Old And Busted: There Was No Wiretap. New Hotness: Trump Declassified Sensitive Information

RedState ^ | March 5, 2017

[rlmorel]

When I read the article, that very same statement jumped out at me:

"...“Anyone who would reveal the existence of a wiretap would violate federal law,” he said. “It is against federal law to disclose the existence of a wiretap, whether that wiretap is for criminal purposes or intelligence purposes...”

I am having trouble wrapping my brain around that.

[Alberta's Child]

Even if it was unquestionably illegal for the President of the United States to reveal the existence of a covert surveillance operation against him, I'd venture to guess that Trump could get away with it by proving that he learned of its existence through his own means while he was a private citizen outside of government, and before he was the President of the United States.

I'm about 90% certain that Trump learned about this surveillance while it was going on last year. And with every passing hour I'm getting more convinced that he used this knowledge to deliberately pass along disinformation that undermined Hillary Clinton's presidential campaign.

[Phinneous]

I recall that even the existence of an acronym under SCI was SECRET NOFORN. I think Clancy ruined it all...

[gov_bean_ counter]

Good bet. Trump no doubt has dealt with corporate espionage during his career and knows how to deal with it.

[piytar]

The LSM, GOPe, and ofher leftscum are getting desperate. Get your popcorn.

[gov_bean_ counter]

The Dems and MSM specifically aren’t used to dealing with someone who actually fights back.

[piytar]

Most people - even Freepers - have no idea about Keyhole or even what it was. But great reference.

[SoCal Pubbie]

Didn’t Carter do the same thing regarding the B-2 bomber when he decided to cancel the B-1?

[Steely Tom]

One of the things you are told (actually, you read it) during your briefing for getting a security clearance is that "classified material which becomes public, through the mass media or by other means, remains classified at its original level of classification."

This is further explained: the fact that classified material becomes public through an unauthorized release does not constitute a waiver of your responsibility to protect the information, which means that you can't discuss it even if it becomes public.

The President, however, is a "source of classification." The President has many powers that ordinary people do not have.

There are many things that it is legal for the President to do, that it is not legal for someone who is not President to do.

[stylin19a]

I thought that too, then I read the Slate article mentioned in Jake Sullivan’s statement related to her tweet.
I am pretty sure Hillary got her info from that Slate article via Sullivan. (darn it)

[2ndDivisionVet]

I was sent out to buy up every copy of a certain weekly news magazine that I could put my hands on.

[gov_bean_ counter]

Good rundown.

[Jonty30]

I had a funny argument with somebody last year that told I could be charged for releasing information about Hilary’s health.

I told him to bring charges because I did not sign confidential information agreement to not release any information.

From what I understand, a citizen can speak about it, if they came across information about it.

[meyer]

Has the President signed such a document? He is the head of the executive branch and ALL its employees.

[2ndDivisionVet]

Carter did a lot of weird stuff for a nuclear submarine officer who should’ve known better.

[Steely Tom]

Didn’t Carter do the same thing regarding the B-2 bomber when he decided to cancel the B-1?

Senator Patrick Leahy released highly classified information about an Air Force project to build "stealth" satellites, which disclosure resulted in the program being cancelled.

[Lorianne]

And especially it their initials were HRC

[rlmorel]

Ahh. Thanks, that is clearer to me.

[John Milner]

“...“Anyone who would reveal the existence of a wiretap would violate federal law,” he said. “It is against federal law to disclose the existence of a wiretap, whether that wiretap is for criminal purposes or intelligence purposes...”

If the Nixon Watergate were in question here and Nixon were a Dem, it would seem that Woodward and Bernstein would be lawbreakers. Didn’t they disclose the existence of a wiretap for criminal purposes?

Yes, I know that’s not what it means, but I’m sure the talking heads would be sure to put that spin on it.

[Texas Fossil]

Yep.