Everything you need to know about FISA wiretaps [They require the signature of the Attorney General]

ABC News ^ | 03/07/2017 | ERIN DOOLEY

[jch10]

That is exactly what he is going to say! National security, don’cha know!

[SeekAndFind]

RE: 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.

_________________________________________

BTW, I do not want to cite one portion of the law without adding one other proviso which is in the law itself.

SEE HERE:

https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/50/1802

The image I sent to you was only one condition, here’s the other condition that must be met before surveillance could be done under Presidential order:

(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;

THAT is where Obama, if he were to be the one who ordered the wiretapping could get into legal trouble.

Trump is a UNITED STATES PERSON and the contents of any of his communication IS BEING ACQUIRED.

That was the missing part that Napolitano failed to mention in the video.

[tumblindice]

“An Obama spokesperson vehemently denied the former president’s involvement”

https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/50/1802

So he’s throwing Lynch under the bus? He’s saying she acted without authorization, as required by the above statute?

(a)
(1) Notwithstanding any other law, the President, through the Attorney General, may authorize electronic surveillance without a court order ...

(b) Applications for a court order under this subchapter are authorized if the President has, by written authorization, empowered the Attorney General to approve applications to the court having jurisdiction ...

And why would they do this, if they were in fact not actually trying to ensure national security by surreptitiously monitoring the communications of foreign countries and their agents?
Who would benefit by knowing what candidate Trump was saying, believing his conversations to be confidential?

[The_Media_never_lie]

Could someone please explain to me how Obama could not have known that the opposition candidate was being wiretapped? Could he have stopped it? If he could not have stopped it, then nobody could.

Then, what difference at this point in time, does it make if he did or did not order the wiretapping?

[SeekAndFind]

RE: The President can order no FISA needed, so Obama tells John Brennan to go ahead, that’s all that’s needed.

According to the law, There are LIMITATIONS:

SEE HERE: https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/50/1802

1) The acquisition of the contents of communications transmitted by means of communications used exclusively between or among foreign powers

2) 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.

So, if the Trump Tower was bugged, they did not bug a foreign power exclusively (as per the law ), and it was NOT in a property under the exclusive control of (in this case ), Russia.

Which means that if Obama DID indeed order this surveillance, it would be IN VIOLATION of the law.

[SeekAndFind]

The law, as you cited in the Cornell link gives SPECIFIC LIMITATIONS AS TO HOW AND WHY you could do this. To wit:

1) The acquisition of the contents of communications transmitted by means of communications used exclusively between or among foreign powers

2) 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

If Obama ordered the surveillance of Trump, BOTH of the above conditions were violated.

1. Trump is NOT a foreign Power

2. The Trump Tower is NOT a property under the exclusive control of a foreign power ( in this case, Russia ).

[tumblindice]

[tumblindice]

That’s right. They broke the law.
Intentionally, for political gain.
Clinton, Obama and Lynch.
What else is new?

[connyankee]

Thank you val jarrett...traitor.

[sport]

The traitors are the bastards that voted to put a muslim in the White House in two consecutive elections. Jarrett and the other muslim remained true to their musllim allies. They were never Americans to begin with, but thanks to the sons opf bitches that voted for the muslim, they were given a chance to do unrepairable damage to the United States of America. They never turned their coats, they were for the enemy from the getgo.

[kneedragger111]

“
I wonder what he offered Loretta in return?
I wonder if the deal is still a deal?
“

Calf Reduction Surgery

[FredZarguna]

It's true, but only if there is "no substantial likelihood that the surveillance would involve a US Person."

It's always been assumed that the President does not need any judicial warrant to order surveillance outside of the US, and in establishing the FISA courts it was clearly stated that that principle -- that there was no intent to step on the President's absolute authority beyond the water's edge -- was not being reduced.

[FredZarguna]

It’s not true, so the point is moot.

[connyankee]

Ah yes....true. but they call themselves Americans so that’s why i said traitor.... however now that you mention it a Muslim cannot also be an American because those two philosophies are diametrically opposed to each other. Yes I don’t know how he got voted in once let alone twice - it will always be a mystery to me. But that is how the evil one (Satan) works. He fools people he tricks people they fall for it they think they are doing good they think they are on the side of right and goodness the reality is they are being strung along by the devil and it is now that we are able to hopefully turn the ship around and with Donald Trump’s Presidency being a product of what I believe is divine intervention, we will hopefully see a lot of reconciliation to the evil things that Obama’s administration put forth.

[blackberry1]

The Clintons’s and the Dems were planning to absolutely destroy Donald Trump and his business empire after the election. He had no chance of winning and this would be the Clinton’s revenge on him for the nasty campaign. The story on this hasn’t been written but the Dems and the leftist media are forcing this story on the American public. This will become clearer as this unfolds......stay tuned.

[FredZarguna]

This is not true. Stop saying it. The law clearly says that there can be no substantial possibility that a US Person is involved in the surveillance.

[AmericanVictory]

SCOTUS has called this fraud upon the court.

[FredZarguna]

The circumstances would matter. Was the surveillance target a US Person? If so, Bush could not have ordered it.

If not, this law had nothing to do with it. The President has had the power to electronically surveil non-US persons throughout the entire history of the Republic, and the FISA law does not infringe, nor further enable, that authority.

[blackberry1]

His surrogates have denied he ordered it. Now what?

[itsahoot]

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.

Surely they could have found a District Court Judge somewhere that could have shut him down. </s>