She knows nothing of that and yet she was the one who unmasked their names?
The Trump Presidency
- Thread starter The Tariff King
- Start date
She knows nothing of that and yet she was the one who unmasked their names?
Oklahomahawk
Boras' Client
I don't disagree with him on that either, but does that matter? You guys all watch Criminal Minds right? How many of those monsters they chase on that show had childhoods that none of us can even imagine? Is it any wonder that some of them became serial killers? But in the end does that matter? If any person can or will only accept the bits and pieces of the truth that fit their already held narrative then they are part of the problem. Yes it's totally their right to be that way, but it doesn't change the fact that they are indeed that way.
cajunrevenge
Well-known member
The war on drugs is the holocaust in slow motion. The whole purpose was an excuse to wage war against blacks. The chairman of the committee that made pot illegal in the first place said it needed to be illegal because pot made white women have sex with black men. More people will die and be imprisoned from the war on drugs than from the German holocaust.
Yep. I want what Comey's smoking. Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, Section 1802 gives him the power.
Julio3000
<B>A Chip Off the Old Rock</B>
I mean that as a matter of law, yeah, he/she cannot.
In my understanding, that's the fruit of the Church Commission and several other post-Watergate stabs at intelligence reform. I think that the system is far from perfect, but I also think that we can be too cavalier in assuming that folks in power are necessarily corrupt and willing to break those laws. Concern about this is precisely why multiple layers of oversight now exist.
It's the reason FISA courts exist. It's the reason that there are those multiple layers of oversight, meaning that you have to work pretty damned hard to break the law. It's why the allegations that thethe is somewhat blithely making would require a criminal conspiracy on the part of multiple senior officials.
In what recent instance has the WH counsel, the DOJ lawyers, and the intelligence community ever said "sure, Mr. President, we'll spy on this person at your request."
Oklahomahawk
Boras' Client
In Cajun's honor:
That's not true. http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2017-...n-order-wiretap-and-why-trump-may-have-last-l
Yeah, it's a right wing site but search for yourself. The president can order wiretaps.
Julio3000
<B>A Chip Off the Old Rock</B>
Of American citizens? The statute quoted in the article specifically refutes that.
In James Rosen's case (which I think was wrong and counterproductive, FWIW), his phone records and comms were subpoena'd. He was not wiretapped. That doesn't make it right, but we should at least be specific.
The article you linked suggested that evidence would be presented that vindicated Trump's claim. It hasn't been. Why not? They have access to the info and the ability to declassify.
Yes, as the article states because of a foreign agent possibly involved(Russia). However, I want to make it clear that I'm just pointing this law out and I'm not endorsing Obama had anything to do with this.
Julio3000
<B>A Chip Off the Old Rock</B>
Well, you're changing the subject about Susan Rice supposedly lying about unmasking names.
But since you mention it . . . what laws are you saying were broken?
Considering that this is all based around info derived from Devin Nunes's press conferences, during which he himself acknowledged that he discerned no illegal activity, I have to ask if this doesn't look like an elaborate attempt to justify, ex post facto, Trump's wiretapping claims.
I would frankly welcome the public release of all of the relevant intelligence intercepts. That way we know what Trump transition officials were unmasked, and why. Sunlight is the best disinfectant. Let's get it all out there and see what's what. Agree?
This appears to be massive effort to try to backfill Trump's empty claims about illegal surveillance, and an attempt to counterpunch against the allegations of wrongdoing among Trump campaign, transition, and administration officials. Susan Rice, being a controversial figure, is a shiny object and a useful distraction from the other issues. Among those being:
We know that Paul Manafort has been under scrutiny for money laundering involving his work for Russians and pro-Russian Ukrainian politicians.
We know that Michael Flynn failed to disclose payments from foreign (including Russian) entities in his disclosure forms. We know that he was untruthful (including to the DOJ!) about his contacts with the Russian Ambassador.
We know that Carter Page had extensive contact with Russian nationals during his tenure on the campaign, and has previously been target of attempted recruitment by Russian intel ops.
We know of a myriad of other sketchy contacts between people in the Trump orbit and people connected with Russian intelligence operations.
Now, all of the above adds up to zero evidence of any kind of collusion between the Trump campaign and Russian actors, but if you were an intelligence official and aware of the above, and aware that Trump, alone among all of the candidates for the Republican or Democratic nominations, had a pro-Russian foreign policy, and aware that there was an attempt on the part of Russia to to support Trump's candidacy, might you be a wee bit suspicious?
But you're telling me that the story worth pursuing is that national security people unmasked the names--with the redundancy of oversight of the relevant intel agencies--of people whose names came up in the process of the investigations of foreign influence on an American election. You're suggesting that this is improper or even illegal.
Maybe you're right. Maybe they're all dirty . . . but it seems like the bar for proving should be pretty low for a sitting government. If the Trump WH wants to make a case, seems like they could. Why haven't they?
Julio3000
<B>A Chip Off the Old Rock</B>
I get that you're making case for so-called incidental collection, but the statute quoted in the article says "contents of communications transmitted by means of communications used exclusively between or among foreign powers"
I guess I'm just not clear on how that includes American citizens.
Oklahomahawk
Boras' Client
Wait, under FISA rules and regs doesn't the president (or whomever) ask the FISA court for a wiretapping warrant and they approve or deny said request?
Julio3000
<B>A Chip Off the Old Rock</B>
I think it's the purview of the DOJ to ask.
Oklahomahawk
Boras' Client
Well either way doesn't that sort of thing go through the FISA court?
cajunrevenge
Well-known member
What's worse about a chemical attack than bombing a wedding? 58 people died, we probably killed twice that many innocent people with bombs yesterday.
Julio3000
<B>A Chip Off the Old Rock</B>
Nothing weird at all about Erik Prince (mercenary king, Trump super-donor and brother of Betsy DeVos, transplanted to UAE to avoid legal heat) meeting with unnamed Russian reps in the Seychelles about WH Iran policy.
Seems totally above-board and legit.
Seems totally above-board and legit.