SHARYL ATTKISSON: When “incidental” intel collection—isn’t incidental

[Rightguide]

Here's a Sharyl Attkisson story with some finer points of
incidental" Intel collection some might find interesting:

The following is a news analysis.


I’ve spoken to a small group of reliable, formerly high-placed intelligence officials who have dropped a few interesting tidbits on me of late. Here’s my understanding, based on the discussions:

It’s not true that wiretaps and/or electronic surveillance of U.S. citizens can “only” be done with a FISA (Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act) court order.
Besides the FISA court, “wiretapping” or electronic surveillance can also be done under Title III authority. The government used this authority, for example, in the Justice Department’s secret Fast and Furious “gunwalking” case.

Additionally, U.S. Presidents have the power to issue secret presidential directives that can authorize otherwise illegal acts (theoretically in the country’s best interests). These directives may come with pre-planned cover stories to be used in the event the operation is exposed, and they come with indemnity for those involved, giving them permission to lie about the operation or their involvement without fear of prosecution.

The public will rarely know about such presidential directives since most who see them must sign agreements that promise nondisclosure and consent to polygraphs.

Computer surveillance is a grey area in the intelligence community where many insiders argue the traditional privacy restrictions and surveillance rules don’t necessarily apply.

The term “wiretapping” is used in a general sense to refer to electronic eavesdropping, even though the actual “tapping” of “wires” is not routinely necessary with today’s technology and tradecraft.

Rest here:

https://sharylattkisson.com/when-incidental-intel-collection-isnt-incidental/

 

[4est_4est_Gump]

Isn't she





"discredited?"

 

[Rightguide]

Isn't she





"discredited?"

Yep, in the eyes of Obama loving dimwits.

 

[4est_4est_Gump]

*chuckle*


FAKE NEWS!

 

[Colonel Hogan]

Isn't she





"discredited?"

If not, this ought to help. She refers to this mysterious and apparently invasive Title III authority and then provides a link to it. Check it out, especially section H, "A judge may only enter an order approving interceptions "within the territorial jurisdiction of the court in which the judge is sitting....": https://www.justice.gov/usam/criminal-resource-manual-29-electronic-surveillance-title-iii-affidavits

Gosh, if only the affiant had more legal hoops to jump through.

 

[4est_4est_Gump]

I'm sorry Colonel, whenever you insist that a Progressive Judge has his hands tied by the law I just shake my head and wonder, "What part of lawyer don't you get?"


This is a man trained that no matter what the law says, there are so many ways, even penumbras in dissents, that those words can be interpreted. Remember, it always depends on what the meaning of the word 'is' is...

 

[Rightguide]

I'm sorry Colonel, whenever you insist that a Progressive Judge has his hands tied by the law I just shake my head and wonder, "What part of lawyer don't you get?"


This is a man trained that no matter what the law says, there are so many ways, even penumbras in dissents, that those words can be interpreted. Remember, it always depends on what the meaning of the word 'is' is...

One such lawyer named Robart was elevated to the federal bench in Washington state.

 

[Parminderjeet]

So this is the new benghazi now?

*chuckles*

 

[Colonel Hogan]

I'm sorry Colonel, whenever you insist that a Progressive Judge has his hands tied by the law I just shake my head and wonder, "What part of lawyer don't you get?"


This is a man trained that no matter what the law says, there are so many ways, even penumbras in dissents, that those words can be interpreted. Remember, it always depends on what the meaning of the word 'is' is...

The point is, despite how any judge might rule, when people get all breathless about some semi-secret "authority" to do mischief, that "authority" typically includes legal standards as nearly restrictive as the ones they are trying to avoid.

That's all I'm saying. In fact, you and I are in agreement. The problem ain't the law. It's always how someone, including judges, will stretch it to the point of abuse.

 

[doowdniw]

Still waiting for Trumppenzel to pony up his evidence.

 

[Conager]

The point is, despite how any judge might rule, when people get all breathless about some semi-secret "authority" to do mischief, that "authority" typically includes legal standards as nearly restrictive as the ones they are trying to avoid.

That's all I'm saying. In fact, you and I are in agreement. The problem ain't the law. It's always how someone, including judges, will stretch it to the point of abuse.

Comunications jurisdiction is especially open to interpretation. if some portion of the communication originates or terminates in the jurisdiction that's obviously the case but if it goes through a node in that jurisdiction I'm sure they could claim authority.

 

[4est_4est_Gump]

Not only that, but what happens when some appendage of the government, seeing how the IRS operated with impunity decides that they too will "do the right thing" and side with those angry voices on the Left who seek to criminalize all thought and political action that is outside of theirs.


That's what some of these judges are currently doing as part of the Trump Resistance movement.