Where did I say that? I was merely pointing out that there is a distinction between "tapping" and subpoenaing phone records. It appears, on the surface at least, that there might have been a subpoena that could have made the collection of these records technically legal. Wiretaps would require an order from a judge, and any judge would be very reluctant to grant ANY wiretap authorization that covered members of Congress. For the administration to illegally tap members of Congress WOULD be an impeachable offense.
Don't conflate my attempts to insure that we are clear on the actions taken by the DOJ with approving of the actions they took. But if we overstate the case beyond what the facts bear out, it makes it much easier for them to cast us as extremists and whackos who don't pay attention to the facts of the case...
What if they had transcripts of the calls, but not the audio?
I can see a judge doing something like that to a specific congressman, but to allow the DOJ/Executive Branch to just obtain phone records of just anyone who just happens to be in the Cloak Room....seems pretty broad.
If you were a Congressman, what would be your legal response be?