Slashdot Mirror
How Wiretaps Actually Work (washingtonpost.com)
David Kris, assistant attorney general for national security from 2009 to 2011, has responded to the recent accusations made by president Donald Trump. On Saturday, Trump accused former president Obama of orchestrating a "Nixon/Watergate" plot to tap the phones at his Trump Tower headquarters in the run-up to last fall's election. He writes in an opinion piece for The Washington Post: First, the U.S. government needs probable cause, signatures from government officials and advance approval from a federal court before engaging in wiretapping in the United States. There are some narrow exceptions, for things such as short-term emergencies, which are then reviewed by a judge promptly after the fact. This is not something that the president simply orders. Under the law governing foreign intelligence wiretaps, the government has to show probable cause that a "facility" is being used or about to be used by a "foreign power" -- e.g., a foreign government or an international terrorist group -- or by an "agent of a foreign power." A facility is something like a telephone number or an email address. Second, there is no requirement that the facility being wiretapped be owned, leased or listed in the name of the person who is committing the offense or is the agent of a foreign power. [...] Third, government officials, including the president, don't normally speak publicly about wiretaps. Indeed, it is in some cases a federal crime to disclose a wiretap without authorization, including not only the information obtained from the wiretap, but also the mere existence of a wiretap with an intent to obstruct it. With respect to intelligence wiretaps, there is an additional issue: They are always classified, and disclosure of classified information is also generally a crime. The president enjoys authority over classified information, of course, but at a minimum it would be highly irregular to disclose an intelligence wiretap via Twitter.
Trump shoots off mouth about topic with no justification in fact. News at 11.
#IStandWithSweden
#DeleteChrome
The president enjoys authority over classified information, of course, but at a minimum it would be highly irregular to disclose an intelligence wiretap via Twitter.
A General Hayden explained on the Late Show the other night that the president can tweet whatever he damned well pleases - Since he's the ultimate classification authority, information just BECOMES unclassified BY being tweeted. Of course this is irregular - We've never had a president who used Twitter (or any social media) the way DJT does. This is just an irregular presidency all together.
He's getting rather old, but he's a good mouse.
All this person is explaining is how it should normally function when done legally. It being done legally is not and has not been the problem.
Now I don't believe Obama went and wiretapped Donald Trump. But to claim that this is "how wiretaps work" is nothing but disinformation using the Trump accusations as a veil to pretend that nothing illegal was done to any other americans. Like the ones actually being illegally wiretapped.
Makes me think the entire story breitbart copied was planted for a reason...
As long as Trump's statements build a platform to justify his future actions, whether true or not, he is happy. It doesn't matter if illegal immigrants are actually criminals or not, it only matters that saying it provides Trump with the justification of building a gigantic wall. It doesn't matter whether Obama wiretapped Trump Tower, it only matters that saying it provides Trump with the ability to deflect conversation about Russian ties. This is how an authoritarian government works. They care less about the truth, and more about justifying their actions with a painted visage of half-truths and lies.
Anywhere other than the government (at the top of it, that is) if you put someone in a position and they do something wrong you are held accountable as well.
BS! All of it. The federal government does what it wants, when it wants and hides behind published procedure. I am so tired of all of this.
So you're trying to tell us even if Obama illegally wiretapped Trump, Trump is not allowed to tell anyone. Uhm, yeah...
www.weberseite.at
Why hasn't Trump been taken to task for issuing paranoid lunatic rants via twitter? This isn't a leak. It isn't hearsay. This isn't the testimony of a spurned ext-staffer or former business partner. This is direct from the president himself. Raw and unfiltered.
Just another episode in a month-long clusterfuck that demonstrates he is, on a fundamental level, wholly unqualified for holding office. - The fact that he's issuing public statements without council is really really really really bad.
The man is the fucking president. He has access to the button. We're lucky other world leaders aren't quite so dumb but at some point they'll stop being nice and will start exploiting out current period of obvious weakness.
We don't have time to sit him down and make him watch School House Rock before re-taking high school civics, which he obviously flunked..
Members of the US Government security and intelligence community are beginning to get permanent palm prints embedded in their faces.
And what about the cheeto POTUS is not highly irregular?
FAKE NEWS! I have a bowel movement every day, folks. The media says this, says that, says I'm irregular, it's lies. Just ask my doctor, I'm more regular than any man ever elected president, believe me.
...an NSL hits their desk.
I'm also pretty sure stingrays are wiretap apparatuses and those are used with broad over-reaching terms.
But no, we need to make sure the public knows that everything is above board and they're protected.
Wiretaps aren't this easy everyone!
They're also totally not built into our infrastructure. nope.
Whether or not this claim is true by Trump, making it seem like there's actually ethical oversight over wiretap warrants and that nothing is wrong with them is a disservice to all of us.
Washington Post is trash. The only thing that keeps readers going to them is the same manipulative anger inciting verbiage that used to be relegated to tabloids.
"Your side is winning!" Contrived adversarial bullshit.
The president enjoys authority over classified information, of course, but at a minimum it would be highly irregular to disclose an intelligence wiretap via Twitter.
A General Hayden explained on the Late Show the other night that the president can tweet whatever he damned well pleases
No, he can't. When the President tweets his every thought, any tweet can literally cost taxpayer money or affect domestic or foreign policy. Trump tweets these claims about wiretapping, and now Congress has to do an investigation. If he tweets some about say, Turkey, that the Turkish government doesn't like, they could expel diplomats or sever diplomatic ties. If he tweets something about North Korea that pisses them off, they might fire off a missile or 2, or shell a South Korean island. Hell, his tweets have actually affected the stock prices of companies when he tweets negative things about them (and has even blamed companies for problems caused by the travel ban in his tweets). As President every word you say, every statement you make, has the weight of the US government and military behind it. You damn well can't just say whatever you want, because at best it can cost people money. Worst case, it can cost people their lives.
The only thing necessary for evil to triumph is for it to be pitted against a slightly greater evil
So to summarize:
Trump's offices were definitely not tapped unless
a) There was some damning evidence he was doing something very bad
or
b) Multiple high-ranking people collaborated to break serious laws.
And if his offices WERE tapped Trump has now broken federal law by revealing that his offices were tapped and we have not one but two Presidents with serious crimes marring their histories.
"That's the way to do it" - Punch
Obviously the president is going to be recorded every single second while he's the president, by multiple parties. It would highly surprise me if this isn't actually written down and public, even.
Chapter 36 of Title 50 of the US Code *War and National Defense", Subchapter 1, Section 1802
(1) Notwithstanding any other law, the President, through the Attorney General, may authorize electronic surveillance without a court order under this subchapter to acquire foreign intelligence information for periods of up to one year if the Attorney General certifies in writing under oath that—
(A) the electronic surveillance is solely directed at—
(i) the acquisition of the contents of communications transmitted by means of communications used exclusively between or among foreign powers, as defined in section 1801(a)(1), (2), or (3) of this title; or
(ii) the acquisition of technical intelligence, other than the spoken communications of individuals, from property or premises under the open and exclusive control of a foreign power, as defined in section 1801(a)(1), (2), or (3) of this title;
(B) there is no substantial likelihood that the surveillance will acquire the contents of any communication to which a United States person is a party; and
(C) the proposed minimization procedures with respect to such surveillance meet the definition of minimization procedures under section 1801(h) of this title; and
if the Attorney General reports such minimization procedures and any changes thereto to the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence and the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence at least thirty days prior to their effective date, unless the Attorney General determines immediate action is required and notifies the committees immediately of such minimization procedures and the reason for their becoming effective immediately.
Even if something becomes unclassified because the president tweeted it doesn't mean it becomes TRUE because the president tweeted it.
You are welcome on my lawn.
Obama also didn't "order" the IRS to audit conservative organizations either. Crooks in authority often don't "order" things, they imply things, or simply create a climate and reward systems where things they want to happen happen. So, those are weasel words, attempting to obfuscate the obvious fact that the president has the power to make such things happen, tolerate them, or stop them.
I think it's pretty clear that the Obama justice department submitted applications to FISA courts for surveillance of Trump associates and that these were turned down multiple times until it eventually approved a narrow version. These applications were based on the notion that people associated with Trump might have illegal financial ties to Russia, charges that keep getting repeated to this day by Democrats, so it seems outright bizarre that Democrats would now deny any attempt at investigating those ties.
So, of course, the Obama DOJ conducted wiretapping and surveillance of Trump tower and attempted to involve Trump in it, and Obama either encouraged this or tolerated it or didn't know about it. Any of those possibilities make Obama responsible for it. That is, the wiretapping of the presidential candidate of an opposing party is such a politically important issue that Obama is personally responsible even if he was out golfing and only heard about it on TV afterwards.
Obama seemed to consider conservatives and Christians as a greater threat than radical Muslims. Just read all of the list of "possible terrorist" characteristics that leaked out during his administration and the purging of Christians from the military during his watch. Similar to Bill Clinton, he weaponized the IRS against conservatives. You are so stupid to think that Lois Learner broke the law purely under her own initiative, are you?
Obama had world leaders wiretapped. He had his enemies wiretapped. He appointed (as was his right) people to all the places where he could make sure the things he wanted got done, regardless of the legality or illegality. There are plenty of current leaks from the intelligence agencies that say Obama did have Trump wiretapped, if only by first having people associated with him wiretapped and then having the wiretap automatically expanded to the people they communicated with.
Why has nobody else mentioned that the mere existence of this story points to one undeniable fact: Donald Trump, the president of the United States of America, does not know what the powers and limitations are for the office of president.
It was already pretty probable based on his public promises and problems with executive orders. This is just one more confirmation that he thinks Barack Obama had the powers of a king and that now he has been appointed king and that the only limitation is how far he's willing to take things.
How does that mean he can't tweet "whatever he wants." The point was there's no higher power stopping from from speaking. If he wants to speak about classified information than he can, and literally nobody can stop him. People just don't seem to like the fact that a loudmouth president has a direct line to the public
Since when has the NSA cared about the actual laws when they do their snooping?
First let me be the first to say that it never happened.
That said, the fact what is legal and/or procedure doesn't mean jack shit nowadays. If the FBI can lie, if the NSA can lie, if any other person in government can lie and all this without any consequences, there is NO reason why I should be discussing what the procedure should be.
That is just a nice mental exercise. Besides that, it is a waste of time.
Don't fight for your country, if your country does not fight for you.
As President every word you say, every statement you make, has the weight of the US government and military behind it. You damn well can't just say whatever you want, because at best it can cost people money.
Yes, he really can say whatever he damn well pleases. It's terrifying the amount of weight behind it. What he says may be ill-thought out and terrible; it may have globe-shattering implications; he could condemn countless lives with a flick of his thumb; but it's not illegal and there's nothing stopping him. Not if the president does it.
He's getting rather old, but he's a good mouse.
Two party system has devolved and now mostly hyper-partisan loyalists are in all branches which is screwing up the balance of power. Obama wouldn't have had to order anything in writing or overtly, nor would Trump once the 'yes men' are installed. Loyalists driven by party agenda at State or Justice know what to do. Parties in power poking each other in the eye isn't really helping the average citizen. They spend the bulk of their time dealing w/ the loudest and often smallest constituent groups. Sucks for the average person that wants to be left alone for the most part.
Difference between Obama and Trump is that Trump has almost no filter so we get to hear what he is thinking near real-time.
You know, Trump, the AntiPresident reminds me of Norman Muller from the Asimov short "Franchise". Takes place in 2008 (so Asimov was only off by 8 years!) and instead of just one person selected to vote for president, current affairs make it seem like Norman -became- president...
In any case, Asimov was certainly prescient insomuch as the "future" presidential state of affairs is mind boggling.
I am not interested in articles about life extension advancements.
If it's anything like maple tree tapping, all you need is a spile of appropriate size for your wire.
#DeleteFacebook
Allow me to correct it:
How Wiretaps Are Supposed To Work If Everyone Follows the Laws
Many folks know this already, but the laws don't really apply to people operating at that level. They're supposed to. We're assured they do, but they don't.
They do what they want, then make up some bullshit story to justify their actions later on if they get caught and end up with a wrist slap at worst. It's RARE to see people at that level going to jail or even being held accountable for their actions.
I sincerely hope Wikileaks releases the most god-awful embarrassing revelations about what the Intelligence Community is doing under the guise of " National Security ". While most on /. already suspect the three letter agencies have their fingers in just about everything, it's nice to see it show up in the spotlight from time to time as a reminder that the World isn't nearly as nice a place as it seems to be.
Now, turn off your hatred for all things Trump for a moment and entertain the possibility that there might be some truth behind Trump's wiretapping claims. The ability to spy on everyone means our future leadership can be hand-picked because any possible opposition can be singled out and utterly destroyed simply by putting their entire life under a microscope and " leaking " information that would be useful to destroy their reputation. If the Hillary camp is to be believed, releasing damaging information at the right time is quite effective isn't it ?
If that doesn't work, mis-information is equally devastating in this day and age. We don't need proof, just make some shit up and, if it's juicy enough, the media jumps all over it like a Republican on a Tax Cut ( or to be fair, like a Democrat on a Tax Increase ). Retractions later on are irrelevant if the time window is narrow enough. ( Like an election ) The damage is already done.
Taking that a step further: Would you like the Trump ( or any ) administration to have the ability to hand-pick their successor by utilizing tools / agencies designed to Spy on foreign powers ? Tools that are unavailable to any potential opposition which puts them at a tremendous disadvantage. Better yet, would you like the CIA, NSA, $TLA to pick your leadership FOR you ?
I doubt it.
Gimme a break buddy. We know from NSA whistleblowers that the federal government is sweeping up every single piece of digital or voice communication that we generate. Warrants? Probable cause? Judicial oversight? LMAO Even if they bother to get a FISA warrant, it's issued by a secret court that basically rubber stamps any request that the federales put in front of them. Or the feds just directly issue a "National Security Letter" with no court approval to get the information they want without the target knowing about it.
I'm skeptical of the claim that President Obama specifically ordered government employees to 'bug' Trump's communications, but I'm sure that the feds were monitoring those communications just like they monitor everything else.
WaPo == "Fake News"
We all already know that EVERYTHING is monitored and recorded so the whole idea that it would be some big process to "wiretap him" is ridiculous. All that would be needed would be to look at what they had already recorded.
(Doesn't mean that he did but it does mean it would be impossible to tell...)
Even if something becomes unclassified because the president tweeted it doesn't mean it becomes TRUE because the president tweeted it.
No argument there. The nice thing about unclassifying the information is that the statement, "I can neither confirm nor deny," can be reduced to simply, "I can deny."
He's getting rather old, but he's a good mouse.
As another politician pointed out, no one can be charged for talking about the Trump Tower wiretap (if it exists) since POTUS publicly disclosed the wiretap existence.
Arguments that the White House couldn't order tapping is deception. Justice Requests A tap then the FISA court reviews. If there is sufficient justification, it orders the tap, so technically, all FISA taps originate with court, not the administration. The WH denial Is spin and deception. Obviously WH can consult with justice about whether and how to submit the FISA request.
Further, Fisa is not a criminal tool, it is a national security tool, so standards for granting the tap are much lower than for a criminal investigation. Originally, the FBI requested a criminal investigation of trump, but the investigation terminated as there was no evidence. Then justice requested a Fisa tap, naming trump in the request. The court denied the request only the 13th time a request has been denied since Fisa was set up in the late 70s. Justice made a second Fisa request not naming trump which was granted, but no evidence was found, but the tapping continued anyway. All this was reported by the New York Times.
Finally, I would trust any official in the Obama justice or intel communities. They trotted out James clapper (director of national intelligence under Obama) to all the talk shows on Sunday where he denied any Fisa taps on trump occurred. In 2013 he perjured himself in front of congress claiming no warrant less wiretapping occurred of Americans- then Snowden occurred and made a list of him.
According to reports, NSA is part of justice dept. and spies on everyone without requiring any kind of warrant.
Search on google.
From the James Clapper school of "We would NEVER do such a thing! It wouldn't be legal!!"
Isn't it fun, watching all the people who were out in the streets over the NSA's bulk domestic surveillance, suddenly reassuring us that there's all sorts of oversight over wiretaps?
Isn't it fun, watching all the people who cheered Snowden on, suddenly up in arms about "irregular" declassification of information by the president?
Slashdot - News for Nerds, Stuff that Matters, in ISO-8859-1 Has just realised that beta makes this signature redundant
Per terrorist combatant, Christians still have a higher kill ratio on American soil than Muslims.
But I suspect that if the surveillance was conducted against Trump, it was neither legal nor justified from a legal stance.
Charter Member of The Committee Group For The Elimination And Eradication Of Repetitive Redundancy
Well, more shit comes out of you than any President in history, but it's coming out the wrong end!
Sharia Blue can't stop wrecking themselves it seems.
MAGA
> never had a president who used Twitter
That's not true. Obama spewed a bunch of crap on Twitter. He also posted nutty and hateful crap to MySpace, Facebook, and YouTube. Yes, MySpace. That is how out of touch he is. He used to lie and claim that his negroid friends loved MySpace because Zuck is a racist. The latter is true, but the former a iie. We don't like MySpace. Obama made us look bad and out of touch with that lie. Also, the hateful Chris Hughes pushed Obama into doing a lot of things to intentionally piss people off since Hughes is from North Carolina you just know he is a racist. That is how his kind be. He co-founded Facebook and helped create that joke of a site barackobama.com. He made Obama look stupid with his intentional poor job. That's also why Facebook as never banned Obama for his antics even though he intentionally broke the rules. Facebook's co-founder made too much money off of Obama's stupidity.
Why lie about Obama's use of Twitter? Last I heard, he advertised more than 15,000 times on Twitter. Also, he was so hateful that in just a single day, he lost 40,000 followers. How is that not a controversy? He posted to Twitter.
The problem here is we don't have all the facts and we will NEVER know if or when we do have all the facts.
There is a practice called Plausible deniability, which basically means that for some activities there is no direct order from the authority to do it, it's just understood (rightly or wrongly) it should be done. This is what tripped Nixon up, because those stupid tapes showed that he was attempting to maintain the ability to deny he had anything to do with Watergate. Even if we had that 18 min and 20 seconds of audio that sunk him and it didn't incriminate him, there would *still* be the question, did he not really know and approve? Was there an unrecorded conversation, wink or nod? For Nixon, it didn't mater.
So we need to break this down into at least two parts... 1. Was there actually a wire tap? 2. Who ordered it and why?
1. Yes. It seems obvious to me that it's very likely there WAS an wire tap in place if not on Trump, on people very close to him.. It was reported weeks ago and not denied then. Trump then tweets about it, so based on wide agreement from all sides, it sure seems some kind of wire tapping was going on...
2. Nobody knows yet... Nobody has yet owned up to the reason the wiretapping took place. Trump is insinuating that it was politically motivated and came from Obama. I'm sure Obama's denial of this means he didn't directly order this though formal channels (I believe him in that way) but this *could* be simply how it was arranged (Plausible deniability) and some Obama loyalist figured it was a good idea and did it on their own. It's hard to know...
Personally, I want to know WHY the FISA courts issued the warrant. What was the reason and who was asking? I also want to know how the information is flowing from the FISA warrant into the public domain? Until we know that, I don't see where we shouldn't take Obama at his word.
"File to fit, pound to insert, paint to match" - Aircraft Maintenance 101
What ever you call the call meta data capture where they know the source and destination of call. That was done. That was easy, look at your long distance bill. The carriers just forward the call connect info to the 3 letter agencies. They might not know what you talked about, but they do know who you called.
How does that mean he can't tweet "whatever he wants." The point was there's no higher power stopping from from speaking.
The higher power is his duty to faithfully represent the United States and guide its government. He's not tweeting things like "I hate Taco Tuesday", thereby preventing all Tex-Mex restaurants in the US from offering cheap tacos on Tuesday. He has directly tweeted accusations that the prior administration broke federal law and did something so unethical that Congress is required to investigate and, if true (which so far there is zero evidence of it being true), would shake the very foundation of American government-especially considering the hostile and adversarial political climate currently in the US. He has used tweets to lay blame for the effects of ill-conceived and horribly executed Executive orders not on his orders but on companies who were in no way involved (ie. the travel ban). He tweeted about cancelling the new Air Force One contract and Boeing's stock dropped immediately (in fairness it did recover once people realized he wouldn't actually do it). Presidents have Press Secretaries, speechwriters, and communications staffers precisely because his words carry so much weight that they have to be carefully considered, otherwise you risk very serious fallout or collateral damage. He's not a reality TV host anymore, or someone who just licenses his name to everything from belts to buildings: he represents 320 million people and the largest military spender in the world by far. Being an unfiltered loudmouth is the last thing you want to be in that situation.
The only thing necessary for evil to triumph is for it to be pitted against a slightly greater evil
Remember 5 years ago, when you were chanting, with just as little evidence, that the NSA was wiretapping everyone in the country? Funny how you change your tune when you've been told to hate the incumbent.
It would also be highly irregular for the total proof of the CIA's undeniable corruption and intent to destroy the United States to be revealed... via a tweet and a torrent. But such are the times, so little are your heroes valued, and so minor is the authority you appeal to again and again. You'll have to become smart for reals now. Word is that 20-40% of the living room personalities you see in the MSM are going to commit suicide or flee the country when Trump unleashes the hounds on the pedophiles. Almost all of the CIA will be hunted down to the man in alleyways by John Q. Public when "Vaults 8 and 9" or "the other 99% of Vault 7" are released. The past four presidents are all going down as one. Stop defending any of them or you'll look like a moron in 2 years. All of the lashing out about Russia is lying and foot-dragging to prevent this Day of the Rope. Get ready for it, nothing can stop it, and if you accuse Trump of being a dictator your fellow Americans won't care.
"If he wants to speak about classified information than he can, and literally nobody can stop him."
That's true of everyone, not just the president. Doesn't mean there won't be consequences, that's how the law works.
Of course, with the president there can be no prosecution while in office but he can be prosecuted after he leaves office. Furthermore, he can be removed from office through impeachment and disclosing "whatever he wants" could constitute an impeachable offense. You are simply wrong on this, the constitution has more authority than the president and he can't simply do what he wants.
Presidents always have a direct line to public, twitter hasn't changed that and people don't dislike it. People don't like trump for other reasons.
Andrew McCarthy at national review has a very good discussion of this. Well worth reading.
http://www.nationalreview.com/article/445588/james-clapper-trump-statements-reveal-omission
It very well may be illegal. Presidents are not above the law although some, including trump, believe they are and have said so.
"Not if the president does it."
Trump has said this and it's very, very wrong. Nixon said it too. He was wrong as well and paid the price for it.
I don't care where you fall on the political spectrum, it needs to be admitted that there are some serious problems affecting Sweden right now.
For example, just look at this list of recent grenade attacks in Sweden.
Sweden's population is only about 10 million people yet they've been suffering from grenade attacks almost every other week for several years now.
That's extraordinarily abnormal, especially for what was once one of the most advanced and peaceful nations on Earth.
It has been particularly bad in Malmö, a city where over 40% of the population are foreigners or not descended from traditional Swedes.
Regardless of your feelings for President Trump, it cannot be denied that he is right about the major problems affecting Sweden today.
Failed immigration policies have resulted in far too many violent criminals from some of the worst areas in the world ending up in Sweden, and they are quickly destroying what was once one of the top nations. The United States should learn a lesson from Sweden.
The US Congress can determine a tweet is a crime and remove the President. Some possibilities include personal enrichment, call to violence, etc. This is a difficult tool to use, but is there as an ultimate power check.
As I understand it, the president has broad powers to declassify information. President Trump can talk about basically anything (via Twitter or whatever) including if he, or somebody in his building, is having their communications monitored by police or intelligence legally.
The byproduct of this is that he could be inadvertently publicizing any classified operations leaving them open to questioning by the legislative branch or government or the media. So, nobody is trying to tell you that even if President Obama illegally (or otherwise) wiretapped President Trump, President Trump is not allowed to tell anyone.
The exact opposite is true.
Mimetics Inc. Twitter
You are not alone. This is not normal. None of this is normal.
Lying is impeachable during testimony, but not general tweeting.
The next best defense is an observant media. But Trimp supportors turn the tables and accuse the media of lying.
Obama tweeted more than Trump. It's sad that he thinks someone will believe the lie that Trump is doing something different. They're all the same.
There is less than zero chance that the President (Obama) didn't know about or sign off on this surveillance. The idea that a sitting President investigating his opponent would be done by lower level people without his knowledge is preposterous. Of course his administration (and he) knew. The question is: was the surveillance legitimate? Or was it done for political purposes?
Unless Trump really is an agent of the FSB and Russians, it's looking more and more like it's the 2nd option. And that should scare everyone no matter what party you are for. This looks like Lois Lerner pt 2 but since it's all classified behind the bureaucracy, there is no Lois to blame. Not yet, anyway.....
The only way this works out well for the previous administration is if Donald and his lackeys really are agents or really were in collusion with the Russians to throw the election. Thus far, no evidence has been presented and even James Clapper says there is nothing there. So why is this Russian thing still in the news? Politics. Which begs the question: was this investigation/wiretapping done for political reasons? If so, Obama and his admin have some explaining to do.
David Kris admitted publicly that the government had wiretapped Trump, hope he gets arrested for that shit.
How does that mean he can't tweet "whatever he wants." The point was there's no higher power stopping from from speaking.
The higher power is his duty to faithfully represent the United States and guide its government.
Sure, but Trump only really cares about himself. This is probably true for most politicians, except they may also care about their party. The country and (most of) its people are way down on the list, just below corporations and rich people. I/we could probably list many examples on both sides of the aisle, but I'll simply refer to recent events since January 20th, like the newly released Republican formulated American Health Care Act.
It must have been something you assimilated. . . .
I am not sure where the constitution fits into law nowadays. Maybe we need more (or less) amendments to clarify what we the people want from our government?
It is great to finally have a President that exposes crap going on in the government rather than does what his masters tell him.
-==- Buy a Mac and leave me alone!
So far I've seen lots of claims about a wiretap getting done, but I haven't seen actual evidence of a wiretap getting done. It seems to me, that if a wiretap was done, the most logical ones to do it would be the Russians, After all, they'd be very interested in the degree to which the stupid Amerikanskis swallowed the bait they offered (hacked Democrat emails)....
From what I've read in the news, the wiretapping wasn't aimed at Trump but at a Russian server operating out of Trump Tower. But, yeah, let's blame Obama for that one too.
http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/cover_story/2016/10/was_a_server_registered_to_the_trump_organization_communicating_with_russia.html
Trump shoots off mouth about topic with no justification in fact. News at 11.
Which is exactly the point. When he doesn't like the way the news is talking about he changes it by saying something outrageous.
Donald Trump isn't crazy. And he isn't really careless -- not about the things that matter to him. He's manipulative. His supporters understand this, and don't mind when he is factually wrong because they understand he is a bullshit artist. They just think he's their bullshit artist.
The difference between bullshit and a conventional lie is that the bullshitter doesn't lie to deceive, he lies to produce an effect. Bullshitting is often safer and more effective than lying because a lie disproven is neutralized, but disproving bullshit is a waste of time because nobody is meant to believe it.
And here's the specifics about this particular lie:
The MSM has been reporting on Trump's ties to Russia for the past 4 months, mentioning "recorded conversations" and "an ongoing investigation". All of these have mentioned that there is "no conclusive evidence yet" in the investigation. The overall spin has been that Trump is a lackey of the Russian government, we have him under surveillance, and we are slowly gathering evidence which will be conclusive.
Here's an example quote from the NYT before Trump's tweet:
American law enforcement and intelligence agencies are examining intercepted communications and financial transactions as part of a broad investigation into possible links between Russian officials and associates of President-elect Donald J. Trump, including his former campaign chairman Paul Manafort, current and former senior American officials said.
The continuing counterintelligence investigation means that Mr. Trump will take the oath of office on Friday with his associates under investigation and after the intelligence agencies concluded that the Russian government had worked to help elect him. As president, Mr. Trump will oversee those agencies and have the authority to redirect or stop at least some of these efforts.
Suddenly Trump says that he was wiretapped, and all the MSM outlets have been in complete freakout mode disavowing their previous statements.
It was glorious! The alt-right has been laughing at the lefties for the past week or so.
Yes he can. That should be obvious by the simple fact that he does.
Usually people get in trouble because they are revealing classified information, but that doesn't apply the President since they are at the top of the chain and can declassify at will anyway.
Can is not the same as should, but the claim is explicitly about "can".
.... it doesn't mean it becomes TRUE because the president tweeted it.
Shh... Don't tell Trump (or his supporters) that.
On the other hand, they'll probably just ignore you, call you a libtard snowflake who hates 'Merica and suggest you leave if you don't like it.
It must have been something you assimilated. . . .
Trump tweets these claims about wiretapping, and now Congress has to do an investigation.
No, they don't.
It's just to deflect from the investigation into Putin winning the US election.
"David Kris, assistant attorney general for national security from 2009 to 2011" says that all the Snowden revelations are lies and we really do follow the law and do everything above board and legally. The PATRIOT act doesn't exist and there are no secret courts.
In other news, man embarrassed by Snowden leaks continues to lie about his job.
How does that mean he can't tweet "whatever he wants." The point was there's no higher power stopping from from speaking.
The higher power is his duty to faithfully represent the United States and guide its government.
Sure, but Trump only really cares about himself. This is probably true for most politicians, except they may also care about their party. The country and (most of) its people are way down on the list, just below corporations and rich people. I/we could probably list many examples on both sides of the aisle, but I'll simply refer to recent events since January 20th, like the newly released Republican formulated American Health Care Act.
That's true, but most career politicians have had it ingrained in them to at least appear to adhere to a higher power and that they serve the people. Haven't you noticed how almost everyone (especially Republicans) magically find religion a couple years before they start running for a major office? Trump basically just said "Fuck it", and people are eating it up.
The only thing necessary for evil to triumph is for it to be pitted against a slightly greater evil
The shill quoted in TFA incorrectly assumes that TLA's have always, and always will, act within the letter and spirit of the law, and within the scope of their organizational charter.
History has amply demonstrated this not to be the case. Any assertion to the contrary is either uninformed or astroturf.
Scruting the inscrutable for over 50 years.
The president (likely through a stand-in to distance himself and provide plausible deniability) could informally tell his head of agency/bureau/administration/etc. that he suspects Donald Trump, campaigning for office, and exposed to classified information, and with suspected ties to the Russian government, is a wild card who can't handle classified information, and is suspected of leaking it, This could leak the aforementioned agency to draft a request to the FISA court, whose goings on are not made public as they are themselves considered secret. The FISA court could issue the appropriate wiretap approval and issue a national security letter "gag order" so that the intercepts can't be disclosed.
... And because of the risk to exposing FISA workings, can't directly expose how he knows, since that information itself may be classified.
And now Trump has his communications wiretapped and no one can disclose they were wiretapped.
Trump goes on to be president elect, then President of the United States; now privy to a wider information field comes to glean that his Trump Tower communications were wiretapped
I am not saying it did happen that way, just that it could happen that way.
- Tjp
I am in wallow with my inner money grubbing capitalistic pig. ... Oink!
You damn well can't just say whatever you want, because at best it can cost people money. Worst case, it can cost people their lives.
You say that as if you think Trump actually gives a shit about costing other people money or their lives. I think Trump loves the fact that he can move markets with nothing more than a fact free tweet from the toilet.
What is the procedure for "Illegal" wire tapping? I imagine that the most important part is that NO BODY knows anything...
Sounds like a tacit admission they bugged Trump Tower all over the place. If nearly anything can be used to justify it, and knowing Pres Osama, it was a fait accompli as soon as Trump showed on the political radar.
Why is it that wiretaps still exist? Why doesn't every phone negotiate the highest possible encryption level with the other phone it is connected to? Then whoever you call you get the highest encryption supported by their phone, and wiretap is impossible.
You could have your phone warning beep if the other phone doesn't support secure connection.
Why isn't this built into just about every phone?
...
The president has declassification authority. It is literally impossible for the president to be prosecuted for leaking classified information since he can decide to declassify anything he damn well pleases. Now Congress can be a check on this by impeaching and convicting him because what he declassified had horrible consequences, but he can declassify it and there's no law to prevent it. In fact the law very specifically allows him to declassify it as part of his duties as president.
I hadn't heard Trump say it. I was referencing Nixon. Except that in this case it seems to largely apply. I may have gone too far saying, "whatever he damn well pleases," but it's true with regard to disclosing classified information. Somebody mentioned that he could be caught out for "self-promotion," but he's immune from most of the conflict-of-interest stuff. Somebody also mentioned calling him out for "calls to violence." I'd be curious to see how that one played out. The president is beholden to some of our laws, but there is very little limit to what he can legally tweet.
He's getting rather old, but he's a good mouse.
They would be fools to do so. If they have any competitors at all, Trump simply needs to pick one of them, and Twitter would lose a ton of users overnight. It wouldn't just be Trump supporters, it would be every reporter or blogger that wants to keep up with him, all the people that want to bitch at his comments, everyone who wants to follow any one that jumps to the new platform. It would pretty much doom Twitter.
"Somebody has to do something. It's just incredibly pathetic it has to be us."
--- Jerry Garcia
This is how it is supposed to work. But is there anything physically, mechanically standing in the way of rogue agents spying on, say, political opposition?
Is there automated logging of all actual taps that cannot be bypassed?
If not, it's all meaningless hot air.
(-1: Post disagrees with my already-settled worldview) is not a valid mod option.
I really doubt that there's a huge contingent of people who are only on Twitter because Trump is. Reporters and bloggers have always used Twitter, they were there long before the rise of Trump, and Trump leaving doesn't mean they can't continue to use Twitter - it's not as if you're banned from using Twitter if you keep up with people on Facebook.
You are not alone. This is not normal. None of this is normal.
Obama seemed to consider conservatives and Christians as a greater threat than radical Muslims.
Here in the USA they ARE a greater threat so that would be actually objectively true to most of us. Radical Muslims are rather rare here in the USA but crazy christians and paranoid delusional conservatives are a dime-a-dozen. I am FAR more likely to be murdered by a christian and/or a conservative than a muslim of any stripe. Conservatives and christians also have the ability to threaten not just my physical well being but also my civil rights thanks to their numbers, proximity and control of significant parts of our government.
I'm not worried about ISIS. I'm worried about the Tea Party and Trump and the religious right and the rest of them because they are a FAR greater threat to me and my family than any member of the islamic faith will likely ever be.
That's the legal process for a wiretap. You can bypass that and still wiretap but it would be illegal.
We have a legal immigration process too. People can bypass that and come in another path but it is illegal^W undocumented immigration.
Who's picking which laws are ok to ignore these days?
If you don't like it. THEN GET OUT!!
While correct - there is a nuance to the "nobody can stop him." Congress can - via impeachment proceedings. If he starts disclosing "real" Classified information to the point that Congress feels he's a danger to the country - then Congress has a tool to "stop" him. There are also smaller hammers such as Censure.
The President is not the all powerful ruler that some think he is -- rather one branch of government balanced by the others.
Wikipedia has this wonderful quote in the Impeachment article: "Benjamin Franklin noted that, historically, the removal of "obnoxious" chief executives had been accomplished by assassination. Franklin suggested that a proceduralized mechanism for removal—impeachment—would be preferable"
So yeah that happened. http://www.telegraph.co.uk/new...
If we're going to title the article "How wiretaps actually work", then you have to make at least a small head nod to the Snowden disclosures.
"Wiretaps" actually work by asking an NSA employee or contractor to take a coffee break, sit down at their station, and type in the phone number. You'll have metadata immediately, and if you tag the phone number as interesting you'll have real time intercepts from that point forward.
Assuming that Mr. Trump had contacted Russians or those suspected of being Russians then his network would already be flagged as interesting and you'd already have transcripts.
The question is "Will someone risk their career to explain this to the President in idiomatic pictographs or take the safe route and shift-delete it?"
Anyone who hasn't already assumed that everything within earshot of a microphone isn't being recorded is an idiot. It was confirmed by snowden. The entire summary of this article is a joke.
Can someone find out if the Intel ME/AMD PSP signing keys and/or the Intel/AMD microcode signing keys made it into the Vault 7 trove, and if so put pressure on Wikileaks to publish them?
Out of all the dangers for the public at this point those and the vendor specific signing keys for ARM firmware seem like the most critical to get into end-users hands, because without them we cannot be assured the software running on our systems is really keeping our own secrets.
But what do I know. I'm just some paranoid conspiracy theorist, right?
The point of all these "laws" and their attorneys is to prepare and preserve information for criminal prosecutions.
Everything else is open season.
These systems and intentions are to keep the dominator class in power. Get too big, organized or a threat and all this electronic stuff gets used to target you for other things and otherwise shut down opposition before it gets bigger.
I hadn't heard Trump say it. I was referencing Nixon. Except that in this case it seems to largely apply. I may have gone too far saying, "whatever he damn well pleases," but it's true with regard to disclosing classified information.
I wasn't talking so much about him disclosing classified info (especially since, as I don't believe this happened, you can't classify information that doesn't exist) but rather his tweeting habits as a whole. It took a bullet in 1914 to start World War I. What can a tweet start in 2017?
The only thing necessary for evil to triumph is for it to be pitted against a slightly greater evil
It's quite simple to skirt FISA so this is bunk. FISA is only used for legal information gathering, not illegal information gathering.
MI5/MI6 have the same tools, shared by either the NSA or the CIA
MI5/MI6 tap Trump since they can legally do so through their own courts
MI5/MI6 share taps with the CIA as part of their standard intelligence sharing
WaPo is fake news
Hahahahahahahaha! Oh no! The ruskies did it again!
Thanks for the laugh. Let me know when it's time to start shouting "Wolverines!!!"
Being an unfiltered loudmouth is the last thing you want to be in that situation.
Apparently nearly half the voters in the country do want an unfiltered loudmouth in that situation. They knew how he was when they voted for him.
Seriously, America is made up of opinionated loudmouths, on the left and right. Why would you be surprised when one becomes president? He certainly represents.
Dems would have voted for him too, if he'd run on the blue ticket instead of the red. Remember, he was a democrat until fairly recently.
tweeted accusations that the prior administration broke federal law and did something so unethical that Congress is required to investigate
Actually it was the NYT that reported this, using classified sources as source material. DJT didn't say anything the NYT didn't already report on.
So, was the NYT reporting in error and factually false, or is Trump accurate for tweeting what the NYT actually reported? These are directly related points. Liberals want it both way, but in doing so, are exposing their own hyperbole is nothing more than the hot air they think Trump is tweeting.
Agent K: A *person* is smart. People are dumb, stupid, panicky animals, and you know it.
I see your point, I see leftists as a more dangerous religion than islam too. Just saying.
Yes, Trump is making history in all sorts of interesting ways:.
The first president to use Twitter as his primary platform, the first president to not reveal his taxes, and the first president to be certified by the American courts (see opinion issued on what is now labelled the "Anti-Muslim bill") as being eligible for an honour shared by only one other president in US history: The "Honour" of Impeachment.
"Imagination is more important than knowledge" - Einstein
Indeed, it is in some cases a federal crime to disclose a wiretap without authorization, including not only the information obtained from the wiretap, but also the mere existence of a wiretap with an intent to obstruct it. With respect to intelligence wiretaps, there is an additional issue: They are always classified, and disclosure of classified information is also generally a crime.
Effectively, this is saying that if there was a wiretap and Trump disclosed it without authorization, he could have committed a crime.
I have wondered if there were taps, maybe it was simply on the Russians and the fact that they were talking with Trump could have been a coincidence unrelated to the election. With all the shit Russia pulls, I would kind of hope our Gov was keeping tabs on them.
My beliefs do not require that you agree with them.
...since, as I don't believe this happened, you can't classify information that doesn't exist...
The information does exist, it's just that all indications are that it's inaccurate. I can't classify false information, but he could. Classification level and accuracy don't necessarily go hand-in-hand. For a little over a decade, I worked closely with a lot of DoE classified information. I've never seen classified information that I knew to be false, but that doesn't mean it can't exist. During the Manhattan project, I'd wager that there was a lot of classified inaccurate information as we were learning. Fortunately, most everything that's classified has been fact-checked more rigorously than DJT's tweets.
What can a tweet start in 2017?
That thought terrifies me and that's the sole reason I installed Twitter and check it every morning.
He's getting rather old, but he's a good mouse.
See my subject "SOROS losers": YoBama & Shillary Killary lost - you lost - accept it douchebags: UR LOSERS! Total losers...
* You, lose - it's all you can manage to do & what you do/how you roll - look @ your WELFARE TIT lives!
(Keep on LOSIN' fuckers - you make me LAUGH the more you do, lies in the media (russian hacked the power grid & Sessions is allowed to talk to them during his job shitbrain liars, 20th Century Fox fake news sites to manipulate weak minds on FakeBook etc.) & just being LOSER douchebags!)
The SPYING on the president though? Tips your hand as to your POOR WEAK character - skulking WHIMPS!
APK
P.S.=> Pitiful easily manipulated losers are EXACTLY who "their kind/your kind" go after with bribes like "student loan forgiveness", the "welfare tit" & heroin (both addictive for LOSERS like you all) - worst part is, they PLAY YOUR LOSER ASSES like fiddles & you STILL LOSE, hahahaha... apk
Are you attempting to claim that there are no "libtard snowflakes" who hate America? Those people out in the streets carrying not just pro communist slogans, but communist flags from China and the old USSR are not anti-American showflake libtards? How about the people who were so upset about the victory of Trump that they wish to ignore the US Constitution and install a President nobody wanted? How about the people that were violently protesting just just after, but all through the election demanding "free stuff"?
The amount of people in the US who have actually been convinced that Communism is better than America is quite staggering. America is not perfect, but it's still the best form of Government the world has ever seen. The people playing identity politics, lying, rioting, and demanding "free" stuff are absolutely free to renounce citizenship and leave. Hell, numerous people claimed that they would and lied about that too. The amount of people completely impervious to facts is similarly quite staggering.
President Trump may not be "the" President to restore the Constitution, but he was the only choice we had back in November. We, meaning the people who are supposed to be represented in Government are supposed to support our Politicians but also direct them. I don't see tantrums anywhere in our founding documents as a method of change.
-The wise argue that there are few absolutes, the fool argues that there are no probabilities.
Does the eavesdropper actually have to physically tap a copper phone line and attach a listening device for it to be legally considered a wiretap?
I'm gonna guess "no" on that one.
Or how about this: the intelligence agencies are listening to a lot of people, all the time. Completely routine and well within their operational guidelines. Let's say they're listening to the cell phones of government employee X, Y and Z because these were of some interest to the intelligence agency for whatever reason. They might even have gotten a judge to sign off on it, making it totally legit.
One day, candidate Trump calls Y on the phone to discuss spray-on tans. This is not a weird coincidence, since the spooks are actually listening to a huge number of people. One of the spooks finds it interesting that Trump likes "Kinky Bondage Orange Tan", thinks it might be embarrassing and passes it on to DNC. Someone at DNC then passes it on further upstairs.
Few months later, Trump finds out that Obama administration staffers are laughing at his spray tan of choice and accuses Obama of wiretapping him. Obama replies, "Neither I nor anyone in my administration ordered a wiretap on Trump" with a straight face.
Who is right? Was it a wiretap or no? Or is it just a matter of semantics?
"First, the U.S. government needs probable cause..." Yes, for a legal wiretap of which the recording is going to be used in court of law.
But, if all you want to do is to listen, record and then LEAK what you heard, then anything goes. Specially POLITICAL wiretaps. The
title of this piece should have been "How LEGAL wiretaps work."
WOW. Just WOW. I didn't really understand this mentality until I listened to a Harvard professor explain that liberals these days don't just have these 'ideas of being liberal' it is their 'self identity' and any idea or thought that contradicts that 'self identity' has to be treated as an attack on themselves. Seriously, this is your second response where you seemingly can't make the logical distinction between 'he can LEGALLY say whatever he wants' and 'it may not be a great idea for him to do so'. The Parent was arguing the former & you're trying to say he's wrong about the latter which the parent NEVER argued.
Seriously stop equating your idea of what is 'morally/ethically sound' with REALITY, you'll succeed in life better.
Think about this for a second. NOBODY was taking the allegations of a 'wiretap' of Flynn & the FISA warrant issued in October to investigate the Trump campaign that we KNOW exists seriously. Trump tweets an obviously over the top accusation & now Congress is REQUIRED to investigate these accusations. Look in to who tapped Flynn's conversation for instance, how that was done (e.g. what warrant or other legal or illegal means was used to do so), who leaked the information etc. Up until his tween Congress was investigating only the potential 'Russian influence in the election' and the supposed 'coordination between Russia & the Trump Campaign' (for which there really is NO evidence, none, notta, not a single stitch). Had Trump tried to ORDER Congress to investigate the Obama administrations use of FISA warrants, what Obama new etc. it would clearly have been seen as a purely partisan maneuver. Instead, he got the Congressional Security Council to add the investigation in to the FISA warrant, tapping of Flynn's conversation & any & all things related (including what briefings Obama would have received based on the FISA warrant granted) to that investigation. Rather than being an 'unethical' or 'wreckless' tweet it accomplished something he couldn't do otherwise without appearing to overstep his 'ethical boundaries'...you know those boundaries you think a President should adhere to (in reality he could have ordered them to look in to it or at least ordered the DOJ to do so but again that would be considered 'unethical' and 'partisan')...
Now, I'm fully aware this argument will fly right by you, it simply doesn't fit with your 'self identity' of what is 'ethical' for a President to do so clearly you'll take this as an attack on you not your view of what is 'ethical' or not. That doesn't make it wrong or that Trump's tweet on this aren't logically consistent with the facts of the situation we knew publicly BEFORE he tweeted. Before he tweeted the focus was ALL on 'Trump campaign connections with Russia' even though nobody ever found anything showing collusion, we knew that too, but every little interaction between a Republican or Trump administration person interacting with a Russian was immediately turned in to 'See, they colluded' by liberals such as yourself & especially the media. No fire here at all, just smoke created by people that simply can't accept that Trump is President. So instead of doing the real job of investigating who leaked the information, where it came from, what did Obama know (which may be perfectly legal & legitimate by the way but 'unethical') they focus on a non-story. I really don't know how you can live in your head not being able to see this obvious contradiction in your supposed 'ethical behavior' matrix.
Responding to the president's assertion brings up the whole issue about whether or not you should feed trolls. Mainstream wisdom is that doing it is stupid, but last year's election showed that not calling bullshit on liars can be worse.
We can all put aside our disagreement about what is the best strategy for trolling with this issue, though, because what's done is done. The troll is being fed and the media is going to spend time reporting on this issue to the expense of reporting on other presidential scandals. You can't put this genie back in the bottle, so if you don't like it, think hard about the next genie. It's too late for this one.
There is no reason to believe the wiretapping allegation. It is a lie, and it was spoken with the intent of deceiving America.
Now, all that boilerplate aside, this David Kris is clearly an alien, probably a lizard-person, his cover blown because he doesn't speak like we earthings do. Observe, with all emphasis being mine:
The fact that exceptions exist, completely disproves the previous statement that [due process] is needed. He is using "need" to signify things that lawyers say are safe to do, whereas human beings use words like that to discuss capabilities. Those are two different things. Extremely different things.
This is not a revelation to anyone here. It's basically what we all talk about here, whenever we're talking about computer/network security. With reasonably good software designs, verification that you're running what you think you're running, and responsible key exchange, people can communicate in such a way that capabilities and lawful capabilities, are essentially the same thing: the attacker simply loses, whether a judge says the attack is allowed to be performed or not.
But in real life, we eschew good software designs, we don't verify that we're running what we think we're running, and we don't want to be bothered by responsible key exchange. So there's a gap: communication isn't really secure, and privacy depends on whether or not attackers choose to attack. If they attack, they win and get to snoop. If they abstain from attacking, they don't get to snoop. And the law (rather than the user's defense) is what decides the fate of the situation.
But we all know that's not true either, and overstates the restraint practiced by attackers.
First, there are thousands of "little brothers" not one "Big Brother." Your government might be the chief threat to your privacy, but it's not the only one. There are other governments with other laws. Maybe the NSA stays its hand, but does FSB? Furthermore, governments aren't the only game in town, either. A lot of Americans think the 4th amendment is purely a limit on government power, but doesn't apply to private activity. (And then a lot of people think they're really just prohibited from using such-gotten information in court in a criminal case, but that the actual gathering of the information itself, isn't really illegal, or not "illegal" in the sense that the perpetrator risks facing criminal charges himself. Dirty Harry might have his evidence thrown out, but he's not going to prison for B&E.) So while the government is constitutionally prohibited (sort of) from wiretapping without due process, you and I are prohibited by complex statutes which have fuck-knows-how-many loopholes, and an attacker in another country has even different rules. So there
I really doubt that there's a huge contingent of people who are only on Twitter because Trump is.
I'd be curious. I'm in that category. I installed Twitter solely to follow Trump - I follow 2 accounts, both of them him. I don't understand why Americans wouldn't follow him - He makes more announcements over Twitter than in press conferences. I check Twitter every morning just to see what new excitement has been hacked out.
He's getting rather old, but he's a good mouse.
because the term 'black op' doesn't mean something like ' operation performed illegally and without court order'.
I'm sure Edward Snowden messed up his whole life because every person who was being monitored by the NSA had been run through proper court channels and no traffic was being inspected without probably cause.
I wouldn't be surprised if someone was investigating weather or not trump was in bed with the Russians before he was elected. I be kind of surprised if they weren't. Were they doing so officially? Did the president know about it or order it? Unlikely.
Still if trump has something to say now the time to bring out the evidence. Of coarse I suppose he has the cover that he may not be legally able to produce the 'classified' evidence, but if that's the case he had no business saying anything about it.
âoeTolerance applies only to persons, but never to truth. Intolerance applies only to truth, but never to persons.
Since when did US goverment let laws stop them from doing things?
Anderson "up the pooper" Cooper needs his preparation H for his hemorrhoids deviant abnormal lifestyle declared as CNN fake news swine by Presidential decree of truth is VERY FAKE news (this spin bs takes the cake) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uDFl_EdqwWI// & I give their ArseHoleTechnica fellow hemorrhoid MINIONS the MASSIVE boot in the ass (where they too, LIKE IT, lmao) here on /. too the other day https://yro.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=10320833&cid=53976475/
* Disgusting DEVIANT loons always get it up the ass & CNN/ArseHoleTechnica LIKE IT that way (why they always get BLASTED up the ass, it's what they WANT & NEED, ugh!).
APK
P.S.=> Let's see folks: "Russians hacked the powergrid" (wrong) - Sessions was ALLOWED to speak for foreign officials in his job role (another 'spin' lie by "StRaNgE" weirdo 'anderthon' (lol) & deviant crew) - What's next? More SKULKING WEASEL WHIMP WORSE THAN WOMEN 'spying' like the NOT MAN bitches you are? apk
WOW. Just WOW. I didn't really understand this mentality until I listened to a Harvard professor explain that liberals these days don't just have these 'ideas of being liberal' it is their 'self identity' and any idea or thought that contradicts that 'self identity' has to be treated as an attack on themselves. Seriously, this is your second response where you seemingly can't make the logical distinction between 'he can LEGALLY say whatever he wants' and 'it may not be a great idea for him to do so'. The Parent was arguing the former & you're trying to say he's wrong about the latter which the parent NEVER argued.
Seriously stop equating your idea of what is 'morally/ethically sound' with REALITY, you'll succeed in life better.
When or where did I say I was liberal? Why do all Republicans assume that anyone who shows an ability to stray from the party line or have objective, rational thoughts has to be a liberal?
And I very clearly understand that he can legally saw whatever the hell he wants. What I am saying, that you apparently can't get through your thick skull, is something completely different. To paraphrase a famous philosopher: you're so preoccupied with whether or not he could, that you aren't stopping to think if he should. As president you cannot make unfounded claims against predecessors that alleges massively illegal acts, you cannot unleash a constant flow of stream of consciousness tweets every morning at 3am, or say whatever the hell you want, because it not only undermines the credibility and stability of both the office of the president and the government as a whole, it risks not only the economic but also the physical security of the country itself.
The only thing necessary for evil to triumph is for it to be pitted against a slightly greater evil
Seriously? You don't REALLY believe that all it took was a 'bullet in 1914 to start WWI' do you? You do know I hope that that incident was an entire 'pretext' (e.g the stated reason but not the REAL reason) for the Habsburgs/Germans to start WWI right? (Austria-Hungary, but we like to call them 'Germans' so lets go with that). WWI would have started without that bullet. Are you entirely unfamiliar with the state of Europe in 1914? The fact there weren't 'weapons of mass destruction', that 'wars of conquest' were still considered a 'proper means to settle international differences' etc.
Sure, if Trump tweets 'Hey China, we're about to send a Nuclear Missile up your ass' I'm sure all hell will break loose but pissing off an ex-President, diplomats or the 'feelings' of some dictator isn't going to lead to any significant 'bad consequences'. China building out their military & attempted ownership of the South-China Sea, North Korea continuing to conduct missile 'tests', Russia supporting what's his face in Syria, ISIS attacking anyone & everyone, Iran working on Nuclear Weapons...THOSE are issues, Trump messing with people's feelings...shit if that is a 'pretext' to start a war than that war was going to happen without Trump's tweets. If his tweets about the high cost of Air-Force 1 causes Boeing's shares to fall (temporarily) then those shares were not worth what they were priced at before the tweet...too F'n bad.
but you're still right. Obama didn't order the IRS to audit conservative organizations. Period. Full Stop. No quotes around order. The IRS did it themselves because there were so many right wing political organizations filing as charities that they were low hanging fruit for agents looking to bump their enforcement numbers up. Where they being profiled? Yeah. But they were being profiled by the IRS, not Obama and because they were up to no good and everybody knew it. Sad thing is they cried a little and now they get away with it all day long.
Hi! I make Firefox Plug-ins. Check 'em out @ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/youtube-mp3-podcaster/
a Russian server operating out of Trump Tower
A Russian server operating out of Trump Tower?
You literally are unable to tell the truth ever, are you creimer? You just make shit up non-stop. I better be careful or you might threaten to shoot me again.
CIA = Cock In Ass Agency (lmao), CNN = Cock Nozzle Network complete with Up the ARSEHoleTechnica - weirdo birds of a feather FLOCK together (dirty anal birds).
* Ugh, disgusting DEVIANTS! Abnormal...
APK
P.S.=> How can you freaks LIVE with yourselves? Shit on yourselves (or each others' knobs, lol) ALL YOU LIKE but quit doing it to the rest of the USA, ok, weirdos? You're making us ALL LOOK BAD you deviant fucks... apk
See subject line
- and Trump has both of them firmly in his mouth.
Trump's accusatory statements REQUIRE JUDICIAL ACTION.
Trump specifically drew a reference to Nixon's criminal action.
Nixon did not have any legal justification, and Trump is asserting that Obama also committed a CRIMINAL ACT.
If Trump falsely accuses any American of CRIMINAL BEHAVIOR,- especially a former president - Trump should be IMPEACHED.
THIS IS AN IMPEACHABLE OFFENSE.
Trumps statements a too serious to ignore.
They deminish what is left of our most basic freedoms.
I think you are confusing the definitions of the words 'can' = 'is able to' and should = 'the action is inconsistent with morality or accomplishing a specified goal'.
âoeTolerance applies only to persons, but never to truth. Intolerance applies only to truth, but never to persons.
so you believe he has a moral obligation to behave otherwise. I agree, but in your discussion you need to recognize that many people do not share your morality including our current president.
âoeTolerance applies only to persons, but never to truth. Intolerance applies only to truth, but never to persons.
I think you are right on about why people voted for trump. Who would you rather deal with. Someone who looks you in the eye and says 'let's just be clear I'm hear for me and will $%$#% you any chance I get' Or someone who looks you in the eye smiles and says 'I am here to help you in any way I can' and then $%#% you every chance they get while stabbing you with a knife if you complain because you are disturbing their illusion.
you have to deal with be $%$#% any way you look at it, but it least it isn't compounded by having to deal with a lie and pretend you like it.
He can't get in trouble for declassification per se, but he could get in trouble for the content he declassifies. Say he declassifies nuclear secrets thereby committing treason by "adhering to their enemies, giving them aid and comfort". Or in the case of Obama wiretapping if it is in fact false it could very easily land him in court for libel. There most certainly can be legal consequences to declassifying information even for the president.
I googled this and I think you're making that up. The searches that I did (Barack Obama Number of tweets and Donald Trump number of tweets) said that Obama posted 15,400 tweets and realdonaldtrump has over 30,000 tweets archived. I agree that once you hit the 10s of thousands they are all the same, but why spread such nonsense when it is so easy to google.
Nullius in verba
Bush or Cheney ordered em personally unilaterally all the time, remember?
the constant protests about "warrantless wiretapping"?
Or we are supposed to forget about that because it's okay now?
Seriously? You don't REALLY believe that all it took was a 'bullet in 1914 to start WWI' do you? You do know I hope that that incident was an entire 'pretext' (e.g the stated reason but not the REAL reason) for the Habsburgs/Germans to start WWI right? (Austria-Hungary, but we like to call them 'Germans' so lets go with that). WWI would have started without that bullet. Are you entirely unfamiliar with the state of Europe in 1914? The fact there weren't 'weapons of mass destruction', that 'wars of conquest' were still considered a 'proper means to settle international differences' etc.
It was a bit hyperbole, but yes. Europe had created a very unstable house of cards, where all it took was a bullet to make the whole thing come crashing down. Throw in a couple games of chicken where neither side was willing to back down, a surprisingly strong Serbian resistance (or a surprisingly weak and incompetent Austrio-Hungarian offensive if you prefer), and arrogance and overestimation of military capability on virtually all sides, and it would have happened eventually. The point is when the conditions are right, even a relatively insignificant event (which, apart from Ferdinand and his wife, it was) can be the impetus for something much greater. A more recent example would be the Arab Spring that was started when a fruit seller in Tunisia set himself on fire, the effects of which we can still see in Libya, Egypt, Syria, etc. A Trump tweet can easily have drastic effects.
The only thing necessary for evil to triumph is for it to be pitted against a slightly greater evil
Let me quote the headline: Wiretapped Data used in Inquiry of Trump Aides
Someone was leaking and it was believable enough for the NYTimes to put it on the front page.
So, was the NYT reporting in error and factually false, or is Trump accurate for tweeting what the NYT actually reported?
Neither. Your NYT reporting is fantasy. What we have here is a case of a certain Archangel completely failing at reading comprehension. It's either that or self-delusion, I'm not sure which. Both?
I tell you what I'm not keen on: your terrible, awful grammar.
I think it's fairly unlikely that Obama had Trump wiretapped, but this argument that "wiretapping without court approval is illegal, therefore it didn't happen" is just stupid and disingenuous.
Lots of things are illegal, and people, including people in the government, do them all the time anyway.
story about how the NYT changed their headline to remove the word Wiretap.
In the story is the ORIGINAL story as NYT printed it. You can't find it anymore because that story/headline proves Trump is correct, and the NYT can't have that.
Yea, NYT isn't biased. The are literally changing previously run stories that verify Trump's claims.
How you like them apples?
Your use of the ridiculous term "leftist" and your equation of political positions with religious faith demonstrates that you are the kind of dimwitted idiot who is really fucking America up. Please stop.
I think you are confusing "can't" with "shouldn't"
He won't last a year until he ends up behind bars from the fruits of further digging into his many shady business dealings over his lifetime.
"Russians make up a pretty disproportionate cross-section of a lot of our assets.â
âoewe see a lot of money pouring in from Russia.â
~Lil Trump circa 2008.
Since he's the ultimate classification authority, information just BECOMES unclassified BY being tweeted.
Well no, it doesn't. There is a formal process for declassifying information. Simply revealing the information publicly does not follow the process, and so the information remains classified.
This leaves people with clearances in a totally bizarre situation, and it has happened before. When Bill Clinton revealed classified information in a public press conference, the information was still classified afterwards. That meant that anyone who held a clearance could not have certain issues of certain newspapers in their homes. Doing so would violate the laws concerning the handling of classified information. People who hold or have ever held clearances can not discuss the contents of that press conference with anyone who didn't have a clearance, and can't hold such a discussion outside a secure area.
I left the military industrial complex two years later, and my clearance has since expired, but so far as I know, that whacky situation was never cleared up. The data remains classified to this day, even though it is literally common knowledge.
Holy shit, this article reads like Chapter 1 of "Intro to State Propaganda."
Replying to myself because still no edit button...
I should clarify that it was perfectly legal for Bill Clinton to reveal classified information in a press conference. As many other people have pointed out, the Office of the President is the ultimate classification authority and can talk about anything he wants. Simply talking doesn't declassify the information though.
I'm not sure what inspired the GP AC rant, but he has you on one thing - You keep using the word "can" when I think you mean "should."
As president you shouldn't make unfounded claims against predecessors that alleges massively illegal acts, you shouldn't unleash a constant flow of stream of consciousness tweets every morning at 3am, or say whatever the hell you want...
DJT has demonstrated that he can do exactly those things. And there's very little legally to stop him. Maybe what you're trying to imply is that he can't do these things without consequences or that he can't do these things without betraying his office. That doesn't mean he can't do these things anyway.
He's getting rather old, but he's a good mouse.
What I said about the information becoming unclassified came directly from General Hayden. Despite being a former clearance holder, I just assumed he knew better than I did. There have certainly been issues where classified data have become public leading to "neither confirm nor deny" scenarios, but an outright announcement from our classifier-in-chief muddies the waters some. It's my understanding that he can declassify the information on his own. The issue is whether or not he did. The notion that this information is likely inaccurate just muddies the waters further.
As a semi-relevant aside, I was once in a meeting where the authors had to leave the room before we could discuss their paper. Their clearances were no longer valid so they were no longer allowed to discuss their own work.
He's getting rather old, but he's a good mouse.
Cock Nozzle Network & their UP THE ArseHoleTechnica fools that failed vs. me https://yro.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=10320833&cid=53976475/
* Bottom-Line: NORMAL human beings, not deviants, are SICK of their LYING bullshit BITCH (worse) tactics & fake news + spin a CHILD can see thru easily!
(Who do those 'queeks' as I call them THINK they're fooling? Only themselves! Their NEW "normal" = Sodom & Gommorah!)
APK
P.S.=> Like Mr. Trump our GOOD president? I can't STAND the lot of them as he calls them the VERY FAKE news https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uDFl_EdqwWI// & I am ON THE SIDE OF THE GOOD NORMAL PEOPLE IN THE UNITED STATES (not genetic aberration defectives)... apk
Right, cuz there's nothing at all sketchy about Herr Drumph...
If there's a fitting entity to the phrase "American Media, Domestic Enemy" it is the Washington Post through their defense of leftists and attacks on anyone else.
Twitter supports and protects racists - by smearing their critics with the "Hate Speech" label.
This is how an authoritarian government worked
Obama's authoritarian manner, combined with his handler Valerie Jarrett, show exactly how an authoritarian apparatus works. Trump on the other hand is showing how dedicated the left is at defending their meal ticket.
They care less about the truth, and more about justifying their actions with a painted visage of half-truths and lies.
The only thing that gives the establishment's lies any currency is that they have the media largely under their control.
Twitter supports and protects racists - by smearing their critics with the "Hate Speech" label.
When you open with that phrase "First, the U.S. government needs probable cause," it can only go down hill. We know for fact the US Government has been recording every single phone call since (c) 2005 without warrants
Newer example: Stingray! https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
Secondly, drug seizure laws: increasingly used by local law enforcement as revenue enhancement venues, exceeded $5B in 2014 (more $$ than were lost in burglary's) requires no probable cause - and you must prove otherwise.
So when the head of some 3 letter law enforcement organisation makes blatantly false statements in the face of demonstrative evidence to the contrary, this only serves to increase distrust of law enforcement.
My ism, it's full of beliefs.
Now that people can duplicate you voice pattern with just samples, will voice recordings become inadmissible in court?
I think Twitter needs to seriously consider removing his account.
Not that it's going to happen, but you're not the first person I've heard say this, and I could not disagree more. We really need to know what this dolt is thinking, and we should all be grateful this guy is such a self-centered idiot that he sees nothing wrong with tweeting out his every thought. The more he does it, the more people can see what kind of person he is. I wish Steve Bannon would do the same. Although, I keep wondering about these people who still seem unable to see exactly what kind of person Trump is.
-- sudon't
Air-ride Equipped
hereditary billionaire with thin skin who has never run a legitimate business doesn't understand the functions of other people or that a president is not a king or that arbitrarily yelling at people doesn't actually equate to production or that just throwing money at most problems doesn't actually resolve anything.
News At 11.
The buck stops where? Does Obama get an affirmative-action exception to buck stopping?
If the FBI/DOJ etc. does it the president owns it.
When is a wiretap not a wiretap? When it is a listening device that is not a POTS. Ask 100 judges about what is covered under a wiretap and you'll get at least 20 different answers.
Under Obama's government that spies on every U.S. citizen, a wiretap is just a tap on a POTS. A cell phone is free game.
Remember when words actually had a clear meaning and when you didn't have to worry about the government trying to make you into a criminal? I do.
A lie used to tighten government control on nearly 20% of the economy certainly rises to the arbitrary and subjective level you propose.
> "How Wiretaps Actually Work...blah blah blah"
Everyone with more than half a brain already knows that there's a GIANT difference between what the NSA/CIA/Police/Government CLAIM they do, and what they ACTUALLY do.
So I guess that just leaves liberals and WaPo readers.
"It's not illegal when the President does it" - yeah, that was what Nixon claimed too.
But back then there was a press that was capable of calling out bullshit, and a congress that was prepared to enforce the constitution. Now I'm not so sure.
Have you forgotten that article was utter BS? Someone found a random, misconfigured marketing website set up by 3rd parties that was sending some DNS requests based on spam.
And it also appears to have involved someone wiretapping to even see the DNS requests in the first place.
It was complete and unmitigated BS that was ripped to shreds on Slashdot, so no, I don't know why you'd bring that up again.
and they were more blatant about it. That makes sense. The right wing is, has been and always will be representative of the very wealthy. It's natural they'd have more resources to start up these sorts of organizations. The right wing also desperately needs legitimization because actual science is opposed to them (and they to science). Climate Change, Trickle Down Economics, "Intelligent Design". All of these have been proven hogwash by all real scientists. Your side needs tons of fake non-profits pushing its agenda or the whole thing falls apart on top of the house of cards it was built on...
Hi! I make Firefox Plug-ins. Check 'em out @ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/youtube-mp3-podcaster/
I don't see why we should give into your definition of what's on par with Trump's claim of bugged phones, nor is it controversial that Trump was tapped before he was POTUS. This whole reaction is more about manufactured outrage and distraction from real issues.
But Obama certainly did lie (plenty of variations of "If you like your plan, you can keep your plan." despite millions of Americans seeing their plans terminated which were lies of commission), and commit extrajudicial murder (the so-called 'Terror Tuesday' meetings, as the New York Times tells us, had former President Obama personally selecting targets for assassination. Some of the people killed in these drone attacks include Americans Anwar Awlaki and his 16-year-old son. Others killed in drone attacks are overwhelmingly completely unsuspected innocents who happen to be in the vicinity of the kill zone where the bomb goes). Obama lied by omission about these drone war consequences, but he made time to crack wise about death-by-drone at one of his Correspondent's dinners wherein he quipped about threatening a boy band his daughters enjoyed with death-by-drone ("You'll never see it coming..."). Pres. Obama called the Iraq war a "dumb war" and then kept it going for his entire term (this choice helped make his the first US President to be at war his entire term in office). Oh, don't worry: Pres. Trump is down with all of these policies. Trump apparently plans to keep HMOs intact and in charge of American healthcare with his own spin away from universalizing Medicare (we're learning about the details of this now but the broad strokes are clear) despite what he told "60 Minutes" about universal healthcare. Universalizing Medicare ala HR676 would be useful, is widely approved by Americans, is something real progressives should champion (particularly now) instead of knuckling under to more HMO rule, and would (by design) make it illegal for HMOs to cover the same care covered by Medicare (America's extant single-payer system). But passing HR676 into law would also ensure these HMOs wouldn't fund Democratic and Republican Party campaigns. And on war, Pres. Trump recently had Awlaki's 8-year-old daughter killed in a drone-led campaign in which the Navy SEAL Team 6 shot her in the throat and let her bleed to death. And there's no sign the US is ever leaving Iraq. Not only are these issue far more important than someone's manufactured outrage over Trump's tweet about spying on his calls, they point out how the similarities across administrations on significant issues far outnumber and outweigh the differences between administrations. And this is no accident.
Getting back to pointing out how much manufactured outrage works to obscure more important issues: The NSA's slogan "Sniff It All, Collect It All, Know It All, Process It All, Exploit It All" covers the situation quite well. That slogan is not "Collect some of it, Process most of it, Exploit things here or there but certainly not Trump Tower-related data". So it's perfectly reasonable Trump's communications were tapped. As RT's "The Resident" pointed out (using slightly different words than the next quote) and Ted Rall astutely point out "Of course Obama tapped Trump. Snowden told us. Obama tapped everyone!". German Chancellor Angela Merkel didn't like it when it was revealed her conversations were also being spied upon. The controversy is that the US taps so much regardless of whether they're abiding by US law. That's a far more important point.
Any outrage over Trump's reaction is a pointer to how much that person wasn't paying attention during the Snowden revelations and its consequences (which are ongoing to this day).
Digital Citizen
What makes you so sure he's lying and everything he says is an outrageous lie? Did the left-wing media tell you? I watched both sides of the media coverage, and the left-wing media is the biggest liar. Try to be more objective and look at both sides instead of believing everything the media spoon feeds you.
Under the law governing foreign intelligence wiretaps, the government has to show probable cause that a "facility" is being used or about to be used by a "foreign power" -- e.g., a foreign government or an international terrorist group -- or by an "agent of a foreign power."
That's a nice spin and everything, but not really true.
In the United States, under the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, federal intelligence agencies can get approval for wiretaps from the United States Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court, a court with secret proceedings, or in certain circumstances from the Attorney General without a court order. [[http://www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/uscode50/usc_sec_50_00001805----000-.html]
Will be laughing if Obama ends up in orange jumpsuit.
Seriously, you American's are all crazy.
Who the fuck votes for someone like Trump yet alone finds enough voters to put a racist psycho like him in any form of power above being a game show host?
Craaaaaaaazy, crazy bunch.
The Trump administration is not fighting truth, but those in the media that have a lot of ability to spread convincing lies.
The media seems to have a nasty habit of believing untrue statements when it fits a political narrative, but not believing the truth when it doesn't.
Twitter supports and protects racists - by smearing their critics with the "Hate Speech" label.
something the Obama's inspector general of the IRS admitted under oath to congress that Obama's IRS did in fact do. Look up his testimony in the congressional record (and don't claim this is untrue if you cannot even be bothered to go and read the transcript).
Several journalists at non-right-winger outlets the left always trusts ( [cough]New York Times, WaPo,[cough] ) have for months claimed all sorts of nefarious stuff was being exposed and instead of citing ANY publicly names sources they have cited transcripts of wiretaps. The General Flynn case comes to mind.
Reminder #1: General Flynn, at the time of his chat with the Russian Ambassador, was a PRIVATE CITIZEN and was in Trump Tower. Golly! If there were no taps, then were these lefty media outlets lying? If they were telling the truth, then a private US citizen was tapped and recorded and the recording was used to destroy his career.
Reminder #2: Some idiot might suggest that this was OK because it was actually the Russian who was being tapped - but this ignores federal law which requires that in any such recordings or transcripts of foreigners, any Americans incidentally recorded must have their identities and words obscured in any releease (even to other government personnel outside the intel unit doing the recording).
Oh, and I think there's a rule somewhere that says CONGRESS declares wars, and another that requires specific search warrants sworn-out under oath before a judge [see US Constitution]
In doing so he has amply earned the moniker "Dirty Donald".
Any claims based on the assumption that anything Pres. Trump says is not suspect to the highest degree are flawed and not to be considered credible.
He's not tweeting things like "I hate Taco Tuesday", thereby preventing all Tex-Mex restaurants in the US from offering cheap tacos on Tuesday.
He IS tweeting things that "prevent" all clothes stores from stop carrying his daughter's products.
My daughter Ivanka has been treated so unfairly by @Nordstrom.
And then he retweets that from @POTUS.
You understand in this case the alleged tap was of a private citizen, and it is NOT illegal for the sub just of a wiretap to discuss it's mere existence.
Also, commenting on the existence of the wiretap 6 months later in no way demonstrates an "intent to obstruct" it.
General Flynn would like a chance to discuss the sanctity of intelligence wiretaps and the illegality of disclosing that information.
That the alleged wiretap was disclosed on Twitter is a meaningless distraction, and it is not "highly unusual" for the target of a wiretap to disclose/discuss it - remember, at the time of the alleged wiretap Donald Trump was a private citizen - there are no legal prohibitions about the target of an intelligence wiretap discussing their possible wiretap.
And what if it is false? To me that is WORSE than if it where true. Because if it is true, you can go and hold people accountable.
The whole thing should be about acountability. And there is none if it is false. He would just say it was something he heard (on Breitbart). However he is POTUS and in that he should be held accountable for everything he says and tweets.
Remember when that one guy lied about getting a blowjob? This is not about if sex is the same as a blowjob. This is about POTUS telling a lie and doing it over and over and over again and again.
Just remember that in 4 years, a bigger idiot can become POTUS if there is no acountability. Do you want a totalitairian system? Because that is how you get a totalitairian system.
Don't fight for your country, if your country does not fight for you.
He _can_ declassify it, and there is a process for doing so. If he didn't do that in advance, then it is still illegal.
Oh he's irregular alright...
He can sit on the can for days and pump out shit.
-
#letsmakeslashdotgreatagain
To have a right to do a thing is not at all the same as to be right in doing it
No one alive today was a slave or slave owner.
I agree, but, you're talking about responsible behavior and ethics. Not the letter of the law. Only the latter matters to Trump, and then only insofar as he might be held subject to it - which doesn't appear to be very far.
What we've done about accountability in the past is to have the voters interested enough to matter. Trump's voters, in general, did not care about constant lying, or his not releasing tax returns, or anything else related to accountability. The Republican Congress is busy passing bills that won't stand up to public scrutiny while allowing Trump to attract all the attention. Trump is very nearly the Platonic ideal of the Zaphod Beeblebrox theory of the Presidency.
"When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
Similarly, the Franco-Prussian war was started by a deliberately slanted translation of a diplomatic message. In all these cases, there were underlying causes, but they needed a trigger. It's entirely possible that, had Franz-Ferdinand not been assassinated, Europe would have found a more peaceful way to defuse tensions (Austro-Hungarian Emperor-King Franz-Josef died after a very long reign in 1916, and it's easy Austria-Hungary falling into pieces afterwards, which would have altered the situation thoroughly). There's a lot of tension in the modern world, and I don't know what would precipitate a war.
"When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
Two US Presidents have been impeached, neither convicted. (Impeachment requires a majority vote of the House, and leads to a trial in the Senate, which can remove the President or other official from office on a two-thirds vote.) The question about the travel ban is not whether issuing that executive order is legal, but whether the executive order itself is legal. Similarly, legislatures pass and governors sign laws that are held to be unconstitutional, but neither the legislators nor governors have committed crimes in doing so.
I'm pretty sure Trump has already violated one of the Constitutional emoluments clauses, and that's perfectly good legal justification for impeachment. However, impeachment is a largely political process rather than a legal one.
"When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
The president has declassification authority. It is literally impossible for the president to be prosecuted for leaking classified information since he can decide to declassify anything he damn well pleases. Now Congress can be a check on this by impeaching and convicting him because what he declassified had horrible consequences, but he can declassify it and there's no law to prevent it. In fact the law very specifically allows him to declassify it as part of his duties as president.
The act of deciding to declassify something is not the same as actually declassifying it. Until it is actually declassified, it is still classified.
The procedures for properly declassifying information which has been previously declared classified have the weight of law behind them -an individual can be prosecuted for violating them. These violations however are neither "high crimes" nor "misdemeanors", meaning that they are not in-and-of-themselves sufficient reason for impeachment of a sitting president. If these actions lead to sufficient loss (either economic, loss of life, or even endangerment of US operatives) it could constitute a failure to uphold the oath of office -for which impeachment is possible. It is also possible, though nearly unheard-of, to prosecute for such violations once he is no longer in office.
Did you actually READ the photo you posted? It does not say TRUMP was tapped nor did it mention Obama. It said his associates were tapped. The story is continued on page A16. Maybe you should hunt down a graphic about that and misrepresent it too.
Oh fuck off. You have already made your mind up on this matter evidenced by your nonstop string of insults. You're as guilty of being a fuckwad as the person you're responding to.
And of course, they never do unauthorized ones.
Because that would be wrong. And undetectable.
Oh, I see a problem.
There's no time like the present. Well, the past used to be.
The higher power is his duty to faithfully represent the United States and guide its government
How naive you are.
The only "higher power" Trump recognises is his own personal power.
Being an unfiltered loudmouth is the last thing you want to be in that situation.
And yet, that is exactly what the U.S. ended up with.
Even if what you say is true (and I don't agree), your standards are truly pathetic.
"Sure Trump is a liar, but the other guys lie more!!"
Sad. Until you raise your standards you'll just be another person contributing to the political dysfunction of our times.
Trump, who actually encouraged Russian hackers to perform more illegal hacking, is now crying about leaks from inside the government.
What's Good For the Goose Is Good For the Gander, Donald!
Of course the powerful always want the rules interpreted their way, to their advantage. Trump is now The Man, the very insider he campaigned against, the Beltway politician he said was corrupt, lying and a swamp dweller. He'll never admit it to himself but he's part of the System now.
Remember Rob Ford? Mayor of Toronto, issuer of bizarre statements, taker of drugs and Bro to gang members? The dude who let his personal peccadillos take over and become more important than typical civic matters?
Trump is America's Rob Ford. A person wholly unsuitable for the office they hold. Temperamentally unfit. Loose cannon.
Rob Ford is dead now, for those that want the postscript. Cancer got him, RIP. Even Ford's enemies didn't want that fate for the man. However Torontonians are grateful that he is out of office. Toronto was cast as a laughingstock because of Ford's antics and eventually even most of his supporters abandoned him.
Trump is Rob Ford.
Since Watergate?
^ written with a Russian accent ;)
The term “unauthorized person” means any person who, or agency which, is not authorized to receive information of the categories set forth in subsection (a) of this section, by the President, or by the head of a department or agency of the United States Government which is expressly designated by the President to engage in communication intelligence activities for the United States.
So if the president gives the information to someone they cease to be "unauthorized" under the law. Now they can't share the classified information with anyone else, but the president has full authority to give that information to whomever he sees fit. Thus my statement that it is "literally impossible" for the president to be guilty of leaking classified information.