Dude, the article specifically says that he was in contact with Russian intelligence assets. You are deep in the weeds on this, as is the norm on this issues.
Even his messaging has reflected desk, saying that he was not "knowingly" in touch with Russian intelligence.
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.
The warrant was apparently based on contacts with foreign intelligence assets already under surveillance.
LOL @ "clear jurisprudential negligence." Keep carrying that weight. Or ****ing that chicken, as the case may be.
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.
Yeah. Given Manafort's Ukraine connection how is that an earth-shattering relevation?
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?
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.
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.)
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.
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."