Necessity would be a legal obligation (and it's one of the most common avenues for attacking a Title III wiretap). But there's not really any evidence on that point - so yet another episode of blind men grasping at the elephant.
-
-
I can't quite figure out whether McCarthy's argument are purely partisan at this point, or whether there's some merit and I'm just blinded to that side due to my own partisan blinders. He's certainly more articulate than some, but as a non-lawyer I find the arguments strained.
4 replies 0 retweets 5 likes -
There are valid questions raised from an ethical standpoint. I’m not persuaded on the legal front though.
3 replies 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @BradMossEsq @AndresFreundPol and
Honestly unless we see the whole FISA app and court transcript, I haven't seen anything that raises moral ethics and certainly nothing that violates the law. What we do know is 4 judges authorized/reauthorozed the warrant...
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @ScottCMcInnes @BradMossEsq and
... Though
@AndrewCMcCarthy is right that a judge's approval can't tell you whether material information was withheld. By definition, if material info was withheld, the judge would not have approved it had that information been included.1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @bradheath @BradMossEsq and
True, but is the exact source of funding material? Especially since Steele was blind to its source? I think the disclosure, as presented in the memo, was pretty full and frank - again, they aren't proving crimes beyond a reasonable doubt, they're simply showing probable cause
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @ScottCMcInnes @BradMossEsq and
My sense is that a judge would not feel misled by DOJ saying "source was hired to look for damaging info" instead of "source was hired BY THE DNC to look for damaging info." There are lots of cases holding that a generic description is sufficient.
1 reply 0 retweets 1 like -
Replying to @bradheath @BradMossEsq and
Well that's not correct... Steele wasn't hired by the DNC. The DNC hired a law firm that then hired Fusion GPS who then subcontracted to Steele... I agree, if the DNC hired Steele directly I think that would have likely been material - but that's not what happened here
3 replies 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @ScottCMcInnes @bradheath and
To push the matter even further, I think this entire ordeal is a distraction - even if the Page warrant was wrongfully obtained (which I don't agree with), it has absolutely 0 effect on the overall Russia investigation/what Mueller is doing and CERTAINLY doesn't vindicate Trump
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @ScottCMcInnes @BradMossEsq and
FISA strikes me as a legitimate subject for scrutiny. If the gov't is doing something that is legal but that makes Americans uncomfortable, we're free to change the law. Q is whether people are troubled by the standards apart from the partisan questions.
2 replies 0 retweets 1 like
But that's pretty clearly not McCarthy's concern: "Moreover, since surveillance of foreign threats to the U.S. is an executive responsibility, the court should approve them unless it appears that the FBI and the DOJ are abusing the process.)"
-
-
Replying to @AndresFreundPol @ScottCMcInnes and
No, but others have raised it. For example, I've heard a lot of complaints that Steele's info was "unverified" at the time it was used. That's quite common in warrant applications. But maybe people think it shouldn't be.
0 replies 0 retweets 1 likeThanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.