The president has accused his predecessor of wiretapping Trump Tower
by Howie Katz
Early in my career as a law enforcement officer there were no legal requirements to conduct wiretaps. Police agencies that had wiretapping equipment frequently listened in on the phone conversations of persons suspected of engaging in criminal activities. Agencies that did not have the wherewithal to conduct wiretaps relied on the state police or neighboring police departments to conduct the taps for them.
When it came to light that some of these taps were being misused, laws were enacted requiring law enforcement agencies to obtain a court order based on probable cause to conduct this type of surveillance. The laws went even further than that, requiring the police, after a certain period of time had passed, to notify the person being surveilled that his phone had been tapped.
In addition to the wiretaps, police occasionally also hid microphones inside the homes of suspects so that conversations held in close proximity could be picked up by officers nearby on the outside. The courts also ruled that the police were required to obtain a court order before planting a microphone inside any suspect’s house.
On Saturday, President Trump accused former President Obama of having Trump Tower wiretapped before the presidential election. Without citing any evidence,he made his accusation in the following four tweets:
Terrible! Just found out that Obama had my “wires tapped” in Trump Tower just before the victory. Nothing found. This is McCarthyism!
Is it legal for a sitting President to be “wire tapping” a race for president prior to an election? Turned down by court earlier. A NEW LOW!
I’d bet a good lawyer could make a great case out of the fact that President Obama was tapping my phones in October, just prior to Election!
How low has President Obama gone to tapp my phones during the very sacred election process. This is Nixon/Watergate. Bad (or sick) guy!
The media has been consumed with whether or not a FISA tap was used on Trump Tower under the Obama administration.
The Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) requires that the government must appear before a special FISA judge to obtain a wiretap order designed to gather foreign intelligence.
Since the Democrats have accused Trump staffers of having colluded with Russian agents, the media has assumed that any legal wiretaps on Trump Tower would have required the approval of a FISA judge. Obama and his staffers say Trump’s accusation is false and Obama’s former director of national intelligence, James Clapper, says there was no FISA wiretap ordered on Trump Tower.
Overlooked in all the hype about FISA is the possibility that an illegal wiretap may have been placed in Trump Tower. A black op using persons pretending to be from the phone company could have easily installed illegal taps in Trump’s campaign headquarters.
Would Obama or members of his administration resort to a black op illegal wiretap operation against Trump? Considering the hacking of the DNC and John Podesta’s emails, of course they would.
We may never find out whether Trump’s accusation is true or false. It is suspected that he obtained his information from the Breitbart News website, not the most reliable of news sources. A lot of Trump supporters like the president’s use of tweets to directly communicate with them. But questionable tweets could end up being the sword Trump falls on.
Howie Katz is a former law enforcement officer and retired criminal justice professor. In 1969 he founded the Texas Narcotic Officers Association. He currently resides in Houston, Texas. You can see more of his writing at http://barkgrowlbite.blogspot.com and http://theunconventionalgazette.blogspot.com.
Or he could have read it in the January 20th edition of the NY Times front page…
The President of the United States can order a wiretap on anyone without any court approval. FISA taps are general warrant taps and very broad.
https://www.google.com/amp/insider.foxnews.com/amp/article/54705
Don, this is what he said in the article
He added that the FISA statute states “the President of the United States can order surveillance on any person in the United States in conjunction with a certification filed by the attorney general.”
“It’s profoundly unconstitutional but it is legal because the statute says it,” said Napolitano. “Think about this: if you’re Barack Obama and you have the ability by making a phone call to hear what Donald Trump is saying, would you bother getting a warrant? Why would you get a warrant?”
Don, He did not say that the president could order a wiretap on anyone.
Stan, Rush says the New York Times said he did it, therefore it is true? Please post a link to that article so I can read it to see if it states what you and Rush claim.
But I will help you out as this is probably the story that you are referring to, below is the link. Where in the story is there anything about wiretaps in Trump Towers?
https://www.nytimes.com/2017/01/19/us/politics/trump-russia-associates-investigation.html
Maybe they need to investigate Trump’s association with known terrorists and ties to Iran. But then again anyone that accepts Russian support would not hesitate on making money from terrorists.
Manuel,
I get it you don’t like Trump. You make the most nonsensical anti-Trump comments and you need to get over Hillary did not win.
I am making a suggestion to you that Charles Kuffner’s website is a much better fit for your politics.
Atta boy, Mr. Hooper!
From th website, Law:
Is it legal for the President of the United States to order a wiretap on a citizen of the United States?
Answer
“Any federal surveillance” is too broad to address (it could involve agents watching a person while at Starbucks, which is currently legal), but the question of wiretapping can be answered with reference to specific law. 18 USC 2511 is the federal wiretapping statute, which generally outlaws “wiretapping” – i.e., recording a conversation where neither party consents to the recording. (If at least one party consents, it is allowed, though some states require all parties to consent.) There are a number of special cases, starting in subsection (2), where party consent is not required. Court orders would be one of those conditions. Another is if the Attorney General certifies in writing that the tap is legal and necessary to catch a spy. (2)(e) says, in particular:
it shall not be unlawful for an officer, employee, or agent of the United States in the normal course of his official duty to conduct electronic surveillance, as defined in section 101 of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act of 1978, as authorized by that Act.
where electronic surveillance is defined (partially) as
the acquisition by an electronic, mechanical, or other surveillance device of the contents of any wire or radio communication sent by or intended to be received by a particular, known United States person who is in the United States, if the contents are acquired by intentionally targeting that United States person, under circumstances in which a person has a reasonable expectation of privacy and a warrant would be required for law enforcement purposes
This seems to satisfy the circumstances described in the question – the act would be “electronic surveillance” as defined in that section of the law. But the wiretap law also says “as authorized by that Act”, so now we have to turn to authorization (without court order). 50 USC 1802 says
Notwithstanding any other law, the President, through the Attorney General, may authorize electronic surveillance without a court order under this subchapter to acquire foreign intelligence information for periods of up to one year if the Attorney General certifies in writing under oath that…
There are three conditions that have to be met. The second, (B), is that
there is no substantial likelihood that the surveillance will acquire the contents of any communication to which a United States person is a party
which would rule out the use against US persons asked about. Condition (A) likewise limits surveillance to
the acquisition of the contents of communications transmitted by means of communications used exclusively between or among foreign powers
So wiretapping without a court order is not authorized against a US person (which includes US citizens plus numerous other non-citizens with a “connection” to the US, including and not limited to permanent residents).
Don, what makes you think I don’t post there, and what a great way to divert from the fact that you made up something that was not in the article.
Trump lied and no amount of imaginary pointing to alternative facts (lies) by Trump supporters will change the lie to a fact.
I take it you don’t like to have anyone question your conclusions. I admit I make mistakes and will admit them when someone can prove me wrong, David Jennings did so not too long ago.
Sure, anything is possible, but where is his evidence? Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof. Trump doesn’t offer any evidence whatsoever. We can chuckle and laugh about this claim, his claim that millions of illegal votes cost him the popular vote, his claim that more people attended his inauguration than anyone else, etc. I worry that some day he will actually have to tell the American people of some event of critical importance and most will laugh it off as “Trump being Trump”
This is not appropriate behavior for the President of the United States. I am not amused.
Where is the proof that the sun rose in the East this morning?
I saw it on Fox news this morning,
I am amused. I am anticipating what he will come up with a 4am Saturday after all the Sunday talkers have recorded their memes with their reliable cabal of liberal yakkers and are sitting back as they believed they had set the table for the next weeks headlines. That is hilarious stuff right there.
And I like reading Obama is livid about his accusations. Beautiful. Keep it coming DJT. The lamentations are a sweet chorus!
Wikileaks baby!