home

Trump, Russia, Wiretaps and FISA

Donald Trump today (apparently parroting his favorite right wing website) accused President Obama of wiretapping his phones.

A spokesman for Obama said the accusation was “simply false”.

The unprecedented attack by a president on his predecessor, made in a series of early morning tweets, stoked speculation that Trump’s remarks were prompted by stories circulating in rightwing media, including one that claimed Obama is attempting a “silent coup” against Trump.

Trump's baseless claim shows his ignorance of electronic surveillance laws and procedures, both as to criminal investigations (under Title III) and foreign intelligence/ national security investigations (under FISA.) [More...]

Trump is a political and government novice, and this is not the first time he has put his complete ignorance of governmental laws on show for the world to see via Twitter. It would be in his best interests – and in the best interests of the country – for him to start educating himself on the laws and procedures that apply to the government he now runs. After all, he did audition for the job.

The genesis of the story appears to this Heat St. article , as later developed by the BBC, Guardian and McClatchy, outlining an ongoing counterintelligence (not criminal) investigation into potential improper financial contacts between Russian financial institutions and four Trump associates. NBC had this article about a reported investigation of Trump adviser Paul Manafort, who later resigned from Trump's campaign. I wrote about it here.

Perhaps it's his limited vocabulary and inability to articulately express himself. Perhaps it's his ignorance of the law (and his apparent disinclination to educate himself.) Only two members of Donald Trump's cabinet have law degrees -- Mike Pence and Jefferson Sessions. (A third is awaiting confirmation.)

Whatever the root of his knowledge deficiency, the result is the obvious: He is as glaringly under-informed as his supporters (and advisors, several of whom do have law degrees and should know better.)

For an intriguing twist to the Trump-Russia-Financial ties, check out this Guardian article on Deutsche Bank and Trump. Trump, Ivanka and Jared and Jared's mother's all have accounts there. Recently, it has been the subject of a DOJ investigation for aiding Russian money laundering.

Trump has huge outstanding loans with the bank:

According to an analysis by Bloomberg, Trump now owes Deutsche around $300m. He has four large mortgages, all issued by Deutsche’s private bank. The loans are guaranteed against the president’s properties: a new deluxe hotel in Washington DC’s old Post Office building, just round the corner from the White House; his Chicago tower hotel; and the Trump National Doral Miami resort.

Analysts say the loans to Trump are very surprising considering they were made after he defaulted on $40 million in earlier loans and there was a big lawsuit between the two.

Deutsche has had huge fines imposed on it for its role in Russian money laundering:

In January a US regulator, the New York Department of Financial Services, fined Deutsche Bank $425m for laundering around $10bn of Russian money. The UK’s Financial Conduct Authority imposed a £163m fine, its largest ever.

The US Department of Justice is still investigating the Russian scheme. In December Deutsche agreed to pay the department $7.2bn. The fine related to the mis-selling of residential mortgage-backed securities and other activities during 2005-7. The US originally asked Deutsche to pay $14bn.

According to Democratic congressman Bill Pascrell Jr, a member of the House Ways and Means committee:

We know that Deutsche Bank is a major lender to President Trump, and the firm is also currently undergoing scrutiny by the Department of Justice for alleged misconduct. “I think it’s important for the American people to know the extent of the bank’s involvement with the president, and whether there is any Russian involvement in loans made to Mr Trump.”

The more Trump uses fake facts to deflect from his alleged ties to Russia, the more the media will dig in. He may have done nothing wrong, but he's not going to win the media war on this one. He's just digging himself a bigger hole.

< Schwarzenegger Blames Trump for Celebrity Apprentice Sagging Ratings | Ecuador Complains About State Dept. Human Rights and Drugs Reports >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft


  • Display: Sort:
    Then (5.00 / 3) (#4)
    by Ga6thDem on Sat Mar 04, 2017 at 08:24:36 PM EST
    there's speculation that his casinos were nothing more than money laundering operations for Russian money. Certainly Trump has ties to the Russian mafia through Felix Sater along with his ties to the NY mafia. I guess one of these days it is all going to come out in a report. Maybe either a special commission or a special prosecutor will be handling the case soon.

    all casinos (1.33 / 3) (#5)
    by linea on Sat Mar 04, 2017 at 08:29:30 PM EST
    are money laundering operations.

    Parent
    No (5.00 / 1) (#16)
    by Militarytracy on Sat Mar 04, 2017 at 09:45:05 PM EST
    And just because you say it doesn't make it so.

    Parent
    You now have accused (5.00 / 3) (#20)
    by Towanda on Sat Mar 04, 2017 at 10:10:21 PM EST
    My First Nations friends, with their casinos, of being criminals.

    Stop it.

    Parent

    You've been watching (none / 0) (#30)
    by Chuck0 on Sun Mar 05, 2017 at 08:38:15 AM EST
    too much TV or too many Di Niro movies. Change the channel.

    Parent
    This goes back (5.00 / 2) (#63)
    by smott on Sun Mar 05, 2017 at 01:08:31 PM EST
    To Louise Mensch and her Heat St article Nov 7 describing the FISA warrant, having to do with a couple of different banks including Alfa, their servers, and related activity and any US persons involved.

    It was further confirmed by BBC and UK Guardian, which by the way the British press has been handing the US press their arse on this story for months. None of this beyond the dossier stuff by Corn in MoJo in Oct has made the Us press. Embarrassing.

    Basically seems that the FBI is tracing Russian actors and banks, not Trump or his team specifically, but whoopsie, Trump's flunkies kept contacting those Russian agents all the time.

    Lotsa SIGINT I think the spooks call it, has been collected.

    I don't think Donald can stay ahead of this.

    I'm mostly wondering how much Pence is involved.

    Yes, it's so telling of the lout (5.00 / 1) (#108)
    by Towanda on Sun Mar 05, 2017 at 03:45:14 PM EST
    and his staff that they only read about this now in Breitbart, when others have seen this in other media.  

    But Mensch's work can be hard work to read, hard to follow, although worth it . . . for thousands who don't even work in the White House.  

    Parent

    Stephen King: (5.00 / 1) (#66)
    by desertswine on Sun Mar 05, 2017 at 01:23:56 PM EST
    Stephen King

    @StephenKing
    Trump should know OBAMA NEVER LEFT THE WHITE HOUSE! He's in the closet! HE HAS SCISSORS!
    12:37 PM - 4 Mar 2017

    and

    Not only did Obama tap Trump's phones, he stole the strawberry ice cream out of the mess locker.
    10:31 AM - 4 Mar 2017

    Four Pinocchios (5.00 / 1) (#71)
    by Yman on Sun Mar 05, 2017 at 01:37:17 PM EST
    It's certainly ironic that the Trump White House -- which has heavily criticized articles relying on anonymous sources -- now relies on articles based on anonymous sources that cites information that has not been confirmed by any U.S. news organization. It would be amusing if it were not so sad.

    Even if these reports are accepted as accurate, neither back up Trump's claims that Obama ordered the tapping of his phone calls. Moreover, they also do not back up the administration's revised claim of politically motivated investigations.

    Factcheck.

    Can't believe they didn't give it 5.

    Remember that Nixon (1.00 / 3) (#86)
    by jimakaPPJ on Sun Mar 05, 2017 at 02:37:02 PM EST
    didn't actually break-in.

    I think it is time to ask.

    What did President Obama know and when did he know it?

    Parent

    I am cool (5.00 / 2) (#89)
    by FlJoe on Sun Mar 05, 2017 at 02:46:34 PM EST
    with that but lets get everyone in on it, Obama, Trump, Comey, Clinton, Clapper, Sessions, Flynn, Manafort just to name a few. Live sworn testimony from the lot of them!

    Parent
    This just might be (none / 0) (#152)
    by TrevorBolder on Sun Mar 05, 2017 at 06:09:07 PM EST
    Where we end up with this.
    if that is the case, The Donald is safe, He knows nothing about what happened

    Parent
    Funny (5.00 / 4) (#154)
    by Repack Rider on Sun Mar 05, 2017 at 06:25:02 PM EST
    if that is the case, The Donald is safe, He knows nothing about what happened

    He doesn't seem to know anything about ANYTHING.  Not sure why the stupidity that you acknowledge is somehow a blessing for him or the country.

    Why would it be a good thing that the Donald is "safe" because he is a moron?  Ignorance of the law on the part of the chief law enforcement executive is a good thing?

    Parent

    Nixon (none / 0) (#88)
    by TrevorBolder on Sun Mar 05, 2017 at 02:42:50 PM EST
    Did not even order the break in, if they asked him he most likely would have told them no, that election was in the bag.

    I wouldn't put it past members in the Obama Administration to concoct something,

    Ben Rhodes has already stated how he led the press around by the nose on the Iran deal,

    This would just be a another step further,

    And when you put it in the perspective, to insure the legacy of everything they worked for the prior 8 years stays intact, not unbelievable.

    But Obama would have told them no (I hope), because, this election was in the bag.

    Parent

    Funny stuff (5.00 / 1) (#92)
    by Yman on Sun Mar 05, 2017 at 02:55:57 PM EST
    No facts, no evidence ... just baseless innuendo and smears.

    The Orange Julius has taught you well.

    Parent

    He didn't tell the (none / 0) (#104)
    by jimakaPPJ on Sun Mar 05, 2017 at 03:36:51 PM EST
    IRS folks to stop the nonsense with the Tea Party folks.

    Parent
    Changing (5.00 / 1) (#112)
    by FlJoe on Sun Mar 05, 2017 at 03:52:46 PM EST
    the subject is a sure fire sign that you are losing the argument

    Parent
    The argument has to do with (none / 0) (#121)
    by jimakaPPJ on Sun Mar 05, 2017 at 04:22:22 PM EST
    what Obama knew and when did he know it.

    So his past lack of action is quite germane.

    And it is also on topic since the thread is about Trump and his claims that Obama wired Trump Tower.

    Parent

    what exactly are you saying? (5.00 / 1) (#133)
    by mm on Sun Mar 05, 2017 at 05:14:57 PM EST
    Are you saying that if President Obama had learned of a FISA warrant for surveillance of associates of The Donald and Russian spies, that you would have expected the President to intervene and order the IC to withdraw a serious investigation?  Is that what you would expect from the President of the United States?  Would that apply to all presidents or just Democratic presidents?

    Parent
    Just presidents that want he wants to accuse later (5.00 / 2) (#145)
    by ruffian on Sun Mar 05, 2017 at 05:48:11 PM EST
    of obstruction of justice. Because that is surely what would happen, and what will happen if DJT continues that way down this road.

    Parent
    I am saying that the statement issued (none / 0) (#139)
    by jimakaPPJ on Sun Mar 05, 2017 at 05:30:02 PM EST
    is worded to try and make everyone believe Obama is as pure as the driven snow and provide cover for him when the truth comes out.

    Parent
    Non responsive (none / 0) (#142)
    by mm on Sun Mar 05, 2017 at 05:35:49 PM EST
    You didn't answer my question.  

    Parent
    100% for optimism ... (none / 0) (#159)
    by Erehwon on Sun Mar 05, 2017 at 06:52:12 PM EST
    Were you really expecting a proper answer? Look, there's a squirrel there and one over here and ... ad nauseam.

    That's how Trump supporters and enablers operate! Deplorable indeed!

    Parent

    You asked a hypothetical (none / 0) (#189)
    by jimakaPPJ on Mon Mar 06, 2017 at 07:37:40 AM EST
    question designed to get the answer you want.

    It is akin to "Do you still beat your wife."

    What we are looking at here is the strong possibility that people working for the president carried out a spy mission of a political opponent.

    And the statement issued does not deny that this could have happened or that Obama did not see the results. Remember James Rosen. Remember the IRS overreach.

    There is no evidence that the Trump campaign did anything illegal. All that we have is the Left seeking to overturn the duly elected government of the United States.

    Parent

    Nobody (5.00 / 1) (#190)
    by Ga6thDem on Mon Mar 06, 2017 at 08:06:39 AM EST
    believes Obama had a spy mission done on Trump. It's just a line he's feeding the rubes like you to keep you in line for when the big Kahuna hits the fan. We do know that Trump has ties with the Russian mafia and we do know that his campaign had contact with the Russians. What we don't know is what exactly was said in those conversations.

    The IRS thing was a tea party lie. The facts are that the IRS sent a letter out to everyone who was under a 501C filing status even liberal groups.

    Good conspiracy shopping going on there Jim. LOL. All I can say is you must be fine with the Putin agenda because you seem to think maintaining it is the best thing for the country.

    Parent

    Is this (5.00 / 1) (#194)
    by FlJoe on Mon Mar 06, 2017 at 08:51:24 AM EST
    What is the Putin agenda?? (none / 0) (#192)
    by jimakaPPJ on Mon Mar 06, 2017 at 08:38:10 AM EST
    I haven't seen one.

    Have you?

    Lots of people believe Obama had a spy mission done on Trump. He may not have done so directly. Neither did Nixon.

    The IRS thing was proven. Quit denying facts.

    And Obama toured Pakistan and Indonesia as a student. Did that make him a Muslim?

    Parent

    Jim (5.00 / 2) (#196)
    by Ga6thDem on Mon Mar 06, 2017 at 09:19:14 AM EST
    remember how the keystone pipeline was supposed to use American steel? Oh, yeah, BTW it is using RUSSIAN steel to build the pipeline. It's a two-fer. more dependence on fossil fuels and steel for Russia. It's a great win for Putin. Trump seems to be successful at Making Russia Great Again!!!

    Parent
    Putin (none / 0) (#195)
    by Ga6thDem on Mon Mar 06, 2017 at 08:59:06 AM EST
    agenda: increase reliance on fossil fuels which Trump seems to be doing. Putin agenda item number two let Putin have the Ukraine which Trump is doing. Putin agenda number three create chaos. Trump is a master at this one. And those are just the beginning.

    Parent
    I am pretty sure that "James Rosen" died (5.00 / 3) (#197)
    by Peter G on Mon Mar 06, 2017 at 09:20:40 AM EST
    in the Bowling Green Massacre. On the other hand, the bogus accusation against President Obama over the case of N.Y. Times journalist James Risen seems to be the so's-your-old-man deflection du jour. (Risen was subpoenaed in a Bush-administration espionage prosecution of a CIA whistleblower. After establishing the government's legal position in court, AG Holder, on behalf of the Obama administration, withdrew the subpoena, sparing Risen a jail term for contempt over his refusal to betray a confidential source.) Apparently repeating right-wing talking points involves replication of typographical errors, thus betraying the lack of actual knowledge or research behind the comment.

    Parent
    that is just nonsense (5.00 / 3) (#200)
    by mm on Mon Mar 06, 2017 at 11:21:31 AM EST
    I asked the question in reaction to your statement that
    "The argument has to do with what Obama knew and when he knew it."

    You do understand that Senator Baker was asking that question with respect documented and proven crimes that were actually committed by members of the Nixon administration? It seems you want to skip right past that messy part of proving something criminal on the part of the Obama administration, and jump right into insinuating a cover up by President Obama.

    I can see I am wasting my time and you have no intention of responding sincerely to my question.  I can only guess why.

    Parent

    Kool Aide (none / 0) (#143)
    by FlJoe on Sun Mar 05, 2017 at 05:37:39 PM EST
    Kool Aide, tastes great! From zero to the greatest scandal evah! All within 140 characters!

    Warning: Maybe cause life long delusions.

    Parent

    Wow, you are really out there (5.00 / 2) (#138)
    by MKS on Sun Mar 05, 2017 at 05:28:16 PM EST
    But Gen. Cheeto throws out chum and his fans just eat it up.

    Good lord, Obama now part of some goofball conspiracy theory invented by Trump? or at least parroted by him, in the wee hours of the morning.

    Shall we investigate too whether the Moon Landing was faked?  After "there are people who say" it was faked.

    I will say the energy of the Trump supporters posting here smells like panic to me.  Must be getting close to pay dirt.

    Parent

    Your attempt to marginalize (1.00 / 1) (#140)
    by jimakaPPJ on Sun Mar 05, 2017 at 05:31:29 PM EST
    only strengthens.

    Parent
    Do you ever (5.00 / 1) (#158)
    by MKS on Sun Mar 05, 2017 at 06:45:05 PM EST
    step back and question what Trump is doing?  Some attempt at objectivity rather than blind partisanship?

    All I can see is a consistent defense of all things Trump.  What gains him this level of blind loyalty is beyond me.

    And, the lemming like following of Trump and his ridiculous accusations against Obama is embarrassing.  Really?  You want to follow and defend these fact free accusations?  

    Parent

    There is a method to the madness (5.00 / 1) (#161)
    by Ga6thDem on Sun Mar 05, 2017 at 07:24:24 PM EST
    As long as Trump is able to get Jim and Trevor to swallow his swill it is doing what it is supposed to do. Trump does not care about what any rational person thinks and he does not care what the majority of Americans want or care about. As long as he keeps the Trevors and Jims in line nothing is going to happen to him because he is working with the knowledge that the GOP will never stand up to him. They are too afraid of being picked on by Trump and then have Trump's minions run a primary opponent against them.

    Parent
    Yes, MKS I watch all politicians closely (1.00 / 1) (#191)
    by jimakaPPJ on Mon Mar 06, 2017 at 08:12:42 AM EST
    And so far Trump is doing, or I should say, trying to do, more or less what I want.

    He is not doing totally what I want on immigration. Remember I want a closed border, expel the criminals and green cards for the rest. He is closing the border and picking up and deporting the criminals.

    He also appears to be moving towards green cards for the rest and has stated he won't bother the "Dreamers."

    I fully support extreme vetting. It is silly to think that the various radical islamist groups aren't trying to slip terrorists into the country.

    I like his tax plan and bringing that money back is just smart.

    I also like his avowed intent to redo NAFTA and make trade deals be deals not export plans for our industries. And yes, I see the problem that automation is bringing to manufacturing.

    Whether or not the replacement for Obamacare will be better I don't know. It isn't a single payer system that I favor but if anyone can bring one to us it will be someone outside the system.

    So what I see is a bunch of Left Wing Democrats spouting nonsense designed to harm Trump.

    Parent

    He really hasn't (5.00 / 4) (#199)
    by MKS on Mon Mar 06, 2017 at 10:04:03 AM EST
    done anything of consequence on those points.

    But you changed the subject, which was whether you really would follow Trump off the cliff in accusing Obama of wiretapping him--with no evidence.  And the answer appears to be, yes, of course, you will believe it because you will believe anything and everything he says.

    Blind, unthinking loyalty.   If he said the Earth were flat, you'd believe that too.

    Do you realize how absolutely ridiculous you sound?  Not even on this ridiculous assertion of Obama wiretapping him, you cannot for just a moment step and say, no, that is just too far?


    Parent

    Are they squirting squid ink (none / 0) (#150)
    by jondee on Sun Mar 05, 2017 at 06:05:33 PM EST
    in the water, or soiling their undies, or doing both at the same time?

    Parent
    Somewhere in Tennessee, ... (5.00 / 1) (#182)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Sun Mar 05, 2017 at 11:21:32 PM EST
    jimakaPPJ: "The argument has to do with what Obama knew and when did he know it. So his past lack of action is quite germane. And it is also on topic since the thread is about Trump and his claims that Obama wired Trump Tower."

    ... a local grocery store is out of aluminum foil.

    Parent

    YOU think so?!? (none / 0) (#91)
    by Yman on Sun Mar 05, 2017 at 02:54:42 PM EST
    Heh - no doubt.

    So do Rush, Alex Jones, Marc Levin - and several other rightwing know-nothing conspiracy theorists.  Of course, there's no actual evidence to back up these tinfoil claims, which is why you're reduced to saying it's "time to ask" your silly "question".

    Parent

    It's (none / 0) (#97)
    by FlJoe on Sun Mar 05, 2017 at 03:08:26 PM EST
    actually sort of cute how the quislings lie dormant until the dear leader provides them with the proper talking points.

    Today's fable: The jackbooted Nixonian thug orchestrates an illegal conspiracy across the entire IC (all while being a lame duck no less) all to make tRump look bad after he won the election, Brilliant.

    Parent

    I remember Nixon quite well (none / 0) (#106)
    by jimakaPPJ on Sun Mar 05, 2017 at 03:40:29 PM EST
    and you folks are reminding me very much of the die hard Repubs trying to defend him.

    Wonder what Demo will finally play Senator Baker's role?

    A little late you say? Yes, but confessions are good for the soul.

    And saving what's left of the Democratic Party.

    Parent

    yeah, (none / 0) (#109)
    by mm on Sun Mar 05, 2017 at 03:47:20 PM EST
    it would have been so much easier if he had simply ordered Comey to cut the crap with his ridiculous drawn out phony investigation of stupid emails.

    Parent
    Yes, it has been an amusing couple of days (none / 0) (#146)
    by ruffian on Sun Mar 05, 2017 at 05:52:15 PM EST
    Throw in the name of the original enemy to rally the troops. Trump always has to have a foil. He needs the press too much to make that a permanent war. Obama on the other hand, that's gold right there.

    Parent
    Funny That in the Past (none / 0) (#168)
    by RickyJim on Sun Mar 05, 2017 at 08:11:25 PM EST
    Rush Limbaugh has blasted conspiracy theorists as "intellectually lazy". I remember him saying that on "This Week" with Cokie Roberts and Sam Donaldson.  Could have been about 10 years ago.

    Parent
    Considering (none / 0) (#169)
    by Ga6thDem on Sun Mar 05, 2017 at 08:20:29 PM EST
    how much conspiracy theorists have to twist themselves into pretzels to creative a false story I would think intellectually lazy is about the last word I would use with them. It's easier to tell the truth than concoct a conspiracy theory.

    Parent
    What I Think He Was Saying (5.00 / 1) (#175)
    by RickyJim on Sun Mar 05, 2017 at 09:01:50 PM EST
    is that conspiracy theorists are too lazy to bother to examine their proposed theories for logic and evidence.  Also the correct explanation may require some understanding of technical subjects to understand.  It is easier to blame some conspiracy, no matter how far fetched.

    Parent
    Trump (none / 0) (#1)
    by mogal on Sat Mar 04, 2017 at 08:15:41 PM EST
    Again "follow the money."  
    I keep wondering who will be Woodward and Bernstein and where is  the Washinton Post?

    The Washington Post (none / 0) (#3)
    by Ga6thDem on Sat Mar 04, 2017 at 08:21:53 PM EST
    has been one of the better news organizations on the Trump Russian connections even having covered it before the election unlike others.

    Parent
    i must be reading this wrong (none / 0) (#2)
    by linea on Sat Mar 04, 2017 at 08:21:35 PM EST
    because when i click those links i get this (see below) which looks really bad:
    June 2016: FISA request. The Obama administration files a request with the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court (FISA) to monitor communications involving Donald Trump and several advisers.

    The request is denied.

    Per the Guardian: (5.00 / 2) (#23)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Sat Mar 04, 2017 at 10:48:12 PM EST
    "[T]he FBI applied for a warrant from the foreign intelligence surveillance (Fisa) court over the summer in order to monitor four members of the Trump team suspected of irregular contacts with Russian officials. The Fisa court turned down the application asking FBI counter-intelligence investigators to narrow its focus. According to one report, the FBI was finally granted a warrant in October, but that has not been confirmed, and it is not clear whether any warrant led to a full investigation."

    LINK.

    Parent

    My (none / 0) (#29)
    by FlJoe on Sun Mar 05, 2017 at 07:06:23 AM EST
    dream Fantasy Trumpgate suspect lineup
     1. Manafort
     2. Carter Page
     3. Michael Cohen
     4. Flynn

    I would say Manafort is a lock, Page a near lock, Cohen even money. Flynn is a wild card he seems like an obvious target but he was not shuffled off the stage like the others and his name did not show up in the dossier or published leaks.

    Sleeper pick: tRump junior

    Three weeks before Election Day, Donald Trump Jr. left the campaign trail and the country to speak at a private dinner in Paris organized by an obscure pro-Russia group that promotes Kremlin foreign policy initiatives and has since nominated Russian President Vladimir Putin for the Nobel Peace Prize.

    A key organizer of the event later told reporters she flew to Moscow to brief a senior Russian official about the session.

    The really funny thing is absolutely none of this is new.

    Parent

    From what I can (none / 0) (#6)
    by TrevorBolder on Sat Mar 04, 2017 at 08:31:32 PM EST
    remember is that they were rejected due to a very broad request, they later narrowed the request, and dropped Trumps name from the request.

    Obviously The Donald is annoyed his actions were under surveillance and wiretap,

    But I do not like the Obama Administration action in his last week as President loosening the rules to multiply significantly the number of people having access to this material....

    Increasing the potential leakers which have been prevalent so early in this administration


    Parent

    I think all the "leaks" (none / 0) (#7)
    by jondee on Sat Mar 04, 2017 at 09:03:51 PM EST
    to let in sunlight and fresh air for fumigation purposes in the name of democracy, the better.

    Tell me Trevor, are you so over Evan McMullin now -- now that's he's embracing FAKE NEWS!! and ho-hum big fat nothingburgers with a side of coleslaw?

    Parent

    this isn't any better! (none / 0) (#8)
    by linea on Sat Mar 04, 2017 at 09:09:22 PM EST
    the obama adminstration filed a "very broad request" that even the rubber-stamping monkeys on the u.s. FISA court rejected until the scope was narrowed and the name of the republican presidential candidate removed?  

    seriously?  this really looks bad.  what am i missing here?

    and i'm the crazy one for asserting there should only be the FBI and Army Intelligence?

    Parent

    "Rubber stamping monkeys"? (5.00 / 5) (#11)
    by Yman on Sat Mar 04, 2017 at 09:24:34 PM EST
    You realize those "monkeys" are actual judges, right?  Who actually know the law.

    No idea what you think "really looks bad", even if someone actually believes the article in "Heat Street".

    Parent

    No, she doesn't realize (none / 0) (#15)
    by Militarytracy on Sat Mar 04, 2017 at 09:42:49 PM EST
    yes militarytracy (2.00 / 6) (#17)
    by linea on Sat Mar 04, 2017 at 09:59:11 PM EST
    i do realize the rubber-stamping monkeys on the u.s. FISA court are actual judges. i'm actually relieved to hear that they had the morals to rejected a request (if the allegations are true) for a spy-warrant on the opposition party political candidate.

    p.s. if pillow talk makes you an expert on the military, than im an expert on land-based nuclear missles housed in underground bunkers on a nato base in italy.

    Parent

    The application wasn't for ... (5.00 / 2) (#19)
    by Yman on Sat Mar 04, 2017 at 10:07:08 PM EST
    ... a "spy-warrant on the opposition party political candidate".  Read the articles.

    Parent
    TMI (5.00 / 1) (#27)
    by TrevorBolder on Sun Mar 05, 2017 at 06:17:43 AM EST
    There goes your security clearance

    Parent
    Well, we've already established ... (5.00 / 1) (#64)
    by Yman on Sun Mar 05, 2017 at 01:12:09 PM EST
    ... that you're anything BUT an expert on FISA applications and the FISA court, but just in case you're interested in mixing some actual facts/evidence into your opinions, here's an article about the reality of those "rubber=stamping monkeys".

    How hard is it to get an intelligence wiretap? Pretty hard.

    Parent

    silly me! (3.67 / 3) (#80)
    by linea on Sun Mar 05, 2017 at 02:24:33 PM EST
    i forgot i was on the Centrist pro-FISA pro-mass-surveillance blog.

    if you cant spy on chancellor merkel and every other person in the world... then ISIS will attack?

    President Bernie Sanders Would Dismantle NSA Spying

    While still serving in the House, he was one of just 66 members to vote against the post-9/11 Patriot Act, which greatly expanded the government's military and spying capabilities and eventually came to represent the legal justification for the NSA's bulk collection of U.S. call data. Sanders has also voted against reauthorizations of the Patriot Act, as well as the FISA Amendments Act in 2008

    i am in agreement with senator sanders and feel neither the patriot act nor the fisa court should be reauthorized.

    Parent

    Good for you (5.00 / 1) (#94)
    by Yman on Sun Mar 05, 2017 at 03:01:20 PM EST
    Of course, what "President Sanders" imagines he would do is irrelevant to those of us who can think for ourselves and form our conclusions with actual facts rather than musings, "feelings" and wiki entries.  Can't blame you for dropping your "rubber-stamping monkeys" smears when confronted with actual facts.

    But don't worry - no doubt your "revolution" will happen any day now.  Maybe then, Bitter Berners will even stop their attacks on actual Democrats.

    Parent

    these are the numbers (3.00 / 2) (#126)
    by linea on Sun Mar 05, 2017 at 04:50:18 PM EST
    of 35,529 requests from 1979 to 2013, the FISA court rejected 12.  

    twelve. perhaps those were requests for wire-taps on ex-girlfriends by nsa agents?

    United States Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court

    Parent

    Or, since you're just dreaming ... (5.00 / 1) (#137)
    by Yman on Sun Mar 05, 2017 at 05:26:37 PM EST
    ... up "perhaps" without offering any evidence to back up your smear, the applications were almost universally supported by the facts and the law in these cases.

    Heeeeeeeyyyy!  This "perhaps" thing is easy!

    But congrats on adding a new tinfoil smear of NSA agents to your FISA judge smear.  Are they not "posh" enough for you?

    Parent

    you are one to talk (1.00 / 1) (#149)
    by linea on Sun Mar 05, 2017 at 06:01:29 PM EST
    thanks for your fake outrage at smears. given that you and others here express contempt and ridicule for the president of the united states by refering to him as The Orange Julius and The Large Orange Lout - i hardly think calling the most approval-crazy court in the country rubber-stamping monkeys is much of a smear in comparison.

    also, because you seem unable to understand a flippant comment about there being only twelve rejections, i'll explain it to you:

    the comment that the rejected 12 were perhaps requests to spy on ex-girlfriends was a flippant and amusing remark not intended to be taken seriously but rather meant to underscore that they must have been particularly outragious to be denied by this court. i hope i explained that simply enough for you to understand. because it's really not hard to understand given the context.

    Parent

    Just the opposite (5.00 / 1) (#153)
    by Yman on Sun Mar 05, 2017 at 06:22:24 PM EST
    It's precisely because your posts are soooo "simple" (as well as fact and logic free) that makes it difficult to tell when you're being serious.  But occasionally you do grace with a Wikipedia link as "evidence" (snicker).  BTW - For anyone interested in a serious analysis of the FISA approval rate.

    Parent
    The cited Stanford Law Review essay (5.00 / 3) (#162)
    by Peter G on Sun Mar 05, 2017 at 07:30:54 PM EST
    makes the point I was going to make, but probably more convincingly. The FISA warrant approval rate of 98% or more is the same as or even less than the approval rate by most if not all other American courts of all sorts of warrant applications, including wiretap applications. It is essentially a rubber stamp, just as all American criminal court judges are in practice rubber stamps of prosecutors' and law enforcement agencies' warrant applications.

    Parent
    "Essentially" (5.00 / 1) (#174)
    by Yman on Sun Mar 05, 2017 at 08:38:24 PM EST
    That's nice you share the same opinion as Linea, but that doesn't make it a fact.  Nor does their approval rate, as the article clearly points out when the author characterizes it as a "misleading statistic".  Moreover, her characterization of the judges as "rubber stamping monkeys" is not only a juvenile slur, but it suggests that they are approving the applications without due consideration of the law, which is also a specious slur.

    Parent
    I can't figure out what you are disagreeing with (5.00 / 1) (#176)
    by Peter G on Sun Mar 05, 2017 at 09:17:16 PM EST
    Yman, in what I said. I offered no support for the "monkey" comment. Are you suggesting that most warrant-issuing magistrates don't function essentially as "rubber stamps"? Have you worked as a prosecutor or criminal defense lawyer? I can hardly imagine anyone who does work in the criminal law area disputing that sad fact.
       My refusal to vilify Linea across-the-board does not justify saying that I share the same opinion as she has expressed (which opinion, exactly, I'm not sure), which I think it is clear I don't. I have disputed many of her claims with specific facts, in this and a series of other comments on this thread.

    Parent
    yman is oppositional (none / 0) (#178)
    by linea on Sun Mar 05, 2017 at 10:03:06 PM EST
    to be oppositional. clearly you're post was informative not a "pro-linea" screed.

    My refusal to vilify Linea across-the-board does not justify saying that I share the same opinion as she has expressed (which opinion, exactly, I'm not sure).

    im anti-FISA.

    also, i have proven over-and-over that im open and accepting of new information.  i apologize when im wrong and change my opinion when ive been shown to be wrong.  some people arent fair to me.

    Parent

    omg!! (none / 0) (#177)
    by linea on Sun Mar 05, 2017 at 09:49:04 PM EST
    i make juvenile slurs?  this from the sofisticated adult who refers to the President of the United States with his own contemptious pet nickname of The Orange Julius.

    still curious, did you even think before taking the pro-FISA position or was it just an immediate oppositional reaction because linea opposes the FISA court?  and by the way, im in good company.... senator sanders and senator clinton both opposed the reauthorization.  what are you?

    Parent

    ok, i accept that (none / 0) (#163)
    by linea on Sun Mar 05, 2017 at 07:45:53 PM EST
    but just because it's a "ham sandwich" doesnt mean it's right. i cant believe im the crazy bernista on this issue. i cant believe no one is standing up for me and advocating against the fisa-court.

    Parent
    thanks Centrist (1.00 / 1) (#157)
    by linea on Sun Mar 05, 2017 at 06:42:44 PM EST
    It's precisely because your posts are soooo "simple" (as well as fact and logic free) that makes it difficult to tell when you're being serious.... For anyone interested in a serious analysis of the FISA approval rate.  

    i think i'll stand by my anti-fisa position.

    and my support for both senator bernie sanders and senator hillary clinton for voting against the FISA Amendments Act of 2008 which unfortunately was "approved by a vote of 69 to 28."

    Hillary Clinton on The FISA Amendments Act of 2008

    did you actually think or did you just let your mind run riot and go crazy pro-fisa because linea is againt it?

    Parent

    That's funny (5.00 / 1) (#172)
    by Yman on Sun Mar 05, 2017 at 08:31:34 PM EST
    You - asking someone else if they think.

    Actually, I do think.  I don't make silly, baseless smears calling judges "monkeys" because I don't approve of intelligence agencies or warrants.  I know more about most subjects (including the law) because I've actually studied it (I'm a lawyer) and don't have to rely on googling a Wikipedia entry.  I judge others not on whether I like their clothes or shoes, but on their actions.  I also don't lie about what others are saying, as you have with both jondee and myself - although to be fair, that could just be a reading comprehension problem rather than intentional.  Further, I couldn't care less about your irrelevant links to what some candidate said about a point that I'm not arguing, simply because you can't understand it.  Finally, I really couldn't care less about the opinion of a Bitter Berner.

    Hope that clears up your "misunderstandings".

    Parent

    din jävla kuk (1.00 / 2) (#181)
    by linea on Sun Mar 05, 2017 at 10:37:40 PM EST
    shorter Yman:  
    "I know everything about everything because my law degree gives me super-powers! I dont do any research or google a Wikipedia entry because I already know everything. I refuse to read the links you post. Even the link showing that Hillary Clinton opposed reauthoizing the FISA court. Finally, I really couldn't care less about the opinion of a Bitter Berner. Because I have a law degree! That makes me smarter about everything! And certainly smarter than someone with a Masters degree who is fluent in four languages! Because you're stupid and I'm smart. I have a law degree!"


    Parent
    Site violator ... (5.00 / 1) (#188)
    by Nemi on Mon Mar 06, 2017 at 06:14:31 AM EST
    I believe that -- Swedish -- headline, if not the whole comment, to be against the comments rules.

    Parent
    FYI - In English, "shorter" means ... (4.00 / 3) (#193)
    by Yman on Mon Mar 06, 2017 at 08:50:02 AM EST
    ... "abbreviated", not a delusional, false, tantrum completely misstating another's words.  

    I think there's a wiki entry of that would help you.

    Parent

    You do know anyone can edit Wikipedia...... (3.50 / 2) (#127)
    by vicndabx on Sun Mar 05, 2017 at 04:56:36 PM EST
    right?

    Parent
    12 seems to be (none / 0) (#130)
    by TrevorBolder on Sun Mar 05, 2017 at 05:06:01 PM EST
    The magic number.
    Reported in every story I can find on the number of FISA requests rejected

    Parent
    silly me! (3.67 / 3) (#81)
    by linea on Sun Mar 05, 2017 at 02:24:55 PM EST
    i forgot i was on the Centrist pro-FISA pro-mass-surveillance blog.

    if you cant spy on chancellor merkel and every other person in the world... then ISIS will attack?

    President Bernie Sanders Would Dismantle NSA Spying

    While still serving in the House, he was one of just 66 members to vote against the post-9/11 Patriot Act, which greatly expanded the government's military and spying capabilities and eventually came to represent the legal justification for the NSA's bulk collection of U.S. call data. Sanders has also voted against reauthorizations of the Patriot Act, as well as the FISA Amendments Act in 2008

    i am in agreement with senator sanders and feel neither the patriot act nor the fisa court should be reauthorized.

    Parent

    and this (none / 0) (#18)
    by linea on Sat Mar 04, 2017 at 10:01:38 PM EST
    Trevor (5.00 / 2) (#12)
    by FlJoe on Sat Mar 04, 2017 at 09:25:49 PM EST
    pulled that removing Trumps name out thin air. The reporting on this part of the scandal has been sketchy, FISA is very secretive and opaque and the process has never been that leak prone. The how when and why of the reported denial and subsequent approval can only be guessed at.

    Parent
    It looks worse than private citizens (none / 0) (#10)
    by jondee on Sat Mar 04, 2017 at 09:21:11 PM EST
    conducting secret, back channel negotiations with a foreign government the U.S has a tension-fraught relationship with?

    Parent
    yes (1.00 / 1) (#14)
    by linea on Sat Mar 04, 2017 at 09:35:19 PM EST
    it looks worse (if true^) that the president of the united states filed an overly-broad spy-warrant that named the opposition political party candidate and was so egregious that even rubber-stamping monkeys rejected it.

    yes. that's worse than "private citizens conducting secret, back channel negotiations with a foreign government."

    ______________
    ^ this is the first time i've heard of this. i assume there is substance to these allegations?

    Parent

    They're not "monkeys" (5.00 / 1) (#21)
    by Yman on Sat Mar 04, 2017 at 10:16:50 PM EST
    They're judges.  The President never filed a warrant application.  There is absolutely nothing wrong with naming a person in a warrant application, even assuming that paragon of journalism (Heat Street) is true, which is a huge assumption.  Who said the warrant application was not "egregious"?

    Funny how you're so willing to believe these evidence-free claims.  Thought you liked to wait until the facts were known.

    Heh.

    Parent

    Yes, and (5.00 / 1) (#117)
    by KeysDan on Sun Mar 05, 2017 at 04:16:33 PM EST
    FISA Court judges are appointed by the Chief Justice of the USA, without any Congressional or Presidential approvals. Since the FISA Act, in 1978, FISA judges have been appointed by conservative Chief Justices: Burger, Rehnquist, and Roberts.

    Parent
    and this (1.00 / 1) (#128)
    by linea on Sun Mar 05, 2017 at 05:00:20 PM EST
    FISA Court judges are appointed by the Chief Justice of the USA, without any Congressional or Presidential approvals. Since the FISA Act, in 1978, FISA judges have been appointed by conservative Chief Justices: Burger, Rehnquist, and Roberts.

    but oh no! TLers are all, "we need to spy on every single person on the planet or ISIS will get me!! thank heaven we have secret courts and conservative judges appointed wothout any congressional oversite!"

    Parent

    Not sure how to (5.00 / 2) (#144)
    by KeysDan on Sun Mar 05, 2017 at 05:40:42 PM EST
    respond to "..TLers are all, we need to spy.....". My comment related to the appointment of FISA judges, or if you prefer,"monkeys". Better, perhaps, than the humorless and Constitutionally undermining, "so called judges."

     Maybe, there is some confusion between warrant and warrant-less "tapps"  or NSA collection of meta data and FISA warrants.

     Ed Snowden was the whistleblower in the case of NSA illegal spying.  Don't know that any Tlers were in favor of the illegal spying revealed by Snowden's leaks, although people like Trump's pick to the CIA, Mike Pompeo, has stated that Snowden is a traitor and should be executed.

    Trump, himself, believes him to be a terrible guy who should be killed. Former President Obama and Mrs. Clinton, at least, wanted Snowden back to stand trial, and, if found guilty of charges, given the prison sentence commensurate with the charges.

     This Tler, for one, thinks Snowden
    performed a public service and should be pardoned, or, at least, be given a fair shot at a whistleblower defense, essentially, denied to him under the Espionage Act of 1917.

    Parent

    im sorry KeysDan (none / 0) (#179)
    by linea on Sun Mar 05, 2017 at 10:18:19 PM EST
    i was agreeing with you and hightlighted your post in agreement.

    re: "This Tler, for one,"

    i dont include thought posters like donald or peter or you as TLers.


    Parent

    Then your use of the expression "TLers" (5.00 / 1) (#180)
    by Peter G on Sun Mar 05, 2017 at 10:33:27 PM EST
    is meaningless at best, a well as misleading. Your comments have sometimes frustrated the smartest and most careful, honest and well-informed members of this community, thinking here of Towanda and Captain Howdy in particular.

    Parent
    They (none / 0) (#131)
    by TrevorBolder on Sun Mar 05, 2017 at 05:06:05 PM EST
    Generally choose conservative judges that normally go along with the government, they presume that the government is above aboard in presenting their application for a warrant

    Parent
    Well, just to spell that out a little more (none / 0) (#165)
    by Peter G on Sun Mar 05, 2017 at 08:02:05 PM EST
    the FISA judges are detailed by the Chief Justice from the pool of Presidentially-appointed and Senate-confirmed, life-tenured federal district judges. Service on the FISC is a part-time responsibility. Their identities are public information. As best I can tell, four of the court's eleven judges were appointed by Democratic presidents.

    Parent
    "Funny how you're so..." (2.33 / 3) (#22)
    by linea on Sat Mar 04, 2017 at 10:23:58 PM EST
    disingenuous that you ignore my repeated caveats ("if true" etc.) included with each post.

    Parent
    "Caveats" - heh (5.00 / 2) (#31)
    by Yman on Sun Mar 05, 2017 at 08:39:53 AM EST
    Yeah - you push these evidence-free conspiracy theories while calling them "egregious", claiming it looks "really bad", falsely claiming that Obama did this, suggesting he did it for political reasons and characterizing the judges as "rubber-stamping monkeys", but the "if true" qualifier makes it all better.

    That's funny.

    Parent

    President Obama didn't file anything, linea. (5.00 / 3) (#24)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Sat Mar 04, 2017 at 11:34:04 PM EST
    linea: "it looks worse (if true^) that the president of the united states filed an overly-broad spy-warrant that named the opposition political party candidate and was so egregious that even rubber-stamping monkeys rejected it."

    The U.S. Department of Justice has traditionally enjoyed sufficient autonomy, authority and latitude to conduct such investigations on its own. While those lines have been obscured somewhat, any White House attempt to interfere in DOJ investigations and decision making is done at the president's own political peril.

    President Richard Nixon paid an enormous price for having sought to directly impede and possibly shut down the investigation into the Watergate scandal, which led to the principled resignation of U.S. Attorney General Elliot Richardson and the firing of both Deputy AG William Ruckelshaus and Special Prosecutor Archhibald Cox on October 20, 1973, an event which now lives in political infamy as the "Saturday Night Massacre."

    Nixon rolled the dice that night and lost badly, and his political fortunes and personal reputation -- already under severe duress due to Watergate -- immediately cratered and never recovered. There are now some administrative safeguards which were put in place in the wake of Nixon's resignation in August 1974, which inhibit a president's ability to influence or direct an investigation personally.

    Still, it can happen on occasion. President George W. Bush took a big hit politically when his administration ordered the unprecedented and summary midterm dismissal of seven U.S. Attorneys on December 7, 2006, which prompted a congressional investigation into whether the Bush White House was using the Dept. of Justice to persecute political opponents.

    Finally, please stop referring to federal judges as "rubber stamping monkeys." Surely, you can disagree with them without being personally demeaning.

    Aloha.

    Parent

    thank you (5.00 / 1) (#25)
    by linea on Sun Mar 05, 2017 at 12:15:46 AM EST
    for your knowledgeable and reasoned post donald.

    please be fair to me.  i would be thankful if you acknowledged that im not broadly "referring to federal judges as rubber stamping monkeys." im critical of the FISA court specifically.

    The "liberal" position on the Surveillance State
    by Glen Greenwald

    In secret, Fisa court contradicted US supreme court on constitutional rights.
    by Yochai Benkler

    Parent

    Yes Linea (5.00 / 1) (#26)
    by FlJoe on Sun Mar 05, 2017 at 05:55:36 AM EST
    as a lefty I find myself conflicted about my and others cheering on the enemy so to speak. I guess we could glibly pass if off as "the enemy of my enemy...." trope, but it's deeper then that.
    As disturbing as FISA is, it would be beyond the pale if certain people were exempt from it for political reasons....there lies tyranny.

    Parent
    The question has always been (none / 0) (#57)
    by jimakaPPJ on Sun Mar 05, 2017 at 12:42:15 PM EST
    who will watch the watchers?

    I find it so sadly amusing to remember how the leftward commentators on this blog was hating the NSA and FISA when its avowed restrictions and job was to spy on terrorists and other foreign enemies.

    Now they cheer when it is being used to attack political opponents.

    And you jump right on that slippery slope....

    As disturbing as FISA is,


    Parent
    I find it just sad (5.00 / 2) (#62)
    by Yman on Sun Mar 05, 2017 at 01:08:07 PM EST
    I find it so sadly amusing to remember how the leftward commentators on this blog was hating the NSA and FISA when its avowed restrictions and job was to spy on terrorists and other foreign enemies.

    Now they cheer when it is being used to attack political opponents.

    ... that anyone is actually foolish enough to believe such a baseless, tinfoil conspiracy theory, particularly when it's based on the evidence-free tweets of a man who lies on a daily basis and doesn't have the slightest credibility.

    Parent

    It's (5.00 / 2) (#68)
    by FlJoe on Sun Mar 05, 2017 at 01:32:18 PM EST
    also sadly amusing to watch "if you got nothing to hide, you got nothing to worry about" crowd scurrying like cockroaches when the light turns on them.
    Leaks and FISA, unclassified-classified, criminal-noncriminal it doesn't matter any more. The only thing that matters is the truth. No matter which way you lean the whole country is on a slippery slope and the tRump camp is doing nothing but continuing to grease the skids.

    No matter who is right or wrong in this sorry saga, tRump needs to lay his cards on the table, starting with his tax returns, if he has nothing to hide he has nothing to fear.

    Parent

    The president of the united states (none / 0) (#116)
    by ruffian on Sun Mar 05, 2017 at 04:04:24 PM EST
    is not the one that asks for the warrant.

    Parent
    You don't like it? (none / 0) (#9)
    by Yman on Sat Mar 04, 2017 at 09:17:41 PM EST
    That's a shame.  Trump doesn't either.  Much harder to bury embarrassing facts and keep information out of the hands of investigators when more people know about it.

    Parent
    Obviously (none / 0) (#13)
    by Yman on Sat Mar 04, 2017 at 09:26:42 PM EST
    Obviously The Donald is annoyed his actions were under surveillance and wiretap.

    Indeed - fairy tales can be very upsetting.

    Parent

    Nice wrap up by Andrew McCarthy (none / 0) (#28)
    by TrevorBolder on Sun Mar 05, 2017 at 06:26:06 AM EST
    http://tinyurl.com/znmw5qp

    The Obama Justice Department and the FBI spent at least eight months searching for Trump-Russia ties. They found nothing criminal, and clearly nothing connecting Trump to Russian hacking. Don't get me wrong: I am as troubled as anyone by Trump's public solicitude toward Putin, some of which has crossed the line into repugnance. But we're talking about crime here, not policy foolishness. Where's the crime?

    There are two significant takeaways from this. First, a FISA national-security investigation is not a criminal investigation. It is not a probe to uncover criminal activity; it is a classified effort to discover what a potentially hostile foreign government may be up to on American soil. It does not get an assigned prosecutor because the purpose is not to prove anything publicly in court -- indeed, it is a major no-no for the Justice Department to use its FISA authority pretextually, for the real purpose of trying to build a criminal investigation.

    \

    Andrew McCarthy??? - heh (5.00 / 1) (#33)
    by Yman on Sun Mar 05, 2017 at 08:45:25 AM EST
    The guy from National Review who for months pushed the false claim that the Clinton email nothingburger was criminal and she should be impeached if elected, suddenly asks where the crime is?

    What do Rush and Alex Jones think?

    Parent

    This (none / 0) (#36)
    by TrevorBolder on Sun Mar 05, 2017 at 09:12:00 AM EST
    Andrew McCarthy, who has quite a bit of knowledge regarding this topic

    He served as an Assistant United States Attorney for the Southern District of New York. A Republican, he is most notable for leading the 1995 terrorism prosecution against Sheik Omar Abdel Rahman and eleven others. The defendants were convicted of the 1993 World Trade Center bombing and planning a series of attacks against New York City landmarks. He also contributed to the prosecutions of terrorists who bombed US embassies in Kenya and Tanzania.


    Parent
    So (5.00 / 2) (#39)
    by FlJoe on Sun Mar 05, 2017 at 09:37:18 AM EST
    a former Assistant US Atty, who has been out of government for over a decade is tuned into the investigation enough to declare  
    The Obama Justice Department and the FBI spent at least eight months searching for Trump-Russia ties. They found nothing criminal, and clearly nothing connecting Trump to Russian hacking.
    yet the White house, Congress, the press and especially the American public all remain in the dark? I call BS.

    Parent
    If there was (none / 0) (#45)
    by TrevorBolder on Sun Mar 05, 2017 at 11:00:53 AM EST
    Anything criminal, we would have known it prior to the election.
    The Obama Administration and Justice department would have seen to it.
    As it is now, the press is getting more information than has been made available to Congress, they are getting classified documents, but no crime....If there was documents pointing to a crime, they would have printed it.

    Parent
    Heh - that's nice (none / 0) (#42)
    by Yman on Sun Mar 05, 2017 at 10:07:06 AM EST
    Completely irrelevant, but nice for his CV.  Of course, in reality he's just another rightwing opinion writer/Clinton conspiracy theorist.  But it is funny to watch him (and you) declare Trump's Russia investigation a nothingburger before it's even over, while screaming that Clinton should be impeached/prosecuted for actions that even the FBI acknowledged were something that no reasonable prosecutor wouldn't prosecute.  Almost as funny as the hypocritical, "everybody does it" Pence defense.

    Parent
    NY Times chimes in (none / 0) (#32)
    by TrevorBolder on Sun Mar 05, 2017 at 08:44:30 AM EST
    http://tinyurl.com/zcug7u6

    During the transition, the F.B.I. -- which uses FISA warrants to eavesdrop on the communications of foreign leaders inside the United States -- overheard conversations between the Russian ambassador to the United States and Michael T. Flynn, whom Mr. Trump had named national security adviser.

    Mr. Trump has pointedly and repeatedly questioned in conversations how it was that Mr. Flynn's conversations were recorded, and wondered who could have issued a warrant

    But a senior White House official said that Donald F. McGahn II, the president's chief counsel, was working to secure access to what Mr. McGahn believed to be an order issued by the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court authorizing some form of surveillance related to Mr. Trump and his associates.

    The official offered no evidence to support the notion that such an order exists. It would be a highly unusual breach of the Justice Department's traditional independence on law enforcement matters for the White House to order it to turn over such an investigative document.



    Parent
    Wow! A "senior WH official"?!? (5.00 / 2) (#34)
    by Yman on Sun Mar 05, 2017 at 08:50:35 AM EST
    ... talking about what he thinks Trump's counsel is "trying to get access to", which is supposedly "some form of surveillance related to Mr. Trump"???  Why would anyone believe the word of a senior Trump official, let alone an anonymous one, let alone one making claims that are so qualified and general that they don't support Trump's conspiracy theory?

    Parent
    Thanks Trevor (5.00 / 1) (#35)
    by FlJoe on Sun Mar 05, 2017 at 09:01:03 AM EST
    for pointing out that this White house is behaving in an unusual and perhaps unethical manner,
    It would be a highly unusual breach of the Justice Department's traditional independence on law enforcement matters for the White House to order it to turn over such an investigative document.


    Parent
    Why? (none / 0) (#37)
    by TrevorBolder on Sun Mar 05, 2017 at 09:14:20 AM EST
    That is nothing new, I always point out what happened.

    Parent
    So (5.00 / 1) (#38)
    by FlJoe on Sun Mar 05, 2017 at 09:23:09 AM EST
    you admit that the Trump administration is wildly trying to to clean up after Trumps latest outrageous tweet.

    Parent
    Nothing The Donald does (none / 0) (#44)
    by TrevorBolder on Sun Mar 05, 2017 at 10:56:18 AM EST
    Surprises me, or it seems , his staff.

    However, if Congressional committees are being used to investigate Trump campaign ties to the Russians, based on no evidence, at least made available to us, other than they met once, or had 1 or 2 phone calls,

    the Administrations request that Congress also investigate whether politically motivated investigations were begun in 2016. That theory holds as much credence, and is even more unsettling, if true. It should be very easy to clear up, what investigations were created, based upon what probable cause or theory?
    Being that prior Attorney General Holder intentionally lied to Congress (you know, like Sessions)

    Issa and Sen. Chuck Grassley (R-Iowa), the ranking member of the Senate Judiciary Committee, have repeatedly asked DOJ for documents pertaining to the creation of a letter the department sent to Grassley on Feb. 4, 2011, which stated that it did everything in its power to stop guns from being trafficked across the U.S.-Mexico border.

    Testimony from agents involved in Fast and Furious and subsequent documents released by DOJ show that these claims are false. The Department of Justice has since withdrawn the Feb. 4 letter.

    Holder, who is scheduled to appear before Issa's committee on Thursday, has told lawmakers that he regrets the use of inaccurate information in the letter but that DOJ was not attempting to intentionally mislead or lie to Congress.

     

    Parent
    Lawnewz (none / 0) (#51)
    by TrevorBolder on Sun Mar 05, 2017 at 11:29:03 AM EST
    http://tinyurl.com/gm8y6yy

    An investigation , being that this was in the midst of our presidential election, may be called for.

    So we just may be investigating the Presidents campaign for conspiring with Russia, and the prior Administration for jumpstarting investigations against the candidate and his advisers.

    So bottom line: if the Obama administration intelligence agents followed the proper protocols, had evidence, got approved by Main Justice, and presented their application to a FISA judge, and were approved, it is likely that any wiretapping was legal under U.S. law.

    "Well, putting aside there is no indication Trump himself was the target of the FISA warrant (it appears to have been aimed at four of his associates), yes, it CAN be legally done," Bradley Moss, an attorney and national security expert explained to LawNewz.com.

    Trump is right that if the warrant involved four of his aides, some of his communications may have been intercepted too, and perhaps what happened warrants further investigation.

    "If somehow several people in DOJ all got together and were asked to fabricate evidence to present to the FISA judge that would be illegal," Moss explained. "But so far that is not what we are hearing happened."

    Turley further adds, "There is provisions stating that a U.S. person cannot be surveilled `solely upon the basis of activities protected by the First Amendment to the Constitution of the United States.' Thus, if Trump aides were targeted for political reasons, the surveillance would be unlawful even under the dubious protections of FISA."

    This matter is probably deserving of further investigation, but so far, there is no indication of anything illegal.

     

    Parent

    Even better (5.00 / 1) (#54)
    by Yman on Sun Mar 05, 2017 at 11:53:48 AM EST
    Donald Trump has evolved from being a conspiracy-theory candidate to a conspiracy-theory president

    Then again, his supporters have always trafficked in silly conspiracy theories.  Usually without the slightest sense of embarrassment.

    Parent

    The irony of your agreement with this (none / 0) (#122)
    by vicndabx on Sun Mar 05, 2017 at 04:30:19 PM EST
    the Administrations request that Congress also investigate whether politically motivated investigations were begun in 2016


    Parent
    Here is your first clue (none / 0) (#46)
    by Repack Rider on Sun Mar 05, 2017 at 11:01:36 AM EST
    Nice wrap up by Andrew McCarthy

    Why cite the opinion of a man whose credibility is in the minus figures?  I am familiar with him, have read his stuff.  If Andrew McCarthy thinks it, it is certain to be wrong.

    By citing a fool to support your argument, you invalidate it.

    Parent

    Yea, this fool (none / 0) (#47)
    by TrevorBolder on Sun Mar 05, 2017 at 11:03:54 AM EST
    Andrew McCarthy, who has quite a bit of knowledge regarding this topic
    He served as an Assistant United States Attorney for the Southern District of New York. A Republican, he is most notable for leading the 1995 terrorism prosecution against Sheik Omar Abdel Rahman and eleven others. The defendants were convicted of the 1993 World Trade Center bombing and planning a series of attacks against New York City landmarks. He also contributed to the prosecutions of terrorists who bombed US embassies in Kenya and Tanzania.


    Parent
    I already saw that (none / 0) (#49)
    by Repack Rider on Sun Mar 05, 2017 at 11:20:21 AM EST
    Yea, this fool

    That's the one.  We are in agreement on who the fool is.

    Parent

    He knows what he is (none / 0) (#50)
    by TrevorBolder on Sun Mar 05, 2017 at 11:24:18 AM EST
    Talking about, especially on these topics.

    You might not appreciate his knowledge, but he is not the fool

    Parent

    An nopinion writer for a winger rag? (none / 0) (#52)
    by Yman on Sun Mar 05, 2017 at 11:39:40 AM EST
    Sure he is.

    Parent
    You guys (none / 0) (#160)
    by Ga6thDem on Sun Mar 05, 2017 at 07:11:14 PM EST
    need to realize the same people saying that Trump Russia is nothing are also the people who lied to you again and again about Obama and Hillary.

    Parent
    The plot thickens. (none / 0) (#40)
    by jimakaPPJ on Sun Mar 05, 2017 at 09:45:32 AM EST
    Former Donald Trump presidential campaign manager Corey Lewandowski accused the administration of ex-President Barack Obama of eavesdropping on conversations between current Attorney General Jeff Sessions and Russian Ambassador Sergey Kislyak while Sessions was still a senator.

    Link

    In the meantime Obama's people are issuing the most carefully worded statements.....

    ;-)

    Costco sells tinfoil in bulk (5.00 / 3) (#41)
    by Yman on Sun Mar 05, 2017 at 09:58:16 AM EST
    "Carefully worded statements" - dear, God.

    But posting a bare statement from Lewandowski with nothing to support it was funny.  Nothing else from Alex Jones or the wingernet?

    Parent

    And (5.00 / 1) (#43)
    by FlJoe on Sun Mar 05, 2017 at 10:18:23 AM EST
    what makes Cory the voice of authority?

    Parent
    This is how (5.00 / 1) (#48)
    by MKS on Sun Mar 05, 2017 at 11:13:04 AM EST
    they create "alternate facts."  They just qoute each others fantasies until they become facts.

    Parent
    Who said he was?? (none / 0) (#59)
    by jimakaPPJ on Sun Mar 05, 2017 at 12:58:20 PM EST
    It should also be noted that Trump is calling on Congress to investigate rather than let members of the Deep State do the job.

    Parent
    The Deep State.. (none / 0) (#73)
    by jondee on Sun Mar 05, 2017 at 01:54:12 PM EST
    someone learned a new term.

    Try not to beat it to death in the first week, if you can help it.

    Parent

    "Carefully worded statements," huh? (5.00 / 3) (#53)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Sun Mar 05, 2017 at 11:42:42 AM EST
    "Neither President Obama nor any White House official ever ordered surveillance on any U.S. citizen. Any suggestion otherwise is simply false,"
    - Kevin Lewis, spokesman for former President Barack Obama (March 5, 2017)

    "Simply false." Yeah, Jim, that's just awash in nuance.

    Parent

    Hearing carefully worded statements (5.00 / 1) (#55)
    by jondee on Sun Mar 05, 2017 at 12:03:21 PM EST
    induces a state of vertigo in people like Jim, who marinate continuously in talk radio and Fox..

    Similar to old sailors who experience "land sickness" when walking on a surface that isn't rolling and pitching..

    Parent

    DfH, that is absolutely a carefully-worded (5.00 / 3) (#56)
    by Peter G on Sun Mar 05, 2017 at 12:39:42 PM EST
    statement. It not only wasn't, but it actually cannot have been the President or any White House offical who "ordered" any FISA surveillance. FISA surveillance can only be "ordered" by the judges of the FISA court. The statement thus denies the stupid accusation made in Tr*mp's ignorant tweets, but not the substance behind the story. The question is whether such surveillance was requested, directly or indirectly, by the White House, or whether any such request was approved by the President (or anyone on his staff) because such approval was requested by DOJ foreign intelligence investigators seeking the FISA warrant due to the sensitivity of the investigation. I highly doubt it, but at this point we don't know. Nevertheless, the statement is indeed carefully worded.  As it should be. The fact that Tr*mp's tweets are carelessly worded (to put it mildly) does not make careful wording of statements on important subjects a valid ground for criticism.

    Parent
    Thank you, Peter (none / 0) (#58)
    by jimakaPPJ on Sun Mar 05, 2017 at 12:52:40 PM EST
    And yes, that is the question. The "carefully worded" statement brings forth more questions than it answers.

    Parent
    Show me a man who thoughtlessly (5.00 / 1) (#61)
    by jondee on Sun Mar 05, 2017 at 01:00:57 PM EST
    blurts things out, and I'll show you a strong leader.

    This what we've come to. Or, what some of us have come to..

    The "carefully worded statement" was as unequivocal and airtight as a statement can be.

    How does the statement in itself, taken at face value, beg further questions, Jim?

    Parent

    I believe what Jim means is that the Obama (5.00 / 1) (#65)
    by Peter G on Sun Mar 05, 2017 at 01:16:44 PM EST
    statement fails to deny various accusations that Tr*mp might have made if he were (a) more articulate, (b) more aware of the applicable law, and (c) a more careful or deliberate thinker. But he isn't any of that.

    Parent
    Trump's (none / 0) (#76)
    by KeysDan on Sun Mar 05, 2017 at 02:19:36 PM EST
    assertion by tweet is certainly ignorance-based, as is his wont, but it demonstrates a certain political quickness and survival instinct, perhaps learned through the tutelage of Roy Cohn:

     Counter with an attack. And, what better counterattack for his supporters than Obama...something, something, Obama.  If some comments from the Trumpkins of this thread are prologue, the Trump tweet will likely resuscitate those supporters who have been gasping for some, nay, any, air, so quietly, as this Trumpian mess unspools.  They may think that they can now breathe more easily, but, they need to beware, that air is so polluted that they may be calling for more EPA rules.

    Parent

    Obama's was a forceful denial of culpability. (none / 0) (#85)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Sun Mar 05, 2017 at 02:36:42 PM EST
    Further, former Director of National Intelligence James Clapper has similarly denied the veracity of Trump's outlandish claims.

    I would only note that IF there exists a valid FISA warrant authorizing such surveillance in the course of a federal intelligence investigation, then no doubt the extent of connectivity between Trump & Co. and the ruling Russian oligarchy likely gave federal intelligence officials sufficient cause for concern to seek it.

    In that regard, Trump's claim might be the first step in an effort to uncover the sources behind the dossier compiled by the well-respected former MI6 operative Christopher Steele. Congress should therefore resist the urge to become Trump's useful idiots -- and by likely extension, the Kremlin's tools as well -- by rejecting his call to investigate his claim. Such an inquiry can only serve to further compromise western intelligence sources inside Russia.

    This has become a very serious and urgent matter.

    Parent

    Lol (none / 0) (#90)
    by TrevorBolder on Sun Mar 05, 2017 at 02:52:54 PM EST
    Clapper, that known fabricator of stories to Congress. And he did conclude his statement when pressed a second time, No, to the best of my knowledge.  Lol, those carefully chosen words again.
    This has become a very serious and urgent matter.

    Yes indeed, let us see exactly how the FISA warrant was requested, there are very strict protocols to get a FISA warrant, and again strict protocols if information is gathered on American citizens that do not pertain to the warrant. Where all of those met? Very serious indeed

    Parent

    Once again, Trevor, ... (5.00 / 2) (#98)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Sun Mar 05, 2017 at 03:09:29 PM EST
    ... you're punching way above your weight class. Go ladle your borscht someplace where it'll be better appreciated -- like, say, at Tall Cotton.

    Parent
    Thats it? (none / 0) (#100)
    by TrevorBolder on Sun Mar 05, 2017 at 03:17:37 PM EST
    You really lower yourself, back to your middle school roots

    Parent
    Yeah, Trevor, that's it. (5.00 / 2) (#111)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Sun Mar 05, 2017 at 03:51:29 PM EST
    You scour the internet for something, anything with which to defend your precious Trump or attack Democrats, and then you come here to fling it against the wall to see what sticks. You are a abrasive and often verbally abusive font of right-wing arrogance who revels in innuendo, traffics in misinformation, and fancies himself an expert even while devoid of original thought. As such, you are a troll whose opinions I can hardly take at all seriously.

    Now, I've wasted enough time on you. Have a nice afternoon.

    Parent

    Much better (none / 0) (#115)
    by TrevorBolder on Sun Mar 05, 2017 at 04:04:22 PM EST
    Your insightful fact based post educates all

    Well, you have progressed from your middle school insult stage to your High School Varsity Letter insults, where you proudly smirk and glean the adoring glances of the doe eyed cheerleaders

    Parent

    "Very serious" (5.00 / 1) (#101)
    by Yman on Sun Mar 05, 2017 at 03:20:55 PM EST
    No.  Specious claims offered without the slightest bit of evidence are not "very serious".  They're laughable conspiracy theories that should be roundly mocked by anyone who's not an utter sycophant.

    Parent
    really? (none / 0) (#105)
    by linea on Sun Mar 05, 2017 at 03:38:52 PM EST
    donald says:
    likely gave federal intelligence officials sufficient cause for concern to seek it.

    like the spying on chancelor merkel's phone and u.s. intelligence agencies mucking about in the last french election? or is this your version of, "aww shucks! those nsa folks must know best."


    Parent

    We're talking about potential conflation of interests between a presidential campaign / administration and a hostile foreign power. Do try to stay on point, and resist any further urge to channel Rose Nylund of "The Golden Girls."

    Parent
    i gave you 5 for being polite (none / 0) (#120)
    by linea on Sun Mar 05, 2017 at 04:18:53 PM EST
    i dont mind if you point out when im off topic.

    • i dont know rose nylund.
    • im trying to avoid the russia-trump topic.
    • that im arguing with people about fisa on what is supposed to be a left-bog gets me frustrated.
    • i did not know the u.s. government has classified russia a "hostile foreign power." you sure about that?


    Parent
    Spying on foreign officials overseas (none / 0) (#164)
    by Peter G on Sun Mar 05, 2017 at 07:50:56 PM EST
    is not governed by FISA. No warrant required and none obtained. Yes, the NSA was off-base, by my standards, tapping Merkel's private phone. But that has nothing to do with the present discussion, which concerns the use of FISA warrants to tap domestic communications for which there is (or at least is claimed under oath to be) probable cause to believe involvement by U.S. targets with foreign intelligence or terrorist operations.

    Parent
    thank you (none / 0) (#166)
    by linea on Sun Mar 05, 2017 at 08:06:35 PM EST
    i understand now.  the court stacked with conservative judges without any appointment by congress which handles unreviewable secret filings only applies to domestic surveilance.  and there is absolutely no check or court review on spying of people internationally.

    Parent
    The filings are not unreviewable (5.00 / 1) (#171)
    by Peter G on Sun Mar 05, 2017 at 08:29:49 PM EST
    There is also a FISA appeals court, and (as of 2015, finally) an institutionalized "amicus curiae" (something I advocated to the court on behalf of the National Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers when the court solicited public comments on its rules of procedure back in 2005), whose job it is to challenge out-of-line or controversial decisions by the FISC. This is better than exists for any other warrant-issuing court that I know of. Of course, FISA warrants are potentially more far-reaching and also less likely to lead to a public court case (such as a criminal indictment) being brought, where the surveillance might be challenge later.

    Parent
    They also went to the extreme (none / 0) (#167)
    by TrevorBolder on Sun Mar 05, 2017 at 08:07:11 PM EST
    Of secretly designated reporter James Rosen a criminal co-conspirator and a flight risk and thereby had a federal judge give the government permission to rifle through all his gmails.

    That would appear to be abuse of authority as well, or at least not generally accepted techniques, especially by liberals

    Parent

    Can anyone here tell me with specifics (none / 0) (#60)
    by jimakaPPJ on Sun Mar 05, 2017 at 01:00:39 PM EST
    what Trump & co has supposedly done that is illegal and proof that it has been done.

    Note "specific."

    Thank you.

    Sure (5.00 / 1) (#70)
    by Yman on Sun Mar 05, 2017 at 01:35:19 PM EST
    Right after you provide proof of Trump's conspiracy  theory - the one that you're defending.

    Parent
    It is the unethical I am more worried about (5.00 / 2) (#147)
    by ruffian on Sun Mar 05, 2017 at 05:57:02 PM EST
    right now, not the illegal. The continuing conflicts of interests, direct violation of the lease for the DC hotel, driving business to his private business i.e. Mar A Lago every weekend, and on and on and on.

    I don't need to see him in prison, just out of office, or out of business, or both.

    Parent

    He (none / 0) (#67)
    by TrevorBolder on Sun Mar 05, 2017 at 01:31:20 PM EST
    Won the election

    Parent
    So did Putin ... (none / 0) (#69)
    by Yman on Sun Mar 05, 2017 at 01:34:06 PM EST
    ... white nationalists, homophobes, Islamaphobes ...

    Parent
    Tell it to Evan McMullin (none / 0) (#72)
    by jondee on Sun Mar 05, 2017 at 01:37:56 PM EST
    the violent anti-trump protesters are back (none / 0) (#74)
    by linea on Sun Mar 05, 2017 at 01:56:21 PM EST
    At least three people were injured in Berkeley, California. Police made 10 arrests and confiscated bricks, bats and pipes. Two people were arrested in Nashville and four in Olympia, Washington, after police say the demonstrators assaulted an officer. Six people were arrested in St. Paul, Minnesota -- five of whom are facing riot charges after allegedly lighting fireworks inside the state Capitol.


    Parent
    You like to put your own personal (5.00 / 2) (#77)
    by jondee on Sun Mar 05, 2017 at 02:20:04 PM EST
    touch; just a little bit of linea-spin on these stories, don't you?

    Most the reports I've seen say "clashed WITH" and "fought WITH", implying that more than one side was acting out violently.

    Parent

    hint (4.00 / 4) (#87)
    by linea on Sun Mar 05, 2017 at 02:41:01 PM EST
    the people dressed in black, wearing black hoodies, with their faces covered by masks and some carry bricks, bats and pipes... those are the bad guys. they arrived with the intent to actively instigate violence.

    are you apologists for this sort of ugly violence?

    Parent

    I'm an apologist for fairness and accuracy (5.00 / 2) (#95)
    by jondee on Sun Mar 05, 2017 at 03:02:45 PM EST
    you're talking as if you knew beyond any doubt that a) only the anti-Trump demonstrators were acting out violently and b) that the these so-called "anarchists" are All anti-Trump demonstrators.

    The fact is that you Don't know, but that didn't stop you from breathlessly reporting what you Think occurred, as if you wittnessed everything that transpired firsthand.

    Parent

    yes (3.33 / 3) (#99)
    by linea on Sun Mar 05, 2017 at 03:15:56 PM EST
    the "so caled" anarchists are self-described anarchists and are in fact anti-trump protestors.

    i reject you ridiculous and childish assertion that if trump supporters at a trump rally ALSO acted violently it JUSTIFIES the violent protesters and anarchists who organized this counter-protest specifically to instigate a physical confrontation.

    Parent

    And I reject your moronically (5.00 / 1) (#107)
    by jondee on Sun Mar 05, 2017 at 03:45:11 PM EST
    disingenuous assertion that I at any time attempted to "justify" Anyone's acts of violence.

    Insisting on honesty and objectivity in reporting events isn't the same thing as promoting or approving the events.

    Parent

    Again, stop it. The links from your story (none / 0) (#110)
    by Towanda on Sun Mar 05, 2017 at 03:51:08 PM EST
    state that in several of the cities, police did not state whether those arrested were pro-Trump or anti-Trump.

    You're just making it up, like the large orange lout that you defend.


    Parent

    Well (3.25 / 4) (#84)
    by TrevorBolder on Sun Mar 05, 2017 at 02:35:43 PM EST
    To be clear, whenever the lefties march, womens march, no one shows up and fights with them

    Whenever there is a Conservative speaker, or events, there seems to be violence.

    It is NOT sought out by those exercising their right to free speech and assembly.

    Parent

    Is that so? (5.00 / 1) (#96)
    by Yman on Sun Mar 05, 2017 at 03:04:48 PM EST
    Guess you didn't watch any of those Trump rallies, huh?  Those would be the rallies where your Republican leader actually instigated violence personally.

    Parent
    i was at (3.00 / 2) (#114)
    by linea on Sun Mar 05, 2017 at 04:00:35 PM EST
    the women's march in seattle.

    groups of black-clad masked trump-supporters did not show up with sticks and pipes and bricks to asssult people, attack police, smash windows and light fires. pretty sure i would have noticed that.

    this insufferable apologia of these violent anatchist criminals who are actively provoking confrontation only proves how absured the TL echo-chanber has become.

    Parent

    I think you're getting (5.00 / 2) (#118)
    by jondee on Sun Mar 05, 2017 at 04:17:31 PM EST
    a little too self-enamoured with that miniature echo chamber inside your skull.

    No one has been "apologizing" for violence of any sort by anyone.


    Parent

    you and (none / 0) (#123)
    by linea on Sun Mar 05, 2017 at 04:30:34 PM EST
    several other people have.

    each chidish retort of "trump supporters are violent too" or "trump said this at his rallies ten months ago" is an APOLOGIA for these violent protestors and anarchists who are instigating confrontations.


    Parent

    Your unequivocal one-sided assertions are NOT (5.00 / 2) (#125)
    by jondee on Sun Mar 05, 2017 at 04:47:52 PM EST
    the same thing as objective facts.

    They're just partial truths you've fallen too deeply in love with to modify.

    There's no good reason for instigating violence at these demonstrations, and whoever is doing it should stop immediately.

    Is that clear enough for you?

    Parent

    Good for you (5.00 / 1) (#134)
    by Yman on Sun Mar 05, 2017 at 05:18:04 PM EST
    Also, completely irrelevant to your baseless smear of jondee, falsely claiming he is acting as an apologist for these anarchists.  No one here is doing that, and the only thing that's insufferable are your false attacks/claims.

    Parent
    What is the meaning of the italics, (none / 0) (#75)
    by Peter G on Sun Mar 05, 2017 at 02:08:18 PM EST
    Linea, if you don't mind explaining? If you are trying to indicate a block quote from a source, then highlight the text in the preview window and use the ["] button to indent it. Then provide a link by typing in a few words indicating the source, highlighting those words, and copy/pasting in the URL using the links-of-a-chain button.

    Parent
    sorry (5.00 / 1) (#82)
    by linea on Sun Mar 05, 2017 at 02:32:42 PM EST
    yes, it should have been a blockquote from the article below. i didnt know the [ " ] button was for blockquote.

    Violence Erupts As 'March 4 Trump' Rallies Meet Counterprotests


    Parent

    The (none / 0) (#78)
    by FlJoe on Sun Mar 05, 2017 at 02:21:21 PM EST
    alleged Russian hacking is a crime, the FBI and IC have the duty to get to the bottom of it.

    Parent
    The hacking of the DNC (1.00 / 1) (#83)
    by jimakaPPJ on Sun Mar 05, 2017 at 02:35:20 PM EST
    server may or may not have been by the Russians.

    Julian Assange says it was not Russia.

    But even if it was the Russians, what is the proof that Russia did it with the agreement of Trump or that they, with Assange's help, conspired with Trump?

    All of this has been done to try and destroy Trump.

    It makes the Right's claims that Obama wasn't born in the USA look like Ned and the third grade reader;

    Parent

    The Right's claims that Obama (none / 0) (#102)
    by jondee on Sun Mar 05, 2017 at 03:32:58 PM EST
    wasn't born in the USA..

    Yes, both the IC and FBI of course lent tremendous credence to those reports..

    Unfortunately, all their resources were taken up discovering the perpetrators of the insidious man-made greenhouse gas hoax.

    Parent

    rather missing the point (none / 0) (#184)
    by linea on Sun Mar 05, 2017 at 11:47:31 PM EST
    "omg! somebody talked to the russians!"

    doesnt go anywhere.

    Parent

    You (5.00 / 2) (#186)
    by FlJoe on Mon Mar 06, 2017 at 05:13:37 AM EST
    left out a big part of the equation, "omg someone is talking to the Russians....who are committing serious crimes against this country"

    Parent
    I notice that only Trevor has an answer. (none / 0) (#79)
    by jimakaPPJ on Sun Mar 05, 2017 at 02:22:54 PM EST
    Come on, folks. Let's see some specifics.

    Let's see some proof.

    Parent

    Ask and ye shall receive, Jim. (none / 0) (#93)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Sun Mar 05, 2017 at 02:59:21 PM EST
    LINK and LINK and LINK.

    I would only caution you that if you really want to see it, you'll first need to pull your head out of your own rear so you won't sprain your a$$.

    :-|

    Parent

    So your contention is that (none / 0) (#103)
    by jimakaPPJ on Sun Mar 05, 2017 at 03:34:46 PM EST
    Trump & folks have had meetings with Russians.

    Wow.

    For a moment their I though you meant you had proof  he asked the Russians for help in defeating Hillary...

    Oh wait. That was Ted Kennedy begging for help from our avowed sure enough we will bury you Cold War enemies....

    Forbes

    Come come Donald. Show us something illegal....or at the least...fattening.

    Parent

    Had meetings (5.00 / 2) (#129)
    by smott on Sun Mar 05, 2017 at 05:02:06 PM EST
    Lied about them under oath (a felony) and if the evidence as mentioned by Gordon is verified, altered the GOP platform on Ukraine as a quid pro quo with a hostile foreign power in exchange for help hacking the election.

    Or, Treason for Dummies.

    Parent

    And no proof (none / 0) (#136)
    by jimakaPPJ on Sun Mar 05, 2017 at 05:25:53 PM EST
    Just claims.

    Parent
    We love Wikileaks (none / 0) (#124)
    by vicndabx on Sun Mar 05, 2017 at 04:35:50 PM EST
    sure that meant nothing

    Parent
    They are going there (none / 0) (#119)
    by TrevorBolder on Sun Mar 05, 2017 at 04:18:48 PM EST
    The Latest: House intel panel to probe Trump wiretap claims
    By THE ASSOCIATED PRESS WASHINGTON -- Mar 5, 2017,
    The Latest on President Donald Trump's claim that then-President Barack Obama had Trump's telephones tapped during last year's election (

    House Intelligence Chairman Devin Nunes says President Donald Trump's allegations that the Obama administration wiretapped Trump Tower last year will become part of his panel's investigation.

    A Republican member of the Senate Intelligence Committee says he believes President Donald Trump's unsubstantiated allegations that his predecessor ordered wiretaps of Trump Tower will become part of the committee's investigation into Russian interference in the 2016 presidential election.

    Arkansas Sen. Tom Cotton says, "We're going to follow the facts wherever they lead us. And I'm sure that this matter will be a part of that inquiry."



    This (5.00 / 1) (#141)
    by Repack Rider on Sun Mar 05, 2017 at 05:35:29 PM EST
    ...is a joke, right?

    House Intelligence Chairman Devin Nunes says President Donald Trump's allegations that the Obama administration wiretapped Trump Tower last year will become part of his panel's investigation.

    Eleven Benghazeeee! investigations found no wrongdoing.  Hillary under oath on live TV for eleven hours.  They didn't pin a parking ticket on her after investigating for three years.

    Would those be the same investigators?  Because even if Mr. Obama were guilty, which he is not, these clowns couldn't find a rhinoceros in a shower stall if you gave them a month to search and a troop of Boy Scouts to help look.

    Parent

    Don't (none / 0) (#132)
    by FlJoe on Sun Mar 05, 2017 at 05:08:40 PM EST
    go there sayeth Comey.
    FBI Director James Comey asked the Department of Justice to "publicly reject" President Donald Trump's explosive allegation over the weekend that then-President Barack Obama had ordered a wiretap of Trump's communications during the presidential campaign, The New York Times reported on Sunday.

    Comey said that Trump's claim, which he tweeted early on Saturday without offering any evidence, "is false and must be corrected," according to unnamed U.S. officials who spoke with the Times. The Justice Department, led by Trump-nominated Attorney General Jeff Sessions, has not done so yet.



    Parent
    Only problem (none / 0) (#151)
    by TrevorBolder on Sun Mar 05, 2017 at 06:05:51 PM EST
    Is the Justice Department is quite shortstaffed.
    And Sessions is out of the loop

    But why would Comey toss it to Justice

    He basically is stating what all know to be true, that President Obama did not order the surveillance, it would have come from the Justice Department

    Parent

    Read up (5.00 / 3) (#156)
    by Ga6thDem on Sun Mar 05, 2017 at 06:38:31 PM EST
    on what ex-CIA people are saying on this and the story is no one needed to order surveillance on Trump. Like with Flynn they were doing surveillance on the Russians and since Trump and/or his associates kept talking to the Russians hence the freakout from Trump claiming he was under surveillance. He apparently knows there are tapes of him and/or others talking to the Russians. The GOP is just screaming about Obama to 1. give the rubes some BS to swallow and attempt to get out in front of the story when it breaks.

    Parent
    Or the Easter Bunny (none / 0) (#155)
    by Yman on Sun Mar 05, 2017 at 06:25:10 PM EST
    You have just a much evidence of that.

    Parent
    Of course they are (none / 0) (#135)
    by Yman on Sun Mar 05, 2017 at 05:20:28 PM EST
    Nunes does whatever the Orange Julius demands, even when he demands an investigation of a crazy conspiracy theory.

    Should this surprise anyone?

    Parent

    emptywheel.net, as well as Jeralyn and Peter G, (none / 0) (#148)
    by ruffian on Sun Mar 05, 2017 at 06:00:41 PM EST
    are about the only ones on the internet I trust on this topic. Mencsh makes some wild leaps, IMO.


    from WIKILEAKS 3/5/17, 12:00 AM (none / 0) (#170)
    by linea on Sun Mar 05, 2017 at 08:24:29 PM EST
    Very nice of you to say, Ruffian (none / 0) (#173)
    by Peter G on Sun Mar 05, 2017 at 08:32:24 PM EST
    but I am not in the same class with emptywheel or with Jeralyn on this subject.

    Parent
    Yeah, Peter, but you know the law, and ... (none / 0) (#183)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Sun Mar 05, 2017 at 11:38:24 PM EST
    ... are both dispassionate and clear in your explanations of the subject to others here. I've learned more about both the practical aspects of FISA and its pitfalls from your posts over the years, than I ever have from seeing hours and hours of babbling TV punditry.

    Were I to ever develop a class on constitutional rights and law for lay citizens and residents -- and honestly, that thought has been crossing my mind of late -- you and Jeralyn are two people whom I'd consult to help develop the course curriculum.

    Aloha.

    Parent

    I APOLOGIZE FOR 'MONKEYS' (none / 0) (#185)
    by linea on Mon Mar 06, 2017 at 12:54:22 AM EST
    i should not have globally refered to the FISA court as "rubber-stamping monkeys." my comment clearly was not directed toward any particular member of the court but rather was meant to express (poorly) my opposition to the FISA courts.

    perhaps i should have mockingly and hyperbolically used the phrase "rubber-stamping kangaroo court"? or is there no way for me to express my opposition mockingly and hyperbolically?

    im very upset that no one on TL defends me on this issue. i dont understand the pro-FISA attitude here. it is so unusual and beyond what i expected that it leaves me confused and perplexed and hurt. i dont understand it.

    I would like to recognize, praise and support (5.00 / 2) (#198)
    by Peter G on Mon Mar 06, 2017 at 09:26:44 AM EST
    your consistency and insistence on adherence to underlying progressive principles when we engage in sharp criticisms of Tr*mp. But it is hard to do that, Linea, when you intermix those important reminders with nonsense, generalizations, insults and name-calling, followed by pseudo-apologies.

    Parent
    You (none / 0) (#187)
    by FlJoe on Mon Mar 06, 2017 at 05:52:28 AM EST
    keep mistaking anti-tRump sentiment as pro-FISA sentiment. For better or worse FISA is the law of the land, we could argue all day on it's merits but we would be fools to discard any true facts it may discover.

    Civil rights and privacy have been a big deal to through the years but FISA was never that high on my list in the first place, I had it my "Demonized" but not understood bucket. Now that I have learned a bit about it it has maybe dropped a couple of notches on my list.

    In any case, IMO, The tRump administration in general, and the Russian hacking in particular is an order of magnitude more troubling than anything  I ever imagined FISA to be.

    Give immunity to a robber to catch a serial killer? I would take that deal every time.

    Parent

    Remember James Rosen.. (none / 0) (#201)
    by jondee on Mon Mar 06, 2017 at 02:19:13 PM EST
    I love it.

    Remember James Rosen! Remember the Maine!

    What? Are Not-So-Breitbart and Gateway nitwit saying "you supply the trolling, and I'll supply the idiotic talking points"?

    Like some some erstwhile William Randolph Hearsts?

    Try to do a Little homework, Jim and Trevor.
    Copying is cheating.

    You both get Fs.