The Real Russian Scandal

[patrick jane]

That's a lie, Pat.

You're in denial rex like jgarbage and dano, it's one of the stages of the grieving process.

 

[kmoney]

The DNC and Clinton used false information to obtain FISA warrants to spy on their political opponent.

Link?

 

[rexlunae]

You're in denial rex like jgarbage and dano, it's one of the stages of the grieving process.

It's also the first and only stage of telling you you're a lunatic.

 

[Gary K]

The DNC and Clinton used false information to obtain FISA warrants to spy on their political opponent.

I don't know that it was the Hillary and the DNC who obtained FISA warrants, but the Obama administration certainly misused FISA warrant-obtained electronic surveilance to illegally snoop on the Trump campaign and then used unmasking in unethical ways in that matter. Unmasking is only supposed to be used in cases of national security, and a presidential campaign certainly does not rise to that level.

When Trump said he had been wiretapped by the Obama administration, he was certainly correct in his overall position, no matter how many people want to scoff at that. The MSM has even acknowledged, in a left-handed manner, that he and his campaign were snooped on. That was how Mike Flynn was run out of Trump's cabinet. It came from unmasking an American citizen for political purposes. Former Obama administration officials have repeatedly affirmed that they were using as many national security tools as they could to snoop on Trump.

 

[rexlunae]

I don't know that it was the Hillary and the DNC who obtained FISA warrants,

It wasn't. Neither Hillary Clinton nor the DNC have access to the FISA Court.

...but the Obama administration certainly misused FISA warrant-obtained electronic surveilance to illegally snoop on the Trump campaign and then used unmasking in unethical ways in that matter. Unmasking is only supposed to be used in cases of national security, and a presidential campaign certainly does not rise to that level.

Unless that presidential campaign is part of a foreign adversary's campaign to subvert an election. Then it's totally a valid use.

When Trump said he had been wiretapped by the Obama administration, he was certainly correct in his overall position, no matter how many people want to scoff at that. The MSM has even acknowledged, in a left-handed manner, that he and his campaign were snooped on. That was how Mike Flynn was run out of Trump's cabinet. It came from unmasking an American citizen for political purposes. Former Obama administration officials have repeatedly affirmed that they were using as many national security tools as they could to snoop on Trump.

Not really. Manafort was wiretapped. Manafort and Trump, while associated, are not the same person. The only way Trump was wiretapped in that context was if he was talking to Manafort, which is kinda the risk of hiring a scumbag as your campaign manager. If Trump himself was wiretapped, it hasn't come out publicly.

 

[Gary K]

It wasn't. Neither Hillary Clinton nor the DNC have access to the FISA Court.



Unless that presidential campaign is part of a foreign adversary's campaign to subvert an election. Then it's totally a valid use.



Not really. Manafort was wiretapped. Manafort and Trump, while associated, are not the same person. The only way Trump was wiretapped in that context was if he was talking to Manafort, which is kinda the risk of hiring a scumbag as your campaign manager. If Trump himself was wiretapped, it hasn't come out publicly.

Trump was surveiled at the Trump towers. That came out a long time ago. Oh, the MSM won't tell you that, but it was reported on other media. And some of the stuff of which Flynn was accused of came out of the Obama administrations surveilance and unmasking of data on US citizens collected at Trump Towers. Former Obama administration officials have basically bragged about what they were doing. Emails have come out in which some of the were urging the use of as many national security tools as possible to be used against Trump, and for political goals only. They wanted to use anything they could against Trump after they were out of power. It is as slimy an operation as it gets, politically. It's far worse than Watergate, Nixon, and his so-called plumbers. But does the MSM care? No, they root for the guilty to get away with it and cover it us as much as possible because they hate Trump and anything conservative. They refuse to investigate such things when done by their political allies.

 

[kmoney]

I don't know that it was the Hillary and the DNC who obtained FISA warrants, but the Obama administration certainly misused FISA warrant-obtained electronic surveilance to illegally snoop on the Trump campaign and then used unmasking in unethical ways in that matter. Unmasking is only supposed to be used in cases of national security, and a presidential campaign certainly does not rise to that level.

When Trump said he had been wiretapped by the Obama administration, he was certainly correct in his overall position, no matter how many people want to scoff at that. The MSM has even acknowledged, in a left-handed manner, that he and his campaign were snooped on. That was how Mike Flynn was run out of Trump's cabinet. It came from unmasking an American citizen for political purposes. Former Obama administration officials have repeatedly affirmed that they were using as many national security tools as they could to snoop on Trump.

I just came across Lawfare and wondered if they had any pieces on this. Came across this one.

https://lawfareblog.com/treatment-flynns-phone-calls-complies-fisa-minimization-procedures

Just a quick note to clear up any lingering uncertainty after this morning’s Wall Street Journal editorial, "Eavesdropping on Michael Flynn," which asks whether “the spooks listening to Mr. Flynn obeyed the law?” As everyone knows, Michael Flynn resigned last night from his position as National Security Adviser in the wake of conflicting statements about what he said or didn’t say in a phone call with the Russian ambassador before President Trump’s inauguration—a call that apparently was recorded by U.S. intelligence officials.

The Journal’s editorial says that “U.S. intelligence services routinely get orders from the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court to monitor foreign officials. But under U.S. law, when they get those orders they are supposed to use ‘minimization’ procedures that don’t let them listen to the communications of Americans who may be caught in such eavesdropping. That is, they are supposed to protect the identity and speech of innocent Americans.”

It is certainly true that U.S. intelligence services can get orders from the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court to monitor foreign officials. The Russian ambassador, simply by virtue of his nationality and official position, is an “agent of a foreign power” under FISA and hence a valid target for wiretapping. It is publicly known and acknowledged that the U.S. government uses FISA to wiretap foreign embassies and consulates. So, the Journal may be right that Flynn was picked up on a wiretap of the Russian ambassador.

Wiretaps do indeed require minimization—but generally only to the extent “consistent with the need of the United States to obtain, produce, and disseminate foreign intelligence information.” In some cases, when an intelligence agency issues a report based on a wiretap, minimization requires the issuing agency to substitute a generic reference in place of a U.S. person’s name—e.g., “Ambassador Kislyak said that he was looking forward to watching the Grammy Awards on television and that he was hoping that [U.S. Person] would win an award.”

But a U.S. person’s name can be used when it is necessary to understand the foreign intelligence information in the report, and no serious argument can be made that Flynn’s identity was not necessary to understand the intelligence significance of his call with Ambassador Kislyak. The call is foreign intelligence information mainly because it involves Flynn.

In a related context, here is what FISA’s legislative history says about minimization rules and substitution of generic identifiers for U.S. person names when those U.S. persons are U.S. government officials (this passage is quoted in the chapter on minimization in my book on national security investigations and prosecutions):

One example [of a situation in which a U.S. person’s name could be disseminated in an intelligence report] would be the identity of a person who is the incumbent of an office of the executive branch of the U.S. Government having significant responsibility for the conduct of U.S. defense or foreign policy, such as the Secretary of State or the State Department country desk officer. The identifiers of such persons would frequently satisfy the “necessary to understand” requirement, especially when such person is referred to in the communications of foreign officials.

Flynn was not the incumbent at the time of the call, but the logic still applies. In short, this is not a close call.