However, in calling for congressional investigation into Russian meddling in the election to also investigate this claim, White House Press Secretary Sean Spicer today referred to "reports concerning potentially politically motivated investigations". That suggests the tweets were based on media reports, not information that the President might have received from inside the government.
Washington Post writer Robert Costa has reported that White House aides have internally circulated an article on Breitbart titled: "Mark Levin to Congress: Investigate Obama's 'Silent Coup' vs Trump." Breitbart is a right-leaning news organisation that is a rather unreliable source of information. Often the material that is published is derivative and twisted in misleading ways.
However, a White House spokesman told the Fact Checker that the White House instead is relying on reports "from BBC, Heat St., New York Times, Fox News, among others." He provided a list of five articles.
Let's explore the sources of the President's claim.
We are going to start with the Breitbart article, which lists two key data points that appear to relate to the President's claim:
"June 2016: FISA request. The Obama Administration files a request with the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court (FISA) to monitor communications involving Donald Trump and several advisers. The request, uncharacteristically, is denied.
"October: FISA request. The Obama Administration submits a new, narrow request to the FISA court, now focused on a computer server in Trump Tower suspected of links to Russian banks. No evidence is found - but the wiretaps continue, ostensibly for national security reasons, Andrew McCarthy at National Review later notes. The Obama Administration is now monitoring an opposing presidential campaign using the high-tech surveillance powers of the federal intelligence services."
But these data points are not based on reporting by Breitbart. Instead Breitbart links to a report which appeared in Heat Street, another right-leaning news organisation: "EXCLUSIVE: FBI 'Granted FISA Warrant' Covering Trump Camp's Ties To Russia." It was written by Louise Mensch, a former Tory member of the British Parliament and an independent journalist. This is one of the news reports identified by the White House, and it's the most important one.
This article claimed: "Two separate sources with links to the counter-intelligence community have confirmed to Heat Street that the FBI sought, and was granted, a FISA court warrant in October, giving counter-intelligence permission to examine the activities of 'US persons' in Donald Trump's campaign with ties to Russia."
Mensch claimed that the warrant was related to an FBI investigation of a possible secret channel of email communication from the Trump Organisation to a Russian bank - an investigation that, as far as anyone knows, went nowhere.
"The FISA warrant was granted in connection with the investigation of suspected activity between the server (in Trump Tower) and two banks, SVB Bank and Alfa Bank. However, it is thought in the intelligence community that the warrant covers any 'US person' connected to this investigation, and thus covers Donald Trump and at least three further men who have either formed part of his campaign or acted as his media surrogates," Mensch wrote.
The Washington Post for months has sought to confirm this report of a FISA warrant related to the Trump campaign but has been unable to do so. Presumably other US news organisations have tried to do so as well. So one has to take this claim with a huge dose of scepticism. Indeed, the New York Times reported before the election that the FBI "ultimately concluded that there could be an innocuous explanation, like a marketing email or spam, for the computer contacts" with the Russian banks.
Interestingly, as far as we can tell, only two other reports have touched on this FISA claim, and they also have British connections. One is a report in the BBC from January, which the White House also cited as a source. The BBC reported:
"Lawyers from the National Security Division in the Department of Justice then drew up an application. They took it to the secret US court that deals with intelligence, the FISA court, named after the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act. They wanted permission to intercept the electronic records from two Russian banks.
"Their first application, in June, was rejected outright by the judge. They returned with a more narrowly drawn order in July and were rejected again. Finally, before a new judge, the order was granted, on October 15, three weeks before election day.
"Neither Mr Trump nor his associates are named in the FISA order, which would only cover foreign citizens or foreign entities - in this case the Russian banks. But ultimately, the investigation is looking for transfers of money from Russia to the United States, each one, if proved, a felony offence.
"A lawyer - outside the Department of Justice but familiar with the case - told me that three of Mr Trump's associates were the subject of the inquiry. 'But it's clear this is about Trump,' he said."
Finally, there was a report in the Guardian, which reported on the supposed June FISA request, but could not confirm the October one. (The White House did not cite the Guardian.)
"The Guardian has learned that the FBI applied for a warrant from the foreign intelligence surveillance (FISA) court over the summer in order to monitor four members of the Trump team suspected of irregular contacts with Russian officials. The FISA court turned down the application asking FBI counter-intelligence investigators to narrow its focus. According to one report, the FBI was finally granted a warrant in October, but that has not been confirmed, and it is not clear whether any warrant led to a full investigation."
The White House provided three other sources. Two, a National Review article and a Fox News interview, are simply derivative of the Heat Street article, with no independent confirmation. The third is a New York Times report that intelligence agencies "are examining intercepted communications and financial transactions" as part of a probe of possible links between Russian officials and Trump campaign aides. (We recall the President has previously deemed New York Times reporting on this matter as "fake news".)
So what do we have here?
Only two articles, both with British roots, have reported that a FISA court order was granted in October to examine possible activity between two Russian banks and a computer server in the Trump Tower. This claim has not been confirmed by any US news organisations. Moreover, neither article says Obama requested the order or that it resulted in the tapping of Trump's phone lines.
Moreover, the articles do not support the White House's claim that these were "potentially politically motivated investigations" led by Obama. The articles all suggest the FISA requests - if they happened - were done by the intelligence agencies and the FBI. The BBC says the investigation was prompted by a tip from a Baltic country about possible criminal activity:
"Last April, the CIA director was shown intelligence that worried him. It was - allegedly - a tape recording of a conversation about money from the Kremlin going into the US presidential campaign.
"It was passed to the US by an intelligence agency of one of the Baltic States. The CIA cannot act domestically against American citizens so a joint counter-intelligence task force was created."
While the Trump White House cited five news reports to justify its request for a congressional investigation, only two actually are relevant.
It's certainly ironic that the Trump White House - which has heavily criticised articles relying on anonymous sources - now relies on articles based on anonymous sources that cites information that has not been confirmed by any US news organisation. It would be amusing if it were not so sad.
Even if these reports are accepted as accurate, neither back up Trump's claims that Obama ordered the tapping of his phone calls. Moreover, they also do not back up the Administration's revised claim of politically motivated investigations.
We're still waiting for the evidence.
