Intelligence Committee To Petition FISA Court

[Ricky LIbtardo]

Now we're talking.

Nunes just stated on Fox he was going to petition the court for the entire proceedings.

The Republicans voted to unanimously release the Democrat's back peddle memo.

Grassley now after Steele.

It's getting ugly out there for all the crooks. And I'm going to love the next round of Intelligence Committee reports to hit the headlines over the next several months. And the FBI, IG, report will be a big wort on Comey's nose.

 

[Uncensored2008]

Now we're talking.

Nunes just stated on Fox he was going to petition the court for the entire proceedings.

The Republicans voted to unanimously release the Democrat's back peddle memo.

Grassley now after Steele.

It's getting ugly out there for all the crooks. And I'm going to love the next round of Intelligence Committee reports to hit the headlines over the next several months. And the FBI, IG, report will be a big wort on Comey's nose.

That is the obvious next move.

So, not a single Communists favored releasing the Memo. Not a single Republican voted to suppress the Communist rebuttal.

Now release the entire document so America can see who the crooks and traitors are.

Hint: It's the ones who tried to suppress information.

 

[The Original Tree]

Obama got briefings on these FISA Warrants from The NSI and paid for Steele’s Russian Dossier.

Rice, Mills, and Lynch all knew what was going on too.

Obama and Clinton knowingly colluded with Russia to try to rig our Election and prevent President Trump from taking Office.

All should be tried for Treason and publicly hung.

The Left is trying to protect Clinton and Obama and their inner circle of thieves, liars and traitors.

 

[usmbguest5318]

Nunes just stated on Fox he was going to petition the court for the entire proceedings.

Is there any existential reason to conclude that individuals on the House Intel. Cmte. who has adequate security clearance cannot obtain access to the relevant FISA application?

• FISC Rules of Procedure
• FISC Court Jurists (7 of the 11 jurists are GOP Presidents' appointees to the federal bench)
• ELECTRONIC SURVEILLANCE MANUAL PROCEDURES and CASE LAW FORMS

 

[Ricky LIbtardo]

Nunes just stated on Fox he was going to petition the court for the entire proceedings.

Is there any existential reason to conclude that individuals on the House Intel. Cmte. who has adequate security clearance cannot obtain access to the relevant FISA application?

• FISC Rules of Procedure
• FISC Court Jurists (7 of the 11 jurists are GOP Presidents' appointees to the federal bench)
• ELECTRONIC SURVEILLANCE MANUAL PROCEDURES and CASE LAW FORMS

Different branches of government, wizard. It's called respect, something a self important libtardo wouldn't understand.

It's coming out either way so stock up on Midol.

 

[usmbguest5318]

Nunes just stated on Fox he was going to petition the court for the entire proceedings.

Is there any existential reason to conclude that individuals on the House Intel. Cmte. who has adequate security clearance cannot obtain access to the relevant FISA application?

• FISC Rules of Procedure
• FISC Court Jurists (7 of the 11 jurists are GOP Presidents' appointees to the federal bench)
• ELECTRONIC SURVEILLANCE MANUAL PROCEDURES and CASE LAW FORMS

Different branches of government, wizard. It's called respect, something a self important libtardo wouldn't understand.

It's coming out either way so stock up on Midol.

Different branches of government, wizard. It's called respect, something a self important libtardo wouldn't understand.

I asked the question hoping someone who has a germane, intelligent and fact based answer to give might respond. Alas, my hopes have been, for now, dashed.

• Congress’s Contempt Power and the Enforcement of Congressional Subpoenas
• A Survey of House and Senate Committee Rules on Subpoenas

There's nothing disrespectful about issuing a subpoena to the FBI or DoJ asking them to provide to appropriately cleared members of Congress a copy of the entirety of their application to the FISC.

Is there any existential reason to conclude that individuals on the House Intel. Cmte. who has adequate security clearance cannot obtain access to the relevant FISA application?

Oh, it never occurred to yo that there's more than one way to obtain the document and doing so is what matters, not obtaining it from the FISC. Had you actually thought about what I asked and that you read, and perused the relevant bits of the linked-to documents, that may have dawned on you...or, however, you're just dumber than a box of rocks and it wouldn't have....Yep, having written that, I think it's far, far more likely the latter.

 

[OldGringo]

Wow. Good post. Does anybody read things like that before the comment? Anyway, Rule 13 of the FISA rules struck me as worth posting. Seems to me everybody on both sides would agree that the Steele information went from maybe to aw hell no pretty quick. So it will be interesting to see what Mr. Comey did to correct the last 3 affidavits of probable cause for renewing the FISA spying on civilian authorizations Thank you for posting these links.

Rule 13. Correction of Misstatement or Omission; Disclosure of Non-Compliance. (a) Correction of Material Facts. If the government discovers that a submission to the Court contained a misstatement or omission of material fact, the government, in writing, must immediately inform the Judge to whom the submission was made of: (1) the misstatement or omission; (2) any necessary correction; (3) the facts and circumstances relevant to the misstatement or omission; ( 4) any modifications the government has made or proposes to make in how it will implement any authority or approval granted by the Court; and (5) how the government proposes to dispose of or treat any information obtained as a result of the misstatement or omission.

 

[jon_berzerk]

Now we're talking.

Nunes just stated on Fox he was going to petition the court for the entire proceedings.

The Republicans voted to unanimously release the Democrat's back peddle memo.

Grassley now after Steele.

It's getting ugly out there for all the crooks. And I'm going to love the next round of Intelligence Committee reports to hit the headlines over the next several months. And the FBI, IG, report will be a big wort on Comey's nose.

yes it is falling in place

now that the dems are pinned down

with their responses through the democrat memo

now we will get down to the nuts and bolts of the applications and proceedings

of the fisa warrants

 

[jon_berzerk]

Nunes just stated on Fox he was going to petition the court for the entire proceedings.

Is there any existential reason to conclude that individuals on the House Intel. Cmte. who has adequate security clearance cannot obtain access to the relevant FISA application?

• FISC Rules of Procedure
• FISC Court Jurists (7 of the 11 jurists are GOP Presidents' appointees to the federal bench)
• ELECTRONIC SURVEILLANCE MANUAL PROCEDURES and CASE LAW FORMS

Is there any existential reason to conclude that individuals on the House Intel. Cmte. who has adequate security clearance cannot obtain access to the relevant FISA application?

oh they can and already have

gowdy is one

and he wants those application(s) declassified so the public can see them

 

[Ricky LIbtardo]

Nunes just stated on Fox he was going to petition the court for the entire proceedings.

Is there any existential reason to conclude that individuals on the House Intel. Cmte. who has adequate security clearance cannot obtain access to the relevant FISA application?

• FISC Rules of Procedure
• FISC Court Jurists (7 of the 11 jurists are GOP Presidents' appointees to the federal bench)
• ELECTRONIC SURVEILLANCE MANUAL PROCEDURES and CASE LAW FORMS

Different branches of government, wizard. It's called respect, something a self important libtardo wouldn't understand.

It's coming out either way so stock up on Midol.

Different branches of government, wizard. It's called respect, something a self important libtardo wouldn't understand.

I asked the question hoping someone who has a germane, intelligent and fact based answer to give might respond. Alas, my hopes have been, for now, dashed.

• Congress’s Contempt Power and the Enforcement of Congressional Subpoenas
• A Survey of House and Senate Committee Rules on Subpoenas

There's nothing disrespectful about issuing a subpoena to the FBI or DoJ asking them to provide to appropriately cleared members of Congress a copy of the entirety of their application to the FISC.

Is there any existential reason to conclude that individuals on the House Intel. Cmte. who has adequate security clearance cannot obtain access to the relevant FISA application?

Oh, it never occurred to yo that there's more than one way to obtain the document and doing so is what matters, not obtaining it from the FISC. Had you actually thought about what I asked and that you read, and perused the relevant bits of the linked-to documents, that may have dawned on you...or, however, you're just dumber than a box of rocks and it wouldn't have....Yep, having written that, I think it's far, far more likely the latter.

Thanks for proving my point.

I stated the Intelligence Committee was going to petition the Court. That's the courtesy component you refuse to acknowledge which is why I made a point of it.

You on the other hand provided a bunch of claims they can get it if they wanted it.

Kinda stupid as I pointed out it was going to come out no matter what happens.

You should visit the Flame Zone. They need a bunch of laughs down there.

 

[usmbguest5318]

Those who have carefully read the Nunes memo will notice that it never says the application to monitor Carter Page was illegal.

 

[usmbguest5318]

Nunes just stated on Fox he was going to petition the court for the entire proceedings.

Is there any existential reason to conclude that individuals on the House Intel. Cmte. who has adequate security clearance cannot obtain access to the relevant FISA application?

• FISC Rules of Procedure
• FISC Court Jurists (7 of the 11 jurists are GOP Presidents' appointees to the federal bench)
• ELECTRONIC SURVEILLANCE MANUAL PROCEDURES and CASE LAW FORMS

Different branches of government, wizard. It's called respect, something a self important libtardo wouldn't understand.

It's coming out either way so stock up on Midol.

Different branches of government, wizard. It's called respect, something a self important libtardo wouldn't understand.

I asked the question hoping someone who has a germane, intelligent and fact based answer to give might respond. Alas, my hopes have been, for now, dashed.

• Congress’s Contempt Power and the Enforcement of Congressional Subpoenas
• A Survey of House and Senate Committee Rules on Subpoenas

There's nothing disrespectful about issuing a subpoena to the FBI or DoJ asking them to provide to appropriately cleared members of Congress a copy of the entirety of their application to the FISC.

Is there any existential reason to conclude that individuals on the House Intel. Cmte. who has adequate security clearance cannot obtain access to the relevant FISA application?

Oh, it never occurred to yo that there's more than one way to obtain the document and doing so is what matters, not obtaining it from the FISC. Had you actually thought about what I asked and that you read, and perused the relevant bits of the linked-to documents, that may have dawned on you...or, however, you're just dumber than a box of rocks and it wouldn't have....Yep, having written that, I think it's far, far more likely the latter.

Thanks for proving my point.

I stated the Intelligence Committee was going to petition the Court. That's the courtesy component you refuse to acknowledge which is why I made a point of it.

You on the other hand provided a bunch of claims they can get it if they wanted it.

Kinda stupid as I pointed out it was going to come out no matter what happens.

You should visit the Flame Zone. They need a bunch of laughs down there.

I stated the Intelligence Committee was going to petition the Court.

Wow! You clearly don't realize that "petition the court" is merely "legalese" for "ask the court." What you don't realize is that courtesy has nothing to do with it. Nobody, except maybe you, thinks anyone was going to solicit the documents in any way other than the "normal" way, which is to simply ask for them. Nobody thinks someone had notions of marching into the court and stealing the document(s) or demanding them at gunpoint: both actions would be very discourteous.

You on the other hand provided a bunch of claims they can get it if they wanted it.

I wrote:

Is there any existential reason to conclude that individuals on the House Intel. Cmte. who has adequate security clearance cannot obtain access to the relevant FISA application?

There's nothing disrespectful about issuing a subpoena to the FBI or DoJ asking them to provide to appropriately cleared members of Congress a copy of the entirety of their application to the FISC....there's more than one way to obtain the document and doing so is what matters, not obtaining it from the FISC.

And below is an illustration of what happened where you are.

 

[Ricky LIbtardo]

Nunes just stated on Fox he was going to petition the court for the entire proceedings.

Is there any existential reason to conclude that individuals on the House Intel. Cmte. who has adequate security clearance cannot obtain access to the relevant FISA application?

• FISC Rules of Procedure
• FISC Court Jurists (7 of the 11 jurists are GOP Presidents' appointees to the federal bench)
• ELECTRONIC SURVEILLANCE MANUAL PROCEDURES and CASE LAW FORMS

Different branches of government, wizard. It's called respect, something a self important libtardo wouldn't understand.

It's coming out either way so stock up on Midol.

Different branches of government, wizard. It's called respect, something a self important libtardo wouldn't understand.

I asked the question hoping someone who has a germane, intelligent and fact based answer to give might respond. Alas, my hopes have been, for now, dashed.

• Congress’s Contempt Power and the Enforcement of Congressional Subpoenas
• A Survey of House and Senate Committee Rules on Subpoenas

There's nothing disrespectful about issuing a subpoena to the FBI or DoJ asking them to provide to appropriately cleared members of Congress a copy of the entirety of their application to the FISC.

Is there any existential reason to conclude that individuals on the House Intel. Cmte. who has adequate security clearance cannot obtain access to the relevant FISA application?

Oh, it never occurred to yo that there's more than one way to obtain the document and doing so is what matters, not obtaining it from the FISC. Had you actually thought about what I asked and that you read, and perused the relevant bits of the linked-to documents, that may have dawned on you...or, however, you're just dumber than a box of rocks and it wouldn't have....Yep, having written that, I think it's far, far more likely the latter.

Thanks for proving my point.

I stated the Intelligence Committee was going to petition the Court. That's the courtesy component you refuse to acknowledge which is why I made a point of it.

You on the other hand provided a bunch of claims they can get it if they wanted it.

Kinda stupid as I pointed out it was going to come out no matter what happens.

You should visit the Flame Zone. They need a bunch of laughs down there.

I stated the Intelligence Committee was going to petition the Court.

Wow! You clearly don't realize that "petition the court" is merely "legalese" for "ask the court." What you don't realize is that courtesy has nothing to do with it. Nobody, except maybe you, thinks anyone was going to solicit the documents in any way other than the "normal" way, which is to simply ask for them. Nobody thinks someone had notions of marching into the court and stealing the document(s) or demanding them at gunpoint: both actions would be very discourteous.

You on the other hand provided a bunch of claims they can get it if they wanted it.

I wrote:

Is there any existential reason to conclude that individuals on the House Intel. Cmte. who has adequate security clearance cannot obtain access to the relevant FISA application?

There's nothing disrespectful about issuing a subpoena to the FBI or DoJ asking them to provide to appropriately cleared members of Congress a copy of the entirety of their application to the FISC....there's more than one way to obtain the document and doing so is what matters, not obtaining it from the FISC.

And below is an illustration of what happened where you are.

Stay tuned, petunia.

Everything I stated is coming to fruition and there's nothing you can do about it. Grassley has the State Department by the short hairs now. Nunes will have the FISA petitions from the FBI with Comey's, who stated the dossier was a bunch of bullshit, signature on three out of four of those petitions, which is in direct violation of the Woods Procedure.

************************************ You're interrupting my preparations to watch the pubic humiliation of millions of melted snowflakes.

Do not call for others death again.


Ricky LIbtardo

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

Those who have carefully read the Nunes memo will notice that it never says the application to monitor Carter Page was illegal.

That is yet to be determined. It was however obtained under a false pretense. I can't imagine that withholding information in a FISA application is legal.

 

[JBond]

Nunes just stated on Fox he was going to petition the court for the entire proceedings.

Is there any existential reason to conclude that individuals on the House Intel. Cmte. who has adequate security clearance cannot obtain access to the relevant FISA application?

• FISC Rules of Procedure
• FISC Court Jurists (7 of the 11 jurists are GOP Presidents' appointees to the federal bench)
• ELECTRONIC SURVEILLANCE MANUAL PROCEDURES and CASE LAW FORMS

Different branches of government, wizard. It's called respect, something a self important libtardo wouldn't understand.

It's coming out either way so stock up on Midol.

Different branches of government, wizard. It's called respect, something a self important libtardo wouldn't understand.

I asked the question hoping someone who has a germane, intelligent and fact based answer to give might respond. Alas, my hopes have been, for now, dashed.

• Congress’s Contempt Power and the Enforcement of Congressional Subpoenas
• A Survey of House and Senate Committee Rules on Subpoenas

There's nothing disrespectful about issuing a subpoena to the FBI or DoJ asking them to provide to appropriately cleared members of Congress a copy of the entirety of their application to the FISC.

Is there any existential reason to conclude that individuals on the House Intel. Cmte. who has adequate security clearance cannot obtain access to the relevant FISA application?

Oh, it never occurred to yo that there's more than one way to obtain the document and doing so is what matters, not obtaining it from the FISC. Had you actually thought about what I asked and that you read, and perused the relevant bits of the linked-to documents, that may have dawned on you...or, however, you're just dumber than a box of rocks and it wouldn't have....Yep, having written that, I think it's far, far more likely the latter.

Thanks for proving my point.

I stated the Intelligence Committee was going to petition the Court. That's the courtesy component you refuse to acknowledge which is why I made a point of it.

You on the other hand provided a bunch of claims they can get it if they wanted it.

Kinda stupid as I pointed out it was going to come out no matter what happens.

You should visit the Flame Zone. They need a bunch of laughs down there.

I stated the Intelligence Committee was going to petition the Court.

Wow! You clearly don't realize that "petition the court" is merely "legalese" for "ask the court." What you don't realize is that courtesy has nothing to do with it. Nobody, except maybe you, thinks anyone was going to solicit the documents in any way other than the "normal" way, which is to simply ask for them. Nobody thinks someone had notions of marching into the court and stealing the document(s) or demanding them at gunpoint: both actions would be very discourteous.

You on the other hand provided a bunch of claims they can get it if they wanted it.

I wrote:

Is there any existential reason to conclude that individuals on the House Intel. Cmte. who has adequate security clearance cannot obtain access to the relevant FISA application?

There's nothing disrespectful about issuing a subpoena to the FBI or DoJ asking them to provide to appropriately cleared members of Congress a copy of the entirety of their application to the FISC....there's more than one way to obtain the document and doing so is what matters, not obtaining it from the FISC.

And below is an illustration of what happened where you are.

Sandy Berger says hi.

 

[WEATHER53]

It will be a sinking feeling though when real names and faces get put with these deeds.
Government fail

 

[Remodeling Maidiac]

Now we're talking.

Nunes just stated on Fox he was going to petition the court for the entire proceedings.

The Republicans voted to unanimously release the Democrat's back peddle memo.

Grassley now after Steele.

It's getting ugly out there for all the crooks. And I'm going to love the next round of Intelligence Committee reports to hit the headlines over the next several months. And the FBI, IG, report will be a big wort on Comey's nose.

That is the obvious next move.

So, not a single Communists favored releasing the Memo. Not a single Republican voted to suppress the Communist rebuttal.

Now release the entire document so America can see who the crooks and traitors are.

Hint: It's the ones who tried to suppress information.

Democrats are crooks

 

[BluesLegend]

How soon before they subpoena Obama and Hillary.

 

[usmbguest5318]

Is there any existential reason to conclude that individuals on the House Intel. Cmte. who has adequate security clearance cannot obtain access to the relevant FISA application?

• FISC Rules of Procedure
• FISC Court Jurists (7 of the 11 jurists are GOP Presidents' appointees to the federal bench)
• ELECTRONIC SURVEILLANCE MANUAL PROCEDURES and CASE LAW FORMS

Different branches of government, wizard. It's called respect, something a self important libtardo wouldn't understand.

It's coming out either way so stock up on Midol.

Different branches of government, wizard. It's called respect, something a self important libtardo wouldn't understand.

I asked the question hoping someone who has a germane, intelligent and fact based answer to give might respond. Alas, my hopes have been, for now, dashed.

• Congress’s Contempt Power and the Enforcement of Congressional Subpoenas
• A Survey of House and Senate Committee Rules on Subpoenas

There's nothing disrespectful about issuing a subpoena to the FBI or DoJ asking them to provide to appropriately cleared members of Congress a copy of the entirety of their application to the FISC.

Is there any existential reason to conclude that individuals on the House Intel. Cmte. who has adequate security clearance cannot obtain access to the relevant FISA application?

Oh, it never occurred to yo that there's more than one way to obtain the document and doing so is what matters, not obtaining it from the FISC. Had you actually thought about what I asked and that you read, and perused the relevant bits of the linked-to documents, that may have dawned on you...or, however, you're just dumber than a box of rocks and it wouldn't have....Yep, having written that, I think it's far, far more likely the latter.

Thanks for proving my point.

I stated the Intelligence Committee was going to petition the Court. That's the courtesy component you refuse to acknowledge which is why I made a point of it.

You on the other hand provided a bunch of claims they can get it if they wanted it.

Kinda stupid as I pointed out it was going to come out no matter what happens.

You should visit the Flame Zone. They need a bunch of laughs down there.

I stated the Intelligence Committee was going to petition the Court.

Wow! You clearly don't realize that "petition the court" is merely "legalese" for "ask the court." What you don't realize is that courtesy has nothing to do with it. Nobody, except maybe you, thinks anyone was going to solicit the documents in any way other than the "normal" way, which is to simply ask for them. Nobody thinks someone had notions of marching into the court and stealing the document(s) or demanding them at gunpoint: both actions would be very discourteous.

You on the other hand provided a bunch of claims they can get it if they wanted it.

I wrote:

Is there any existential reason to conclude that individuals on the House Intel. Cmte. who has adequate security clearance cannot obtain access to the relevant FISA application?

There's nothing disrespectful about issuing a subpoena to the FBI or DoJ asking them to provide to appropriately cleared members of Congress a copy of the entirety of their application to the FISC....there's more than one way to obtain the document and doing so is what matters, not obtaining it from the FISC.

And below is an illustration of what happened where you are.

Stay tuned, petunia.

Everything I stated is coming to fruition and there's nothing you can do about it. Grassley has the State Department by the short hairs now. Nunes will have the FISA petitions from the FBI with Comey's, who stated the dossier was a bunch of bullshit, signature on three out of four of those petitions, which is in direct violation of the Woods Procedure.

Just overdose on Midol and do us both a favor. You're interrupting my preparations to watch the pubic humiliation of millions of melted snowflakes.

• ...And none of that has a damn thing to do with the question I asked and the content and facts that give rise to my having asked it.
• ...And none of that abrogates the fact that he entirety of what I asked about and remarked on went completely over your head.

Nunes will have the FISA petitions from the FBI with Comey's, who stated the dossier was a bunch of bullshit, signature on three out of four of those petitions, which is in direct violation of the Woods Procedure.

And for your assertion about anything having violated the Woods Procedures to be true, you'll have to show:

• As goes content --> that among the content attested to and submitted in the FISA warrant application were Steele dossier statements/elements that were not confirmed. As before, you love to jump to conclusions. Well, it's very possible that only the verified elements of the Steele dossier were included in the FISA warrant application. I haven't seen the documents the FISC received and neither have you.
  
  Moreover, careful reading of the Nunes memo reveals that it never says the application to monitor Carter Page was illegal.
  
  Sp now what we have is a situation in which Nunes oversold and under delivered:
  1. Nunes composed the memo
  2. Nunes and Trump promoted his memo as "all that" as goes showing something illegal transpired.
  3. The memo makes no concrete attestation that anything illegal happened in the FISA application process.
  4. Nunes and many other GOP House members and Trump agitated for and obtained the release of his memo; however, prior to publishing the memo among Congress, to say nothing of doing so among the general public, performed the due diligence needed to determine whether and what, if anything, illegal happened in the actual FISA warrant application process pertaining to surveillance of Carter Page.
  5. How long did Nunes, someone on the House Intel. Cmte or in the DoJ/FBI, and others have to have performed that due diligence? Well, a month at least because that's how long before its release that releasing it was part of the blathering we've been forced to listen to.
  • And now someone is grasping at straws to give significance to the memo by claiming the Nunes memo raising questions with regard to the Woods Procedures.
    
    Seriously? After all that time and after fine attorneys, among them Trey Gowdy (former SC appeals court clerk to Judge Gardner, former Asst. U.S. Atty), looked at the memo and at the FISC application documents/contents:
    1. Nobody thought to ask, "has this assertion been verified? If so, how so, and what is the corroborating information?"
    2. Assuming there was found a "Woods" violation, nobody thought to say, "Hey. This piece of information hasn't been verified. We might have a Woods Procedures violation here."
    3. Assuming there was found a "Woods" violation, nobody thought that stating so was worth including in the Nunes memo.
    4. Assuming there was a "Woods" violation, and it wasn't included in the version of the Nunes memo Trump received, nobody thought to say
    • Well, if any of that is what has transpired, it's one "serendipitous" series of procrustean blunders. But you know what, you go on and cleave to any or all of that being what may have happened.

 

[JBond]

Is there any existential reason to conclude that individuals on the House Intel. Cmte. who has adequate security clearance cannot obtain access to the relevant FISA application?

• FISC Rules of Procedure
• FISC Court Jurists (7 of the 11 jurists are GOP Presidents' appointees to the federal bench)
• ELECTRONIC SURVEILLANCE MANUAL PROCEDURES and CASE LAW FORMS

Different branches of government, wizard. It's called respect, something a self important libtardo wouldn't understand.

It's coming out either way so stock up on Midol.

Different branches of government, wizard. It's called respect, something a self important libtardo wouldn't understand.

I asked the question hoping someone who has a germane, intelligent and fact based answer to give might respond. Alas, my hopes have been, for now, dashed.

• Congress’s Contempt Power and the Enforcement of Congressional Subpoenas
• A Survey of House and Senate Committee Rules on Subpoenas

There's nothing disrespectful about issuing a subpoena to the FBI or DoJ asking them to provide to appropriately cleared members of Congress a copy of the entirety of their application to the FISC.

Is there any existential reason to conclude that individuals on the House Intel. Cmte. who has adequate security clearance cannot obtain access to the relevant FISA application?

Oh, it never occurred to yo that there's more than one way to obtain the document and doing so is what matters, not obtaining it from the FISC. Had you actually thought about what I asked and that you read, and perused the relevant bits of the linked-to documents, that may have dawned on you...or, however, you're just dumber than a box of rocks and it wouldn't have....Yep, having written that, I think it's far, far more likely the latter.

Thanks for proving my point.

I stated the Intelligence Committee was going to petition the Court. That's the courtesy component you refuse to acknowledge which is why I made a point of it.

You on the other hand provided a bunch of claims they can get it if they wanted it.

Kinda stupid as I pointed out it was going to come out no matter what happens.

You should visit the Flame Zone. They need a bunch of laughs down there.

I stated the Intelligence Committee was going to petition the Court.

Wow! You clearly don't realize that "petition the court" is merely "legalese" for "ask the court." What you don't realize is that courtesy has nothing to do with it. Nobody, except maybe you, thinks anyone was going to solicit the documents in any way other than the "normal" way, which is to simply ask for them. Nobody thinks someone had notions of marching into the court and stealing the document(s) or demanding them at gunpoint: both actions would be very discourteous.

You on the other hand provided a bunch of claims they can get it if they wanted it.

I wrote:

Is there any existential reason to conclude that individuals on the House Intel. Cmte. who has adequate security clearance cannot obtain access to the relevant FISA application?

There's nothing disrespectful about issuing a subpoena to the FBI or DoJ asking them to provide to appropriately cleared members of Congress a copy of the entirety of their application to the FISC....there's more than one way to obtain the document and doing so is what matters, not obtaining it from the FISC.

And below is an illustration of what happened where you are.

Stay tuned, petunia.

Everything I stated is coming to fruition and there's nothing you can do about it. Grassley has the State Department by the short hairs now. Nunes will have the FISA petitions from the FBI with Comey's, who stated the dossier was a bunch of bullshit, signature on three out of four of those petitions, which is in direct violation of the Woods Procedure.

Just overdose on Midol and do us both a favor. You're interrupting my preparations to watch the pubic humiliation of millions of melted snowflakes.

• ...And none of that has a damn thing to do with the question I asked and the content and facts that give rise to my having asked it.
• ...And none of that abrogates the fact that he entirety of what I asked about and remarked on went completely over your head.

Nunes will have the FISA petitions from the FBI with Comey's, who stated the dossier was a bunch of bullshit, signature on three out of four of those petitions, which is in direct violation of the Woods Procedure.

And for your assertion about anything having violated the Woods Procedures to be true, you'll have to show:

• As goes content --> that among the content attested to and submitted in the FISA warrant application were Steele dossier statements/elements that were not confirmed. As before, you love to jump to conclusions. Well, it's very possible that only the verified elements of the Steele dossier were included in the FISA warrant application. I haven't seen the documents the FISC received and neither have you.
  
  Moreover, careful reading of the Nunes memo reveals that it never says the application to monitor Carter Page was illegal.
  
  Sp now what we have is a situation in which Nunes oversold and under delivered:
  1. Nunes composed the memo
  2. Nunes and Trump promoted his memo as "all that" as goes showing something illegal transpired.
  3. The memo makes no concrete attestation that anything illegal happened in the FISA application process.
  4. Nunes and many other GOP House members and Trump agitated for and obtained the release of his memo; however, prior to publishing the memo among Congress, to say nothing of doing so among the general public, performed the due diligence needed to determine whether and what, if anything, illegal happened in the actual FISA warrant application process pertaining to surveillance of Carter Page.
  5. How long did Nunes, someone on the House Intel. Cmte or in the DoJ/FBI, and others have to have performed that due diligence? Well, a month at least because that's how long before its release that releasing it was part of the blathering we've been forced to listen to.
  • And now someone is grasping at straws to give significance to the memo by claiming the Nunes memo raising questions with regard to the Woods Procedures.
    
    Seriously? After all that time and after fine attorneys, among them Trey Gowdy (former SC appeals court clerk to Judge Gardner, former Asst. U.S. Atty), looked at the memo and at the FISC application documents/contents:
    1. Nobody thought to ask, "has this assertion been verified? If so, how so, and what is the corroborating information?"
    2. Assuming there was found a "Woods" violation, nobody thought to say, "Hey. This piece of information hasn't been verified. We might have a Woods Procedures violation here."
    3. Assuming there was found a "Woods" violation, nobody thought that stating so was worth including in the Nunes memo.
    4. Assuming there was a "Woods" violation, and it wasn't included in the version of the Nunes memo Trump received, nobody thought to say
    • Well, if any of that is what has transpired, it's one "serendipitous" series of procrustean blunders. But you know what, you go on and cleave to any or all of that being what may have happened.

The iceberg... good luck.