A Leaked Democratic Response to Nunes Memo (But Not “the Memo”)

[waiguoren]

No. The FISA courts were set up after 9-11 due to the belief that the government would sometimes need to present its legal case outside of public view, so as to not jeopardize classified sources in obtaining a warrant.

Incorrect.

These courts were established after FISA passed in 1978 during the Cold War. The USA PATRIOT Act (2001) amended it slightly to allow for surveillance of those deemed to be affiliated with terrorist groups (i.e., not affiliated with a nation-state).

It isn't solely based on the subject of a warrant being a spy, and never has.

The original purpose of FISA (1978) was counter-intelligence---spying on spies. Much later on (2001, 2006, 2008, 2015), amendments were made. The point is that Page is suspected of being a Russian spy, and that's why the Court ordered his surveillance.

 

[Darkballs]

Incorrect.

These courts were established after FISA passed in 1978 during the Cold War. The USA PATRIOT Act (2001) amended it slightly to allow for surveillance of those deemed to be affiliated with terrorist groups (i.e., not affiliated with a nation-state).



The original purpose of FISA (1978) was counter-intelligence---spying on spies. Much later on (2001, 2006, 2008, 2015), amendments were made. The point is that Page is suspected of being a Russian spy, and that's why the Court ordered his surveillance.

Great, you have access to wikipedia. Don't be coy, we're talking about FISA in it's modern usage, which is not exclusively aimed at warrants for spies. Page was looked at for a host of charges. To suggest that it must have been solely spy related, because of FISA's history, just isn't accurate.

 

[Darkballs]

Incorrect. The Department of Justice and the AG are part of the executive branch.

Technically. But it's still clearly a hybrid position. The AG appoints prosecutors and has a strong hand in affecting the judiciary. To suggest that Trump can order him to shit on the other branch and it's A-OK because that one office is technically part of the executive branch, certainly goes against the notion of separation of powers.

Which law do you think Trump is guilty of violating?

Obstruction, clearly.

Other than that, I believe the "high crimes and misdemeanors" clause of the Constitution to mean more than just current federal law. Begging a foreign adversary to impede on our democratic elections, and having the foreign adversary do that, meets that criteria. Plus, it's against everything our open government should stand for.

 

[waiguoren]

we're talking about FISA in it's modern usage, which is not exclusively aimed at warrants for spies.

I didn't write that the FISA is exclusively aimed at warrants for spies. I wrote, "these FISC warrants are issued when the target is suspected of being a spy". I was referring to situations in which the target seems a bit too friendly with a foreign government, as distinguished from stateless actors.

To suggest that it must have been solely spy related, because of FISA's history, just isn't accurate.

I never suggested that.

Page was looked at for a host of charges.

I suspect you're blowing hot air. What are those charges? Page has not been accused of any crime. Further, neither you nor I have seen the FISC application.

 

[waiguoren]

Technically. But it's still clearly a hybrid position. The AG appoints prosecutors and has a strong hand in affecting the judiciary. To suggest that Trump can order him to shit on the other branch and it's A-OK because that one office is technically part of the executive branch, certainly goes against the notion of separation of powers.

No offense, but this is a tortured mess of an argument. The highest prosecutorial power in the nation is vested in the executive branch. It is wholly separate from the judicial branch, which is the branch of judges. We would not want the prosecutors and the judges to be part of the same branch, for obvious reasons.

However, in situations like Watergate it has become desirable for the prosecutorial power to be separated from the executive. Unfortunately, there has never been a strong push for a constitutional amendment to achieve that. As such, the president can fire or pardon anyone from the Justice Department without the risk of violating any federal laws.

Other than that, I believe the "high crimes and misdemeanors" clause of the Constitution to mean more than just current federal law.

Yes, that's the actual meaning. The phrase actually has nothing to do with federal law and is considered a term of art. Impeachment is fundamentally a political act.

Obstruction, clearly.

That would require an underlying crime such as bribery or lying to federal investigators. There is no evidence that President Trump has committed any such crime.

Begging a foreign adversary to impede on our democratic elections, and having the foreign adversary do that, meets that criteria. Plus, it's against everything our open government should stand for.

If the people think it's impeachable, they can rally their Senators and Representatives to remove Trump from office. Otherwise, brace yourself for seven more years.

 

[Seaside]

Where are you from?

A 3rd world country in south America.

They fucking annexed a part of a Nato ally

Wait ..... you think Russia is in Nato?

Ukraine is not a nato ally. US and MI6 overthrew elected leader in Ukraine

 

[bobgeese]

Don’t have time to make a thread.


Interesting developments,


1) Grassley memo out, Steele’s in trouble

2) “obama wants to know everything we’re doing” text from page to stryuck.

3) “our mission” study up on watergate. They’ve literally been caught in the act of framing the president.


Obama knows, that’s why he’s kept his mouth shut. History will not remember obama kindly.

 

[waiguoren]

A 3rd world country in south America

Most such countries are riddled with corruption. I believe that the "partisanship" you are complaining about helps to keep both sides in line. As Justice Brandeis said, "Sunlight is said to be the best of disinfectants."

 

[Seaside]

Most such countries are riddled with corruption. I believe that the "partisanship" you are complaining about helps to keep both sides in line. As Justice Brandeis said, "Sunlight is said to be the best of disinfectants".

Who is that?

We are not so partisan

 

[waiguoren]

Who is that?

A former Justice of the US Supreme Court.

We are not so partisan

Right. But are you corrupt?

 

[Seaside]

A former Justice of the US Supreme Court.



Right. But are you corrupt?

I not sure define corruption. I think good leaders do deserve more than average idiot. They should not use state money to do it but if they do I can understand. But must be criticised or punish

 

[lfd0311]

Your straw man about "a Trump supporter" is some pathetic panic wrestling. Again, the discussion you staggered into was about partisan memos, are you that agitated that you can't put together a coherent post that stays on topic? Do you need Ritalin to have a conversation with a grown up? I really hope, for your parents sake, that you have been drinking and are not this helplessly dumb.

On who's part? Yours? Because you brought that up....

And hey Lenny, you know getting 2 people to plead guilty and to flip is better than just indicting them right?

And add to those 2 guilty pleas, 2 people (and 2 is more than 1 Lenny) have been indicted. Plus Comey testified that Trump tried to get him to shut the investigation down, and Trump said he fired Comey because of the Russia investigation. Firing a guy because he wouldn't shut down an investigation that has led to 2 guilty pleas and two indictments (and signs are pointing to Gates pleading guilty and flipping as well) is making that nothing burger smell pretty fishy, doesn't it Lenny?

I guess if you want to pretend that Rick Gates is an integral member of Trump's inner circle, sure....

And yeah, this whole Nunes memo nonsense (following the "secret society" nonsense that you and the rest of the head injury club for men fell for two weeks ago) shows that Trump is feeling the heat about having to sit down in front of Mueller and, god forbid, tell the TRUTH.

What secret society are you babbling about? So now I've fallen for something? You've got a special kind of nonsensical projection going on here, huh?

As for the DNC and PAC thing (don't think I will not notice that you are bailing out on all of your previous bullshit and are falling back to this fox hole), no they are not the same thing, what sort of attempt to save face game are you playing?

LOL, or you just can't miss an opportunity to attempt to talk down to someone and didn't bother stopping for a second to read what I wrote. But your silly post is clearly my fault.....

Now walk on home to your mama boy, you got your ass whipped by a better man.

This is the cherry on top of a sad, sad little post.

 

[Cake4Breakfast]

Its Townhall ( writer Chris Reeves ) he must be awesome, he has 28 followers on twitter, powerhouse writer.

Well, he is Superman

 

[Jack V Savage]

You honestly are trying to convince me that you can't see what the problem is with the Steele dossier? Come on now. I get we all have a side to be on but seriously, be real.

The issue with @Quipling 's source is that it is wrong. It also happens to be partisan.

Nothing better illustrates the intellectual and moral rot on the right than one guy who has been frequently willing to give up his dignity in support of Trump insisting that a right-wing site is partisan against the GOP because they are honest on one issue and another guy in the same category calling the first guy partisan because he's seeking a more-plausible defense of the GOP.

Which kind of begs the question, how does a national security adviser manage to land that role, much less "advise," without ever speaking to the party's nominee? Lol. Nothing fishy here at all...

The really interesting question is who recommended Page to Trump or generally how he became an adviser to Trump. He's a buffoon who didn't have the resume to have the role he did with a presidential campaign and was widely known to be compromised.

 

[andnowweknow]

99.7% of FISC warrants are approved. And if the DOJ deems the situation an "emergency", they don't even need a warrant.

This is the real story here. Rand Paul was on The View the other day talking about it. We've given up a lot of liberty in the name of security.

 

[Cake4Breakfast]

On who's part? Yours? Because you brought that up....







I guess if you want to pretend that Rick Gates is an integral member of Trump's inner circle, sure....



What secret society are you babbling about? So now I've fallen for something? You've got a special kind of nonsensical projection going on here, huh?



LOL, or you just can't miss an opportunity to attempt to talk down to someone and didn't bother stopping for a second to read what I wrote. But your silly post is clearly my fault.....



This is the cherry on top of a sad, sad little post.

Show me where I said anything about McCabe in relation to a "Trump supporter."... and LOL, Lenny, yeah, a deputy campaign manager is nothing, especially in a mom and pop organization like the Trump campaign, nothing at all...And you really don't know what secret society I am talking about? what happened you were not reading right nutjob wing news last week, or watching republican congressmen and senators humiliate themselves on real news talking about this? And I read every bit of panic wrestling that you wrote, I didn't need to "stop for a second," I read my kids fantasy books every night, and am used to the content and reading level. And sorry about the locker room talk with the last part, didn't know you were the sensitive type.

 

[Seano]

Nothing better illustrates the intellectual and moral rot on the right than one guy who has been frequently willing to give up his dignity in support of Trump insisting that a right-wing site is partisan against the GOP because they are honest on one issue and another guy in the same category calling the first guy partisan because he's seeking a more-plausible defense of the GOP.

.

lol at this guy and his standards of intellectualism.
Do you actually have some point here or is this just pompous talking point #327,055? Please spare me your rants on intellectualism. Its like being lectured on proper health by Chris Farley.

Here's the thing. Being on one side or another doesn't make you intellectual. Having morals doesn't make you more or less intellectual. Being disgusted by the Steel dossier is not sign of low (or high) intellect. Making empty posts in a karate forum insulting people surely is not either.

I notice that a lot with you Hack. You obviously get lot of validation from this forum that you lack elsewhere.

 

[Jack V Savage]

lol at this guy and his standards of intellectualism.
Do you actually have some point here or is this just pompous talking point #327,055? Please spare me your rants on intellectualism. Its like being lectured on proper health by Chris Farley.

Here's the thing. Being on one side or another doesn't make you intellectual. Having morals doesn't make you more or less intellectual. Being disgusted by the Steel dossier is not sign of low (or high) intellect. Making empty posts in a karate forum insulting people surely is not either.

I notice that a lot with you Hack. You obviously get lot of validation from this forum that you lack elsewhere.

Yeah, this kind of angry response that completely skips the substance of the post is pretty typical, too, and also illustrates the point I was making.

 

[Seano]

Yeah, this kind of angry response that completely skips the substance of the post is pretty typical, too, and also illustrates the point I was making.

Calls out poster on his quality, gets upset when poster points out his quality.
You illustrate the point I made every single day to everyone you converse with.

You're snide prick who copy and pastes other people's ideas. Which is fine, except you have the nerve to throw around criticisms of people's intelligence as you do it.

 

[panamaican]

I'm not sure that's true in this case. These FISC warrants are issued when the target is suspected of being a spy. The "bigger fish" would be Russian bureaucrats who wouldn't have broken US law.

Yes but they might lead you to other Americans who have broken the law.