Miscellaneous And Off Topic Subjects

[iam416]

As I understand it, the FBI can't go to to FISA, it has to be the Justice Department -- Obama's Justice Department. You can nuance that all you want, but the political optics ain't good. Nuance seldom is -- it's a sign that you're on the defensive.

I'd point out that the Ds are banging away on Russia without pretty much innuendo. The idea that Trump can talk to the Russians w/o colluding to fix the election or for any other rational reason isn't a high priority in their talking points. RUSSIAN PUPPET!!! is, though.

[iam416]

Talent's blatant thievery of the ideas of Neil A. Boortz. is both shameless and shocking.

Heh.

[froot loops]

Of the issues DJT has raised so far, immigration and wire tapping in particular, they are demonstrable of how little he knows of the complexity of each.

It also demonstrates his capacity to act uniliterally, without a lot of thought, in dangerous ways. Even his supporters here voiced concerns about that prior to him assuming the presidency. Gingrich has opined that if he doesn't stop doing that, listen more to the people around him before speaking, he won't last through his first term.

At one point I thought to myself that his act was a cunning way to shape perceptions of his presidency and the steps he was taking. Right now, it looks to me, that he is the dangerous, unprepared to govern idiot many opposed to him believed he was.

You would think a guy who has been talking about running for President for 30 years would actually have some knowledge on how it works. Not him. I'm not even sure he has the basics down to pass a schoolhouse rock quiz.

[hack]

As I understand it, the FBI can't go to to FISA, it has to be the Justice Department -- Obama's Justice Department. You can nuance that all you want, but the political optics ain't good. Nuance seldom is -- it's a sign that you're on the defensive.

I'd point out that the Ds are banging away on Russia without pretty much innuendo. The idea that Trump can talk to the Russians w/o colluding to fix the election or for any other rational reason isn't a high priority in their talking points. RUSSIAN PUPPET!!! is, though.

For much of the country there is nothing for which the optics are good. Trump tweets out that it's Obama's fault 122 Gitmo releasees are back in the fight, and that sits out there for all of two minutes before the mass of people point out that Bush released all but 9 of them, but you know who's gonna get the blame.

So, ultimately, the Ds should play the game. It's pretty easy so far. We can all agree that so far it's a coverup without a crime, but the coverup has been criminal to the extent that there will be some scalps. We have already decided in this country that that's all it takes. There need be no actual determining of whether Trump is compromised, treasonous, or simply in the pockets of people to whom he owes a lot of money. Although it sure looks like answers will be coming soon enough. If it gets to that point then it's not about bringing people down. It's about fixing the system so it can't happen again.

[froot loops]

As I understand it, the FBI can't go to to FISA, it has to be the Justice Department -- Obama's Justice Department. You can nuance that all you want, but the political optics ain't good. Nuance seldom is -- it's a sign that you're on the defensive.

That's not how I understand it, you are the lawyer so I defer to you but from what I read.

Https://www.justsecurity.org/38422/aint-easy-fisa-warrant-fbi-agent/

[Wild Hoss]

Not him. I'm not even sure he has the basics down to pass a schoolhouse rock quiz.

...or the patience to sit through the entire cartoon in the first place.

His entire tenure is going to be blurred by the constant stresses between the influence of the intelligent people he surrounds himself with (Kushner, Bannon) and his vapid, self-indulgent personality.

When he allows the administration the time to huddle and call a play, they'll tend to do OK...at least so long as their enablers hold control of congress. But he will constantly be interjecting random spurts of of hurry-up offense into his playcalling, and that's where they will faceplant time and again. There is just no way around the fact that he is the problem.

[hack]

When he allows the administration the time to huddle and call a play, they'll tend to do OK

I agree with your big picture here but arguably that's what's happened with health-care, which looks DOA given the four GOP senators pledged to vote against it.

[hack]

That's not how I understand it, you are the lawyer so I defer to you but from what I read.

Https://www.justsecurity.org/38422/a...ant-fbi-agent/

"twiplash" = favorite new word.

[Wild Hoss]

When he allows the administration the time to huddle and call a play, they'll tend to do OK

I agree with your big picture here but arguably that's what's happened with health-care, which looks DOA given the four GOP senators pledged to vote against it.

Healthcare is complicated.

[hack]

Yeah, but beforehand this was not known. Now that we know...

[iam416]

So, ultimately, the Ds should play the game.

Of course. It's not a new game to either party. I certainly don't fault the Ds for making as much hay out of the Russia thing as they can.

That's not how I understand it, you are the lawyer so I defer to you but from what I read.

I don't know the first thing about FISA. I was basing my statement of something I read. You can defer to me on matters of civil litigation and, in particular, intellectual property. But otherwise it's an unsound practice.

[Hannibal]

Actually if you believe the British reports, the FISA was more than a speedbump. It refused in the summer and it's unclear if anything was granted in October. Also, according to the reports they didn't involve wire tapping. It was about communications between a server in Trump Tower and some Russian banking servers.

The reports that I have read say that the first request was rejected not out of probably cause, but because it was too broad. That's not very comforting. Regardless, the surveillance was overtly political. It appears to have complied with the letter of the law, so the debate about that portion of it probably doesn't have much value.

The debate about whether the government should so easily be able to spy on political opponents is more important to me here. That the Obama administration would target political opponents shouldn't surprise anyone. That this instance was, in fact, legal (in the strictest sense at least) is what comes as a surprise to me. Based on what I am reading about the rejection rate of these surveillance requests, I have little doubt that this wasn't the first time that this happened. It wouldn't shock me to learn that every President of the past 40 years has done it in some form. There are supposed to be checks and balances on executive power. In this case, the "check" is a rubber stamp that does not fulfill its intended purpose.

[iam416]

Alright, well, when in doubt read the statute -- or perpetually argue about which author read the statute more correctly!

This is the broad authorization to seek warrants under FISA (in an early section, the President can, in certain circumstances, do electronic surveillance for up to 1 year w/o a warrant):

Each application for an order approving electronic surveillance under this subchapter shall be made by a Federal officer in writing upon oath or affirmation to a judge having jurisdiction under section 1803 of this title. Each application shall require the approval of the Attorney General based upon his finding that it satisfies the criteria and requirements of such application as set forth in this subchapter.

See 50 USC 1804 https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/50/1804

So, the FBI person can make the application, but that application has to be approved by the AG. A later provision makes it clear by implication that it doesn't have to be the actual AG (unless personally requested), so it's someone w/ authority at Justice.

[iam416]

The reports that I have read say that the first request was rejected not out of probably cause, but because it was too broad

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.

It appears to have complied with the letter of the law, so the debate about that portion of it probably doesn't have much value.

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

[hack]

The debate about whether the government should so easily be able to spy on political opponents is more important to me here. That the Obama administration would target political opponents shouldn't surprise anyone. That this instance was, in fact, legal (in the strictest sense at least) is what comes as a surprise to me. Based on what I am reading about the rejection rate of these surveillance requests, I have little doubt that this wasn't the first time that this happened. It wouldn't shock me to learn that every President of the past 40 years has done it in some form. There are supposed to be checks and balances on executive power. In this case, the "check" is a rubber stamp that does not fulfill its intended purpose.

I think there is going to come a time when Trump outs Obama on something in just that way. There's a lot that goes on behind the curtain, and most presidents would rather keep it that way for long-term benefits rather than expose it for short-term purposes. Is this that case? I don't know, but here we all are digging into the process and it seems pretty clear that we do not have information to support the idea Obama targeted Trump. Unless you think his plan was to:

1. Break the law on a Watergate scale
2. Do nothing partisan with the information
3. Not leak anything through surrogates
4. Ensure an orderly transition of power
5. Avoid the limelight