Most comprehensive review of the "wire-tap" scandal
Favreau tweets: I'd be careful about reporting that Obama said there was no wiretapping. Statement just said that neither he nor the WH ordered it.
The point being made by Favreau is this: [Apparently] a FISA warrant was issued (in October) by request of someone related to the Obama Administration but not by Obama himself. Never forget that Barack is a retired lawyer, and, skilled in the use of "plausible deniability." His words, carefully crafted, often are meaningless, when it comes to the truth. A perfect example is the caveat written by Favreau. Barack's denial was not a denial, only a carefully worded non-statement as to the facts.
Lt. Col, Tony Shaffer, a veteran of the Intel Community, spoke out on Fox News Saturday night. Shaffer said that Obama "at least tacitly knew" what was going on. In such situations, the President (Obama or any president) knows everything that is going during the execution of a FISA warrant . . . . . everything, whether or not he actually requested the warrant. If a FISA warrant was issued in October, there is no doubt Barack knew about the warrant and the subsequent investigation . . . . . in detail. If he denies knowledge for whatever reason he dreams up, he is lying. Period.
Understand there is a difference between warrants issued because of "due diligence" and those issued because of "probable cause." The first is a warrant issued because of overwhelming circumstances that might involve nefarious activity. The latter (as in a FISA warrant) is a warrant issued because of "probable cause." According to experts on Fox News, Saturday evening, only prosecutors stand before a FISA Court . . . . no defense is offered . . . . . no defense attorneys are present. The prosecutors are not required to present exculpatory evidence in a FISA hearing, only evidence that indicates the possibility of criminal involvement. After they get the warrant, according to Shaffer, investigators can indeed, "go fishing."
Update: Per conversations Sunday morning, if a FISA warrant was not issued in October, then we assume (and it is an assumption at this point) that the warrant was a criminal warrant not related to FISA matters (FISA = Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act). If true, the Obama people were fishing for anything that could be used to tear down the newly elected "President Trump." That the Obama Administration has acted out in similar manner before is a matter of record (see the quote in our After Notes, below).
What you may not know, is the following:
Per Fox News, on Dec 9, 2016, Obama ordered an investigation as to Russian involvement in the 2016 election. On January 6, 2017, this report was presented to Congress. Speaker of the House Ryan has made it clear that this report did not produce any evidence whatsoever of Russian ties to the Trump campaign nor did the report support the fantasy that the Russian were successful in influencing the election.
This being true, why would anyone suppose that Barack did not wire tap the Trump Tower? I mean, the Russian may have been to blame for Hillary's loss, so, of course, the possibility of a presidential wire tap was/is much more than a mere possibility. I would argue that wire taps were probabilities. Look, how would any investigation discover or eliminate Russian involvement without the inclusion of wire taps?
At the end of this first day, it is looking like President Trump is right on . . . . . . . . and Barack may be in big trouble.
(NY Times, June 14, 2014) "An internal investigation by the CIA has found that its officers penetrated a computer network used by the Senate Intelligence Committee in preparing its damning report on the CIA detention and interrogation program. The report by the agency's inspector general also found that CIA officers read the emails of the Senate investigators and sent a criminal referral to the Justice Department based on false information . . . . the CIA secretly monitored a congressional committee charged with supervising its [the CIA] activities."