- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
re: Lynch could have surveilled Trump for 7 days prior to FISA warrant rejection
Posted on 3/6/17 at 1:24 pm to joshnorris14
Posted on 3/6/17 at 1:24 pm to joshnorris14
quote:
The problem is that Loretta Lynch could have spied on the future President, during a campaign, without even getting a warrant.
Yep, but she would have to inform the FISA court that she was doing it. And she is supposed to inform the Congressional Intelligence Committee as well.
So there would be a paper trail if she and Obama went this route.
0
Posted on 3/6/17 at 1:27 pm to Decatur
quote:
FISA does not apply to strictly foreign-to-foreign comms that do not touch US infrastructure and are not reasonably expected to contain US person comms.
I never said they did. I said there is a legal way around FISA for spying on American citizens. However, there is a lot of red tape involved, including informing Congress that you did it (and it has to be in writing and is considered under oath). Think of it as an exigent circumstance.
Of course, I doubt they went this route. I think they either went the "normal" FISA route (going to the judges and arguing their case) or they did it completely illegally on the "down low."
Posted on 3/6/17 at 1:28 pm to joshnorris14
quote:
The problem is that Loretta Lynch could have spied on the future President, during a campaign, without even getting a warrant.
For any matter she could have committed numerous gross violations of the law (I mean who really cares when you're above the law, amirite?) but that's not what the record here shows.
Regardless, I support a robust independent investigation of all of this so we can confidently get to the bottom of it. And you?
Posted on 3/6/17 at 1:32 pm to Decatur
quote:
For any matter she could have committed numerous gross violations of the law (I mean who really cares when you're above the law, amirite?) but that's not what the record here shows.
I think you missed the 'legally' part of my post. It wouldn't be a violation of the law
Posted on 3/6/17 at 1:42 pm to joshnorris14
Posted on 3/6/17 at 2:04 pm to AUstar
quote:
I said there is a legal way around FISA for spying on American citizens.
Which is convenient for Democrats in power.
Posted on 3/6/17 at 2:15 pm to joshnorris14
It still has to be Ok'd by a judge. Why can't any of you see that?
Posted on 3/6/17 at 2:18 pm to Holden Caulfield
quote:
Could explain, in part, the tarmac meeting in June.
That's not important. What's important is that spying on the "bad guys" are okay.
Posted on 3/6/17 at 2:23 pm to TJGator1215
quote:
It still has to be Ok'd by a judge.
For a continuation of the surveillance it does. But not for the first 7 days.
Posted on 3/6/17 at 2:24 pm to TJGator1215
quote:
It still has to be Ok'd by a judge. Why can't any of you see that?
No it doesn't. The FISA court has to be informed it's happening but they don't have to provide them any evidence.
Posted on 3/6/17 at 2:27 pm to TJGator1215
quote:
It still has to be Ok'd by a judge. Why can't any of you see that?
Let's say there is indeed a week of data accumulated before a judge pulls the plug. What do think an AG like Loretta Lynch does with that data?
This post was edited on 3/6/17 at 2:28 pm
Posted on 3/6/17 at 2:31 pm to Holden Caulfield
She is prohibited by the same law from doing anything with it.
Posted on 3/6/17 at 2:33 pm to Decatur
quote:
She is prohibited by the same law from doing anything with it.
It certainly makes that tarmac meeting with Bill Clinton (Who she was investigating at the time) a lot more interesting
Posted on 3/6/17 at 2:33 pm to Decatur
quote:
She is prohibited by the same law from doing anything with it.
She met with the husband of a woman her department was investigating for criminal behavior. You think legal formalities matter to her?
Posted on 3/6/17 at 2:34 pm to Decatur
quote:
She is prohibited by the same law from doing anything with it.
Yet they will be the only ones who knew what was collected and its only illegal to give it to another govt agency.
It doesn't say anything about leaking it to the press.
Posted on 3/6/17 at 2:38 pm to joshnorris14
quote:
It certainly makes that tarmac meeting with Bill Clinton (Who she was investigating at the time) a lot more interesting
Great time to hand off some transcripts of intercepted messages
Posted on 3/6/17 at 2:40 pm to TidenUP
Also, a great opportunity to share Spirit Cooking recipes.
Posted on 3/6/17 at 2:41 pm to joshnorris14
quote:
It certainly makes that tarmac meeting with Bill Clinton (Who she was investigating at the time) a lot more interesting
Should have never happened.
Posted on 3/6/17 at 2:41 pm to Decatur
Of course. They WERE talking about grandkids after all
This post was edited on 3/6/17 at 2:42 pm
Posted on 3/6/17 at 2:42 pm to TidenUP
Lol 
Page 2 of 3
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News