Last August, U.S. officials obtained a FISA warrant to wiretap the communications of Carter Page, a former foreign policy adviser to President Donald Trump. The FBI suspected Page was working as a spy on behalf of Russia, a U.S. official told the New York Times. The official, who spoke on the condition of anonymity, said the wiretap was granted by the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court, after the Justice Department provided evidence that Page might have been a mole for the Kremlin.

Previously a Moscow-based investment banker, Page is one of Trump’s former advisers many suspect FBI Director James Comey was alluding to when he said in a recent House hearing that the bureau was investigating the “nature of any links between individuals associated with the Trump campaign and the Russian government and whether there was any coordination between the campaign and Russia’s efforts.” Comey said the FBI had been probing the matter since July.

Securing a FISA warrant is no easy feat, and requires solid evidence to justify a wiretap. Usually, FISA warrants are used to surveil the communications of foreign agents, such as Russian ambassador Sergey Kislyak. For Page, the FBI pointed to two pieces of information that vindicated its suspicions about him acting as a Russian agent:

1. In 2013, Page met with a Russian man who U.S. intelligence officials identified as an undercover Russian intelligence officer. During the meeting with Page, the man was posing as a Russian businessman. Page reportedly provided the Russian agent, Victor Podobnyy, with documents pertaining to Page’s New York-based investment firm, Global Energy Capital.
2. In July 2016, after the Republican National Convention and before he left Trump’s campaign, Page traveled to Moscow to give a speech at the New Economic School. Page delivered a scathing harangue of U.S. policies toward Russia, including the sanctions imposed for its annexation of Crimea and its aggression in Ukraine.

According to the government official, the 90-day FISA warrant has been renewed more than once. Obtaining a FISA warrant is an intentionally complicated process. One of three top senior officials at the Justice Department must approve the request before it can go before the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court.

Along with Trump’s former campaign manager Paul Manafort, Page is one of Trump’s former aides whose communications with Russia have caught the attention of U.S. intelligence officials. Page, according to Trump spokeswoman Hope Hicks, had an “informal” role, and never had a private meeting with Trump. There has been no criminal charges brought against Page, and even months-long FBI investigations do not necessarily lead to charges.

For his part, Page has denied any wrongdoing. In an email to the Times on Tuesday, he said it “will be interesting to see what comes out when the unjustified basis of those FISA requests are more fully disclosed over time.” And on Wednesday, in an interview with CNN, he said, when asked if he has acted as a Russian agent: “Let’s not jump to any conclusions, and until there’s full evidence and a full investigation has been done, we just don’t know.”

Alec Siegel

Alec Siegel is a staff writer at Law Street Media. When he’s not working at Law Street he’s either cooking a mediocre tofu dish or enjoying a run in the woods. His passions include: gooey chocolate chips, black coffee, mountains, the Animal Kingdom in general, and John Lennon. Baklava is his achilles heel. Contact Alec at ASiegel@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post FBI Obtained Warrant to Wiretap Former Trump Aide Carter Page appeared first on Law Street.

In the very early hours of Saturday, President Donald Trump went on one of his characteristic Twitter rants. He accused former President Barack Obama, seemingly without providing any evidence, of wire-tapping him during the 2016 presidential election.

Terrible! Just found out that Obama had my “wires tapped” in Trump Tower just before the victory. Nothing found. This is McCarthyism!

— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) March 4, 2017

Why Does Trump Think Obama Has Wiretapped His Phones?

Well, no one is really sure. So far, POTUS has been very vague about any evidence he has for these claims. We know a Breitbart article was released on Friday that made allegations to that effect and some have hypothesized that Trump made his statements based on that article. The Breitbart piece appears to take at least some of its information from a separate Heat Street article; Heat Street is another conservative outlet. That article states that there are two separate sources confirming that the FBI got a FISA warrant granted in October, to examine the Trump campaign’s ties to Russia.

It’s unclear if Trump got that information from anywhere other than media reports. Jake Tapper tweeted:

WH officials with whom I spoke said POTUS got the info about wiretap from media – Breitbart, Levin – not from govt sources.

— Jake Tapper (@jaketapper) March 5, 2017

So, What’s a FISA Warrant?

FISA refers to the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court. It’s a “secret” tribunal that can grant warrants to monitor people related to terrorism or counter-intelligence investigations. Until 2013, FISA warrants weren’t really in the common American vernacular, but after Edward Snowden leaked classified info in 2013, the court was thrust into the national media. It was a FISA warrant that authorized the collection of information that Snowden eventually leaked.

But, it’s unclear whether the FISA warrant reported by Heat Street and Breitbart was ever actually issued. And even if it was, there’s no evidence to suggest that Obama would have been in any way behind it. Likely, it would have been the FBI or another intelligence agency that put in the request.

How Has Everyone Responded?

It’s been a bit of a mixed bag. An Obama spokesman, as well as the former Director of National Intelligence James Clapper have categorically denied the accusations. Clapper told Chuck Todd “there was no such wiretap activity mounted against the president, the president-elect at the time, or as a candidate, or against his campaign.” But he did also acknowledge that he can’t speak for “other authorized entities in the government or a state or local entity.” FBI Director James Comey also asked the Justice Department to publicly reject Trump’s allegations about the wiretap this afternoon.

Largely, reactions from other politicians have included confusion. Some Republicans have even expressed as much, making it clear that they don’t know where Trump’s claims have come from. For example, Senator Marco Rubio expressed seemingly shaky confidence that more information will become clear when he appeared on “Meet the Press,” saying:

I’d imagine the President and the White House in the days to come will outline further what was behind that accusation. The President put that out there, and now the White House will have to answer as to exactly what he was referring to.

Senator Ben Sasse stated:

The president today made some very serious allegations, and the informed citizens that a republic requires deserve more information. If without [an authorization], the President should explain what sort of wiretap it was and how he knows this. It is possible that he was illegally tapped.

Where Do We Go From Here?

The answer to that question is also very unclear. Presumably, Trump isn’t going to back off. In fact, Trump has doubled down on the allegations. Today, he called for a Congressional inquiry into the claims. So, this isn’t going to die anytime soon. Hopefully we’ll have answers soon.

Anneliese Mahoney

Anneliese Mahoney is Managing Editor at Law Street and a Connecticut transplant to Washington D.C. She has a Bachelor’s degree in International Affairs from the George Washington University, and a passion for law, politics, and social issues. Contact Anneliese at amahoney@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post What You Need to Know About Donald Trump’s Wiretap Allegations appeared first on Law Street.

Portions of a law known as the Patriot Act were allowed to expire on May 31, 2015. The Patriot Act is one of the most controversial laws in U.S. history, originating in a time of fear and later being at the heart of leaks by Edward Snowden that revealed a massive data gathering effort by the NSA of Americans’ information. Read on to learn more about what exactly the Patriot Act is, where it originated from, and the future outlook of its laws.

The Patriot Act

The Patriot Act is one of most divisive laws passed in recent history; however, like many other boogeymen, the actual details of what it entails are unclear to much of the American public. So what exactly is the Patriot Act?

What is the Patriot Act?

The USA Patriot Act or the Uniting and Strengthening America by Providing Appropriate Tools Required to Intercept and Obstruct Terrorism Act, was passed in October 2001. The act dramatically expanded the ability of the United States government to conduct surveillance and investigate citizens without their knowledge.

Unlike similar preceding pieces of legislation, this act lacked the familiar protections that preserve rights in the face of legislation; its statutes were also hard to define and limit. This was due to the speed at which the law passed through congress and was signed by President George W. Bush. The bill was passed quickly due to widespread fear mongering immediately following the 9/11 terrorist attack on U.S. soil, including on the part of Attorney General John Ashcroft who warned any delay could result in another devastating attack.  Watch the video below for more details on the Patriot Act.

Illegality

In the first legal challenge to the act, despite it being in place since 2001, a three-judge panel ruled the law illegal. The panel, however, did not say the law was unconstitutional; instead that the federal government’s mass-data collections had gone beyond what the original creators of the act envisioned when they signed it into law. This is an important distinction in that it effectively says that lawmakers have power to create such an all-encompassing law, but that the Patriot Act was no such law.

Expired Provisions

While the recent ruling may have impacted the decision to let parts of the law expire, the Patriot Act was actually created with built in sunset provisions that were designed to expire unless extended by congress. Thus, after much deliberation, key components of the act were allowed to expire. One such aspect was the so-called Lone Wolf provision, which basically allowed the U.S. intelligence system to monitor individual people even if they had no known terrorist affiliation. This clause was supposedly never used and it was only allowable against non-citizens.

Another major aspect allowed to expire was the roving wiretap. As the name implied, it allowed the surveillance network to maintain taps on any one of a person’s devices, not just a single phone.

Probably the most well-known provision of the law allowed to expire was section 215. This section was the grounds the NSA used to collect data on a large number of Americans without their express permission, even if they were not suspected of terrorism or of any other crime. This section had also been used by agencies such as the CIA and FBI to track financial records of suspected terrorists and criminals.  The video below highlights what provisions of the Patriot Act will expire and what that means, specifically in relation to section 215.

Its Future and Its Successors

While these unpopular parts of the Patriot Act were allowed to expire, a similar successor was quickly passed. Known as the Freedom Act, this new law allows for greater transparency and puts the onus for compiling phone records on companies. Additionally, the Freedom Act also requires the disclosure of how often data collection is requested and allows for more opinions from judges from the mysterious Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court.

In the aftermath of the expiration of parts of the Patriot Act and following the passage of the Freedom Act, opinions quickly poured in. While those who supported the Patriot Act claim that this has led to a degradation in U.S. security, many others actually view the two bills as essentially the same. In fact, for this latter group, the new Freedom Act does little more than privatize the collection of people’s data while offering the vaguest efforts at greater transparency. Under the Patriot Act, the NSA was compiling the data, but now the onus will fall on the telecom companies themselves. Now the companies will store the data and whenever the NSA or FBI wants to use it they will need to get a warrant from the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court.

Aside from changing who collects the data, the new law really does not do much. This new collection method may actually cost more due to private inefficiencies and also the money the government will pay the companies for their efforts. It also protects these same companies, such as AT&T, from lawsuits. Meaning, regardless of opinion, Americans may now be paying more money to spy on themselves. The video below explains the specifics of the new Freedom Act, even suggesting that it might lead to more widespread surveillance.

When the Freedom Act successfully passed through congress, despite repeated efforts by Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell, President Barack Obama immediately signed the legislation. While he and others in the government and business community lauded the new act and its potential for greater oversight and transparency, the reality remains to be seen.

The Origins of the Act

Most people associate the Patriot Act with the events of 9/11. In actuality, many of the ideas contained in the act had been debated for years but had not won the necessary support. The Patriot Act was actually the result of a compromise over another proposed bill known as the Anti-terrorism Act. Nevertheless, while the events of 9/11 did not necessarily spawn the ideas for the Patriot Act, they did serve as the catalyst to convince lawmakers that a law of that type was at last needed to prevent any further attacks.

However, how they came to this decision and how it was passed has only added fuel to the fire of those who find it controversial and even illegal. The law was originally introduced to congress by Ashcroft, who gave congress a week to pass the bill or risk the consequences of another attack. Members in both houses attempted to make changes to the law, but most were scrapped in order to meet the deadline. Certainly no one wanted to be responsible for another terrorist attack against the United States due to idleness.

While the law itself has generated controversy, extending its provision has also led to extended debates. In 2009 when it was first up for review, certain provisions were set to expire, which led to a lengthy debate and even a delayed vote. In the end, though, President Obama reauthorized the act in 2010 for one more year.

The president had another opportunity the following year, in 2011, to refuse to authorize the act or at least to add amendments. One such amendment, suggested by Senator Patrick Leahy (D-VT), called for government oversight and transparency for how the act was used by the FBI. Leahy had actually been the one leading the charge for more oversight measures for the original act, too. Despite these attempts, the amendment was ignored once more and President Obama confirmed the act yet again.

Public Sentiment

An act this controversial and requiring so much support would seem to be a likely candidate for the legislative trash heap; however, even following the disclosure made by Edward Snowden about the NSA monitoring civilians’ phones, this law is still far from unpopular. In fact, the opposite is true. In light of the act expiring, CNN polled people across party lines to gather their opinions. According to that poll, 61 percent of people felt the law should have been renewed.

Additionally, while lawmakers in Washington did not agree that the Patriot Act as it was originally constructed should be renewed, they did agree that something similar was still needed to support America’s anti-terrorism efforts. In an odd coupling, Democrats and Tea-Party Republicans united to defeat the expiring Patriot Act and then pass its successor, the Freedom Act. While the Freedom Act was overwhelmingly passed, small groups on both sides held out. On one side were those in the old-guard of Republicans, such as McConnell and Senator John McCain (R-Ariz.), who felt the Patriot Act should have been renewed as it was. Conversely, some legislators such as Senator Rand Paul (R-Ky) wanted it scrapped altogether. Paul and his like-minded supporters viewed the whole program as an example of government overreach.

The public and congress therefore still view the Patriot Act and its successor as necessary and vital to national security, even after the Snowden revelations revealed that security is coming at a cost to everyone’s privacy.

Conclusion

The Patriot Act is an extremely controversial law, passed during a time of public terror in the wake of the greatest attack on the United States in the nation’s history. The law itself gave the American intelligence community widespread powers to spy on and investigate its own citizens, without discretion and often without reason.

After much public outcry, the most contested parts of the law were allowed to die off; however, its  successor the Freedom Act guarantees nearly the same all-encompassing powers for the intelligence community, while merely shifting the effort to compile data onto communications companies. All this, even in the face of revelations, that data compiled through the Patriot Act did not aid in any major terror investigation.

Sources

Primary

Electronic Privacy Information Center: USA Patriot Act

Additional

USA Today: Here’s what happens now that the Patriot Act provisions expired

Reuters: USA Freedom Act vs. expired Patriot Act Provisions: How Do the Spy Laws Differ?

Daily Tech: Despite Support From Senator Sanders, Senator Paul Loses USA Freedom Act Fight

Politifact: Revise the Patriot Act to Increase Oversight on Government Surveillance

CNN: Six in Ten Back Renewal of NSA Data Collection

Law Street Media: NSA’s Surveillance of Americans’ Phone Conversations Ruled Illegal

NPR: NSA’s Bulk Collection of American’s Phone Data is illegal, appeals court rules

Business Insider: Obama’s Signature on the Freedom Act Reverses Security Policy That Has Been in Place Since 9/11

CNN: NSA Surveillance Bill Passes After Weeks-Long Showdown

Michael Sliwinski

Michael Sliwinski (@MoneyMike4289) is a 2011 graduate of Ohio University in Athens with a Bachelor’s in History, as well as a 2014 graduate of the University of Georgia with a Master’s in International Policy. In his free time he enjoys writing, reading, and outdoor activites, particularly basketball. Contact Michael at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Expiration of Patriot Act Reignites Security v. Privacy Debate in America appeared first on Law Street.

The largest internet companies have joined forces with top civil liberties groups to call on the White House and Congress to increase transparency surrounding the government’s controversial National Security Agency (NSA) surveillance program. Apple, Facebook and Google are among the companies that signed a letter to the feds, asking for the right to disclose information about national security data requests.

The  tech giants’ call for greater transparency represents a push back against allegations that they had a deeper involvement with the NSA’s surveillance program, PRISM, and allowed the NSA ‘direct’ access to their servers. In particular, Google has vehemently denied that they granted the government such access. Last month, Google petitioned a secret U.S national security court to soften the restrictions on the information it can reveal about the government  data requests made under Foreign Surveillance Intelligence Act (FISA), claiming such restrictions violate the company’s First Amendment rights. Microsoft also had a similar request.

Tech companies are prohibited from revealing anything about requests they receive for such information because FISA requests are classified as top secret.

[Time.com]

—

Featured image courtesy of [Mike Mozart via Flickr]

Ashley Powell

Ashley Powell is a founding member of Law Street Media, and its original Lead Editor. She is a graduate of The George Washington University. Contact Ashley at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post NSA Transparency Push: Apple, Google, Facebook Join Civil Liberties Coalition appeared first on Law Street.