I'm having trouble reconciling some things he said with other things he said.
http://talkingpointsmemo.com/livewire/former-dni-james-clapper-no-fisa-order-trump-tower
"Obviously I can't speak officially anymore, but I will say that for the part of the national security apparatus that I oversaw as DNI there was no wiretap activity mounted against the President-elect at the time, or as a candidate, or against his campaign," he said. "I can't speak for other Title III authorized entities in the government, or a state or local entity."
So he says that his DNI didn't do it, but he can't speak for the other intelligence agencies.
But then he turns right around and appears to speak for them.
"If the FBI, for instance, had a FISA court order of some sort for surveillance, would that be information you would know?" Chuck Todd asked.
"Yes," Clapper said.
"You would be told this, if there was a FISA court order on something like this," Todd pressed.
"I would know that. Yes," Clapper replied. "Something like this, absolutely."
So he CAN'T speak for the other agencies, or he IS speaking for them? He can't have it both ways.
The other thing that I wonder about is the use of the present tense here:
"And at this point you can't confirm or deny whether that exists?" Todd asked.
"I can deny it," Clapper said.
"There is no FISA court order?" Todd pressed.
"Not to my knowledge," Clapper said.
"Of anything at Trump Tower?" Todd asked.
"No," Clapper said.
This particular denial is that
to his knowledge, no FISA warrant covering communications at Trump Tower
currently exists.
Such warrants are generally for 30 days or until the objective is achieved, whichever comes first. They can be extended, but only under certain circumstances. So if there had been a warrant issued in October, it very possibly wouldn't be active now, making this denial of knowledge of an existing warrant a true statement.
But I still keep going back to the speaking/not speaking for the FBI etc...
Thoughts?
= new reply since forum marked as read
