presidents and wiretaps, etc.

[ruby59]

http://www.motherjones.com/mojo/2013/06/fisa-court-nsa-spying-opinion-reject-request

 

[ruby59]

http://www.zdnet.com/article/us-spy-court-didnt-reject-a-single-secret-government-demand-for-data/

 

[t-c]

Wait, so some people are now convinced that Obama somehow ordered wiretaps on Trump and feel there should be an immediate investigation. Based only on tweets... From a person who has a propensity to throw out groundless claims... That his even own staff can't explain... And with no supporting evidence, not even circumstantial Yet an actual intelligence report that concluded that there was election manipulation by Russians, based on gathered evidence, somehow does not warrant an investigation into Trump and his team with the same urgency

By the way, how scary is it that a sitting president can so casually accuse a former president of a criminal act -- without even discussing with it with his staff?!

If one can credit the current administration with strategic thinking, this might be a way for Trump to see the surveillance activity on his team (i.e. what warrants were issued) because, and this is actually important and a fact that people (here) seem to forget, as part of a check on presidential power, a President usually does not know and certainly have no say on these kinds surveillance requests. DoJ investigations proceed independently, without interference from people who might have interests in one outcome over another.

 

[ruby59]

Have you read any of the latest information that came put yesterday and today.

Apparently, there was cause for him to make that statement.

And do you seriously believe Obama did not know what was happening in his own administration?

I am sure he was briefed even on the gold course where he spent much of his time.

 

[jaaron]

Have you read any of the latest information that came put yesterday and today.

Apparently, there was cause for him to make that statement.

And do you seriously believe Obama did not know what was happening in his own administration?

I am sure he was briefed even on the gold course where he spent much of his time.

Seriously, Ruby, I'm asking because other than Mike Levin (or whatever his name is), I can't see any cause whatsoever. Can you point me to something?

Interesting piece from a Brookings Institution fellow:

By Benjamin Wittes Sunday, March 5, 2017, 7:48 AM
Google+
Reddit
LinkedIn
Privacy Paradox: Rethinking Solitude
Yesterday, I posed ten questions for President Trump in response to his bizarre Twitter temper tantrum accusing his predecessor of wiretapping Trump Tower in the days before the election.

In the hours after I did so, a variety of media organizations began reporting—unsurprisingly, I suppose—that the President’s tweets were not based on any information that came from within the executive branch—indeed, that the White House was now scrambling to find some evidence to substantiate the president’s statements. Here’s how the New York Times characterized it:

His aides declined to clarify on Saturday whether the president’s allegations were based on briefings from intelligence or law enforcement officials — which could mean that Mr. Trump was revealing previously unknown details about the investigation — or on something else, like a news report.

But a senior White House official said that Donald F. McGahn II, the president’s chief counsel, was working to secure access to what Mr. McGahn believed to be an order issued by the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court authorizing some form of surveillance related to Mr. Trump and his associates.

The official offered no evidence to support the notion that such an order exists. It would be a highly unusual breach of the Justice Department’s traditional independence on law enforcement matters for the White House to order it to turn over such an investigative document.

Any request for information from a top White House official about a continuing investigation would be a stunning departure from protocols intended to insulate the F.B.I. from political pressure. It would be even more surprising for the White House to seek information about a case directly involving the president or his advisers, as does the case involving the Russia contacts.

After the White House received heavy criticism for the suggestion that Mr. McGahn would breach Justice Department independence, a different administration official said that the earlier statements about his efforts had been overstated. The official said the counsel’s office was looking at whether there was any legal possibility of gleaning information without impeding or interfering with an investigation. The counsel’s office does not know whether an investigation exists, the official said.
If you are finding Lawfare useful in these times, please consider making a contribution to support what we do.

PayPal - The safer, easier way to pay online!
Also yesterday, the estimable Julian Sanchez writing on Just Security, penned this excellent explainer piece about what he thinks is really going on. I find entirely plausible Sanchez’s suspicion that Trump is really just channeling and garbling accounts in news stories about surveillance around the campaign that have been kicking around for some time.

All that said, Sanchez's account is speculative. And we thus still have on our hands a definitive presidential statement that his phones were “wiretapped” by his predecessory. Unless and until the President retracts those statements or amends them to comport with Julian’s sense (which I share) of what the reality probably is, I think we all have an obligation to take the words of the President of the United States seriously.

So in that spirit, here are ten more questions for President Trump on the subject of his tweetstorm yesterday:

To the extent any wiretap you revealed yesterday was previously classified, your tweets have declassified the fact of its existence. Do you agree that the FBI, DOJ, and the FISA Court are now at liberty to confirm the existence of any FISA surveillance that may have been taking place at Trump Tower or against its occupants?
Do you agree that, to whatever extent no such surveillance was taking place, the fact of its absence—which is to say the fact that you were either lying or making up facts or repeating allegations published in Breitbart with no idea of their accuracy—is also not classified?
Will you similarly declassify any material the underlying FISA application may contain so that the public can understand the basis or lawlessness of the alleged Obama surveillance of your campaign and business?
You say that there was “Nothing found” in the wiretapping of Trump Tower. Are you thereby declassifying the fruits of any surveillance that may have taken place? Will you?
You say that the surveillance was “Turned down by court earlier.” Are you thereby declassying the fact of and waiving any privacy interests in any earlier application to the FISA Court or to any federal district court under Title III—and in any rulings that any court may have made on the subject?
To whatever extent you have revealed FISA surveillance in a series of tweets, with which agencies, if any, did you consult before declassifying presumably sensitive material about a foreign counterintelligence investigation that is by most accounts still ongoing?
To whatever extent you have revealed FISA surveillance in a series of tweets, was your National Security Adviser, Gen. H.R. McMaster, aware that you intended to declassify sensitive material about a foreign counterintelligence investigation that is by most accounts still ongoing?
You say that you “bet a good lawyer could make a great case out of the fact that President Obama was tapping my phones in October, just prior to Election!” Are you planning to bring suit against Obama or anyone else under either 50 U.S.C. § 1810—which provides for civil remedies for “[a]n aggrieved person, other than a foreign power or an agent of a foreign power . . . who has been subjected to an electronic surveillance”—or under 18 U.S.C. § 2520—which provides that “any person whose wire, oral, or electronic communication is intercepted . . . in violation of [criminal wiretap law] may in a civil action recover from the person or entity, other than the United States, which engaged in that violation”?
To the extent no such surveillance took place or you have grossly mischaracterized it, do you have any concerns that you might have imputed grave misconduct to your predecessor—in the language of New York Times v. Sullivan—with “‘actual malice’—that is, with knowledge that it was false or with reckless disregard of whether it was false or not”?
If so, have you or your counsel considered the question of whether a tweet from the @realDonaldTrump Twitter account that contains a slander or a libel is an official presidential act for which you are immune from liability under Nixon v. Fitzgerald or whether it is personal conduct for which you might be subject to suit under Clinton v. Jones?

 

[ruby59]

http://www.zdnet.com/article/us-spy-court-didnt-reject-a-single-secret-government-demand-for-data/

Turn on CNN right now as the store is developing.

 

[t-c]

Have you read any of the latest information that came put yesterday and today.

Apparently, there was cause for him to make that statement.

And do you seriously believe Obama did not know what was happening in his own administration?

I am sure he was briefed even on the gold course where he spent much of his time.

The White House staff couldn't explain Trump's tweets when they were asked about it! They didn't know what he was tweeting about and why he was tweeting it -- in fact, they still have not explained it. They've just asked for investigations and then said "neither the White House nor the president will comment further until such oversight is conducted", which is total BS considering the grenade they've lobbed on Twitter (now and before).

I don't know what Obama knew, but I am saying that it is unlikely, unless you are accusing Obama of criminality, that a sitting president will originate or even know about a surveillance request.

And what is your issue with Obama and his golfing? All the presidents need to relax; hell, if it will keep Trump on a more even keel, I think he should take more time off. As someone who regularly works over 80 hours a week, I know it's easy to become jaded.

 

[Matata]

In 36 years, 38,365 warrants were approved which averages about 1066 per year. Put into perspective the number approved and the number rejected don't seem statistically significant.

 

[lovedogs]

The White House staff couldn't explain Trump's tweets when they were asked about it! They didn't know what he was tweeting about and why he was tweeting it -- in fact, they still have not explained it. They've just asked for investigations and then said "neither the White House nor the president will comment further until such oversight is conducted", which is total BS considering the grenade they've lobbed on Twitter (now and before).

I don't know what Obama knew, but I am saying that it is unlikely, unless you are accusing Obama of criminality, that a sitting president will originate or even know about a surveillance request.

And what is your issue with Obama and his golfing? All the presidents need to relax; hell, if it will keep Trump on a more even keel, I think he should take more time off. As someone who regularly works over 80 hours a week, it's easy to become jaded.

No one can explain Trump's insane rants. Hence why they "aren't going to comment further". Because everyone is scrambling to do damage control after SCROTUS went off the rails. AGAIN!


LOL, the amusing thing about the golf argument is that Trump has sooooo much time golfing, despite the fact that Trump spend a hilarious amount of time freaking out about Obama's golfing. He's such a hypocrite and an idiot.

http://www.politico.com/story/2017/02/trump-first-visit-golf-course-234729

 

[jaaron]

http://www.zdnet.com/article/us-spy-court-didnt-reject-a-single-secret-government-demand-for-data/

Turn on CNN right now as the store is developing.

Is that in response to me asking why you think he had cause to make that statement? I don't have CNN on, but I've been looking at Jake Tapper's twitter feed. The last one seemed to imply that no one has any idea where, other than Levin and Breitbart, the accusations came from. Is something different being reported?

 

[E B]

The golfing thing certainly needs to be put to rest. 45's been on the golf course four out of the five weekends he's been president, including this one. As long as it isn't interfering with his work, then it's a snoooooooze.

 

[lovedogs]

Is that in response to me asking why you think he had cause to make that statement? I don't have CNN on, but I've been looking at Jake Tapper's twitter feed. The last one seemed to imply that no one has any idea where, other than Levin and Breitbart, the accusations came from. Is something different being reported?

The only thing being reported is that no one knows where SCROTUS got his outlandish claims, other than from Breitbart/Levin, since they don't seem to come from anywhere else.

 

[E B]

Is that in response to me asking why you think he had cause to make that statement? I don't have CNN on, but I've been looking at Jake Tapper's twitter feed. The last one seemed to imply that no one has any idea where, other than Levin and Breitbart, the accusations came from. Is something different being reported?

The only thing being reported is that no one knows where SCROTUS got his outlandish claims, other than from Breitbart/Levin, since they don't seem to come from anywhere else.

You'd think if the prez had any evidence whatsoever he'd shout it from the rooftops. Asking congress to investigate + "we will not comment further" seems....as though this could go the way of the 3 million illegal voter claim.

 

[jaaron]

The golfing thing certainly needs to be put to rest. 45's been on the golf course four out of the five weekends he's been president, including this one. As long as it isn't interfering with his work, then it's a snoooooooze.

By 'his work' can one assume you mean acting like an insane person with unfettered access to delusions and a twitter account? No, it doesn't seem to interfere with that, so all good.

 

[Matata]

The golfing thing certainly needs to be put to rest. 45's been on the golf course four out of the five weekends he's been president, including this one. As long as it isn't interfering with his work, then it's a snoooooooze.

I take exception to the cost of these trips to us taxpayers in general as well as the local Floridians who are being impacted. As far as interfering with his work...he can tweet from anywhere.
http://www.cbsnews.com/news/president-trump-mar-a-lago-trips-cost-taxpayers-millions/
https://www.nytimes.com/2017/02/19/us/donald-trump-visits-mar-a-lago-businesses.html?_r=0

 

[ruby59]

Is that in response to me asking why you think he had cause to make that statement? I don't have CNN on, but I've been looking at Jake Tapper's twitter feed. The last one seemed to imply that no one has any idea where, other than Levin and Breitbart, the accusations came from. Is something different being reported?

The only thing being reported is that no one knows where SCROTUS got his outlandish claims, other than from Breitbart/Levin, since they don't seem to come from anywhere else.

You'd think if the prez had any evidence whatsoever he'd shout it from the rooftops. Asking congress to investigate + "we will not comment further" seems....as though this could go the way of the 3 million illegal voter claim.

If there was no problem why get Congress involved at all?

 

[ruby59]

The golfing thing certainly needs to be put to rest. 45's been on the golf course four out of the five weekends he's been president, including this one. As long as it isn't interfering with his work, then it's a snoooooooze.

But it was 44 who golfed right after learning an American was beheaded.

 

[E B]

The golfing thing certainly needs to be put to rest. 45's been on the golf course four out of the five weekends he's been president, including this one. As long as it isn't interfering with his work, then it's a snoooooooze.

I take exception to the cost of these trips to us taxpayers in general as well as the local Floridians who are being impacted. As far as interfering with his work...he can tweet from anywhere.
http://www.cbsnews.com/news/president-trump-mar-a-lago-trips-cost-taxpayers-millions/
https://www.nytimes.com/2017/02/19/us/donald-trump-visits-mar-a-lago-businesses.html?_r=0

Oh, I agree 100%- the amount of traveling for leisure in such a short time (and the cost, not to mention the hypocrisy of it all) is certainly a bigger deal IMO- the golfing in particular just seems like a talking point from Obama's presidency I wish wasn't recycled.

 

[E B]

The golfing thing certainly needs to be put to rest. 45's been on the golf course four out of the five weekends he's been president, including this one. As long as it isn't interfering with his work, then it's a snoooooooze.

But it was 44 who golfed right after learning an American was beheaded.

He did- and apologized for it.

 

[ruby59]

The golfing thing certainly needs to be put to rest. 45's been on the golf course four out of the five weekends he's been president, including this one. As long as it isn't interfering with his work, then it's a snoooooooze.

But it was 44 who golfed right after learning an American was beheaded.

He did- and apologized for it.

But if it was Trump there was no way you people would have let it go so easily. It would have been injected into every thread here for years.

 

[lovedogs]

The golfing thing certainly needs to be put to rest. 45's been on the golf course four out of the five weekends he's been president, including this one. As long as it isn't interfering with his work, then it's a snoooooooze.

By 'his work' can one assume you mean acting like an insane person with unfettered access to delusions and a twitter account? No, it doesn't seem to interfere with that, so all good.

thank goodness it doesn't interfere w his intense tweeting schedule! That would be a real travesty.

 

[AGBF]

From "The New York Times".

"WASHINGTON — The F.B.I. director, James B. Comey, asked the Justice Department this weekend to publicly reject President Trump’s assertion that President Barack Obama ordered the tapping of Mr. Trump’s phones, senior American officials said on Sunday. Mr. Comey has argued that the highly charged claim is false and must be corrected, they said, but the department has not released any such statement.

Mr. Comey, who made the request on Saturday after Mr. Trump leveled his allegation on Twitter, has been working to get the Justice Department to knock down the claim because it falsely insinuates that the F.B.I. broke the law, the officials said.

A spokesman for the F.B.I. declined to comment. Sarah Isgur Flores, the spokeswoman for the Justice Department, also declined to comment.

Mr. Comey’s request is a remarkable rebuke of a sitting president, putting the nation’s top law enforcement official in the position of questioning Mr. Trump’s truthfulness. The confrontation between the two is the most serious consequence of Mr. Trump’s weekend Twitter outburst, and it underscores the dangers of what the president and his aides have unleashed by accusing the former president of a conspiracy to undermine Mr. Trump’s young administration."

AGBF

 

[AGBF]

I woke up today to what seemed like a thunderstorm of television appearances and announcements by people who had previously been non-committal about Trump. I think the patently false accusation by Trump that President Obama had "wire tapped" him was the straw that broke the camel's back.

On "Morning Joe" Mika Brzezinski said that she had begun Trump's presidency with hope and an open mind, but but now she had lost hope and her mind was closing. She also called the White House a harsh name, I cannot recall exactly which one, but it may have been "crazy". Former generals and current congressmen did not mince words in saying that Trump has had either falsely accused President Obama of a felony or was the subject of a criminal or other investigation approved by a federal judge, either of which was a very serious offense. They also referred to a "Wall Street Journal" editorial that was entitled ""Washington Goes Nuts".

As I said in my posting above, the FBI Director is trying to get Jeff Sessions of The Department of Justice to say that Trump's allegation was false. But Sessions won't. maybe appointing sessions Attorney General wasn't such a great idea. Maybe electing Trump wasn't such a great idea. But that's only the opinion of all the generals sitting around the desk worrying how Donald Trump will handle North Korea's missile capabilities (they launched a new missile) given that his government is in chaos simply due to internal churning with no external pressure being put on it. Maybe he'd do just fine if the US was under attack. He cannot call President Obama, whom he has alienated if he is trouble, but he could always call Vladimir Putin for advice, right?

AGBF

 

[lovedogs]

I woke up today to what seemed like a thunderstorm of television appearances and announcements by people who had previously been non-committal about Trump. I think the patently false accusation by Trump that President Obama had "wire tapped" him was the straw that broke the camel's back.

On "Morning Joe" Mika Brzezinski said that she had begun Trump's presidency with hope and an open mind, but but now she had lost hope and her mind was closing. She also called the White House a harsh name, I cannot recall exactly which one, but it may have been "crazy". Former generals and current congressmen did not mince words in saying that Trump has had either falsely accused President Obama of a felony or was the subject of a criminal or other investigation approved by a federal judge, either of which was a very serious offense. They also referred to a "Wall Street Journal" editorial that was entitled ""Washington Goes Nuts".

As I said in my posting above, the FBI Director is trying to get Jeff Sessions of The Department of Justice to say that Trump's allegation was false. But Sessions won't. maybe appointing sessions Attorney General wasn't such a great idea. Maybe electing Trump wasn't such a great idea. But that's only the opinion of all the generals sitting around the desk worrying how Donald Trump will handle North Korea's missile capabilities (they launched a new missile) given that his government is in chaos simply due to internal churning with no external pressure being put on it. Maybe he'd do just fine if the US was under attack. He cannot call President Obama, whom he has alienated if he is trouble, but he could always call Vladimir Putin for advice, right?

AGBF

Hoping more and more people realize how horrible he is, and eventually he loses GOP support entirely.

 

[House Cat]

A note:

From what I understand of the powers of the president, Trump has the power to request the warrants that gave the FBI the authority to wiretap Trump Tower. He also has the power to de-classify those warrants on the spot.

 

[Matata]

A note:

From what I understand of the powers of the president, Trump has the power to request the warrants that gave the FBI the authority to wiretap Trump Tower. He also has the power to de-classify those warrants on the spot.

Someone should tweet this info to the poor fellow so he doesn't have to wait for a conclusion to be reached by the Congressional investigation he's asked for.

And now a bit of humour noir
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G4_HCBakGYg

 

[redwood66]

And would either of you believe anything that he did put forth? Better to let the congress handle it. I wish he would just back out of it and shut up and get to work.

 

[Matata]

And would either of you believe anything that he did put forth? Better to let the congress handle it. I wish he would just back out of it and shut up and get to work.

I would believe the proof of declassified warrants. It would bring a short end to the issue.

 

[House Cat]

A note:

From what I understand of the powers of the president, Trump has the power to request the warrants that gave the FBI the authority to wiretap Trump Tower. He also has the power to de-classify those warrants on the spot.

Someone should tweet this info to the poor fellow so he doesn't have to wait for a conclusion to be reached by the Congressional investigation he's asked for.

And now a bit of humour noir
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G4_HCBakGYg

Oh good stuff!!! Thank you!!

 

[redwood66]

And would either of you believe anything that he did put forth? Better to let the congress handle it. I wish he would just back out of it and shut up and get to work.

I would believe the proof of declassified warrants. It would bring a short end to the issue.

And if they cannot be declassified?