| Submit your comments on this article |
| Home Front: Politix |
| Mark Levin: Open Letter to CNN's Brian Stelter |
| 2017-03-07 |
| [Breitbart] The following is an open letter from conservative radio and television host Mark Levin to CNN host Brian Stelter, in response to Stelter’s article Monday at CNN.com, "Birth of a conspiracy theory: How Trump’s wiretap claim got started." Did you listen to my show on Thursday, before President Trump tweeted? Did you watch my appearance on Fox and Friends Sunday morning? I know you are ticked I did not appear on your show, despite your numerous requests. Your ad hominem attacks about "right wing" radio host and conspiracy theory stuff ... incredible. I simply put together the stories that YOUR profession reported, on the public record. Do you deny there were two FISA applications? Do you deny the first was turned down? Do you deny the second was approved? It’s called the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court. It is about surveillance. The fact that we cannot discern all the details because of the secrecy, except for what the media have revealed and selective leaks by the government, should cause you to want to know more, not to trash those who point it out. And yes, we can make several logical implications based on events and experience. A FISA application is a big deal. One, or two in this case, that involve campaign surrogates, or a server or computer related to a candidate or campaign, etc., is a big deal. President Obama’s statement is not a definitive statement of anything, other than he, personally, did not order a wiretap, which I never claimed. But that does not mean he was unaware of surveillance activity by several of his departments, even through routine reports to the president, such as the Daily Intel Briefing or information conveyed to him or his staff via the Justice Department re the FBI counter-intelligence activities. As for Clapper, despite his past dissembling before Congress, he may not have been aware of what was taking place since the FBI counter-intel operation reportedly sought the warrant. The Daily Intel Briefing might provide useful information in that regard as well. Of course, the release of the FISA applications would also shed a lot of light on events, assuming YOU believe reports that they were filed. Furthermore, Clapper has said, as recently as yesterday, that no connections between the Russians and the Trump campaign have been found. I am extremely critical of Russia, Putin, and the efforts to influence our election, although I do not believe they succeeded. That said, how would Clapper know of no connections if he, as former Director of National Intelligence, didn’t look? On what is that based? Your lack of curiosity and dishonesty about such matters and in dealing with me demean you and your profession. You are free to circulate this communication to whomever you wish, as I am making it public. |
| Posted by:Besoeker |
| #13 And if he doesn't conclusively prove, at the very least, collusion from the Obama WH (Not some agency - The WH itself) his credibility as President will be forever damaged. The Democrats have claimed that Trump is working for the Russians. So far, they've offered no conclusive proof. Is their credibility forever damaged? |
| Posted by: Zhang Fei 2017-03-07 21:58 |
| #12 Darth, it is good to remember that a Trump tweet is not a legal brief. When the time comes to quote chapter and verse as it was, then we will see. However, what evidence did the NYT have when they put it on their front page, etc. etc.? If it quacks like a duck, looks like a duck, walks like a duck and tastes good with orange sauce it is probably time to believe the menu. |
| Posted by: AlanC 2017-03-07 15:38 |
| #11 They "did not have sex with that woman", SPOD? |
| Posted by: g(r)omgoru 2017-03-07 15:15 |
| #10 Well as I see it the Obamites said they didn't wiretap Trump. Wiretaps are old technology and easily detected. Electronic surveillance by a variety of gizmos and gadgets are more effective and less easily detected. So they are playing with semantics and word choices and always with "to the best of my knowledge"... This whole mess goes further up the food chain than some second echelon US Attorney and a FISA magistrate. The danged request has to be signed by the AG. I'm beginning to think the reason the FBI didn't go after Shillary was because their best evidence came from sources that could not be used as evidence. I think the President is giving the whole bunch of them enough rope to hang themselves. |
| Posted by: Sock Puppet of Doom 2017-03-07 15:08 |
| #9 First I made an observation; Trump's tweet accuses Obama of being complicit in what many would consider to be an illegal wiretap. See - Fast and Furious. Someone put Holder and the AZ AG on the mission. Did we ever get that cleared up? |
| Posted by: Procopius2k 2017-03-07 14:38 |
| #8 Depot guy are you really saying the DoJ would undertake such a purely political attack without clearance from Obama? AlanC I've made no suggestion whatsoever. First I made an observation; Trump's tweet accuses Obama of being complicit in what many would consider to be an illegal wiretap. Next I made a prediction; If Trump can't provide clear evidence of his charges his credibility will suffer greatly. Finally I offerd an opinion; This is POTUS speaking not some high school slumber party. And dismissive excuses of out of context twitter rants ain't gonna cut it on allegations this serious. |
| Posted by: DepotGuy 2017-03-07 14:29 |
| #7 Jerry Pournelle offers an interesting point. We know they've listened to Flynn's conversation - from Trump's Tower, with Russian ambassador - from Russian embassy. So they had either Trump's Tower or Russian embassy wiretapped. Now, Pournelle doesn't believe they could wiretap Russian embassy. |
| Posted by: g(r)omgoru 2017-03-07 13:10 |
| #6 Depot guy are you really saying that the DoJ would undertake such a purely political attack without clearance from Obama? If you want to devolve into semantics the only person that can "order" this "tapping" is a FISA judge. Now who asked for this ? The DoJ? Who asked, suggested or surmise that it happen? Even on the off chance that Lynch did it on her own hook Obama is responsible. That's where the buck stops whether he liked it or not. |
| Posted by: AlanC 2017-03-07 13:10 |
| #5 Remember we are talking Twitter here not a legal breif. WADR, the vehicle of communication is irrelevant. It's his statements that are important. Most everyone views President Trump's tweets as an accusation that his predecessor had a hands on role in surveillance of his personal communication. To quote former VP Biden "This is a big fucking deal". Any attempts to explain this one away as simply imprecise language will be met with justifiable indignation. Here's hoping there's meat on that bone. |
| Posted by: DepotGuy 2017-03-07 12:02 |
| #4 I hate when Trump pulls that crap because no matter how true it is, the Left waves the sentence around like Chamberlain waving around the treaty and loudly proclaims the whole thing is false and we needn't talk about it any more. |
| Posted by: Herb McCoy7309 2017-03-07 11:52 |
| #3 But you know who did make that claim? That would be POTUS Trump. Remember we are talking Twitter here and not a legal brief. While it would have been more correct for Trump to say "Obama's Justice Dept , headed by Loretta Lynch, obtained a FISA warrant, tapped comms in the Trump Tower and then illegally leaked the transcripts", that's a bit wordy for a tweet. And you are right that without evidence, this is just he said/she said. Call me |
| Posted by: SteveS 2017-03-07 11:24 |
| #2 There is ample evidence that it did happen. Nyt reported it last year and Hillary referenced last year as well. Trumps game is to throw it out there, let everyone deny it and call him a liar. And then own them as it proves to be true. He does this time and time again. The media, fox included, research an inch deep and go to press. They, oriley specifically, will get imbarased as this all comes to light. |
| Posted by: 49 pan 2017-03-07 10:43 |
| #1 President Obama's statement is not a definative statement of anything other than he, personally, did not order a wiretap, which I never claimed. Your right Mark you never made that claim. But you know who did make that claim? That would be POTUS Trump. And if he doesn't conclusively prove, at the very least, collusion from the Obama WH (Not some agency - The WH itself) his credibility as President will be forever damaged. |
| Posted by: DepotGuy 2017-03-07 09:53 |