Russia Collusion Scandal (aka A Leftist fantasy)

thethe said:
Is it just one judge that reviews the application each time? Different judges would give an advantage as large swaths of evidence gets to be "new" each time.
Click to expand...

Yes. And the judges serve on a rotating basis. Also, the bar for a renewal is EXTREMELY low. The case does not need to be made again, just an affirmation for continued surveillance presented.
 
Hawk said:
Why is that hilarious? Why wouldn't he milk that thing for every last bit of vindication that he felt it could provide?

Yes, it was insanely over-hyped. But Schiff, and many others, shat their pants over it, gave it credence. In the end, even if history only remembers the memo as a cheap play to the Republican base, that it accomplished more than the Democratic memo did shouldn't be the subject of much disagreement.
Click to expand...

Well the obvious reason Schiff and Dems made a play to counter the Nunes memo, was because around the same time there were rumors about Rosenstein being taken out post-Nunes memo. The Nunes memo was nothing more than ramping up momentum for his base to keep amplifying the noise for him, like starting the fire to try and pressure Rosenstein to be removed. Trump releasing the Dem memo would have been Trump giving credence to Schiff and making the discussion about both instead of only Nunes. You don't have your pawns on twitter build up hype for the memo for almost 3 weeks, then knowingly release Schiff's memo to take your thunder away despite how irrelevant the Schiff memo might be.
 
Hawk said:
https://www.npr.org/2013/06/13/1912...ars-to-be-rubberstamp-for-government-requests

https://www.motherjones.com/crime-justice/2013/06/fisa-court-nsa-spying-opinion-reject-request/
Click to expand...

I don't think it would be practical to have public hearings with an attorney representing the person to be subject to the wiretap.

However, I do think a reasonable idea is to release the minutes of the proceedings (redacted as needed) within a certain time frame. Say five years. At least that would provide an opportunity in a reasonable time frame to see if there were abuses.
 
Hawk said:
Yes. And the judges serve on a rotating basis. Also, the bar for a renewal is EXTREMELY low. The case does not need to be made again, just an affirmation for continued surveillance presented.
Click to expand...

The heavily redacted section on p. 5 of the memo released today says that valuable intelligence was collected through the surveillance on Carter Page and that the renewals are evidence of this. The redacted portions have footnotes that reference the last FISA application on June 29, 2017. Unfortunately, none of us can read that to assess the claim that the renewals are evidence that valuable information was collected.
 
I'm sure Trump is happy he didn't fire Rosenstein since Rosenstein totally vindicated him (as Trump himself was pleased to point out) in his last press conference.
 
nsacpi said:
The heavily redacted section on p. 5 of the memo released today says that valuable intelligence was collected through the surveillance on Carter Page and that the renewals are evidence of this. The redacted portions have footnotes that reference the last FISA application on June 29, 2017. Unfortunately, none of us can read that to assess the claim that the renewals are evidence that valuable information was collected.
Click to expand...

Correct. There's no real way of knowing, either way, unless the applications were all declassified (which I suspect may happen at some point, perhaps in a distant future).

If we're talking about FISC reform, continuity and intra-court transparency would be personal earmarks.
 
"This is an opinion piece. The views expressed in this article are those of just the author."

It gets more compelling by the moment.
 
And a Reuters article that says this:

"Democrats accuse Trump and his Republican allies of trying to use the memo to undermine the Russia probe and possibly make the case for the firing of Mueller or Rod Rosenstein, the No. 2 official at Justice who is overseeing Mueller."
 
But it was clearly obviously pretty easy to identify intent, except, yeah, well, we've got to use opeds and blogs and Sean Hannity clips.

Not actions.

Because those are inconvenient.
 
Me saying pretty easy is an opinion, not an uninformed one taking the words of the right.

But you're right we don't have any questionable actions from Trump during this whole situation. None.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top