Miscellaneous And Off Topic Subjects

[froot loops]

It's still a probable cause rejection. I mean, that's the basis they have to use. There wasn't sufficient probable cause for the full scope of the requested warrant. So, they had to come back and pare it down to specific targets supported by probable cause.

In terms of what we know, there wasn't PC to support the full scope of requested surveillance for, e.g., "any and everyone associated with DJT" but there was PC to support surveillance of Paul Manafort.



Correct. It's the political optics that matter, and they're not good.

And again, this is basically how much credence you give Mensch's reporting. Other sources such as Clapper and Comey have denied. So the optics are bad if you want to believe them to be bad, but there is no hard evidence and you are relying on British reporting. Call an independent investigation to investigate the Trump Russian ties and the federal crimes against the Clinton campaign and let the truth out.

[iam416]

Sure. "In terms of what we THINK we know" or "In terms of what has been reported".

So the optics are bad if you want to believe them to be bad, but there is no hard evidence other than British reporting

Well, I mean, political optics aren't particularly moored to truth. You typically need at least a kernel to get to the voters that matter, but not much more than that. On this one, Froot, you don't matter.

Personally, I think the kernel is there. That's why I think it's good political optics for DJT.

[hack]

Seems to me that the optics are bad amongst people for whom the optics would be bad no matter what, and for talent. The facts suggest that what we know so far is that national security concerns led people in relevant roles to follow the proper process.

The question may be, ultimately, how many people are in which category? That's what's going to determine whether the the McCain/Graham faction of the GOP gets louder and bigger. Trump can hurt or not hurt the cause with his actions.

[froot loops]

One other thing, this Russia thing would have been a lot less cumbersome for the Trump admin if he didn't publicly invite the Russians to hack more. Or if he came out a little more forcefully against this hacking crap. When your campaign so publicly embraces the end justifying the means, don't be surprised or annoyed that the media investigates the means.

[Hannibal]

In any event, most of these kids will go on to live in their "wealthy bubble" and enter children-centric marriages and contribute positively to society as their ultra-prog views eventually give way to more mainstream liberalism. So, meh...whatever.

There are some unfavorable dynamics that are driving society away from that, like increasing amounts of adult children living at home with their parents after college.

[Wild Hoss]

I don't know that we can really say that the "optics" are bad for Obama either.

Trump makes a big splash about Obama wiretapping him, and it turns out that, at best, its was FISA-court approved monitoring of electronic communications between a Trump-company server and a bank in Russia. Which then proves that his assertion of having no business dealings with Russia were yet another lie.

By being a dumbass he's managed to shine more light on an issue that he desperately wants to go away, and comes off as having an irrational desire to blame Obama for almost everything that vexes him.

[iam416]

Seems to me that the optics are bad amongst people for whom the optics would be bad no matter what, and for talent.

They're not bad for me, personally. I don't think he did anything wrong. My political optics/theory/etc discussion and analysis isn't particularly attached to my actual politics.

[iam416]

The things I'm happy about, politically, are mostly roll-backs of the Obama Administrative State:

* sensible interpretation of Title IX (some more work to do)
* sensible interpretation of "navigable waters of the US" to be limited to, you know, water
* hopefully a rollback of the anti-GMO shit, in particularly the FDA's proposal to regulate GMO animals as animal drugs.

And I really like Gorsuch as a Justice.

So, some small victories in this otherwise exhausting first few weeks.

I haven't really thought about how the aformentioned play in terms of politics, but I like them!

[crashcourse]

I was for GMO animals before I was against them

subway doing a great job of minimizing DNA

anybody have any experience with injecting stem/fat cells into joints

9000 dollar out of pocket sounds like FDA not approved --medicare wont pick it up--just wondering if what sounds like quackery actually works for anyone

[hack]

anybody have any experience with injecting stem/fat cells into joints

That depends on who is asking, how much they are paying, and talent's opinion of The Optics. PM me if you think we should carry the conversation further?

[hack]

* sensible interpretation of "navigable waters of the US" to be limited to, you know, water


Unfamiliar with this. What happened?

[Da Geezer]

I'm not sure this clears up anything, but, in general, FISA courts have jurisdiction where the intercept is domestic and Executive Order 12333 has jurisdiction if the intercept is foreign.

http://webpolicy.org/2014/12/03/eo-12333-on-american-soil/

However, there are 3 exceptions where EO 12333 is used on American soil.:

Classified Annex Authority (Targeted Warrantless Surveillance)

A third area of Executive Order 12333, on American soil, is the “Classified Annex Authority” or “CAA.” Its source is a classified addition to Executive Order 12333, set out in an NSA policy document.13 The most recent revision, from 2009, reads:

"Communications of or concerning a United States person may be intercepted intentionally or selected deliberately . . .

with specific prior approval by the Attorney General based on a finding by the Attorney General that there is probable cause to believe the United States person is an agent of a foreign power and that the purpose of the interception or selection is to collect significant foreign intelligence. Such approvals shall be limited to a period of time not to exceed ninety days for individuals and one year for entities."

That provision appears to allow the Attorney General to unilaterally trump FISA. I’m not entirely confident that’s what it means, but it sure looks like it.

my emphasis

[iam416]

The Constitution specifically grants Congress the authority to regulate the "navigable waters of the US." At the time it made sense because those were de facto interstates and it would have been ridiculous for states to block transport. The authority has been translated into the environmental area. It is the basis for the authority to pass the Clean Water Act. Again, it's a sensible idea -- you have rivers that are shared by multiple states then you want uniform standards. That idea was initially extended beyond navigable to anything body that flows into a navigable body. A stream may not be navigable, but it flows into a small river that flows into the Ohio. Probably a little bit of a stretch, but it's reasonable to want to prevent dumping pollutants in a stream that flows into a major water waterway. I think even Scalia and Co agree with this standard (as do I).

The new rule sought to expand the definition to include waters "adjacent" navigable waters. Heretofore, how managed your pond is a purely intrastate activity -- Congress has no authority to regulate it (though, heh, if migratory fowl use it then maybe!). The rule brings in "waters" that not part of the navigable water network. The rationale remains the same as extending it to un-navigable creeks -- pollution in these purely intrastate bodies could affect water quality of navigable waters.

I object to the rule on administrative overreach. It goes way beyond the scope of the CWA, IMO. I believe the rule increased areas subject to CWA jurisdiction by 10-fold. Kansas has almost as many "navigable waters" as Michigan (or some such thing).

I'm sure you could make a case for the rule in terms of benefits -- not sure how it fares in a cost-benefit analysis. But, if my goldfish pond is in a 100-year flood plain or sufficiently close to high water marks for navigable waters, then it's subject to Federal oversight.

Reasonable folks certainly go opposite of me -- frankly, I think the political optics probably favor that side -- people love themselves clean water and you better have a better reason than "process" to "roll back EPA regulations". So, I appreciate that I'm probably not on side of the political winner, but it was/is something I approve.

[hack]

Gotcha. Thanks.

[Da Geezer]

* sensible interpretation of "navigable waters of the US" to be limited to, you know, water

exactly.

Hack: In "navigable waters of the US" (hereafter "waters") have historically been defined as any waterway upon which a log can be floated. The Army Corps has allowed this to be reinterpreted, over several years, as a puddle that lasts for a discernable amount of time. The Corps has jurisdiction over waters and land adjacent to waters. (In 1989 it was 500 feet from the shore of the waters in MI). I know of no case where the Corps has failed to grant to state authorities jurisdiction over its waters when the state has stricter oversight.

I was the test case for the Dune Protection Act (DPA) that MI passed in 1988-9. I owned a 3.6-acre site with 200 feet frontage on Lake MI and about 400 feet frontage on a small "Lake" on my north boundary. (It was named Lost lake and was 92 feet deep. Surface area of 2.3 acres, and fed by a year-round stream) Both Lost lake and Lake MI were waters, and the AC deferred jurisdiction to the MI DNR.

The DPA prohibited building on slopes of a certain grade, and such slopes could be measured over a one-foot span if the DNR chose. On any normal dune, there would be some grade (1/4 slope I believe) over a small area that would make the dune unbuildable, which was the whole intent of the law. At the time, a case called Lucas v. South Carolina was the controlling SC precedent, and it necessitated "total" diminution of value to zero if a petitioner were to claim a regulatory taking. My land had no place where a cottage could legally be built.

The judge ruled, as a fact, that the DNR could allow me to fill in Lost Lake and build on the filled spot so created. No way this could be done, but the DNR didn't care, nor did the Judge. As a fact, she held that the filled lake was a "reasonable and prudent alternative site" within the meaning of Lucas. That "fact" cannot be appealed, so I was out of luck. I did apply for a permit to bring in enough fill to actually fill in Lost Lake, and the DNR denied that permit on other grounds, but mostly because to grant it would be crazy.

edit: This is the kind of overreach that the environmental agencies take part in regularly, and is what Talent explained above. Who can be against clean water? But, as in my case, the purported purpose of a law like the Dune Protection Act is seldom the way it is enforced. In my case, a four-person team within the DNR/DEQ wrote the Act, enforced the Act, and adjudicated compliance to the act.