Replies: 59
| visibility 1
|
Oculus Spirit [93673]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 95422
Joined: 12/25/09
|
Surveilling an American citizen requires a FISA warrant.
May 14, 2020, 9:20 AM
|
|
|
Requesting a FISA is sticky when the object is part of a transition team during the transfer of power from one president to the next. But there's is a way to continually spy on someone in the incoming administration.
All foreign to domestic phone communications are recorded. The citizen's name is redacted to protest our right to privacy. Names are unmasked when national security is being threatened and/or when a crime is being committed or suspected. Typically, those who have names unmasked are high security clearance personnel in gov. Most typically they are high ranking intelligence and law enforcement personnel. These are the guards of our security and enforce our laws.
As Susan Rice said on MSNBC in April 2017 regarding unmasking, "We can't be passive consumers of this information and not, an do our jobs effectively to protect the American people. Imagine, if we saw something of great significance that involved Russia or China or anybody else interfering in our political process and we needed to understand the significance of that for us to not try to understand it would be dereliction of our duty."
She told us is that unmasking must take place when it protects the American people.
Thank goodness Obama had Flynn unmasked dozens of times to protection 'We The People.' Here's a list of the heroes who protected us from Flynn's treasonous acts.
It makes me wonder what law was being broken at the time of these unmaskings, what national security interest was threatened and why Flynn wasn't charged with those crimes or treasonous actions committed which justified the continual unmasking.
|
|
|
|
All-In [46825]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 30733
Joined: 8/11/15
|
I have a suggestion
May 14, 2020, 9:21 AM
|
|
let's completely repeal the Patriot Act including FISA courts etc.
Let's also stop McConnell from expanding the Patriot Act where the government can get your browser history without a warrent.
|
|
|
|
|
Heisman Winner [119723]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 54485
Joined: 6/24/09
|
Thought you were getting in your jon boat?***
May 14, 2020, 9:32 AM
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
All-In [46825]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 30733
Joined: 8/11/15
|
Waiting on kids to get dressed***
May 14, 2020, 9:33 AM
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Hall of Famer [22392]
TigerPulse: 99%
Posts: 31286
Joined: 11/30/98
|
Judge Sullivan is going to release the unredacted call
May 14, 2020, 9:30 AM
|
|
transcripts so we can see what Flynn was discussing the Russians.
That should clear things up quite a bit for 65% of the American People.
|
|
|
|
|
All-In [46825]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 30733
Joined: 8/11/15
|
Re: Judge Sullivan is going to release the unredacted call
May 14, 2020, 9:31 AM
|
|
Uh
oh
|
|
|
|
|
CU Medallion [56091]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 31648
Joined: 8/27/02
|
And we all know how hard it is to get a FISA warrant.***
May 14, 2020, 9:35 AM
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Oculus Spirit [93673]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 95422
Joined: 12/25/09
|
This was all done 'By the books.'
May 14, 2020, 9:42 AM
|
|
Rice sent herself a note reminding herself that Obama said 'By the books,' during that meeting the day Obama's Chief of Staff requested one of the dozens of Flynn unmaskings.
|
|
|
|
|
CU Medallion [56091]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 31648
Joined: 8/27/02
|
Cool.***
May 14, 2020, 9:43 AM
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Hall of Famer [22392]
TigerPulse: 99%
Posts: 31286
Joined: 11/30/98
|
|
|
|
|
Legend [17294]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 14239
Joined: 12/14/98
|
Perhaps the FISA warrant process and unmasking process
May 14, 2020, 9:38 AM
|
|
do not meet your expectations but both are “perfectly” legal.
Repeal the law and start over. Arguements over the legal nuances of the existing processes are worthless.
|
|
|
|
|
Oculus Spirit [93673]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 95422
Joined: 12/25/09
|
No, had it been legal Flynn would have been charged...
May 14, 2020, 9:49 AM
|
|
with something other than a process crime. You'd think after unmasking Flynn a dozen times and finding nothing illegal they'd figure out that he's pretty straight.
FBI pre interview note, "What's our goal? Truth/Admission or to get him to lie, so we can prosecute him or get him fired?"
No, they spied on Trump's campaign with the Carter Page FISA warrant which the got under false pretense then spied on Trump's transition team by unmasking Flynn dozens of times.
If you think that's OK then perhaps Trump will do likewise in 2024 and I'll check back when the shoe is on the other foot.
|
|
|
|
|
CU Medallion [56091]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 31648
Joined: 8/27/02
|
Process crimes aren't real crimes anyway.***
May 14, 2020, 9:55 AM
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Hall of Famer [24477]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 13968
Joined: 7/3/01
|
i asked this question below:
May 14, 2020, 10:23 AM
|
|
Do we want police starting with crimes and pursuing people.
Or starting with people and creating crimes for them?
You're down with the latter. Nice to know the left believes this. Russia has 50 million dead bodies due to this line of thinking. You guys would get along fine.
|
|
|
|
|
CU Medallion [56091]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 31648
Joined: 8/27/02
|
Don't presume to know what I'm down with.
May 14, 2020, 10:38 AM
|
|
And I don't speak for everyone on the left. Also, equating this prosecution to genocide is beyond even Captain Hyperbole.
In this case, the police started with a crime insofar as they were prepared for Flynn to lie to the FBI and then he lied to the FBI, which is a crime. They didn't "create" a crime.
|
|
|
|
|
Hall of Famer [24477]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 13968
Joined: 7/3/01
|
Not presuming. Concluding. We're talking about that
May 14, 2020, 2:29 PM
|
|
particular process crime. You made a condescending remark about opposition to prosecuting that particular process crime. It was a crime created by a national police who started with an innocent person and successfully attempted to lure him into a crime. I conclude you are okay with that. Say so if not, and I will gladly stand corrected.
I didn't say you speak for the left. You consistently, uniformly, speak with the left, who is also on your side regarding this particular process crime.
I understand your desire to stake moral high ground here, but no one is trying to take it from you. My conclusions are reasonable, based on your comments. If you Instead think Stzrok was out of line here, and if you thing a national police should not target an innocent individual, say so. Again, I will happily stand corrected.
But you did say things from which a reasonable person would conclude that you are fine with the police doing what they did. Feel free to correct.
|
|
|
|
|
All-In [34112]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 33621
Joined: 9/13/99
|
Re: Not presuming. Concluding. We're talking about that
May 14, 2020, 2:32 PM
|
|
You really need to stop saying "process crime" as if it's not a real crime. This is a Republican talking point that has apparently done its job of fooling people who don't know better.
They were investigating the Trump org's foreign contacts, and Flynn lied under oath about his foreign contacts. That's a crime.
|
|
|
|
|
Hall of Famer [24477]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 13968
Joined: 7/3/01
|
You are right. I dont like using buzz words like that
May 14, 2020, 3:01 PM
|
|
either, for the reasons you said. So, put your word on it. When I use that term I am referring only to this case and others like it:
- The police want to take a person down for any of a number of reasons, in this case political, perhaps the scariest of reasons.
- They found no illegal behavior. He was an innocent person.
- Had they left him alone, he was engaged in no activity that was illegal, and had little or no history of doing so.
- So they engaged him in a conversation, hiding the intent of that conversation, hoping he would say what he did.
He has yet to do anything wrong, other than to say he didn't do a certain thing, a thing which was very legal to do. Forget "process crime". That was shorthand for me. I was talking about that action by those police.
If you think that is okay, if you think police should do that, say so.
|
|
|
|
|
All-In [49050]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 38816
Joined: 12/31/97
|
Flynn had already said publicly that he did not speak to
May 14, 2020, 3:15 PM
|
|
the russians about the sanctions imposed by the Obama admin.
When a public official says something that a foreign government could ostensibly blackmail him with there is a reason to take steps to suss it out.
|
|
|
|
|
Hall of Famer [24477]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 13968
Joined: 7/3/01
|
Which they had done. It had been 'sussed out', on tape.
May 14, 2020, 3:23 PM
|
|
Again, they were about to close the file on Flynn. Nothing here, he's fine. Strzok went there simply to do what he did. It was a personal take down, no crime involved.
All this is now documented. This is not a condescending question: Have you read up on this case? Your comment indicates you think Strzok went there to suss out a crime. Even the FBI/Mueller say that is not the case.
|
|
|
|
|
All-In [49050]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 38816
Joined: 12/31/97
|
But if Flynn had already admitted talking to the Russian
May 14, 2020, 4:53 PM
|
|
about sanctions to the FBI - why did he lie about it later? If he hadn't (he hadn't) maybe it wasn't sussed out.
|
|
|
|
|
Hall of Famer [24477]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 13968
Joined: 7/3/01
|
There are two issues here, and we shouldn't confuse them.
May 14, 2020, 8:13 PM
|
|
You are focused on finding some way to say Flynn was guilty of something. That is not the main issue, but will cover that one next. As to Flynn, we now know there was no "sussing out". Nothing has been "sussed out." What we do know is that the FBI had actually decided to close the file on Flynn, meaning they knew there was nothing to "suss out".
This issue I am asking about is what do we want police doing. A. Start with a crime, and find the man. B. Start with an innocent man, and engage him in hopes of causing him to commit one.
Do you really want police doing B?
The saddest part of this is that people view this from a purely partisan place. No thinking person wants B. But let it be a guy of the other party, and sure, its fine. That is nasty stuff. Don't think its partisan? Consider the circular nature of this discussion:
"He lied". "About nothing illegal. He had done nothing wrong. He was an innocent man. "Maybe they thought he had maybe done something wrong. "We just covered that: they had already decided he had done nothing wrong.
That sort of circular discussion comes when a person just doesn't want to accept what is there. Dems don't want to admit that Flynn was an innocent man who Strzok had one last conversation with, hoping to get him to commit a technical crime. Its all there, in the FBI's own notes to close the file on Flynn, and in their own emails where they discuss the purpose of the "interview" being to get him to say something. Its all there. But a dem wont listen to it, will keep repeating the same questions that the record already answers.
The doj didn't drop this due to legal reasoning. They dropped it because the FBI's own records answer the questions the dems on this board keep repeating. The question is no longer what Flynn did or didn't do: we know that. The question is do you really support "B" above, because that is what happened.
|
|
|
|
|
Legend [18024]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 30156
Joined: 9/9/06
|
In regards to the FBI thinking of closing the case...
May 14, 2020, 8:50 PM
|
|
"A chain of messages included in the documents shows communications between Strzok and a redacted individual regarding the memo. On Jan. 4, Strzok messaged the other person to tell him or her not to close the case, apparently at the direction of FBI leadership. It’s not clear from the documents what caused the change in course, but another message between two redacted individuals notes a comment by Strzok suggesting that FBI leadership decided to interview Flynn after all.
The documents themselves don’t reveal the reason for the shift. But reporting by the New York Times provides a hint. According to the Times, the Jan. 4 decision not to close the case may have resulted from the FBI’s discovery that Flynn had spoken with Kislyak in the previous days and advised Russia against retaliating against U.S. sanctions levied by the Obama administration in response to Russian election interference—the matter about which FBI agents eventually interviewed Flynn, and about which he lied repeatedly to them. The issue was of concern to the bureau in part because it appeared that Flynn had lied to Vice President Mike Pence about those contacts as well, and the FBI became worried that Flynn’s falsehoods “posed a blackmail risk,” the Times writes. In other words, there’s a very good explanation for why the FBI made a U-turn on closing Flynn’s case: When the memo was drafted, the writer wasn’t yet aware of the most concerning conduct by Flynn.
In his recent book, “The Threat,” McCabe describes the chain of events that seems to have led to the discovery of Flynn’s conversation with Kislyak—and why the bureau wasn’t aware of that information before:
Near the end of December, the administration and National Security Council prepared sanctions on Russia as punishment for their involvement in the election … The sanctions were announced on December 29.
The next day, Russia’s president, Vladimir Putin, issued an unusual and uncharacteristic statement, saying that he would take no action against the United States in retaliation for those sanctions. The PDB [Presidential Daily Brief] staff decided to write an intelligence assessment as to why Putin made the choice he did. They issued a request to the intelligence community: Anyone who had information on the topic was invited to offer it for consideration. In response to that request, the FBI queried our own holdings. We came across information indicating that General Mike Flynn, the president-elect’s nominee for the post of national security advisor, had held several conversations with the Russian ambassador to the U.S., Sergey Kislyak, in which the sanctions were discussed. The information was something we had from December 29. I had not been aware of it. My impression was that higher-level officials within the FBI’s counterintelligence division had not been aware of it. The PDB request brought it to our attention.
...We felt we needed time to do more work to understand the context of what had been found—we don’t just run out and charge someone based on a single piece of intelligence. We use intelligence as the basis for investigation.
Quite apart from this history, there is nothing wrong with the bureau contemplating the closure of a case without interviewing the subject, then deciding not to close it and that an interview is appropriate, proceeding with the interview, and prosecuting the individual for lying in that interview. The emails do not make out even a colorable case of misconduct by anyone."
https://www.lawfareblog.com/flynn-redux-what-those-fbi-documents-really-show
|
|
|
|
|
Hall of Famer [24477]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 13968
Joined: 7/3/01
|
This pretty well answers my question:
May 14, 2020, 9:04 PM
|
|
No, you don't care that the police start with an innocent man and engage him in an attempt to create a crime, as long as the guy is of the other party. Why do I conclude this?
The article you linked, and your comments, are a very detailed account of the justification for the legality of that conversation they had with him. Here is what it doesn't address, let alone change: Flynn had done nothing wrong. They knew he talked with the Russian. They had that call on tape. They dissected that call every way from Sunday. The result is that the were going to close the file on Flynn. Let him go. He was innocent of anything remotely related to the investigation. Remember, he still hasn't been charged with anything other than that one lie about a call that was otherwise legal. And he wont be. Ever. Because he hasn't done anything wrong.
The response? A thousand words about why it was legal for Stzrok to have that last interview with him. The article and your comments ignore the fact that Flynn was then and is today innocent of any charges at all, other than a confession to saying he hadn't talked with a guy, a conversation that was perfectly okay anyway. That's it, sum total.
But you don't care. You don't know the guy, you don't know anything about him. What you do know is that he was in the Trump admin. That makes it okay by you.
|
|
|
|
|
Legend [18024]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 30156
Joined: 9/9/06
|
If he did nothing wrong, why lie?
May 14, 2020, 10:52 PM
|
|
I'll let the judge speak for me here:
"“All along, you were an unregistered agent of a foreign country while serving as the national security advisor to the president of the United States,”
“That undermines everything this flag over here stands for,” the judge said. “Arguably you sold your country out.”
“A high ranking senior official of the government making false statements to the Federal Bureau of Investigation while in the White House,” Sullivan said.
“Very serious crime,” Sullivan told the 60-year-old retired Army lieutenant general. “Can’t minimize that.”
"Hypothetically could he have been charged with treason?”"
and then the judge asked Flynn outright if he was entrapped:
"Flynn told Sullivan that he did not want to withdraw his guilty plea or to challenge the fairness of the FBI interview that led to his plea.
Flynn’s lawyer told the judge he had not been entrapped by the FBI.
“I was aware” that lying to the FBI was a crime, Flynn said, declining an offer by Sullivan to postpone the sentencing.
“Are you continuing to accept responsibility for your false statements?” Sullivan asked.
“I am, your honor,” Flynn answered.
https://www.cnbc.com/2018/12/18/judge-tells-michael-flynn-you-sold-your-country-out-at-hearing.html
You can continue writing thousand word theses about why he's innocent (despite strong evidence disputing that) and dismiss well-founded arguments against your argument as being 'partisan' simply because they disagree with you but it won't change the reality of the situation.
|
|
|
|
|
Legend [18024]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 30156
Joined: 9/9/06
|
Then why did McGhan and Priebus agree he had lied?
May 14, 2020, 5:37 PM
[ in reply to Which they had done. It had been 'sussed out', on tape. ] |
|
"Within days, White House lawyers — including the White House counsel, Donald F. McGahn II — had concluded, after reviewing the transcripts of the calls, that Mr. Flynn had repeatedly lied about his discussions with Mr. Kislyak. According to the findings by the special counsel, “McGahn and Priebus concluded that Flynn could not have forgotten the details of the discussions of sanctions and had instead been lying about what he discussed with Kislyak. Mr. McGahn and Mr. Priebus decided that Mr. Flynn needed to go and made that recommendation to Mr. Trump."
https://www.nytimes.com/2020/05/14/us/politics/trump-michael-flynn.html
Why did Pence say he had lied to him and why was Flynn eventually fired?
Why did Flynn plead guilty to lying to the FBI?
It seems clear the question isn't did Flynn commit a crime by lying to the FBI (as even Trump's own administration agreed happened) it's why did Flynn lie?
In-depth timeline: https://www.reddit.com/r/Keep_Track/comments/ghcupg/the_flynn_timeline_revisited_a_fivealarm_fire/
|
|
|
|
|
Hall of Famer [24477]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 13968
Joined: 7/3/01
|
This article is why people think there is no news anymore.
May 14, 2020, 8:50 PM
|
|
Outlets tell a story that appears unassailable because it contains nothing but facts. What the reader doesn't see is the part that is left out, or the timing of the reported events that give the conclusion context.
I have been through this in other threads so will just say this: If Flynn was guilty of anything, why had the Mueller team decided to close the file on him? Because he wasn't. They had already looked at everything in the article, and had decided that Flynn had done nothing wrong. The lie he confessed to was what he said to Stzrok after the decision had been made to close the file. He confessed to saying he had not talked to the guy. The call in question was already known by FBI/Mueller, they listened to the tape, they decided nothing was wrong. Let him go. Stzrok said, "Let me talk to him one more time."
That is 100% of what this is about. The 'confession' was regarding that one conversation, and only that one. No others. Stzrok knew he was interviewing an otherwise innocent man at the time.
The question is whether we want police deciding they want a guy, even if he's innocent, and engaging him in a way that might get him to say or do something he would not have otherwise said or done. Do you really want that?
|
|
|
|
|
Hall of Famer [24477]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 13968
Joined: 7/3/01
|
Sorry....again, shorter, to be clear:
May 14, 2020, 3:05 PM
[ in reply to Re: Not presuming. Concluding. We're talking about that ] |
|
A. The police start with a crime and find the likely guilty person, giving the case to the people to decide.
B. The police start with a person, and a motive to take him down that comes from the outside, in this case a political party. They thus start with that person, and no crime, and engage him with the intent of getting him to commit one.
Are you okay with "B"?
|
|
|
|
|
All-In [34112]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 33621
Joined: 9/13/99
|
Re: Sorry....again, shorter, to be clear:
May 14, 2020, 3:13 PM
|
|
You need to put some details into that "start with a person," because you make it sound like they picked Flynn's name out of a hat.
|
|
|
|
|
Hall of Famer [24477]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 13968
Joined: 7/3/01
|
Didn't mean to imply that at all. In the "B" scenario the
May 14, 2020, 3:35 PM
|
|
name is there for any number of reasons, no hats required. In this case it came from the "collusion with Russia" thing, which itself is now generating much evidence of a fraudulent basis, but that is actually another subject, except poliitcal motivations are one of the possible motivations for starting with a man. No hat, just politics.
They then did what was legal for them to do: they taped phone calls between him and the Russian in question. Fine. They found nothing. Again, the decision had been made to close the file on Flynn. The FBI/Mueller team, with great motivation to get something on somebody, was going to close the file on Flynn. He was that clean.
No, his name didn't come from a hat. They had a man. They didn't have a crime. So they went after the man. That the police can do that, whatever their motivation - in this case the worst motivation of all - is scary.
You raised the same issue in a question about Clinton above. I agreed with you. So, I repeat the question: Are you okay with the police doing that?
|
|
|
|
|
All-In [34112]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 33621
Joined: 9/13/99
|
Re: Didn't mean to imply that at all. In the "B" scenario the
May 14, 2020, 3:49 PM
|
|
You make a persuasive argument. If you'll bear with me I'll give you a better response than this. I was just reading something on this topic and I'd give a more informed answer after work when I get a chance to finish it.
|
|
|
|
|
CU Medallion [50635]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 43019
Joined: 12/3/98
|
lets just trade flynn for hillary
May 14, 2020, 6:27 PM
|
|
fbi said she committed multiple felonies but didn't mean to
|
|
|
|
|
Hall of Famer [24477]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 13968
Joined: 7/3/01
|
No worries. Tmail me when you do.: I might not come back
May 14, 2020, 8:38 PM
[ in reply to Re: Didn't mean to imply that at all. In the "B" scenario the ] |
|
and check this.
I'll even tell you how to frame your comments:
Whatever you say, I am inclined to think that my response will be that if it was wrong to trap Clinton into a lie (ask him about an affair) it was wrong to do it with Flynn, and is wrong to do it at any time.
I know it is hard to not look at this through political eyes, and I don't fault anyone for that. I do it too, of course. But what we can do is back away just far enough to see the universal issues. If it becomes accepted practice for police to start with an innocent man and lure him into saying something or doing something illegal, get ready for an endless string of "investigations" about supposed crimes the investigators don't even care about.
Exactly the same as Bill Clinton and the affair.
If the response is that the Flynn case is somehow different from the Clinton case, my response is that surrounding details do not affect the principle. We cannot give police the power to start with an innocent man lacking a crime, and bait or entice him into a crime he would not have otherwise committed. If that principle doesn't supersede all, the American ideal is over. And you are not safe.
That will be my response. So, you can form your comments to preclude that argument, if you like. Am I fair, or what?
|
|
|
|
|
110%er [6653]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 4999
Joined: 10/31/04
|
Re: No worries. Tmail me when you do.: I might not come back
May 14, 2020, 8:44 PM
|
|
Are you William Barr?
|
|
|
|
|
Oculus Spirit [93673]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 95422
Joined: 12/25/09
|
Point made but...
May 14, 2020, 12:51 PM
[ in reply to Process crimes aren't real crimes anyway.*** ] |
|
there some maliciousness in the statement "What's our goal? Truth/Admission or to get him to lie, so we can prosecute him or get him fired?" I also question the courts allowing the FBI interview of Strzok as evidence when the Strzok interview took place long after Flynn was interviewed. The prosecution didn't submit the original records and the FBI claimed the original couldn't be found.
This looks nothing like blind justice with the FBI courting whether or not to get Flynn to lie.
|
|
|
|
|
CU Medallion [56091]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 31648
Joined: 8/27/02
|
That statement doesn't sound malicious at all.
May 14, 2020, 1:03 PM
|
|
Seems like that guy was worried about the perception of the investigation, how the White House would react, and how it would affect the Bureau because there were political implications. I also never saw an answer to his question, which would be a critical bit of evidence if it exists.
It would be malicious if he said, "Our goal is to get him to lie so we can prosecute him or get him fired." But that's not what he said.
|
|
|
|
|
Oculus Spirit [93673]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 95422
Joined: 12/25/09
|
I agree that it would be much, much worse had they...
May 14, 2020, 7:09 PM
|
|
set a goal of getting Flynn to lie. My problem with the statement is that it should never have been a consideration.
|
|
|
|
|
All-In [49050]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 38816
Joined: 12/31/97
|
They do that ish all the time...
May 14, 2020, 2:09 PM
[ in reply to Point made but... ] |
|
so does every police department in the world. It's not much different than putting a trusty in the cell with a murder suspect to get a "confession." They never get a confession, but they always say they do.
The FBI is guilty of starting with the premise that someone was guilty of something that they wanted to root out. So they dig. It's not illegal no matter how frustrating it is to defense attorneys.
|
|
|
|
|
Oculus Spirit [93673]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 95422
Joined: 12/25/09
|
I know.
May 14, 2020, 7:13 PM
|
|
I watched NYPD Blues and Hill Street Blues. LOL
That doesn't make it right. This time it was spying on an incoming administration and they got caught.
|
|
|
|
|
Legend [17294]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 14239
Joined: 12/14/98
|
|
|
|
|
Oculus Spirit [93673]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 95422
Joined: 12/25/09
|
I'm speculating that the FBI had someone they wanted to...
May 14, 2020, 12:59 PM
|
|
charge with a crime or get fired? The Hill is far from being a conservative website.
TheHill.com FBI official discussed trying to get Flynn to lie in interview, 'get him fired,' notes show BY JOHN BOWDEN - 04/30/20 07:43 AM EDT 1,588
FBI official discussed trying to get Flynn to lie in interview, 'get him fired,' notes show © UPI Photo A handwritten note penned by an FBI official involved in the investigation into alleged ties between President Trump's campaign and Russia discussed the possibility of getting former national security adviser Michael Flynn fired, or forcing him to lie during his interrogation.
The newly unsealed note details the strategy against Flynn in his meetings during the early days of the investigation with agents whom he has accused of tricking him into lying about his foreign dealings.
https://thehill.com/policy/national-security/495401-fbi-officials-discussed-trying-to-get-flynn-to-lie-in-interview-get
|
|
|
|
|
All-In [34112]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 33621
Joined: 9/13/99
|
What, exactly, are you saying?
May 14, 2020, 10:05 AM
|
|
Between the sarcasm and the confusing writing I don't even know what we're supposed to conclude about this.
|
|
|
|
|
Rock Defender [53]
TigerPulse: 90%
Posts: 35
Joined: 11/30/98
|
You don’t ever seem to know much
May 14, 2020, 11:27 AM
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
All-In [34112]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 33621
Joined: 9/13/99
|
|
|
|
|
Oculus Spirit [93673]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 95422
Joined: 12/25/09
|
I think a reasonable person would think it's practical and..
May 14, 2020, 12:55 PM
|
|
logical that the FBI found a man and was seeking a crime. I think anyone can see how obvious that was in light of the FBI pre interview statement about getting Flynn to lie which eventually became the charge levied against him.
This is third world type politics, spying on the other political party's campaign and incoming transition team.
|
|
|
|
|
All-In [42195]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 38272
Joined: 11/30/98
|
|
|
|
|
All-In [34112]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 33621
Joined: 9/13/99
|
|
|
|
|
Oculus Spirit [93673]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 95422
Joined: 12/25/09
|
Truth knows no political party.***
May 14, 2020, 1:01 PM
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
110%er [8988]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 9788
Joined: 4/27/13
|
Re: Surveilling an American citizen requires a FISA warrant.
May 14, 2020, 10:46 AM
|
|
need to do away with the patriot act all together, secret courts have no place in america
|
|
|
|
|
CU Medallion [56091]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 31648
Joined: 8/27/02
|
Except the PATRIOT Act didn't create FISA courts.***
May 14, 2020, 10:47 AM
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
110%er [8988]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 9788
Joined: 4/27/13
|
Re: Except the PATRIOT Act didn't create FISA courts.***
May 14, 2020, 11:44 AM
|
|
"Title II of the Patriot Act amended FISA and greatly expanded the scope of surveillance allowed under US law. Foreign intelligence information could now be gathered from both Americans and foreigners. Government agencies no longer needed to prove that a target is an agent of a foreign power. The maximum duration of surveillance and investigations were lengthened."
https://www.comparitech.com/blog/vpn-privacy/a-breakdown-of-the-patriot-act-freedom-act-and-fisa/
|
|
|
|
|
CU Medallion [56091]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 31648
Joined: 8/27/02
|
See?***
May 14, 2020, 1:28 PM
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
110%er [8988]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 9788
Joined: 4/27/13
|
Re: See?***
May 14, 2020, 3:11 PM
|
|
see dis
"Title II of the Patriot Act amended FISA"
|
|
|
|
|
Oculus Spirit [93673]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 95422
Joined: 12/25/09
|
No, we need congress to take back the power of the people...
May 14, 2020, 1:03 PM
[ in reply to Re: Surveilling an American citizen requires a FISA warrant. ] |
|
and fairly examine the executive branch no matter who is in office. If Trump pulled this stunt and violated the civil rights of those on the next transition team I would be screaming for those guilty to be imprisoned.
That's the problem. No one in DC is accountable to our law.
|
|
|
|
|
CU Medallion [56091]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 31648
Joined: 8/27/02
|
Didn't that exact thing happen a few months ago?
May 14, 2020, 1:15 PM
|
|
When Congress tried to examine the executive branch and Trump & Friends ignored all the subpoenas and called it a witch hunt. Good times.
|
|
|
|
|
Oculus Spirit [93673]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 95422
Joined: 12/25/09
|
Yes but that's a matter of constitutional rights of the...
May 14, 2020, 7:15 PM
|
|
executive branch by separation of powers. It's the foundation of our Federal Government.
|
|
|
|
|
110%er [8988]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 9788
Joined: 4/27/13
|
|
|
|
|
Legend [17294]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 14239
Joined: 12/14/98
|
That sword will cut two ways.***
May 14, 2020, 1:59 PM
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
110%er [8988]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 9788
Joined: 4/27/13
|
Re: That sword will cut two ways.***
May 14, 2020, 3:39 PM
|
|
and that is what is needed
be great to see the backroom deals from vietnam through current wars
|
|
|
|
|
Oculus Spirit [93673]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 95422
Joined: 12/25/09
|
|
|
|
Replies: 59
| visibility 1
|
|
|