No, he didn't. He said that their is an ongoing investigation into Russia that includes "any", which isn't a statement that there is or isn't any.
The Russian investigation, I would assume, will include "any" links between anyone and the Russians suspected of hacking the DCCC and Podesta. But if there are none then there are none. We already know that links had been investigated last year, but they were all ruled out.
Are we now going to debate what the word "is" means now?
I have been authorized by the Department of Justice to confirm that the FBI, as part of our counterintelligence mission, is investigating the Russian government's efforts to interfere in the 2016 presidential election and that includes 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. As with any counterintelligence investigation, this will also include an assessment of whether any crimes were committed.
They're investigating the campaign.
But if they never targeted Trump campaign staffers then nothing captured in the surveillance of the foreign entity ever elevated them to suspect status. The only reason why an intercepted communication as part of a valid FISA warrant would not spawn a warrant for surveillance of the 2nd party is if it was deemed that the communication between the campaign staffer and the the Russian was not evidence of collusion.
A FISA warrant is only required if the TARGET of the investigation is an American. If they are conducting surveillance on a known Russian intelligence agent, and George Clooney calls up the agent, then guess what? That call can be legally recorded. It's called incidental collection.
If they then said "woah, Clooney is talking to a Russian spy," they can try to get a FISA warrant to monitor all of Clooney's communications. But they don't need a warrant if George is the one calling the spy, even if they are talking constantly on the phone. And again,
after the fact they can request a warrant for Clooney's emails or other electronic communication.
And they don't necessarily need to conduct surveillance in order to conduct an investigation. Equally important, the President is not going to personally order that kind of investigation, though he may be informed about it.
What we can surmise is that there is enough evidence of some sort to justify a continuing investigation. Even if they did not collaborate with the Russians, this looks
really bad.
I believe that is correct. But at least two warrants were filed last year with FISA regarding members of the Trump campaign and assets in Trump Tower. In either case the surveillance could have already been under way when the warrant was filed.
There is a claim, in a Murdoch outlet, that someone was investigating one server in Trump Tower that had unusual communications with server(s) at a Russian bank. According to the leak, the first request was turned down; the second was crafted much more narrowly. There is no indication whatsoever this had anything to do with campaign staffers.
Well, the Trump claim was that Obama ordered a wiretap on Trump tower. Saing he had no evidence of that claim doesn't really prove much other than the three qualifiers of the claim don't coincide with reality... but two could be true and he could still truthfully say "no information to support"
Or, the whole thing is bull****.
He claimed that Obama directly ordered wiretaps on Trump Tower shortly before the election. Not true.
He claimed that a court had turned down an earlier request to wiretap Trump Tower. Not true.
He claimed that a good lawyer could put the screws to Obama. Incorrect: If it happened, it'd be federal charges for lots of people. Private attorneys would not get involved. Since it didn't happen, though: Not true.
He compared it to Nixon and Watergate, when the real issue is that his own campaign may have collaborated with Russian intelligence. Yet another example of Trump engaging in "Whataboutism" -- distract and delegitimize by attempting to draw false equivalencies.
The chances that Comey lied, or that this happened without him finding out about it, are pretty much zero. The chances that some other agency did it are also vanishingly small.
Bottom line is: Trump shot his mouth off at 6AM based on no proof, no understanding of US law, and basically no rationality whatsoever.
