State of the Union Speach

[spence]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

(1) I'll ask again, where in that statement did he say all immigrants are gang members?

(2) what in that statement, exactly, would you say is untrue? Do you deny that having an open border with Mexico has allowed drugs and gang bangers to come in and do harm?

Not all immigrants are criminals. But, and this may be news to you, some are.

He's certainly playing racist cards to stoke anti-immigrant sentiment with disinformation. Goes right along with his lying about chain immigration and the lottery system. Ok, to be fair he may just not understand what the law really is.

What astounded me about his long-winded clap happy was the failure to mention anything about our democratic institutions...likely because Trump has no respect for them.

We're living in a time where the FBI and CIA are the enemy and Russia is the insider friend...this should terrify everyone.

[Pete F.]

He painted immigrants as bad, much like people paint bait fisherman as slobs. Yes, some are but that does not make all fisherman slobs.

[scottw]

Originally Posted by Pete F.

He painted illegal immigration as bad, much like people paint bait fisherman who leave their garbage everywhere as slobs. Yes, some are but that does not make all fisherman slobs.

fixed it

[Pete F.]

Originally Posted by scottw

fixed it

No you didn't, you need to read the speech. And that is exactly the problem.

"Struggling communities, especially immigrant communities, will also be helped by immigration policies that focus on the best interests of American workers and American families.

For decades, open borders have allowed drugs and gangs to pour into our most vulnerable communities. They have allowed millions of low-wage workers to compete for jobs and wages against the poorest Americans. Most tragically, they have caused the loss of many innocent lives.

Here tonight are two fathers and two mothers: Evelyn Rodriguez, Freddy Cuevas, Elizabeth Alvarado, and Robert Mickens. Their two teenage daughters -- Kayla Cuevas and Nisa Mickens -- were close friends on Long Island. But in September 2016, on the eve of Nisa's 16th Birthday, neither of them came home. These two precious girls were brutally murdered while walking together in their hometown. Six members of the savage gang MS-13 have been charged with Kayla and Nisa's murders. Many of these gang members took advantage of glaring loopholes in our laws to enter the country as unaccompanied alien minors - and wound up in Kayla and Nisa's high school.

Evelyn, Elizabeth, Freddy, and Robert: Tonight, everyone in this chamber is praying for you. Everyone in America is grieving for you. And 320 million hearts are breaking for you. We cannot imagine the depth of your sorrow, but we can make sure that other families never have to endure this pain.

Tonight, I am calling on the Congress to finally close the deadly loopholes that have allowed MS-13, and other criminals, to break into our country. We have proposed new legislation that will fix our immigration laws, and support our ICE and Border Patrol Agents, so that this cannot ever happen again."

[Nebe]

I like the part where Trump boasted about how his tax cuts gave the average middle class worker 'thousands' in tax savings, but omitted mentioning who really got the lions share of the tax cuts... the super rich.

GOP agenda is to always tell the poor white man that he is better than someone else. That someone else in a worse situation is coming for him to steal his situation, while never ever ever mentioning who holds all the cards and is the true threat to the poor white man. The rich white man.

[scottw]

Originally Posted by Nebe

GOP agenda is to always tell the poor white man that he is better than someone else. That someone else in a worse situation is coming for him to steal his situation, while never ever ever mentioning who holds all the cards and is the true threat to the poor white man. The rich white man.

.... you crack me up

[scottw]

Originally Posted by Pete F.

No you didn't, you need to read the speech. And that is exactly the problem.

"Struggling communities, especially (legal) immigrant communities, will also be helped by immigration policies that focus on the best interests of American workers and American families. yup

For decades, open borders have allowed drugs and gangs(illegally) to pour into our most vulnerable communities. They have allowed millions of low-wage workers(illegal) to compete for jobs and wages against the poorest (legal)Americans. Most tragically, they have caused the loss of many innocent lives. yup

Here tonight are two fathers and two mothers: Evelyn Rodriguez, Freddy Cuevas, Elizabeth Alvarado, and Robert Mickens. Their two teenage daughters -- Kayla Cuevas and Nisa Mickens -- were close friends on Long Island. But in September 2016, on the eve of Nisa's 16th Birthday, neither of them came home. These two precious girls were brutally murdered while walking together in their hometown. Six members of the savage gang MS-13 have been charged with Kayla and Nisa's murders. Many of these gang members took advantage of glaring loopholes in our laws to enter the country as unaccompanied alien minors - and wound up in Kayla and Nisa's high school. yup

Evelyn, Elizabeth, Freddy, and Robert: Tonight, everyone in this chamber is praying for you. Everyone in America is grieving for you. And 320 million hearts are breaking for you. We cannot imagine the depth of your sorrow, but we can make sure that other families never have to endure this pain. yup

Tonight, I am calling on the Congress to finally close the deadly loopholes that have allowed MS-13, and other criminals, to (illegally)break into our country. We have proposed new legislation that will fix our (legal)immigration laws, and support our ICE and Border Patrol Agents, so that this cannot ever happen again."

which part of that do you have a problem with?

[Raider Ronnie]

Originally Posted by Pete F.

He painted immigrants as bad, much like people paint bait fisherman as slobs. Yes, some are but that does not make all fisherman slobs.

Not all immigrants, ILLEGAL IMMIGRANTS !
100% of illegals are illegal.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[scottw]

I think it was a bad idea to have the car Teddy drove at Chappaquid#^&#^&#^&#^& in the background of the rebuttal

[Pete F.]

Originally Posted by scottw

I think it was a bad idea to have the car Teddy drove at Chappaquid#^&#^&#^&#^& in the background of the rebuttal

I know which fake news you watch, not much different than other news orgs jabbing trump is it?

[scottw]

Originally Posted by Pete F.

I know which fake news you watch, not much different than other news orgs jabbing trump is it?

FNN....

[scottw]

Originally Posted by Pete F.

I know which fake news you watch, not much different than other news orgs jabbing trump is it?

whoever thought a Kennedy giving the rebuttal with a car in the background with the hood up was a good idea.... was not thinking clearly...

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by Raider Ronnie

Not all immigrants, ILLEGAL IMMIGRANTS !
100% of illegals are illegal.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

He wasn't even bashing all illegals. He said that when we look the other way on illegal immigration, the side effect is that SOME of the illegals will be dangerous criminals. How can anyone disagree with that?

[detbuch]

Originally Posted by spence

He's certainly playing racist cards to stoke anti-immigrant sentiment with disinformation.

The race card-- a card with the word racist or racism. When you play the card by putting it on top of the cards on the table, all the cards become racist or racisms regardless of their denominated values and labels. It seems that this card is played against Trump, not by him.

Goes right along with his lying about chain immigration and the lottery system. Ok, to be fair he may just not understand what the law really is.

What astounded me about his long-winded clap happy was the failure to mention anything about our democratic institutions...likely because Trump has no respect for them.

What is a "democratic institution" for you? And which ones did he not mention or should he have mentioned--voting, The Constitution, rule of law, checks and balances in government, the right to bear arms, religious liberty, the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness? How has he not shown respect for any of those things?

Oh . . . freedom of the Press . . . you mean that . . . are you saying that criticizing the Press when it is not properly doing its job is disrespecting freedom of the Press?

It is the height of lunacy for someone who believes that our foundational democratic institution, The Constitution, is outdated, to ask for respect for our democratic institutions.

We're living in a time where the FBI and CIA are the enemy and Russia is the insider friend...this should terrify everyone.

Are you taking us back in time to the long reign of J. Edgar Hoover who the left despised? Or to all the instances that the left has accused the CIA of lying and sabotage as in stirring up wars in the Middle East? Or the long history of the Democrats actually being complicit with Soviet involvement in our own government as well as in Asia and Europe?

Who is saying that the FBI or the CIA are enemies? Is this just another or your type of exaggerations as in your use of "racism" or accusing Trump of saying "ALL" immigrants are this or that? Is it not possible to point out malfeasance by some at the top of the FBI without saying that the FBI is our enemy? It is terrifying to think we must not ever criticize those who have the power to destroy our lives.

[Got Stripers]

Once again filled with boasts about all he has done, yet that facts and stats don’t lie, I’m surprised his own staff isn’t fact checking before he claims that crap.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[Pete F.]

What worries me is we have saved everybody from having to pay for Obamacare and have not even tried to fix the medical cost conundrum, are trillions in debt and now we need to build a wall to keep out immigrants and add to our roughly 5000 nuclear weapons because somebody else with bad hair has 10. Other than the Russians nobody has 10% of what we do currently. Look and see how many nukes the Chinese have, latest estimate I see is 260, probably plenty to F the world up.
Think about how this works. If I am a very rich man my illnesses might kill me but can never bankrupt me, even if i self insure. And as a rich man, I own stock in the companies that provide insurance, drugs and healthcare and make the profit I deserve(hey just because you don't have any capital its not my fault) I don't think I should have to help anyone else. But I need protection for the things I have and my way of life so i need you to fight for me for a pittance and finance my war machine. Oh by the way I make a lot more money from the military by supplying the armaments that you need to protect me.
Think about when you were a kid, who owned the store on the corner, the gas station, the butcher, the baker, the hardware store, etc. they lived in the community and made some money. Who owns those places now and where does the money go? I bet the manager in the convenience store you get coffee at makes a bit over minimum wage and your money goes to corporate america, not your neighbor and fellow local taxpayer.
So much for the top 10% and I assume the rest of you are with me in the bottom 90% of Americans.
What I want is to work together to control costs to a reasonable limit for Healthcare, Infrastructure, Military and other needs. Maybe that makes me a liberal, but I kinda think it makes me a reasonable person. Rant over

[Nebe]

Oh my god Pete, you sound like a commie pinko snowflake!
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[detbuch]

Originally Posted by Nebe

Oh my god Pete, you sound like a commie pinko snowflake!
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Is that a good thing?

[Pete F.]

Originally Posted by Nebe

Oh my god Pete, you sound like a commie pinko snowflake!
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Actually I just read Ron Paul’s tweets and they are better than the path we’ve been on the past twenty years But I can see a little control
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[PaulS]

and the Repub. are claiming that the reason for the FISA request was the Steele document but it makes no difference what caused the FBI requested it. It is just more noise. Pathetic.

Don't forget that the Repub. appointed FBI Director didn't only say concerns, he said "grave concerns".

Why not release the Dems. memo? The Repubs. will stop at nothing to protect Trump - even tear down our institutions.

[spence]

Originally Posted by PaulS

and the Repub. are claiming that the reason for the FISA request was the Steele document but it makes no difference what caused the FBI requested it.

Well no, the FISA request has to be thoroughly justified for a Judge to sign it. If the Steele document was the only basis for the request it would have never been approved from what I understand.

It's also unclear how Nunes even got the FISA request to begin with and there's suspicion now there was coordination with the White House in its creation.

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by spence

Well no, the FISA request has to be thoroughly justified for a Judge to sign it. If the Steele document was the only basis for the request it would have never been approved from what I understand.

It's also unclear how Nunes even got the FISA request to begin with and there's suspicion now there was coordination with the White House in its creation.

"FISA request has to be thoroughly justified for a Judge to sign it"

First, can you tell us how you know what the standards are for FISA requests to be granted? I thought they were secret.

Second, it's possible that a knowingly false request could be presented to a judge, in order to meet the burden. No one is saying the judge didn't grant it, perhaps he granted it based on knowingly false information.

I'm not following this that closely. Sean Hannity is saying that Hilary's campaign paid for a dossier of lies to be put together which was presented to a FISA judge, for the purposes of spying on Trump. I wouldn't bet a nickel that's true. But I am curious. But it's impossible to know what's true.

[PaulS]

Originally Posted by spence

Well no, the FISA request has to be thoroughly justified for a Judge to sign it. If the Steele document was the only basis for the request it would have never been approved from what I understand.

I think we are in somewhat agreement. It is my understanding that if they used the Steele doc. in any way they still would have to provide other evidence.

[PaulS]

Originally Posted by spence

there's suspicion now there was coordination with the White House in its creation.

Just saw this

On Monday, Rep. Mike Quigly (D-IL) asked Nunes if his staffers worked with the White House on his memo. Nunes originally answered the question by saying “as far as I know” no one collaborated with the White House. Ultimately, though, he refused to answer the question — perhaps suggesting that there may actually have been some collusion there

[Jim in CT]

I watched some of the speech again, and the democrats' reactions (mostly sitting there scowling, looking angry and sullen).

I have a LOT of issues with Trump. But I will say this, I have never seen anyone better, at making his opponents look stupid. There are times when Trump is the one who looks ugly, no doubt. But more often than not, he makes laughing stocks out of his adversaries, which makes them hate him more, and he loves it.

He praises a little boy for setting motion an effort to put thousands of American flags on the graves of deceased vets, and there are the Democrats, sitting there looking angry. He praises black unemployment being low, and there are the democrats, including the congressional black caucus, looking pissed.

You watch that, and unless you are a committed liberal, you ask yourself...what do these people stand for, and who do they represent? I think their entire political identity and agenda can be reduced to this...they hate Trump. And that's it. That's all they have. They have gone all-in on hating Trump, all their eggs are in that basket.

It may be enough to take back the house. Or it may blow up in their faces. If their entire political strategy is to say "I hate the guy who helped increase the size of your paycheck", America might not give a rat's azz.

[Nebe]

Lol.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[PaulS]

Nunes memo – actually that is funny. Didn’t we see what a sleazy person he was when Trump accused Obama of “wiretapped” Trump tower. Nunes came to Trump’s defense and lied and then later it was found out he actually got that info. from the Trump White House.

[Pete F.]

Here's the process in layman's terms if you are interested
In an article titled, “It Ain’t Easy Getting a FISA Warrant: I Was an FBI Agent and Should Know,” here’s what Rangappa wrote:

… As someone who obtained FISA warrants while conducting counterintelligence investigations for the FBI, I can attest to the fact that they not only don’t involve the White House, but the process includes too many layers of approval to be granted without strong evidence.

There are two ways to obtain a wiretap – also known as electronic surveillance – on U.S. persons (citizens and permanent residents), and both include the courts. For criminal investigations, the FBI can seek a warrant under Title III of the U.S. criminal code by showing a federal court that there is probable cause to believe the target has engaged, or is engaging in, criminal activity. This is a fairly high standard because of a strong presumption in favor of our Fourth Amendment right to privacy, and requires a showing that less intrusive means of obtaining the same information aren’t feasible.

The standard for electronic surveillance for foreign intelligence purposes, though, is a little lower. This is because when it comes to national security, as opposed to criminal prosecutions, our Fourth Amendment rights are balanced against the government’s interest in protecting the country. The Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) allows the FBI to get a warrant from a secret court, known as the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court (FISC), to conduct electronic surveillance on U.S. persons if they can show probable cause that the target is an “agent of a foreign power” who is “knowingly engag[ing]…in clandestine intelligence activities.” In other words, the government has to show that the target might be spying for a foreign government or organization.

But even under this standard, it’s not like the FBI can just decide to stop by a FISC to get a FISA warrant after going through the McDonald’s drive-thru for lunch. To even begin the process leading to a FISA, the FBI has to follow several steps outlined in the Attorney General Guidelines, which govern FBI investigations. First, the FBI has to conduct a “threat assessment” in order to establish grounds for even opening an investigation on potential FISA subjects. If a threat exists, the FBI must then formally open an investigation into possible foreign intelligence activity.

What does this look like in practice? Well, say, hypothetically, that a group of U.S. persons seem to have not infrequent contact with diplomats known to be Russian spies, whom the FBI are already monitoring. (Pro-tip: While it’s possible that such contacts could be accidental – I mean, hypothetically, the Trump inner circle could be a riot to hang out with socially – spies, particularly Russian ones, are pretty good at what they do and don’t spend time with people unless there’s a good reason.) The FBI might determine that, if the U.S. persons have access to classified information or could otherwise be “developed” for intelligence purposes by a foreign spy service, a significant enough threat exists to open an investigation – this would require at least one layer of approval within the FBI, and possibly more if the investigation concerns high-profile individuals.

The case still wouldn’t be FISA bound. FISA warrant investigations can’t be opened “solely on the basis of First Amendment activities,” so mere fraternization, even with sketchy people, wouldn’t be enough. The FBI would have to gather evidence to support a the claim that the U.S. target was knowingly working on behalf of a foreign entity. This could include information gathered from other methods like human sources, physical surveillance, bank transactions or even documents found in the target’s trash. This takes some time, and, when enough evidence had been accumulated, would be outlined in an affidavit and application stating the grounds for the FISA warrant. The completed FISA application would go up for approval through the FBI chain of command, including a Supervisor, the Chief Division Counsel (the highest lawyer within that FBI field office), and finally, the Special Agent in Charge of the field office, before making its way to FBI Headquarters to get approval by (at least) the Unit-level Supervisor there. If you’re exhausted already, hang on: There’s more.

The FISA application then travels to the Justice Department where attorneys from the National Security Division comb through the application to verify all the assertions made in it. Known as “Woods procedures” after Michael J. Woods, the FBI Special Agent attorney who developed this layer of approval, DOJ verifies the accuracy of every fact stated in the application. If anything looks unsubstantiated, the application is sent back to the FBI to provide additional evidentiary support – this game of bureaucratic chutes and ladders continues until DOJ is satisfied that the facts in the FISA application can both be corroborated and meet the legal standards for the court. After getting sign-off from a senior DOJ official (finally!), a lawyer from DOJ takes the FISA application before the FISC, comprised of eleven federal district judges who sit on the court on a rotating basis. The FISC reviews the application in secret, and decides whether to approve the warrant.

Now, it’s true that since its inception in 1978, the FISC has approved the vast majority of the over 25,000 FISA applications it has reviewed – some estimates put the number at over 99 percent. But that’s not surprising given the extensive process described above. In fact, if some reports are true that the initial FISA applications submitted to the FISC were rejected, prompting the FBI and DOJ to change its targets to the Russian banks doing business with Trump associates rather than the associates themselves (which would only require showing probable cause that the banks are a “foreign power,” which by definition they are), then a FISA application for Trump Tower, if one exists, would have been subject to even more scrutiny than would normally be the case.

In short, the FISA warrant process is designed to protect against the very abuse of power that the President has accused his predecessor of exercising. You could even say that FISA applications go through an “extreme vetting” process before being granted – something that the Trump administration ought to support.

[Got Stripers]

Trump and his lackeys are just diverting attention and trying to discredit the FBI and DOJ; can't imagine what they are worried about. Could it be the heat in the kitchen is starting to make them sweat and Mueller is getting a little too close for comfort.

What surprises me is that nobody, even Kelly, is standing up to this effort to release something that the FBI feels should not be made public for national security reasons. It's game show White House, you get too close and your FIRED or beaten up so badly on tweeter, you just would rather move on.

[detbuch]

Originally Posted by Pete F.

Here's the process in layman's terms if you are interested
In an article titled, “It Ain’t Easy Getting a FISA Warrant: I Was an FBI Agent and Should Know,” here’s what Rangappa wrote:

… As someone who obtained FISA warrants while conducting counterintelligence investigations for the FBI, I can attest to the fact that they not only don’t involve the White House, but the process includes too many layers of approval to be granted without strong evidence.

There are two ways to obtain a wiretap – also known as electronic surveillance – on U.S. persons (citizens and permanent residents), and both include the courts. For criminal investigations, the FBI can seek a warrant under Title III of the U.S. criminal code by showing a federal court that there is probable cause to believe the target has engaged, or is engaging in, criminal activity. This is a fairly high standard because of a strong presumption in favor of our Fourth Amendment right to privacy, and requires a showing that less intrusive means of obtaining the same information aren’t feasible.

The standard for electronic surveillance for foreign intelligence purposes, though, is a little lower. This is because when it comes to national security, as opposed to criminal prosecutions, our Fourth Amendment rights are balanced against the government’s interest in protecting the country. The Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) allows the FBI to get a warrant from a secret court, known as the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court (FISC), to conduct electronic surveillance on U.S. persons if they can show probable cause that the target is an “agent of a foreign power” who is “knowingly engag[ing]…in clandestine intelligence activities.” In other words, the government has to show that the target might be spying for a foreign government or organization.

But even under this standard, it’s not like the FBI can just decide to stop by a FISC to get a FISA warrant after going through the McDonald’s drive-thru for lunch. To even begin the process leading to a FISA, the FBI has to follow several steps outlined in the Attorney General Guidelines, which govern FBI investigations. First, the FBI has to conduct a “threat assessment” in order to establish grounds for even opening an investigation on potential FISA subjects. If a threat exists, the FBI must then formally open an investigation into possible foreign intelligence activity.

What does this look like in practice? Well, say, hypothetically, that a group of U.S. persons seem to have not infrequent contact with diplomats known to be Russian spies, whom the FBI are already monitoring. (Pro-tip: While it’s possible that such contacts could be accidental – I mean, hypothetically, the Trump inner circle could be a riot to hang out with socially – spies, particularly Russian ones, are pretty good at what they do and don’t spend time with people unless there’s a good reason.) The FBI might determine that, if the U.S. persons have access to classified information or could otherwise be “developed” for intelligence purposes by a foreign spy service, a significant enough threat exists to open an investigation – this would require at least one layer of approval within the FBI, and possibly more if the investigation concerns high-profile individuals.

The case still wouldn’t be FISA bound. FISA warrant investigations can’t be opened “solely on the basis of First Amendment activities,” so mere fraternization, even with sketchy people, wouldn’t be enough. The FBI would have to gather evidence to support a the claim that the U.S. target was knowingly working on behalf of a foreign entity. This could include information gathered from other methods like human sources, physical surveillance, bank transactions or even documents found in the target’s trash. This takes some time, and, when enough evidence had been accumulated, would be outlined in an affidavit and application stating the grounds for the FISA warrant. The completed FISA application would go up for approval through the FBI chain of command, including a Supervisor, the Chief Division Counsel (the highest lawyer within that FBI field office), and finally, the Special Agent in Charge of the field office, before making its way to FBI Headquarters to get approval by (at least) the Unit-level Supervisor there. If you’re exhausted already, hang on: There’s more.

The FISA application then travels to the Justice Department where attorneys from the National Security Division comb through the application to verify all the assertions made in it. Known as “Woods procedures” after Michael J. Woods, the FBI Special Agent attorney who developed this layer of approval, DOJ verifies the accuracy of every fact stated in the application. If anything looks unsubstantiated, the application is sent back to the FBI to provide additional evidentiary support – this game of bureaucratic chutes and ladders continues until DOJ is satisfied that the facts in the FISA application can both be corroborated and meet the legal standards for the court. After getting sign-off from a senior DOJ official (finally!), a lawyer from DOJ takes the FISA application before the FISC, comprised of eleven federal district judges who sit on the court on a rotating basis. The FISC reviews the application in secret, and decides whether to approve the warrant.

Now, it’s true that since its inception in 1978, the FISC has approved the vast majority of the over 25,000 FISA applications it has reviewed – some estimates put the number at over 99 percent. But that’s not surprising given the extensive process described above. In fact, if some reports are true that the initial FISA applications submitted to the FISC were rejected, prompting the FBI and DOJ to change its targets to the Russian banks doing business with Trump associates rather than the associates themselves (which would only require showing probable cause that the banks are a “foreign power,” which by definition they are), then a FISA application for Trump Tower, if one exists, would have been subject to even more scrutiny than would normally be the case.

In short, the FISA warrant process is designed to protect against the very abuse of power that the President has accused his predecessor of exercising. You could even say that FISA applications go through an “extreme vetting” process before being granted – something that the Trump administration ought to support.

I'm assuming that those on the House Committee know all this.