Judge Nap: Obama 'Went Outside Chain of Command,' Used British Spy Agency to Surveil Trump

Judge Nap: Obama ‘Went Outside Chain of Command,’ Used British Spy Agency to Surveil Trump

. . . .Judge Andrew Napolitano said that even if the Obama administration did spy on Trump, there may never be a way to prove it.

He explained that the statutes allow the president to order the surveillance of any person in the U.S., without suspicion, probable cause or a warrant, but that would leave “fingerprints.”

In this case, the alleged surveillance was reportedly ordered in a way that left no record, he said.

“Three intelligence sources have informed Fox News that President Obama went outside the chain of command,” Napolitano said. “He didn’t use the NSA, he didn’t use the CIA, he didn’t use the FBI, and he didn’t use the Department of Justice.”

Instead, Napolitano said, Obama used GCHQ, a British intelligence and security organization that has 24-7 access to the NSA database.

“There’s no American fingerprints on this,” Napolitano said. “What happened to the guy who ordered this? Resigned three days after Donald Trump was inaugurated.”

In a statement to Fox News, a UK government spokesperson responded, saying that “no part of this story is true.” . . .

If this turns out to be true, this will be a pretty big story.

But for now at least, the Brits are denying it.

Maybe purposefully falsly propogated too, to try to “bait” President Trump and/or his administration to publicly overreact and discredit them.

Or some other aspect we are not yet aware of.

UK flatly denying it for now and it would likely take British intelligence cooperation at the highest levels to dig much deeper.

This from Reuters News agency . . .

British security official denies UK spy agency eavesdropped on Trump

By Mark Hosenball | WASHINGTON

A UK spy agency did not eavesdrop on Donald Trump during and after last year’s U.S. presidential election, a British security official said on Tuesday, denying an allegation by a U.S. television analyst. . . .

. . . “Three intelligence sources have informed Fox News that President Obama went outside the chain of command - he didn’t use the NSA, he didn’t use the CIA, he didn’t use the FBI and he didn’t use the Department of Justice,” Napolitano said, adding that the former president “used GCHQ.”

GCHQ has a close relationship with the NSA, as well as with the eavesdropping agencies of Australia, Canada and New Zealand in a consortium called "Five Eyes."The British official said that under British law, GCHQ “can only gather intelligence for national security purposes” and noted that the U.S. election “clearly doesn’t meet that criteria.” . . .



My theory of upper management is we need to take away their airline magazines (where they get dumb ideas). I am going to add a new theory. We need to take away pundits internet access.

+1. :thumbsup:

Sounds a lot like Conspiracy Theorism to me. :shrug:

Judge Andrew Napolitano has actual credibility.

He even comes across well on a biased source … Wiki:


Judge Napolitano is a great judge that knows his stuff!

Appeal to authority fallacy at its worst! Commentator Napolitano has provided no more evidence than Trump did.

I think the British Intelligence agencies that flat out denied his claim are in a better position to know their stuff. (Maybe he** was** a great judge, but he** is** a judge no longer.)

Judge Nap wouldn’t say it if there was no evidence. And you really think the Brits would admit to this?

Why not? In the era of Trump all sorts of claim are made without evidence. As long as he feels he cannot get caught in a lie, why not make an outrageous claim? Besides, unless he was part of the operation, he is no authority on what did or did not take place.

At a certain point, an absence of evidence is evidence of absence. If I tell you I have an invisible dragon in my garage, would you take me on my word or expect some evidence of it’s existence? It seems the judge is asking for the intelligence agencies to prove that he has an invisible dragon in his garage that only he can see. It’s nonsense.

Well in that case neither is anyone else, you, me, the media

Yeah, I know. We keep hearing that somehow Russia influenced the election and conspired with the Trump administration. Yet still there is no evidence. You have a good point

It is, and so your point is what? Conspiracies don’t happen? If so then federal prisons are full of innocent men. The negative connotation of the term conspiracy theory was promoted by the CIA to discredit theories about a shadow government. As it turns there is lots of evidence that we do in fact have a shadow government. Even the shadow government, the CIA and NSA, admit to specific evidence of this. And this is beyond the obvious hidden government enshrined by laws that create hidden things like the FISA courts. The shadow government isn’t just hidden government but uncovered and uncontested plots like MKUltra, Operation Northwoods, and Operation Mockingbird. A hidden and unaccountable government that could plot to kill Americans to pass it off as a terrorist act to start a war could surely spy on a presidential candidate or even a president.

He’s just speculating and why is a New Jersey superior court judge/Fox News contributor an expert in intelligence/surveillance? You’re just deciding who is credible based on who is telling you what you want to hear.

Why are any commenting for that matter? Any evidence for Russia influencing the election yet? No? Ok. I guess the media can keep speculating on that with no intelligence credentials

In a desperate attempt to validate Trump’s baseless tweet.

Any evidence for Russia influencing the election yet?

Yes, the U.S. Intelligence agencies have evidence.

What is this evidence?

The point is, conspiracy theories with no basis are worthless. Yes, conspiracies are possible. But it is not a useful position to take that everything that happens in the world is the result of conspiracies.

DISCLAIMER: The views and opinions expressed in these forums do not necessarily reflect those of Catholic Answers. For official apologetics resources please visit www.catholic.com.