Thread by @TimInHonolulu

1. @maddow says: "Nothing like this has ever happened before." I'm guessing recent privacy intrusions were SCA meta data orders. IMO that's not protected under the 4th Amendment.

Here is @LindseyGrahamSC learning that his phone calls were being recorded.

2. Graham starts at 1:10.

Senator Graham Enraged at Intelligence Officers if His Conversations wer... via
@YouTube

3. And to be clear, I won't be surprised to find out TFG #45 & Barr were up to no good. Surveillance and privacy rights in meta data are topics for discussion and legislation. But the fact is we spy on good people

4. all the time. And sometimes the good people are also members of Congress swept up by untargeted Title I orders and 702 as incidental collections or had voluntarily accessed compartmented top-secret materials that later leaked.

5. If I had to guess the corruption will nested in an otherwise lawful and appropriate use of the investigative tools that may be proven corrupt if it only targeting @TheDemocrats. I think that would establish a basis to say it was misused. But we don't know what happened.

6. We know just enough to become enraged, calling for Merrick Garland to be removed etc. I study propaganda and the Schmitd article reeked of grey propaganda. And it lit up the lefties like the brown acid at Woodstock.

7. I need to know -

- what kind of order was it?
- who was targeted? Mask by all but job title & political party.
- who signed the documents seeking orders? Mask names but give employer and job title. And if in @TheJusticeDept whether they were career or political appointees.

8. Properly masked this information can be provided immediately to address what I see as a firestorm that will harm our IC capabilities. For grownups who have been national security pros, feel free to chime in. I'll be happy to be told I'm wrong. @AWeissmann_ @FrankFigliuzzi1

9. Looking Stored Communications Act trying to figure out how they handled these provider meta-data requests. The best i can tell this could have been an op run by some rogue law enforcement officers and not be under DOJ at all but it would require a federal judge to sign off.

10. The way it is being described in this vague reporting I can only guess it was under this statute. law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18…
It was not via a search warrant or GJ subpoena under 2703(b) but just a run of the mill SCA secrecy order that would be granted by a federal judge.

11. Biden has been in more than 90 days so somebody in his DOJ had to reauthorize the notice delay under 2705(d). John Demers is a hold-over at the National Security Division. He's going to be a focus. And he's the person who I think may be holding hiding the galaxy.

12. Like Orion the cat from Men in Black.