The Trump Presidency

[Super]

trump will win in 2020 if russia ****s with our voting machines and registrations and otherwise is allowed to interfere again.

i wonder why he's not interested in stopping russia from interfering but needed to make a committee to support his (once again) completely made up statement that 3-5MM people voted illegally. any evidence of that yet or na?


imagine is obama or clinton hired someone like manafort to their campaign. imagine. christ.

[Julio3000]

Er, no, it's most decidedly not. And putting aside for a moment the shocking depravity of that utterance, it's a fundamental part of the point I've been trying to make since my initial foray into this particular Matryoshkal **** show.

FISA warrants are issued in one year increments. The bar for a warrant to be granted, as I've said, is high (on paper) - but it's also important to note that the burden of probable cause in a FISA court is extremely low (e.g. instead of "is" a foreign agent, FISA accepts "may be" scenarios). We know the initial warrant was granted by the court in 2014, for surveillance from ~2014-2015. We don't know if surveillance was granted again sometime during 2015, but we do know that it was granted again sometime in 2016. That's at least two (possibly three) FISA wiretap warrant renewals. Let's ignore the Fifth Amendment issue here and deal with the known facts; 1) the government believes Paul Manafort is an agent of a foreign government 2) the government is building a case against Manafort 3) the government, despite stating to a FISA court that they have enough probable cause to believe Manafort is a criminal foreign agent, can't make a prosecutable case against Manafort despite years of eavesdropping material.

So, we can assume that either the court was given new, clear and compelling evidence about Manafort's activities each time it reviewed the 'renewal' warrant application, or that it wasn't, given that we don't know with any real certainty how FISA treats warrant renewals vs. original applications. I shouldn't neglect to mention the fact that FISA courts have denied somewhere in the neighborhood of ~0.3% of warrant cases brought before them.

It's not that I find the (original) warrant specious in and of itself, but rather that I find the jurisprudential approach of the renewing court(s) extremely suspect. That suspect behavior easily morphs into negligence when you consider things like incidental collection and the likelihood that Manafort was either working for, or heavily involved in the Trump campaign at the time he was wiretapped the second (or third) time.

And I don't know what comes after negligence when we earnestly consider something like civil liberties. Although, given that Manafort is your Russo-American collusion great white whale, I can understand why you'd be happy to temporarily sweep your convictions under a rug.

I think these are reasonable concerns, and I think we would all be better served by WAY more transparency in that particular system.

It still seems that you're making some large leaps and assumptions about negligence and diligence, and kind of glossing over the fact that complex criminal and counterintelligence investigations can take a very long time to come to fruition--often with, it must be noted, collateral damage and privacy concerns.

[sturg33]

trump will win in 2020 if russia ****s with our voting machines and registrations and otherwise is allowed to interfere again.

i wonder why he's not interested in stopping russia from interfering but needed to make a committee to support his (once again) completely made up statement that 3-5MM people voted illegally. any evidence of that yet or na?


imagine is obama or clinton hired someone like manafort to their campaign. imagine. christ.

Wow they even got into our voting booths and changed the numbers??? Impressive

Oh.. and I'll imagine it. And I can't imagine it getting as much attention from the media as it's already gotten

[57Brave]

Wow they even got into our voting booths and changed the numbers??? Impressive

Oh.. and I'll imagine it. And I can't imagine it getting as much attention from the media as it's already gotten

How did Russian Military Intel know what specific voters o target via Facebook ?
That is the prime information any campaign holds.

Given Trump has to sell hats to pay his legal bills.
Why hire Manafort rather than say, Steve Schmidt ?

[sturg33]

How did Russian Military Intel know what specific voters o target via Facebook ?
That is the prime information any campaign holds.

Given Trump has to sell hats to pay his legal bills.
Why hire Manafort rather than say, Steve Schmidt ?

Do you understand how internet cookies work?

[thethe]

Do you understand how internet cookies work?

No

Answering for 57

[Hawk]

Lol

[57Brave]

Do you understand how internet cookies work?

Internet cookies and campaign voter rolls/data/profiles are two different things.

again, why did he hire Manafort -- rather than Karl Rove

[thethe]

Internet cookies and campaign voter rolls/data/profiles are two different things.

again, why did he hire Manafort -- rather than Karl Rove

Internet cookies are more powerful than outed voter roles. Its not even debatable.

[57Brave]

Internet cookies are more powerful than outed voter roles. Its not even debatable.

oh

do you have proof of that or is that an opinion -- and if an opinion -- please show your math.
If it is so I will have learned something most Political Scientists don't and will stand corrected.

The confidential information campaigns keep is not a virtual vs paper discussion.

If not for voter info --- why hack the DNC ? Oh yeah, John Podesta's pizza plans.

Why after the conventions the squabble over each candidates voter info?

That I took to be a baseball eye test versus advance metrics comment form Sturg
Fookin millenials

[thethe]

Then this goes back to Sturgs question.

Do you know what internet cookies are?

[57Brave]

No, never heard of them before today.

[thethe]

No, never heard of them before today.

I'll take that as sarcasm. So the fact that you are even debating the power of them in comparison to voter roles just proves the fact that you aren't willing to concede on any talking point regarding this Russia 'thing'.

[57Brave]

That is not at all what I am saying. But that they are two different political tools

[Julio3000]

Ok, a good-faith political question relating to Russian penetration of state voting systems.

We know through testimony that Russia was not able to alter vote totals. It's still an open question as to whether they were able to **** with state voter databases to an extent that would have invalidated registrations and made it impossible for certain folks to vote. We're not certain that it happened, but it's STILL a theoretical possibility and such chicanery could certainly swing a close election. Why shouldn't that be a hair-on-fire issue for everyone, regardless of political affiliation?

[sturg33]

Ok, a good-faith political question relating to Russian penetration of state voting systems.

We know through testimony that Russia was not able to alter vote totals. It's still an open question as to whether they were able to **** with state voter databases to an extent that would have invalidated registrations and made it impossible for certain folks to vote. We're not certain that it happened, but it's STILL a theoretical possibility and such chicanery could certainly swing a close election. Why shouldn't that be a hair-on-fire issue for everyone, regardless of political affiliation?

As I've said multiple times... this issue simply doesn't bother me as much as say, arming terrorist groups across the world.

I guess everyone has things they care about

[57Brave]

One can be alarmed by both

[sturg33]

One can be alarmed by both

One gets 6 threads and dozens of pages of discussion.

The other gets lip service

[Jaw]

Ok, a good-faith political question relating to Russian penetration of state voting systems.

We know through testimony that Russia was not able to alter vote totals. It's still an open question as to whether they were able to **** with state voter databases to an extent that would have invalidated registrations and made it impossible for certain folks to vote. We're not certain that it happened, but it's STILL a theoretical possibility and such chicanery could certainly swing a close election. Why shouldn't that be a hair-on-fire issue for everyone, regardless of political affiliation?

It should be. Just like Haliburton should have been, and Emailgate, and possible Russian operatives running campaigns, and pay for play charitable organizations, and the mystery of the FISA court, and scores of other legitimately terrible issues that turn into partisan slap fights. Politicians are sometimes troubled by them, sometimes boosted by them, but We the People always lose. We should ALL be demanding answers about all of these things, but we get caught up in the nonsense and end up carrying water for a bunch of crooks instead.

[Super]

Matt Fuller‏Verified account @MEPFuller 42m42 minutes ago
More
If you want to know how great the Graham-Cassidy bill is for states, the bribe for Alaska is that THEY GET TO KEEP OBAMACARE!!