^^okay, I was interested in it for a minute.. Kucinich believes he was being intentionally listened to (vs being picked up in a Quadaffi tap) for the purpose of defeating his resolution. That's the paranoia talking. Boehner had a similar resolution that passed while Kucinich's failed. There's another word for strategizing on how to defeat a resolution.. it's called whipping. I'm not arguing that he wasn't picked up in a wire tap, but I don't believe for a second that he was a target compared to Qaudaffi's son.
So...over the weekend had a little CNN on. 2 talking heads, one conservative and one liberal, around the weekend anchor. Maybe it was the time change, maybe I'm just OVER it, but I have no idea what anyone's names were, the anchor may have been Ana Cabrera.
The conservative says that it's assumed as fact that there was a turned down FISA warrant and one that was accepted. The lib starts yelling at the guy and soon they're just shouting over each other. I'm thinking, is that what happened? Is that true? Is it just spin? I've gotten to the point where I can't even follow this shit along.
Support media you trust. I just bought a 9.99 Washington Post subscription. The NYT is next.
Most reporting confirms the FISA warrant story above but the truth is nobody knows 100%. FISA requests are classified and if there even was/were FISA requests the next question would be who was/were listed as the target(s). Nobody knows anything with certainty. The New York Times and the Washington Post are hardly anymore trustworthy on this issue.
No offense, but this is sort of crap. Trump made the accusation. He can easily have the information sent down to the select committees. He could even strong arm a public release. The fact that there are "media reports" and conflicting information is emblematic of what a crock of shit this likely is.
"He can easily have the information sent down" is sort of crap as well. That's the kind of sentence one would read in the Washington Post. This involves sources and methods. You don't know if this is "easy" at all. You also don't know what the select committee even knows or can talk about at this point. Also...no offense.
McCain, Schiff and others have been explicit that they've seen nothing. Unless you're saying Trump's only source is the media, then yes he can ensure that Congress gets what they need..because presumably it's been shown to him, driving his tweet.
Give me a break. Don't defend the defenseless.
This is not defending the defenseless. I have already told you that I am open to the possibility that Trump is full of shit on this point. The DOJ has just asked for and been granted more time to bring evidence to the committee. There still may be no evidence to give but if that is the case I assume they would already just say so. Why ask for a delay? DOJ will either have to say there is no evidence of spying or will have to come up with a reason why it can't share any evidence that exists. Declassification of evidence, sources and methods is just not as simple as all the intelligence analysts on the AMT think. Cards are being placed on the table and we'll soon find out whether Trump is lying or whether it is the beginning of watergate 2.0 and in that case it will be all of you who will have to defend the defenseless.
It doesn't need to be declassified to send to the select committees.
So you say.
What do you mean? You have the select committees who are by law allowed to view classified materials adn if the POTUS deems certain intelligence to be too sensitive, you have the Gang of Eight. This isn't "so I say"... this is the actual US Code.
You are correct on this but it doesn't mean that the committees know everything that the different agencies are collecting or how they are necessarily going about the gathering of intelligence that maybe on going. This is why congressmen/women went to langley to "see" raw intelligence on russia related issues. They had previously been given reports but those reports are not the same as the "raw" which includes sources, methods, etc. The point is that what committees know or don't know is all assumption. Nobody on here has any clue.
Under US law, that information must be shared with them. I'm not aware of any precedent or law that allows the executive branch to withhold any intelligence from the Gang of 8. In fact, Congress has subpoena power over the executive branch. Now the EC could claim executive privilege but that wouldn't hold up for one minute in court in this situation. And it would cause a fatal deterioration of relations between Capitol Hill and this White House. So bottom line, we're still in the same place we were.
I don't think in this situation Trump is claiming executive privilege. This spying (if it occurred at all) took place under the previous administration and I don't think Trump would prevent this from going to the committees. What we don't know is whether DOJ/CIA/NSA/DIA holdovers are resisting the sharing of some of this info or not and yes if they do resist that can and will likely result in subpoenas if it even goes that far. Another twist is that it was just reported (via three anonymous sources) that someone within the Obama administration relied on British Intelligence to access the NSA database for recordings of conversations allowing Obama to bypass American restrictions. Again this is all anonymous and could be bullshit as well but it demonstrates the limited reach of congress should the executive branch choose to use a foreign agency to do it's work.
Okay so you're now arguing that there is a person(s) in the DIA that is holding the information, refusing to release it. You have a job, right? How much of your information is only available to you? What I mean is.. your email? Does anyone have access to it? The answer is yes. Your drives? Yes. There's nothing in the DIA that the any of the directors cannot access.
So...over the weekend had a little CNN on. 2 talking heads, one conservative and one liberal, around the weekend anchor. Maybe it was the time change, maybe I'm just OVER it, but I have no idea what anyone's names were, the anchor may have been Ana Cabrera.
The conservative says that it's assumed as fact that there was a turned down FISA warrant and one that was accepted. The lib starts yelling at the guy and soon they're just shouting over each other. I'm thinking, is that what happened? Is that true? Is it just spin? I've gotten to the point where I can't even follow this shit along.
Support media you trust. I just bought a 9.99 Washington Post subscription. The NYT is next.
Most reporting confirms the FISA warrant story above but the truth is nobody knows 100%. FISA requests are classified and if there even was/were FISA requests the next question would be who was/were listed as the target(s). Nobody knows anything with certainty. The New York Times and the Washington Post are hardly anymore trustworthy on this issue.
No offense, but this is sort of crap. Trump made the accusation. He can easily have the information sent down to the select committees. He could even strong arm a public release. The fact that there are "media reports" and conflicting information is emblematic of what a crock of shit this likely is.
"He can easily have the information sent down" is sort of crap as well. That's the kind of sentence one would read in the Washington Post. This involves sources and methods. You don't know if this is "easy" at all. You also don't know what the select committee even knows or can talk about at this point. Also...no offense.
McCain, Schiff and others have been explicit that they've seen nothing. Unless you're saying Trump's only source is the media, then yes he can ensure that Congress gets what they need..because presumably it's been shown to him, driving his tweet.
Give me a break. Don't defend the defenseless.
This is not defending the defenseless. I have already told you that I am open to the possibility that Trump is full of shit on this point. The DOJ has just asked for and been granted more time to bring evidence to the committee. There still may be no evidence to give but if that is the case I assume they would already just say so. Why ask for a delay? DOJ will either have to say there is no evidence of spying or will have to come up with a reason why it can't share any evidence that exists. Declassification of evidence, sources and methods is just not as simple as all the intelligence analysts on the AMT think. Cards are being placed on the table and we'll soon find out whether Trump is lying or whether it is the beginning of watergate 2.0 and in that case it will be all of you who will have to defend the defenseless.
Still completely unable or unwilling to consider the possibility that there was sufficient evidence to investigate Crooked Trump's improper ties to Russia??
What are you talking about? I am willing to consider that possibility. In due time we will find out whether the evidence was sufficient or not. At the moment though there is no evidence that the "ties" were "improper"...there is only evidence that there were "ties". This is what Clapper and anyone else in the know stated two weekends ago. Now of course these findings can change but that would require new evidence that nobody in the public has been made aware of to date.
All of which adds up to a situation that is not Watergate 2.0 at all, but you are salivating at the thought of this looking bad on the previous admin and not the current one.
So...over the weekend had a little CNN on. 2 talking heads, one conservative and one liberal, around the weekend anchor. Maybe it was the time change, maybe I'm just OVER it, but I have no idea what anyone's names were, the anchor may have been Ana Cabrera.
The conservative says that it's assumed as fact that there was a turned down FISA warrant and one that was accepted. The lib starts yelling at the guy and soon they're just shouting over each other. I'm thinking, is that what happened? Is that true? Is it just spin? I've gotten to the point where I can't even follow this shit along.
Support media you trust. I just bought a 9.99 Washington Post subscription. The NYT is next.
Most reporting confirms the FISA warrant story above but the truth is nobody knows 100%. FISA requests are classified and if there even was/were FISA requests the next question would be who was/were listed as the target(s). Nobody knows anything with certainty. The New York Times and the Washington Post are hardly anymore trustworthy on this issue.
No offense, but this is sort of crap. Trump made the accusation. He can easily have the information sent down to the select committees. He could even strong arm a public release. The fact that there are "media reports" and conflicting information is emblematic of what a crock of shit this likely is.
"He can easily have the information sent down" is sort of crap as well. That's the kind of sentence one would read in the Washington Post. This involves sources and methods. You don't know if this is "easy" at all. You also don't know what the select committee even knows or can talk about at this point. Also...no offense.
McCain, Schiff and others have been explicit that they've seen nothing. Unless you're saying Trump's only source is the media, then yes he can ensure that Congress gets what they need..because presumably it's been shown to him, driving his tweet.
Give me a break. Don't defend the defenseless.
This is not defending the defenseless. I have already told you that I am open to the possibility that Trump is full of shit on this point. The DOJ has just asked for and been granted more time to bring evidence to the committee. There still may be no evidence to give but if that is the case I assume they would already just say so. Why ask for a delay? DOJ will either have to say there is no evidence of spying or will have to come up with a reason why it can't share any evidence that exists. Declassification of evidence, sources and methods is just not as simple as all the intelligence analysts on the AMT think. Cards are being placed on the table and we'll soon find out whether Trump is lying or whether it is the beginning of watergate 2.0 and in that case it will be all of you who will have to defend the defenseless.
Still completely unable or unwilling to consider the possibility that there was sufficient evidence to investigate Crooked Trump's improper ties to Russia??
What are you talking about? I am willing to consider that possibility. In due time we will find out whether the evidence was sufficient or not. At the moment though there is no evidence that the "ties" were "improper"...there is only evidence that there were "ties". This is what Clapper and anyone else in the know stated two weekends ago. Now of course these findings can change but that would require new evidence that nobody in the public has been made aware of to date.
All of which adds up to a situation that is not Watergate 2.0 at all, but you are salivating at the thought of this looking bad on the previous admin and not the current one.
No. That is your interpretation. I am not salivating but open to the possibilities of both outcomes. Everybody else on here seems to be open to only one possible outcome.
So...over the weekend had a little CNN on. 2 talking heads, one conservative and one liberal, around the weekend anchor. Maybe it was the time change, maybe I'm just OVER it, but I have no idea what anyone's names were, the anchor may have been Ana Cabrera.
The conservative says that it's assumed as fact that there was a turned down FISA warrant and one that was accepted. The lib starts yelling at the guy and soon they're just shouting over each other. I'm thinking, is that what happened? Is that true? Is it just spin? I've gotten to the point where I can't even follow this shit along.
Support media you trust. I just bought a 9.99 Washington Post subscription. The NYT is next.
Most reporting confirms the FISA warrant story above but the truth is nobody knows 100%. FISA requests are classified and if there even was/were FISA requests the next question would be who was/were listed as the target(s). Nobody knows anything with certainty. The New York Times and the Washington Post are hardly anymore trustworthy on this issue.
No offense, but this is sort of crap. Trump made the accusation. He can easily have the information sent down to the select committees. He could even strong arm a public release. The fact that there are "media reports" and conflicting information is emblematic of what a crock of shit this likely is.
"He can easily have the information sent down" is sort of crap as well. That's the kind of sentence one would read in the Washington Post. This involves sources and methods. You don't know if this is "easy" at all. You also don't know what the select committee even knows or can talk about at this point. Also...no offense.
McCain, Schiff and others have been explicit that they've seen nothing. Unless you're saying Trump's only source is the media, then yes he can ensure that Congress gets what they need..because presumably it's been shown to him, driving his tweet.
Give me a break. Don't defend the defenseless.
This is not defending the defenseless. I have already told you that I am open to the possibility that Trump is full of shit on this point. The DOJ has just asked for and been granted more time to bring evidence to the committee. There still may be no evidence to give but if that is the case I assume they would already just say so. Why ask for a delay? DOJ will either have to say there is no evidence of spying or will have to come up with a reason why it can't share any evidence that exists. Declassification of evidence, sources and methods is just not as simple as all the intelligence analysts on the AMT think. Cards are being placed on the table and we'll soon find out whether Trump is lying or whether it is the beginning of watergate 2.0 and in that case it will be all of you who will have to defend the defenseless.
Still completely unable or unwilling to consider the possibility that there was sufficient evidence to investigate Crooked Trump's improper ties to Russia??
What are you talking about? I am willing to consider that possibility. In due time we will find out whether the evidence was sufficient or not. At the moment though there is no evidence that the "ties" were "improper"...there is only evidence that there were "ties". This is what Clapper and anyone else in the know stated two weekends ago. Now of course these findings can change but that would require new evidence that nobody in the public has been made aware of to date.
All of which adds up to a situation that is not Watergate 2.0 at all, but you are salivating at the thought of this looking bad on the previous admin and not the current one.
No. That is your interpretation. I am not salivating but open to the possibilities of both outcomes. Everybody else on here seems to be open to only one possible outcome.
I am certainly not a fan of Trump's...I'm sure that is obvious. That being said, we don't have all of the information yet. Only a select few have that information. I can say that based on what I have read, seen and digested thus far, it is my opinion that this will not end well for Donald Trump. If I end up being wrong, I'll own that. I truly believe that it is not a matter of IF, but WHEN it all hits the fan.
So...over the weekend had a little CNN on. 2 talking heads, one conservative and one liberal, around the weekend anchor. Maybe it was the time change, maybe I'm just OVER it, but I have no idea what anyone's names were, the anchor may have been Ana Cabrera.
The conservative says that it's assumed as fact that there was a turned down FISA warrant and one that was accepted. The lib starts yelling at the guy and soon they're just shouting over each other. I'm thinking, is that what happened? Is that true? Is it just spin? I've gotten to the point where I can't even follow this shit along.
Support media you trust. I just bought a 9.99 Washington Post subscription. The NYT is next.
Most reporting confirms the FISA warrant story above but the truth is nobody knows 100%. FISA requests are classified and if there even was/were FISA requests the next question would be who was/were listed as the target(s). Nobody knows anything with certainty. The New York Times and the Washington Post are hardly anymore trustworthy on this issue.
No offense, but this is sort of crap. Trump made the accusation. He can easily have the information sent down to the select committees. He could even strong arm a public release. The fact that there are "media reports" and conflicting information is emblematic of what a crock of shit this likely is.
"He can easily have the information sent down" is sort of crap as well. That's the kind of sentence one would read in the Washington Post. This involves sources and methods. You don't know if this is "easy" at all. You also don't know what the select committee even knows or can talk about at this point. Also...no offense.
McCain, Schiff and others have been explicit that they've seen nothing. Unless you're saying Trump's only source is the media, then yes he can ensure that Congress gets what they need..because presumably it's been shown to him, driving his tweet.
Give me a break. Don't defend the defenseless.
This is not defending the defenseless. I have already told you that I am open to the possibility that Trump is full of shit on this point. The DOJ has just asked for and been granted more time to bring evidence to the committee. There still may be no evidence to give but if that is the case I assume they would already just say so. Why ask for a delay? DOJ will either have to say there is no evidence of spying or will have to come up with a reason why it can't share any evidence that exists. Declassification of evidence, sources and methods is just not as simple as all the intelligence analysts on the AMT think. Cards are being placed on the table and we'll soon find out whether Trump is lying or whether it is the beginning of watergate 2.0 and in that case it will be all of you who will have to defend the defenseless.
It doesn't need to be declassified to send to the select committees.
So you say.
What do you mean? You have the select committees who are by law allowed to view classified materials adn if the POTUS deems certain intelligence to be too sensitive, you have the Gang of Eight. This isn't "so I say"... this is the actual US Code.
You are correct on this but it doesn't mean that the committees know everything that the different agencies are collecting or how they are necessarily going about the gathering of intelligence that maybe on going. This is why congressmen/women went to langley to "see" raw intelligence on russia related issues. They had previously been given reports but those reports are not the same as the "raw" which includes sources, methods, etc. The point is that what committees know or don't know is all assumption. Nobody on here has any clue.
Under US law, that information must be shared with them. I'm not aware of any precedent or law that allows the executive branch to withhold any intelligence from the Gang of 8. In fact, Congress has subpoena power over the executive branch. Now the EC could claim executive privilege but that wouldn't hold up for one minute in court in this situation. And it would cause a fatal deterioration of relations between Capitol Hill and this White House. So bottom line, we're still in the same place we were.
I don't think in this situation Trump is claiming executive privilege. This spying (if it occurred at all) took place under the previous administration and I don't think Trump would prevent this from going to the committees. What we don't know is whether DOJ/CIA/NSA/DIA holdovers are resisting the sharing of some of this info or not and yes if they do resist that can and will likely result in subpoenas if it even goes that far. Another twist is that it was just reported (via three anonymous sources) that someone within the Obama administration relied on British Intelligence to access the NSA database for recordings of conversations allowing Obama to bypass American restrictions. Again this is all anonymous and could be bullshit as well but it demonstrates the limited reach of congress should the executive branch choose to use a foreign agency to do it's work.
Okay so you're now arguing that there is a person(s) in the DIA that is holding the information, refusing to release it. You have a job, right? How much of your information is only available to you? What I mean is.. your email? Does anyone have access to it? The answer is yes. Your drives? Yes. There's nothing in the DIA that the any of the directors cannot access.
I am not arguing that this is happening. I am just entertaining the possibility. I am not aware that there has been an official denial issued on spying. The only thing anybody has seen officially is a request for more time. I am wondering why was this request made? Is it based on nothing to share, difficulty to share or refusal to share? All are possibilities. But as far as my email is concerned nobody has access to it except for maybe the company I use to host my server...I'm at the top of the food chain...I choose what to share.
So...over the weekend had a little CNN on. 2 talking heads, one conservative and one liberal, around the weekend anchor. Maybe it was the time change, maybe I'm just OVER it, but I have no idea what anyone's names were, the anchor may have been Ana Cabrera.
The conservative says that it's assumed as fact that there was a turned down FISA warrant and one that was accepted. The lib starts yelling at the guy and soon they're just shouting over each other. I'm thinking, is that what happened? Is that true? Is it just spin? I've gotten to the point where I can't even follow this shit along.
Support media you trust. I just bought a 9.99 Washington Post subscription. The NYT is next.
Most reporting confirms the FISA warrant story above but the truth is nobody knows 100%. FISA requests are classified and if there even was/were FISA requests the next question would be who was/were listed as the target(s). Nobody knows anything with certainty. The New York Times and the Washington Post are hardly anymore trustworthy on this issue.
No offense, but this is sort of crap. Trump made the accusation. He can easily have the information sent down to the select committees. He could even strong arm a public release. The fact that there are "media reports" and conflicting information is emblematic of what a crock of shit this likely is.
"He can easily have the information sent down" is sort of crap as well. That's the kind of sentence one would read in the Washington Post. This involves sources and methods. You don't know if this is "easy" at all. You also don't know what the select committee even knows or can talk about at this point. Also...no offense.
McCain, Schiff and others have been explicit that they've seen nothing. Unless you're saying Trump's only source is the media, then yes he can ensure that Congress gets what they need..because presumably it's been shown to him, driving his tweet.
Give me a break. Don't defend the defenseless.
This is not defending the defenseless. I have already told you that I am open to the possibility that Trump is full of shit on this point. The DOJ has just asked for and been granted more time to bring evidence to the committee. There still may be no evidence to give but if that is the case I assume they would already just say so. Why ask for a delay? DOJ will either have to say there is no evidence of spying or will have to come up with a reason why it can't share any evidence that exists. Declassification of evidence, sources and methods is just not as simple as all the intelligence analysts on the AMT think. Cards are being placed on the table and we'll soon find out whether Trump is lying or whether it is the beginning of watergate 2.0 and in that case it will be all of you who will have to defend the defenseless.
Still completely unable or unwilling to consider the possibility that there was sufficient evidence to investigate Crooked Trump's improper ties to Russia??
What are you talking about? I am willing to consider that possibility. In due time we will find out whether the evidence was sufficient or not. At the moment though there is no evidence that the "ties" were "improper"...there is only evidence that there were "ties". This is what Clapper and anyone else in the know stated two weekends ago. Now of course these findings can change but that would require new evidence that nobody in the public has been made aware of to date.
All of which adds up to a situation that is not Watergate 2.0 at all, but you are salivating at the thought of this looking bad on the previous admin and not the current one.
No. That is your interpretation. I am not salivating but open to the possibilities of both outcomes. Everybody else on here seems to be open to only one possible outcome.
That's probably because one person is a professional who understands the law, and another is a narcissist who has little knowledge past the "art of the deal".
^^okay, I was interested in it for a minute.. Kucinich believes he was being intentionally listened to (vs being picked up in a Quadaffi tap) for the purpose of defeating his resolution. That's the paranoia talking. Boehner had a similar resolution that passed while Kucinich's failed. There's another word for strategizing on how to defeat a resolution.. it's called whipping. I'm not arguing that he wasn't picked up in a wire tap, but I don't believe for a second that he was a target compared to Qaudaffi's son.
I agree with you but his point on being wire tapped from his congressional office phone is not wrong. I don't believe the executive branch has a right to listen to that call unless as part of a criminal investigation. The AMT used to agree with this position.
So...over the weekend had a little CNN on. 2 talking heads, one conservative and one liberal, around the weekend anchor. Maybe it was the time change, maybe I'm just OVER it, but I have no idea what anyone's names were, the anchor may have been Ana Cabrera.
The conservative says that it's assumed as fact that there was a turned down FISA warrant and one that was accepted. The lib starts yelling at the guy and soon they're just shouting over each other. I'm thinking, is that what happened? Is that true? Is it just spin? I've gotten to the point where I can't even follow this shit along.
Support media you trust. I just bought a 9.99 Washington Post subscription. The NYT is next.
Most reporting confirms the FISA warrant story above but the truth is nobody knows 100%. FISA requests are classified and if there even was/were FISA requests the next question would be who was/were listed as the target(s). Nobody knows anything with certainty. The New York Times and the Washington Post are hardly anymore trustworthy on this issue.
No offense, but this is sort of crap. Trump made the accusation. He can easily have the information sent down to the select committees. He could even strong arm a public release. The fact that there are "media reports" and conflicting information is emblematic of what a crock of shit this likely is.
"He can easily have the information sent down" is sort of crap as well. That's the kind of sentence one would read in the Washington Post. This involves sources and methods. You don't know if this is "easy" at all. You also don't know what the select committee even knows or can talk about at this point. Also...no offense.
McCain, Schiff and others have been explicit that they've seen nothing. Unless you're saying Trump's only source is the media, then yes he can ensure that Congress gets what they need..because presumably it's been shown to him, driving his tweet.
Give me a break. Don't defend the defenseless.
This is not defending the defenseless. I have already told you that I am open to the possibility that Trump is full of shit on this point. The DOJ has just asked for and been granted more time to bring evidence to the committee. There still may be no evidence to give but if that is the case I assume they would already just say so. Why ask for a delay? DOJ will either have to say there is no evidence of spying or will have to come up with a reason why it can't share any evidence that exists. Declassification of evidence, sources and methods is just not as simple as all the intelligence analysts on the AMT think. Cards are being placed on the table and we'll soon find out whether Trump is lying or whether it is the beginning of watergate 2.0 and in that case it will be all of you who will have to defend the defenseless.
Still completely unable or unwilling to consider the possibility that there was sufficient evidence to investigate Crooked Trump's improper ties to Russia??
What are you talking about? I am willing to consider that possibility. In due time we will find out whether the evidence was sufficient or not. At the moment though there is no evidence that the "ties" were "improper"...there is only evidence that there were "ties". This is what Clapper and anyone else in the know stated two weekends ago. Now of course these findings can change but that would require new evidence that nobody in the public has been made aware of to date.
All of which adds up to a situation that is not Watergate 2.0 at all, but you are salivating at the thought of this looking bad on the previous admin and not the current one.
No. That is your interpretation. I am not salivating but open to the possibilities of both outcomes. Everybody else on here seems to be open to only one possible outcome.
That's probably because one person is a professional who understands the law, and another is a narcissist who has little knowledge past the "art of the deal".
Who is the one "professional who understands the law" that you are referring too?
^^okay, I was interested in it for a minute.. Kucinich believes he was being intentionally listened to (vs being picked up in a Quadaffi tap) for the purpose of defeating his resolution. That's the paranoia talking. Boehner had a similar resolution that passed while Kucinich's failed. There's another word for strategizing on how to defeat a resolution.. it's called whipping. I'm not arguing that he wasn't picked up in a wire tap, but I don't believe for a second that he was a target compared to Qaudaffi's son.
I agree with you but his point on being wire tapped from his congressional office phone is not wrong. I don't believe the executive branch has a right to listen to that call unless as part of a criminal investigation. The AMT used to agree with this position.
It's true that they are supposed to disconnect when they realize it's a member of Congress... I think. It's possible that a FISA warrant would supersede that I suppose. but I'm not sure. But if you're tapping the Quadaffi's son, and pick up on a call with Kucinich, I would not call that wire tapping Kucinich.
So...over the weekend had a little CNN on. 2 talking heads, one conservative and one liberal, around the weekend anchor. Maybe it was the time change, maybe I'm just OVER it, but I have no idea what anyone's names were, the anchor may have been Ana Cabrera.
The conservative says that it's assumed as fact that there was a turned down FISA warrant and one that was accepted. The lib starts yelling at the guy and soon they're just shouting over each other. I'm thinking, is that what happened? Is that true? Is it just spin? I've gotten to the point where I can't even follow this shit along.
Support media you trust. I just bought a 9.99 Washington Post subscription. The NYT is next.
Most reporting confirms the FISA warrant story above but the truth is nobody knows 100%. FISA requests are classified and if there even was/were FISA requests the next question would be who was/were listed as the target(s). Nobody knows anything with certainty. The New York Times and the Washington Post are hardly anymore trustworthy on this issue.
No offense, but this is sort of crap. Trump made the accusation. He can easily have the information sent down to the select committees. He could even strong arm a public release. The fact that there are "media reports" and conflicting information is emblematic of what a crock of shit this likely is.
"He can easily have the information sent down" is sort of crap as well. That's the kind of sentence one would read in the Washington Post. This involves sources and methods. You don't know if this is "easy" at all. You also don't know what the select committee even knows or can talk about at this point. Also...no offense.
McCain, Schiff and others have been explicit that they've seen nothing. Unless you're saying Trump's only source is the media, then yes he can ensure that Congress gets what they need..because presumably it's been shown to him, driving his tweet.
Give me a break. Don't defend the defenseless.
This is not defending the defenseless. I have already told you that I am open to the possibility that Trump is full of shit on this point. The DOJ has just asked for and been granted more time to bring evidence to the committee. There still may be no evidence to give but if that is the case I assume they would already just say so. Why ask for a delay? DOJ will either have to say there is no evidence of spying or will have to come up with a reason why it can't share any evidence that exists. Declassification of evidence, sources and methods is just not as simple as all the intelligence analysts on the AMT think. Cards are being placed on the table and we'll soon find out whether Trump is lying or whether it is the beginning of watergate 2.0 and in that case it will be all of you who will have to defend the defenseless.
It doesn't need to be declassified to send to the select committees.
So you say.
What do you mean? You have the select committees who are by law allowed to view classified materials adn if the POTUS deems certain intelligence to be too sensitive, you have the Gang of Eight. This isn't "so I say"... this is the actual US Code.
You are correct on this but it doesn't mean that the committees know everything that the different agencies are collecting or how they are necessarily going about the gathering of intelligence that maybe on going. This is why congressmen/women went to langley to "see" raw intelligence on russia related issues. They had previously been given reports but those reports are not the same as the "raw" which includes sources, methods, etc. The point is that what committees know or don't know is all assumption. Nobody on here has any clue.
Under US law, that information must be shared with them. I'm not aware of any precedent or law that allows the executive branch to withhold any intelligence from the Gang of 8. In fact, Congress has subpoena power over the executive branch. Now the EC could claim executive privilege but that wouldn't hold up for one minute in court in this situation. And it would cause a fatal deterioration of relations between Capitol Hill and this White House. So bottom line, we're still in the same place we were.
I don't think in this situation Trump is claiming executive privilege. This spying (if it occurred at all) took place under the previous administration and I don't think Trump would prevent this from going to the committees. What we don't know is whether DOJ/CIA/NSA/DIA holdovers are resisting the sharing of some of this info or not and yes if they do resist that can and will likely result in subpoenas if it even goes that far. Another twist is that it was just reported (via three anonymous sources) that someone within the Obama administration relied on British Intelligence to access the NSA database for recordings of conversations allowing Obama to bypass American restrictions. Again this is all anonymous and could be bullshit as well but it demonstrates the limited reach of congress should the executive branch choose to use a foreign agency to do it's work.
Okay so you're now arguing that there is a person(s) in the DIA that is holding the information, refusing to release it. You have a job, right? How much of your information is only available to you? What I mean is.. your email? Does anyone have access to it? The answer is yes. Your drives? Yes. There's nothing in the DIA that the any of the directors cannot access.
I am not arguing that this is happening. I am just entertaining the possibility. I am not aware that there has been an official denial issued on spying. The only thing anybody has seen officially is a request for more time. I am wondering why was this request made? Is it based on nothing to share, difficulty to share or refusal to share? All are possibilities. But as far as my email is concerned nobody has access to it except for maybe the company I use to host my server...I'm at the top of the food chain...I choose what to share.
Well if you own a company.. sole proprietarship, and it's not a corp.. well I guess that's true. But I think you know what I mean. I'm an EVP of my company and the #2. But that doesn't mean my CIO can't see my emails if he chose or another sysadmin. They can see the CEO's too. The point is that in gov't, there's no hiding your digital footprint. So if the data exists within the firewalls, then the senior member of that department can access it.
So...over the weekend had a little CNN on. 2 talking heads, one conservative and one liberal, around the weekend anchor. Maybe it was the time change, maybe I'm just OVER it, but I have no idea what anyone's names were, the anchor may have been Ana Cabrera.
The conservative says that it's assumed as fact that there was a turned down FISA warrant and one that was accepted. The lib starts yelling at the guy and soon they're just shouting over each other. I'm thinking, is that what happened? Is that true? Is it just spin? I've gotten to the point where I can't even follow this shit along.
Support media you trust. I just bought a 9.99 Washington Post subscription. The NYT is next.
Most reporting confirms the FISA warrant story above but the truth is nobody knows 100%. FISA requests are classified and if there even was/were FISA requests the next question would be who was/were listed as the target(s). Nobody knows anything with certainty. The New York Times and the Washington Post are hardly anymore trustworthy on this issue.
No offense, but this is sort of crap. Trump made the accusation. He can easily have the information sent down to the select committees. He could even strong arm a public release. The fact that there are "media reports" and conflicting information is emblematic of what a crock of shit this likely is.
"He can easily have the information sent down" is sort of crap as well. That's the kind of sentence one would read in the Washington Post. This involves sources and methods. You don't know if this is "easy" at all. You also don't know what the select committee even knows or can talk about at this point. Also...no offense.
McCain, Schiff and others have been explicit that they've seen nothing. Unless you're saying Trump's only source is the media, then yes he can ensure that Congress gets what they need..because presumably it's been shown to him, driving his tweet.
Give me a break. Don't defend the defenseless.
This is not defending the defenseless. I have already told you that I am open to the possibility that Trump is full of shit on this point. The DOJ has just asked for and been granted more time to bring evidence to the committee. There still may be no evidence to give but if that is the case I assume they would already just say so. Why ask for a delay? DOJ will either have to say there is no evidence of spying or will have to come up with a reason why it can't share any evidence that exists. Declassification of evidence, sources and methods is just not as simple as all the intelligence analysts on the AMT think. Cards are being placed on the table and we'll soon find out whether Trump is lying or whether it is the beginning of watergate 2.0 and in that case it will be all of you who will have to defend the defenseless.
Still completely unable or unwilling to consider the possibility that there was sufficient evidence to investigate Crooked Trump's improper ties to Russia??
What are you talking about? I am willing to consider that possibility. In due time we will find out whether the evidence was sufficient or not. At the moment though there is no evidence that the "ties" were "improper"...there is only evidence that there were "ties". This is what Clapper and anyone else in the know stated two weekends ago. Now of course these findings can change but that would require new evidence that nobody in the public has been made aware of to date.
All of which adds up to a situation that is not Watergate 2.0 at all, but you are salivating at the thought of this looking bad on the previous admin and not the current one.
No. That is your interpretation. I am not salivating but open to the possibilities of both outcomes. Everybody else on here seems to be open to only one possible outcome.
That's probably because one person is a professional who understands the law, and another is a narcissist who has little knowledge past the "art of the deal".
Who is the one "professional who understands the law" that you are referring too?
Are we talking previous admin vs. current or am I reading the thread too quickly?
So...over the weekend had a little CNN on. 2 talking heads, one conservative and one liberal, around the weekend anchor. Maybe it was the time change, maybe I'm just OVER it, but I have no idea what anyone's names were, the anchor may have been Ana Cabrera.
The conservative says that it's assumed as fact that there was a turned down FISA warrant and one that was accepted. The lib starts yelling at the guy and soon they're just shouting over each other. I'm thinking, is that what happened? Is that true? Is it just spin? I've gotten to the point where I can't even follow this shit along.
Support media you trust. I just bought a 9.99 Washington Post subscription. The NYT is next.
Most reporting confirms the FISA warrant story above but the truth is nobody knows 100%. FISA requests are classified and if there even was/were FISA requests the next question would be who was/were listed as the target(s). Nobody knows anything with certainty. The New York Times and the Washington Post are hardly anymore trustworthy on this issue.
No offense, but this is sort of crap. Trump made the accusation. He can easily have the information sent down to the select committees. He could even strong arm a public release. The fact that there are "media reports" and conflicting information is emblematic of what a crock of shit this likely is.
"He can easily have the information sent down" is sort of crap as well. That's the kind of sentence one would read in the Washington Post. This involves sources and methods. You don't know if this is "easy" at all. You also don't know what the select committee even knows or can talk about at this point. Also...no offense.
McCain, Schiff and others have been explicit that they've seen nothing. Unless you're saying Trump's only source is the media, then yes he can ensure that Congress gets what they need..because presumably it's been shown to him, driving his tweet.
Give me a break. Don't defend the defenseless.
This is not defending the defenseless. I have already told you that I am open to the possibility that Trump is full of shit on this point. The DOJ has just asked for and been granted more time to bring evidence to the committee. There still may be no evidence to give but if that is the case I assume they would already just say so. Why ask for a delay? DOJ will either have to say there is no evidence of spying or will have to come up with a reason why it can't share any evidence that exists. Declassification of evidence, sources and methods is just not as simple as all the intelligence analysts on the AMT think. Cards are being placed on the table and we'll soon find out whether Trump is lying or whether it is the beginning of watergate 2.0 and in that case it will be all of you who will have to defend the defenseless.
Still completely unable or unwilling to consider the possibility that there was sufficient evidence to investigate Crooked Trump's improper ties to Russia??
What are you talking about? I am willing to consider that possibility. In due time we will find out whether the evidence was sufficient or not. At the moment though there is no evidence that the "ties" were "improper"...there is only evidence that there were "ties". This is what Clapper and anyone else in the know stated two weekends ago. Now of course these findings can change but that would require new evidence that nobody in the public has been made aware of to date.
All of which adds up to a situation that is not Watergate 2.0 at all, but you are salivating at the thought of this looking bad on the previous admin and not the current one.
No. That is your interpretation. I am not salivating but open to the possibilities of both outcomes. Everybody else on here seems to be open to only one possible outcome.
That's probably because one person is a professional who understands the law, and another is a narcissist who has little knowledge past the "art of the deal".
Who is the one "professional who understands the law" that you are referring too?
Are we talking previous admin vs. current or am I reading the thread too quickly?
I have no idea what you are suggesting. I am simply stating that I am open to the possibilities that on "wire tapping" Trump is either full of shit, is essentially correct with a large amount of hyperbole, or is completely correct. All are possible regardless of how one feels about him. After all at this moment he is privy to far more information then anyone else in government. To assume anything else is an assumption based on emotion and not evidence.
So...over the weekend had a little CNN on. 2 talking heads, one conservative and one liberal, around the weekend anchor. Maybe it was the time change, maybe I'm just OVER it, but I have no idea what anyone's names were, the anchor may have been Ana Cabrera.
The conservative says that it's assumed as fact that there was a turned down FISA warrant and one that was accepted. The lib starts yelling at the guy and soon they're just shouting over each other. I'm thinking, is that what happened? Is that true? Is it just spin? I've gotten to the point where I can't even follow this shit along.
Support media you trust. I just bought a 9.99 Washington Post subscription. The NYT is next.
Most reporting confirms the FISA warrant story above but the truth is nobody knows 100%. FISA requests are classified and if there even was/were FISA requests the next question would be who was/were listed as the target(s). Nobody knows anything with certainty. The New York Times and the Washington Post are hardly anymore trustworthy on this issue.
No offense, but this is sort of crap. Trump made the accusation. He can easily have the information sent down to the select committees. He could even strong arm a public release. The fact that there are "media reports" and conflicting information is emblematic of what a crock of shit this likely is.
"He can easily have the information sent down" is sort of crap as well. That's the kind of sentence one would read in the Washington Post. This involves sources and methods. You don't know if this is "easy" at all. You also don't know what the select committee even knows or can talk about at this point. Also...no offense.
McCain, Schiff and others have been explicit that they've seen nothing. Unless you're saying Trump's only source is the media, then yes he can ensure that Congress gets what they need..because presumably it's been shown to him, driving his tweet.
Give me a break. Don't defend the defenseless.
This is not defending the defenseless. I have already told you that I am open to the possibility that Trump is full of shit on this point. The DOJ has just asked for and been granted more time to bring evidence to the committee. There still may be no evidence to give but if that is the case I assume they would already just say so. Why ask for a delay? DOJ will either have to say there is no evidence of spying or will have to come up with a reason why it can't share any evidence that exists. Declassification of evidence, sources and methods is just not as simple as all the intelligence analysts on the AMT think. Cards are being placed on the table and we'll soon find out whether Trump is lying or whether it is the beginning of watergate 2.0 and in that case it will be all of you who will have to defend the defenseless.
Still completely unable or unwilling to consider the possibility that there was sufficient evidence to investigate Crooked Trump's improper ties to Russia??
What are you talking about? I am willing to consider that possibility. In due time we will find out whether the evidence was sufficient or not. At the moment though there is no evidence that the "ties" were "improper"...there is only evidence that there were "ties". This is what Clapper and anyone else in the know stated two weekends ago. Now of course these findings can change but that would require new evidence that nobody in the public has been made aware of to date.
All of which adds up to a situation that is not Watergate 2.0 at all, but you are salivating at the thought of this looking bad on the previous admin and not the current one.
No. That is your interpretation. I am not salivating but open to the possibilities of both outcomes. Everybody else on here seems to be open to only one possible outcome.
That's probably because one person is a professional who understands the law, and another is a narcissist who has little knowledge past the "art of the deal".
Who is the one "professional who understands the law" that you are referring too?
Are we talking previous admin vs. current or am I reading the thread too quickly?
I have no idea what you are suggesting. I am simply stating that I am open to the possibilities that on "wire tapping" Trump is either full of shit, is essentially correct with a large amount of hyperbole, or is completely correct. All are possible regardless of how one feels about him. After all at this moment he is privy to far more information then anyone else in government. To assume anything else is an assumption based on emotion and not evidence.
To suggest trump is talking out of his ass is based on evidence of his history. trump said that Obama tapped trump tower. I'm saying that Obama is smart enough to have had any monitoring be legally sufficient and have all rules followed.
I saw a report about this last night. They are also asking people to provide the passwords to their phones & if they refuse, they take the phone & "copy" the contents of the phone. Not sure how accurate all of this is, but it's very fucked up if it's true.
I saw this, but haven't had time to check elsewhere, is dailykos reputable?
If this is happening, then I don't know what to say....... it's kind of unbelievable.
Good, Give your passwords when asked. If you have nothing to hide then why worry?? They need to know who's entering. Born here? So what, still provide whatever information they ask, so they know exactly who you are.
and lets please show some respect for our leader. Some of these comments (in this thread) are disgusting.
I saw this, but haven't had time to check elsewhere, is dailykos reputable?
If this is happening, then I don't know what to say....... it's kind of unbelievable.
The comments underneath the article say the policy has been in effect since W. I haven't fact checked it. Just my opinion, but newly re-empowered DHS agents, like cops with new military toys, don't need to be told twice to "protect us".
I saw this, but haven't had time to check elsewhere, is dailykos reputable?
If this is happening, then I don't know what to say....... it's kind of unbelievable.
Good, Give your passwords when asked. If you have nothing to hide then why worry?? They need to know who's entering. Born here? So what, still provide whatever information they ask, so they know exactly who you are.
and lets please show some respect for our leader. Some of these comments (in this thread) are disgusting.
I saw this, but haven't had time to check elsewhere, is dailykos reputable?
If this is happening, then I don't know what to say....... it's kind of unbelievable.
Good, Give your passwords when asked. If you have nothing to hide then why worry?? They need to know who's entering. Born here? So what, still provide whatever information they ask, so they know exactly who you are.
and lets please show some respect for our leader. Some of these comments (in this thread) are disgusting.
In the criminal law realm, Fourth Amendment "search and seizure" protections extend to:
A law enforcement officer's physical apprehension or "seizure" of a person, by way of a stop or arrest; and Police searches of places and items in which an individual has a legitimate expectation of privacy -- his or her person, clothing, purse, luggage, vehicle, house, apartment, hotel room, and place of business, to name a few examples. The Fourth Amendment provides safeguards to individuals during searches and detentions, and prevents unlawfully seized items from being used as evidence in criminal cases. The degree of protection available in a particular case depends on the nature of the detention or arrest, the characteristics of the place searched, and the circumstances under which the search takes place.
I saw this, but haven't had time to check elsewhere, is dailykos reputable?
If this is happening, then I don't know what to say....... it's kind of unbelievable.
Good, Give your passwords when asked. If you have nothing to hide then why worry?? They need to know who's entering. Born here? So what, still provide whatever information they ask, so they know exactly who you are.
and lets please show some respect for our leader. Some of these comments (in this thread) are disgusting.
Comments
I'm not arguing that he wasn't picked up in a wire tap, but I don't believe for a second that he was a target compared to Qaudaffi's son.
Good times!
www.cluthelee.com
www.cluthe.com
This is going to be an embarrassment for him...even more than it already is.
1998: Noblesville; 2003: Noblesville; 2009: EV Nashville, Chicago, Chicago
2010: St Louis, Columbus, Noblesville; 2011: EV Chicago, East Troy, East Troy
2013: London ON, Chicago; 2014: Cincy, St Louis, Moline (NO CODE)
2016: Lexington, Wrigley #1; 2018: Wrigley, Wrigley, Boston, Boston
2020: Oakland, Oakland: 2021: EV Ohana, Ohana, Ohana, Ohana
2022: Oakland, Oakland, Nashville, Louisville; 2023: Chicago, Chicago, Noblesville
2024: Noblesville, Wrigley, Wrigley, Ohana, Ohana
http://www.dailykos.com/stories/2017/3/13/1643059/-U-S-Citizens-Now-Being-Forced-To-Provide-Their-Social-Media-Passwords-Upon-Return-To-U-S
If this is happening, then I don't know what to say....... it's kind of unbelievable.
www.cluthelee.com
www.cluthe.com
They need to know who's entering. Born here? So what, still provide whatever information they ask, so they know exactly who you are.
and lets please show some respect for our leader. Some of these comments (in this thread) are disgusting.
Just my opinion, but newly re-empowered DHS agents, like cops with new military toys, don't need to be told twice to "protect us".
In the criminal law realm, Fourth Amendment "search and seizure" protections extend to:
A law enforcement officer's physical apprehension or "seizure" of a person, by way of a stop or arrest; and
Police searches of places and items in which an individual has a legitimate expectation of privacy -- his or her person, clothing, purse, luggage, vehicle, house, apartment, hotel room, and place of business, to name a few examples.
The Fourth Amendment provides safeguards to individuals during searches and detentions, and prevents unlawfully seized items from being used as evidence in criminal cases. The degree of protection available in a particular case depends on the nature of the detention or arrest, the characteristics of the place searched, and the circumstances under which the search takes place.