PaulsBunions said:

---

flown-the-coop said:

---

Tea Party said:

---

flown-the-coop said:

---

AggieEP said:

---

SquirrellyDan said:

---

There's nothing wrong with FISA, the problem is how it can be illegally applied. By definition it requires a warrant and must be focused on counter terrorism, counter proliferation, or foreign governments.

Any use outside of these requirements is illegal.

---

I can almost guarantee that myself and SquirrellyDan are the two on this board with the most experience with FISA. The training is extensive and thorough. The process is onerous to get approval if your target is even remotely questionable. Any normal person trying to circumvent the rules in place and do illegal crap is going to get caught. This is just a simple fact. No rando CIA guy is wasting his time going through the 702 process to spy on the Trump campaign unless he's being ordered to do it by a political appointee high up in the agency.

What you all are up in arms about is politicians using their influence to engage in illegal activity and spy on US persons without proper justification under the terms of the law. Getting rid of FISA will stop the lawful collection of intelligence on dangerous terrorists and criminals but I seriously doubt it would stop politicians from illegally spying on their opponents. Getting rid of the law doesn't make the tools to spy disappear.

Just like guns, guns don't kill people, bad people with a gun kill people. Don't blame the tools and over react and ban them.

---

Not sure why people are not more informed on what both of you have posted.

I am not for spying on American citizens but I also do not like the idea of jihadists having their phone calls be hidden from those charged with stopping them.

It's clear Biden and Obama abused the **** out of it. And will again. Try and get safeguards put in place whilst you can.

---

"Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety."
-Benjamin Franklin

---

Sounds smart.

Assume you big defund the police guy?

---

The police are constitutional, warrantless spying on Americans isn't. HTH.

---

SCOTUS will strike it down then.

And I think you have poor understanding about what this is about.

PaulsBunions said:

---

The rotten, corrupt FBI has done nothing but abuse FISA since it was first authorized.

This is a provable fact.

Any Republican who votes for it is scum and doesn't give a damn about you.

They know the FBI will continue to abuse FISA against it's own citizens and they just…

— Catturd ™ (@catturd2) April 11, 2024

Trump is scum now according to the turd

---

Cat turd voted for this.

Something shifted. I don't understand it.

Ol boy is getting paranoid in his cognitive decline.

That's life in the digital and electronic technology age. It sucks that national security comes attached with a necessary cost and high price to privacy. But it is necessary. We're in an arms race.

flown-the-coop said:

---

Tea Party said:

---

flown-the-coop said:

---

AggieEP said:

---

SquirrellyDan said:

---

There's nothing wrong with FISA, the problem is how it can be illegally applied. By definition it requires a warrant and must be focused on counter terrorism, counter proliferation, or foreign governments.

Any use outside of these requirements is illegal.

---

I can almost guarantee that myself and SquirrellyDan are the two on this board with the most experience with FISA. The training is extensive and thorough. The process is onerous to get approval if your target is even remotely questionable. Any normal person trying to circumvent the rules in place and do illegal crap is going to get caught. This is just a simple fact. No rando CIA guy is wasting his time going through the 702 process to spy on the Trump campaign unless he's being ordered to do it by a political appointee high up in the agency.

What you all are up in arms about is politicians using their influence to engage in illegal activity and spy on US persons without proper justification under the terms of the law. Getting rid of FISA will stop the lawful collection of intelligence on dangerous terrorists and criminals but I seriously doubt it would stop politicians from illegally spying on their opponents. Getting rid of the law doesn't make the tools to spy disappear.

Just like guns, guns don't kill people, bad people with a gun kill people. Don't blame the tools and over react and ban them.

---

Not sure why people are not more informed on what both of you have posted.

I am not for spying on American citizens but I also do not like the idea of jihadists having their phone calls be hidden from those charged with stopping them.

It's clear Biden and Obama abused the **** out of it. And will again. Try and get safeguards put in place whilst you can.

---

"Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety."
-Benjamin Franklin

---

Sounds smart.

Assume you big defund the police guy?

---

Is it possible, in your mind, to back the blue and also be a strong believer in individual liberty?

DeschutesAg said:

---

That's life in the digital and electronic technology age. It sucks that national security comes attached with a necessary cost and high price to privacy. But it is necessary. We're in an arms race.

---

Another thing that is necessary is a government that won't use FISA to try and frame Washington outsiders that may try to reform Washington.

Until DC corruption is MASSIVELY reduced, giving FISA to the government is more dangerous than taking it away from the government.

BusterAg said:

---

flown-the-coop said:

---

Tea Party said:

---

flown-the-coop said:

---

AggieEP said:

---

SquirrellyDan said:

---

There's nothing wrong with FISA, the problem is how it can be illegally applied. By definition it requires a warrant and must be focused on counter terrorism, counter proliferation, or foreign governments.

Any use outside of these requirements is illegal.

---

I can almost guarantee that myself and SquirrellyDan are the two on this board with the most experience with FISA. The training is extensive and thorough. The process is onerous to get approval if your target is even remotely questionable. Any normal person trying to circumvent the rules in place and do illegal crap is going to get caught. This is just a simple fact. No rando CIA guy is wasting his time going through the 702 process to spy on the Trump campaign unless he's being ordered to do it by a political appointee high up in the agency.

What you all are up in arms about is politicians using their influence to engage in illegal activity and spy on US persons without proper justification under the terms of the law. Getting rid of FISA will stop the lawful collection of intelligence on dangerous terrorists and criminals but I seriously doubt it would stop politicians from illegally spying on their opponents. Getting rid of the law doesn't make the tools to spy disappear.

Just like guns, guns don't kill people, bad people with a gun kill people. Don't blame the tools and over react and ban them.

---

Not sure why people are not more informed on what both of you have posted.

I am not for spying on American citizens but I also do not like the idea of jihadists having their phone calls be hidden from those charged with stopping them.

It's clear Biden and Obama abused the **** out of it. And will again. Try and get safeguards put in place whilst you can.

---

"Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety."
-Benjamin Franklin

---

Sounds smart.

Assume you big defund the police guy?

---

Is it possible, in your mind, to back the blue and also be a strong believer in individual liberty?

---

Possible, yes.

So we agree you have to draw the line somewhere. And that's called compromise and how our government works.

It would seem overall that FISA 702 is an area to debate.

So is the role of police, FBI, state police and such.

Does Ben Franklins quote apply to police? Or just to laws that allow us to surveil foreign operatives who express interest in attacking us and our interests?

InfantryAg said:

---

f1ghtintexasaggie said:

---

Ferg said:

---

I just want them to spy on all those Chinese farmers that border our military bases.

---

Fine, get a warrant.

---

warrants are required.

The issue has not been the law, it's been people (LE and gullible/complicit judges) failing to actually follow the law; Or LE just flat lying to judges who don't due their diligence to ensure the legal standards are met.

The safeguard is supposed to be that prosecutions need to actually happen for the lying. Until this happens there can't be any trust that this won't be abused.

It's a good tool to find foreign criminals and terrorists, but the government is making it untenable by abusing it.

---

This is how I see it also. The law has a process and safeguards, but like any law, if corrupt people are put in charge of carrying it out, they will ignore or bypass safeguards. This doesn't mean the law and its functions are not important or worth doing by some means. Our government bureacracy and justice system usually have reasonably sound processes and procedures but if corrupt persons are doong the work or oversight, then any law can be corrupted or exploited.

flown-the-coop said:

---

BusterAg said:

---

flown-the-coop said:

---

Tea Party said:

---

"Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety."
-Benjamin Franklin

---

Sounds smart.

Assume you big defund the police guy?

---

Is it possible, in your mind, to back the blue and also be a strong believer in individual liberty?

---

Possible, yes.

So we agree you have to draw the line somewhere. And that's called compromise and how our government works.

It would seem overall that FISA 702 is an area to debate.

So is the role of police, FBI, state police and such.

Does Ben Franklins quote apply to police? Or just to laws that allow us to surveil foreign operatives who express interest in attacking us and our interests?

---

"Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety." != "Defund the police".

DeschutesAg said:

---

That's life in the digital and electronic technology age. It sucks that national security comes attached with a necessary cost and high price to privacy. But it is necessary. We're in an arms race.

---

Get a warrant. Otherwise, propose an amendment to the Constitution that resolves your fears without throwing my rights under the bus. So let's hear it: Warrant or amendment"? If the latter, let's see the language you propose.

BusterAg said:

---

flown-the-coop said:

---

BusterAg said:

---

flown-the-coop said:

---

Tea Party said:

---

"Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety."
-Benjamin Franklin

---

Sounds smart.

Assume you big defund the police guy?

---

Is it possible, in your mind, to back the blue and also be a strong believer in individual liberty?

---

Possible, yes.

So we agree you have to draw the line somewhere. And that's called compromise and how our government works.

It would seem overall that FISA 702 is an area to debate.

So is the role of police, FBI, state police and such.

Does Ben Franklins quote apply to police? Or just to laws that allow us to surveil foreign operatives who express interest in attacking us and our interests?

---

"Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety." != "Defund the police".

---

Yet you think it means no surveillance of foreign operatives who intend to harm the United States.

Quite the pretzel you have constructed.

The Franklin quote is simply dumb in the context of FISA 702 renewal. You are taking the Tommie Massie approach to complex issues.

Ag83 said:

---

DeschutesAg said:

---

That's life in the digital and electronic technology age. It sucks that national security comes attached with a necessary cost and high price to privacy. But it is necessary. We're in an arms race.

---

Get a warrant. Otherwise, propose an amendment to the Constitution that resolves your fears without throwing my rights under the bus. So let's hear it: Warrant or amendment"? If the latter, let's see the language you propose.

---

So you are for US Constitutional rights for foreign persons suspected of intending to harm the United States? Interesting. How much do you donate to the ACLU since that is their position as well?

flown-the-coop said:

---

BusterAg said:

---

flown-the-coop said:

---

BusterAg said:

---

flown-the-coop said:

---

Tea Party said:

---

"Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety."
-Benjamin Franklin

---

Sounds smart.

Assume you big defund the police guy?

---

Is it possible, in your mind, to back the blue and also be a strong believer in individual liberty?

---

Possible, yes.

So we agree you have to draw the line somewhere. And that's called compromise and how our government works.

It would seem overall that FISA 702 is an area to debate.

So is the role of police, FBI, state police and such.

Does Ben Franklins quote apply to police? Or just to laws that allow us to surveil foreign operatives who express interest in attacking us and our interests?

---

"Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety." != "Defund the police".

---

Yet you think it means no surveillance of foreign operatives who intend to harm the United States.

Quite the pretzel you have constructed.

The Franklin quote is simply dumb in the context of FISA 702 renewal. You are taking the Tommie Massie approach to complex issues.

---

Here is why:
FISA Section 702 abuses primarily involve the warrantless "backdoor searches" of Americans' private communications incidentally collected during foreign surveillance. Between 2020 and early 2022, the FBI conducted over 278,000 non-compliant queries that violated legal standards, targeting U.S. persons without probable cause or a warrant.

Specific Targets of Improper Searches
Declassified court opinions and government reports reveal that intelligence agencies improperly accessed the data of diverse groups, including:

Political figures: Members of Congress, congressional campaign donors (including a batch query of 19,000 donors), and political candidates.
Activists and Protesters: Individuals affiliated with Black Lives Matter protests and the January 6 Capitol attack.
Sensitive Professions: Journalists, religious leaders, business executives, and a state court judge.
Private Citizens: NSA agents even conducted searches related to women on dating apps and rental property tenants.
Ongoing Compliance and Oversight Issues
Despite reforms enacted in the 2024 Reforming Intelligence and Securing America Act (RISAA), significant concerns persist under the current administration. Reports indicate that "sensitive" warrantless searches involving journalists and political organizations more than tripled in 2025, and the FBI's internal surveillance oversight office was reportedly disbanded by Director Kash Patel. Critics argue that the program continues to bypass Fourth Amendment protections, while a secret March 2026 FISA Court opinion allegedly describes serious ongoing abuses that the administration has refused to declassify.

FISA 702 is great in theory. In practice, DC cannot be trusted.

How many reportedly and allegedly comments can be included in one post? Yours may set a record.

You are now literally saying FISA 702 is "great in theory" but that DC cannot be trusted. And your answer is to simply not surveil potential jihadists?

I think I would rather focus on having the rules followed with proper oversight.

flown-the-coop said:

---

I think I would rather focus on having the rules followed with proper oversight.

---

How?

That is not a choice at this point.

When DC is irrevocably corrupt, the only acceptable answer is less DC.

Pretty sure that is the choice at this point. Discontinue it, or continue it and ensure the oversight and guardrails are adhered to.

Secret opinions that allegedly say something may be reportedly true is not enough to end the program in my opinion.

Se we should just ignore all of these secret opinions that were eventually declassified that were right? The historical abuse is well documented.

What has changed? What new gaurdfrails exist?

Who said ignore? But yes I am skeptical on secret opinions of alleged reports of undefined abuses.

I am supportive of additional reforms but think the program should continue. Or end it and replace it with something more robust. But simply ending it seems particularly unwise. Like defund the police unwise.

I disagree. The police are local.

I am cool with defunding the FBI at this point.

BusterAg said:

---

I disagree. The police are local.

I am cool with defunding the FBI at this point.

---

How much have you influenced your local policing policy?

How much?

flown-the-coop said:

---

BusterAg said:

---

I disagree. The police are local.

I am cool with defunding the FBI at this point.

---

How much have you influenced your local policing policy?

How much?

---

My daughter got hit by a Mexican woman while she was on her bike. The woman stopped to see if my daughter was OK, then sped off. My other daughter memorized her plates. A good Samaritan watched the event.

We called the cops, he took our statement, the Samaritan statement, and promised to throw the ***** in jail and then deport her if he could.

Of course, the car had stolen plates. So, the cop figured out the make and model of the car from descriptions, and proceeded to sit across the street from the accident for 2 weeks trying to catch the *****. Never did.

It was summer, so I stopped and gave him a bottle of water. I told my neighbors about what the cop was doing, and they started to do the same type of stuff.

Cop got transferred to our area, and watched our neighborhood a ton after that. I lived across the street from the pool parking lot, which was next to the busiest stop sign on the block. Dude pulled over at least 4 drunk kids rolling through the neighborhood from that spot.

So, it does happen.

TLDR, Trump is pulling DNI nominee until he gets a US Attorney confirmed, and demands FISA include SAVE America Act again, or he won't sign it.

The Republicans agreed with Dumocrats to remove very fair, and talented, William Pulte, from serving as Acting DNI in return for getting FISA approved by the Dumocrats. However, the Republicans moved so fast with the hearings of the Great Jay Clayton, current U.S. Attorney for… pic.twitter.com/Lr5zicenLy

— Commentary Donald J. Trump Truth Social Posts On X (@TrumpTruthOnX) June 17, 2026

Trying to strong arm Thune into doing something useful after 'getting duped' by Schumer yet again. Mitch in the hospital could actually be useful as he is a problem on these votes. Schumer and Gillibrand are the NY senators who would have to return the blue slips on Jamie McDonald. No idea what nominal objections they have, but that seems like a challenge to pull given their level of TDS.

BusterAg said:

---

flown-the-coop said:

---

I think I would rather focus on having the rules followed with proper oversight.

---

How?

That is not a choice at this point.

When DC is irrevocably corrupt, the only acceptable answer is less DC.

---

Exactly. I wish people would comprehend this simple reality rather than cheerlead for big gov just because their "team" is advocating for it.

Tea Party said:

---

BusterAg said:

---

flown-the-coop said:

---

I think I would rather focus on having the rules followed with proper oversight.

---

How?

That is not a choice at this point.

When DC is irrevocably corrupt, the only acceptable answer is less DC.

---

Exactly. I wish people would comprehend this simple reality rather than cheerlead for big gov just because their "team" is advocating for it.

---

User name checks out.

🚨 JUST IN: Sen. John Kennedy says Senate Republicans HAVE TO DEAL with President Trump naming Bill Pulte as Acting Director of National Intelligence and pushing for the SAVE America Act

"The president is aggressively unpredictable. We thought we had things worked out. We don't.… pic.twitter.com/VVrygKiAcv

— Eric Daugherty (@EricLDaugh) June 17, 2026

Pulte is DNI and John Soloman, one of the few great journalists, is going to work for the gov't in a role to declassify deep state documents now.

Uh oh… it’s about to get real… 👀

John Solomon has stepped aside as the Editor and Chief of Just the News to work as an unpaid non-government employee to help declassify documents to the publichttps://t.co/mu8qJFozP6 pic.twitter.com/ikmqMTBy6p

— MJTruthUltra (@MJTruthUltra) June 19, 2026

John Thune continues to do absolutely nothing.