Intelligence Committee To Petition FISA Court

[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.

That should have been the first move.

I'm confused by the tactics of the Communists.

Did they think this would help them?

{(a) that doesn’t solve the problem that the original FISA application against Page evidently relied “heavily” on information passed from a not-very-credible foreign agent and (b) that doesn’t explain why the Bureau allegedly failed to tell the FISA Court in later applications to renew their surveillance of Page that Steele’s info maybe hadn’t been so credible...Grassley and Graham make another good point about Steele’s chattering to the press while his investigation was still ongoing: Once bad actors were aware that he was digging for dirt on Trump, they could have sought him out and fed him any amount of BS in hopes of it trickling through to the FBI and deepening the official suspicion surrounding Team Trump. That’s how Clinton cronies — maybe even Sid Blumenthal — got involved in this clusterfark. Because Steele was supposedly willing to accept even unsolicited tips about Trump, the Clinton team may have fed him rumors to help fill a dossier for which their boss was paying.}

Here's the FISA Memo Nobody's Talking About. It's Much More Damning Than the Much-Discussed Nunes Version.

They should have cloaked themselves in the Nunes memo, now even more proof of crimes by the FBI are out in the light.

 

[asaratis]

FISA needs to be ended After what we are seeing.

I disagree. It needs to be reformed....with extensive vetting required of all applications regarding connections to American political figures, especially those involved in an election campaign.

 

[Uncensored2008]

Oh? Are you a jbond sock?

Regardless, the claim is... they [the FBI] did not disclose it [Steele’s dossier] was sourced from Russian intelligence agents.

See if you can prove that ^^^

Nunes memo: Justice Department's FISA application never disclosed Steele dossier's ties to Clinton

There is a reason Democrats are fighting the release of more info including testimony.

Sadly, all you rightards are armed with are lies.

With a Monday Vote Expected, Democrats Press to Release Their Own Memo

Democrats have publicly called for the Republican-controlled committee to release a transcript of the interview with Mr. McCabe.​

I love when interweb turds like faun make up their own reality. Remember when you turds lied about the GOP not allowing a Dem memo? Remember when Obama lied about his interactions with the investigation? All you have are lies.

You believe the corrupt shills told the FISA court that the dossier was sourced from Russian intelligence. What the **** are you going to say when that is not in the dim memo?

Nunes memo: Justice Department's FISA application never disclosed Steele dossier's ties to Clinton

There is a reason Democrats are fighting the release of more info including testimony.

Sadly, all you rightards are armed with are lies.

With a Monday Vote Expected, Democrats Press to Release Their Own Memo

Democrats have publicly called for the Republican-controlled committee to release a transcript of the interview with Mr. McCabe.​

I love when interweb turds like faun make up their own reality. Remember when you turds lied about the GOP not allowing a Dem memo? Remember when Obama lied about his interactions with the investigation? All you have are lies.

You believe the corrupt shills told the FISA court that the dossier was sourced from Russian intelligence. What the **** are you going to say when that is not in the dim memo?

Who knows just how demented your mind is that you think that after your lie about Democrats not wanting McCabe’s testimony released was just thoroughly squashed.

Anyone notice how the Republicans are requesting official documents to explain what actually happened, and the paid posters on here are NOT insisting that those documents will vindicate their position, but instead are trying to still explain away what the last documentation explained, lol.

I am sorry Leftists, but it is more than obvious to anyone with any sense, that NOBODY would demand the release of factual documents from their original source, that would screw their narrative up.

Now Nunez piece was an opinion piece according to you, so your side released their own opinion piece. Yes, or no!

So now, they want the ACTUAL FACTS released, yes!

So if you are soooooooo confident in your take on the whole thing, join us in demanding it all be released! Let the chips fall where they may. Just think, no more conjecture, we will all know, and won't you finally be happy! We will no longer be able to defend our position, you will have won, isn't that correct?

So lets do this, and get it over with. What do you say? We aren't afraid, and you insist you aren't either, so you see, we actually agree on something.

TRANSPARENCY! Obama said he wanted it, Trump says he wants it, we say we want it, now how about you guys!

LOLOLOL

Let’s start with you identifying who are the paid posters here — so we can see if you’re even telling the truth...

Well, does North Korea pay you Fawn, or just promise not to feed your family to the dogs of your dictator if you tell enough lies here, on Twitter, and on Facebook?

Further, they occasionally feed you, which is more than most of your countrymen can say - so that is a form of pay.

Now, when the GOP has 56 in the Senate and retains the house, will those close to you start going to the kennels?

 

[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.

Democrats are crooks

This is the root cause of their opposition to release of the factual memos from Nunes, Grassley and others down the line while they support release of rebuttal memos from the left. The left has a LOT TO LOSE in the exposure of the truth.

The American people are not stupid, as the prime architect of Obama(doesn't)Care, Goober Gruber has stated. The public is slowly becoming aware of the corruption and lack of honesty being continuously exhibited by the Democrat Party and career politicians.

I contend (and hope) that the Democrats will lose seats in both Chambers of Congress in 2018. The more the truth about who colluded with whom comes out, the more likely my prediction will become a historical fact.

The Democrat Party is in deep doo-doo and is frantically trying to cover itself with rose petals and Febreze.

I hope the entire truth of Putin Trump comes out, regardless of what it turns out to be. I'm sure you feel the same (joke)

It is coming out.

{
Members of the Obama administration's Department of Justice sought court approval for the surveillance of Carter Page, allegedly for colluding with Russian interests, and extended the surveillance three times.

But none of these government officials told the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court that the warrant requests were based on an unverified dossier that had originated as a hit piece funded in part by the Hillary Clinton campaign to smear Donald Trump during the current 2016 campaign.

Nor did these officials reveal that the author of the dossier, Christopher Steele, had already been dropped as a reliable source by the FBI for leaking to the press.

Nor did officials add that a Department of Justice official, Bruce Ohr, had met privately with Steele -- or that Ohr's wife, Nellie, had been hired to work on the dossier.

Unfortunately, such disclosures may be only the beginning of the FISA-gate scandal.

CARTOONS | STEVE KELLEY
VIEW CARTOON
Members of the Obama administration's national security team also may have requested the names of American citizens connected with the Trump campaign who had been swept up in other FISA surveillance. Those officials may have then improperly unmasked the names and leaked them to a compliant press -- again, for apparent political purposes during a campaign.

As a result of various controversies, the deputy director of the FBI, Andrew McCabe, has resigned. Two FBI officials who had been working on special counsel Robert Mueller's team in the so-called Russia collusion probe, Lisa Page and Peter Strzok, have been reassigned for having an improper relationship and for displaying overt political biases in text messages to each other.

The new FBI director, Christopher Wray, has also reassigned the FBI's top lawyer, James Baker, who purportedly leaked the Steele dossier to a sympathetic journalist.}

Victor Davis Hanson - Why FISA-gate Is Scarier Than Watergate

We now find out that Adam Schiff, the disgusting pile of shit fell for a hoax promising him nude pictures of Trump, the EXACT thing this sleazy little **** accused Don Trump Jr. of.

Then it comes out that Sen. Mark Warner, a disgrace to the Senate and a disgrace to America, has been colluding with Russia through a lobbyist in an attempt to bolster the Steele Dossier that the DNC and FBI paid the Kremlin for.

{EXCLUSIVE – Sen. Mark Warner, the top Democrat on the Senate Intelligence Committee who has been leading a congressional investigation into President Trump's alleged ties to Russia, had extensive contact last year with a lobbyist for a Russian oligarch who was offering Warner access to former British spy and dossier author Christopher Steele, according to text messages obtained exclusively by Fox News.}

Democratic Sen. Mark Warner texted with Russian oligarch lobbyist in effort to contact dossier author Christopher Steele

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

FISA needs to be ended After what we are seeing.

And replaced with what?

People are pissed to the point they are placing blame in all four corners. But I think we need more time, more exposure to what took place before we start pointing fingers at people we know nothing about. I will hold to the opinion that the judges are honorable and were duped into giving and extending these warrants.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

You go to police and tell them I have illegal narcotics in my home. There isn't a court in the country that would issue a search warrant based on that information alone.

Your claim would have to be investigated, the DEA would have to set up phony drug purchases from me. They would need to have evidence such as the narcotics, and then they can approach the court for a warrant.

For all the police know, you may be a nosy neighbor that wants to get even with me because I blew my snow on your lawn in the winter, or setup a surveillance camera pointed at your property. So you made the whole thing up for revenge.

When the FBI approaches the court with evidence, that evidence has to have been investigated first. It has to be presented as a factual claim--not some guy working for Hillary.

I said if it were reliable. That assumes the due diligence has been done. You don't have any idea of how the dossier information was used, what it was used in conjunction with or what steps had been taken to verify or corroborate the information.

The biggest mistakes you dopes make is assuming the dossier is 100% nonsense and that Russia didn't interfere.

Anything submitted to the FISA court has to be 100% checked out. When the FBI got rid of Steele, that too had to be submitted in their FISA renewals. it sure doesn't seem like it was.

Anything submitted to the FISA court has to be 100% checked out

Sure. You don't know that it wasn't. It obviously met the standard four times in front of four different judges.

You're assuming that everyone involved with the application process lied and every judge and their staff is incompetent. That's just dumb.

No, not at all. I'm just assuming these judges have standards.

The FBI approaches FISA and says they have opposition research from a presidential candidate that she paid for, and they want to use it to get a FISA warrant on her opponent and various members of his campaign. They tell the judge that the information was not vetted and they are just taking his word for it. The person who created the dossier is a known Trump hater. What they are looking for is Trump's collusion with Russia even though they don't have an iota of evidence to support their investigation.

And the judge says "Sure, no problem, here's your warrant?"

If you think that's what took place, then I have a bridge I want to sell you.

And they do all that just so they can spy on someone not affiliated with Trump.

I believe it was an excuse to spy on Trump. After all, they had nothing on Trump in which to request a direct surveillance warrant on him. So they used the next best thing hoping that they could monitor conversations between Page, Trump or his campaign members.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

The court sure wanted to know what the intent of the informant was. It's one of the questions on the FISA application. I can't wait to see how it was answered too because Steele was a well known Trump hater.

The intent is irrelevant. If I inform the cops on you and you get arrested, my feelings or motives are irrelevant as long as the information is reliable.

Obviously it was reliable as it was used subsequently for three renewals.

You go to police and tell them I have illegal narcotics in my home. There isn't a court in the country that would issue a search warrant based on that information alone.

Your claim would have to be investigated, the DEA would have to set up phony drug purchases from me. They would need to have evidence such as the narcotics, and then they can approach the court for a warrant.

For all the police know, you may be a nosy neighbor that wants to get even with me because I blew my snow on your lawn in the winter, or setup a surveillance camera pointed at your property. So you made the whole thing up for revenge.

When the FBI approaches the court with evidence, that evidence has to have been investigated first. It has to be presented as a factual claim--not some guy working for Hillary.

I said if it were reliable. That assumes the due diligence has been done. You don't have any idea of how the dossier information was used, what it was used in conjunction with or what steps had been taken to verify or corroborate the information.

The biggest mistakes you dopes make is assuming the dossier is 100% nonsense and that Russia didn't interfere.

Anything submitted to the FISA court has to be 100% checked out. When the FBI got rid of Steele, that too had to be submitted in their FISA renewals. it sure doesn't seem like it was.

Great, let's see your evidence that they submitted non-verified material....

Which of course you know isn't out there.........yet. But I'll rely on the Chairman of the House Intelligence committees word that not only was the information not verified, but that the FBI withheld information of who paid for that report.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

Once you get it by the "first judge", maybe the next three just rubber-stamp extesions? Thinking heavy verification went on at step 1?

To get an extension you need to provide evidence that new evidence was discovered under the previous warrant. That's another thing I would like to see, because for the life of me, I can't understand what they could have presented that would have convinced them that further surveillance was needed.

 

[asaratis]

Anything submitted to the FISA court has to be 100% checked out. When the FBI got rid of Steele, that too had to be submitted in their FISA renewals. it sure doesn't seem like it was.

Anything submitted to the FISA court has to be 100% checked out

Sure. You don't know that it wasn't. It obviously met the standard four times in front of four different judges.

You're assuming that everyone involved with the application process lied and every judge and their staff is incompetent. That's just dumb.

No, not at all. I'm just assuming these judges have standards.



The FBI approaches FISA and says they have opposition research from a presidential candidate that she paid for, and they want to use it to get a FISA warrant on her opponent and various members of his campaign. They tell the judge that the information was not vetted and they are just taking his word for it. The person who created the dossier is a known Trump hater. What they are looking for is Trump's collusion with Russia even though they don't have an iota of evidence to support their investigation.

And the judge says "Sure, no problem, here's your warrant?"

If you think that's what took place, then I have a bridge I want to sell you.

No, not at all. I'm just assuming these judges have standards.

Yes, standards like failing to include any required information is grounds for rejection.

You're assuming that not a one of four judges was competent enough to catch that.

My god, man! You are dense!

You talk as if the judge already knew that the DNC and the FBI had paid for the dossier and should have pointed it out and told the petitioners to amend the application to show same. How ******* stupid can one man be?

What the petitioners did was to exclude exculpatory information that was known to them and hopefully not to the judge. That particular exclusion is ILLEGAL and DISHONEST! That makes the application a fraud on the court.

Wake the **** up!

Really? They committed fraud? Well that can only mean you've seen the portions of the dossier they presented -- what was it?

Please see post #220 above.

Dear faun,

In a court of law, it is illegal to withhold known exculpatory information (that which is known by the prosecutor to be advantageous to the defense of the accused) from the court. It constitutes a fraud upon the court. This is true no matter what else is included in the evidence (information) presented to the court.

I don't need to see what was presented in the application. All I need to know is that the prosecutors knew that the DNC and the FBI paid for the dossier and that they knew C. Steele's dossier was flawed and they they knew that C. Steele had expressed hatred for Trump....and they DID NOT PRESENT THAT INFORMATION TO THE COURT.

That information is exculpatory. It's deliberate omission from the FISC application for a warrant was ILLEGAL AND CONSTITUTES A FRAUD UPON THE COURT.

If you do not understand the definition of exculpatory, I suggest you either look it up or read below....or have someone read them to you.

exculpatory evidence definition - Google Search

Exculpatory evidence is evidence favorable to the defendant in a criminal trial that exonerates or tends to exonerate the defendant of guilt. It is the opposite of inculpatory evidence, which tends to prove guilt.
Exculpatory evidence - Wikipedia

Exculpatory evidence - Wikipedia


Fraudulent Concealment Of Evidence - Malpractice | Laws.com

"If one side does not share all the evidence their side has they in turn as a lawyer commit legal malpractice. Fraudulent concealment of evidence is legal malpractice in itself, and it also shows negligence on the part of the attorney another form of legal malpractice. On top of that it is also criminal to conceal evidence as the courts deem it as a fraud. In basic it is one of the worst moves an attorney can do outside of blatantly misrepresenting their client’s interests."

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

You go to police and tell them I have illegal narcotics in my home. There isn't a court in the country that would issue a search warrant based on that information alone.

Your claim would have to be investigated, the DEA would have to set up phony drug purchases from me. They would need to have evidence such as the narcotics, and then they can approach the court for a warrant.

For all the police know, you may be a nosy neighbor that wants to get even with me because I blew my snow on your lawn in the winter, or setup a surveillance camera pointed at your property. So you made the whole thing up for revenge.

When the FBI approaches the court with evidence, that evidence has to have been investigated first. It has to be presented as a factual claim--not some guy working for Hillary.

I said if it were reliable. That assumes the due diligence has been done. You don't have any idea of how the dossier information was used, what it was used in conjunction with or what steps had been taken to verify or corroborate the information.

The biggest mistakes you dopes make is assuming the dossier is 100% nonsense and that Russia didn't interfere.

Anything submitted to the FISA court has to be 100% checked out. When the FBI got rid of Steele, that too had to be submitted in their FISA renewals. it sure doesn't seem like it was.

Anything submitted to the FISA court has to be 100% checked out

Sure. You don't know that it wasn't. It obviously met the standard four times in front of four different judges.

You're assuming that everyone involved with the application process lied and every judge and their staff is incompetent. That's just dumb.

No, not at all. I'm just assuming these judges have standards.



The FBI approaches FISA and says they have opposition research from a presidential candidate that she paid for, and they want to use it to get a FISA warrant on her opponent and various members of his campaign. They tell the judge that the information was not vetted and they are just taking his word for it. The person who created the dossier is a known Trump hater. What they are looking for is Trump's collusion with Russia even though they don't have an iota of evidence to support their investigation.

And the judge says "Sure, no problem, here's your warrant?"

If you think that's what took place, then I have a bridge I want to sell you.

No, not at all. I'm just assuming these judges have standards.

Yes, standards like failing to include any required information is grounds for rejection.

You're assuming that not a one of four judges was competent enough to catch that.

The judges only know what is presented to them, nothing more. This "footnote" is extremely suspicious. Why didn't they make the fact that this was opposition research and unverified transcending in their application?

 

[The Original Tree]

FISA was created to combat terrorism.

However it is Unconstitutional.

Secret Courts and Secret Warrants are Illegal.

However there is an argument to be made that it’s possible to do this with Non Citizens since Non Citizens do not have Constitutional Protections.

It’s time to disband The FISA Court and replace it with something a little more legal and something that observes Citizen’s Constitutional Rights.

FISA needs to be ended After what we are seeing.

And replaced with what?

People are pissed to the point they are placing blame in all four corners. But I think we need more time, more exposure to what took place before we start pointing fingers at people we know nothing about. I will hold to the opinion that the judges are honorable and were duped into giving and extending these warrants.

 

[The Original Tree]

The fact a judge can rubber stamp the violation of a citizen’s rights based on a footnote to knowingly help a rival campaign is egregious and nauseating.

I said if it were reliable. That assumes the due diligence has been done. You don't have any idea of how the dossier information was used, what it was used in conjunction with or what steps had been taken to verify or corroborate the information.

The biggest mistakes you dopes make is assuming the dossier is 100% nonsense and that Russia didn't interfere.

Anything submitted to the FISA court has to be 100% checked out. When the FBI got rid of Steele, that too had to be submitted in their FISA renewals. it sure doesn't seem like it was.

Anything submitted to the FISA court has to be 100% checked out

Sure. You don't know that it wasn't. It obviously met the standard four times in front of four different judges.

You're assuming that everyone involved with the application process lied and every judge and their staff is incompetent. That's just dumb.

No, not at all. I'm just assuming these judges have standards.



The FBI approaches FISA and says they have opposition research from a presidential candidate that she paid for, and they want to use it to get a FISA warrant on her opponent and various members of his campaign. They tell the judge that the information was not vetted and they are just taking his word for it. The person who created the dossier is a known Trump hater. What they are looking for is Trump's collusion with Russia even though they don't have an iota of evidence to support their investigation.

And the judge says "Sure, no problem, here's your warrant?"

If you think that's what took place, then I have a bridge I want to sell you.

No, not at all. I'm just assuming these judges have standards.

Yes, standards like failing to include any required information is grounds for rejection.

You're assuming that not a one of four judges was competent enough to catch that.

The judges only know what is presented to them, nothing more. This "footnote" is extremely suspicious. Why didn't they make the fact that this was opposition research and unverified transcending in their application?

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

The fact a judge can rubber stamp the violation of a citizen’s rights based on a footnote to knowingly help a rival campaign is egregious and nauseating.

Anything submitted to the FISA court has to be 100% checked out. When the FBI got rid of Steele, that too had to be submitted in their FISA renewals. it sure doesn't seem like it was.

Anything submitted to the FISA court has to be 100% checked out

Sure. You don't know that it wasn't. It obviously met the standard four times in front of four different judges.

You're assuming that everyone involved with the application process lied and every judge and their staff is incompetent. That's just dumb.

No, not at all. I'm just assuming these judges have standards.



The FBI approaches FISA and says they have opposition research from a presidential candidate that she paid for, and they want to use it to get a FISA warrant on her opponent and various members of his campaign. They tell the judge that the information was not vetted and they are just taking his word for it. The person who created the dossier is a known Trump hater. What they are looking for is Trump's collusion with Russia even though they don't have an iota of evidence to support their investigation.

And the judge says "Sure, no problem, here's your warrant?"

If you think that's what took place, then I have a bridge I want to sell you.

No, not at all. I'm just assuming these judges have standards.

Yes, standards like failing to include any required information is grounds for rejection.

You're assuming that not a one of four judges was competent enough to catch that.

The judges only know what is presented to them, nothing more. This "footnote" is extremely suspicious. Why didn't they make the fact that this was opposition research and unverified transcending in their application?

Yes it is, but footnotes are very often overlooked and that's why the FBI used them.

From what I read and watched on the news, nobody has cast aspersions on the court or judges. Right now, they are pointing in the direction of the FBI and DOJ. So until the time comes where we learn the court was complicit in this injustice, I prefer to make the assumption that the judges acted in good faith.

 

[Faun]

The intent is irrelevant. If I inform the cops on you and you get arrested, my feelings or motives are irrelevant as long as the information is reliable.

Obviously it was reliable as it was used subsequently for three renewals.

You go to police and tell them I have illegal narcotics in my home. There isn't a court in the country that would issue a search warrant based on that information alone.

Your claim would have to be investigated, the DEA would have to set up phony drug purchases from me. They would need to have evidence such as the narcotics, and then they can approach the court for a warrant.

For all the police know, you may be a nosy neighbor that wants to get even with me because I blew my snow on your lawn in the winter, or setup a surveillance camera pointed at your property. So you made the whole thing up for revenge.

When the FBI approaches the court with evidence, that evidence has to have been investigated first. It has to be presented as a factual claim--not some guy working for Hillary.

I said if it were reliable. That assumes the due diligence has been done. You don't have any idea of how the dossier information was used, what it was used in conjunction with or what steps had been taken to verify or corroborate the information.

The biggest mistakes you dopes make is assuming the dossier is 100% nonsense and that Russia didn't interfere.

Anything submitted to the FISA court has to be 100% checked out. When the FBI got rid of Steele, that too had to be submitted in their FISA renewals. it sure doesn't seem like it was.

Great, let's see your evidence that they submitted non-verified material....

Sometimes I accuse my dog not only of being too stupid to learn, but also too stupid to play with. You remind me of my dog. I love my dog, but she is stupid. I have come now to love your stupidity as I do that of my dog.

What a pity you can't defend a position.

 

[Faun]

Nunes memo: Justice Department's FISA application never disclosed Steele dossier's ties to Clinton

There is a reason Democrats are fighting the release of more info including testimony.

Sadly, all you rightards are armed with are lies.

With a Monday Vote Expected, Democrats Press to Release Their Own Memo

Democrats have publicly called for the Republican-controlled committee to release a transcript of the interview with Mr. McCabe.​

I love when interweb turds like faun make up their own reality. Remember when you turds lied about the GOP not allowing a Dem memo? Remember when Obama lied about his interactions with the investigation? All you have are lies.

You believe the corrupt shills told the FISA court that the dossier was sourced from Russian intelligence. What the **** are you going to say when that is not in the dim memo?

Sadly, all you rightards are armed with are lies.

With a Monday Vote Expected, Democrats Press to Release Their Own Memo

Democrats have publicly called for the Republican-controlled committee to release a transcript of the interview with Mr. McCabe.​

I love when interweb turds like faun make up their own reality. Remember when you turds lied about the GOP not allowing a Dem memo? Remember when Obama lied about his interactions with the investigation? All you have are lies.

You believe the corrupt shills told the FISA court that the dossier was sourced from Russian intelligence. What the **** are you going to say when that is not in the dim memo?

Who knows just how demented your mind is that you think that after your lie about Democrats not wanting McCabe’s testimony released was just thoroughly squashed.

Anyone notice how the Republicans are requesting official documents to explain what actually happened, and the paid posters on here are NOT insisting that those documents will vindicate their position, but instead are trying to still explain away what the last documentation explained, lol.

I am sorry Leftists, but it is more than obvious to anyone with any sense, that NOBODY would demand the release of factual documents from their original source, that would screw their narrative up.

Now Nunez piece was an opinion piece according to you, so your side released their own opinion piece. Yes, or no!

So now, they want the ACTUAL FACTS released, yes!

So if you are soooooooo confident in your take on the whole thing, join us in demanding it all be released! Let the chips fall where they may. Just think, no more conjecture, we will all know, and won't you finally be happy! We will no longer be able to defend our position, you will have won, isn't that correct?

So lets do this, and get it over with. What do you say? We aren't afraid, and you insist you aren't either, so you see, we actually agree on something.

TRANSPARENCY! Obama said he wanted it, Trump says he wants it, we say we want it, now how about you guys!

LOLOLOL

Let’s start with you identifying who are the paid posters here — so we can see if you’re even telling the truth...

Well, does North Korea pay you Fawn, or just promise not to feed your family to the dogs of your dictator if you tell enough lies here, on Twitter, and on Facebook?

Further, they occasionally feed you, which is more than most of your countrymen can say - so that is a form of pay.

Now, when the GOP has 56 in the Senate and retains the house, will those close to you start going to the kennels?

 

[flacaltenn]

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

Well for starters, EVERYTHING they hear and touch at the FISA court is classified at the highest levels. Would NEVER get to the public without setting a precedent.

Would be better if the FISA court just waits for the IG report and prepares a PUBLIC statement clearing up their role in allowing surveillance on Team Trump..

 

[Faun]

I said if it were reliable. That assumes the due diligence has been done. You don't have any idea of how the dossier information was used, what it was used in conjunction with or what steps had been taken to verify or corroborate the information.

The biggest mistakes you dopes make is assuming the dossier is 100% nonsense and that Russia didn't interfere.

Anything submitted to the FISA court has to be 100% checked out. When the FBI got rid of Steele, that too had to be submitted in their FISA renewals. it sure doesn't seem like it was.

Anything submitted to the FISA court has to be 100% checked out

Sure. You don't know that it wasn't. It obviously met the standard four times in front of four different judges.

You're assuming that everyone involved with the application process lied and every judge and their staff is incompetent. That's just dumb.

No, not at all. I'm just assuming these judges have standards.

The FBI approaches FISA and says they have opposition research from a presidential candidate that she paid for, and they want to use it to get a FISA warrant on her opponent and various members of his campaign. They tell the judge that the information was not vetted and they are just taking his word for it. The person who created the dossier is a known Trump hater. What they are looking for is Trump's collusion with Russia even though they don't have an iota of evidence to support their investigation.

And the judge says "Sure, no problem, here's your warrant?"

If you think that's what took place, then I have a bridge I want to sell you.

And they do all that just so they can spy on someone not affiliated with Trump.

I believe it was an excuse to spy on Trump. After all, they had nothing on Trump in which to request a direct surveillance warrant on him. So they used the next best thing hoping that they could monitor conversations between Page, Trump or his campaign members.

What a retard ^^^

Sure, let's spy on someone not affiliated with Trump ... someone who never met Trump ... someone who never spoke with Trump .......

...... to spy on Trump.

 

[Faun]

The intent is irrelevant. If I inform the cops on you and you get arrested, my feelings or motives are irrelevant as long as the information is reliable.

Obviously it was reliable as it was used subsequently for three renewals.

You go to police and tell them I have illegal narcotics in my home. There isn't a court in the country that would issue a search warrant based on that information alone.

Your claim would have to be investigated, the DEA would have to set up phony drug purchases from me. They would need to have evidence such as the narcotics, and then they can approach the court for a warrant.

For all the police know, you may be a nosy neighbor that wants to get even with me because I blew my snow on your lawn in the winter, or setup a surveillance camera pointed at your property. So you made the whole thing up for revenge.

When the FBI approaches the court with evidence, that evidence has to have been investigated first. It has to be presented as a factual claim--not some guy working for Hillary.

I said if it were reliable. That assumes the due diligence has been done. You don't have any idea of how the dossier information was used, what it was used in conjunction with or what steps had been taken to verify or corroborate the information.

The biggest mistakes you dopes make is assuming the dossier is 100% nonsense and that Russia didn't interfere.

Anything submitted to the FISA court has to be 100% checked out. When the FBI got rid of Steele, that too had to be submitted in their FISA renewals. it sure doesn't seem like it was.

Great, let's see your evidence that they submitted non-verified material....

Which of course you know isn't out there.........yet. But I'll rely on the Chairman of the House Intelligence committees word that not only was the information not verified, but that the FBI withheld information of who paid for that report.

Now you're lying -- again.

The chairman never said the information was not verified. He never identified which parts of the dossier were used. In fact, he never even said anything in his memo about anything being illegal.

But that aside, you said it doesn't seem like they checked out the dossier before submitting it to the FISC -- but then you admit you have no clue what submitted (as none of us do) -- which means you can't possibly know if unverified intel was given to the FISC.

Thanks for playin'

 

[westwall]

You go to police and tell them I have illegal narcotics in my home. There isn't a court in the country that would issue a search warrant based on that information alone.

Your claim would have to be investigated, the DEA would have to set up phony drug purchases from me. They would need to have evidence such as the narcotics, and then they can approach the court for a warrant.

For all the police know, you may be a nosy neighbor that wants to get even with me because I blew my snow on your lawn in the winter, or setup a surveillance camera pointed at your property. So you made the whole thing up for revenge.

When the FBI approaches the court with evidence, that evidence has to have been investigated first. It has to be presented as a factual claim--not some guy working for Hillary.

And the FBI did investigate and confirm some of the details of the dossier.

No, they didn't. They have done nothing to corroborate any part of the dossier.

You really don't know shit, do ya?

How true is the Trump-Russia dossier? One year later, what we know about its claims

Verified: Former Trump campaign adviser Carter Page met with representatives of Russian state-owned oil giant Rosneft.

Verified: The Kremlin targeted educated youth and swing state voters during its cyber attacks in the 2016 campaign.

Verified: Trump maintains ties to rich businessmen from Azerbaijan.​

All of which was well known years before. You think this qualifies as evidence? Dude, you're making yourself look stupider and stupider every minute.

LOLOL

As if it matters when it was known. But thanks for admitting they confirmed parts of the dossier and confessing you outright lied earlier when you falsely claimed they had done nothing to corroborate any part of the dossier.

They pulled shit from "who's who in the world" for that crap. It didn't need to be "verified" because it was in published reports all over the ******* world, you clown.

 

[Faun]

Once you get it by the "first judge", maybe the next three just rubber-stamp extesions? Thinking heavy verification went on at step 1?

To get an extension you need to provide evidence that new evidence was discovered under the previous warrant. That's another thing I would like to see, because for the life of me, I can't understand what they could have presented that would have convinced them that further surveillance was needed.

Shit, dude -- can you post without just making shit up off the top of your head??

No, they don't have to present new evidence to get a renewal... they only had to show the original warrant was fruitful and a renewal will continue being fruitful....

No matter what Devin Nunes's memo says, getting a FISA warrant is actually pretty hard

The big difference between a first application and a renewal is that the intent of the surveillance, whether it be tapping a phone or getting access to an email account, can’t be hypothetical anymore.

On a first application, the Department of Justice lawyer needs to demonstrate that the agency is likely to find information tied to the suspected crime through the surveillance. On a renewal, the lawyer has to show that it got information corroborating the original warrant and that further access would lead to further evidence.​