Every American should be outraged by recent revelations that Obama National Security Advisor, Susan Rice, repeatedly used the intelligence agencies to spy on Trump, his family and his advisors. This spying has been confirmed by five major news organizations and dates back to the Republican Primary. Susan Rice (and likely others) systematically searched for and reviewed all raw communications involving the Trump organization and any foreigner under surveillance. This included communications between Trump advisors, Trump himself, and Trump's family. Since this surveillance was conducted on U.S. soil, it required a FISA Order.
Former Obama Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defense, Evelyn Farkas, confirmed last week that the Obama Administration intended to collect as much "intelligence" against President Trump and his associates as possible and then disseminate it to as many people as feasible before leaving office. To that end, President Obama expanded the rules under Executive Order 12333 making it easier to disseminate this type of classified information just days before he left office.
As we all know by now, President Trump tweeted that his "wires were tapped" by "President Obama." The tweet set off a fury of recriminations. Democrats and many Republicans, including John McCain and Lindsey Graham, condemned the President, calling on him to apologize to President Obama. The media has repeatedly reported that the President's tweet was "completely false." The Director of the FBI testified before Congress that he "could find no evidence" of any "wire tap" on Trump.
Liars all.
In a world of deconstructive thinking, I suppose we should not be surprised that the President's political opponents would deconstruct the word "wiretap" to make it appear that he was lying. Except that he wasn't.
Black's Law Dictionary defines "wiretapping" as follows: "A form of electric or mechanical eavesdropping where, upon court order, law enforcement officials surreptitiously listen to phone calls or other conversations or communications of persons." Let us engage in a little deconstruction of our own. President Trump's claim is that "Obama" "wiretapped" him. Under the definition in Black's, "wiretapping" is "eavesdropping," with a "court order" that involves "surreptitiously listening" to "phone calls" or other "communications" of a "person."
Now, let us examine how that definition applies in this case. It is undisputed that: (1) there was eavesdropping; (2) under a FISA Court Order; (3) that allowed intelligence agencies to; (4) surreptitiously listen to; (5) phone calls or other communications; (6) of people, including President Trump, his family and his associates. The only remaining question is whether "Obama" himself participated in the "wiretapping." We know that he did and here's how: He revised Executive Order 12333 which, according to his own Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defense, was part of a broader strategy to disseminate intelligence gathered on then President-Elect Trump.
Obama wiretapped Trump. Period. It is actually even worse than that. He and his administration did not just retask the FISA process to aid in some kind of "Russian ties" investigation. His National Security Advisor intentionally ordered the raw intelligence, including Trump associate identities, to be delivered to her so that Democrats could gain a strategic political advantage over Republicans. I say "Republicans" because, if it is true that this surveillance dates back to the primaries, then it is highly unlikely that Obama was wiretapping just Trump. It is more likely that the Obama Administration was using the intelligence apparatus to surveil all potential nominees. It is a question that is at least worth asking.
Democrats and their allies are already forming a new narrative in the event that this scandal explodes into something more apocalyptic than Watergate. Even if the Obama Administration ordered the surveillance of Donald Trump and his family and friends, it was not "illegal." After all, the FISA Court authorized the surveillance of foreigners and the collection of Trump communications was "merely incidental." Moreover, there is nothing "inherently illegal" about unmasking Americans caught up in "routine surveillance" of foreigners.
The problems with this narrative are numerous. Notwithstanding the fact that it probably is illegal to unmask the Trump communications, the narrative ignores the obvious. Obama and his administration took affirmative steps to not only review the raw intelligence, but also to disseminate that raw intelligence to as many people as possible for political reasons. Moreover, Hillary Clinton and several of her campaign advisors, including Ben Rhodes, still had clearance to review that intelligence. It would be exceptionally naive to believe that this intentionally gathered intelligence was not shared with her campaign.
It may not matter whether or not this was politically motivated, however. Democrats and their allies can have it one of two ways. First, they can admit that this entire conspiracy (yes, conspiracy) to spy on the Trump campaign was an inappropriate abuse of power. The Congress can then pass bipartisan legislation to reign in these out of control intelligence agencies and make some progress towards restoring Constitutional freedoms. Susan Rice and those who leaked this information can be given at least a slap on the wrist, and the country can move on.
The alternative should be significantly more frightening to the opposition. For a group of people who believe Donald Trump is an authoritarian dictator, Democrats sure seem ok with giving Trump a reason to abuse his power. The natural reaction to the opposition narrative is to simply say that turnabout is fair play. Should the Democrats persist in this fantasy that all of this was proper, Trump should turn the intelligence agencies on them. If the Obama Administration can spy on political opponents using FISA, unmasking and leaking, so can the Trump Administration. In fact, the President has the power to unilaterally declassify anything he wants, which could be the Democrats' worst nightmare.
For example, he could start with Benghazi. Perhaps we could finally review President Obama's communications (or lack thereof) during the 13 hour crisis that resulted in the deaths of four Americans. He could also declare the Clinton Foundation a "foreign agent" and obtain a FISA Order to "wiretap" the Clinton's, their daughter, all of their friends, all of their donors, and anyone who was ever associated with the foundation. Since President Obama supported the Clinton Foundation, he too should be subject to surveillance for the rest of this life. The President could then leak, or just declassify and publish any embarrassing intercepts, making sure their context is never known.
President Trump could go even further. He could order the Justice Department to launch an investigation into the Obama Administration's ties to Iran, Russia or any other hostile foreign government from whom the wiretapped communications were gathered. According to Democrats and Establishment Republicans, having "ties" to a foreign government is now considered the appropriate subject of an all out inquiry. In short, let the rivers of unlimited surveillance flow, drowning the entire political establishment. After all, Trump was elected to either fix Washington, or burn it to the ground. He may simply choose the latter.
Or maybe, just maybe, after a difficult election, we can cease fire.
No comments:
Post a Comment