Posted on 03/07/2017 2:29:09 PM PST by SeekAndFind
President Trump sparked a firestorm this morning when he suggested that his predecessor, Barack Obama, had ordered wiretaps on Trump Tower prior to the November 2016 election.
An Obama spokesperson vehemently denied the former president's involvement, saying: "A cardinal rule of the Obama administration was that no White House official ever interfered with any independent investigation led by the Department of Justice. As part of that practice, neither President Obama nor any White House official ever ordered surveillance on any U.S. citizen. Any suggestion otherwise is simply false."
[SNIP]
More than a thousand applications for electronic surveillance, all signed by the attorney general, are submitted each year, and the vast majority are approved.
From 2009 to 2015, for example, more than 10,700 applications for electronic surveillance were submitted, and only one was denied in its entirety, according to annual reports sent to Congress. Another one was denied in part, and 17 were withdrawn by the government.
“That shouldn’t lead anyone to believe it’s easy to get the order," said Matt Olsen, a former NSA official who is now an ABC News contributor. "The fact that the government is successful in almost always getting approval is just an indication the government knows what the standard is."
According to George Washington Law School professor and longtime FISA critic Jonathan Turley, “FISA was designed more to facilitate than to limit surveillance. It adopted a standard that was heavily weighted toward approval. You almost have to work to find a way to get turned down by a FISA court."
(Excerpt) Read more at abcnews.go.com ...
Yes, I heard that too. Obama could have done it all on his own according to the judge.
And here’s the disturbing implication of the FISA law as we written now -— EVEN IF WE DISCOVERED THAT IT WAS OBAMA HIMSELF WHO ORDERED THE FISA WIRETAP. HE DID NOTHING ILLEGAL.
*That* is what we have allowed the government to do to us.
RE: Obama could have done it all on his own according to the judge.
Yes, and even if he did — IT WOULD NOT BE ILLEGAL.
The law gave him the power. TSK TSK TSK.
Life for her family and herself? A SCOTUS seat, after Barack got his, of course?
Now I understand why she made that statement over the weekend. She wants this off the front page and replaced by violence in the streets.
RE: It was posted here a washington times story on bush who ordered one without FISA in 2006
It is said that a law, even with the best intentions (in this case to protect the country ), can be abused.
We call this unintended consequences.
The intent was to give the President the power to act quickly to stave off any possible terrorist attacks without handicapping him with too much procedure and paper work so that he can act quickly.
That power can be misused however. In this case to torment a political opponent.
FISA court = Rubber stamp
RE: FISA court = Rubber stamp
In the case of Obama, he did not even need the FISA court.
And here’s the disturbing thing -— Even if it was discovered that Obama himself ordered the wiretap, IT WAS WELL WITHIN THE LAW.
Obama could always say that he SUSPECTED collusion between Trump and Russia and he used the powers given to him by law to act.
Article II of the U.S. Constitution vests the executive power of the United States in the president. The power includes execution of federal law, alongside the responsibility of appointing federal executive, diplomatic, regulatory and judicial officers, and concluding treaties with foreign powers with the advice and consent of the Senate. Therefore the president is responsible for the actions of his cabinet of which the AG is a member nominated by the president, his position created in 1879.
We have three possibilities here: 1, Obama was aware of the tap, if it exists, and he and his people are lying about it, or, 2, Obama was not doing his job during his administration not being aware of executive actions done by his cabinet. How many others did he miss like actions by the IRS, actions not being accomplished by the State department in Benghazi or the treaty with Iran.
The only other possibility is that ABC just flat lied about everything, which they have been known to do, except Obama’s people are denying everything. Oops!
But it does bring to mind a thought: if Russia is bugging Hilary, and China is bugging us, and we are bugging the world, is the libs bugging Trump that far out of the ordinary and could be expected whether it can be proven or not? I don’t trust them any further than I can throw them.
red
I’m not sure that has been established at this point, one thing is for sure, the federal government is out of control.
When the "national security" issue involves foreign intelligence. The government argued that "national security" was adequate to justify snooping without a warrant, in the "Keith" case, and the evidence was tossed out of court. SCOTUS suggested maybe Congress could pass a FISA law. Congress did. Still, the distinguishing character of "president can snoop" is "foreign intelligence information," not "national security," although those two areas have plenty in common.
LOL. Well, that depends, but the better short answer is "no."
-- So, every piece of data that goes through the communication networks CAN BE TAPPED. --
Not only can be, it is. And supposedly held "in secrecy" until some judge coughs up a warrant.
The FISA civil penalty for unlawful snooping turns out to be totally toothless. It has been tested. Private citizens had evidence of being snooped, and sued for the civil damages. Judge threw the case out of court when the government said "state secret."
And yet no one from the media has thought to ask Loretta Lynch or Eric Holder?
Odd.
And if he was really pushed, he can argue the law is an unconstitutional impediement on the president, and he might win that.
I agree with your sentiment, Obama is on legally safe ground.
BUT, he is in a political minefield, and that is where this issue will play out. The DEMs will try to turn it into a legal issue, I saw this coming last week.
Well....Some little geek had to do the dirty work. That little guy will soon be 6 feet under the ground if he isn't already.
Hey, Loretta!
Will have a whole new meaning!!
It looks like the Attorney General still has to certify that foreign powers are involved. I think Lynch may be in some trouble at this point but will we ever know the truth? Some how I doubt it.
RE: It looks like the Attorney General still has to certify that foreign powers are involved.
What do we expect a lackey like Lynch to say to Obama when he tells her he wants to wiretap Trump?
The certifying is as good as done.
” EVEN IF WE DISCOVERED THAT IT WAS OBAMA HIMSELF WHO ORDERED THE FISA WIRETAP. HE DID NOTHING ILLEGAL.”
So if that IS true, It should follow that as President, Trump need only ask for the person issuing the direct order to actually do the surveillance to step forward.
That’s where a failure to respond should get someone into very serious legal trouble.
So there is no “paper.” No signature, even Brennan’s. It is done by a verbal command.
I don’t believe that.
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.