|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Political Threads This section is for Political Threads - Enter at your own risk. If you say you don't want to see what someone posts - don't read it :hihi: |
02-01-2018, 11:30 AM
|
#91
|
Registered User
Join Date: Dec 2000
Posts: 2,573
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by PaulS
How did the Dems. collude w/the Russians?
If you are in favor of releasing it bc you don't want it swept under the rug why not release the Dem. memo then? Read what the FBI director said. "we have grave concerns with material omissions of fact that fundamentally impact the memo’s accuracy". What exactly is the FBI director saying with that statement.
|
The DEMS memo will also eventually come out. Sounds like we'll all get to read them soon.
|
DZ
Recreational Surfcaster
"Limit Your Kill - Don't Kill Your Limit"
Bi + Ne = SB 2
If you haven't heard of the Snowstorm Blitz of 1987 - you someday will.
|
|
|
02-01-2018, 11:46 AM
|
#92
|
Registered User
Join Date: Jul 2004
Posts: 10,242
|
Nunes memo – actually that is funny. Didn’t we see what a sleazy person he was when Trump accused Obama of “wiretapped” Trump tower. Nunes came to Trump’s defense and lied and then later it was found out he actually got that info. from the Trump White House.
|
|
|
|
02-01-2018, 12:11 PM
|
#93
|
Registered User
Join Date: Jul 2004
Posts: 10,242
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by DZ
The DEMS memo will also eventually come out. Sounds like we'll all get to read them soon.
|
The House Intelligence Committee has voted not to make the Democratic memo public.
|
|
|
|
02-01-2018, 12:12 PM
|
#94
|
Registered User
Join Date: Jul 2004
Posts: 10,242
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by spence
there's suspicion now there was coordination with the White House in its creation.
|
Just saw this
On Monday, Rep. Mike Quigly (D-IL) asked Nunes if his staffers worked with the White House on his memo. Nunes originally answered the question by saying “as far as I know” no one collaborated with the White House. Ultimately, though, he refused to answer the question — perhaps suggesting that there may actually have been some collusion there
|
|
|
|
02-01-2018, 12:38 PM
|
#95
|
Registered User
Join Date: Jul 2008
Posts: 20,435
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by PaulS
The House Intelligence Committee has voted not to make the Democratic memo public.
|
Agreed, that's a bush league move, if you have nothing to hide, why wouldn't they release that.
|
|
|
|
02-01-2018, 12:59 PM
|
#96
|
Registered User
Join Date: Jul 2004
Posts: 10,242
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jim in CT
Agreed, that's a bush league move, if you have nothing to hide, why wouldn't they release that.
|
If the FBI has concerns, I don't want either one released.
|
|
|
|
02-01-2018, 02:29 PM
|
#97
|
Canceled
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: vt
Posts: 13,075
|
Here's the process in layman's terms if you are interested
In an article titled, “It Ain’t Easy Getting a FISA Warrant: I Was an FBI Agent and Should Know,” here’s what Rangappa wrote:
… As someone who obtained FISA warrants while conducting counterintelligence investigations for the FBI, I can attest to the fact that they not only don’t involve the White House, but the process includes too many layers of approval to be granted without strong evidence.
There are two ways to obtain a wiretap – also known as electronic surveillance – on U.S. persons (citizens and permanent residents), and both include the courts. For criminal investigations, the FBI can seek a warrant under Title III of the U.S. criminal code by showing a federal court that there is probable cause to believe the target has engaged, or is engaging in, criminal activity. This is a fairly high standard because of a strong presumption in favor of our Fourth Amendment right to privacy, and requires a showing that less intrusive means of obtaining the same information aren’t feasible.
The standard for electronic surveillance for foreign intelligence purposes, though, is a little lower. This is because when it comes to national security, as opposed to criminal prosecutions, our Fourth Amendment rights are balanced against the government’s interest in protecting the country. The Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) allows the FBI to get a warrant from a secret court, known as the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court (FISC), to conduct electronic surveillance on U.S. persons if they can show probable cause that the target is an “agent of a foreign power” who is “knowingly engag[ing]…in clandestine intelligence activities.” In other words, the government has to show that the target might be spying for a foreign government or organization.
But even under this standard, it’s not like the FBI can just decide to stop by a FISC to get a FISA warrant after going through the McDonald’s drive-thru for lunch. To even begin the process leading to a FISA, the FBI has to follow several steps outlined in the Attorney General Guidelines, which govern FBI investigations. First, the FBI has to conduct a “threat assessment” in order to establish grounds for even opening an investigation on potential FISA subjects. If a threat exists, the FBI must then formally open an investigation into possible foreign intelligence activity.
What does this look like in practice? Well, say, hypothetically, that a group of U.S. persons seem to have not infrequent contact with diplomats known to be Russian spies, whom the FBI are already monitoring. (Pro-tip: While it’s possible that such contacts could be accidental – I mean, hypothetically, the Trump inner circle could be a riot to hang out with socially – spies, particularly Russian ones, are pretty good at what they do and don’t spend time with people unless there’s a good reason.) The FBI might determine that, if the U.S. persons have access to classified information or could otherwise be “developed” for intelligence purposes by a foreign spy service, a significant enough threat exists to open an investigation – this would require at least one layer of approval within the FBI, and possibly more if the investigation concerns high-profile individuals.
The case still wouldn’t be FISA bound. FISA warrant investigations can’t be opened “solely on the basis of First Amendment activities,” so mere fraternization, even with sketchy people, wouldn’t be enough. The FBI would have to gather evidence to support a the claim that the U.S. target was knowingly working on behalf of a foreign entity. This could include information gathered from other methods like human sources, physical surveillance, bank transactions or even documents found in the target’s trash. This takes some time, and, when enough evidence had been accumulated, would be outlined in an affidavit and application stating the grounds for the FISA warrant. The completed FISA application would go up for approval through the FBI chain of command, including a Supervisor, the Chief Division Counsel (the highest lawyer within that FBI field office), and finally, the Special Agent in Charge of the field office, before making its way to FBI Headquarters to get approval by (at least) the Unit-level Supervisor there. If you’re exhausted already, hang on: There’s more.
The FISA application then travels to the Justice Department where attorneys from the National Security Division comb through the application to verify all the assertions made in it. Known as “Woods procedures” after Michael J. Woods, the FBI Special Agent attorney who developed this layer of approval, DOJ verifies the accuracy of every fact stated in the application. If anything looks unsubstantiated, the application is sent back to the FBI to provide additional evidentiary support – this game of bureaucratic chutes and ladders continues until DOJ is satisfied that the facts in the FISA application can both be corroborated and meet the legal standards for the court. After getting sign-off from a senior DOJ official (finally!), a lawyer from DOJ takes the FISA application before the FISC, comprised of eleven federal district judges who sit on the court on a rotating basis. The FISC reviews the application in secret, and decides whether to approve the warrant.
Now, it’s true that since its inception in 1978, the FISC has approved the vast majority of the over 25,000 FISA applications it has reviewed – some estimates put the number at over 99 percent. But that’s not surprising given the extensive process described above. In fact, if some reports are true that the initial FISA applications submitted to the FISC were rejected, prompting the FBI and DOJ to change its targets to the Russian banks doing business with Trump associates rather than the associates themselves (which would only require showing probable cause that the banks are a “foreign power,” which by definition they are), then a FISA application for Trump Tower, if one exists, would have been subject to even more scrutiny than would normally be the case.
In short, the FISA warrant process is designed to protect against the very abuse of power that the President has accused his predecessor of exercising. You could even say that FISA applications go through an “extreme vetting” process before being granted – something that the Trump administration ought to support.
|
Frasier: Niles, I’ve just had the most marvelous idea for a website! People will post their opinions, cheeky bon mots, and insights, and others will reply in kind!
Niles: You have met “people”, haven’t you?
Lets Go Darwin
|
|
|
02-01-2018, 02:42 PM
|
#98
|
Ledge Runner Baits
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: I live in a house, but my soul is at sea.
Posts: 8,456
|
Trump and his lackeys are just diverting attention and trying to discredit the FBI and DOJ; can't imagine what they are worried about. Could it be the heat in the kitchen is starting to make them sweat and Mueller is getting a little too close for comfort.
What surprises me is that nobody, even Kelly, is standing up to this effort to release something that the FBI feels should not be made public for national security reasons. It's game show White House, you get too close and your FIRED or beaten up so badly on tweeter, you just would rather move on.
|
|
|
|
02-01-2018, 02:49 PM
|
#99
|
Registered User
Join Date: Feb 2009
Posts: 7,688
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by Pete F.
Here's the process in layman's terms if you are interested
In an article titled, “It Ain’t Easy Getting a FISA Warrant: I Was an FBI Agent and Should Know,” here’s what Rangappa wrote:
… As someone who obtained FISA warrants while conducting counterintelligence investigations for the FBI, I can attest to the fact that they not only don’t involve the White House, but the process includes too many layers of approval to be granted without strong evidence.
There are two ways to obtain a wiretap – also known as electronic surveillance – on U.S. persons (citizens and permanent residents), and both include the courts. For criminal investigations, the FBI can seek a warrant under Title III of the U.S. criminal code by showing a federal court that there is probable cause to believe the target has engaged, or is engaging in, criminal activity. This is a fairly high standard because of a strong presumption in favor of our Fourth Amendment right to privacy, and requires a showing that less intrusive means of obtaining the same information aren’t feasible.
The standard for electronic surveillance for foreign intelligence purposes, though, is a little lower. This is because when it comes to national security, as opposed to criminal prosecutions, our Fourth Amendment rights are balanced against the government’s interest in protecting the country. The Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) allows the FBI to get a warrant from a secret court, known as the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court (FISC), to conduct electronic surveillance on U.S. persons if they can show probable cause that the target is an “agent of a foreign power” who is “knowingly engag[ing]…in clandestine intelligence activities.” In other words, the government has to show that the target might be spying for a foreign government or organization.
But even under this standard, it’s not like the FBI can just decide to stop by a FISC to get a FISA warrant after going through the McDonald’s drive-thru for lunch. To even begin the process leading to a FISA, the FBI has to follow several steps outlined in the Attorney General Guidelines, which govern FBI investigations. First, the FBI has to conduct a “threat assessment” in order to establish grounds for even opening an investigation on potential FISA subjects. If a threat exists, the FBI must then formally open an investigation into possible foreign intelligence activity.
What does this look like in practice? Well, say, hypothetically, that a group of U.S. persons seem to have not infrequent contact with diplomats known to be Russian spies, whom the FBI are already monitoring. (Pro-tip: While it’s possible that such contacts could be accidental – I mean, hypothetically, the Trump inner circle could be a riot to hang out with socially – spies, particularly Russian ones, are pretty good at what they do and don’t spend time with people unless there’s a good reason.) The FBI might determine that, if the U.S. persons have access to classified information or could otherwise be “developed” for intelligence purposes by a foreign spy service, a significant enough threat exists to open an investigation – this would require at least one layer of approval within the FBI, and possibly more if the investigation concerns high-profile individuals.
The case still wouldn’t be FISA bound. FISA warrant investigations can’t be opened “solely on the basis of First Amendment activities,” so mere fraternization, even with sketchy people, wouldn’t be enough. The FBI would have to gather evidence to support a the claim that the U.S. target was knowingly working on behalf of a foreign entity. This could include information gathered from other methods like human sources, physical surveillance, bank transactions or even documents found in the target’s trash. This takes some time, and, when enough evidence had been accumulated, would be outlined in an affidavit and application stating the grounds for the FISA warrant. The completed FISA application would go up for approval through the FBI chain of command, including a Supervisor, the Chief Division Counsel (the highest lawyer within that FBI field office), and finally, the Special Agent in Charge of the field office, before making its way to FBI Headquarters to get approval by (at least) the Unit-level Supervisor there. If you’re exhausted already, hang on: There’s more.
The FISA application then travels to the Justice Department where attorneys from the National Security Division comb through the application to verify all the assertions made in it. Known as “Woods procedures” after Michael J. Woods, the FBI Special Agent attorney who developed this layer of approval, DOJ verifies the accuracy of every fact stated in the application. If anything looks unsubstantiated, the application is sent back to the FBI to provide additional evidentiary support – this game of bureaucratic chutes and ladders continues until DOJ is satisfied that the facts in the FISA application can both be corroborated and meet the legal standards for the court. After getting sign-off from a senior DOJ official (finally!), a lawyer from DOJ takes the FISA application before the FISC, comprised of eleven federal district judges who sit on the court on a rotating basis. The FISC reviews the application in secret, and decides whether to approve the warrant.
Now, it’s true that since its inception in 1978, the FISC has approved the vast majority of the over 25,000 FISA applications it has reviewed – some estimates put the number at over 99 percent. But that’s not surprising given the extensive process described above. In fact, if some reports are true that the initial FISA applications submitted to the FISC were rejected, prompting the FBI and DOJ to change its targets to the Russian banks doing business with Trump associates rather than the associates themselves (which would only require showing probable cause that the banks are a “foreign power,” which by definition they are), then a FISA application for Trump Tower, if one exists, would have been subject to even more scrutiny than would normally be the case.
In short, the FISA warrant process is designed to protect against the very abuse of power that the President has accused his predecessor of exercising. You could even say that FISA applications go through an “extreme vetting” process before being granted – something that the Trump administration ought to support.
|
I'm assuming that those on the House Committee know all this.
|
|
|
|
02-01-2018, 02:52 PM
|
#100
|
Registered User
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: RI
Posts: 21,231
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by detbuch
I'm assuming that those on the House Committee know all this.
|
Which makes some of their behavior all the more dubious.
|
|
|
|
02-01-2018, 03:03 PM
|
#101
|
Registered User
Join Date: Feb 2009
Posts: 7,688
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by spence
Which makes some of their behavior all the more dubious.
|
Not if they saw something that indicates a corruption of the process.
|
|
|
|
02-01-2018, 03:06 PM
|
#102
|
Registered User
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: RI
Posts: 21,231
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by detbuch
Not if they saw something that indicates a corruption of the process.
|
If that was really the case why all the bi-partisan allegations of misrepresentation? Especially when the person central to the issue already has been caught pushing false conspiracy theories?
|
|
|
|
02-01-2018, 03:13 PM
|
#103
|
Canceled
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: vt
Posts: 13,075
|
Conspiracy theories?
Well, i did hear that someone was actually born in East Germany and switched at a young age with the deceased grandson of a German immigrant. Might explain the fascination with eastern European women.
|
Frasier: Niles, I’ve just had the most marvelous idea for a website! People will post their opinions, cheeky bon mots, and insights, and others will reply in kind!
Niles: You have met “people”, haven’t you?
Lets Go Darwin
|
|
|
02-01-2018, 03:26 PM
|
#104
|
Registered User
Join Date: Feb 2009
Posts: 7,688
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by spence
If that was really the case why all the bi-partisan allegations of misrepresentation? Especially when the person central to the issue already has been caught pushing false conspiracy theories?
|
Why all the conjecture by those who don't actually know what's in the memo?
|
|
|
|
02-01-2018, 03:39 PM
|
#105
|
Registered User
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: RI
Posts: 21,231
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by detbuch
Why all the conjecture by those who don't actually know what's in the memo?
|
The bi-partisan allegations of misrepresentation are from people who know what's exactly in the memo.
|
|
|
|
02-01-2018, 04:09 PM
|
#106
|
Registered User
Join Date: Feb 2009
Posts: 7,688
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by spence
The bi-partisan allegations of misrepresentation are from people who know what's exactly in the memo.
|
What makes you so sure that their interpretation is the right one? And that those who claim otherwise is incorrect?
|
|
|
|
02-01-2018, 04:14 PM
|
#107
|
Registered User
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: RI
Posts: 21,231
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by detbuch
What makes you so sure that their interpretation is the right one? And that those who claim otherwise is incorrect?
|
Credibility or lack there of.
|
|
|
|
02-01-2018, 04:21 PM
|
#108
|
Registered User
Join Date: Feb 2009
Posts: 7,688
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by spence
Credibility or lack there of.
|
That's nonsense--what you would call a deke. Credibility is in the eye of the beholder.
|
|
|
|
02-01-2018, 06:13 PM
|
#109
|
Registered User
Join Date: Nov 2007
Posts: 12,632
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by spence
If that was really the case why all the bi-partisan allegations of misrepresentation? Especially when the person central to the issue already has been caught pushing false conspiracy theories?
|
if what you claim is true and the memo is a partisan hack job that will not be supported by the underlying intelligence and the author is a reckless partisan crazy then the release will result in the Whitehouse and Republicans effectively kicking themselves in the nuts(politically) ,...which I'd think you'd enthusiastically support
Last edited by scottw; 02-01-2018 at 06:28 PM..
|
|
|
|
02-01-2018, 07:22 PM
|
#110
|
Registered User
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: RI
Posts: 21,231
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by scottw
if what you claim is true and the memo is a partisan hack job that will not be supported by the underlying intelligence and the author is a reckless partisan crazy then the release will result in the Whitehouse and Republicans effectively kicking themselves in the nuts(politically) ,...which I'd think you'd enthusiastically support
|
In theory but that's now how social media and half ass news outlets work.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device
|
|
|
|
02-01-2018, 08:38 PM
|
#111
|
Registered User
Join Date: Nov 2007
Posts: 12,632
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by spence
In theory but that's now how social media and half ass news outlets work.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device
|
but most work for the democrats sooo...they have an advantage and should be able to spin the proper tale on this one
Last edited by scottw; 02-02-2018 at 04:49 AM..
|
|
|
|
02-02-2018, 08:46 AM
|
#112
|
Registered User
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: RI
Posts: 21,231
|
This story is getting better (or worse) by the day. It's looking increasingly like Nunes has never even saw the FISA request. The White House leaked cherry picked elements, Nunes sent a staffer to the UK to investigate the Steele contribution, was told to pound sand, he came back and made the memo up based on what the White House told them.
This is the same Congressman who completely made up the "unmasking" scandal and was subsequently called out on it.
Not in my generation have I witnessed this level of government corruption here at home.
|
|
|
|
02-02-2018, 09:02 AM
|
#113
|
Registered User
Join Date: Jun 2012
Location: Somerset MA
Posts: 9,197
|
✔
@realDonaldTrump
The top Leadership and Investigators of the FBI and the Justice Department have politicized the sacred investigative process in favor of Democrats and against Republicans - something which would have been unthinkable just a short time ago. Rank & File are great people!
Is this the united states or Some alternate universe ?
love or hate him not sure how anyone can see these tweets as acceptable or not see them for what they are another attempt at the obstruction of our justice system and current investigation from the POTUS .. the lies and misinformation are never ending
|
|
|
|
02-02-2018, 09:10 AM
|
#114
|
Registered User
Join Date: Nov 2007
Posts: 12,632
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by spence
Not in my generation have I witnessed this level of government corruption here at home.
|
are you moving back from Canada if he gets impeached?
|
|
|
|
02-02-2018, 09:11 AM
|
#115
|
Registered User
Join Date: Jul 2004
Posts: 10,242
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by spence
This story is getting better (or worse) by the day. It's looking increasingly like Nunes has never even saw the FISA request. The White House leaked cherry picked elements, Nunes sent a staffer to the UK to investigate the Steele contribution, was told to pound sand, he came back and made the memo up based on what the White House told them.
This is the same Congressman who completely made up the "unmasking" scandal and was subsequently called out on it.
Not in my generation have I witnessed this level of government corruption here at home.
|
Don't forget he is being accused of changing parts of the memo after it was voted on.
Character matters with the Republicans.
That is the Democrat's character.
|
|
|
|
02-02-2018, 09:17 AM
|
#116
|
Registered User
Join Date: Nov 2007
Posts: 12,632
|
you guys are trying WAY too hard
|
|
|
|
02-02-2018, 09:17 AM
|
#117
|
Registered User
Join Date: Jul 2004
Posts: 10,242
|
Damn liberal FBI.
|
|
|
|
02-02-2018, 09:23 AM
|
#118
|
Registered User
Join Date: Jul 2008
Posts: 20,435
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by spence
.
Not in my generation have I witnessed this level of government corruption here at home.
|
There are two sides pointing their fingers at each other. No one can come close to knowing for sure what the truth is, based on currently available facts. Let's find out the truth and react appropriately. Shockingly, you believe everything from the left and nothing from the right. That may turn out to be the reality. Let's find out.
Regarding Hilary and Trump, there is some supposed evidence of senior FBI officials acting out of political ideology, rather than a search for the truth. That would also be a level of corruption I'd think would you, but you're not bothered if Hilary was the beneficiary.
|
|
|
|
02-02-2018, 09:28 AM
|
#119
|
Registered User
Join Date: Jul 2008
Posts: 20,435
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by PaulS
Damn liberal FBI.
|
You haven't seen any evidence that there were agents involved with Hilary and Trump, who might have been rooting for Hilary? McCabe's wife taking big campaign money from Democratic PACs for her senate run?
"The FBI" isn't liberal. There might be a few bad apples who had their thumbs on the scale for Hilary. Maybe, maybe not.
The left wouldn't be going berserk trying to block the release of the memo, if there was nothing there. If the memo is a Spence nothingburger, it will get spun as such on every network except one, and the GOP will look stupid.
The right would not have blocked the Democrat response if there wasn't anything there they didn't want us to see.
Who the heck knows what the truth is. Dirty stuff on all sides.
|
|
|
|
02-02-2018, 09:33 AM
|
#120
|
Registered User
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: Libtardia
Posts: 21,591
|
Time to hit the reset button.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device
|
|
|
|
Posting Rules
|
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
HTML code is Off
|
|
|
All times are GMT -5. The time now is 06:19 PM.
|
| |