Saturday, September 23, 2017

James Clapper on FISA Wiretap

President Trump claimed that Barak Obama wire tapped him.  It was met with ridicule and scorn, but details have emerged that Trump was an "inadvertent" target ("unmasking") by the Obama administration.  

It is now reported what had been revealed in March, that secret FISA court orders had been implemented during the Obama Administration to wire tap Paul Manafort.  
The spread continues, with unmasking  before and after the election and the one person in common with all of it:  Donald Trump.   

The story is only beginning.  Former U.S. ambassador to the United Nations Samantha Power tried to reveal the identity of more than 260 Americans in 2016, according to a Fox News report published Wednesday.
The ex-public official allegedly averaged more than one unmasking request for each formal working day, even continuing her spree towards the final days of the Obama administration.
Question:  Does James Clapper deny this on Meet the Press?
CHUCK TODD: Yeah, I was just going to say, if the F.B.I., for instance, had a FISA court order of some sort for a surveillance, would that be information you would know or not know?
JAMES CLAPPER:  Yes.
TODD:  You would be told this?
CLAPPER:  I would know that.
TODD:  If there was a FISA court order–
CLAPPER:  Yes.
TODD:  –on something like this.
CLAPPER:  Something like this, absolutely.
TODD:  And at this point, you can’t confirm or deny whether that exists?
CLAPPER:  I can deny it.

Clapper does not issue a reliable denial but tells us what he "can" do instead.  

This is a subtle form of avoidance.  

Note how the interviewer both led and interrupted the subject.  This is not how to get information, but to attempt to gain attention for self, rather than obtain information.  

13 comments:

General P. Malaise said...

until people like Clapper, Brennan, Powers, Rice and Comey are indicted for breaking the law I will venture that the rule of law has died in the US.

Bobcat said...

OT: Peter Hackett letters regarding Shannan Gilbert

http://www.cbsnews.com/htdocs/pdf/48_hours_gilbert.pdf

"When months went by and nothing was heard, we assumed Shannon must have returned home. I am sorry that was not the case.

I had nothing to do with anything that occurred the night Shannan went missing. I was home, sleeping with my wife."

2nd letter:
"I did not even know who Joseph Brewer was until after this incident."

Anonymous said...

Off topic: Peter is there a difference between "I wad asleep" and "I was sleeping" when seen in a statement? I know that these terms would have to be evaluated within the context of the overall language used in the statement but do those two terms have different meanings in and of themselves?

Foolsfeedonfolly said...

So , Mr. Clapper "can" deny something (is able, has the ability/authority).

Mr. Clapper can deny it: "it" is not situation specific; the allegation is very specific.

If Mr. Clapper "can deny it", what is it that he can't deny (is constrained by someone or something) and why?

"I can deny it" is not the same as "There was no FISA court order to wire tap Donald Trump" or "The FBI did not wire tap Donald Trump" or "Donald Trumo was not wire tapped in any form by the FBI, President Obama, any Obama Staff member, any White House aid or staff member, or any member or employee of the State Department. Mr. Clapper has the ability to deny "it" but that doesn't mean he's not lying. He did not say "I had/have no knowledge of that."

It's interesting that the knowledge of a FBI or other-directed FISA becomes:

Todd: "this" (generalized information you'd know)

Clapper: "that" (information he'd know)

Todd: "this" (referencing "something like this")

Clapper: "this" (qualifies and parrots back "something like this")

Todd: "that" (seeking confirmation of the specific wire tapping report allegation and Clapper's knowledge of the report and incident)

Clapper: "it" (he did not parrot "that"; Todd asked him if he could deny "that"; he verbally moved to "it" in an attempt to create distance and ambiguity, but "it" actually confirms the existence of a FISA court order because "that" the allegation should be distant if untrue)

Anonymous said...

OT
The rule of law in USA died years ago and not just for politicians, but the average, everyday JoeBlow. Here's an example(a good one as it is about a woman and her child and not a white woman or person who others can claim a druggie or mental illness...:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U0mjwAPtcRY

LC said...

It is shameful - the lack of skills these 'professional' interviewers are.
None of them seem to be able to ask hard-line questions and allow for an answer.
The questions are presented with the bias of the interviewer and Leading in nature.
Also shameful - the viewers are still seemingly satisfied with the outcome.

Anonymous said...

The interviewers are in the entertainment business.

New England Water Blog said...

"Its easy to put a truck bomb, as we did, as happened in london..."

Very interesting 9 second clip

https://www.youtube.com/watch?time_continue=8&v=xeWlZE6R0Mg

Hey Jude said...

^ There was a truck bomb in London in 1993 which was due to the IRA - there hasn't been a truck bomb in London since that one.

John mcgowan said...

OT:

Chloe Ayling: British model’s kidnapping was a 'publicity stunt', says lawyer

There is a 'unique set of anomalies' in the case, said a lawyer defending one of the men accused of kidnapping her

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/chloe-ayling-kidnapping-british-model-publicity-stunt-italy-lawyer-sex-slave-plot-latest-a7965741.html

LC said...

Each interviewer should ask "closed"questions.Never"lead".

LC said...

to LC at 12:18
You are not me, and I am not you.
I did not post the above statement(although I agree with what you posted)

LC said...

The IRA are gobshites,I fart inside their eye sockets and urinate up each nostril,I throw Lego traffic cones into there ears.