Trump-Russia Collusion Narrative Destroyed

Hope Hicks testified, in full, before the House Committee,
answering all questions regarding Trump's contact with Russia.
The Democrats now focus solely on questions she declined
which addressed other White House issues.

Since the News Media buried this report, 

hoping the voting public would not notice, 

we are re-publishing it, as written, 

to give it global coverage and offset the 

Fake News the Democrats' are reporting.  

True journalism is rare today, so we want to 

give it our full support and widest distribution!

While the press portrayed Hope Hicks’s silence as all-inclusive, 

in reality she testified at length and in detail about all aspects of 

Trump’s presidential campaign. 

How Hope Hicks’s Testimony Destroyed The Trump-Russia Collusion Narrative.
The Federalist, 24June2019
By: Margot Cleveland 

Following the Thursday [13June2019] release of the transcript from Hope Hicks’s testimony before the Democrat-controlled House Judiciary Committee, the media quickly concentrated on the questions Trump’s former communications director refused to answer.

But while the press portrayed Hicks’s silence as all-inclusive, in reality Hicks testified at length and in detail about all aspects of Donald Trump’s presidential campaign. And that testimony established yet again that the Russia collusion narrative was a hoax. 

One theme of Democrats’ questioning of Hicks concerned the Trump campaign’s contacts with Russians. Several times Hicks confirmed the lack of contacts between top Trump campaign members and Russia.

 “I’m telling you,” Hicks testified, “I wasn’t aware in the campaign of any contacts with Russian officials.”

Later, when asked again what, if any, communications and contacts there were between the Trump campaign and Russian or Russian officials, Hicks noted that during the campaign she wasn’t aware of any but later learned of insignificant contacts, such as Jeff Sessions meeting the Russian ambassador at a foreign policy speech.

Hicks further testified that a Russian official’s post-election comment that Russia was “in constant communication or constant contact with members of Trump’s inner circle throughout the campaign,” “was not true.”

“I’m not aware of anybody that regularly interacted with Mr. Trump that was a decisionmaker that advised him on a frequent basis that had, ‘regular contacts’ with any Russian officials,” Hicks stressed.

Hicks, who had previously worked for the Trump organization, also testified that she was not aware of any financial ties between Russia and the Trump Organization during the campaign. Nor did Hicks have any knowledge of any “foreign government providing cash or any other thing of value to Mr. Trump during the campaign,” or of any conversations during the campaign about Trump traveling to Russia (other than for the Miss Universe Pageant), or meeting with Russian President Vladimir Putin.

Hicks further told the committee that she only “became aware that the Russian government was attempting to interfere in the 2016 elections” when the story hit the press.

Nothing on the DNC Hack Or Trump Tower 

Democrats on the Committee nonetheless pushed the Russia collusion narrative by attempting to portray an email Hicks received from the editor-in-chief of the Russian internet newspaper Vzglyad as evidence of a Russian conspiracy.

Joe Neguse

Democratic Representative Joe Neguse flipped to the much-referenced Robert Mueller report to read the special counsel’s finding that “one day earlier the publication’s founder and former Russian parliamentarian Konstantin Rykov had registered two Russian websites, Trump2016.ru and DonaldTrump2016.ru.”

But Neguse’s attempt to implicate the Trump campaign in Russia’s online efforts to interfere in the election failed badly.

Hicks noted: “I don’t recall receiving the interview request”; I received hundreds of interview requests, sometimes daily.”

Because Trump had no intention of participating in the interview, Hicks explained, she was not concerned about the identity of the outlet, and hadn’t even realized until after the fact that the email had come from a Russian.

Concerning the WikiLeaks hacks, Hicks made clear that the only discussion the campaign had was “...speculation about if there would be more emails or information released, but that was prompted by things in the media” and it wasn’t with certainty that more leaks would happen, but “with speculation and skepticism.”

“No” Hicks stressed, Trump did not talk about WikiLeaks or the hack, nor did anybody else in the campaign, other than what was discussed in the public domain. Hicks also testified that during the campaign she had heard nothing about Roger Stone and his supposed relationship with WikiLeaks or its founder Julian Assange, or about WikiLeaks’ “divulgence of information about the emails of Hillary Clinton and Mr. Podesta” beyond media coverage.

In short, Hicks stated that during the campaign, Trump never indicated that he knew ahead of time that WikiLeaks was responsible for the Democratic National Committee hacks or that he had knowledge that additional information would be released.

Hicks also confirmed that before the election she had not been told that anyone at the Trump campaign had been offered information about Hillary Clinton.

The Trump Tower meeting was another focus of committee questions:
Hicks told the committee that she did not know about the Trump Tower meeting or Donald Trump Jr.’s emails about that meeting until after Trump was elected president. She had also never heard “... any discussion from any Trump Organization employee or Mr. Trump about an ongoing effort to pursue a potential Trump Tower Moscow at that time...” another thread woven into the Russia collusion hoax.

Hick’s responses during last week’s hearing also provided fresh insight into Trump’s behind-the-scenes response to news of Russian interference. Hicks noted that the campaign only “... became aware that the Russian government was attempting to interfere in the 2016 elections...” when the story hit the press. The president’s former confidant added that any conversations she was privy to during the campaign concerning Russia interference in the election mirrored what Trump said publicly.

The Trump Collusion Narrative Is a Red Herring 

Then, when asked what specifically Trump said during the campaign about public reports that his team was coordinating with Russia, Hicks relayed that Trump called it “nonsense.”

Trump believed that the Russia collusion conspiracy “...was something that the Clinton campaign had made up to deflect from the information that they viewed as harmful to their candidate, to their campaign...” Hicks explained.  She also testified that she agreed with his assessment and that the “... unsubstantiated claims that [the Trump campaign] were coordinating with Russia was an attempt to distract and deflect.”

Trump's former communications director added that the Trump campaign obviously knew there was no collusion, but admitted that had she been working instead for the Clinton campaign, she “probably would have taken a similar strategy.”

Hicks further noted that, whether the Russia collusion hoax was being peddled by the “Clinton campaign or speculated about in the media,” her discussions with candidate Trump focused on how to respond to the false claims.

Hicks also shared details of her conversation with Trump following his late-July 2016 off-the-cuff remark:
“Russia, if you’re listening, I hope you’re able to find the 30,000 emails that are missing. I think you will probably be rewarded mightily by our press.”

Hicks explained that she informed Trump that “... some in the media had taken the expression quite literally, and that they were concerned he was encouraging foreign governments to, you know, locate those emails, and that that was obviously something that the media felt was extremely inappropriate and demanded a response from Mr. Trump and the campaign as to what exactly he meant by that.”

Hicks stated that, “... both from Trump’s remark and her discussion with him after,” she understood the comment as a joke. When pushed about what Trump had said, Hicks conveyed that he noted
“it was intended as a light-hearted comment.”

Trump Was Concerned About Paul Manafort 

In practice, however, Trump took concerns about Russia’s meddling seriously, Hicks explained.

Paul Manafort

For instance, according to Hicks, after the media began questioning Trump’s campaign chair, Paul Manafort. Trump, not realizing
Manafort’s close relationship with Richard Gates, asked Gates to keep an eye on Manafort.

Trump questioned some of Manafort’s “past work with other foreign governments, foreign campaigns...,” and stressed that “none of that would be appropriate to be ongoing during his service with the Trump campaign...” Hicks elaborated. He also asked Gates to let him know “if anything led him to believe that was ongoing.”

Mike Flynn

When, following Trump’s election, then-President Barack Obama raised questions about Michael Flynn to Trump, Hicks explained that warning tainted Trump’s view of Flynn going forward.

Trump “... was a bit bewildered that, you know, of all the things that the two of them could have been discussing,” it was Flynn that came up.

(This detail also raises the question of Obama’s motivation and his efforts to sour the president-elect’s relationship with Flynn.) 

Hicks’ testimony also negated several other Democratic and media talking points on Russia interference and collusion. While Democrats attempted to portray Trump as unperturbed by Russia’s interference in the 2016 elections, Hicks countered, “I think he was concerned, but I think he was simultaneously concerned that folks with a political agenda were going to weaponize that assessment to try to undermine the legitimacy of this election.”

Misrepresenting the Truth for Political Gain 

Ted Lieu [CA-D]

Hicks similarly exposed how the media misrepresented information to further the Trump-Russia collusion narrative, when Representative Ted Lieu attempted to do the same during the hearing.

“In 2008, Donald Trump, Jr., was quoted as saying ‘In terms of high-end product influx into the US, Russians make up a pretty disproportionate cross-section of a lot of our assets. We see a lot of money pouring in from Russia’” Lieu quoted to Hicks.

Hicks acknowledged that she had spoken with Trump Jr., about this statement, but only to ensure “the media wasn’t misrepresenting the remark or presenting it in any misleading way.”

Hicks obliterated many of the Russia-collusion talking points pushed by Democrats and the media for the last three years.

“And how was the media mischaracterizing Donald Trump, Jr.’s remarks?” Lieu quizzed.

The media “made it seem like there was Russian money coming into the Trump Organization in a way that was inappropriate or somehow sinister when Trump Jr., was merely describing the kinds of clientele that were purchasing luxury apartments, both in New York City, Chicago, and in South Florida.  They’re a luxury, globally recognized real estate company,” Hicks explained, so “it would be odd if [the Trump Organization] weren’t selling to people just because they’re affiliated with Russia.”

By the end of her nearly eight hours of testimony last week, Hicks had obliterated many of the Russia-collusion talking points pushed by Democrats and the media for the last three years, even more expertly than Mueller did in his special counsel report.

As one Democrat noted during the hearing, Hicks was “... with [Trump] every day,” during both the primary and general election.
She would have known had the campaign colluded with Russia.
Yet her testimony made clear there was no Russia strategy, significant contact, collaboration, or collusion, which is why when Hicks was asked whether she thought the President “might be angry about [her] testifying before Congress today...”
her ready reply punctuated her significant—but unreported—testimony:
“I think the President knows that I would tell the truth, and the truth is there was no collusion. And I’m happy to say that as many times as is necessary today.”


----------------------

Margot Cleveland is a senior contributor to The Federalist. 

Cleveland served nearly 25 years as a permanent law clerk 
to a federal appellate judge and is a former full-time faculty 
member and current adjunct instructor at the college of business
at the University of Notre Dame. 

The views expressed here are 
those of Cleveland in her private capacity.

Federal Computer System at Risk?

Sabotaging the federal computer system can paralyze the entire government

We were recently speaking with a senior federal employee and learned that the IT department of one agency had reprogrammed the servers to fail in the near future, which would have caused that agency to lose its computer capability -- pushing it into collapse. 

The failure would have amounted to administrators and citizenry trying to open emergency websites, only to find that  the sites no longer working -- and without a redirect to a new site.

This is one agency, and we are certain that such sabotage is now rampant in this bureaucracy that Trump inherited, and that the government faces severe degradation from within; this would include normal [e.g., FAA Air Traffic Control], Emergency Response systems, as well as many DOD and Intelligence Community defense and monitoring systems, to include critical surveillance systems, such as the ones keeping an eye on North Korea nuclear developments.

This again appears to be an Obama/Soros-inspired sabotage effort.

Obama likely began his sabotage ops on 7 Nov 2016, when Trump won, surprising the Deep State.

He completed his sabotage preparations by depleting the Presidential Discretionary Fund [PDF], paying out all the funds between 1 January - 19 Juanuary 2017 to the cronies he had appointed during his Administration.

"The purpose of the PDF is/was to facilitate the easy transition of a new Administration to hire the 4,000 new appointees in every new Administration so that the new President will be able function with a fully developed Cabinet. 

Without those funds, Trump has been hamstrung and able to appoint only his Cabinet officers, but no staffs. Thus, Trump has not been able to fire the top tier in agencies like DOJ, FBI, CIA etc.  

Worse, Attorney General Sessions has come under considerable criticism for not firing [and arresting] senior Obama holdovers for their criminal activities.

So, why has Trump not fired all the Obamanite hold-overs remaining at the top tier of the federal bureaucracy?

Better to keep the Obamanites employed and monitored rather than to set them free to attack via the stay-behinds.      [Keep your friends close; and your enemies closer - Sun Tzu]

[Ultimately, laws of Sedition and Treason remain in place as a threat to keep the Obamanites in check; allowing the Administration to compile evidence of the wrong-doing of these perpetrators and for their eventual prosecution.] 

As background, Obama's key appointees were creating the mechanism for a mass failure of federal computer systems several years ago when a senior official at Treasury developed and planned the implementation of a new, REPLACEMENT, system to manage all acquisitions,procurements, and administrative spending for routine operations, to include salaries and expenses.  

This system would have, without parallel testing, replaced the existing system, and likely would have failed without adequate testing.

Keep in mind that the Obama Administration was not put in place to strengthen America, but to destroy it from within. Now that Obama is out of office, he has created a Shadow Government of violence and insurrection to bring down the Trump Administration.

To strengthen the Anti-American agenda, we now have a coalition of former Presidents, several of whom we used to trust, but, we realize now that they were all essentially puppets, each enabling the further erosion of the Constitution [e.g., Bush's Patriot Act, and Obama's unconstitutional Executive Orders].

Currently, Obama has recruited the Bush family, Clinton, and Jimmy Carter to attempt to maintain the continuity of the Deep State and to reinforce Obama's Shadow Government which will be funded by another Cllintonesque-style Relief Effort -- titled One America Appeal [to counter Trump's Make America Great Again (MAGA)].

All One America Appeal donations will be funneled into "... a 'special account' at the George H.W. Bush Presidential Library Foundation, a tax-exempt 501(c)3 organization. Since it is a Presidential Library Foundation, audits will have to go through a special access process which will likely take years due to special barriers designed to keep official Presidential materials secret from the public. Other Presidential Libraries are notable for their secrecy and prurient interests [e.g., the Clinton Library housed a top floor bordello].  

We would not be surprised if this foundation were to be administered by our dearly beloved Hillary Clinton, whose Clinton Foundation laundered hundreds of billions of dollars in the name of "... helping Haiti's disaster recovery..." and which the President of Haiti announced was a sham since Haiti saw little, if any of those "disaster relief" funds.

This "ex-President Coalition" will enable the structuring of a clandestine communication among these gentlemen who have joined together to undermine President Trump in any manner possible.  In developing countries, we would refer to this organization as a Junta, designed to overthrow a duly elected government -- commonly referred to as Treason.

We fear for the future of our country as we see these five puppet President's create an anti-Administration effort to prevent President Trump from 'Draining the Swamp'!

They did what they were told, and We, The People, have suffered.

Illegal "Wire Taps"

Confirming that Obama ordered the NSA to spy on Trump

Editorial Update: 12-31-2020

This post was originally created with reference to the accusations made against the newly inaugurated President Trump.  At that time, having worked with the NSA for many years using their capabilities against foreign targets, we questioned these accusations, as did our colleagues from the NSA from years earlier since our recollections of NSA were of rigid adherence to legal restrictions; and deviance from those restrictions was incomprehensible.  

We did not, however, question the accusations against CIA or FBI, since we had worked alongside/inside both agencies and knew full well what criminal activity of which they were/are fully capable.

In retrospect, we witnessed, piecemeal, the crumbling of any semblance of morality in the Intelligence Community, until every accusation made against IC leadership and operatives was clearly displayed - and is now being used as evidence sufficient to completely gut the IC - to the applause of American Citizenry.

We could never imagine that our colleagues in the IC, the LEC, or DOD would join in an anti-Constitutional Coup against the President of the United States, in essence, against the Constitution and everything the US stands for.  

Now, we can not only imagine it, we have massive amounts of evidence proving these actions.

The only resolution is to put on trial all those involved, and to execute the ring-leaders for Treason.  Lower echelons must be sentenced to long prison terms, and all their assets must be seized.  The penalties for such coup activity must be so severe that the blood will run cold through the veins of those who might plan such an endeavor in the future.

In the meantime, we must rebuild our country, eliminating at least 75% of our existing bureaucracy and government unions. We must also consider eliminating both Houses of Congress, and holding new elections.  Last, sad to say, we must dismantle the Supreme Court, restaff the Justices, and perhaps place Justice Roberts on trial for, among other issues, Child Trafficking.

At the end of this post is a Trailer from the "fictional" movie: Enemy of the State.

In reality, it was extraordinarily accurate - including the demise of Clapper.

---------------------------------------Original Post-------------------------------------

We are publishing Mark Levin's summary of the illegal wiretaps as the basis for our additional commentary of the rationale for the actions of all parties.  

In short, it was clear at the time of these incidents that Mr Obama was doing all in his power to eliminate Mr Trump as a candidate, and, as the election grew closer, Mr Obama pulled out all the stops to prevent Mr Trump from winning the election.  

In so doing, Mr Obama and his Intelligence Community henchmen committed a series of illegal actions which eventually will be the basis for their arrest and prosecution.

Notably, in hindsight following the election, we have seen Mr Obama forming a self-declared Shadow Government, sponsoring violent "protests" which appear to be financed by George Soros.  Additionally, Wall Street [led b CitiBank] has so far paid Obama over $400,000 for a "speech", and it is rumored there will be another $400,000 payment coming soon for still another "speech".

As for the motivations of Mr Trump, he followed the path of all of his predecessors of both Parties in strategizing his campaign and communicating legally with all those foreign and US elements who would be impacted by both the election as well as the new Administration.

Mr Trump and was eventually made aware of the technical capabilities of illegal surveillance by NSA, and established safeguards accordingly.

[Our Editorial Comments are added in red]

Mark Levin provides this astute summary of the "illegal wiretaps"

1. June 2016: 
FISA request denied. 
The Obama administration files a request with the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court (FISA) to monitor communications involving Donald Trump and several advisers. 
The request, uncharacteristically, is denied.

Reason:  Trump's communications had no, repeat NO bearing on National Security, and the surveillance was clearly political, and thus illegal.


2. July 2016: 
The Russia joke. 
Wikileaks releases emails from the Democratic National Committee that show an effort to prevent Senator Bernie Sanders (I-VT) from winning the DNC presidential nomination. 
In a press conference, 

Donald Trump refers to Hillary Clinton’s own missing emails, joking: 
“Russia, if you’re listening, I hope you’re able to find the 30,000 e-mails that are missing.” 
That remark becomes the basis for accusations by Clinton and the media that Trump invited further hacking by Russia.

Fact: The accusations were nonsense, and it was clear Trump joked about this event just as most informed Americans joke about NSA eavesdropping since it has been widely publicized by Edward Snowden, to include Methods and Sources [which were never intended to be used against US citizens.  

The NSA programs were patently illegal, and both the NSA Director and the Director of National Intelligence can still be arrested, tried, and convicted of National Security Laws, in spite of the effort by Congress and the White House to retroactively make such actions legal.


3. October 2016: 
Podesta emails. 
Wikileaks releases the emails of Clinton campaign chair John Podesta, rolling out batches every day until the election, creating new mini-scandals. 

The Clinton campaign accuses Trump and the Russians of collaboration.

FACT:  There was, in no sense of the word, collusion between Trump and the Russians -- as there clearly was between Hillary and the Russians, to include her illegal sale of 20% the US uranium reserves while she was Secretary of State.
     a)  General Flynn's discussions with the Russian Ambassador were solely to 
           establish a dialog and to assure the Russians that Obama was clearly trying
           to create a crisis with his saber-rattling; however, Flynn reassured the Russian
           Ambassador that Trump regarded Obama as an idiot, and there would be no
           risk of war with Trump as President.  
      b) Flynn ws well within his rights as Trump's selected National Security Advisor 
           to conduct such discussions, as had occurred in every campaign of either 
           Party since the Cold War.

      c)  [Spookdblog, in his capacity as a senior Intelligence official met routinely with

           USSR counterparts to alleviate their concerns of potential "NATO aggression."  He served

           in the senior Intelligence capacity in NATO Able Archer Exercises in 1976 and 1983, 

           passing along warnings to USAF General Peroots that the Soviets were interpreting

          Able Archer 83 actions as the precursor to a NATO nuclear attack on the USSR - noting 

          the activation of the Soviet "Command Train", the activation of which was only conducted 

          as a final preparation for an immediate War.  

                         --  Peroots then encouraged an immediate termination of the exercise.  ]

4. October 2016: 
New FISA request. 
The Obama administration submits a new, narrow request to the FISA court, now focused on a computer server in Trump Tower suspected of links to Russian banks. 
Still, NO evidence is found 

— but Andrew McCarthy at the National Review notes that the wiretaps continue, ostensibly for national security reasons. 

FACT:  The Obama administration was now monitoring an opposing presidential campaign using the high-tech surveillance powers of the federal intelligence services.  

This was not the traditional tapping of phone systems by the FBI; instead, it was the employment of sophisticated collection of all information on Trump targeting all forms of communication, AND via electronic and imagery surveillance.  That was patently illegal under all aspects of the National Security Act.


5. January 2017: 

BuzzFedBen lost all credibility by being Obama's stooge

Buzzfeed released CNN reports, a supposed intelligence “dossier” compiled by "a foreign former British spy."

It purports to show continuous contact between Russia and the Trump campaign, and says that the Russians have compromising information about Trump. 
None of the allegations could be verified and some are proven false. 
Several media outlets claim that they had been aware of the dossier for months and that it had been circulating in Washington.

FACT: The dossier was proven to have been created at CIA under the direction of then-CIA Director Brennan


6. January 2017: 
Obama expands NSA sharing. 
Michael Walsh later notes, and as the New York Times reports, 
the outgoing Obama Administration 
“...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.” 

These new powers, and reduced protections, could make it easier for intelligence on private citizens to be circulated and/or improperly or leaked.

FACT: This action technically legitimized the actions of NSA's illegal surveillance of US citizens, making prosecution of Obama and his Intelligence henchmen difficult, but, not altogether impossible under the National Security Act of 1947. 


7. January 2017: 
The New York Times reports monitoring of Trump:
On the eve of Inauguration Day, that several agencies — the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI), the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA), the National Security Agency (NSA) and the Treasury Department are monitoring several associates of the Trump campaign suspected of Russian ties. 

Other news outlets also report the existence of 
“a multiagency working group to coordinate investigations across the government,” 
though it is unclear how the news agencies found out, since the investigations would have been secret and involved classified information.  

FACT: This reveals a leak not only of unauthorized wire-tapping/electronic surveillance, but also a violation of National Security Laws, indicating, at a minimum, complicity by former President Obama in likely directing this monitoring, but what constitutes Conspiracy, which is the basis for arrest and prosecution of all involved.


8. February 2017: 
Mike Flynn scandal.

Mike Flynn

Reports emerge that the FBI intercepted a conversation in 2016 between future National Security Adviser Michael Flynn — then a private citizen — and Russian Ambassador Sergey Kislyak. 
The intercept supposedly was part of routine spying on the ambassador, not monitoring of the Trump campaign. 

The FBI transcripts reportedly show the two discussing Obama’s newly-imposed sanctions on Russia, though Flynn earlier denied discussing them. 

Sally Yates, whom Trump would later fire as acting Attorney General for insubordination, was involved in the investigation; it is believed she was responsible for releasing the classified records to the Media -- a National Security felony.. 

In the end, Flynn resigns over the charge of having misled Vice President Mike Pence  about the content of the conversation.

FACT:  Flynn was under no obligation to inform the Vice President since his chain of command would have had him report directly, and only to Trump.  The VP, an important member of the Cabinet, has never been in that chain of command, in spite of his rank and position.  

Harry Truman, Roosevelt's VP, was never privy to FDR's State Secrets and commented that his VP position was "... not worth a bucket of warm spit!".  Flynn was likely a trap established by Trump to draw out and identify his detractors, and to demonstrate that Obama and the NSA had violated the law.

[While working for Reagan via Ambassador at Large (Vernon Walters) we frequently met with foreign dignitaries at the direction of Reagan for National Security reasons.  At the direction of Mr Reagan, Vice President Bush was intentionally left out of the loop.]


9. February 2017: 
New York Times claims extensive Russian contacts. 

NYT unable to refute its own headlines

The New York Times cited “four current and former American officials” in reporting that the Trump campaign had 
“... repeated contacts with senior Russian intelligence officials. The Trump campaign denies the claims — and the Times admits that there is “no evidence” of coordination between the campaign and the Russians".

The White House and some congressional Republicans begin to raise questions about 
illegal intelligence leaks.

FACT:  It is clear that Obama's Intelligence chiefs were actively, and illegally  communicating with the New York Times, and had created the bogus story to impugn Trump and his staff.  

The NYT was outed as fabricating this story when two editions were compared, with a two-month gap; there is no statute of limitations in this episode, and both the authors as well as the editors will be held responsible.



10. March 2017: 
The Washington Post targets Jeff Sessions. 
The Washington Post reported that Attorney General Jeff Sessions had contact twice with the Russian ambassador during the campaign 
— once at a Heritage Foundation event and once at a meeting in Sessions’ Senate office. 

Senator Schumer [D] and Putin 
[illegal meeting?]

The WaPo suggests that the two meetings contradict Sessions’ testimony at his confirmation hearings that 
he [Sessions] had no contacts with the Russians, though in context (not presented by the Post) 
it was clear Sessions meant he had no contact with the Russians in his capacity as a campaign surrogate, 
and that he was responding to claims in the “dossier” of ongoing contacts. 

In reality, during that meeting, Sessions was performing his duty as a US senator, meeting routinely with a foreign official, as all of his predecessors had done, and as Senator [D] Shumer had frequently done in his Committee capacity.

The New York Times, in covering the story, adds that the Obama White House 
“rushed to preserve” intelligence related to alleged Russian links with the Trump campaign. 

By “preserve” it really means “disseminate”: 
as officials spread evidence throughout other government agencies 
“to leave a clear trail of intelligence for government investigators” and perhaps the media as well.

In summary: 

Ex-President Obama, while in office, violated a broad number of National Security Regulations to spy on Candidate Donald Trump; he [or his Intelligence operatives] then worked with the New York Times, the Washington Post, and CNN to disclose classified information -- or to create the illusion of Intelligence documentation of purported illicit contact between Trump and/or his staff with Russians.

The Obama administration sought, and eventually obtained, authorization via the FISA Court to eavesdrop, not through wiretap, but using NSA sophisticated espionage capabilities on the Trump campaign; 

Obama's team continued monitoring, illegally, the Trump team even when no evidence of wrongdoing was found -- a violation of the National Security Act of 1947.

Obama subsequently relaxed the NSA rules to allow evidence to be shared widely within the government, virtually ensuring that the information, including the conversations of private citizens, would be leaked to the media.

All in a bid to stop or overthrow a Trump administration.

In the post-election era, we note that former CIA Director Brennan seems to have remained in contact with his minions at the CIA, illegally discussing classified information and having access to CIA and NSA Methods and Sources to further disrupt President Trump's Administration.

We refer here to a bit of history, in which the Espionage Act of 1917 was extended by the Sedition Act of 1918, which made it a crime to "... willfully utter, print, write, or publish and disloyal, profance curious, or abusive language about the form of the Government of the United States, or ... speech and expression of opinion that cast the government in a negative light, " 
or, and this is important
to "willfully urge, incite, or advocate any curtailment of production."

The Sedition Act was replaced by the Smith Act of 1940 [Alien Registration Act] which set criminal penalties for advocating the overthrow of the US government.

The Patriot Act of 2001, was extended by President Obama in 2011 for an additional four years, never presuming the Act could be used to monitor, surveil, and prosecute himself: 

Within the Patriot Act is a provision which will likely be used against Mr Obama and Mr Soros; it's called the National Security Letter [NSL], which authorizes the FBI to search telephone, e-mail, and financial record without a court order.  

Although the NSL has been successfully challenged in various courts, and remains in legal limbo, it would be rather fitting to have this mechanism used to investigate Mr Obama, Mr Soros, Ms Jarrett, and Hillary Clinton, who likely used this mechanism against their political enemies.


Interestingly, as of 29 April 2017,  NSA officially revised its collection practices so that it is no longer actively collecting information on US citizens, but merely through collateral collection against foreign targets.  

It all sounds good, but, thanks to NSA's politicization under Obama, can we ever trust our Intelligence services again?  

Or, did we EVER trust NSA.  

Here's a trailer from 1998 [those were Clinton years] from the movie Enemy of the State. 

     Supposedly it is fiction; knowing what you know now, is it fiction or real?

[ https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AoNT6u3mQew ]