Slashdot Mirror
How Wiretaps Actually Work (washingtonpost.com)
David Kris, assistant attorney general for national security from 2009 to 2011, has responded to the recent accusations made by president Donald Trump. On Saturday, Trump accused former president Obama of orchestrating a "Nixon/Watergate" plot to tap the phones at his Trump Tower headquarters in the run-up to last fall's election. He writes in an opinion piece for The Washington Post: First, the U.S. government needs probable cause, signatures from government officials and advance approval from a federal court before engaging in wiretapping in the United States. There are some narrow exceptions, for things such as short-term emergencies, which are then reviewed by a judge promptly after the fact. This is not something that the president simply orders. Under the law governing foreign intelligence wiretaps, the government has to show probable cause that a "facility" is being used or about to be used by a "foreign power" -- e.g., a foreign government or an international terrorist group -- or by an "agent of a foreign power." A facility is something like a telephone number or an email address. Second, there is no requirement that the facility being wiretapped be owned, leased or listed in the name of the person who is committing the offense or is the agent of a foreign power. [...] Third, government officials, including the president, don't normally speak publicly about wiretaps. Indeed, it is in some cases a federal crime to disclose a wiretap without authorization, including not only the information obtained from the wiretap, but also the mere existence of a wiretap with an intent to obstruct it. With respect to intelligence wiretaps, there is an additional issue: They are always classified, and disclosure of classified information is also generally a crime. The president enjoys authority over classified information, of course, but at a minimum it would be highly irregular to disclose an intelligence wiretap via Twitter.
Trump shoots off mouth about topic with no justification in fact. News at 11.
#IStandWithSweden
#DeleteChrome
The president enjoys authority over classified information, of course, but at a minimum it would be highly irregular to disclose an intelligence wiretap via Twitter.
A General Hayden explained on the Late Show the other night that the president can tweet whatever he damned well pleases - Since he's the ultimate classification authority, information just BECOMES unclassified BY being tweeted. Of course this is irregular - We've never had a president who used Twitter (or any social media) the way DJT does. This is just an irregular presidency all together.
He's getting rather old, but he's a good mouse.
All this person is explaining is how it should normally function when done legally. It being done legally is not and has not been the problem.
Now I don't believe Obama went and wiretapped Donald Trump. But to claim that this is "how wiretaps work" is nothing but disinformation using the Trump accusations as a veil to pretend that nothing illegal was done to any other americans. Like the ones actually being illegally wiretapped.
Makes me think the entire story breitbart copied was planted for a reason...
As long as Trump's statements build a platform to justify his future actions, whether true or not, he is happy. It doesn't matter if illegal immigrants are actually criminals or not, it only matters that saying it provides Trump with the justification of building a gigantic wall. It doesn't matter whether Obama wiretapped Trump Tower, it only matters that saying it provides Trump with the ability to deflect conversation about Russian ties. This is how an authoritarian government works. They care less about the truth, and more about justifying their actions with a painted visage of half-truths and lies.
Anywhere other than the government (at the top of it, that is) if you put someone in a position and they do something wrong you are held accountable as well.
BS! All of it. The federal government does what it wants, when it wants and hides behind published procedure. I am so tired of all of this.
So you're trying to tell us even if Obama illegally wiretapped Trump, Trump is not allowed to tell anyone. Uhm, yeah...
www.weberseite.at
Why hasn't Trump been taken to task for issuing paranoid lunatic rants via twitter? This isn't a leak. It isn't hearsay. This isn't the testimony of a spurned ext-staffer or former business partner. This is direct from the president himself. Raw and unfiltered.
Just another episode in a month-long clusterfuck that demonstrates he is, on a fundamental level, wholly unqualified for holding office. - The fact that he's issuing public statements without council is really really really really bad.
The man is the fucking president. He has access to the button. We're lucky other world leaders aren't quite so dumb but at some point they'll stop being nice and will start exploiting out current period of obvious weakness.
We don't have time to sit him down and make him watch School House Rock before re-taking high school civics, which he obviously flunked..
And what about the cheeto POTUS is not highly irregular?
FAKE NEWS! I have a bowel movement every day, folks. The media says this, says that, says I'm irregular, it's lies. Just ask my doctor, I'm more regular than any man ever elected president, believe me.
...an NSL hits their desk.
I'm also pretty sure stingrays are wiretap apparatuses and those are used with broad over-reaching terms.
But no, we need to make sure the public knows that everything is above board and they're protected.
Wiretaps aren't this easy everyone!
They're also totally not built into our infrastructure. nope.
Whether or not this claim is true by Trump, making it seem like there's actually ethical oversight over wiretap warrants and that nothing is wrong with them is a disservice to all of us.
Washington Post is trash. The only thing that keeps readers going to them is the same manipulative anger inciting verbiage that used to be relegated to tabloids.
"Your side is winning!" Contrived adversarial bullshit.
The president enjoys authority over classified information, of course, but at a minimum it would be highly irregular to disclose an intelligence wiretap via Twitter.
A General Hayden explained on the Late Show the other night that the president can tweet whatever he damned well pleases
No, he can't. When the President tweets his every thought, any tweet can literally cost taxpayer money or affect domestic or foreign policy. Trump tweets these claims about wiretapping, and now Congress has to do an investigation. If he tweets some about say, Turkey, that the Turkish government doesn't like, they could expel diplomats or sever diplomatic ties. If he tweets something about North Korea that pisses them off, they might fire off a missile or 2, or shell a South Korean island. Hell, his tweets have actually affected the stock prices of companies when he tweets negative things about them (and has even blamed companies for problems caused by the travel ban in his tweets). As President every word you say, every statement you make, has the weight of the US government and military behind it. You damn well can't just say whatever you want, because at best it can cost people money. Worst case, it can cost people their lives.
The only thing necessary for evil to triumph is for it to be pitted against a slightly greater evil
So to summarize:
Trump's offices were definitely not tapped unless
a) There was some damning evidence he was doing something very bad
or
b) Multiple high-ranking people collaborated to break serious laws.
And if his offices WERE tapped Trump has now broken federal law by revealing that his offices were tapped and we have not one but two Presidents with serious crimes marring their histories.
"That's the way to do it" - Punch
Chapter 36 of Title 50 of the US Code *War and National Defense", Subchapter 1, Section 1802
(1) Notwithstanding any other law, the President, through the Attorney General, may authorize electronic surveillance without a court order under this subchapter to acquire foreign intelligence information for periods of up to one year if the Attorney General certifies in writing under oath that—
(A) the electronic surveillance is solely directed at—
(i) the acquisition of the contents of communications transmitted by means of communications used exclusively between or among foreign powers, as defined in section 1801(a)(1), (2), or (3) of this title; or
(ii) the acquisition of technical intelligence, other than the spoken communications of individuals, from property or premises under the open and exclusive control of a foreign power, as defined in section 1801(a)(1), (2), or (3) of this title;
(B) there is no substantial likelihood that the surveillance will acquire the contents of any communication to which a United States person is a party; and
(C) the proposed minimization procedures with respect to such surveillance meet the definition of minimization procedures under section 1801(h) of this title; and
if the Attorney General reports such minimization procedures and any changes thereto to the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence and the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence at least thirty days prior to their effective date, unless the Attorney General determines immediate action is required and notifies the committees immediately of such minimization procedures and the reason for their becoming effective immediately.
Even if something becomes unclassified because the president tweeted it doesn't mean it becomes TRUE because the president tweeted it.
You are welcome on my lawn.
Obama also didn't "order" the IRS to audit conservative organizations either. Crooks in authority often don't "order" things, they imply things, or simply create a climate and reward systems where things they want to happen happen. So, those are weasel words, attempting to obfuscate the obvious fact that the president has the power to make such things happen, tolerate them, or stop them.
I think it's pretty clear that the Obama justice department submitted applications to FISA courts for surveillance of Trump associates and that these were turned down multiple times until it eventually approved a narrow version. These applications were based on the notion that people associated with Trump might have illegal financial ties to Russia, charges that keep getting repeated to this day by Democrats, so it seems outright bizarre that Democrats would now deny any attempt at investigating those ties.
So, of course, the Obama DOJ conducted wiretapping and surveillance of Trump tower and attempted to involve Trump in it, and Obama either encouraged this or tolerated it or didn't know about it. Any of those possibilities make Obama responsible for it. That is, the wiretapping of the presidential candidate of an opposing party is such a politically important issue that Obama is personally responsible even if he was out golfing and only heard about it on TV afterwards.
Obama seemed to consider conservatives and Christians as a greater threat than radical Muslims. Just read all of the list of "possible terrorist" characteristics that leaked out during his administration and the purging of Christians from the military during his watch. Similar to Bill Clinton, he weaponized the IRS against conservatives. You are so stupid to think that Lois Learner broke the law purely under her own initiative, are you?
Obama had world leaders wiretapped. He had his enemies wiretapped. He appointed (as was his right) people to all the places where he could make sure the things he wanted got done, regardless of the legality or illegality. There are plenty of current leaks from the intelligence agencies that say Obama did have Trump wiretapped, if only by first having people associated with him wiretapped and then having the wiretap automatically expanded to the people they communicated with.
Why has nobody else mentioned that the mere existence of this story points to one undeniable fact: Donald Trump, the president of the United States of America, does not know what the powers and limitations are for the office of president.
It was already pretty probable based on his public promises and problems with executive orders. This is just one more confirmation that he thinks Barack Obama had the powers of a king and that now he has been appointed king and that the only limitation is how far he's willing to take things.
How does that mean he can't tweet "whatever he wants." The point was there's no higher power stopping from from speaking. If he wants to speak about classified information than he can, and literally nobody can stop him. People just don't seem to like the fact that a loudmouth president has a direct line to the public
First let me be the first to say that it never happened.
That said, the fact what is legal and/or procedure doesn't mean jack shit nowadays. If the FBI can lie, if the NSA can lie, if any other person in government can lie and all this without any consequences, there is NO reason why I should be discussing what the procedure should be.
That is just a nice mental exercise. Besides that, it is a waste of time.
Don't fight for your country, if your country does not fight for you.
As President every word you say, every statement you make, has the weight of the US government and military behind it. You damn well can't just say whatever you want, because at best it can cost people money.
Yes, he really can say whatever he damn well pleases. It's terrifying the amount of weight behind it. What he says may be ill-thought out and terrible; it may have globe-shattering implications; he could condemn countless lives with a flick of his thumb; but it's not illegal and there's nothing stopping him. Not if the president does it.
He's getting rather old, but he's a good mouse.
You know, Trump, the AntiPresident reminds me of Norman Muller from the Asimov short "Franchise". Takes place in 2008 (so Asimov was only off by 8 years!) and instead of just one person selected to vote for president, current affairs make it seem like Norman -became- president...
In any case, Asimov was certainly prescient insomuch as the "future" presidential state of affairs is mind boggling.
I am not interested in articles about life extension advancements.
If it's anything like maple tree tapping, all you need is a spile of appropriate size for your wire.
#DeleteFacebook
Allow me to correct it:
How Wiretaps Are Supposed To Work If Everyone Follows the Laws
Many folks know this already, but the laws don't really apply to people operating at that level. They're supposed to. We're assured they do, but they don't.
They do what they want, then make up some bullshit story to justify their actions later on if they get caught and end up with a wrist slap at worst. It's RARE to see people at that level going to jail or even being held accountable for their actions.
I sincerely hope Wikileaks releases the most god-awful embarrassing revelations about what the Intelligence Community is doing under the guise of " National Security ". While most on /. already suspect the three letter agencies have their fingers in just about everything, it's nice to see it show up in the spotlight from time to time as a reminder that the World isn't nearly as nice a place as it seems to be.
Now, turn off your hatred for all things Trump for a moment and entertain the possibility that there might be some truth behind Trump's wiretapping claims. The ability to spy on everyone means our future leadership can be hand-picked because any possible opposition can be singled out and utterly destroyed simply by putting their entire life under a microscope and " leaking " information that would be useful to destroy their reputation. If the Hillary camp is to be believed, releasing damaging information at the right time is quite effective isn't it ?
If that doesn't work, mis-information is equally devastating in this day and age. We don't need proof, just make some shit up and, if it's juicy enough, the media jumps all over it like a Republican on a Tax Cut ( or to be fair, like a Democrat on a Tax Increase ). Retractions later on are irrelevant if the time window is narrow enough. ( Like an election ) The damage is already done.
Taking that a step further: Would you like the Trump ( or any ) administration to have the ability to hand-pick their successor by utilizing tools / agencies designed to Spy on foreign powers ? Tools that are unavailable to any potential opposition which puts them at a tremendous disadvantage. Better yet, would you like the CIA, NSA, $TLA to pick your leadership FOR you ?
I doubt it.
Gimme a break buddy. We know from NSA whistleblowers that the federal government is sweeping up every single piece of digital or voice communication that we generate. Warrants? Probable cause? Judicial oversight? LMAO Even if they bother to get a FISA warrant, it's issued by a secret court that basically rubber stamps any request that the federales put in front of them. Or the feds just directly issue a "National Security Letter" with no court approval to get the information they want without the target knowing about it.
I'm skeptical of the claim that President Obama specifically ordered government employees to 'bug' Trump's communications, but I'm sure that the feds were monitoring those communications just like they monitor everything else.
WaPo == "Fake News"
We all already know that EVERYTHING is monitored and recorded so the whole idea that it would be some big process to "wiretap him" is ridiculous. All that would be needed would be to look at what they had already recorded.
(Doesn't mean that he did but it does mean it would be impossible to tell...)
Even if something becomes unclassified because the president tweeted it doesn't mean it becomes TRUE because the president tweeted it.
No argument there. The nice thing about unclassifying the information is that the statement, "I can neither confirm nor deny," can be reduced to simply, "I can deny."
He's getting rather old, but he's a good mouse.
As another politician pointed out, no one can be charged for talking about the Trump Tower wiretap (if it exists) since POTUS publicly disclosed the wiretap existence.
Arguments that the White House couldn't order tapping is deception. Justice Requests A tap then the FISA court reviews. If there is sufficient justification, it orders the tap, so technically, all FISA taps originate with court, not the administration. The WH denial Is spin and deception. Obviously WH can consult with justice about whether and how to submit the FISA request.
Further, Fisa is not a criminal tool, it is a national security tool, so standards for granting the tap are much lower than for a criminal investigation. Originally, the FBI requested a criminal investigation of trump, but the investigation terminated as there was no evidence. Then justice requested a Fisa tap, naming trump in the request. The court denied the request only the 13th time a request has been denied since Fisa was set up in the late 70s. Justice made a second Fisa request not naming trump which was granted, but no evidence was found, but the tapping continued anyway. All this was reported by the New York Times.
Finally, I would trust any official in the Obama justice or intel communities. They trotted out James clapper (director of national intelligence under Obama) to all the talk shows on Sunday where he denied any Fisa taps on trump occurred. In 2013 he perjured himself in front of congress claiming no warrant less wiretapping occurred of Americans- then Snowden occurred and made a list of him.
According to reports, NSA is part of justice dept. and spies on everyone without requiring any kind of warrant.
Search on google.
Isn't it fun, watching all the people who were out in the streets over the NSA's bulk domestic surveillance, suddenly reassuring us that there's all sorts of oversight over wiretaps?
Isn't it fun, watching all the people who cheered Snowden on, suddenly up in arms about "irregular" declassification of information by the president?
Slashdot - News for Nerds, Stuff that Matters, in ISO-8859-1 Has just realised that beta makes this signature redundant
But I suspect that if the surveillance was conducted against Trump, it was neither legal nor justified from a legal stance.
Charter Member of The Committee Group For The Elimination And Eradication Of Repetitive Redundancy
The problem here is we don't have all the facts and we will NEVER know if or when we do have all the facts.
There is a practice called Plausible deniability, which basically means that for some activities there is no direct order from the authority to do it, it's just understood (rightly or wrongly) it should be done. This is what tripped Nixon up, because those stupid tapes showed that he was attempting to maintain the ability to deny he had anything to do with Watergate. Even if we had that 18 min and 20 seconds of audio that sunk him and it didn't incriminate him, there would *still* be the question, did he not really know and approve? Was there an unrecorded conversation, wink or nod? For Nixon, it didn't mater.
So we need to break this down into at least two parts... 1. Was there actually a wire tap? 2. Who ordered it and why?
1. Yes. It seems obvious to me that it's very likely there WAS an wire tap in place if not on Trump, on people very close to him.. It was reported weeks ago and not denied then. Trump then tweets about it, so based on wide agreement from all sides, it sure seems some kind of wire tapping was going on...
2. Nobody knows yet... Nobody has yet owned up to the reason the wiretapping took place. Trump is insinuating that it was politically motivated and came from Obama. I'm sure Obama's denial of this means he didn't directly order this though formal channels (I believe him in that way) but this *could* be simply how it was arranged (Plausible deniability) and some Obama loyalist figured it was a good idea and did it on their own. It's hard to know...
Personally, I want to know WHY the FISA courts issued the warrant. What was the reason and who was asking? I also want to know how the information is flowing from the FISA warrant into the public domain? Until we know that, I don't see where we shouldn't take Obama at his word.
"File to fit, pound to insert, paint to match" - Aircraft Maintenance 101
How does that mean he can't tweet "whatever he wants." The point was there's no higher power stopping from from speaking.
The higher power is his duty to faithfully represent the United States and guide its government. He's not tweeting things like "I hate Taco Tuesday", thereby preventing all Tex-Mex restaurants in the US from offering cheap tacos on Tuesday. He has directly tweeted accusations that the prior administration broke federal law and did something so unethical that Congress is required to investigate and, if true (which so far there is zero evidence of it being true), would shake the very foundation of American government-especially considering the hostile and adversarial political climate currently in the US. He has used tweets to lay blame for the effects of ill-conceived and horribly executed Executive orders not on his orders but on companies who were in no way involved (ie. the travel ban). He tweeted about cancelling the new Air Force One contract and Boeing's stock dropped immediately (in fairness it did recover once people realized he wouldn't actually do it). Presidents have Press Secretaries, speechwriters, and communications staffers precisely because his words carry so much weight that they have to be carefully considered, otherwise you risk very serious fallout or collateral damage. He's not a reality TV host anymore, or someone who just licenses his name to everything from belts to buildings: he represents 320 million people and the largest military spender in the world by far. Being an unfiltered loudmouth is the last thing you want to be in that situation.
The only thing necessary for evil to triumph is for it to be pitted against a slightly greater evil
"If he wants to speak about classified information than he can, and literally nobody can stop him."
That's true of everyone, not just the president. Doesn't mean there won't be consequences, that's how the law works.
Of course, with the president there can be no prosecution while in office but he can be prosecuted after he leaves office. Furthermore, he can be removed from office through impeachment and disclosing "whatever he wants" could constitute an impeachable offense. You are simply wrong on this, the constitution has more authority than the president and he can't simply do what he wants.
Presidents always have a direct line to public, twitter hasn't changed that and people don't dislike it. People don't like trump for other reasons.
It very well may be illegal. Presidents are not above the law although some, including trump, believe they are and have said so.
"Not if the president does it."
Trump has said this and it's very, very wrong. Nixon said it too. He was wrong as well and paid the price for it.
I don't care where you fall on the political spectrum, it needs to be admitted that there are some serious problems affecting Sweden right now.
For example, just look at this list of recent grenade attacks in Sweden.
Sweden's population is only about 10 million people yet they've been suffering from grenade attacks almost every other week for several years now.
That's extraordinarily abnormal, especially for what was once one of the most advanced and peaceful nations on Earth.
It has been particularly bad in Malmö, a city where over 40% of the population are foreigners or not descended from traditional Swedes.
Regardless of your feelings for President Trump, it cannot be denied that he is right about the major problems affecting Sweden today.
Failed immigration policies have resulted in far too many violent criminals from some of the worst areas in the world ending up in Sweden, and they are quickly destroying what was once one of the top nations. The United States should learn a lesson from Sweden.
As I understand it, the president has broad powers to declassify information. President Trump can talk about basically anything (via Twitter or whatever) including if he, or somebody in his building, is having their communications monitored by police or intelligence legally.
The byproduct of this is that he could be inadvertently publicizing any classified operations leaving them open to questioning by the legislative branch or government or the media. So, nobody is trying to tell you that even if President Obama illegally (or otherwise) wiretapped President Trump, President Trump is not allowed to tell anyone.
The exact opposite is true.
Mimetics Inc. Twitter
You are not alone. This is not normal. None of this is normal.
There is less than zero chance that the President (Obama) didn't know about or sign off on this surveillance. The idea that a sitting President investigating his opponent would be done by lower level people without his knowledge is preposterous. Of course his administration (and he) knew. The question is: was the surveillance legitimate? Or was it done for political purposes?
Unless Trump really is an agent of the FSB and Russians, it's looking more and more like it's the 2nd option. And that should scare everyone no matter what party you are for. This looks like Lois Lerner pt 2 but since it's all classified behind the bureaucracy, there is no Lois to blame. Not yet, anyway.....
The only way this works out well for the previous administration is if Donald and his lackeys really are agents or really were in collusion with the Russians to throw the election. Thus far, no evidence has been presented and even James Clapper says there is nothing there. So why is this Russian thing still in the news? Politics. Which begs the question: was this investigation/wiretapping done for political reasons? If so, Obama and his admin have some explaining to do.
How does that mean he can't tweet "whatever he wants." The point was there's no higher power stopping from from speaking.
The higher power is his duty to faithfully represent the United States and guide its government.
Sure, but Trump only really cares about himself. This is probably true for most politicians, except they may also care about their party. The country and (most of) its people are way down on the list, just below corporations and rich people. I/we could probably list many examples on both sides of the aisle, but I'll simply refer to recent events since January 20th, like the newly released Republican formulated American Health Care Act.
It must have been something you assimilated. . . .
It is great to finally have a President that exposes crap going on in the government rather than does what his masters tell him.
-==- Buy a Mac and leave me alone!
From what I've read in the news, the wiretapping wasn't aimed at Trump but at a Russian server operating out of Trump Tower. But, yeah, let's blame Obama for that one too.
http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/cover_story/2016/10/was_a_server_registered_to_the_trump_organization_communicating_with_russia.html
Trump shoots off mouth about topic with no justification in fact. News at 11.
Which is exactly the point. When he doesn't like the way the news is talking about he changes it by saying something outrageous.
Donald Trump isn't crazy. And he isn't really careless -- not about the things that matter to him. He's manipulative. His supporters understand this, and don't mind when he is factually wrong because they understand he is a bullshit artist. They just think he's their bullshit artist.
The difference between bullshit and a conventional lie is that the bullshitter doesn't lie to deceive, he lies to produce an effect. Bullshitting is often safer and more effective than lying because a lie disproven is neutralized, but disproving bullshit is a waste of time because nobody is meant to believe it.
And here's the specifics about this particular lie:
The MSM has been reporting on Trump's ties to Russia for the past 4 months, mentioning "recorded conversations" and "an ongoing investigation". All of these have mentioned that there is "no conclusive evidence yet" in the investigation. The overall spin has been that Trump is a lackey of the Russian government, we have him under surveillance, and we are slowly gathering evidence which will be conclusive.
Here's an example quote from the NYT before Trump's tweet:
American law enforcement and intelligence agencies are examining intercepted communications and financial transactions as part of a broad investigation into possible links between Russian officials and associates of President-elect Donald J. Trump, including his former campaign chairman Paul Manafort, current and former senior American officials said.
The continuing counterintelligence investigation means that Mr. Trump will take the oath of office on Friday with his associates under investigation and after the intelligence agencies concluded that the Russian government had worked to help elect him. As president, Mr. Trump will oversee those agencies and have the authority to redirect or stop at least some of these efforts.
Suddenly Trump says that he was wiretapped, and all the MSM outlets have been in complete freakout mode disavowing their previous statements.
It was glorious! The alt-right has been laughing at the lefties for the past week or so.
Yes he can. That should be obvious by the simple fact that he does.
Usually people get in trouble because they are revealing classified information, but that doesn't apply the President since they are at the top of the chain and can declassify at will anyway.
Can is not the same as should, but the claim is explicitly about "can".
How does that mean he can't tweet "whatever he wants." The point was there's no higher power stopping from from speaking.
The higher power is his duty to faithfully represent the United States and guide its government.
Sure, but Trump only really cares about himself. This is probably true for most politicians, except they may also care about their party. The country and (most of) its people are way down on the list, just below corporations and rich people. I/we could probably list many examples on both sides of the aisle, but I'll simply refer to recent events since January 20th, like the newly released Republican formulated American Health Care Act.
That's true, but most career politicians have had it ingrained in them to at least appear to adhere to a higher power and that they serve the people. Haven't you noticed how almost everyone (especially Republicans) magically find religion a couple years before they start running for a major office? Trump basically just said "Fuck it", and people are eating it up.
The only thing necessary for evil to triumph is for it to be pitted against a slightly greater evil
The shill quoted in TFA incorrectly assumes that TLA's have always, and always will, act within the letter and spirit of the law, and within the scope of their organizational charter.
History has amply demonstrated this not to be the case. Any assertion to the contrary is either uninformed or astroturf.
Scruting the inscrutable for over 50 years.
The president (likely through a stand-in to distance himself and provide plausible deniability) could informally tell his head of agency/bureau/administration/etc. that he suspects Donald Trump, campaigning for office, and exposed to classified information, and with suspected ties to the Russian government, is a wild card who can't handle classified information, and is suspected of leaking it, This could leak the aforementioned agency to draft a request to the FISA court, whose goings on are not made public as they are themselves considered secret. The FISA court could issue the appropriate wiretap approval and issue a national security letter "gag order" so that the intercepts can't be disclosed.
... And because of the risk to exposing FISA workings, can't directly expose how he knows, since that information itself may be classified.
And now Trump has his communications wiretapped and no one can disclose they were wiretapped.
Trump goes on to be president elect, then President of the United States; now privy to a wider information field comes to glean that his Trump Tower communications were wiretapped
I am not saying it did happen that way, just that it could happen that way.
- Tjp
I am in wallow with my inner money grubbing capitalistic pig. ... Oink!
You damn well can't just say whatever you want, because at best it can cost people money. Worst case, it can cost people their lives.
You say that as if you think Trump actually gives a shit about costing other people money or their lives. I think Trump loves the fact that he can move markets with nothing more than a fact free tweet from the toilet.
What is the procedure for "Illegal" wire tapping? I imagine that the most important part is that NO BODY knows anything...
Why is it that wiretaps still exist? Why doesn't every phone negotiate the highest possible encryption level with the other phone it is connected to? Then whoever you call you get the highest encryption supported by their phone, and wiretap is impossible.
You could have your phone warning beep if the other phone doesn't support secure connection.
Why isn't this built into just about every phone?
...
The president has declassification authority. It is literally impossible for the president to be prosecuted for leaking classified information since he can decide to declassify anything he damn well pleases. Now Congress can be a check on this by impeaching and convicting him because what he declassified had horrible consequences, but he can declassify it and there's no law to prevent it. In fact the law very specifically allows him to declassify it as part of his duties as president.
I hadn't heard Trump say it. I was referencing Nixon. Except that in this case it seems to largely apply. I may have gone too far saying, "whatever he damn well pleases," but it's true with regard to disclosing classified information. Somebody mentioned that he could be caught out for "self-promotion," but he's immune from most of the conflict-of-interest stuff. Somebody also mentioned calling him out for "calls to violence." I'd be curious to see how that one played out. The president is beholden to some of our laws, but there is very little limit to what he can legally tweet.
He's getting rather old, but he's a good mouse.
They would be fools to do so. If they have any competitors at all, Trump simply needs to pick one of them, and Twitter would lose a ton of users overnight. It wouldn't just be Trump supporters, it would be every reporter or blogger that wants to keep up with him, all the people that want to bitch at his comments, everyone who wants to follow any one that jumps to the new platform. It would pretty much doom Twitter.
"Somebody has to do something. It's just incredibly pathetic it has to be us."
--- Jerry Garcia
This is how it is supposed to work. But is there anything physically, mechanically standing in the way of rogue agents spying on, say, political opposition?
Is there automated logging of all actual taps that cannot be bypassed?
If not, it's all meaningless hot air.
(-1: Post disagrees with my already-settled worldview) is not a valid mod option.
I really doubt that there's a huge contingent of people who are only on Twitter because Trump is. Reporters and bloggers have always used Twitter, they were there long before the rise of Trump, and Trump leaving doesn't mean they can't continue to use Twitter - it's not as if you're banned from using Twitter if you keep up with people on Facebook.
You are not alone. This is not normal. None of this is normal.
The US Congress can determine a tweet is a crime and remove the President. Some possibilities include personal enrichment, call to violence, etc. This is a difficult tool to use, but is there as an ultimate power check.
They didn't do shit to Clapper when it was proven he lied under oath to Congress. Do you seriously think they would impeach the President for a tweet?
"Somebody has to do something. It's just incredibly pathetic it has to be us."
--- Jerry Garcia
That's the legal process for a wiretap. You can bypass that and still wiretap but it would be illegal.
We have a legal immigration process too. People can bypass that and come in another path but it is illegal^W undocumented immigration.
Who's picking which laws are ok to ignore these days?
While correct - there is a nuance to the "nobody can stop him." Congress can - via impeachment proceedings. If he starts disclosing "real" Classified information to the point that Congress feels he's a danger to the country - then Congress has a tool to "stop" him. There are also smaller hammers such as Censure.
The President is not the all powerful ruler that some think he is -- rather one branch of government balanced by the others.
Wikipedia has this wonderful quote in the Impeachment article: "Benjamin Franklin noted that, historically, the removal of "obnoxious" chief executives had been accomplished by assassination. Franklin suggested that a proceduralized mechanism for removal—impeachment—would be preferable"
So yeah that happened. http://www.telegraph.co.uk/new...
If we're going to title the article "How wiretaps actually work", then you have to make at least a small head nod to the Snowden disclosures.
"Wiretaps" actually work by asking an NSA employee or contractor to take a coffee break, sit down at their station, and type in the phone number. You'll have metadata immediately, and if you tag the phone number as interesting you'll have real time intercepts from that point forward.
Assuming that Mr. Trump had contacted Russians or those suspected of being Russians then his network would already be flagged as interesting and you'd already have transcripts.
The question is "Will someone risk their career to explain this to the President in idiomatic pictographs or take the safe route and shift-delete it?"
I hadn't heard Trump say it. I was referencing Nixon. Except that in this case it seems to largely apply. I may have gone too far saying, "whatever he damn well pleases," but it's true with regard to disclosing classified information.
I wasn't talking so much about him disclosing classified info (especially since, as I don't believe this happened, you can't classify information that doesn't exist) but rather his tweeting habits as a whole. It took a bullet in 1914 to start World War I. What can a tweet start in 2017?
The only thing necessary for evil to triumph is for it to be pitted against a slightly greater evil
tweeted accusations that the prior administration broke federal law and did something so unethical that Congress is required to investigate
Actually it was the NYT that reported this, using classified sources as source material. DJT didn't say anything the NYT didn't already report on.
So, was the NYT reporting in error and factually false, or is Trump accurate for tweeting what the NYT actually reported? These are directly related points. Liberals want it both way, but in doing so, are exposing their own hyperbole is nothing more than the hot air they think Trump is tweeting.
Agent K: A *person* is smart. People are dumb, stupid, panicky animals, and you know it.
Yes, Trump is making history in all sorts of interesting ways:.
The first president to use Twitter as his primary platform, the first president to not reveal his taxes, and the first president to be certified by the American courts (see opinion issued on what is now labelled the "Anti-Muslim bill") as being eligible for an honour shared by only one other president in US history: The "Honour" of Impeachment.
"Imagination is more important than knowledge" - Einstein
Indeed, it is in some cases a federal crime to disclose a wiretap without authorization, including not only the information obtained from the wiretap, but also the mere existence of a wiretap with an intent to obstruct it. With respect to intelligence wiretaps, there is an additional issue: They are always classified, and disclosure of classified information is also generally a crime.
Effectively, this is saying that if there was a wiretap and Trump disclosed it without authorization, he could have committed a crime.
I have wondered if there were taps, maybe it was simply on the Russians and the fact that they were talking with Trump could have been a coincidence unrelated to the election. With all the shit Russia pulls, I would kind of hope our Gov was keeping tabs on them.
My beliefs do not require that you agree with them.
...since, as I don't believe this happened, you can't classify information that doesn't exist...
The information does exist, it's just that all indications are that it's inaccurate. I can't classify false information, but he could. Classification level and accuracy don't necessarily go hand-in-hand. For a little over a decade, I worked closely with a lot of DoE classified information. I've never seen classified information that I knew to be false, but that doesn't mean it can't exist. During the Manhattan project, I'd wager that there was a lot of classified inaccurate information as we were learning. Fortunately, most everything that's classified has been fact-checked more rigorously than DJT's tweets.
What can a tweet start in 2017?
That thought terrifies me and that's the sole reason I installed Twitter and check it every morning.
He's getting rather old, but he's a good mouse.
"First, the U.S. government needs probable cause..." Yes, for a legal wiretap of which the recording is going to be used in court of law.
But, if all you want to do is to listen, record and then LEAK what you heard, then anything goes. Specially POLITICAL wiretaps. The
title of this piece should have been "How LEGAL wiretaps work."
I really doubt that there's a huge contingent of people who are only on Twitter because Trump is.
I'd be curious. I'm in that category. I installed Twitter solely to follow Trump - I follow 2 accounts, both of them him. I don't understand why Americans wouldn't follow him - He makes more announcements over Twitter than in press conferences. I check Twitter every morning just to see what new excitement has been hacked out.
He's getting rather old, but he's a good mouse.
because the term 'black op' doesn't mean something like ' operation performed illegally and without court order'.
I'm sure Edward Snowden messed up his whole life because every person who was being monitored by the NSA had been run through proper court channels and no traffic was being inspected without probably cause.
I wouldn't be surprised if someone was investigating weather or not trump was in bed with the Russians before he was elected. I be kind of surprised if they weren't. Were they doing so officially? Did the president know about it or order it? Unlikely.
Still if trump has something to say now the time to bring out the evidence. Of coarse I suppose he has the cover that he may not be legally able to produce the 'classified' evidence, but if that's the case he had no business saying anything about it.
âoeTolerance applies only to persons, but never to truth. Intolerance applies only to truth, but never to persons.
WOW. Just WOW. I didn't really understand this mentality until I listened to a Harvard professor explain that liberals these days don't just have these 'ideas of being liberal' it is their 'self identity' and any idea or thought that contradicts that 'self identity' has to be treated as an attack on themselves. Seriously, this is your second response where you seemingly can't make the logical distinction between 'he can LEGALLY say whatever he wants' and 'it may not be a great idea for him to do so'. The Parent was arguing the former & you're trying to say he's wrong about the latter which the parent NEVER argued.
Seriously stop equating your idea of what is 'morally/ethically sound' with REALITY, you'll succeed in life better.
When or where did I say I was liberal? Why do all Republicans assume that anyone who shows an ability to stray from the party line or have objective, rational thoughts has to be a liberal?
And I very clearly understand that he can legally saw whatever the hell he wants. What I am saying, that you apparently can't get through your thick skull, is something completely different. To paraphrase a famous philosopher: you're so preoccupied with whether or not he could, that you aren't stopping to think if he should. As president you cannot make unfounded claims against predecessors that alleges massively illegal acts, you cannot unleash a constant flow of stream of consciousness tweets every morning at 3am, or say whatever the hell you want, because it not only undermines the credibility and stability of both the office of the president and the government as a whole, it risks not only the economic but also the physical security of the country itself.
The only thing necessary for evil to triumph is for it to be pitted against a slightly greater evil
but you're still right. Obama didn't order the IRS to audit conservative organizations. Period. Full Stop. No quotes around order. The IRS did it themselves because there were so many right wing political organizations filing as charities that they were low hanging fruit for agents looking to bump their enforcement numbers up. Where they being profiled? Yeah. But they were being profiled by the IRS, not Obama and because they were up to no good and everybody knew it. Sad thing is they cried a little and now they get away with it all day long.
Hi! I make Firefox Plug-ins. Check 'em out @ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/youtube-mp3-podcaster/
America is not perfect, but it's still the best form of Government the world has ever seen.
[citation needed]
P.S. And "America" is not a "form of Government".
It must have been something you assimilated. . . .
I better be careful or you might threaten to shoot me again.
You never did explain how I threatened to shoot you. That you scurry off like a cockroach when confronted doesn't surprise me.
I think you are confusing the definitions of the words 'can' = 'is able to' and should = 'the action is inconsistent with morality or accomplishing a specified goal'.
âoeTolerance applies only to persons, but never to truth. Intolerance applies only to truth, but never to persons.
so you believe he has a moral obligation to behave otherwise. I agree, but in your discussion you need to recognize that many people do not share your morality including our current president.
âoeTolerance applies only to persons, but never to truth. Intolerance applies only to truth, but never to persons.
He can't get in trouble for declassification per se, but he could get in trouble for the content he declassifies. Say he declassifies nuclear secrets thereby committing treason by "adhering to their enemies, giving them aid and comfort". Or in the case of Obama wiretapping if it is in fact false it could very easily land him in court for libel. There most certainly can be legal consequences to declassifying information even for the president.
I googled this and I think you're making that up. The searches that I did (Barack Obama Number of tweets and Donald Trump number of tweets) said that Obama posted 15,400 tweets and realdonaldtrump has over 30,000 tweets archived. I agree that once you hit the 10s of thousands they are all the same, but why spread such nonsense when it is so easy to google.
Nullius in verba
Seriously? You don't REALLY believe that all it took was a 'bullet in 1914 to start WWI' do you? You do know I hope that that incident was an entire 'pretext' (e.g the stated reason but not the REAL reason) for the Habsburgs/Germans to start WWI right? (Austria-Hungary, but we like to call them 'Germans' so lets go with that). WWI would have started without that bullet. Are you entirely unfamiliar with the state of Europe in 1914? The fact there weren't 'weapons of mass destruction', that 'wars of conquest' were still considered a 'proper means to settle international differences' etc.
It was a bit hyperbole, but yes. Europe had created a very unstable house of cards, where all it took was a bullet to make the whole thing come crashing down. Throw in a couple games of chicken where neither side was willing to back down, a surprisingly strong Serbian resistance (or a surprisingly weak and incompetent Austrio-Hungarian offensive if you prefer), and arrogance and overestimation of military capability on virtually all sides, and it would have happened eventually. The point is when the conditions are right, even a relatively insignificant event (which, apart from Ferdinand and his wife, it was) can be the impetus for something much greater. A more recent example would be the Arab Spring that was started when a fruit seller in Tunisia set himself on fire, the effects of which we can still see in Libya, Egypt, Syria, etc. A Trump tweet can easily have drastic effects.
The only thing necessary for evil to triumph is for it to be pitted against a slightly greater evil
Let me quote the headline: Wiretapped Data used in Inquiry of Trump Aides
Someone was leaking and it was believable enough for the NYTimes to put it on the front page.
America is not perfect, but it's still the best form of Government the world has ever seen.
[I]t has been said that democracy is the worst form of Government except for all those other forms that have been tried from time to time.
-Winston Churchill
The only thing necessary for evil to triumph is for it to be pitted against a slightly greater evil
I tell you what I'm not keen on: your terrible, awful grammar.
story about how the NYT changed their headline to remove the word Wiretap.
In the story is the ORIGINAL story as NYT printed it. You can't find it anymore because that story/headline proves Trump is correct, and the NYT can't have that.
Yea, NYT isn't biased. The are literally changing previously run stories that verify Trump's claims.
How you like them apples?
I think you are confusing "can't" with "shouldn't"
He won't last a year until he ends up behind bars from the fruits of further digging into his many shady business dealings over his lifetime.
"Russians make up a pretty disproportionate cross-section of a lot of our assets.â
âoewe see a lot of money pouring in from Russia.â
~Lil Trump circa 2008.
Since he's the ultimate classification authority, information just BECOMES unclassified BY being tweeted.
Well no, it doesn't. There is a formal process for declassifying information. Simply revealing the information publicly does not follow the process, and so the information remains classified.
This leaves people with clearances in a totally bizarre situation, and it has happened before. When Bill Clinton revealed classified information in a public press conference, the information was still classified afterwards. That meant that anyone who held a clearance could not have certain issues of certain newspapers in their homes. Doing so would violate the laws concerning the handling of classified information. People who hold or have ever held clearances can not discuss the contents of that press conference with anyone who didn't have a clearance, and can't hold such a discussion outside a secure area.
I left the military industrial complex two years later, and my clearance has since expired, but so far as I know, that whacky situation was never cleared up. The data remains classified to this day, even though it is literally common knowledge.
You would like a citation from nearly every history book written since the early 1900s? Such a pathetic troll.
-The wise argue that there are few absolutes, the fool argues that there are no probabilities.
Which is why my post gets down modded.
-The wise argue that there are few absolutes, the fool argues that there are no probabilities.
Replying to myself because still no edit button...
I should clarify that it was perfectly legal for Bill Clinton to reveal classified information in a press conference. As many other people have pointed out, the Office of the President is the ultimate classification authority and can talk about anything he wants. Simply talking doesn't declassify the information though.
I'm not sure what inspired the GP AC rant, but he has you on one thing - You keep using the word "can" when I think you mean "should."
As president you shouldn't make unfounded claims against predecessors that alleges massively illegal acts, you shouldn't unleash a constant flow of stream of consciousness tweets every morning at 3am, or say whatever the hell you want...
DJT has demonstrated that he can do exactly those things. And there's very little legally to stop him. Maybe what you're trying to imply is that he can't do these things without consequences or that he can't do these things without betraying his office. That doesn't mean he can't do these things anyway.
He's getting rather old, but he's a good mouse.
Are you attempting to claim that there are no "libtard snowflakes" who hate America?
I don't think there are many who actually hate America. Whether they should be labelled "libtard snowflakes" I believe is a reflection on the sophistication of the person labeling them and an indication of whether or not they have anything worth-while to say. They're not calling for America to be disbanded. They're not leaving. The fact that they're staying here and protesting demonstrates that they'd like America to "improve," which to me indicates some devotion to the American ideal. If they truly hated America, they'd either leave or simply refuse to give a shit about the things they perceive as problems.
He's getting rather old, but he's a good mouse.
Suck it up, Buttercup. Trump won, you lost. Go back to your Breitbart hugbox.
You are welcome on my lawn.
What I said about the information becoming unclassified came directly from General Hayden. Despite being a former clearance holder, I just assumed he knew better than I did. There have certainly been issues where classified data have become public leading to "neither confirm nor deny" scenarios, but an outright announcement from our classifier-in-chief muddies the waters some. It's my understanding that he can declassify the information on his own. The issue is whether or not he did. The notion that this information is likely inaccurate just muddies the waters further.
As a semi-relevant aside, I was once in a meeting where the authors had to leave the room before we could discuss their paper. Their clearances were no longer valid so they were no longer allowed to discuss their own work.
He's getting rather old, but he's a good mouse.
If there's a fitting entity to the phrase "American Media, Domestic Enemy" it is the Washington Post through their defense of leftists and attacks on anyone else.
Twitter supports and protects racists - by smearing their critics with the "Hate Speech" label.
This is how an authoritarian government worked
Obama's authoritarian manner, combined with his handler Valerie Jarrett, show exactly how an authoritarian apparatus works. Trump on the other hand is showing how dedicated the left is at defending their meal ticket.
They care less about the truth, and more about justifying their actions with a painted visage of half-truths and lies.
The only thing that gives the establishment's lies any currency is that they have the media largely under their control.
Twitter supports and protects racists - by smearing their critics with the "Hate Speech" label.
When you open with that phrase "First, the U.S. government needs probable cause," it can only go down hill. We know for fact the US Government has been recording every single phone call since (c) 2005 without warrants
Newer example: Stingray! https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
Secondly, drug seizure laws: increasingly used by local law enforcement as revenue enhancement venues, exceeded $5B in 2014 (more $$ than were lost in burglary's) requires no probable cause - and you must prove otherwise.
So when the head of some 3 letter law enforcement organisation makes blatantly false statements in the face of demonstrative evidence to the contrary, this only serves to increase distrust of law enforcement.
My ism, it's full of beliefs.
Now that people can duplicate you voice pattern with just samples, will voice recordings become inadmissible in court?
Who is right? Was it a wiretap or no?
Your scenario describes a wiretap. It does not describe DJT being wiretapped. It doesn't remotely describe Obama wiretapping Trump.
Or is it just a matter of semantics?
Maybe, but when you're accusing a former president of a crime this serious and announcing a scandal bigger than Watergate, it's important to pick your words carefully. The people denying the wiretap know this and have mostly danced around their denials carefully.
He's getting rather old, but he's a good mouse.
I think Twitter needs to seriously consider removing his account.
Not that it's going to happen, but you're not the first person I've heard say this, and I could not disagree more. We really need to know what this dolt is thinking, and we should all be grateful this guy is such a self-centered idiot that he sees nothing wrong with tweeting out his every thought. The more he does it, the more people can see what kind of person he is. I wish Steve Bannon would do the same. Although, I keep wondering about these people who still seem unable to see exactly what kind of person Trump is.
-- sudon't
Air-ride Equipped
> "How Wiretaps Actually Work...blah blah blah"
Everyone with more than half a brain already knows that there's a GIANT difference between what the NSA/CIA/Police/Government CLAIM they do, and what they ACTUALLY do.
So I guess that just leaves liberals and WaPo readers.
and they were more blatant about it. That makes sense. The right wing is, has been and always will be representative of the very wealthy. It's natural they'd have more resources to start up these sorts of organizations. The right wing also desperately needs legitimization because actual science is opposed to them (and they to science). Climate Change, Trickle Down Economics, "Intelligent Design". All of these have been proven hogwash by all real scientists. Your side needs tons of fake non-profits pushing its agenda or the whole thing falls apart on top of the house of cards it was built on...
Hi! I make Firefox Plug-ins. Check 'em out @ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/youtube-mp3-podcaster/
As we have been told countless times since November, the United States is not a democracy.
You are welcome on my lawn.
Where I vehemently disagree with you is that they are not calling for America to be disbanded. When the majority of their demands require squashing the US Constitution and wealth redistribution (from the middle class to them of course) that _is_ disbanding America.
I think it depends on what you mean by "America" and what you mean by "disbanded." In the Civil War, one side wanted America disbanded. In that sense, not many of the protesters are calling for America to be disbanded. In the Civil War and in those protests, both sides loved America. You can find Americans that hate America, but they're the exception.
He's getting rather old, but he's a good mouse.
I don't see why we should give into your definition of what's on par with Trump's claim of bugged phones, nor is it controversial that Trump was tapped before he was POTUS. This whole reaction is more about manufactured outrage and distraction from real issues.
But Obama certainly did lie (plenty of variations of "If you like your plan, you can keep your plan." despite millions of Americans seeing their plans terminated which were lies of commission), and commit extrajudicial murder (the so-called 'Terror Tuesday' meetings, as the New York Times tells us, had former President Obama personally selecting targets for assassination. Some of the people killed in these drone attacks include Americans Anwar Awlaki and his 16-year-old son. Others killed in drone attacks are overwhelmingly completely unsuspected innocents who happen to be in the vicinity of the kill zone where the bomb goes). Obama lied by omission about these drone war consequences, but he made time to crack wise about death-by-drone at one of his Correspondent's dinners wherein he quipped about threatening a boy band his daughters enjoyed with death-by-drone ("You'll never see it coming..."). Pres. Obama called the Iraq war a "dumb war" and then kept it going for his entire term (this choice helped make his the first US President to be at war his entire term in office). Oh, don't worry: Pres. Trump is down with all of these policies. Trump apparently plans to keep HMOs intact and in charge of American healthcare with his own spin away from universalizing Medicare (we're learning about the details of this now but the broad strokes are clear) despite what he told "60 Minutes" about universal healthcare. Universalizing Medicare ala HR676 would be useful, is widely approved by Americans, is something real progressives should champion (particularly now) instead of knuckling under to more HMO rule, and would (by design) make it illegal for HMOs to cover the same care covered by Medicare (America's extant single-payer system). But passing HR676 into law would also ensure these HMOs wouldn't fund Democratic and Republican Party campaigns. And on war, Pres. Trump recently had Awlaki's 8-year-old daughter killed in a drone-led campaign in which the Navy SEAL Team 6 shot her in the throat and let her bleed to death. And there's no sign the US is ever leaving Iraq. Not only are these issue far more important than someone's manufactured outrage over Trump's tweet about spying on his calls, they point out how the similarities across administrations on significant issues far outnumber and outweigh the differences between administrations. And this is no accident.
Getting back to pointing out how much manufactured outrage works to obscure more important issues: The NSA's slogan "Sniff It All, Collect It All, Know It All, Process It All, Exploit It All" covers the situation quite well. That slogan is not "Collect some of it, Process most of it, Exploit things here or there but certainly not Trump Tower-related data". So it's perfectly reasonable Trump's communications were tapped. As RT's "The Resident" pointed out (using slightly different words than the next quote) and Ted Rall astutely point out "Of course Obama tapped Trump. Snowden told us. Obama tapped everyone!". German Chancellor Angela Merkel didn't like it when it was revealed her conversations were also being spied upon. The controversy is that the US taps so much regardless of whether they're abiding by US law. That's a far more important point.
Any outrage over Trump's reaction is a pointer to how much that person wasn't paying attention during the Snowden revelations and its consequences (which are ongoing to this day).
Digital Citizen
I didn't say only disband, I said "destroy" as well. It's the same thing on a different scale than the Civil War. Revocation of the US Constitution is disbanding our Country. The Constitution is the law that holds the country together.
-The wise argue that there are few absolutes, the fool argues that there are no probabilities.
I don't get it. Your post is a contradiction. Breitbart is pro Trump, and my post was not anti Trump but anti leftism.
-The wise argue that there are few absolutes, the fool argues that there are no probabilities.
Will be laughing if Obama ends up in orange jumpsuit.
The Trump administration is not fighting truth, but those in the media that have a lot of ability to spread convincing lies.
The media seems to have a nasty habit of believing untrue statements when it fits a political narrative, but not believing the truth when it doesn't.
Twitter supports and protects racists - by smearing their critics with the "Hate Speech" label.
In doing so he has amply earned the moniker "Dirty Donald".
Any claims based on the assumption that anything Pres. Trump says is not suspect to the highest degree are flawed and not to be considered credible.
And what if it is false? To me that is WORSE than if it where true. Because if it is true, you can go and hold people accountable.
The whole thing should be about acountability. And there is none if it is false. He would just say it was something he heard (on Breitbart). However he is POTUS and in that he should be held accountable for everything he says and tweets.
Remember when that one guy lied about getting a blowjob? This is not about if sex is the same as a blowjob. This is about POTUS telling a lie and doing it over and over and over again and again.
Just remember that in 4 years, a bigger idiot can become POTUS if there is no acountability. Do you want a totalitairian system? Because that is how you get a totalitairian system.
Don't fight for your country, if your country does not fight for you.
I don't get it. Your post is a contradiction. Breitbart is pro Trump, and my post was not anti Trump but anti leftism.
It. Was. Ironic.
To have a right to do a thing is not at all the same as to be right in doing it
Oh he's irregular alright...
He can sit on the can for days and pump out shit.
-
#letsmakeslashdotgreatagain
To have a right to do a thing is not at all the same as to be right in doing it
What we've done about accountability in the past is to have the voters interested enough to matter. Trump's voters, in general, did not care about constant lying, or his not releasing tax returns, or anything else related to accountability. The Republican Congress is busy passing bills that won't stand up to public scrutiny while allowing Trump to attract all the attention. Trump is very nearly the Platonic ideal of the Zaphod Beeblebrox theory of the Presidency.
"When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
Similarly, the Franco-Prussian war was started by a deliberately slanted translation of a diplomatic message. In all these cases, there were underlying causes, but they needed a trigger. It's entirely possible that, had Franz-Ferdinand not been assassinated, Europe would have found a more peaceful way to defuse tensions (Austro-Hungarian Emperor-King Franz-Josef died after a very long reign in 1916, and it's easy Austria-Hungary falling into pieces afterwards, which would have altered the situation thoroughly). There's a lot of tension in the modern world, and I don't know what would precipitate a war.
"When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
Churchill said that you can always rely on the Americans to do the right thing, once they have exhausted the alternatives.
"When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
By any reasonable definition, it's a democracy. Specifically, a representative democracy, not a direct democracy (although some states have governments with some degree of that).
"When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
The US liberals and leftists I'm aware of are typically not anti-American, and are not against the Constitution. They have different ideas of what the country should be like, and how to get there, than you do. There are radical idiots all over the political spectr[(um)|a that say wild things.
"When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
I see many of the same liberals you describe, but will point out what is making media coverage and talked about by Democratic politicians. Pelosi for example repeats all of the same extremist nonsense as those radicals. As did President Obama and Hillary Clinton, to an extent which they thought they could get away with (pay gap myth).
-The wise argue that there are few absolutes, the fool argues that there are no probabilities.
Two US Presidents have been impeached, neither convicted. (Impeachment requires a majority vote of the House, and leads to a trial in the Senate, which can remove the President or other official from office on a two-thirds vote.) The question about the travel ban is not whether issuing that executive order is legal, but whether the executive order itself is legal. Similarly, legislatures pass and governors sign laws that are held to be unconstitutional, but neither the legislators nor governors have committed crimes in doing so.
I'm pretty sure Trump has already violated one of the Constitutional emoluments clauses, and that's perfectly good legal justification for impeachment. However, impeachment is a largely political process rather than a legal one.
"When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
And of course, they never do unauthorized ones.
Because that would be wrong. And undetectable.
Oh, I see a problem.
There's no time like the present. Well, the past used to be.
The higher power is his duty to faithfully represent the United States and guide its government
How naive you are.
The only "higher power" Trump recognises is his own personal power.
Being an unfiltered loudmouth is the last thing you want to be in that situation.
And yet, that is exactly what the U.S. ended up with.
Unfortunately, media coverage is hardly representative of what's going on.
The pay gap is real. Women make less than men, for assorted reasons, and we may want to do something about some of them. With Western birth rates well below replacement level, we might want to remove financial disincentives to bearing and raising children in any case.
"When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
The term “unauthorized person” means any person who, or agency which, is not authorized to receive information of the categories set forth in subsection (a) of this section, by the President, or by the head of a department or agency of the United States Government which is expressly designated by the President to engage in communication intelligence activities for the United States.
So if the president gives the information to someone they cease to be "unauthorized" under the law. Now they can't share the classified information with anyone else, but the president has full authority to give that information to whomever he sees fit. Thus my statement that it is "literally impossible" for the president to be guilty of leaking classified information.