Saintsreport.com Forums
home Steve Gleasons Website
Saints Report News Saints Super Forum Everything Else Board Political Discussion Board Fantasy Football Board Tech Board SaintsReport Affiliate Merchandise Gameday Board Behind the Levee New Orleans Hornets Board Twitter Outdoor Boards Video Games Board Smack Board Music Board College Sports Board SR Live Chat Room Contribute to our site costs Become a subscribing SR member

Do you want to remove the ads? Support the site by becoming a subscribing member.


Go Back   New Orleans Saints - Saints Report - Message Boards > GENERAL > Political Discussion Board


reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
Old 09-19-2017, 04:40 PM   #31
coldseat
Super Forum Fanatic
 
coldseat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Age: 42
Posts: 7,395
coldseat Prestigious Platinum Club Membercoldseat Prestigious Platinum Club Membercoldseat Prestigious Platinum Club Membercoldseat Prestigious Platinum Club Membercoldseat Prestigious Platinum Club Membercoldseat Prestigious Platinum Club Membercoldseat Prestigious Platinum Club Membercoldseat Prestigious Platinum Club Membercoldseat Prestigious Platinum Club Member
coldseat Prestigious Platinum Club Membercoldseat Prestigious Platinum Club Membercoldseat Prestigious Platinum Club Membercoldseat Prestigious Platinum Club Membercoldseat Prestigious Platinum Club Membercoldseat Prestigious Platinum Club Membercoldseat Prestigious Platinum Club Membercoldseat Prestigious Platinum Club Membercoldseat Prestigious Platinum Club Membercoldseat Prestigious Platinum Club Member
Is the process for applying for a surveillance warrant in a FISA court easier than before a regular federal judge?

What's different about it? How would they do it in the open if it's surveillance? What protections didn't Manfort get?

I'm trying to wrap my head around the outrage.
coldseat is offline Reply With Quote


1 out of 1 members found this post helpful. Did you find this post useful? Yes | No
Old 09-19-2017, 04:54 PM   #32
efil4stnias
ppfffffttttt
 
efil4stnias's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Madisonville
Age: 46
Posts: 25,543
efil4stnias has disabled reputation
Quote:
Originally Posted by coldseat View Post
Is the process for applying for a surveillance warrant in a FISA court easier than before a regular federal judge?

What's different about it? How would they do it in the open if it's surveillance? What protections didn't Manfort get?

I'm trying to wrap my head around the outrage.
don't worry about trying to figure it out.

the key here is "foreign agent".

it's actually very simple and straight forward.

__________________
1987 Shelby Metcalf, basketball coach at Texas A&M, recounting what he told a player who received four F's and one D: "Son, looks to me like you're spending too much time on one subject."
efil4stnias is offline Reply With Quote


2 out of 2 members found this post helpful. Did you find this post useful? Yes | No
Old 09-19-2017, 05:36 PM   #33
StudioSaint
Hall-of-Famer
 
Join Date: May 2003
Location: Studio City (L.A.), CA
Posts: 3,084
StudioSaint Prestigious Platinum Club MemberStudioSaint Prestigious Platinum Club MemberStudioSaint Prestigious Platinum Club MemberStudioSaint Prestigious Platinum Club MemberStudioSaint Prestigious Platinum Club MemberStudioSaint Prestigious Platinum Club MemberStudioSaint Prestigious Platinum Club MemberStudioSaint Prestigious Platinum Club Member
StudioSaint Prestigious Platinum Club MemberStudioSaint Prestigious Platinum Club MemberStudioSaint Prestigious Platinum Club MemberStudioSaint Prestigious Platinum Club MemberStudioSaint Prestigious Platinum Club Member
Quote:
Originally Posted by JimEverett View Post
Interesting quote. more so due to the lack of doubt/skepticism seen on the issue.

I do not know the timeline of this and I don't know which agency initially sought the secret court order to spy.

But it is possible we have the U.S. government using a secret "court" for justification to spy on political opposition. A court who essentially never turns down the government (a 0.03% denial rate). how that does not command widespread outrage is scary to me.
Why do you keep trying to stoke the unsubstantiated paranoia that the US government, specifically Obama and the Democrats in this case, used a secret court to spy on political opposition for merely political reasons?

You admit you don't know who did what and for what reason, but you don't let that get in the way of paranoid cries of wolf.

If you would have taken the time to read the articles on this matter, you would know that Manafort was being watched as a possible foreign agent before he was part of Trump's campaign. You would also know that there is nothing to substantiate the wolf cry of politically motivated spying on the opposition. You would also know that their is plenty of information that shows the surveillance was warranted.

If you would have paid attention to the posts in this thread that preceded yours, you would know that as well, because it has been pointed out many times.

In your opinion, what would have been the appropriate course of action for the government to take when a suspected foreign agent became part of Trump's campaign? How should they have handled it?

Your mantra on this issue reminds me of the "experts" on "Ancient Aliens." I'm not saying it was politically motivated spying and I don't know whether or not it was politically motivated spying, but why is no one alarmed and outraged that it could have been politically motivated spying?
StudioSaint is offline Reply With Quote


10 out of 10 members found this post helpful. Did you find this post useful? Yes | No
Old 09-19-2017, 06:16 PM   #34
Taurus
More than 15K posts served!
 
Taurus's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 1997
Location: Yacolt, WA
Age: 49
Posts: 23,666
Blog Entries: 1
Taurus Prestigious Platinum Club MemberTaurus Prestigious Platinum Club MemberTaurus Prestigious Platinum Club MemberTaurus Prestigious Platinum Club MemberTaurus Prestigious Platinum Club Member
Taurus Prestigious Platinum Club MemberTaurus Prestigious Platinum Club MemberTaurus Prestigious Platinum Club MemberTaurus Prestigious Platinum Club MemberTaurus Prestigious Platinum Club MemberTaurus Prestigious Platinum Club MemberTaurus Prestigious Platinum Club MemberTaurus Prestigious Platinum Club MemberTaurus Prestigious Platinum Club MemberTaurus Prestigious Platinum Club MemberTaurus Prestigious Platinum Club MemberTaurus Prestigious Platinum Club Member
What would be the proper response when a major party candidate hires a guy whose only previous experience was in getting a pro-Russian elected in Ukraine? A guy who was then run out of town and suspected of embezzlement.

I'd have Manafort under surveillance just for the money laundering aspect, let alone the politics.
__________________

Trigeminal Neuralgia rocks your face!
Taurus is offline Reply With Quote


5 out of 5 members found this post helpful. Did you find this post useful? Yes | No
Old 09-19-2017, 06:30 PM   #35
Taurus
More than 15K posts served!
 
Taurus's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 1997
Location: Yacolt, WA
Age: 49
Posts: 23,666
Blog Entries: 1
Taurus Prestigious Platinum Club MemberTaurus Prestigious Platinum Club MemberTaurus Prestigious Platinum Club MemberTaurus Prestigious Platinum Club MemberTaurus Prestigious Platinum Club Member
Taurus Prestigious Platinum Club MemberTaurus Prestigious Platinum Club MemberTaurus Prestigious Platinum Club MemberTaurus Prestigious Platinum Club MemberTaurus Prestigious Platinum Club MemberTaurus Prestigious Platinum Club MemberTaurus Prestigious Platinum Club MemberTaurus Prestigious Platinum Club MemberTaurus Prestigious Platinum Club MemberTaurus Prestigious Platinum Club MemberTaurus Prestigious Platinum Club MemberTaurus Prestigious Platinum Club Member
What would be the proper response when a major party candidate hires a guy whose only previous experience was in getting a pro-Russian elected in Ukraine? A guy who was then run out of town and suspected of embezzlement.

I'd have Manafort under surveillance just for the money laundering aspect, let alone the politics.
__________________

Trigeminal Neuralgia rocks your face!
Taurus is offline Reply With Quote


1 out of 1 members found this post helpful. Did you find this post useful? Yes | No
Old 09-19-2017, 06:52 PM   #36
CapitalCitySaint
99% Practice; 1% Theory
 
CapitalCitySaint's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2013
Location: Austin, TX
Age: 38
Posts: 3,121
CapitalCitySaint Prestigious Platinum Club MemberCapitalCitySaint Prestigious Platinum Club MemberCapitalCitySaint Prestigious Platinum Club MemberCapitalCitySaint Prestigious Platinum Club MemberCapitalCitySaint Prestigious Platinum Club MemberCapitalCitySaint Prestigious Platinum Club MemberCapitalCitySaint Prestigious Platinum Club Member
CapitalCitySaint Prestigious Platinum Club MemberCapitalCitySaint Prestigious Platinum Club MemberCapitalCitySaint Prestigious Platinum Club MemberCapitalCitySaint Prestigious Platinum Club MemberCapitalCitySaint Prestigious Platinum Club MemberCapitalCitySaint Prestigious Platinum Club MemberCapitalCitySaint Prestigious Platinum Club MemberCapitalCitySaint Prestigious Platinum Club MemberCapitalCitySaint Prestigious Platinum Club MemberCapitalCitySaint Prestigious Platinum Club Member
Quote:
Originally Posted by efil4stnias View Post
he still claiming it.

yet his followers will not understand the separation between branches of government, therefore concluding indeed it was Obama that ordered it.

sometimes I wonder if life really is easier when you just have no clue.

"When you are dead, you do not know you are dead. It's only painful & difficult for others. The same applies when you are stupid."
CapitalCitySaint is offline Reply With Quote


7 out of 7 members found this post helpful. Did you find this post useful? Yes | No
Old 09-19-2017, 07:07 PM   #37
BobE
Now with Covfefe
 
BobE's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: In a Bottle
Posts: 29,328
BobE Prestigious Diamond Club MemberBobE Prestigious Diamond Club MemberBobE Prestigious Diamond Club MemberBobE Prestigious Diamond Club MemberBobE Prestigious Diamond Club MemberBobE Prestigious Diamond Club MemberBobE Prestigious Diamond Club MemberBobE Prestigious Diamond Club MemberBobE Prestigious Diamond Club MemberBobE Prestigious Diamond Club MemberBobE Prestigious Diamond Club MemberBobE Prestigious Diamond Club MemberBobE Prestigious Diamond Club MemberBobE Prestigious Diamond Club MemberBobE Prestigious Diamond Club Member
BobE Prestigious Diamond Club MemberBobE Prestigious Diamond Club MemberBobE Prestigious Diamond Club MemberBobE Prestigious Diamond Club MemberBobE Prestigious Diamond Club MemberBobE Prestigious Diamond Club MemberBobE Prestigious Diamond Club MemberBobE Prestigious Diamond Club MemberBobE Prestigious Diamond Club MemberBobE Prestigious Diamond Club MemberBobE Prestigious Diamond Club MemberBobE Prestigious Diamond Club MemberBobE Prestigious Diamond Club MemberBobE Prestigious Diamond Club MemberBobE Prestigious Diamond Club Member
Shimon Prokupecz‏Verified account @ShimonPro 4m4 minutes ago
More
CNN: FBI's warrant for a July search of Manafort's home said investigation centered on possible crimes committed as far back as January 2006
__________________
It's art. You don't need pants.
BobE is offline Reply With Quote


1 out of 1 members found this post helpful. Did you find this post useful? Yes | No
Old 09-19-2017, 08:10 PM   #38
Saintamaniac
Purple & Gold for Life
 
Saintamaniac's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Laplace, LA
Age: 48
Posts: 2,873
Saintamaniac Prestigious Gold Club MemberSaintamaniac Prestigious Gold Club Member
Saintamaniac Prestigious Gold Club MemberSaintamaniac Prestigious Gold Club MemberSaintamaniac Prestigious Gold Club MemberSaintamaniac Prestigious Gold Club MemberSaintamaniac Prestigious Gold Club MemberSaintamaniac Prestigious Gold Club MemberSaintamaniac Prestigious Gold Club MemberSaintamaniac Prestigious Gold Club MemberSaintamaniac Prestigious Gold Club Member
Quote:
Originally Posted by JimEverett View Post
ummm. Do you know how message boards WORK?

I was responding to someone who brought up Clinton.
Apparently it is you who do not know how these message boards work. No one asked you about Clinton. B4YOU stated that the FBI that investigated Clinton in public was the same one that investigated Manafort. The only difference is that one of those people was actively employed by a foreign power. So your question about the government using FISA to do secret surveillance of Clinton makes about as much sense as a football bat. Sorry you feel victimized because you make crap arguments.
__________________
35% of the United States chose to take the blue pill and remaining blissfully ignorant.
Saintamaniac is offline Reply With Quote


7 out of 7 members found this post helpful. Did you find this post useful? Yes | No
Old 09-19-2017, 10:13 PM   #39
BuffaloSaint
Hall-of-Famer
 
BuffaloSaint's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Savannah, GA
Age: 39
Posts: 4,525
BuffaloSaint is a true SaintBuffaloSaint is a true SaintBuffaloSaint is a true SaintBuffaloSaint is a true SaintBuffaloSaint is a true Saint
BuffaloSaint is a true SaintBuffaloSaint is a true SaintBuffaloSaint is a true SaintBuffaloSaint is a true SaintBuffaloSaint is a true SaintBuffaloSaint is a true SaintBuffaloSaint is a true Saint
Quote:
Originally Posted by JimEverett View Post
Interesting quote. more so due to the lack of doubt/skepticism seen on the issue.

I do not know the timeline of this and I don't know which agency initially sought the secret court order to spy.

But it is possible we have the U.S. government using a secret "court" for justification to spy on political opposition. A court who essentially never turns down the government (a 0.03% denial rate). how that does not command widespread outrage is scary to me.
I keep seeing that number thrown around. Just curious but what is the percentage for the rest of warrants in the US being turned down? It amazes me how the Republicans are now the party that is so worried about due process.
__________________
Said cornerback Mike McKenzie, "It was crunk. It was crazy. It was off the chain. It was off the meter. It was off the meat rack."
BuffaloSaint is offline Reply With Quote


2 out of 2 members found this post helpful. Did you find this post useful? Yes | No
Old 09-20-2017, 08:10 AM   #40
JimEverett
More than 15K posts served!
 
JimEverett's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Posts: 23,592
JimEverett Prestigious Platinum Club MemberJimEverett Prestigious Platinum Club MemberJimEverett Prestigious Platinum Club MemberJimEverett Prestigious Platinum Club MemberJimEverett Prestigious Platinum Club MemberJimEverett Prestigious Platinum Club MemberJimEverett Prestigious Platinum Club Member
JimEverett Prestigious Platinum Club MemberJimEverett Prestigious Platinum Club MemberJimEverett Prestigious Platinum Club MemberJimEverett Prestigious Platinum Club MemberJimEverett Prestigious Platinum Club MemberJimEverett Prestigious Platinum Club MemberJimEverett Prestigious Platinum Club MemberJimEverett Prestigious Platinum Club MemberJimEverett Prestigious Platinum Club MemberJimEverett Prestigious Platinum Club MemberJimEverett Prestigious Platinum Club MemberJimEverett Prestigious Platinum Club MemberJimEverett Prestigious Platinum Club Member
Quote:
Originally Posted by SaintJ View Post
Complete false equivalence on your part. You posited the risk of a secret court rubber-stamping "the government" as allowing the persecution of citizens on a political basis rather than a criminal basis.

But the personnel and the identity of "the government" shifts back and forth politically every few years. It begs incredulity that the same court would approve politically-motivated searches on the opposition first by one party, then the other. Occam's Razor would indicate here that given the regular change of administrations and personnel at Justice, those seeking the warrants from the court know how and when to approach the court in criminal matters.

Your alternative has this court turning a routinely blind eye to the politicization of criminal process by each party in its turn.

Which seems more likely?
How would it beg incredulity? The Court has approved 99%+ of the government's warrant requests? Are you suggesting that the government never overreaches?

What begs incredulity is that people are fine with a secret court approving the government's request of surveillance on people involved in an opposition campaign.
__________________
“We must realize that today’s Establishment is the new George III. Whether it will continue to adhere to his tactics, we do not know. If it does, the redress, honored in tradition, is also revolution." Justice William O. Douglas
JimEverett is offline Reply With Quote


0 out of 3 members found this post helpful. Did you find this post useful? Yes | No
Old 09-20-2017, 08:28 AM   #41
alohawhodat
Hall-of-Famer
 
alohawhodat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2016
Location: Somewhere between HNL and ATL
Age: 27
Posts: 3,311
alohawhodat Prestigious Platinum Club Memberalohawhodat Prestigious Platinum Club Memberalohawhodat Prestigious Platinum Club Memberalohawhodat Prestigious Platinum Club Member
alohawhodat Prestigious Platinum Club Memberalohawhodat Prestigious Platinum Club Memberalohawhodat Prestigious Platinum Club Memberalohawhodat Prestigious Platinum Club Memberalohawhodat Prestigious Platinum Club Memberalohawhodat Prestigious Platinum Club Memberalohawhodat Prestigious Platinum Club Memberalohawhodat Prestigious Platinum Club Memberalohawhodat Prestigious Platinum Club Memberalohawhodat Prestigious Platinum Club Memberalohawhodat Prestigious Platinum Club Member
Quote:
Originally Posted by JimEverett View Post
What begs incredulity is that people are fine with a secret court approving the government's request of surveillance on people involved in an opposition campaign.
It seems you are repeating the same assumptions both in that there is some "secret court" and that the government that comprises this court is also behind an intentional, partisan surveillance campaign to degrade the "opposition" (I'm assuming the opposition are Republicans?).
__________________
Lysdexic Moxyoron
alohawhodat is offline Reply With Quote


1 out of 1 members found this post helpful. Did you find this post useful? Yes | No
Old 09-20-2017, 08:30 AM   #42
JimEverett
More than 15K posts served!
 
JimEverett's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Posts: 23,592
JimEverett Prestigious Platinum Club MemberJimEverett Prestigious Platinum Club MemberJimEverett Prestigious Platinum Club MemberJimEverett Prestigious Platinum Club MemberJimEverett Prestigious Platinum Club MemberJimEverett Prestigious Platinum Club MemberJimEverett Prestigious Platinum Club Member
JimEverett Prestigious Platinum Club MemberJimEverett Prestigious Platinum Club MemberJimEverett Prestigious Platinum Club MemberJimEverett Prestigious Platinum Club MemberJimEverett Prestigious Platinum Club MemberJimEverett Prestigious Platinum Club MemberJimEverett Prestigious Platinum Club MemberJimEverett Prestigious Platinum Club MemberJimEverett Prestigious Platinum Club MemberJimEverett Prestigious Platinum Club MemberJimEverett Prestigious Platinum Club MemberJimEverett Prestigious Platinum Club MemberJimEverett Prestigious Platinum Club Member
Quote:
Originally Posted by coldseat View Post
Is the process for applying for a surveillance warrant in a FISA court easier than before a regular federal judge?

What's different about it? How would they do it in the open if it's surveillance? What protections didn't Manfort get?

I'm trying to wrap my head around the outrage.
The FISA Court is really unique. For instance, most Judges can discuss issues with colleagues - not so with this secret court: which likely produces a certain similarity of approach. And given the almost complete lack of adversarial oversight the judges only have the government to listen to.

What I mean is that even when a person knows they are or have been searched via a FISA warrant they will not get to see the warrant. There is no chance for an adversarial proceeding challenging the warrant. This is perhaps the most basic fundamental right of our legal system and it is absent with respect to FISA warrants.

Further, the warrant requirement is more lax: the government gets more time, the specificity required in regular warrants do not necessarily applied. And perhaps most importantly - which gets to what I said above - there is little need to respect the adversarial process and as such reliance on the government's position becomes easy.
__________________
“We must realize that today’s Establishment is the new George III. Whether it will continue to adhere to his tactics, we do not know. If it does, the redress, honored in tradition, is also revolution." Justice William O. Douglas
JimEverett is offline Reply With Quote


0 out of 3 members found this post helpful. Did you find this post useful? Yes | No
Old 09-20-2017, 08:41 AM   #43
sinner mike
All-Pro
 
sinner mike's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2004
Posts: 1,136
sinner mike is an Sr.com Hall of Famersinner mike is an Sr.com Hall of Famersinner mike is an Sr.com Hall of Famersinner mike is an Sr.com Hall of Famer
sinner mike is an Sr.com Hall of Famersinner mike is an Sr.com Hall of Famersinner mike is an Sr.com Hall of Famersinner mike is an Sr.com Hall of Famersinner mike is an Sr.com Hall of Famersinner mike is an Sr.com Hall of Famersinner mike is an Sr.com Hall of Famersinner mike is an Sr.com Hall of Famersinner mike is an Sr.com Hall of Famersinner mike is an Sr.com Hall of Famersinner mike is an Sr.com Hall of Famer
The notion that the FISA court is a political tool used by the party in power to undermine the opposition is a tactic to sow doubt that the parties being investigated are actually being persecuted. It is a means to claim victimhood rather than responsibility.
sinner mike is offline Reply With Quote


9 out of 9 members found this post helpful. Did you find this post useful? Yes | No
Old 09-20-2017, 08:43 AM   #44
efil4stnias
ppfffffttttt
 
efil4stnias's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Madisonville
Age: 46
Posts: 25,543
efil4stnias has disabled reputation
Quote:
Originally Posted by JimEverett View Post
The FISA Court is really unique. For instance, most Judges can discuss issues with colleagues - not so with this secret court: which likely produces a certain similarity of approach. And given the almost complete lack of adversarial oversight the judges only have the government to listen to.

What I mean is that even when a person knows they are or have been searched via a FISA warrant they will not get to see the warrant. There is no chance for an adversarial proceeding challenging the warrant. This is perhaps the most basic fundamental right of our legal system and it is absent with respect to FISA warrants.

Further, the warrant requirement is more lax: the government gets more time, the specificity required in regular warrants do not necessarily applied. And perhaps most importantly - which gets to what I said above - there is little need to respect the adversarial process and as such reliance on the government's position becomes easy.
Doesnt the government have to return within 90 days to show the court that the initial warrant has garnered info and is actually fruitful?
__________________
1987 Shelby Metcalf, basketball coach at Texas A&M, recounting what he told a player who received four F's and one D: "Son, looks to me like you're spending too much time on one subject."
efil4stnias is offline Reply With Quote


1 out of 1 members found this post helpful. Did you find this post useful? Yes | No
Old 09-20-2017, 08:46 AM   #45
JimEverett
More than 15K posts served!
 
JimEverett's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Posts: 23,592
JimEverett Prestigious Platinum Club MemberJimEverett Prestigious Platinum Club MemberJimEverett Prestigious Platinum Club MemberJimEverett Prestigious Platinum Club MemberJimEverett Prestigious Platinum Club MemberJimEverett Prestigious Platinum Club MemberJimEverett Prestigious Platinum Club Member
JimEverett Prestigious Platinum Club MemberJimEverett Prestigious Platinum Club MemberJimEverett Prestigious Platinum Club MemberJimEverett Prestigious Platinum Club MemberJimEverett Prestigious Platinum Club MemberJimEverett Prestigious Platinum Club MemberJimEverett Prestigious Platinum Club MemberJimEverett Prestigious Platinum Club MemberJimEverett Prestigious Platinum Club MemberJimEverett Prestigious Platinum Club MemberJimEverett Prestigious Platinum Club MemberJimEverett Prestigious Platinum Club MemberJimEverett Prestigious Platinum Club Member
Quote:
Originally Posted by Taurus View Post
What would be the proper response when a major party candidate hires a guy whose only previous experience was in getting a pro-Russian elected in Ukraine? A guy who was then run out of town and suspected of embezzlement.

I'd have Manafort under surveillance just for the money laundering aspect, let alone the politics.
Get a warrant from a non-secret court???
__________________
“We must realize that today’s Establishment is the new George III. Whether it will continue to adhere to his tactics, we do not know. If it does, the redress, honored in tradition, is also revolution." Justice William O. Douglas
JimEverett is offline Reply With Quote


0 out of 4 members found this post helpful. Did you find this post useful? Yes | No
reply


Thread Tools
Display Modes

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 03:38 AM.



Saintsreport.com - New Orleans Saints News, Info & Community! All marks, logos and images related to the Saints are the property of the New Orleans Saints, the NFL and NFL Properties. We are in no way affiliated with the New Orleans Saints or the NFL. All commentary and original artwork, ©1997-2016 SaintsReport.com, owned and operated by Andrus Whitewing, DBA Saints Report,LLC. All rights reserved. Copying of original columns prohibited without a return link and credit given. Teasing articles is ok.



Some of the Photos and pictures used throughout the site are copyright © Michael C. Hebert and are used with the permission of Michael C. Hebert and the New Orleans Saints.