Intelligence Committee To Petition FISA Court

[del]

How soon before they subpoena Obama and Hillary.

hold your breath

 

[Siete]

How soon before they subpoena Obama and Hillary.

hold your breath

that among other things

 

[DJT for Life]

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

What point are you trying to make?

The Dossier was used in the 3 other applications and the FISA Court
wasn't told it was paid and financed by the DNC and Clinton Campaign.

They hid that from the court. That makes the 3 extensions illegal and very
possibly an abuse of the 4th amendment rights of anybody monitored.

Thus, you can kiss that special counsel goodbye, once SCOTUS has
this presented to them. They'll have no choice, because the FBI/SC
will never be able to distinguish one from the other.

 

[iceberg]

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.

Yes?

BTW FISA said illegal long ago.

 

[Faun]

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

We heard of those calamities occurring before the nutty right released the Nunes memo. Then all those hopes and dreams of the right vanished when they actually released it. What makes you think the nutty right will fare any better in round 3? And what makes you think the nutty right can ever connect that oh so elusive dot of how spying on Page, someone not working for the Trump campaign and someone who had never even spoken with Trump, to the Trumpistan campaign was spied on?

 

[Faun]

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.

Oh? Prove it was obtained under a false pretense...?

While you’re at it, demonstrate what the government hoped to gain from Trump by wiretapping someone who was not working for the Trump campaign and who had never met Trump?

 

[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.

Oh? Prove it was obtained under a false pretense...?

While you’re at it, demonstrate what the government hoped to gain from Trump by wiretapping someone who was not working for the Trump campaign and who had never met Trump?

It's a coming, it's a coming. Right now it looks like they withheld very important information from the court to falsely get that warrant. You see, to investigate a crime, you need evidence that such a crime possibly could have been committed. Opposition research isn't enough for that, especially when it is paid for by the opponent of the people you are spying on to prove the crime.

 

[Faun]

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

What point are you trying to make?

The Dossier was used in the 3 other applications and the FISA Court
wasn't told it was paid and financed by the DNC and Clinton Campaign.

They hid that from the court. That makes the 3 extensions illegal and very
possibly an abuse of the 4th amendment rights of anybody monitored.

Thus, you can kiss that special counsel goodbye, once SCOTUS has
this presented to them. They'll have no choice, because the FBI/SC
will never be able to distinguish one from the other.

That was not hidden from the court, Nunes duped you...

Republicans concede key FBI 'footnote' in Carter Page warrant

Devin Nunes said Monday the FBI had disclosed political backing for a Trump-Russia dossier in October 2016, but a controversial GOP memo released last week did not mention it.

Republican leaders are acknowledging that the FBI disclosed the political origins of a private dossier the bureau cited in an application to surveil former Trump campaign adviser Carter Page, undermining a controversial GOP memo released Friday and fueling Democratic demands to declassify more information about the bureau’s actions.​

 

[Faun]

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.

Oh? Prove it was obtained under a false pretense...?

While you’re at it, demonstrate what the government hoped to gain from Trump by wiretapping someone who was not working for the Trump campaign and who had never met Trump?

It's a coming, it's a coming.

That’s what you Keystone cops said during the anticipation of the Nunes memo.... but then Nunes delivered it and it was like watching Geraldo Rivera opening Al Capone’s vault only to find Clara Pellar inside.

Now you’re left hiding the bag because despite all the claims from the nutty right of how explosive the Nunes memo is, you still can’t even answer my two basic questions.

How can you rightards have so little shame that none of you are embarrassed by being played like this by Republicans?

Right now it looks like they withheld very important information from the court to falsely get that warrant. You see, to investigate a crime, you need evidence that such a crime possibly could have been committed. Opposition research isn't enough for that, especially when it is paid for by the opponent of the people you are spying on to prove the crime.

Oh? What information was withheld? Am I going to have to wait for another Nunes memo to get that answered too?

 

[DJT for Life]

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

What point are you trying to make?

The Dossier was used in the 3 other applications and the FISA Court
wasn't told it was paid and financed by the DNC and Clinton Campaign.

They hid that from the court. That makes the 3 extensions illegal and very
possibly an abuse of the 4th amendment rights of anybody monitored.

Thus, you can kiss that special counsel goodbye, once SCOTUS has
this presented to them. They'll have no choice, because the FBI/SC
will never be able to distinguish one from the other.

That was not hidden from the court, Nunes duped you...

Republicans concede key FBI 'footnote' in Carter Page warrant

Devin Nunes said Monday the FBI had disclosed political backing for a Trump-Russia dossier in October 2016, but a controversial GOP memo released last week did not mention it.

Republican leaders are acknowledging that the FBI disclosed the political origins of a private dossier the bureau cited in an application to surveil former Trump campaign adviser Carter Page, undermining a controversial GOP memo released Friday and fueling Democratic demands to declassify more information about the bureau’s actions.​

Devin duped me? Well, when he stops by tonight I will inform him of
that.

btw...Nobody disclosed that the memo was bought and paid for by the
DNC and the Clinton Campaign. That's a pretty big omission.

 

[Faun]

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

What point are you trying to make?

The Dossier was used in the 3 other applications and the FISA Court
wasn't told it was paid and financed by the DNC and Clinton Campaign.

They hid that from the court. That makes the 3 extensions illegal and very
possibly an abuse of the 4th amendment rights of anybody monitored.

Thus, you can kiss that special counsel goodbye, once SCOTUS has
this presented to them. They'll have no choice, because the FBI/SC
will never be able to distinguish one from the other.

That was not hidden from the court, Nunes duped you...

Republicans concede key FBI 'footnote' in Carter Page warrant

Devin Nunes said Monday the FBI had disclosed political backing for a Trump-Russia dossier in October 2016, but a controversial GOP memo released last week did not mention it.

Republican leaders are acknowledging that the FBI disclosed the political origins of a private dossier the bureau cited in an application to surveil former Trump campaign adviser Carter Page, undermining a controversial GOP memo released Friday and fueling Democratic demands to declassify more information about the bureau’s actions.​

Devin duped me? Well, when he stops by tonight I will inform him of
that.

btw...Nobody disclosed that the memo was bought and paid for by the
DNC and the Clinton Campaign. That's a pretty big omission.

Oh? What part of the following is too difficult for you to comprehend...?

Republicans concede key FBI 'footnote' in Carter Page warrant

Devin Nunes said Monday the FBI had disclosed political backing for a Trump-Russia dossier in October 2016, but a controversial GOP memo released last week did not mention it.

Republican leaders are acknowledging that the FBI disclosed the political origins of a private dossier the bureau cited in an application to surveil former Trump campaign adviser Carter Page, undermining a controversial GOP memo released Friday and fueling Democratic demands to declassify more information about the bureau’s actions.​

 

[Doc1]

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.

Anything worthwhile will be redacted.

 

[Darkwind]

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.

Here is the thing about that. Right now, the claim is that the information was not omitted. The statement is that the information was annotated in a footnote. This means that the Steele information was deliberately understated and buried in a document that is hundreds of pages in length. That leaves a few questions that need to be answered, such as:

1. Did the FISA judge apply due diligence to the warrant and go through the document thoroughly?
2. How was the information annotated? This would speak directly to the intent of McCabe.
3. Would the information, if properly brought to the FISA courts attention, have been an immediate disqualifier for the warrant?

I don't think that Rule 13 would actually apply if the information was included. Which is why it becomes imperative that this document be released to a trusted neutral party for review; or released to the public. Clearly, the FISA court has been used as a political tool. Now we need to determine to what extent, who is culpable, and what to do about it to prevent it from happening in the future.

 

[usmbguest5318]

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

What point are you trying to make?

The Dossier was used in the 3 other applications and the FISA Court
wasn't told it was paid and financed by the DNC and Clinton Campaign.

They hid that from the court. That makes the 3 extensions illegal and very
possibly an abuse of the 4th amendment rights of anybody monitored.

Thus, you can kiss that special counsel goodbye, once SCOTUS has
this presented to them. They'll have no choice, because the FBI/SC
will never be able to distinguish one from the other.

What point are you trying to make?

I didn't commence my participation in this thread to make any point. I asked a question.

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

 

[usmbguest5318]

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

What point are you trying to make?

The Dossier was used in the 3 other applications and the FISA Court
wasn't told it was paid and financed by the DNC and Clinton Campaign.

They hid that from the court. That makes the 3 extensions illegal and very
possibly an abuse of the 4th amendment rights of anybody monitored.

Thus, you can kiss that special counsel goodbye, once SCOTUS has
this presented to them. They'll have no choice, because the FBI/SC
will never be able to distinguish one from the other.

That was not hidden from the court, Nunes duped you...

Republicans concede key FBI 'footnote' in Carter Page warrant

Devin Nunes said Monday the FBI had disclosed political backing for a Trump-Russia dossier in October 2016, but a controversial GOP memo released last week did not mention it.

Republican leaders are acknowledging that the FBI disclosed the political origins of a private dossier the bureau cited in an application to surveil former Trump campaign adviser Carter Page, undermining a controversial GOP memo released Friday and fueling Democratic demands to declassify more information about the bureau’s actions.​

Devin duped me? Well, when he stops by tonight I will inform him of
that.

btw...Nobody disclosed that the memo was bought and paid for by the
DNC and the Clinton Campaign. That's a pretty big omission.

Oh? What part of the following is too difficult for you to comprehend...?

Republicans concede key FBI 'footnote' in Carter Page warrant

Devin Nunes said Monday the FBI had disclosed political backing for a Trump-Russia dossier in October 2016, but a controversial GOP memo released last week did not mention it.

Republican leaders are acknowledging that the FBI disclosed the political origins of a private dossier the bureau cited in an application to surveil former Trump campaign adviser Carter Page, undermining a controversial GOP memo released Friday and fueling Democratic demands to declassify more information about the bureau’s actions.​

fueling Democratic demands to declassify more information about the bureau’s actions.

IMO, at this point, Dems should just let their memo fade into the background and be done. The Nunes memo has been discredited in every material way:

• The FBI didn't break any laws or ethical mores in seeking the FISA warrant.
• The FBI didn't make any material omissions of fact.
• The memo, per multiple GOP leaders, has no impact on Mueller's "Russia" investigation.
• At this point, the only thing that memo is good for is starting a fire in one's fireplace.

Better to take the win as it is than to issue one's own document, thereby opening oneself up for criticism one doesn't need to suffer.

 

[The Original Tree]

If the accusation is true that it was hidden in a footnote and only was written in very generalized ambiguous language, that is worse than Omitting it Entirely, because it shows EVASION by THE FBI in addressing what can only be considered THE MOST CRUCIAL FACTS about THE RUSSIAN PROPAGANDA DOSSIER.

THE FACT CLINTON AND OBAMA PAID FOR IT... Paid for a Political Hit on Trump by using Russian Propaganda, should be FRONT AND CENTER, not buried in FINE PRINT in a FOOTNOTE, in a DOCUMENT 100s of pages LONG.

The INTENT THEN was to BURY IT, OBSCURE IT, and some how give THE FBI some kind of WEAK DEFENSE.....that they actually disclosed it, when, placing it in a footnote, saying it "might be of a political nature," when they KNEW BOTH THE NATURE, THE SOURCE OF FUNDING, AND THAT IT WAS PAID FOR BY CLINTON'S CAMPAIGN, Was generated by The KGB, and sold to Steele who paid The Kremlin a lot of money for it, DNC MONEY, and they STILL HID THAT FACT....TOTALLY BLOWS THIS OUT OF THE WATER.

 

[DJT for Life]

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

What point are you trying to make?

The Dossier was used in the 3 other applications and the FISA Court
wasn't told it was paid and financed by the DNC and Clinton Campaign.

They hid that from the court. That makes the 3 extensions illegal and very
possibly an abuse of the 4th amendment rights of anybody monitored.

Thus, you can kiss that special counsel goodbye, once SCOTUS has
this presented to them. They'll have no choice, because the FBI/SC
will never be able to distinguish one from the other.

That was not hidden from the court, Nunes duped you...

Republicans concede key FBI 'footnote' in Carter Page warrant

Devin Nunes said Monday the FBI had disclosed political backing for a Trump-Russia dossier in October 2016, but a controversial GOP memo released last week did not mention it.

Republican leaders are acknowledging that the FBI disclosed the political origins of a private dossier the bureau cited in an application to surveil former Trump campaign adviser Carter Page, undermining a controversial GOP memo released Friday and fueling Democratic demands to declassify more information about the bureau’s actions.​

Devin duped me? Well, when he stops by tonight I will inform him of
that.

btw...Nobody disclosed that the memo was bought and paid for by the
DNC and the Clinton Campaign. That's a pretty big omission.

Oh? What part of the following is too difficult for you to comprehend...?

Republicans concede key FBI 'footnote' in Carter Page warrant

Devin Nunes said Monday the FBI had disclosed political backing for a Trump-Russia dossier in October 2016, but a controversial GOP memo released last week did not mention it.

Republican leaders are acknowledging that the FBI disclosed the political origins of a private dossier the bureau cited in an application to surveil former Trump campaign adviser Carter Page, undermining a controversial GOP memo released Friday and fueling Democratic demands to declassify more information about the bureau’s actions.​

They did not inform the FISA Court that the dossier was financed and
paid for by the DNC/Clinton Campaign.

There are no gray areas in applications. They are all black and white.
No Court is going to "assume" or "read between the lines."

If a lawyer wants something to be read between the lines, he damn well
better have some words between the lines.

The FBI and DOJ both believed they needed the extra weight of the Dossier
to continue to get extensions. The FBI and DOJ both believed that if they
told the court it was a political hit piece paid for by the DNC/Clinton Campaign, the court would not issue the extensions.

So they created the omission, which now that it has been discovered is
going to taint and probably destroy their entire case.

 

[hazlnut]

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.

Both Senate and House intelligence committee members have high level clearance, access to investigation documents, and get briefed on ongoing investigations regularly.

How do you think Adam Schiff knew that Nunes hadn't even read the investigation material he was criticizing in his memo?

Nunes is a fool, a corrupt fool who will likely go to jail, and be bitter when Trump gets pardoned by Pence.


Here's what they don't tell you on Fox or whatever source you call "news"….

It is incredibly difficult to get a FISA warrant. Investigators will spend an entire month on paperwork and vetting by multiple departments.

"Woods Procedures" a rigorous vetting and review by the DOJ -- where every fact in the application is vetted by a team of lawyers.

Only parts of the Steel Memo verified by our own agencies -- multiple agencies -- could have been presented-- likely as a corroborating source, clarifying something in the recording transcripts. Meaning Carter Page said something and a verified part of the Steele memo further confirms the reference.

Also, to get an EXTENSION of a FISA warrant (they're only good for 90 days) you MUST show that original warrant "in fact yielded foreign intelligence substantiating the original probable cause alleging that the target is engaging in clandestine intelligence activity on behalf of a foreign power." If the FBI cannot show this evidence, the surveillance is terminated.

In other words, the warrant could not have even been considered for renewal without transcripts of recordings of Carter Page somehow engaged in activities with a foreign power.

But they don't tell you that on Fox…. do they?

 

[hazlnut]

Do any of you KNOW any FBI Agents?

I do. A few. And a federal prosecutor.

They are incredible tight asses and sticklers for the rules down to the smallest detail. You have to imagine an incredibly smart boy scout who is super diligent and detail oriented, he considers rigorous honesty in all matters to be the most important thing in life. Fudging details the way a city cop might, is not in their nature.

The saying about FEEBs… "they do great paper." They are incredibly gifted at following the most elusive paper trails….

That's what scares the shit outta Trump.

They are almost all Republicans.

They own guns and support universal background checks.

They are honorable and good people.

Mr. Nunes, have you no sense of Decency?

 

[Faun]

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

What point are you trying to make?

The Dossier was used in the 3 other applications and the FISA Court
wasn't told it was paid and financed by the DNC and Clinton Campaign.

They hid that from the court. That makes the 3 extensions illegal and very
possibly an abuse of the 4th amendment rights of anybody monitored.

Thus, you can kiss that special counsel goodbye, once SCOTUS has
this presented to them. They'll have no choice, because the FBI/SC
will never be able to distinguish one from the other.

That was not hidden from the court, Nunes duped you...

Republicans concede key FBI 'footnote' in Carter Page warrant

Devin Nunes said Monday the FBI had disclosed political backing for a Trump-Russia dossier in October 2016, but a controversial GOP memo released last week did not mention it.

Republican leaders are acknowledging that the FBI disclosed the political origins of a private dossier the bureau cited in an application to surveil former Trump campaign adviser Carter Page, undermining a controversial GOP memo released Friday and fueling Democratic demands to declassify more information about the bureau’s actions.​

Devin duped me? Well, when he stops by tonight I will inform him of
that.

btw...Nobody disclosed that the memo was bought and paid for by the
DNC and the Clinton Campaign. That's a pretty big omission.

Oh? What part of the following is too difficult for you to comprehend...?

Republicans concede key FBI 'footnote' in Carter Page warrant

Devin Nunes said Monday the FBI had disclosed political backing for a Trump-Russia dossier in October 2016, but a controversial GOP memo released last week did not mention it.

Republican leaders are acknowledging that the FBI disclosed the political origins of a private dossier the bureau cited in an application to surveil former Trump campaign adviser Carter Page, undermining a controversial GOP memo released Friday and fueling Democratic demands to declassify more information about the bureau’s actions.​

They did not inform the FISA Court that the dossier was financed and
paid for by the DNC/Clinton Campaign.

There are no gray areas in applications. They are all black and white.
No Court is going to "assume" or "read between the lines."

If a lawyer wants something to be read between the lines, he damn well
better have some words between the lines.

The FBI and DOJ both believed they needed the extra weight of the Dossier
to continue to get extensions. The FBI and DOJ both believed that if they
told the court it was a political hit piece paid for by the DNC/Clinton Campaign, the court would not issue the extensions.

So they created the omission, which now that it has been discovered is
going to taint and probably destroy their entire case.

<smh>

I just fucking showed you they disclosed the political origins of the dossier. That you still can’t understand that is on you.