There were in fact two different headlines on the online and print versions of the article, which is typical. At no point was either headline altered. Times headlines often differ in print and online....It's still true that the NYT said "Wiretapped data used in inquiry of Trump aides." Why they changed it, who knows? Qiu refers to what is "typical" and "often" happens, yet we can't know exactly why what happened in this case happened. But it could have changed for some neutral reason. [ADDED THE NEXT MORNING: I can see I've written this confusingly, saying "changed" when Qiu's point is that nothing was ever changed. I only mean that the print headline was written and for some reason, a different/changed headline was written for the web. Qiu has taken pains to show that the web headline wasn't belatedly tweaked to eliminate the hot word "wiretapped."]
Liu writes that Trump was "misleading" to say that the Times said that "wiretap data" was "used in inquiry of Trump aides." "Misleading" is NOT the same as false, so Liu really is admitting that it was true. The reason it's misleading, according to Liu, is that the article doesn't say that "Mr. Obama ordered surveillance on him." Did Trump say Obama ordered surveillance on him? There's no Trump quote to that effect, and it makes me suspicious that Trump is being paraphrased to confine him to what can be refuted, which — talk about misleading! — feels very misleading. See:
The Times reported that there were intercepted conversations involving Mr. Trump’s associates, but it did not report that they or Mr. Trump were the subject of wiretap orders. To date, The Times has not found evidence of that.What seems to have happened is that that the official targets were other than Trump people, but that Trump people got swept in, and these people were legally entitled to protection from surveillance. Here's how Liu (misleadingly?) puts it:
American intelligence agencies typically monitor the communications of foreign officials of allied and hostile countries, and so they routinely sweep up any conversations between American citizens and those officials — called “incidental collection.”That sounds like a concession that Flynn was wiretapped! He may not have been the original target or the official target, but he got swept in, and we shouldn't even know about that. But there was a leak, and wasn't the leak targeted on him — a gross violation of law designed to take him down? I can't believe we're nitpicking Trump's use of the term "wiretapped" rather that outraged about a shocking abuse of power for political purposes.
For example, it is routine for F.B.I. counterintelligence officials to keep the Russian ambassador under surveillance. Therefore, when Michael T. Flynn, Mr. Trump’s former national security adviser, spoke on the phone with the Russian ambassador during the presidential transition, the government intercepted that conversation because it was wiretapping the ambassador.
Mr. Trump claimed he used the word “wiretapping” as a broad definition of surveillance.
“Now remember this. When I said wiretapping, it was in quotes. Because a wiretapping is, you know today it is different than wire tapping. It is just a good description. But wiretapping was in quotes.”
This is misleading. Mr. Trump did put the word in quotes in two of his tweets, but explicitly accused Mr. Obama of wiretapping his phones.
Many words are dead metaphors, and "wiretapped" may be one, whether it's in quotes or not. Who cares if there were "wires" that were "tapped"? It's like looking for eaves when someone is said to be eavesdropping. I think the stress on the word "wiretapped" is part of an effort to say that some other party was targeted — some foreign official was listened in on — and that caused the overhearing of some Trump-associated persons. There was a wiretap, but the wires tapped (metaphorically) were not a Trump associate's.
But to use that opportunity — that wiretap — to listen in is a terrible infringement on the non-target, and the law required the protection of these non-targets from an invasion of their privacy. Instead, the leakers did the opposite and took advantage of what they heard and deliberately exposed what they were legally required to mask. That's what I gather from Liu's article anyway.
Why doesn't the NYT care about this problem!
Posts
232 comments:
«Oldest ‹Older 201 – 232 of 232Aside from his mendacious and annoying personality, our life long Moby gets a "D" for reading comprehension, an "F" for analytical reasoning and a "A" for sophistry.
When I taught college students with Chuck's "skills" I would suggest that they pursue a less intellectually rigorous line of work.
Vichy Chuck "If I moderated these Comments pages, you'd have been gone a long time ago."
This is why you will and must never be in a position of power.
Also, to keep Greta Van Susteren safe.
Francisco D said...
Aside from his mendacious and annoying personality, our life long Moby gets a "D" for reading comprehension, an "F" for analytical reasoning and a "A" for sophistry.
When I taught college students with Chuck's "skills" I would suggest that they pursue a less intellectually rigorous line of work.
So explain what part I got wrong, in your much-deserved keelhauling. Do it in detail, because you started this and I want to finish it. "Mendacity," my ass, you worthless shithead. You screwed the pooch on what everybody else here knew that I was communicating. You fucked it up.
Now be specific, or apologize.
"Now be specific, or apologize."
Vichy Chuck is in no position to make demands of anyone. Be careful though, he may resort to fantasizing about giving you the Greta Van Susteren treatment.
But that there was context! I was pissed about something going on, on the Comments pages (yet more personal insults of me, no doubt, which were probably on the extreme side at that moment) and I unwisely published that comment instead of taking the deep breath that I should have taken.
Yes, of course, context is everything when it's about your comments, but there's no context at all in Trump's case. Thanks for clarifying (that you're not even honest with yourself, that is).
When I never initiated any attacks on anyone here, what gives Althouse commenters any basis to attack me personally?
What attacks did Donald Trump initiate on you that gives you the basis to attack him personally? Or is that just another example of how things are different when you do it?
(And at the risk of overstating the obvious that you seem incapable of accepting because it doesn't match your prejudices, very few people see Trump as some sort of role model. Most people don't feel this hysterical compulsion to bore people to tears with your relentlessly deranged preening mental masturbation. That's why people attack you.)
Francisco D said...
Aside from his mendacious and annoying personality, our life long Moby gets a "D" for reading comprehension, an "F" for analytical reasoning and a "A" for sophistry.
When I taught college students with Chuck's "skills" I would suggest that they pursue a less intellectually rigorous line of work."
"lifelong republican" Chuck: "So explain what part I got wrong, in your much-deserved keelhauling. Do it in detail, because you started this and I want to finish it. "Mendacity," my ass, you worthless shithead. You screwed the pooch on what everybody else here knew that I was communicating. You fucked it up. Now be specific, or apologize."
I would also have to assign an "A" for uncontrolled aggression and delusions of grandeur to our "lifelong republican".
Lot's going on there....
Pookie Number 2 said...
But that there was context! I was pissed about something going on, on the Comments pages (yet more personal insults of me, no doubt, which were probably on the extreme side at that moment) and I unwisely published that comment instead of taking the deep breath that I should have taken.
Yes, of course, context is everything when it's about your comments, but there's no context at all in Trump's case. Thanks for clarifying (that you're not even honest with yourself, that is).
When I never initiated any attacks on anyone here, what gives Althouse commenters any basis to attack me personally?
What attacks did Donald Trump initiate on you that gives you the basis to attack him personally? Or is that just another example of how things are different when you do it?
(And at the risk of overstating the obvious that you seem incapable of accepting because it doesn't match your prejudices, very few people see Trump as some sort of role model. Most people don't feel this hysterical compulsion to bore people to tears with your relentlessly deranged preening mental masturbation. That's why people attack you.)
I wasn't talking to you, and now you've added nothing to this.
Trump is the President, a public figure and public official and I am going to write whatever the fuck I want to, about him.
And now that you have attacked me personally, I am going to consider you fair game too.
Democrats are public figures too.
Just so you know.
LOL
Trump is the President, a public figure and public official and I am going to write whatever the fuck I want to, about him.
You big brave hero, you. That's almost as impressive as your almost serving.
And now that you have attacked me personally, I am going to consider you fair game too.
Knock yourself out, champ. Maybe there's still a person on the planet who doesn't know what a precious loser you are.
So, back to the topic at hand, what did obama know about his administrations wiretapping (according to the NYT) and when did he know it?
Chuck,
I think you are making a mistake re Trump's wiretapping statement in that if he believed that Obama set things in motion to undermine his Presidency he chose to make a bold statement to force public discussion to veer in that direction. It seems to have worked. Had he not said anything the Democrats machine would have been controlling the narrative. Whether he and his crew are that clever or his combative nature fits what is needed at this point in time might be a point for discussion, but there is little doubt in my mind the Obama crew is quite capable of spying on him for nefarious reasons. If he cannot root out what is going on his Presidency will be crippled.
pacwest said...
Chuck,
I think you are making a mistake re Trump's wiretapping statement in that if he believed that Obama set things in motion to undermine his Presidency he chose to make a bold statement to force public discussion to veer in that direction. It seems to have worked. Had he not said anything the Democrats machine would have been controlling the narrative. Whether he and his crew are that clever or his combative nature fits what is needed at this point in time might be a point for discussion, but there is little doubt in my mind the Obama crew is quite capable of spying on him for nefarious reasons. If he cannot root out what is going on his Presidency will be crippled.
My God, it is so nice to get a question/comment/criticism that doesn't involve a personal attack.
Very respectfully, My response to you is that I don't think it is a binary thing. That Trump must either keep silent, or explode on Twitter.
There is a middle ground. Wherein, if he has a basis in some hard intel or some important information from respected intel service staff, Trump could make a careful statement that a team of lawyers helps him draft. So that it is accurate, and meaningful, and defensible.
It is clear to me -- and I hope it is clear to you -- that Trump's own version of this story is that he read something in the media. Hunh?!? The President of the United States is making allegations of his predecessor "wiretapping" him and possibly being a "sick" guy, based on a media report?!?
Trump should not:
a) Be tossing around loose allegations like "wiretapping" without clear proof;
b) Engaging in trashtalk like Obama being a "sick" guy;
c) Tweeting such reckless language, without supervision or advice of counsel;
d) Basing such significant claims on any media.
Hell, Trump is the King of media criticism. He loves telling everybody about how often "the failing New York Times" gets it wrong. So why base an explosive claim of "wiretapping" on a headline, or a single line of a story, in the failin New York Times?
We can respectfully disagree, and in your case I like that it is mutually respectful.
pacwest said...
Chuck,
I think you are making a mistake re Trump's wiretapping statement in that if he believed that Obama set things in motion to undermine his Presidency he chose to make a bold statement to force public discussion to veer in that direction.
The mistake is assuming that Obama was not involved. He micromanaged everything the WH did. Not only that we have the executive he signed allowing the NSA to share unredacted intelligence with 16 agencies.
Obama is clearly involved.
Chuck said...
In no particular order
If I moderated these Comments pages, you'd have been gone a long time ago.
More proof you are no republican or "conservative."
Now be specific, or apologize.
I just posted this for the laughs.
And now that you have attacked me personally, I am going to consider you fair game too.
Is Barron a public figure too? Pedaling rumors of autism of a 10 year old are probably the worst thing you have done here. Your justifications are a joke. You are a nasty disingenuous person.
I don't particularly care about all of the personal insults you have sent my way. But it is funny to watch you pretend like you don't viciously attack people as a normal matter of course.
@ Chuck, so called
You are a hard habit to break, bro. The comedy value alone makes you a valuable commodity to this community. Don't ever change. You're the methamphetamine of commenters. I mean, sure, if we followed your advice we'd lose everything we hold dear, like the presidency, but who can doubt your lifelong sincerity?
In a world full of people who don't want to be "that guy" it is comforting to know that "that guy" is out there and he is so called Chuck.
"So, back to the topic at hand, what did obama know about his administrations wiretapping (according to the NYT) and when did he know it?"
I don't think that Obama knew, and don't think it matters. He has almost complete immunity from prosecution for whatever he did as President. He could have sold or given our state of the art nuclear weapons to the Iranians, or the North Koreans, and the sole remedy is impeachment, which became moot when he left office. Contrary to Achilles, I just don't think that he was involved enough, and likely has plausible deniability in any case. The two whom I suspect are at the top of the plot are Valerie Jarrett, his closest advisor, and former AG Lynch, who oversaw the DoJ attys obtaining the FISA warrants, approved the expansion of the access to the raw FISA intel, and was Comey's boss, whose agency apparently did most of the interceptions (and, thus owned the intel, and controlled the unmasking). And they are not immune to prosecution.
Achilles said...
...
Is Barron a public figure too? Pedaling rumors of autism of a 10 year old are probably the worst thing you have done here. Your justifications are a joke. You are a nasty disingenuous person.
I might say, that nobody here is gullible enough to believe your shit. But there are a handful or two of people here, who have demonstrated themselves gullible enough to belive Trump's shit, which I'd have to say is even stinkier than your shit.
Before I ever wrote one single word about Barron Trump on this blog, he had been the subject of a YouTube video, a legal threat and a public statement by attorneys for Barron and Melania Trump, a public dispute involving Rosie O'Donnell, and a wide variety of stories on a number of main stream media websites, including US magazine and Forbes.com.
Against that backdrop, and having done little more than to observe the existence of those facts in the context of Donald Trump's saying some amazingly ridiculour things about vaccines and autism, your attack on me for "[p]edaling [sic; you meant "peddling"] rumors" is plainly invalid. I didn't peddle any rumors. I observed the existence of other stories, and a statement put out by the Trump lawyers themselves.
Remember that every time you try in vain to beat me up with this story, a number of new readers see it, and think, "Huh? Barron Trump is autistic? I never heard that." And then they go to Google, which is why when you enter Barron's name, "barron trump autism" is likely to populate your search field.
Blogger Chuck said...
My God, it is so nice to get a question/comment/criticism that doesn't involve a personal attack.
Calling someone like you out for arguing in bad faith is necessary. It is only personal because you start the argument out from a position of bad faith.
Very respectfully, My response to you is that I don't think it is a binary thing. That Trump must either keep silent, or explode on Twitter.
You clearly cannot discuss anything related to Trump respectfully.
There is a middle ground. Wherein, if he has a basis in some hard intel or some important information from respected intel service staff, Trump could make a careful statement that a team of lawyers helps him draft. So that it is accurate, and meaningful, and defensible.
Everything Trump said is being proven true. The stories were all over the media. It was clear what was going on and that intelligence was being leaked. "Wire-tapp" was in more than one headline and story in the media.
It is clear to me -- and I hope it is clear to you -- that Trump's own version of this story is that he read something in the media. Hunh?!? The President of the United States is making allegations of his predecessor "wiretapping" him and possibly being a "sick" guy, based on a media report?!?
A media that has been colluding, love that word, with Obama, Hillary, and the democrats for decades.
Trump should not:
a) Be tossing around loose allegations like "wiretapping" without clear proof;
Why not? His opponents including you have been talking about Russian Connections without even a hint of proof for months.
b) Engaging in trashtalk like Obama being a "sick" guy;
Why not? Obama is using government surveillance against political opponents. Sounds sick to me.
c) Tweeting such reckless language, without supervision or advice of counsel;
Spare me the lawyer garbage. This condescension is a top 3 reason why it is such a despised profession.
d) Basing such significant claims on any media.
Again Democrats and lifelong republicans have been doing it with the Russia story for months.
Hell, Trump is the King of media criticism. He loves telling everybody about how often "the failing New York Times" gets it wrong. So why base an explosive claim of "wiretapping" on a headline, or a single line of a story, in the failin New York Times?
You are just mad he is using the left's own tactics against them and not just taking these attacks like the losers Romney and McCain did. Trump's biggest problem for you people is he fights back against your lies.
We can respectfully disagree, and in your case I like that it is mutually respectful.
You are grasping tenaciously at that last glimpse of respectability. Keep pretending you are here in good faith.
Trump should not:
a) Be tossing around loose allegations like "wiretapping" without clear proof;
We disagree on this point. I believe the intelligence agencies are tilted just like much of the deep state, and this is his method of calling it out. I doubt if anything but a strong investigation will bring out President Trump's logical suspicions.
b) Engaging in trashtalk like Obama being a "sick" guy;
We agree. Foreign policy tweets like this especially bother me. There are some reckless actors out there looking for an excuse.
c) Tweeting such reckless language, without supervision or advice of counsel;
As near as I can gather his tweets are not only closely monitored by his crew, but initiated by them in many cases. Control the topics of discussion.
d) Basing such significant claims on any media.
Here is where I think you and a lot of others are missing something. Public opinion is totally shaped by media. I think he his being very smart by making himself in a sense one of the "talking heads" of the current topics.
@ Bruce Hayden
If what you say is true, that the only remedy against a president for actions taken while president, why did President Ford pardon former president Nixon? I think you're taking a lot for granted in your argument.
In fact, if we believe Judge Gorsuch, no man is above the law. And if Obama operated to deprive people of their civil liberties he is no better than another Democrat: George Wallace.
pacwest said...
..
...
As near as I can gather his tweets are not only closely monitored by his crew, but initiated by them in many cases. Control the topics of discussion.
I have never heard that. Not from any authoritative source. There are some, for which I'd believe it. For these "wiretap" Tweets, I don't believe it. Not at all. Not with the misspellings and weird usages. Particularly not at 6:00 am on a Saturday morning.
I'd be genuinely interested in any inside info on this.
I'm a lazy guy when it comes to providing links, but I heard it on TV from one of his staff. Spicer if I remember right. Ymmv of course since it came from a staffer.
Bruce Hayden said...
Contrary to Achilles, I just don't think that he was involved enough, and likely has plausible deniability in any case.
He had to sign this order personally
Additionally there are going to be a lot of people who broke federal law multiple times facing 10 years per violation who will be facing 20+ years in jail who can point the finger for a lighter sentence.
Plausible deniability or not people are going to learn the NSA collects everything we do without the need for a warrant that is not on a landline and now they can hand it out unredacted to 16 other agencies.
And Chuck and others who are following this old thread-- I personally have no reason not to believe Chuck when he says he is a Republican. Just look at Bill Crystal. Does anyone believe he has not been a life long Republican? You want a big tent? Expect disention.
pacwest said...
And Chuck and others who are following this old thread-- I personally have no reason not to believe Chuck when he says he is a Republican. Just look at Bill Crystal. Does anyone believe he has not been a life long Republican? You want a big tent? Expect disention.
Bill Kristol ;-)
I'm a better Republican than Billy Crystal ;-)
pacwest said...
And Chuck and others who are following this old thread-- I personally have no reason not to believe Chuck when he says he is a Republican. Just look at Bill Crystal. Does anyone believe he has not been a life long Republican? You want a big tent? Expect dissension.
Dissension is what is happening in the house at the moment. But when you talk about a "big tent" it only gets minimally smaller when you kick out the 1000 or so DC republican talking heads and GOPe congress critters who have been serving the CoC. We are talking about the open borders "free" trade neocon crowd who wanted Obamacare and are still fighting to keep it.
Romney passed Obamacare in his state before Obama did. The last major entitlement passed before Romneycare was passed by George W. Bush in the for of Medicare part B. Republicans have balanced exactly 0 budgets since Newt Gingrich pulled DC kicking and screaming to a fake balance budget in 1999. And look at what the GOPe did to Newt after that.
Fuck the large tent. The open borders war everywhere wing of the GOPe can go join Hillary and the other Oligarch pets in the DNC and take the Bush's with them. We will be just fine with the trade unions and working class voters that are leaving the Democrat party.
Achilles,
Just so you know, I'm so unreasonably fiscally conserative it would make most people's skin crawl. Eliminate ALL entitlements.
You think you can go it alone? Good luck with that!
Achilles:
The GOP leadership, the establishment portion of the GOP; they all worked with Trump and were prepared to vote for the bill that Trump supported and wanted passed.
It was the Teabag Wing; the Congressional Limbaugh Caucus; the Hannity Guest List; those were the guys who derailed Trump's promised "something really wonderful" Obamacare replacement.
Hannity's got nobody to blame. Trump says Ryan worked really hard and did a good job. Ryan advised Trump to let him pull the bill, when too many Freedom Caucus members declined to support the bill. And Trump agreed with Ryan.
It's not the "establishment GOP that blew this up. It was farthest far- righties.
"lifelong republican" Chuck: "It's not the "establishment GOP that blew this up. It was farthest far- righties."
Next time perhaps Ryan might consider bringing the conservatives in earlier and letting them work on developing the base bill instead of doing it behind closed doors and then walking out and tossing the bill on the table and saying "take it or leave it".
The result might not have been any different, but we'll never know now, will we?
Chuck said...
It's not the "establishment GOP that blew this up. It was farthest far- righties.
They are the only people in DC who seem to understand what the word insurance means. Apparently "moderate" republicans felt like they had to keep the mandate to cover pre-existing conditions. At this point I think living in DC just makes people wrong somehow. Not really stupid but there is just something wrong with the place.
Ryan F'd this up. But to be honest I think it was all planned from the start. I think Trump wanted it to die to a Democrat filibuster. He has said in speeches that if he was smart politically he would just let it crash and let the democrats rightfully take the blame.
Obamacare is a massive drag on the economy but they should have dealt with the debt ceiling, budget, and tax reform first anyhow and waited for the democrats to force the nuclear option. As it is we are switching over to a 1099 economy anyways.
pacwest said...
Achilles,
Just so you know, I'm so unreasonably fiscally conserative it would make most people's skin crawl. Eliminate ALL entitlements.
You think you can go it alone? Good luck with that!
I am aware of where we are and where we are going. Health care is not that big of a deal really. Almost everyone alive today will make it to the point where not even DC can fuck it up anymore.
If you watch the movie Prometheus the auto-surgeon machine they depicted is not far off. 10 years to prototype 20 years in most houses is my guess. Computers are already more effectively diagnosing many medical issues and it will be a matter of years before that covers everything. Many surgeries are being done with robots. As they are more accurate and consistent and don't ever leave things inside people on accident and are harder to sue ensuing generations will trust them more than humans.
Post a Comment