The disgraced congressman had a close call with a Chinese agent in 2015, but the lesson on indiscretion evidently never took. It was worse than that, women say.
Jeff, If you saw my comments on Karen Greenberg a few weeks ago, I need support for my pov now because 702 is up for renewal this week. The law was redundant from the get-go, which I realized when I came across a 1997 article in the Army Lawyer that explained FISA for military lawyers. It cited two implementing regulations, Army Regulation 381-10 and Department of Defense Directive 5240.1-R. I cited the first in a Village Voice article published March 2013, and I alluded to the second, but did not name it, in a Penthouse article published July/August 2015. The regulations state that as long as the target of the surveillance was outside the United States, the surveillance itself was deemed to be outside the United States, no matter where it was conducted—meaning in effect that a person in a foreign country could be surveilled from within the U.S., without a FISA warrant, and that surveillance would remain legal even if the targeted person was communicating with someone inside the United States. Civil liberties advocates don’t want to hear this because their mission is to reflexively oppose any apparent broadening of surveillance authority on Fourth Amendment grounds. I had a long phone conversation with Karen Greenberg years ago, in which I tried to explain my reporting; she didn’t seem particularly interested. The regulations were radically rewritten in 2016, but they were in force when the Protect America Act of 2007 and the FISA Amendments Act of 2008 were enacted. Neither law changed a thing except to create a procedural maze that intelligence officers would be faced with in order to conduct surveillance of a non-U.S. person in another country, where previously there had been no procedural hurdles.
Before I accept that Mr Swalwell has done anything illegal or immoral, I would like to see or hear some actual convincing live, human (first person) testimony. Then some reputable investigation into anyone testifying. Let's face it, in 2026, without that minimum validation, the 'credible reports' could be convincing deep-fakes.
Jeff, If you saw my comments on Karen Greenberg a few weeks ago, I need support for my pov now because 702 is up for renewal this week. The law was redundant from the get-go, which I realized when I came across a 1997 article in the Army Lawyer that explained FISA for military lawyers. It cited two implementing regulations, Army Regulation 381-10 and Department of Defense Directive 5240.1-R. I cited the first in a Village Voice article published March 2013, and I alluded to the second, but did not name it, in a Penthouse article published July/August 2015. The regulations state that as long as the target of the surveillance was outside the United States, the surveillance itself was deemed to be outside the United States, no matter where it was conducted—meaning in effect that a person in a foreign country could be surveilled from within the U.S., without a FISA warrant, and that surveillance would remain legal even if the targeted person was communicating with someone inside the United States. Civil liberties advocates don’t want to hear this because their mission is to reflexively oppose any apparent broadening of surveillance authority on Fourth Amendment grounds. I had a long phone conversation with Karen Greenberg years ago, in which I tried to explain my reporting; she didn’t seem particularly interested. The regulations were radically rewritten in 2016, but they were in force when the Protect America Act of 2007 and the FISA Amendments Act of 2008 were enacted. Neither law changed a thing except to create a procedural maze that intelligence officers would be faced with in order to conduct surveillance of a non-U.S. person in another country, where previously there had been no procedural hurdles.
Great insights here. See also the book “Beijing Rules” by Bethany Allen, where she details Swalwell’s contacts with CCP agent Christine Fang.
I feel some chatter incoming.
Before I accept that Mr Swalwell has done anything illegal or immoral, I would like to see or hear some actual convincing live, human (first person) testimony. Then some reputable investigation into anyone testifying. Let's face it, in 2026, without that minimum validation, the 'credible reports' could be convincing deep-fakes.
Shades of Gary Hart.