Sally Yates Should Be Investigated For Her Possible Role in Watergate-Style Surveillance

As an attorney with prior professional experience dealing with Sally Yates, I can imagine no one better who needs to be put under investigation herself. Now, information leaks that Sally Yates knew about surveillance being conducted against potential members of the Trump administration, and disclosed that information to others. Even Richard Nixon didn’t use the government agencies themselves to do his black bag surveillance operations. Sally Yates involvement with this surveillance on American political opponents, and possibly the leaking related thereto, smacks of a return to Hoover-style tactics. As writers at Bloomberg and The Week both noted, it wreaks of “police-state” style tactics. But knowing dear Sally as I do, it comes as no surprise.

According to published reports, someone was eavesdropping, and recording, the conversations of Michael Flynn, while Sally Yates was at the Department of Justice. Sally Yates knew about this eavesdropping, listened in herself (Pellicano-style for those who remember the infamous LA cases), and reported what she heard to others. For Yates to have such access means she herself must have been involved in authorizing its disclosure to political appointees, since she herself is such a political appointee. What justification was there for an Obama appointee to be spying on the conversations of a future Trump appointee?

Consider this little tidbit in The Washington Post. The paper, which once broke Watergate is now propagating the benefits of Watergate-style surveillance in ways that do make Watergate look like a third-rate effort, references the FBI “routinely” monitoring conversations of Americans if those conversations happen to be with foreign diplomats, and then notes there were “subsequent intercepts” of Flynn’s calls. The paper additionally noted Yates listened to “the intercepted call,” even though Yates knew there was “little chance” of any credible case being made for prosecution under a law “that has never been used in a prosecution.” Indeed, the paper details an apparent effort by Yates to misuse her office to launch a full-scale secret investigation of her political opponents, including “intercepting calls” of her political adversaries.

Did Yates obtain a warrant for this activity? Did she disclose to the White House she was working for (as a temporary hold-over) that she was using her office to intercept their calls whenever she could? Did she then leak intercepted calls to the press, as it is apparent she is leaking part of the story now? These are facts that call for investigation, and Yates should be a prime target of that investigation.

This concern with abuse of surveillance dominated much of the jurisprudence of Justices like Justice William Douglas. (This was the era of cinematic tours de force like The Conversation, which captured the cultural concern with so much surveillance in the new technological age). Justice Douglas’ jurisprudence, in part, led to laws like section 2511 of Title 18 of the codified United States law.This law prohibits any unauthorized interception or disclosure of communication made over the phones, in person or by electronic means. Most critically here, subsection (e) makes it a crime for anyone to “intentionally disclose, or endeavor to disclose, to any other person the contents of any wire, oral or electronic communication” even if the intercept, itself, was authorized. This is the law Yates may have violated, and certainly warrants further investigation.

This is the same Sally Yates that volunteered to stay on as a holdover to “help” the Trump transition, then refused to defend the President’s executive orders in court, ordered others to disobey his instruction to defend it, and then grandstanded in the country for personal fame for not doing her job. Now, she’s neck-deep in the Flynn scandal, and there needs to be a further investigation. She may be deserving of her own turn as a lead character in Orange is the New Black.

That is not improperly obtained evidence

Actually, it is, because this exact circumstance was provided for in the FISA statute. Here is what it says:

50 U.S. Code § 1801(h) “Minimization procedures”, with respect to electronic surveillance, means—
(1) specific procedures, which shall be adopted by the Attorney General, that are reasonably designed in light of the purpose and technique of the particular surveillance, to minimize the acquisition and retention, and prohibit the dissemination, of nonpublicly available information concerning unconsenting United States persons consistent with the need of the United States to obtain, produce, and disseminate foreign intelligence information;
(2) procedures that require that nonpublicly available information, which is not foreign intelligence information, as defined in subsection (e)(1), shall not be disseminated in a manner that identifies any United States person, without such person’s consent, unless such person’s identity is necessary to understand foreign intelligence information or assess its importance;
(3) notwithstanding paragraphs (1) and (2), procedures that allow for the retention and dissemination of information that is evidence of a crime which has been, is being, or is about to be committed and that is to be retained or disseminated for law enforcement purposes; and
(4) notwithstanding paragraphs (1), (2), and (3), with respect to any electronic surveillance approved pursuant to section 1802(a) of this title, procedures that require that no contents of any communication to which a United States person is a party shall be disclosed, disseminated, or used for any purpose or retained for longer than 72 hours unless a court order under section 1805 of this title is obtained or unless the Attorney General determines that the information indicates a threat of death or serious bodily harm to any person.

And then this

50 U.S. Code § 1802
(1) Notwithstanding any other law, the President, through the Attorney General, may authorize electronic surveillance without a court order under this subchapter to acquire foreign intelligence information for periods of up to one year if the Attorney General certifies in writing under oath that—
(A) the electronic surveillance is solely directed at—
(i) the acquisition of the contents of communications transmitted by means of communications used exclusively between or among foreign powers, as defined in section 1801(a)(1), (2), or (3) of this title; or
(ii) the acquisition of technical intelligence, other than the spoken communications of individuals, from property or premises under the open and exclusive control of a foreign power, as defined in section 1801(a)(1), (2), or (3) of this title;
(B) there is no substantial likelihood that the surveillance will acquire the contents of any communication to which a United States person is a party; and
(C) the proposed minimization procedures with respect to such surveillance meet the definition of minimization procedures under section 1801(h) of this title; and if the Attorney General reports such minimization procedures and any changes thereto to the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence and the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence at least thirty days prior to their effective date, unless the Attorney General determines immediate action is required and notifies the committees immediately of such minimization procedures and the reason for their becoming effective immediately.
(2) An electronic surveillance authorized by this subsection may be conducted only in accordance with the Attorney General’s certification and the minimization procedures adopted by him. The Attorney General shall assess compliance with such procedures and shall report such assessments to the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence and the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence under the provisions of section 1808(a) of this title.
(3) The Attorney General shall immediately transmit under seal to the court established under section 1803(a) of this title a copy of his certification. Such certification shall be maintained under security measures established by the Chief Justice with the concurrence of the Attorney General, in consultation with the Director of National Intelligence

Not that I in any way support the displeasure to destroy LTG Flynn, but legally....

I would argue disclosure authorized under 50 U.S. Code § 1801(h) (2) because such identification is necessary to understand the validity of any comments or promises made, i.e., were they made at the behest of the President-Elect?

and disclosure further authorized under 50 U.S. Code § 1801(h) (3) as evidence of a possible violation of the Logan Act.

(and of course there is a possible inherent contradiction that if one applies, the other cannot.... but that is for more Talmudic minds than mine tonight!)

P.S. That’s what I would argue. Would I prevail? Who knows?

I’ve won with less.... and lost with most more!

Trump: Ask Sally Yates About Classified Information Leaked to Media

Breitbart ^ | 8 May 2017 | Kristina Wong
Posted on 5/8/2017, 2:15:07 PM by detective

President Trump suggested to Senators on Monday morning that they ask Sally Yates, former Obama administration deputy attorney general and acting attorney general in the Trump administration’s early days, how classified information she went to the White House counsel with got leaked to the media soon after.

Ask Sally Yates, under oath, if she knows how classified information got into the newspapers soon after she explained it to W.H. Council.

— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) May 8, 2017

http://freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/3551249/posts

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.