TOTALLY GEEKED!

1. June 2016: FISA request. The Obama administration files a request with the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court (FISA) to monitor communications involving Donald Trump and several advisers. The request, uncharacteristically, is denied.

8. February: Mike Flynn scandal. Reports emerge that the FBI intercepted a conversation in 2016 between future National Security Adviser Michael Flynn — then a private citizen — and Russian Ambassador Sergey Kislyak. The intercept supposedly was  part of routine spying on the ambassador, not monitoring of the Trump campaign. The FBI transcripts reportedly show the two discussing Obama’s newly-imposed sanctions on Russia, though Flynn earlier denied discussing them. Sally Yates, whom Trump would later fire as acting Attorney General for insubordination, is involved in the investigation. In the end, Flynn resigns over having misled Vice President Mike Pence (perhaps inadvertently) about the content of the conversation.

9. February: Times claims extensive Russian contacts. The New York Times cites “four current and former American officials” in reporting that the Trump campaign had “repeated contacts with senior Russian intelligence officials. The Trump campaign denies the claims — and the Times admits that there is “no evidence” of coordination between the campaign and the Russians. The White House and some congressional Republicans begin to raise questions about illegal intelligence leaks.

10. March: the Washington Post targets Jeff Sessions. The Washington Postreports that Attorney General Jeff Sessions had contact twice with the Russian ambassador during the campaign — once at a Heritage Foundation event and once at a meeting in Sessions’s Senate office. The Post suggests that the two meetings contradict Sessions’s testimony at his confirmation hearings that he had no contacts with the Russians, though in context (not presented by the Post) it was clear he meant in his capacity as a campaign surrogate, and that he was responding to claims in the “dossier” of ongoing contacts. The New York Times, in covering the story, adds that the Obama White House “rushed to preserve” intelligence related to alleged Russian links with the Trump campaign. By “preserve” it really means “disseminate”: officials spread evidence throughout other government agencies “to leave a clear trail of intelligence for government investigators” and perhaps the media as well.

7. January: Times report. The New York Times reports, on the eve of Inauguration Day, that several agencies — the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI), the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA), the National Security Agency (NSA) and the Treasury Department are monitoring several associates of the Trump campaign suspected of Russian ties. Other news outlets also report the exisentence of “a multiagency working group to coordinate investigations across the government,” though it is unclear how they found out, since the investigations would have been secret and involved classified information.

 I'm not sure how 7-10 can be blamed on O?  Members of T's own team admitted to having illicit conversations, making illicit deals and then lying about it publicly. 

The others can be tentatively leaked to O except for #1 which is his attempt to use the intelligence community to determine whether or not American intel was being leaked to/hacked by/given to Russian operatives and government agents.  I think that I would like my President to be looking into any potential National Security issues.  And it was denied, so it's technically not a thing.  

edited to try and remove the blueness.

Tignanello wrote:

---

1. June 2016: FISA request. The Obama administration files a request with the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court (FISA) to monitor communications involving Donald Trump and several advisers. The request, uncharacteristically, is denied.

8. February: Mike Flynn scandal. Reports emerge that the FBI intercepted a conversation in 2016 between future National Security Adviser Michael Flynn — then a private citizen — and Russian Ambassador Sergey Kislyak. The intercept supposedly was  part of routine spying on the ambassador, not monitoring of the Trump campaign. The FBI transcripts reportedly show the two discussing Obama’s newly-imposed sanctions on Russia, though Flynn earlier denied discussing them. Sally Yates, whom Trump would later fire as acting Attorney General for insubordination, is involved in the investigation. In the end, Flynn resigns over having misled Vice President Mike Pence (perhaps inadvertently) about the content of the conversation.

9. February: Times claims extensive Russian contacts. The New York Times cites “four current and former American officials” in reporting that the Trump campaign had “repeated contacts with senior Russian intelligence officials. The Trump campaign denies the claims — and the Times admits that there is “no evidence” of coordination between the campaign and the Russians. The White House and some congressional Republicans begin to raise questions about illegal intelligence leaks.

10. March: the Washington Post targets Jeff Sessions. The Washington Postreports that Attorney General Jeff Sessions had contact twice with the Russian ambassador during the campaign — once at a Heritage Foundation event and once at a meeting in Sessions’s Senate office. The Post suggests that the two meetings contradict Sessions’s testimony at his confirmation hearings that he had no contacts with the Russians, though in context (not presented by the Post) it was clear he meant in his capacity as a campaign surrogate, and that he was responding to claims in the “dossier” of ongoing contacts. The New York Times, in covering the story, adds that the Obama White House “rushed to preserve” intelligence related to alleged Russian links with the Trump campaign. By “preserve” it really means “disseminate”: officials spread evidence throughout other government agencies “to leave a clear trail of intelligence for government investigators” and perhaps the media as well.

7. January: Times report. The New York Times reports, on the eve of Inauguration Day, that several agencies — the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI), the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA), the National Security Agency (NSA) and the Treasury Department are monitoring several associates of the Trump campaign suspected of Russian ties. Other news outlets also report the exisentence of “a multiagency working group to coordinate investigations across the government,” though it is unclear how they found out, since the investigations would have been secret and involved classified information.

 I'm not sure how 7-10 can be blamed on O?  Members of T's own team admitted to having illicit conversations, making illicit deals and then lying about it publicly. 

The others can be tentatively leaked to O except for #1 which is his attempt to use the intelligence community to determine whether or not American intel was being leaked to/hacked by/given to Russian operatives and government agents.  I think that I would like my President to be looking into any potential National Security issues.  And it was denied, so it's technically not a thing.  

edited to try and remove the blueness.

-- Edited by Tignanello on Sunday 5th of March 2017 12:13:13 PM

---

 Ummm, no.  And if you don't understand how O is responsible, you don't really know what it means to he head of the Executive branch of government.  

Tignanello wrote:

---

No, I don't know what it means to be the head of the Executive branch of government. I've never been one; for that matter, neither have you. So, that's all fine and good to say, but my question was significantly more broad and requiring a more thorough answer than 'if you don't know I can't won't tell you'.

It is quite apparent that there are multiple levels of government, not all of which answer to the POTUS (hence the executive order drama). So, if O was up to things that were inappropriate, illegal or questionable, one of those branches would have stepped in (like with the executive order drama). Also, how is O's administration responsible for the stupid things that T's team is doing?

---

 I am fully aware of what the powers and responsibilities of the president are - it's called education.  The president is charged with enforcing the laws of this country which means those offices such as the FBI are totally within his purview and power.  It was HIS justice department, HIS FBI.  He was the boss - his responsibility to know.  And if he didn't, he was either inept or purposely choosing to stay ignorant.  

burns07 wrote:

---

wiretaps, sans probable cause/ a court order or both, are illegal in the US--to authorize the installation of illegal wiretaps is a felony

---

 And a court would not issue.  If they did, it's a matter of public record and could be easily found if it were there.  And, as we know, just because a POTUS wants it, a POTUS does not always get it. (again, the executive order drama).

Or did POTUS and the intelligence community make it *poof* disappear without the knowledge of said court?  Maybe we should check Area 51.  Lots of weird *poof* disappeared things out there, apparently.

Lawyerlady wrote:

---

Tignanello wrote:

---

No, I don't know what it means to be the head of the Executive branch of government. I've never been one; for that matter, neither have you. So, that's all fine and good to say, but my question was significantly more broad and requiring a more thorough answer than 'if you don't know I can't won't tell you'.

It is quite apparent that there are multiple levels of government, not all of which answer to the POTUS (hence the executive order drama). So, if O was up to things that were inappropriate, illegal or questionable, one of those branches would have stepped in (like with the executive order drama). Also, how is O's administration responsible for the stupid things that T's team is doing?

---

 I am fully aware of what the powers and responsibilities of the president are - it's called education.  The president is charged with enforcing the laws of this country which means those offices such as the FBI are totally within his purview and power.  It was HIS justice department, HIS FBI.  He was the boss - his responsibility to know.  And if he didn't, he was either inept or purposely choosing to stay ignorant.  

---

 FNW, you generally explain the answers to my questions quite well and without passive aggressive slights.  Would you please give this one a try?  If POTUS is to enforce the laws of this country, how did T go against them (as they are upheld by the courts) with his executive orders?  That seems in conflict with enforcing the laws of the country.

FNW wrote:

---

Executive orders are not permanent laws. They are orders given by the acting President. They can be overturned by the following President. Actual laws cannot be without an act of Congress.

Was there a particular "law" that Trump went against?

---

 Didn't it break a number of international laws and violate a number of international treaties that the US had signed?  Wouldn't that be 'not enforcing the laws'?

FNW wrote:

---

Which treaties did he violate?

---

 Trump's order appears to violate several international treaties ratified by the US, some provisions of which have been incorporated into US law and cited as binding by the US Supreme Court.

In particular, the order seems to fly in the face of the 1967 Protocol Relating to the Status of Refugees which updated the post-World War II Refugee Convention of 1951, and other international human rights law that prohibits discrimination on the basis of race, religion, or national origin.

The United Nations Refugee Convention requires that the US provide protection and safe haven to those facing persecution. By shutting the door to refugee admissions, whether temporarily or indefinitely, Trump's order flagrantly violates that core obligation. This order also breaks with the long US tradition and history (with some abhorrent exceptionsthat should never be repeated) of opening its doors to refugees.

While the Convention allows exclusion of certain persons from refugee protection - for example, if they committed war crimes - this exclusion is determined on a case-by-case basis and certainly does not allow any sort of blanket ban against a group of people or nationality. By halting admission of refugees from Syria, Trump has carved out an impermissible exception to a key US treaty obligation for a vulnerable community, one based solely on that community's country of origin. This is a clear violation of the Refugee Convention.

Our core obligations under international law cannot be disposed of in times of real or, in this case, perceived political or national security crises.

The International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination, or ICERD, to which the US is bound, requires states parties to "guarantee the right of everyone, without distinction as to race, colour, or national or ethnic origin, to equality before the law."

US violations of this treaty precede the Trump administration, and have already been so flagrant and obvious that nearly identical concerns were addressed by the ICERD's committee after 9/11.

Article 4 of the ICCPR notes that even in a "time of public emergency which threatens the life of the nation", states cannot take any action to stray from their obligations that involve discrimination "solely on the ground of race, colour, sex, language, religion or social origin".

http://www.aljazeera.com/indepth/opinion/2017/02/international-laws-trump-muslim-ban-breaking-170202135132664.html

So, from what I see, there was a violation not only of international law, but also the ICERD, the ICCPR, UNRC, the 1967 updates to the WWII Refugee Convention.

burns07 wrote:

---

wiretaps, sans probable cause/ a court order or both, are illegal in the US--to authorize the installation of illegal wiretaps is a felony

---

 Yet we sign up and pay for them.

Not fully aware of course.

FNW wrote:

---

I don't believe he has violated any treaties yet.

---

 Had the exec order been upheld it would have been a clear violation, which is why the courts stopped it.  BUT - I still don't understand why this is related to O.

Tignanello wrote:

---

lilyofcourse wrote:

---

No. The topic was about O and the laws he possibly broke.

You tossed T and the treaties in as an attempt to deflect.

---

 Or to add depth and breadth to the discussion.  Either way.

---

 But it didnt. 

I don't know - they're UN based, so there shouldn't be US national security information. Every country in the UN (190-ish) would have access to that information. They should be easily find-able, but I'm sure I wouldn't understand the phrasing of the majority of it - I can figure out synopsis of various Acts, but I'm sure the whole thing would be overwhelming with legal-ese I don't speak. (This is why I have you! )

edited because emojis suck

Tignanello wrote:

---

I don't know - they're UN based, so there shouldn't be US national security information. Every country in the UN (190-ish) would have access to that information. They should be easily find-able, but I'm sure I wouldn't understand the phrasing of the majority of it - I can figure out synopsis of various Acts, but I'm sure the whole thing would be overwhelming with legal-ese I don't speak. (This is why I have you! )

 

edited because emojis suck

-- Edited by Tignanello on Monday 6th of March 2017 02:40:44 PM

---

 Trump hates the UN.  I doubt we remain a part of it much longer.  Jackwads constantly telling us what to do and how to do it without providing any benefit to us whatsoever. All while relying on us for support. 

Lawyerlady wrote:

---

Tignanello wrote:

---

I don't know - they're UN based, so there shouldn't be US national security information. Every country in the UN (190-ish) would have access to that information. They should be easily find-able, but I'm sure I wouldn't understand the phrasing of the majority of it - I can figure out synopsis of various Acts, but I'm sure the whole thing would be overwhelming with legal-ese I don't speak. (This is why I have you! )

 

edited because emojis suck

-- Edited by Tignanello on Monday 6th of March 2017 02:40:44 PM

---

 Trump hates the UN.  I doubt we remain a part of it much longer.  Jackwads constantly telling us what to do and how to do it without providing any benefit to us whatsoever. All while relying on us for support. 

---

And the people that voted for trump hate the UN.  10 to 1, we will be out in the next couple of years.  One of the many reasons he was elected.