Is it normal disclose that someone was and continues to be under electronic surveillance authorized under FISA? Seems like disclosure of sources and methods to me.
How? At worst, it's confirmation of things that were already public knowledge. The basics of the FISA process, Page under surveillance, Steele dossier, Papadopoulos info started investigation--all known.
-
-
But different to confirm
-
I guess. But it was so widely believed already, and no new sources or methods were revealed. Hard to see that as serious damage.
-
It creates a precedent to confirm or deny leaks about FISA surveillance. Maybe not a big deal in this case, but with no benefit to releasing the information, even a lesser harm should have been enough.
-
Fair point.
End of conversation
New conversation -
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.