Andrew McCarthy: Parsing Clapper (drilling down into the details)

NRO ^ | Andrew McCarthy

[RoosterRedux]

What he said was probably true, but what he didn’t say was more revealing.

In Monday’s Morning Jolt, Jim Geraghty usefully outlined some intriguing statements made by former Obama national intelligence director James Clapper regarding the FISA surveillance controversy. Clapper’s remarks, in an interview by NBC’s Chuck Todd on Meet the Press on Sunday, are being taken as a blanket denial of the allegations that the Obama administration used the Justice Department and FBI to investigate Trump-campaign figures, potentially including Trump himself.

But what Clapper said is far from a wholesale rejection of the allegations. To be sure, General Clapper’s statements convincingly shoot down the claim that Trump himself was wiretapped by the government. But to my knowledge, no one has made that claim other than President Trump, in a series of controversial tweets on Saturday morning. Clapper’s statements do nothing to undermine the overarching allegation that the Obama Justice Department investigated associates of Trump who had varying connections to his campaign.

I’m going to assume the truth of General Clapper’s statements. Understandably, many commentators stress that, in the past, he has been caught testifying to things that were untrue (denying bulk metadata collection by intelligence agencies) or ridiculous (asserting that the Muslim Brotherhood is “largely secular”). Making false or misleading statements under oath is serious business, so obviously this history weighs on Clapper’s credibility.

[RoosterRedux]

Ping

[grania]

FWIW, when I listened to the interview, Clapper seemed uncomfortable and not all that assertive in his denials. My takeaway was that if they did wiretap, it started out as an unintentional consequence of wire tapping Trump Tower.

But that doesn't make any sense. Any order to tap someone in Trump Tower should have excluded the presidential campaign, you'd think.

[Steely Tom]

But to my knowledge, no one has made that claim other than President Trump, in a series of controversial tweets on Saturday morning.

Nixon never "shredded the Constitution," either.

In fact, he never even physically touched any of the original copies of the Constitution, including the one kept in a secure viewing stand at the National Archives.

But the fake-news MSM said repeatedly that Nixon had "shredded the Constitution." That phrase was on the front page of newspapers of the time, and on the covers of national magazines. It was repeated on news broadcasts, and on the Sunday morning programs.

[PGalt]

Clap OFF, James.

[hecticskeptic]

It all depends on what the meaning of the word “is” is. We basically are in an era where there is nothing said that doesn’t have an out buried in it somewhere.

[cornelis]

Like the Ryancare bill, that repeals the federal penalty and replaces it with an insurance fine. That's repeal and replace from the House leadership.

And then you have Tom Price standing there talking a hundred mph next to two stacks of papers, comparing the ryancare bill with the size of the obamacare bill. So, Mr and Mrs Patient: which is better, a pound of penalties or a pound of fines?

[bitt]

hastheClapper ping

[Boogieman]

“But that doesn’t make any sense. Any order to tap someone in Trump Tower should have excluded the presidential campaign, you’d think.”

The way it is supposed to work is anyone not named in the warrant is automatically excluded, no matter who it is. If you pick up someone else by accident or circumstance, you are suppose to stop listening, delete the recordings, and do whatever is necessary to stop what may have been recorded from disseminating. According to reports, the Obama administration did the exact opposite (if the wiretapping was unintentional to begin with, but I doubt it was).