Here’s What The Media’s Not Telling You About Trump Wire-Tapping

He prefers Hitler or Nazi cocks to kiss. Originally Posted by bambino

He's a fan of Lube's Wide Ass too !

Trump won!

I guess I can take the time to explain probable cause and good faith to Munchkin. Yeah, you hear probable cause all the time on TV and in movies. It happens in real life as well but in the last 20 or so years the term good faith has entered the legal lexicon. With all the techical and virtual shit going on a judge can't be expected to understand...let's say a program that the experts say indicates a crime was committed. So now they are arguing "good faith". Did the person who made the case to the judge really believe what they had been told by a techie? Same thing as a detective stopping someone's car based on the verbal accusation of a confidential informant. The defense will definitely challenge the admission of the stop but the judge will have to decide whether or not the detective acted in "good faith". In other words, did he have any reasonable cause to disbelieve what the CI said to him? So in this context, a FISA judge signed off on a warrant. What did they tell him to get the warrant? Was it reasonable and did the agent act in good faith? Of course, you have to ask where they got the information that was the basis of the warrant. An illegal wire tap perhaps? Even darker, someone with a political agenda who just made things up. Originally Posted by JD Barleycorn

If there was a foreign national talking to someone in the tower on a regular basis, it would be probational cause for a tap.

If there was someone who they suspected was working as a foreign agent then they would have "probable cause" for a wire tap for information gathering purposes only. Now, if it turned out not to be the case as has been said by the New York Times, Comey, Clapper, and just about everyone else then the warrant would be vacated. The judge then might question whether or not the agency wanting the warrant acted in "good faith". If they found something then obviously "good faith" is not in question but when you hit a dry hole....care to explain why there was nothing there?

The times is just one of those "fake news" sites. Unless there is something there that supports your case.