Wednesday Open Thread

Time for a new open thread. All topics welcome.

< Neil Gorsuch Confirmation Hearings | Trump, Russian Connections, Falsehoods and an Empty Gin Bottle >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft

  • Display: Sort:
    Schiff (5.00 / 2) (#1)
    by FlJoe on Wed Mar 22, 2017 at 04:15:58 PM EST
    is pissed at Nunes', antics, say's he has not seen the alleged intercepts in question, nor was he briefed on it prior to Nunes' trip to the White house. Has grave doubts about how the investigation is being conducted. Says he first learned of the allegations through the press.

    Congressman Schiff's public statement: (none / 0) (#2)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Wed Mar 22, 2017 at 04:49:24 PM EST
    "This afternoon, Chairman David Nunes announced he had some form of intercepts revealing that lawfully gathered intelligence on foreign officials included information on U.S. Persons, including those associated with President Trump or the President himself. If accurate, this information should have been shared with members of the committee, but it has not been. Indeed, it appears that committee members only learned about this when the Chairman discussed the matter this afternoon with the press. The Chairman also shared this information with the White House before providing it to the committee, another profound irregularity, given that the matter is currently under investigation. I have expressed my grave concerns with the Chairman that a credible investigation cannot be conducted this way." (Emphasis is mine.)



    Congressman Schiff seems a bit naive (none / 0) (#3)
    by mm on Wed Mar 22, 2017 at 04:53:51 PM EST
    they simply don't care if it is credible, the objective is to give their side an alternate narrative.

    Adam Schiff is hardly nave. (5.00 / 4) (#6)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Wed Mar 22, 2017 at 05:20:48 PM EST
    Rather, he just fired a rhetorical shot across the GOP's bow by speaking directly to the general public, in his official (and very well-respected) capacity as the ranking member of the House Select Committee on Intelligence.

    If this information is accurate, Chairman Nunes' apparent public disclosure of an active and ongoing intelligence operation -- one which is further subject to FISA Court oversight -- was an extraordinarily reckless act on his part. Same for his discussion of the matter with President* Trump, given the allegations regarding the Trump campaign's purported ties to the Russian government and related intelligence services. At the very least, his security clearance ought to be suspended.

    If Congressman Schiff and other Democrats withdraw their support for Mr. Nunes on the basis of the Chair's untrustworthiness and lack of professional integrity, public pressure for an independent commission to investigate this matter is only going to increase. Republicans appear to be adamantly oblivious to the growing public perception that they're placing party before country. They continue down this particular path at their peril.



    We don't have to gues what Nunes said. (none / 0) (#56)
    by jimakaPPJ on Wed Mar 22, 2017 at 10:20:51 PM EST
    Here is two videos

    And speaking of "speaking directly to the American public......

    It doesn't get more direct than a press conference on the WH steps.


    Trump has trumped you guys again.

    As Casey said, "Can't anybody here play this game?"

    There is no doubt that the Obama ADMINISTRATION was directly involved,

    The real question is:  "What did the President know and when did he know it?"



    His multiple press conferences yesterday were nothing short of a public relations disaster. Over the course of a few short hours, he compromised his own committee's credibility by babbling away to the media like a damned fool, while simultaneously looking like a deer caught in the headlights. Small wonder he got roundly criticized from all quarters.

    And from a national security standpoint, many intelligence analysts are now openly speculating whether he intentionally torpedoed his own investigation by publicly disclosing the existence of a FISA-authorized classified investigation and perhaps tipping off its targets within the Trump administration or allied circles.

    Barack Obama has nothing to do with this. It's all Trump. And given yesterday's bombshell revelation from the Associated Press that former Trump campaign chair Paul Manafort was secretly on the Russian payroll to bolster Vladimir Putin's government and image, reportedly to the tune of $10 million, you're absolutely right: "What did the President know and when did he know it?"

    Drip. Drip. Drip.


    Wait (none / 0) (#59)
    by Repack Rider on Wed Mar 22, 2017 at 10:31:40 PM EST
    We don't have to guess what Nunes said

    We don't have to guess what he said in front of video cameras, no.  Pretty sure no one disputed that.  Since both Nunes and Trump have been caught lying repeatedly, is there any reason to suspect them of honesty now?

    More important than the press release by the compromised congressman, what was the nature of his conversation with Mr. Trump?  Do you know what took place behind a security screen made to keep that conversation private?  If you do, buy a suit for your Pulitzer Prize ceremony.


    Look, Repack (none / 0) (#91)
    by jimakaPPJ on Thu Mar 23, 2017 at 08:24:45 AM EST
    Your heroes have been caught just like the Repubs heroes were caught back in Nixon's heyday.

    Now, instead of saying, "Obama increased the number of intelligence agencies that could see the information," you try and act like that isn't the smoking gun that shows that Obama wanted to cause problems for the incoming Trump administration.

    Why else did he do that just days before he was to leave?

    There is no other reason that passes the BS test.

    Angry that they lost, your leaders have violated the law and deserve nothing less than exposure, indictment, trial and prison.

    Repack, think. Do you want a country where the government spies on each other? What follows? A violent coup?  

    Is that what you want?

    I hope not.

    And I believe you do not.

    But remembering what has been said and shown all across the media, public and social, it is plain that many on the Left do.


    Adam Schiff should not (none / 0) (#7)
    by KeysDan on Wed Mar 22, 2017 at 05:22:46 PM EST
    be underestimated.  He seems to be building a case for an independent investigation.  Schiff is a very smart lawyer, a graduate of Stanford and Harvard Law. (an interesting side note, his wife's name is Eve).  

    Nunes, himself, a member of the Trump transition team, does not look good in this newest Republican scandal, from railing about leaks and leakers, to racing to the White House to alert possible targets of investigation based on leaks and leakers.  Nunes needs to think a little about involving himself in releasing classified information, not to mention,potentially,  being caught up in obstruction of justice.


    Schiff made news this afternoon (5.00 / 3) (#24)
    by CaptHowdy on Wed Mar 22, 2017 at 06:45:12 PM EST
    by saying clearly and publicly for the first time that there is indeed evidence of collusion that is not circumstantial.

    i agree he is a smart guy who seems to have a plan


    The Independent Counsel Act expired (none / 0) (#12)
    by Green26 on Wed Mar 22, 2017 at 05:40:32 PM EST
    in 1999, I believe. Now independent or special counsel investigations have to be authorized by the DOJ. Have there been any since 1999 except for Waco and Plame? If not, 2 in 18 years.

    Nothing I've seen so far comes even close to rising to the level of a DOJ started special counsel investigation. The discussion and arguments look largely political to me, so far.

    Again, as I have said before, I have direct experience defending against an Independent Counsel investigation. The investigation went on for years.


    Yes, Special Counsel, (5.00 / 1) (#27)
    by KeysDan on Wed Mar 22, 2017 at 07:05:00 PM EST
    established in the wake of Watergate, expired in 1992, and was re-instated in 1994 by President Clinton, and, then left to expire permanently, in 1999.  I count,too, two Special Prosecutors, since then, Waco (Danford) by AG Reno, and Plame (Fitzgerald) by Deputy AG Comey (AG Ashcroft recused himself).  Sessions has recused himself, leaving any Special Prosecutor to the Deputy.

    I have a different view on whether the Russian/Trump ties suggest an independent investigation, by a Special Prosecutor.  Both Waco and Plame were very important, but neither, in my opinion, are in the same ball park of existential threat to our democracy as we now have before us.

      And, we have the broad-based findings of the entire intelligence community, and, most recently,, the testimony under oath by the FBI Director and NSA Director, Admiral Rogers. The FBI Director indicates that a counter-intelligence investigation is underway, including possible criminal action.

      Representative Adam Schiff outlined what we do know during the opening of House Intelligence Committee hearing, chaired by Nunes.  And, we know a lot..enough to investigate further.  Even the circumstantial evidence is almost as strong as concluding after going to bed and finding snow on the ground, that it snowed during the night.  

    Directly seeing the snow falling will be difficult, but not impossible if there is an independent investigation.  Nunes has disqualified himself, so that takes care of the House.  The Senate Intel Committe is headed by Richard Burr, a Trump supporter.  The fallen snow will only be shoveled higher and trucked away without a Special Prosecutor.


    what Nunes did was so unbelievable (none / 0) (#28)
    by CaptHowdy on Wed Mar 22, 2017 at 07:11:22 PM EST
    its reeks of either breathtaking incompetence or real hands down desperation.

    Probably both (none / 0) (#29)
    by Ga6thDem on Wed Mar 22, 2017 at 07:24:37 PM EST
    but more desperation I would say. It's now being reported on a lot of news services that there is evidence of collusion between Trump's campaign and Putin.

    Congress can authorize ... (none / 0) (#23)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Wed Mar 22, 2017 at 06:43:22 PM EST
    ... the formation and convening of an independent commission to be tasked with a specific purpose, without first obtaining prior concurrence of the U.S. Dept. of Justice.

    And quite frankly, this particular matter of Russian interference in our 2016 elections demands that an independent commission be convened. Hell, it screams for it.

    Because at present, the GOP congressional leadership's adamantine insistence that investigation instead be handled internally by the respective House and Senate intelligence committees has heretofore served only to fuel a sharp rise in public suspicion that Republican thumbs are on the scales.

    Further, as Congressman Schiff bluntly noted during his own press conference today, the perception of GOP heavy-handedness is causing the investigation to break down in partisan rancor while the congressional committees are literally still in the starting gates:

    "[House Intelligence Committee Chairman David Nunes] will need to decide whether he is the chairman of an independent investigation into conduct which includes allegations of potential coordination between the Trump campaign and the Russians, or he is going to act as a surrogate of the White House because he cannot do both. And unfortunately, I think the actions of today throw great doubt into the ability of both the chairman and the committee to conduct the investigation the way it ought to be conducted.

    "I think it does underscore the importance of establishing an independent commission, a body that is fully independent of any political considerations including those that may emanate from the White House. That would certainly give me a lot of confidence that in addition to whatever work our committee does and the Senate intelligence committee does, that there is a truly independent body that is looking into the grave issues that have been raised."
    - Rep. Adam Schiff (D-CA), ranking member, House Select Committee on Intelligence (March 22, 2017)



    Yep - Congress has no credibility (5.00 / 1) (#45)
    by Yman on Wed Mar 22, 2017 at 09:09:08 PM EST
    ... to do it.  Even McCain is saying it:

    It's a bizarre situation, and what I think, the reason why I'm calling for this select committee or a special committee, is I think that this back-and-forth and what the American people have found out so far that no longer does the Congress have credibility to handle this alone," McCain told MSNBC's Greta Van Susteren. "And I don't say that lightly."

    A select committee or special committee (none / 0) (#58)
    by Green26 on Wed Mar 22, 2017 at 10:26:12 PM EST
    is not a special prosecutor. I have been suggesting a select or special committee or independent review on this subject for a month or two. Big difference.

    It's not? (none / 0) (#61)
    by Yman on Wed Mar 22, 2017 at 10:43:27 PM EST
    Guess it's a good thing I was responding to Donald and never said anything about a special prosecutor.

    Don't think Schiff is correct on the law (none / 0) (#4)
    by Green26 on Wed Mar 22, 2017 at 05:05:57 PM EST
    and procedure, i.e. the "minimization". My understanding is that any transcript in this situation is supposed to eliminate enough information so that the identify of the US citizen cannot be determined. It's not just that the name be redacted.

    As some of you may recall, I raised the possibility previously that this could be what Trump had been referring to regarding "wiretapping" by Obama. Trump's frequent loose language, either intentional or because he frequently uses imprecise language. I.e. some of the Trump people, or even himself, being caught up in this type of surveillance. Flynn in particular.

    I later did more research, but by the time I had done the research, the thread was full and I didn't see a good place to summarize my research.

    The area is tough and complicated, and I couldn't get a full handle on it from articles and a directive or two. There are about 3 ways to get this general surveillance. One is Fisa. Also 2 other statutes. The minimization doctrine clearly applies to Fisa surveillance. The DOJ/Holder put in place some procedures in 2009 (I think).

    Some of the commentary seems inconsistent.

    It's clear that Trump is already using this as some validation for his prior very loose (or wrong) comments. He says he is now "somewhat" vindicated. In my view, if you give him the benefit of loose comments, I think he is going to have some support for what he said. No wiretap authorized on him or his people, and certainly not by Obama, but some indirect surveillance and apparently some passing around of the information.

    Again, for several reasons, I don't think it was proper, or even legal, for the stuff on Flynn and the Ambassador to be disclosed, and certainly not to be leaked to the press.


    This could be what Trump was referring to.. (5.00 / 2) (#9)
    by jondee on Wed Mar 22, 2017 at 05:32:24 PM EST
    Trump is like the piece of burnt toast in the tabloids in which people "see" pictures of Jesus and Elvis..

    His "imprecise language" being just a cover penetrating insights that only his supporters fully understand.

    "Maybe This is what Trump meant by.."

    It should be obvious by now that Trump could claim we're all the unwitting pawns of the reptilian overlords and he would always have "some support for what he said."

    Trump simply having some support for what he said is not in itself any kind of strong indicator of Trump's statements being grounded in reality.


    Regarding Congressman Schiff and ... (5.00 / 4) (#15)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Wed Mar 22, 2017 at 05:53:02 PM EST
    Green26: "Don't think Schiff is correct on the law and procedure, i.e. the 'minimization'."

    ... his professional credentials on the subject of intelligence and national security, he is a former deputy U.S. Attorney who first came to public prominence in 1990 by successfully prosecuting former FBI agent Richard Miller under the Espionage Act, after Miller had passed secret documents to the Soviet Union "in exchange for a promised $65,000 in gold and cash."

    Schiff was first elected to the California State Senate in Nov. 1996 and then to Congress in Nov. 2000, representing my old hometown of Pasadena, CA. (Disclosure: I worked on both his 1996 State Senate campaign and his first congressional campaign.)

    As ranking member of the House Select Committee on Intelligence, Schiff has been a prominent supporter of surveillance reforms, especially in the wake of the Edward Snowden affair, and a very vocal critic of the NSA's bulk collection of telecommunications metadata.

    Suffice to say that Congressman Schiff very likely knows what he is doing and talking about here. As for Chairman Nunes, perhaps not so much, given that he's publicly divulged that all the information he has seen to date was collected legally and further, "has to deal with FISA and multiple FISA warrants."



    What was disclosed? (5.00 / 1) (#62)
    by Militarytracy on Wed Mar 22, 2017 at 11:30:12 PM EST
    You don't have a transcript of the conversation, neither do I. Obviously something was amiss legally and Flynn was properly $hitcanned. But stop acting like an incidental collection was shared with you. It wasn't. You don't know what Flynn said, you don't even know what spy ambassador said.

    oh (none / 0) (#5)
    by mm on Wed Mar 22, 2017 at 05:19:47 PM EST
    you mean President Obama didn't "tap his wires"?

    Precision? (none / 0) (#21)
    by Repack Rider on Wed Mar 22, 2017 at 06:25:16 PM EST
    I raised the possibility previously that this could be what Trump had been referring to regarding "wiretapping" by Obama. Trump's frequent loose language, either intentional or because he frequently uses imprecise language.

    Like Trump, you do not use real sentences.  You should put a verb in the last word salad.

    I know that you "raised the possibility" that Trump does not have a clue what he is talking about, then you try to walk it back.  When you say this "could be" what he is talking about, you give away the store.  Since there is no actual content to a Trump statement, you make up your own interpretation, like interpreting a Rorschach image.  Like a Rorschach image, every interpretation is equally valid.

    Don't you just love precision?

    This just in.  Trump is not "imprecise."  He is ignorant and stupid, which are not the same thing.


    The (none / 0) (#201)
    by FlJoe on Thu Mar 23, 2017 at 04:21:25 PM EST
    truth should always take precedence over what is proper and when it speaking to power it should override even the law.

    Nunes just (none / 0) (#10)
    by Ga6thDem on Wed Mar 22, 2017 at 05:34:17 PM EST
    made it clear that he can't be trusted to lead an investigation and has put his party over his country. His loyalty is to Trump and not to the US. Besides that he was part of the campaign and he could be in trouble himself.

    What's your support for your opinion? (none / 0) (#13)
    by Green26 on Wed Mar 22, 2017 at 05:43:28 PM EST
    I don't see a problem in what Nunes did, assuming he is telling the truth, which I assume he is. This is just part of modern day politics.

    Plus, I seem to recall you supporting the leaks, surely illegal, of the Flynn stuff to the press. I opposed leaks like that, regardless of party.


    You just questioned the professional integrity of Congressman Schiff regarding this matter, even though he has over two decades of experience as both an attorney and a congressman on the subject of intelligence gathering and surveillance.

    You know, for a guy who regularly claims to be a Democratic voter, you've sure displayed a real knack for repeatedly carrying the Republicans' water buckets around here on a whole host of issues.



    This is my support (5.00 / 1) (#19)
    by Green26 on Wed Mar 22, 2017 at 06:21:05 PM EST
    "The minimization procedure adds that these can be disseminated to other agencies or friendly governments if the US person is anonymised, or including the US person's identity under certain criteria." See article I previously quoted on DOJ directives.

    I believe Schiff's statement on that subject was wrong.

    I am an attorney who has gone to just as good of schools as Schiff, have practiced longer, and have had experience in this general area. Our firm has and has had multiple former US attorneys and asst US Attorneys, and I work with them frequently. Schiff was an asst US attorney for only 6 years.

    I am not a politician like Schiff. He is playing politics, is my view.

    What's your expertise on the subject, Donald? Attorney or not? Not, right?


    Oh, please! (5.00 / 7) (#30)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Wed Mar 22, 2017 at 07:29:56 PM EST
    Don't be so disingenuous to the point of insulting everyone's intelligence here. You're no more "not a politician," than I'm "not a politician."

    The difference here is that I've long admitted my own political biases as a longstanding member of the Democratic Party, while you've done the exact opposite. Despite your claims to both political independence and being a Democratic voter, your posts here more often than not strongly suggest the opposite.

    I mean, just today, you're going to great lengths here to give Trump a totally undue benefit of the doubt regarding his unfounded accusations of being under illegal surveillance by both the Obama administration and Britain's MI6, and you've even further suggested that our focus should instead be on leaks from the Intelligence Community to the media.

    I mean, jeez, guy -- you couldn't adhere to the GOP line any more tightly than if you fell asleep each night on a bed of Republican press releases!

    You know, it's perfectly okay to support GOP causes, candidates and elected officials, and to defend their positions. But at least be honest about where your sympathies are, if only to your own self, while you're doing so.

    I don't claim to be the smartest guy in the room, but I'm certainly not stupid. I've been doing this for 30 years, and I think I've got enough experience to pretty easily identify someone who's a Republican -- or at least, GOP-leaning -- when I hear one. That doesn't mean we can't be friends.

    But when you insist on trying to mislead me and others regarding your actual political orientation, you wind up undercutting your own personal credibility in spite of your otherwise impressive professional credentials.

    Now, that's all I'm going to say on this matter, and I'm going to log off this particular sub-thread.



    Oh Jeez, Donald (none / 0) (#57)
    by Green26 on Wed Mar 22, 2017 at 10:23:11 PM EST
    You have little or no expertise in this area. You are not a lawyer. You are biased. I am not a Republican. Never have; never will.

    Please provide some substance or information, if you are going to insult me.


    If you aren't a Republican (5.00 / 2) (#63)
    by Militarytracy on Wed Mar 22, 2017 at 11:34:23 PM EST
    You graduated the bottom of the class in "those good as" schools. If your political bias isn't standing in the way of your keen legal mind then you are simply an idiot :)

    MT, I did quite well in every school I attended (1.25 / 4) (#68)
    by Green26 on Thu Mar 23, 2017 at 12:51:41 AM EST
    including an Ivy and Stanford law.

    You often don't have the knowledge or intellect to compete on the board, so you resort to insults.


    Yuck (5.00 / 4) (#70)
    by MKS on Thu Mar 23, 2017 at 01:03:37 AM EST
    How many times have you touted your cv and what schools you went to? The folks who can really bring it dont need to brag.

    Reminds me (5.00 / 4) (#71)
    by MKS on Thu Mar 23, 2017 at 01:07:03 AM EST
    of the Cheeto telling everyone he went to Wharton and how smart he is.  

    And it is odd (5.00 / 1) (#76)
    by MKS on Thu Mar 23, 2017 at 01:20:17 AM EST
    Those with pedigrees stop the bragging on schools pretty early on. The insecure among such folks if anything try to show how every day, regular guys they are.

    Look Stanford is clearly a good law school but you are hardly the only one out there. And over time most in the profession give up the fetish of judging people on what law school they went to and look to the actual work they do. Unless pedigree is all you offer.


    Saying where one went to law school is (none / 0) (#80)
    by Green26 on Thu Mar 23, 2017 at 01:27:15 AM EST
    not bragging. Also note that someone else cited Schiff''s schools and pedigree to me today, and I just responded.

    Actually, if you went to a top law school (5.00 / 3) (#113)
    by Peter G on Thu Mar 23, 2017 at 10:07:44 AM EST
    then bringing up where you went is bragging. I find I have to be very careful about that. The legal world is quite credentialist that way, and assumes competence and expertise in the graduates of the top half dozen schools (often without much justification) that has to be objectively demonstrated or proven by others.

    Peter, were you "bragging" when (none / 0) (#128)
    by Green26 on Thu Mar 23, 2017 at 10:57:54 AM EST
    you disclosed that you went to Haverford? Just curious.

    No. Haverford is not a law school. (5.00 / 5) (#132)
    by Peter G on Thu Mar 23, 2017 at 11:25:20 AM EST
    And most people have never heard of it. I cannot even remember when or in what context I would have mentioned that, or how in the world you would have remembered it. Are you saying I invoked the name of my tiny little Quaker alma mater to bolster my own credibility (the material fallacy known in logic as "appeal to prestige" or "appeal to authority")? If you are trying to call me out for hypocrisy, just say so directly, please, and I will try to give the accusation fair consideration.

    You disclosed this in the same conversation (none / 0) (#144)
    by Green26 on Thu Mar 23, 2017 at 12:01:08 PM EST
    I mentioned that I had had Tony Amsterdam at Stanford law school. I know Haverford and know it's a good school. Not calling you a hypocrite. Just pointing out what I believe is an inconsistency in your prior comment. Also, don't agree with your bragging comment. However, if naming one's school after a dozen years of posting is bragging in your view, then I'm okay with that. I like your posts and your knowledge. I learn from them and agree with most everything you say.

    ah, yes. Tony Amsterdam. (none / 0) (#151)
    by Peter G on Thu Mar 23, 2017 at 12:24:43 PM EST
    So my comment mentioning my alma mater was only to explain why I knew of and so admired this same professor, not to claim an entitlement to respect or credence based on that connection.  When you mentioned you had been in one of his law school classes, I had assumed NYU, where he spent most of his career, I believe, forgetting for a moment he had previously taught at Stanford and Columbia also. Thanks for you kind evaluation of (most of) my comments.

    Schiff (none / 0) (#84)
    by MKS on Thu Mar 23, 2017 at 01:53:17 AM EST
    is the Ranking Member on the House Intelligence Commitee. Are you comparing yourself to or competing with him?

    Hogwhartons School of Finance (5.00 / 4) (#108)
    by CaptHowdy on Thu Mar 23, 2017 at 09:44:54 AM EST
    I'l' give that (none / 0) (#186)
    by MKS on Thu Mar 23, 2017 at 03:15:36 PM EST
    comment two snorts.

    Just defending myself (1.00 / 1) (#74)
    by Green26 on Thu Mar 23, 2017 at 01:12:57 AM EST
    In the dozen or so years I've been on TL, have almost never said where I went to school. Have mentioned Stanford law twice recently. Please tell me where I went to college.

    This bragging is very off-putting, FYI. (5.00 / 1) (#72)
    by Anc260 on Thu Mar 23, 2017 at 01:10:48 AM EST
    I hate to fill up this thread with unproductive comments, but come on.

    And since when is a message board a competition?


    It isn't bragging, it is defending myself (none / 0) (#75)
    by Green26 on Thu Mar 23, 2017 at 01:16:35 AM EST
    It's also true. Would be happy to put my schooling and legal training up against you or anyone on the board.

    On some topics, I know what I'm talking about, and this is one of them.


    Why so insecure? (5.00 / 1) (#79)
    by MKS on Thu Mar 23, 2017 at 01:25:07 AM EST
    You sound so defensive.

    Just dazzle us with your brilliance. There are any number of inferences I could draw about how you brag about your law school your firm and your partners. Who cares?


    Not insecure at all (none / 0) (#81)
    by Green26 on Thu Mar 23, 2017 at 01:31:34 AM EST
    Actually, quite confident. I have always thought that people who call other people insecure on message boards, are the ones who are insecure. Have been "dazzling" all day in this thread.
    Ha. Have provided more hard and legal info than anyone else. What legal or other information have you provided in the thread?

    I try not to (5.00 / 2) (#83)
    by MKS on Thu Mar 23, 2017 at 01:49:00 AM EST
    do lawyer stuff on this blog. Not when I am off duty.

    If I am looking for legal analysis on a issue of public discussion, Jeralyn and Armando have some really good stuff. Peter will take the time to educate.  You just try to impress.


    The real yard stick (none / 0) (#82)
    by MKS on Thu Mar 23, 2017 at 01:42:31 AM EST
    is how many jury trials have you won as first chair? That is real prestige in big firms because so few civil cases are tried.

    And the decorum is that you never tout your own experience--you let others do it for you.

    Sorry, you sound funny or off.


    OTOH, I flunked out (5.00 / 6) (#133)
    by Repack Rider on Thu Mar 23, 2017 at 11:34:09 AM EST
    I did quite well in every school including an Ivy and Stanford law.

    I know educated people, and I know smart people.  I even know people who are both.

    Ten years ago the University of California Alumni Magazine honored me and three of my friends as the third entry on a list called "25 Brilliant California Ideas."  I'm the guy in the photo.

    The irony is that none of the four of us graduated college, and my two semesters leading to a flunk-out were more formal education than all the other three combined.

    Hardly anyone gets to change the world, and of those who do, most do not improve it.  We changed the world a lot more than a Stanford educated lawyer posting on this blog, and we improved it.

    My brother has a degree in English from an Ivy university.  I'm the one with a book in print.

    Being smart and being "educated" are not the same thing.


    Amen Repack... (5.00 / 1) (#137)
    by kdog on Thu Mar 23, 2017 at 11:50:41 AM EST
    Smart, educated, and wise are three different things...of the three, I say wisdom is where it's really at.  And the hardest to achieve.  

    Agreed (none / 0) (#140)
    by BackFromOhio on Thu Mar 23, 2017 at 11:56:19 AM EST
    Bill Gates anyone.

    By the way, I am greatly over-educated but do not believe formal education, by itself, confers correctness.


    In the NFL (none / 0) (#188)
    by MKS on Thu Mar 23, 2017 at 03:26:08 PM EST
    they don't care where you went to school or how high a draft pick you are.  Can you perform or not?  If you have a pedigree, you get maybe a couple week headstart in training camp.

    I don't think rookies get too far talking about what a great college they went to.  There are lot of All-Pros and Hall of Famers who went to small obscure schools.


    Now you want to bring football into this (none / 0) (#192)
    by Green26 on Thu Mar 23, 2017 at 03:40:18 PM EST
    Okay, but I'm warning you that I played college football at the DI level on a top 20 team. Bring it on. I'll defer to Peter G on whether it's bragging if I don't mention my school. Ha.

    Here we go again (5.00 / 2) (#194)
    by MKS on Thu Mar 23, 2017 at 03:46:19 PM EST
    It was a metaphor, dude.



    Get a sense of humor (2.00 / 1) (#196)
    by Green26 on Thu Mar 23, 2017 at 03:50:35 PM EST
    if you can.

    I have come to not like many (none / 0) (#49)
    by MKS on Wed Mar 22, 2017 at 09:44:25 PM EST
    attorneys....I have my reasons.

    You don't think (5.00 / 1) (#26)
    by Ga6thDem on Wed Mar 22, 2017 at 06:56:24 PM EST
    tattling to the white house what is going on in the intelligence committee is not attempting something? I don't know what. Maybe he wants it moved out of the intelligence committee. That's not the same as leaking. Since Schiff said they now have evidence of collusion I'm sure Nunes was running to tell Trump.

    As far as leaks go I don't know what you are talking about. I said leak investigations go nowhere. And the people leaking are attempting to save our country from Putin running things. Nunes has picked the side of Putin and Trump instead of the side of America but then so has the majority of Republicans. That is why he cannot be trusted to lead any sort of investigation. Even before all this I thought Nunes should not be on the investigation and should recuse himself simply because he was a part of the Trump campaign. Do you think he can investigate himself?  


    Who leaked the Flynn/Ambassador stuff (none / 0) (#54)
    by Green26 on Wed Mar 22, 2017 at 10:19:11 PM EST
    to the WAPost? There's a leak.

    How do you know (5.00 / 1) (#87)
    by Ga6thDem on Thu Mar 23, 2017 at 06:31:56 AM EST
    it wasn't foreign intelligence? It's my understanding that foreign intelligence agencies have quite a dossier on Trump and the foreign intelligence agencies have been doing surveillance on Trump and his campaign staff that was meeting with the Russians. So it could be someone leaking that doesn't have to follow American rules.

    Yes, this has also been (none / 0) (#88)
    by Militarytracy on Thu Mar 23, 2017 at 06:57:18 AM EST
    Known for a very long time.

    GA, in case you don't understand (none / 0) (#95)
    by jimakaPPJ on Thu Mar 23, 2017 at 08:42:41 AM EST
    countries keep information on each other's leaders.

    It is one of the things intelligence agencies do.

    I would he shocked to learn the Russians don't have tons of information on Trump, Schumer, et al up to Pelosi's hair dresser and what Spicer puts in his coffee.

    Now, everyone who is in a leadership role, Comey, Clapper, et al, has said there is nothing to the many claims re Russia/Trump.

    Don't you understand that the Demo political leadership and biased media is playing you for power?

    Don't you know that if they had anything it would be out??


    LOL (5.00 / 1) (#98)
    by Ga6thDem on Thu Mar 23, 2017 at 09:03:12 AM EST
    Jim, Comey has said quite the opposite and Clapper said he did not review the information regarding Trump. That's hardly saying there is nothing.

    It's not that foreign intelligence has information on Trump. Of course, they have information on a lot of elected officials. However in Trump's case it's about Trump COLLUDING with Putin which is a whole different ballgame than just random info as to who their hairdresser is.

    Patience grasshopper. All of this is going to come out in due time. Schiff says that there's evidence of Trump colluding. The people who have been played are the people that voted for Trump like you. Look no further than his healthcare bill. He broke almost every promise he made to you guys in that one bill.


    A word to the wise (5.00 / 1) (#153)
    by jondee on Thu Mar 23, 2017 at 12:30:41 PM EST
    when he types things in bold, it means that what he's saying is particularly momentous, so everyone had better pay attention, if they know what's good for them..

    Though, it strikes me that in the Watergate days it took quite awhile for the whole sordid spool to unravel, and the same type of hysterical right wing jackdaws were playing misdirection and "look over there!" and going on-and-on about "politically motivated" investigations..


    Oh we understand every single day (none / 0) (#96)
    by Militarytracy on Thu Mar 23, 2017 at 08:46:35 AM EST
    What intelligence agencies collect on. It seems to be you and Green who lose track of certain realities given the day and situation. Situational knowledge?

    "Be patient, Jim" (none / 0) (#97)
    by Yman on Thu Mar 23, 2017 at 08:57:46 AM EST
    "It will come".

    Heh, heh ...


    It looks to me... (none / 0) (#60)
    by Repack Rider on Wed Mar 22, 2017 at 10:42:16 PM EST
    Who leaked the Flynn/Ambassador stuff to the WAPost?

    ...Like the Russians are cutting their losses and burning the house down on the way out.  They would be in a position to know, wouldn't they?

    Flynn should have known better than to trust a Russian.  Like maybe he thought the conversation wasn't being taped by the Russian for use against him later if necessary?  This is B-grade spy movie cliche stuff.


    You have no transcript (none / 0) (#65)
    by Militarytracy on Wed Mar 22, 2017 at 11:36:07 PM EST
    Until someone in the White House or an intelligence official confirms such a thing it is hearsay.

    Be patient, MT (none / 0) (#93)
    by jimakaPPJ on Thu Mar 23, 2017 at 08:30:04 AM EST
    it will come.

    Bull $hit (5.00 / 2) (#94)
    by Militarytracy on Thu Mar 23, 2017 at 08:39:30 AM EST
    If it could have it already would have. Come on Jim. I don't even know if an incidental collection would be shared if the target was "declassified". I don't think it could be. If there was an investigation and one of our allies shared their collection of the conversation...maybe, I don't know how the five eyes agreement would affect that, but it could be a collection outside the five eyes agreement too. But a US incidental collection? H*ll Phucking no.

    BS yourself potty mouth (none / 0) (#112)
    by jimakaPPJ on Thu Mar 23, 2017 at 10:07:30 AM EST
    Read that first sentence and get back to me when it makes sense.

    In the meantime, enjoy watching Trump make the media, and all the haters, look really really bad.


    I love how when Southerners lose (5.00 / 2) (#115)
    by Militarytracy on Thu Mar 23, 2017 at 10:18:46 AM EST
    An argument brutally they resort to callibg out potty mouth...disrespectful...un-American :)

    I'm already enjoying it (5.00 / 1) (#120)
    by Yman on Thu Mar 23, 2017 at 10:36:20 AM EST
    But blaming everyone else has worn old now that he's supposed to actually lead, the minority of people buying his snake oil is shrinking.

    But then, leaks are just (none / 0) (#14)
    by jondee on Wed Mar 22, 2017 at 05:52:02 PM EST
    part of modern day politics.

    There are no words (5.00 / 6) (#17)
    by Repack Rider on Wed Mar 22, 2017 at 06:13:21 PM EST
    This is Trumpspeak for, "I just learned something that everyone else knows."

    Speaking about Abraham Lincoln to members of "The Party of Lincoln":

    "Great president. Most people don't even know he was a Republican," Trump said while addressing attendees at the National Republican Congressional Committee Dinner. "Does anyone know? Lot of people don't know that."

    Trump then said Republicans need to spread the word that Lincoln was a Republican, appearing to be unaware of the fact that the GOP is commonly referred to as the "party of Lincoln."

    "Let's take an ad, let's use one of those PACs," he said.

    Oy (none / 0) (#18)
    by jondee on Wed Mar 22, 2017 at 06:20:12 PM EST
    that's a word that was invented for events and situations for which there are no words.

    I never understood "Oy"... (5.00 / 1) (#22)
    by Repack Rider on Wed Mar 22, 2017 at 06:34:21 PM EST
    Until on a visit to NYC I ate in the Carnegie Deli, the greatest delicatessen ever opened.

    I recommend the chicken liver sandwich on rye.

    A waiter was frustrated by some aspect of his job, and as he passed my table, he muttered to himself, "Oy vey."  The inflection and centuries of cultural pain were expressed so completely in two syllables that I finally got it.


    The Carnegie Deli on 7th Ave (none / 0) (#40)
    by Chuck0 on Wed Mar 22, 2017 at 08:33:15 PM EST
    Closed on Dec. 31, 2016. Best cheesecake EVER! Fortunately the mail order business for cheesecake is still open as is the Deli closest to me at the Sands Casino in Bethlehem.

    Second or third best cheesecake ever (none / 0) (#42)
    by Peter G on Wed Mar 22, 2017 at 08:53:29 PM EST
    In the summer of 1974, my summer job apartment-mates ran a blind taste-test among Carnegie Deli's cheesecake, Junior's (of Brooklyn) cheesecake, and the homemade cheesecake my then-girlfriend (now wife of 40+ years) baked from her undergrad roommate's mother's recipe. Envelopes, please?  In third place, IIRC, Carnegie.  Second place, Junior's. Need I say more?

    Hawaii State Rep. Beth Fukumoto quits GOP. (5.00 / 2) (#43)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Wed Mar 22, 2017 at 09:02:16 PM EST
    "The Republican Party is getting increasingly hostile to different opinions. If you followed what happened at the GOP convention, I got booed for about 10 minutes straight for raising concerns about President Trump, then nominee Trump, and the way he treated women and minorities in many of his remarks. I, at the time, had said this is not, this should not reflect our party.

    "I repeated those sentiments at the women's march last week, and since then, there have been many calls for my resignation, and my caucus members have raised concerns about whether or not that means I'm a Republican, whether or not that means I'm fit for leadership, whether or not that means I should even be an elected official. My caucus has asked me to stop speaking out about Trump and to make a commitment. They've said they'll keep me as minority leader if I make a commitment not to speak out against Trump for the remainder of his term. I don't think that's our job as elected officials. Even more so, I don't think that's our job as citizens."
    - State Rep. Beth Fukumoto (R-Mililani), in a January 27, 2016 letter to her constituents after the Republican National Committee formally censured her for participating the Women's March

    This has been a very painful journey for Beth, and one that's been marked by a steadily increasing stream of racist and sexist abuse directed toward her by white mainland Republicans. Today, after publicly denouncing the GOP as "a failing party," she formally resigned her membership effective immediately, and announced her intent to join the Democratic Party "if they'll even have me."

    Meanwhile, some 4,000 miles to the east in an increasingly amoral political wasteland called Oklahoma, GOP State Rep. George Faught today characterized rape and incest as "the will of God." It's as though he was determined to prove Rep. Fukumoto's point for her.

    So of course, Beth Fukumoto will be welcome. E komo mai.

    Uh, oh (5.00 / 2) (#48)
    by Yman on Wed Mar 22, 2017 at 09:13:59 PM EST
    US Officials: Info suggests Trump associates may have coordinated with Russians

    Not much in the way of details, but this should make fr  an interesting Twitter storm tomorrow.

    Volunteers (5.00 / 3) (#64)
    by Repack Rider on Wed Mar 22, 2017 at 11:35:06 PM EST
    Spicer says that Manafort was just a volunteer.  How important can that be?  

    A new Associated Press investigation uncovered ties between Mr. Manafort and Russian oligarch Oleg Deripaska dating back to 2005. In a confidential strategy plan, Manafort told Mr. Deripaska that he could influence politics, business, and media across the United States, Europe, and former Soviet states for the benefit of Russia.

    "We are now of the belief that this model can greatly benefit the Putin Government if employed at the correct levels with the appropriate commitment to success," Manafort wrote in the memo.

    I am reminded of the Neil Bush divorce case, in which Mr. Bush thought those girls just liked him.


    The women, he said, simply knocked on the door of his hotel room, entered and had sex with him. He said he did not know if they were prostitutes because they never asked for money and he did not pay them.

    "Mr. Bush, you have to admit it's a pretty remarkable thing for a man just to go to a hotel room door and open it and have a woman standing there and have sex with her," Brown said.

    "It was very unusual," Bush said.

    Not prostitutes.  Volunteers.

    Healthcare Bill is collapsing (5.00 / 1) (#121)
    by Militarytracy on Thu Mar 23, 2017 at 10:36:40 AM EST
    Unidentified GOP lawmaker told CNN this morning

    Jim gave Donald a 5 up-thread! (5.00 / 1) (#122)
    by fishcamp on Thu Mar 23, 2017 at 10:36:56 AM EST

    Well that's three then (5.00 / 2) (#126)
    by Militarytracy on Thu Mar 23, 2017 at 10:43:04 AM EST
    Nothing else incredible can happen today :)

    Tourism is headed for the dumper. (5.00 / 1) (#138)
    by Chuck0 on Thu Mar 23, 2017 at 11:52:34 AM EST
    Tougher visa screening called for. Why would anyone want to come to the US on vacation in the current climate? My sister lives in China and she doesn't want to come here. She certainly doesn't let them know she actually resides in China and not the US. There are so many more welcoming places to visit than this country.

    Making America suck again (none / 0) (#142)
    by Militarytracy on Thu Mar 23, 2017 at 11:59:29 AM EST
    Not to mention... (none / 0) (#162)
    by kdog on Thu Mar 23, 2017 at 01:24:04 PM EST
    the relative ease of world travel thanks to the airplane in the last 50-60 years has probably had something to do with the relative peace the world has enjoyed since WWII.  Visit a foreign land, have a good time, see people are people...one love Baby.

    Tourism is peace...it should encouraged, and old hurdles should be removed instead of new hassles being added.  Till one day our great-grand children think of passports and visas like today's kids think of 8 track tapes or pay phones.  

    My feet are my passport, my birth is my visa...I have a dream!


    31 votes against the AHCA (5.00 / 3) (#173)
    by CaptHowdy on Thu Mar 23, 2017 at 02:07:13 PM EST
    a defeat woud be epic.

    seriously.  this is as Pelosie said, rookie mistakes.  

    seriously if this doesnt pass the House ....


    Paul Ryan (none / 0) (#175)
    by CaptHowdy on Thu Mar 23, 2017 at 02:22:10 PM EST
    has delayed his press conference.  

    to change his pants.


    I wonder (none / 0) (#176)
    by Ga6thDem on Thu Mar 23, 2017 at 02:23:46 PM EST
    if it is worse for Ryan or Trump if it fails?

    aparrently NO VOTE (5.00 / 1) (#182)
    by CaptHowdy on Thu Mar 23, 2017 at 02:29:16 PM EST
    thought experiment

    try to imagine what Brietbart will do to Ryan starting.........



    Ryan (none / 0) (#178)
    by CaptHowdy on Thu Mar 23, 2017 at 02:24:20 PM EST
    i mean (none / 0) (#179)
    by CaptHowdy on Thu Mar 23, 2017 at 02:26:06 PM EST
    the alligators snappin at Trumps ass are not in short supply

    but this particular cluster fu@k belongs to Paul.


    i think senate democrats (5.00 / 2) (#199)
    by CaptHowdy on Thu Mar 23, 2017 at 04:04:03 PM EST
    might just take the bull by the tail and filibuster Gorsuch

    They damn well better (5.00 / 2) (#200)
    by caseyOR on Thu Mar 23, 2017 at 04:15:31 PM EST

    From a 2013 Guardian article (none / 0) (#8)
    by Green26 on Wed Mar 22, 2017 at 05:29:49 PM EST
    "NSA minimization procedures signed by Holder in 2009 set out that once a target is confirmed to be within the US, interception must stop immediately. However, these circumstances do not apply to large-scale data where the NSA claims it is unable to filter US communications from non-US ones.

    The NSA is empowered to retain data for up to five years and the policy states "communications which may be retained include electronic communications acquired because of limitations on the NSA's ability to filter communications".

    Even if upon examination a communication is found to be domestic - entirely within the US - the NSA can appeal to its director to keep what it has found if it contains "significant foreign intelligence information", "evidence of a crime", "technical data base information" (such as encrypted communications), or "information pertaining to a threat of serious harm to life or property".

    Domestic communications containing none of the above must be destroyed. Communications in which one party was outside the US, but the other is a US-person, are permitted for retention under FAA rules.

    The minimization procedure adds that these can be disseminated to other agencies or friendly governments if the US person is anonymised, or including the US person's identity under certain criteria."


    That article (5.00 / 2) (#11)
    by Ga6thDem on Wed Mar 22, 2017 at 05:37:38 PM EST
    does not relate to this. This is a case regarding a foreign agent. That article appears to be regarding large scale data mining.

    The article is right on point (none / 0) (#20)
    by Green26 on Wed Mar 22, 2017 at 06:23:21 PM EST
    General surveillance of a foreign agent.

    Do you think the US gets a specific probably cause warrant on every foreign ambassador and agent?


    Nope (5.00 / 2) (#25)
    by Ga6thDem on Wed Mar 22, 2017 at 06:48:16 PM EST
    because you are assuming that Trump's campaign didn't have a FISA warrant on them from Comey and that Flynn et al are just "innocent American citizens" who happened to call the wrong number and speak with foreign agents. Flynn himself was/is a foreign agent and perhaps others on the Trump campaign as well. That's far from your "average American"

    TLers have a short memory (none / 0) (#32)
    by linea on Wed Mar 22, 2017 at 07:51:05 PM EST
    this is the same comey who made the hillary-weiner nexus.

    i remember hearing this on npr while driving to work in the rain and i was SHOCKED at the weiner connection and that the fbi was re-opening the investigation - 11 days before the election!!

    the new york times:
    Hillary Clinton Blames F.B.I. Director for Election Loss


    You are mistaken (5.00 / 3) (#34)
    by Ga6thDem on Wed Mar 22, 2017 at 08:03:42 PM EST
    if you think I have any trust in Comey. I do not. I think the investigation should be taken out of his hands and put in the hands of a select panel. I have said time and again that Comey has trashed his reputation. However saying that Comey might have gotten a FISA warrant has nothing to do with whether I think he's doing a good job or a bad job. He might not have even been involved and it might have been an underling.

    Don't think it is possible to have a Fisa warrant (none / 0) (#53)
    by Green26 on Wed Mar 22, 2017 at 10:17:43 PM EST
    on a US citizen. Isn't Fisa for foreign stuff and people? Tell us if you think I am wrong. Or provide a citation. I am still getting up to speed in this area.

    You appear to be wrong about FISA (5.00 / 5) (#101)
    by Peter G on Thu Mar 23, 2017 at 09:17:51 AM EST
    being per se inapplicable to surveillance of U.S. persons (including citizens). See 50 U.S.C. 1801-1805.

    Yes Peter (none / 0) (#104)
    by Militarytracy on Thu Mar 23, 2017 at 09:24:14 AM EST
    As far as I know that is WHY you would need a FISA warrant. The FISA court has already approved many surveillance collection procedures for foreign entities within the US. So the FBI and the NSA don't need to apply for warrants to do that constant surveillance. But to surveille a US target you must have a warrant.

    Great Stanford education you're (5.00 / 3) (#105)
    by Militarytracy on Thu Mar 23, 2017 at 09:25:26 AM EST
    Showing off here.

    And there is (5.00 / 2) (#107)
    by Militarytracy on Thu Mar 23, 2017 at 09:43:51 AM EST
    Yes, that would be FISA section 702 (5.00 / 2) (#116)
    by Peter G on Thu Mar 23, 2017 at 10:21:43 AM EST
    codified at 50 USC 1881a.

    See the title of 702 (none / 0) (#130)
    by Green26 on Thu Mar 23, 2017 at 11:15:01 AM EST
    "50 U.S. Code § 1881a - Procedures for targeting certain persons outside the United States other than United States persons"

    It specifically says that it doesn't apply to targeting US persons.

    And there are rules, including minimization, for what should be done when a US person is incidentally caught up in the surveillance.


    Don't think Fisa warrants apply to (none / 0) (#55)
    by Green26 on Wed Mar 22, 2017 at 10:20:44 PM EST
    US citizens, by definition. Please correct if I am wrong.

    Dear Lordt help me!!! (5.00 / 1) (#106)
    by Militarytracy on Thu Mar 23, 2017 at 09:26:17 AM EST
    I think what you're missing, Mr. Green, (5.00 / 3) (#33)
    by Peter G on Wed Mar 22, 2017 at 08:00:38 PM EST
    is the significance in that protocol of the word "target." I don't think anyone is contending that Tr*mp was the "target" of a foreign intelligence investigation which then unexpectedly discovered he was located within the U.S.  The theory most consistent with probability and common sense, is that Tr*mp is a U.S. person who was inadvertently (and probably unexpectedly) overheard during surveillance of a foreign target.  

    Also (5.00 / 1) (#35)
    by Ga6thDem on Wed Mar 22, 2017 at 08:06:06 PM EST
    people have to remember that foreign countries have intel services that are tracking some of these associates and the fact that perhaps Trump is showing up on foreign intel has nothing to do with our FISA laws.

    but? (none / 0) (#36)
    by linea on Wed Mar 22, 2017 at 08:10:19 PM EST
    doesnt it appear that intelligence gathering, unrelated to criminal investigation, is selectively being leaked on political opponents?

    Yes, it does, but (5.00 / 1) (#38)
    by Peter G on Wed Mar 22, 2017 at 08:24:53 PM EST
    So what? It should therefore be ignored, regardless of credibility or seriousness?

    i suppose not (none / 0) (#41)
    by linea on Wed Mar 22, 2017 at 08:39:56 PM EST
    but doesnt this buttress my assertion that the intelligence community should be disbanded and there should only be federal police with proper court warrants (no fisa) and military intelligence?

    Nope (5.00 / 1) (#44)
    by Yman on Wed Mar 22, 2017 at 09:04:41 PM EST
    It doesn't.

    Peter G, think your should re-read what I said (none / 0) (#51)
    by Green26 on Wed Mar 22, 2017 at 10:12:34 PM EST
    I said nothing abut Trump being a target. Of course, he wasn't and isn't. I was talking about Fica warrants and surveillance, which I believe is what must be used to surveill foreign agents, like the Russian Ambassador.

    The minimization protocol that you cited (5.00 / 1) (#99)
    by Peter G on Thu Mar 23, 2017 at 09:10:16 AM EST
    and quoted, at #8, was explicitly stated to be a NSA protocol (not FISA), and thus for overseas investigations only, and as applying to targets. So if what you were trying to say is not what you published in your comment, I'm lost as to your point. I am not the one who claimed detailed knowledge of FISA, and I have refrained from commenting further where I lack expert knowledge, as as my general policy here.

    Note that the NSA, as well as FBI, (none / 0) (#131)
    by Green26 on Thu Mar 23, 2017 at 11:17:50 AM EST
    are the agencies that can seek Fisa warrans. So, the NSA directive clearly applies. While I haven't checked, I assume the directive, which came from Holder/DOJ, also applies, directly or indirectly, to the FBI.

    Except the FBI can obtain (none / 0) (#135)
    by Militarytracy on Thu Mar 23, 2017 at 11:47:44 AM EST
    Warrants to "wiretap" American citizens, so I'm not understanding where you see such direct correlation between the FBI and the NSA and the FISA courts.

    Remember after 9/11 our intelligence agencies are supposed to work together now too. That was an enacted recommendation from the 9/11 Commission.

    But when it comes to warrants to tap Americans, the FBI can have those.


    FBI can't get warrants on US persons (none / 0) (#139)
    by Green26 on Thu Mar 23, 2017 at 11:53:26 AM EST
    under Fisa, to my knowledge. Of course, the FBI can get normal probably cause warrants on US persons, in compliance with the 4th amendment..

    Nunes seems to have indicated that his recent information came from Fisa.


    You are wrong. (5.00 / 3) (#145)
    by Chuck0 on Thu Mar 23, 2017 at 12:04:04 PM EST
    From the DOJ's own website. "For targets that are U.S. persons (U.S. citizens, permanent resident aliens, and U.S. corporations), FISA requires heightened requirements in some instances."

    I work for a defense company. We are constantly trained that any US citizen acting on behalf of a foreign government or company is a "foreign person" with regards to export controls on defense materials. Not a big leap to think these same people could be surveilled under FISAS.


    Okay, Chuck0, finally some hard info (none / 0) (#166)
    by Green26 on Thu Mar 23, 2017 at 01:39:58 PM EST
    This is a good start, on this side issue. Now perhaps someone can find the statute or more info, so we can see what this applies to and how it can be used and what the protections are. Still doubt that this would have been used for the Nunes or Flynn info. Good to know, but not relevant the Nunes and Flynn discussions. Thanks.

    More info, on foreign agents of foreign powers (none / 0) (#168)
    by Green26 on Thu Mar 23, 2017 at 01:59:15 PM EST
    "To obtain a FISA warrant, the government must show probable cause that the entities in question are agents of a foreign power (the precise showing is different depending on whether US persons are involved)."

    If this is right, then probable cause is the standard.

    Author is: "Susan Hennessey is Managing Editor of Lawfare and General Counsel of the Lawfare Institute. She is a Brookings Fellow in National Security Law. Prior to joining Brookings, Ms. Hennessey was an attorney in the Office of General Counsel of the National Security Agency. She is a graduate of Harvard Law School and the University of California, Los Angeles."



    One more thing (none / 0) (#169)
    by Green26 on Thu Mar 23, 2017 at 02:00:37 PM EST
    Saw a tweet by the author, Susan Hennessey, in which she "bragged" that she went to Harvard law school. Ha.

    You keep saying this, but I cited the statutes (5.00 / 2) (#154)
    by Peter G on Thu Mar 23, 2017 at 12:31:28 PM EST
    at your request, which appear to say the opposite (unless your comment #139 is only intended to draw a distinction between what the FBI can do and what some other agency can do, but even then it sounds wrong). Please explain the basis for your now-oft-repeated understanding. What is the statute or regulation that says so?

    Why don't you cite the FISA or Patriot or other (1.00 / 1) (#160)
    by Green26 on Thu Mar 23, 2017 at 01:21:24 PM EST
    statute that would authorize the NSA or FBI to do surveillance on US persons. Not talking about normal probable cause warrants. Not talking about incidental capture of info on US persons (which have limitations on use and identification).

    No, something like that can overlap (none / 0) (#141)
    by Militarytracy on Thu Mar 23, 2017 at 11:58:58 AM EST
    They could have to go to FISA in addition.

    Don't think you are correct (none / 0) (#146)
    by Green26 on Thu Mar 23, 2017 at 12:04:26 PM EST
    Fisa relates to foreign intelligence.  In any event, don't think your possibility, even if permitted, could possibly relate to what is being discussed by Nunes.

    Please provide some citations. This is not my area, so would be happy to learn something.


    Are you certain you are an attorney? (5.00 / 3) (#147)
    by Militarytracy on Thu Mar 23, 2017 at 12:05:16 PM EST
    Sure, he's a hot-shot... (none / 0) (#191)
    by desertswine on Thu Mar 23, 2017 at 03:38:04 PM EST
    Ivy League lawyer.  Or a 20 year old Albanian kid on Putin's "troll" payroll.

    Also, Peter G (none / 0) (#52)
    by Green26 on Wed Mar 22, 2017 at 10:15:08 PM EST
    You are a criminal lawyer. Please tell us under what authority or statute you think the Russian Ambassador is being watched by the US. I don't know. I am only guessing based on my recent not-insignificant reading in the past couple weeks.

    Really? (5.00 / 2) (#66)
    by Militarytracy on Wed Mar 22, 2017 at 11:37:03 PM EST
    Unfotunately, yes (none / 0) (#73)
    by MKS on Thu Mar 23, 2017 at 01:11:18 AM EST
    The Russian ambassador, the entire embassy (none / 0) (#67)
    by Militarytracy on Wed Mar 22, 2017 at 11:39:46 PM EST
    And everyone who works there has been under surveillance since before my birth.

    Okay, now name the legal authority under (1.00 / 1) (#69)
    by Green26 on Thu Mar 23, 2017 at 12:53:09 AM EST
    which they are under surveillance. Ha, knew you couldn't.

    Once FISA has approved an NSA procedure such (5.00 / 1) (#92)
    by Militarytracy on Thu Mar 23, 2017 at 08:29:39 AM EST
    As surveilling foreign embassies, there is no returning to the court for warrants for that procedure. Incidental collections are not against the law, happen, and they aren't "widely dispersed".

    MT, this is what I have been saying all along (none / 0) (#165)
    by Green26 on Thu Mar 23, 2017 at 01:33:25 PM EST
    Note your comment that the incidental collections can't be widely disbursed. It's actually much more protective than that. Minimization and other similar protections. That's what I have been discussing and focusing on for the past 2 weeks.

    Classic trolling technique. Ask question (5.00 / 4) (#103)
    by Peter G on Thu Mar 23, 2017 at 09:21:34 AM EST
    and simultaneously declare that the foil selected to answer the question cannot answer it. Anyway, troll or not, please look at 50 U.S.C. 1802 (authorization for surveillance of foreign agents in U.S., for intelligence purposes, without a warrant) and see whether that answers your question.

    FISA relates to foreign surveillance of foreign (none / 0) (#157)
    by Green26 on Thu Mar 23, 2017 at 01:13:12 PM EST
    powers and agents.

    "The Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act of 1978 ("FISA" Pub.L. 95-511, 92 Stat. 1783, 50 U.S.C. ch. 36) is a United States federal law which prescribes procedures for the physical and electronic surveillance and collection of "foreign intelligence information" between "foreign powers" and "agents of foreign powers..." Wiki.

    702 specifically applies to foreign people, and says it does not apply to US persons.

    Not sure what question you are referring to, but don't think what you posted answers my question.


    It falls within the purview of 17 different agenci (none / 0) (#85)
    by Militarytracy on Thu Mar 23, 2017 at 06:17:39 AM EST
    The NSA would monitor any signal and does. The FBI has their own authority to surveille them. Heck, even the ATF can surveille them.

    I would assume (none / 0) (#134)
    by Chuck0 on Thu Mar 23, 2017 at 11:43:24 AM EST
    that ALL foreign dignitaries and/or their staff within the US are surveilled to some extent. Not saying I agree with it or that is correct. I would just assume that to be happening. And I assume that US ambassadors and staff are surveilled by whatever host country they are serving in as well.

    Information Please (none / 0) (#148)
    by BackFromOhio on Thu Mar 23, 2017 at 12:09:12 PM EST
    Do we know the source of the information that Nunes received, disclosed to Ryan, and then Trump?  I.e., could he have received the information from the intelligence community or a foreign source (Wikileaks?).

    Does the source of the information make a difference in his duty under House Select Intellligence Committee rules? For example, if the information is classified?

    What do those rules or applicable law say about disclosure of classified information shared with Congressional intelligence committees to the President, particularly when the President or his affiliates or members of his administration are targets of the Committee's and/or intelligence communities' investigation?

    Did Nunes violate the rules of his Committee or any law by having disclosed the info he did to the public at a press conference during ongoing investigations?  

    Thanks to anyone who can shed light on these questions.


    It's magic (5.00 / 2) (#149)
    by Militarytracy on Thu Mar 23, 2017 at 12:16:05 PM EST
    He confirms yesterday without notifying anyone else on the committee that there were incidental collections associated with the Trump team, but he could not deny that he received this incredible unshareable information from the White House when asked that question this morning :)

    And....he is sorry...snort


    Query (none / 0) (#158)
    by BackFromOhio on Thu Mar 23, 2017 at 01:18:52 PM EST
    If Nunes got his info from the WH, then got Ryan's authorization to go to WH and pretend to report it and then hold press conference, is he guilty of obstruction of justice or....?

    Addendum (none / 0) (#159)
    by BackFromOhio on Thu Mar 23, 2017 at 01:20:44 PM EST
    Are both Nunes & Ryan guilty of....?

    BackFromOhio: "If Nunes got his info from the WH, then got Ryan's authorization to go to WH and pretend to report it and then hold press conference, is he guilty of obstruction of justice or....?"

    David Nunes is not exactly the brightest bulb in the chandelier.


    How is that even POSSIBLE??? (5.00 / 1) (#172)
    by Yman on Thu Mar 23, 2017 at 02:04:23 PM EST
    The head of the committee investigating this has never heard of Roger Stone or Carter Page?  Something that would be known by anyone who's done as little a read a few newspaper articles on the subject?  If he's playing dumb, that's just an embarrassingmy transparent attempt at feigning ignorance.  If he's sincere, that's even worse.

    Well, that's what Nunes said. (5.00 / 3) (#195)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Thu Mar 23, 2017 at 03:47:51 PM EST
    Personally, I find that difficult to believe, too.

    And if Devin Nunes isn't left handed (none / 0) (#150)
    by Militarytracy on Thu Mar 23, 2017 at 12:19:42 PM EST
    I say he was lying his butt off to the press when asked about this today

    Perhaps (none / 0) (#161)
    by BackFromOhio on Thu Mar 23, 2017 at 01:23:08 PM EST
    Nunes stunt was just that, and a last ditch, desparate effort to establish validity to Trump's allegations of his being illegally wire-tapped, as a means of rallying support around Trump generally and the TrumpCare bill as a result?

    probably (none / 0) (#170)
    by CaptHowdy on Thu Mar 23, 2017 at 02:01:46 PM EST
    but seriously...these are the people deciding to do about North Korea.

    Nunes did the world a great service.

    these investigations, including the one in the HIC, just got kicked into overdrive.

    you could not script ths to be more amazing.


    FWIW (none / 0) (#31)
    by Ga6thDem on Wed Mar 22, 2017 at 07:36:36 PM EST
    Schindler says the top secret intel is devastating and Trump will be forced out of office and his cronies will be indicted. Get ready.

    so.... (none / 0) (#37)
    by linea on Wed Mar 22, 2017 at 08:16:08 PM EST
    the inteligence community will release "top secret intel" to force the current president out ot office?

    we can hope (5.00 / 2) (#39)
    by CaptHowdy on Wed Mar 22, 2017 at 08:26:27 PM EST
    Howdy, that (5.00 / 1) (#50)
    by MKS on Wed Mar 22, 2017 at 09:45:58 PM EST
    got a snort out of me.

    Let's be careful what we wish (none / 0) (#47)
    by caseyOR on Wed Mar 22, 2017 at 09:13:15 PM EST
    for. Mike Pence would be a horror as president. He is Steve Brannon's guy. A hateful man. Racist, misogynist, xenophobic, homophobic, and just plain mean.

    Pence was on the ticket, and is now Veep, because Brannon convinced Trump to ditch Christie and choose Pence instead. Nothing good comes from being in cahoots with Bannon.

    I wonder if perhaps the plan all along has been to dump Trump, however that plays out, resignation or impeachment, so that the politically savvy former Congressman and governor, could become president.


    let him try to accomplish anything (5.00 / 3) (#89)
    by CaptHowdy on Thu Mar 23, 2017 at 07:02:47 AM EST
    after his boss and fearless leader and half his family and most of his advisors, current and former, are perpwalked.

    Donald Trump has to go.  full stop.

    all other bridges to be crossed when encountered.


    I thought it (5.00 / 2) (#90)
    by Ga6thDem on Thu Mar 23, 2017 at 07:35:46 AM EST
    was Kushner that nixed Christie due to the fact that Christie was the prosecutor that went after Kushner's dad?

    Actually from what I have read Pence is more the establishment guy in league with Preibus etc. not Bannon. However I agree that Pence would be nothing short of a disaster as president.


    I know! Be still, my beating heart! (none / 0) (#46)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Wed Mar 22, 2017 at 09:11:00 PM EST
    And wouldn't that just be altogether and deliciously ironic? I mean, here's a loudmouthed guy who spent years questioning other Americans' patriotism and even citizenship, and he gets outed as a dimwitted if not altogether willing conduit for hostile Russian ambitions against his own country. Were that to actually happen, his mark will certainly be made in U.S. history, that's for sure - just not likely in the manner that he originally intended.

    Where's the beef? Then why isn't it out?? (none / 0) (#100)
    by jimakaPPJ on Thu Mar 23, 2017 at 09:14:11 AM EST
    Why the delay?

    Does he want to wait until Trump gets a lot of his agenda passed into law?

    Ga, you are being played.


    Well, considering (none / 0) (#102)
    by Ga6thDem on Thu Mar 23, 2017 at 09:20:27 AM EST
    how far we've moved in this in a couple of months you have to realize that cases build slowly.

    As a matter of fact Trump's agenda is more or less DOA. Nobody wants what he has been selling except people like you. You're the one that's been played by Putin Jim. Putin knows that white nationalism is very appealing to a segment of America, Putin sold it by using Trump and you bought it hook, line and sinker. Don't blame the rest of us who saw through what was going on for your own decisions.


    Really? (none / 0) (#111)
    by jimakaPPJ on Thu Mar 23, 2017 at 10:01:06 AM EST
    If he had the info he would have put it out there months ago.

    Even before the election.

    Or before the inauguration.

    BTW, I need some cash. There's a bridge I am acting as sales agent for.

    Great location!

    Wanna move to Brooklyn?  



    I hope John Schindler knows what he's doing (none / 0) (#114)
    by Militarytracy on Thu Mar 23, 2017 at 10:10:27 AM EST
    I just started following him this morning. It worries me. Is he saying he knows the TS intel is devastating? Or is he saying based on how this is playing out before him he predicts the TS intel is devastating?

    I don't know that we can afford the intelligence community to be breaking all the laws right alongside Trump. If we lose our soul gaining the world...never turns out great


    You Mean This Guy? (none / 0) (#118)
    by RickyJim on Thu Mar 23, 2017 at 10:33:50 AM EST
    Remember John Schindler, the conservative talking head, retired NSA spook, and Naval War College professor who briefly went incognito after screenshots of (what appear to be) his penis leaked onto the Internet? While he has since reappeared on Twitter--where he first drew attention for defending domestic spying and criticizing Edward Snowden--he has refused to comment on the mysterious emails, sent to the Naval War College by an unnamed blogger, that prompted the school to place him on leave, and his penis under official investigation.

    Link Now explain to us why you even bring this person up.  This is a high class blog.

    This is a high class blog? (none / 0) (#124)
    by Militarytracy on Thu Mar 23, 2017 at 10:40:17 AM EST
    What are you doing here :)

    His twitter following has increased dramatically, everyone is following him :) I haven't found any junk shots yet

    Who hasn't sent junk shots though other than me?


    Me, MT. (5.00 / 2) (#198)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Thu Mar 23, 2017 at 04:03:37 PM EST
    Militarytracy: "Who hasn't sent junk shots though other than me?"

    Speaking for myself only, I've always believed that you should never allow your photo to be taken while in a situation or position that you'd later have trouble explaining to your own mother or grandmother. It can save you a lot of potential grief.


    A lot of his (none / 0) (#123)
    by Ga6thDem on Thu Mar 23, 2017 at 10:39:56 AM EST
    tweets are cryptic to me and you probably understand them more than I do. That's why I used his name above so everyone can make their own judgement about what is going on.

    I haven't gone through all of them (none / 0) (#125)
    by Militarytracy on Thu Mar 23, 2017 at 10:41:54 AM EST
    A lot of friends started reading his stuff though so he showed up in my feed

    A question to you experts from a layperson: (none / 0) (#77)
    by Anc260 on Thu Mar 23, 2017 at 01:22:01 AM EST
    Would direct evidence of collusion between the Trump campaign and the Russian government constitute treason, as has been causally suggested by some?

    Say for instance that direct evidence is discovered revealing  that a member of the Trump campaign reviewed and recommended the leaking of John Podesta's emails because they would be damaging to the Clinton campaign. Would that person have broken any laws?

    No, it is not treason, as defined (none / 0) (#110)
    by Peter G on Thu Mar 23, 2017 at 09:59:22 AM EST
    in U.S. law. Treason means supporting the "enemy" in time of war.

    ... to clear, which is why nobody's ever been successfully prosecuted and convicted of that charge in our country's history.

    Evidence of collusion between the Trump campaign and the Russian government and / or its security services may or may not be expressly criminal as defined by federal statute. That likely depends upon the extent and nature of the collusion itself.

    But since we don't know the specifics, never mind the fact that no evidence of collusion (if any) has yet been presented to the public, such speculation about criminal charges is very much premature.

    But you have to admit that at the very least, the optics of just such a disclosure would likely be horrific and perhaps politically devastating for both the Trump administration and the Republican Party, and the resultant scandal -- much like Watergate 45 years ago -- would be entirely self-inflicted.



    So no one (none / 0) (#163)
    by me only on Thu Mar 23, 2017 at 01:25:09 PM EST
    Not Herbert Haupt's parents,
    Not Martin Monti,
    Not Iva Toguri,
    Not Tomoya Kawakita.

    Of course, that doesn't change the fact that Trump cannot be tried for treason for colluding with the  Russian's because they don't count as the enemy.


    I stand corrected. However, ... (5.00 / 2) (#190)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Thu Mar 23, 2017 at 03:36:19 PM EST
    I would note that all four cases were exceptional, and of the three that went to trial, none was clear-cut.

    The convictions of Hans and Erna Haupt, two German nationals who had become naturalized U.S. citizens, were later reversed by the 7th U.S. Court of Appeals. Hans Haupt was later retried and convicted again. There was no evidence that Erna knew of her son Herbert's role as a Nazi saboteur, although Hans had offered to authorities that his son had disclosed such to him, which lead to his retrial.

    The Haupts had first come under surveillance when Herbert had journeyed to his parents' home in Chicago after being smuggled into the country by a German U-boat in June 1942. His father then assisted him in buying a car and getting a job at a defense plant which manufactured the Norden bomb site. Herbert was then arrested, and confessed his role. He was quickly tried and convicted by military tribunal, and then executed.

    Hans and Erna Haupt, as well as Erna's two sisters and their husbands, were all arrested and charged with treason for having allegedly aided Herbert in his activities. They were all convicted but as noted above, their convictions were reversed on appeal. The couple was stripped of their citizenship and deported to Germany after the war for the "crime" of being Herbert's parents.

    Martin Monti was a U.S. Army Air Corps fighter pilot and far-right zealot who in October 1944 had voluntarily flown his P-38 aircraft to German-occupied northern Italy and defected to Nazi authorities. (Given the Third Reich's dire predicament at that moment,talk about lousy timing.) Upon his arrest after the war, he freely pleaded guilty prior to going to trial, and offered a confession. Otherwise, there being nobody else to testify to his act as required by federal law, it's very doubtful that he would have ever been convicted at trial.

    Iva Toguri D'Aquino was better known as the infamous Japanese propaganda broadcaster "Tokyo Rose." Having been caught in Japan at the time of Pear Harbor attack, she had always contended that she had been forced by Japanese authorities to make those broadcasts, and had never done so willingly.

    Ms. Toguri D'Aquino's conviction in 1949 on one count of treason subsequently proved problematic 27 years later, thanks to dogged reporting by Ron Yates of the Chicago Tribune and Morley Safer of "60 Minutes," which revealed conclusively in June 1976 that government lawyers had suborned perjured testimony against her from several key witnesses at her trial. President Gerald Ford then pardoned her six months later in January 1977.

    Tomoya Kawakita was a Japanese-American who had been living in Japan at the time of the attack on Pearl Harbor, and had subsequently renounced his U.S. citizenship in 1943. He had been charged with treason for having abused American prisoners of war who had been forced to work in Japanese munitions plants.

    Kawakita's conviction and sentence were upheld in 1952 only after the U.S. Supreme Court retroactively restored his American citizenship, citing his statement to U.S. consular officials in Tokyo that he had never intended to give up his American citizenship, and had done so only under duress from Japanese authorities.

    By a 4-3 decision, SCOTUS ruled that Kawakita owed his allegiance to the United States, even though he was also a citizen of Japan and had declared his allegiance to that country. Writing in dissent for the minority, Chief Justice Fred Vinson said that "for over two years, [Kawakita] was consistently demonstrating his allegiance to Japan, not the United States. As a matter of law, he expatriated himself as well as that can be done." On this basis, Vinson would have reversed Kawakita's treason conviction.

    As I said, all four of those cases were exceptional and far from clear-cut. Of the three that went to trial, only one conviction eventually stood, that of Kawakita. And that was only by one vote in the Supreme Court, in determining whether or not the defendant was still a U.S. citizen.

    But that said, thanks for noting my error. I knew of those cases, and should have known better than to have made such a definitive declaration.



    Looks like Nunes was talking about Fisa warrants (none / 0) (#78)
    by Green26 on Thu Mar 23, 2017 at 01:23:27 AM EST
    Wow, who would have thunk it.

    "Nunes's statements appear to center on surveillance approved by the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court, a secretive panel that authorizes the interception of communications of known or suspected agents of foreign powers -- such as ambassadors -- or terrorism suspects.

    Though it is generally not acknowledged, the U.S. government has for years used FISA warrants to eavesdrop on ambassadors, embassies and others believed to be acting in America on behalf of foreign governments.

    While such surveillance aims to gather intelligence about foreign actors, it can often pick up conversations with their American counterparts -- such as State Department officials, lawmakers or other Americans who speak to foreign officials. Agencies refer to such monitoring as "incidental'' collection and take steps to minimize the sharing of those people's names or identifying information within the government, often by masking their names in internal reports about the intercepted communications."

    WaPost article.

    They would only require a FISA warrant (5.00 / 2) (#86)
    by Militarytracy on Thu Mar 23, 2017 at 06:21:15 AM EST
    To surveille American citizens. So no, FISA warrants are not used to surveille ambassadors or embassies and are not needed.

    He, Peter (none / 0) (#127)
    by Green26 on Thu Mar 23, 2017 at 10:49:39 AM EST
    How about a comment on the WaPost article? What's your analysis?

    They will filibuster Gorsuch (none / 0) (#117)
    by Militarytracy on Thu Mar 23, 2017 at 10:30:10 AM EST
    I never saw that coming.

    And Paul Manafort picked (none / 0) (#129)
    by Militarytracy on Thu Mar 23, 2017 at 11:01:57 AM EST

    Sooooo, if Trump blows up the party does Paul Ryan decide screw this and have the House actually investigate something. And if Pence is just as dirty do we get a President Ryan?

    USA Freedom Act - 2015 (none / 0) (#136)
    by Green26 on Thu Mar 23, 2017 at 11:48:55 AM EST
    "USA Freedom Act

    The USA Freedom Act was signed into law on June 2, 2015. The Act makes clear that Congress does not authorize the mass collection by the NSA of the metadata of all communications by Americans - whether by telephone or internet - while preserving the government's capability to retrieve the metadata of communications by suspected terrorists.  The Act does so by amending not only the business records provision of the PATRIOT Act, section 215, but also by amending the pen register/trap and trace provisions of the FISA that were used by the NSA for bulk collection of Americans' internet metadata, and by amending national security letter authorities so that they may not be used for such bulk collection.  The Act requires greater transparency about the operations of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court, by mandating disclosure concerning rulings by the Court, a necessary step to prevent the use of secret law for the secret surveillance of Americans.  It also requires additional public reporting concerning the use of these surveillance authorities and requires internal reviews by agency Inspectors General."


    So? (5.00 / 3) (#143)
    by Militarytracy on Thu Mar 23, 2017 at 12:00:53 PM EST
    I don't think this discussion was about (5.00 / 1) (#152)
    by Peter G on Thu Mar 23, 2017 at 12:27:28 PM EST
    the poorly justified (if not flatly illegal) bulk collection program.

    My impression is that the recent Nunes comments (none / 0) (#156)
    by Green26 on Thu Mar 23, 2017 at 01:05:37 PM EST
    were based on information he said he had seen involving incidental pick ups of info involving US persons that resulted from Fisa warrant surveillance.

    In the Flynn situation, i.e. conversation with the Ambassador in late December, the news reports refer to transcripts of packets of information/data picked up by the US. Presumably, in the relatively routine monitoring of Russian Ambassadors in the US or elsewhere.

    Bulk collection is one thing the NSA does. And, in in the bulk using the metadata, specific information and conversations can be accessed, is my understanding.

    In any event, whether accessed from the bulk or otherwise, it seems likely under Fisa warrants. There are rules and doctrines, i.e. limitations, related to the inadvertent collection of data/info on US persons.

    These limitations clearly apply to the NSA. I assume they also apply to the FBI, in situations like this, but haven't checked verify.


    All hearsay at best (none / 0) (#167)
    by Militarytracy on Thu Mar 23, 2017 at 01:46:00 PM EST
    And you are ignoring that it is (none / 0) (#174)
    by Militarytracy on Thu Mar 23, 2017 at 02:07:26 PM EST
    Reported that the "collecting" was not done by US intelligence. It was passed to us from the intelligence services of other nations. We have no actual evidence of this either yet, but while you are extrapolating and cherry picking, don't forget that too.

    Where's your link for this info? (none / 0) (#177)
    by Green26 on Thu Mar 23, 2017 at 02:23:53 PM EST
    What was passed along for foreign intelligence from other nations?Haven't seen it. Saw the Fox guy said that Obama admin may have asked the British to do it, but that seems to have been mostly discredited.

    Google (none / 0) (#180)
    by Militarytracy on Thu Mar 23, 2017 at 02:26:13 PM EST
    Support your statements (2.00 / 1) (#183)
    by Green26 on Thu Mar 23, 2017 at 02:30:23 PM EST
    Figured you didn't have any back up for your statement. Anyway, Nunes specifically said things to the contrary of what you said.

    No, this is not your little rightwing (5.00 / 3) (#185)
    by Militarytracy on Thu Mar 23, 2017 at 03:15:33 PM EST
    Echo chamber zone. If I don't support your laziness and argue it with you here how you demand, it doesn't make the facts just disappear or mean they don't exist. You care so much about this topic, how did you miss those reports?

    You can't and don't support many (2.00 / 1) (#189)
    by Green26 on Thu Mar 23, 2017 at 03:33:19 PM EST
    of your statements. You are the lazy one.

    how lazy are you? (none / 0) (#197)
    by Ga6thDem on Thu Mar 23, 2017 at 03:52:43 PM EST
    Seriously are you a Putin troll or something? Here is an article from a month ago talking about foreign intelligence gathering on Trump.

    When it was 1st reported (none / 0) (#181)
    by Militarytracy on Thu Mar 23, 2017 at 02:27:33 PM EST
    All over the place

    Meanwhile... (none / 0) (#155)
    by desertswine on Thu Mar 23, 2017 at 12:34:18 PM EST
    Outrage (none / 0) (#171)
    by FlJoe on Thu Mar 23, 2017 at 02:02:00 PM EST
    relativism: 3 killed in London = headlines and airtime, pearl clutching and angry tweets.

    4 killed in Wisconsin = ho hum, just another day in American life.

    NO VOTE (none / 0) (#184)
    by CaptHowdy on Thu Mar 23, 2017 at 02:32:23 PM EST
    in case you missed it up thread

    holy sh!t

    From what I am reading (5.00 / 1) (#193)
    by Ga6thDem on Thu Mar 23, 2017 at 03:43:22 PM EST
    they are all going to visit Trump at 5:00 and that Ryan is altering the bill to make it something the freedumb caucus will vote for but dayum it's things like preexisting conditions are now going to be on the chopping block for these idiots to vote for the bill. How many people who might have voted yes are going to bolt when preexisting conditions goes down the tubes?

    its truly remarkable (none / 0) (#187)
    by CaptHowdy on Thu Mar 23, 2017 at 03:18:00 PM EST
    that Trump and his minions seem to think, still now...STILL... that his "art of the deal" thing is going to suddenly "kick in" and all those House republicans elected to stop the very stuff in this law are just suddenly going to...get it.

    OH, of course, i only needed the insight of the oracle of overbearing...