WASHINGTON. Once upon a time, the left held NSA whistle-blower Edward Snowden in high esteem. After all, he alerted the nation to the National Security Agency’s collection of every cellphone, email, and text communication of every American – a clear violation of the Fourth Amendment’s protection against unreasonable search and seizure.
A fact Director of National Intelligence James Clapper denied (or lied about) in testimony to Congress.
Snowden’s fifteen minutes of heroic fame
But Snowden’s street cred quickly waned when it was discovered that the Prism program’s domestic intelligence gathering was an expansion of the Patriot Act by “hope and change” President Barack Obama. (The controversial ‘surveillance’ act Obama just signed)
A Snowden detractor of note, then-House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi, told Washington’s press corps,
“I think on three scores – that his leaking the Patriot Act section 215, FISA 702, and the president’s classified cyber operations’ directive – on the strength of leaking that, yes, that would be a prosecutable offense. I think that he should be prosecuted.”
And President Trump once called Snowden a “spy who should be executed.” But Trump has softened his stance recently.
But more on that later.
The Patriot Act and the Russia-collusion ruse
As Jennifer Stisa Granick and Christopher Jon Sprigman noted in their New York Times op-ed of 2013:
“The law under which the government collected this [meta] data, Section 215 of the Patriot Act, allows the F.B.I. to obtain court orders demanding that a person or company produce ‘tangible things,’ upon showing reasonable grounds that the things sought are ‘relevant’ to an authorized foreign intelligence investigation. The F.B.I. does not need to demonstrate probable cause that a crime has been committed, or any connection to terrorism.”
Just a few years after these words were written, the FBI proves it really didn’t “need to demonstrate probable cause that a crime” had “been committed.” Under the guise of a “foreign intelligence investigation,” and armed with no more “tangible” evidence than the now-infamous Christopher Steele anti-Trump dossier, the FBI asked for and received warrants to spy on the 2016 Trump presidential campaign from the extremely dangerous Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court (FISA Court.).
The baseless FBI charge, of course, was that Russia had achieved the greatest intelligence coup of modern history: “swaying” a US presidential election in favor of its candidate of choice and intelligence “asset,” Donald Trump.
This all died when Special Counsel Robert Mueller’s Russian inquiry report said his…
“… investigation did not establish that members of the Trump Campaign conspired or coordinated with the Russian government in its election interference activities.”
The New York Times and Washington Post have yet to return their tainted Pulitzer Prizes for reporting the Trump/Russia collusion story as though it was a matter of fact. As it turned out, the contents of the Steele dossier were themselves examples of Russian disinformation.
America’s mainstream media – along with the Democratic National Committee and the Hillary Clinton presidential campaign – were the only ones colluding with Russia.
What do Robert Mueller’s staff have in common with Mrs. Clinton’s
And speaking of collusion, recent news reports say Special Counsel Robert Mueller’s Russia-investigative team either destroyed or wiped all data from their Justice Department-provided mobile devices.
Acts similar to that of Hillary Clinton’s staff after learning the FBI had launched an investigation into the former Secretary of State’s illegal handling of secret State Department emails. Some of which the FBI later found among sexually explicit selfies of disgraced Democrat Congressman Anthony Weiner. Photos he sent to an underage girl from the laptop computer belonging to his wife and longtime Clinton aide, Huma Abedin.
The Special Counsel staff’s destruction of data on their digital devices suggests they feared their leaks to the press – if not coordination with Capitol Hill Dems – would be uncovered. Evidence that could have aided US Attorney John Durham in his investigation into the origins and advancement of the Trump/Russia ruse. A bipartisan hoax designed to overthrow the “America First” Trump administration.
A presidential pardon in the works?
And that brings us back to Edward Snowden and President Trump. Last August, Trump told a gathering of press at his Bedminster golf club in New Jersey that “there are a lot of people that think he [Snowden] is not being treated fairly… I’m going to start looking at it.”
If a presidential pardon is in the works for Snowden, what information does Trump believe the former NSA contractor has to further the national discussion concerning Deep-State violations of our Constitutional rights? More importantly, what will these insights bring to our understanding of the secret government’s attempted coup against the Trump presidency?
Top Image: Edward Snowden appears on MSNBC. MSNBC screen capture.