Can’t continue the hijack, so I’ll just note that 100% certainty about anything one hasn’t witnessed personally is usually rather unwise.
Wasn’t there a report back before the election that there was a Russian mobster working out of the Trump Tower? Maybe the wiretaps were done on him.
I also thought about that. Or, similarly, there were wiretaps on various Russians (spies, etc., and do we generally tap their ambassador’s phone?) and Trump or his cronies were picked up on those. If that is the case, I’d really like to see those tapes come out with all speed.
On Facebook, Robert Reich suggested:
[Quote=Robert Reich]
Is Trump trying to build a case that the entire Russian story is a plot – concocted by the Obama Administration, the intelligence agencies, and the mainstream press – to bring Trump down? So that when proof emerges that Trump’s associates (or even Trump himself) collaborated with Russian operatives in getting Trump elected, millions of Trump supporters will disbelieve the intelligence agencies and the press – and thereby prevent Republicans from impeaching him?
[/quote]
Is it an out to say that the NSA basically taps everyone’s phones?
Cite?
Here’s the first link I found: NSA Spying on Americans. I use the term “tap” loosely - in this case it’s meta data for some, actual communications for others.
As you say, this is principally metadata (though your cite mentions that “the NSA obtains full copies of everything that is carried along major domestic fiber optic cable networks.”
But even if we say that it isn’t metadata - that everything is piped in and stored on government hard drives - that’s still not a wiretap.
If the definition of a “wiretap” is “the physical ability to monitor phone calls”, then everyone in the country has been wiretapped since just before the term came into use however many decades ago. After all, the government has always had the ability to get a warrant, drive out to a wire, and tap it. It has been a physical possibility that they have had within reach, for every citizen, since the technology was first invented.
The question has never been whether the government can gain physical access to your phone conversations. It’s always been able to do that, and there’s no real difference between them having to send out a guy in a van or press a button. The end result is the same. Defining a “wiretap” as the physical ability to access the data is not a meaningful standard (for legal purposes). A wiretap is a legal ability that allows the button to be pushed. If the NSA does not have the legal ability and does not press the button, then regardless that they’ve got all the phone wires running under their building, it’s still not a wiretap. It’s just physical proximity.
I highly doubt that there could have been wiretapping done for purely political reasons. Why?
All of last year Trump was under Secret Service protection. It would be highly unlikely for agents to allow wiretapping w/o a warrant. First, because it would be illegal. Secondly, it could provide a security issue. And lastly, the wiretapping might help elect someone who was well known to treat her USSS agents like guano.
So there’s likely a valid warrant. If not, either Trump’s cheese has slid off his cracker, or he’s trying to provide a smokescreen for more pressing recent issues. None of these options spell anything good for Trump.
I think he’s just a total nut job. Let’s hope the men in white coats drag him away before he can use those nuclear codes. (Although truth be told, I wouldn’t miss North Korea all that much.)
Having him as “president” makes my brain hurt. Constantly.
Hmm, could Obama sue him for libel to force discovery of the evidence, in effect starting the investigation with a special prosecutor that is so clearly needed?
(To be clear: I get that there wouldn’t be much of a case for libel; I am just looking at it as a way to force the investigation).
To me, this is a crass, obvious attempt to distract from Trump’s own Russia troubles. It’s just that he’s playing with fire with this type of accusation. I agree with the OP, this feels like it should have actionable implications in one direction or another.
I don’t disagree with your conclusions but I do question part of your argument.
I’m pretty sure that modern interception of phone calls isn’t like old crime dramas where you had to sneak onto the premises and physically attach something to either the phone or the phone wires.
I believe a tap can be on phone circuits far removed from the premises. It’s probably done by software rather than a new physical connection. Therefore, the knowledge or acquiescence of the Secret Service wouldn’t be required.
The notion that there was a FISA warrant issued during the campaign has been floating around since November. It’s been reported by various foreign news outlets, but few US ones. I don’t know how likely that is to be accurate.
But, I find this new-found faith in the rigorous review imposed by the FISC to be interesting. For years, civil rights and civil libertarian groups have (correctly) criticized the FISC for being a rubber stamp for government surveillance (between 1979 and 2013, the court denied 0.03% of applications). Also, while the court has 11 members, an application is made to a single judge, so it’s not like there’s a vote.
I don’t think that Obama ordered Trump to be wiretapped. Trump really needs to provide proof. IOW: Cite, Mr Trump?
However, would it surprise anyone that given Trump’s dealings with Russia and other high level foreign officials the CIA or some other security service (e.g. MI5) had captured some of his phone data?
Another possibility is that some of his calls were picked up as part of a Stinger operation aimed at someone else. That would have interesting implications for that program.
Trump has made the claim; it’s up to him to provide the proof.
Hopefully not the CIA because I don’t think they are supposed to operate within the US. That would be a scandal in itself.
The Obama administration unleashed the IRS on his political opponents. They also wire tapped reporters. Not much of a leap to think that he would also put a wiretap on Trump.
It remains to be documented absolutely, but to imagine this happening is not difficult.
Look, if Trump had lost the election and started ranting about this – okay, fine, we’d have us a big “for the sake of argument” discussion about whether we can imagine it happening and suspect that it merely remains to be documented. But since Trump won the election, and is now in the second month of his presidency, then shouldn’t he already know whether the Obama administration wiretapped him?
Do you figure he’s asking for documentation, and getting refused by his underlings because, hey, it’s classified? Do you figure he’s seen the documentation and it can’t be released, but he’s shooting his mouth off anyway? Help me figure out why you believe the gent in the White House isn’t simply moving it from “not much of a leap to think” and “it remains to be documented” all the way over to “oh, here it is.”
He’s, uh, not exactly a model of restraint, is what I’m saying.
Cite?
Short version: The IRS was checking advocacy groups to determine if they were complying with the laws on tax-free status. There were accusations the IRS focused on groups with conservative goals. There were investigations by Congress and the FBI. I believe no charges were filed. Conservatives claim there was a cover-up and evidence was destroyed.
I doubt that it’s an attempt at misdirection, unless Trumps advisors are tweeting for him (seriously, we have a CIC that ‘tweets’). I just don’t think that Trump is that strategic. I think Trump is mostly reactive, certainly not proactive.
Perhaps the right wing media tossed a phony ball knowing that Trump would pick it up and run with it. A very dangerous scenario IMHO.
Or, the claim is that Trump Tower was wire tapped. Perhaps a business located in Trumps property was under investigation. That could certainly be true, so it would be an ‘out’ for his lie.