of a big deal, and administration authorizing spying on, wiretapping of its political opponents. if that s not a scandal i m not sure what qualifies as one. you think about all of the years after 9/11 we had these huge debates about this surveillance power that was given the federal government and obviously that was targeting non-u.s. persons operating overseas. if this question wasn t what if this amazing power was someday turned on the political adversaries of the party in power? now it s happened and everyone seemed satisfied i noticed everyone but much of the media is more concerned with how president trump is tweeting about it and on the fact tucker: can i say one thing? you were a number that debate. if you remember if you raised her hand and said exactly what you said, what if the government turns its power on its internal opponents, new member the response you got from people? you re crazy. that was the nightmare
spying on, wiretapping of its political opponents., if that s not a scandal i m not sure what qualifies as one. you think about all of the years after 9/11 we had these huge debates about this surveillance power that was given the federal government and obviously that was targeting non-u.s. persons operating overseas. this question wasn t what if this amazing power was someday turned on the political adversaries of the party in power? now it s happened and everyone seemed satisfied i noticed everyone but much of the media is more concerned with how president trump is tweeting about it and on the fact is tucker: can i say one thing? that debate.e. if you remember if you raised her hand and said exactly what you said, what if the government turns its power on its internal opponents, new member thet response you got from people? you re crazy. that was the nightmare scenario. tucker: exactly.
administration authorizing spying on, wiretapping of its political opponents. if that s not a scandal i m not sure what qualifies as one. you think about all of the years after 9/11 we had these huge debates about this surveillance power that was given the federal government and obviously that was targeting non-u.s. persons operating overseas. if this question wasn t what if this amazing power was someday turned on the political adversaries of the party in power? now it s happened and everyone seemed satisfied i noticed everyone but much of the media is more concerned with how president trump is tweeting about it and on the fact tucker: can i say one thing? you were a number that debate. if you remember if you raised her hand and said exactly what you said, what if the government turns its power on its internal opponents, new member the response you got from people? you re crazy. that was the nightmare
foreign intelligence value with the significance and meeting of this, i need more information. and in that case they ll make request of nsa and in order to provide that additional information it will be in the ordinary job of the national security adviser. also, nsa would be making a separate determination as to whether or not it met those requirements before actually performing lastly. i kept sort of running through the thought experiment here, i m susan rice and i made some intelligence product that says foreign intelligence, someone that we re spying on, had conversation with, you know, u.s. person campaign official a and i m thinking to myself, well i think i want to know who that was and it doesn t seem crazy. right. so it certainly it s not crazy, but you wouldn t be able to unmask information just as a matter of personal curiosity. it s about whether or not you need that information in order to perform your official duty. and so that standard is a relatively high one. but it
generic identifier. the senior officials will say, hey, in order to understand the foreign intelligence value with the significance and meeting of this, i need more information. and in that case they ll make request of nsa and in order to provide that additional information it will be in the ordinary job of the national security adviser. also, nsa would be making a separate determination as to whether or not it met those requirements before actually performing lastly. i kept sort of running through the thought experiment here, i m susan rice and i made some intelligence product that says foreign intelligence, someone that we re spying on, had conversation with, you know, u.s. person campaign official a and i m thinking to myself, well i think i want to know who that was and it doesn t seem crazy. right. so it certainly it s not crazy, but you wouldn t be able to unmask information just as a matter of personal curiosity. it s about whether or not you need that information in order