Looks like he's denied the *specific target(s)* of the FISA order / wiretaps was Trump etc.
That's not to say Trump etc were not ensnared in wiretaps that were specifically targeted at *other people* (e.g. Russian actors).
You won't need a warrant for tapping Russians, they're not protected by the constitution.
Even if they're talking to Americans?
Yes. Just as if you call a mob boss who is tapped they don't need a warrant. Though it's worth noting that we get warrants for a whole bunch of the stuff we do so talking to Americans would not be an issue even if it was necessary.
There are additional data protocols when dealing with Americans as well. If Americans get caught in a foreign call that was recorded and nothing in the call is significant it gets deleted.
You won't need a warrant for tapping Russians, they're not protected by the constitution.
Two things:
1. I think the appropriate constitutional rights (e.g. the right to due process etc) are not limited to US citizens. Non citizens in the US are also protected in basically the same manner.
2. The description "Russian actors" is not necessarily limited to Russian nationals!
I spoke with the President twice yesterday about the wiretap story. I haven’t seen him this pissed off in a long time. When I mentioned Obama “denials” about the wiretaps, he shot back: “This will be investigated, it will all come out. I will be proven right.”
Normally it would go like this:
Step 1: BS "investigation" that reveals no wrongdoing.
Step 2: Claim something in the investigation showed Trump was totally right despite only vaguely resembling what Trump claimed.
However, it is Trump so it will probably go like this:
Step 1: Say there will be an investigation.
Step 2: Investigation doesn't really happen but claim he was vindicated anyway.
I spoke with the President twice yesterday about the wiretap story. I haven’t seen him this pissed off in a long time. When I mentioned Obama “denials” about the wiretaps, he shot back: “This will be investigated, it will all come out. I will be proven right.”
Normally it would go like this:
Step 1: BS "investigation" that reveals no wrongdoing.
Step 2: Claim something in the investigation showed Trump was totally right despite only vaguely resembling what Trump claimed.
However, it is Trump so it will probably go like this:
Step 1: Say there will be an investigation.
Step 2: Investigation doesn't really happen but claim he was vindicated anyway.
Or,
Step 1: Say there will be an investigation
Step 2: Claim someone gave him false information
Step 3: Never name or punish this person, and never mention it again
I spoke with the President twice yesterday about the wiretap story. I haven’t seen him this pissed off in a long time. When I mentioned Obama “denials” about the wiretaps, he shot back: “This will be investigated, it will all come out. I will be proven right.”
Normally it would go like this:
Step 1: BS "investigation" that reveals no wrongdoing.
Step 2: Claim something in the investigation showed Trump was totally right despite only vaguely resembling what Trump claimed.
However, it is Trump so it will probably go like this:
Step 1: Say there will be an investigation.
Step 2: Investigation doesn't really happen but claim he was vindicated anyway.
Nah it'll go like the former. Trump is crazy but his crazy is usually based on something real. Like it or not most times he says something outrageous he's blasted for his base gets something down the line the can twist to say "see everyone said he was crazy but he was right all along"
In this case I believe what will come out is the following:
Trump tower had some stuff recorded either via a legit investigation or through monitoring ambassadors
Nothing absolutely damning was found in those recordings.
Mr. Comey made the request on Saturday after Mr. Trump leveled his allegation on Twitter. Mr. Comey has been working to get the Justice Department to knock down Mr. Trump’s claim because there is no evidence to support it and it insinuates that the F.B.I. broke the law, the officials said.
[...]Mr. Comey’s behind-the-scenes maneuvering is certain to invite contrasts to his actions last year, when he spoke publicly about the Hillary Clinton email case and disregarded Justice Department entreaties not to.
WASHINGTON — The F.B.I. director, James B. Comey, asked the Justice Department this weekend to publicly reject President Trump’s assertion that President Barack Obama ordered the tapping of Mr. Trump’s phones, senior American officials said on Sunday. Mr. Comey has argued that the highly charged claim is false and must be corrected, they said, but the department has not released any such statement.
Mr. Comey made the request on Saturday after Mr. Trump leveled his allegation on Twitter. Mr. Comey has been working to get the Justice Department to knock down Mr. Trump’s claim because there is no evidence to support it and it insinuates that the F.B.I. broke the law, the officials said.
[...]
That would be extremely bizarre and would result in attempted purges.
No denial seems to be forthcoming from DOJ, and I'm not expecting one from whoever handles such matter for Sessions after he "recused" himself. But Comey, if the Attorney General can't speak about a topic for whatever reason, you can always just hold your own press conference.
I am serious, though. The president said the FBI broke the law, the attorney general can't talk about it since he recused himself but that's not really enough since it's still in the hands of his politically appointed subordinates, and they're not issuing any denials. What's left to do if they don't seems pretty clear.
+11
Options
VariableMouth CongressStroke Me Lady FameRegistered Userregular
The weird thing is that Trump seemed to acknowledge that it was legal when he mentioned a court "previously" turned the warrant down. So he knows a federal judge did agree to a wiretap warrant at some point. I just don't think he know what any of the process is.
If a federal judge allowed it, it is not illegal. Whether that decision can be contested is something the ACLU has been trying to debate for years without much success.
+1
Options
VariableMouth CongressStroke Me Lady FameRegistered Userregular
Along with concerns about the potential attacks on the bureau’s credibility, senior F.B.I. officials are said to be worried that the notion of a court-approved wiretap will raise the public’s expectations that the federal authorities have significant evidence implicating the Trump campaign in colluding with Russia’s efforts to disrupt the presidential election.
I haven't really considered that. I guess from the inside it might feel like a setup to a no-one-is-happy conclusion.
You won't need a warrant for tapping Russians, they're not protected by the constitution.
Two things:
1. I think the appropriate constitutional rights (e.g. the right to due process etc) are not limited to US citizens. Non citizens in the US are also protected in basically the same manner.
2. The description "Russian actors" is not necessarily limited to Russian nationals!
But, we know, based on what happened to Flynn, this is not how the government is operating. The NSA and FBI were collecting phone conversations and text messages to the Russian ambassador to the US. A limed number of people (Comey being one) would have access to the full conversation. If they wanted the full conversation included in the investigation, not just the Russian half, they would then apply for a warrant.
Flynn was not a target of the surveillance, the Russian ambassador was. I would not be surprised if some of Trumps conversation were recorded in a similar fashion.
When people unite together, they become stronger than the sum of their parts.
Don't assume bad intentions over neglect and misunderstanding.
Yes but couldn't chatter between Russians be fake chatter to fake collusion? You need a Trump smoking gun here. Otherwise all we get is 40% of the U.S. Convinced our president is in the tank for Russia, 30% who don't care and 60% who will believe anything he tells them including that they represent 60% of the country
In a normal investigation of organized crime such things would be pretty damning, but yeah here you would want basically trump himself for it to get much traction.
In a normal investigation of organized crime such things would be pretty damning, but yeah here you would want basically trump himself for it to get much traction.
Yeah, I keep wondering what the legislative/judicial options are if we can conclusively prove that Trump's team knowingly and concertedly coordinated a felonious attempt to subvert the national election, and my mind boggles at any notion of result if it's also proven that Trump was aware and/or involved in those efforts personally.
I mean, all he would need to do is have his son-in-law say, "Yo, Pops, I'm gonna meet with our Russian contacts about you-know-what," and if he responds with, "Cool, right on," then he's guilty of collusion, I believe.
No way do I think Trump is innocent here, but I also don't think he's the mastermind. Trump couldn't organize a frat party at an open bar.
In a normal investigation of organized crime such things would be pretty damning, but yeah here you would want basically trump himself for it to get much traction.
Yeah, I keep wondering what the legislative/judicial options are if we can conclusively prove that Trump's team knowingly and concertedly coordinated a felonious attempt to subvert the national election, and my mind boggles at any notion of result if it's also proven that Trump was aware and/or involved in those efforts personally.
I mean, all he would need to do is have his son-in-law say, "Yo, Pops, I'm gonna meet with our Russian contacts about you-know-what," and if he responds with, "Cool, right on," then he's guilty of collusion, I believe.
No way do I think Trump is innocent here, but I also don't think he's the mastermind. Trump couldn't organize a frat party at an open bar.
I mean, you just described Watergate. Though Nixon was more of the mastermind.
enlightenedbum on
Self-righteousness is incompatible with coalition building.
Reading that article it seems like it's pretty likely that the anonymous source for the NYT is Comey himself, or a surrogate of Comey working on his behalf.
WASHINGTON — The F.B.I. director, James B. Comey, asked the Justice Department this weekend to publicly reject President Trump’s assertion that President Barack Obama ordered the tapping of Mr. Trump’s phones, senior American officials said on Sunday. Mr. Comey has argued that the highly charged claim is false and must be corrected, they said, but the department has not released any such statement.
Mr. Comey, who made the request on Saturday after Mr. Trump leveled his allegation on Twitter, has been working to get the Justice Department to knock down the claim because it falsely insinuates that the F.B.I. broke the law, the officials said.
[...]
One problem Mr. Comey has faced is that there are few senior politically appointed officials at the Justice Department who can make the decision to release a statement, the officials said. Attorney General Jeff Sessions recused himself on Thursday from all matters related to the federal investigation into connections between Mr. Trump, his associates and Russia.
senior American officials
Describing events from FBI viewpoint
And there's hardly even any senior justice department officials right nows
This is the FBI saying, "Yo this is bullshit" without getting into the very sticky situation of publicly contradicting the president.
A trap is for fish: when you've got the fish, you can forget the trap. A snare is for rabbits: when you've got the rabbit, you can forget the snare. Words are for meaning: when you've got the meaning, you can forget the words.
Reading that article it seems like it's pretty likely that the anonymous source for the NYT is Comey himself, or a surrogate of Comey working on his behalf.
WASHINGTON — The F.B.I. director, James B. Comey, asked the Justice Department this weekend to publicly reject President Trump’s assertion that President Barack Obama ordered the tapping of Mr. Trump’s phones, senior American officials said on Sunday. Mr. Comey has argued that the highly charged claim is false and must be corrected, they said, but the department has not released any such statement.
Mr. Comey, who made the request on Saturday after Mr. Trump leveled his allegation on Twitter, has been working to get the Justice Department to knock down the claim because it falsely insinuates that the F.B.I. broke the law, the officials said.
[...]
One problem Mr. Comey has faced is that there are few senior politically appointed officials at the Justice Department who can make the decision to release a statement, the officials said. Attorney General Jeff Sessions recused himself on Thursday from all matters related to the federal investigation into connections between Mr. Trump, his associates and Russia.
senior American officials
Describing events from FBI viewpoint
And there's hardly even any senior justice department officials right nows
This is the FBI saying, "Yo this is bullshit" without getting into the very sticky situation of publicly contradicting the president.
Yeah, it's likely his circle is the source. And maybe it could be that he wants to force DoJ's hand or whatever. If they don't deny the president's claim, though, then NYT leaks aren't worth much if they're not ultimately backed by an on the record official denial of some sort by the FBI.
Reading that article it seems like it's pretty likely that the anonymous source for the NYT is Comey himself, or a surrogate of Comey working on his behalf.
WASHINGTON — The F.B.I. director, James B. Comey, asked the Justice Department this weekend to publicly reject President Trump’s assertion that President Barack Obama ordered the tapping of Mr. Trump’s phones, senior American officials said on Sunday. Mr. Comey has argued that the highly charged claim is false and must be corrected, they said, but the department has not released any such statement.
Mr. Comey, who made the request on Saturday after Mr. Trump leveled his allegation on Twitter, has been working to get the Justice Department to knock down the claim because it falsely insinuates that the F.B.I. broke the law, the officials said.
[...]
One problem Mr. Comey has faced is that there are few senior politically appointed officials at the Justice Department who can make the decision to release a statement, the officials said. Attorney General Jeff Sessions recused himself on Thursday from all matters related to the federal investigation into connections between Mr. Trump, his associates and Russia.
senior American officials
Describing events from FBI viewpoint
And there's hardly even any senior justice department officials right nows
This is the FBI saying, "Yo this is bullshit" without getting into the very sticky situation of publicly contradicting the president.
Yeah, it's likely his circle is the source. And maybe it could be that he wants to force DoJ's hand or whatever. If they don't deny the president's claim, though, then NYT leaks aren't worth much if they're not ultimately backed by an on the record official denial of some sort by the FBI.
I can understand the logic of the FBI here though. Both the FBI and the Justice Department know this is malarkey - anyone who's even paying attention to how government normally functions knows - and they could both say so, but it's better off for the FBI leadership if they can get the Justice Department to say so first. The Justice Department is run by Trump's people, it's going to be a lot more awkward for the Trumpkins than if only the Obama-appointed Comey denies it publicly.
I think the logic here - and admittedly this is just trying to read tea leaves - is to force the Justice Department into denying Trump's conspiracy theories first. That way when the FBI publicly calls the President a liar they won't have to worry about getting stabbed in the back by Sessions or some other Trump lackey from the Justice Department who just starts lying their ass off. Which would really be catastrophic, both for the FBI as an organization and obviously for the FBI's leadership, and seems very much like the sort of thing a Trumpkin would try just to gain some points with the boss.
Kana on
A trap is for fish: when you've got the fish, you can forget the trap. A snare is for rabbits: when you've got the rabbit, you can forget the snare. Words are for meaning: when you've got the meaning, you can forget the words.
+5
Options
Doctor DetroitNot a doctorTree townRegistered Userregular
Yeah, whatever you say about Comey, he's not an idiot.
He knows that even though he may have handed the election to Trump, that doesn't give him a pass.
Posts
http://www.nbcnews.com/politics/politics-news/former-dni-james-clapper-i-can-deny-wiretap-trump-tower-n729261
NNID: Hakkekage
Looks like he's denied the *specific target(s)* of the FISA order / wiretaps was Trump etc.
That's not to say Trump etc were not ensnared in wiretaps that were specifically targeted at *other people* (e.g. Russian actors).
Which, again, would be perfectly legal.
You won't need a warrant for tapping Russians, they're not protected by the constitution.
Don't assume bad intentions over neglect and misunderstanding.
Even if they're talking to Americans?
Yes. Just as if you call a mob boss who is tapped they don't need a warrant. Though it's worth noting that we get warrants for a whole bunch of the stuff we do so talking to Americans would not be an issue even if it was necessary.
There are additional data protocols when dealing with Americans as well. If Americans get caught in a foreign call that was recorded and nothing in the call is significant it gets deleted.
Two things:
1. I think the appropriate constitutional rights (e.g. the right to due process etc) are not limited to US citizens. Non citizens in the US are also protected in basically the same manner.
2. The description "Russian actors" is not necessarily limited to Russian nationals!
http://www.newsmax.com/t/newsmax/article/776977/16 Normally it would go like this:
Step 1: BS "investigation" that reveals no wrongdoing.
Step 2: Claim something in the investigation showed Trump was totally right despite only vaguely resembling what Trump claimed.
However, it is Trump so it will probably go like this:
Step 1: Say there will be an investigation.
Step 2: Investigation doesn't really happen but claim he was vindicated anyway.
To be fair, we've known this since before the election since he tweeted about Podesta being hacked before wikileaks even released the emails.
And when you track that back through wikileaks' extensive ties to the Russian government, you get another huge red flag.
Or,
Step 1: Say there will be an investigation
Step 2: Claim someone gave him false information
Step 3: Never name or punish this person, and never mention it again
Nah it'll go like the former. Trump is crazy but his crazy is usually based on something real. Like it or not most times he says something outrageous he's blasted for his base gets something down the line the can twist to say "see everyone said he was crazy but he was right all along"
In this case I believe what will come out is the following:
Trump tower had some stuff recorded either via a legit investigation or through monitoring ambassadors
Nothing absolutely damning was found in those recordings.
Trump will spin it as him being right.
I'm pretty positive this is how it'll go down.
You don't say, NYT...
I am not sure DOJ doing that could end well.
Dude if this shit is closed we better be hearing the conclusions in a press conference then.
Also if it's reopened at any point because apparently that's press release worthy too.
If a federal judge allowed it, it is not illegal. Whether that decision can be contested is something the ACLU has been trying to debate for years without much success.
Ah yes, I forgot about the reopening.
I haven't really considered that. I guess from the inside it might feel like a setup to a no-one-is-happy conclusion.
But, we know, based on what happened to Flynn, this is not how the government is operating. The NSA and FBI were collecting phone conversations and text messages to the Russian ambassador to the US. A limed number of people (Comey being one) would have access to the full conversation. If they wanted the full conversation included in the investigation, not just the Russian half, they would then apply for a warrant.
Flynn was not a target of the surveillance, the Russian ambassador was. I would not be surprised if some of Trumps conversation were recorded in a similar fashion.
Don't assume bad intentions over neglect and misunderstanding.
Mr. Schindler is a former NSA staffer. Says the IC has significant chatter regarding collusion with the Trump Campaign.
Straight up mob ties from years of realestate work in New York and Atlantic City. If I'm not mistaken.
Yeah, I keep wondering what the legislative/judicial options are if we can conclusively prove that Trump's team knowingly and concertedly coordinated a felonious attempt to subvert the national election, and my mind boggles at any notion of result if it's also proven that Trump was aware and/or involved in those efforts personally.
I mean, all he would need to do is have his son-in-law say, "Yo, Pops, I'm gonna meet with our Russian contacts about you-know-what," and if he responds with, "Cool, right on," then he's guilty of collusion, I believe.
No way do I think Trump is innocent here, but I also don't think he's the mastermind. Trump couldn't organize a frat party at an open bar.
I mean, you just described Watergate. Though Nixon was more of the mastermind.
Schindler has credibility, but he's also big on self-aggrandizing his own connections.
I want to believe it, but I'll wait until there's something concrete.
yeah, he's the one a few weeks ago reporting the FBI was going to arrest Trump soon
I mean, maybe they will, but I doubt it
I'd say the same, but so far he's come out with stories that hit the mainstream days later.
It's interesting to say the least.
He didn't say soon - he said that Trump was going to die in prison.
Slight correction: he said he had a message from an associate in the IC that said that when asked how the IC s reacting to Trump's attacks
Schindler's facts have been pretty spot on
senior American officials
Describing events from FBI viewpoint
And there's hardly even any senior justice department officials right nows
This is the FBI saying, "Yo this is bullshit" without getting into the very sticky situation of publicly contradicting the president.
Yeah, it's likely his circle is the source. And maybe it could be that he wants to force DoJ's hand or whatever. If they don't deny the president's claim, though, then NYT leaks aren't worth much if they're not ultimately backed by an on the record official denial of some sort by the FBI.
I can understand the logic of the FBI here though. Both the FBI and the Justice Department know this is malarkey - anyone who's even paying attention to how government normally functions knows - and they could both say so, but it's better off for the FBI leadership if they can get the Justice Department to say so first. The Justice Department is run by Trump's people, it's going to be a lot more awkward for the Trumpkins than if only the Obama-appointed Comey denies it publicly.
I think the logic here - and admittedly this is just trying to read tea leaves - is to force the Justice Department into denying Trump's conspiracy theories first. That way when the FBI publicly calls the President a liar they won't have to worry about getting stabbed in the back by Sessions or some other Trump lackey from the Justice Department who just starts lying their ass off. Which would really be catastrophic, both for the FBI as an organization and obviously for the FBI's leadership, and seems very much like the sort of thing a Trumpkin would try just to gain some points with the boss.
He knows that even though he may have handed the election to Trump, that doesn't give him a pass.