FISA memo set to end collusion investigation

[Tiggs]

8 hours ago, RavenHawk said:

Well, that boils it down doesn’t it?  If they can chain warrants together, they over reached their powers, including the leaking.  If not then they used bogus documents to gain warrants.  Either way, they abused their power.

Fairly sure they would need a seperate FISA warrant to spy on Trump.

Not convinced yet that the document was bogus, or inadequately described in court documents.

[Merc14]

30 minutes ago, and then said:

The dueling memos will run their course and the truth, if it is to be discovered, will only come within some of those 1.2 million pages of IG data.  The conundrum is going to be that, just as with the memos, the individual facts of the case can probably be spun as well.  Additionally, if there was smoking gun evidence against one of the Obama administration players, an indictment would almost certainly lead to a trial in the D.C. area.  Jury nullification guaranteed.  What it COULD accomplish, however, is the mauling of Democrat credibility with fair-minded Independents. 

One problem is the IG has no prosecutorial powers so I expect that Sessions will appoint a Special prosecutor after Horowitz drops his report which is expected in March. 

Edited February 7, 2018 by Merc14

[Lilly]

3 minutes ago, Tiggs said:

Fairly sure they would need a seperate FISA warrant to spy on Trump.

Not convinced yet that the document was bogus, or inadequately described in court documents.

If the surveillance was on the up and up the FBI would have needed a separate warrant. But, this wasn't going to be on the up and up. This was going to be politically based espionage....the kind of stuff you talk about in a hush hush manner in "Andy's office".

You can't go forth and just assume that the Steele dossier was valid either. I actually heard one person say, "But the dossier hasn't been proven to be false". It doesn't work this way...you have to have something corroborative to demonstrate that the dossier actually is very likely to be valid. And, the confirmation the FBI used was the media info that was (get ready for it) from Steele himself. No, not a good thing that happened there.

[Farmer77]

1 hour ago, Lilly said:

Doing something for political gain, you mean like placing such dangerous information in the memo to begin with?

What would you have them do not defend themselves against such accusations in the Nunes memo? You yourself said the FBI's lack of defending themselves was evidence of their culpability earlier in the thread.

This is exactly what the WH and their media intended to happen.

1 hour ago, Lilly said:

Here's what we do know, the FBI has been caught behaving like a political tool biased toward one party.

No we don't know that. We know that a man and his sycophants who are under investigation and or face the risk of losing their power want  you to think that.

1 hour ago, Lilly said:

. Mrs Clinton was given a free pass by the FBI (you or I would be in jail for what she did).

That is definitely a possibility. I think you have quite a hurdle however to show that a Trump appointed DOJ is behaving just like a Loretta Lynch DOJ did.

1 hour ago, Lilly said:

And, despite the contention that said warrant was 'only used to surveil Carter Page', that's complete BS. We're seriously supposed to believe the FBI just didn't listen to any incidental evidence scooped up on the Trump campaign?

No we're just not supposed to care. If Trump got caught saying or doing something illegal in incidental data collection of someone associated with Russia spies that is Trump's bad, no one elses. Seriously think about what you're arguing for. This is the worst aspect of the Trump presidency IMO - he's  made the republicans act like Clintonites. 

All of that said there is no evidence as of yet of overlap. So yeah I guess I do choose to believe the FBI over the men under investigation. 

 

 

 

 

 

Edited February 7, 2018 by Farmer77

[Tiggs]

43 minutes ago, joc said:

If I want to know what Tiggs is up to...wouldn't it make sense to listen in on all the conversations surrounding Tiggs?  If I hear someone saying something like, Tiggs said do this or Tiggs is going to do that (illegality) ....then I could take that info to get a warrant on Tiggs himself.  

If you wanted to know what Tiggs is up to, you're really not going to get too much info monitoring the calls of someone who used to work with me, compared to someone who still was.

The FBI sat on the Steele dossier for months. They waited until Page had left the campaign before getting a FISA warrant on him. Same with Manafort.
 

43 minutes ago, joc said:

To quote Hillary...At this point, what difference does it make?  Whoever they wanted to ultimately surveil, is a moot point if they knowingly gave false information to, or knowingly withheld pertinent information from the FISC

Not convinced yet that they did.

[Farmer77]

Think of this the next time the WH tells you how they want "transparency" 

 

Kushner, Trump Jr. May Escape Public Hearings With Help From GOP

[Lilly]

6 hours ago, Farmer77 said:

 

No we're just not supposed to care. If Trump got caught saying or doing something illegal in incidental data collection of someone associated with Russia spies that is Trump's bad, no one elses. Seriously think about what you're arguing for. This is the worst aspect of the Trump presidency IMO - he's  made the republicans act like Clintonites. 

All of that said there is no evidence as of yet of overlap. So yeah I guess I do choose to believe the FBI over the men under investigation. 

 

 

 

 

 

IMO what we really should be caring about is the abuse of the FBI's power for political reasons. And, we do indeed have evidence of this: Clinton gets herself a free pass from the FBI. Strzok and Page talk about protecting the country from Trump and an "insurance policy". A FISA warrant is granted using the DNC's bought and paid for unverified opposition research dossier. 

I don't (at this point) choose to believe the FBI regarding this particular subject. Obviously everyone is free to make up their own minds. 

[Tiggs]

5 minutes ago, Lilly said:

If the surveillance was on the up and up the FBI would have needed a separate warrant. But, this wasn't going to be on the up and up. This was going to be politically based espionage....the kind of stuff you talk about in a hush hush manner in "Andy's office".

If it wasn't going to be on the up and up -- then you really don't need to wait to get a FISA warrant to do it in the first place, do you?

You'd just do it.
 

5 minutes ago, Lilly said:

.You can't go forth and just assume that the Steele dossier was valid either. I actually heard one person say, "But the dossier hasn't been proven to be false". It doesn't work this way...you have to have something corroborative to demonstrate that the dossier actually is very likely to be valid. 

Standard of proof within the FISC is "probable cause", not "beyond reasonable doubt". Steele's credentials do a lot of heavy lifting for him.

As Nunes hasn't listed it -- we still don't even know what the probable cause was.
 

5 minutes ago, Lilly said:

 And, the confirmation the FBI used was the media info that was (get ready for it) from Steele himself. No, not a good thing that happened there.

That's what Nunes almost claims. He doesn't actually claim that the parts of the Steele Dossier used are uncorroborated. He claims that a Yahoo News article within the application doesn't corroborate it.

I suspect that the Yahoo news article wasn't meant to corroborate the dossier. I suspect it was there to show that information was leaking into the public domain, so time would be of the essence to avoid Page destroying any evidence.

[Tiggs]

1 hour ago, Merc14 said:

There are two different dossiers from the same person, Steele and one was from info directly fed to him by the Clinton team.   The Graham Grassley memo is very clear about that or are you reading it differently?

We're talking at cross purposes. The two things happening at the same time I'm referring to are the IG investigation and the information Nunes subpoenaed from the FBI and DOJ.
 

1 hour ago, Merc14 said:

No one is saying that at all, at least no one that I have seen.  The memo summarizes just a small portion of the information the IG has collected and there is much much more coming down the road..  If someone has claimed that, and I haven;'t seen anyone do so but it's possible, then they are absolutely wrong and "my side", from what I have seen, is certainly not stupid enough to believe that.  Would lovge to see who you are referring to.  

In my universe, Gowdy and Schiff were the only members of the committee allowed to see the documents Nunes subpoenaed at the DOJ and FBI.

In my universe, people are currently calling for the IG to start investigating the Carter Page FISA application.

Your universe apparently varies.
 

1 hour ago, Merc14 said:

From what I am reading, the FISA surveillance on Page was an Article 1 (has to be an Article 7 of an Article 1 and the memo said it was NOT a 7) then he must've been considered a foreign agent and therefore heavily surveilled and all those unmasking requests must've been for someone right?  Who was Samantha Powers and Susan Rice unmasking and why?  How many FISA unmasking requests ahave ever been requested by a US ambassador to the UN? Just a few and the total requests are in the double digits but Samantha asked for 260! 

Haven't seen any reports claiming that the unmasking requests from Powers were for members of the Trump campaign. No-one's mentioned Carter Page, either.

Gowdy's happy that Susan Rice did everything by the book, last time I looked.

[.ZZ.]

Christopher Steele is no-show in London court in civil case over dossier

Quote

On both sides of the Atlantic Ocean, former British MI-6 Intelligence Officer Christopher Steele is going to extremes to avoiding answering questions from the United States Congress, while at the same time avoiding being videotaped and deposed in a multi-million dollar libel case brought against Buzzfeed.

Source: Fox News

[Merc14]

When Nixon's guys robbed the Watergate hotel they weren't looking for signs of criminal activity they were looking for campaign intel?   Much of this FISA surveillance and unmasking of trump's team was to gather intel on his campaign and set up an insurance policy with the Steele dossier but when he won it transitioned into finding anything they could impeach over, or at least bring the articles of impeachment.

[Merc14]

2 minutes ago, Tiggs said:

We're talking at cross purposes. The two things happening at the same time I'm referring to are the IG investigation and the information Nunes subpoenaed from the FBI and DOJ.
 

Umm, so?   What's your point?

Quote

In my universe, Gowdy and Schiff were the only members of the committee allowed to see the documents Nunes subpoenaed at the DOJ and FBI.

Yes, I said that one each saw the IG's info, so what, this is common knmowledge and cannot understand why yoi are bringing it up again? 

Quote

In my universe, people are currently calling for the IG to start investigating the Carter Page FISA application.

Your universe apparently varies

and....?  I don't care if McCaul is asking for that and we were not discussing where Hoprowitz's investigation is going anyways o why bring this up in this context? 
.

Quote

Haven't seen any reports claiming that the unmasking requests from Powers were for members of the Trump campaign. No-one's mentioned Carter Page, either.

Of course you haven't and neither have I, I am guessing which is why I phrased it like that

 

Quote

Gowdy's happy that Susan Rice did everything by the book, last time I looked.

The question is why was she asking for unmasking in the first place and why so many people, including dozens of Trump associates.   Every former National Security Advisors that I have heard interviewed said her activities were very unusual and most of them have never asked for one much less "a vast number".  

[Tiggs]

19 minutes ago, Merc14 said:

When Nixon's guys robbed the Watergate hotel they weren't looking for signs of criminal activity they were looking for campaign intel?   Much of this FISA surveillance and unmasking of trump's team was to gather intel on his campaign and set up an insurance policy with the Steele dossier but when he won it transitioned into finding anything they could impeach over, or at least bring the articles of impeachment.

You've yet to provide any actual evidence that:

a: Any member of the Trump team was improperly unmasked.
b. Any member of the Trump team was surveilled under a FISA warrant.
c. The Steele Dossier insurance plan conspiracy has any basis in reality.

[+DieChecker]

2 hours ago, Tiggs said:

Fairly sure they would need a seperate FISA warrant to spy on Trump.

Not convinced yet that the document was bogus, or inadequately described in court documents.

Seems to me that at the beginning of this everyone was saying, "FISA can't be used to spy on Americans. Only on those the suspect American might be contacting." And now that turns out not to be true. I was just reading that legislation was put forward to openly allow this now. It saddens me.

So, if they are spying on Page, then if Page emails/calls Trump... What do they do? Just not listen to the Trump side of things. Do they record it all? Do they only spy on calls overseas? I'd like to see what the limitations on this were, before deciding that they did not spy on Trump indirectly.

I do get your point that Page wasn't working for Trump at the time of the Warrant though. I expect if people on Trump's campaign were talking to Page about Trump stuff, even after he left, then it is basically on them for doing so.

Edited February 7, 2018 by DieChecker

[+DieChecker]

6 hours ago, Farmer77 said:

Sure he did and then he got what 5 deferrals to avoid Vietnam? Yet another example of the cognitive dissonance required for the GOP to support the man 

Never had to work a day in his life, got 5 draft deferrals , started life running daddys hundred million dollar company. He may indeed understand service and sacrifice but nothing in his life story gives us reason to think so. 

Maybe you don't understand the underpinnings of the GOP philosophy. Myself, I would love to be rich enough to have my kids stay out of a war draft. Aiming at being rich enough (through hard work usually) to do what you always wanted and being able to avoid the minor harshnesses of life is what drives many a Republican. I think most GOP, if they are honest with themselves, would say much the same.

Edited February 7, 2018 by DieChecker

[+DieChecker]

5 hours ago, Farmer77 said:

And its clearly working like a charm; not only do you believe the rumors , you're willing and eager to burn intelligence assets and expose our intelligence apparatus for political gain. 

 

So, the Nunes memo was released, right? Which assets and what apparatus was exposed? 

Did not those who released it do what should have been done before releasing it? How is this even an argument?

 

 

Edited February 7, 2018 by DieChecker

[ian hacktorp]

Two of the more intriguing tidbits being talked about recently are:

1.  Did Bill Clinton, during the infamous "Tarmac Meeting", offer Loretta Lynch Antonin Scalia's Supreme Court seat in exchange for her protection of Hillary from prosecution over the email scandal?  This has implications not just of obstruction of justice, but of the mysterious circumstances surrounding Scalia's death as well.

2.  The exploding furor over the entire 2016 election and the activities of the Obama admin/Cinton/FBI/DOJ could lead to the largest class-action lawsuit in the history of the Republic as Americans seek justice for these criminals' attempts at election-fixing.

[Gromdor]

4 minutes ago, hacktorp said:

Two of the more intriguing tidbits being talked about recently are:

1.  Did Bill Clinton, during the infamous "Tarmac Meeting", offer Loretta Lynch Antonin Scalia's Supreme Court seat in exchange for her protection of Hillary from prosecution over the email scandal?  This has implications not just of obstruction of justice, but of the mysterious circumstances surrounding Scalia's death as well.

2.  The exploding furor over the entire 2016 election and the activities of the Obama admin/Cinton/FBI/DOJ could lead to the largest class-action lawsuit in the history of the Republic as Americans seek justice for these criminals' attempts at election-fixing.

Hah, I wish the people could sue the government for money! 

[Farmer77]

4 minutes ago, DieChecker said:

Maybe you don't understand the underpinnings of the GOP philosophy. Myself, I would love to be rich enough to have my kids stay out of a war draft. Aiming at being rich enough (through hard work usually) to do what you always wanted and being able to avoid the minor harshnesses of life is what drives many a Republican. I think most GOP, if they are honest with themselves, would say much the same.

So you're saying the underpinning of the GOP philosophy is to start wars but send the poor to fight them? Yikes the party definitely has changed, I mean I know that was the result but damn to come out and say it . Hell even RINO McCain went and fought when he clearly didn't have to. 

I was raised in the GOP, even worked for the GOP On both of W's campaigns. While my views have shifted away from any party I had the most faith in the GOP up until Trump.

Its weird but honestly seeing the moral majority supporting a prodigious liar and friend of a pedophile , as well as seeing the party of patriots support a draft dodger, as well as watching the party who fought years for tort reform support the most litigious man in America truly makes me sad. 

 

[Lilly]

You know what...how about just this: If strong irrefutable 'slam dunk' evidence ever does come forth that Trump committed criminal collusion with Russia in order to subvert and steal the 2016 election I will gladly join the lynch mob and call for Trump's immediate resignation and full prosecution. 

However, if Mueller comes up with only incidental crimes (no criminal Russian collusion to subvert and steal the 2016 election) then will everyone just up and admit the whole Russia thing was contrived? Or, will this just keep going on and on? 

I think I know the answer, but what the heck I still wanted to ask. 

[Lilly]

1 hour ago, .ZZ. said:

Christopher Steele is no-show in London court in civil case over dossier

Source: Fox News

Ha...there goes the notion that Mr Steele is above reproach in all this. 

[Tiggs]

29 minutes ago, Merc14 said:

Umm, so?   What's your point?

Yes, I said that one each saw the IG's info, so what, this is common knmowledge and cannot understand why yoi are bringing it up again? 

and....?  I don't care if McCaul is asking for that and we were not discussing where Hoprowitz's investigation is going anyways o why bring this up in this context? 

Because your "common knowledge" is different from mine.

The House Intelligence Committee subpoenaed the FBI and Department of Justice for documents about a controversial dossier that linked President Trump to Russia.

The committee issued the two identical subpoenas on Aug. 24, requesting that both agencies hand over documents containing information about the dossier, the FBI’s relationship to its author and whether the FBI had supported an opposition research project against Trump in the last months of the 2016 presidential campaign, the Washington Examiner reported Tuesday.

Source: The Hill

The documents were subpoenaed from the DOJ and the FBI. The IG Investigation is an entirely separate thing.
 

29 minutes ago, Merc14 said:

The question is why was she asking for unmasking in the first place and why so many people, including dozens of Trump associates.   Every former National Security Advisors that I have heard interviewed said her activities were very unusual and most of them have never asked for one much less "a vast number".  

I'm only aware of Rice unmasking three Trump associates  -- Flynn, Bannon & Kushner -- during a single unmasking request, in order to ascertain who United Arab Emirates crown prince Sheikh Mohammed bin Zayed al-Nahyan met in New York, after flying in without announcing his visit (which is the normal protocol).

Sounds pretty reasonable to me.

[Farmer77]

4 minutes ago, Lilly said:

You know what...how about just this: If strong irrefutable 'slam dunk' evidence ever does come forth that Trump committed criminal collusion with Russia in order to subvert and steal the 2016 election I will gladly join the lynch mob and call for Trump's immediate resignation and full prosecution. 

However, if Mueller comes up with only incidental crimes (no criminal Russian collusion to subvert and steal the 2016 election) then will everyone just up and admit the whole Russia thing was contrived? Or, will this just keep going on and on? 

I think I know the answer, but what the heck I still wanted to ask. 

I can only speak for myself but if Mueller is allowed to complete his investigation , without interference, then I will be satisfied that the issue is resolved. 

I wont admit it was contrived as I do believe the evidence we have seen warrants investigation, but I will believe the outcome of the investigation. 

[Lilly]

Just now, Farmer77 said:

 

I wont admit it was contrived as I do believe the evidence we have seen warrants investigation, but I will believe the outcome of the investigation. 

If there's no evidence of criminal Russian collusion then the screaming fiasco we've been seeing kind of has to be contrived...what else could it be? 

[Tiggs]

25 minutes ago, DieChecker said:

Seems to me that at the beginning of this everyone was saying, "FISA can't be used to spy on Americans. Only on those the suspect American might be contacting." And now that turns out not to be true. I was just reading that legislation was put forward to openly allow this now. It saddens me.

Different part of the FISA legislation, ran by the NSA.
 

25 minutes ago, DieChecker said:

So, if they are spying on Page, then if Page emails/calls Trump... What do they do? Just not listen to the Trump side of things. Do they record it all? Do they only spy on calls overseas? I'd like to see what the limitations on this were, before deciding that they did not spy on Trump indirectly.

I do get your point that Page wasn't working for Trump at the time of the Warrant though. I expect if people on Trump's campaign were talking to Page about Trump stuff, even after he left, then it is basically on them for doing so.

A wiretap will pick up everything indiscriminately. Any US citizens involved will then be masked (name redacted from any reports about the call).