It’s hard to defend much of what President Donald Trump has to say, particularly when he’s unscripted. More so, when he sees something on a talk show or online and then goes with it impulsively.

Beyond that, his defense is that much more challenging when it comes to his over-the-top tweets that President Obama had wiretapped him, whether the word “wiretapped” was circumscribed by quotes or not.

ADVERTISEMENT

Yet Trump’s response to every government agency saying the wiretapping didn't happen was to latch on to a completely unverified claim by (for sure, retired) “Judge” Andrew Napolitano of Fox News that Britain acted for the former president — something the British government denies. Fox News not only directly denounced this statement as lacking any proof, Napolitano has reportedly been “sidelined.”

To continue this fast-paced saga (sometimes it’s hard to keep up), on Monday, March 20, FBI Director James Comey, on behalf of his agency and the Justice Department, testified before the House Intelligence Committee that neither agency had information to support the President’s tweets. The NSA director, Mike Rogers, testified that he had no knowledge of anyone asking another country to do so.

Then, on Wednesday, Committee Chair Devin Nunes (R-Calif.) concluded somehow that conversations were intercepted incidentally pursuant to a court-ordered warrant directed at someone other than Trump.

Rather than take this information to his committee (all of whom say they have not seen this information), Nunes reported it to the press and then President Trump Donald John TrumpObama calls on Senate not to fill Ginsburg's vacancy until after election Planned Parenthood: 'The fate of our rights' depends on Ginsburg replacement Progressive group to spend M in ad campaign on Supreme Court vacancy MORE. Finally, Nunes repeated to the press that he had not seen any evidence that Trump was wiretapped.

Trump, for his part, said he felt “somewhat” vindicated by Nunes’ revelation, yet he has failed completely to retract his claims, much less apologize for them or the firestorm he created. Now, the mere illusion that Obama would wiretap Hillary Clinton Hillary Diane Rodham ClintonWhat Senate Republicans have said about election-year Supreme Court vacancies Bipartisan praise pours in after Ginsburg's death Trump carries on with rally, unaware of Ginsburg's death MORE’s opponent to gain her a political victory, however much he wanted it, is borderline ludicrous.

I suppose it would be unfair to President Trump to suggest that he actually meant that Obama personally engaged in the technical implementation of a wiretap device at Trump Tower or its environs.

To suggest that Trump was charging that, dressed in a Con Ed worker’s disguise, the former president sat in an eavesdropping “plant” to personally monitor Trump’s conversations a la Gene Hackman in his movie “The Conversation,” would be silly.

No, Trump was instead alleging that Obama had used his presidency to order, commission or command relevant government personnel to conduct the eavesdropping, or have Britain do it; it is no longer clear.

As a non-law enforcement person, it would be fair to say Trump used the word “wiretap” to mean tapping a phone or bugging conversations within a room, i.e., without its technical meaning. But here’s where Trump deserves a defense.

If you read some articles — and certainly if you watch Joe Scarborough or Mika Brzezinski on “Morning Joe,” not to mention others — there are those that assert that by alleging the wiretapping, Trump actually accused Obama of committing felonious conduct.

Brzezinski basically says that Trump accused Obama of participating somehow in illegal tapping, or in the jargon of law enforcement, monitoring conversations with a “cheater” (non-court-ordered instrument). Now, for sure, it is a felony for anyone to “illegally” wiretap another person.

If I, for example, had the technical capacity to place a wiretap on your phone and listen to or record your conversations, that would a felony — both state and federal.

But Trump said nothing to suggest that the type of wiretapping he was alleging was non-court-ordered. At least at first, it was far more than reasonable to conclude that Trump meant that Obama used the infrastructure of government — of law enforcement — to secure a wiretap or bug at Trump Tower.

This means Obama somehow influenced his administration, which had obtained sufficient evidence and “probable cause” to apply to a federal court (or a Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act court that was established to decide whether to approve government requests to monitor suspected terrorists and spies) for a court-ordered eavesdropping warrant.

That is a warrant, akin to a search warrant, based on probable cause — a rigorous process that requires several layers of official approval before law enforcement authorities even go to a judge — that grants law enforcement agents legal authority to eavesdrop conversations over a telephone or in a premises.

At least that is what one may have believed until President Trump watched Judge Napolitano and adopted this “Britain did it” scenario. Now, it surely would still be foul play for a sitting president to encourage his subordinates to “tap” a political opponent’s phones for the unambiguous purpose of achieving a political campaign victory for his chosen successor, even acting with the authority of a court order based on probable cause.

Just imagine how banana republic-like — or, arguably more so, Mussolini-like — it would be for a U.S. president to abuse his authority as America’s chief executive in that manner. Lest it go unsaid, presidents don’t engage at all in decision-making concerning the exercise of law enforcement investigative power.

But, if you believe Trump meant Obama caused government agencies to get a warrant and thus, gain the imprimatur of a federal court order for a wiretap, would it be a felony? Not a chance. So, I’ve now defended President Trump. Fair is fair and he did not actually accuse Obama of a criminal act (at least yet; I think).

Having said that, and if I am to defend Trump against assertions that Obama committed a crime, what do I (and any other Trump defender) do with the fact that he had no legitimate basis whatsoever — his daily television dosage, notwithstanding — to make a twittering accusation against Obama of that scandalous sort in the first place?

By the way, there’s been dialogue in the public square suggesting that President Obama has a valid defamation claim against Trump for accusing him of wiretapping, legal or illegal (the latter meaning with no official imprimatur). Notably, a measure of damages for a defamation claim is how much one’s reputation has been diminished by the defamatory allegation.

Interestingly, no one who held Obama in esteem before Trump came up with this silliness, has changed their view of him, and no one who held Trump in esteem before has changed their view of Obama based on the wiretapping business. And what precisely does that say?

Joel Cohen, a former state and federal prosecutor, practices criminal defense law at Stroock & Stroock & Lavan LLP in New York. An adjunct professor at Fordham Law School, he regularly lectures and writes on law, ethics and social policy for the New York Law Journal and other publications. Dale J. Degenshein of Stroock assisted in preparing this article.

The views expressed by contributors are their own and not the views of The Hill.