Report: Justice Scalia Believed Supreme Court was Being Surveilled by Obama

Another shoe drops in the ongoing controversy concerning the Obama administration possibly surveilling multiple Republican presidential candidates including Donald Trump, Rand Paul and at least one other U.S. Senator.

Now Fox News contributor Judge Andrew Napolitano has offered first-hand knowledge that the late Justice Antonin Scalia — whom Justice Neil Gorsuch replaced — believed Obama was surveilling the Supreme Court as well.

In fact, Scalia share his theory with Napolitano face-to-face.

Could this have had anything to do with his unexplained and untimely death?

Here’s more from Gateway Pundit…

Judge Andrew Napolitano, Fox News senior judicial analyst, went on FOX Business Network on Monday to discuss allegations Senator Rand Paul and another senator were under surveillance by the Obama administration.

Napolitano also dropped a bomb on the Obama administration spying on the US Supreme Court.

Judge Napolitano: Justice Scalia told me that he often thought the court was being surveilled. And he told me that probably four or five years ago…If they had to unmask Senator Paul’s name to reveal a conversation he was having with a foreign agent and the foreign agent was hostile to the United States they can do that. That’s not what he’s talking about. They’re talking about unmasking him when he’s having a conversation with his campaign manager when he’s running in the Republican primary.

During the discussion Judge Napolitano also said Barack Obama could be subpoenaed to testify if he viewed the unmasked intelligence.



Rand Paul: Another Senator Was Surveilled by the Obama Administration

Over the weekend Sen. Rand Paul dropped a small bomb which really should be sending shockwaves through the media right now.

An honest media, that is, but we digress.

Last month Paul reveled that he had received credible evidence that the Obama administration had surveilled him in addition to Donald Trump.

If this report of a third person being surveilled, there are only a few possibilities if we assume this other senator was another GOP candidate.

Could it have been one among Sens. Rubio, Cruz, or Graham?

Here’s more from Breitbart…

Sen. Rand Paul (R-KY) earlier this week revealed that another senator had told him that he was surveilled by the Obama administration.

“I know one other senator who’s already confided to me that he was surveilled by the Obama administration, including his phone calls,” he told Fox News on Wednesday.

“So when this all comes out, if there are political figures from the opposition party, it’s a story bigger than any of the allegations with regard to Russian collusion,” he said.

Earlier this month, Paul announced that sources have told him that he has been surveilled by the Obama administration, and that he has requested information from the White House and the congressional intelligence committees on whether he has ever been surveilled, unmasked, or searched for in intelligence reports.

“It’s about your own government spying on the opposition party, that would be enormous if true,” he said. “I don’t know the truth. We’ve asked the intel committees, House and Senate, and I’ve also asked the White House, because there is this whole discussion of Susan Rice unmasking people,” he said.

Former National Security Adviser Michael Flynn was fired in February, after a phone call he had with Russian Ambassador Sergei Kislyak was leaked to the Washington Post.

Listening in on an American’s phone calls is illegal without a warrant, but it can happen legally during surveillance of a foreign target. If Americans are caught up in surveillance of a foreign target, their identities are supposed to be “masked,” or concealed.

However, U.S. officials can request to have their names unmasked if it is necessary to understanding the context of the communications, with the approval of the agency conducting the surveillance.

Former Director of National Intelligence James Clapper revealed that last year, 1,934 Americans’ names were unmasked.

Last month it was reported that Susan Rice had unmasked Trump campaign officials — which she has not denied, but only claimed that it was not illegal.

“There was no reason for her to unmask people. Hers was not a position of investigation. Hers was a political position. And for her to get involved with unmasking Trump officials is alarming. If it happened to other people, it’s even more alarming,” he said.

“But we’re going to try to get to the bottom of this. And it’s a very secret world. You have to realize that it’s a world so secret most members of Congress are never allowed.”



Dems: Block New FBI Director Until Special Prosecutor Named

President Trump has prepped the media that a replacement Director of the FBI could be named as early as this week, with at least eight candidates being considered.

And since it’s quickly becoming clear that there’s no Watergate scandal underlying the ouster of Comey, Dems have zeroed in on their new strategy to push the knife into Trump’s side.

Democrat Senate heads have announced that they may move to block Trump’s selection for the FBI until the DOJ appoints a special prosecutor to investigate the alleged Russia scandal.

This could be yet another Gorsuch confirmation fight.

Stay tuned.

Here’s more from Breitbart…

Senate Minority Leader Charles Schumer (D-NY) told CNN’s State of the Union on Sunday that he supports a proposal by Sen. Mark Warner (D-VA) to block the confirmation of the next FBI director until a special prosecutor is named to investigate allegations of collusion between Trump’s 2016 campaign and the Russian government.

“We’ll have to discuss it as a caucus, but I would support that move,” Schumer told host Jake Tapper.

However, under the filibuster rule changes initiated by former Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV) in 2013, the Senate minority cannot actually block the confirmation of any executive branch appointees. Schumer himself seemed to acknowledge the point implicitly: “The key here, of course, is getting some of our Republican colleagues to join us,” he told Tapper.

There is almost no Republican support for a special prosecutor — largely because there are no crimes yet to prosecute. President Donald Trump is not even under investigation. The FBI’s inquiry has reportedly centered around three Trump campaign aides who played minor roles, and former National Security Adviser Michael Flynn. Even perennial gadfly Sen. John McCain has only called for a select committee, not a special prosecutor.

Also, as Breitbart News’ Ken Klukowski has pointed out, Trump was within his legal authority to fire former FBI Director James Comey — something Democrats had demanded for months. Moreover, Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein, who was confirmed last month by the Senate in a 94-6 vote, is overseeing the Russia investigation, with which Trump has not interfered — even if he has objected to the way it is being used by Democrats to justify their 2016 losses and rally political enthusiasm among their frustrated left-wing base.

The Trump administration reportedly interviewed eight possible candidates to replace Comey this weekend, and more continue to be proposed.



Did Comey Deliberately Throw the Hillary Clinton Investigation?

Much investigation has been conducted by an independent journalist into the details and circumstances surrounding the FBI’s handling of Hillary’s email server scandal.

Aaron Bandler of the Daily Wire has demonstrated that the timing of James Comey’s announcement of no recommendation for indictment coupled with the fact that it came just days after her critical interview with the FBI is just one case in point for why Comey and the FBI almost surely had already decided Hillary wouldn’t be prosecuted and then went about the strategy of making a case for why not.

Comey should’ve been fired, no doubt.

Here’s more from Redstate…

A lot of us were appalled when FBI Director James Comey read a litany of misfeasance and malfeasance on the part of Hillary Clinton in her handling of highly classified information and decided that no matter how egregious and careless her conduct that no prosecution was possible. If you followed the case carefully you were stunned that the fact that Sid Blumenthal was sending Hillary Clinton information that was clearly classified provoked no curiosity. No one ever seemed to have the vaguest concern over how information that was transmitted by a stand-alone classified system housed in a SCIF could migrate to Clinton’s Blackberry. Clinton’s direction to Jake Sullivan to strip classified markings from documents and email them to her was met with a shrug. The whole private intelligence network of the now deceased Tyler Drumheller that seemed to be trading classified information purloined from other intelligence agencies to Clinton in exchange for other classified information was ignored. And let’s not even get into the “public corruption” investigation into the Clinton Foundation that was being throttled lifeless by senior FBI officials and has now apparently died.

Based on the work of Aaron Bandler at Daily Wire, it seems like Comey had decided well in advance of his declaration to not charge Clinton.

The lengthy report featured in The New Yorker portrays Comey as an individual who had a tragic fall from grace in his futile attempt to be the independent man in Washington, D.C. Buried in the piece is this explosive nugget (emphasis added):

As the inquiry neared its end, Comey, who had closely monitored it from the start, requested summaries of more than thirty government prosecutions involving mishandling of classified information. He waded through the records, seeking to understand the cases’ rationale and how they had been resolved. In the end, he agreed with the investigators’ unanimous conclusion: Clinton should not face criminal charges…

Comey had his own ideas. Unbeknownst to his Justice Department colleagues, Comey had resolved to proceed alone with the announcement. Since May, he had been holding a parallel series of meetings with top F.B.I. confidants to thrash through his plan. He would publicly announce—and explain—the Clinton decision without Lynch at his side. “We had discussions for months about what this looked like,” Michael Steinbach, who retired as the F.B.I.’s executive assistant director for national security in February, 2017, said. “This, for us, was the best course of action, given the political situation that we were in—for us to do it independently.”

As Comey saw it, according to Steinbach and others familiar with his thinking, the public doubted Lynch’s independence and would be less likely to accept the decision if she were involved in announcing it.

Keep in mind the FBI did not interview Clinton until July 2 and made his infamous non-indictment indictment on July 5.



Senate Judiciary Chairman Confirms Trump Is Not Under FBI Investigation

Sen. Chuck Grassley, Republican Chairman of the Judiciary Committee, confirmed late this week that President Trump is definitely not under an investigation by the FBI.

The fact was confirmed to him in a private meeting with former FBI Director James Comey just days before Trump fired him.

Grassley argued in a tweet after the meeting that Comey should have been more clear with the American people because they deserve to know if their president is being investigated.

In his recent testimony before Congress, Comey refused to answer whether Trump was under investigation.

But now it’s obvious that an investigation was not the motivation for Comey’s ouster, much as the left would love it to be so.

Here’s more from Breitbart…

Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Chuck Grassley (R-IA) on Thursday vouched for President Trump’s assertion in a letter to former FBI Director James Comey that he was not under investigation by the FBI.

Grassley told committee members at an executive meeting that he and Ranking Member Dianne Feinstein (D-CA) had met with Comey last week, and that he had briefed them on who the targets of the various investigations are.

“Senator Feinstein and I heard nothing that contradicted the President’s statement,” he said.

Feinstein then said after Grassley’s statement, “I very much appreciate what you’ve said and it’s very accurate, and we were briefed.”

Grassley said that, shortly after Comey had briefed them, he had tweeted that the then-FBI director should be more transparent.

“I said he should tell the public what he told Senator Feinstein and me about whether the FBI is or is not investigating the President,” he said.

“Now Mr. Comey is no longer the FBI director. But the FBI should still follow my advice. It should confirm to the public whether it is or is not investigating the President. Because it has failed to make this clear, speculation has run rampant.”

During a Senate Judiciary Committee hearing last week, Comey refused to confirm whether the president was under FBI investigation, saying that doing so put him on a slippery slope of having to answer who else is or is not under investigation.

“I understand why he took that position, but I don’t agree – at least not when it comes to the President and senior government officials. The American people deserve to know if senior government officials are under active criminal or intelligence investigation,” Grassley said.



Comey to Senate Intel Committee…On His Terms

The big headline yesterday was Comey’s refusal to testify before the Senate.

But that wasn’t actually the whole story. Digging a little further, one finds that his refusal was specifically to the request to testify behind closed doors.

Which would have resulted in limited info releases and ultimately a he-said/they-said debate.

But now he’s clarified that he will testify in a public hearing where everyone can see for themselves what was said and by whom.

Comey appears confident in his position, so that hearing will be pretty much the only headline consuming the week’s news.

And it’ll be fun to watch.

Here’s more from Redstate…


Yeah. About that…

With that headline breaking amid all the stories on Friday about the deteriorating relationship between President Trump and now-former FBI Director James Comey, Trump’s more adoring fanboys puffed out their chests and strutted.

Except, that’s not the whole story.

Begin here: Comey was asked to speak with the Senate Intelligence Committee next week in a closed door session.

He declined.

That’s as far as some got.

A new report takes it further:

However, The New York Times reports that Comey is willing to speak if it’s a public hearing.

Very smart move by Comey, actually. With a closed door session, the public waits for what tidbits of information that can be seeped out. With a public hearing, it will likely be broadcast in full, where nothing is lost or left to interpretation.

It also shows that he’s not afraid to speak openly about what went on between he and Trump.

If he testifies, Comey is likely to face questions from the committee about both the Russia probe and the timing of his unexpected removal from the office.

I’d say there will be more than a couple of questions about his removal from office. Lawmakers on both sides of the aisle were a bit unsettled about the way it happened, so we can believe they all want to know what went on.

Of the stories that were raising concerns Friday were those that suggested Trump had asked for a pledge of loyalty from Comey, and then a Trump tweet that suggested he had secretly taped Comey, and would release those recordings if Comey talked to the press.



Trump Warns Comey: ‘There Might Be Tapes of Our Talks’

The big theory in the liberal media and among Democrat circles is that President Trump fired James Comey in an attempt to kill an FBI investigation into collusion with Russia during the election.

But what if Trump weren’t under investigation in the first place?

Trump insists that during three separate conversations with Comey — one during dinner at the White House — Comey assured him he wasn’t under investigation.

And that would explain Trump’s tweet about one of those chats being recorded.

Was it a threat? Sean Spicer insists not. We’ll see.

Here’s more from Daily Mail…

Donald Trump lobbed a veiled threat at the former FBI director on Friday, hinting that some of their conversations before his firing may have been recorded.

‘James Comey better hope that there are no “tapes” of our conversations before he starts leaking to the press!’ the president tweeted.

It’s unclear whether Trump was warning that the White House is recording his calls, or if he believes the FBI may have been recording Comey’s.

White House press secretary Sean Spicer told reporters Friday afternoon that the Oval Office would be silent on the matter: ‘The president has nothing further to add on that.’

Challenged about the tweet itself, Spicer said: ‘That’s not a threat. He’s simply stating a fact.’

But Comey, according to CNN, which cited an unnamed source, is ‘not worried about any tapes’ of conversations between him and the president. ‘If there is a tape, there’s nothing he is worried about.’

And NBC News had its own secret access to Comey’s inner circle, with one person close to him saying: ‘He hopes there are tapes. That would be perfect.’

Trump said Thursday during an interview with NBC News that the two men have spoken at least three times since Inauguration Day.

And on those occasions, he insisted, Comey assured him that he was not personally the subject of any federal investigations.

‘He said it once at dinner and then he said it twice during phone calls,’ Trump said.

He described a matter-of-fact exchange over dinner in which he asked an unusual question and got an unconventional response.

‘I said, “If it’s possible would you let me know, am I under investigation?” Trump recalled.

‘He said, “You are not under investigation”.’

Spicer was asked Friday whether or not the White House had a recording of that dinnertime conversation, and replied: ‘I’m not aware of that.’




Former Head of ‘Fast and Furious’ Thinks AG Sessions Is Dumb

In political terms it was an eternity ago, but few conservatives have forgotten the abysmal failure of Eric Holder’s corrupt Department of Justice.

The crown jewel of which was the so-called ‘Fast & Furious’ program which resulted in numerous guns getting leaked into Mexican drug lords’ hands.

But now Holder, the creator of that utterly stupid operation, is publicly denouncing Attorney General Jeff Sessions.

AG Sessions radically reformed the DOJ’s prosecution structure in order to throw the book at drug runners.

But according to Holder, that’s dumb.

Pot and kettle, Eric?

Here’s more from Restate…

Jeff Sessions drew headlines today with a directive pushing prosecutors to seek the toughest sentence possible – particularly drug cases. This drew a sharp rebuke from one of his predecessors.

Sessions rescinded the [Eric] Holder policy in a memo late Thursday, instructing federal prosecutors across the country to charge defendants with the most serious crimes possible.

“The policy announced today is not tough on crime. It is dumb on crime,” Holder said in a statement obtained by MSNBC’s Rachel Maddow.

The man whose Department of Justice was responsible for the cluster-… well, you know… that was “Operation Fast and Furious” is scolding someone else about being dumb on crime.

Under Holder, federal prosecutors and the ATF allowed multiple members of Mexican drug trafficking organizations to buy and walk off with guns. The gun-walking scandal blew up in the Department of Justice’s face when the guns appeared in various crimes, including the murder of ICE agent Jamie Zapata.

I am sure, given how much of a roaring success Justice was under Holder, that Sessions feels the sting of rebuke and will change his ways.



Liberal Media Is Begging For A Trump Watergate

Despite their animus against James Comey during the Hillary email investigation — not to mention the re-investigation just before the election — Democrats and journalists are itching for reasons to suggest that Trump’s ouster of Comey rises to the level of the Watergate scandal.

Harkening to Nixon’s firing of the independent special prosecutor, libs are calling Comey’s axing the ‘Saturday Night Massacre’…except it was on Friday.

They won’t stop until they’ve pressed for a prosecutor to investigate collusion to cover up the alleged Trump-Russia connection.

Here’s more from Heatstreet…

To read the media coverage of FBI Director James Comey’s firing on social media Tuesday night, you would have thought that the (not criminal) investigation into the Trump campaign’s possible ties to Russia had all been proven true, and that by week’s end, Donald Trump would be resigning, giving a pudgy little thumbs up while stepping onto Marine One for one last time. His brief, chaotic presidency would suddenly come to an end, swiftly felled by an avalanche of Twitter snark and unproven sources from journalists who believe they are the next Woodward and Bernstein.

Each edition of the New York Times or Washington Post is now sacred parchment, like the Magna Carta itself, to be persevered in perpetuum so future generations can marvel at the courage of our free speech warriors who toppled the great god emperor.

Times reporter Eric Lipton did a side by side comparison of the Wednesday Times front page on the Comey pink slip alongside the Times’ 1973 front page on the “Saturday Night Massacre” when Richard Nixon fired Archibald Cox. “Many hear echoes of Watergate” blasted the Times on Wednesday’s cover. “The immediate echo: Saturday Night Massacre” blared The Washington Post.  May 10th was the same day the House of Representatives initiated impeachment hearings against Nixon, about which The Washington Post went out of its way to remind readers — the idea being, of course, that there are eerie parallels with Trump dismissing an embattled FBI Director, whom many Democrats loathed.

“Okay, now is this Watergate?” begged Elizabeth Drew at Politico. John Podesta tweeted at Trump: “Didn’t you know you’re supposed to wait til Saturday night to massacre people investigating you?”

These comparisons between Trump and Nixon did not suddenly fall from the sky upon Comey’s firing. On March 28, Chris Matthews ran a segment comparing the two presidents, with Nixon biographer John Farrell as a guest.

Several established media outlets are convinced Comey’s firing means that Trump, like Nixon, is guilty of something. Of what, exactly, none can explain. They simply hope that by tossing out the name “Watergate”, the impression will stick and somehow Trump will magically vanish.

Collusion with Russia? Nothing yet. Senate committee Democrat Chris Murphy even told Morning Joe there is no smoking gun. Diane Feinstein told CNN on May 4th that there was no definite proof of collusion by the Trump campaign with Russia. Maxine Waters herself admitted as much on Jonathan Capehart’s podcast. “ I’ve got to ask you,” Capehart wondered, “because you leveled a whole lot of accusations out there about collusions and hacking and all of that. Have you seen anything, either through the intelligence briefings, anything to back up any of the accusations that you’ve made?” Waters responded that none has been found.



Maxine Waters: No Support for Trump Firing Comey, But I Would Support Hillary

Mad Maxine Waters is now the Democrats’ chief spokesman for their serial hypocrisy.

The faux outrage over Trump having fired Comey, at least from most Democrats, is tendered on the premise of legitimate scandal. But not for Waters.

She plainly admits that Comey’s firing is unacceptable for Trump, but she’d be perfectly fine if it had come from a President Hillary.

And then she goes to the extreme to correct her interviewer when he tells her he’s confused: “No, you’re not confused.”


Here’s more from RCP…

NBC’s Peter Alexander grills Rep. Maxine Waters (D-Cali.) for her displeasure at President Trump firing FBI Director James Comey after she had announced in January that he has lost all credibility after attending a classified briefing conducted by the now-former director.

In March, Waters issued a press release that read Comey “advanced Russia’s misinformation campaign.”

“I do not necessarily support the president’s decision,” Waters said. ” I think that if the president would have fired him when he first came in, he would not have to be in a position now where he is trying to make up a story about why. It does not meet the smell test.”

However, in the interview Wednesday on MSNBC, asked if she would be okay with a hypothetical President Hillary Clinton dismissing Comey from his position, Waters said yes.

“If she had won the White House, I believe that given what he did to her, and what he tried to do, she should have fired him. Yes,” the California Democrat said.

“So she should have fired him but had he shouldn’t fire him. This is why I’m confused,” Alexander said to Waters.

“No, no you’re not confused,” Waters told Alexander.

“I am confused,” Alexander responded.

Waters tells Alexander that she does not support Trump’s decision to fire Comey:

PETER ALEXANDER, NBC NEWS: You obviously have been very critical of James Comey in the past. You said that he had no credibility. I assume you support the president’s decision then to fire his FBI director.

REP. MAXINE WATERS (D-CA): No, I do not necessarily support the president’s decision.

If the president had not gone all over the country praising him about the way he handled Hillary and the e-mails, if the president had not said he had confidence in him, if the president had not said he was a part of his team —

ALEXANDER: But Congresswoman, I understand in the past he was praising him. But if you said that FBI Director James Comey had no credibility, wouldn’t you support the fact that the president, then-candidate Trump, now president Trump, made the decision to get rid of him?

WATERS: No, not necessarily.

. . .

ALEXANDER: Understood. So if Hillary Clinton had won the White House, would you have recommended that she fire FBI Director James Comey?

WATERS: Well, let me tell you something. If she had won the White House, I believe that given what he did to her, and what he tried to do, she should have fired him. Yes.

ALEXANDER: So she should have fired him but had he shouldn’t fire him. This is why I’m confused.

WATERS: No, you’re not confused. If the president is implicated in an investigation —

ALEXANDER: I am confused.