If the White House spied on the FBI, theres a problem

[babylonsister]

Posted with permission.

http://www.msnbc.com/rachel-maddow-show/if-the-white-house-spied-the-fbi-theres-problem

If the White House spied on the FBI, there’s a problem
03/31/17 01:12 PM—Updated 03/31/17 01:18 PM
By Steve Benen


The latest available information sheds quite a bit of light on who leaked sensitive information to House Intelligence Committee Chairman Devin Nunes (R-Calif.), as part of his effort to bolster one of Donald Trump’s conspiracy theories. Yesterday we learned the names of three of the Republican congressman’s sources, each of whom are senior White House officials, including the National Security Council’s top lawyer.

One of the questions hanging over this is why, exactly, these White House officials were reviewing these intelligence materials in the first place.

Keep in mind, according to Nunes’ vague descriptions of the information leaked to him, he was presented with intercepted surveillance that related in some way to Trump transition officials. (According to the New York Times’ reporting, the communications “consisted primarily of ambassadors and other foreign officials talking about how they were trying to develop contacts within Mr. Trump’s family and inner circle in advance of his inauguration.”)

But why were the White House officials reviewing the surveillance in the first place? Rachel noted on the show last night that Barton Gellman, a longtime investigative reporter covering national security, wrote a piece for the Century Foundation raising the possibility that the Trump White House was effectively spying on the FBI during the bureau’s counter-intelligence investigation.

{W}hy would a White House lawyer and the top White House intelligence adviser be requesting copies of these surveillance reports in the first place? Why would they go on to ask that the names be unmasked? There is no chance that the FBI would brief them about the substance or progress of its investigation into the Trump campaign’s connections to the Russian government. Were the president’s men using the surveillance assets of the U.S. government to track the FBI investigation from the outside?

Those are very good questions. I’d initially assumed the White House officials went looking for something to substantiate Trump’s wiretap conspiracy theory, but consider this detail from the Washington Post’s report:

{Ezra Cohen-Watnick, the senior director for intelligence at the National Security Council,} gathered the cases of incidental collection on Trump campaign operatives after arriving at the NSC. One official said Cohen did so as part of research unrelated to Trump’s wiretapping tweet. Instead, the official said, Cohen was assembling materials out of concern that intelligence information on U.S. persons was being shared too widely and that unmasking rules were being abused.

The New York Times’ report said something similar: Cohen-Watnick “came upon the information as he was reviewing how widely intelligence reports on intercepts were shared within the American spy agencies.”

In other words, this wasn’t about Trump’s odd conspiracy theory; it looks like White House officials snooping into snooping – during an ongoing FBI investigation.

As Rachel recommended on the show last night, “Do keep an eye on this question about the National Security Council staffers and White House counsel staffers. If they really were reviewing raw FBI intercepts of foreign surveillance involving members of the Trump transition, why were they reading that stuff? And is it possible that the White House has been tracking the FBI probe into the Trump-Russia scandal? Using the intelligence community’s capacities, using the surveillance capacities of the U.S. government in order to track the investigation into themselves? If so, I really don’t know what the fix is for that.”

One last thing. White House Counsel Don McGahn wrote a letter to the House Intelligence Committee’s leaders yesterday, referring to materials uncovered “in the ordinary course of business.” It’s not entirely clear if he was talking about the same intelligence shared with Nunes, but if so, I’ll look forward to hearing McGahn explain his definition of “ordinary course of business.”

[gratuitous]

1. Man, trying to pick pebbles out of this avalanche is tough

That last item about the White House Counsel has a very tantalizing phrase ("in the ordinary course of business&quot , and Benen is right to pick it out. It's a phrase more at home in civil litigation, e.g., employer liability for an employee's actions. It points up, once again, how this White House conducts itself along the lines of business and not government. Government shouldn't be run "like a business," and especially not like President Trump's businesses which had a tendency to go bankrupt from time to time, even the casinos, if you can believe that.

[babylonsister]

2. I'm just trying to keep up with all this; it's not easy. nt

[thomson55]

3. what is all this

am just weid

[Mr. Ected]

4. The scary thing is Rachel said, more than once,

"I don't know what the fix is for that".

In other words, what rule would the WH have violated if they did, indeed, spy on the FBI and track the investigation? And what punishment? Rachel doesn't seem to know...and Rachel seems to know EVERYTHING. She's quite bright.

[babylonsister]

5. I agree, that was alarming as was her demeanor.

I hope someone out there has a solution; maybe add some new rules?

[KingCharlemagne]

6. At best, obstruction of justice. At worst, obstruction of justice. Verily, I say

unto you: It was the best of times. It was the worst of times.

[bettyellen]

7. The thing is there seems to be very little that can be done against an abuse of exec privilege-

We're all learning how much it was norms and standards keeping the executive office from abusing its power and there are not enough checks and balances or laws that can be enforced. It's horrifying.