[RD] Donald Trump accuses Barack Obama of illegal wiretap; calls for investigation

[JollyRoger]

We all know that political operatives in the Obama administration were reading Trump's tweets. Not even Nixon resorted to such a low.

 

[onejayhawk]

On which >140 character platform do you think Trump has exhibited nuance?

None. Trump has not exhibited nuance, hence the comment.

We all know that political operatives in the Obama administration were reading Trump's tweets. Not even Nixon resorted to such a low.

Obama worse than Nixon. JR said it first.

Nah. I'm no good at it either.

J

 

[metalhead]

It is a massive and wide ranging scandal, but who is left to prosecute? It's mostly of interest to the injured parties and historians. However, a couple of points. Evelyn Farkas left DoD in September 2015. Yet, as a mid level official, she was aware of the stream of intel on the Trump campaign. Trump declared in June 2015. That's a small window. The other thing is that this is purely partisan. Democrats were spying on Republicans, hence Watergate but more proficient.

J

I hope Susan Rice isn't supposed to be the tip of the scandal, because she has done nothing wrong.

A review of the surveillance material flagged by House Intelligence Committee Chairman Devin Nunes shows no inappropriate action by Susan Rice or any other Obama administration official, Republican and Democratic Congressional aides who have been briefed on the matter told NBC News.

President Donald Trump told the New York Times he believed former National Security Adviser Rice broke the law by asking for the identities of Trump aides who were mentioned in transcripts of U.S. surveillance of foreign targets. Normally, the identities of Americans are blacked out in transcripts circulated by the National Security Agency, but they may be "unmasked," if their identities are relevant to understanding the intelligence.

Rice did not dispute that she requested the identities of certain Americans in the waning days of the Obama administration, but she denied any wrongdoing in an interview with NBC News' Andrea Mitchell. Her denial came after Nunes said he believed the names of Trump aides had been inappropriately unmasked and circulated.

Members of the House and Senate intelligence committees from both parties have traveled to NSA headquarters to review the relevant intelligence reports.

"I saw no evidence of any wrongdoing," said one U.S. official who reviewed the documents, who would not agree to be identified further. "It was all completely normal."

His assessment was shared by a senior Republican aide who had been briefed on the matter but declined to speak on the record.

The finding by lawmakers of both parties was first reported by CNN.

But current and former U.S. intelligence officials have said that any unmasking request by Rice would have been made to the NSA director or the FBI director, who would have the final say. Both men are still in their jobs under President Trump.

Current and former officials say it is routine, and not inappropriate, for the national security adviser to request the identities of Americans mentioned in intelligence reports.

"Let's say there was a conversation between two foreigners about a conversation they were having with an American, who was proposing to sell to them high-tech bomb making equipment," Rice said April 4 on MSNBC's Andrea Mitchell Reports. "Now, if that came to me as National Security Advisor, it would matter enormously. Is this some kook sitting in his living room communicating via the internet, offering to sell something he doesn't have? Or is it a serious person or company or entity with the ability to provide that technology perhaps to an adversary? That would be an example of a case where knowing who the U.S. person was, was necessary to assess the information."​

 

[Gori the Grey]

Democrat been cleared of all charges?

I'd say we're well on our way, then, to onejay's prediction that six months from now the stink concerning that whole Susan Rice's illegal unmasking thing will still be lingering.

 

[Lexicus]

"Let's say there was a conversation between two foreigners about a conversation they were having with an American, who was proposing to sell to them high-tech bomb making equipment," Rice said April 4 on MSNBC's Andrea Mitchell Reports. "Now, if that came to me as National Security Advisor, it would matter enormously. Is this some kook sitting in his living room communicating via the internet, offering to sell something he doesn't have? Or is it a serious person or company or entity with the ability to provide that technology perhaps to an adversary? That would be an example of a case where knowing who the U.S. person was, was necessary to assess the information."

So in other words, exactly as everyone but rank partisan hacks predicted?

 

[Zelig]

If that were the case, it would get swept under the rug, as hospitals are notoriously poor at security, and there's no political advantage to manufacturing scandals out of their incompetence.

US Government report on healthcare security.

It is scathing.

 

[innonimatu]

This is about the Trump campaign being part of the investigated in regards to the Russian hacking business. Trump is just trying to rewrite the narrative from "investigation of Russina interference led back to the Trump campaign" into some sort of "it was really Barack Obama trying to influence the election." Republicans will probably buy it, being the gullible bunch of clowns that they are.

According to some recent news, Trump's campaign manager was wiretapped by the FBI, then dropped because no evidence of crime was found (or perhaps because he had done no more that Clinton's campaign manager anyway?), then started again... coincidentally as Trump became a feared contestant for Hillary's supposed victory, and necessarily authorized by Justice Department officials under Hillary's friend in power. Who then went on to demand transcripts, wasn't it?

Really, much as I dislike Trump for all he is, it is easy to see here the workings of the higher levels of US state bureaucracy on behalf of those sitting in power. The had the means, and they used them, there is no point in pretending otherwise. Intelligence apparatuses can always used and abused for internal purposes. I don't get why people there split in some partisan way about these events, instead of being offended by the abuse of power.

 

[jackelgull]

According to some recent news, Trump's campaign manager was wiretapped by the FBI, then dropped because no evidence of crime was found (or perhaps because he had done no more that Clinton's campaign manager anyway?), then started again... coincidentally as Trump became a feared contestant for Hillary's supposed victory, and necessarily authorized by Justice Department officials under Hillary's friend in power. Who then went on to demand transcripts, wasn't it?

Really, much as I dislike Trump for all he is, it is easy to see here the workings of the higher levels of US state bureaucracy on behalf of those sitting in power. The had the means, and they used them, there is no point in pretending otherwise. Intelligence apparatuses can always used and abused for internal purposes. I don't get why people there split in some partisan way about these events, instead of being offended by the abuse of power.

Paul Manafort is shady. If he wasn't a significant part of the collusion I'll eat my hat. Pretending trump wasn't assisted by Russia who collided with the trump campaign is a fruitless act. You can read for impure motives all you want in the actions of our intelligence infrastructure but the clearest indication they stump for trump is that we didn't learn of the Russia investigation during he campaign while comey brought up Hillary's emails once again fruitlessly days before the election.

 

[onejayhawk]

Paul Manafort is shady. If he wasn't a significant part of the collusion I'll eat my hat. Pretending trump wasn't assisted by Russia who collided with the trump campaign is a fruitless act. You can read for impure motives all you want in the actions of our intelligence infrastructure but the clearest indication they stump for trump is that we didn't learn of the Russia investigation during he campaign while comey brought up Hillary's emails once again fruitlessly days before the election.

The collusion itself is not established, so your hat is safe for the moment. No pretending necessary.

J

 

[FriendlyFire]

The collusion itself is not established, so your hat is safe for the moment. No pretending necessary. J

People get morning raids amd wiretapped all the time by the FBI
And they have the President of America tweeting about Presidential pardons

Thankfully its Obamas fault.

 

[Zkribbler]

... then started again... coincidentally as Trump became a feared contestant for Hillary's supposed victory, .

You missed the line in the article which says, "It is unclear when the new warrant started."

The warrant might have been under Obama; it might have been under Trump, The head of the FBI would have to sign off on the warrant application as well as the Attorney General [or Acting General]. Because of the political sensitivity of the warrant, it would have only been issued by the highest level of the FISA court.

The public has not yet seen this application of a warrant, but they typically contain hundreds of pages of supporting documentation to establish the required probable cause that the suspect is acting on behalf of a foreign government.

Altho you cry "abuse of power!" in my opinion, it is not yet time to run to the King and tell him that the sky is falling,

 

[FriendlyFire]

LOCK HIM UP !

CNN reported Monday night that the FBI obtained a warrant to listen in on Manafort’s phone calls back in 2014. The warrant was part of an investigation into U.S. firms that may have performed undisclosed work for the Ukrainian government. The surveillance reportedly lapsed for a time but was begun again last year when the FBI learned about possible ties between Russian operatives and Trump associates.

search warrant executed at Manafort’s home in July was such a significant step in the investigation. Unlike a grand jury subpoena, the search warrant required Mueller’s team to demonstrate to a judge that a crime probably had been committed.

investigators told him he should expect to be indicted. Even if Mueller were to indict Manafort for crimes not directly related to the Trump campaign, it would be a significant development. A typical white-collar investigation often proceeds by building cases against lower-level participants in a scheme

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opin..._story.html?tid=pm_pop&utm_term=.4f946d1121a0

 

[El_Machinae]

So, the theory is now that Trump found out about the tap on Manafort, and then announced it to the world? And we're not to suggest that Manafort might have been then warned by Trump?

No one is surprised that Manafort was under real investigation. Maybe the concern should be that he apparently still had Trump's ear after so much concerning evidence had come out?

 

[EgonSpengler]

I'm wary of the whole "secret court" thing, but truthfully I'm not sure how it works. If/when criminal charges are actually filed, does the FISA warrant then get treated as any other warrant would be? Does it then become public record? Does the judge who signed the warrant then have to explain their reasoning? For that matter, I'm not sure how a warrant for a wiretap is handled by a normal court. I think physical search warrants are served immediately, so the subject has no warning, but any kind of surveillance warrant by definition has to be over a period of time, and the subject can't know about it for the surveillance to work.

 

[stinkubus]

The whole purpose of the FISA court is for when you can't make the basis of probable cause known to the public because it would compromise intelligence assets. Doubt we will ever hear any of the good stuff unless it's leaked to the press.

 

[metalhead]

Surely the basis for the warrant gets reviewed at trial.

According to some recent news, Trump's campaign manager was wiretapped by the FBI, then dropped because no evidence of crime was found (or perhaps because he had done no more that Clinton's campaign manager anyway?), then started again... coincidentally as Trump became a feared contestant for Hillary's supposed victory, and necessarily authorized by Justice Department officials under Hillary's friend in power. Who then went on to demand transcripts, wasn't it?

Really, much as I dislike Trump for all he is, it is easy to see here the workings of the higher levels of US state bureaucracy on behalf of those sitting in power. The had the means, and they used them, there is no point in pretending otherwise. Intelligence apparatuses can always used and abused for internal purposes. I don't get why people there split in some partisan way about these events, instead of being offended by the abuse of power.

This is stupid. There are court reviews and warrants involved. If you can't prove, in court, that you had a valid basis for obtaining the warrant, you not only get your case tossed out of court, but any evidence later discovered as a result of the improperly obtained warrant can also be tossed, even if it is unrelated to the original case.

Intelligence apparatuses actually cannot be used in the way you are claiming. Nobody would use them in that manner, because they would risk compromising a whole line of evidence, making it completely useless in a court of law. The reason you think otherwise is because you don't understand how the process works.

 

[jackelgull]

Surely the basis for the warrant gets reviewed at trial.



This is stupid. There are court reviews and warrants involved. If you can't prove, in court, that you had a valid basis for obtaining the warrant, you not only get your case tossed out of court, but any evidence later discovered as a result of the improperly obtained warrant can also be tossed, even if it is unrelated to the original case.

Intelligence apparatuses actually cannot be used in the way you are claiming. Nobody would use them in that manner, because they would risk compromising a whole line of evidence, making it completely useless in a court of law. The reason you think otherwise is because you don't understand how the process works.

I disagree with him too but I think it's a mistake to think courts are the epitome of apolitical processes. Judges do absolutely have ideological leaning that bleed over into their decisions, such as in the case of Citizens United and Dredd Scott. Still in a "do you have the evidence" kind of case it'd probably be harder to finagle.

 

[Lexicus]

Surely the basis for the warrant gets reviewed at trial.



This is stupid. There are court reviews and warrants involved. If you can't prove, in court, that you had a valid basis for obtaining the warrant, you not only get your case tossed out of court, but any evidence later discovered as a result of the improperly obtained warrant can also be tossed, even if it is unrelated to the original case.

Intelligence apparatuses actually cannot be used in the way you are claiming. Nobody would use them in that manner, because they would risk compromising a whole line of evidence, making it completely useless in a court of law. The reason you think otherwise is because you don't understand how the process works.

I mean, on one level I agree with you, on another level I think this is hopelessly naive given the actual history of the US intelligence services. The real issue here, as I see it, is that "court of law" is not the only use to which information gained by surveillance can be put.

 

[EgonSpengler]

I was thinking about the "intelligence vs law enforcement" thing, too. I once heard an intelligence agent on a radio program say that they needed "about 70% certainty" to justify taking action, which he admitted was lower than his law enforcement compatriots. I don't know if the government has ever said so aloud, but I've always assumed the reason so many people were kept at Gitmo without trial was because they knew they didn't have enough to get a conviction in a proper trial. Still, the FBI is unequivocally law enforcement, even though part of their job is (counter-)intelligence and they occasionally operate overseas. On the other, other hand, being a domestic, law enforcement agency doesn't make them angels, either (see: COINTELPRO).

 

[Kyriakos]

You missed the line in the article which says, "It is unclear when the new warrant started."

The warrant might have been under Obama; it might have been under Trump, The head of the FBI would have to sign off on the warrant application as well as the Attorney General [or Acting General]. Because of the political sensitivity of the warrant, it would have only been issued by the highest level of the FISA court.

The public has not yet seen this application of a warrant, but they typically contain hundreds of pages of supporting documentation to establish the required probable cause that the suspect is acting on behalf of a foreign government.

Altho you cry "abuse of power!" in my opinion, it is not yet time to run to the King and tell him that the sky is falling,

It's all cool then, i mean we recall W invading Iraq. So many fine pages to back the WMD claim, amirite If they can construct massive lies to allow for a ruinous war, i don't think they'd fret to produce a bit for internal political muscle. So at least accountability/appeal to authority or morality of said authorities is ringing a bit hollow.