there were profits or other methods of conducting that conspiracy that were concealed. so i think that that s likely. but it s important to note here, katy, that manafort actually was compromised in two separate kinds of investigations. the fisa process that we saw reporting about last night is a means of surveillance of suspected foreign activity. activity conducted on behalf of a foreign government. and that s not the type of surveillance that you typically hear prosecutors talk about when they are discussing wiretaps. wiretaps obtained under title iii are a mechanism used in order to drive evidence, to listen to conversations in real time and prosecutors have to satisfy a federal judge that there s probable cause to believe that the phone in question is being used to conduct criminal activity. evidence can cross over from a fisa investigation into a criminal one under certain circumstances, but i think it s
wires tapped in trump tower. just before the victory, nothing found. this is mccarthyism. is it legal for a sitting president to be wiretapping a race for election? a new low. two others. here is the former dni on meet the press . there was no such wiretap activity mounted against the president. the president-elect of the time come as a candidate, or against his campaign. i can t speak for other title iii authorized entities in the government or a state or local entity. i was just going to say, if the fbi had a fisa court order for surveillance, without the information you would know or not? yes. you would be told? i would know. we did not include any evidence in our report, i see our, nsa, fbi, and cia, with our office, director of national intelligence, that had anything,
the time or as a candidate or against his campaign. i cannot speak for other title iii authorized entities in the government or a state or local if the fbi had some sort of order for surveillance, without the information you would know? yes, i would know that. you would know if there was r fisa order if it did exist.it i can deny it. sean: contradicting himself. james clapper yesterday at meet the press, we continue with the great one, mark levin. obama gives a statement that says they did not order it. but that does not mean he doesn t know it. he puts all these caveats here, clapper does, i can t officially let me take it differently. i accept everything james clapper said. it contradicts every piece of
such wiretapped activity mounted against the president elect at the time or as a candidate or against his campaign. i cannot speak for other title iii authorized entities in the government or a state or local if the fbi had some sort of order for surveillance, without the information you would know? yes, i would know that. you would know if there was a fisa order if it did exist. i can deny it. sean: contradicting himself himself. james clapper yesterday at meet the press, we continue with the great one, mark levin. obama gives a statement that says they did not order it. but that does not mean he doesn t know it. he puts all these caveats here, clapper does, i can t officially let me take it differently.
administration is turning to congress for help. finding evidence to support his claim that former president obama had telephones that trump tower tapped during the election. we should point out that president trump has offered no proof so far. now, fbi director james comay is taking his concerns about it to the justice department. the new york times wants him to set the record straight because the president s claim imply the agency broke the law. president obama said intelligence chief says is is not truth. i will say for the parts of the national security apparatus that i oversaw is dni, there was no such wiretap activity mounted against the president-elect at the time or as a candidate, or against his campaign. i cannot speak for other title iii authorized entities in the government. harris: leyland begins our coverage from the white house. this sounds like a case case of the fbi shouting, tell them we did not break the law.