So the GOP MEMO is out. It states like four people renewed the search warrants on Carter Page. Yeah, and? I don't see the big deal. Page was investigated because there was reasons to do so which are conveniently not mentioned in the memo.
It blames Steele for not wanting Trump to be elected. Why would he want that? The memo doesn't state but says the reason is because he was paid by Hillary. But perhaps it was because he had intelligence that Trump was a Russian pawn susceptible to blackmail. And he was. He paid off Stormy Daniels. What's that if not blackmail for her silence.
It also attempts to paint Strok as some mastermind. Yeah he criticized Hillary too but this partisan memo makes it seem like he was Hillarys mole.
Strozk not only criticized Hillary, he AUTHORED the suggestion that the email case be re-opened in the waning days of the campaign. The Carter Page surveillance started in 2013. Beyond that, Fusion GPS, before working for Democrats, was working for Republicans in the primary. And the people who initially financed Fusion GPS are also major donors to.....yep, Devin Nunes.
They spend the entire memo trying to AGAIN claim the Steel Dossier started the investigation, and then have the grenade blow up in their hand by mentioning Papadopoulos. There isn't even a consistent internal logic in regards to the memo they wrote and the position they are trying to sell.
I was expecting something with a more incendiary tone, but the memo seems rather bland.
The issue with the memo is that, even as a piece of partisan propaganda, it's just incompetent. Devin Nunes is simply not a bright bulb. He isn't even a dim bulb. And THIS is what Republicans were willing to burn bridges with federal law enforcement for?? And look, I have MAJOR problems with the FBI throughout it's history. That doesn't mean we don't need them to be a valid organization that is taken seriously both domestically and across the globe.
I was expecting something with a more incendiary tone, but the memo seems rather bland.
That's exactly what I was trying to point out before. As a mystery it worked well. When it was a mystery box people wondered about it. What does it say? Some Republicans read it and told you it was BIGGER THAN WATERGATE! That this thing would blow the roof off of the Mueller investigation! Etc etc hyperbole hyperbole etc.
The mystery is always a bigger deal - wondering what it meant has your imagination filling in the blanks. And wondering what it means has you accepting it as a precondition to wondering what it means. So we're all doing the mental game of "well they are saying it proves x, y, z so if that's true then how is x, y, z?" They get you playing along mentally and imagining how they (allegedly) are going to prove their lame talking points.
Then you see it and can see their initial premise is not shown to be true so then their extrapolated talking points they are using based on that premise are not proven from the foundation they claimed they were.
I don't see why you feel the need to jump to President Obama's defense here. I was merely stating a procedural fact, because the public far too often overlooks procedural issues when discussing substantive matters. However, making sure our leaders follow proper procedural requirements is one of the most important safeguards against unruly leaders seizing power that is not theirs to begin with.
But if we are to talk about them, analyzing which president mad the most use of executive orders based on the number of executive orders is completely laughable. The scope of the executive orders is far more important. Who cares if a president makes an advisory committee on issues of education? That's clearly within the president's purview.
On the other hand, if Truman seizes steel mills or Obama creates a whole new registration program for those here illegally, there is much more power being exerted that has not been formally delegated to the president.
Well, given that scope is entirely subjective, and numbers are objective, it is absolutely the place to start when examining the issue.
Its not subjective at all. We have an entire document enumerating certain powers the president has (the Constitution) and many other statutes passed by Congress that delegate authority to the executive.
Courts are the ones who decide this, whether it's Trump's travel bad or the Obama Administration making tweeks to Obamacare.
The fact that only a court can officially declare an act by the government to be in violation of law hardly makes it a subjective inquiry. Judges are bound by law just as much as any other public official, and (ideally) do not make rulings based on whims.
But they do make them based on politics, which are subjective.
This is simply not true. While politics does (unfortunately) play into legal decision making on occasion, the courts generally do a good job of interpreting law, not creating it.
I think that very much depends on what power has been delegated to our president by the Constitution and by Congress (though I have grave concerns about Congress unconstitutionally delegating its power to the executive).
If a president is acting in his capacity as Commander in Chief to sign an executive order for the safeguarding of our ports, or in his capacity as Chief Executive to instruct the Attorney General to increase security fraud prosecutions, then it is entirely permissible and acceptable.
Yet if the President uses an executive order to wield power that is too attenuated from what is assigned to him (say if Trump was to try to commandeer local law enforcement to enforce federal immigration law) then there is a clear problem.
Did you check out the link I had for EO 9066? Long story short: internment camps for Japanese-American citizens during WWII. That *definitely* isn't in the Constitution.
I did, but as I said executive orders are not inherently good or evil. It depends on whether it is within the power of the presidency.
Besides, if we use @jjstraka34 's logic, then there was nothing wrong with that executive order, as Japanese internment was shamefully held to be constitutional in the Korematsu case.
It blames Steele for not wanting Trump to be elected. Why would he want that? The memo doesn't say but implies the reason is because he was funded by Hillary. But perhaps it was another reason like because he had intelligence that Trump was a Russian pawn susceptible to blackmail. And he was. He paid off Stormy Daniels. What's that if not blackmail for her silence.
No, you are misreading it. The memo says that the FBI used Steele's memo to establish probable cause to get a warrant to investigate an individual in Trump's team, without informing the court that the source of the information was opposition research.
It is improper, though not illegal. Courts understand that almost all informants are biased. Normally they are paid by police or seeking a plea deal to avoid jail time, which are much greater reasons to lie than pure politics! To succeed they'd have to convince a judge who was informed about the bias that the information was completely made up, which subsequent events regarding Carter Page have shown it not to be.
The memo reflects poorly on the FBI, but if Congressional Republicans were looking for illegality they didn't find it. Regardless, they had human intelligence with Papadopoulos anyway, rendering the entire controversy moot.
I don't see why you feel the need to jump to President Obama's defense here. I was merely stating a procedural fact, because the public far too often overlooks procedural issues when discussing substantive matters. However, making sure our leaders follow proper procedural requirements is one of the most important safeguards against unruly leaders seizing power that is not theirs to begin with.
But if we are to talk about them, analyzing which president mad the most use of executive orders based on the number of executive orders is completely laughable. The scope of the executive orders is far more important. Who cares if a president makes an advisory committee on issues of education? That's clearly within the president's purview.
On the other hand, if Truman seizes steel mills or Obama creates a whole new registration program for those here illegally, there is much more power being exerted that has not been formally delegated to the president.
Well, given that scope is entirely subjective, and numbers are objective, it is absolutely the place to start when examining the issue.
Its not subjective at all. We have an entire document enumerating certain powers the president has (the Constitution) and many other statutes passed by Congress that delegate authority to the executive.
Courts are the ones who decide this, whether it's Trump's travel bad or the Obama Administration making tweeks to Obamacare.
The fact that only a court can officially declare an act by the government to be in violation of law hardly makes it a subjective inquiry. Judges are bound by law just as much as any other public official, and (ideally) do not make rulings based on whims.
But they do make them based on politics, which are subjective.
This is simply not true. While politics does (unfortunately) play into legal decision making on occasion, the courts generally do a good job of interpreting law, not creating it.
I think that very much depends on what power has been delegated to our president by the Constitution and by Congress (though I have grave concerns about Congress unconstitutionally delegating its power to the executive).
If a president is acting in his capacity as Commander in Chief to sign an executive order for the safeguarding of our ports, or in his capacity as Chief Executive to instruct the Attorney General to increase security fraud prosecutions, then it is entirely permissible and acceptable.
Yet if the President uses an executive order to wield power that is too attenuated from what is assigned to him (say if Trump was to try to commandeer local law enforcement to enforce federal immigration law) then there is a clear problem.
Did you check out the link I had for EO 9066? Long story short: internment camps for Japanese-American citizens during WWII. That *definitely* isn't in the Constitution.
I did, but as I said executive orders are not inherently good or evil. It depends on whether it is within the power of the presidency.
Besides, if we use @jjstraka34 's logic, then there was nothing wrong with that executive order, as Japanese internment was shamefully held to be constitutional in the Korematsu case.
You don't think judges, when presented with cases that deal with political issues, make political decisions?? Especially State Supreme Courts and the Supreme Court itself?? You have a far greater belief in their impartiality than I do then. And that would go for both liberal and conservative justices.
As for my logic, look....I didn't start out to make a case as to whether or not Executive Orders are good or bad. I view them as something that is a reality. My only real point is that, from a narrative perspective in the last few years in the media, it is Obama who somehow got this label as the prime example of a President governing by Executive Order. And at least, on the surface, that is basically the opposite of the historical record. If arguments are to be made about the overall SCOPE of the whole of his executive orders compared to others, that is a whole different discussion that would probably not only require it's own thread, but it's own website.
I don't see why you feel the need to jump to President Obama's defense here. I was merely stating a procedural fact, because the public far too often overlooks procedural issues when discussing substantive matters. However, making sure our leaders follow proper procedural requirements is one of the most important safeguards against unruly leaders seizing power that is not theirs to begin with.
But if we are to talk about them, analyzing which president mad the most use of executive orders based on the number of executive orders is completely laughable. The scope of the executive orders is far more important. Who cares if a president makes an advisory committee on issues of education? That's clearly within the president's purview.
On the other hand, if Truman seizes steel mills or Obama creates a whole new registration program for those here illegally, there is much more power being exerted that has not been formally delegated to the president.
Well, given that scope is entirely subjective, and numbers are objective, it is absolutely the place to start when examining the issue.
Its not subjective at all. We have an entire document enumerating certain powers the president has (the Constitution) and many other statutes passed by Congress that delegate authority to the executive.
Courts are the ones who decide this, whether it's Trump's travel bad or the Obama Administration making tweeks to Obamacare.
The fact that only a court can officially declare an act by the government to be in violation of law hardly makes it a subjective inquiry. Judges are bound by law just as much as any other public official, and (ideally) do not make rulings based on whims.
But they do make them based on politics, which are subjective.
This is simply not true. While politics does (unfortunately) play into legal decision making on occasion, the courts generally do a good job of interpreting law, not creating it.
I think that very much depends on what power has been delegated to our president by the Constitution and by Congress (though I have grave concerns about Congress unconstitutionally delegating its power to the executive).
If a president is acting in his capacity as Commander in Chief to sign an executive order for the safeguarding of our ports, or in his capacity as Chief Executive to instruct the Attorney General to increase security fraud prosecutions, then it is entirely permissible and acceptable.
Yet if the President uses an executive order to wield power that is too attenuated from what is assigned to him (say if Trump was to try to commandeer local law enforcement to enforce federal immigration law) then there is a clear problem.
Did you check out the link I had for EO 9066? Long story short: internment camps for Japanese-American citizens during WWII. That *definitely* isn't in the Constitution.
I did, but as I said executive orders are not inherently good or evil. It depends on whether it is within the power of the presidency.
Besides, if we use @jjstraka34 's logic, then there was nothing wrong with that executive order, as Japanese internment was shamefully held to be constitutional in the Korematsu case.
My only real point is that, from a narrative perspective in the last few years in the media, it is Obama who somehow got this label as the prime example of a President governing by Executive Order. And at least, on the surface, that is basically the opposite of the historical record. If arguments are to be made about the overall SCOPE of the whole of his executive orders compared to others, that is a whole different discussion that would probably not only require it's own thread, but it's own website.
That's because he openly stated that he would use executive orders when his legislative agenda failed. You act as though the accusation that he was abusing that power came out of nowhere. It came out of the president's own mouth!
It blames Steele for not wanting Trump to be elected. Why would he want that? The memo doesn't say but implies the reason is because he was funded by Hillary. But perhaps it was another reason like because he had intelligence that Trump was a Russian pawn susceptible to blackmail. And he was. He paid off Stormy Daniels. What's that if not blackmail for her silence.
No, you are misreading it. The memo says that the FBI used Steele's memo to establish probable cause to get a warrant to investigate an individual in Trump's team, without informing the court that the source of the information was opposition research.
It is improper, though not illegal. Courts understand that almost all informants are biased. Normally they are paid by police or seeking a plea deal to avoid jail time, which are much greater reasons to lie than pure politics! To succeed they'd have to convince a judge who was informed about the bias that the information was completely made up, which subsequent events regarding Carter Page have shown it not to be.
The memo reflects poorly on the FBI, but if Congressional Republicans were looking for illegality they didn't find it. Regardless, they had human intelligence with Papadopoulos anyway, rendering the entire controversy moot.
It wasn't the source of the information, at least not initially. Carter Page had been under surveillance since 2014. Which predates the Steele Dossier and the Trump campaign itself by almost two years. And no, it isn't illegal. And if there WERE problems with it, then if Carter Page ever gets indicted or charged in this scandal, he can make the case to the court that the surveillance of him was improper (which I highly, highly doubt it was because of what I know about this situation). This memo actually reads more like a motion by a lawyer to suppress information gained from a wiretap than anything else.
The idea that the Steele Dossier was the catalyst for any of this has been debunked on more occasions than I can count (and I realize you aren't suggesting that it is/was). Everything we know about it suggests it was taken seriously because of information the FBI already had from other sources that matched what Steele was telling them.
I don't see why you feel the need to jump to President Obama's defense here. I was merely stating a procedural fact, because the public far too often overlooks procedural issues when discussing substantive matters. However, making sure our leaders follow proper procedural requirements is one of the most important safeguards against unruly leaders seizing power that is not theirs to begin with.
But if we are to talk about them, analyzing which president mad the most use of executive orders based on the number of executive orders is completely laughable. The scope of the executive orders is far more important. Who cares if a president makes an advisory committee on issues of education? That's clearly within the president's purview.
On the other hand, if Truman seizes steel mills or Obama creates a whole new registration program for those here illegally, there is much more power being exerted that has not been formally delegated to the president.
Well, given that scope is entirely subjective, and numbers are objective, it is absolutely the place to start when examining the issue.
Its not subjective at all. We have an entire document enumerating certain powers the president has (the Constitution) and many other statutes passed by Congress that delegate authority to the executive.
Courts are the ones who decide this, whether it's Trump's travel bad or the Obama Administration making tweeks to Obamacare.
The fact that only a court can officially declare an act by the government to be in violation of law hardly makes it a subjective inquiry. Judges are bound by law just as much as any other public official, and (ideally) do not make rulings based on whims.
But they do make them based on politics, which are subjective.
This is simply not true. While politics does (unfortunately) play into legal decision making on occasion, the courts generally do a good job of interpreting law, not creating it.
I think that very much depends on what power has been delegated to our president by the Constitution and by Congress (though I have grave concerns about Congress unconstitutionally delegating its power to the executive).
If a president is acting in his capacity as Commander in Chief to sign an executive order for the safeguarding of our ports, or in his capacity as Chief Executive to instruct the Attorney General to increase security fraud prosecutions, then it is entirely permissible and acceptable.
Yet if the President uses an executive order to wield power that is too attenuated from what is assigned to him (say if Trump was to try to commandeer local law enforcement to enforce federal immigration law) then there is a clear problem.
Did you check out the link I had for EO 9066? Long story short: internment camps for Japanese-American citizens during WWII. That *definitely* isn't in the Constitution.
I did, but as I said executive orders are not inherently good or evil. It depends on whether it is within the power of the presidency.
Besides, if we use @jjstraka34 's logic, then there was nothing wrong with that executive order, as Japanese internment was shamefully held to be constitutional in the Korematsu case.
My only real point is that, from a narrative perspective in the last few years in the media, it is Obama who somehow got this label as the prime example of a President governing by Executive Order. And at least, on the surface, that is basically the opposite of the historical record. If arguments are to be made about the overall SCOPE of the whole of his executive orders compared to others, that is a whole different discussion that would probably not only require it's own thread, but it's own website.
That's because he openly stated that he would use executive orders when his legislative agenda failed. You act as though the accusation that he was abusing that power came out of nowhere. It came out of the president's own mouth!
I'm not claiming he didn't use them. He used them on average about 35 times a year. All I was saying is that he didn't use them as much as, literally, everyone else in modern history who has held his position. And that is never part of the conversation. Your argument that the scope of his Executive Orders may or may not have been greater than other President's is a legitimate point of debate. But also seems like a never-ending one.
I don't see why you feel the need to jump to President Obama's defense here. I was merely stating a procedural fact, because the public far too often overlooks procedural issues when discussing substantive matters. However, making sure our leaders follow proper procedural requirements is one of the most important safeguards against unruly leaders seizing power that is not theirs to begin with.
But if we are to talk about them, analyzing which president mad the most use of executive orders based on the number of executive orders is completely laughable. The scope of the executive orders is far more important. Who cares if a president makes an advisory committee on issues of education? That's clearly within the president's purview.
On the other hand, if Truman seizes steel mills or Obama creates a whole new registration program for those here illegally, there is much more power being exerted that has not been formally delegated to the president.
Well, given that scope is entirely subjective, and numbers are objective, it is absolutely the place to start when examining the issue.
Its not subjective at all. We have an entire document enumerating certain powers the president has (the Constitution) and many other statutes passed by Congress that delegate authority to the executive.
Courts are the ones who decide this, whether it's Trump's travel bad or the Obama Administration making tweeks to Obamacare.
The fact that only a court can officially declare an act by the government to be in violation of law hardly makes it a subjective inquiry. Judges are bound by law just as much as any other public official, and (ideally) do not make rulings based on whims.
But they do make them based on politics, which are subjective.
This is simply not true. While politics does (unfortunately) play into legal decision making on occasion, the courts generally do a good job of interpreting law, not creating it.
I think that very much depends on what power has been delegated to our president by the Constitution and by Congress (though I have grave concerns about Congress unconstitutionally delegating its power to the executive).
If a president is acting in his capacity as Commander in Chief to sign an executive order for the safeguarding of our ports, or in his capacity as Chief Executive to instruct the Attorney General to increase security fraud prosecutions, then it is entirely permissible and acceptable.
Yet if the President uses an executive order to wield power that is too attenuated from what is assigned to him (say if Trump was to try to commandeer local law enforcement to enforce federal immigration law) then there is a clear problem.
Did you check out the link I had for EO 9066? Long story short: internment camps for Japanese-American citizens during WWII. That *definitely* isn't in the Constitution.
I did, but as I said executive orders are not inherently good or evil. It depends on whether it is within the power of the presidency.
Besides, if we use @jjstraka34 's logic, then there was nothing wrong with that executive order, as Japanese internment was shamefully held to be constitutional in the Korematsu case.
My only real point is that, from a narrative perspective in the last few years in the media, it is Obama who somehow got this label as the prime example of a President governing by Executive Order. And at least, on the surface, that is basically the opposite of the historical record. If arguments are to be made about the overall SCOPE of the whole of his executive orders compared to others, that is a whole different discussion that would probably not only require it's own thread, but it's own website.
That's because he openly stated that he would use executive orders when his legislative agenda failed. You act as though the accusation that he was abusing that power came out of nowhere. It came out of the president's own mouth!
I'm not claiming he didn't use them. He used them on average about 35 times a year. All I was saying is that he didn't use them as much as, literally, everyone else in modern history who has held his position. And that is never part of the conversation.
Again, your use of numbers are not relevant. If I made 10 payments of 1 dollar I'd have moved less than if I maid a single payment of 20 dollars. To further the analogy, if I was acting as an agent for a buyer and given money to purchase vanilla icecream, and decided to unilaterally purchase strawberry icecream, I'd clearly be going beyond my given authority.
President Obama asked for a DREAM Act, and warned if he didn't receive it he'd "use his pen and pencil" to make one. He basically said he'd undermine Congress if they failed to give him what he wanted, and he followed through on that threat. This is why this executive order was controversial, compared to, say, Bush creating an advisory committee to study test scores.
I don't see why you feel the need to jump to President Obama's defense here. I was merely stating a procedural fact, because the public far too often overlooks procedural issues when discussing substantive matters. However, making sure our leaders follow proper procedural requirements is one of the most important safeguards against unruly leaders seizing power that is not theirs to begin with.
But if we are to talk about them, analyzing which president mad the most use of executive orders based on the number of executive orders is completely laughable. The scope of the executive orders is far more important. Who cares if a president makes an advisory committee on issues of education? That's clearly within the president's purview.
On the other hand, if Truman seizes steel mills or Obama creates a whole new registration program for those here illegally, there is much more power being exerted that has not been formally delegated to the president.
Well, given that scope is entirely subjective, and numbers are objective, it is absolutely the place to start when examining the issue.
Its not subjective at all. We have an entire document enumerating certain powers the president has (the Constitution) and many other statutes passed by Congress that delegate authority to the executive.
Courts are the ones who decide this, whether it's Trump's travel bad or the Obama Administration making tweeks to Obamacare.
The fact that only a court can officially declare an act by the government to be in violation of law hardly makes it a subjective inquiry. Judges are bound by law just as much as any other public official, and (ideally) do not make rulings based on whims.
But they do make them based on politics, which are subjective.
This is simply not true. While politics does (unfortunately) play into legal decision making on occasion, the courts generally do a good job of interpreting law, not creating it.
I think that very much depends on what power has been delegated to our president by the Constitution and by Congress (though I have grave concerns about Congress unconstitutionally delegating its power to the executive).
If a president is acting in his capacity as Commander in Chief to sign an executive order for the safeguarding of our ports, or in his capacity as Chief Executive to instruct the Attorney General to increase security fraud prosecutions, then it is entirely permissible and acceptable.
Yet if the President uses an executive order to wield power that is too attenuated from what is assigned to him (say if Trump was to try to commandeer local law enforcement to enforce federal immigration law) then there is a clear problem.
Did you check out the link I had for EO 9066? Long story short: internment camps for Japanese-American citizens during WWII. That *definitely* isn't in the Constitution.
I did, but as I said executive orders are not inherently good or evil. It depends on whether it is within the power of the presidency.
Besides, if we use @jjstraka34 's logic, then there was nothing wrong with that executive order, as Japanese internment was shamefully held to be constitutional in the Korematsu case.
My only real point is that, from a narrative perspective in the last few years in the media, it is Obama who somehow got this label as the prime example of a President governing by Executive Order. And at least, on the surface, that is basically the opposite of the historical record. If arguments are to be made about the overall SCOPE of the whole of his executive orders compared to others, that is a whole different discussion that would probably not only require it's own thread, but it's own website.
That's because he openly stated that he would use executive orders when his legislative agenda failed. You act as though the accusation that he was abusing that power came out of nowhere. It came out of the president's own mouth!
I'm not claiming he didn't use them. He used them on average about 35 times a year. All I was saying is that he didn't use them as much as, literally, everyone else in modern history who has held his position. And that is never part of the conversation.
Again, your use of numbers are not relevant. If I made 10 payments of 1 dollar I'd have moved less than if I maid a single payment of 20 dollars. To further the analogy, if I was acting as an agent for a buyer and given money to purchase vanilla icecream, and decided to unilaterally purchase strawberry icecream, I'd clearly be going beyond my given authority.
President Obama asked for a DREAM Act, and warned if he didn't receive it he'd "use his pen and pencil" to make one. He basically said he'd undermine Congress if they failed to give him what he wanted, and he followed through on that threat. This is why this executive order was controversial, compared to, say, Bush creating an advisory committee to study test scores.
My numbers are relevant until the point there is total consensus on the scope and impact of all 276 of Obama's orders vs. all 291 of George W. Bush's (as an example). I mean George W. Bush blocked stem-cell research and changed our understanding of the Geneva Conventions using the same process.
As for DACA, the basis for doing it by executive order (from a legal and constitutional perspecitve) was the idea of prosecutorial discretion, which is not dissimilar to what so-called "sanctuary cities" are doing in refusing to prioritize enforcing federal immigration law. It's about allocation of resources. There was a lawsuit arguing it was unconstitutional. It was dismissed:
Even if you don't buy into the idea that the DACA action taken by the Obama Administration WAS legal or constitutional, they did present a case as to why they thought that it was. It is perfectly reasonable to disagree with their position and justification. Moreover, I'm not arguing that Trump doesn't have the "right" to rescind it. Just that it is a horrible thing to do.
On a side-note, you're a skilled debater and I have enjoyed this back and forth quite a bit. Countering your arguments is a solid challenge.
Another thing. Let's play along and entertain that the dossier was fake or biased. I don't believe it was but let's say it was. Then what? Let's say it caused the order to get surveillance on Carter Page. As jjstraka34 notes, he was surveillance target prior to the dossier anyway but let's pretend.
How does that make any difference in any criminal conspiracy uncovered? Isn't that the important thing? What they actually found?
Maybe they are trying to get Carter Page off the hook on a technicality.
Perhaps Mueller has him dead to rights - the surveillance turned up something (or more than one thing). Maybe Page might be tempted towards cooperating with Mueller against Trump and others. Trump Jr, Sessions, and who the hell knows else could be implicated.
By claiming the initial surveillance was improper Nunez and Trump are trying to get Page out of jeopardy. They are trying to get whatever was turned up tossed out. Then Page won't be tempted to flip to Mueller and supply the goods on others like Trumps sons.
The idea that the Steele Dossier was the catalyst for any of this has been debunked on more occasions than I can count (and I realize you aren't suggesting that it is/was). Everything we know about it suggests it was taken seriously because of information the FBI already had from other sources that matched what Steele was telling them.
I agree, but I also understand why congressional Republicans would be upset that the FBI would submit documents like that to a secret court hearing without revealing the source of the information. I imagine if a Tea Party affiliated group found some information on President Obama, and the FBI used it to show probable cause to obtain a warrant without informing the judge about the source, many people would be upset. I imagine there would also be accusations of racism (which the FBI has a looooong history of).
So while this is mostly a case of Republican exaggerating the importance of the memo, I don't think it is exactly a nothingburger. It certainly is not good for the reputation of the FBI.
Another thing. Let's play along and entertain that the dossier was fake or biased. I don't believe it was but let's say it was. Then what? Let's say it caused the order to get surveillance on Carter Page. As jjstraka34 notes, he was surveillance target prior to the dossier anyway but let's pretend.
How does that make any difference in any criminal conspiracy uncovered? Isn't that the important thing? What they actually found?
Maybe they are trying to get Carter Page off the hook on a technicality.
Frankly I find this run of logic terrifying. Procedural safeguards are there for a reason. If you no longer need probable cause because one defendant happened to be guilty, then there is nothing that limits the authorities from keeping citizens under constant surveillance.
The idea that the Steele Dossier was the catalyst for any of this has been debunked on more occasions than I can count (and I realize you aren't suggesting that it is/was). Everything we know about it suggests it was taken seriously because of information the FBI already had from other sources that matched what Steele was telling them.
I agree, but I also understand why congressional Republicans would be upset that the FBI would submit documents like that to a secret court hearing without revealing the source of the information. I imagine if a Tea Party affiliated group found some information on President Obama, and the FBI used it to show probable cause to obtain a warrant without informing the judge about the source, many people would be upset. I imagine there would also be accusations of racism (which the FBI has a looooong history of).
So while this is mostly a case of Republican exaggerating the importance of the memo, I don't think it is exactly a nothingburger. It certainly is not good for the reputation of the FBI.
They don't care about the memo beyond what it's intent is, as a sort of public-relations catalyst. And what it is a catalyst for is firing the next link in the chain, which is Rod Rosenstein, who is overseeing Mueller. When have you ever known Republican politicians to be upset or offended at the target of a FISA warrant?? And I do suppose Democrats would have been upset if the scenario you described had happened with Obama. But Obama, in his eight-year Presidency, was never under investigation for possibly accepting the aid of a foreign power to help win an election, and (more importantly) obstructing justice to stop that investigation. There are all sorts of hypothetical things Obama COULD have done to put himself in the same position Trump is in, but he didn't. As @semiticgod has pointed out on more than one occasion, the idea that the FBI has some sort of loyalty to the Democratic Party is a farcical position. Most of the people Trump is attacking (well, at least half of them) are people HE appointed. The memo is simply part of the purge attempt.
Comey is a little strange here. If he is saying that the memo is meaningless, why would it wreck the relationship between the FBI and the FISA Courts?
Because Republicans proved they are willing to go to any lengths to protect the President, including throwing away about 5 or 6 decades worth of "law and order" rhetoric overnight. Are the FBI infallible golden knights?? Not by a LONG shot. But what is going on here is so transparently obvious that people will look back in 10 years and laugh at the idea that anyone could have thought otherwise. Trump wants to shut down an investigation into HIMSELF and his family and friends. The ruling party is helping him do it. The only possible reason to go to these absurd lengths to do so is if there is guilt waiting at the end of the hall. That's it. End of story.
The idea that the Steele Dossier was the catalyst for any of this has been debunked on more occasions than I can count (and I realize you aren't suggesting that it is/was). Everything we know about it suggests it was taken seriously because of information the FBI already had from other sources that matched what Steele was telling them.
I agree, but I also understand why congressional Republicans would be upset that the FBI would submit documents like that to a secret court hearing without revealing the source of the information. I imagine if a Tea Party affiliated group found some information on President Obama, and the FBI used it to show probable cause to obtain a warrant without informing the judge about the source, many people would be upset. I imagine there would also be accusations of racism (which the FBI has a looooong history of).
So while this is mostly a case of Republican exaggerating the importance of the memo, I don't think it is exactly a nothingburger. It certainly is not good for the reputation of the FBI.
There are all sorts of hypothetical things Obama COULD have done to put himself in the same position Trump is in, but he didn't.
Yes, but at this point there is zero actual evidence that we know of that indicates that Trump ever coordinated or colluded with the Russian government. So I don't see how it is any different than President Obama at this point. You could say that Trump's general lack of scruples is what got him into this mess, but that's hardly the same thing as assuming guilt in this scenario.
As @semiticgod has pointed out on more than one occasion, the idea that the FBI has some sort of loyalty to the Democratic Party is a farcical position. Most of the people Trump is attacking (well, at least half of them) are people HE appointed
I don't see why you're looking at this through a two-party prism. Of course the FBI has no fealty to the Democratic Party, and especially not Clinton. But it is perfectly believable that those at the FBI, who notoriously favor stability and competence, might dislike Trump. They, like many others, could see him as a destabilizing and dangerous force, independent of party affiliation.
Comey is a little strange here. If he is saying that the memo is meaningless, why would it wreck the relationship between the FBI and the FISA Courts?
Because Republicans proved they are willing to go to any lengths to protect the President, including throwing away about 5 or 6 decades worth of "law and order" rhetoric overnight. Are the FBI infallible golden knights?? Not by a LONG shot. But what is going on here is so transparently obvious that people will look back in 10 years and laugh at the idea that anyone could have thought otherwise. Trump wants to shut down an investigation into HIMSELF and his family and friends. The ruling party is helping him do it. The only possible reason to go to these absurd lengths to do so is if there is guilt waiting at the end of the hall. That's it. End of story.
How does that in any way damage the FBI's relationship with the FISA courts? It seems like the FBI's own actions have done that, this just made it public.
Comey is a little strange here. If he is saying that the memo is meaningless, why would it wreck the relationship between the FBI and the FISA Courts?
Because Republicans proved they are willing to go to any lengths to protect the President, including throwing away about 5 or 6 decades worth of "law and order" rhetoric overnight. Are the FBI infallible golden knights?? Not by a LONG shot. But what is going on here is so transparently obvious that people will look back in 10 years and laugh at the idea that anyone could have thought otherwise. Trump wants to shut down an investigation into HIMSELF and his family and friends. The ruling party is helping him do it. The only possible reason to go to these absurd lengths to do so is if there is guilt waiting at the end of the hall. That's it. End of story.
How does that in any way damage the FBI's relationship with the FISA courts? It seems like the FBI's own actions have done that, this just made it public.
You'd have to ask the FBI. I certainly can't blame you for being skeptical of the organization. I've been skeptical of them most of my adult life. But I am INFINITELY less skeptical of the FBI at this point in history than I am of Donald Trump and his stooges in Congress. It's a matter of degree. I don't see anything egregious here. Carter Page had been under surveillance for YEARS before the memo even existed, and that was based on intelligence they gleaned from actual Russian spies that revealed he was what they considered an "asset". They tried to recruit him in 2013. The only thing in question here is renewing the FISA warrant against someone who had already been being watched for years. And again, since I've actually watched Carter Page talk for more than 60 seconds, the idea that this guy could have fallen ass-backwards into being a Russian agent, or even a patsy, seems as plausible as anything I have ever heard. The main thing this memo reveals is that Donald Trump hired a guy under investigation for being a foreign agent to be his main foreign policy adviser during the campaign. Which I've been screaming about in this thread for over 12 months. The FISA warrant was renewed 4 times. From what I can tell, ONLY the 4th one would even hypothetically have been a problem, assuming the absolute worst of the FBI in this scenario. Also, as far as I am aware, a FISA warrant is never given or renewed based on a single piece of intelligence. Which of course is the reason Republicans edited, cherry-picked and hid all the actual underlying information that isn't in this memo.
Three Democrats on the Intelligence Committee just went on CNN and said flat-out Nunes is LYING in the memo when it alleges that McCabe said that without the Steele Dossier they wouldn't have sought the FISA extension. Now, you can not take what the Democrats are saying at face value, you can even say THEY are lying. But based on everything I know about Devin Nunes, I'd bet everything I own that they aren't. In a heartbeat. Aside from everything else, Devin Nunes is a rat, for reasons I have demonstrated in posts for the last couple of days. Point being, everything we are arguing about assumes this memo is a legitimate, truthful document to begin with. And there is no reason to believe it is, for at least a half-dozen reasons. If Republicans are so concerned and so convinced, then let's go whole-hog. I'll call their bluff. Let's see the actual FISA application. If it's what they say it is, I'll eat my hat.
My problem has always been with the FISA Court itself. This is a secret court--let that sink in for a minute--where a prosecutor from a Federal law enforcement agency may obtain a warrant--a secret warrant, because you cannot obtain the text of it via FOI requests--so that they can put you under surveillance, including tapping your phones, pulling all your mobile device metadata--oh, and don't be fooled because I suspect they can obtain the actual phone calls or messages, especially if they are Stingraying you (which they will be)--putting fiber cams in your residence, GPS tracking you (they will install the device on your car at night), and so on and so forth.
This isn't a conspiracy theory, either, because these things have actually happened. (not to me, mind you, but to some of your fellow citizens)
Yes, I know--national security sometimes means bending the rules to allow for secret warrants and spying on citizens. It still leaves a very bad taste in my mouth and I don't have to like it.
My problem has always been with the FISA Court itself. This is a secret court--let that sink in for a minute--where a prosecutor from a Federal law enforcement agency may obtain a warrant--a secret warrant, because you cannot obtain the text of it via FOI requests--so that they can put you under surveillance, including tapping your phones, pulling all your mobile device metadata--oh, and don't be fooled because I suspect they can obtain the actual phone calls or messages, especially if they are Stingraying you (which they will be)--putting fiber cams in your residence, GPS tracking you (they will install the device on your car at night), and so on and so forth.
This isn't a conspiracy theory, either, because these things have actually happened. (not to me, mind you, but to some of your fellow citizens)
Yes, I know--national security sometimes means bending the rules to allow for secret warrants and spying on citizens. It still leaves a very bad taste in my mouth and I don't have to like it.
You aren't wrong about any of this, but this really isn't what Republicans are arguing or objecting to. Or, if they are, they just did a complete 180 on their policy position on FISA in the last month. Republican lawmakers were so in love with FISA during the Bush Administration after 9/11 that they should have taken it on a honeymoon. NOW, today, it's an issue?? Come on......
This country gave into the surveillance state when those towers fell. Trying to claim they have found Jesus at the EXACT moment it helps Donald Trump strains all credibility. Does anyone really think that the party that basically trademarked the term "War on Terror" gives a shit about Carter Page's civil rights??
So, to sum up: yes, you are almost entirely correct about the problems with FISA itself. But this fiasco has nothing to do with FISA abuses, and everything to do with destroying the Mueller probe of the President. You can't put this in a vacuum from the game that is afoot. Nixon would have 100% survived Watergate in the current climate.
And speaking of the current climate, I just will go on the record for everyone reading. I am a partisan Democrat. Have been since the Bush/Gore recount in Florida. I wasn't before that. What I write and post is almost always coming from that perspective. I admit it, I own it, everyone has a right to know that is the case so I don't seem like I am acting in bad faith. I have my reasons, even though I have many problems with my own party. Full disclosure since we have some new participants.
Comey is a little strange here. If he is saying that the memo is meaningless, why would it wreck the relationship between the FBI and the FISA Courts?
He has to be and that is the intent of Republicans by publishing this partisan memo. Nunez published conclusions - that Steele was biased because he said Trump should not be President, Carter page was under surveillance because of a biased Steele. The memo does not address the things that led that to happen. That is still classified.
It's a Republican smokescreen here. The real reasons for the investigation are omitted and presumably still classified. The FBI are left unable to argue against the bias theory and unable to present the facts because they are still classified and part of the ongoing investigation.
@jjstraka34 That's kinda funny, I was a Republican until the end of the Bush administration. Seems like that administration was a turning point for a lot of people.
@jjstraka34 That's kinda funny, I was a Republican until the end of the Bush administration. Seems like that administration was a turning point for a lot of people.
I was against Gore during the Election. I was a "pox on both houses" person just like most people here. As I've mentioned before, it was exactly as silly as having written my senior term paper about music censorship and hating Tipper Gore. Then I watched the recount unfold. On 9/11 I said to a friend "well, if he does the right thing here, I'll support him". We saw how that went. The moment the Iraq ramp-up started I said "never again". At that particular time, that was NOT a popular opinion in this country. If you had doubts, you kept them to yourself. I remember roommates and friends saying out loud the "love it or leave it" line. If you were anti-Iraq, especially in certain parts of the country, you didn't talk about it in polite company. It took til years later when things fell apart that people spoke up. And a drowned city and a economic crash. So when Trump got in I said to myself, "I've seen this movie before, and the sequel is gonna be bigger and dumber". But I wasn't going to shut-up for two years this time.
I don't see why you feel the need to jump to President Obama's defense here. I was merely stating a procedural fact, because the public far too often overlooks procedural issues when discussing substantive matters. However, making sure our leaders follow proper procedural requirements is one of the most important safeguards against unruly leaders seizing power that is not theirs to begin with.
But if we are to talk about them, analyzing which president mad the most use of executive orders based on the number of executive orders is completely laughable. The scope of the executive orders is far more important. Who cares if a president makes an advisory committee on issues of education? That's clearly within the president's purview.
On the other hand, if Truman seizes steel mills or Obama creates a whole new registration program for those here illegally, there is much more power being exerted that has not been formally delegated to the president.
Well, given that scope is entirely subjective, and numbers are objective, it is absolutely the place to start when examining the issue.
Its not subjective at all. We have an entire document enumerating certain powers the president has (the Constitution) and many other statutes passed by Congress that delegate authority to the executive.
Courts are the ones who decide this, whether it's Trump's travel bad or the Obama Administration making tweeks to Obamacare.
The fact that only a court can officially declare an act by the government to be in violation of law hardly makes it a subjective inquiry. Judges are bound by law just as much as any other public official, and (ideally) do not make rulings based on whims.
But they do make them based on politics, which are subjective.
This is simply not true. While politics does (unfortunately) play into legal decision making on occasion, the courts generally do a good job of interpreting law, not creating it.
I think that very much depends on what power has been delegated to our president by the Constitution and by Congress (though I have grave concerns about Congress unconstitutionally delegating its power to the executive).
If a president is acting in his capacity as Commander in Chief to sign an executive order for the safeguarding of our ports, or in his capacity as Chief Executive to instruct the Attorney General to increase security fraud prosecutions, then it is entirely permissible and acceptable.
Yet if the President uses an executive order to wield power that is too attenuated from what is assigned to him (say if Trump was to try to commandeer local law enforcement to enforce federal immigration law) then there is a clear problem.
Did you check out the link I had for EO 9066? Long story short: internment camps for Japanese-American citizens during WWII. That *definitely* isn't in the Constitution.
I did, but as I said executive orders are not inherently good or evil. It depends on whether it is within the power of the presidency.
Besides, if we use @jjstraka34 's logic, then there was nothing wrong with that executive order, as Japanese internment was shamefully held to be constitutional in the Korematsu case.
My only real point is that, from a narrative perspective in the last few years in the media, it is Obama who somehow got this label as the prime example of a President governing by Executive Order. And at least, on the surface, that is basically the opposite of the historical record. If arguments are to be made about the overall SCOPE of the whole of his executive orders compared to others, that is a whole different discussion that would probably not only require it's own thread, but it's own website.
That's because he openly stated that he would use executive orders when his legislative agenda failed. You act as though the accusation that he was abusing that power came out of nowhere. It came out of the president's own mouth!
I'm not claiming he didn't use them. He used them on average about 35 times a year. All I was saying is that he didn't use them as much as, literally, everyone else in modern history who has held his position. And that is never part of the conversation.
Again, your use of numbers are not relevant. If I made 10 payments of 1 dollar I'd have moved less than if I maid a single payment of 20 dollars. To further the analogy, if I was acting as an agent for a buyer and given money to purchase vanilla icecream, and decided to unilaterally purchase strawberry icecream, I'd clearly be going beyond my given authority.
President Obama asked for a DREAM Act, and warned if he didn't receive it he'd "use his pen and pencil" to make one. He basically said he'd undermine Congress if they failed to give him what he wanted, and he followed through on that threat. This is why this executive order was controversial, compared to, say, Bush creating an advisory committee to study test scores.
My numbers are relevant until the point there is total consensus on the scope and impact of all 276 of Obama's orders vs. all 291 of George W. Bush's (as an example). I mean George W. Bush blocked stem-cell research and changed our understanding of the Geneva Conventions using the same process.
As for DACA, the basis for doing it by executive order (from a legal and constitutional perspecitve) was the idea of prosecutorial discretion, which is not dissimilar to what so-called "sanctuary cities" are doing in refusing to prioritize enforcing federal immigration law. It's about allocation of resources. There was a lawsuit arguing it was unconstitutional. It was dismissed:
Even if you don't buy into the idea that the DACA action taken by the Obama Administration WAS legal or constitutional, they did present a case as to why they thought that it was. It is perfectly reasonable to disagree with their position and justification. Moreover, I'm not arguing that Trump doesn't have the "right" to rescind it. Just that it is a horrible thing to do.
On a side-note, you're a skilled debater and I have enjoyed this back and forth quite a bit. Countering your arguments is a solid challenge.
You too!
The reason why DACA is different than prosecutorial discretion is that it grants a license for continuous breaking of a law passed by congress and signed by the president. Keep in mind continued residence in the United States illegally is a crime (misdemeanor), not simply crossing the border.
So, the legal difference is: Prosecutorial Discretion: suspect caught selling cocaine, but we will not prosecute in this instance DACA applied to Drug Laws: we will give you a license to sell cocaine free of consequences
So, as you see, DACA goes a little further than simple prosecutorial discretion.
That said I fully support the DREAM Act. I don't know if it was a "horrible thing to do" to rescind it, because I don't think it was passed legitimately. If I was president I would have rescinded it and then sought to have congress pass the legislation the right way.
However, I will certainly grant you that Trump did not rescind it due to his constitutional jurisprudence, so in that sense it certainly was a horrible thing to do.
This idea of law enforcement resources being used in a certain (legally dubious way) is the core theme of Season 3 of the phenomenal HBO police drama "The Wire". The department is ordered to reduce crime, but nothing either works or is effective. Until one district commander decides to stop making arrests for selling drugs, but instead to funnel the drug trade to a specific portion of his district as a "safe zone". It DOES reduce crime and increase the living conditions of the rest of the district. But he also basically unilaterally legalizes drugs, which costs him his job when his superiors find out.
Comments
Also, checkmate:
They spend the entire memo trying to AGAIN claim the Steel Dossier started the investigation, and then have the grenade blow up in their hand by mentioning Papadopoulos. There isn't even a consistent internal logic in regards to the memo they wrote and the position they are trying to sell.
The mystery is always a bigger deal - wondering what it meant has your imagination filling in the blanks. And wondering what it means has you accepting it as a precondition to wondering what it means. So we're all doing the mental game of "well they are saying it proves x, y, z so if that's true then how is x, y, z?" They get you playing along mentally and imagining how they (allegedly) are going to prove their lame talking points.
Then you see it and can see their initial premise is not shown to be true so then their extrapolated talking points they are using based on that premise are not proven from the foundation they claimed they were.
Besides, if we use @jjstraka34 's logic, then there was nothing wrong with that executive order, as Japanese internment was shamefully held to be constitutional in the Korematsu case.
It is improper, though not illegal. Courts understand that almost all informants are biased. Normally they are paid by police or seeking a plea deal to avoid jail time, which are much greater reasons to lie than pure politics! To succeed they'd have to convince a judge who was informed about the bias that the information was completely made up, which subsequent events regarding Carter Page have shown it not to be.
The memo reflects poorly on the FBI, but if Congressional Republicans were looking for illegality they didn't find it. Regardless, they had human intelligence with Papadopoulos anyway, rendering the entire controversy moot.
As for my logic, look....I didn't start out to make a case as to whether or not Executive Orders are good or bad. I view them as something that is a reality. My only real point is that, from a narrative perspective in the last few years in the media, it is Obama who somehow got this label as the prime example of a President governing by Executive Order. And at least, on the surface, that is basically the opposite of the historical record. If arguments are to be made about the overall SCOPE of the whole of his executive orders compared to others, that is a whole different discussion that would probably not only require it's own thread, but it's own website.
https://www.lawfareblog.com/dubious-legal-claim-behind-releasethememo
The idea that the Steele Dossier was the catalyst for any of this has been debunked on more occasions than I can count (and I realize you aren't suggesting that it is/was). Everything we know about it suggests it was taken seriously because of information the FBI already had from other sources that matched what Steele was telling them.
President Obama asked for a DREAM Act, and warned if he didn't receive it he'd "use his pen and pencil" to make one. He basically said he'd undermine Congress if they failed to give him what he wanted, and he followed through on that threat. This is why this executive order was controversial, compared to, say, Bush creating an advisory committee to study test scores.
As for DACA, the basis for doing it by executive order (from a legal and constitutional perspecitve) was the idea of prosecutorial discretion, which is not dissimilar to what so-called "sanctuary cities" are doing in refusing to prioritize enforcing federal immigration law. It's about allocation of resources. There was a lawsuit arguing it was unconstitutional. It was dismissed:
http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2017/sep/11/eric-schneiderman/has-daca-been-ruled-unconstitutional/
This is the actual memorandum:
https://www.dhs.gov/xlibrary/assets/s1-exercising-prosecutorial-discretion-individuals-who-came-to-us-as-children.pdf
Even if you don't buy into the idea that the DACA action taken by the Obama Administration WAS legal or constitutional, they did present a case as to why they thought that it was. It is perfectly reasonable to disagree with their position and justification. Moreover, I'm not arguing that Trump doesn't have the "right" to rescind it. Just that it is a horrible thing to do.
On a side-note, you're a skilled debater and I have enjoyed this back and forth quite a bit. Countering your arguments is a solid challenge.
How does that make any difference in any criminal conspiracy uncovered? Isn't that the important thing? What they actually found?
Maybe they are trying to get Carter Page off the hook on a technicality.
Perhaps Mueller has him dead to rights - the surveillance turned up something (or more than one thing). Maybe Page might be tempted towards cooperating with Mueller against Trump and others. Trump Jr, Sessions, and who the hell knows else could be implicated.
By claiming the initial surveillance was improper Nunez and Trump are trying to get Page out of jeopardy. They are trying to get whatever was turned up tossed out. Then Page won't be tempted to flip to Mueller and supply the goods on others like Trumps sons.
So while this is mostly a case of Republican exaggerating the importance of the memo, I don't think it is exactly a nothingburger. It certainly is not good for the reputation of the FBI.
You could say that Trump's general lack of scruples is what got him into this mess, but that's hardly the same thing as assuming guilt in this scenario. I don't see why you're looking at this through a two-party prism. Of course the FBI has no fealty to the Democratic Party, and especially not Clinton. But it is perfectly believable that those at the FBI, who notoriously favor stability and competence, might dislike Trump. They, like many others, could see him as a destabilizing and dangerous force, independent of party affiliation.
Three Democrats on the Intelligence Committee just went on CNN and said flat-out Nunes is LYING in the memo when it alleges that McCabe said that without the Steele Dossier they wouldn't have sought the FISA extension. Now, you can not take what the Democrats are saying at face value, you can even say THEY are lying. But based on everything I know about Devin Nunes, I'd bet everything I own that they aren't. In a heartbeat. Aside from everything else, Devin Nunes is a rat, for reasons I have demonstrated in posts for the last couple of days. Point being, everything we are arguing about assumes this memo is a legitimate, truthful document to begin with. And there is no reason to believe it is, for at least a half-dozen reasons. If Republicans are so concerned and so convinced, then let's go whole-hog. I'll call their bluff. Let's see the actual FISA application. If it's what they say it is, I'll eat my hat.
This isn't a conspiracy theory, either, because these things have actually happened. (not to me, mind you, but to some of your fellow citizens)
Yes, I know--national security sometimes means bending the rules to allow for secret warrants and spying on citizens. It still leaves a very bad taste in my mouth and I don't have to like it.
This country gave into the surveillance state when those towers fell. Trying to claim they have found Jesus at the EXACT moment it helps Donald Trump strains all credibility. Does anyone really think that the party that basically trademarked the term "War on Terror" gives a shit about Carter Page's civil rights??
So, to sum up: yes, you are almost entirely correct about the problems with FISA itself. But this fiasco has nothing to do with FISA abuses, and everything to do with destroying the Mueller probe of the President. You can't put this in a vacuum from the game that is afoot. Nixon would have 100% survived Watergate in the current climate.
And speaking of the current climate, I just will go on the record for everyone reading. I am a partisan Democrat. Have been since the Bush/Gore recount in Florida. I wasn't before that. What I write and post is almost always coming from that perspective. I admit it, I own it, everyone has a right to know that is the case so I don't seem like I am acting in bad faith. I have my reasons, even though I have many problems with my own party. Full disclosure since we have some new participants.
It's a Republican smokescreen here. The real reasons for the investigation are omitted and presumably still classified. The FBI are left unable to argue against the bias theory and unable to present the facts because they are still classified and part of the ongoing investigation.
The reason why DACA is different than prosecutorial discretion is that it grants a license for continuous breaking of a law passed by congress and signed by the president. Keep in mind continued residence in the United States illegally is a crime (misdemeanor), not simply crossing the border.
So, the legal difference is:
Prosecutorial Discretion: suspect caught selling cocaine, but we will not prosecute in this instance
DACA applied to Drug Laws: we will give you a license to sell cocaine free of consequences
So, as you see, DACA goes a little further than simple prosecutorial discretion.
That said I fully support the DREAM Act. I don't know if it was a "horrible thing to do" to rescind it, because I don't think it was passed legitimately. If I was president I would have rescinded it and then sought to have congress pass the legislation the right way.
However, I will certainly grant you that Trump did not rescind it due to his constitutional jurisprudence, so in that sense it certainly was a horrible thing to do.