Was there a presidential finding for Crossfire Hurricane?

This is what I see when I click your link:

1 Like

:joy::joy::joy::joy::joy::joy::joy::joy::joy:

I really didn’t. Russia’s not a threat to me. I still call them the KGB.

So you got this information from Russians? What about Helsinki?

“Covert” appears in an online dictionary as “not openly acknowledged or displayed”. Was Crossfire Hurricane openly publish and acknowledged as it happened or was it done covertly?

Perhaps there was a reference to “covert in the sense as defined by the Hughes-Ryan Amendment”, but if so, I missed it.

And that’s why you’re not allowed to use dictionary definitions as sources in academic papers.

1 Like

FBI brought Page in 2013 because the though he might be a Russian asset, but they cleared him because he wasn’t that smart.

I like how no one is talking about FBI bais against Hillary Clinton when they leaked their investigation to Trump private lawyer.

Covert is a word in the English language. Its use in a particular amendment does not erase its common usage.
What, you never use words that are in the dictionary?

1 Like

Did you read the OP?

The Hughes-Ryan Amendment is the law that requires a “Presidential finding” in the case of covert operations.

Can I just dead this real quick? A presidential finding or memorandum of notification is sent to the intelligence committees in Congress when the president orders the CIA to undertake covert action as statutorily authorized in the National Security Act of 1947. It has nothing to do with the FBI.

Good? Good.

1 Like

and no such thing exist because this was done by the FBI and wasn’t a covert investigation.

“Covert”, in the context of the law that is the topic of this thread, has a very specific legal meaning.

Something like Iran-Contra would be Covert or trying to overthrow the Cuban government.

You know something the government can deny because it doesn’t exist on the books.

Interestingly enough, in the last 30 years or so, the Supreme Court has cited dictionary definitions in an increasing number of statutory interpretation cases.

Page was the original target and the FBI cleared him because the Russians said he was stupid?

That was in 2013 when the FBI broke up a Russian spy ring, Page was brought in to the FBI for questioning because they though he was a Russian asset, but cleared him because he wasn’t so bright and they learned it didn’t know he was talking with Russian intelligence.

Flash forward to 2016 Page is the a key adviser to a Presidential nominee.
I can understand why some at the FBI might be like “Wait is this dude still talking with the Russians”

It has in the past.

Why did you add words that aren’t actually in the entry itself

Covert operation overseas by the CIA. Was that the reference for the use of the word “covert” here?
A Presidential approval for overseas operations?

They may have given it a term of art for that purpose, but the word “covert” existed before that amendment and will exist after.

do you think Obama personal ordered this investigation? which is the claim in the OP and the reason for the use of the term covert.

President and Key members of Congress are the only ones who know of covert operations.