Apply Now!

The Trump Card...

RLENT

RLENT

Veteran Expediter
Turtle said:
Interesting spin that you can only be wiretapped if you are the TARGET of a wiretapping. Of course that's not true or accurate at all, but it is nevertheless interesting.
Click to expand...
See the Lawfare article linked earlier, which has some discussion on it.

Apparently the authors have a difference of opinion ... with Cheeto.

Turtle said:
Obviously, wiretapping (a term which includes any interceptions of any electronic conversations) Manafort is not the same thing as wiretapping Trump, but the distinctions rapidly disappear if Trump is actually on tape (a term which also includes digital audio files and other recorded equivalents).
Click to expand...
Wiretapping vs incidental collection - there's a reason WHY two separate terms exist.

Turtle said:
The legal distinctions do matter, but a well worn tactic of government electronic communication surveillance is that if they want to tap Person A but can't get a warrant, but they can get a warrant for Person B, and
Person B talks to Person A a lot, goal accomplished. The NSA had turned that tactic into a fine art.
Click to expand...
Yes, the legal distinctions do matter.



Sent from my iPhone using EO Forums
 
Last edited:
RLENT

RLENT

Veteran Expediter
Turtle said:
Just to make sure I understand this, you're accusing me of posting fake news, because I posted a screencap of Julian Assange's opinion?

Interesting, considering nobody ever gave a TED Talk at a restaurant. But there it is, in the news.
Click to expand...
It's all good (wink, wink, nudge, nudge)



Sent from my iPhone using EO Forums
 
Turtle

Turtle

Administrator
Staff member
Retired Expediter
The "out" on that will be if the wiretap was a Title III court order, which is a criminal investigation and not a foreign agent monitoring. But it doesn't appear to be a Title III warrant.

In any case, those FISA Court orders are extremely hard to get. An investigation has to have already been done and you have to have clear evidence that a crime has been committed, and the surveillance warrant will only confirm the evidence. I know this because the talking heads on CNN keep reciting those words almost verbatim to everyone who will listen.

The FISA Court averages 5 surveillance warrants per day. Between 2009 and 2016 they had more than 11,900 warrant requests. They denied 3 of them.

One of those, incidentally, was a request signed by AG Loretta Lynch to get a warrant specifically to wiretap Trump. Not enough evidence, I guess. After that was denied, DOJ went back and got a renewal in the Manifort tap. I'm sure that's just a coincidence, tho.
 
RLENT

RLENT

Veteran Expediter
Turtle said:
In any case, those FISA Court orders are extremely hard to get. An investigation has to have already been done and you have to have clear evidence that a crime has been committed, and the surveillance warrant will only confirm the evidence.
Click to expand...
Perhaps not:

“FISAs are sought when you are seeking foreign intelligence information on a foreign power or agent of a foreign power. Because you are not necessarily intending to gather evidence of a crime the standard is not as high as a criminal wiretap … That is, you don't have to allege a specific crime, but you do have to show that the target is acting on behalf of a foreign power. For U.S. persons … the (standard) is slightly higher: that the target is ‘knowingly engaging in clandestine intelligence activities.’ … Evidence of a crime obtained in the course of a FISA *can* be used in a criminal proceeding.”

Twitter

Turtle said:
I know this because the talking heads on CNN keep reciting those words almost verbatim to everyone who will listen.
Click to expand...
Well ... the above are the words of a former FBI agent ... who, ironically, was preparing to go on AC360 as she typed up the Tweet(s) ...





Sent from my iPhone using EO Forums
 
Last edited:
Turtle

Turtle

Administrator
Staff member
Retired Expediter
Perhaps. A lot of that is self serving for Wittes, who has his own history of questionable sources, including being a questionable source himself. The Lawfare Blog isn't exactly known for being an unimpassioned broker. Their pieces on the 9th Circuit Court's ruling on Trump's travel ban makes that clear enough.

They're not vehemently partisan, or vehemently anti Trump, as much as they are vehemently pro swamp. Or, as Glen Greenwald described them, "a courtier Beltway mentality" devoted to "serving, venerating and justifying the acts of those in power."

The Blog itself is marginally useful, especially where nonpartisan political issues are discussed. Otherwise you need to take it with the same grain of salt as any other blog or mainstream media outlet. This particular article is a mix of useful and laugh out loud funny.
 
Turtle

Turtle

Administrator
Staff member
Retired Expediter
RLENT said:
Turtle said:
In any case, those FISA Court orders are extremely hard to get. An investigation has to have already been done and you have to have clear evidence that a crime has been committed, and the surveillance warrant will only confirm the evidence.
Click to expand...
Perhaps not:

“FISAs are sought when you are seeking foreign intelligence information on a foreign power or agent of a foreign power. Because you are not necessarily intending to gather evidence of a crime the standard is not as high as a criminal wiretap … That is, you don't have to allege a specific crime, but you do have to show that the target is acting on behalf of a foreign power. For U.S. persons … the (standard) is slightly higher: that the target is ‘knowingly engaging in clandestine intelligence activities.’ … Evidence of a crime obtained in the course of a FISA *can* be used in a criminal proceeding.”

Twitter

Turtle said:
I know this because the talking heads on CNN keep reciting those words almost verbatim to everyone who will listen.
Click to expand...
Well ... the above are the words of a former FBI agent ... who, ironically, was preparing to go on AC360 as she typed up the Tweet(s) ...
Click to expand...
Yes, I am aware. I've read the actual legislation that details the scope and purpose of the FISA Court and the procedures. I was merely, with great yet apparently very subtle sarcasm, relating what the CNN experts keep spouting. They want to impress upon people that if a FISA warrant is issued, it's because someone is already guilty of something serious, and are about to get in big trubble. And those FISA warrants are really hard to get. You practically have to appear before a FISA judge with a mountain of evidence and a virtual guilty verdict already in your hand. That's what a former FBI agent who has obtained many FISA warrants said just last night on CNN.
 
Turtle

Turtle

Administrator
Staff member
Retired Expediter
Here's just an awesome example of the unbiased, nonpartisan, independent and thoroughly unimpassioned FactCheck.org's fact-checking of Trump's UN speech, where they contort themselves into a pretzel to create new contexts so as to show Trump's true statements as being either misleading or false. .
Trump’s U.N. Speech
 
Turtle

Turtle

Administrator
Staff member
Retired Expediter
A Wi-Fi router works on microwaves, and you can use them to spy on people in a room or in a building, even if you don't have direct access to the router.
 
muttly

muttly

Veteran Expediter
Retired Expediter
The real question is was then President Obama apprised of the wiretap of Manafort at Trump Tower?
 
  • Like
Reactions: Turtle
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top