-
the assertion that some in the intel community are gunning for Trump seems to be true though. They were publicly made an enemy of the administration and, in their eyes, had their importance demeaned. Some are now leaking to fight back.
The recent allegations that Flynn wasn't the only Trumpee talking to the Russians has come directly from current and ex (I assume recently so) intel workers. -
@Crucial said in US Politics:
@Baron-Silas-Greenback said in US Politics:
@Frank It is actually terrible that the US spy agencies wire tapped a U.S. citizen, with no legal basis, and then released to the media. That is horrific. No matter what side you support, the ramifications are enormous.
Because Fox News reported it it as so? Because that interviewee says so?
The Russian ambassadors call was intercepted. Flynn was the other party. It wasn't leaked to the press, it was provided through the correct channels to the president. The leak came from within the White House. Trump said so via twitter.
I don't know if this is some kind of tit for tat misinformation campaign to counter so called fake news but the blatant lies to the media are beyond spin nowWhich president? The tap was done under Obama. As for where the leak came from, can you provide a source for your assertion that it came from the White House?
-
@JC said in US Politics:
@Baron-Silas-Greenback Didn't I read that the wiretap was on the Russian ambassador, not on Flynn? I'd have thought they'd at least attempt to tap every single communication with the Russians that they can, not just official ones.
Edit - sorry, Crucial was way ahead of me. Ignore me.
So? It is still illegal to wiretap a US citizen without going through legal channels.
-
@Baron-Silas-Greenback said in US Politics:
@JC said in US Politics:
@Baron-Silas-Greenback Didn't I read that the wiretap was on the Russian ambassador, not on Flynn? I'd have thought they'd at least attempt to tap every single communication with the Russians that they can, not just official ones.
Edit - sorry, Crucial was way ahead of me. Ignore me.
So? It is still illegal to wiretap a US citizen without going through legal channels.
That boat sailed under Obama. The infrastructure they setup over the past decade makes the recent 1984 bleating seem far too late.
-
@Baron-Silas-Greenback said in US Politics:
@Crucial said in US Politics:
@Baron-Silas-Greenback said in US Politics:
@Frank It is actually terrible that the US spy agencies wire tapped a U.S. citizen, with no legal basis, and then released to the media. That is horrific. No matter what side you support, the ramifications are enormous.
Because Fox News reported it it as so? Because that interviewee says so?
The Russian ambassadors call was intercepted. Flynn was the other party. It wasn't leaked to the press, it was provided through the correct channels to the president. The leak came from within the White House. Trump said so via twitter.
I don't know if this is some kind of tit for tat misinformation campaign to counter so called fake news but the blatant lies to the media are beyond spin nowWhich president? The tap was done under Obama. As for where the leak came from, can you provide a source for your assertion that it came from the White House?
I'll try and look back for it but I'm fairly certain that the sources referred to originally were 'White House ' ones not agency ones.
The tap was done under Obama, yes, but wasn't a tap on Flynn as you claim. Nor was it 'illegal'. Pretty standard stuff since forever to intercept Comms from embassies.
The interception would have only become of interest after Pence said Flynn assured him that sanctions weren't discussed. That then becomes a risk of blackmail against Flynn for lying so was briefed as such through the DoJ.
Given that the WH is about as secure as a sieve at the moment with regard to information (source Pres. Trump @ twitter) why would it surprise you that the story broke from within? -
@Baron-Silas-Greenback said in US Politics:
@JC said in US Politics:
@Baron-Silas-Greenback Didn't I read that the wiretap was on the Russian ambassador, not on Flynn? I'd have thought they'd at least attempt to tap every single communication with the Russians that they can, not just official ones.
Edit - sorry, Crucial was way ahead of me. Ignore me.
So? It is still illegal to wiretap a US citizen without going through legal channels.
This is the stupid thing.. Flynn was in that game. The first assumption anyone in that game makes when communicating via anything other than an encrypted system in a SKIF is that someone else is probably listening.
-
@Crucial said in US Politics:
@Baron-Silas-Greenback said in US Politics:
@Crucial said in US Politics:
@Baron-Silas-Greenback said in US Politics:
@Frank It is actually terrible that the US spy agencies wire tapped a U.S. citizen, with no legal basis, and then released to the media. That is horrific. No matter what side you support, the ramifications are enormous.
Because Fox News reported it it as so? Because that interviewee says so?
The Russian ambassadors call was intercepted. Flynn was the other party. It wasn't leaked to the press, it was provided through the correct channels to the president. The leak came from within the White House. Trump said so via twitter.
I don't know if this is some kind of tit for tat misinformation campaign to counter so called fake news but the blatant lies to the media are beyond spin nowWhich president? The tap was done under Obama. As for where the leak came from, can you provide a source for your assertion that it came from the White House?
I'll try and look back for it but I'm fairly certain that the sources referred to originally were 'White House ' ones not agency ones.
The tap was done under Obama, yes, but wasn't a tap on Flynn as you claim. Nor was it 'illegal'. Pretty standard stuff since forever to intercept Comms from embassies.
The interception would have only become of interest after Pence said Flynn assured him that sanctions weren't discussed. That then becomes a risk of blackmail against Flynn for lying so was briefed as such through the DoJ.
Given that the WH is about as secure as a sieve at the moment with regard to information (source Pres. Trump @ twitter) why would it surprise you that the story broke from within?The source? Thats it?
Well that means squat.
And yes it is 100% illegal. You cannot listen in on US citizens conversations without going through the legal process. -
@Baron-Silas-Greenback Forgetting the source for a moment, my understanding is that they cannot tap US citizens and the argument in this case is that they were tapping the Russian Embassy not Flynn?
-
@Baron-Silas-Greenback said in US Politics:
@booboo said in US Politics:
Just a reminder folks. This thread was shut down because it got too heated.
As I understand it we are conducting "extreme vetting" on posts. Don't take it personally.
Rancid. I deleted your post. Not because I disagreed with it (I actually liked it) , but because we want to avoid avoid this thread turning into a thread about posters again.
I would have also deleted the posts that prompted your reply as well (@Gollum , @Catogrande ).. but the thread has moved on.And I can assure you that many posters posts are getting removed.. you just dont see them
If the post of mine that you refer to was about things being quiet on here, it was very much meant tongue in cheek, not as a snide side-swipe at anyone. Apologies if it was taken that way.
-
@Catogrande said in US Politics:
@Baron-Silas-Greenback Forgetting the source for a moment, my understanding is that they cannot tap US citizens and the argument in this case is that they were tapping the Russian Embassy not Flynn?
Doesnt make a difference, they are not allowed to record conversations of citizens.
-
@Baron-Silas-Greenback Not quite. They just have to get the right authorisations. They are allowed to continuously intercept communications by foreign agents. If a US counterpart is involved they need to get that authorised afterwards.
I have no idea whether authorisation was obtained here though.
-
@Baron-Silas-Greenback said in US Politics:
@Catogrande said in US Politics:
@Baron-Silas-Greenback Forgetting the source for a moment, my understanding is that they cannot tap US citizens and the argument in this case is that they were tapping the Russian Embassy not Flynn?
Doesnt make a difference, they are not allowed to record conversations of citizens.
Since when? -
Bush OK'd it in 2007. The NSA can tap anyone they want, so long as it broadly in the national interests. Patriot Act greenlit almost anything, Bush, then Obama expanded it. Its all part of the war on terror. Hard to argue tapping a Russian talking to an unelected ex spook doesn't fall under that...
The ridiculous thing re Flynn is Carter Page & Paul Manafort have already been shitcanned over links to Russia brought to light the same way, its not like he wouildn't have known the spotlight was on. He just assumed he was bulletproof because he was with Trump. Its that mentality of "I can break the law & comit treason if it helps Trump"
Re posters going missing, it was slightly tongue in cheek after I went on holiday for 2 weeks, came back to full on abuse, so it seemed slightly ironic the tumbleweeds on here given the day before it'd been Trump central. Obviously I fully apologise if I hurt anyone.
-
@Baron-Silas-Greenback said in US Politics:
@Crucial said in US Politics:
@Baron-Silas-Greenback said in US Politics:
@Crucial said in US Politics:
@Baron-Silas-Greenback said in US Politics:
@Frank It is actually terrible that the US spy agencies wire tapped a U.S. citizen, with no legal basis, and then released to the media. That is horrific. No matter what side you support, the ramifications are enormous.
Because Fox News reported it it as so? Because that interviewee says so?
The Russian ambassadors call was intercepted. Flynn was the other party. It wasn't leaked to the press, it was provided through the correct channels to the president. The leak came from within the White House. Trump said so via twitter.
I don't know if this is some kind of tit for tat misinformation campaign to counter so called fake news but the blatant lies to the media are beyond spin nowWhich president? The tap was done under Obama. As for where the leak came from, can you provide a source for your assertion that it came from the White House?
I'll try and look back for it but I'm fairly certain that the sources referred to originally were 'White House ' ones not agency ones.
The tap was done under Obama, yes, but wasn't a tap on Flynn as you claim. Nor was it 'illegal'. Pretty standard stuff since forever to intercept Comms from embassies.
The interception would have only become of interest after Pence said Flynn assured him that sanctions weren't discussed. That then becomes a risk of blackmail against Flynn for lying so was briefed as such through the DoJ.
Given that the WH is about as secure as a sieve at the moment with regard to information (source Pres. Trump @ twitter) why would it surprise you that the story broke from within?The source? Thats it?
Well that means squat.
And yes it is 100% illegal. You cannot listen in on US citizens conversations without going through the legal process.Ok I traced this back to the Washington Post who others have credited as breaking the story.
I concede I was wrong, having misread a CNN article.- The WP source's were described as "current and former U.S. officials"
-CNN had said "A White House official also confirmed the warning"
So the original leak about the warning from Yates didn't come from the WH.
However, my point that the concerns originally went through the proper channels was correct. The leak came after a failure to act by the WH. Leaving Flynn in his position after receiving that briefing was plain stupid and potentially dangerous. This provided the 'sources' the inclination to go to the press.
As for the illegality of the intercept....this from the WSJ explains the intercepts
"U.S. intelligence services routinely get orders from the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court to monitor foreign officials. But under U.S. law, when they get those orders they are supposed to use âminimizationâ procedures that donât let them listen to the communications of Americans who may be caught in such eavesdropping. That is, they are supposed to protect the identity and speech of innocent Americans. Yet the Washington Post, which broke the story, says it spoke to multiple U.S. officials claiming to know what Mr. Flynn said on that call."
I'm surmising that the key thing here in any argument of legality would be the term 'innocent Americans' (I don't know if that is the actual wording of a court order). In the timeline of events this call would have been reviewed as part of the investigation as to why Putin surprisingly didn't counter Obama's sanctions. They would probably argue 'just cause' for reviewing what Flynn said and then that it was usable because he wasn't innocent.
BTW: If this intercept was illegal I'm very surprised the Trump administration hasn't latched onto that and trump hasn't tweeted indignation given the animosity between him and the intel community.
- The WP source's were described as "current and former U.S. officials"
-
@Catogrande said in US Politics:
@Baron-Silas-Greenback said in US Politics:
@booboo said in US Politics:
Just a reminder folks. This thread was shut down because it got too heated.
As I understand it we are conducting "extreme vetting" on posts. Don't take it personally.
Rancid. I deleted your post. Not because I disagreed with it (I actually liked it) , but because we want to avoid avoid this thread turning into a thread about posters again.
I would have also deleted the posts that prompted your reply as well (@Gollum , @Catogrande ).. but the thread has moved on.And I can assure you that many posters posts are getting removed.. you just dont see them
If the post of mine that you refer to was about things being quiet on here, it was very much meant tongue in cheek, not as a snide side-swipe at anyone. Apologies if it was taken that way.
It was quite obviously a swipe at your Welsh friends. Hope you feel ashamed
-
A little more research on the FISA Act shows that EO 12333 looks on first reading to have made this intercept of Flynn's call legal and what I was referring to when I said 'he should have known that being in the game he could have been intercepted'
I'll cut and paste a few bits, but here is a link to a paper that explains it and provides full context...
Collection of foreign intelligence information through electronic
surveillance is now governed by FISA and E.O. 12333.16 This report will examine
the provisions of FISA which deal with electronic surveillance in the foreign
intelligence context........Executive Order 12333
....Among the types of information that can be collected, retained
or disseminated under this section are:(e) Information needed to protect foreign intelligence or counterintelligence
sources or methods from unauthorized disclosure. Collection within the United
States shall be undertaken by the FBI except that other agencies of the
Intelligence Community may also collect such information concerning present
or former employees, present or former intelligence agency contractors or their
present or former employees, or applicants for any such employment or
contracting;......In addition, agencies within the Intelligence Community may disseminate
information, other than information derived from signals intelligence, to each
appropriate agency within the Intelligence Community for purposes of allowing
the recipient agency to determine whether the information is relevant to its
responsibilities and can be retained by it.Section 2.5 of the Executive Order 12333 states that:
The Attorney General hereby is delegated the power to approve the use for
intelligence purposes, within the United States or against a United States person
abroad, of any technique for which a warrant would be required if undertaken for
law enforcement purposes, provided that such techniques shall not be undertaken
unless the Attorney General has determined in each case that there is probable
cause to believe that the technique is directed against a foreign power or an agent
of a foreign power.There are also provios in the Act for Flynn to sue if he can make a case that they have broken the law in this regard.
-
A good timeline of events, taken from...https://www.theatlantic.com/news/archive/2017/02/flynn-resigns-timeline/516594/
November 8, 2016: Donald Trump is elected the 45th president of the United States. Flynn, a former Army general who was an early and ardent supporter of the Republican nominee, is expected to get a senior position in the Trump White House.
November 18: Trump names Flynn as his national-security adviser.
December 29: President Obama announced measures, including sanctions, on Russia for its interference in the U.S. election. The sanctions are in addition to those imposed on Moscow following its invasion in 2014 of Ukraineâs Crimea region. Flynn and Kislyak speak that day, The Washington Post reports, citing a Trump transition official. The official says sanctions werenât discussed. Additionally, CNN reports the Russian ambassador texted Flynn on December 28.
December 30: Russian President Vladimir Putin says Moscow will not retaliate. The Post says that prompted U.S. intelligence analysts to look for reasons why Putin declined to impose his own measures against the U.S. They found, the newspaper reported, Kislyakâs communications, including the phone call, with Flynn. Sally Yates, then the deputy attorney general, found Flynnâs comments in the call âhighly significant,â the Post reported.
January 12: David Ignatius, the Post columnist, wrote that Flynn and Kislyak spoke several times on December 29, the day the sanctions were announced. âWhat did Flynn say, and did it undercut the U.S. sanctions?â Ignatius wrote. He added a Trump transition official told him the calls, which occurred before the U.S. sanctions were announced, did not cover that topic. Ignatius added:
This official later added that Flynnâs initial call was to express condolences to Kislyak after the terrorist killing of the Russian ambassador to Ankara Dec. 19, and that Flynn made a second call Dec. 28 to express condolences for the shoot-down of a Russian plane carrying a choir to Syria. In that second call, Flynn also discussed plans for a Trump-Putin conversation sometime after the inauguration. In addition, a second Trump official said the Dec. 28 call included an invitation from Kislyak for a Trump administration official to visit Kazakhstan for a conference in late January.
January 13: Sean Spicer, the White House spokesman, told reporters in a conference call that Flynn and Kislyak only discussed a post-inauguration call between Trump and Putin. âThat was it, plain and simple,â he said.January 15: Pence, on CBSâs Face the Nation, said Flynn âdid not discuss anything having to do with the United Statesâ decision to expel diplomats or impose censure against Russia.â
January 19: Yates, the deputy attorney general, and senior intelligence officials debated what to do with the information they had on Flynn. The Post reported that FBI Director James Comey argued against notifying Trump administration officials of the communications.
January 20: Trump was inaugurated; Flynn officially became national-security adviser.
January 23: Spicer told reporters he spoke with Flynn about the issue the previous night (January 22). He said Flynn and the Russian envoy spoke once. They discussed, he said, the Russian plane crash, the Syrian civil war, Christmas, and a call between their two leaders. Yates raised the issue again with Comey, who the Post said dropped his initial opposition to briefing the administration.
January 26: Yates briefed Donald McGahn, the White House counsel, about the conversation, Spicer said Tuesday. (The FBI interviewed Flynn immediately prior to this briefing, the Times reported Tuesday, but itâs unclear what date that interview occurred. The Times added the bureau believes Flynn wasnât completely forthcoming during the interview.) The Post reported earlier Tuesday that Yates told McGahn that Flynn had misled Pence and others about the content of his conversations with Kislyak. Flynn, Yates reportedly said, was consequently vulnerable to Russian blackmail. Spicer said McGahn immediately briefed Trump and other senior officials. Trump ordered McGahn to look into whether there was a legal issue, Spicer said. After several days, Spicer said, McGahn concluded there was none. Spicer said the nature of the conversation between Flynn and the Russian envoy was not unusual, but âthe president [then] evaluated the trust issueâ and concluded there had been an erosion of trust. Explaining the time difference between the time Trump was briefed and the time Flynn resigned, Spicer said he didnât understand how that was âdue process.â Yates, he said, âdidnât come in and say there was an issue. She said, âWanted to give you a heads-up there may be information.â She could not confirm there was an investigation.â
February 7 and 8: Flynn told the Post he did not discuss the sanctions with Kislyak. A day later, his spokesman told the Post the national security adviser âcouldnât be certain that the topic never came up.â
February 9: NBC News reported Tuesday Pence was only informed of the Justice Departmentâs warning about Flynn 15 days after Trump and others were told.
February 10: An unnamed Trump administration official told the Post Pence either misspoke or was misled by Flynn. Further, The New York Times reported that transcripts existed of the conversation. While the alleged content of the conversations was a likely breach of protocol during a presidential transitionâand could be a breach of the lawâitâs unlikely to lead to any charges against Flynn.
February 11 and 12: When asked about it en route to Mar-a-Lago, Trump replied he was unaware of the controversy. Spicer said Trump was referring only to the Postâs article on the conversation. Hereâs the exchange that took place:
View image on Twitter
View image on Twitter
Follow
Dan Merica â @danmericaCNN
Here is Trump's Air Force One exchange where POTUS says he didn't know about reports re: Flynn and Russian sanctions. (h/t @gregorywallace)
6:45 PM - 14 Feb 2017
81 81 Retweets 85 85 likes
Still, Flynn went to Mar-a-Lago, Trumpâs Florida retreat, with the president and the Japanese prime minister. He appeared to enjoy Trumpâs confidence, and even huddled with the president when news broke of North Koreaâs missile launch. Still, there was no public word from Trump over the reports about his national-security adviser.February 13: Kellyanne Conway, Trumpâs counselor, said on MSNBC Flynn enjoyed the presidentâs confidence. Hours later, Flynn resigned.
February 14: Conway said it was Flynnâs decision to resign; Spicer said Trump asked for Flynnâs resignation.
-
In regard to these anonymous sources making claims to the NY Times of Trump's campaign and Russia etc, I think it is in everyone's best interest that the evidence be fully published so everyone can see it. I trust the actual evidence will be forthcoming.
At this point, the NYTimes says - there is "no evidence" that âTrump campaign was colluding with the Russians on the hacking or other efforts to influence the election.â
-
@Frank said in US Politics:
At this point, the NYTimes says - there is "no evidence" that âTrump campaign was colluding with the Russians on the hacking or other efforts to influence the election.â
Here's the link
The title of which is "Trump Campaign Aides Had Repeated Contacts With Russian Intelligence"
Phone records and intercepted calls show that members of Donald J. Trumpâs 2016 presidential campaign and other Trump associates had repeated contacts with senior Russian intelligence officials in the year before the election, according to four current and former American officials.
American law enforcement and intelligence agencies intercepted the communications around the same time they were discovering evidence that Russia was trying to disrupt the presidential election by hacking into the Democratic National Committee, three of the officials said. The intelligence agencies then sought to learn whether the Trump campaign was colluding with the Russians on the hacking or other efforts to influence the election.
The officials interviewed in recent weeks said that, so far, they had seen no evidence of such cooperation.
But the intercepts alarmed American intelligence and law enforcement agencies, in part because of the amount of contact that was occurring while Mr. Trump was speaking glowingly about the Russian president, Vladimir V. Putin. At one point last summer, Mr. Trump said at a campaign event that he hoped Russian intelligence services had stolen Hillary Clintonâs emails and would make them public.
The officials said the intercepted communications were not limited to Trump campaign officials, and included other associates of Mr. Trump. On the Russian side, the contacts also included members of the government outside of the intelligence services, they said. All of the current and former officials spoke on the condition of anonymity because the continuing investigation is classified.
Read the last bit.
-
This is dirty politics on steroids.. And I am amazed anyone is remotely supporting it.
Just step back and forget partisanship. Do you really want this sort of thing to become normal? Can you imagine the private conversations that all politicians have?
It is a big towards a police state. -
Cheers. Good to have the actual truth re the validity of recording it. Backed up & everything!
So now we have recording Flynn 100% legal & not even in a grey area, let alone dodgy.
Leaks cannot be directly sourced as its an ongoing (criminal) investigation.What else we got?
US Politics