Posted on 12/16/2015 4:30:08 AM PST by markomalley
Did Sen. Ted Cruz disclose classified information on national television?
Those without access to the intelligence itself probably won’t know for sure, but that seemed to be the implication from a reaction from presidential campaign rival and fellow Sen. Marco Rubio, R-Fla., during a portion of Tuesday’s CNN debate that focused on their differing views on the scope of National Security Agency surveillance programs.
Rubio said that in transitioning to a system without bulk collection of phone metadata that existed under the Patriot Act, the intelligence community lost tools to prevent terrorist attacks. That prompted Cruz, a Texas Republican, to snap back.
“What he knows is that the old program covered 20 percent to 30 percent of phone numbers to search for terrorists. The new program covers nearly 100 percent. That gives us greater ability to stop acts of terrorism, and he knows that that’s the case,” said Cruz, who supported the bipartisan bill that changed the program, known as the USA Freedom Act, that became law earlier this year.
“Let me be very careful when answering this, because I don’t think national television in front of 15 million people is the place to discuss classified information,” Rubio responded. “So let me just be very clear. There is nothing that we are allowed to do under this bill that we could not do before.”
And there was a sign that Rubio, who is a member of the Intelligence Committee, might have a point about the information itself.
As the exchange happened, Becca Glover Watkins, the communications director for Senate Intelligence Chairman Richard M. Burr, R-N.C., tweeted simply: “Cruz shouldn’t have said that.”
But Democratic Sen. Ron Wyden of Oregon, a longtime member of the Intelligence Committee, jumped to Cruz’s defense on the substance.
“Senator Rubio is mistaken when he says that the USA Freedom Act does not let the government do anything that it could not do before,” Wyden said in a statement, citing a specific provision of the new law.
“Section 102 of the USA Freedom Act, which I first proposed in 2013, gave law enforcement and intelligence agencies new authorities to obtain records in an emergency and get court approval after the fact,” Wyden said.”It also ended the mass surveillance of law-abiding Americans, which violated core American rights without making our country any safer.”
Speaking Tuesday morning at a forum sponsored by Politico, Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell seemed to open the door to revisiting intelligence collection and related issues in 2016. The Kentucky Republican was on the same side as Rubio during the original debate.
“I think weakening the Patriot Act was a mistake, and we had internal divisions among the Republicans over whether that was the appropriate thing to do,” McConnell said.
Kind of like when Michele Bachmann exposed classified information that had been published in the National Review months before with graphics and maps.
Meanwhile, Hillary is still walking around Scot-free...
So what would have been classified—the old coverage of 20-30% or the new coverage spanning upwards of 100%?
Keep the Muslims out.
Cruz has already told us what Rubio doesn't want us to know - it allows for more spying on us than the old methodology and Rubio supports that.
Now for a short public service announcement to all on FR:
We need to ensure we don't get another Obama-like America Hater as the next President.
The best way to ensure that is to actively support a candidate as the next President.
I prefer Cruz and my money goes to his campaign, hence the Cruz link. If you like someone else, donate to him/her (find your own link to do it) and if you use FR and don't donate, then please don't complain about the welfare leeches or those who have Obama Phones because, functionally, you are no different than any other FReeloader
PS - If you are one of those who cannot afford even a small donation to FR or a candidate, God Bless and happy FReeping!.....
GO CRUZ!! Keep it up Trump!!
BULLCRAP, Rubio, you slimy lying creature.
We know who’s the RNC’s boy.
——the old program covered 20 percent to 30 percent of phone numbers ——
hmmm.... that begs the question. What characteristic did the 30% have that the 70% did not?
My thought is that if you speak on regulated lines, you have no right to privacy that there was such a regulated call
Here are the committees he sits on or chairs. The one on emerging threats doesn’t sound like it would have access to this kind of intelligence. If he sat in the intelligence oversight committee, maybe.
https://www.govtrack.us/congress/members/ted_cruz/412573
Rubio looked like a fool last night, caught with his pants down on so many subjects. He’s very smooth and well spoken — a little too smooth. I didn’t believe him on the national lsecurity charge. What difference would it make to disclose what we are NOT doing any more, anyhow?
Rubio covers his lies about Cruz position by accusing him of leaking classified info?
Rubio covers his lies about Cruz position by accusing him of leaking classified info?
Agree 100%. I was under the assumption that the old system covered 100%... now, after the fact, learning that it covered a smaller portion. I’m not sure that would be classified.
Did Ted Cruz Disclose Classified Information?
What, does he have a private email server or something?
The RNC or Rubio gave CNN the nuclear triad question to CNN against Trump, too.
Yes, fabricated major geological feature from inconsequential deviation is surface regularity.
Like the lap dogs they are, the media goes after Cruz while it has been proven Hitlary had Top Secret information on her computer and yet again, NOTHING IS BEING DONE ABOUT IT.
This nation has been completely destroyed with the help of the media whores.
Cruz is literally the last person I would expect to make that kind of mistake.
Geraldo Rivera he ain’t.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.