ShareThis Page
World

Justice Department asks for more time on wiretapping evidence

| Monday, March 13, 2017, 5:09 p.m.
White House press secretary Sean Spicer speaks during the daily press briefing at the White House in Washington, Monday, March 13, 2017. Spicer discussed surveillance during the 2016 presidential campaign, North Korea, anti-Semitic attacks and other topics. (AP Photo/Andrew Harnik)
White House press secretary Sean Spicer speaks during the daily press briefing at the White House in Washington, Monday, March 13, 2017. Spicer discussed surveillance during the 2016 presidential campaign, North Korea, anti-Semitic attacks and other topics. (AP Photo/Andrew Harnik)

WASHINGTON — Facing a Monday deadline, the Justice Department asked lawmakers for more time to provide evidence backing up President Trump's unproven assertion that his predecessor wiretapped his New York skyscraper during the election. The request was made as the White House appeared to soften Trump's explosive allegation.

The House intelligence committee said it would give the Justice Department until March 20 to comply. That's the date of the committee's first open hearing on the investigation into Russia's interference in the 2016 election and possible contacts between Trump associates and Russia.

A spokesman for the committee chairman said the panel might use its subpoena power to gather information if the Justice Department doesn't meet the new deadline.

“If the committee does not receive a response by then, the committee will ask for this information during the March 20 hearing and may resort to a compulsory process if our questions continue to go unanswered,” said Jack Langer, a spokesman for Rep. Devin Nunes, R-Calif. Trump's assertions have put his administration in a bind. Current and former administration officials have been unable to provide any evidence of the Obama administration wiretapping Trump Tower, yet the president's aides have been reluctant to publicly contradict their boss.

White House spokesman Sean Spicer tried to clarify Trump's comments Monday, saying the president wasn't using the word wiretapping literally, noting that Trump had put the term in quotation marks.

“The president used the word wiretap in quotes to mean broadly surveillance and other activities,” Spicer said. He also suggested Trump wasn't accusing former President Obama specifically, but instead referring to the actions of the Obama administration.

Trump has not commented on the matter since his March 4 tweets, in which he said he had “just found out that Obama had my ‘wires tapped' in Trump Tower just before the victory.” He also wrote: “Is it legal for a sitting President to be ‘wire tapping' a race for president?”

The president's accusations against Obama came amid numerous political questions surrounding his associates' possible ties to Russia. The FBI is investigating Trump associates' contacts with Russia during the election, as are House and Senate intelligence committees.

The White House has asked those committees to also investigate Trump's unverified wiretapping allegations against Obama. The House committee has turned the matter back on the Trump administration, setting the deadline for the Justice Department to provide evidence.

Other congressional committees are also pushing the administration to clarify Trump's claims.

Sens. Lindsey Graham, R-S.C., and Sheldon Whitehouse, D-R.I., asked Acting Deputy Attorney General Dana Boente and FBI Director James Comey to produce the paper trail created when the Justice Department's criminal division secures warrants for wiretaps. The senators, who head the Senate Judiciary Committee's crime and terrorism subcommittee, are seeking warrant applications and court orders, which they said can be scrubbed to protect secret intelligence sources and methods.

Trump's critics have slammed the president for making the wiretapping claim on his Twitter account without evidence. Wiretapping a U.S. citizen would require special permission from a court, and Trump as president would have the ability to declassify that information.

Sen. John McCain, an influential Republican, said Sunday: “I think the president has one of two choices: either retract or to provide the information that the American people deserve.”

“If his predecessor violated the law, President Obama violated the law, we have got a serious issue here, to say the least,” McCain said.

Comey has privately urged the Justice Department to dispute Trump's claim but has not come forward to do so himself. James Clapper, who was Obama's director of national intelligence, has said that nothing matching Trump's claims had taken place.

White House counselor Kellyanne Conway sidestepped questions about the lack of proof Monday, saying she was “not in the job of having evidence.”

“That's what investigations are for,” Conway told CNN's “New Day.” “The president is pleased that the House and Senate intelligence committees have agreed that this should be part of the investigation that already exists about Russia and the campaign, an investigation that apparently has gone nowhere so far.”

In a weekend interview with the Bergen Record, a newspaper in her home state of New Jersey, Conway appeared to point toward the recent WikiLeaks release of nearly 8,000 documents that purportedly reveal secrets about the CIA's tools for breaking into targeted computers, cellphones and even smart TVs.

“What I can say is there are many ways to surveil each other now, unfortunately,” including “microwaves that turn into cameras, et cetera,” Conway said. “So we know that that is just a fact of modern life.”

TribLIVE commenting policy

You are solely responsible for your comments and by using TribLive.com you agree to our Terms of Service.

We moderate comments. Our goal is to provide substantive commentary for a general readership. By screening submissions, we provide a space where readers can share intelligent and informed commentary that enhances the quality of our news and information.

While most comments will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive, moderating decisions are subjective. We will make them as carefully and consistently as we can. Because of the volume of reader comments, we cannot review individual moderation decisions with readers.

We value thoughtful comments representing a range of views that make their point quickly and politely. We make an effort to protect discussions from repeated comments either by the same reader or different readers

We follow the same standards for taste as the daily newspaper. A few things we won't tolerate: personal attacks, obscenity, vulgarity, profanity (including expletives and letters followed by dashes), commercial promotion, impersonations, incoherence, proselytizing and SHOUTING. Don't include URLs to Web sites.

We do not edit comments. They are either approved or deleted. We reserve the right to edit a comment that is quoted or excerpted in an article. In this case, we may fix spelling and punctuation.

We welcome strong opinions and criticism of our work, but we don't want comments to become bogged down with discussions of our policies and we will moderate accordingly.

We appreciate it when readers and people quoted in articles or blog posts point out errors of fact or emphasis and will investigate all assertions. But these suggestions should be sent via e-mail. To avoid distracting other readers, we won't publish comments that suggest a correction. Instead, corrections will be made in a blog post or in an article.

click me