Changes

::::Here's  [https://archive.org/stream/foia_Sullivan_William_C._-9/Sullivan_William_C._-9#page/n183/mode/2up/search/William+Sessions a better link], and I would recommend this page and a half Summary to any serious student of FISA. Because of the political climate of his day (1974), Sullivan, who was eyewitness to the abuses from the beginning as early as 1941, <s>was ignored. Hence today you have the modern FISA Act with all its inherent contradictions and flaws.</s> recommends a "board" which is the FISA court. But counterintelligence and security matters remained in FBI's hands.  [[User:RobSmith|RobS]]^{[[User talk:RobSmith|''CIA v Trump updated score'':CIA 3, Trump 2]]} 20:03, 21 March 2017 (EDT)

::::Here's  [https://archive.org/stream/foia_Sullivan_William_C._-9/Sullivan_William_C._-9#page/n183/mode/2up/search/William+Sessions a better link], and I would recommend this page and a half Summary to any serious student of FISA. Because of the political climate of his day (1974), Sullivan, who was eyewitness to the abuses from the beginning as early as 1941, <s>was ignored. Hence today you have the modern FISA Act with all its inherent contradictions and flaws.</s> recommends a "board" which is the FISA court. But counterintelligence and security matters remained in FBI's hands.  [[User:RobSmith|RobS]]^{[[User talk:RobSmith|''CIA v Trump updated score'':CIA 3, Trump 2]]} 20:03, 21 March 2017 (EDT)

:::::I'd be surprised if Britain's [[GCHQ]] was ''not'' wiretapping Donald Trump.  GCHQ has been wiretapping vast numbers of people since around 2010.[https://www.theguardian.com/uk/2013/jun/21/gchq-cables-secret-world-communications-nsa] [[User:Desmonduk|Desmonduk]] ([[User talk:Desmonduk|talk]]) 20:23, 21 March 2017 (EDT)

:::::I'd be surprised if Britain's [[GCHQ]] was ''not'' wiretapping Donald Trump.  GCHQ has been wiretapping vast numbers of people since around 2010.[https://www.theguardian.com/uk/2013/jun/21/gchq-cables-secret-world-communications-nsa] [[User:Desmonduk|Desmonduk]] ([[User talk:Desmonduk|talk]]) 20:23, 21 March 2017 (EDT)

::::::Indeed. There are two possibilities here. (1) They did it on their own out of concern for national security based on Trump's statements about NATO and known Russian contacts between people close to Trump. Having secured an intelligence product, they passed it along to their American counterparts who responded, "Please keep us apprised" (all totally legal). (2) As a disinterested 3rd party in a reciprocal favor agreement to skirt domestic law, controversy, and politics, as in the Diana Spencer case. [[User:RobSmith|RobS]]^{[[User talk:RobSmith|''CIA v Trump updated score'':CIA 3, Trump 2]]} 21:12, 21 March 2017 (EDT)

::::::Indeed. There are two possibilities here. (1) They did it on their own out of concern for national security based on Trump's statements about NATO and known Russian contacts between people close to Trump. Having secured an intelligence product, they passed it along to their American counterparts who responded, "Please keep us apprised" (all totally legal). (2) As a disinterested 3rd party in a reciprocal favor agreement to skirt domestic law, controversy, and politics, as the US was in the Diana Spencer case. [[User:RobSmith|RobS]]^{[[User talk:RobSmith|''CIA v Trump updated score'':CIA 3, Trump 2]]} 21:12, 21 March 2017 (EDT)