NSA Collected Americans' Phone Records Despite Law Change, Says Report (reuters.com) 122
An anonymous reader quotes a report from Reuters: The U.S. National Security Agency collected more than 151 million records of Americans' phone calls last year, even after Congress limited its ability to collect bulk phone records, according to an annual report issued on Tuesday by the top U.S. intelligence officer. The report from the office of Director of National Intelligence Dan Coats was the first measure of the effects of the 2015 USA Freedom Act, which limited the NSA to collecting phone records and contacts of people U.S. and allied intelligence agencies suspect may have ties to terrorism. It found that the NSA collected the 151 million records even though it had warrants from the secret Foreign Intelligence Surveillance court to spy on only 42 terrorism suspects in 2016, in addition to a handful identified the previous year. The report came as Congress faced a decision on whether to reauthorize Section 702 of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA), which permits the NSA to collect foreign intelligence information on non-U.S. persons outside the United States, and is scheduled to expire at the end of this year.
Information wants to be free (Score:1)
They want to track us. We want to know about it. And so proceeds ad infinitum.
wow (Score:1)
Terrorists need to be well funded if they make that many phonecalls
Re: They are (Score:2)
Actually the numbers aren't even past a million. There are very very few people who actually hate the US. There are probably billions who don't give a damn because we really aren't that important in their day to day life. Easily 3/4 of the world's population.
Yes, we overspend, but that's because we are afraid of everything. How much are you worried about Nepal? Maybe I shouldn't ask an American.
Re: (Score:1)
Yes they are... but there is a feeble effort [congress.gov] being made to change that...
Clapper blatant lies to Congress (Score:1)
Re:Clapper blatant lies to Congress (Score:5, Insightful)
He was in charge. No repercussions. That's all you need to know.
Laws and the consequences for breaking them are for the poor and unconnected.
Re: (Score:2)
Well, his heart was in the right place. Whether that means he is the top cop dedicated to saving lives, or participates in the building of a government panopticon the likes of which we were warned about in "1984", I'll leave as an exercise for the reader.
Illegal Wiretapping (Score:3)
42 warrants, 151 million conversations collected. Maybe it's time to downsize NSA? When an agency operates outside of its legal scope it's receiving a much larger budget than necessary, is not operating with the public consent and it is therefore illegal. You can not do anything you want and attempt to hide under the guise of national security, cowards do that. I don't want to think of my government as being run by cowards. Those kind of numbers are not just alarming, they prove we are currently living in a West Germany style country. Mass surveillance is unacceptable in any democratic country that has any semblance of right and wrong. This kind of program is untenable and unacceptable for a democratic country.
Like the CIA wasn 't breaking the law before.. (Score:5, Interesting)
I don't believe this (Score:3, Funny)
There's no way an honest group of people like the NSA would ever do such a thing!
Including Trump's (Score:2, Insightful)
"But Trump is lying when he says Obama was spying on him!"
- Said someone who hasn't heard of Edward Snowden
Shocking, but not at all surprising (Score:5, Insightful)
Things like this seriously undermine the credibility of anyone who claims that the US is still a 'nation under the rule of law'.
Start bringing charges against people. (Score:5, Insightful)
If there are no repercussions for agencies that break laws then they will just continue breaking them. If you allow agencies to continue breaking laws then your government loses credibility. Governments without credibility are prone to upheaval and a loss of the rule of law.
Re: Start bringing charges against people. (Score:1, Troll)
Governments without credibility are prone to upheaval...
That would depend on how well-entrenched they are... look at the Vatican; they still exist.
Re: (Score:2)
And if they somehow (cough cough) manage to weasel their way out of getting convicted, bar the middle-managers on up from ever holding another government position/job.
This is, what, the third or fourth time we've heard "okay okay, we swear this time we're really stopping it, for real," and then found out a little later no, they actually didn't. At this point it's a rogue agency, as they clearly don't give a wet slap what the authorities are telling them to do. Dissolve the entire thing and make a new agency
consequences... (Score:2, Insightful)
And people will be going to prison for this in 3, 2, 1....
Shit. Let's try again. Like any other person violating the CFAA they will be held accountable in 3, 2, 1....
Shit, still nothing. How about violations of the 4th amendment? 3, 2, 1...
Nope.
Well, I guess that's that. they are truly above the law.
Thanks Obama! (Score:4, Insightful)
This is what allows Susan Rice to "unmask" US citizens: using the power of the state against its citizenry.
How much jail time? (Score:1)
How much jail time for the guys responsible? That's all I want to know. 1 yr per incident? That would be fine.
Assume 100 yrs per life and start at the top, arresting, trying and jailing everyone in the organization.
why does congress even bother? (Score:4, Insightful)
The NSA is clearly going to do whatever they feel like doing, laws be damned.
Congress needs to take a break from legislation and focus on enforcement for awhile. Then once the NSA is back to actually following the laws they pass, then get back to legislating. Until then, you're just wasting your time passing new laws. Don't renew their inch, they're just going to laugh at you and take another foot. If you're not going to hold them accountable, at least show them the "power of the purse" - cut their funding so they simply can't afford to keep breaking the law.
Because the next step (Score:2)
This seems pretty simple to me. (Score:2)
If there was a law change. Then that means that mass surveilling people is a violation of the computer fraud and abuse act.
Go and arrest these guys, prosecute them, then put them in prison for 5 to 10 years.
Re: (Score:3)
They are not "engaged in activities covered under it in the course of their official duties."
They are rouge actors operating out side the law.
And that is with out consideration of the 4 amendment position that any law allowing them to do this would be illegal anyway.
Re: (Score:2)
They are rouge actors operating out side the law.
I think you meant "rogue", nevertheless I agree with the sentiment.
They are not "engaged in activities covered under it in the course of their official duties."
Unfortunately, that determination is made by the same government these scofflaws work for, so expect the courts to rubber-stamp it all as perfectly Constitutional, no matter how blatantly and obviously untrue it is. Civil forfeiture has been judged unconstitutional any number of times, but yet it's still used, and that's a law/program that's anything but secret. The effort it will take and the extremes that will have to be gone to in order t
Re: (Score:2)
Who knows? They might be "rouge" actors.
Some of those intelligence guys swing that way.
Records, not content (Score:2, Interesting)
Records -- not content.
Smith v Maryland (1979) holds that phone call records, as "business records" provided to a third party, do not have an expectation of privacy and are not protected by the Fourth Amendment. In order for this to change, Congress needs to act, or SCOTUS will need to speak again on the matter -- the nature of which admittedly has changed in the ensuing 38 years.
Targeted collection of communications *content* of US Persons anywhere in the world requires an individualized warrant.
Additional
Hillary (Score:3)
Sarcasm aside, I hope more and more people are starting to get that we're being screwed by both sides of the aisle.
Bleh.
This is incorrect (Score:1)
It's much bigger than that.
This is only for the specified intel programs.
They didn't include the mil side intel.
Re: (Score:2)
Got a message from outside the USA, sent a message to someone outside the USA.
Was seen near a base, mil site, sensitive site. Walking, driving near any protest.
A persons phone was detected near an anti war protest. The anti war protest had an "international" connection.
Download software. Used a browser to look at computer site that had code with an "international" connection.
Its a bit like the Vietnam
Is anybody really surprised by this? (Score:1)
Re:Can we stop denying the obvious? (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
You forgot the metadata (ones and zeros) that makes up the voice part of the phone call. Yes, they store all that too.
True, but technically that's not metadata. That's data.
Re: (Score:2)
You forgot the metadata (ones and zeros) that makes up the voice part of the phone call. Yes, they store all that too.
True, but technically that's not metadata. That's data.
Part of the admitted "legal" NSA collection program includes automated searching of internet traffic for key words including the *content* of emails. If that is legal, then how can the automated searching of voice calls not also be legal? The Department of Justice's position is that automated searches which do not involve a human are not "searches" for 4th amendment purposes. I am not sure how that gets around having "seized" the data by making a copy to search but apparently it does.
The only metadata of
This, and we know it still happens (Score:5, Insightful)
The whole point of the massive NSA datacenter in Utah is that they collect _everything_. The argument from the NSA and Federal Government was that they would only look at data where they had a warrant. Our argument back was that there is no way to ensure data is only viewed by warrant, especially when they were looking at ways of cataloguing data they could see, and trying to crack encryption on what they could not.
We were right, they were dishonest. Nothing new in terms of Government abusing power, and nobody should be surprised that the more we give them the more they abuse.
Since the hardware is already in place to copy all traffic to the NSA, law changes which impact collection of data would have to tackle that particular issue. Good luck with that. ISPs and Telecom providers get paid massive tax dollars to provide the service, so you know that they won't complain.
Re: (Score:1)
People's morality != Government's (Score:5, Insightful)
I have no doubt that some highly moral people join the NSA with the idea that they can be a good guy. Just like most cops join the force to protect and server their community, and most military people join to serve their country and protect our Constitution.
The immorality at the higher levels breaks the delusion,and people either conform to a morality they disagree with to maintain a job or they leave.
All absolutely normal human behavior, well documented, and full of historical references.
Re: (Score:1)
Many people join the military hoping to escape their current life, better themselves, and hopefully get some free education/skill training.
Many people join the police force either because they just left the military and feel it's now their only option, or they feel that the job can provide them with the sense of respect from others they felt they deserved and did not get in high school.
Many men join the clergy hoping that the job will free them from their improper sexual desires.
Many sharp minds join the NS
Re:This, and we know it still happens (Score:4, Informative)
/. (or another "news" site) had a recent post about N.S.A. technicians having low morale and there being high turnover there
Well no wonder, when they're being told to do fucking blatantly illegal things for their job.
Re: (Score:2)
The constant use of contractors who have more power than actual gov workers. Even getting a promotion just has NSA staff working for contractors. Not with or providing oversight.
Years of been told what to do by random outside private sector staff is not good for gov/mil staff retention.
Pay and the ability to get further technical or university education over decades.
Why pay for NSA staff to get more educated and enjoy promotions when any private sector c
Re:This, and we know it still happens (Score:5, Insightful)
The whole point of the massive NSA datacenter in Utah is that they collect _everything_. The argument from the NSA and Federal Government was that they would only look at data where they had a warrant. Our argument back was that there is no way to ensure data is only viewed by warrant, especially when they were looking at ways of cataloguing data they could see, and trying to crack encryption on what they could not.
We were right, they were dishonest. Nothing new in terms of Government abusing power, and nobody should be surprised that the more we give them the more they abuse.
Since the hardware is already in place to copy all traffic to the NSA, law changes which impact collection of data would have to tackle that particular issue. Good luck with that. ISPs and Telecom providers get paid massive tax dollars to provide the service, so you know that they won't complain.
Well said. I would just add that beyond the practical privacy concerns of people actually snooping on other people for illegitimate purposes there is an important principle of constitutional law that the government is required to have a specific warrant to perform a search. And that making copies of data and in fact scanning that data in the first place to see if it is relevant to a variety of ongoing surveillance activities is itself a search.
It isn't merely the potential for search of the data without warrant after the government has collected it that is the issue. In fact if the data was legally collected and the government has it, then why shouldn't it be available for any legitimate investigation? Any legally collected data should be available to investigators. The problem is that it isn't legally collected data.
If it were just a practical privacy issue then you are already exposed to numerous companies that are collecting, analyzing, storing your communications for a variety of purposes that you might not want to specifically agree to, but might be somehow covered in a customer agreement.
The other big thing that I see as unconstitutional is that the government is effectively not allowing companies the option of an enforceable contract with their customers that it will require a specific warrant to divulge their communications to the government. The big telecoms got that as legal cover, but also to head off competitor companies marketing privacy as something they could legally deliver.
In the US, at least, privacy in your communications against unconstitutionally broad government surveillance isn't an option companies can even offer their customers and business partners because the agreement is made legally unenforceable with no opportunity to seek damages for contract violations against telecom providers under the Patriot Act. I should be allowed to provide customers with a privacy agreement in return for compensation that if I violate it would allow them to seek damages in court.
So the government is unconstitutionally interfering in what should be a lawful privacy contract between telecoms and their customers and business partners.
Re: (Score:2)
So the government is unconstitutionally interfering in what should be a lawful privacy contract between telecoms and their customers and business partners.
Government's response to the unconstitutionality of it's actions when confronted has essentially been;
"We have altered the deal. Pray we do not alter it further."
What is the proper response for citizens to take when the government refuses to obey it's own laws and refuses to stop grossly violating primary civil rights on a massive scale?
Strat
Incorrect (Score:2)
Unfortunately the "we promise not to peek" dishonesty passed these laws. It would take the Supreme Court ruling them unconstitutional, not new politicians. Indirectly a Presidential appointment does have impact, which is frankly why many people voted for Trump. A liberal justice who believes in a "living constitution" instead of what we are supposed to have tends to vote in favor of Government.
Re: (Score:2)
Vote for different people in the next election.
Do you mean the *other* party in favor of eviscerating the 4th amendment?
How many politicians does someone have to bribe to get a law passed? Both of them.
Re:This, and we know it still happens (Score:4)
Those practical concerns are the great difficulty, and there have been many presentations before congress that we've discussed on /. before.
Surveillance versus collection versus use form some critical fine print distinctions. For audio data the argument is they can't tell what it is until they have it and process it, so they claim the need to collect and process everything, and they need to go through it in automated ways to process and parse and understand the data... but they promise they only store content that matches what they're authorized to handle. Critically, they generally argue that it isn't actually surveillance until a human being reviews it.
The devil is in the details though, as each step can have people do far more than the law allows. That's where the problem lies.
Another issue is the data retention rules. A few years back as a result of a lawsuit one of the three letter agencies was ordered they could not retain certain surveillance / collection records for more than 7 years. They told the judge they would comply as soon as technically feasible. And they did: They contracted with an external records company to store all the data as business records. The contract allowed the agency to request business records at any time. After transferring all their old records and updating their programs to search the alternate source, they deleted their copies of the expired data. The judge signed off saying they met the letter of the law. Even though they no longer have the records after 7 years, they can still retain access to all the data in perpetuity.
Re: (Score:2)
Critically, they generally argue that it isn't actually surveillance until a human being reviews it.
Maybe it isn't "surveillance". But coming into my business and taking my electronic records sure as hell is covered under the 4th amendment.
Re: (Score:2)
Translation: It's not a crime until we get caught.
Maybe we should all practice that philosophy.
It is not a crime at all.
What is the penalty for an unlawful search or seizure? Exclusion of evidence? How is *that* useful unless they use what they found as evidence in court against you while not laundering it via parallel construction?
Re: (Score:2)
The whole point of the massive NSA datacenter in Utah is that they collect _everything_. The argument from the NSA and Federal Government was that they would only look at data where they had a warrant. Our argument back was that there is no way to ensure data is only viewed by warrant, especially when they were looking at ways of cataloguing data they could see, and trying to crack encryption on what they could not.
I also argued that the seizure (copying and retention) of the data was also a violation of the 4th amendment whether it was searched or not.
Re:Can we stop denying the obvious? (Score:4, Interesting)
Remember, location is usually implicit for landline calls. Usually.
Do not doubt they perform disambiguation for landline calls where location is not assured to be exact. Mobile phones are not special cases, save that location may change during a call.
And we haven't been told what they collect for text messages. Sure they do.
Re:Can we stop denying the obvious? (Score:4, Insightful)
It's been going on even before that.
It has been going on for a long time. But here is the thing, Obama made campaign promises to start ripping the system down, and instead, as revealed by several cases, used it to spy on Americans and Journalists. And that makes him actually worse than GWB who did a lot of it. At least we knew what we were getting with GWB, Obama ended up being a backstabbing weasel.
Re: (Score:2)
A chi town politician being a corrupt backstabbing weasel? Say it ain't so.
Re:Can we stop denying the obvious? (Score:5, Informative)
Despite the mounting evidence that the phone surveillance was in full force even last year, most of the news media will still pretend that those 151 million phone records couldn't possibly include Donald Trump or his associates. Obama allowed and expanded the surveillance despite promisingâ during his campaign to abolish it. It should be clearer than ever that Obama was indeed responsible for monitoring the phones of Trump and his associates.
Trump's allegation was that he was specifically wiretapped at the orders of Obama. Not that his conversations were swept up in a dragnet. Not that expect him to actually stand by what he says, because he's Donald Trump and changes positions daily. But the rest of us can at least be clear.
Re: Can we stop denying the obvious? (Score:2)
Not that expect him to actually stand by what he says, because he's Donald Trump...
That's actually funny. Let me correct it for you:
Not that [anyone with a brain] would expect any president to stand by what they say... for myriad reasons; not the least of which is that they'd quickly catch a bullet in the brain, JFK-style.
Re: (Score:1, Troll)
Not that expect him to actually stand by what he says, because he's Donald Trump...
That's actually funny. Let me correct it for you:
Not that [anyone with a brain] would expect any president to stand by what they say... for myriad reasons; not the least of which is that they'd quickly catch a bullet in the brain, JFK-style.
Fair enough. But are you seriously arguing that Trump's complete and total inconsistency is just like any other President? Sure, other Presidents have changed direction, for various reasons. Hell, the Republicans were on Obama's nuts for years because he said, "If you like your health insurance, you can keep your health insurance". On the other hand, Trump says something in the evening that is the opposite of what he said in the morning.
In this case he accused the previous President of committing a crim
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Hell, the Republicans were on Obama's nuts for years because he said, "If you like your health insurance, you can keep your health insurance".
Republicans where after Obama on this because he KNEW what he was saying wasn't true when he said it, but the bill had to pass so it was about PR over truth.
Re: (Score:3)
Hell, the Republicans were on Obama's nuts for years because he said, "If you like your health insurance, you can keep your health insurance".
Republicans where after Obama on this because he KNEW what he was saying wasn't true when he said it, but the bill had to pass so it was about PR over truth.
Perhaps so. The problem with Trump is that he doesn't seem to consider whether or not something is true when he says it. He just says whatever sounds good at the time.
Re: (Score:1, Insightful)
They are trying VERY hard to normalize Trump's behaviour, so yes they will say it's exactly the same as with other Presidents. Except that it's not.
Honestly, I did not foresee the rise of Trump muppets here on SlashDot every day since he got elected, gaslighting and pushing their alt-right bullshit.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Honestly, I did not foresee the rise of Trump muppets here on SlashDot every day since he got elected, gaslighting and pushing their alt-right bullshit.
That is a error in judgment you made because you assumed they were all just unpaid volunteers, doing it in their free time. They aren't unpaid though. They aren't volunteers. They didn't vote for Trump; they're not even American.
Re: (Score:1)
(And they will mod this thread down to -1 with their banked sock-puppet mod points.)
Re: Can we stop denying the obvious? (Score:4, Interesting)
But are you seriously arguing that Trump's complete and total inconsistency is just like any other President?
Yes. The man has been in media for sometime and obviously he understands it by running successful media endeavors and a successful presidential campaign against a better funded and more experienced opponent. Obviously, there is method to his madness even if you or CNN don't understand it. His "inconsistency" I think is part of that method and I think many of his ardent supporters rationalize it to "deal making" or some other favorable trait that they admire even if they don't agree with the way it is done or the outcome.
It isn't right or wrong it is just different.
Re: Can we stop denying the obvious? (Score:1)
So blatantly lying and making up stuff off the top of your head isn't wrong?
Way to be a sympathizer. I bet you believe everything he says. Smh.
Re: (Score:2)
So blatantly lying and making up stuff off the top of your head isn't wrong?
Every president has lied to you. Sorry to break that to you. A smooth talking liar is still a liar even if it sounds good. Obama is the better orator but that doesn't mean that Obama didn't lie to you. He did. Lots of times.
Way to be a sympathizer. I bet you believe everything he says. Smh.
I have been called everything because I don't fall inline with the Trump hate. It was no different on Obamas election/re-election for me. Everyone is trying to convince you of something. Why is this any different?
I don't need to believe everything he says to know there are a lot of peopl
Re: (Score:2)
Dead on balls accurate sir. Thank you.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Because no one ever uses the President's name to refer to the action of an administration?
If every conversation is swept-up in a dragnet, it makes no sense to physically tap a phone connection, you just query the Utah Data Repository under the guise of "National Security" and with the blessing of the FISA court's rubber-stamp warrant.
We do know, with absolute certainty (be
Re:Can we stop denying the obvious? (Score:4, Insightful)
Because no one ever uses the President's name to refer to the action of an administration?
No, because Trump specified it himself. "Just found out that Obama had my "wires tapped" in Trump Tower just before the victory." He said "Obama had my wires tapped". That means Obama specifically ordered his communications to be monitored.
no, it doesn't (Score:2)
No, it doesn't. It means Obama's administration ordered and carried it out. Wiretapping and chasing down warrants are not the job of POTUS -- but they are absolutely the jobs of people who directly work for POTUS. I am sure you know there are 100,000's of people working in the executive branch of government and every single one of them ultimately reports to POTUS.
I am honestly surprised tha
Re: (Score:2)
I am honestly surprised that any reasonable person would think that Obama personally ordered the wiretap
No reasonable person would think that, that's the point. No one has claimed that he installed it himself.
Re: (Score:2)
He said "Obama had my wires tapped". That means Obama specifically ordered his communications to be monitored No, it doesn't. It means Obama's administration ordered and carried it out. Wiretapping and chasing down warrants are not the job of POTUS -- but they are absolutely the jobs of people who directly work for POTUS. I am sure you know there are 100,000's of people working in the executive branch of government and every single one of them ultimately reports to POTUS. I am honestly surprised that any reasonable person would think that Obama personally ordered the wiretap and personally installed it himself.....that....isn't...what Presidents do
Stop putting words in his mouth. He did not say the Obama Administration. He said Obama. He said "Bad (or sick) guy!" Was he talking about the administration then too? Does "guy" now mean the Administration too?
Trump made a baseless accusation. I'm not sure why his supporters can't just own up to that fact. Next you'll be arguing over what the definition of "is" is.
Re: (Score:2)
All you are accomplishing is convincing more people the left outright lie, like you are doing, and there is actually a cover up because of all the lying involved.
I'm fairly certain you thought that already. But I'm not lying. Trump made a specific allegation and can't back it up.
Re: (Score:2)
Which kind of brings up an interesting point and another parallel. Just like when Rand Paul had a spat with the TSA [theguardian.com], when our elected leaders start brushing up (negatively) against those controversial policies of the government, the more likely those policies will be changed.
I had hoped (maybe still hoping) that if Trump's conversations were picked up in dragnet and he learned about it that he would want to publicize those to eventually end those kind of practices or at least force them inline with the law.
Re: (Score:1)
So Trump will be ending this, right? He's going to stop the Patriot Act from renewing during his term as well, right?
Re: (Score:2)
How about blaming him for what his Administration did, which was spy on Americans (not once or even twice). And I don't give a shit about politicians lying, that ship sailed when Clinton wagged is finger at every American a lied, and the left didn't give a shit, because they thought a blowjob was funny .. or whatever.
Liberals have standards, all double.
So, ignore the obvious, Obama spied on Americans all the time, we know this because we've caught him at least three times doing it. Obama isn't the saint the
Re: (Score:2, Troll)
Lets be honest here.
Yes, let's. Trump accused Obama, not the FBI, of wiretapping Trump Tower, not surveilling members of his campaign. It was a specific claim. There has been no evidence published that it is true.
Pretty cut and dry. Trump made a claim, there is a FISA warrant as proof that his claim is true. And here you are calling him a liar.
Again, it is not cut and dry, because the FBI getting a FISA warrant to investigate a member of the campaign is not the same thing as Obama illegally ordering a wiretap of Trump Tower, which is what Trump claimed. I'm not calling Trump a liar. He isn't lying, he simply has no idea what he is talking about.
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
So, you're going to blame Trump for everything his administration does, but the one true Obama only takes credit for what his department does, no blame for what his underlings did.
Obama is responsible for everything his cabinet appointees did and approved. He was the head of the executive branch, it's his responsibility. Trump is responsible now for everything his cabinet appointees do. He's responsible for everything the executive branch does. Yup, it's a big responsibility, but you gotta put on your big b
Re: (Score:2)
Who the fuck said anything about illegal? Not Trump's tweet, not anyone else. The only illegal thing I've seen is Comey lying under oath to Congress.
So you have to literally MAKE UP what Trump claims and then prove what you said he claims is false?
You are an outright liar and not to be trusted. Your comments are defamation of character with intention to smear reputation. This is why people support Trump. He is so evil and horrible the ONLY things people can say about bad about him are easily proven lies.
Your mistress Hillary lost, get over it.
Wow, no wonder you keep buying what this guy is selling. Obama ordering a wiretap of trump would have been illegal. From this [cnn.com] article, "The former senior US official with direct knowledge of the Justice Department's investigations said Obama could not have ordered such a warrant. ... Warrants to tap into someone's phones in the course of a federal investigation would be sought by the Department of Justice, which conducts investigations independent of the White House and the President."
And then there's thi [latimes.com]
They *DID* include Donald Trump (Score:1, Informative)
There was an undisclosed meeting in Trump tower in December. This was the one Kushner was questioned about. They were watching a known Russian FSB agent, Sergey Gorkov. This was one of the leaks to the press that upset Trump.
NSA spied on one Sergey Gorkov. He's head of a Russian bank, Vnesheconombank, and it was caught running spy rings in New York in early 2015. As a result spies were arrested, prosecuted the ones with diplomatic immunity were expelled.
This was not blanket surveillance, Russia was under sa
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
It should be clearer than ever that Obama was indeed responsible for monitoring the phones of Trump and his associates.
If this is the best you can do, and the extent of your ability to construct logical arguments, you should just give up now.