Congress, Constitutional Law, Criminal law, Media, Politics, Society

Rand Paul Discloses That Another Senator Was The Subject Of Surveillance Under Obama

440px-Rand_Paul,_official_portrait,_112th_Congress_alternateThere has been comparatively little coverage of an allegation voiced by Sen. Rand Paul that another Senator confided in him that he was also subjected to surveillance under the Obama Administration.  Paul previously voiced his belief that he may have been the subject of surveillance and asked the intelligence committee for confirmation of any such evidence.   The surveillance of members of the Senate would raise extremely serious questions on the abuse of surveillance authority and threat to the independence of Congress.  If this is untrue, I would have expected a reassuring denial to be issued. Even if the Senators were not the target of surveillance, it would be highly troubling if the government monitored conversations with members of Congress.

Paul stated: “I know one other senator who’s already confided to me that he was surveilled by the Obama administration, including his phone calls.” Paul has said that he was told that he was subjected to the same type of surveillance, though it is not clear what sources Paul is referencing.

Paul warned “It’s about your own government spying on the opposition party, that would be enormous if true. I don’t know the truth. We’ve asked the intel committees, House and Senate, and I’ve also asked the White House, because there is this whole discussion of Susan Rice unmasking people.”

The last comment suggests that senators were intercepted in surveillance of third parties but then unmasked by the Administration.  Congress, as an equal branch, deserves to know the circumstances of such interceptions and any specific unmarking requests involving members.

 

97 thoughts on “Rand Paul Discloses That Another Senator Was The Subject Of Surveillance Under Obama”

  1. The problem for the Democrats is the surveillance of U.S. citizens and subsequent unmasking has already been verified to have happened. Smoke meet fire. So regardless of how adamant they are at claiming “fake news” with subsequent stories like this one, it is absolutely reasonable to expect the story is true.

    A corollary to this would be the claim that Trump and his administration are far too stupid and a threat to this country. So stupid that the entire intel community and whatever other “assets” the Left has at their service cannot find the fire to validate their smokey claims? Jonathan Gruber certainly nailed the utter gullibility (re: stupidity) of the Left.

    Speaking of unmasking: which of JT’s contributors here is actually JT himself?

  2. Another blast from the past:
    “Feinstein said neither she nor her committee’s staff were ever asked how they obtained information about the Panetta review. “In place of asking any questions, the CIA’s unauthorized search of the committee computers was followed by an allegation, which we now have seen repeated anonymously in the press, that the committee staff had somehow obtained the document through unauthorized or criminal means, perhaps to include hacking into the CIA’s computer network.”

    She also said the CIA’s acting general counsel filed a criminal report regarding committee member’s access to the document to the Department of Justice.”

    https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-switch/wp/2014/03/11/is-the-cia-spying-on-congressional-computers-heres-what-you-need-to-know/?utm_term=.dd518e5e7ccb

  3. What the article does not discuss is the topic or mere word “unmasked”. What that really means is some fart has a cover face of some sort and the mask is removed and the person is revealed.
    Rand Paul has the first name Rand. He got that from Ayn Rand. She was his mentor. Rand’s name at birth was Randall. He was called Handy Randy in high school because he would cater to the girls who wanted some hand rubbing in all the right places. Rand has some contacts with persons (creatures, not humans) who hail from Planet Marty. That planet has no relationship to Mars. Martys are creatures who come to Earth to spy on us. We had one at our grade school back in Ferguson when I was a kid. He admitted to me at a high school reunion where he was really from. This year he admitted to me that Trump was from his planet. Yeah. It goes on but I have to go climb the mast and repair a shroud at the top of the mast on my sailboat. More later.

  4. From 2014:
    “The National Security Agency on Saturday released a statement in answer to questions from a senator about whether it “has spied, or is … currently spying, on members of Congress or other American elected officials”, in which it did not deny collecting communications from legislators of the US Congress to whom it says it is accountable.”

    https://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/jan/04/nsa-spying-bernie-sanders-members-congress

  5. This “Russian Conspiracy” and “Russians hacked the election” is all based on rumors and not ONE iota of proof.

    There’s proof of surveillance that the Obama administration had by Flynn’s unmasking. It’s not unlikely that that administration was doing snooping on the other GOP candidates. The Obama administration also expanded all surveillances on the citizenry via executive fiat throughout his years in the White House. This is a simple google search. Paul’s statement shouldn’t come as a surprize.

    Rand Paul will bring proof to the table eventually, but no one will care and/or it won’t get reported on.

    I find it alarming that people want to attack Senator Paul’s message instead of taking his allegations seriously. Shame on the uninformed and the unconcerned.

  7. We need the orange-snowflake’s Hawaiian investigative team on the case; amazing what they’re finding, believe me.

  8. This is old news in the conservative press. They have moved on. Has the MSM finally caught up or is Paul repeating his charges.

  10. Turley, an unreliable senator made a claim about another senator. Is this a gossip column that you run?

    1. Democrats Wyden, Udall, Sanders, and Feinstein also complained about spying.

      2. Prairie Rose, Scalia said he was fairly certain Obama was spying on SCOTUS. This tidbit should bring out the haters.

  11. This is news? A report by one Senator of a hearsay report from another unnamed Senator of alleged surveillance… and oh yeah, Susan Rice. That makes it all true. Couldn’t be a distraction from Trump’s Russia problems could it?

    1. Enigma,..
      -When Rice claim to know nothing about the unmasking, then was found to have requested the unmaskings, then said that that they were not done for political purposes, I think that reasonable questions might come up as far as her shifting narratives.
      Once she interjected herself into the narrative in this way, and once she changes her story, it’s bound to raise some questions.

      1. Rice never claimed to know nothing about unmasking. It’s an important part of her job and she does it on a regular basis, as did everyone in her position ever. She said she never leaked and there is no evidence she did. I suspect you need to either better understand unmasking or check your news sources.

        1. Enigma…
          You can go to the transcript of the PBS Newshour interview conducted by Judy Woodruff.
          That is exactly what she said in relation to possible unmasking of those connected with the Trump campaign.
          It was a flat denial of any knowledge of this.
          When it was revealed that she had in fact requested unmasking of Trump associates, she THEN said ( in a softball interview with Andrea Mitchell) that she never leaked unmasked information for political purposes.
          Those are two distinct statements that are on the record, and that conflict with each other.

          1. I went back and reviewed the PBS transcript and articles critical of Rice from other sources. Rice never denied that she routinely unmasks individuals as part of her job. There was never any request to “show me Trump associates that have been masked.” That several “U.s Person One”s turned out to be Trump associates hardly seems unsurprising at this point given the number of them meeting and having conversations with Russian officials and others. Your two distinct statements do say different things but there is no contradiction. Nor has it even been shown that she leaked anything which she has consistently said. I think she also made stronger statements that she “never leaked anything and never would.”

            1. Nice try, Enigma.
              When the news broke that some Trump associates were swept up in surveillance of foreign actors, Rice said “I know nothing about this”.
              (that’s also the title of JT’s April 3 column).
              Spin it anyway that you like…..that flat denial by Rice was demonstrably false.
              Once it becomes public that she herself requested unmasking of Trump associates, she then….and ONLY then….changes her story to “I didn’t unmask for political purposes” and I never leaked” the information.
              I saw both interviews, but if you wish to pretend that she never gave inconsistent responses, or that the first interview and denial never happened, I’m not surprized.
              The ridiculous tribute on your blog about Susan Rice being “a fu**cking hero” tells me that you are very comfortable distorting the record.

              1. Are you saying she leaked anything at all ever? Please document. If she looked at patterns of Trump associates communicating with Russia, wouldn’t that be her job? If she leaked anything you have a point. Otherwise, not so much.

                1. Enigma….I did NOT say that Rice leaked anything….if you read what I DID say, it was that Rice denied leaking anything in her second interview.
                  Not that this should make any difference to you…your stated position is that Rice is a hero even if she did leak information.

                  1. So if Rice never leaked anything. What did she do wrong in your opinion? Rice denied leaking anything whenever asked on multiple occasions, consistently!

      1. Agreed Paul doesn’t. I can’t really say the same about Prof. Turley. Turley has been amazingly silent for one so prolific about Trump giving intelligence to the Russians. I await the piece which will accurately say when the President does it, its legal or his fallback position, “I wouldn’t have done it that way but it’s not a crime.”

  12. It certainly would be a welcome change if our government and politicians were honest with the citizenry, and with themselves for that matter.

    1. Now… THIS is a statement I can agree w/ wholeheartedly… we need to find some way to bring all of this back down to solid ground and cool things off…

  13. As i remember it, I was once unmasked after attending a Halloween Party. Whom should I blame?

  14. Hey Prof. Turley

    How come your headline on this does not discuss the “lack of evidence” to support Sen. Paul’s assertion ?

  15. My Russian dog intercepted a carrier pigeon carrying a secret message. I passed it on to an unnamed Senator, but the Senator had trouble understanding the pigeon. Seems the Senator could not tell if the pigeon was saying that there would be a coo or a coup.

  16. My wife’s second cousin works in the office of a senator whose name i am not free to disclose. And this person says that she is pretty certain that the senator was surveilled by the Obama adminisitration.

    Oh, how we need a special prosecutor!

    2. And MY wife’s third cousin’s dog peed on my leg, in Morse code, to say that Obama had unleashed (literally) a pack of surveillance dogs ….

    2. Expect the bedlam to increase as the chaotic thinking and lack of memory accelerate.

  18. I’m surprised and disappointed you put this article up the way you did…

    1. It’s all based on innuendo and rumor… and that’s it…

    2. Given the amount of strange goings on in DC, right now, how do you know the senator claiming to have been surveilled wasn’t the target of a VALID FISA warrant? You DON’T…

    3. AND… I see you can’t wait to jump to the wholly unsubstantiated position that this constitutes ‘the abuse of surveillance authority and threat to the independence of Congress’…

    One last question… if there is/was a FISA warrant involved, would the unnamed Senator & Rand be guilty of leaking classified information in an attempt to score cheap political points?

    it owuld be irresponsible to NOT speculate.

    This is ridiculous…

    2. The Republic,…
      -Have you ever checked to see how many FISA warrant requests have been denied?
      _a “valid” VISA warrant is granted in 99.9% of the cases.
      Do you know what a “rubber stamp” is?

      1. Quite frankly, whatever point you think you’re making, it has no bearing on this…

        Try again…

        1. The republic…
          YOU are the one who capitalized a “VALID FISA WARRENT” for emphasis.
          Those seem to be printed out with rubber stamps…..you seem to be fine with that, so at least I know where you’re coming from.

    3. Inuendo is permissible with Obama but must be 100 percent factually correct when it comes to Trump.

      1. The problem with that is that facts, as we understand substance in support of reality, are now giving way to ‘alternative’ facts, lies, and diversions. No one understands the fact more than Trump, that if you lie consistently and disrupt focus when caught, the people will be confused enough to need to rely on their concept of ‘loyalty’. Lots of people took their countries in catastrophic directions on loyalty to their leader. And when a minion won’t declare loyalty for the leader over loyalty for the country; well you fire him.

  19. Denial by whom? The last time allegations of this sort were made, it was Comey who denied them but as Trump fired him last week, I doubt he had a chance to comment. Also, it’s quite understandable that the media overlooked the charge considering the extraordinary circumstance of the President firing the FBI Director last week.

  20. Why is this article here? The article does not attack Trump, so it is not worthy of publication. I demand ONLY fake news attacking Trump—and lots of it!

      1. No, I refuse. My demands must be met or I will hack into this blog and compel obedience.

Comments are closed.