The Robert Mueller Investigation

[Brisketexan 105,268]

Hey [mention=593]Brisketexan[/mention] can you help jimmy2 with the distinction between the predicate for the investigation and the probable cause for the FISA warrant before he stroke out?

Why? You seem perfectly capable of remaining focused on your pointless mental masturbation, so I won’t “give you a hand with that.”

The distinction doesn’t matter. Completely warrantless investigations of political opponents for political purposes are totally legal, totally cool, so discussing the nuances of unnecessary warrants is just silly.

[David Dennison 18,944]

Just now, Anastasis said:

Did you read the report?

Not all of it, so do me a favor and cite the part that says a judge is required to approve a FISA warrant request.

[ndawg 1,242]

16 minutes ago, washparkhorn said:

No tell me. Why would anyone side with Trump in his refusal to support reform of the FISA process?

Everyone has already put this into context for you. You're just not seeing it.

[washparkhorn 9,939]

12 minutes ago, Brisketexan said:

Queensberry rules

Meaningless rules - for you who is privileged enough to not need those rules. 

Again - the ACLU:

"When the Justice Department’s Inspector General finds significant concerns regarding flawed surveillance applications concerning the president's campaign advisors, it is clear that this regime lacks basic safeguards and is in need of serious reform. While the report found that there wasn't an improper purpose or initiation of the investigation, it also found significant problems that are alarming from a civil liberties perspective. For instance, the litany of problems with the Carter Page surveillance applications demonstrates how the secrecy shrouding the government’s one-sided FISA approval process breeds abuse. The concerns the Inspector General identifies apply to intrusive investigations of others, including especially Muslims, and far better safeguards against abuse are necessary.

"The system requires fundamental reforms, and Congress can start by providing defendants subjected to FISA surveillance the opportunity to review the government’s secret submissions. The FBI must also adopt higher standards for investigations involving constitutionally protected sensitive activities, such as political campaigns."

https://www.aclu.org/press-releases/aclu-comment-doj-inspector-general-report-examining-fbi-investigation-trump-campaign

Real lives hang in the balance, but please - back to your meaningless food fight.

[Brisketexan 105,268]

Meaningless rules - for you who is privileged enough to not need those rules. 

Again - the ACLU:

"When the Justice Department’s Inspector General finds significant concerns regarding flawed surveillance applications concerning the president's campaign advisors, it is clear that this regime lacks basic safeguards and is in need of serious reform. While the report found that there wasn't an improper purpose or initiation of the investigation, it also found significant problems that are alarming from a civil liberties perspective. For instance, the litany of problems with the Carter Page surveillance applications demonstrates how the secrecy shrouding the government’s one-sided FISA approval process breeds abuse. The concerns the Inspector General identifies apply to intrusive investigations of others, including especially Muslims, and far better safeguards against abuse are necessary.

"The system requires fundamental reforms, and Congress can start by providing defendants subjected to FISA surveillance the opportunity to review the government’s secret submissions. The FBI must also adopt higher standards for investigations involving constitutionally protected sensitive activities, such as political campaigns."

https://www.aclu.org/press-releases/aclu-comment-doj-inspector-general-report-examining-fbi-investigation-trump-campaign

Real lives hang in the balance, but please - back to your meaningless food fight.

Rules. Are. Over.

 

If the Barr DOJ wants to spy on you or me, and they think they can’t get a warrant, do you really think that will stop them? Even slow them down?

 

Do you think the GOP senate will pass ANY reform that might stand in the administration’s way?

 

We’re ALL fucked. That’s the fucking point.

[Anastasis 23,481]

Just now, Brisketexan said:

Why? You seem perfectly capable of remaining focused on your pointless mental masturbation, so I won’t “give you a hand with that.”

The distinction doesn’t matter. Completely warrantless investigations of political opponents for political purposes are totally legal, totally cool, so discussing the nuances of unnecessary warrants is just silly.

Distinction between investigation opening predicate and FISA warrant probable cause doesn’t matter. Ok. Maybe another lawyer could help out here. 

[David Dennison 18,944]

2 minutes ago, washparkhorn said:

Meaningless rules - for you who is privileged enough to not need those rules. 

Again - the ACLU:

"When the Justice Department’s Inspector General finds significant concerns regarding flawed surveillance applications concerning the president's campaign advisors, it is clear that this regime lacks basic safeguards and is in need of serious reform. While the report found that there wasn't an improper purpose or initiation of the investigation, it also found significant problems that are alarming from a civil liberties perspective. For instance, the litany of problems with the Carter Page surveillance applications demonstrates how the secrecy shrouding the government’s one-sided FISA approval process breeds abuse. The concerns the Inspector General identifies apply to intrusive investigations of others, including especially Muslims, and far better safeguards against abuse are necessary.

"The system requires fundamental reforms, and Congress can start by providing defendants subjected to FISA surveillance the opportunity to review the government’s secret submissions. The FBI must also adopt higher standards for investigations involving constitutionally protected sensitive activities, such as political campaigns."

https://www.aclu.org/press-releases/aclu-comment-doj-inspector-general-report-examining-fbi-investigation-trump-campaign

Real lives hang in the balance, but please - back to your meaningless food fight.

Bingo. Lobby your reps.

[jimmyjazz 46,088]

9 minutes ago, Anastasis said:

ETA For clarity jimmy1 is jimmyjazz  

You are jimmy1. I had considered jimmyDS1, but thought I would tone it down. 

Well, that's might kind of you, anaMFer

[Anastasis 23,481]

Hugo don’t give a shit about the report  DD didn’t read the full report. Jimmy doesn’t have access to the internet at work. Jimmy2 is a lawyer who doesn’t understand the distinction between two basic concepts and clearly also did not read the report. Brisket talking about planes flying into mountains and can’t lend a hand to correct his professional brethren who finished lower in the class ranking.  
 

timeisaflatcircle.gif

 

 

[David Dennison 18,944]

3 minutes ago, Anastasis said:

Hugo don’t give a shit about the report  DD didn’t read the full report. Jimmy doesn’t have access to the internet at work. Jimmy2 is a lawyer who doesn’t understand the distinction between two basic concepts and clearly also did not read the report. Brisket talking about planes flying into mountains and can’t lend a hand to correct his professional brethren who finished lower in the class ranking.  
 

timeisaflatcircle.gif

I guess you can't cite any part of the report that says a FISA court has to issue a warrant based on the application.

Cool.

[Anastasis 23,481]

At least captainant shows a willingness to be intellectually honest. 

[Brisketexan 105,268]

Hugo don’t give a shit about the report  DD didn’t read the full report. Jimmy doesn’t have access to the internet at work. Jimmy2 is a lawyer who doesn’t understand the distinction between two basic concepts and clearly also did not read the report. Brisket talking about planes flying into mountains and can’t lend a hand to correct his professional brethren who finished lower in the class ranking.  
 
timeisaflatcircle.gif
 
 

How about this: what’s a more serious problem, a legal process that isn’t sufficiently rigorous to protect people, or the complete absence of a process to protect people?

And which one gets all of your attention?

Again, you look foolish here. Like Trump and Barr give a fuck about “FISA Courts.” They are subject to no law, no process, and no consequences. And that attitude is rapidly permeating their entire party. All the way down to GOP judges on the local level. The rule of law doesn’t matter.

[Anastasis 23,481]

3 minutes ago, David Dennison said:

I guess you can't cite any part of the report that says a FISA court has to issue a warrant based on the application.

Cool.

The FBI filed application(s) with 17 errors, omissions, and misstatements. Come on DD. Be best. 

[Anastasis 23,481]

1 minute ago, Brisketexan said:

Again, you look foolish here.

Of the posters involved in this evenings exchange, I don’t rank out. 

[Anastasis 23,481]

But for real. Help jimmy1 out. 

[Brisketexan 105,268]

But for real. Help jimmy1 out. 

You know the difference, you explain it. I’m not gonna pointlessly stroke your limp dick for you.

[Anastasis 23,481]

5 minutes ago, Brisketexan said:

You know the difference, you explain it. I’m not gonna pointlessly stroke your limp dick for you.

He will not accept any explanation from me. He has brain worms. I thought maybe he would accept one from one of his professional compatriots. 

[JimmyJames 12,271]

Look just admit it. We’re all wrong, Anastasis is right, and he hasn’t even posted a gif yet to prove it. 

[JimmyJames 12,271]

3 minutes ago, Anastasis said:

He will not accept any explanation from me. He has brain worms. I thought maybe he would accept one from one of his professional compatriots. 

Wait I thought you were talking about jimmy1, i thought I was jimmy2. Now I’m really confused. 

[Anastasis 23,481]

4 minutes ago, JimmyJames said:

Look just admit it. We’re all wrong, Anastasis is right, and he hasn’t even posted a gif yet to prove it. 

Appeal to comradery when none of your comrades will gently help you stop showing your ass. 
 

letsseehowitworksoutforhim.gif

Edited December 12, 2019 by Anastasis

[wildcat09 29,376]

I’m impressed by Anastasis’ ability to continually revive this chicken just so he can fuck it to death yet again.

[Anastasis 23,481]

3 minutes ago, JimmyJames said:

Wait I thought you were talking about jimmy1, i thought I was jimmy2. Now I’m really confused. 

Ive had to reseed the rankings based the way this is headed. 

[Anastasis 23,481]

Just now, wildcat09 said:

I’m impressed by Anastasis’ ability to continually revive this chicken just so he can fuck it to death yet again.

You care to weigh in on any evolution in your thinking regarding the veracity of the dossier or the sufficiency of the probable cause in the FISA application?

[JimmyJames 12,271]

6 minutes ago, Anastasis said:

You care to weigh in on any evolution in your thinking regarding the veracity of the dossier or the sufficiency of the probable cause in the FISA application?

Sure I will. The dossier was mostly correct and they clearly had probable cause for the warrant to be issued. Which anyone who knew anything about this subject would easily recognize. 

Oh and by the way, it’s not really important, but the president of the United States is in fact a criminal mobster and a foreign asset compromised by the Russian federation.

But that’s not really important, let’s all focus on The FISA Warrent Of One Carter Page. 

[jimmyjazz 46,088]

31 minutes ago, Anastasis said:

But for real. Help jimmy1 out. 

Explain this.  Try English.  You suck at it, but give it a try.

[Anastasis 23,481]

5 minutes ago, jimmyjazz said:

Explain this.  Try English.  You suck at it, but give it a try.

JimmyJames doesn’t understand the different standards involved regarding a predicate to open an investigation versus the probable cause standard required for FISA surveillance. 
 

I typoed the jimmy1/2 thing. So I understand if this is the root of your confusion. I tried to lay cover for the typo by suggesting that jimmyjames has overtaken you in my jimmy dip shit rating seeds.  

Edited December 12, 2019 by Anastasis

[Anastasis 23,481]

9 minutes ago, JimmyJames said:

Sure I will. The dossier was mostly correct and they clearly had probable cause for the warrant to be issued. Which anyone who knew anything about this subject would easily recognize. 

Anybody not named Anastasis want to help our friend JimmyJames out here?

[David Dennison 18,944]

3 minutes ago, Anastasis said:

JimmyJames doesn’t understand the different standards involved regarding a predicate to open an investigation versus the probable cause standard required for FISA surveillance.  

Why don't you tell us why those different standards matter when it comes to evidence.

[Anastasis 23,481]

Just now, David Dennison said:

Why don't you tell us why those different standards matter when it comes to evidence.

Oh god. You are a lawyer too, right?

Seriously.  Please. Can one of the many lawyers on this board explain the distinction for their brothers who seem to really be struggling?  
 

I would be embarrassed for my own profession to see this string out. 

[bernorange 8,363]

1 hour ago, Brisketexan said:

Rules. Are. Over.

 

This shit still vexes me:

https://www.usatoday.com/story/opinion/2018/01/19/james-clappers-perjury-dc-made-men-dont-get-charged-lying-congress-jonathan-turley-column/1045991001/

Brisket, surely you know that Presidents have been getting away with shit since forever.  Sure, once in a while a scandal surfaces and some measure of accountability is had, but only a fool would think Iran-Contra, Watergate, Filegate, etc. were the only malfeasance going on during their respective administrations.  I'm not saying malfeasance in the past excuses malfeasance in the present.  I'm saying that your hysteria is farcical given a historical perspective.  My default assumption is that they are all abusing power.  It's one reason I've been such a loud voice decrying the tools and apparatus of the surveillance state for years.  If they can, they will.  Best to ensure they can't than hope they won't.

[Brisketexan 105,268]

This shit still vexes me:
https://www.usatoday.com/story/opinion/2018/01/19/james-clappers-perjury-dc-made-men-dont-get-charged-lying-congress-jonathan-turley-column/1045991001/
Brisket, surely you know that Presidents have been getting away with shit since forever.  Sure, once in a while a scandal surfaces and some measure of accountability is had, but only a fool would think Iran-Contra, Watergate, Filegate, etc. were the only malfeasance going on during their respective administrations.  I'm not saying malfeasance in the past excuses malfeasance in the present.  I'm saying that your hysteria is farcical given a historical perspective.  My default assumption is that they are all abusing power.  It's one reason I've been such a loud voice decrying the tools and apparatus of the surveillance state for years.  If they can, they will.  Best to ensure they can't than hope they won't.

When there are rules, they at least act like people who know that breaking them is bad, which acts as SOME sort of governor on their behavior. That level of constraint is important. As an example we can all understand, it’s why I drive only 75 in a 65.

The complete fealty of an entire party, and the only body that provide any consequences (the senate) makes today really fucking different.

When there are no rules, there are no constraints. That’s how you get people driving 120, and people die.

Y’all are arguing about the best way to enforce speed limits on a road that no longer has any.

[jimmyjazz 46,088]

17 minutes ago, Anastasis said:

JimmyJames doesn’t understand the different standards involved regarding a predicate to open an investigation versus the probable cause standard required for FISA surveillance. 
 

I typoed the jimmy1/2 thing. So I understand if this is the root of your confusion. I tried to lay cover for the typo by suggesting that jimmyjames has overtaken you in my jimmy dip shit rating seeds.  

Jesus, try to be less clever and just write like a normal (brained) human being.

[bernorange 8,363]

Just now, Brisketexan said:

When there are rules, they at least act like people who know that breaking them is bad, which acts as SOME sort of governor on their behavior. ...

Did you sleep through Bill Clinton's administrations?

[jimmyjazz 46,088]

8 minutes ago, bernorange said:

Brisket, surely you know that Presidents have been getting away with shit since forever.  Sure, once in a while a scandal surfaces and some measure of accountability is had, but only a fool would think Iran-Contra, Watergate, Filegate, etc. were the only malfeasance going on during their respective administrations.  I'm not saying malfeasance in the past excuses malfeasance in the present.  I'm saying that your hysteria is farcical given a historical perspective.  My default assumption is that they are all abusing power.  It's one reason I've been such a loud voice decrying the tools and apparatus of the surveillance state for years.  If they can, they will.  Best to ensure they can't than hope they won't.

Richard Nixon resigned because he knew there were more than enough Republican senators willing to convict.

Do you honestly think we're at the same place now?

[Anastasis 23,481]

6 minutes ago, jimmyjazz said:

Jesus, try to be less clever and just write like a normal (brained) human being.

My bad. 
 

For the Jimmies. 
 

Edited December 12, 2019 by Anastasis

[jimmyjazz 46,088]

Fail.  I can hear you giggling from here, though.  Hee hee.

[Anastasis 23,481]

2 minutes ago, jimmyjazz said:

Fail.  I can hear you giggling from here, though.  Hee hee.

Is that you in 12B?

[bernorange 8,363]

Just now, jimmyjazz said:

Richard Nixon resigned because he knew there were more than enough Republican senators willing to convict.

Do you honestly think we're at the same place now?

No.  I didn't say that.  I said that malfeasance has always been happening.  Rules didn't stop Nixon from engaging in malfeasance just like laws don't stop criminals.

I think Reagan marked the end of an era.  The rise of partisanship really took off during the Clinton years and seems to really have spiralled into clown show theater these days. 

[wildcat09 29,376]

Damnit Bern, you were the one libertarian I liked.

[JimmyJames 12,271]

Its like discussing how the stock market works with a sixth grader. They are absolutely sure they are right and you have no idea what you and they are talking about.

[jimmyjazz 46,088]

3 minutes ago, bernorange said:

I think Reagan marked the end of an era.  The rise of partisanship really took off during the Clinton years

L. M. F. A. O.

Yeah, it happened under Clinton.  Jesus Christ, I need to find a new hobby.  You people are an enormous beating.

[JimmyJames 12,271]

33 minutes ago, Anastasis said:

JimmyJames doesn’t understand the different standards involved regarding a predicate to open an investigation versus the probable cause standard required for FISA surveillance. 
 

I typoed the jimmy1/2 thing. So I understand if this is the root of your confusion. I tried to lay cover for the typo by suggesting that jimmyjames has overtaken you in my jimmy dip shit rating seeds.  

Well then, why don’t you explain those different standards to us?

Or just post another Gif.

[jimmyjazz 46,088]

2 minutes ago, JimmyJames said:

Well then, why don’t you explain those different standards to us?

Or just post another Gif.

He can't.   He just wants you to think he can.

[bernorange 8,363]

Just now, wildcat09 said:

Damnit Bern, you were the one libertarian I liked.

I'm still the same.  I just react to Brisket at times because he's one of the few peeps around here who generally engages in conversations honestly and I find his current hysteria a bit puzzling given the years of (less emotionally driven) conversations we have had.  I don't like seeing him out on that ledge.

[Anastasis 23,481]

1 minute ago, JimmyJames said:

Well then, why don’t you explain those different standards to us?

Or just post another Gif.

Read chapter 2 dipshit. You should ask your law school for a refund. 

 

 

[Anastasis 23,481]

6 minutes ago, jimmyjazz said:

He can't.   He just wants you to think he can.

2.I.A and 2.III.A in particular. 
 

fucking clowns. 

[Brisketexan 105,268]

Did you sleep through Bill Clinton's administrations?

Nope. And his reckless and narcissistic disregard for the rule of law royally pissed me off. He had party support. Which pissed me off.

But he never said “fuck it, let’s double down. No rules.” Not like this. You and I both know this is a whole nother level. There are no limits, and there is no firewall.

[David Dennison 18,944]

41 minutes ago, Anastasis said:

Oh god. You are a lawyer too, right?

Seriously.  Please. Can one of the many lawyers on this board explain the distinction for their brothers who seem to really be struggling?  
 

I would be embarrassed for my own profession to see this string out. 

One can lead to a suppression of evidence in a criminal trial. The other one probably cannot.

[Brisketexan 105,268]

I'm still the same.  I just react to Brisket at times because he's one of the few peeps around here who generally engages in conversations honestly and I find his current hysteria a bit puzzling given the years of (less emotionally driven) conversations we have had.  I don't like seeing him out on that ledge.

You shouldn’t like it.

Shit’s bad. Real bad. And there’s no viable path out of it.

[jimmyjazz 46,088]

7 minutes ago, Anastasis said:

2.I.A and 2.III.A in particular. 
 

fucking clowns. 

OK, I'll play, but you need to be clear.  Are you referring to

"Predicated Investigations"

 

and

 

"Statutory Requirements'?