Title : How to resolve the discrepancy of opinion over the Nunes memo.
link : How to resolve the discrepancy of opinion over the Nunes memo.
How to resolve the discrepancy of opinion over the Nunes memo.
I'm reading "Justice Dept. told court of source’s political influence in request to wiretap ex-Trump campaign aide, officials say" by Ellen Nakashima in The Washington Post:The court that approved surveillance of a former campaign adviser to President Trump was aware that some of the information underpinning the warrant request was paid for by a political entity, although the application did not specifically name the Democratic National Committee or the Hillary Clinton presidential campaign, according to two U.S. officials familiar with the matter....So, it seems, the question is whether it was significantly deceptive to give the FISA court enough information to make it possible for the court to infer that the information came from people who were biased against Trump but to withhold the known and specific information that it was paid for the Democratic National Committee or the Hillary Clinton presidential campaign.
The Justice Department made “ample disclosure of relevant, material facts” to the court that revealed “the research was being paid for by a political entity,” said one official, who spoke on the condition of anonymity because of the matter’s sensitivity.
“No thinking person who read any of these applications would come to any other conclusion but that” the work was being undertaken “at the behest of people with a partisan aim and that it was being done in opposition to Trump,” the official said....
Can we say that very clearly and ask fair-minded people if withholding the specific information and including only general information was the the way the Justice Department should interact with the FISA court?
Secondly, exactly how was this general information phrased? The unnamed official in the WaPo article says there was "ample disclosure" — but how much disclosure was there? WaPo is reporting that the application "did not specifically name the Democratic National Committee or the Hillary Clinton presidential campaign," which is to say that the application did not name the Democratic National Committee or the Hillary Clinton presidential campaign. It did something else that's supposedly just as good or almost as good or not good enough at all.
I want to know exactly what the language was and how deceptive it may have been, and I'd like to see the opinion of some named experts who have been expressing themselves over a long period of time about the role of the FISA court. I don't want Trump-specific opinions. I want to hear from experts whose opinion of working with FISA extends back into the Bush administration.
Meanwhile, listen to Glenn Greenwald calling on his fellow lefties to remember their conscience:
Thus Article How to resolve the discrepancy of opinion over the Nunes memo.
That's an article How to resolve the discrepancy of opinion over the Nunes memo. This time, hopefully can give benefits to all of you. well, see you in posting other articles.
You are now reading the article How to resolve the discrepancy of opinion over the Nunes memo. with the link address https://infotodays1.blogspot.com/2018/02/how-to-resolve-discrepancy-of-opinion.html
0 Response to "How to resolve the discrepancy of opinion over the Nunes memo."
Post a Comment