Posted on Mar 4, 2017
5
5
0
Trump, citing no evidence, accuses Obama of ‘Nixon/Watergate’ plot to wiretap Trump Tower
Trump, citing no evidence, accuses Obama of ‘Nixon/Watergate’ plot to wiretap Trump Tower
Posted from washingtonpost.com
Donald Trump
Barack Obama
United States
FBI
Conspiracy Theories
Posted >1 y ago
Responses: 15
7
7
0
LTC (Join to see)
SGT Gregory Lawritson - FISA wasn't created under Bill Clinton or for the reasons you state
Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court and Court of Review
Congress in 1978 established the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court as a special court and authorized the Chief Justice of the United States to designate seven federal district court judges to review applications for warrants related to national security investigations. Judges serve for staggered, non-renewable terms of no more than seven years, and until 2001 were drawn from different judicial circuits. The provisions for the court were part of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (92 Stat. 1783), which required the government, before it commenced certain kinds of intelligence gathering operations within the United States, to obtain a judicial warrant similar to that required in criminal investigations. The legislation was a response to a report of the Senate Select Committee to Study Governmental Operations with Respect to Intelligence Activities (the “Church Committee”), which detailed allegations of executive branch abuses of its authority to conduct domestic electronic surveillance in the interest of national security. Congress also was responding to the Supreme Court’s suggestion in a 1972 case that under the Fourth Amendment some kind of judicial warrant might be required to conduct national security related investigations.
Warrant applications under the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act are drafted by attorneys in the General Counsel’s Office at the National Security Agency at the request of an officer of one of the federal intelligence agencies. Each application must contain the Attorney General’s certification that the target of the proposed surveillance is either a “foreign power” or “the agent of a foreign power” and, in the case of a U.S. citizen or resident alien, that the target may be involved in the commission of a crime.
Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court and Court of Review
Congress in 1978 established the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court as a special court and authorized the Chief Justice of the United States to designate seven federal district court judges to review applications for warrants related to national security investigations. Judges serve for staggered, non-renewable terms of no more than seven years, and until 2001 were drawn from different judicial circuits. The provisions for the court were part of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (92 Stat. 1783), which required the government, before it commenced certain kinds of intelligence gathering operations within the United States, to obtain a judicial warrant similar to that required in criminal investigations. The legislation was a response to a report of the Senate Select Committee to Study Governmental Operations with Respect to Intelligence Activities (the “Church Committee”), which detailed allegations of executive branch abuses of its authority to conduct domestic electronic surveillance in the interest of national security. Congress also was responding to the Supreme Court’s suggestion in a 1972 case that under the Fourth Amendment some kind of judicial warrant might be required to conduct national security related investigations.
Warrant applications under the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act are drafted by attorneys in the General Counsel’s Office at the National Security Agency at the request of an officer of one of the federal intelligence agencies. Each application must contain the Attorney General’s certification that the target of the proposed surveillance is either a “foreign power” or “the agent of a foreign power” and, in the case of a U.S. citizen or resident alien, that the target may be involved in the commission of a crime.
(2)
(0)
6
6
0
Why should he cite credible evidence. This is his SOP for getting attention. Slander? He should be sued for making claims and false allegations or cut the twitter finger off. Shameful example. Be a big boy and do your job. I know many like his behavior, but I would like to see a presidential leader of the American people.
(6)
(0)
Cpl Mark McMiller
Col Rebecca Lorraine - "Obama didn't ask for any FISA warrants--presidents can't." Because it's so common for a half dozen top tier U.S. intelligence and law enforcement agencies to request a wire tap on the adverse political party's presidential candidate during a national election without the President's knowledge or approval. Get a clue, Colonel.
(0)
(0)
Col Rebecca Lorraine
Did I say he did? Perhaps you need to check your manners. "Get a clue, Colonel" is rude and frankly that is what is wrong with our country. We turn debate into personal assault, because we have just forgotten what our parents tried to teach us as being socialized into a civilized culture. Then again, the current president sets the tone. So, take a seat, and try to be polite.
(2)
(0)
LTC Donell Kelly
Thank you Colonel, for your response. I've been thinking "Be a big boy & do your job" for 45+ days now.
(2)
(0)
LTC Donell Kelly
LTC Donell Kelly - Scary times out there, now; very scary times when POTUS can only be consistent in his lying tweets & not be paying attention to national security &/or international intelligence (as in NOT info from Breitbart!).
(1)
(0)
6
6
0
Since when do Presidents have cite the evidence first and then demand an investigation? You don't
reveal your evidence, if you have it, you send it to the FBI for review. Speaking of citing evidence, such as this whole Russian hacking, all agencies admitted there was no evidence, even Obama on Jimmy Kimmell said no evidence. The DNI report kept stating "we believe, we think." No evidence. So the tactic of the left remains the same, it's the seriousness of the charge that demands investigation, evidence of such is irrelevant. Keep droning on over and over in the media, until the public begins to fall for it, after all, it's the media and their "sources", they must be right. Most R's in the past cave in and resign, remember former House Speaker Tom Delay? He was accused of a crime, lost his house seat during the trial, and was found exonerated of all charges. But it was too late. The Dems had successfully accomplished their mission of abuse of power. How about Harry Reid slandering Romney from the protection of the house well in 2008? "I have it on good authority that he has not paid his taxes in 10 years." Asked to provide evidence, Reid shot back, "It's not my job to do so, it's up to him to prove I'm wrong." And here's the kicker, when asked after the election about whether or not Reid made it all up, Reid said, "Well, he didn't get elected, did he?" Just criminal, and the people are on to it and sick of it.
reveal your evidence, if you have it, you send it to the FBI for review. Speaking of citing evidence, such as this whole Russian hacking, all agencies admitted there was no evidence, even Obama on Jimmy Kimmell said no evidence. The DNI report kept stating "we believe, we think." No evidence. So the tactic of the left remains the same, it's the seriousness of the charge that demands investigation, evidence of such is irrelevant. Keep droning on over and over in the media, until the public begins to fall for it, after all, it's the media and their "sources", they must be right. Most R's in the past cave in and resign, remember former House Speaker Tom Delay? He was accused of a crime, lost his house seat during the trial, and was found exonerated of all charges. But it was too late. The Dems had successfully accomplished their mission of abuse of power. How about Harry Reid slandering Romney from the protection of the house well in 2008? "I have it on good authority that he has not paid his taxes in 10 years." Asked to provide evidence, Reid shot back, "It's not my job to do so, it's up to him to prove I'm wrong." And here's the kicker, when asked after the election about whether or not Reid made it all up, Reid said, "Well, he didn't get elected, did he?" Just criminal, and the people are on to it and sick of it.
(6)
(0)
Read This Next
Continue with Facebook 
Continue with Google