Virgil Showlion
Distinguished Associate
Moderator
[b]leones potest resistere[/b]
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 15:19:33 GMT -5
Posts: 27,448
|
Post by Virgil Showlion on Mar 4, 2017 12:24:29 GMT -5
*sigh* I'll look it up. OK. www.nationalreview.com/article/443768/obama-fisa-trump-wiretappoints to www.nationalreview.com/corner/443752/trump-kompromat-story-its-all-disturbingThis seems to be the crux: From the three reports, from the Guardian, Heat Street, and the New York Times, it appears the FBI had concerns about a private server in Trump Tower that was connected to one or two Russian banks. Heat Street describes these concerns as centering on “possible financial and banking offenses.” I italicize the word “offenses” because it denotes crimes. Ordinarily, when crimes are suspected, there is a criminal investigation, not a national-security investigation.
According to the New York Times (based on FBI sources), the FBI initially determined that the Trump Tower server did not have “any nefarious purpose.” But then, Heat Street says, “the FBI’s counter-intelligence arm, sources say, re-drew an earlier FISA court request around possible financial and banking offenses related to the server.”
Again, agents do not ordinarily draw FISA requests around possible crimes. Possible crimes prompt applications for regular criminal wiretaps because the objective is to prosecute any such crimes in court. (It is rare and controversial to use FISA wiretaps in criminal prosecutions.) FISA applications, to the contrary, are drawn around people suspected of being operatives of a (usually hostile) foreign power. Hence it looks like the FBI may have been using FISA to fish on Pres. Trump's servers for evidence he was on the take from the Russians, which isn't typical behaviour if they planned on prosecuting him for a crime. That's what I get out of it. Is that a legitimate use of a FISA warrant? You tell me.
|
|
dezailoooooo
Senior Associate
Joined: Aug 28, 2016 13:56:33 GMT -5
Posts: 13,630
|
Post by dezailoooooo on Mar 4, 2017 12:42:31 GMT -5
Inj your scenario...a few innocent pops , a bit of running of the mouth and nothing more no , though if I knew I had such a loose lipped guy hanging around me , probably get rid of them...but if one was sent on a mission..and used the prop of a few pops to the right individual and let it be known seriously that after the election, these doings of the out going Presiudent would be removed...yeah...treasonable...conciouse doing to ..mix in when have no authority to undermine US policy...treasonable. If reversing US policy towards a foreign power--or even making it known to a foreign power that one intends to reverse US policy--is a treasonable offense, then how is Pres. Obama's restoration of friendly relations with Cuba after decades of hostility not also treason? Pres. Obama was undoing what he felt was a bad (or at least outdated) decision by former presidents. He didn't make any secret of it. Pres. Trump was vocal in his wanting to restore friendlier relations with the Russians throughout his entire campaign. It was no secret he disapproved of the stance Washington had taken. What exactly is treasonous about a reversal or a planned reversal of US foreign policy? The only qualifying circumstances I can think of is if Pres. Trump struck a deal with the Russian government very early on in the campaign with the understanding that the Russians would be illegally pulling data off of servers and either leaking it or handing it over to team Trump. In exchange, the Russians were promised a complete reversal of the sanctions placed on them once Trump was president. What you're talking about here doesn't even begin to resemble this. You seem to be saying that Pres. Trump wasn't/isn't allowed to be at odds with the previous administration on foreign policy vis a vis Russia. Really surprised at you Virgil...A sitting President has great powers on policies, especially foreign powers where believe gives a President total control over foreign policy...[May be a bit off there...been a long time since civic classes for me..but believe I am right in such powers to the POTUS] Trump . at the time of these alleged contacts was just a private citizen...had squat powers, same as I , u...no more or less...To deal with a foreign power..promising something after he assumed office which is against sitting Presidents policy...undermining a sitting President..definitly is treason..plus lying under oath too I believe.
|
|
dezailoooooo
Senior Associate
Joined: Aug 28, 2016 13:56:33 GMT -5
Posts: 13,630
|
Post by dezailoooooo on Mar 4, 2017 12:51:22 GMT -5
*sigh* I'll look it up. OK. www.nationalreview.com/article/443768/obama-fisa-trump-wiretappoints to www.nationalreview.com/corner/443752/trump-kompromat-story-its-all-disturbingThis seems to be the crux: From the three reports, from the Guardian, Heat Street, and the New York Times, it appears the FBI had concerns about a private server in Trump Tower that was connected to one or two Russian banks. Heat Street describes these concerns as centering on “possible financial and banking offenses.” I italicize the word “offenses” because it denotes crimes. Ordinarily, when crimes are suspected, there is a criminal investigation, not a national-security investigation.
According to the New York Times (based on FBI sources), the FBI initially determined that the Trump Tower server did not have “any nefarious purpose.” But then, Heat Street says, “the FBI’s counter-intelligence arm, sources say, re-drew an earlier FISA court request around possible financial and banking offenses related to the server.”
Again, agents do not ordinarily draw FISA requests around possible crimes. Possible crimes prompt applications for regular criminal wiretaps because the objective is to prosecute any such crimes in court. (It is rare and controversial to use FISA wiretaps in criminal prosecutions.) FISA applications, to the contrary, are drawn around people suspected of being operatives of a (usually hostile) foreign power. Hence it looks like the FBI may have been using FISA to fish on Pres. Trump's servers for evidence he was on the take from the Russians, which isn't typical behaviour if they planned on prosecuting him for a crime. That's what I get out of it. Is that a legitimate use of a FISA warrant? You tell me. What ever...what has that to do with his accusation that it was Obama who ordered this tap...this guy...our POTUS. ..is a loose cannon on a ship in a storm...with his control over 7000 nuclear weapons and their delivery systems..and unlike some here..I believe his paranoia, lieing , disallusionism is dangerouse for the country and getting worse...Every morning around 5:30 it's another crisis....I wonder if it's because he wakes up all randy and when he turns to the other side of the bed usually the only one there might be some SS guy rather then his beautiful wife so out cones the phone and the tweets begin...
|
|
Virgil Showlion
Distinguished Associate
Moderator
[b]leones potest resistere[/b]
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 15:19:33 GMT -5
Posts: 27,448
|
Post by Virgil Showlion on Mar 4, 2017 13:44:45 GMT -5
If reversing US policy towards a foreign power--or even making it known to a foreign power that one intends to reverse US policy--is a treasonable offense, then how is Pres. Obama's restoration of friendly relations with Cuba after decades of hostility not also treason? Pres. Obama was undoing what he felt was a bad (or at least outdated) decision by former presidents. He didn't make any secret of it. Pres. Trump was vocal in his wanting to restore friendlier relations with the Russians throughout his entire campaign. It was no secret he disapproved of the stance Washington had taken. What exactly is treasonous about a reversal or a planned reversal of US foreign policy? The only qualifying circumstances I can think of is if Pres. Trump struck a deal with the Russian government very early on in the campaign with the understanding that the Russians would be illegally pulling data off of servers and either leaking it or handing it over to team Trump. In exchange, the Russians were promised a complete reversal of the sanctions placed on them once Trump was president. What you're talking about here doesn't even begin to resemble this. You seem to be saying that Pres. Trump wasn't/isn't allowed to be at odds with the previous administration on foreign policy vis a vis Russia. Really surprised at you Virgil...A sitting President has great powers on policies, especially foreign powers where believe gives a President total control over foreign policy...[May be a bit off there...been a long time since civic classes for me..but believe I am right in such powers to the POTUS] Trump . at the time of these alleged contacts was just a private citizen...had squat powers, same as I , u...no more or less...To deal with a foreign power..promising something after he assumed office which is against sitting Presidents policy...undermining a sitting President..definitly is treason..plus lying under oath too I believe. Making it known to a foreign power that one disagrees with the policy of a previous administration and intends to reverse it, whether one presently has authority to do so or not, is perfectly legal. In order for something like this to even approach treason, there must be an actual quid pro quo deal involving illegal activity. I'll give you an example from your side. During his 2008 campaign, Pres. Obama met with representatives of Middle Eastern nations who were deeply concerned about a new "surge" under Sen. McCain in a continuation of Bush-era foreign policy. Suppose then- Sen. Obama assured them that his campaign rhetoric was true, that if he was elected he'd pull US forces out of the region ASAP and there would be no new "surge". If he delivered such assurances, hopefully it's clear to you they weren't treasonous. Nobody would suggest otherwise. Now... if Pres. Obama had (hypothetically) made such commitments in exchange for illegal campaign funding or illegal interference to sink Sen. McCain's campaign, then we might start talking about corruption charges. I still think treason would be a stretch. Do you get what I'm saying here? Pres. Obama's promises to reverse Pres. Bush's course on the Middle East, or Pres. Trump's promises to reverse Pres. Obama's course on Russia, whether or not these promises came before each man had the power to make good on them, aren't treasonable in and of themselves.
|
|
Gardening Grandma
Senior Associate
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 13:39:46 GMT -5
Posts: 17,962
|
Post by Gardening Grandma on Mar 4, 2017 13:52:05 GMT -5
The difference is this - Trump prides himself on being a "deal maker". "I make deals". That is what he does.....
|
|
Virgil Showlion
Distinguished Associate
Moderator
[b]leones potest resistere[/b]
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 15:19:33 GMT -5
Posts: 27,448
|
Post by Virgil Showlion on Mar 4, 2017 14:10:00 GMT -5
The difference is this - Trump prides himself on being a "deal maker". "I make deals". That is what he does..... Suppose he did strike a deal. Short of a video recording of him discussing illegal activity (e.g. hacking the DNC server) with Russian officials while on the campaign trail, making it clear some kind of deal had been struck, I don't see what an inquiry could possibly turn up that would prove sufficient to impeach him, much less charge him with treason. It just strikes me as being in the same boat as the Benghazi inquiries: a bunch of desperate people trying to draw blood from a stone. Even if Pres. Trump is guilty as sin, they only thing they'll accomplish is making themselves look like fools.
|
|
Gardening Grandma
Senior Associate
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 13:39:46 GMT -5
Posts: 17,962
|
Post by Gardening Grandma on Mar 4, 2017 14:15:04 GMT -5
Maybe. Maybe not. But an investigation, a real investigation is certainly warranted. Whether it turned up sufficient evidence for impeachment or anything else is not as important as finding out the truth.
|
|
dezailoooooo
Senior Associate
Joined: Aug 28, 2016 13:56:33 GMT -5
Posts: 13,630
|
Post by dezailoooooo on Mar 4, 2017 16:23:12 GMT -5
Really surprised at you Virgil...A sitting President has great powers on policies, especially foreign powers where believe gives a President total control over foreign policy...[May be a bit off there...been a long time since civic classes for me..but believe I am right in such powers to the POTUS] Trump . at the time of these alleged contacts was just a private citizen...had squat powers, same as I , u...no more or less...To deal with a foreign power..promising something after he assumed office which is against sitting Presidents policy...undermining a sitting President..definitly is treason..plus lying under oath too I believe. Making it known to a foreign power that one disagrees with the policy of a previous administration and intends to reverse it, whether one presently has authority to do so or not, is perfectly legal. In order for something like this to even approach treason, there must be an actual quid pro quo deal involving illegal activity. I'll give you an example from your side. During his 2008 campaign, Pres. Obama met with representatives of Middle Eastern nations who were deeply concerned about a new "surge" under Sen. McCain in a continuation of Bush-era foreign policy. Suppose then- Sen. Obama assured them that his campaign rhetoric was true, that if he was elected he'd pull US forces out of the region ASAP and there would be no new "surge". If he delivered such assurances, hopefully it's clear to you they weren't treasonous. Nobody would suggest otherwise. Now... if Pres. Obama had (hypothetically) made such commitments in exchange for illegal campaign funding or illegal interference to sink Sen. McCain's campaign, then we might start talking about corruption charges. I still think treason would be a stretch. Do you get what I'm saying here? Pres. Obama's promises to reverse Pres. Bush's course on the Middle East, or Pres. Trump's promises to reverse Pres. Obama's course on Russia, whether or not these promises came before each man had the power to make good on them, aren't treasonable in and of themselves. I get it all right..doubt u do...We both are playing a game of lawyer...which we are not...I say if found to have actively been in touch with Russians as they were in process of committing a act of war against us ...encouraging..suggesting ..taking part of interfering in our in electorial process as a foreign party to influence such in any way...whether successful or not..thats treason...same if as private citizen going to Russians as soon to be in power people to let Russians know that policy just put on them by the sitting government . president will be shortly over turned by the new government so act accordingly...only one government and government at a time...that too, treason. Seems many in government...actually both parties are desturbed by the accusations so think I have a point in my beliefs... If he publickly just disagreed with the doings of the Obama that would be fine....but accused of privatly meeting ....big difference. Since it is a difference in opinion..you and I....since neither of us are learned in the legal aspects of the matter..best to just disagree to disagree. As far as a formal investigation ...questions are asked of sworn individuals...knowing if they lie and later found to be lieing very seriouse penalties can be levied...Lets face it...in a short period of time our new Presidents government is getting to be the laughing stock of not just the country but the world..ever other day another bombshell dropped and then found not to be true...as todays latest..former President ordering wire taps..didn't happen..nothing happening...man is paranoid ...man has major problems and there is no end in sight...
|
|
Virgil Showlion
Distinguished Associate
Moderator
[b]leones potest resistere[/b]
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 15:19:33 GMT -5
Posts: 27,448
|
Post by Virgil Showlion on Mar 4, 2017 17:16:37 GMT -5
Making it known to a foreign power that one disagrees with the policy of a previous administration and intends to reverse it, whether one presently has authority to do so or not, is perfectly legal. In order for something like this to even approach treason, there must be an actual quid pro quo deal involving illegal activity. I'll give you an example from your side. During his 2008 campaign, Pres. Obama met with representatives of Middle Eastern nations who were deeply concerned about a new "surge" under Sen. McCain in a continuation of Bush-era foreign policy. Suppose then- Sen. Obama assured them that his campaign rhetoric was true, that if he was elected he'd pull US forces out of the region ASAP and there would be no new "surge". If he delivered such assurances, hopefully it's clear to you they weren't treasonous. Nobody would suggest otherwise. Now... if Pres. Obama had (hypothetically) made such commitments in exchange for illegal campaign funding or illegal interference to sink Sen. McCain's campaign, then we might start talking about corruption charges. I still think treason would be a stretch. Do you get what I'm saying here? Pres. Obama's promises to reverse Pres. Bush's course on the Middle East, or Pres. Trump's promises to reverse Pres. Obama's course on Russia, whether or not these promises came before each man had the power to make good on them, aren't treasonable in and of themselves. I get it all right..doubt u do...We both are playing a game of lawyer...which we are not...I say if found to have actively been in touch with Russians as they were in process of committing a act of war against us ...encouraging..suggesting ..taking part of interfering in our in electorial process as a foreign party to influence such in any way...whether successful or not..thats treason...same if as private citizen going to Russians as soon to be in power people to let Russians know that policy just put on them by the sitting government . president will be shortly over turned by the new government so act accordingly...only one government and government at a time...that too, treason. Seems many in government...actually both parties are desturbed by the accusations so think I have a point in my beliefs... If he publickly just disagreed with the doings of the Obama that would be fine....but accused of privatly meeting ....big difference. Since it is a difference in opinion..you and I....since neither of us are learned in the legal aspects of the matter..best to just disagree to disagree. As far as a formal investigation ...questions are asked of sworn individuals...knowing if they lie and later found to be lieing very seriouse penalties can be levied...Lets face it...in a short period of time our new Presidents government is getting to be the laughing stock of not just the country but the world..ever other day another bombshell dropped and then found not to be true...as todays latest..former President ordering wire taps..didn't happen..nothing happening...man is paranoid ...man has major problems and there is no end in sight... When the investigation turns up a few meetings over pizza between Trump staffers and Russians, just don't expect anyone sane and politically right of Nancy Pelosi to give a damn.
|
|
dezailoooooo
Senior Associate
Joined: Aug 28, 2016 13:56:33 GMT -5
Posts: 13,630
|
Post by dezailoooooo on Mar 4, 2017 17:22:11 GMT -5
I get it all right..doubt u do...We both are playing a game of lawyer...which we are not...I say if found to have actively been in touch with Russians as they were in process of committing a act of war against us ...encouraging..suggesting ..taking part of interfering in our in electorial process as a foreign party to influence such in any way...whether successful or not..thats treason...same if as private citizen going to Russians as soon to be in power people to let Russians know that policy just put on them by the sitting government . president will be shortly over turned by the new government so act accordingly...only one government and government at a time...that too, treason. Seems many in government...actually both parties are desturbed by the accusations so think I have a point in my beliefs... If he publickly just disagreed with the doings of the Obama that would be fine....but accused of privatly meeting ....big difference. Since it is a difference in opinion..you and I....since neither of us are learned in the legal aspects of the matter..best to just disagree to disagree. As far as a formal investigation ...questions are asked of sworn individuals...knowing if they lie and later found to be lieing very seriouse penalties can be levied...Lets face it...in a short period of time our new Presidents government is getting to be the laughing stock of not just the country but the world..ever other day another bombshell dropped and then found not to be true...as todays latest..former President ordering wire taps..didn't happen..nothing happening...man is paranoid ...man has major problems and there is no end in sight... When the investigation turns up a few meetings over pizza between Trump staffers and Russians, just don't expect anyone sane and politically right of Nancy Pelosi to give a damn. Whatever......
|
|
ErikMouse
Junior Member
Joined: Jan 27, 2017 4:56:11 GMT -5
Posts: 210
Favorite Drink: Green Tea / Raspberry Tea (cold)
|
Post by ErikMouse on Mar 6, 2017 5:34:50 GMT -5
Breaking - Sessions is recusing himself. Watching the questions:... "I don't recall"..... "I don't recall"..... I don't recall".... Seems to be having some (selective) memory issues... Or maybe you're seeing the first classic signs of Jeff Sessions going senile.
|
|
thyme4change
Community Leader
Joined: Dec 26, 2010 13:54:08 GMT -5
Posts: 40,441
|
Post by thyme4change on Mar 6, 2017 12:24:26 GMT -5
The real story with the Obama wire tap is that there is someone inside the government who leaked that information and Breitbart won't reveal its source.
|
|
Wisconsin Beth
Distinguished Associate
No, we don't walk away. But when we're holding on to something precious, we run.
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 11:59:36 GMT -5
Posts: 30,626
|
Post by Wisconsin Beth on Mar 6, 2017 12:45:20 GMT -5
This seems as good a thread as any to ask: For those tossing around words like "treason" and "impeachment", what exactly do you believe an investigation into... (I'm not even sure what to call it)... "campaign collusion" between Pres. Trump's campaign and (I'm guessing) the Russian government might turn up by way of actionable allegations? I would like to know who spoke with whom and when. I'd love to know what was discussed but I don't expect to get the full truth on that for about 50 years, if ever. I don't expect treason or impeachment to occur. I suspect the emulents clause or a stroke is how Trump could lose the Presidency. Which leaves us with Pence, who's a scary bugger too, just differently that Trump is.
|
|
Virgil Showlion
Distinguished Associate
Moderator
[b]leones potest resistere[/b]
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 15:19:33 GMT -5
Posts: 27,448
|
Post by Virgil Showlion on Mar 6, 2017 13:25:01 GMT -5
This seems as good a thread as any to ask: For those tossing around words like "treason" and "impeachment", what exactly do you believe an investigation into... (I'm not even sure what to call it)... "campaign collusion" between Pres. Trump's campaign and (I'm guessing) the Russian government might turn up by way of actionable allegations? I would like to know who spoke with whom and when. I'd love to know what was discussed but I don't expect to get the full truth on that for about 50 years, if ever. I don't expect treason or impeachment to occur. I suspect the emulents clause or a stroke is how Trump could lose the Presidency. Which leaves us with Pence, who's a scary bugger too, just differently that Trump is. I think you mean the Emoluments Clause--and I wouldn't hold my breath. As for knowing who spoke with whom and when, bear in mind: you've got hundreds of people working on the top tier of Pres. Trump's campaign (if you include the campaigns of A.G. Sessions and others, the number only multiplies); you've got thousands of lobbyists, businessmen, politicians, etc. connected with Russia and Russian interests running around Washington and the US; you've got countless campaign stops, fundraising events, RNC events, black-tie dinners, meet n' greets, etc. where group A is likely to come in contact with group B. Even if the people on Pres. Trump's campaign staff didn't book a single appointment to speak with the Russians (which itself is an absurd supposition given Russia's political importance), by sheer statistical odds there's still going to be dozens of cases where members of the two groups met and discussed something. Bear this in mind when (not 'if') the investigation turns up evidence of group A meeting with group B, and the media and Pres. Trump's many enemies try to spin straw into gold. Short of the investigation turning up regular closed-door meetings between high-level Russian officials and campaign staff at the highest level in Pres. Trump's camp, I don't see how the who and the when alone could lead to solid conclusions. The investigators are basically detectives looking for blood evidence in an abattoir. They're going to find some.
|
|