Intelligence Expert Points to British Role in Witchhunt Against Trump
March 8, 2017 (EIRNS)—While the mainstream media, with their unabashed intention to prevent President Trump from improving relations with Russia, have been the source, through illegal national security leaks, of most of the “information” available on the Obama Administration’s surveillance of the Trump presidential campaign, it would be wise to heed the judgment of experienced intelligence professionals who don’t share that objective. In the case of the alleged Russian hacking of the Democratic National Committee, top such officials have testified that the charges are unsubstantiated—since National Security Agency capabilities would otherwise permit precise information on the source of the hacking, and no such precision has been claimed. In the case of President Trump’s charges of wiretapping of his campaign, one prominent qualified source worth listening to is Larry C. Johnson, a former analyst at the CIA, who runs a blog called No Quarter.
Mr. Johnson’s blog entries of March 4 and 6 are instructive, to say the least. Johnson states that he knows for certain that at least some of the “intercepted communications” of Trump aides on which the New York Times reported in its Jan. 20 issue, “were done by foreign entities and that this was done with the knowledge of Obama Administration officials.” Johnson then discusses the arrangement between the NSA and the British spy agency, the GHCQ. (EIR exposed this program year ago, including when Edward Snowden first exploded the NSA scandal—and when the Democrats opposed such police state measures). It is standard operating procedure that GHCQ intercepts communications in a way that would be illegal for a U.S. agency to do under U.S. law, and passes them on to U.S. intelligence officials. Notably, the New York Times has claimed the British provided information on Trump-Russian connections.
Johnson also stresses the very public assertions by partisans of the anti-Trump campaign, especially in the New York Times (see March 1 issue), that President Obama moved in the Fall of 2016 to loosen intelligence secrecy provisions so that “information” about alleged links between the Trump campaign and the Russians could be available to a wider range of officials, and thus illegally leaked.
Johnson believes, that while President Trump was incorrect that Obama personally ordered wiretaps on his office, the truth of subversive activity by the intelligence community and the President could be revealed if the following questions were asked: “Was Barack Obama ever informed that senior leaders of his Intelligence Community had received information collected by British intelligence sources that provided information on Donald Trump and members of his campaign team?” “Did Barack Obama give the green light for this material to be used in ways that fall outside the legal boundaries?” “Did Barack Obama or any members of his senior team ever discuss how to take steps to prevent Donald Trump from taking the oath of office?”
Johnson also suggests that the Congress request all the paperwork on Obama Administration requests to the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court—to which it allegedly applied three times for permission to spy on Trump and his associates in August-October 2016. Who originated these requests and on what justification? Even former DNI Clapper says no suspicious links were uncovered (as did the New York Times).
The real question is: Who will act to stop this subversion?