It's being reported the Republican memo details FISA abuse. Turley in his article above suggests the abuse is considerable and reaches far beyond its intended use. The abuse of government agencies by Obama administration is backed by examples/evidence going back to at least the IRS scandal (refusing 501C3 status to conservative organizations). If it's true, we have a right to know (and be outraged). If it's not, what do you and your precious government workers have to fear?
I have no fondness for any of the republicans. Justin Amash is the best of the lot (I do follow him on twitter). If things like this memo exposes Nunes and the rest of the lot as clowns, so be it. We still have a right to know what they see.
I don't have anything to fear. I have no particular stake in FISA warrants. Seems a little 'suspicious', though, that if FISA abuses generally were the issue, that they'd reauthorize and then complain about only this one particular supposed abuse. barfo
It looks more to me like the Democrats are terribly afraid of this memo. The only way we can judge for ourselves is to read it for ourselves and assess the expected spin in response.
Couple of things. NPR had a story about this the other day, and they are taking this serious. Obviously I was surprised as they tend to make light of most GOP items. You know there is something real that scares the hell out of the Dems. When offered the chance to read this memo, all the GOP and most of the Is did, but only a couple of Dems took a peek. Now the Dems are nit picking the changes made, that were typo and grammar, and are spinning how this was "altered". At this point, I am tired of all the bull, release the damn thing and lets get on with it.
Reason, FTW. http://reason.com/blog/2018/02/01/get-yourself-ready-for-the-memowill-it-r I've said much of what I've had to say about the prerelease fight over the memo earlier this week, but for anybody just tuning in: I think it's obviously a partisan-focused fight from two parties trying to discredit the other. But Americans do have a right to know how the surveillance state operates when it's investigating people closely connected to our president. I also still feel terribly frustrated that this debate has virtually no chance of becoming a substantive discussion of how much secret, warrantless domestic surveillance the FBI is already doing in violation of the Fourth Amendment. Instead, the current discussion is entirely about who may be losing or leaving their jobs. House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) wants Nunes stripped of his chairmanship of the House Intelligence Committee. That seems unlikely unless the memo ends up outright humiliating the Republican Party. In addition, now that FBI Director Chris Wray went out on a limb with a public statement that the FBI has "grave concerns about material omissions of fact that fundamentally impact the memo's accuracy," there are concerns that he might quit if the memo gets released. Recall, Trump selected him to replace James Comey after Trump fired Comey. The never-ending stream of shifting speculation makes the whole story hard to keep tabs on. What will matter is the actual contents of the memo when it's released. If it does come out tomorrow, I (and no doubt dozens of other journalists) will be all over it. In the meantime, Cato surveillance expert Julian Sanchez also feels the pain of the debate we're not having:
I think it is going to be tough for us to assess the memo, other than through our own partisan lenses. Suppose the memo said that Denny Crane is a murderer. What's the evidence for that? It's classified, you can't see it. Is there any evidence to contrary? Well, it isn't in the memo... but does that mean it doesn't exist? How do you decide whether Denny is a murderer as alleged? The answer is, if you already thought he was a murderer, this backs you up. If you didn't think so, this is no evidence at all. barfo
If the memo says the FBI used, even in part, the Steele Dossier, to get a FISA warrant, it's even in part, an abuse. That much we can tell, regardless of any classified info. If not more. In the absence of an actual crime, it's already clear the Obama administration did target Trump campaign officials. It wasn't low level career FBI investigators, but people at the top. Which sorta brings us to Mueller. If he cannot produce a collusion kind of crime, there is no possible obstruction of justice case. It is what it is.
In fact, if the memo does say the Dossier was used to get the FISA warrant, that information is already in the public record. https://www.cnn.com/2017/04/18/poli...-donald-trump-russia-investigation/index.html FBI used dossier allegations to bolster Trump-Russia investigation
No. That does not imply any abuse. Information is information. I'm sure the FBI gets information from much more disreputable sources than Christopher Steele, and they have means of figuring out what's legit and what's not. If you consider Carter Page a Trump official. But then, Carter Page was known to be a Russian stooge, so why was he a Trump official in the first place? Legally incorrect. Obstruction of Justice does not require an underlying crime. It is a crime unto itself. barfo
The dossier is unverified information. I have unverified information you committed murder. Let's have the cops harass you with that as justification! There is no obstruction of justice if there is no crime. What exactly is being "obstructed?" I guarantee you that if this is all Mueller might claim, there's ZERO chance of impeachment over it and surely no criminal charges over it.
Former Trump Aide Carter Page Was on U.S. Counterintelligence Radar Before Russia Dossier Court documents, testimony show foreign-policy adviser was known to authorities as early as 2013 https://www.wsj.com/articles/former...igence-radar-before-russia-dossier-1517486401
Wow! So, in investigating a crime where there is no evidence that crime was committed can result in obstruction of justice in the phony investigation? Are you serious or....
Sez you. But you don't actually know what the FBI has or hasn't verified. And besides, probable cause is the relevant standard here, not proof. If they have reason to believe you, they will indeed harass me. As they should. Justice. Duh. That's likely true. barfo
Yes, I am quite serious. You cannot impede an investigation legally, period. It's not the role of the target of the investigation to decide whether the investigation is valid. barfo
Well in this case we have a serious hole if the investigator keeps the case open. If what you say is true, he answers to no one. That can not be.
It appears this is a sham, or illegal investigation. There is no law against impeding an illegal act, which is what the memo is going to show this is.
None of that is true. If it were the case that targets could impede investigations they considered illegitimate, no investigation would ever happen, because every target would use that as an excuse to impede. Targets don't get to decide if the investigation is legit. barfo
