What definition of “legality” are you using here? I ask because you sure as shit aren’t referring to American law, which very clearly and by explicit design created the FISC, secrecy and all. As for “without a court order,” Trump could not have been legally targeted under section 1802. Edit: or do you think this has to do with emergency surveillance for a warrant that was later not authorized? Any actual reason to believe this?
Relatedly, do you believe that the FISC ought to begin conducting its business in public? Do you believe that suspected foreign agents should be notified of FISA warrants by which they are named?
Of course Trump is using tap-gate as a distraction from the issues with Russia, but also to deflect attention from at least two other reversals we’re seeing early this week: his watered down immigration restriction order, which is a humiliating defeat, and the fact that he’s breaking his promise on using domestic steel in the construction of the pipeline.
Of course. Fortunately there’s a BS response already in existence. The language of Trump’s order only applies to FUTURE pipelines (from my layman’s reading).
Which means either he didn’t mandate the current pipeline use US steel like promised, or he left it open ended to give himself an out.
It’s not that I’m trying to be a dick to a wounded warrior, it’s that you cannot apply the law against some and not against others. Otherwise you don’t have rule of law.
If you think the law should be amended for cases such as these that’s fair but a different point.