Reply With Quote
After reading that excerpt from the Grassley memo that’s your ing concern?“he’s asking the right questions”
today’s lawyers
(e)Emergency orders(1)Notwithstanding any other provision of this subchapter, the Attorney General may authorize the emergency employment of electronic surveillance if the Attorney General—(A)reasonably determines that an emergency situation exists with respect to the employment of electronic surveillance to obtain foreign intelligence information before an order authorizing such surveillance can with due diligence be obtained;
(B)reasonably determines that the factual basis for the issuance of an order under this subchapter to approve such electronic surveillance exists;
(C)informs, either personally or through a designee, a judge having jurisdiction under section 1803 of this le at the time of such authorization that the decision has been made to employ emergency electronic surveillance; and
(D)makes an application in accordance with this subchapter to a judge having jurisdiction under section 1803 of this le as soon as practicable, but not later than 7 days after the Attorney General authorizes such surveillance
emergency surveillance still must be followed up with an application that would have to justify the surveillance. otherwise it gets thrown out
(5)In the event that such application for approval is denied, or in any other case where the electronic surveillance is terminated and no order is issued approving the surveillance, no information obtained or evidence derived from such surveillance shall be received in evidence or otherwise disclosed in any trial, hearing, or other proceeding in or before any court, grand jury, department, office, agency, regulatory body, legislative committee, or other authority of the United States, a State, or political subdivision thereof, and no information concerning any United States person acquired from such surveillance shall subsequently be used or disclosed in any other manner by Federal officers or employees without the consent of such person, except with the approval of the Attorney General if the information indicates a threat of death or serious bodily harm to any person.
https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/50/1805
After reading that excerpt from the Grassley memo that’s your ing concern?“he’s asking the right questions”
The article is whining about other media outlets report/don't report. It's a ing conspiracy piece.
I'm good with a source who follows rules of journalism 101. Then if the facts can be confirmed by other media outlets, even better.
no mercy
actually, if we're going to play the jump to conclusions game, the fact that Trump feels like posting "see, meeting with russians is not weird" is pretty stupid
Stupider than the guy railing against meeting with Russians for a year?actually, if we're going to play the jump to conclusions game, the fact that Trump feels like posting "see, meeting with russians is not weird" is pretty stupid
I don't know what you're comparing levels of stupid against, but on it's own it's pretty stupid, yeah. I mean, if he feels he's clean, there's nothing else to add, right?
If you were clean wouldn’t you rub the actual dirty ones noses in it constantly? I sure the would.
ITT produce manager sets himself apart from subforum poster
Lawyer21 please fact check above
Or if you're dirty try to get the attention away from you
I'll rub the investigation conclusion in everybody's noses, not try to establish that everybody's doing it, but I'm the only sucker getting investigated!
It's stupid. Like the 'levels of stupid' defense. We all know Wild Cobra posts stupid all the time, is it ok because boutons posts more stupid ? It's still stupid.
no mercy
no mercy
Was this the "dirt" Assange had on Warner when he private message the fake Hannity Twitter account?
no mercy
Looks like the OIG caught Warner and informed his staff in Sep 2017.
no mercy
Warner informed the committee in Sep 2017...he was in contact with Russian agent in March 2017. Why did it take Warner 7 months to inform the committee? Why didn't the committee demand an immediate public disclosure?
Why did Bush just sit there and continue to read to the kids after being told that planes were hitting the towers?
What does blueteamblake think Bush should have done?
Would it have been better if he jumped up and said "what the , we're under attack!!?! get to that choppaaaa!!!!". Then shove his way through the kids.
(Tweet by President Donald J. Trump) ---> "LOL no mercy"
(Rebuttal tweet) ---> "We should scrutinize whether people here are being forthcoming."
Does it matter anyway? Seems like his own colleagues are bother none about it. Hence the Marco Rubio tweet.
Ask them. All the committees are controlled by Republicans.
Also let me know what the big deal is.
Also tell me how ordering a report and ordering an investigation are exactly the same thing.
They're all part of the cover up. Everyone is Deep State. Everyone is against Dear Leader.
The point is that he was calm because he already knew the attacks were gonna happen. Duh.
So what are the odds of a "Little Marco Rubio..." tweet forthcoming, tbh?
Oh really? Please expound on your theory.
Bush was in on it. Duh.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
