Nytt

Bildet: Devin Nunes, (R) California gikk først ut og sa at det ikke var bevis for avlytting av Trump. Demokratene jublet. Under høringen i Etterretningskomiteen som Nunes ledet mandag 20 var det FBI-sjef James Comey som kunne si det samme. Mediene jublet og hans Kongresskollega fra California, Adam Schiff, strålte. Onsdag 22 gikk Nunes ut og sa han hadde fått overlevert rapporter om overvåking av Trump-leiren som ikke hadde noe med russerne å gjøre. Men han hadde ikke guts til å si det mandag. Hva foregår? Foto: Aaron P. Bernstein/Reuters/Scanpix.

Leder av etterretningskomiteen i Representantenes Hus, David Nunes, gikk onsdag ut og sa at han hadde fått vite at Trumps team var blitt overvåket, uten at det hadde noe med avlytting av russerne å gjøre.

Nunes gikk offentlig uten først å informere demokratene i komiteen, hvilket fikk dem til å gå bananas.

Det er ikke helt lett å få tak i substansen av Nunes avsløringer. Men det kan virke som det «kommer mer». I så fall kan det være at Donald Trump har sine ord i behold: Han ble avlyttet av Obama-administrasjonen.

The U.S. intelligence community incidentally collected information on members of President Trump’s transition team and the information was «widely disseminated» in intelligence reports, House Intelligence Committee Chairman Devin Nunes (R-Calif.) said Wednesday.

«I recently confirmed that on numerous occasions, the intelligence community collected information on U.S. individuals involved in the Trump transition,» Nunes told reporters.

«Details about U.S. persons involved in the incoming administration with little or no apparent foreign intelligence value were widely disseminated in intelligence community reports.»

He said that «additional names» of Trump transition officials had been unmasked in the intelligence reports and indicated that Trump’s communications may have been swept up as well.

The intelligence collected has nothing to do with Russia or the investigation into Moscow’s meddling in the 2016 presidential election, according to Nunes.

«I want to be clear — none of this surveillance was related to Russia or the investigation of Russian activities or of the Trump team,” Nunes said.

The congressman said he had viewed dozens of documents showing that the information had been incidentally collected. He said that he believes the information was all collected legally.

Her er det flere formuleringer som roper på utdyping: Etterretningen ble plukket opp incidentally – tilfeldig, og på «numerous occasions» – ved flere anledninger. Hvordan kunne det skje hvis den ikke hadde relevans for avlyttingen av russernes virksomhet? Opplysningene etterlater mange spørsmål. Nunes slipper her en antydning om at Trump og gjengen ble avlyttet, uavhengig av russer-sporet, nettopp hva Trump hevdet.

Formuleringe – «widely disseminated» – spredt i det vide og brede – tyder på at man ønsket ikke ettersporbare lekkasjer. En slik mistanke gjelder også Obama himself som tre dager før han gikk av undertegnet en executive order som gjorde at private opplysninger kunne deles melleom alle 17 sikkerhets- og overvåkingstjenstene. Hvorfor et slikt hastverk? Hva var meningen?

Nunes nevner uttrykkelig at de involvertes navn ble avslørt i rapportene, noe som er alvorlig hvis man følger reglene. Da man gjorde dette med Michael Flynn ble det regnet som et dobbelt lovbrudd.

Nunes sier han tror overvåkingen ble gjort på lovlig vis. Det rimer ikke med hva han nettopp har sagt.

The information was «legally brought to him by sources who thought we should know it,» Nunes said, though he declined to provide further detail.

Men hvorfor gikk ikke Nunes ut under høringen 20 mars og stilte spørsmål til FBI-sjef James Comey? Både Comey og NSA-sjef Mike Rogers sa det ikke var funnet bevis for Trumps påstander om avlytting. Nunes sa det samme før høringen. To dager senere går han ut og sier det motsatte. Dette rimer ikke, men fyrer opp under mistanken om at Obama-leiren skjuler noe.

Ikke rart Demokratenes Adam Schiff ble rasende. Nunes ødelegger deres opplegg. De hadde tenkt å presse Trump-administrasjonen fra skanse til skanse, men det forutsetter at alle, også republikanerne, spiller på samme lag.

Noe er råttent, skriver Roger L. Simon i pjamedia.com, og det er ikke i Danmark:

A fair amount of this happened not long before Barack Obama suddenly changed the rules regarding raw intelligence, for the first time ever allowing the NSA to share its data with 16 other intelligence agencies, thus making the dissemination of said data (i. e. leaking) many times more likely.  That was done on January 12, 2017, just three scant days before Trump’s inauguration.  Why did the then president finally decide to make that particular change at that extremely late date, rather than on one of the previous seven years and three hundred fifty-three days of his presidency?  You don’t have to be Sherlock Holmes or Watson to smell a rat.  Something’s rotten somewhere — and it’s not Denmark.

Nå må også Obama bli etterforsket, skriver Simon. Det kommer stadig flere indikasjoner på at avlytting og overvåking er ute av kontroll. Hva hvis dette har skjedd under Obama? Det kan komme til å forandre synet på hans presidency:

 We have reached a point in our history when there appears to be no privacy for anyone at any level of society, nor organizations, such as the FBI, that can be relied upon. (….)

The hatred of Trump by the media and the Democrats is so profound that rational discussion seems close to impossible. But we are headed toward being a society devoid of trust, if we don’t try.

Hvis det skulle vise seg at Trumps stab er utsatt for avlytting kan det få Watergate til å se ut som en picnic.

Edward Snowden forklarer hvordan man i NSA kan avlytte hvem som helst, ved å gå inn bakdøren, dvs via tredjeperson:

SNOWDEN: Now, if you are an American citizen and they say, “I want to look at your communications, I want to listen to this person’s phone calls and everyone they contacted,” this in theory is supposed to require a warrant. But the actual reality here is that they can do something different, and they do do this without a warrant… if they look at the other side of that communication, right? The communication that went overseas or involved a non-U.S. person in any way, that’s entirely legal. That happens without a warrant. …

If anybody at the NSA, if anybody at the FBI, wanted to review communications about President Obama, right? Like me, sitting at the NSA, I could do that simply by typing in an IP address that doesn’t even have to be the president’s IP address, right? Or if I want to search for his private email address or something like that, all I have to do is type it in the system, hit ‘enter,’ and say, “show me U.S. results for this.” This is entirely legal, so long as I’m not targeting him officially. So, I’m saying, I’m not interested in Obama, right? I’m interested in this known system that’s affiliated with Chinese cyber espionage or whatever, that just happens to be Obama’s Blackberry…

I think it is possible, based on everything we see and what we hear, there may be some indication that something like this happened on the backend, right? Where there’s been some searches that implicate not Donald Trump directly, right? Because if he had that, he’d be up on the stage waving it around on TV. …

That’s the problem. It’s not so much that this actually happened here, there, or the other, because we don’t have evidence for that. If Donald Trump wants to take this seriously, right, he needs to fix the problem that everyone in America’s communications are being collected right now without a warrant, and then going into the bucket. And they’re protected by very lax internal policy regulations, right? And this simply is not enough. If he’s worried about the fact that somebody could have been wiretapping Trump Tower, that this could have happened without a warrant, or even with a warrant, right, the problem is not, oh, you know, poor Donald Trump. You’re the president, right? You should be asking questions about, “Why was this possible in the first place, and why haven’t I fixed it?”

Listen to the entire interview on the Intercepted podcast.

Dette er hva Judge Andrew Napolitano sa på Fox News. Avsløringer kommer fra flere kanter:

Leder av NGO’en Freedom Watch, Leon Klayman, representerer en tidligere CIA- og NSA-ansatt, Dennis Montgomery, som sier han kan dokumentere at overvåkingen er ute av kontroll:

Meanwhile, this situation keeps exploding. A letter just published online alleges that not only Donald Trump has been been bugged, but the chief justice of the Supreme Court. It also avers our intelligence agencies have been engaged in systematic illegal surveillance of prominent Americans for years while lying to us consistently. But the subject of the letter, who claims to have left his contractor job at the NSA and the CIA with «47 hard drives and over 600 million pages» (of classified information), is himself accused of fraud.   So I take no stand.

 Brevet finnes på Freedom Wathc her.

Siste ord er ikke sagt.

http://thehill.com/homenews/house/325464-schiff-nunes-blindsided-me-on-trump-intel

http://thehill.com/policy/cybersecurity/325218-nunes-intelligence-community-collected-information-on-trump-transition

Mest lest

Den franske tragedie