No FISA hearings for the warrants on Page

[HotRod82]

So as we creep toward the truth, it has been disclosed there were no hearings involved when the FISA court gave the warrants to the FBI to supposedly spy on Carter Page. The FBI filled out the forms and the judge rubber stamped it. Unbelievable. No wonder Page was never charged, I doubt he was ever even looked at. The warrant was clearly an excuse to spy on Trump tower. We really do live in a police state.

 

[regor]

So as we creep toward the truth, it has been disclosed there were no hearings involved when the FISA court gave the warrants to the FBI to supposedly spy on Carter Page. The FBI filled out the forms and the judge rubber stamped it. Unbelievable. No wonder Page was never charged, I doubt he was ever even looked at. The warrant was clearly an excuse to spy on Trump tower. We really do live in a police state.

 

[Old Texan]

So as we creep toward the truth, it has been disclosed there were no hearings involved when the FISA court gave the warrants to the FBI to supposedly spy on Carter Page. The FBI filled out the forms and the judge rubber stamped it. Unbelievable. No wonder Page was never charged, I doubt he was ever even looked at. The warrant was clearly an excuse to spy on Trump tower. We really do live in a police state.

Yup.....The more they "investigate", the more rotten shit falls out. This will eventually go down as the largest scandal to ever happen in the free world. AND it will not implicate Trump or his followers. It will all be on the Left.

 

[500bbc]

I'll ask again, expecting no answer, why do all you liberals here relish living in a police state?
It's blatantly apparent.

 

[Hullbilly]

I'll ask again, expecting no answer, why do all you liberals here relish living in a police state?
It's blatantly apparent.

Baaaaaaa

 

[Old Texan]

I'll ask again, expecting no answer, why do all you liberals here relish living in a police state?
It's blatantly apparent.

Getting rid of Trump regardless of what it takes or costs them is their latest crusade.......

 

[mjc]

But since it is not trump nobody will care.

 

[SNiC Jet]

I'll ask again, expecting no answer, why do all you liberals here relish living in a police state?
It's blatantly apparent.

 

[MSum661]

I'll ask again, expecting no answer, why do all you liberals here relish living in a police state?
It's blatantly apparent.

Deep down in their inner ancestry core, they're the next generation Communist's with a Socialist twist.
Mentally hardwired to carry through the only way of living a life that they know and understand.
Failure runs deep through their test of time, but regardless, they continue to fight the good fight.

The struggle is real.

 

[Sandlord]

So as we creep toward the truth, it has been disclosed there were no hearings involved when the FISA court gave the warrants to the FBI to supposedly spy on Carter Page. The FBI filled out the forms and the judge rubber stamped it. Unbelievable. No wonder Page was never charged, I doubt he was ever even looked at. The warrant was clearly an excuse to spy on Trump tower. We really do live in a police state.

BOMBSHELL: Obama would have had to approve the Carter Page FISA warrant per law in order for the spying to proceed w/o court hearing. The rule is described on page 7 of 1978 FISA Act!

 

[500bbc]

BOMBSHELL: Obama would have had to approve the Carter Page FISA warrant per law in order for the spying to proceed w/o court hearing. The rule is described on page 7 of 1978 FISA Act!

RACIST!

White Supremacist!!!!!

 

[regor]

BOMBSHELL: Obama would have had to approve the Carter Page FISA warrant per law in order for the spying to proceed w/o court hearing. The rule is described on page 7 of 1978 FISA Act!

 

[Sandlord]

 

[HotRod82]

I hope, hope, hope, he signed that warrant. Then Trump can drag him into the conversation.

I didn't care for Obama as President ,however, my business was doing well and life was good so I didn't really care too much.....
Hearing parts of his ridiculous speech in OC last week (where only 750 people showed up with seating for 8000) combined with what is going on with this absurd investigation, really illustrates what a shit bag Obama really is. I thought he was a smart guy, now I'm not so sure. It appears to me he was "handled" while in office and made good speeches. He stutters and meanders without a teleprompter. IMO, Obama will hurt the dems the more he talks....kinda like Hillary did in 16.

 

[Hullbilly]

I hope, hope, hope, he signed that warrant. Then Trump can drag him into the conversation.

I didn't care for Obama as President ,however, my business was doing well and life was good so I didn't really care too much.....
Hearing parts of his ridiculous speech in OC last week (where only 750 people showed up with seating for 8000) combined with what is going on with this absurd investigation, really illustrates what a shit bag Obama really is. I thought he was a smart guy, now I'm not so sure. It appears to me he was "handled" while in office and made good speeches. He stutters and meanders without a teleprompter. IMO, Obama will hurt the dems the more he talks....kinda like Hillary did in 16.

Exactly, let him and the other puppets keep flapping their gums, let the left supporters keep crying, labeling every opponent so called -ist’s, let them keep lashing out physically and verbally....that’s all high quality fuel to keep the trump train moving down the track.

Thanks libiots

 

[500bbc]

I hope, hope, hope, he signed that warrant. Then Trump can drag him into the conversation.

I didn't care for Obama as President ,however, my business was doing well and life was good so I didn't really care too much.....
Hearing parts of his ridiculous speech in OC last week (where only 750 people showed up with seating for 8000) combined with what is going on with this absurd investigation, really illustrates what a shit bag Obama really is. I thought he was a smart guy, now I'm not so sure. It appears to me he was "handled" while in office and made good speeches. He stutters and meanders without a teleprompter. IMO, Obama will hurt the dems the more he talks....kinda like Hillary did in 16.

Has anyone ever brought to your attention that you might be a little "slow".

 

[Hullbilly]

Has anyone ever brought to your attention that you might be a little "slow".

LMAO,Like 10 years slow....

 

[HotRod82]

Has anyone ever brought to your attention that you might be a little "slow".

I know, I know......but I really was trying to give the guy the benefit of the doubt. You have to understand I despised GW Bush so even though I didn't vote for Obama, I was relieved Bush was gone. Like I said earlier, life was good so I usually didn't care who was in the WH.

Lately though Obama and his cronies are really making themselves look silly, tell everyone how awful Trump is.......then try to take credit for how great everything is. I'm waiting for Obama to take credit for North Korea halting their missile tests.

 

[Hullbilly]

I know, I know......but I really was trying to give the guy the benefit of the doubt. You have to understand I despised GW Bush so even though I didn't vote for Obama, I was relieved Bush was gone. Like I said earlier, life was good so I usually didn't care who was in the WH.

Lately though Obama and his cronies are really making themselves look silly, tell everyone how awful Trump is.......then try to take credit for how great everything is. I'm waiting for Obama to take credit for North Korea halting their missile tests.

Glad you have seen the light!

 

[Sandlord]

I'm waiting for Obama to take credit for North Korea halting their missile tests.

here you go: from 2012
"The Obama administration has announced a new nuclear agreement with North Korea under its new supreme leader, Kim Jong-un. The administration says that North Korea has agreed to a moratorium on nuclear-weapons and missile-delivery activities at Yongbyon, one of North Korea’s known nuclear-weapons-related facilities, in exchange for the U.S. agreeing to provide food aid. The announced bargain is worse than bad."

I guess it didn't last very long

 

[boatdoc55]

View attachment 681715

What is that? Author, publication???? I REALLY like it but where did it come from?

 

[500bbc]

I know, I know......but I really was trying to give the guy the benefit of the doubt. You have to understand I despised GW Bush so even though I didn't vote for Obama, I was relieved Bush was gone. Like I said earlier, life was good so I usually didn't care who was in the WH.

Lately though Obama and his cronies are really making themselves look silly, tell everyone how awful Trump is.......then try to take credit for how great everything is. I'm waiting for Obama to take credit for North Korea halting their missile tests.

I'm waiting for The Talking Turd to take credit for using the FBI, CIA, DOJ and IRS to spy on and extort his political enemies. Enemies who are citizens of the US of A.
He should be in a federal penitentiary.

 

[Sandlord]

What is that? Author, publication???? I REALLY like it but where did it come from?

https://qntmpkts.keybase.pub/?
https://www.reddit.com/r/greatawakening/new/

 

[SBMech]

I'm waiting for The Talking Turd to take credit for using the FBI, CIA, DOJ and IRS to spy on and extort his political enemies. Enemies who are citizens of the US of A.
He should be hanging by a noose on the front lawn of the White House.

Fixed that up for you brother.....

 

[Racey]

Crickets from the never-Trumpers and liberals. Absolutely unreal given the gravity of what happened here, what many of the posters in this thread have known about for 18 months, as evidence continued to stack and the big picture reached crystal levels of clarity but the others continue with their denial, or outright avoidance of the fact that a previous administration used violated cardinal rules of ethics and many laws using the state's immense powers to delegitimize and destroy a duly elected President.

 

[Hullbilly]

I'm waiting for The Talking Turd to take credit for using the FBI, CIA, DOJ and IRS to spy on and extort his political enemies. Enemies who are citizens of the US of A.
He should be in a federal penitentiary.

Club Fed is too easy, blind fold and firing squad is more fitting for treason and murder.

 

[Hullbilly]

Crickets from the never-Trumpers and liberals. Absolutely unreal given the gravity of what happened here, what many of the posters in this thread have known about for 18 months, as evidence continued to stack and the big picture reached crystal levels of clarity but the others continue with their denial, or outright avoidance of the fact that a previous administration used violated cardinal rules of ethics and many laws using the state's immense powers to delegitimize and destroy a duly elected President.

You know better....

 

[500bbc]

Crickets from the never-Trumpers and liberals. Absolutely unreal given the gravity of what happened here, what many of the posters in this thread have known about for 18 months, as evidence continued to stack and the big picture reached crystal levels of clarity but the others continue with their denial, or outright avoidance of the fact that a previous administration used violated cardinal rules of ethics and many laws using the state's immense powers to delegitimize and destroy a duly elected President.

I'll ask again...
Why do all you liberals and Never Trumpers relish living in a police state?

 

[Old Texan]

And where is Jeff Sessions hiding? His lack of action or any comment best mean the little fuck is playing out line waiting for a firm hookset, or something important towards eventually doing his job......

 

[regor]

Crickets from the never-Trumpers and liberals. Absolutely unreal given the gravity of what happened here, what many of the posters in this thread have known about for 18 months, as evidence continued to stack and the big picture reached crystal levels of clarity but the others continue with their denial, or outright avoidance of the fact that a previous administration used violated cardinal rules of ethics and many laws using the state's immense powers to delegitimize and destroy a duly elected President.

And this is why they're known as.....................bitches!

 

[River Lynchmob]

And where is Jeff Sessions hiding? His lack of action or any comment best mean the little fuck is playing out line waiting for a firm hookset, or something important towards eventually doing his job......

I'm hoping, most likely against hope, that he is quietly putting together indictments, to one day have the lid blown off of the whole swamp.

 

[Old Texan]

I'm hoping, most likely against hope, that he is quietly putting together indictments, to one day have the lid blown off of the whole swamp.

One would think so.....I can't believe Big Don doesn't have some kind of plan working and getting the rats taken out for good.

 

[530RL]

Crickets from the never-Trumpers and liberals. Absolutely unreal given the gravity of what happened here, what many of the posters in this thread have known about for 18 months, as evidence continued to stack and the big picture reached crystal levels of clarity but the others continue with their denial, or outright avoidance of the fact that a previous administration used violated cardinal rules of ethics and many laws using the state's immense powers to delegitimize and destroy a duly elected President.

The vast majority of FISA warrants do not have a hearing. This is not some type of out of the ordinary process, or result.

It is the Trump worshipers in here who have historically embraced the governments ability to spy and collect data unimpaired on its citizens via the Patriot act and the Trump worshipers in here who have constantly argued for policies and Constitutional interpretations that would diminish the 4th Amendment in the name of National Security.

As a matter of objective fact, it is Trump who has publicly and specifically asked the Justice Department to look at political enemies, the writer of the op ed, and publicly criticized the Justice Department for following the rule of law when it recently indicted two sitting Republican Representatives.

I was not aware that draining the swamp included engaging in the exact same actions you Trump worshipers accuse Obama of doing. However I do understand the human desire to actually honestly believe if Trump does it, it is really cool and draining the swamp. But if the other guy does it, it is antithetical to everything the US and the Constitution stands for.

 

[brgrcru]

The vast majority of FISA warrants do not have a hearing. This is not some type of out of the ordinary process, or result.

It is the Trump worshipers in here who have historically embraced the governments ability to spy and collect data unimpaired on its citizens via the Patriot act and the Trump worshipers in here who have constantly argued for policies and Constitutional interpretations that would diminish the 4th Amendment in the name of National Security.

As a matter of objective fact, it is Trump who has publicly and specifically asked the Justice Department to look at political enemies, the writer of the op ed, and publicly criticized the Justice Department for following the rule of law when it recently indicted two sitting Republican Representatives.

I was not aware that draining the swamp included engaging in the exact same actions you Trump worshipers accuse Obama of doing. However I do understand the human desire to actually honestly believe if Trump does it, it is really cool and draining the swamp. But if the other guy does it, it is antithetical to everything the US and the Constitution stands for.

damn it was Trump? lmao

 

[SBMech]

The vast majority of FISA warrants do not have a hearing. This is not some type of out of the ordinary process, or result.

It is the Trump worshipers in here who have historically embraced the governments ability to spy and collect data unimpaired on its citizens via the Patriot act and the Trump worshipers in here who have constantly argued for policies and Constitutional interpretations that would diminish the 4th Amendment in the name of National Security.

As a matter of objective fact, it is Trump who has publicly and specifically asked the Justice Department to look at political enemies, the writer of the op ed, and publicly criticized the Justice Department for following the rule of law when it recently indicted two sitting Republican Representatives.

I was not aware that draining the swamp included engaging in the exact same actions you Trump worshipers accuse Obama of doing. However I do understand the human desire to actually honestly believe if Trump does it, it is really cool and draining the swamp. But if the other guy does it, it is antithetical to everything the US and the Constitution stands for.

I'd love to see your sources on your opinions about FISA warrants, where exactly did you get your data from?

I'd also like to know your source on current FISA warrants enacted or requested by President Trump?

Asking the DOJ to get off their asses and do the job they are supposed to be doing is criminal?

So you believe it's ok for Oshithead and KIllary to just skate on Benghazi? How about the actual FISA warrant used against President Trump?

If it turns out that Ocockbreath actually did sign it, are you ok with him, and everyone else involved, getting taken down for it?

 

[brgrcru]

I'd love to see your sources on your opinions about FISA warrants, where exactly did you get your data from?

I'd also like to know your source on current FISA warrants enacted or requested by President Trump?

Asking the DOJ to get off their asses and do the job they are supposed to be doing is criminal?

So you believe it's ok for Oshithead and KIllary to just skate on Benghazi? How about the actual FISA warrant used against President Trump?

If it turns out that Ocockbreath actually did sign it, are you ok with him, and everyone else involved, getting taken down for it?

here let me answer that for you . lol
Trump did it.
yes, trump is a criminal and did it. .
yes they had nothing to do with it. it was Trumps Benghazi.
no , trump should be taken down, for being trump.
anything else?

 

[530RL]

I'd love to see your sources on your opinions about FISA warrants, where exactly did you get your data from?

I'd also like to know your source on current FISA warrants enacted or requested by President Trump?

Asking the DOJ to get off their asses and do the job they are supposed to be doing is criminal?

So you believe it's ok for Oshithead and KIllary to just skate on Benghazi? How about the actual FISA warrant used against President Trump?

If it turns out that Ocockbreath actually did sign it, are you ok with him, and everyone else involved, getting taken down for it?

1) Obama can not sign a FISA warrant. Putting aside he can not sign one, there is no need to as the FISA court is not a criminal court and has different rules. First, Department of Justice officials seeking a warrant under FISA do not need to show evidence that a crime has occurred or is about to happen. That sort of evidence, also known as probable cause, would be needed to obtain a typical search warrant in criminal court. Instead, officials only need to provide evidence that the target of surveillance is a foreign power or agent of a foreign power including US Citizens who may be possibly working on behalf of a foreign power.

Second, there is no reason for a President to sign a FISA warrant as investigators can conduct surveillance for up to a year without a court order if authorized by the president. The president has the authority, and such authority was granted to the executive branch by a Republican Congress. For this to occur, the U.S. Attorney General has to certify to the court that there is minimal risk that the investigation will turn up information about U.S. citizens. The U.S. Attorney General must also certify to the court that the target of the investigation is a foreign power or an agent of a foreign power. These requirements parallel what Department of Justice officials would need to demonstrate in FISA court in order to obtain a FISA court warrant.

2) As a matter of factual record, the released FISA applications and follow up applications relating to Page were signed by Comey and Rosenstein, not Obama as you allege.

3) I never stated Trump asked for FISA warrants, I stated Trump asked the DOJ to investigate a political enemy where there is no evidence that he/she committed any crime and Trump has publicy criticized the DOJ for, consistent with the Constitution of the US, indicting two individuals for multiple felonies. It just happens to be that those individuals are sitting Republican Congressman and Mr. Trump thinks that should exclude them from the rule of law as it may hurt his chances at retaining the House.

4) I am not aware of any FISA warrant against Trump, there was one against Carter Page, an application that specifically states with respect to the Steele dossier that it was "likely looking for information to discredit Candidate 1". Such application was also renewed 4 times, consistent in practice with how other applications are renewed.

At the end of the day, the FISA warrant against Carter Page was obtained legally and consistent with a decades long practice where over 99.5 percent of warrants were approved.

And that is the problem.

And is also my point that you Trump worshipers are perfectly fine with collecting data on US citizens if they are not on your side, or if they practice a different religion, but are flabbergasted when the same flawed process is used against your team. You don't care about applying the constitution consistently and fairly across all regardless of race, religion or political affiliation, you just want it applied to your side.

 

[regor]

1) I am not aware of any FISA warrant against Trump, there was one against Carter Page, an application that specifically states with respect to the Steele dossier that it was "likely looking for information to discredit Candidate 1". Such application was also renewed 4 times, consistent in practice with how other applications are renewed.

At the end of the day, the FISA warrant against Carter Page was obtained legally and consistent with a decades long practice where over 99.5 percent of warrants were approved.

And that is the problem.

And is also my point that you Trump worshipers are perfectly fine with collecting data on US citizens if they are not on your side, or if they practice a different religion, but are flabbergasted when the same flawed process is used against your team. You don't care about applying the constitution consistently and fairly across all regardless of race, religion or political affiliation, you just want it applied to your side.

hahaha Turdy defending FISA corruption..........................what a surprise!!!!!!!!

"obtained legally" with a shovel full of bullshit added making it illegally!!!

Good job counsel, has Mueller contacted you yet?

 

[SBMech]

So if Obama can't enact/sign/authorize one, what exactly are you saying here? You just said he could not, but you state:

Second, there is no reason for a President to sign a FISA warrant as investigators can conduct surveillance for up to a year without a court order if authorized by the president.

Forgive me if my terminalogy is incorrect, I live in the real world, not the world of paper pushing legalese, but I assume you already knew what my points were, you just chose to obfuscate the issue and your reply as usual.

And is also my point that you Trump worshipers are perfectly fine with collecting data on US citizens if they are not on your side, or if they practice a different religion, but are flabbergasted when the same flawed process is used against your team. You don't care about applying the constitution consistently and fairly across all regardless of race, religion or political affiliation, you just want it applied to your side.

You say that like we all knew that this was happening all along.

I for one, had no idea that a FISA warrant could be so easily manipulated to use on American citizens, and if has been happening for any period of time it should certainly be stopped, and the entire FISA court be overhauled such that it cannot be abused again.

 

[SBMech]

2) As a matter of factual record, the released FISA applications and follow up applications relating to Page were signed by Comey and Rosenstein, not Obama as you allege.

Just to clear things up, maybe you should read the entire post before you accuse anyone of anything, since we were commenting on this recent headline:

BOMBSHELL: Obama would have had to approve the Carter Page FISA warrant per law in order for the spying to proceed w/o court hearing. The rule is described on page 7 of 1978 FISA Act!

BTW, you failed to mention if there is a court hearing required to obtain a FISA warrant. That is what we were actually talking about.

 

[SBMech]

4) I am not aware of any FISA warrant against Trump, there was one against Carter Page, an application that specifically states with respect to the Steele dossier that it was "likely looking for information to discredit Candidate 1". Such application was also renewed 4 times, consistent in practice with how other applications are renewed.

At the end of the day, the FISA warrant against Carter Page was obtained legally and consistent with a decades long practice where over 99.5 percent of warrants were approved.

So in your eyes it is entirely legal to use falsified documents to obtain said abused FISA warrant?

 

[530RL]

So if Obama can't enact/sign/authorize one, what exactly are you saying here? You just said he could not, but you state:



Forgive me if my terminalogy is incorrect, I live in the real world, not the world of paper pushing legalese, but I assume you already knew what my points were, you just chose to obfuscate the issue and your reply as usual.



You say that like we all knew that this was happening all along.

I for one, had no idea that a FISA warrant could be so easily manipulated to use on American citizens, and if has been happening for any period of time it should certainly be stopped, and the entire FISA court be overhauled such that it cannot be abused again.

A president can not sign a FISA warrant. A president was given the authority by congress to authorize surveillance for up to a year under certain circumstances.

With respect to no idea, I have no idea how you have no idea....

Rand Paul, Jeff Flake and many others have been complaining about the FISA court as well as multiple draconian provisions of the Patriot act. The entire Edward Snowden issue is about abuses by the US government.

Like I said, when it is the other side losing their privacy and 4th amendment rights you Trump worshipers are fine with it. Only once it was used against your false god do you stand up and object.

Just to clear things up, maybe you should read the entire post before you accuse anyone of anything, since we were commenting on this recent headline:

BOMBSHELL: Obama would have had to approve the Carter Page FISA warrant per law in order for the spying to proceed w/o court hearing.

The headline is incorrect. A FISA warrant can be granted without a hearing. FISA warrants are granted in the majority of cases without a hearing. Obama has no authority to "approve the Carter Page FISA warrant". It is not the law in any way.

A president can authorize surveillance in certain circumstances up to a year without a warrant, or alternatively a warrant can be obtained at a FISA court. However, they are two separate paths and in this case it appears there was an application for a warrant, a warrant was granted allegedly without a hearing, and it was repeatedly renewed.

 

[SBMech]

A president can not sign a FISA warrant. A president was given the authority by congress to authorize surveillance for up to a year under certain circumstances.

Obama has no authority to "approve the Carter Page FISA warrant". It is not the law in any way.

Uhhh. Ok. So which pretzel am I supposed to believe?

 

[530RL]

So in your eyes it is entirely legal to use falsified documents to obtain said abused FISA warrant?

Go back to post 37. My position has been consistent for years.

The FISA act of 78, the Patriot act and many other acts by big government to spy on their own citizens, which have been introduced and reauthorized by both parties are highly unconstitutional and antithetical to the valid observation by Benjamin Franklin...."Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety".

Further, it is abundantly clear that if one goes back through the P&G over the years, trump worshippers do not agree with this as they find that it is perfectly fine that people of certain religions for example are stripped of their constitutional rights, but get very upset at what appears to be their allies being stripped of theirs.

So Trump and his worshippers think he may be getting fucked because of the laws enacted primary by their own party? Trump should feel lucky he is not being accused of being a Kenyan born Muslim by anyone......

 

[530RL]

Uhhh. Ok. So which pretzel am I supposed to believe?

One last time.

A FISA warrant is issued by a judge in the FISA court.

The president can not issue a FISA warrant.

 

[JBS]

One last time.

A FISA warrant is issued by a judge in the FISA court.

The president can not issue a FISA warrant.

You really need to dumb this down.

The president can order surveillance WITHOUT a warrant. The President does not ask for nor need a FISA warrant.

https://fas.org/sgp/crs/intel/m010506.pdf

Memorandum January 5, 2006 SUBJECT: Presidential Authority to Conduct Warrantless Electronic Surveillance to Gather Foreign Intelligence Information FROM: Elizabeth B. Bazan and Jennifer K. Elsea Legislative Attorneys American Law Division Recent media revelations that the President authorized the National Security Agency (NSA) to collect signals intelligence from communications involving U.S. persons within 1 the United States, without obtaining a warrant or court order, raise numerous questions regarding the President’s authority to order warrantless electronic surveillance. Little information is currently known about the full extent of the NSA domestic surveillance, which was revealed by the New York Times in December, 2005, but allegedly began after the President issued a secret order in 2002. Attorney General Alberto Gonzales laid out some of its parameters, telling reporters that it involves “intercepts of contents of communications where one . . . party to the communication is outside the United States” and the government has “a reasonable basis to conclude that one party to the communication is a member of al Qaeda, affiliated with al Qaeda, or a member of an organization affiliated with al Qaeda, or working in support of al Qaeda.” The aim of the program, according to Principal Deputy 3 Director for National Intelligence General Michael Hayden, is not “to collect reams of intelligence, but to detect and warn and prevent [terrorist] attacks.”4 The President has stated that he believes his order to be fully supported by the Constitution and the laws of the United States, and the Attorney General clarified that the 5 Administration bases its authority both on inherent presidential powers and the joint resolution authorizing the use of “all necessary and appropriate force” to engage militarily those responsible for the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001 (“AUMF”). Although the resolution does not expressly specifywhat it authorizes as “necessary and appropriate force,” the Administration discerns the intent of Congress to provide the statutory authority necessary take virtually any action reasonably calculated to prevent a terrorist attack, including by overriding at least some statutory prohibitions that contain exceptions for conduct that is “otherwise authorized by statute.” Specifically, the Administration asserts that a part of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) that punishes those who conduct 7 “electronic surveillance under color of law except as authorized by statute” does not bar the 8 NSA surveillance at issue because the AUMF is just such a statute. On December 22, 2005, 9 the Department of Justice Office of Legislative Affairs released a letter to certain members of the House and Senate intelligence committees setting forth in somewhat greater detail the Administration’s position with regard to the legal authority supporting the NSA activities described by the President. 10 The Administration’s views have been the subject of debate. Critics challenge the notion that federal statutes regarding government eavesdropping may be bypassed by executive order, or that such laws were implicitly superceded by Congress’s authorization to use military force. Others, however, have expressed the view that established wiretap procedures are too cumbersome and slow to be effective in the war against terrorism, and that the threat of terrorism justifies extraordinarymeasures the President deems appropriate, and some agree that Congress authorized the measures when it authorized the use of military force. This memorandum lays out a general framework for analyzing the constitutional and statutory issues raised by the NSA electronic surveillance activity. It then outlines the legal framework regulating electronic surveillance by the government, explores ambiguities in those statutes that could provide exceptions for the NSA intelligence-gathering operation at issue, and addresses the arguments that the President possesses inhere

 

[Hullbilly]

You really need to dumb this down.

The president can order surveillance WITHOUT a warrant. The President does not ask for nor need a FISA warrant.

https://fas.org/sgp/crs/intel/m010506.pdf

Memorandum January 5, 2006 SUBJECT: Presidential Authority to Conduct Warrantless Electronic Surveillance to Gather Foreign Intelligence Information FROM: Elizabeth B. Bazan and Jennifer K. Elsea Legislative Attorneys American Law Division Recent media revelations that the President authorized the National Security Agency (NSA) to collect signals intelligence from communications involving U.S. persons within 1 the United States, without obtaining a warrant or court order, raise numerous questions regarding the President’s authority to order warrantless electronic surveillance. Little information is currently known about the full extent of the NSA domestic surveillance, which was revealed by the New York Times in December, 2005, but allegedly began after the President issued a secret order in 2002. Attorney General Alberto Gonzales laid out some of its parameters, telling reporters that it involves “intercepts of contents of communications where one . . . party to the communication is outside the United States” and the government has “a reasonable basis to conclude that one party to the communication is a member of al Qaeda, affiliated with al Qaeda, or a member of an organization affiliated with al Qaeda, or working in support of al Qaeda.” The aim of the program, according to Principal Deputy 3 Director for National Intelligence General Michael Hayden, is not “to collect reams of intelligence, but to detect and warn and prevent [terrorist] attacks.”4 The President has stated that he believes his order to be fully supported by the Constitution and the laws of the United States, and the Attorney General clarified that the 5 Administration bases its authority both on inherent presidential powers and the joint resolution authorizing the use of “all necessary and appropriate force” to engage militarily those responsible for the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001 (“AUMF”). Although the resolution does not expressly specifywhat it authorizes as “necessary and appropriate force,” the Administration discerns the intent of Congress to provide the statutory authority necessary take virtually any action reasonably calculated to prevent a terrorist attack, including by overriding at least some statutory prohibitions that contain exceptions for conduct that is “otherwise authorized by statute.” Specifically, the Administration asserts that a part of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) that punishes those who conduct 7 “electronic surveillance under color of law except as authorized by statute” does not bar the 8 NSA surveillance at issue because the AUMF is just such a statute. On December 22, 2005, 9 the Department of Justice Office of Legislative Affairs released a letter to certain members of the House and Senate intelligence committees setting forth in somewhat greater detail the Administration’s position with regard to the legal authority supporting the NSA activities described by the President. 10 The Administration’s views have been the subject of debate. Critics challenge the notion that federal statutes regarding government eavesdropping may be bypassed by executive order, or that such laws were implicitly superceded by Congress’s authorization to use military force. Others, however, have expressed the view that established wiretap procedures are too cumbersome and slow to be effective in the war against terrorism, and that the threat of terrorism justifies extraordinarymeasures the President deems appropriate, and some agree that Congress authorized the measures when it authorized the use of military force. This memorandum lays out a general framework for analyzing the constitutional and statutory issues raised by the NSA electronic surveillance activity. It then outlines the legal framework regulating electronic surveillance by the government, explores ambiguities in those statutes that could provide exceptions for the NSA intelligence-gathering operation at issue, and addresses the arguments that the President possesses inhere

Solid work Beaker, Bunsen was needing some support. Yore a super smart dood

 

[JBS]

Solid work Beaker, Bunsen was needing some support. Yore a super smart dood

You really have nothing to add. You need Stainless back so you can make more dick comments.

 

[Hullbilly]

You really have nothing to add. You need Stainless back so you can make more dick comments.

I leave all the legal gov’t stuff to all y’all in the know....And its you and your boys that liked discussing cock, I enjoy pussy, even grabbing it.

 

[94Nautique]

You really need to dumb this down.

The president can order surveillance WITHOUT a warrant. The President does not ask for nor need a FISA warrant.

https://fas.org/sgp/crs/intel/m010506.pdf

Memorandum January 5, 2006 SUBJECT: Presidential Authority to Conduct Warrantless Electronic Surveillance to Gather Foreign Intelligence Information FROM: Elizabeth B. Bazan and Jennifer K. Elsea Legislative Attorneys American Law Division Recent media revelations that the President authorized the National Security Agency (NSA) to collect signals intelligence from communications involving U.S. persons within 1 the United States, without obtaining a warrant or court order, raise numerous questions regarding the President’s authority to order warrantless electronic surveillance. Little information is currently known about the full extent of the NSA domestic surveillance, which was revealed by the New York Times in December, 2005, but allegedly began after the President issued a secret order in 2002. Attorney General Alberto Gonzales laid out some of its parameters, telling reporters that it involves “intercepts of contents of communications where one . . . party to the communication is outside the United States” and the government has “a reasonable basis to conclude that one party to the communication is a member of al Qaeda, affiliated with al Qaeda, or a member of an organization affiliated with al Qaeda, or working in support of al Qaeda.” The aim of the program, according to Principal Deputy 3 Director for National Intelligence General Michael Hayden, is not “to collect reams of intelligence, but to detect and warn and prevent [terrorist] attacks.”4 The President has stated that he believes his order to be fully supported by the Constitution and the laws of the United States, and the Attorney General clarified that the 5 Administration bases its authority both on inherent presidential powers and the joint resolution authorizing the use of “all necessary and appropriate force” to engage militarily those responsible for the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001 (“AUMF”). Although the resolution does not expressly specifywhat it authorizes as “necessary and appropriate force,” the Administration discerns the intent of Congress to provide the statutory authority necessary take virtually any action reasonably calculated to prevent a terrorist attack, including by overriding at least some statutory prohibitions that contain exceptions for conduct that is “otherwise authorized by statute.” Specifically, the Administration asserts that a part of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) that punishes those who conduct 7 “electronic surveillance under color of law except as authorized by statute” does not bar the 8 NSA surveillance at issue because the AUMF is just such a statute. On December 22, 2005, 9 the Department of Justice Office of Legislative Affairs released a letter to certain members of the House and Senate intelligence committees setting forth in somewhat greater detail the Administration’s position with regard to the legal authority supporting the NSA activities described by the President. 10 The Administration’s views have been the subject of debate. Critics challenge the notion that federal statutes regarding government eavesdropping may be bypassed by executive order, or that such laws were implicitly superceded by Congress’s authorization to use military force. Others, however, have expressed the view that established wiretap procedures are too cumbersome and slow to be effective in the war against terrorism, and that the threat of terrorism justifies extraordinarymeasures the President deems appropriate, and some agree that Congress authorized the measures when it authorized the use of military force. This memorandum lays out a general framework for analyzing the constitutional and statutory issues raised by the NSA electronic surveillance activity. It then outlines the legal framework regulating electronic surveillance by the government, explores ambiguities in those statutes that could provide exceptions for the NSA intelligence-gathering operation at issue, and addresses the arguments that the President possesses inhere

So lefties would be cool with PRESIDENT Trump spying on all y'all? Like the lefies are cool with Obama spying on his political enemies?

Noted.

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-T377A using Tapatalk