Sacpi's 2. above is the operative thing here. The warrant was apparently based on contacts with foreign intelligence assets already under surveillance. If what was said rest of the level of PC for a warrant, why does his campaign job matter?
Sacpi's 2. above is the operative thing here. The warrant was apparently based on contacts with foreign intelligence assets already under surveillance. If what was said rest of the level of PC for a warrant, why does his campaign job matter?
Yeah. Given Manafort's Ukraine connection how is that an earth-shattering relevation?Originally Posted by Julio3000
LOL @ "clear jurisprudential negligence." Keep carrying that weight. Or ****ing that chicken, as the case may be.
I found these links interesting RE: 'political shenanigans' and FISC.
http://www.nytimes.com/2013/07/26/us...t.html?mcubz=0
http://www.npr.org/2013/06/10/190453...lance-warrants
No, it wasn't, because those grounds wouldn't come close to satisfying a FISA application.
Unless it landed on Judge Phelan's desk.
Dude, I'm not the one still propping up fingerprints taken off a dusty bottle of Horilka as conclusive evidence of Russian interference.
It is also extremely amusing to see you defend FISA courts.
"For there is always light, if only we are brave enough to see it. If only we are brave enough to be it." Amanda Gorman
"When Fascism comes to America, it will be wrapped in the flag and carrying a cross"
Shoot, you said repeatedly last fall that the issue was exhausted, so forgive me if I don't wilt when you mock treatment of it as a serious issue. Your batting average on all things touching Trump/Russia has been AL-relief-pitcher bad.
So what precisely is the jurisprudential negligence, and why is it so clear?
We have no idea what the warrant was based on. What has been reported is conversations with Manafort and individuals under surveillance, and conversations between individuals under surveillance about Manafort. Those details are all we're privy to, but that doesn't mean that's all there is. You're doing precisely what Manafort's team is doing, which is to publicly attack the legitimacy of the surveillance (though I doubt they'll actually challenge it legally). I know why they're doing it, but I question why you're doing it. What do you know that the rest of us don't?
Um, it entirely depends on what they were discussing. Football scores wouldn't have gotten the warrant.
And, incidentally, the FISC system is imperfect but better than the status quo ante.
God, yes, it would be a real disaster if someone's highly privileged political information was shared. Imagine the potential consequences and fallout if a campaign's highly privileged political information was shared. I mean, I'm not sure if I can even conceive of what the aftermath would be like if a campaign's highly privileged political information was shared.
57Brave (09-19-2017)
And how prescient of me. One year on and you're still flapping gums about Paul Manafort.
We may have no definitive idea what the warrant was based on, but we know the exact requirements FISA applications must meet and that those provisos are both stringent and clear. Either you meet the criteria or you don't. I'm questioning those grounds because doing so is the most obvious defense and, frankly, because I enjoy rocking the groupthink boat a little. FISC is low hanging fruit because it has a reputation for rubber-stamping surveillance requests.
Last edited by Hawk; 09-19-2017 at 07:40 PM.
If I accidentally called a guy who happened to be a known FSB agent that would probably be enough for a FISA warrant to wiretap my shiz.
Really, though.
But it sure beats the alternative!
(FTR, I'm not saying that Manafort is clean - at all - but I'm also not incautiously buying into the theory that we can draw a clean and unquestionable line between his Ukrainia buddies and Trump/Russian collusion.)
Yeah, but using a patriot like Seth Rich to obtain information is a far different beast than employing FISA to extort it.
#tongueincheek
the amount of facepalms in the crowd to that embarrassing un speech is crazy
"For there is always light, if only we are brave enough to see it. If only we are brave enough to be it." Amanda Gorman
"When Fascism comes to America, it will be wrapped in the flag and carrying a cross"
1. Not sure what you're saying here. Just because you've continued to paint worst-case scenarios about the provenance of the warrant doesn't make it so. You're throwing around words like "critically" and "incautiously," while tossing out speculation that's even less grounded in fact.
2. The predecessor alternative to FISA was just eavesdropping with zero oversight. So yeah, better.
3. Ok, fair enough. It's an interesting application of Occam's razor, though, to say that his contacts are easily explained away but not that the same circumstances (extensive connections to the oligarchy, willingness to operate off the books and in the legal grey, money problems) make him appear a reasonable locus of suspicion.
What you're saying, Hawk, is that the top people at both the FBI and the DOJ signed off on a spurious warrant based on innocent conversations with foreign intelligence agents, so that the Obama White House could peruse the Trump campaign's playbook.
This is what you have said, while throwing around words like "incautious" and "uncritical."
Super (09-20-2017)
the russians are good at gymnastics, so when the people here making stuff up join them, maybe they'll qualify for the mental gymnastics team.
cajunrevenge (09-20-2017)
Its a big more than that. Because the top people (who are political appointees) would be signing off on something that career civil servants (including presumably FBI agents) initiated. It is unlikely that the people initiating the wiretap request had any sort of political axe to grind.
"I am a victim, I will tell you. I am a victim."
"I am your retribution."
Any reason for concern with Comey stating he had no knowledge of wiretapping?
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote