Sen. Lindsey Graham, R-S.C., pressed intelligence agency officials if conversations he may have had with foreign officials were surveilled, and if his name was “unmasked” — but still could not get a straight answer.
During a Tuesday Senate Judiciary Committee hearing on the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, generally referred to as FISA, Graham asked the panel of witnesses if he has the legal right to know if his conversations with a foreign leader while abroad were collected, and if someone in a different branch of government has asked to know his identity.
“Am I entitled as a [United States] senator to know if my conversations with a foreign person oversees was collected and if someone made a request to unmask me?” he asked.
“If, as a member of Congress, there’s an intelligence report that reports on activities that include you and a foreign minister, by default your identity is going to be masked,” Bradley Booker, the acting general counsel of the Office of the Director of National Intelligence, responded.
Graham first made the allegations in early June, tellling Fox News, “I have reason to believe that a conversation I had was picked up with some foreign leader or some foreign person and somebody requested that my conversation be unmasked.”
Graham has also been one of the most outspoken critics of leaks from the intelligence agencies, specifically threatening he wouldn’t vote for a FISA reauthorization until some of the leakers are found and prosecuted.
Booker told Graham that if someone from a federal agency wants to know his or someone else in Congress’ identity, there is a procedure that requires the agency to notify the DNI.
However, when asked if he has a right to know if that has happened to him, Booker told Graham that there is notification sent — but only to congressional leaders.
“I’m not asking about the leadership, I’m asking about me. […] If I’m talking to the Russian ambassador [to the United States], apparently you all are listening,” Graham said. “I don’t really mind if you’re listening. I do mind if somebody can take that conversation and use it against me politically.”
Graham then asked again if it is “possible for somebody in the administration to get ahold” of a conversation he has had abroad with a foreign leader being monitored under FISA and then unmask his identity.
“Yes,” Paul Morris, NSA’s Deputy General Counsel said.
“Is it possible for me to know if that happened?” Graham shot back. “Can I find that out, yes or no? Do I have a legal right as a [U.S.] senator to know if my government is monitoring my conversation between me and a foreign leader, and if anybody had access to that conversation?”
Booker explained they are working with Senate Intelligence Committee leadership regarding “member requests.”
“So is it legal or not? Does the law allow me to get that information?” Graham asked, noting that he made a request “months ago.”
Chairman Chuck Grassley, R-Iowa, then interjected angrily at attempts to stop Graham’s questioning by other panel members.
“If there’s anything in this country people are entitled, it’s entitled to at least an answer to their question,” Grassley said, slamming down his gavel.
“So what’s the answer here? Am I ever going to get to know the basic facts. … I’m going to be monitored overseas,” Graham insisted.
“I just want to know what consequence as a senator flows my way if somebody in my own administration doesn’t like me, the other administration outside my party doesn’t like me — should I be worried about that conversation falling in the hands of political people that may one day be used against me?”
Booker told him that as a career intelligence professional, “I don’t think you should be concerned.”
“Answer my question then. I’m very concerned until I get an answer,” Graham said.
Booker said they are working on Graham’s request for any information collected about him under FISA.
“We are working with your staff to get you an answer as quickly as possible,” Booker said.
Graham asked if there is a legal reason his question cannot be answered, to which Booker replied, “Not a legal reason.”
