• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

‘Is there an investigation?’ Graham demands answers from FBI on Russia.[W:57,115]

Re: ‘Is there an investigation?’ Graham demands answers from FBI on Russia.

OpportunityCost said:
Multiple news agencies cited anonymous sources about meetings and specific conversations, in specific about Flynn. So how did telephone conversations of Flynn happen to get leaked and how would they be leaked if they were not "tapped"?
Click to expand...

Are you really so ignorant of the facts, and lacking in imagination, that you believe the only way a persons phone conversation can be recorded is if their own phone is tapped? Is it really that hard for you to imagine the possibility that Flynn was recorded while talking to someone else whose phone was being wiretapped?

Or did you just not know that a phone conversation involves (at least) two parties?
 
Re: ‘Is there an investigation?’ Graham demands answers from FBI on Russia.

tres borrachos said:
Yes, your posts are almost all lies. Like apdst's. You two can troll it up together. I'm wasting my time.
Click to expand...

You certainly are, because you have a certainty about something where all the information is coming from anonymous leaks. Leaks about closed meetings. So who leaked?
 
Re: ‘Is there an investigation?’ Graham demands answers from FBI on Russia.

sangha said:
Are you really so ignorant of the facts, and lacking in imagination, that you believe the only way a persons phone conversation can be recorded is if their own phone is tapped? Is it really that hard for you to imagine the possibility that Flynn was recorded while talking to someone else whose phone was being wiretapped?

Or did you just not know that a phone conversation involves (at least) two parties?
Click to expand...

THATS THE POINT! Americans identities are supposed to be redacted rather than openly leaked. If it happened to Flynn, why couldn't it have happened to Trump?
 
Re: ‘Is there an investigation?’ Graham demands answers from FBI on Russia.

OpportunityCost said:
So, the NYT lied about the headline. Nice to know. Because you can't have it both ways as you like.
Click to expand...

The headline does not say that Obama approved a wiretap on Trump, or on any american
 
Re: ‘Is there an investigation?’ Graham demands answers from FBI on Russia.

OpportunityCost said:
LOL. I did. Now the NYT is walking it back, do you believe them or their own damn headline.
Click to expand...

No, you posted a story about a leak from a wiretap on the Russian ambassadors phone.

I challenge you to post one report of a leak from a wiretap of Trump
 
Re: ‘Is there an investigation?’ Graham demands answers from FBI on Russia.

OpportunityCost said:
THATS THE POINT! Americans identities are supposed to be redacted rather than openly leaked. If it happened to Flynn, why couldn't it have happened to Trump?
Click to expand...

This thread is not about what is supposed to be redacted. It is about your lie that Trump was wiretapped

I challenge you to post one report of a leak from a wiretap of Trump
 
Re: ‘Is there an investigation?’ Graham demands answers from FBI on Russia.

sangha said:
No, you posted a story about a leak from a wiretap on the Russian ambassadors phone.

I challenge you to post one report of a leak from a wiretap of Trump
Click to expand...

"Wiretapped data used in inquiry of Trump aides".

That's the exact quote. So Trump aides were tapped...or the headline is lying. Pick one.
 
Re: ‘Is there an investigation?’ Graham demands answers from FBI on Russia.

OpportunityCost said:
"Wiretapped data used in inquiry of Trump aides".

That's the exact quote. So Trump aides were tapped...or the headline is lying. Pick one.
Click to expand...

In what universe does a sentence which does not say that Trump aides were wiretapped mean that Trumps aides were wiretapped?

And in what universe does Trump mean Trumps aides?
 
Re: ‘Is there an investigation?’ Graham demands answers from FBI on Russia.

sangha said:
In what universe does a sentence which does not say that Trump aides were wiretapped mean that Trumps aides were wiretapped?

And in what universe does Trump mean Trumps aides?
Click to expand...

How else in the world would the data be important to Trump aides?
 
Re: ‘Is there an investigation?’ Graham demands answers from FBI on Russia.

OpportunityCost said:
How else in the world would the data be important to Trump aides?
Click to expand...

Please post a report that says Trump was being wiretapped.

So far, the best you can do is post a quote that does not say he was wiretapped :lamo
 
Re: ‘Is there an investigation?’ Graham demands answers from FBI on Russia.

sangha said:
Please post a report that says Trump was being wiretapped.

So far, the best you can do is post a quote that does not say he was wiretapped :lamo
Click to expand...

If that's what you have to read into it to get there, good for you.
 
Re: ‘Is there an investigation?’ Graham demands answers from FBI on Russia.

apdst said:
You're advocating warrantless surveillance.
Click to expand...

Well, no, I'm not actually, but believe what you want.
 
Re: ‘Is there an investigation?’ Graham demands answers from FBI on Russia.

OpportunityCost said:
Of course, but the point is that Americans are supposed to be redacted not leaked as a matter of course. So if Flynn was tapped by a matter of course, what can we conclude regarding Trump?
Click to expand...

You've conflated two issues - whether his name should be redacted, and whether the leak was legal or appropriate.

From what I've read of the legal requirements, no, his name did not have to be redacted to comply with the law because the fact that Flynn was the person on the other end is what makes the call meaningful for national security purposes. If the ambassador had been calling a pizza place for an order, or his doctor, etc. that's when the minimization procedures are required.

Obviously the leak of the existence and the content of the call was likely illegal, and the perp punished if caught.
 
Re: ‘Is there an investigation?’ Graham demands answers from FBI on Russia.

Moderator's Warning:
There is already one in thread warning in place. Now there are two, and this one is zero tolerance. Moving forward, even light insults will result in a thread ban with points. My suggestion is to debate the topic and the topic only and to avoid talking about other posters. Posts made before this in thread may still be subject to moderation.
 
Re: ‘Is there an investigation?’ Graham demands answers from FBI on Russia.

JasperL said:
You've conflated two issues - whether his name should be redacted, and whether the leak was legal or appropriate.

From what I've read of the legal requirements, no, his name did not have to be redacted to comply with the law because the fact that Flynn was the person on the other end is what makes the call meaningful for national security purposes. If the ambassador had been calling a pizza place for an order, or his doctor, etc. that's when the minimization procedures are required.

Obviously the leak of the existence and the content of the call was likely illegal, and the perp punished if caught.
Click to expand...

Americans, according to FISA procedures, are outside the purview of the law. That is ANY mention of them is to be redacted because it is illegal to put them through surveillance, even accidentally. The exception is if they are the object of the FISA warrant. So, the question becomes, how was an American caught in a FISA tap and leaked to the press? The secondary question becomes, who else amongst the Trump aides (now the Trump administration) was also caught by taps?
 
Re: ‘Is there an investigation?’ Graham demands answers from FBI on Russia.

OpportunityCost said:
Americans, according to FISA procedures, are outside the purview of the law. That is ANY mention of them is to be redacted because it is illegal to put them through surveillance, even accidentally. The exception is if they are the object of the FISA warrant. So, the question becomes, how was an American caught in a FISA tap and leaked to the press? The secondary question becomes, who else amongst the Trump aides (now the Trump administration) was also caught by taps?
Click to expand...

I believe that's incorrect. Here's a cite to Lawfareblog.com, and they first discuss the relevant law:

But a U.S. person’s name can be used when it is necessary to understand the foreign intelligence information in the report, and no serious argument can be made that Flynn’s identity was not necessary to understand the intelligence significance of his call with Ambassador Kislyak. The call is foreign intelligence information mainly because it involves Flynn.

In a related context, here is what FISA’s legislative history says about minimization rules and substitution of generic identifiers for U.S. person names when those U.S. persons are U.S. government officials
Click to expand...

And then quote from the legislative history of FISA:

One example [of a situation in which a U.S. person’s name could be disseminated in an intelligence report] would be the identity of a person who is the incumbent of an office of the executive branch of the U.S. Government having significant responsibility for the conduct of U.S. defense or foreign policy, such as the Secretary of State or the State Department country desk officer. The identifiers of such persons would frequently satisfy the “necessary to understand” requirement, especially when such person is referred to in the communications of foreign officials.
Click to expand...

The legislative history is almost directly on point, and it concludes that not redacting Flynn's identity is appropriate.
 
Re: ‘Is there an investigation?’ Graham demands answers from FBI on Russia.

JasperL said:
I believe that's incorrect. Here's a cite to Lawfareblog.com, and they first discuss the relevant law:



And then quote from the legislative history of FISA:



The legislative history is almost directly on point, and it concludes that not redacting Flynn's identity is appropriate.
Click to expand...

A couple of things are involved here. One is the ease with which this information was leaked and the number of persons included in unredacted FISA materials. Before Obama made a significant change to FISA circulation rules, the number of people that would see such a document with Flynn's name attached was under 50. After the change Obama made, that number climbed to over 500. That both made it easier to leak and easier to hide the identity of the leaker.

Considering the sensitive nature of FISA materials, leaking it should be a serious issue and the tighter the security, the better. Obama's EO essentially made it open season on leaks regarding the Trump organization. Whether you feel Flynn was correct to have been a target of FISA or not, I would say you should be concerned over the way it was leaked and the changes that made it easier to do and easier to hide.
 
Re: ‘Is there an investigation?’ Graham demands answers from FBI on Russia.

OpportunityCost said:
So you missed the news reports about people in Trump's administration having news stories circulated about them being wiretapped? Where have you been?
Click to expand...

Its blatant intellectual dishonesty.

The jim acosta style...

I have doubts as to its wholly their fault they must take a tiny excerpt as gospel out of context. In many cases this is out of a rather large idea or communication with an overarching theme.

Partisan goggles, bad education under a liberal professor, living in an echo chamber, etc.

Its going to take awhile to get these people straightened out.

My grandfather use to call them "Wrongheaded"
 
Re: ‘Is there an investigation?’ Graham demands answers from FBI on Russia.

OpportunityCost said:
A couple of things are involved here. One is the ease with which this information was leaked and the number of persons included in unredacted FISA materials. Before Obama made a significant change to FISA circulation rules, the number of people that would see such a document with Flynn's name attached was under 50. After the change Obama made, that number climbed to over 500. That both made it easier to leak and easier to hide the identity of the leaker.

Considering the sensitive nature of FISA materials, leaking it should be a serious issue and the tighter the security, the better. Obama's EO essentially made it open season on leaks regarding the Trump organization. Whether you feel Flynn was correct to have been a target of FISA or not, I would say you should be concerned over the way it was leaked and the changes that made it easier to do and easier to hide.
Click to expand...

So after getting pwned about your whining of how Flynns name should have been redacted, the issue is now the ease with which the info was leaked.

Soon you will be reduced to whining about the font used in the report
 
Re: ‘Is there an investigation?’ Graham demands answers from FBI on Russia.

OpportunityCost said:
A couple of things are involved here. One is the ease with which this information was leaked and the number of persons included in unredacted FISA materials. Before Obama made a significant change to FISA circulation rules, the number of people that would see such a document with Flynn's name attached was under 50. After the change Obama made, that number climbed to over 500. That both made it easier to leak and easier to hide the identity of the leaker.

Considering the sensitive nature of FISA materials, leaking it should be a serious issue and the tighter the security, the better. Obama's EO essentially made it open season on leaks regarding the Trump organization. Whether you feel Flynn was correct to have been a target of FISA or not, I would say you should be concerned over the way it was leaked and the changes that made it easier to do and easier to hide.
Click to expand...

I've already said in a previous post to you that the leak is a different issue altogether, was almost surely illegal, and the perp should be prosecuted. The rules change on sharing info is also a different issue and I'm agnostic on that. I know it had been in the works for a long time - predating the Trump/Russia stuff - but don't know enough about it to conclude whether the policy as a whole is misguided or alarming etc.

And, again, it's highly unlikely Flynn was the 'target' and there is NO evidence he was the target. More likely the Russian ambassador was, and Flynn's call recorded as the other end of the 'tap' on that guy's communications. And from what I've read and quoted, using that recording without redacting Flynn's identity is totally appropriate. But, again, that does NOT excuse the leaking of the info. As I said, different issues.
 
Re: ‘Is there an investigation?’ Graham demands answers from FBI on Russia.

OpportunityCost said:
A couple of things are involved here. One is the ease with which this information was leaked and the number of persons included in unredacted FISA materials. Before Obama made a significant change to FISA circulation rules, the number of people that would see such a document with Flynn's name attached was under 50. After the change Obama made, that number climbed to over 500. That both made it easier to leak and easier to hide the identity of the leaker.

Considering the sensitive nature of FISA materials, leaking it should be a serious issue and the tighter the security, the better. Obama's EO essentially made it open season on leaks regarding the Trump organization. Whether you feel Flynn was correct to have been a target of FISA or not, I would say you should be concerned over the way it was leaked and the changes that made it easier to do and easier to hide.
Click to expand...

I miss the days when you liked leakers
OpportunityCost said:
Good. Both sides need to be transparent about how they REALLY do business.
Click to expand...
 
Re: ‘Is there an investigation?’ Graham demands answers from FBI on Russia.

sangha said:
I miss the days when you liked leakers
Click to expand...

Using the intelligence apparatus of the country to spike an incoming administration is wrong. Selectively leaking information gathered through FISA warrants that are supposed to be for national security issues but is instead being used as a political weapon is wrong. I would rather FISA and other instruments of the Patriot Act were done away with completely.

That said, Flynn was wrong in some of the things he did. I believe Sessions, however, did nothing wrong other than meet a foreign dignitary at a designated meeting set by the previous administration. There is no there...there.

As for the private e-mails, I think both the RNC and the DNC need to be more transparent and themselves open to FOIA requests. Then partisan scumbags like Podesta would not engage in the email conversations he did, because he would know they would become public.
 
Re: ‘Is there an investigation?’ Graham demands answers from FBI on Russia.

JasperL said:
I've already said in a previous post to you that the leak is a different issue altogether, was almost surely illegal, and the perp should be prosecuted. The rules change on sharing info is also a different issue and I'm agnostic on that. I know it had been in the works for a long time - predating the Trump/Russia stuff - but don't know enough about it to conclude whether the policy as a whole is misguided or alarming etc.

And, again, it's highly unlikely Flynn was the 'target' and there is NO evidence he was the target. More likely the Russian ambassador was, and Flynn's call recorded as the other end of the 'tap' on that guy's communications. And from what I've read and quoted, using that recording without redacting Flynn's identity is totally appropriate. But, again, that does NOT excuse the leaking of the info. As I said, different issues.
Click to expand...

I think you are being way too forgiving, it was signed just days before Obama left office. It effectively politicized intelligence briefings as weapons. My opinion is yes regarding Flynn's identity but not to 500 people, but rather the 50 that would originally have seen the unredacted document/recording/transcript.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom