I do want blood...but first I need something explained to me that I have not seen explained...except by speculation. If Obama got a FISA warrant for a narrower wiretap, after at first being denied on a bid for a broader warrant, how is anyone in any danger of going to jail here? He has a warrant, which means, regardless of the terrible optics of wiretapping your political opposition, he was on firm legal ground in implementing the warrant he got from FISA. How is this a legal problem. And if it is not a legal problem, how does this hurt the Democrats? They can just fall back onto their Russian influence fig leaf. It doesn’t have to be real, the Russian thing, it just has to be their excuse...global warming isn’t real either and that doesn’t stop them.
I’m just at a complete loss to understand the legal jeopardy for Obama in this, it doesn’t appear there is any...unless there is something specific I don’t understand. Any light shed here would be helpful, thanks.
Thanks for asking this. I do not know the legalities of this, either. Though it does seem very third worldian to allow a leadership in power to bug and tap their location to trip up the successor. (As I do believe the WH itself may have been compromised)
0 went way beyond what was allowed.
First, he asked to ‘look’ at a wide range of things & got denied.
Then later, he got the OK to ‘look’ at just one, a bank.
But he ‘looked’ at President Trump’s —phones— anyway.
The basis used was allegedly false
Possibly they went beyond what the FISA warrant auhorized, or involvement in illegal leaks of the information obtained.
The second request was narrow and granted. No evidence was found, yet the wiretaps continued. This may be the legal jeopardy, that the wiretaps went beyond the narrow boundaries. JMHO.