President Trump Vindicated: Electronically "Wiretapped" By Obama as Of May 06, 2016 Executive Order - Part 3

For a mindset of National Intelligence spying on Trump out of Clapper’s Office, and using the White House Transition Coordination Council, I would advise the reading of the oft cited  United States v. Butenko, 494 F.2d 593,(3d Cir. 1974).

http://openjurist.org/494/f2d/593/united-states-v-butenko-a

In effect, all one needs is for Melania and Ivanka or any of the Trump children to be speaking one to another in the familial to Melania  Russian language, and any casual reference to what it was like in Slovenia or a phone call from a relative there, and THAT would be all the excuse a hostile “gotcha” partisan political prosecutor would need to go on a foreign intelligence witch hunt against Presidential Candidate Donald John Trump.

I am sure that the Intel groups would likely cite Woodrow Wilson's German Espionage wife who effectively ran the U.S. Government as President Wilson's proxy as she denied access to her invalid and comatose husband for months of his Presidency.  Never mind Obama the 100% illegal to be in office alien usurper himself, it was all the hypocritical offense in THAT WOMAN and any who might in anyway be like her that stung their pride and were like an offense ever present in their nostrils.

In Federal Law, the primary U.S. Code that we would be dealing with in a better understanding of what is involved in a domestic surveillance situation of foreign intelligence claims on a U.S. Citizen on U.S. soil by electronic surveillance with NO CRIMINAL COMPLAINT are generally the ff. (and their stated in their code, references):

50 U.S. Code § 1801 - Definitions

50 U.S. Code § 1804 - Applications for court orders

50 U.S. Code § 1823 - Application for order

50 U.S. Code § 1861 - Access to certain business records for foreign intelligence and international terrorism investigations

50 U.S. Code § 1881b - Certain acquisitions inside the United States targeting United States persons outside the United States

Whatever the application was and whatever the details of proof was, this would have to be written down in the original July 2016 application for a FISA electronic surveillance warrant.  When that was turned down, in spite of any Paul Manafort issues, unless something or someone added to the campaign clearly changed the dynamic to being a foreign agent or asset in August, September, or the first week of October, (or if Donald Trump left the nation in that time and made a presumed contact with targeted like interests) the granting of an electronic warrant could NOT be granted, as the July petition and previous other warrant petitions (denied or granted) would all have to be disclosed by the October 2016 petition…which was then granted for 90 days. 

On July 19, 1995, then AG Janet Reno wrote in a memo that the procedures that “apply to foreign intelligence (FI) and foreign counterintelligence (FCI) investigations conducted by the FBI, including investigations related to espionage and foreign and international terrorism” merely need to  “reasonably indicate that a significant federal crime has been, is being, or may be committed” and that “[i]n a FISA renewal application concerning such an investigation, OIPR shall apprise the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court (FISC) of the existence of, and basis for, any contacts among the FBI, the Criminal Division, and a U.S. Attorney's Office.”

It is my understanding that the Federal Bureau of Investigation’s Criminal Division was not used, nor are there indicators that would point to undercover FBI agents or informants to the FBI, nor an FBI generated surveillance warrant on Donald John Trump.  Therefore, when it was issued, (it seems to me based on what we publicly are thus far allowed to know) it clearly has to do with the Obama Administration Attorney General’s Office and a specific Intelligence Agency petition to the FISA Court.

United States v. Butenko, 494 F.2d 593,(3d Cir. 1974) @ 606 states that:

“Since the primary purpose of these searches is to secure foreign intelligence information, a judge, when reviewing a particular search must, above all, be assured that this was in fact its primary purpose and that the accumulation of evidence of criminal activity was incidental.”

In United States v, Butenko, an oft “go to” citation case used by the Federal Government for warrants for gathering Intelligence, even upon those who are United States Citizens within the United States and specified as “exceptions” to legally be spied upon, you will find in end note 6 that a President of the United States may himself authorize those measures 
“he deems necessary to protect the Nation against actual or potential attack or other hostile acts of a foreign power, to obtain foreign intelligence information deemed essential to the security of the United States, or to protect national security information against foreign intelligence activities.

 Nor shall anything contained in this chapter be deemed to limit the constitutional power of the President to take such measures as he deems necessary to protect the United States against the overthrow of the Government by force or other unlawful means, or against any other clear and present danger to the structure or existence of the Government.

The contents of any wire or oral communication intercepted by authority of the President in the exercise of the foregoing powers may be received in evidence in any trial hearing, or other proceeding only where such interception was reasonable, and shall not be otherwise used or disclosed except as in necessary to implement that power.”

In effect, the Presidential authorization of the wiretap or electronic surveillance by its very nature of Executive Privilege, seals any disclosure except as necessary and likely then only in camera (in judge’s chambers) with approved or cleared to receive counsel, under gag to not reveal the same. 

The application to surveil Presidential Candidate Trump in July and October of 2016, would have had to declare one of two things:  
(1) that Candidate Trump was a foreign power  (which we can dismiss as not applicable); or 
2) the claim 
[by DNI James Clapper and / or Obama ] 
that Candidate Trump was alleged to be an "agent of a foreign power."

 50 U.S.C. §§ 1804(a)(3), (a)(4)(A);

 50 U.S.C. §§  1823(a)(3),  (a)(4)(A).

And if he personally was not alleged directly, Clapper and Obama would have been scurrilously blaming Melania as the scapegoat excuse to surveil Trump.  

  Under 50 U.S. Code § 1823 - Application for order, we find that a petition regarding the surveillance of Presidential Candidate Donald Trump, if not a direct order out of the office of the POTUS, would emanate ONLY from 5 Executive Agencies as possible sources of petition to surveil:

“the Director of the Federal Bureau of Investigation,

 the Secretary of Defense,

the Secretary of State,

the Director of National Intelligence,

 or the Director of the Central Intelligence Agency.”

I have ruled out the FBI because no criminal division activity occurred, nor was a warrant ever sought for personal or BUSINESS records, which is what they would have done.  

We can also rule out the CIA, the Department of Defense, and the Secretary of State upon a petition of a United States Citizen on U.S. soil, based on jurisdictional venue.    

That leaves us two candidates left, the office of the DNI, which is that of James R. Clapper  August 5, 2010 – January 20, 2017, and the only other possible (or both together) is that of the usurper acting as the putative POTUS, the one of alien birth nationality and of current (then and now) alien nationality,  Barack Hussein Obama.

So who petitioned and or got the authorization to spy on Trump?  By process of elimination,  the Office of the  Director of National Intelligence,  who is listed as (ix)  on the White House Transition Coordination Council (WHTCC) in the May 6, 2016 Obama Executive Order, who was authorized by Obama to not only help the Trump Team in Transitioning, but to spy or surveil Donald Trump and his campaign, and report back directly to “the Executive Office of the President… such other information that, in the Council's judgment, is useful and appropriate….”

As long as the “CLAIM” that the surveillance was done on the premise that a future crime of espionage or any federal crime may be committed, and that it was in regard to surveillance for specified foreign intelligence while swooping up EVERYTHING 100% domestic, for each 90 day granted application, it was considered “legal”.  The divulgence of the Mike Flynn transcript is illegal, as was all electronic domestic surveillance by the Government that is outside the 90 day window of the October 2016 FISA granted warrant surveillance, even though all the major telecoms are part of the NSA grid and are contractually immune and listening anyway. In other words, whatever the DNI or Obama wanted, it was NOT something that could be overheard by normal electronic communications.  It had to be planted, or manufactured evidence, intent on discrediting and disqualifying.

I would recommend people recall that President Trump spoke of a meeting he had which he excluded his staff from knowing about, in a room he knew was free from electronic surveillance, and only a certain few attended that meeting and it still leaked out…by one of them.  One of these, clearly the leaker,  represented the DNI, did they not? 

 Watch the January 16, 2017 released Infowars video above, where David Knight recounts Trump's own sting on the Intel services alone at Trump Towers.  

[Updated font coloring at 8:40 pm Pacific, April 2, 2017]