The Trump Presidency VI: Stormy Weather

LOL. Yeah, but you'll notice the things the article focuses on are more along the lines of collegiality and consensus when possible, especially with the goal of avoiding 4-4 splits before the Scalia vacancy was filled. No one has ever argued otherwise with regard to the CJ. In fact, I'd agree that he should be applauded for trying to promote collegiality and limited-in-scope decisions when possible. But all of this is still a bit different than the theory that the CJ has moved toward the left, which I still don't buy. Nevertheless, he'll have ample opportunity to prove me wrong over the course of the next few months with those cases the article mentions coming out this term.

 

Important testimony today proves Drumpf has done nothing about Russian interference

Why would that be?

DNI Coats, CIA Dir. Pompeo, Sec State Tillerson, McMaster- all say Russia hasn’t stopped its Influence, it’s been over a year, as discussed on @MeetThePress this weekend, leadership! Where is it? We can’t counter Kremlin till @POTUS leads pic.twitter.com/9cJnJCgsXU

— Clint Watts (@selectedwisdom) February 13, 2018

 

Two key quotes from Watts

This is why I believe US democracy will fail, even if the Dems should win in 2018

 

Sen. Jack Reed just got FBI Director Wray and other intel chiefs to admit that the president has never asked them to focus on or disrupt Russian election meddling.

— Ken Dilanian (@KenDilanianNBC) February 13, 2018

 

LOL

Trump surrogate Morgan unloads on the O

*NEW: Omarosa offered me sex to win Celebrity Apprentice, then called me a 'f***ing f*gg*t', invented gay smears & threatened to punch me.
Why the hell was this vile creature ever employed at the White House? https://t.co/HyxnSWyBLZ pic.twitter.com/UbXQzDX1Tj

— Piers Morgan (@piersmorgan) February 13, 2018

 

The article is fairly general and the author's credentials don't indicate that she has any background in the law or these types of warrants. So specifically what part is in line with your thinking. Do you have a problem with the fact that the dossier was used at all? If that's the case then you would have a similar problem with the vast majority of affidavits/applications supporting surveillance or search warrants generally. It's not uncommon at all for authorities to get the information used to support a warrant request from someone with an ax to grind or ulterior motive, and courts have said that such is usually not a problem as long as its disclosed. It seems, here, that even Rep. Gowdy agrees that the FBI disclosed that political actors funded the dossier, although he takes issue with the fact that it doesn't name Clinton specifically. IMO, this is a good op/ed regarding this issue......

https://www.nytimes.com/2018/02/03/opinion/nunes-memo-trump-mueller.html

And fwiw, Professor Kerr leans libertarian and is a frequent contributor to the volokh conspiracy, which is a libertarian-leaning legal blog.

I would not think so, at least not while there was an active investigation.