TrumpPutingate III: the beginning of the end

#9,327
#9,327
Mick said:
Wow. Not even a single mention of FISA. Very deceptive of you.
Click to expand...

Really? You're flailing.

McCarthy’s point here means that the surveillance authorized by the FISA warrant wasn’t limited to the personal communications of Carter Page; it only began there. To understand the “conspiratorial enterprise,” investigators and analysts have to follow up on all the entities Carter Page is in contact with.

And they don’t stop there. A conspiratorial enterprise is bound to involve communications beyond Carter Page’s first circle of direct contact, so investigators need to look at the next circle as well. They may need to look further, depending on the communications patterns they find in the first two circles radiating from their named target. But under current rules, it’s the first two that government investigators can routinely gain access to in order to “uncover the full scope of a conspiratorial enterprise,” without needing to apply for further warrants.

Why Civil Libertarians Should Be Worried about the FISA Warrant on Carter Page – Tablet Magazine
Click to expand...
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
#9,328
#9,328
Orange_Crush said:
Really? You're flailing.
Click to expand...

From same article.

Some of the surveillance done under “warrant” approval from the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court (FISC) may be current surveillance, which may entail watching a subject’s texts, emails, phone calls, etc. as they occur in real time. But a great deal of what we call “surveillance” today is actually data-mining—using the fabled NSA database—or direct requests from federal agencies for customer data stored by telecoms and internet service providers.

Analysts look at communications patterns before trying to narrow down roles and identities in a conspiracy. They don’t probe beyond “metadata” for personally identifying information at random, or on every contact they see in the array of a subject’s communications. There is a good-faith overlay of rules, analytical judgment, and supervision on the entire process.

Do you know what metadata is?
 
Last edited:
#9,329
#9,329
Mick said:
From same article.

Some of the surveillance done under “warrant” approval from the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court (FISC) may be current surveillance, which may entail watching a subject’s texts, emails, phone calls, etc. as they occur in real time. But a great deal of what we call “surveillance” today is actually data-mining—using the fabled NSA database—or direct requests from federal agencies for customer data stored by telecoms and internet service providers.

Analysts look at communications patterns before trying to narrow down roles and identities in a conspiracy. They don’t probe beyond “metadata” for personally identifying information at random, or on every contact they see in the array of a subject’s communications. There is a good-faith overlay of rules, analytical judgment, and supervision on the entire process.

Do you know what metadata is?
Click to expand...

That in no way negates the FACT that they can eavesdrop on people the subject communicates with up to 2 hops, and it used to be three. How they decide "some" of the time who that is is beside the point.

You're flailing, Mick.
 
#9,330
#9,330
I am amazed at how Republicans are suddenly so offended and outraged by the FISA process, itself.

They were all for it, until ....
 
#9,331
#9,331
Mick said:
From same article.

Some of the surveillance done under “warrant” approval from the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court (FISC) may be current surveillance, which may entail watching a subject’s texts, emails, phone calls, etc. as they occur in real time. But a great deal of what we call “surveillance” today is actually data-mining—using the fabled NSA database—or direct requests from federal agencies for customer data stored by telecoms and internet service providers.

Analysts look at communications patterns before trying to narrow down roles and identities in a conspiracy. They don’t probe beyond “metadata” for personally identifying information at random, or on every contact they see in the array of a subject’s communications. There is a good-faith overlay of rules, analytical judgment, and supervision on the entire process.

Do you know what metadata is?
Click to expand...

Orange_Crush said:
That in no way negates the FACT that they can eavesdrop on people the subject communicates with up to 2 hops, and it used to be three. How they decide "some" of the time who that is is beside the point.

You're flailing, Mick.
Click to expand...

Who's being deceptive here, Mick? Why not go back and quote the next several paragraphs after what you quoted? You quoted it to convince us that all they're getting is metadata.

But the article then makes blatant that they use the hop rule to parse metadata of everyone that person has communicated with--sometimes for years--and then use that as a right to eavesdrop on any or all of those people without a warrant. Then they can use metadata (sometimes years of it) to eavesdrop on any or all persons *those* people communicated with without a warrant.

Using one FISA warrant, they can parse metadata to compile a list of literally thousands upon thousands of people that they can eaves drop on without a warrant.

And that's what they used Carter Page to do on the Trump campaign.
 
#9,333
#9,333
Orange_Crush said:
Who's being deceptive here, Mick? Why not go back and quote the next several paragraphs after what you quoted? You quoted it to convince us that all they're getting is metadata.

But the article then makes blatant that they use the hop rule to parse metadata of everyone that person has communicated with--sometimes for years--and then use that as a right to eavesdrop on any or all of those people without a warrant. Then they can use metadata (sometimes years of it) to eavesdrop on any or all persons *those* people communicated with without a warrant.

Using one FISA warrant, they can parse metadata to compile a list of literally thousands upon thousands of people that they can eaves drop on without a warrant.

And that's what they used Carter Page to do on the Trump campaign.
Click to expand...

It does not say they can eavesdrop on the people associated with the metadata without a warrant. It means they can collect metadata from them. Metadata is not recorded phone conversations, texts, recordings, or watching their movements. They can't wiretap their phones or anything like that. You are mistaken if you think they can without a warrant.
 
#9,335
#9,335
Mick said:
It does not say they can eavesdrop on the people associated with the metadata without a warrant. It means they can collect metadata from them. Metadata is not recorded phone conversations, texts, recordings, or watching their movements. They can't wiretap their phones or anything like that. You are mistaken if you think they can without a warrant.
Click to expand...

You are wrong. That's the entire point of the article.
 
#9,336
#9,336
LouderVol said:
yes, yes. a witch hunt would be polarizing.

admittedly I didn't read the article so I am just jumping at head lines.
Click to expand...

Basic thrust is that initially lots of those polled didn't have a view on the Mueller probe. Those undecideds have now started to fall one way or the other.
 
#9,337
#9,337
LouderVol said:
yes, yes. a witch hunt would be polarizing.

admittedly I didn't read the article so I am just jumping at head lines.
Click to expand...

Orange_Crush said:
You are wrong. That's the entire point of the article.
Click to expand...

...

Think that over for a moment, and you can see why the Carter Page warrant is important. The possible abuse of that warrant for partisan political purposes would likely be a violation not just of Page’s rights, but of the rights of thousands of other Americans—and by extension, of the right of all Americans to be free from warrantless surveillance.
Click to expand...
 
#9,338
#9,338
evillawyer said:
Basic thrust is that initially lots of those polled didn't have a view on the Mueller probe. Those undecideds have now started to fall one way or the other.
Click to expand...

I believe most Americans want Mueller to wrap up his Russia election probe soon and tell the country whether there was any collusion between the Kremlin and President Trump’s campaign. This is a cloud that is hanging over the country and certainly hanging over this presidency. The point here is that this whole issue has to come to a resolution, hopefully very soon...but I doubt it, Mueller and his band of prosecutors have to 'find something or get someone'; so they'll run with it for years if allowed. I just can't see them 'quitting' with nothing.
 
#9,339
#9,339
Vol0725 said:
I believe most Americans want Mueller to wrap up his Russia election probe soon and tell the country whether there was any collusion between the Kremlin and President Trump’s campaign. This is a cloud that is hanging over the country and certainly hanging over this presidency. The point here is that this whole issue has to come to a resolution, hopefully very soon...but I doubt it, Mueller and his band of prosecutors have to 'find something or get someone'; so they'll run with it for years if allowed. I just can't see them 'quitting' with nothing.
Click to expand...

this is one of my things. If they wait too long, and finally get him towards the end of the term, damage done. secondly if they already have him now, or a while ago. but continue down the rabbit hole digging up every last Republican they can, they aren't going to get a huge "optics" win with the public. "We knew he was a traitor, could prove it, but we let him stay in power just so we could run all of this down" doesn't sell.
 
#9,340
#9,340
luthervol said:
He wanted back in the G8. Exactly what advantage does being in the G8 accomplish for Russia? Other than being in the "cool kids club"?

Oh, wait...

Russia announces plan to permanently leave G8 group of industrialised nations after suspension for Crimea annexation | The Independent

He wanted NK and the US to cool off toward one another. He does? Wouldn't he want to continue the hatred between the two nations in order to potentially draw them into an ally state?

He wanted to see a deterioration in the relationships between the US and their traditional allies. Okay, more than a few nations know this. However, the troubles with Russia far predate Trump even announcing his candidacy, so this is a moronic point.

He wanted someone he had leverage over. Yeah, there is proof I assume?

He wanted public discourse within the US. For what exactly? And why shouldn't we want a more open and public discourse with Russia?

He wanted someone who would greatly damage the free press. Oh, I'd say they are damaging themselves just fine without the aid of Trump as of late.

Unless, of course, you're one of those conspiracy theorists that thinks Trump is going to limit the free press. In that case, lulz

He wanted someone who had the same world view of an elitist Caucasian power structure. Yeah, this one is just stupid and I'm not even going to respond.

He wanted someone who agreed that all men were not created equal. See answer immediately above.

He wanted someone who would rip the fabric of American society completely in half. (a divider and not a uniter) (hint, this isn't specific to Trump)
Click to expand...

So, I finally got the chance to get to this nonsense...
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
#9,342
#9,342
evillawyer said:
Bad blood: The roots of the hostility between Putin and Clinton - The Washington Post

Why does Vladimir Putin hate Hillary Clinton? - ABC News (Australian Broadcasting Corporation)

Why Putin hates Hillary - POLITICO

Hillary Clinton: Why Vladimir Putin Has a Grudge Against Her | Time

I could go on for each of the reasons I listed, but there's this wonderful thing called Google. Maybe you should try it a bit.
Click to expand...

Seems like a whole lot of supposition and guesswork in those articles you linked. But, the overall message doesn't seem as much of a pro-Trump Russian attitude as it is a anti-Hillary stance.

You do realize the email leaks hurt Clinton far more than it helped Trump. Because it put a distinct fracture in the DNC and had Bernie supporters sitting home in droves come election day. It hurt Hillary more than it helped Trump.

Regardless, you should be happy the Russians showed you the corruption so evident in the DNC.
 
#9,343
#9,343
Which does bring up an extremely valid point, EL.

Why is it the Democrats were so extremely butthurt over the fact the public found out they were rigging the election favoring one candidate over the other? I mean, shouldn't it have been welcome to find out how embedded the corruption was in your party instead of the outrage over the public finding out?

Let's say what if the Russian Government was responsible for the stolen information (I don't buy it, but anyway) and released it via Wikileaks, shouldn't the information that was released caused more of an uproar than the release itself? Shouldn't you and others have been glad such corruption was exposed rather than getting frantic and screeching "but TRUMP!"?

I get the fact you and your party wanted, desired, a win to this election. However, you should be more worried about the "why" at this point.

Why did your party choose a candidate so far in advance?

Why was such corruption allowed to go on for so long?

Why aren't reforms being made after finding out just how bad it was?

Why is there still no platform to run on?

Why is your message not resonating with the centrist voters?

Why are you going to lose in November and again in 2020?

Don't be mad it happened. Or, as a minimum, be mad at your party for screwing up an election so bad it resulted in Trump being elected.
 
Last edited:
#9,344
#9,344
Mick said:
FISA is for "active" Surveillance. AND you are dead wrong that they can monitor every single person that those people emailed, texted or called. That would require an additional FISA warrant on those people if they are American.
Click to expand...

False.
 
#9,346
#9,346
Grand Vol said:
Which does bring up an extremely valid point, EL.

Why is it the Democrats were so extremely butthurt over the fact the public found out they were rigging the election favoring one candidate over the other? I mean, shouldn't it have been welcome to find out how embedded the corruption was in your party instead of the outrage over the public finding out?

Let's say what if the Russian Government was responsible for the stolen information (I don't buy it, but anyway) and released it via Wikileaks, shouldn't the information that was released caused more of an uproar than the release itself? Shouldn't you and others have been glad such corruption was exposed rather than getting frantic and screeching "but TRUMP!"?

I get the fact you and your party wanted, desired, a win to this election. However, you should be more worried about the "why" at this point.

Why did your party choose a candidate so far in advance?

Why was such corruption allowed to go on for so long?

Why aren't reforms being made after finding out just how bad it was?

Why is there still no platform to run on?

Why is your message not resonating with the centrist voters?

Why are you going to lose in November and again in 2020?

Don't be mad it happened. Or, as a minimum, be mad at your party for screwing up an election so bad it resulted in Trump being elected.
Click to expand...

I would love to see the reactions if Russia/Putin provided information on Trump colluding or whatever it is these days.
 
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.
Advertisement





Back
Top