Posted on 03/05/2017 7:37:56 PM PST by 2ndDivisionVet
This is becoming funnier by the minute. Yesterday morning, Trump’s assertion that he and his campaign had been the subject of a wiretap ordered by the Obama administration was being laughed at. By midday the story was a denial that Obama himself had ordered an wiretap on Trump’s personal phone. By afternoon a consensus had developed that Trump was, in fact, the target, directly or indirectly, of surveillance. This morning on the talk shows the existence of the wiretap is treated as “of course it happened.” And now we’re at the stage where “Trump did a very bad thing by talking about it.” Via ABC News With tweetstorm, Trump may have exercised exclusive declassification authority.
If – through his tweets – Trump revealed secret government information about surveillance, he exercised an exclusive privilege afforded only to the president as the ultimate declassification authority.
If any other government employee had single-handedly made such revelations they could see prison time for potentially damaging U.S. national security, a former official with intimate knowledge of the government secrecy policies told ABC News.
“It’s an extremely serious offense,” ABC News Contributor Matt Olsen, who is the former director of the National Counterterrorism Center and a former FBI counsel, explained.
“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.”
Right now the only people in the world denying that electronic surveillance took place of either Trump, himself, or his campaign are Republicans who hate Trump. And James Clapper. But this is James Clapper we’re talking about.
It is sort of touching to see a news agency that has trafficked in all manner of leaked classified information that would get the leaker a long prison term suddenly concerned about national security. But it is hard to take it very seriously. The real point of this is to try to make Trump’s mention of the wiretap an issue. Up until now the Obama people have had the best of both worlds. They were able to leak about Trump and felt very safe that their own vulnerabilities would remain hidden behind security classification. If Trump wants to know how this movie ends he need look no further than Bush refusing to declassify information about the existence of Iraqi chemical weapons and the fact that US troops had been injured by them while allowing the media and Democrats to continue to falsely claim that there were no chemical weapons in Iraq.
In fact, the only reason this whole Trump-Putin-Russia thing has metastasized is because the evidence and even the allegations are surrounded in secrecy. If Trump wants this to go away he’s eventually going to have to present the intelligence community with an ultimatum: either you make the evidence public, or I do. Because, as the article accurately states, Trump holds the authority to declassify anything that he wishes to declassify.
"...“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.
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.
I recall that even the existence of an acronym under SCI was SECRET NOFORN. I think Clancy ruined it all...
Good bet. Trump no doubt has dealt with corporate espionage during his career and knows how to deal with it.
The LSM, GOPe, and ofher leftscum are getting desperate. Get your popcorn.
The Dems and MSM specifically aren’t used to dealing with someone who actually fights back.
Most people - even Freepers - have no idea about Keyhole or even what it was. But great reference.
Didn’t Carter do the same thing regarding the B-2 bomber when he decided to cancel the B-1?
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.
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)
I was sent out to buy up every copy of a certain weekly news magazine that I could put my hands on.
Good rundown.
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.
Has the President signed such a document? He is the head of the executive branch and ALL its employees.
Carter did a lot of weird stuff for a nuclear submarine officer who should’ve known better.
Senator Patrick Leahy released highly classified information about an Air Force project to build "stealth" satellites, which disclosure resulted in the program being cancelled.
And especially it their initials were HRC
Ahh. Thanks, that is clearer to 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...”
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.
Yep.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.