Replies

This would be a criminal investigation. It is illegal to wiretap someone for political reasons. They are most likely going to try and use the allegations they were investigating of “ties between Trump and a Russian bank”, but who had access to the information gathered and what did they use it for?

If information was gained, used, or disseminated beyond the scope of the “investigation” that would represent a criminal act. The FISA court essentially works like a search warrant so the information sought has to be contained in the 4 corners of the affidavit - i.e. you cannot use information or evidence gained beyond what you are allowed to in the written court order. That is the framework necessary to view this. If you listen to calls on a wiretap you can only listen long enough to see if it is relevant to the investigation (in this case - ties to Russian government). If you listened and heard Priebus tell someone that Trump is going to talk about immigration and the content of that conversation had nothing to do with the Russian government or the investigation, you would not be allowed to continue to listen and you certainly would not be allowed to share that information with others who were communicating with the Hillary campaign.

Hopefully that makes sense? If there is no evidence that a crime occurred beyond an allegation the legal grounds to continue the surveillance or investigation would no longer exist.

Obama denies this, but if his appointees were the ones who carried this out and they acted upon it (leaks from General Flynn’s conversations anyone?) there is a crime here. How could they have done this without the approval of Obama? Consider, they were targeting the opposition candidate and the opposition campaign! Trump had his transition HQ in Trump tower. What would be the basis for the NSA to continue to listen to conversations after Trump won the election?

This is going to be a non-ending firestorm.