US Politics



  • Correlation, causality... or stuff that was just going on anyway?



  • Intel community trying to undermine Trump's presidency?
    Former Rep. Dennis Kucinich (D-Ohio) (calls out Pizzagate at the end - ha ha )



  • @Frank It is actually terrible that the US spy agencies wire tapped a U.S. citizen, with no legal basis, and then released to the media. That is horrific. No matter what side you support, the ramifications are enormous.



  • @Baron-Silas-Greenback said in US Politics:

    @Frank It is actually terrible that the US spy agencies wire tapped a U.S. citizen, with no legal basis, and then released to the media. That is horrific. No matter what side you support, the ramifications are enormous.

    Because Fox News reported it it as so? Because that interviewee says so?
    The Russian ambassadors call was intercepted. Flynn was the other party. It wasn't leaked to the press, it was provided through the correct channels to the president. The leak came from within the White House. Trump said so via twitter.
    I don't know if this is some kind of tit for tat misinformation campaign to counter so called fake news but the blatant lies to the media are beyond spin now.



  • @Baron-Silas-Greenback Didn't I read that the wiretap was on the Russian ambassador, not on Flynn? I'd have thought they'd at least attempt to tap every single communication with the Russians that they can, not just official ones.

    Edit - sorry, Crucial was way ahead of me. Ignore me.



  • the assertion that some in the intel community are gunning for Trump seems to be true though. They were publicly made an enemy of the administration and, in their eyes, had their importance demeaned. Some are now leaking to fight back.
    The recent allegations that Flynn wasn't the only Trumpee talking to the Russians has come directly from current and ex (I assume recently so) intel workers.



  • @Crucial said in US Politics:

    @Baron-Silas-Greenback said in US Politics:

    @Frank It is actually terrible that the US spy agencies wire tapped a U.S. citizen, with no legal basis, and then released to the media. That is horrific. No matter what side you support, the ramifications are enormous.

    Because Fox News reported it it as so? Because that interviewee says so?
    The Russian ambassadors call was intercepted. Flynn was the other party. It wasn't leaked to the press, it was provided through the correct channels to the president. The leak came from within the White House. Trump said so via twitter.
    I don't know if this is some kind of tit for tat misinformation campaign to counter so called fake news but the blatant lies to the media are beyond spin now

    Which president? The tap was done under Obama. As for where the leak came from, can you provide a source for your assertion that it came from the White House?



  • @JC said in US Politics:

    @Baron-Silas-Greenback Didn't I read that the wiretap was on the Russian ambassador, not on Flynn? I'd have thought they'd at least attempt to tap every single communication with the Russians that they can, not just official ones.

    Edit - sorry, Crucial was way ahead of me. Ignore me.

    So? It is still illegal to wiretap a US citizen without going through legal channels.



  • @Baron-Silas-Greenback said in US Politics:

    @JC said in US Politics:

    @Baron-Silas-Greenback Didn't I read that the wiretap was on the Russian ambassador, not on Flynn? I'd have thought they'd at least attempt to tap every single communication with the Russians that they can, not just official ones.

    Edit - sorry, Crucial was way ahead of me. Ignore me.

    So? It is still illegal to wiretap a US citizen without going through legal channels.

    That boat sailed under Obama. The infrastructure they setup over the past decade makes the recent 1984 bleating seem far too late.



  • @Baron-Silas-Greenback said in US Politics:

    @Crucial said in US Politics:

    @Baron-Silas-Greenback said in US Politics:

    @Frank It is actually terrible that the US spy agencies wire tapped a U.S. citizen, with no legal basis, and then released to the media. That is horrific. No matter what side you support, the ramifications are enormous.

    Because Fox News reported it it as so? Because that interviewee says so?
    The Russian ambassadors call was intercepted. Flynn was the other party. It wasn't leaked to the press, it was provided through the correct channels to the president. The leak came from within the White House. Trump said so via twitter.
    I don't know if this is some kind of tit for tat misinformation campaign to counter so called fake news but the blatant lies to the media are beyond spin now

    Which president? The tap was done under Obama. As for where the leak came from, can you provide a source for your assertion that it came from the White House?

    I'll try and look back for it but I'm fairly certain that the sources referred to originally were 'White House ' ones not agency ones.
    The tap was done under Obama, yes, but wasn't a tap on Flynn as you claim. Nor was it 'illegal'. Pretty standard stuff since forever to intercept Comms from embassies.
    The interception would have only become of interest after Pence said Flynn assured him that sanctions weren't discussed. That then becomes a risk of blackmail against Flynn for lying so was briefed as such through the DoJ.
    Given that the WH is about as secure as a sieve at the moment with regard to information (source Pres. Trump @ twitter) why would it surprise you that the story broke from within?



  • @Baron-Silas-Greenback said in US Politics:

    @JC said in US Politics:

    @Baron-Silas-Greenback Didn't I read that the wiretap was on the Russian ambassador, not on Flynn? I'd have thought they'd at least attempt to tap every single communication with the Russians that they can, not just official ones.

    Edit - sorry, Crucial was way ahead of me. Ignore me.

    So? It is still illegal to wiretap a US citizen without going through legal channels.

    This is the stupid thing.. Flynn was in that game. The first assumption anyone in that game makes when communicating via anything other than an encrypted system in a SKIF is that someone else is probably listening.



  • @Crucial said in US Politics:

    @Baron-Silas-Greenback said in US Politics:

    @Crucial said in US Politics:

    @Baron-Silas-Greenback said in US Politics:

    @Frank It is actually terrible that the US spy agencies wire tapped a U.S. citizen, with no legal basis, and then released to the media. That is horrific. No matter what side you support, the ramifications are enormous.

    Because Fox News reported it it as so? Because that interviewee says so?
    The Russian ambassadors call was intercepted. Flynn was the other party. It wasn't leaked to the press, it was provided through the correct channels to the president. The leak came from within the White House. Trump said so via twitter.
    I don't know if this is some kind of tit for tat misinformation campaign to counter so called fake news but the blatant lies to the media are beyond spin now

    Which president? The tap was done under Obama. As for where the leak came from, can you provide a source for your assertion that it came from the White House?

    I'll try and look back for it but I'm fairly certain that the sources referred to originally were 'White House ' ones not agency ones.
    The tap was done under Obama, yes, but wasn't a tap on Flynn as you claim. Nor was it 'illegal'. Pretty standard stuff since forever to intercept Comms from embassies.
    The interception would have only become of interest after Pence said Flynn assured him that sanctions weren't discussed. That then becomes a risk of blackmail against Flynn for lying so was briefed as such through the DoJ.
    Given that the WH is about as secure as a sieve at the moment with regard to information (source Pres. Trump @ twitter) why would it surprise you that the story broke from within?

    The source? Thats it?
    Well that means squat.
    And yes it is 100% illegal. You cannot listen in on US citizens conversations without going through the legal process.



  • @Baron-Silas-Greenback Forgetting the source for a moment, my understanding is that they cannot tap US citizens and the argument in this case is that they were tapping the Russian Embassy not Flynn?



  • @Baron-Silas-Greenback said in US Politics:

    @booboo said in US Politics:

    Just a reminder folks. This thread was shut down because it got too heated.

    As I understand it we are conducting "extreme vetting" on posts. Don't take it personally.

    Rancid. I deleted your post. Not because I disagreed with it (I actually liked it) , but because we want to avoid avoid this thread turning into a thread about posters again.
    I would have also deleted the posts that prompted your reply as well (@Gollum , @Catogrande ).. but the thread has moved on.

    And I can assure you that many posters posts are getting removed.. you just dont see them :)

    If the post of mine that you refer to was about things being quiet on here, it was very much meant tongue in cheek, not as a snide side-swipe at anyone. Apologies if it was taken that way.



  • @Catogrande said in US Politics:

    @Baron-Silas-Greenback Forgetting the source for a moment, my understanding is that they cannot tap US citizens and the argument in this case is that they were tapping the Russian Embassy not Flynn?

    Doesnt make a difference, they are not allowed to record conversations of citizens.



  • @Baron-Silas-Greenback Not quite. They just have to get the right authorisations. They are allowed to continuously intercept communications by foreign agents. If a US counterpart is involved they need to get that authorised afterwards.

    I have no idea whether authorisation was obtained here though.



  • @Baron-Silas-Greenback said in US Politics:

    @Catogrande said in US Politics:

    @Baron-Silas-Greenback Forgetting the source for a moment, my understanding is that they cannot tap US citizens and the argument in this case is that they were tapping the Russian Embassy not Flynn?

    Doesnt make a difference, they are not allowed to record conversations of citizens.

    Since when? -

    http://www.nytimes.com/2007/08/06/washington/06nsa.html

    Bush OK'd it in 2007. The NSA can tap anyone they want, so long as it broadly in the national interests. Patriot Act greenlit almost anything, Bush, then Obama expanded it. Its all part of the war on terror. Hard to argue tapping a Russian talking to an unelected ex spook doesn't fall under that...

    The ridiculous thing re Flynn is Carter Page & Paul Manafort have already been shitcanned over links to Russia brought to light the same way, its not like he wouildn't have known the spotlight was on. He just assumed he was bulletproof because he was with Trump. Its that mentality of "I can break the law & comit treason if it helps Trump"

    Re posters going missing, it was slightly tongue in cheek after I went on holiday for 2 weeks, came back to full on abuse, so it seemed slightly ironic the tumbleweeds on here given the day before it'd been Trump central. Obviously I fully apologise if I hurt anyone.



  • @Baron-Silas-Greenback said in US Politics:

    @Crucial said in US Politics:

    @Baron-Silas-Greenback said in US Politics:

    @Crucial said in US Politics:

    @Baron-Silas-Greenback said in US Politics:

    @Frank It is actually terrible that the US spy agencies wire tapped a U.S. citizen, with no legal basis, and then released to the media. That is horrific. No matter what side you support, the ramifications are enormous.

    Because Fox News reported it it as so? Because that interviewee says so?
    The Russian ambassadors call was intercepted. Flynn was the other party. It wasn't leaked to the press, it was provided through the correct channels to the president. The leak came from within the White House. Trump said so via twitter.
    I don't know if this is some kind of tit for tat misinformation campaign to counter so called fake news but the blatant lies to the media are beyond spin now

    Which president? The tap was done under Obama. As for where the leak came from, can you provide a source for your assertion that it came from the White House?

    I'll try and look back for it but I'm fairly certain that the sources referred to originally were 'White House ' ones not agency ones.
    The tap was done under Obama, yes, but wasn't a tap on Flynn as you claim. Nor was it 'illegal'. Pretty standard stuff since forever to intercept Comms from embassies.
    The interception would have only become of interest after Pence said Flynn assured him that sanctions weren't discussed. That then becomes a risk of blackmail against Flynn for lying so was briefed as such through the DoJ.
    Given that the WH is about as secure as a sieve at the moment with regard to information (source Pres. Trump @ twitter) why would it surprise you that the story broke from within?

    The source? Thats it?
    Well that means squat.
    And yes it is 100% illegal. You cannot listen in on US citizens conversations without going through the legal process.

    Ok I traced this back to the Washington Post who others have credited as breaking the story.
    I concede I was wrong, having misread a CNN article.

    • The WP source's were described as "current and former U.S. officials"
      -CNN had said "A White House official also confirmed the warning"

    So the original leak about the warning from Yates didn't come from the WH.

    However, my point that the concerns originally went through the proper channels was correct. The leak came after a failure to act by the WH. Leaving Flynn in his position after receiving that briefing was plain stupid and potentially dangerous. This provided the 'sources' the inclination to go to the press.

    As for the illegality of the intercept....this from the WSJ explains the intercepts

    "U.S. intelligence services routinely get orders from the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court to monitor foreign officials. But under U.S. law, when they get those orders they are supposed to use “minimization” procedures that don’t let them listen to the communications of Americans who may be caught in such eavesdropping. That is, they are supposed to protect the identity and speech of innocent Americans. Yet the Washington Post, which broke the story, says it spoke to multiple U.S. officials claiming to know what Mr. Flynn said on that call."

    I'm surmising that the key thing here in any argument of legality would be the term 'innocent Americans' (I don't know if that is the actual wording of a court order). In the timeline of events this call would have been reviewed as part of the investigation as to why Putin surprisingly didn't counter Obama's sanctions. They would probably argue 'just cause' for reviewing what Flynn said and then that it was usable because he wasn't innocent.

    BTW: If this intercept was illegal I'm very surprised the Trump administration hasn't latched onto that and trump hasn't tweeted indignation given the animosity between him and the intel community.



  • @Catogrande said in US Politics:

    @Baron-Silas-Greenback said in US Politics:

    @booboo said in US Politics:

    Just a reminder folks. This thread was shut down because it got too heated.

    As I understand it we are conducting "extreme vetting" on posts. Don't take it personally.

    Rancid. I deleted your post. Not because I disagreed with it (I actually liked it) , but because we want to avoid avoid this thread turning into a thread about posters again.
    I would have also deleted the posts that prompted your reply as well (@Gollum , @Catogrande ).. but the thread has moved on.

    And I can assure you that many posters posts are getting removed.. you just dont see them :)

    If the post of mine that you refer to was about things being quiet on here, it was very much meant tongue in cheek, not as a snide side-swipe at anyone. Apologies if it was taken that way.

    It was quite obviously a swipe at your Welsh friends. Hope you feel ashamed :)



  • A little more research on the FISA Act shows that EO 12333 looks on first reading to have made this intercept of Flynn's call legal and what I was referring to when I said 'he should have known that being in the game he could have been intercepted'

    I'll cut and paste a few bits, but here is a link to a paper that explains it and provides full context...

    https://fas.org/sgp/crs/intel/RL30465.pdf

    Collection of foreign intelligence information through electronic
    surveillance is now governed by FISA and E.O. 12333.16 This report will examine
    the provisions of FISA which deal with electronic surveillance in the foreign
    intelligence context........

    Executive Order 12333

    ....Among the types of information that can be collected, retained
    or disseminated under this section are:

    (e) Information needed to protect foreign intelligence or counterintelligence
    sources or methods from unauthorized disclosure. Collection within the United
    States shall be undertaken by the FBI except that other agencies of the
    Intelligence Community may also collect such information concerning present
    or former employees, present or former intelligence agency contractors or their
    present or former employees, or applicants for any such employment or
    contracting;

    ......In addition, agencies within the Intelligence Community may disseminate
    information, other than information derived from signals intelligence, to each
    appropriate agency within the Intelligence Community for purposes of allowing
    the recipient agency to determine whether the information is relevant to its
    responsibilities and can be retained by it.

    Section 2.5 of the Executive Order 12333 states that:
    The Attorney General hereby is delegated the power to approve the use for
    intelligence purposes, within the United States or against a United States person
    abroad, of any technique for which a warrant would be required if undertaken for
    law enforcement purposes, provided that such techniques shall not be undertaken
    unless the Attorney General has determined in each case that there is probable
    cause to believe that the technique is directed against a foreign power or an agent
    of a foreign power.

    There are also provios in the Act for Flynn to sue if he can make a case that they have broken the law in this regard.


Log in to reply

Looks like your connection to US Politics was lost, please wait while we try to reconnect.