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.
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
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.
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
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.
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
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.
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.
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
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
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
"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.
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.
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.
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.
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
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.
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.
That's the point I am trying to make. Trump either doesn't know or doesn't care. And the problem is a President has to know and has to care.
The only thing necessary for evil to triumph is for it to be pitted against a slightly greater evil
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"
I don't suppose you can produce this article where it says Donald Trump was wiretapped? I'd be curious to read the contents.
"That's the way to do it" - Punch
Of course your description is not what happened at all. Here's what actually happened.
PRESS: "Wiretaps were used to investigate Trump's possible Russian involvment."
TRUMP: "I was personally wire tapped and Obama ordered it!"
PRESS: "Donald Trump Unhinged! Claims he was Spied On. Unfounded!!!!"
Do you see the huge glaring gap there between the first and second lines? That's the reason for the third line.
There is currently zero evidence for Trump's claim and the president making such a claim about a prior president without evidence is indeed unhinged.
I ignore Anonymous Coward posts. If you want to discuss something, that's awesome. Log in.
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.
"95% of all Slashdot
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/
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?
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.
Who is right? Was it a wiretap or no?
Your scenario describes a wiretap. It does not describe DJT being wiretapped. It doesn't remotely describe Obama wiretapping Trump.
Or is it just a matter of semantics?
Maybe, but when you're accusing a former president of a crime this serious and announcing a scandal bigger than Watergate, it's important to pick your words carefully. The people denying the wiretap know this and have mostly danced around their denials carefully.
He's getting rather old, but he's a good mouse.
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/
http://www.wnd.com/2017/03/new...
IT was on the NYT, they edited the story once it was revealed the consequences of that headline. Edited "News" is "fake" news.
Agent K: A *person* is smart. People are dumb, stupid, panicky animals, and you know it.