Jaw (09-19-2017)
2014
The best way to stop a bad guy with a gun is to make sure he doesn’t get a gun.
And possibly earlier.
Any attempt to spin this as Obama's doing is laughable and desperate.
Also to add on to how trump was wrong as usual, this was completely LAWFUL tap on MANAFORT who trump stupidly hired on to his campaign. just when you thought he couldn't prove even more incompetent...
It is unclear when the new warrant started. The FBI interest deepened last fall because of intercepted communications between Manafort and suspected Russian operatives, and among the Russians themselves, that reignited their interest in Manafort, the sources told CNN. As part of the FISA warrant, CNN has learned that earlier this year, the FBI conducted a search of a storage facility belonging to Manafort. It's not known what they found.
The conversations between Manafort and Trump continued after the President took office, long after the FBI investigation into Manafort was publicly known, the sources told CNN. They went on until lawyers for the President and Manafort insisted that they stop, according to the sources.
The best way to stop a bad guy with a gun is to make sure he doesn’t get a gun.
Both his hiring and dismissal as campaign chair were rather murky events. I had the impression something (it still isn't clear to me what that something was) made him radioactive and led to his being replaced by Bannon.
"I am a victim, I will tell you. I am a victim."
"I am your retribution."
I assumed that the Mercers wanted their guy in and they used the fuss about the Ukrainian ledger to make it happen (which was a good move, the Party of Regions thing was not a good look for the campaign). But yeah, I wonder if they got a whiff of more and decided that he was, as you say, radioactive.
If Trump took a dislike to you, do you think he has backdoor ways to make your life less pleasant? If he was confident he could get away with it, do you think he might call a buddy in the DoJ and see if there was any way he could get you wire tapped?
Now, he wouldn't be the one actually tapping your phone, just like he wouldn't be the one actually firing nukes off if he ordered a nuclear strike. But if he ordered a nuclear strike on NK today, would we list the names and ranks of every service member who turned keys and pressed red buttons, or would we say "That madman Trump just nuked North Korea"?
Manafort has been engaged in grey market favor-swapping with foreign governments since the 1980s. That he might be in communication with foreign intel 'targets' is neither surprising or damning.
What I'm more concerned with here is the clear jurisprudential negligence exhibited by the FISA court in re-approving the wiretap of a man who was (then) a Presidential campaign manager.
Last edited by Hawk; 09-19-2017 at 01:15 PM.
what you are saying is Manaford's being connected to the Trump Campaign should give him carte blanche in FISA court's eyes ?
Hmm
The best way to stop a bad guy with a gun is to make sure he doesn’t get a gun.
How does Trump propose destroying North Korea ???
Surprised no one here is having that discussion
The best way to stop a bad guy with a gun is to make sure he doesn’t get a gun.
1) We don't know if he was a campaign manager at the time
2) I would say even if he was and engaged in behavior that would get other citizens FBI scrutiny then the same standards should be applied to him. We don't exempt people from our laws because of the positions they hold.
clear jurisprudential negligence has a nice ring to it btw
"I am a victim, I will tell you. I am a victim."
"I am your retribution."
All FISA warrant applications are required to contain a comprehensive list of "minimization procedures" to ensure that no subject/information outside of the scope of the warrant is unlawfully surveilled or recorded. I'd like to see which minimization procedures AG Lynch (and subsequently the FISC) signed off on, given the highly sensitive nature of the communications Manafort was engaged in at the time. I'd also like to see which facilities were tapped. Manafort owned an apartment in Trump Tower, but he also worked out of campaign offices on the 14th floor of the building. FISA requires that there be "no substantial likelihood that the surveillance will acquire the contents of any communication to which a United States person is a party". This is where I draw pause. How was this guaranteed? Did the court make amendments to the scope of the warrant to insure that no highly privileged political information was shared? Did the court recognize or in any way acknowledge the potential conflict of interest minefield it was wading into?
Last edited by Hawk; 09-19-2017 at 03:39 PM.
I'll make a bet with you. If we eventually learn that Manafort was not campaign manager when the FISA warrant was approved then you can have my image avatar for 30 days. If we learn that the warrant decision came down when Manafort was campaign manager then I get yours. Deal?
As for your #2 point, I'm not suggesting that Manafort be exempt from investigation because of his political status. I'm questioning the FISA court, its legal processes and obligations, and the Obama DOJ's 'evidence' against Manafort. At what point do we look at ~3 years of investigation (including domestic surveillance - which, make no mistake, is not in the same league as 'FBI scrutiny') and somehow continue denying that political foul play is the phrase we're looking for?
The bet offer is generous but I have no knowledge about when the FISA order came down. Manafort was campaign manager June to mid August. My understanding is that matters like FISA orders are pretty well insulated from political appointees. I'm known a few career civil servants in fairly sensitive positions. I would be very surprised if they allowed political shenanigans with something like FISA orders. Something like that would see the light of day.
"I am a victim, I will tell you. I am a victim."
"I am your retribution."