Why the surveillance memo matters

[Xystus]

Who, just who, is talking about Hitler/Stalin?

Don’t play dumb, it is unbecoming.

Paul Begala: Trump Is an 'Autocrat,' Wants to Be Like Assad, Stalin

CNN commentator and Democratic strategist Paul Begala said Wednesday that President Donald Trump is an "autocrat" who aspires to be like the late Soviet dictator Joseph Stalin.

freebeacon.com

LETTER: Trump’s rise is straight out of the Hitler playbook

Seven decades ago an Austrian immigrant, driven by a belief in white supremacy, decided to put Germany first and to rid it of people who were different

www.businesslive.co.za

feel free go google the topic yourself, you will find plenty of comparisons. Don’t forget to search google images for the same, there is a plethora of images with the president being made to look Hitler.

 

[petra22]

OK. I’ll try to answer. FBI Federal Bureau of INVESTIGATION! I think the FBI would investigate the allegations considering WHO presented the information… Any honorable FBI agent would try to find out if allegations were TRUE or politically motivated.

 

[Ridgerunner]

And I repeat my question:

What would you expect patriots to do in that situation?

Refrain from deceiving a federal judge.

 

[dvdjs]

I am delighted that you have clarifeid with some documentation who you have in mind, that is constantly referrring to Trump as Hitler/Stalin - in particular that you were speaking beyond CAF.

Don’t play dumb, it is unbecoming.

Speaking of which …
Dawie Jacobs Sterrewag?
I don’t doubt that you can find individuals here and there who blog, post,and tweet hyperbolic stuff.
even using “constantly” to mean once.

The Begala interview was more interesting. He was asked to comment about Senator Flake’s characterization of Trump in such terms on the Senate floor.

His avoided the bait to universalize the comparison to every aspect of the riegn of these creatures, but instead made specific points of comparison:

“Do you think that’s a fair comparison?” host Brianna Keilar asked.
“In the sense that they lie? Yes! He is a liar,” Begala responded.
… Trump does not just attack the press, but also the CIA, the FBI, members of the judiciary, and anyone who opposes him. He attacks any check on his power … ; he’s an autocrat."

You might note that people who think that Trump is going after the FBI and the Judiciary think that that is exactly what is happening right now. Not that the FBI and Judiciary are out of control, but Trump. I think that thatis the answer to your question.

 

[dvdjs]

Refrain from deceiving a federal judge.

That is far-fetched.
How did you imagine that they deceived a court?
Specifically: what are the legal requirements of documentation of materials in a FiSA warrant;how did the FBI fall short on these requirements?

 

[dvdjs]

OK. I’ll try to answer. FBI Federal Bureau of INVESTIGATION! I think the FBI would investigate the allegations considering WHO presented the information… Any honorable FBI agent would try to find out if allegations were TRUE or politically motivated.

The FBI, of course, had more in the warrant than information from the dossier. I think that in conjunction with the other materials it was clear that the dossier was not just a fiction invented to smear an opponent.
To take the investigation to the next level, they sought the warrant.

 

[Xystus]

even using “constantly” to mean once.

here you go again with nit picking wording that is not used in a strictly literal sense. it is almost as tiresome as your “the left™” schtick

by “constantly” I really meant “occurring not infrequently.” is that literal enough for you to understand or will you pretend not to and nit pick that too?

Here is one that references Nazi Germany. I know, i know, it does not literally say “hitler” but not even you can’t pretend to deny that references to Nazi Germany and Hitler are meant to stoke the same exact emotions in people (im sure you will try to deny it though)

this touches on it some, like the part about the comey firing and relating that to paramilitaries used with “National Socialism” in Germany. (National Socialism = Nazi, just saying so you cant pretend to not know)

On Tyranny: Yale Historian Timothy Snyder on How the U.S. Can Avoid Sliding into Authoritarianism

Is the United States sliding toward tyranny? That is the question posed by Yale University history professor Timothy Snyder in his new book that draws on his decades of experience writing about war and genocide in European history in order to find 20 key lessons that can help the United States...

www.democracynow.org

here is one more: “Joe Scarborough on Trump: ‘Is This What Germany Looked Like in 1933?’”
(1933 is when Hitler became Chancellor, just saying so you cant pretend to not know)

Joe Scarborough on Trump: ‘Is This What Germany Looked Like in 1933?’

‘People have to ask themselves that question’

grabien.com

Like i said before, feel free to google more examples. I know you won’t but denying that it happens just makes you look foolish.

 

[robertmidwest]

Sixteen characters.

 

[dvdjs]

“constantly” I really meant “occurring not infrequently.”

Actually, I think that you mean that a small fraction of Trump opponents have said something of this sort very infrequently - perhaps once each.

In fact, there may be more constancy of Trump fans suggesting that this idea is a constant part of the thinking iof some some. And whining about it. And it more than a little ironic to read from those who take wild liberties in hyperbole to object to a discussion of Trump’s tendencies in hyperbolic form.

As I mentioned, the words of Begala make it clear that that those that are concerned about Trump’s autocratic tendencies, are very concerned about the current assault on the FBI and juduciary, that is being distorted to disguise it as an assault on civil liberty.
oreover, it is odd for someone who expects such gross latitude for their own hyperbole, g

 

[Xystus]

Who, just who, is talking about Hitler/Stalin?

I don’t doubt that you can find individuals here and there

a small fraction of Trump opponents have said something of this sort

from disbelief and/or denial to admitting that there are " individuals here and there" to admitting there is “a small fraction”… each time retreating bit when faced with the examples that you seemingly have never heard about before (i don’t buy that though). I think you just cant admit to yourself that there are people who make the comparisons just like you cant admit that there is a group of people who share a common ideology and mindset that is commonly refereed to as “the left”. Nobody is claiming 100% homogeneity but it is a flat out lie to say it is just a made up “boogie man”.

I like how you retreated to your Begala comment again instead of addressing the blatant comparisons to Nazi Germany/Hitler that i showed you. I guess it is kinda hard to address something you are simultaneously trying to deny happens.

 

[dvdjs]

from disbelief and/or denial to admitting that there are " individuals here and there" to admitting there is “a small fraction”…

From repudiation of the idea of “constantly”, which was dead wrong, to a conversation about what is true and what it means. That conversation cannot begin until the table us cleared of rubbish.

The Hitler/Stalin comparison and its representation as a constant part of Trump criticism is awful, not merely because the comparison is grossly hyperbolic (hyper-literalists object to that), but because it invites comparisons that misdirect the conversation (how many millions have been murdered) away from meaning full questions: 1) what are the authoritarian tendencies of Trump; 2) how is that connected to this memo.

That clearing is not about proving that some person at some time made a Trump/Stalin/Hitler connection. No one denied that. Or talk of how small a fraction a few thousands (maybe?) commenters are the millions who did not vote for Trump. It is about the authoritarian tendencies of Trump - so nicely summarized by Begala, and how is that connected to this memo.

Even if some Trump fans see this episode as revealing some terrible infringement on the rights of citizens, and cannot see how the people who worry about authoritarianism would not agree, the reality is that those who see such tendencies in Trump will very likely see these events as a direct manifestation of those very tendencies.

And that is the answer, I belive, answers your question.

 

[Ridgerunner]

How did you imagine that they deceived a court?

Specifically: what are the legal requirements of documentation of materials in a FiSA warrant;how did the FBI fall short on these requirements?

This is all repeated in another thread. The FISA warrant rules are pretty complex, and have changed a number of times. But FISA court rule 13 says the government is required to immediately inform the court if any information previously provided is doubtful or wrong. In a way, that’s just a restatement of the Federal Rules that require the government to provide the courts with any information that makes presented evidence questionable.

I don’t know what all the FISA judge saw or was told. Nor does anybody else other than the government lawyers involved, the judge and (I believe) three congressional leaders who have actually seen the underlying data.

One of them was congressman Ratcliffe of Texas, who saw the underlying data. He says that government did not tell the judge about the sources or doubts about the “dossier” information. Maybe he’s telling the truth and maybe he isn’t. But he knows, and neither you nor I do.

But it still seems to me Democrats ought to be just as disturbed about what seems to have been a doubtful submissions of partisan “hit” information to a FISA court in order to spy on an opposition party candidate’s staff person; a spying that seems to have yielded nothing.

It could be their people next time, and if Trump was the Hitler they all claim he is, they ought to be clamoring for congressional limitations on government functionaries’ ability to spy on people. But they’re not.

 

[dvdjs]

This is all repeated in another thread. The FISA warrant rules are pretty complex, and have changed a number of times. But FISA court rule 13 says the government is required to immediately inform the court if any information previously provided is doubtful or wrong.

This is one of those legal arguments that is best left to lawyers.
If the dossier contents were presented as factually verified even if there weren’t, that would require the immediate informing. If there were represented as material not yet fully verified, obtained from a source with an outstanding reputation for accuracy and integrity, who was was engaged in political ops research - then there is no deception and nothing represented as a fact is out of line.

 

[Ridgerunner]

If the dossier contents were presented as factually verified even if there weren’t, that would require the immediate informing. If there were represented as material not yet fully verified, obtained from a source with an outstanding reputation for accuracy and integrity, who was was engaged in political ops research - then there is no deception and nothing represented as a fact is out of line.

None of which the public knows, one way or the other.

 

[dvdjs]

None of which the public knows, one way or the other.

Precisley, but that doesn’t seem to inhibit claims of deception and other wrong doing.

 

[Xystus]

some terrible infringement on the rights of citizens,

There sure are some terrible infringements on the rights of citizens, like 4th amendment rights which are supposed to protect us from being spied on because someone in the government does not like some particular political view. Warrants are supposed to be based on upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, not political opposition research paid for by political opponents done by some one who is desperate that candidate they are working against is not elected. I would expect the FBI and DOJ officials tell the courts the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth, like the courts require of other witnesses. That this actually happened is Outrageous and it is not the current president that is doing it…

 

[petra22]

Precisley, but that doesn’t seem to inhibit claims of deception and other wrong doing.

Which is what the left is doing by embracing the “dossier” without verification???

 

[dvdjs]

the left is doing by embracing the “dossier” without verification???

What, precisely, do you mean by embrace?
The dossier exists. The agent behind it has an established reputation for reliability. Other lines of information reinforce the issues raised by the dossier. This information is not proof of a crime, and but does warrant further investigation. That is what is going on.

 

[Ridgerunner]

Other lines of information reinforce the issues raised by the dossier

This is a bit of a step over the edge. You mean the Isikoff article that was also presented to the FISA court, it appears? Isikoff, it appears, was also a DNC operative and his article was based on the dossier.

What other information did the FISA court have that showed probable cause that Page was acting as a Russian intelligence or military agent upon whom intelligence ought to be gathered to protect the nation?

I haven’t seen any. Maybe you have.

And does Steele really have a reputation for reliability? Comey seemed not to think so toward the end.

 

[dvdjs]

What other information did the FISA

A bit late in the day to be asking that question.
Read the transcripts of the Gowdy’s CBS interview that I linked to earlier.