There'll be a hot time in the White House tonight

First Giuliani running his trap, and now this.

Federal investigators have wiretapped the phone lines of Michael Cohen, the longtime personal lawyer for President Donald Trump.

[...]

It is not clear how long the wiretap has been authorized, but NBC News has learned it was in place in the weeks leading up to the raids on Cohen's offices, hotel room, and home in early April.

[...]

At least one phone call between a phone line associated with Cohen and the White House was intercepted, the person said.

[...]

After the raid, members of Trump's legal team advised the president not to speak to Cohen, according to a person familiar with the discussion.

Two sources close to Trump's newest attorney, Rudolph Giuliani, say he learned that days after the raid the president had made a call to Cohen, and told Trump never to call again out of concern the call was being recorded by prosecutors.

  NBC

I remember that incident. And if there is anyone who heard about it and still thought Trump had brain one, they're just as dense as he is.

Former U.S. Attorney Chuck Rosenberg, now an NBC News analyst, says there's a high bar for having a wiretap approved.

"The affidavits are typically highly detailed and carefully vetted by experienced lawyers," he said. "In all cases the wiretap must be approved by a federal judge."

Rosenberg said that wiretaps are usually approved for an investigation into a current crime and not solely for possible crimes that have been committed in the past.

"This is an exacting process where the government must demonstrate to a federal judge that there is an ongoing crime."

From attorney Renato Mariotti:

2/ As a starting point, a wiretap means federal law enforcement was investigating *ongoing* criminal activity. In order to obtain a wiretap, investigators had to convince a judge that Cohen would use the phone to communicate regarding criminal activity during the 30-day period.

 3/ That is different from a search warrant, which often seeks evidence of *past* crimes. To get the search warrant, the prosecutors had to convince the judge that evidence would be found in a location. That evidence (documents, etc.) could be about crimes from months ago.

4/ In contrast, the wiretap seeks the ability to intercept calls in the future. So the prosecutors had to convince the judge that there was good reason to believe that Cohen would have conversations that would be evidence of a crime within the next 30 days.

 5/ Typically the way prosecutors do this is by recording a call between the person using the phone and a cooperator during which criminal activity is discussed. There are other ways to prove a phone is being used to discuss crime, but the evidence on that point must be solid.

6/ That isn’t enough, though, because wiretaps require prosecutors to convince the judge that the wiretap is *necessary.* If prosecutors can only prove that Cohen is talking with their cooperator, they don’t need a wiretap because they can just record calls with the cooperator.

 7/ So prosecutors also have to show the judge that Cohen used the phone to communicate with others who are part of the criminal activity. This is typically done by looking at phone records and providing evidence that others in contact with the phone are committing crime.

 8/ Wiretaps are difficult to get. A normal wiretap has to be approved by a supervisor at the U.S. Attorney’s Office, then by special attorneys at the Justice Department, then by a Deputy Assistant Attorney General, and then by a judge. This one certainly got additional scrutiny.

Oh, baby.  It's gettin' hot in here.

There'll be more to come on this, you can be sure.

...but hey, do what you want...you will anyway.

UPDATE 5/4:  Fake news!  NBC retracts its report.  Says actually, it was not a wiretap, but merely a pen register.  This is unacceptable "reporting".  And it gives Trump ammunition to make journalism America's enemy.