But if a single bugging of the political opposition is enough to bring down a presidency — and maybe lead to an unprecedented criminal prosecution of a former president — then what are we to make of the recently unveiled Obama administration program of massively spying on political opponents in violation of clearly established law?
Because that’s what was unveiled last week. (none of the major papers are reporting it btw)
When the FBI wants to wiretap a domestic suspect, it goes to court for a warrant. But when listening in on foreigners, the National Security Agency hoovers up a vast amount of stuff in bulk: Conversations between foreigners, conversations between Americans and foreigners, conversations between Americans who mention foreigners, and sometimes just plain old conversations between Americans.
There are supposed to be strict safeguards on who can access the information, on how it can be used and on protecting American citizens’ privacy — because the NSA is forbidden by law from engaging in domestic spying. These safeguards were ignored wholesale under the Obama administration, and to many Republicans, it is no coincidence that intelligence leaks damaged Democrats' political opponents in the 2016 election.
A report from journalists John Solomon and Sara Carter last week, based on recently declassified documents, exposed what went on. As Solomon and Carter write:
More than 5%, or one out of every 20, searches seeking upstream Internet data on Americans inside the NSA’s so-called Section 702 database violated the safeguards President Obama and his intelligence chiefs vowed to follow in 2011, according to one classified internal report reviewed by Circa. ...(Link to more)
The normally supportive court censured administration officials, saying that the failure to disclose the extent of the violations earlier amounted to an “institutional lack of candor,” and that the improper searches constituted a “very serious Fourth Amendment issue,” according to a recently unsealed court document dated April 26.
The admitted violations undercut one of the primary defenses that the intelligence community and Obama officials have used in recent weeks to justify their snooping into incidental NSA intercepts about Americans. ... The American Civil Liberties Union said the newly disclosed violations are some of the most serious to ever be documented and strongly call into question the U.S. intelligence community’s ability to police itself and safeguard Americans' privacy as guaranteed by the Constitution’s Fourth Amendment protections against unlawful search and seizure.
13 comments:
Yes, next question.
Massive 4th Amendment violations. Why Sessions isn't going after Susan Rice is beyond me.
Duhr. Nixon on steroids but with about 50 fewer IQ points. Stupid Nixon who needs help from the media/academia/uselesstool complex and still can't get it right. Great job, Barry!
ricpic said...
Massive 4th Amendment violations. Why Sessions isn't going after Susan Rice is beyond me.
Is it beyond you or do you really know why he isn't doing it. Why there aren't indictments being handed down right now on a whole shit list of people.
It's pretty well-assured he hacked '12 and probably hacked '08.
So...
Methadras said...
Massive 4th Amendment violations. Why Sessions isn't going after Susan Rice is beyond me.
Is it beyond you or do you really know why he isn't doing it. Why there aren't indictments being handed down right now on a whole shit list of people.
It's beyond me. That said, Sessions and Co are going after the illegals and the leakers.
The issue is, what evidence is there? I mean the stuff that will hold up in court. Usually, a Lefty judge.
You guys act as if all anybody has to do is snap their fingers because you don't like whomever.
If these people are good at anything, it's covering their tracks.
Ed, Sessions may well be doing more quietly and behind the scene than is obvious. I hope so but he's definitely got ninja level skills if he is.
And one thing is missing from Instapundit's opinion piece - The NSA doesn't make surveillance requests to the FISA court. The DOJ does. Sessions now leads that DOJ and I haven't seen a response to the "lack of candor" criticism from the FISA court. Maybe I haven't seen because it's wearing black pajamas.
Why do you think Obama spent so much time getting his federal judgeships filled with his loyal goons? To run as a judicial shield for his pending illegality to undermine this country using illegal means to do so.
Meth - I have no idea why Sessions isn't being more aggressive. Let's hope he's quietly building an airtight case (or cases).
A Swamp Creature, Henry Gibson, was put in charge as Sheriff of the Swamp @ DOJ. Trump needed a PIT BULL to run the DOJ and he appointed a chihuahua. A girly chihuahua.
What Meth said.
ndspinelli said...
A Swamp Creature, Henry Gibson, was put in charge as Sheriff of the Swamp @ DOJ. Trump needed a PIT BULL to run the DOJ and he appointed a chihuahua. A girly chihuahua.
Which is why, in general, Senators are basically worthless in positions of power. Their entire worldview is one of compliance and statesmanship, not leadership. Senators aren't leaders, they are perpetual talkers and debaters of nuance, comity, and congeniality. In effect, worthless leaders. I like Jeff Sessions, I just don't like him at DOJ and when he recused himself, it was the writing on the wall that he still thinks like a senator, not like a prosecutor who leads an entire department of the law.
I'll say it again.
The recusal was because he had been a member of Trump's campaign staff.
To not recuse himself would give the Demos all kinds of ammo. It was smart, not wussy.
Bullshit. You cave to Democrats they still come after you. They will kick your teeth in and give no fucks. You have to do the same. Recusal is political cowardice. I don't buy it for a second.
Post a Comment