Show

BEN RHODES: Did He Just ‘OUT’ The Obama Administration For Eavesdropping On Trump?

Former Obama advisor Ben Rhodes doesn’t realize it yet, but he just revealed the smoking gun that proves Obama executed a wiretap of Donald Trump during the Presidential campaign. He did so when he tweeted:

“No President can order a wiretap. Those restrictions were put in place to protect citizens from people like you.” (“People like you” being a reference to Donald Trump of course.)

Fact is, ANY President CAN order a wiretap WITHOUT a court order. 50 USC 1802 (a) (1) says:
“the President, through the Attorney General, may authorize electronic surveillance without a court order under this subchapter to acquire foreign intelligence information for periods of up to one year”

So let’s review Ben Rhodes statement, shall we:
No President can order a wiretap. Those restrictions were put in place to protect citizens from people like you.”

Keeping in mind the habitual nature of Democrats to believe that they are smarter than everyone else and that we need them to protect us from danger (i.e., Donald Trump), we find the other verbiage in 50 USC 1802 the Obama administration used to pretzel-twist the law in order to wiretap Trump:
– The law allows for “the acquisition of the contents of communications transmitted by means of communications used exclusively between or among foreign powers”

– and “the acquisition of technical intelligence, other than the spoken communications of individuals, from property of premises under the open and exclusive control of a foreign power”

– provided “there is no substantial likelihood that the surveillance will acquire the contents of any communication to which a United States person is a party”

– and if communications from a United States person are acquired “no contents of any communication to which a United States person is a party shall be disclosed, disseminated, or used for any purpose or retained for any longer than 72 hours unless a court order is obtained.”

If we didn’t have eight years of Obama’s track record, and his amazingly elastic interpretation of the law, selective application of some laws and abject negligence in the enforcement of others, we might conclude that 50 USC 1802 properly adhered to wouldn’t have allowed Obama to wiretap Trump. Except that Democrats believe that they and they alone can save us from disaster and that the living and breathing spirit of the law is flexible enough to back them up. In that light:
– Without a court order, Obama could have asked Attorney General Loretta Lynch to wiretap Donald Trump in order to find communications with “foreign powers”

– “substantial likelihood” is a subjective standard and when used by the “what the definition of is is” crowd it becomes a very useful loophole

– that loophole would allow for Obama to hold on to those communications for 72 hours.
As President, with executive privilege, he could retain those communications for longer than 72 hours or distill the things he needed from them to use however he wished. Would Obama have done this?

Consider Democratic Party rhetoric before and after the Presidential election:
– Donald Trump was all but portrayed as a proxy of the Russian government,

– 50 USC 1802 specifically speaks to wiretaps performed without a court order to gather foreign intelligence information.

If Democrats though that they were “protecting citizens” from people “like Trump”, is it that hard to conclude that Obama asked for Loretta Lynch to authorize a wiretap of Donald Trump? That it was done without a court order? And whatever resulted from that wiretap was picked through, the parts Obama found useful squirreled away for future use, and the rest of it discarded after 72 hours?

Back to Ben Rhodes:
No President can order a wiretap. Those restrictions were put in place to protect citizens from people like you.”

The limitations in 50 USC 1802 were in fact put in place to protect Americans from progressive zealots like Barack Obama. Fact is, from the days of Woodrow Wilson and his American Protective League, to the internment of Japanese-Americans during World War Two, to the more recent targeting of Tea Party groups by the IRS, progressives don’t have a good track record when it comes to safeguarding civil liberties.

In generational terms, Democrats have trampled on the rights of political figures (look at how they savaged Representative John Lewis in Selma back during the Civil Rights era). They wiretapped Reverend Martin Luther King Jr. They did so in the name of protecting Americans. What would they do if they thought they had to protect Americans from Donald Trump?

There was a time when the media would have jumped on this story and rode it to Woodward and Bernstein-level greatness. In 2017 the media isn’t going to do that. Unless somehow someone finds evidence of the wiretaps inside the Obama residence in DC, or someone that was involved in the wiretaps becomes a whistleblower, it’s going to be extremely hard to learn more about the wiretaps.

That’s why Ben Rhodes felt empowered enough to inadvertently reveal the truth to the world via Twitter.

photo credit: SimpleSkye Headphones via photopin (license)

Share if you think Ben Rhodes might have provided an unintentional public service.

Andrew Allen

About the author, Andrew Allen: Andrew Allen (@aandrewallen) grew up in the American southeast and for more than two decades has worked as an information technoloigies professional in various locations around the globe. A former far-left activist, Allen became a conservative in the late 1990s following a lengthy period spent questioning his own worldview. When not working IT-related issues or traveling, Andrew Allen spends his time discovering new ways to bring the pain by exposing the idiocy of liberals and their ideology. View all articles by Andrew Allen

Like Clash? Like Clash.

Leave a Comment

We have no tolerance for comments containing violence, racism, vulgarity, profanity, all caps, or discourteous behavior. Thank you for partnering with us to maintain a courteous and useful public environment where we can engage in reasonable discourse.