|
|
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
www.ghanadot.com, 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 publisher@ghanadot.com . Or don't publish at all
.
|
