jkjacq
Ruby
Posts: 21,742 Likes: 94,334
|
Post by jkjacq on Jun 7, 2017 10:41:24 GMT -6
well the spin out of the WH should be interesting.
|
|
|
Post by CurlieWhirlie on Jun 7, 2017 10:54:27 GMT -6
I only was able to watch the last 10 minutes or so, damn this West Coast time zone! dc2london Was there significance to the question about using a FISA warrant to collect conversations that were known to be entirely domestic? Coats said in no uncertain terms that that would be against the law. Was the implication that any collection of Trump associates' conversations under a FISA warrant *had to be* international in nature? That's about right where I came in, so maybe it was clarified earlier in the testimony.
|
|
dc2london
Admin
Press Secretary
Posts: 61,688 Likes: 419,622
|
Post by dc2london on Jun 7, 2017 11:01:30 GMT -6
I only was able to watch the last 10 minutes or so, damn this West Coast time zone! dc2london Was there significance to the question about using a FISA warrant to collect conversations that were known to be entirely domestic? Coats said in no uncertain terms that that would be against the law. Was the implication that any collection of Trump associates' conversations under a FISA warrant *had to be* international in nature? That's about right where I came in, so maybe it was clarified earlier in the testimony. well the main purpose of this hearing was supposed to be 702 reauthorization so a certain amount of the questioning was mainly to reassure the public that 702 isn't being used to spy on Americans in their bedrooms (we have Title 1 for that, but I digress).
|
|
|
Post by CurlieWhirlie on Jun 7, 2017 11:06:55 GMT -6
I only was able to watch the last 10 minutes or so, damn this West Coast time zone! dc2london Was there significance to the question about using a FISA warrant to collect conversations that were known to be entirely domestic? Coats said in no uncertain terms that that would be against the law. Was the implication that any collection of Trump associates' conversations under a FISA warrant *had to be* international in nature? That's about right where I came in, so maybe it was clarified earlier in the testimony. well the main purpose of this hearing was supposed to be 702 reauthorization so a certain amount of the questioning was mainly to reassure the public that 702 isn't being used to spy on Americans in their bedrooms (we have Title 1 for that, but I digress). Thanks!
|
|