Carter Page was being looked at all the way back to 2013. No one knew Trump was running for president at that time. The conclusions by Trump and his Sheep are not only lies, but they resemble arguments coming from total retards. How damn stupid does a person have to be to acknowledge the tweets by Trump, when Trump himself declassified these documents, that, by the way has never been done before? And, Nunes never read them, and then they make up lies as a result? You have to be some more kind of special stupid to go along with that. Get back to planet earth people. Your country needs patriots. Not a bunch of cowards who support ***** grabbers; DOJ releases FISA documents in Russia probe
Fisa documents released. Nunes memo thoroughly discredited.
- Thread starter Crepitus
- Start date
Try stupid.What's so critical for national security that date has to be redacted?
I noticed that too
The "supervisory special agent" is a secret too
Maybe his name is Strzok, or is that simply paranoia?
jc456
Diamond Member
- Dec 18, 2013
- 160,891
- 40,349
- 2,180
madmax oking burning the american flag. More outrageous than anything else you can post.
Look at how full of shit Nunes is;
Nunes: Fine, the FBI Didn’t Lie, But Its Font Was Too Small Nunes in that two paragraph segment is admitting he is wrong. Making hay about a footnote is not a cause for some 7 month manufactured scandal. He got caught with his pants down. And that comes after he recused himself. You can't get more obvious than that. He is Trump's butt boy who will fall off a cliff to cover for him. The whole Republican party is nothing more than a thug enterprise. And they're supposed to be doing oversight.They're nothing but hood rats. Get over yourself and this thug party that's been exposed.
Last edited:
AntonToo
Diamond Member
- Jun 13, 2016
- 39,243
- 12,354
- 1,560
Lol @ piece of shit lying POTUS, Carter WAS NOT with Trump campaign at the time of his surveilance.
In a surprise move, on Saturday evening the Department of Justice released copies of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) applications used to obtain a secret court order to conduct electronic surveillance on former Trump campaign advisor Carter Page. The 412 pages of documents turned over in response to a Freedom of Information Act lawsuit brought by several media outlets included the initial October 2016 application and the three applications for renewal of the surveillance order.
While the newly released documents remain heavily redacted, the details revealed confirm the charges of abuse laid out early this year by House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence (HPSCI) Chair Devin Nunes (R-CA). The documents also provide additional evidence that the Obama administration’s Department of Justice and career DOJ, Federal Bureau of Investigation, and State Department employees misused the FISA court system to spy on the Trump campaign. Here are ten key take-aways.
1. The State Department Had Its Fingers In this Mess
Last month, during a Senate Select Committee on Intelligence hearing, it was revealed for the first time that “[f]ormer British spy Christopher Steele visited the State Department in October 2016 and briefed officials there about his work on the infamous anti-Trump dossier.” During questioning of President Barack Obama’s assistant secretary of state for European and Eurasian affairs, Victoria Nuland, committee Chairman Richard Burr disclosed that “ased upon our review of the visitor logs at the State Department, Mr. Steele visited the State Department, briefing officials on the dossier in October 2016.”
Nuland, who in June 2016 had authorized the FBI to meet with Steele in London, denied attending the October 2016 meeting with Steele. She also “said in previous interviews that she and other State Department officials referred the dossier to the FBI,” but as The Daily Caller’s Chuck Ross noted, “Burr’s revelations suggest the agency maintained interest in Steele and his report much longer than previously known.”
Saturday’s release of the FISA applications now exposes a new troubling detail: The DOJ sought the FISA surveillance order based on the information provided “by the U.S. Department of State” “in or about October 2016.” When considered in light of last month’s revelation that Steele had met with State Department officials in October, it now appears that the Obama administration’s State Department bore equal responsibility for presenting the FISA court unverified hearsay to justify spying on the Trump campaign.
2. The Applications Relied Heavily on the Steele Dossier
In charging the DOJ and FBI with abusing the FISA system, Republicans have long maintained that the FISA applications relied heavily on the Steele dossier’s unverified information—information the former British spook compiled for the Hillary Clinton presidential campaign and the Democratic National Committee.
Democrats challenge that assertion, stressing the bulk of the FISA applications and other information included. Although the redactions make it impossible to fully refute these claims, the FISA applications demonstrate the DOJ’s heavy reliance on the Steele dossier.
First, while the initial FISA application totals some 50 pages, large swaths of the double-spaced length consist of boilerplate jargon detailing the requested scope of the surveillance, claiming “compliance” with the statutory requirements for certification by FBI officials, and efforts to minimization the unintentional interception of third-party information.
Then there are the long narratives of background information concerning Russia’s attempts to influence the 2016 presidential election. Only a relatively small portion of the total applications go to the question of whether probable cause exists to surveil Page. Those sections rely on the information the Steele dossier provided.
3. The FBI Paid Christopher Steele
It has long been known that the Clinton campaign and DNC paid Steele to compile the dossier. Media outlets have also reported, though, that the FBI did not compensate Steele. For instance, the Washington Post ran a story asserting, based on “several people familiar with the arrangement,” that Steele “had reached an agreement with the FBI a few weeks before the election for the bureau to pay him,” but “ltimately, the FBI did not pay Steele.” In another article, the Washington Post again claimed Steele was “not being paid as an informant,” but added that he may have been reimbursed for some travel expenses.
Those reports now appear questionable: The FISA applications state that Steele (identified as Source #1), “has been compensated” “by the FBI.” The redactions, though, leave open the question of how much and whether any of the payments compensated Steele for investigating the Trump campaign.
4. Warrants Relied On Hearsay from Tertiary Sources
The newly released FISA applications also confirm a fourth significant fact: To obtain the surveillance warrant, the DOJ and FBI relied on unverified hearsay from sub-sources (i.e., Steele’s sources) of unknown reliability.
While the government may rely on unverified information provided by an informant who has a history of providing reliable information, to establish probable cause with evidence coming from a source of unknown reliability, the government must corroborate that information. The FISA applications make no mention of corroboration of the sub-sources’ claims concerning Page’s purported conversations with two Russian agents.
Further, the FISA applications reveal that the DOJ only established Steele’s reliability, notthat of “sub-sources.” But as former federal prosecutor Andrew McCarthy first highlighted in February 2018:
The only reliability that counts is the reliability of the factual informants, not of the investigator who purports to channel the informants. The judge wants to know why the court should believe the specific factual claims: Was the informant truly in a position to witness what is alleged, and if so, does the informant have a track record of providing verified information? The track record of the investigator who locates the sources is beside the point. A judge would need to know whether Steele’s sources were reliable, not whether Steele himself was reliable.
While we do not know what lay behind the redacted portions of the applications, it seems clear from the placement, context, size of the blackouts that the FBI did not include information in the application either establishing the sub-sources’ reliability or detailing any efforts to corroborate Page’s claimed collusion with the Russian agents.
See:
10 Key Takeaways From Released FISA Warrants Against Carter Page
for the rest of the story.
While the newly released documents remain heavily redacted, the details revealed confirm the charges of abuse laid out early this year by House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence (HPSCI) Chair Devin Nunes (R-CA). The documents also provide additional evidence that the Obama administration’s Department of Justice and career DOJ, Federal Bureau of Investigation, and State Department employees misused the FISA court system to spy on the Trump campaign. Here are ten key take-aways.
1. The State Department Had Its Fingers In this Mess
Last month, during a Senate Select Committee on Intelligence hearing, it was revealed for the first time that “[f]ormer British spy Christopher Steele visited the State Department in October 2016 and briefed officials there about his work on the infamous anti-Trump dossier.” During questioning of President Barack Obama’s assistant secretary of state for European and Eurasian affairs, Victoria Nuland, committee Chairman Richard Burr disclosed that “ased upon our review of the visitor logs at the State Department, Mr. Steele visited the State Department, briefing officials on the dossier in October 2016.”
Nuland, who in June 2016 had authorized the FBI to meet with Steele in London, denied attending the October 2016 meeting with Steele. She also “said in previous interviews that she and other State Department officials referred the dossier to the FBI,” but as The Daily Caller’s Chuck Ross noted, “Burr’s revelations suggest the agency maintained interest in Steele and his report much longer than previously known.”
Saturday’s release of the FISA applications now exposes a new troubling detail: The DOJ sought the FISA surveillance order based on the information provided “by the U.S. Department of State” “in or about October 2016.” When considered in light of last month’s revelation that Steele had met with State Department officials in October, it now appears that the Obama administration’s State Department bore equal responsibility for presenting the FISA court unverified hearsay to justify spying on the Trump campaign.
2. The Applications Relied Heavily on the Steele Dossier
In charging the DOJ and FBI with abusing the FISA system, Republicans have long maintained that the FISA applications relied heavily on the Steele dossier’s unverified information—information the former British spook compiled for the Hillary Clinton presidential campaign and the Democratic National Committee.
Democrats challenge that assertion, stressing the bulk of the FISA applications and other information included. Although the redactions make it impossible to fully refute these claims, the FISA applications demonstrate the DOJ’s heavy reliance on the Steele dossier.
First, while the initial FISA application totals some 50 pages, large swaths of the double-spaced length consist of boilerplate jargon detailing the requested scope of the surveillance, claiming “compliance” with the statutory requirements for certification by FBI officials, and efforts to minimization the unintentional interception of third-party information.
Then there are the long narratives of background information concerning Russia’s attempts to influence the 2016 presidential election. Only a relatively small portion of the total applications go to the question of whether probable cause exists to surveil Page. Those sections rely on the information the Steele dossier provided.
3. The FBI Paid Christopher Steele
It has long been known that the Clinton campaign and DNC paid Steele to compile the dossier. Media outlets have also reported, though, that the FBI did not compensate Steele. For instance, the Washington Post ran a story asserting, based on “several people familiar with the arrangement,” that Steele “had reached an agreement with the FBI a few weeks before the election for the bureau to pay him,” but “ltimately, the FBI did not pay Steele.” In another article, the Washington Post again claimed Steele was “not being paid as an informant,” but added that he may have been reimbursed for some travel expenses.
Those reports now appear questionable: The FISA applications state that Steele (identified as Source #1), “has been compensated” “by the FBI.” The redactions, though, leave open the question of how much and whether any of the payments compensated Steele for investigating the Trump campaign.
4. Warrants Relied On Hearsay from Tertiary Sources
The newly released FISA applications also confirm a fourth significant fact: To obtain the surveillance warrant, the DOJ and FBI relied on unverified hearsay from sub-sources (i.e., Steele’s sources) of unknown reliability.
While the government may rely on unverified information provided by an informant who has a history of providing reliable information, to establish probable cause with evidence coming from a source of unknown reliability, the government must corroborate that information. The FISA applications make no mention of corroboration of the sub-sources’ claims concerning Page’s purported conversations with two Russian agents.
Further, the FISA applications reveal that the DOJ only established Steele’s reliability, notthat of “sub-sources.” But as former federal prosecutor Andrew McCarthy first highlighted in February 2018:
The only reliability that counts is the reliability of the factual informants, not of the investigator who purports to channel the informants. The judge wants to know why the court should believe the specific factual claims: Was the informant truly in a position to witness what is alleged, and if so, does the informant have a track record of providing verified information? The track record of the investigator who locates the sources is beside the point. A judge would need to know whether Steele’s sources were reliable, not whether Steele himself was reliable.
While we do not know what lay behind the redacted portions of the applications, it seems clear from the placement, context, size of the blackouts that the FBI did not include information in the application either establishing the sub-sources’ reliability or detailing any efforts to corroborate Page’s claimed collusion with the Russian agents.
See:
10 Key Takeaways From Released FISA Warrants Against Carter Page
for the rest of the story.
CNN?? I don't think so.
There is zero evidence that the Obama administration spied on the Trump campaign.
What is an "infamous anti-Trump dossier"? What is the source of that claim? Devin Nunes maybe?
And? What about it? What is the wrong doing?
Once again, "AND"?
Negative! The FBI had been investigating Carter Page since 2013. They had their own investigation of Russia meddling independent of Steele. So it is impossible to knowingly link the two unless you are part of the investigation. This is totally wishful thinking on those who are out to make hay. Not good enough. Try again.
Negative again. No evidence to prove that at the time. The dossier proved reliable later on.
How would they know? Nunes said he never read it, and admitted to using their footnote for his famous memo as an excuse to create mayhem over nothing.Nunes: Fine, the FBI Didn’t Lie, But Its Font Was Too Small
Whoever wrote that two sentence paragraph needs a lesson in critical thinking, because it doesn't make any sense. How can the article admit the "impossibility to fully refute", then make the claim that the applications demonstrate the DOJ's heavy reliance on the dossier, when there are still redacted parts? They just destroyed their own argument.
According to who? The folks that wrote this article? Lol! Who made that conclusion and what are their credentials?
How do they know? Did they ask the FBI, in order to draw that conclusion? This article is a make it up as you go kind of thing.
And? What does that have to do with the price of apples, other than it tells us nothing about Steele having anything to do with the original investigation of Page?
You mean the dossier that the Republicans first had, right?
So? What about it? This doesn't dispute or negate the other legs to this investigation. There is no connection, because the article is foraging. It isn't defining any facts. It's all a speculation tour. The whole article has not defined anything with concrete facts.
How is any of this relevant to the initial investigation of Carter Page? Answer, there is nothing relevant. The article is planting suspicious innuendos to lead us down a path of wrong doing, where none exist. It's all semantics and buzz words to cloud the reality of this investigation. It's a total con.
Here we go again. "Hearsay" by who, verified by whom? No one answers that key question, suggesting that the article continues to throw spaghetti up against the wall.
You yourself said there were redactions, so verification could not be established by the applications. Therefore, why bring it up to begin with? Answer, to cloud the credibility of this document.
And? The dossier has still not been the source of verified court claims, so why is it an issue, when the judge has not signed off on its validity?
Based on your own lengthy failed post here, the article clearly tells us it was on a foraging tour, and left out facts that could have advanced its narrative. But it didn't. It was all guesses and accusations, without any firm backing. Your post was an apology tour for the failed Nunes memo.
Last edited:
You Trumpkins clearly have a desperate need to lie that the FISA warrants were obtained illegally- even though no one- not the House, not the Senate- nor the IJ- agrees with you.
But you follow the Lying Don the Con- so it is to be expected.
More information to the validity of the FISA, and how Nunes and Trump were trying to muddy the water; Atty: FISA docs reveal Mueller probe 'clearly not a witch hunt'
Your concession is noted.
Non-existent arguments are good. Thanks!
What disinformation?
We accept your surrender.
Oh, and by the way, just remember who were the one's who did give "a ****", who started this charade in the first place.
jc456
Diamond Member
- Dec 18, 2013
- 160,891
- 40,349
- 2,180
we all know that for that russia russia crap. good thing you got your foil hat on.
And Trump even more. He's the idiot who de-classified the document for the first time in its history, only to have that same document turn him and Republicans into liars.It is hilarious the TDS folks thinks this helps their cognitive dissonant fake news POV. As already noted, half of it is blacked out.
Rosenstein is desperate and afraid of Rudy.
A liar, criminal, and a traitor to their country wouldn't. Carry on!
Similar threads
New Topics
-
So, this gift of a Boeing 747 from Qatar isn't a gift from Qatar to the USA, it's a gift from Qatar to Trump. A bribe??- Started by frigidweirdo
- Replies: 1
-
-
No longer about climate, but about security, national and home
- Started by Old Rocks
- Replies: 4
-
Nancy Pelosi’s net worth down $8M in 2025 — as She-Wolf of Wall Street suffers real estate blow- Started by Doc7505
- Replies: 4
-
was Trump right (on #Iran)?? i think so, but what do YOU think about this?- Started by GavanPeacefan
- Replies: 12
