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.
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.
Newsflash - the intelligence agencies of the United States have a documented history of breaking the law.
Any claims based on the assertion that they behave lawfully is flawed and not to be considered credible.
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.
You bolded the first part, but the second part is important too:
This means that, even if Obama did have Trump wiretapped, it was likely due to connections to a foreign power (likely Russia). So "Obama wiretapped me" is another way of saying "I was communicating with Russia."
Of course, all of these allegations are built literally from Conspiracy ramblings. Trump got his information from Breitbart who got their information from Mark Levin, a conspiracy theorist who thinks Obama's heading a silent coup. (Yes, he's so insidious that he turned over power to Trump while moving his coup forward.) We have a President who - with access to the FBI, CIA, NSA, etc - decides that a right-wing conspiracy theorist is his best source.
And just to add to the head-shakingly-sad nature of this, some Republicans in Congress want to open investigations on Obama based solely off of Trump's tweets (with Trump's staff specifically saying he doesn't need to provide any evidence that this is true). Yet, with all of the Russia connections coming out, they are dragging their feet as to whether a Trump-Russia investigation is needed. Party before Country!
My sci-fi novel, Ghost Thief, is now available from Amazon.com.
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
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.
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.