Due to the new European data protection law, we need your consent before you use our website:
But that's apparently not going to prevent him from making even more extraordinary and evidence-free claims about the matter.
Trump spoke with the New York Times on Wednesday and went all-in on his claim that the Obama White House used its surveillance and national security powers against him. Trump accused former national security adviser Susan E. Rice, who was reported this week to have unmasked the names of Trump associates in intelligence reports, of having committed a crime, without providing evidence. He also suggested that other Obama administration officials were involved in the conspiracy, without providing evidence.
“I think it’s going to be the biggest story,” said Trump, who previously compared the situation to Watergate. “It’s such an important story for our country and the world. It is one of the big stories of our time.”
Trump reportedly declined multiple requests to back up his claims, saying he would do so “at the right time,” for some reason.
Asked whether he thought Rice had committed a crime, Trump responded: “Do I think? Yes, I think.”
Much as with Trump's initial wiretapping claim, there is no public evidence to support his claim that Rice's unmasking of Trump associates broke the law or that other Obama officials were involved. Unmasking is something officials like Rice are permitted to request and do so regularly for informational purposes, and permission must be granted by the relevant intelligence agency in each individual case. Because intelligence reports don't name U.S. persons, authorized officials must request that their identities be unmasked if they believe it to be important to their understanding of the information. It is not the same as leaking this information to the public.
It's not clear what crime Trump believes Rice might have committed, but he has regularly targeted leakers. Rice insisted Tuesday that she did not leak anything and that she requested such unmaskings as part of her normal daily duties — not for political reasons. And there is no reason to doubt that it was anything beyond that at this point.
The White House has claimed that this incidental surveillance vindicated Trump's initial claims. But there is no indication that any surveillance was actually targeted at Trump, as he claimed, or that Trump Tower was wiretapped, as he claimed. (Incidental surveillance is surveillance that is targeted at foreigners but may sweep up Americans by happenstance, so any Trump associates who were wrapped up in it would not have been targeted. Even House Intelligence Committee Chairman Devin Nunes (R-Calif.), who is under fire for being too favorable to Trump, has admitted this.)
Nunes's disclosure of incidental surveillance of Trump associates doesn't back up this belief. And neither does Rice's unmasking. But more than a month after making his massive claim, Trump is using these revelations to muddy the waters — and apparently isn't going to stop.
If Trump actually has evidence of any of this, he's playing a really cynical game by not disclosing it. The only other conclusion is that he's making it up as he goes.