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.

Comments

So, in other words

[Oswald McWeany]

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.

Re:Newsflash

[hey!]

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.

Re:Highly irregular

[ripvlan]

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"

Re:And further

[schnell]

PRESS: "Donald Trump was wiretapped in an ongoing investigation into ties to Russia" ... It is actually funny seeing the same NYT "reporter" reporting "Donald Trump was Wiretapped" and "Donald Trump wasn't wiretapped".

Yeah, I'm pretty sure it wasn't the New York Times that claimed Trump was being wiretapped, let alone the same reporter. In fact, I'm pretty darned sure it wasn't the "liberal press" that made the claim at all. The whole point of the incredulity over this from the "mainstream press" is that the original claim was dubiously sourced from the beginning and based on nothing more than "I bet this probably happened." Lack of critical thinking skills is disappointing in individuals like you or me, but genuinely dangerous in the hands of powerful people.

Liberals can quote both, and believe both simultaneously

I believe the cognitive dissonance may be going on somewhere else here. Or maybe rather the same affinity or lack thereof for fact checking.

Re:The truth of the accusation...

[Yunzil]

The WAPO article is shit,

No, it isn't. You just *want* it to be shit because you either don't believe it, or you accept as gospel everything that comes out of Donald's mouth (or both).

Fake news

[rsilvergun]

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.