Trump Will Not Release Minority Memo

a reply to: TheRedneck

Guidelines, policies, rules by higher authorities are regulations.

a reply to: AMPTAH

the supreme court appoints all FISA judges.....and they don't appoint stupid ones

originally posted by: jimmyx
a reply to: AMPTAH

the supreme court appoints all FISA judges.....and they don't appoint stupid ones

Of course, it is always possible, that some of the judges are in on the schemes too. But they act in such a way to "claim" they were unaware, and maintain sufficient "deniability" to protect themselves from being linked to "corruption."

But, again, that all only works, when everything is done "in secret."

a reply to: AMPTAH

Strange. I saw classified info in the Nunes memo.

I saw that "sources and methods" were revealed that we didn't know about.

In this case, what is revealed, is that the FBI doesn't only deceive the bad guys, they also deceive the good guys, like the judges, in order to carry out their schemes. The fact that they have to use deceptions on even the good guys in the game, is really "illuminating."

I see your point.

In this case, the "sources and methods" were illegal, not legal techniques. I was speaking of legal techniques, but I can also agree that the illegal ones could also be considered "sources and methods." So on that point, I stand corrected.

Good retort!

TheRedneck

a reply to: MOMof3

Guidelines, policies, rules by higher authorities are regulations.

That's not an answer to my question.

TheRedneck

a reply to: AMPTAH

But, again, that all only works, when everything is done "in secret."

Which in itself is telling overall. I am of the opinion that the reasoning behind the constant outcries of the Democrats against Trump is that this seems to be one of the most transparent administrations in my lifetime.

Corruption thrives in dark shadows. The light of day kills it dead. Let the sunshine in!

TheRedneck

originally posted by: TheRedneck

In this case, the "sources and methods" were illegal, not legal techniques.

It would be a strange government, that limited itself to legal techniques only.

Would be nice to see if such a government could actually function effectively.

We don't know, because nobody ever tried it.

Basically, all laws are introduced to regulate the actions of the majority of people, while not preventing a smaller minority from acting against them, once they do so in secret, and unexposed.

Hence, "the right to remain silent" and that a person is "presumed innocent, until proven guilty" is the way.

No one has broken the law, until they are "accused" of having done so, and even then, they still have to get their day in court, which has to prove "beyond reasonable doubt" that they are guilty.

We have thus fashioned a society, where laws can be legally broken "in secret", with all the protections for these law breakers, until they are exposed.

Hence the need for "classified" operations.

Good, the lefties memo was full of lies.

and no, I haven't seen it.

originally posted by: MOMof3
a reply to: xuenchen

Just like deficits, it doesn’t matter now.

How do temporary security clearances affect the deficits ? 😳

One has nothing to do with the other right ? 🚰

a reply to: AMPTAH

That, sir, is a very intriguing point. I need to ponder on it for a while.

I never considered the "right to remain silent" as the "right to not divulge secrets," but on consideration it could easily be seen as thus. Instead, I always considered it a limitation on the government to prevent one from trying to naturally hide guilt without increasing their liability. Again, that could be considered a right to secrecy.

Example 1:

Accuser: Did you shoot Mr. Jones in the face with a bazooka?

Accused: No, sir, I did not.

*later on the court finds the accused guilty of shooting Mr. Jones in the face with a bazooka*

Accuser: Your Honor, I would like to also press charges for lying to the court.

Example2

Accuser: Mr. Jones was shot in the face with a bazooka, in front of your home. Did you shoot Mr. Jones?

Accused: No, sir, I did not.

*Later on, the court finds the accused innocent of the shooting*

Accuser: Your Honor, I have a confession that the accused did indeed shoot Mr. Jones in the foot accidentally with a BB gun when they were ages 8 and 9, respectively. Under applicable law, I would like to charge Mr. Jones with lying to the court.

In Example 1, it would have made little difference if Mr. Jones took the 5th or stated his position, but in Example 2 it would have made a difference. That's not the bast example in the world, but I think (hope?) it carries my concern and interpretation of the right to remain silent.

Your point is still well-taken, though. Perhaps we can get a glimpse during the next few years of whether or not a truly open government could work.

TheRedneck

originally posted by: AMPTAH

originally posted by: TheRedneck

In this case, the "sources and methods" were illegal, not legal techniques.

It would be a strange government, that limited itself to legal techniques only.

Would be nice to see if such a government could actually function effectively.

We don't know, because nobody ever tried it.

Basically, all laws are introduced to regulate the actions of the majority of people, while not preventing a smaller minority from acting against them, once they do so in secret, and unexposed.

Hence, "the right to remain silent" and that a person is "presumed innocent, until proven guilty" is the way.

No one has broken the law, until they are "accused" of having done so, and even then, they still have to get their day in court, which has to prove "beyond reasonable doubt" that they are guilty.

We have thus fashioned a society, where laws can be legally broken "in secret", with all the protections for these law breakers, until they are exposed.

Hence the need for "classified" operations.

presidents can be impeached and removed from office for any reason.....they do not have to be proven guilty in a court of law......and our spy agencies don't have to prove in a court of law that foreigners are spying on the U.S. to obtain a FISA warrant, a FISA warrant is issued when there is reasonable evidence for further investigation which needs to be renewed every3 months. they are investigating agencies, they have no power to prosecute or convict, that's up to the justice department.......this is political science, not rocket science......jesus, read a book, or take a course

a reply to: jimmyx

While you are correct, the point of this whole memo mess is that the surveillance was not limited to foreign spies. I think everyone agrees that foreign nationals engaged in spying fall under a different class than US citizens, and that becomes the main issue.

I don't care if the FBI plays a little fast and loose with a Romanian who is trying to find out nuclear sub locations. I'll applaud them for that. But when they target Mr. Smith for talking to him, and continue the investigation to get information on candidates... that I have a huge (YUGE!) problem with. It's bigly wrong... everybody says so.

TheRedneck

originally posted by: jimmyx

originally posted by: AMPTAH

originally posted by: TheRedneck

In this case, the "sources and methods" were illegal, not legal techniques.

It would be a strange government, that limited itself to legal techniques only.

Would be nice to see if such a government could actually function effectively.

We don't know, because nobody ever tried it.

Basically, all laws are introduced to regulate the actions of the majority of people, while not preventing a smaller minority from acting against them, once they do so in secret, and unexposed.

Hence, "the right to remain silent" and that a person is "presumed innocent, until proven guilty" is the way.

No one has broken the law, until they are "accused" of having done so, and even then, they still have to get their day in court, which has to prove "beyond reasonable doubt" that they are guilty.

We have thus fashioned a society, where laws can be legally broken "in secret", with all the protections for these law breakers, until they are exposed.

Hence the need for "classified" operations.

presidents can be impeached and removed from office for any reason.....they do not have to be proven guilty in a court of law......and our spy agencies don't have to prove in a court of law that foreigners are spying on the U.S. to obtain a FISA warrant, a FISA warrant is issued when there is reasonable evidence for further investigation which needs to be renewed every3 months. they are investigating agencies, they have no power to prosecute or convict, that's up to the justice department.......this is political science, not rocket science......jesus, read a book, or take a course

So a sitting president can be impeached for no reason?
Learn a few facts before spouting off at the mouth at least.

originally posted by: TheRedneck
a reply to: soberbacchus

Strangely she accepted a job with Wallmart, which is of course owned by Trump ally and Billionaire Sam Walton.

Something is brewing.

Samuel Moore Walton (March 29, 1918 – April 5, 1992) was an American businessman and entrepreneur best known for founding the retailers Walmart and Sam's Club.

Sam Walton has been dead for over a quarter century. Are we claiming Trump is channeling ghosts for nefarious purposes now?

TheRedneck

Nope. That was just my mistake.
I don't follow the Walton family closely.

The Dems played chicken and LOST!.

They can't leak it since it contained 'classified material'.

originally posted by: Abysha

originally posted by: Sublimecraft
a reply to: theantediluvian

WH is saying that the Dems memo 'contains numerous properly classified and especially sensitive passages' and when Trey Gowdy was interviewed last week he said that the 'Dems were smart enough to put information in the memo that would make it difficult for the WH to release'.

and color-me-blind - now, here we are.

The people in charge of our national security (that Trump appointed) told him the same exact thing about the one he released.

That's funny.

Quote the 'sensitive' material for us.

Anyone accusing Trump of being partisan hasn't been paying attention to the LAST YEAR of this witch hunt by team Never TRump.

originally posted by: jimmyx

presidents can be impeached and removed from office for any reason.....they do not have to be proven guilty in a court of law......and our spy agencies don't have to prove in a court of law that foreigners are spying on the U.S. to obtain a FISA warrant, a FISA warrant is issued when there is reasonable evidence for further investigation which needs to be renewed every3 months. they are investigating agencies, they have no power to prosecute or convict, that's up to the justice department.......this is political science, not rocket science......jesus, read a book, or take a course

Your response doesn't have anything to do with what I just said.

However, even in your own commingling of claims, you recognize that "reasonable evidence" is required somewhere in the process.

But, who determines what is "reasonable" ?

If it is done in secret, then there are fewer people to question the "reasonable"-ness of the evidence.

See?

That was basically my point.

If you don't know what someone has done, you can't accuse them of doing anything wrong.

If you don't know that the FBI and DOJ are "colluding" with each other to "find and convict", you can't accuse them of illegally acting against you. Which is Trump's point.

a reply to: toysforadults

yes it means the democrats members on the committee are less in number to republicans