FISA memo set to end collusion investigation

[ExpandMyMind]

15 minutes ago, Lilly said:

I seriously doubt you "know what I want".

But, one thing is for sure, this will all play out eventually. 

I certainly do when you have outright posted what you want. 

[Saru]

Keep it civil please.

[Lilly]

18 minutes ago, ExpandMyMind said:

Yes, well, the problem with that is that conspiracy theories used to be relegated to the actual conspiracy section. Now the entire Republican philosophy is almost entirely based on conspiracy theories, so now people are forced to debate and debunk the most ridiculous claims in the actual politics forum.

Tell me, who do you believe killed Seth Rich? 

I'm not a Republican and I have no idea who may have killed Mr Rich. 

 

[Lilly]

18 minutes ago, ExpandMyMind said:

I certainly do when you have outright posted what you want. 

Not exactly, you're aware of only one thing I'd like to see take place. 

[Tiggs]

52 minutes ago, Merc14 said:

a .  Right from the horse's mouth  https://www.cnn.com/2017/09/13/politics/susan-rice-house-investigators-unmasked-trump-officials/index.html

BTW, this is common knowledge now so am astounded that you are still asking for evidence.  Truly ridiculous.

My original post was this:

2 hours ago, Tiggs said:

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.

Bolding mine.
 

52 minutes ago, Merc14 said:

b.  Carter Page was a member of the Trump team

Not at the time of his surveillance. Nor Manafort, either.
 

52 minutes ago, Merc14 said:

c.  This is suspected and there are three committees trying to prove it.   Once again, when participating in these forum discussions we all assume that after 100+ pages, many of which you have posted on, you are asking for evidence of something that is common knowledge.  Most everyone else on this thread knows that the committees are examining this issue.  Your refusal to even consider it as a possibility is a you thing and your reasons for refusing that it is a possibility is puzzling but the fact that it is not proved, yet, does not eliminate the possibility that it is true.  Of course, if you choose to close your eyes, put your fingers in your ears and la la la la to yourself endlessly it is no sweat off my brow. 

Not sure I can remember back to a time when there wasn't several Republican-led committees investigating a Clinton.

[Paranormal Panther]

5 hours ago, ExpandMyMind said:

So what exactly is it about this case that makes you think you have a right to say "put up or shut up"? Why do you think that you have a right to put a timeframe on a criminal investigation? I mean, you're obviously the expert on the subject, so surely there must be some justification for your perceived entitlement.

Let's just investigate him until the Second Coming. There must be something there because "muh Russians". Maybe some Russian stripper can contact Crazy Nancy or Mad Maxine with some juicy gossip about Czar Donald. Your emperor (investigation) has no clothes, as most of us get that it's just a partisan witch hunt that may stop when the full scope of the witch-hunters' corruption comes to light (as well it should).

[Merc14]

3 hours ago, Tiggs said:

My original post was this:

Bolding mine.
 

Not at the time of his surveillance. Nor Manafort, either.
 

Not sure I can remember back to a time when there wasn't several Republican-led committees investigating a Clinton.

And I highlighted this one:

Quote

b. Any member of the Trump team was surveilled under a FISA warrant.

Were they unmasked through a FISA surveillance or not?  Maybe you understand what I was saying before or maybe not, if you aren't going to even read my responses then why bother at all? 

Edited February 8, 2018 by Merc14

[Tiggs]

9 hours ago, Merc14 said:

Once again, so what?   The info the IG has turned over now melds with teh info that the HPSCI received from the FBI and DoJ?

Now you're getting it.

You don't just have the Nunes' memo. You have the Nunes' memo AND the stuff from the IG investigation which hasn't even been revealed yet.

I've been trying to help your side of the argument. Given how difficult it's been to get here, I won't bother, next time.
 

9 hours ago, Merc14 said:

You asked for " Any member of the Trump team was surveilled under a FISA warrant. " and I gave you some, or are you saying she unmasked people that weren't surveilled through a FISA surveillance?   How does that work? 

Do we really need to go through the difference between a Title 1 warrant and the Title 7 warrantless collection program?
 

9 hours ago, Merc14 said:

There are many more according to reports.

If there were -- why didn't Congress question her about them? Each unmasking request involves a large wedge of paperwork, and associated interagency paper trail. It's not something she'd be able to hide from them.
 

[Merc14]

17 minutes ago, Tiggs said:

Now you're getting it.

You don't just have the Nunes' memo. You have the Nunes' memo AND the stuff from the IG investigation which hasn't even been revealed yet.

Umm, common knowledge.  I find it ridiculous that you keep cycling back to the beginning to do what?  My suspicion is to change to conversation since every day you lose more of your argument. Just a guess.

Quote

I've been trying to help your side of the argument. Given how difficult it's been to get here, I won't bother, next time.

THANK YOU! It is getting very boring posting now year old links to prove once again what we all know already so so you can do whatever you are doing.  At least Astra thinks you are doing a great job, and that other one, acid something, who has exited.

Quote

Do we really need to go through the difference between a Title 1 warrant and the Title 7 warrantless collection program?

Absoluteyl!  What are you arguing about?  I have no idea?

Quote

If there were -- why didn't Congress question her about them? Each unmasking request involves a large wedge of paperwork, and associated interagency paper trail. It's not something she'd be able to hide from them.

Well, we don't know what was said or testified to and congress cant prosecute can they?  Time for the SP.  I only look at all the evidence and connect the dots and you look at each piece as a standalone and post here challenging each piece alone.  Fine, time is on my side and not your's, that is your problem because everyday it looks far worse and every one of your arguments gets worse off (that is why you have stopped addressing them directly). 

Enjoy because this is real and the players stupid guys on the right finally realize that the democrats are playing delay until the elections in hopes they can win something and shut this whole thing down and are reacting like ...well ...democrats.. .  Cut Throat.  9 months to dish the dirt on what went down and then your side buries it...they hope.  I don't think you take either house. 

 

 

[RavenHawk]

10 hours ago, Tiggs said:

You don't just have the Nunes' memo. You have the Nunes' memo AND the stuff from the IG investigation which hasn't even been revealed yet.

The Nunes memo is derived from the IG report, therefore you don’t have ‘AND’.  The Nunes memo is but a canonical snapshot of the IG report.
 

Quote

I've been trying to help your side of the argument. Given how difficult it's been to get here, I won't bother, next time.

CoughBullCough****CoughCough.

 

Quote

Do we really need to go through the difference between a Title 1 warrant and the Title 7 warrantless collection program?

This is just a red herring.  One of the functions of the transition team is to build relationships with foreign contacts.  Some of the kinds you want on your transition team are those that already have contacts.  That opens up anyone for both.  All it’d take would be some other entity or person to present bogus and nefarious info to pull the trigger.

 

Quote

If there were -- why didn't Congress question her about them? Each unmasking request involves a large wedge of paperwork, and associated interagency paper trail. It's not something she'd be able to hide from them.

Probably because Congress couldn’t comprehend that a President could have established such an apparatus of abuse of power in such a short time.  And what better way to hide in plain sight as under tons of paperwork.

[bee]

1 hour ago, RavenHawk said:

The Nunes memo is derived from the IG report, therefore you don’t have ‘AND’.  The Nunes memo is but a canonical snapshot of the IG report.

 

https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/white-house/house-intelligence-committee-releases-russia-memo-over-fbi-objections-n844026

quote...

The three-and-a-half-page memo was prepared by the intelligence committee's chairman, Rep. Devin Nunes, R-Calif., and is a critique of the FBI's application for surveillance authority that was presented to the Federal Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) Court.

and the court document source I believe is this....

https://www.scribd.com/document/349542716/Top-Secret-FISA-Court-Order-President-Obama-Spying-on-Political-Enemies?irgwc=1&content=10079&campaign=Skimbit%2C Ltd.&ad_group=725X700959Xd3615c9cb5f6614efbf233321248e4ee&keyword=ft750noi&source=impactradius&medium=affiliate

used in this article

https://theconservativetreehouse.com/2018/01/14/understanding-fisa-7021617-and-how-it-was-used-in-2016/

and first brought into the public arena by William Binney .. via Infowars....

 

It looks like there does seem to be a lot of muddying of the waters regarding the source of the Nunes Memo......
I haven't actually read the 99 pages myself -  

 

[bee]

4 hours ago, Tiggs said:

I've been trying to help your side of the argument.

put that bucket of mud down right now..... 
 

[Astra.]

7 hours ago, Merc14 said:

THANK YOU! It is getting very boring posting now year old links to prove once again what we all know already so so you can do whatever you are doing.  At least Astra thinks you are doing a great job....

 Merc, you don't know exactly what I think. I do hope tho, that you're feeling in a better mood later.  

[Lilly]

Oh boy, this gets even deeper. Gowdy himself has stated that the Clinton's long time associate Sidney Blumenthal was also behind the Steele dossier. So, Clinton not only commissioned bought and paid for the dossier but her cohort Sidney Blumenthal actually helped to create the dossier! So, how will some choose to deal with this revelation...well the mainstream news probably won't run the Blumenthal story. I suspect that you won't hear all that much about it . Has the Schiff phone call with the Russians been covered by them...something tells me that they probably just parroted Schiff's saying that he knew all along it was a prank (spent several minutes on the phone and even thanked the guys). Right, your top aid emails the 'pranksters' trying to set up a meeting to obtain the "materials" when you know it's all just a prank. 

[Lilly]

Also, there appears to be some discussion heating up over the imminent release of IG Horowitz's report...wonder what this will reveal? 

http://thehill.com/policy/national-security/372457-ig-poised-to-reignite-war-over-fbis-clinton-case

Horowitz told lawmakers last November that his investigators had reviewed roughly 1.25 million records and conducted dozens of interviews in connection with the ongoing investigation.

At the time, he said he expected the report to be issued by March or April.

Otherwise, the inspector general has remained tight-lipped on the status of the investigation, including the potential widening of its scope.

His statement last January contained an important caveat. “If circumstances warrant,” it said, “the [inspector general] will consider including other issues that may arise during the course of the review.”

[ExpandMyMind]

58 minutes ago, Lilly said:

Oh boy, this gets even deeper. Gowdy himself has stated that the Clinton's long time associate Sidney Blumenthal was also behind the Steele dossier. So, Clinton not only commissioned bought and paid for the dossier but her cohort Sidney Blumenthal actually helped to create the dossier! So, how will some choose to deal with this revelation...well the mainstream news probably won't run the Blumenthal story. I suspect that you won't hear all that much about it . Has the Schiff phone call with the Russians been covered by them...something tells me that they probably just parroted Schiff's saying that he knew all along it was a prank (spent several minutes on the phone and even thanked the guys). Right, your top aid emails the 'pranksters' trying to set up a meeting to obtain the "materials" when you know it's all just a prank. 

Was the dossier the only evidence used to get the FISA warrant?

[Merc14]

1 hour ago, Lilly said:

Also, there appears to be some discussion heating up over the imminent release of IG Horowitz's report...wonder what this will reveal? 

http://thehill.com/policy/national-security/372457-ig-poised-to-reignite-war-over-fbis-clinton-case

I don't envy the man his job given that his report will likely cut both ways and he'll have both sides in an uproar but I think we can be assured that we will get the truth from him as he is a straight shooter by all reports.  I think Sessions is waiting until Horowitz drops the report on his desk before he appoints a Special Prosecutor which is what is needed here IMHO as we will get no answers from these people until they are in front of a grand jury, under oath and threat of perjury.  You'll also see many of them rolling over to stay out of jail.  He better not dawdle though because if the democrats win back the house this will all be buried 10 feet deep

Edited February 8, 2018 by Merc14

[Lilly]

3 hours ago, Merc14 said:

...  I think Sessions is waiting until Horowitz drops the report on his desk before he appoints a Special Prosecutor which is what is needed here IMHO as we will get no answers from these people until they are in front of a grand jury, under oath and threat of perjury.  You'll also see many of them rolling over to stay out of jail.  He better not dawdle though because if the democrats win back the house this will all be buried 10 feet deep

Horowitz has said that he expects his report to wrap up in late April. The mid-term elections aren't until November, so if there's a Special Prosecutor already appointed it will not be possible for anyone to just bury it. I highly suspect a great many questions will be answered when the IG's report comes out in the spring. But, I do think in order to get everything answered there will have to be a Special Prosecutor appointed. 

[Tiggs]

8 hours ago, Merc14 said:

Umm, common knowledge.  I find it ridiculous that you keep cycling back to the beginning to do what?  My suspicion is to change to conversation since every day you lose more of your argument. Just a guess.

THANK YOU! It is getting very boring posting now year old links to prove once again what we all know already so so you can do whatever you are doing. 

I was clarifying that the memo sourced documents directly from the FBI and DOJ -- not the IG-- as you were claiming the opposite.

I did so, even knowing that it would strengthen your argument.

You've now apparently claimed it's "common knowledge" that the memo came directly from the FBI and DOJ, and not the IG.

Since we're now in agreement, perhaps you could assist me in answering Ravenhawk's response to my post, claiming the opposite?

 

8 hours ago, Merc14 said:

Absoluteyl!  What are you arguing about?  I have no idea?

A Title 1 warrant allows the FBI to surveil the target of the warrant -- including the installation of surveillance equipment in physical locations to do so, if necessary.

A Title 7 warrantless search allows the FBI to trawl a small subset of the database of recorded communications with foreign nationals that the NSA regularly collects -- the NSA's own version of Google, if you will.

A Title 1 warrant is a signed order from a Judge. Title 7 doesn't require one.

My claim was that you haven't been able to present evidence that "Any member of the Trump team was surveilled under a FISA warrant." -- as part of a response to your claim. 

As far as I'm currently aware -- the only Title 1 FISA warrants used by the FBI were for Page and Manafort, both during periods of time in which they weren't working for the campaign.

As for Page's involvement with the Trump Campaign:

“Mr. Page is not an advisor and has made no contribution to the campaign,” the campaign’s communications director Jason Miller said in an email to The Hill.

“I've never spoken to him, and wouldn't recognize him if he were sitting next to me.”

Presented with a statement from a campaign spokesperson in August that characterized Page as an “informal adviser,” albeit one who “does not speak for Mr. Trump or the campaign,” Miller doubled down.

“He’s never been a part of our campaign. Period,” he said.

Another spokesman, Steven Cheung, said Page “has no role” in the campaign.

“We are not aware of any of his activities, past or present,” Cheung added.

Source: The Hill

8 hours ago, Merc14 said:

Well, we don't know what was said or testified to and congress cant prosecute can they?  Time for the SP.  I only look at all the evidence and connect the dots and you look at each piece as a standalone and post here challenging each piece alone.  Fine, time is on my side and not your's, that is your problem because everyday it looks far worse and every one of your arguments gets worse off (that is why you have stopped addressing them directly). 

As the Grassley/Graham memo shows -- while Congress can't prosecute, they sure as h*ck can recommend someone be prosecuted.

A couple of the responses from the Republican committee members after Rice's testimony:

"I've been really tough on Susan Rice in the past. I think it's important that when a witness does a good job, you tell people she did a good job. And when she doesn't do a good job, you tell them that too," Gowdy said. "She did a good job." (Source: Fox News).

"I didn't hear anything to believe that she did anything illegal," Florida Rep. Tom Rooney (Source: CNN.)

Strongly doubt that she's on their shortlist for prosecution referral, somehow.

 

8 hours ago, Merc14 said:

Time for the SP.  I only look at all the evidence and connect the dots and you look at each piece as a standalone and post here challenging each piece alone.  Fine, time is on my side and not your's, that is your problem because everyday it looks far worse and every one of your arguments gets worse off (that is why you have stopped addressing them directly). 

From my perspective, you still haven't been able to evidence that the core of your argument is even legally viable -- that a warrant on Page would then allow the FBI to spy on the Trump campaign.

Let alone evidence that the FBI then did.
 

 

8 hours ago, Merc14 said:

Enjoy because this is real and the players stupid guys on the right finally realize that the democrats are playing delay until the elections in hopes they can win something and shut this whole thing down and are reacting like ...well ...democrats.. .  Cut Throat.  9 months to dish the dirt on what went down and then your side buries it...they hope.  I don't think you take either house. 

I expect Republicans will win seats in the Senate, and lose seats in the House.

Whether or not that will flip the majority in the House -- Time, as always, will tell.

[Gromdor]

Using a FISA warrant on one person (Page) to secretly listen into another (Trump) would be a huge FISA warrant abuse.  Yet, a memo that was specifically authored to highlight FISA abuses doesn't mention this occurring at all.  That doesn't ring any alarm bells?

[Merc14]

32 minutes ago, Tiggs said:

My claim was that you haven't been able to present evidence that "Any member of the Trump team was surveilled under a FISA warrant." -- as part of a response to your claim. 
 

I deleted the same old argument, didn't even read it, and will address this.  If Rice surveilled those three via unmasking, as she admitted, then they were surveilled because of a FISA warrant,  I NEVER claimed that any Trump associate, other than Page, had a FISA warrant ordered against them, how could I know that, my point was that via a FISA warrant, Trump associates were surveilled.  Doesn't have to be a warrant on them personally.  That is what I and others have all been claiming here all along, that you only need to put one person involved, even peripherally, under warrant in order to surveill many others given the relaxed rules Obama's administration had in place, (recently strengthened by congress).  We know this is true because Rice actually told us she did it!  

18 minutes ago, Gromdor said:

Using a FISA warrant on one person (Page) to secretly listen into another (Trump) would be a huge FISA warrant abuse.  Yet, a memo that was specifically authored to highlight FISA abuses doesn't mention this occurring at all.  That doesn't ring any alarm bells?

But it wasn't and we know it wasn't because when Rice actually did it she was within her rights as they were under the last administration.  Don't take my word for it, go back to the last page and click on the link.  It wasn't illegal, per se,  but it was most likely abusing the system and if done for the political espionage (see Watergate)  then she may have broken the law.  We don't know any of that yet but we do know that they did it because Rice said she did.

Edit: here is the link  https://www.cnn.com/2017/09/13/politics/susan-rice-house-investigators-unmasked-trump-officials/index.html

Congress has recently strengthened this rule and teh abuse wasn't caught because during Obama's administration the OIG was restricted from overseeing the DOJ ND office that administered the FISA program for that.agency, Horowitz is writing his report now after a year long investigation.  .

Edited February 8, 2018 by Merc14

[Tiggs]

Just now, Merc14 said:

I deleted the same old argument, didn't even read it, and will address this.  If Rice surveilled those three via unmasking, as she admitted, then they were surveilled because of a FISA warrant

Ain't necessarily so.

The names of American citizens are masked in any SIGINT report that contains information gathered from either a FISA Title 1 warrant OR a FISA Title 7 search.

The NSA would have hoovered up any digital communication concerning the Prince's meeting -- such as a calendar invite with the other attendees named -- as part of their regular 702 collection.

[Tiggs]

6 hours ago, Lilly said:

Oh boy, this gets even deeper. Gowdy himself has stated that the Clinton's long time associate Sidney Blumenthal was also behind the Steele dossier. So, Clinton not only commissioned bought and paid for the dossier but her cohort Sidney Blumenthal actually helped to create the dossier! So, how will some choose to deal with this revelation...

Can't speak for anyone else, but I'm dealing with it by calmly sipping tea, mostly.

Probably helps that I already know what Gowdy's actually alluding to -- and it's not the Steele Dossier. It's the Shearer dossier.

The existence of this new tranche of unverified research, shared with ABC News this week, was first reported by The Guardian. Shearer has said he prepared the documents on his own, but during the campaign he shared them with longtime Clinton confidant Sidney Blumenthal, according to a source familiar with the arrangement. Blumenthal then gave them to an Obama State Department official, Jonathan Winer, the source said. Blumenthal declined a request for comment.

Source: ABC News

[Merc14]

49 minutes ago, Tiggs said:

Ain't necessarily so.

The names of American citizens are masked in any SIGINT report that contains information gathered from either a FISA Title 1 warrant OR a FISA Title 7 search.

The NSA would have hoovered up any digital communication concerning the Prince's meeting -- such as a calendar invite with the other attendees named -- as part of their regular 702 collection.

They questioned her in Nunes' committee in regard to this subject so highly doubtful it was about anything else but you tell yourself what ever you have to, I'll leave it to others to decide. 

2 minutes ago, Tiggs said:

Can't speak for anyone else, but I'm dealing with it by calmly sipping tea, mostly.

Probably helps that I already know what Gowdy's actually alluding to -- and it's not the Steele Dossier. It's the Shearer dossier.

The existence of this new tranche of unverified research, shared with ABC News this week, was first reported by The Guardian. Shearer has said he prepared the documents on his own, but during the campaign he shared them with longtime Clinton confidant Sidney Blumenthal, according to a source familiar with the arrangement. Blumenthal then gave them to an Obama State Department official, Jonathan Winer, the source said. Blumenthal declined a request for comment.

Source: ABC News

Who was Shearer providing the intel to?

Edited February 8, 2018 by Merc14

[Lilly]

1 hour ago, Merc14 said:

 

Who was Shearer providing the intel to?

Now there's the burning question. Also, keep in mind this was all "unverified research".