Politics #ReleaseTheMemo ?

[SlyPokerDog]

Here we agree....Trump is much bigger than Hillary..probably 100 lbs or more

Hillary has bigger hands.

 

[BrianFromWA]

I think you get the shakespeare reference.

And here, I thought it was from the Wire.

 

[SlyPokerDog]

And here, I thought it was from the Wire.

That will teach you to give a fuck when it ain't your turn to give a fuck.

 

[MarAzul]

the King? that speaks volumes....Marz would love to crown Trump ...probably get knighted for it or some shit

I think you get the shakespeare reference.

No. I don't think he does.

 

[riverman]

No. I don't think he does.

Takes another level to see the comedy in Shakespeare....comedy never struck me as your strong suit.....the royalist in you has British pretentions though at times. You guys are so serious, you just don't get it.....there's a distinct double standard in the Trump Clinton feuds.....so I don't see a lot of making America great again in any of this pissing contest other than Trump is flailing around in twitter chaos and multiple failures at cabinet appointments... Hillary is smokescreen material.

 

[bodyman5000 and 1]

No. I don't think he does.

I didn't get it. And I'm just starting back on the wire. How about this one....

 

[Denny Crane]

Written by a constitutional scholar.

http://thehill.com/opinion/judiciar...-delivers-congress-intelligence-oversight-win

Not surprisingly, while FISA was supposed to be a narrow exception to conventional warrants, the Justice Department has used it as an easy alternative to conventional court. Not only is the standard almost impossible not to satisfy but, unlike standard warrants, the surveillance — even abusive or groundless searches — can be kept secret forever.

Now, some members of Congress believe that the FBI abused FISA to launch a national security investigation with little real evidence. That is exactly what civil libertarians have argued for decades with no response from Congress. The target this time was a close associate of then-candidate Donald Trump.

Some media reports indicate that the memo shows the FBI knowingly used a dossier funded by the Clinton campaign and the Democratic National Committee to secure the FISA order. The allegation is that the FBI did not reveal to the court the questionable source of the dossier or the lack of verification of its information. Ironically, it is not clear if this would have really mattered, since Congress set the standard for FISA so low. Yet, civil libertarians are not complaining.

The “Man From Rule X” is finally challenging the intelligence agencies and asserting the right of Congress to release information in the public interest over agency objections. Ideally, with this vote, the use of the rule will no longer be viewed as sheer fantasy and Congress will engage in serious oversight of these agencies, including the greater disclosure of information in the public interest.

So the importance of this conflict may prove far greater than the partisan maneuverings in Congress over the Russian investigation. The use of Rule X to actually disclose information could be a gamechanger in the relationship to federal agencies in this area, or as the character Dr. Mears said in the old cult film, “a man who controls this formula controls the industry of the world.”

Well, perhaps not control of the world, but some real oversight of intelligence agencies would be worth watching.

 

[Denny Crane]

^^^ The big deal really is that FISA is typically abused all along, regardless of Republicans' charges regarding the incoming Trump admin.

 

[barfo]

There's certainly a discussion to be had about FISA warrants generally.

This specific thing (Nunes' memo) isn't that.

barfo

 

[Denny Crane]

Sure it is. Congress has a duty to oversee the FBI. No matter how popular the review is, the people have a right to know.

Though it's odd they had these concerns and voted to reauthorize FISA abuse.

I'm all in favor of the Democrats' spin/response to the memo also be made public. For the same reasons.

 

[barfo]

Sure it is. Congress has a duty to oversee the FBI. No matter how popular the review is, the people have a right to know.

Though it's odd they had these concerns and voted to reauthorize FISA abuse.

Isn't it though? It's almost like this isn't related to FISA abuse at all.

barfo

 

[Denny Crane]

Isn't it though? It's almost like this isn't related to FISA abuse at all.

barfo

It's being reported the Republican memo details FISA abuse. Turley in his article above suggests the abuse is considerable and reaches far beyond its intended use.

The abuse of government agencies by Obama administration is backed by examples/evidence going back to at least the IRS scandal (refusing 501C3 status to conservative organizations).

If it's true, we have a right to know (and be outraged). If it's not, what do you and your precious government workers have to fear?

 

[Denny Crane]

I have no fondness for any of the republicans. Justin Amash is the best of the lot (I do follow him on twitter).

If things like this memo exposes Nunes and the rest of the lot as clowns, so be it. We still have a right to know what they see.

 

[barfo]

It's being reported the Republican memo details FISA abuse. Turley in his article above suggests the abuse is considerable and reaches far beyond its intended use.

The abuse of government agencies by Obama administration is backed by examples/evidence going back to at least the IRS scandal (refusing 501C3 status to conservative organizations).

If it's true, we have a right to know (and be outraged). If it's not, what do you and your precious government workers have to fear?

I don't have anything to fear. I have no particular stake in FISA warrants.

Seems a little 'suspicious', though, that if FISA abuses generally were the issue, that they'd reauthorize and then complain about only this one particular supposed abuse.

barfo

 

[Denny Crane]

I don't have anything to fear. I have no particular stake in FISA warrants.

Seems a little 'suspicious', though, that if FISA abuses generally were the issue, that they'd reauthorize and then complain about only this one particular supposed abuse.

barfo

They still do have a duty to perform oversight. At least they're trying to (appear to) do their job.

 

[Denny Crane]

It looks more to me like the Democrats are terribly afraid of this memo.

The only way we can judge for ourselves is to read it for ourselves and assess the expected spin in response.

 

[DaLincolnJones]

It's being reported the Republican memo details FISA abuse. Turley in his article above suggests the abuse is considerable and reaches far beyond its intended use.

The abuse of government agencies by Obama administration is backed by examples/evidence going back to at least the IRS scandal (refusing 501C3 status to conservative organizations).

If it's true, we have a right to know (and be outraged). If it's not, what do you and your precious government workers have to fear?

Couple of things.

NPR had a story about this the other day, and they are taking this serious. Obviously I was surprised as they tend to make light of most GOP items.

You know there is something real that scares the hell out of the Dems. When offered the chance to read this memo, all the GOP and most of the Is did, but only a couple of Dems took a peek. Now the Dems are nit picking the changes made, that were typo and grammar, and are spinning how this was "altered".

At this point, I am tired of all the bull, release the damn thing and lets get on with it.

 

[Denny Crane]

Reason, FTW.

http://reason.com/blog/2018/02/01/get-yourself-ready-for-the-memowill-it-r

I've said much of what I've had to say about the prerelease fight over the memo earlier this week, but for anybody just tuning in: I think it's obviously a partisan-focused fight from two parties trying to discredit the other. But Americans do have a right to know how the surveillance state operates when it's investigating people closely connected to our president. I also still feel terribly frustrated that this debate has virtually no chance of becoming a substantive discussion of how much secret, warrantless domestic surveillance the FBI is already doing in violation of the Fourth Amendment.

Instead, the current discussion is entirely about who may be losing or leaving their jobs. House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) wants Nunes stripped of his chairmanship of the House Intelligence Committee. That seems unlikely unless the memo ends up outright humiliating the Republican Party.

In addition, now that FBI Director Chris Wray went out on a limb with a public statement that the FBI has "grave concerns about material omissions of fact that fundamentally impact the memo's accuracy," there are concerns that he might quit if the memo gets released. Recall, Trump selected him to replace James Comey after Trump fired Comey.

The never-ending stream of shifting speculation makes the whole story hard to keep tabs on. What will matter is the actual contents of the memo when it's released. If it does come out tomorrow, I (and no doubt dozens of other journalists) will be all over it.

In the meantime, Cato surveillance expert Julian Sanchez also feels the pain of the debate we're not having:

 

[barfo]

I think it is going to be tough for us to assess the memo, other than through our own partisan lenses.

Suppose the memo said that Denny Crane is a murderer.

What's the evidence for that? It's classified, you can't see it.
Is there any evidence to contrary? Well, it isn't in the memo... but does that mean it doesn't exist?

How do you decide whether Denny is a murderer as alleged?
The answer is, if you already thought he was a murderer, this backs you up. If you didn't think so, this is no evidence at all.

barfo

 

[Denny Crane]

I think it is going to be tough for us to assess the memo, other than through our own partisan lenses.

Suppose the memo said that Denny Crane is a murderer.

What's the evidence for that? It's classified, you can't see it.
Is there any evidence to contrary? Well, it isn't in the memo... but does that mean it doesn't exist?

How do you decide whether Denny is a murderer as alleged?
The answer is, if you already thought he was a murderer, this backs you up. If you didn't think so, this is no evidence at all.

barfo

If the memo says the FBI used, even in part, the Steele Dossier, to get a FISA warrant, it's even in part, an abuse.

That much we can tell, regardless of any classified info.

If not more.

In the absence of an actual crime, it's already clear the Obama administration did target Trump campaign officials. It wasn't low level career FBI investigators, but people at the top.

Which sorta brings us to Mueller. If he cannot produce a collusion kind of crime, there is no possible obstruction of justice case. It is what it is.

 

[Denny Crane]

In fact, if the memo does say the Dossier was used to get the FISA warrant, that information is already in the public record.

https://www.cnn.com/2017/04/18/poli...-donald-trump-russia-investigation/index.html

FBI used dossier allegations to bolster Trump-Russia investigation

 

[barfo]

If the memo says the FBI used, even in part, the Steele Dossier, to get a FISA warrant, it's even in part, an abuse.

That much we can tell, regardless of any classified info.

No. That does not imply any abuse. Information is information. I'm sure the FBI gets information from much more disreputable sources than Christopher Steele, and they have means of figuring out what's legit and what's not.

In the absence of an actual crime, it's already clear the Obama administration did target Trump campaign officials. It wasn't low level career FBI investigators, but people at the top.

If you consider Carter Page a Trump official. But then, Carter Page was known to be a Russian stooge, so why was he a Trump official in the first place?

Which sorta brings us to Mueller. If he cannot produce a collusion kind of crime, there is no possible obstruction of justice case. It is what it is.

Legally incorrect. Obstruction of Justice does not require an underlying crime. It is a crime unto itself.

barfo

 

[Denny Crane]

No. That does not imply any abuse. Information is information. I'm sure the FBI gets information from much more disreputable sources than Christopher Steele, and they have means of figuring out what's legit and what's not.



If you consider Carter Page a Trump official. But then, Carter Page was known to be a Russian stooge, so why was he a Trump official in the first place?



Legally incorrect. Obstruction of Justice does not require an underlying crime. It is a crime unto itself.

barfo

The dossier is unverified information. I have unverified information you committed murder. Let's have the cops harass you with that as justification!

There is no obstruction of justice if there is no crime. What exactly is being "obstructed?"

I guarantee you that if this is all Mueller might claim, there's ZERO chance of impeachment over it and surely no criminal charges over it.

 

[SlyPokerDog]

Former Trump Aide Carter Page Was on U.S. Counterintelligence Radar Before Russia Dossier
Court documents, testimony show foreign-policy adviser was known to authorities as early as 2013

https://www.wsj.com/articles/former...igence-radar-before-russia-dossier-1517486401

 

[MarAzul]

Legally incorrect. Obstruction of Justice does not require an underlying crime. It is a crime unto itself.

Wow! So, in investigating a crime where there is no evidence that crime was committed can result in obstruction of justice in the phony investigation?

Are you serious or....

 

[barfo]

The dossier is unverified information.

Sez you. But you don't actually know what the FBI has or hasn't verified. And besides, probable cause is the relevant standard here, not proof.

I have unverified information you committed murder. Let's have the cops harass you with that as justification!

If they have reason to believe you, they will indeed harass me. As they should.

There is no obstruction of justice if there is no crime. What exactly is being "obstructed?"

Justice. Duh.

I guarantee you that if this is all Mueller might claim, there's ZERO chance of impeachment over it and surely no criminal charges over it.

That's likely true.

barfo

 

[barfo]

Wow! So, in investigating a crime where there is no evidence that crime was committed can result in obstruction of justice in the phony investigation?

Are you serious or....

Yes, I am quite serious. You cannot impede an investigation legally, period.

It's not the role of the target of the investigation to decide whether the investigation is valid.

barfo

 

[MarAzul]

Yes, I am quite serious. You cannot impede an investigation legally, period.

It's not the role of the target of the investigation to decide whether the investigation is valid.

barfo

Well in this case we have a serious hole if the investigator keeps the case open. If what you say is true, he answers to no one.
That can not be.

 

[MARIS61]

Yes, I am quite serious. You cannot impede A LEGAL investigation legally, period.

barfo

It appears this is a sham, or illegal investigation.

There is no law against impeding an illegal act, which is what the memo is going to show this is.

 

[barfo]

It appears this is a sham, or illegal investigation.

There is no law against impeding an illegal act, which is what the memo is going to show this is.

None of that is true.

If it were the case that targets could impede investigations they considered illegitimate, no investigation would ever happen, because every target would use that as an excuse to impede.

Targets don't get to decide if the investigation is legit.

barfo