The question of whether former President Obama actually spied on President 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.Mr. Obama would not have needed a warrant to authorize surveillance on Mr. Trump. Mr. Obama was the president and as such enjoyed authority under the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) 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.
Ken Paxton, Texas attorney general, backs up Donald Trump claim of illegal immigrants at polls – Washington Times
Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton supports President Trump’s claim that noncitizens are voting in U.S. elections, saying prosecutors in his own state have won convictions for voter fraud.“I know it’s an issue because I deal with it,” Mr. Paxton told The Washington Times. “We just got a conviction on an illegal that voted in an election.”Putting a number on how many illegal votes were cast is difficult, however, because local election officials aren’t looking for that kind of fraud.“They’re complicit in allowing it to happen,” he said. “I guarantee it is happening — whatever people say.”Mr. Trump has said millions of illegal votes were cast in the presidential election, distorting the national vote tally in favor of his Democratic opponent, Hillary Clinton, and has called for an investigation into the matter. In November, Mr. Trump said he would have won the national vote “if you deduct the millions of people who voted illegally.”
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.Contrary to earlier reporting in the New York Times, which cited FBI sources as saying that the agency did not believe that the private server in Donald Trump’s Trump Tower which was connected to a Russian bank had any nefarious purpose, the FBI’s counter-intelligence arm, sources say, re-drew an earlier FISA court request around possible financial and banking offenses related to the server. The first request, which, sources say, named Trump, was denied back in June, but the second was drawn more narrowly and was granted in October after evidence was presented of a server, possibly related to the Trump campaign, and its alleged links to two banks; SVB Bank and Russia’s Alfa Bank.
Simply titled the “Obamacare Replacement Act,” Rep. Mark Sanford (R-S.C.), members of the conservative House Freedom Caucus, and Sen. Rand Paul (R-Ky.) presented the new bill in a press conference.“I think thats whats really represented here in this bill that a lot of folks have worked on, whether from the caucus standpoint or from Senator Pauls standpoint, is an inflection point,” Sanford said. “This is not about replacing the Affordable Care Act or Obamacare. This is about where do we go next in terms of health care so that people are in control.”The bill entails a handful of different measures, including an elimination of the essential health benefits requirement, the creation of a $5,000 tax credit for individuals and families contributing to a health savings account, and the option to purchase health insurance across state lines.
There’s a run on Trump Wine, with stores in the Washington region selling out of bottles bearing the president’s name.
Mike Mackie, co-owner of The Wine Cabinet in Reston, Va., says the brand is flying off his store shelves quicker than he can restock it for multiple reasons.“You’ve got supporters who are buying the wine because of [President Trump’s] election victory,” Mackie tells ITK.“You’ve got people who are buying the wine just to have something to talk about. Some are buying the wine just as a joke on somebody else who didn’t vote for Trump,” he adds. “And then you’ve got people who’ve once they’ve tried the wine, realize it’s a well-made wine. So you’ve got quite a bit of demand
.”The Wine Cabinet sells six options from Trump Winery in Charlottesville, Va. Mackie says in the six months leading up to the November presidential election, his store sold two cases of Trump Wine.
But after Trump’s stunning White House win, sales suddenly spiked. Since Election Day, about 10 cases of the bottles, which range in price from $25 to $35, have been purchased.
Wilders is profiting from a general feeling of unease about the direction in which the country is heading and public outrage at the refugee crisis. The Dutch government has allowed the borders to remain open, thereby allowing tens of thousands of “refugees” to come to the Netherlands every single year. This while there already were significant problems caused by (mostly) Islamic immigrants who refuse to assimilate into Dutch culture and society.
Firestorm Coming: Draft Of Trump Executive Order May Deny Services To Gay, Transgender People | Zero Hedge
In what may be the biggest firestorm set off by a Trump executive order to date, surpassing even the widespread angry response to the Trump immigration order, a draft of an executive order circulating in the Trump administration would dramatically expand the legal protections for individuals, organizations and employers on the grounds of their religious beliefs, and as the WSJ reports, would potentially allow the denial of services to gay and transgender people, and contraception coverage for employees.
“This would provide a blanket exemption for religious organizations not to have to follow any statute that they say violates their religious beliefs.”
Donald J. Trump on Twitter: “If U.C. Berkeley does not allow free speech and practices violence on innocent people with a different point of view – NO FEDERAL FUNDS?”
If U.C. Berkeley does not allow free speech and practices violence on innocent people with a different point of view – NO FEDERAL FUNDS?
— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) February 2, 2017
Now to me this seems like a really good idea, after all isn’t it our taxpayers money that is going into repairing the Berkeley campus? It on the other hand isn’t it against the law for public institutions to discriminate against people for their political views? And doesn’t the federal government have jurisdiction over violations of civil rights, and the First Amendment being one of those rights? It was up to me I would have Berkeley being investigated for civil rights violations by the Department of Justice.