I don’t know about your viewing habits, but as a retiree, I find ‘staying up late’ to be anything beyond eight o’clock in the evening. I try to catch Tucker Carlson when the evening medication has not dulled my senses overmuch, but can’t say I often make it beyond the introductory monologue. Last night was interesting, since he talked about what happened to him in an operation conducted by the National Security Agency.
As an old Spook, the latest event is interesting. We talked about it in the morning Editorial Meeting, and there was general agreement about what is going on. I was taking notes, as is my old habit. The bullet points went something like this, chronologically:
1. “Tucker claims NSA copied his emails and then leaked them to the press.”
2. “Yeah, but Tucker was attempting to talk to Putin in Russia.”
3. “Well, can’t journalists or other Americans do that? Or at least try?”
4. “Sure. But anyone should be aware that contacting a Russian these days means NSA will copy those communication as an “incidental” event in their legitimate mission to monitor the Russians. After all, they are essentially copying the entire internet every day.”
5. “From what we know, there is a “two-hop” rule about directly following up on the communications of anyone swept up in an incidental collection event. Which means that everything done by someone who stumbles into a collection event can then legally be collected against.”
6. “Stop it. That sounds exactly like the way they got to the Trump campaign. They found a low-level guy who had been in contact with the Russians, opened a FISA case against him. Then, everyone who talked to him was subject to the ‘two-hop’ collection rules.”
7. “Yeah, but that guy was a CIA source against the Russians, so they knew all that. Instead, that Clinesmith guy at FBI lied on the FISA application for a warrant, saying he wasn’t a CIA asset. That would include everyone in a Presidential campaign.”
8. “Of course. The rules are that such collection is not identified by name of American citizens. You have to call them “Businessman 1” or ‘23’ or whatever.”
9. “Unless they are a national security threat, or potentially one. Then the names can be “unmasked.”
10. “By whom? Doesn’t that require a warrant to ensure that collection is in keeping with the 4thAmendment ensuring people’s papers are private without a court-issued warrant?”
11. “Samantha Powers was one who unmasked General Flynn.”
12. “The Ambassador to the UN? Because he was talking to the Russians as incoming National Security Advisor? That seems to be part of his job.”
13. “Unless you didn’t like him and wanted to tie him up in legal shenanigans for years.”
14. “So, how does that apply to some guy on television? He is hardly a national security threat.”
15. Talk stilled suddenly. Coffee cups were raised. “We still don’t know why Tucker stopped wearing bow ties.”
That is where my notes ran out, since there ensued a fairly long discussion about whether the cravats in question were hand-knotted or clip-ons like the ones Chairman Socotra used to wear. And the open question about whether anyone wearing a clip-on bow tie could be identified and targeted for warrantless electronic investigation by the Government in its search for domestic terrorists.
Given the challenges there, and whether the Chairman had talked to Tucker was a big deal, since that made anyone who talked to the Boss- which would include the entire Production staff- subject to two-hop collection rules. Even if we didn’t know what hop we could be included on, or from whom.
One of the Interns said “they” had seen the unmasking attributed to a very bright young political operative who is currently a Deputy National Security Advisor. We would type the name, but that could have consequences. We then decided to put the matter aside, like they did the last time this happened. By the same people. They obviously know the rules better than we do.
Copyright 2021 Vic Socotra
www.vicsocotra.com