the Russian charge, especially when you come to know which side Obama was on during the entire election campaign.

But, was there ever a Russian collusion or just a political need to put the screws to Trump?

Imagine, in a midst of a heated political campaign, the Obama administration had a window on Trump's affairs,  using legitimate tools of state on a charge that could have been feigned - a charge so outwardly spurious that was laughable at its very assertion.

But some were quick to accept that assertion as valid, even without evidence.  Why?  Because It served an obstructionist purpose and would delay his agenda .


However, as soon as Trump charged Obama with "wiretapping", the same instantly decried that charge as outrageous.


They asked, where was the evidence?


The argument was Obama couldn't have done that.  No sitting president ever wiretapped a political opponent during an American presidential campaign (forget Watergate)!

Of course, the assumption was that Trump meant Obama had ordered the wiretap himself. 


Even so, this assumption beggared belief.  It assumed that an Obama sympathizer within the ranks couldn't have done it - for same reason or purpose.

Then Director Comey, contradicting himself in front of the Intelligence Committee, said FBI has been eavesdropping on Trump since July 2016.


Recall that this investigation happened during the same period of the Clinton's email server investigation, the hottest item on FBI files, at the time.

So the FBI had two cases going.

One on the server, a complete proven criminal and scandalous act when Hillary removed government controlled documents to a private server at her home and the consequent destruction of some 33,000 files to hide whatever they might have contained.

The other, the yet to be proven assertion that the Russian had somehow influenced the elections that caused Hillary to lose to Trump.

And what happened at the end of Hillary's server investigation?

FBI Director Comey, though unequivocal in pronunciation of Hillary's guilt, yet found the need to free her on the basis of lack of intent on her part.

However for Trump, there was no benefit of that "lack" of intent. If the Russians interfered, then Trump might have colluded with them, the logic assumed!

 Trumps intention, it was assumed, was to steal the election or coronation from Hillary! No proof yet, but the aspersions, the innuendos and leaks against Trump continue to this day.

Why this heavy handed treatment against Trump and why at the hands of the Obama administration?.

Whatever the reason, it has to be observed at this stage that something sinister is happening. An all consuming interest is at work; first to deny Trump the election or to destroy his administration at all cost.

And Obama, the then president, has been at the center of this exercise, regardless of the denial.

Sadly, the attempt to destroy Trump may come with a stain on the back of the historic run of the first black presidency. For, the relevancy of this epoch is being used for something else.

By July of last year, Trump had already become the presumptive Republican presidential nominee.  And Obama had already shown his interest in Hillary's succession.

 But never had a sitting president campaigned harder (Obama against Trump) for a candidate, like Obama did for Hillary.

And never had a majority within an administration invested more interest in the defeat of another party's candidate for Hillary to succeed.

And this was the same administration that was doing the sleuthing on Trump!

It will be interesting to know why or how the Russian suspicion started, for there could not have been a more bald face Trojan Horse excuse than this one!.

Yes, the tools for the search on Trump was legal but was the excuse to start the surveillance sound or fabricated?

Fabricated or not, the investigation could also have served a clandestine purpose as opposition research. Names received in the investigation have already been "unmasked." And negative information learned has already been leaked in the process.

Thinking otherwise?

That when President Obama took off on Air Force One, with Hillary on board for their first joint campaign, on a day Director Comey was about to announce whether Hillary would be charged or not, he didn't already know the outcome?

As it turned out, Hillary got a free pass on the misuse of classified information just about the time Air Force One landed on the first leg of the campaign trip for her endorsement.

That Bill Clinton arrangement to meet with Attorney General Lynch on her plane, in the midst of the Justice Department investigation of his wife, was unknown to Obama?

The outcome should be telling.  So far, Obama's Justice department has not prosecuted Hillary.  Not even the attempt to prosecute was made.


But Trump and the Russians?  That was worth every grain of prosecutorial effort!

You have to wonder why tangible treads of Russian contact with the Clinton campaign were never pursued seriously or for as long as  it has been done to Trump.


Consider this:

"John Podesta, special counsellor to President Obama and Hillary’s 2016 campaign chairman, may have violated federal law by not disclosing 75,000 shares of stock from a company with close ties to the Kremlin....

"Podesta received the shares from Joule Unlimited Technologies while serving on the company’s board back in 2010. After announcing he was leaving the company to work at the White House in 2014, he was awarded an additional 75,000 common share stocks."  The Daily Caller reported.

The brazenness in breathtaking!

Instead, Paul Manafort, one of Trump's early campaign managers, and Roger Stone, an early political adviser, are to this day cited as links to the Russian/Trump collusion for contacts dating as far back as 2005.

Both Manafort and Stone have offered to testify before the House Intelligence Committee.

There has been no such offer from the Hillary side for any probe on Russian connections, even though there is still much left to explain on the issue by that team.
The headlines of New York Times article of April 23, 2015, read "Cash Flowed to the Clinton Foundation Amid Russia Uranium Deal."

The article implicated big donors connected to the Clinton Foundation.

Hillary, the presumptive candidate of the Democrat party in 2016, had earlier as Secretary of State signed off on the uranium deal at the same period as huge donations from these donors were coming to the coffers of the Clinton Foundation..

Thus the Russian tread ran through Hillary's side too, but, so far, there was and has been very little investigative interest on the part of the Obama administration or the heroes of American patriotism on the Republican side, like Senators McCain and Graham..

To state finally, there has been no evidence of wrong doing by Trump, with regard to the Russians.  However, the accusation has cast a pall on him.

Maxine Waters, a House representative from California and her colleagues in the Democrat party have since the Russian charge called for Trump's impeachment.

It appears that no real hard evidences will be required if the impeachment trial were to come on. For, its all part of the game that started with the Russian finger pointing.

E. Ablorh-Odjidja, Publisher, Washington, DC, March 26, 2017
Permission to publish: Please feel free to publish or reproduce, with credits, unedited. If posted at a website, email a copy of the web page to . Or don't publish at all



Ghana Cuts Benchmark Rate as Inflation Slows and Cedi Gains
Bloomberg, March 29, Ghanadot - Ghana’s central bank cut its benchmark interest rate for a second time in four months as the cedi recovered from record lows and inflation slowed to the lowest rate in more than three years.


Why Founders' Day (Plural) Must Not Happen

Commentary, March 31, Ghanadot - Pity we can't know the truth by just asking all members of the Big Six what they thought happened.  What kind of government or state was “founded” or ushered into being that fateful day of 1957.  



Dogs detect breast cancer from bandage: researchers
Health, March 25, Ghanadot - Dogs can sniff out cancer from a piece of cloth which had touched the breast of a woman with a tumour, researchers said Friday, announcing the results of an unusual, but promising, diagnostic trial.........More



Sen. Grassley Demands Answers On Collusion Between 'Trump Dossier' Authors And FBI
Hannity, March 28, Ghanadot - "When political opposition research becomes the basis for law enforcement or intelligence efforts, it raises substantial questions about the independence of law enforcement and intelligence from politics," Grassley said in his letter........More


  ABC, Australia
The EastAfrican, Kenya
African News Dimensions
Chicago Sun Times
The Economist
Reuters World - World News
All Africa Newswire
Google News
The Guardian, UK
Africa Daily
IRIN Africa
The UN News
Daily Telegraph, UK
Daily Nation, East Africa
BBC Africa News, UK
Legal Brief Africa
The Washington Post
Mail & Guardian, S. Africa
The Washington Times
Voice of America
New York Times
Vanguard, Nigeria
Christian Science Monitor
Yahoo/Agence France Presse

Ghanaian Paper
Market Place
Official Sites
Pan-African Page
Social Scene


Currency Converter
Educational Opportunities
Job Opening

Send This Page To A Friend: