MENU

Reason.com

Free Minds & Free Markets

Democrats Release Memo Rebutting Claims that FBI Inappropriately Snooped on Former Trump Aide

Argues that secret wiretap authorizations were not abused.

Carter PageSergei Karpukhin / Reuters/REUTERS/NewscomHouse Democrats this afternoon publicly released its own memo about the secret surveillance of former Donald Trump campaign aide Carter Page, arguing that the FBI's behavior in its investigation of Page's ties to Russia was appropriate and not tainted by a controversial dossier with origins in Democratic politics.

This memo by Democratic members of the House's intelligence Committee was drafted in January in response to a memo put together and released by House Republicans led by Committee Chairman Devin Nunes (R-Calif.). In Nunes' memo, Republicans claimed that the FBI had misled the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court (FISC) both about the political roots of the controversial "dossier" by Christopher Steele and their reliance on the dossier's claims in order to justify snooping on Page.

The Democrats have responded that, no, the FBI did not abuse this process; they had already begun investigating Page's ties to Russia; and they informed the court that the information being gathered in the Steele dossier was likely intended to be used to discredit a presidential campaign (Trump's, in this case).

The heavily redacted document can be looked through here. Some summarization of what they're claiming:

  • The FBI had been concerned about Page's ties to Russian interests years before his involvement in the Trump campaign. The memo notes that in 2013, prosecutors indicted two spies who had attempted to recruit Page. The FBI had opened its current investigation on Page in July 2016. It didn't get its hands on the Steele dossier until September.
  • When the FBI pursued renewals of their authorization to wiretap Page, they provided additional information obtained through independent sources that corroborated Steele's reporting of ties between Page and Russia. The explanations of who these independent sources were and what they said is fully redacted in this memo.
  • The FBI gained "valuable evidence" from this surveillance of Page. Once again, there are redactions here concealing what that evidence was, but apparently it contradicted testimony from Page to the House Intelligence Committee.
  • The FBI informed FISC that Steele had been hired by U.S. people to find information likely to discredit a presidential campaign. If that all sounds vague—that's because of the masking process intended to protect U.S. identities who are not the direct targets of surveillance. So the funding by sources connected to Hillary Clinton's campaign was not directly named (and neither was Trump), but the court was aware of political machinations going on.
  • The FBI informed the FISC when they terminated their relationship with Steele because Steele was secretly leaking confidential information to the press. The FBI canceled payment for the Steele dossier. Steele never received money from the FBI for this information.

This afternoon the Republicans in the House Intelligence Committee also put out a response to the Dem's response to the Nunes memo here, if you don't feel like you're far enough down the rabbit hole.

Just as with the Nunes memo, we as citizens are not really in a position to determine who is telling the truth here. Media outlets have gone ahead with asking FISC if they'll release the underlying warrant documents so that the public can get a better sense of what's going on without Congressional partisans attempting to spin it their way.

Trump has started tweeting:

Read more about the memo's release here.

Photo Credit: Sergei Karpukhin / Reuters/REUTERS/Newscom

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  • LynchPin1477||

    I just bought my first decent fly rod. Really looking forward to getting out on side streams this season.

  • MatthewSlyfield||

    Illegal Fishing Expedition!!! :)

  • Chipper Morning Baculum||

    Nice! What maker and what weight? What species are you targeting?

  • Francisco d'Anconia||

    What did you get?

  • Cy||

    You must be one of those masochists I keep hearing about. Bait fishing, trolling or spinning is the way to go. You can't drink nearly as much if you don't have a free hand!

  • What's that smell?||

    Fishing is only relaxing b/c you can't hear the fish scream when they are hooked.

  • TangoDelta||

    Of course I can. I bring plenty of bourbon just to drown them out. Sure, they don't like bourbon and water any more than anyone else but they really scream, albeit briefly, when you give it to them neat. Besides, going neat gets expensive quickly and there's no where near as much for me.

  • Ecoli||

    It is also sometimes helpful to have a free hand when accessing the many distractions offered on the World Wide Web.

    Why should fishermen have all the fun?

  • Ecoli||

    Release the warrant application.

    Dueling propaganda memos is for losers.

  • JoeBlow123||

    +1

  • Sevo||

    +2

  • chemjeff||

    +3!

  • JP88||

    +4

  • Rat on a train||

    -i

  • loveconstitution1789||

    _________
    ) 5

  • Last of the Shitlords||

    With the democrats memo basically amounting to "No, you!". Which is what everyone expected.

  • Ken Hagler||

    "... we as citizens are not really in a position to determine who is telling the truth here."

    Sure we are. The people talking are politicians, so the answer is "nobody."

  • MatthewSlyfield||

    Exactly.

  • Unlabelable MJGreen||

    Trump has started tweeting

    It has begun.

  • Eidde||

    And I stood upon the sand of the sea, and saw a beast rise up out of the sea, having seven heads and ten horns, and upon his horns ten crowns, and upon his heads the name of blasphemy.

    And they worshipped the dragon which gave power unto the beast: and they worshipped the beast, saying, Who is like unto the beast? who is able to make war with him?

    And there was given unto him a Twitter account Tweeting great things and blasphemies; and power was given unto him to continue forty and two months.

  • mpercy||

    Forty and eight months, isn't it?

  • Rat on a train||

    impeached

  • Migrant Log Chipper||

    FOAD troll

  • retiredfire||

    Ninety and six months.
    Unless he gives an amnesty to illegal aliens.

  • Rich||

    This afternoon the Republicans in the House Intelligence Committee also put out a response to the Dem's response to the Nunes memo here, if you don't feel like you're far enough down the rabbit hole.

    It's responses all the way down!

  • Rich||

    the Democrat memo—like the FISA application itself—paints an incomplete and misleading picture of Page's past activities and interactions with the FBI. Both omit that, in a secretly-taped statement reproduced in a 2015 federal court filing, a Russian intelligence officer called Page "an idiot." This omission could mislead the reader regarding the Russians' assessment of Page's capabilities and utility

    *** scratches head ***

    So ...... Page was a *duck* *useful idiot*?

  • AlmightyJB||

    "Argues that secret wiretap authorizations were not abused"

    Right. Honestly, is there anyone who actually believes that?

  • DenverJ||

    "Non-abused secret wiretap authorization" would be kind of like "healthy poison" or "tasty IPA"

  • NotAnotherSkippy||

    Heh.

  • Fuck you, Shikha (Nunya)||

    Aren't IPAs poison?

  • Eman||

    Maybe, but it's dilute enough that your death will be long and hard.

  • The Last American Hero||

    Tony.

  • loveconstitution1789||

    Buttplug

  • Gaear Grimsrud||

    Again the Democrats do not deny, that the FBI working for Obama, sent an agent known to be hostile to Trump, to the fisa court seeking a warrant based on a dossier paid for by the DNC and the Clinton campaign. You don't have to like Trump to see a scandal here. I find it interesting that Obama and Hilary have been silent about this and that the media aren't, apparently, seeking comments from them.

  • Fist of Etiquette||

    The media already know the likely answer. The Obama administration "wiretapped" members of the press, so it's not a huge leap from that to this.

  • Palin's Buttplug||

    Did you read that on wingnut.com?

    There is not a shred of evidence that Obama wiretapped The Dotard.

    TRUMP'S CLAIM THAT OBAMA WIRETAPPED HIS CAMPAIGN IS FALSE: U.S. DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE

    BY NINA BURLEIGH ON 9/2/17 AT 12:49 PM

    http://www.newsweek.com/trump-.....ama-658888

  • Nardz||

    Would that be the same Nina Burleigh who said this: "I would be happy to give him a b_____ just to thank him for keeping abortion legal," Nina Burleigh had said of Bill Clinton. "I think American women should be lining up with their Presidential kneepads on to show their gratitude."
    The same woman who blames a Russia-Japan conspiracy for taking down Al Franken, saying: "by November 17, the trending of 'Al Franken' was officially also a Russian intelligence operation." Who called the sleeping woman groped by Franken a: "Hooters pinup girl and lad-mag model," while failing to mention all his other victims?
    https://www.zerohedge.com/news/2018-02-23/ americas-big-bot-conspiracy-exposed
    Ah, that Nina Burleigh...
    (remove the space after the date in the link)

  • Brian||

    That doesn't even matter, Nardz.

    His link doesn't even address any point made in the thread.

    He might as well go off on birthers for all the relevance that would have.

  • Palin's Buttplug||

    WASHINGTON (Reuters) - The U.S. Justice Department said it had no evidence to support the unsubstantiated claim made in March by President Donald Trump that his predecessor, Barack Obama, had ordered a wiretap of Trump Tower during the 2016 presidential campaign.

    The FBI and the Justice Department's National Security Division "confirm that they have no records related to wiretaps as described" by tweets from Trump posted on March 4, the department said in a court filing in Washington.

    The filing was in response to a Freedom of Information Act lawsuit brought by American Oversight, a government watchdog group.

    Trump Tower, a mixed-used New York skyscraper, is home to one of Trump's private residences and served as his campaign headquarters during the election.

    The surveillance claim, which first appeared in conservative media before being picked up by Trump, prompted a rare rebuke by Obama, who responded at the time through a spokesman to denounce the idea that he had ordered surveillance against then-candidate Trump as "simply false."

    You idiot. Trump's own DOJ won't back him up.

    You wingnuts are gullible fools.

  • Scarecrow Repair & Chippering||

    Trump's own DOJ

    The DOJ which was Obama'a just 6 weeks before, where 95% of government employees who donated to political parties donated to Democrats?

    Yah, believable.

  • commentguy||

    Link to source stating that 95% of DoJ staff donated to Democrats?

  • SRVolunteer||

    1) Scarecrow said "95% of government employees who donated" not "95% of DoJ staff"

    2) I don't know what his source is, but here's one that says that 97% of all donations from DoJ staff went to Clinton over Trump:

    http://thehill.com/homenews/ca.....n-campaign

  • loveconstitution1789||

    Washington Examiner report on DOJ political contributions

    Donations to Hillary campaign

    Fucking Slim-Fast Foods contributed $6,005,400. No wonder those fatties never get slim..fast.

  • BigT||

    Trump 4-mar-17 ""Terrible! Just found out that Obama had my 'wires tapped' in Trump Tower just before the victory. Nothing found. This is McCarthyism!"

    In September the FBi admits it tapped Manafort's phone in Trump Tower. (And how many others?)

    Progs say that's not 'my' (Trumps') wires. But isn't the entire Trump tower and the whole campaign Trump's??

    Of course both are Trump's. So his wires were tapped. And given his imprecise manner of speech, this is what one would expect him to call 'his'.

    Obama said he didn't 'order surveillance against Trump', which may be true, but they were definitely wire-tapping the campaign. It's another "I didn't have sex with that woman" moment, with lawyerly word-smithing rather than truth.

  • Nige||

    The didn't tap Trump, they tapped a criminal who was on his campaign staff. Turns out he had quite a few of those. Seems like the lawerliness is going the other way, too, in order to obscure that.

  • Brett Bellmore||

    This is kind of a joke, if you understand how this works. Of course they were wiretapping Trump. They're wiretapping everybody.

    We're all being wiretapped, all the time, and it goes into this insanely large searchable database. TYou don't get the FISA warrant to wiretap somebody. You get the FISA warrant to look at the results of wiretapping them.

    And they only bother with the warrant if they want to be able to use those results in court. They don't even bother with a warrant otherwise, they just do the search. And maybe do a bit of parallel construction to pretend they came by the information legitimately.

    So, yes, Trump was being wiretapped. And the FISA warrant doesn't have anything to do with it, except that they were planning on using some of it in court.

  • Greg F||

    And maybe do a bit of parallel construction to pretend they came by the information legitimately.


    Saw this in a recent drug smuggling bust using a dubious probable cause for a search. The boarder patrol officer affidavit stated that the suspect was pulled over for speeding by a county sheriff for going 72 mph in a 65 mph zone on the interstate. The sheriff smelled pot smoke and they called in the dogs.

    I have driven this section of the interstate for over 40 years. I have never once seen a sheriff patrolling or running a speed trap on this or any other interstate. The only police I have ever seen on the interstates (NY) are the state police. It is common knowledge that you will not get pulled over on the interstate for anything less than 10 mph over the speed limit. IOW, nobody is going to get pulled over if they are driving under 75 mph.

  • TangoDelta||

    Which isn't to say the suspect was actually doing 72 mph but that it was the pretext for the stop.

  • Migrant Log Chipper||

    What's with this new batch of dead thread-fucking trolls?

  • loveconstitution1789||

    Wiegel, the DOJ is still full of political Obama hacks.

    It will take some time but they are getting separated onto the dung heap.

  • Nige||

    Yeah we need to get more hacks beholden to the people being investigated in charge of the investigation what a fantastic idea.

  • loveconstitution1789||

    Or objective government bureaucrats who try their hardest not to pick a political side?

    Like I said, gotta clean house for a while to get close to that goal.

  • Nige||

    A venal and corrupt narcissist who demands personal loyalty like Trump is probably the wrong pick for that job.

  • Brian||

    God, you're stupid.

  • Palin's Buttplug||

    Trump flat out lied, you moron. You Trump fan-boys repeat his lies without any effort at fact checking.

  • Scarecrow Repair & Chippering||

    I don't recall you being so hysterical about Obama's lies.

  • Get To Da Chippah||

    He had his presidential knee pads on for eight years, so the lies went right over his head.

  • Cy||

    "went right over his head"

    I'm pretty sure he's more of a swallower.

  • Cy||

    A politician lied!!! OMG!!!
    /gasp
    /roll on the floor in fits of rage

    Donald Trump isn't a shining example of a human being? Say it isn't so!

  • Brian||

    Dude, they brought up the FISA warrant for Carter Page, which absolutely happened, and the Obama administration snooping on journalists, which absolutely happened.

  • Rockabilly||

    Patin's Buttplug will have a Russian Tofu Nothing Burger topped with white privilege Antifa, a side of organic BLM, and for dessert free range illegal aliens.

  • NYC2AZ||

    .... and for dessert, Chocolate Jesus Surprise.

  • Jim C.||

    BY NINA BURLEIGH ON 9/2/17 AT 12:49 PM

    So, before most of the damning information that proves her wrong was released.

    Um, ok.

  • Red Rocks White Privilege||

    Fuckin' LOL that PB cites a hack mag that's getting scuzzed by its own reporters, and will probably be confined to the dustbin of history in about a year.

  • Last of the Shitlords||

    Nina Burleigh's word means nothing, just like you PB. Everything the democrats have been accused of is true. Now it's time to start putting them in prison, where democrats belong.

  • tlapp||

    Ask Sheryl Atkinson.

  • tlapp||

    I believe they saw the Russian campaign ads and saved the entire issue for whomever would have been the republican candidate. All of them meet with Russian diplomats, the innuendo would have been molded to anyone.

  • Don't look at me.||

    We just cannot any longer tolerate anyone serving more than one term. Swamp just isn't a strong enough word to describe DC.

  • JoeBlow123||

    I think it is time for a new federalism. If New York wants to go socialist they can go ahead, if Texas wants to supply a gun to every newborn they can go ahead. But at least we can prevent Washington D.C. from having so much influence and all of the richest counties in the country surrounding it.

    That and introduce proportional representation.

  • Brain dead liar||

    Fuck that. We need a system of enumerated federal power with a supreme federal constitution that insanely defends personal freedom from state action because states are often the greatest threat to freedom. Basically what we have now but interpret the commerce clause more strictly and beef up the bill of rights more explicitly. Our system is good now but it could be great.

  • JoeBlow123||

    I can see what you are saying but I think you are infringing on the democratic rights of people in New York to be governed the way they want to be governed, even if that involves large transfers of wealth from one sector of society to another or large government interference in things like the housing market. There are certain rights we have that are inalienable, freedom of religion and speech and assembly, others not so much. I am not convinced we need to rewrite or add to what we have now in our Bill of Rights or Constitution.

    I think it would be unethical to institute a unitary state of hard libertarianism on the nation vs. a hard federalism on the nation.

  • sparkstable||

    Either the Constitution provides for the system we have now or it failed to prevent it from becoming what it is now. Either way, the Constitution is overrated and wrongfully treated as Holy Writ. The thing is trash and should be called out as such. Fixing it would be like saying my beat up Honda is close to being a sports car... it just needs some work.

  • loveconstitution1789||

    The Constitution is the best foundation for government in human existence.

    It also cannot cover every eventuality. Freedom isn't free and if the people will not fight politicians to preserve their rights against government tyranny, then there is not hope for the USA to survive.

    The Republicans almost have enough state Legislatures to hold an Article V constitutional convention. They can add amendments for term limits, balanced budgets, limiting debt increases, reign in commerce clause, requiring 3/4 state approve any tax increase, etc.

  • sparkstable||

    You seemed to miss the point. It may be "the best... for creating a government" But that's aong way from being any good.

    An Article V convention could and most likely will make things worse.

    Why should citizens have to worry about a political class in the first place? If it is inherent that they can't be trusted... maybe the whole thing should go since there is no such thing as angels to vote for.

    And the fact that those in power use violence to keep others from trying whatever system suits their fancy stacks the deck to make the one system we've been allowed to have look good as there is nothing to compare it to, here. We could try a volunteerist system. We could try massive secession of various regions. We could do any number of things that may, in fact, be far better than the Const.

    And again... it is either to blame for causing what we have now OR it failed to prevent it. Those are the only two possible realities. You may like one of those... But If argue that both are bad.

  • Azathoth!!||

    Thing is, there isn't anything better than the Constitution so far.

    Not a single goddamned thing.

    And most of the folks using rhetoric similar to yours tend to be wanting something more social.

    And anyone who thinks THAT works is an idiot.

  • retiredfire||

    It would have been nice if it had been adhered to, however.

  • DenverJ||

    Right, because that won't empower unelected bureaucrats even further.

  • TangoDelta||

    Sadly it's less the politicians and more the fixed structure of staff that rolls over from one political hack to the next. If the seat changes party they just move to a different office where a seat changed the other way. The politician will, more often than not, simply do what the power brokers trusted advisors staff says because the politician doesn't have time for actually educating themselves on shit as they have to raise money for the next election.

  • Fist of Etiquette||

    Media outlets have gone ahead with asking FISC if they'll release the underlying warrant documents so that the public can get a better sense of what's going on without Congressional partisans attempting to spin it their way.

    Good luck with that.

  • tlapp||

    We the People are not angry enough. Too many complacent or willing to just go along with their side in the political debate. Even we don't protect the freedoms for one, we have them for no one.

  • Ken Shultz||

    "The Democrats have responded that, no, the FBI did not abuse this process; they had already begun investigating Page's ties to Russia; and they informed the court that the information being gathered in the Steele dossier was likely intended to be used to discredit a presidential campaign (Trump's, in this case)."

    The application for a warrant was rejected twice before the final one was approved--by a different FISA judge.

    I read that less than 20 FISA requests have been rejected since 1979, but the first two applications were rejected by the FISA court twice?

    Because they found a judge who would buy their bullshit doesn't mean it wasn't bullshit.

    This is a bit like Hillary Clinton announcing that she was accepting donations from foreign governments while she was the Secretary of State. Um . . . that doesn't make it okay.

    The question is still whether they relied on the horseshit dossier to get their FISA application approved and whether the information in the dossier was horseshit.

    It appears that the answer to both question is "yes": Yes, they relied on the dossier and, yes, it was horseshit.

  • Scarecrow Repair & Chippering||

    But TRUMP lied and HILLARY cried and OBAMA retired.

  • BigT||

    "I read that less than 20 FISA requests have been rejected since 1979, but the first two applications were rejected by the FISA court twice?"

    Hillary: "Isn't this stuff about Trump screwing a goat in Red Square just a bit over the top?"
    Steele: "Maybe you're right, boss. But let's please keep in the part about the pissing hookers. It's the type of detail that keeps people interested."
    Hillary: "OK. Now find us a different judge."

  • Nige||

    Trump supporters: oh look a politician screwed a goat in Red Square what politician hasn't screwed a goat in Red Square

  • BigT||

    Reading comprehension a problem, bro?

  • Nige||

    Trump bropporters: oh look a reading comprehension who hasn't reading comprehended a reading comprehension in Red Square

  • chemjeff||

    The FBI had opened its current investigation on Page in July 2016. It didn't get its hands on the Steele dossier until September.

    If true, this would seem to put to rest the idea that the dossier was the rationale behind the FISA warrant.

    However,
    When the FBI pursued renewals of their authorization to wiretap Page, they provided additional information obtained through independent sources that corroborated Steele's reporting of ties between Page and Russia. The explanations of who these independent sources were and what they said is fully redacted in this memo.

    This seems rather dodgy to me. Steele already manipulated the FBI into thinking that Yahoo News was an independent corrobatory source even though Steele himself fed the info to Yahoo News. It wouldn't seem unlikely that Steele could pull off the same type of stunt with "independent sources" mentioned here.

    At the end of the day, though, let's get rid of the secret courts that do "oversight" on secret spying.

  • Sevo||

    ^+1
    I really hate to agree to anything turd posts, but I cannot find anything (believable) which authenticates the claims of the tap.
    That leaves us with the question of where 'they' found what someone thinks is evidence regarding the supposed perps.
    Further, I'm still waiting for a statement of any crime supposedly committed:
    "LynchPin1477|2.24.18 @ 7:47PM|#
    I just bought my first decent fly rod. Really looking forward to getting out on side streams this season."

  • TLBD||

    The bigger issue is two-fold:

    If the FBI had reason to believe certain members of Trump's campaign were compromised, they had a duty to inform him.

    If the FBI had reason to believe the Russians had blackmail on Trump, they had a duty to help him.

    Instead, they used every excuse they could to spy on his campaign.

    The Schiff memo, while being full of excuses, really just confirms how much they were spying on Trump and associates, and they still have not shown ANY proof whatsoever that it was justified.

  • Emotional Opposition Animal||

    The deputy FBI director Andrew McCabe testified that they would not have gotten the FISA warrant without the Steele dossier.

  • JP88||

    This seems like the most relevant piece of information that should be brought up in every article and news report about the memos.

  • chemjeff||

    We don't actually know what McCabe said in his testimony because it is secret.

  • sparkstable||

    While true... I also haven't seen anyone, including McCabe, refuting this.

  • retiredfire||

    "The FBI had opened its current investigation on Page in July 2016. It didn't get its hands on the Steele dossier until September."
    But the question wasn't whether the "dossier" was used to open the investigation but whether it was used, in October to get the FISA warrant, which did happen after the FBI got the "dossier".
    Pencil-neck Schiff doesn't refute that the "dossier" was used, just claims that the emphasis wasn't on it, while not revealing the other reasons given for the court to approve the warrant, if there were any.
    Saying Page had been investigated in 2013, while not revealing that he cooperated with the FBI to get those spies arrested, thus exonerated him in being an agent, isn't much of a reason.
    But, hey; getting whores to piss on a bed believed to have been used by 0blama - now that's something to use in a warrant application. How stupid are these "judges"?

  • Rockabilly||

    Hello darkness my old friend, I've come to cry about Trump again.

  • Fuck you, Shikha (Nunya)||

    Here's to you mrs Robinson.

  • Brain dead liar||

    Trump is clearly a piece of shit willing to lie, twist and distort anything. It blows my mind that some of you celebrate this piece of shit. I really believe some of you are mentally damaged incapable of discerning truth.

  • Cy||

    As opposed to all of the other pieces of shit?

  • Jim C.||

    What fascinates me is that people like you think this has anything to do with Trump when it it's actually about out of control government.

    How much will you swallow just because you hate Trump?

  • Nige||

    I have heard it reported, on the MSM, I'm afraid, so obviously take it with a pinch of salt, that Trump and the Republicans are the US government at the moment.

  • BigT||

    You must have missed that day in 6th grade when they described the various Departments and agencies.

    Anyone seen ATFBIRSECIA (or whatever) recently?

  • Nige||

    Did miss that day in Promote Paranoia And Demonise Back-stabbing Civil Servants School, yes, sorry.

  • mpercy||

    I agree. Trump is certainly a piece of work. However Hillary is clearly a piece of shit willing to lie, twist and distort anything. It blows my mind that some of you celebrate this piece of shit. I really believe some of you are mentally damaged incapable of discerning truth.

  • Rebel Scum||

    So last night I got into a debate about guns on derpbook. One person said "the founders understood the Constitution to be a living document". My response was that the only context that is true is that there is an amendment process built into it. But I know what he was actually (incorrectly) arguing and I weep for the future.

  • Robespierre Josef Stalin Pot||

    i believe in states' rights. If states want to regulate the ownership of firearms up to and including outright prohibition why should they be constrained from doing so by a Constitutional amendment from an intrusive central government?

  • Rebel Scum||

    The 2nd and 14th amendment. Have you read them?

  • Robespierre Josef Stalin Pot||

    Yes, why do you ask?

  • Rebel Scum||

    The second amendment states that the right of the people to keep and bare arms shall not be infringed. And the 14th explicitly makes the federal government supreme on it's limited authority. Ergo, it is expressly illegal for states to operate their own gun control regimes.

  • retiredfire||

    Don't think that's what the odious 14th says, but Article 6 of the original does say the Constitution "and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof"..."shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding."
    Now, the Tenth Amendment says "powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people" but that Second Amendment prohibits everyone from infringing on the right to keep and bear arms - there is no exception - thus including the states.
    So, you are correct "it is expressly illegal for states to operate their own gun control regimes."

  • The Last American Hero||

    Why do you hate black people?

  • loveconstitution1789||

    Pot, why do hate women?

  • sparkstable||

    Also, the entire system is predicated on citizens having rights first and forever, and a system being constructed within that framework to defend and protect those rights. Anything that violates rights can not be justified (That doesn't mean it doesn't happen) within the limited government, constitutional philosophies that gave birth to the Constitution. The Declaration isn't law, but it states certain ideals that are eternal and can not simply be ignored, even by a constituted government, while also maintaining a semblance of justice.

  • Juice||

    i believe in states' rights.

    You're a statist, so of course you do.

  • BigT||

    i believe in states' rights. If states want to regulate the ownership of firearms abortionup to and including outright prohibition why should they be constrained from doing so by a Constitutional amendment from an intrusive central government?

    How goes that grab you, RJSP?

  • gormadoc||

    "States Rights is a dog whistle for slavery."

  • Brett Bellmore||

    Look, "the Democrats" didn't release the memo. The committee did. The Republicans voted to release it, too, you know.

    Unlike the majority memo, which the Democrats all voted to not release.

  • Robespierre Josef Stalin Pot||

    Guys, I haven't been following this too closely because there's something about this issue that makes me yawn. From my understanding Russian intelligence was fooling around in the US election trying to get a NEw York liberal elected who was playing for votes from ignorant racists and morons. The Russian government was in contact with officials tied to said New York liberal-- who, BTW, was utterly unqualified to be dogcatcher let alone POTUS. The FBI was made aware of this issue and then investigated. Then, conservatives, who fell in love with this NY liberal because they've been conned by the conniving ways that liberals use to part rubes from their money, objected to the FBI's investigations because once in a while NY liberal throws them a bone and gives a tax break to some resource extraction company that pays off said conservatives. Or he says something racist or inflammatory that validates their racism or the racism of his followers

    Have I got the gist right? I'm trying to stay up-to-date with dueling memos and all.

  • 68W58||

    Why should you stay up to date on memos when you can't stay up to date on your mortgage?

  • Texasmotiv||

    Honestly, at this point your narrative is probably about as true and anything else floating around on these memos.

  • loveconstitution1789||

    You're very close to figuring out the Hillary conspiracy. Keep it up.

  • retiredfire||

    No, you don't have it right from the very beginning of your "understanding".
    The Russians were fooling around in the US elections and tried to move votes away from the one presumed to be the one that was going to win.
    They took actions to support Bernie, and Jill Stein, as well as Trump because they thought, as did most of America, that HiLIARy would win.
    If you hadn't lost you head in the revolution you started, you might have understood, better.

  • LatestSupersuapk||

    Your post is really helping me a lot.Awesome post, I am sure going to share this
    Best of luck for your future.Thank you for this post.

    Check My Work Also

  • sparkstable||

    Per Dems, the FBI is investigating Page prior to his connection to Trump, therefore making the dossier not the genesis of the whole thing. OK. Still doesn't mean the dossier wasn't used to tie an unrelated investigation to Trump in order to push a collusion narrative that so far has turned up not only no evidence, but official findings that no American involved in the Russian attempts to interfere with the election knew they were working with Russians.

    How do you collude with people and not know it? It's either one or the other. And literally EVERYONE except the left says it's not collusion. Sure, The Don and the GOP and their followers say no collusion, that's to be expected and we can discount that. But I've seen no one not on the left argue the collusion narrative that makes sense. I've seen official investigation findings that undermine the collusion narrative AND evidenve that at least suggests DNC attempted collusion with the Russians (DNC>Steele>Russians with dirt on Trump which as it seems now was all fabricated but the DNC either didn't know it and thus was OK with colluding with Russia OR knew it and are lying about the whole thing now... Either way they are wrong on the whole deal).

    I've tried to give my Dem friends some credit and tried to construct a believable and fact supported collusion narrative but just can't do it. I would LOVE it if it were true. Any wrench in the system to make people realize it's all a sham/scam I'm for. I just can't do it here.

  • The Last American Hero||

    Progs: Hillary lost, ergo collusion.

    It's also the Russian's fault that "the most qualified candidate in the history of the country" failed to understand there was an electoral college and the results of a handful of swing states usually determine who is President in the modern era.

  • cja||

    Russia: WINNING!!

  • buybuydandavis||

    They weaponized the intelligence agencies first against candidate Trump, they president elect Trump.

    It was an attack on the constitutional order, and then an attempted coup.

    Traitors hang.

GET REASON MAGAZINE

Get Reason's print or digital edition before it’s posted online