Grassley's Oversight Investigation into the political corruption of the FBI and DOJ [Archive] - Page 3

TSA

02-06-2018, 05:39 PM

IG poised to reignite war over FBI’s Clinton case

Few people have heard of Michael Horowitz, but that’s about to change.

Horowitz, the Department of Justice (DOJ) inspector general, is an increasingly critical player in the controversy surrounding the FBI, President Trump and the Russia investigation.

With little fanfare, he has been conducting a sprawling probe of the FBI’s handling of the 2016 investigation into Hillary Clinton’s use of a private email server. His full report, which could set off shockwaves, is expected by the early spring.

A political appointee in both the Bush and Obama administrations, Horowitz’s yearlong investigation already reportedly contributed to the early resignation of Deputy FBI Director Andrew McCabe. And his work has been felt in other ways.

ADVERTISEMENT
Horowitz also uncovered a series of text messages between FBI officials Peter Strzok and Lisa Page that led special counsel Robert Mueller to remove Strzok from his team. Those texts have fueled accusations among GOP lawmakers that Mueller’s probe is tainted by partisanship.

Those who know Horowitz portray him as an independent voice.

“He is really one of the smartest and fairest people I have ever had the pleasure to work with,” said Bill Hamel, who served as assistant inspector general for investigations at the Department of Education. “He’s a straight shooter and a fair guy. He’s an honest broker.”

But Horowitz’s reputation will be put to the test when he releases the findings of the Clinton investigation. No matter what he concludes, it’s likely to create a political firestorm, coming at a time when both Republicans and the White House are charging that political bias is rampant at the Justice Department and at the FBI.

Horowitz attracted public attention early in his career as an assistant U.S. attorney in New York for prosecuting corrupt police officers in the infamous “Dirty 30” case in the mid-1990s.

He later moved to the Justice Department’s criminal division in Washington, where he served as chief of staff for a period spanning the Clinton and Bush administrations.

Bush later appointed Horowitz to a six-year term as a commissioner of the U.S. Sentencing Commission, an agency within the judicial branch that writes sentencing guidelines for federal courts. He was then selected by President Obama to serve as the Justice Department’s top watchdog in 2011.

His job is demanding. Horowitz oversees a department of nearly 500 employees who are responsible for investigating waste, fraud, abuse and misconduct within the Justice Department.

“You’re there to help the agency succeed in doing its job,” said Hamel, who has known Horowitz since his days working in New York. “They have to be independent to do that job. They can’t be swayed by political issues.”

He is best remembered in his current role for coming down hard on regional officials at Justice and the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives for the infamous “Fast and Furious” operation in which officials allowed the illegal sale of firearms in a botched effort to track Mexican drug cartels.

Just six months into the job, Horowitz issued a report eviscerating law enforcement officials in Arizona for a “significant lack of oversight” and disregard for “the safety of individuals in the United States and Mexico.”

While the investigation absolved Attorney General Eric Holder of blame, Horowitz recommended that the Justice Department consider potential disciplinary action for 14 officials involved.

“It was just a remarkably intense first six months on the job. I know I wouldn’t have chosen to walk into the job that way. Looking back on it, it was sort of trial by fire,” Horowitz told The Washington Post in 2014. “You sink or you swim pretty quickly, and fortunately I didn’t sink. People can use their own judgment about how well I swam.”

Horowitz also clashed with the Obama administration over Justice and the FBI bucking requests for documents from the inspector general’s office.

Horowitz’s work has earned him respect among his peers. He has been twice elected to lead the Council of the Inspectors General on Integrity and Efficiency, the independent panel of inspectors general across the federal government.

“He is a man of the utmost integrity who is willing to call the shots as he sees them,” said Stanley Twardy, a Stamford, Conn.-based lawyer who has known Horowitz professionally since his days as a U.S. attorney.

Horowitz formally announced last January that he would investigate allegations of wrongdoing by Justice Department and FBI officials leading up the 2016 election, in response to demands from both Democrats and Republicans.

It’s possible that both parties will get political ammunition from Horowitz’s report.

The inspector general is examining whether then-FBI Director James Comey broke FBI procedure with his public disclosures about the Clinton case, including the letter that he sent to Congress a few weeks before the election. Before Trump fired Comey, Democrats were outspoken in their criticism of those decisions, saying they violated procedure and cost Clinton the election.

But Horowitz is also looking into allegations that McCabe should have been recused from the investigation. Republicans, including Trump, have seized on reports that McCabe’s wife accepted campaign contributions from Clinton ally and former Virginia Gov. Terry McAuliffe when she ran for state office in Virginia, calling it a clear conflict of interest.

Finally, Horowitz is also looking into unauthorized disclosures of information.

Lawmakers have pressed Horowitz to expand the scope of the probe to include Comey’s firing or Attorney General Jeff Sessions’s recusal from the separate investigation into Russian interference in the 2016 election.

Horowitz has not committed to looking into Comey’s firing, signaling that doing so could present a conflict with Mueller’s investigation.

Horowitz’s probe has become all the more relevant in light of McCabe’s decision to step down last week. According to The New York Times, Christopher Wray, whom Trump installed as FBI director last year after Comey’s ouster, had raised concerns about details of the forthcoming inspector general report that led him to propose that McCabe be demoted.

The Washington Post subsequently reported that Horowitz is examining why McCabe seemingly did not move forward for several weeks on a request to examine new emails in the Clinton investigation that were found on former congressman Anthony Weiner’s (D-N.Y.) computer.

“There are a lot of legitimate questions that I hope would be answered by this inspector and that probably aren’t going to paint the DOJ or the FBI in a particularly good light,” said Ron Hosko, a former official in the FBI’s criminal investigative division.

The findings could further play into GOP charges of political bias at the FBI, which critics view as part of a broader effort to inhibit Mueller’s investigation.

The text exchanges between Strzok and Page came to public light when the Justice Department delivered them to GOP-led panels in Congress in December and also reportedly allowed journalists to view them.

“These text messages prove what we all suspected: high-ranking FBI officials involved in the Clinton investigation were personally invested in the outcome of the election and clearly let their strong political opinions cloud their professional judgment,” House Judiciary Chairman Bob Goodlatte (R-Va.) told Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein at a hearing in December.

The Justice Department came under fire from Republicans in January when lawmakers discovered a five-month gap in the text messages; Horowitz has subsequently said he recovered the missing exchanges and would provide copies to the department, which could decide to release them to Capitol Hill.

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.”

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

AaronY

02-06-2018, 05:39 PM

DarrinS

02-06-2018, 05:40 PM

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WFA4PhE9Ddc

Start at 7:40

Pavlov

02-06-2018, 05:49 PM

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WFA4PhE9Ddc

Start at 7:40UNDERCOVER FBI MASTERSPOOK QUADRUPLE AGENT CARTER PAGE

spurraider21

02-06-2018, 05:50 PM

No the NYT article did not put the pieces together and instead misrepresents the relationship between Page and the FBI. Not once in the NYT do they even allude to Carter Page being an FBI informant, quite the opposite.
NYT reported based on the criminal complaint, which they have attached in the article. the complaint did not call Page an undercover employee of the FBI. all they have done is identified some character named Male-1, and the NYT reported that Male-1 was in fact, Carter Page

Chris

02-06-2018, 05:50 PM

961001605511434240

Isitjustme?

02-06-2018, 05:54 PM

Republicans seem to have some pretty strong Pro-Republican opinions today

Chris

02-06-2018, 05:57 PM

Repubs wants transparency. Dems wants transparency when they are running for elections.

Pavlov

02-06-2018, 05:58 PM

Repubs wants transparency. Dems wants transparency when they are running for elections.So when is Trump going to voluntarily testify in front of a grand jury and have that testimony immediately made public?

TSA

02-06-2018, 06:31 PM

NYT reported based on the criminal complaint, which they have attached in the article. the complaint did not call Page an undercover employee of the FBI. all they have done is identified some character named Male-1, and the NYT reported that Male-1 was in fact, Carter Page

So you agree the NYT did not put the pieces together, glad we got that out of the way.

If Carter Page was working for the FBI for years leading up to the election can you think of any good reason the FBI would seek a title I FISA warrant on him?

spurraider21

02-06-2018, 06:40 PM

So you agree the NYT did not put the pieces together, glad we got that out of the way.

If Carter Page was working for the FBI for years leading up to the election can you think of any good reason the FBI would seek a title I FISA warrant on him?
NYT is the one who connected the dots revealed Page was a party to the matter... kinda the biggest step in the new theory.

without that NYT piece, this theory doesn't exist. kinda like uranium one... first broken by NYT. i guess i just need guidelines from you as to when we can trust NYT. is it only when they say something that you like?

DarrinS

02-06-2018, 06:54 PM

UNDERCOVER FBI MASTERSPOOK QUADRUPLE AGENT CARTER PAGE

Why are you freaking out? What he is saying is consistent with what the times reported.

spurraider21

02-06-2018, 07:00 PM

Why are you freaking out? What he is saying is consistent with what the times reported.
is it consistent with him being an undercover FBI employee?

Chris

02-06-2018, 07:04 PM

Terrific!

960960561117843456

spurraider21

02-06-2018, 07:05 PM

why do you follow her twitter? :lol

Chris

02-06-2018, 07:08 PM

why do you follow her twitter? :lol

Flynn Jr. re-tweeted

Chris

02-06-2018, 07:19 PM

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/DVYn5u_VoAATVrO.jpg:large

spurraider21

02-06-2018, 07:35 PM

:lol to wiretap trump

Pavlov

02-06-2018, 07:45 PM

Why are you freaking out? What he is saying is consistent with what the times reported.I'm mocking TSA.

DarrinS

02-06-2018, 08:38 PM

I'm mocking TSA.

In fairness though, the Times “matched” Page based on an emailed statement.

“Court documents do not identify Mr. Page, but the details in a statement he emailed to reporters on Tuesday match the individual described as “Male-1” in the court case. Mr. Page’s contact with the Russian spy was first reported on Monday by BuzzFeed News.”

But, other people engaged in the same exercise, you are labeling conspiratards.

TSA

02-06-2018, 08:58 PM

:lol to wiretap trump

A title I FISA warrant would include surveillance of any contact of Page past and present...would that include Trump yes or no?

spurraider21

02-06-2018, 09:05 PM

A title I FISA warrant would include surveillance of any contact of Page past and present...would that include Trump yes or no?
link?

TSA

02-06-2018, 10:42 PM

link?

lmgtfy

TSA

02-06-2018, 10:43 PM

961063839428161542

redacted vs unredacted Grassley memos

spurraider21

02-06-2018, 10:56 PM

lmgtfy
:lmao

:cry please research and prove up my claim for me

TSA

02-06-2018, 11:03 PM

:lmao

:cry please research and prove up my claim for me

Yeah, I already posted all about it. On this very forum.

You never even read any of the previous link, so I can't consider you to be serious about any of this.

TSA

02-06-2018, 11:05 PM

961082790799437824

“The referral also provides the clearest evidence yet that the FBI represented that a September 2016 Yahoo! News article independently corroborated Steele’s dossier claims about Page. But unknown to the Bureau, Steele was the very same source of the information in that Yahoo! report.”

:rollin Pavlov

spurraider21

02-06-2018, 11:07 PM

Yeah, I already posted all about it. On this very forum.

You never even read any of the previous link, so I can't consider you to be serious about any of this.
ive read everything you posted today, so you're just dodging now. sad!

if you've posted it before, shouldn't be too hard to repost it. you'd know where to look

TSA

02-06-2018, 11:10 PM

960307402179407872

TSA

02-06-2018, 11:13 PM

ive read everything you posted today, so you're just dodging now. sad!

if you've posted it before, shouldn't be too hard to repost it. you'd know where to look

You really don't follow anything but anti-Trump blogs, do you?

I'm going to venture a guess you never read the title I vs. title II links I posted.

You certainly didn't read any of my posts here on title I from a few days ago.

TSA

02-06-2018, 11:17 PM

961063839428161542

redacted vs unredacted Grassley memos

961073015915098112

spurraider21

02-06-2018, 11:20 PM

You really don't follow anything but anti-Trump blogs, do you?

I'm going to venture a guess you never read the title I vs. title II links I posted.

You certainly didn't read any of my posts here on title I from a few days ago.
Dodge #2

TSA

02-06-2018, 11:23 PM

Dodge #2

So you didn't read it.

lol

This is good information to have. Shows just how unimportant actual documents are to you in comparison with blogs written about those documents.

Strangely, none of your echo chamber blogs or djohn tweets said anything about it.

Thanks, spurraider21!

spurraider21

02-06-2018, 11:40 PM

So you didn't read it.

lol

This is good information to have. Shows just how unimportant actual documents are to you in comparison with blogs written about those documents.

Strangely, none of your echo chamber blogs or djohn tweets said anything about it.

Thanks, spurraider21!
you're trying to be cute and imitate chump, but i've been answering your questions directly. even spurminator pointed that out to you earlier, and you continued to dodge.

you brought up FISA title i and made a claim about its ramifications. if title i did what you said, it wouldn't be hard to direct me to it. but you just keep dodging and playing games, using chump's lines in situations where they dont fit.

starting to question why you even post here at all if you aren't going to engage in discussion about the very things you post

TSA

02-06-2018, 11:45 PM

you're trying to be cute and imitate chump, but i've been answering your questions directly. even spurminator pointed that out to you earlier, and you continued to dodge. sad!

honestly though I already posted the difference between title I and title VII, if you were really curious you could look it up just like I did. And thank you I guess ??? for answering directly a question posed to djohn2oo8

TSA

02-07-2018, 01:04 AM

961073015915098112

961105485620482048

The Unraveling

TSA

02-07-2018, 01:08 AM

961082805567574016

love me some strange

spurraider21

02-07-2018, 01:25 AM

honestly though I already posted the difference between title I and title VII, if you were really curious you could look it up just like I did. And thank you I guess ??? for answering directly a question posed to djohn2oo8
you copypasted a sundance "article" where he talks about title i and title vii, but there's no source material he refers to. and nowhere does that make the claim you did that title i would allow them to surveil "any contact of page past or present"

the main distinction is Title VII would occur if Page was "swept up" under the serveillance of somebody else, whereas Title I would be a scenario where they got probable cause to surveil Page himself. we already know that happened, because the FISA applications were specifically targeting Page. this isn't some crazy revelation. we already knew Page was the target, and we've known that for quite some time. you are making the leap that they therefore have the ability to surveil any contact of Page past or present. back it up.

so if you're going to make that specific claim, you're going to have to back it up. you keep dodging because you can't

TSA

02-07-2018, 01:12 PM

you copypasted a sundance "article" where he talks about title i and title vii, but there's no source material he refers to. and nowhere does that make the claim you did that title i would allow them to surveil "any contact of page past or present"

the main distinction is Title VII would occur if Page was "swept up" under the serveillance of somebody else, whereas Title I would be a scenario where they got probable cause to surveil Page himself. we already know that happened, because the FISA applications were specifically targeting Page. this isn't some crazy revelation. we already knew Page was the target, and we've known that for quite some time. you are making the leap that they therefore have the ability to surveil any contact of Page past or present. back it up.

so if you're going to make that specific claim, you're going to have to back it up. you keep dodging because you can't

https://www.newamerica.org/oti/blog/scope-standards-and-protections-compared/

Explain to me how a court was convinced Carter Page was an agent of a foreign power AND that the facility or place to be surveilled is about to be used by the target. Also, was the court aware Carter Page previously worked undercover for the FBI?

TSA

02-07-2018, 01:14 PM

Senator Ron Johnson interim report

The Clinton Email scandal and the FBI's investigation of it

https://t.co/5znf1KKZ4B

TSA

02-07-2018, 01:15 PM

Senator Ron Johnson interim report

The Clinton Email scandal and the FBI's investigation of it

https://t.co/5znf1KKZ4B

Johnson also released 502 pages of Strzok/Page text messages

https://t.co/9FuCt3guDt

boutons_deux

02-07-2018, 01:19 PM

So these two lovers mean the entire FBI is anti-Trash? :lol

Same logic as MS13 means ALL brownies gotta leave

Pavlov

02-07-2018, 01:19 PM

In fairness though, the Times “matched” Page based on an emailed statement.

“Court documents do not identify Mr. Page, but the details in a statement he emailed to reporters on Tuesday match the individual described as “Male-1” in the court case. Mr. Page’s contact with the Russian spy was first reported on Monday by BuzzFeed News.”

But, other people engaged in the same exercise, you are labeling conspiratards.Carter Page confirmed he is Male-1, Darrin.

Pavlov

02-07-2018, 01:21 PM

Blake

02-07-2018, 01:21 PM

Johnson also released 502 pages of Strzok/Page text messages

https://t.co/9FuCt3guDt

FBI and DOJ are all fucked!!!!!!!

spurraider21

02-07-2018, 01:24 PM

https://www.newamerica.org/oti/blog/scope-standards-and-protections-compared/

Explain to me how a court was convinced Carter Page was an agent of a foreign power AND that the facility or place to be surveilled is about to be used by the target. Also, was the court aware Carter Page previously worked undercover for the FBI?
i just read that whole link. please tell me where you get the notion that under Title I, they are allowed to surveil "any contact of Page past or present"

it you want me to answer how the court was convinced of anything, i'd probably need to see the FISA application tbh. the one congressman who has doesn't seem to think that mueller's probe is undermined in any way, contrary to what you keep implying

Pavlov

02-07-2018, 01:24 PM

Blake

02-07-2018, 01:25 PM

i just read that whole link. please tell me where you get the notion that under Title I, they are allowed to surveil "any contact of Page past or present"

:cry no you answer his false question first

TSA

02-07-2018, 01:38 PM

i just read that whole link. please tell me where you get the notion that under Title I, they are allowed to surveil "any contact of Page past or present"

it you want me to answer how the court was convinced of anything, i'd probably need to see the FISA application tbh. the one congressman who has doesn't seem to think that mueller's probe is undermined in any way, contrary to what you keep implying

"communications to and from target"

spurraider21

02-07-2018, 01:40 PM

"communications to and from target"
that's very different than saying they can surveil any contact of Page, past or present. thats just saying if they're listening in on a carter page call, they can hear both sides of the call, regardless of who initiated the call. they would be "swept up" and there is all the unmasking protocols we have already discussed at length (:lol rice indictment)

the claim i was "lol"ing was Chris saying they wiretapped trump

TSA

02-07-2018, 01:43 PM

:lmao you're still claiming Page was an undercover employee of the FBI.

Do you think the UCE-1 referenced below is not Carter Page and there was another person posing as an analyst from a New York based energy company passing of binders for the FBI with listening devices?

========
Preet Bharara, the United States Attorney for the Southern District of New York, and John P. Carlin, Assistant Attorney General for National Security, announced that EVGENY BURYAKOV, a/k/a “Zhenya,” pled guilty today to conspiring to act in the United States as an agent of the Russian Federation, without providing prior notice to the Attorney General.

During the course of the investigation, the FBI recorded Sporyshev and Podobnyy speaking inside the SVR’s offices in New York, known as the “Residentura.”

The FBI obtained the recordings after Sporyshev attempted to recruit an FBI undercover employee (“UCE-1”), who was posing as an analyst from a New York-based energy company. In response to requests from Sporyshev, UCE-1 provided Sporyshev with binders containing purported industry analysis written by UCE-1 and supporting documentation relating to UCE-1’s reports, as well as covertly placed recording devices. Sporyshev then took the binders to, among other places, the Residentura.
https://www.justice.gov/usao-sdny/pr...onspiracy-work

=======

According to prosecutors, in April 2012, Sporyshev met an undercover FBI employee posing as an analyst at a New York energy firm at an oil and gas industry conference.

Over the next two years, they met to discuss the industry and other economic and political issues, prosecutors said, with Sporyshev providing gifts and cash for information.

In 2013, the FBI employee began providing Sporyshev with the binders containing purported industry analysis he wrote, supporting documents, and “covertly placed recording devices,” prosecutors wrote.

As the undercover employee said his company would fire him if it learned he disclosed confidential information, Sporyshev would promptly return the binders after reviewing them, prosecutors said.

The recordings that resulted captured statements of Sporyshev, Podobnyy, and other Russian intelligence personnel from January to May 2013, prosecutors said.

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-r...-idUSKCN0WB2NM

======

"The court documents say that Mr. Page, who founded an investment company in New York called Global Energy Capital, provided documents about the energy business to one of the Russians, Victor Podobnyy, thinking he was a businessman who could help with brokering deals in Russia."

According to the court documents filed in 2015, the F.B.I. secretly recorded Mr. Podobnyy and another Russian operative named Igor Sporyshev discussing efforts to recruit Mr. Page, who was then working in New York as a consultant.

To record their conversations, the F.B.I. inserted a listening device into binders that were passed to the Russian intelligence operatives during an energy conference, according to a former United States intelligence official. The Russians then took the binders into a secure room where they thought they could evade American intelligence eavesdropping attempts.

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/04/04/u...mp-russia.html

Pavlov

02-07-2018, 01:49 PM

Do you think the UCE-1 referenced below is not Carter Page and there was another person posing as an analyst from a New York based energy company passing of binders for the FBI with listening devices?

========
Preet Bharara, the United States Attorney for the Southern District of New York, and John P. Carlin, Assistant Attorney General for National Security, announced that EVGENY BURYAKOV, a/k/a “Zhenya,” pled guilty today to conspiring to act in the United States as an agent of the Russian Federation, without providing prior notice to the Attorney General.

During the course of the investigation, the FBI recorded Sporyshev and Podobnyy speaking inside the SVR’s offices in New York, known as the “Residentura.”

The FBI obtained the recordings after Sporyshev attempted to recruit an FBI undercover employee (“UCE-1”), who was posing as an analyst from a New York-based energy company. In response to requests from Sporyshev, UCE-1 provided Sporyshev with binders containing purported industry analysis written by UCE-1 and supporting documentation relating to UCE-1’s reports, as well as covertly placed recording devices. Sporyshev then took the binders to, among other places, the Residentura.
https://www.justice.gov/usao-sdny/pr...onspiracy-work

=======

According to prosecutors, in April 2012, Sporyshev met an undercover FBI employee posing as an analyst at a New York energy firm at an oil and gas industry conference.

Over the next two years, they met to discuss the industry and other economic and political issues, prosecutors said, with Sporyshev providing gifts and cash for information.

In 2013, the FBI employee began providing Sporyshev with the binders containing purported industry analysis he wrote, supporting documents, and “covertly placed recording devices,” prosecutors wrote.

As the undercover employee said his company would fire him if it learned he disclosed confidential information, Sporyshev would promptly return the binders after reviewing them, prosecutors said.

The recordings that resulted captured statements of Sporyshev, Podobnyy, and other Russian intelligence personnel from January to May 2013, prosecutors said.

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-r...-idUSKCN0WB2NM

======

"The court documents say that Mr. Page, who founded an investment company in New York called Global Energy Capital, provided documents about the energy business to one of the Russians, Victor Podobnyy, thinking he was a businessman who could help with brokering deals in Russia."

According to the court documents filed in 2015, the F.B.I. secretly recorded Mr. Podobnyy and another Russian operative named Igor Sporyshev discussing efforts to recruit Mr. Page, who was then working in New York as a consultant.

To record their conversations, the F.B.I. inserted a listening device into binders that were passed to the Russian intelligence operatives during an energy conference, according to a former United States intelligence official. The Russians then took the binders into a secure room where they thought they could evade American intelligence eavesdropping attempts.

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/04/04/u...mp-russia.htmlSince it was Podobnyy who was trying to recruit Page and not Sporyshev, yes -- I believe the undercover FBI employee is actually an undercover FBI employee.

You think they were only trying to work one person in all of New York?

You shouldn't - especially since they were openly talking about multiple recruiting efforts on the wiretap.

TSA

02-07-2018, 01:52 PM

that's very different than saying they can surveil any contact of Page, past or present. thats just saying if they're listening in on a carter page call, they can hear both sides of the call, regardless of who initiated the call. they would be "swept up" and there is all the unmasking protocols we have already discussed at length (:lol rice indictment)

the claim i was "lol"ing was Chris saying they wiretapped trump

“Title I” FISA surveillance of U.S. citizens is the most intrusive, exhaustive and far reaching type of search, seizure and surveillance authority, permitting the FBI to look at every scintilla of Mr. Page’s life. All communication, travel and contact can be opened and reviewed. All aspects of any of Mr. Page’s engagements are subject to being secretly monitored. This is an entirely different level of surveillance authority, the highest possible, and has nothing to do with FISA-702 search queries (Title VII) of U.S. persons."

"The “Title I” designation as a foreign agent applied retroactively to any action taken by Mr. Page, and auto-generates an exponential list of other people he came in contact with. Each of those people, groups or organizations could now have their communication reviewed, unmasked and analyzed by the DOJ/FBI with the same surveillance authority granted upon the target, Mr. Page."

https://theconservativetreehouse.com/2018/02/04/exceptional-work-by-sharyl-attkisson-did-fbi-violate-woods-procedures/

I tried looking up the US codes to confirm the above but they don't really get into the details of what type of net can be cast, at least from what I found.

Do you have any source documents refuting the above? I can't find any.

spurraider21

02-07-2018, 01:53 PM

“Title I” FISA surveillance of U.S. citizens is the most intrusive, exhaustive and far reaching type of search, seizure and surveillance authority, permitting the FBI to look at every scintilla of Mr. Page’s life. All communication, travel and contact can be opened and reviewed. All aspects of any of Mr. Page’s engagements are subject to being secretly monitored. This is an entirely different level of surveillance authority, the highest possible, and has nothing to do with FISA-702 search queries (Title VII) of U.S. persons."

"The “Title I” designation as a foreign agent applied retroactively to any action taken by Mr. Page, and auto-generates an exponential list of other people he came in contact with. Each of those people, groups or organizations could now have their communication reviewed, unmasked and analyzed by the DOJ/FBI with the same surveillance authority granted upon the target, Mr. Page."

https://theconservativetreehouse.com/2018/02/04/exceptional-work-by-sharyl-attkisson-did-fbi-violate-woods-procedures/

I tried looking up the US codes to confirm the above but they don't really get into the details of what type of net can be cast, at least from what I found.

Do you have any source documents refuting the above? I can't find any.
who am i to question sundance?

this is why i asked for a link. we have all looked up the US code by now regarding FISA warrants... i haven't seen anything confirming sundance's claim yet

spurraider21

02-07-2018, 01:55 PM

you copypasted a sundance "article" where he talks about title i and title vii, but there's no source material he refers to.
i mean that's why i already made this post

TSA

02-07-2018, 02:01 PM

who am i to question sundance?

this is why i asked for a link. we have all looked up the US code by now regarding FISA warrants... i haven't seen anything confirming sundance's claim yet

You can question him all you like but it doesn't sound like you've found anything to refute his claims either. Seems like he is pretty knowledgeable when it comes to this stuff so until I see something to refute it I'm just going to roll with it.

TSA

02-07-2018, 02:02 PM

Since it was Podobnyy who was trying to recruit Page and not Sporyshev, yes -- I believe the undercover FBI employee is actually an undercover FBI employee.

You think they were only trying to work one person in all of New York?

You shouldn't - especially since they were openly talking about multiple recruiting efforts on the wiretap.

I don't believe there was a second person in the same time frame, with the same job title, dealing with the same Russians, and handing off the same binders with recording devices as Carter page. That is a bit too coincidental.

spurraider21

02-07-2018, 02:05 PM

You can question him all you like but it doesn't sound like you've found anything to refute his claims either. Seems like he is pretty knowledgeable when it comes to this stuff so until I see something to refute it I'm just going to roll with it.
we've all looked at the US Code regarding FISA warrants, and NONE of them confirm what sundance said. that alone is a rebuttal

there isn't going to be a US Code section that says "here's all the incorrect stuff about FISA"

Pavlov

02-07-2018, 02:10 PM

I don't believe there was a second person in the same time frame, with the same job title, dealing with the same Russians, and handing off the same binders with recording devices as Carter page. That is a bit too coincidental.So you believe they were working only one person in all of New York.

lol

spurraider21

02-07-2018, 02:12 PM

here's my rebuttal, TSA

https://legcounsel.house.gov/Comps/Foreign%20Intelligence%20Surveillance%20Act%20Of%2 01978.pdf

this is the entire FISA act (all of these subsections are now in what we call the US Code. Title I is all there, (50 USC 1801 through 50 USC 1812). thats everything to do with FISA title I. nothing in those codes say what sundance says. there's my rebuttal, unless im missing something

Pavlov

02-07-2018, 02:12 PM

we've all looked at the US Code regarding FISA warrants, and NONE of them confirm what sundance said. that alone is a rebuttal

there isn't going to be a US Code section that says "here's all the incorrect stuff about FISA"Could it be that an anonymous alt-right blogger just made something up?

Quelle surprise!

TSA

02-07-2018, 02:12 PM

we've all looked at the US Code regarding FISA warrants, and NONE of them confirm what sundance said. that alone is a rebuttal

there isn't going to be a US Code section that says "here's all the incorrect stuff about FISA"

Where have you found any US Code that details what type of surveillance title I allows?

TSA

02-07-2018, 02:15 PM

TSA

02-07-2018, 02:21 PM

961248645931814912

Page says he wasn't so I guess we now take him for his word? Or is he still a liar?

clambake

02-07-2018, 02:26 PM

"speculation has percolated on internet" lol

boutons_deux

02-07-2018, 02:30 PM

"speculation has percolated on internet" lol

:lol dailycaller assholes are percolated, over-caffeinated conspiracy theorists and Trash fellators.

spurraider21

02-07-2018, 02:32 PM

thanks I'll look through it.
i'm pretty sure we've all looked through those same US codes for different purposes... including your ELE bet (which was determined by 50 USC 1802)

i mean its another thing if you're going to claim that they outright violated FISA and put an illegal tap on trump... but then that would have nothing to do with Title I vs Title VII

Pavlov

02-07-2018, 02:37 PM

"speculation has percolated on internet" lol"Internet sleuths drew attention to a March 11, 2016 press release from the Justice Department that described an FBI undercover employee who bugged Sporyshev, the Russian trade representative."

lol "internet sleuths"

TSA

02-07-2018, 02:37 PM

Pavlov

02-07-2018, 02:39 PM

Page says he wasn't so I guess we now take him for his word? Or is he still a liar?I took the reports at their respective words. Page was Male-1. UCE-1 was someone else.

Pretty simple.

TSA

02-07-2018, 02:42 PM

961268135033634816

TSA

02-07-2018, 02:43 PM

961292214612578305

Obama getting dragged into this from the released text messages.

Pavlov

02-07-2018, 02:44 PM

961268135033634816lol explosive

TSA

02-07-2018, 02:54 PM

961273835071787008

961274308700942336

961274587374804992

961275101428633600

961275744859992065

TSA

02-07-2018, 02:55 PM

lol explosive

FBI lying on FISA application is pretty explosive.

Pavlov

02-07-2018, 02:55 PM

"How much of this was engineered by the Clinton campaign from start?"

lol

Pavlov

02-07-2018, 02:57 PM

FBI lying on FISA application is pretty explosive.I'll believe that when I see it.

What do you think the end game for all these not-actual-committee-actions from these committee members is, TSA?

TSA

02-07-2018, 03:06 PM

I'll believe that when I see it.

What do you think the end game for all these not-actual-committee-actions from these committee members is, TSA?

How do you plan on seeing the FISA application?

I don't think the actions from the house and senate are an end game at all but rather the start of getting the public primed for all of the abuses uncovered in the upcoming OIG investigation report.

spurraider21

02-07-2018, 03:08 PM

Read the sections. Nothing in there details the reach of title I surveillance so it neither proves or disproves the claims made by sundance.
see, this is why you're full of shit. they can only directly surveil the named target. they cant go back and say "oh well this guy talked to trump 8 months ago, so now we have the green light to surveil trump himself!"

it doesn't say "the facilities or places at which the electronic surveillance is directed or being used, or is about to be used by any contact (past or present) of the target

(a)Submission by Federal officer; approval of Attorney General; contentsEach application for an order approving electronic surveillance (https://www.law.cornell.edu/definitions/uscode.php?width=840&height=800&iframe=true&def_id=50-USC-23177827-1534214673&term_occur=14&term_src=title:50:chapter:36:subchapter:I:section: 1804) under this subchapter shall be made by a Federal officer in writing upon oath or affirmation to a judge having jurisdiction under section 1803 of this title (https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/50/1803). Each application shall require the approval of the Attorney General based upon his finding that it satisfies the criteria and requirements of such application as set forth in this subchapter. It shall include—(1)the identity of the Federal officer making the application;

(2)the identity, if known, or a description of the specific target of the electronic surveillance (https://www.law.cornell.edu/definitions/uscode.php?width=840&height=800&iframe=true&def_id=50-USC-23177827-1534214673&term_occur=15&term_src=title:50:chapter:36:subchapter:I:section: 1804);

(3)a statement of the facts and circumstances relied upon by the applicant to justify his belief that—

(A)the target of the electronic surveillance (https://www.law.cornell.edu/definitions/uscode.php?width=840&height=800&iframe=true&def_id=50-USC-23177827-1534214673&term_occur=16&term_src=title:50:chapter:36:subchapter:I:section: 1804) is a foreign power or an agent of a foreign power (https://www.law.cornell.edu/definitions/uscode.php?width=840&height=800&iframe=true&def_id=50-USC-1998408204-1534214669&term_occur=5&term_src=title:50:chapter:36:subchapter:I:section: 1804); and

(B)each of the facilities or places at which the electronic surveillance (https://www.law.cornell.edu/definitions/uscode.php?width=840&height=800&iframe=true&def_id=50-USC-23177827-1534214673&term_occur=17&term_src=title:50:chapter:36:subchapter:I:section: 1804) is directed is being used, or is about to be used, by a foreign power or an agent of a foreign power (https://www.law.cornell.edu/definitions/uscode.php?width=840&height=800&iframe=true&def_id=50-USC-1998408204-1534214669&term_occur=6&term_src=title:50:chapter:36:subchapter:I:section: 1804);

(4)a statement of the proposed minimization procedures (https://www.law.cornell.edu/definitions/uscode.php?width=840&height=800&iframe=true&def_id=50-USC-856673646-1534214675&term_occur=7&term_src=title:50:chapter:36:subchapter:I:section: 1804);

(5)a description of the nature of the information sought and the type of communications or activities to be subjected to the surveillance;

(6)a certification or certifications by the Assistant to the President for National Security Affairs, an executive branch official or officials designated by the President from among those executive officers employed in the area of national security or defense and appointed by the President with the advice and consent of the Senate, or the Deputy Director of the Federal Bureau of Investigation, if designated by the President as a certifying official—(A)that the certifying official deems the information sought to be foreign intelligence information (https://www.law.cornell.edu/definitions/uscode.php?width=840&height=800&iframe=true&def_id=50-USC-1113551671-1534214672&term_occur=7&term_src=title:50:chapter:36:subchapter:I:section: 1804);

(B)that a significant purpose of the surveillance is to obtain foreign intelligence information (https://www.law.cornell.edu/definitions/uscode.php?width=840&height=800&iframe=true&def_id=50-USC-1113551671-1534214672&term_occur=8&term_src=title:50:chapter:36:subchapter:I:section: 1804);

(C)that such information cannot reasonably be obtained by normal investigative techniques;

(D)that designates the type of foreign intelligence information (https://www.law.cornell.edu/definitions/uscode.php?width=840&height=800&iframe=true&def_id=50-USC-1113551671-1534214672&term_occur=9&term_src=title:50:chapter:36:subchapter:I:section: 1804) being sought according to the categories described in section 1801(e) of this title (https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/50/1801#e); and

(E)including a statement of the basis for the certification that—(i)the information sought is the type of foreign intelligence information (https://www.law.cornell.edu/definitions/uscode.php?width=840&height=800&iframe=true&def_id=50-USC-1113551671-1534214672&term_occur=10&term_src=title:50:chapter:36:subchapter:I:section: 1804) designated; and

(ii)such information cannot reasonably be obtained by normal investigative techniques;

(7)a summary statement of the means by which the surveillance will be effected and a statement whether physical entry is required to effect the surveillance;

(8)a statement of the facts concerning all previous applications that have been made to any judge under this subchapter involving any of the persons (https://www.law.cornell.edu/definitions/uscode.php?width=840&height=800&iframe=true&def_id=50-USC-1907849355-1534214680&term_occur=15&term_src=title:50:chapter:36:subchapter:I:section: 1804), facilities, or places specified in the application, and the action taken on each previous application; and

(9)a statement of the period of time for which the electronic surveillance (https://www.law.cornell.edu/definitions/uscode.php?width=840&height=800&iframe=true&def_id=50-USC-23177827-1534214673&term_occur=18&term_src=title:50:chapter:36:subchapter:I:section: 1804) is required to be maintained, and if the nature of the intelligence gathering is such that the approval of the use of electronic surveillance (https://www.law.cornell.edu/definitions/uscode.php?width=840&height=800&iframe=true&def_id=50-USC-23177827-1534214673&term_occur=19&term_src=title:50:chapter:36:subchapter:I:section: 1804) under this subchapter should not automatically terminate when the described type of information has first been obtained, a description of facts supporting the belief that additional information of the same type will be obtained thereafter.

https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/50/1804

spurraider21

02-07-2018, 03:13 PM

inb4 :cry but it doesnt explicitly say they CANT do that so i'm going to give sundance benefit of the doubt because he generally seems to know what he's talking about :cry

TSA

02-07-2018, 03:43 PM

see, this is why you're full of shit. they can only directly surveil the named target. they cant go back and say "oh well this guy talked to trump 8 months ago, so now we have the green light to surveil trump himself!"

it doesn't say "the facilities or places at which the electronic surveillance is directed or being used, or is about to be used by any contact (past or present) of the target

(a)Submission by Federal officer; approval of Attorney General; contentsEach application for an order approving electronic surveillance (https://www.law.cornell.edu/definitions/uscode.php?width=840&height=800&iframe=true&def_id=50-USC-23177827-1534214673&term_occur=14&term_src=title:50:chapter:36:subchapter:I:section: 1804) under this subchapter shall be made by a Federal officer in writing upon oath or affirmation to a judge having jurisdiction under section 1803 of this title (https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/50/1803). Each application shall require the approval of the Attorney General based upon his finding that it satisfies the criteria and requirements of such application as set forth in this subchapter. It shall include—(1)the identity of the Federal officer making the application;

(2)the identity, if known, or a description of the specific target of the electronic surveillance (https://www.law.cornell.edu/definitions/uscode.php?width=840&height=800&iframe=true&def_id=50-USC-23177827-1534214673&term_occur=15&term_src=title:50:chapter:36:subchapter:I:section: 1804);

(3)a statement of the facts and circumstances relied upon by the applicant to justify his belief that—

(A)the target of the electronic surveillance (https://www.law.cornell.edu/definitions/uscode.php?width=840&height=800&iframe=true&def_id=50-USC-23177827-1534214673&term_occur=16&term_src=title:50:chapter:36:subchapter:I:section: 1804) is a foreign power or an agent of a foreign power (https://www.law.cornell.edu/definitions/uscode.php?width=840&height=800&iframe=true&def_id=50-USC-1998408204-1534214669&term_occur=5&term_src=title:50:chapter:36:subchapter:I:section: 1804); and

(B)each of the facilities or places at which the electronic surveillance (https://www.law.cornell.edu/definitions/uscode.php?width=840&height=800&iframe=true&def_id=50-USC-23177827-1534214673&term_occur=17&term_src=title:50:chapter:36:subchapter:I:section: 1804) is directed is being used, or is about to be used, by a foreign power or an agent of a foreign power (https://www.law.cornell.edu/definitions/uscode.php?width=840&height=800&iframe=true&def_id=50-USC-1998408204-1534214669&term_occur=6&term_src=title:50:chapter:36:subchapter:I:section: 1804);

(4)a statement of the proposed minimization procedures (https://www.law.cornell.edu/definitions/uscode.php?width=840&height=800&iframe=true&def_id=50-USC-856673646-1534214675&term_occur=7&term_src=title:50:chapter:36:subchapter:I:section: 1804);

(5)a description of the nature of the information sought and the type of communications or activities to be subjected to the surveillance;

(6)a certification or certifications by the Assistant to the President for National Security Affairs, an executive branch official or officials designated by the President from among those executive officers employed in the area of national security or defense and appointed by the President with the advice and consent of the Senate, or the Deputy Director of the Federal Bureau of Investigation, if designated by the President as a certifying official—(A)that the certifying official deems the information sought to be foreign intelligence information (https://www.law.cornell.edu/definitions/uscode.php?width=840&height=800&iframe=true&def_id=50-USC-1113551671-1534214672&term_occur=7&term_src=title:50:chapter:36:subchapter:I:section: 1804);

(B)that a significant purpose of the surveillance is to obtain foreign intelligence information (https://www.law.cornell.edu/definitions/uscode.php?width=840&height=800&iframe=true&def_id=50-USC-1113551671-1534214672&term_occur=8&term_src=title:50:chapter:36:subchapter:I:section: 1804);

(C)that such information cannot reasonably be obtained by normal investigative techniques;

(D)that designates the type of foreign intelligence information (https://www.law.cornell.edu/definitions/uscode.php?width=840&height=800&iframe=true&def_id=50-USC-1113551671-1534214672&term_occur=9&term_src=title:50:chapter:36:subchapter:I:section: 1804) being sought according to the categories described in section 1801(e) of this title (https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/50/1801#e); and

(E)including a statement of the basis for the certification that—(i)the information sought is the type of foreign intelligence information (https://www.law.cornell.edu/definitions/uscode.php?width=840&height=800&iframe=true&def_id=50-USC-1113551671-1534214672&term_occur=10&term_src=title:50:chapter:36:subchapter:I:section: 1804) designated; and

(ii)such information cannot reasonably be obtained by normal investigative techniques;

(7)a summary statement of the means by which the surveillance will be effected and a statement whether physical entry is required to effect the surveillance;

(8)a statement of the facts concerning all previous applications that have been made to any judge under this subchapter involving any of the persons (https://www.law.cornell.edu/definitions/uscode.php?width=840&height=800&iframe=true&def_id=50-USC-1907849355-1534214680&term_occur=15&term_src=title:50:chapter:36:subchapter:I:section: 1804), facilities, or places specified in the application, and the action taken on each previous application; and

(9)a statement of the period of time for which the electronic surveillance (https://www.law.cornell.edu/definitions/uscode.php?width=840&height=800&iframe=true&def_id=50-USC-23177827-1534214673&term_occur=18&term_src=title:50:chapter:36:subchapter:I:section: 1804) is required to be maintained, and if the nature of the intelligence gathering is such that the approval of the use of electronic surveillance (https://www.law.cornell.edu/definitions/uscode.php?width=840&height=800&iframe=true&def_id=50-USC-23177827-1534214673&term_occur=19&term_src=title:50:chapter:36:subchapter:I:section: 1804) under this subchapter should not automatically terminate when the described type of information has first been obtained, a description of facts supporting the belief that additional information of the same type will be obtained thereafter.

https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/50/1804

Do you believe only Carter Page’s communications were picked up when he was being directly surveilled?

We aren’t going to find the answer to this in the US code and would need someone in law enforcement to explain the reaches and uses of title I surveillance.

Pavlov

02-07-2018, 03:44 PM

How do you plan on seeing the FISA application?Exactly.

I don't think the actions from the house and senate are an end game at all but rather the start of getting the public primed for all of the abuses uncovered in the upcoming OIG investigation report.What is the end game of uncovering "all the abuses" for Republicans.

spurraider21

02-07-2018, 03:45 PM

Do you believe only Carter Page’s communications were picked up when he was being directly surveilled?

i mean its another thing if you're going to claim that they outright violated FISA and put an illegal tap on trump... but then that would have nothing to do with Title I vs Title VII

We aren’t going to find the answer to this in the US code and would need someone in law enforcement to explain the reaches and uses of title I surveillance.

is sundance someone in law enforcement who can explain the reaches and uses of title I surveillance?

Splits

02-07-2018, 03:47 PM

Who does this sound like? (Read thread)

961208575774240768

Pavlov

02-07-2018, 03:48 PM

Pavlov

02-07-2018, 03:50 PM

is sundance someone in law enforcement who can explain the reaches and uses of title I surveillance?HE ALREADY DID

spurraider21

02-07-2018, 03:50 PM

Pavlov

02-07-2018, 03:52 PM

fifyYeah, and they intentionally misrepresented him as two different people in federal court because they knew he would be working for the Trump campaign years later.

That is some deep Deep State shit right dere.

TSA

02-07-2018, 06:31 PM

is sundance someone in law enforcement who can explain the reaches and uses of title I surveillance?

I don't know what his background is but he seems more knowledgeable on the subject than you. The reaches and uses of title I surveillance are not going to be found in US code as you found out for yourself.

TSA

02-07-2018, 06:34 PM

So the narrative is Obama tried to influence the election against Trump by having the FBI wait until Carter Page was no longer with the Trump campaign to legally acquire a permit to monitor him two weeks before election day.

Not sure where you came up with that narrative.

The narrative is that Carter Page was used to continue surveillance after Manfort's expired and the 702 about queries were shut down by Adm. Rogers. The Carter Page warrant also retroactively made legal all of the 702 about queries that were revealed in the FISC audit.

TSA

02-07-2018, 06:36 PM

Pavlov spurraider21

During the campaign and post election do you think the FBI/DOJ did all of this surveillance by the books yes or no?

spurraider21

02-07-2018, 06:36 PM

I don't know what his background is but he seems more knowledgeable on the subject than you. The reaches and uses of title I surveillance are not going to be found in US code as you found out for yourself.
what if i told you he used to manage a grocery store?

a quick google tells me sundance is some dude named Mark Bradman who used to manage a Publix Supermarket... and he first rose to "prominence" with his george zimmerman semen shielding. definitely seems like a FISA surveillance expert

i mean that doesn't necessarily mean he's wrong about everything, but if he isn't going to source his claims, he doesn't have some independent cred or authority status. im sure if i just confidently made shit up all the time without bothering to source them, i could come off very knowledgeable on the subject too :lol

Blake

02-07-2018, 06:39 PM

Pavlov spurraider21

During the campaign and post election do you think the FBI/DOJ did all of this surveillance by the books yes or no?

I haven't kept up but I'd wager my truck this is a false question

spurraider21

02-07-2018, 06:40 PM

Pavlov (http://www.spurstalk.com/forums/member.php?u=7343) spurraider21 (http://www.spurstalk.com/forums/member.php?u=31905)

During the campaign and post election do you think the FBI/DOJ did all of this surveillance by the books yes or no?
we don't have the information to make those claims tbh... hey TSA, did Reince Preibus cheat on his wife yes or no? like seriously, think about what kind of question that is.

so what exactly is the FISA abuse you think happened? you think they just fudged with an application to get a warrant they didn't deserve? or that they just illegally and intentionally tapped the wrong phones regardless of the warrant? those are 2 very different claims and you'd need all kinds of evidence to back either up. you have zero evidence of the latter.

but like i said, if you're going to accuse them of outright violating FISA statutes and doing rogue surveillance, than it sort of renders moot the whole title i vs title vii distinction you were pimping not too long ago. who cares which kind of authorization they had if they just violated either one anyway :lol

Pavlov

02-07-2018, 06:41 PM

Pavlov spurraider21

During the campaign and post election do you think the FBI/DOJ did all of this surveillance by the books yes or no?They sure went through the legal channels to do so.

Why do that if they just wanted political dirt?

TSA

02-07-2018, 06:45 PM

we don't have the information to make those claims tbh... hey TSA, did Reince Preibus cheat on his wife yes or no? like seriously, think about what kind of question that is.

so what exactly is the FISA abuse you think happened? you think they just fudged with an application to get a warrant they didn't deserve? or that they just illegally and intentionally tapped the wrong phones regardless of the warrant? those are 2 very different claims and you'd need all kinds of evidence to back either up. you have zero evidence of the latter.

but like i said, if you're going to accuse them of outright violating FISA statutes and doing rogue surveillance, than it sort of renders moot the whole title i vs title vii distinction you were pimping not too long ago. who cares which kind of authorization they had if they just violated either one anyway :lol

your Reince Preibus analogy doesn't work...I simply asked if you THINK everything was done by the books. There is plenty of information for you to form an opinion, don't be such a coward.

During the campaign and post election do you think the FBI/DOJ did all of this surveillance by the books yes or no?

TSA

02-07-2018, 06:46 PM

They sure went through the legal channels to do so.

Why do that if they just wanted political dirt?

You didn't answer the question either coward.

During the campaign and post election do you think the FBI/DOJ did all of this surveillance by the books yes or no?

spurraider21

02-07-2018, 06:46 PM

your Reince Preibus analogy doesn't work...I simply asked if you THINK everything was done by the books. There is plenty of information for you to form an opinion, don't be such a coward.

During the campaign and post election do you think the FBI/DOJ did all of this surveillance by the books yes or no?
do you think reince preibus cheated on his wife? yes or no.

clambake

02-07-2018, 06:46 PM

maybe

clambake

02-07-2018, 06:47 PM

that guy that quit today being asked "did you ever stop beating your wife?"

TSA

02-07-2018, 06:48 PM

do you think reince preibus cheated on his wife? yes or no.

No. See how easy that was.

Your turn. During the campaign and post election do you think the FBI/DOJ did all of this surveillance by the books yes or no?

Pavlov

02-07-2018, 06:48 PM

You didn't answer the question either coward.

During the campaign and post election do you think the FBI/DOJ did all of this surveillance by the books yes or no?lol you're way behind on answering questions.

I have seen no real evidence they haven't, so yes.

spurraider21

02-07-2018, 06:49 PM

spurraider21

02-07-2018, 06:49 PM

No. See how easy that was.

Your turn. During the campaign and post election do you think the FBI/DOJ did all of this surveillance by the books yes or no?
what are you basing your answer on? were you in the white house? who are your sources?

we dont know. if i give an opinion you dont like, you're just going to ask questions like that ^

if we dont know, we dont know. but if you're going to specifically allege wrongdoing, you need to back it up.

spurraider21

02-07-2018, 06:52 PM

all i know is the goalpost has shifted from "Title I allowed them to wiretap trump!" to "ok, even if it doesn't they probably broke the law and did it anyway! what, you think they went by the books? lol sheep #redpill"

TSA

02-07-2018, 06:53 PM

spurraider21

02-07-2018, 06:55 PM

:lol to wiretap trump

A title I FISA warrant would include surveillance of any contact of Page past and present...would that include Trump yes or no?
oh, is this you not actually believing the shit you say again?

that was your DIRECT response to me laughing at the notion of trump being tapped. you immediately tried to act like Title I would allow them to do just that.

Pavlov

02-07-2018, 06:55 PM

what if i told you he used to manage a grocery store?

a quick google tells me sundance is some dude named Mark Bradman who used to manage a Publix Supermarket... and he first rose to "prominence" with his george zimmerman semen shielding. definitely seems like a FISA surveillance expert

i mean that doesn't necessarily mean he's wrong about everything, but if he isn't going to source his claims, he doesn't have some independent cred or authority status. im sure if i just confidently made shit up all the time without bothering to source them, i could come off very knowledgeable on the subject too :lolOMFG :lol

TSA

02-07-2018, 06:57 PM

TSA the analogy goes to show that you're asking questions that none of us realistically have answers to. asking what we "think" is completely irrelevant. it doesn't get us any closer to real answers.

all i know is there appear to be a lot of safeguards in place regarding FISA surveillance. you need a bunch of officials to sign off on anything they do, including a bunch of republican figures who have no reason to be disloyal to trump. i think that's enough to shift the burden on anybody claiming that things weren't done by the books

Nothing we do here in this sub forum gets us any closer to real answers :lol

It's a fucking message board dude, people give their opinions here all the time yet the minute I ask for yours you curl up in the fetal position. I promise I'm not going to fire a bunch of follow up questions challenging your opinion I was just simply curious as to where you stood.

So, during the campaign and post election do you think the FBI/DOJ did all of this surveillance by the books yes or no?

spurraider21

02-07-2018, 06:59 PM

Nothing we do here in this sub forum gets us any closer to real answers :lol

It's a fucking message board dude, people give their opinions here all the time yet the minute I ask for yours you curl up in the fetal position. I promise I'm not going to fire a bunch of follow up questions challenging your opinion I was just simply curious as to where you stood.

So, during the campaign and post election do you think the FBI/DOJ did all of this surveillance by the books yes or no?
i have no reason to believe that they wiretapped trump

it's not like you're just here giving your opinions, or else you'd just say "hey i think they abused FISA" and left it at that. no. you try to prove it up, post sources... back up your claims. if you cant back up your claims, they're just useless, baseless opinions. that's not even worth our time on this message board

TSA

02-07-2018, 06:59 PM

oh, is this you not actually believing the shit you say again?

that was your DIRECT response to me laughing at the notion of trump being tapped. you immediately tried to act like Title I would allow them to do just that.

Trump wouldn't need to be the target of the surveillance to have his communications monitored.

TSA

02-07-2018, 07:01 PM

i have no reason to believe that they wiretapped trump

I didn't specify Trump and clearly said all of this surveillance. You are almost there try again.

During the campaign and post election do you think the FBI/DOJ did all of this surveillance by the books yes or no?

Pavlov

02-07-2018, 07:02 PM

Trump wouldn't need to be the target of the surveillance to have his communications monitored.OK, where are all the records of the monitoring?

TSA

02-07-2018, 07:02 PM

HbbdzFL-Ivc

spurraider21

02-07-2018, 07:03 PM

Trump wouldn't need to be the target of the surveillance to have his communications monitored.
could trump be wiretapped because of a Title I FISA warrant on Carter Page yes or no

spurraider21

02-07-2018, 07:04 PM

I didn't specify Trump and clearly said all of this surveillance. You are almost there try again.

During the campaign and post election do you think the FBI/DOJ did all of this surveillance by the books yes or no?
I specified trump. Chris posted a meme about Trump being tapped.

i then responded with

:lol to wiretap trump

and you immediately butted in and suggested the Title I warrant would allow them to do just that. it's completely understandable if you want to walk that claim back, though.

TSA

02-07-2018, 07:05 PM

could trump be wiretapped because of a Title I FISA warrant on Carter Page yes or no

Not directly.

spurraider21

02-07-2018, 07:05 PM

Not directly.
could trump be wiretapped because of a Title I FISA warrant on Carter Page yes or no

Pavlov

02-07-2018, 07:08 PM

Not directly.
Where are all the records of the Trump monitoring?

TSA

02-07-2018, 07:08 PM

I specified trump. Chris posted a meme about Trump being tapped.

i then responded with

and you immediately butted in and suggested the Title I warrant would allow them to do just that. it's completely understandable if you want to walk that claim back, though.

I did not suggest a title I would allow them to wiretap Trump I said it would allow surveillance of Page's contacts.

I asked you a broad question about surveillance and you continue to try and deflect.

Try again. During the campaign and post election do you think the FBI/DOJ did all of this surveillance by the books yes or no?

TSA

02-07-2018, 07:09 PM

could trump be wiretapped because of a Title I FISA warrant on Carter Page yes or no

No, not directly.

TSA

02-07-2018, 07:09 PM

Where are all the records of the Trump monitoring?

Horowitz

Pavlov

02-07-2018, 07:10 PM

Horowitzwhere were they before then?

spurraider21

02-07-2018, 07:13 PM

I did not suggest a title I would allow them to wiretap Trump I said it would allow surveillance of Page's contacts.
Great!

1) so was i justified in laughing at the notion of them being allowed to wiretap Trump?
2) what exactly do you mean by "surveillance of Page's contacts?"

do you mean it in the context of them getting "swept up?" if somebody wiretaps my cousin's cell phone and i proceed to call his cell phone and chat with him, that doesn't mean i was wiretapped.

I asked you a broad question about surveillance and you continue to try and deflect.

Try again. During the campaign and post election do you think the FBI/DOJ did all of this surveillance by the books yes or no?
asked and answered. i have no personal knowledge outside of what's been reported. given that, no, i dont have much reason to think otherwise. they had all the right people sign off on the right documents/applications. unless i'm missing some critical component.

are you alleging that they tapped devices other than which they were authorized to?

spurraider21

02-07-2018, 07:13 PM

No, not directly.
i dont know what that means

if somebody wiretaps my cousin's cell phone and i proceed to call his cell phone and chat with him, that doesn't mean i was wiretapped.

given that standard, could trump be wiretapped because of a Title I FISA warrant on Carter Page yes or no

spurraider21

02-07-2018, 07:15 PM

Horowitz
is he even looking into FISA stuff? my understanding is he's investigating the handling of the clinton email investigation/matter

Pavlov

02-07-2018, 07:20 PM

is he even looking into FISA stuff? my understanding is he's investigating the handling of the clinton email investigation/matter
Well he is the guy who totally exonerated Holder for fast and furious, so you can see why TSA is so excited.

TSA

02-07-2018, 07:56 PM

How do you plan on seeing the FISA application?

I don't think the actions from the house and senate are an end game at all but rather the start of getting the public primed for all of the abuses uncovered in the upcoming OIG investigation report.

Judiciary chairman wants FISA judge to reveal more info on Page surveillance

http://www.cnn.com/2018/02/07/politics/goodlatte-fisa-judge/index.html?sr=twCNN020718goodlatte-fisa-judge0602PMVODtop

“Judge Rosemary Collyer was the FISC Justice who wrote the extensive 99-page opinion (based on the reporting by NSA Director Mike Rogers and the admissions from the Department of Justice) that outlined the intentional abuse and misrepresentations to the FISA Court within the FISA-702 process.”

Reck

02-07-2018, 07:58 PM

Johnson also released 502 pages of Strzok/Page text messages

https://t.co/9FuCt3guDt

Poor TSA. Ron Jonhnson's conspiracy already dead within minutes.

961391144302268416

You will never learn

TSA

02-07-2018, 08:00 PM

i dont know what that means

if somebody wiretaps my cousin's cell phone and i proceed to call his cell phone and chat with him, that doesn't mean i was wiretapped.

given that standard, could trump be wiretapped because of a Title I FISA warrant on Carter Page yes or no

No, not directly.

When you were chatting with your cousin were you also being listened to?

spurraider21

02-07-2018, 08:00 PM

No, not directly.

When you were chatting with your cousin were you also being listened to?
do you know how phone calls work?

again, if my cousin has been wiretapped, and i call him and chat with him, it would be inaccurate to say i was wiretapped.

given that standard, could trump be wiretapped because of a Title I FISA warrant on Carter Page yes or no

Pavlov

02-07-2018, 08:03 PM

Poor TSA. Ron Jonhnson's conspiracy already dead within minutes.

961391144302268416

You will never learnlol

TSA

02-07-2018, 08:07 PM

Poor TSA. Ron Jonhnson's conspiracy already dead within minutes.

961391144302268416

You will never learn

“What exactly the text refers to isn’t specified in the exchange. Associates of the FBI employees said it refers to preparation to brief Mr. Obama about Russian interference in that year’s election.”

Associates of the FBI employees most likely mean Page/Strzok themselves

TSA

02-07-2018, 08:10 PM

do you know how phone calls work?

again, if my cousin has been wiretapped, and i call him and chat with him, it would be inaccurate to say i was wiretapped.

given that standard, could trump be wiretapped because of a Title I FISA warrant on Carter Page yes or no

How many times must I answer no? Are you too stupid to realize Trump does not need to be directly wiretapped to still be under surveillance?

When you were chatting with your cousin were you also being listened to?

TSA

02-07-2018, 08:11 PM

is he even looking into FISA stuff? my understanding is he's investigating the handling of the clinton email investigation/matter

There’s overlap because of Strzok and McCabe working on both Clinton email and Russia investigation.

spurraider21

02-07-2018, 08:19 PM

There’s overlap because of Strzok and McCabe working on both Clinton email and Russia investigation.
there's overlap because they're both FBI investigations

spurraider21

02-07-2018, 08:22 PM

How many times must I answer no?

Great! So I was justified to laugh here.

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/DVYn5u_VoAATVrO.jpg:large

:lol to wiretap trump

and you brought this up for no good reason except to make the BOMBSHELL revelation that people can get swept up in targetted surveillance?

A title I FISA warrant would include surveillance of any contact of Page past and present...would that include Trump yes or no?

is that what you meant by "surveillance of any contact"... getting swept up?

spurraider21

02-07-2018, 08:33 PM

and if that IS all you meant... that contacts could get "swept up" as part of the surveillance, why the whole dog and pony show about Title I vs Title VII? that's why i think you're disingenuous

TSA

02-07-2018, 10:10 PM

lol

I hope you were laughing at Reck

The text messages between Strzok/Page were from September 2016, when did the investigation into Russian interference begin?

TSA

02-07-2018, 10:13 PM

and if that IS all you meant... that contacts could get "swept up" as part of the surveillance, why the whole dog and pony show about Title I vs Title VII? that's why i think you're disingenuous

Targeting person A for surveillance knowing you will also get person B is not the same as incidental collection

Reck

02-07-2018, 10:24 PM

I hope you were laughing at Reck (http://www.spurstalk.com/forums/member.php?u=14412)

The text messages between Strzok/Page were from September 2016, when did the investigation into Russian interference begin?

LOL you retard.

It's so easy to understand if you actually read stuff that points to facts instead of dumbass conspiracies.

But the Obama briefing referenced was about Russian meddling in the 2016 election, not the Clinton investigation, a source familiar with the texts told HuffPost.

The texts were exchanged ahead of Obama’s meeting with Russian President Vladimir Putin on Sept. 5. Obama later publicly stated that (https://www.nytimes.com/2016/12/16/us/politics/obama-putin-hacking-news-conference.html) he confronted Putin about Russian election interference during that meeting, telling him to “cut it out.”

https://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/trump-russia-obama-clinton-fbi-texts_us_5a7b6602e4b044b38218cd7b

Unlike your boy toy, Obama actually had the guts to call out Putin and Russian out publicly.

TSA

02-07-2018, 10:34 PM

LOL you retard.

It's so easy to understand if you actually read stuff that points to facts instead of dumbass conspiracies.

https://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/trump-russia-obama-clinton-fbi-texts_us_5a7b6602e4b044b38218cd7b

If it’s so easy to understand why can’t you understand it?

:lol stuff that points to the facts
:lol “associates familiar with the texts”

I’ll ask you again Reck, when did the FBI investigation into Russian interference begin?

Reck

02-07-2018, 10:46 PM

If it’s so easy to understand why can’t you understand it?

:lol stuff that points to the facts
:lol “associates familiar with the texts”

I’ll ask you again Reck, when did the FBI investigation into Russian interference begin?

I dont see what that has anything to do with Obama was in on the Hillary email serve investigation narrative.

The texts once again are out of context, the record gets set straight and Johnson goes back to his hole.

But since you're you, you're still lapping up every conspiracy you get your hands on.

regarding my post with the link explaning things...why dont you read it? Afraid?

TSA

02-07-2018, 11:09 PM

I dont see what that has anything to do with Obama was in on the Hillary email serve investigation narrative.

The texts once again are out of context, the record gets set straight and Johnson goes back to his hole.

But since you're you, you're still lapping up every conspiracy you get your hands on.

regarding my post with the link explaning things...why dont you read it? Afraid?

Your link quotes people familiar with the texts, whatever the fuck that is supposed to mean. Your link is a pathetic attempt to create an alternate story for the texts.

Stop dodging the question. When did the FBI investigation into Russian interference begin?

Reck

02-07-2018, 11:12 PM

Your link quotes people familiar with the texts, whatever the fuck that is supposed to mean. Your link is a pathetic attempt to create an alternate story for the texts.

Stop dodging the question. When did the FBI investigation into Russian interference begin?

I posted a second link with quotes and all. :lol TSA

It doesn't get any clearer than:

The texts were exchanged ahead of Obama’s meeting with Russian President Vladimir Putin on Sept. 5. Obama later publicly stated that (https://www.nytimes.com/2016/12/16/us/politics/obama-putin-hacking-news-conference.html) he confronted Putin about Russian election interference during that meeting, telling him to “cut it out.”

TSA

02-07-2018, 11:26 PM

I posted a second link with quotes and all. :lol TSA

It doesn't get any clearer than:

The doesn’t clear anything up.

When did the FBI investigation into Russian interference begin?

TSA

02-07-2018, 11:27 PM

Maybe Pavlov can answer since you’re having trouble.

TSA

02-08-2018, 12:24 AM

961404212327452672

:lol personal reasons

This guy and Peter Strzok interviewed Clinton, Mills, and Abedin.

Reck

02-08-2018, 01:20 AM

A new TSA conspiracy is born. :lol

Pavlov

02-08-2018, 03:34 AM

Maybe Pavlov can answer since you’re having trouble.You're too far behind in answering questions to ever catch up tbh.

But the answer to your question is April 2016.

TSA

02-08-2018, 10:15 AM

You're too far behind in answering questions to ever catch up tbh.

But the answer to your question is April 2016.

April 2016 start date for official FBI investigation into Russian interference in our election? Your timeline is off.

TSA

02-08-2018, 10:30 AM

A new TSA conspiracy is born. :lol

No new conspiracy just another name to add to a long list of demoted/fired/retiring top FBI/DOJ agents involved in Clinton email/Russia investigation.

Strzok
McCabe
Yates
Ohr
Baker
Carlin
Laufman

Am I missing anyone?

Pavlov

02-08-2018, 12:11 PM

April 2016 start date for official FBI investigation into Russian interference in our election? Your timeline is off.

Nope. I'm right.

boutons_deux

02-08-2018, 12:45 PM

TSA

02-08-2018, 12:49 PM

Nope. I'm right.

Link?

I think you’re confusing Russian collusion investigation and Russian election interference investigation.

TSA

02-08-2018, 12:50 PM

TSA, etc being demagogued as a good sheeple by Fox/Repug strategy of trashing of Mueller/FBI in preparation for Mueller (FBI) indicting, subpoenaing Trash and mafiya, at which point Fox/Repugs/TSA/etc will scream "facts, evidence don't matter", Mueller/FBI are corrupt, politicized.

I’ve never trashed Mueller nor called for him to be removed.

And it’s clear the FBI/DOJ was corrupt and politicized. The OIG investigation your side called for will ironically expose it all.

Pavlov

02-08-2018, 12:55 PM

Link?

I think you’re confusing Russian collusion investigation and Russian election interference investigation.1) What's the difference?

2) What are your dates for both, with links?

Will post links (again) after you answer.

boutons_deux

02-08-2018, 01:09 PM

I’ve never trashed Mueller nor called for him to be removed.

And it’s clear the FBI/DOJ was corrupt and politicized. The OIG investigation your side called for will ironically expose it all.

FBI TRASHED Hillary TWICE into defeat

FBI ELECTED Trash,

while hiding FBI investigation of Trash and his mafiya connections to Russia.

but they are politicized against Trash. :lol

We all know damn well that Trash/Repugs/Fox/Breitbart don't separate FBI from FBI Mueller, so that their trashing FBI includes Mueller, even if you're so politicized to lie about it.

Pavlov

02-08-2018, 01:14 PM

I’ve never trashed Mueller nor called for him to be removed.You are calling for Rosenstein to be fired, which will most likely end up severely limit the Mueller investigation.

And it’s clear the FBI/DOJ was corrupt and politicized. The OIG investigation your side called for will ironically expose it all.It won't go the way you want it to.

TSA

02-08-2018, 01:41 PM

1) What's the difference?

2) What are your dates for both, with links?

Will post links (again) after you answer.

collusion april 2016
interference dec 2016

Pavlov

02-08-2018, 01:44 PM

collusion april 2016
interference dec 2016No links and you didn't say what the difference is.

Collusion is interference. How could it not be? Unless you're claiming they were suspected of colluding over something other than the election.

spurraider21

02-08-2018, 01:47 PM

No links and you didn't say what the difference is.

Collusion is interference. How could it not be? Unless you're claiming they were suspected of colluding over something other than the election.
yeah. i mean the allegation is russia pulled various stunts to interfere with the election (hacking DNC emails, disinformation campaign, etc), and the trump campaign was allegedly complicit in those efforts

there is no collusion allegation/investigation if not for the election interference

spurraider21

02-08-2018, 01:51 PM

Targeting person A for surveillance knowing you will also get person B is not the same as incidental collection
and that is also expressly forbidden by Title I

(B)there is no substantial likelihood that the surveillance will acquire the contents (https://www.law.cornell.edu/definitions/uscode.php?width=840&height=800&iframe=true&def_id=50-USC-567321830-1534456795&term_occur=6&term_src=title:50:chapter:36:subchapter:I:section: 1802) of any communication to which a United States person (https://www.law.cornell.edu/definitions/uscode.php?width=840&height=800&iframe=true&def_id=50-USC-1081524982-1534452996&term_occur=11&term_src=title:50:chapter:36:subchapter:I:section: 1802) is a party;

https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/50/1802

TSA

02-08-2018, 01:53 PM

You are calling for Rosenstein to be fired, which will most likely end up severely limit the Mueller investigation.I never called for Rosenstein to be fired stop lying. You and I were discussing a hypothetical and you yourself said if Rosenstein broke protocol he should be fired. Would I be correct in running around saying you also are calling for Rosenstein to be fired?

It won't go the way you want it to.It's already going to the way I want it to. Obama and Yates tried to neuter Horowitz by taking away his oversight of the NSD, but he's had power restored and has been working quietly behind the scenes for over a year. Horowitz is working directly with the House and Senate and fulfilling every request the FBI and DOJ have refused to complete. Where do you think the source documents Nunes used to compile the memo came from? Who recovered the texts from Strzok/Page the FBI said went missing? Who has been providing Grassley with all the documents requested?

Pavlov

02-08-2018, 01:55 PM

I never called for Rosenstein to be fired stop lying. You and I were discussing a hypothetical and you yourself said if Rosenstein broke protocol he should be fired. Would I be correct in running around saying you also are calling for Rosenstein to be fired?Broke protocol? I don't think that's the condition you laid out, so don't use that goalpost.

It's already going to the way I want it to. Obama and Yates tried to neuter Horowitz by taking away his oversight of the NSD, but he's had power restored and has been working quietly behind the scenes for over a year. Horowitz is working directly with the House and Senate and fulfilling every request the FBI and DOJ have refused to complete. Where do you think the source documents Nunes used to compile the memo came from? Who recovered the texts from Strzok/Page the FBI said went missing? Who has been providing Grassley with all the documents requested?It's not going to go the way you want it to.

TSA

02-08-2018, 01:59 PM

TSA

02-08-2018, 02:02 PM

Broke protocol? I don't think that's the condition you laid out, so don't use that goalpost. I don't remember the exact wording of the hypothetical we were discussing but you agreed with me so does that mean you are also calling for Rosenstein to be fired yes or no?

It's not going to go the way you want it to. You repeatedly saying this isn't going to stop it from happening. The OIG investigation is already bearing fruit, and none of it has been helping your case.

TSA

02-08-2018, 02:07 PM

2. In a FISA warrant on a US citizen, you NEVER rely on information that can’t be verified. If it can’t be verified, its taken out of the application. Agents fight to keep stuff in, even when thinly sourced, but the lawyers at FBI and DOJ are constantly removing stuff that they think isn’t adequately sourced. The fact that Steele was a former MI6 agent is nice, but its not a substitute for being able to verify the sources that gave Steele the information. Doing a FISA on a US Citizen, based on the premise that he’s engaged in espionage, is a HUGE step, and its not done on thin sourcing. The fact that Steele was retired, and working for pay — as opposed to being active and working only on behalf of his government — works against Steele’s credibility. He’s being paid to produce shaded information, not necessarily “truthful” information — which would be the presumption if he was still an active MI6 agent. So it normally would have been required for him to identify his sources — not keep them confidential. If he was an active MI6 agent, then you would respect his need to keep his sources confidential for future work. But he’s not acting on behalf of the British government, so that deference no longer applies. His information would not be accepted simply on his say-so. He’s selling his services, and wants to get paid, so he has a motivation to provide what his patron is looking for.

3. The Grassley memo says that the FISA renewal in January 2017 states the FBI disclosed that Steele was terminated as a Source in “October, 2016”, without specifying the date. The date exists — there is a “Source Termination” document in his file, and it has a date on it. If he was terminated BEFORE the FISA application was submitted on October 21, 2016, that is a massive red flag problem — the kind that gets people fired, and maybe prosecuted. If the FISA application went forward with information from Steele AFTER the date Steele was terminated as a source, that’s a violation of Bureau policy that would result in termination. The fact that the date is omitted in Grassley’s memo — as if it wasn’t in the underlying document Grassley or his staff read — is a noteworthy omission because that date was known when the January 2017 renewal disclosed the termination to the FISC, and its omission is almost certainly not accidental. This is the same kind of purposeful omission as the failure to specify that the Clinton campaign and the DNC paid for Steele’s work.

4. Whenever a key source in a FISA Application is terminated for misconduct, you do NOT wait for the next renewal to inform the FISC of the development. Policy is to file a disclosure of the change in circumstances with the Judge who issued the warrant, and leave it to the Judge to determine whether the new information requires rescinding the warrant. Only the Judge knows whether the information from that particular Source was crucial in the Judge’s determination that the application made a sufficient showing to justify issuance of the warrant. It was shocking to see that the termination of Steele was only disclosed to the FISC at the time of the first renewal approximately 3 months after Steele was terminated.

5. Whenever a FISA source is terminated for misconduct, that source’s information cannot be relied upon in the renewals. Normally the renewal is justified based on intelligence that is gathered during the first 90 days. Its normally not necessary to rely on the original source as justification to renew the FISA warrant UNLESS your surveillance is NOT turning up information about the target’s foreign entanglements. You only rely on the original PC if your surveillance is not providing you new PC information. But you would NEVER be allowed to rely on a terminated source’s information to continue PC when the surveillance is not providing sufficient new PC. So it makes no sense — as stated in Grassley’s memo — for the Bureau to continue to rely on Steele’s dossier information as PC in the 90, 180, or 270 day renewals. If there is new PC generated by the surveillance, then there is no need to use the terminated source. If there is no new PC from the surveillance, its a violation of policy to rely on the information from the terminated source as a substitute. The fact that the Bureau continued to present the Steele information in the renewals SUGGESTS — though is not necessarily conclusive — that there was insufficient intelligence coming out of the surveillance to provide new PC to continue the surveillance.

6. The idea that a Yahoo News article could be cited in a FISA application as “verification” of a source’s information is “Laugh Out Loud” funny. If such a claim was made in a regular FISA application, the first line of legal review would call and ask if that was included as a joke. The story in question cites anonymous sources. So you have Steele quoting anonymous sources, and Isikoff citing anonymous sources. The idea that they constitute verification of each other when the Bureau has no idea who they are or why they would know what they told Steele/Isikoff is simply “Through the Looking Glass” stuff. The fact that something like that survived FISA review confirms that the FISA process was corrupted. Its just beyond the pale — its that ridiculous.

7. When it became known that the info in the September 23, 2016 Yahoo News article matched pretty much exactly the information provided by Steele to the Bureau, and Steele denied having any contact with the press on the subject of his work, that would normally have led to a decision that Steele be polygraphed to see if he was being deceptive in his denial. If he had been polygraphed and passed, that would have been disclosed as the basis for believing his denial. The fact that he wasn’t polygraphed is a big tell that the “fix” was in — they feared he would fail. The idea that an Agent would write in the application — as Grassley’s memo says — ” The FBI does not believe [Steele] directly provided this information to the press”, relying only on Steele’s denial of having done so — MI6 or not — is laughable. Again, it goes back to the gravity of seeking a FISA warrant on a US citizen.

http://www.hughhewitt.com/carter-page-fisa-warrant-need-second-special-counsel/

Pavlov

02-08-2018, 02:08 PM

I'm still waiting on the link I requested from you first...get to it.Informal investigation of Russian interference, April 2016:

http://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-38589427

http://www.mcclatchydc.com/news/politics-government/article127231799.html

Official FBI investigation into Russian interference, July 2016:

http://www.latimes.com/politics/washington/la-na-essential-washington-updates-comey-fbi-launched-investigation-into-1490023083-htmlstory.html

Now I'm waiting on your explanation how collusion isn't interference and the links for the dates you have failed to provide.

TSA

02-08-2018, 02:09 PM

and that is also expressly forbidden by Title I

(B)there is no substantial likelihood that the surveillance will acquire the contents (https://www.law.cornell.edu/definitions/uscode.php?width=840&height=800&iframe=true&def_id=50-USC-567321830-1534456795&term_occur=6&term_src=title:50:chapter:36:subchapter:I:section: 1802) of any communication to which a United States person (https://www.law.cornell.edu/definitions/uscode.php?width=840&height=800&iframe=true&def_id=50-USC-1081524982-1534452996&term_occur=11&term_src=title:50:chapter:36:subchapter:I:section: 1802) is a party;

https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/50/1802

We already know from the FISC audit that non-compliance rates on certain queries were over 85% what makes you think something being expressly forbidden would stop someone from doing it?

Pavlov

02-08-2018, 02:10 PM

I don't remember the exact wording of the hypothetical we were discussing but you agreed with me so does that mean you are also calling for Rosenstein to be fired yes or no?So you don't want Rosenstein fired but will wait until the grocer tells you to want it.

You repeatedly saying this isn't going to stop it from happening. The OIG investigation is already bearing fruit, and none of it has been helping your case.What is my case, TSA?

TSA

02-08-2018, 02:15 PM

Informal investigation of Russian interference, April 2016:

http://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-38589427

http://www.mcclatchydc.com/news/politics-government/article127231799.html

Official FBI investigation into Russian interference, July 2016:

http://www.latimes.com/politics/washington/la-na-essential-washington-updates-comey-fbi-launched-investigation-into-1490023083-htmlstory.html

Now I'm waiting on your explanation how collusion isn't interference and the links for the dates you have failed to provide.

December 2016---Obama orders report on Russian hacking

http://www.cnn.com/2016/12/09/politics/obama-orders-review-into-russian-hacking-of-2016-election/index.html

Remember we are still talking about the Strzok/Page text that said POTUS wanted to know everything they were working on.

The December date is important because the Strzok/Page texts were from September so we can eliminate the theory of Obama asking for updates on the reports of Russian hacking. What investigations would that leave for Obama to be inquiring about in September?

Pavlov

02-08-2018, 02:17 PM

December 2016---Obama orders report on Russian hacking

http://www.cnn.com/2016/12/09/politics/obama-orders-review-into-russian-hacking-of-2016-election/index.html

Remember we are still talking about the Strzok/Page text that said POTUS wanted to know everything they were working on.

The December date is important because the Strzok/Page texts were from September so we can eliminate the theory of Obama asking for updates on the reports of Russian hacking. What investigations would that leave for Obama to be inquiring about in September?
Dodge #1.

Link?

I think you’re confusing Russian collusion investigation and Russian election interference investigation.1) What's the difference?

2) What are your dates for both, with links?

spurraider21

02-08-2018, 02:19 PM

We already know from the FISC audit that non-compliance rates on certain queries were over 85% what makes you think something being expressly forbidden would stop someone from doing it?
you keep moving goalposts

you keep telling me that Title I surveillance of Page allows something, and then when I point out it doesn't, you just say "well they break the rules anyway. Do you really think they do everything by the book?"

pick a lane

1 - Does Title I allow this shit (the route you chose when you started pimping the Title I vs Title VII differences pointed out by sundance aka whole foods)

2 - It doesn't matter what Title I allows, and the differences between Title I and Title VII are irrelevant since they just break the rules anyway

Pavlov

02-08-2018, 02:20 PM

you keep moving goalposts

you keep telling me that Title I surveillance of Page allows something, and then when I point out it doesn't, you just say "well they break the rules anyway. Do you really think they do everything by the book?"

pick a lane

1 - Does Title I allow this shit (the route you chose when you started pimping the Title I vs Title VII differences pointed out by sundance aka whole foods)

2 - It doesn't matter what Title I allows, and the differences between Title I and Title VII are irrelevant since they just break the rules anyway:lol Why even apply for a FISA warrant if you're just going to break the rules and law whenever you want to?

TSA

02-08-2018, 02:25 PM

So you don't want Rosenstein fired but will wait until the grocer tells you to want it. You and I agreed on Rosenstein, does that mean you are also calling for Rosenstein to be fired yes or no

What is my case, TSA?The opposite of what you say is the way I want it to go.

TSA

02-08-2018, 02:30 PM

you keep moving goalposts

you keep telling me that Title I surveillance of Page allows something, and then when I point out it doesn't, you just say "well they break the rules anyway. Do you really think they do everything by the book?"

pick a lane

1 - Does Title I allow this shit (the route you chose when you started pimping the Title I vs Title VII differences pointed out by sundance aka whole foods)

2 - It doesn't matter what Title I allows, and the differences between Title I and Title VII are irrelevant since they just break the rules anyway

I said from the start I thought the title I on Page was to justify the 702 about queries outside contractors were caught running without oversight that were mentioned in the FISC audit. You are making this more confusing than it needs to be.

TSA

02-08-2018, 02:30 PM

:lol Why even apply for a FISA warrant if you're just going to break the rules and law whenever you want to?

To justify the 702 about queries the outside contractor were running without oversight. FISA warrant is retroactive.

spurraider21

02-08-2018, 02:30 PM

pick a lane

1 - Does Title I allow this shit (the route you chose when you started pimping the Title I vs Title VII differences pointed out by sundance aka whole foods)

2 - It doesn't matter what Title I allows, and the differences between Title I and Title VII are irrelevant since they just break the rules anyway

For reference, here's every time you've been in lane 1

A title I FISA warrant would include surveillance of any contact of Page past and present...would that include Trump yes or no?

honestly though I already posted the difference between title I and title VII, if you were really curious you could look it up just like I did. And thank you I guess ??? for answering directly a question posed to djohn2oo8

“Title I” FISA surveillance of U.S. citizens is the most intrusive, exhaustive and far reaching type of search, seizure and surveillance authority, permitting the FBI to look at every scintilla of Mr. Page’s life. All communication, travel and contact can be opened and reviewed. All aspects of any of Mr. Page’s engagements are subject to being secretly monitored. This is an entirely different level of surveillance authority, the highest possible, and has nothing to do with FISA-702 search queries (Title VII) of U.S. persons."

"The “Title I” designation as a foreign agent applied retroactively to any action taken by Mr. Page, and auto-generates an exponential list of other people he came in contact with. Each of those people, groups or organizations could now have their communication reviewed, unmasked and analyzed by the DOJ/FBI with the same surveillance authority granted upon the target, Mr. Page."

https://theconservativetreehouse.com/2018/02/04/exceptional-work-by-sharyl-attkisson-did-fbi-violate-woods-procedures/

I tried looking up the US codes to confirm the above but they don't really get into the details of what type of net can be cast, at least from what I found.

Do you have any source documents refuting the above? I can't find any.

You can question him all you like but it doesn't sound like you've found anything to refute his claims either. Seems like he is pretty knowledgeable when it comes to this stuff so until I see something to refute it I'm just going to roll with it.

I don't know what his background is but he seems more knowledgeable on the subject than you. The reaches and uses of title I surveillance are not going to be found in US code as you found out for yourself.

Trump wouldn't need to be the target of the surveillance to have his communications monitored.

How many times must I answer no? Are you too stupid to realize Trump does not need to be directly wiretapped to still be under surveillance?

When you were chatting with your cousin were you also being listened to?

Targeting person A for surveillance knowing you will also get person B is not the same as incidental collection

and here's the times you were in lane 2 (just limited to your posts directed at me in this specific convo)

How many times must I answer no? Are you too stupid to realize Trump does not need to be directly wiretapped to still be under surveillance?

When you were chatting with your cousin were you also being listened to?

https://www.newamerica.org/oti/blog/scope-standards-and-protections-compared/

Explain to me how a court was convinced Carter Page was an agent of a foreign power AND that the facility or place to be surveilled is about to be used by the target. Also, was the court aware Carter Page previously worked undercover for the FBI?

Do you believe only Carter Page’s communications were picked up when he was being directly surveilled?

We aren’t going to find the answer to this in the US code and would need someone in law enforcement to explain the reaches and uses of title I surveillance.

Pavlov (http://www.spurstalk.com/forums/member.php?u=7343) spurraider21 (http://www.spurstalk.com/forums/member.php?u=31905)

During the campaign and post election do you think the FBI/DOJ did all of this surveillance by the books yes or no?

your Reince Preibus analogy doesn't work...I simply asked if you THINK everything was done by the books. There is plenty of information for you to form an opinion, don't be such a coward.

During the campaign and post election do you think the FBI/DOJ did all of this surveillance by the books yes or no?

You didn't answer the question either coward.

During the campaign and post election do you think the FBI/DOJ did all of this surveillance by the books yes or no?

No. See how easy that was.

Your turn. During the campaign and post election do you think the FBI/DOJ did all of this surveillance by the books yes or no?

Nothing we do here in this sub forum gets us any closer to real answers :lol

It's a fucking message board dude, people give their opinions here all the time yet the minute I ask for yours you curl up in the fetal position. I promise I'm not going to fire a bunch of follow up questions challenging your opinion I was just simply curious as to where you stood.

So, during the campaign and post election do you think the FBI/DOJ did all of this surveillance by the books yes or no?

I didn't specify Trump and clearly said all of this surveillance. You are almost there try again.

During the campaign and post election do you think the FBI/DOJ did all of this surveillance by the books yes or no?

We already know from the FISC audit that non-compliance rates on certain queries were over 85% what makes you think something being expressly forbidden would stop someone from doing it?

TSA

02-08-2018, 02:31 PM

:lmao

spurraider21

02-08-2018, 02:31 PM

I said from the start I thought the title I on Page was to justify the 702 about queries outside contractors were caught running without oversight that were mentioned in the FISC audit. You are making this more confusing than it needs to be.
you also said Title I allowed them to surveil not only the named target (Carter Page), but also surveil any contact of his past or present (including Trump) because sundance said so (going beyond merely getting "swept up" though you've been understandably vague about what constitutes this additional "surveillance")

i can see why you'd want to walk back that claim. in fact i'd respect you more if you did

Pavlov

02-08-2018, 02:32 PM

To justify the 702 about queries the outside contractor were running without oversight. FISA warrant is retroactive.But you're saying they then just violated the laws again in an attempt to justify the earlier transgressions.

TSA

02-08-2018, 02:42 PM

But you're saying they then just violated the laws again in an attempt to justify the earlier transgressions.

Correct. Amazing to think what they were attempting operating under the thought of Hillary winning the Presidency.

Pavlov

02-08-2018, 02:48 PM

Correct. Amazing to think what they were attempting operating under the thought of Hillary winning the Presidency.Amazing to think one can seriously base all his political and legal thought on the blog of a former supermarket manager.

Also:
Link?

I think you’re confusing Russian collusion investigation and Russian election interference investigation.1) What's the difference?

2) What are your dates for both, with links?

Chris

02-08-2018, 03:10 PM

"The activities of McCabe and others, Bruce Ohr and others, were designed to SUBVERT the Constitution and a National Election. The most SERIOUS OFFENSE under our Constitution."

961470238339584000

Chris

02-08-2018, 03:18 PM

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/DVdZEO3VoAACqTi.jpg:large

spurraider21

02-08-2018, 03:21 PM

surprised its a fountain and not a swamp

garrison off his game

Chris

02-08-2018, 03:48 PM

TSA

961295585142853633
961371307370844161
797183354072395776
796927739378991104

In the video below, Lee Stranahan explains that Carter Page worked as an FBI UCE (undercover employee) for 3 years, spying on Russians before they lied to the FISA court saying they needed to spy on him in case he was a Russian spy.

ovCju9kch-k

Pavlov

02-08-2018, 03:51 PM

spurraider21

02-08-2018, 03:56 PM

:lol

Chris, who does Lee Stranahan work for?
:lmao

Chris

02-08-2018, 04:01 PM

:lol

Chris, who does Lee Stranahan work for?

I can see you have already dismissed this. He founded Populist and has a website citizenjournalismschool.com.

Pavlov

02-08-2018, 04:01 PM

I can see you have already dismissed this. He founded Populist and has a website citizenjournalismschool.com.You didn't answer the question, Chris.

Chris, who does Lee Stranahan work for?

KenMcCoy

02-08-2018, 04:12 PM

could trump be wiretapped because of a Title I FISA warrant on Carter Page yes or no

Yes.

(3) a statement of the facts and circumstances relied upon by the applicant to justify his belief that— (A) the target of the electronic surveillance (https://www.law.cornell.edu/definitions/uscode.php?width=840&height=800&iframe=true&def_id=50-USC-23177827-1534214673&term_occur=16&term_src=title:50:chapter:36:subchapter:I:section: 1804) is a foreign power or an agent of a foreign power (https://www.law.cornell.edu/definitions/uscode.php?width=840&height=800&iframe=true&def_id=50-USC-1998408204-1534214669&term_occur=5&term_src=title:50:chapter:36:subchapter:I:section: 1804); and

(B) each of the facilities or places at which the electronic surveillance (https://www.law.cornell.edu/definitions/uscode.php?width=840&height=800&iframe=true&def_id=50-USC-23177827-1534214673&term_occur=17&term_src=title:50:chapter:36:subchapter:I:section: 1804) is directed is being used, or is about to be used, by a foreign power or an agent of a foreign power (https://www.law.cornell.edu/definitions/uscode.php?width=840&height=800&iframe=true&def_id=50-USC-1998408204-1534214669&term_occur=6&term_src=title:50:chapter:36:subchapter:I:section: 1804);

https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/50/1804

If Page was considered an agent of a foreign power, once a Title I Fisa warrant was obtained the FBI would be able to electronically surveil any location that Page could plausibly conduct collusion with the Russians. If the warrant application listed Trump Tower, Trump election hq, etc., those are all in play.

spurraider21

02-08-2018, 04:17 PM

Yes.

(3) a statement of the facts and circumstances relied upon by the applicant to justify his belief that— (A) the target of the electronic surveillance (https://www.law.cornell.edu/definitions/uscode.php?width=840&height=800&iframe=true&def_id=50-USC-23177827-1534214673&term_occur=16&term_src=title:50:chapter:36:subchapter:I:section: 1804) is a foreign power or an agent of a foreign power (https://www.law.cornell.edu/definitions/uscode.php?width=840&height=800&iframe=true&def_id=50-USC-1998408204-1534214669&term_occur=5&term_src=title:50:chapter:36:subchapter:I:section: 1804); and

(B) each of the facilities or places at which the electronic surveillance (https://www.law.cornell.edu/definitions/uscode.php?width=840&height=800&iframe=true&def_id=50-USC-23177827-1534214673&term_occur=17&term_src=title:50:chapter:36:subchapter:I:section: 1804) is directed is being used, or is about to be used, by a foreign power or an agent of a foreign power (https://www.law.cornell.edu/definitions/uscode.php?width=840&height=800&iframe=true&def_id=50-USC-1998408204-1534214669&term_occur=6&term_src=title:50:chapter:36:subchapter:I:section: 1804);

https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/50/1804

If Page was considered an agent of a foreign power, once a Title I Fisa warrant was obtained the FBI would be able to electronically surveil any location that Page could plausibly conduct collusion with the Russians. If the warrant application listed Trump Tower, Trump election hq, etc., those are all in play.
:lol could plausibly

the thing you quoted says they would require a statement of facts to justify the applicant's belief that the facility/place being surveilled "is being used, or is about to be used"

that's much stronger language than "could plausibly"

also, would that mean they can just put recording devices around every square inch of trump tower, or just the on the devices that they can show Page is using?

Pavlov

02-08-2018, 04:17 PM

Yes.

(3) a statement of the facts and circumstances relied upon by the applicant to justify his belief that— (A) the target of the electronic surveillance (https://www.law.cornell.edu/definitions/uscode.php?width=840&height=800&iframe=true&def_id=50-USC-23177827-1534214673&term_occur=16&term_src=title:50:chapter:36:subchapter:I:section: 1804) is a foreign power or an agent of a foreign power (https://www.law.cornell.edu/definitions/uscode.php?width=840&height=800&iframe=true&def_id=50-USC-1998408204-1534214669&term_occur=5&term_src=title:50:chapter:36:subchapter:I:section: 1804); and

(B) each of the facilities or places at which the electronic surveillance (https://www.law.cornell.edu/definitions/uscode.php?width=840&height=800&iframe=true&def_id=50-USC-23177827-1534214673&term_occur=17&term_src=title:50:chapter:36:subchapter:I:section: 1804) is directed is being used, or is about to be used, by a foreign power or an agent of a foreign power (https://www.law.cornell.edu/definitions/uscode.php?width=840&height=800&iframe=true&def_id=50-USC-1998408204-1534214669&term_occur=6&term_src=title:50:chapter:36:subchapter:I:section: 1804);

https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/50/1804

If Page was considered an agent of a foreign power, once a Title I Fisa warrant was obtained the FBI would be able to electronically surveil any location that Page could plausibly conduct collusion with the Russians. If the warrant application listed Trump Tower, Trump election hq, etc., those are all in play.That would be newsworthy had Page been a part of the Trump campaign at the time.

spurraider21

02-08-2018, 04:25 PM

they would also have to state with specificity the type of information being sought... with Carter Page being the named target, i doubt "a phone call between Trump and [not carter page]" would fall under that category

again, its very different to say Title I outright allows the surveillance of trump vs they violated the law to surveil trump

Chris

02-08-2018, 04:35 PM

You didn't answer the question, Chris.

Chris, who does Lee Stranahan work for?

Do your own research. If you already know the answers to your questions, then make your point. Anything else is chickenshit. You posted less than 3 minutes after my post, so that tells me you didn't watch the video. You also have no real interest in any kind of conversation, only finger pointing, thus you use a troll account. Be thankful I pay you any mind at all churl.

Pavlov

02-08-2018, 04:40 PM

Do your own research.I did. You did not.

If you already know the answers to your questions, then make your point. Anything else is chickenshit.I just wanted to make sure you confirmed you did no research.

You posted less than 3 minutes after my post, so that tells me you didn't watch the video.Considering the source, I see no reason to.

You also have no real interest in any kind of conversation, only finger pointing, thus you use a troll account.I use this account while the investigation is open.

Be thankful I pay you any mind at all churl.You seem upset for some reason.

Lee Stranahan works for the government of the Russian Federation.

KenMcCoy

02-08-2018, 04:43 PM

That would be newsworthy had Page been a part of the Trump campaign at the time.

Electronic surveillance is allowed under special order of the Attorney General if they determine that an emergency situation exists. As soon as Page showed up on the Trump campaign team, they could have determined that an emergency situation existed because he was interviewed by the FBI about his ties to Russia in 2013. If that happened, they would have had to follow up with the FISA paperwork, even though Page had already resigned by then.

(e) Emergency orders

(1) Notwithstanding any other provision of this subchapter, the Attorney General (https://www.law.cornell.edu/definitions/uscode.php?width=840&height=800&iframe=true&def_id=50-USC-133271130-1534214674&term_occur=31&term_src=title:50:chapter:36:subchapter:I:section: 1805) may authorize the emergency employment of electronic surveillance (https://www.law.cornell.edu/definitions/uscode.php?width=840&height=800&iframe=true&def_id=50-USC-23177827-1534214673&term_occur=37&term_src=title:50:chapter:36:subchapter:I:section: 1805) if the Attorney General—

(A) reasonably determines that an emergency situation exists with respect to the employment of electronic surveillance (https://www.law.cornell.edu/definitions/uscode.php?width=840&height=800&iframe=true&def_id=50-USC-23177827-1534214673&term_occur=38&term_src=title:50:chapter:36:subchapter:I:section: 1805) to obtain foreign intelligence information (https://www.law.cornell.edu/definitions/uscode.php?width=840&height=800&iframe=true&def_id=50-USC-1113551671-1534214672&term_occur=11&term_src=title:50:chapter:36:subchapter:I:section: 1805) before an order authorizing such surveillance can with due diligence be obtained;

https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/50/1805

Chris

02-08-2018, 04:47 PM

Lee Stranahan works for the government of the Russian Federation.

Just say he is full of shit next time, and we can move on. I've never even heard of Lee Stranahan before today.

Pavlov

02-08-2018, 04:47 PM

Electronic surveillance is allowed under special order of the Attorney General if they determine that an emergency situation exists. As soon as Page showed up on the Trump campaign team, they could have determined that an emergency situation existed because he was interviewed by the FBI about his ties to Russia in 2013. If that happened, they would have had to follow up with the FISA paperwork, even though Page had already resigned by then.

(e) Emergency orders (1) Notwithstanding any other provision of this subchapter, the Attorney General (https://www.law.cornell.edu/definitions/uscode.php?width=840&height=800&iframe=true&def_id=50-USC-133271130-1534214674&term_occur=31&term_src=title:50:chapter:36:subchapter:I:section: 1805) may authorize the emergency employment of electronic surveillance (https://www.law.cornell.edu/definitions/uscode.php?width=840&height=800&iframe=true&def_id=50-USC-23177827-1534214673&term_occur=37&term_src=title:50:chapter:36:subchapter:I:section: 1805) if the Attorney General— (A) reasonably determines that an emergency situation exists with respect to the employment of electronic surveillance (https://www.law.cornell.edu/definitions/uscode.php?width=840&height=800&iframe=true&def_id=50-USC-23177827-1534214673&term_occur=38&term_src=title:50:chapter:36:subchapter:I:section: 1805) to obtain foreign intelligence information (https://www.law.cornell.edu/definitions/uscode.php?width=840&height=800&iframe=true&def_id=50-USC-1113551671-1534214672&term_occur=11&term_src=title:50:chapter:36:subchapter:I:section: 1805) before an order authorizing such surveillance can with due diligence be obtained;

https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/50/1805So now you're saying Lynch was already wiretapping Trump and didn't need a FISA warrant at all.

This gets better and better.

spurraider21

02-08-2018, 04:49 PM

any evidence that this emergency situation was ever alleged and used to surveil? surely woulda come up in the memo, as the application after the fact would have to discuss the emergency thing...

Pavlov

02-08-2018, 04:50 PM

Just say he is full of shit next time, and we can move on.No. I will not.

You pimped the video of an employee of the government of the Russian Federation.

That's on you and you will hear about it.

I've never even heard of Lee Stranahan before today.Your only defense for posting that video is ignorance?

Well, I had already heard of him and knew he works for the government of the Russian Federation. I'm going to be smug about it.

KenMcCoy

02-08-2018, 04:51 PM

:lol could plausibly

the thing you quoted says they would require a statement of facts to justify the applicant's belief that the facility/place being surveilled "is being used, or is about to be used"

that's much stronger language than "could plausibly"

also, would that mean they can just put recording devices around every square inch of trump tower, or just the on the devices that they can show Page is using?

It could be anywhere. The facilities don't have to be listed at the time the FISA order is approved. They can begin surveillance anywhere and just have to notify the court within 10-60 days after they begin at a new location.

(3) Special directions for certain orders

An order approving an electronic surveillance (https://www.law.cornell.edu/definitions/uscode.php?width=840&height=800&iframe=true&def_id=50-USC-23177827-1534214673&term_occur=30&term_src=title:50:chapter:36:subchapter:I:section: 1805) under this section in circumstances where the nature and location of each of the facilities or places at which the surveillance will be directed is unknown shall direct the applicant to provide notice to the court within ten days after the date on which surveillance begins to be directed at any new facility or place, unless the court finds good cause to justify a longer period of up to 60 days, of—

(A) the nature and location of each new facility or place at which the electronic surveillance (https://www.law.cornell.edu/definitions/uscode.php?width=840&height=800&iframe=true&def_id=50-USC-23177827-1534214673&term_occur=31&term_src=title:50:chapter:36:subchapter:I:section: 1805) is directed;
(B) the facts and circumstances relied upon by the applicant to justify the applicant’s belief that each new facility or place at which the electronic surveillance (https://www.law.cornell.edu/definitions/uscode.php?width=840&height=800&iframe=true&def_id=50-USC-23177827-1534214673&term_occur=32&term_src=title:50:chapter:36:subchapter:I:section: 1805) is directed is or was being used, or is about to be used, by the target of the surveillance;
(C) a statement of any proposed minimization procedures (https://www.law.cornell.edu/definitions/uscode.php?width=840&height=800&iframe=true&def_id=50-USC-856673646-1534214675&term_occur=11&term_src=title:50:chapter:36:subchapter:I:section: 1805) that differ from those contained in the original application or order, that may be necessitated by a change in the facility or place at which the electronic surveillance is directed; and
(D)the total number of electronic surveillances (https://www.law.cornell.edu/definitions/uscode.php?width=840&height=800&iframe=true&def_id=50-USC-23177827-1534214673&term_occur=33&term_src=title:50:chapter:36:subchapter:I:section: 1805) that have been or are being conducted under the authority of the order.

https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/50/1805

KenMcCoy

02-08-2018, 04:53 PM

So now you're saying Lynch was already wiretapping Trump and didn't need a FISA warrant at all.

This gets better and better.

I'm not saying anything. I'm just interpreting the law.

spurraider21

02-08-2018, 04:54 PM

It could be anywhere. The facilities don't have to be listed at the time the FISA order is approved. They can begin surveillance anywhere and just have to notify the court within 10-60 days after they begin at a new location.

(3) Special directions for certain orders

An order approving an electronic surveillance (https://www.law.cornell.edu/definitions/uscode.php?width=840&height=800&iframe=true&def_id=50-USC-23177827-1534214673&term_occur=30&term_src=title:50:chapter:36:subchapter:I:section: 1805) under this section in circumstances where the nature and location of each of the facilities or places at which the surveillance will be directed is unknown shall direct the applicant to provide notice to the court within ten days after the date on which surveillance begins to be directed at any new facility or place, unless the court finds good cause to justify a longer period of up to 60 days, of—
yes. and that new location would have to meet the same burdens as we discussed above when they actually have to write up the application.

(B)the facts and circumstances relied upon by the applicant to justify the applicant’s belief that each new facility or place at which the electronic surveillance (https://www.law.cornell.edu/definitions/uscode.php?width=840&height=800&iframe=true&def_id=50-USC-23177827-1534214673&term_occur=32&term_src=title:50:chapter:36:subchapter:I:section: 1805) is directed is or was being used, or is about to be used, by the target of the surveillance

so they cant just go willy nilly surveilling every inch of trump tower. they still have to show (after the fact) what facts they had to justify their belief that Page was using or was about to use that facility

Pavlov

02-08-2018, 04:54 PM

I'm not saying anything. I'm just interpreting the law.Interpreting a law to concoct a fantasy.

TSA

02-08-2018, 04:59 PM

Amazing to think one can seriously base all his political and legal thought on the blog of a former supermarket manager. Amazing to think a former supermarket manager could get so far under your skin.

Also:1) What's the difference?

2) What are your dates for both, with links?Obama ordered an investigation in December 2016. FBI started theirs in April 2106. I provided the December 2016 link, you provided the April 2016 link. Enough with the redundant questions.

KenMcCoy

02-08-2018, 04:59 PM

yes. and that new location would have to meet the same burdens as we discussed above when they actually have to write up the application.

(B)the facts and circumstances relied upon by the applicant to justify the applicant’s belief that each new facility or place at which the electronic surveillance (https://www.law.cornell.edu/definitions/uscode.php?width=840&height=800&iframe=true&def_id=50-USC-23177827-1534214673&term_occur=32&term_src=title:50:chapter:36:subchapter:I:section: 1805) is directed is or was being used, or is about to be used, by the target of the surveillance

so they cant just go willy nilly surveilling every inch of trump tower. they still have to show (after the fact) what facts they had to justify their belief that Page was using or was about to use that facility

So the FBI agent submitting the application wouldn't believe that Page, who is now on Trump's campaign team, would use a location that the Trump campaign team was using? Is that you're argument?

spurraider21

02-08-2018, 05:02 PM

So the FBI agent submitting the application wouldn't believe that Page, who is now on Trump's campaign team, would use a location that the Trump campaign team was using? Is that you're argument?
if they knew exactly what locations he would be using... then this wouldn't meet the criteria of that subsection giving them 10+ days, which applies to "circumstances where the nature and location of each of the facilities or places at which the surveillance will be directed is unknown"

Pavlov

02-08-2018, 05:05 PM

Amazing to think a former supermarket manager could get so far under your skin.:lol I'm mocking him and you.

Obama ordered an investigation in December 2016. FBI started theirs in April 2106. I provided the December 2016 link, you provided the April 2016 link. Enough with the redundant questions.Dodge #2.

:lmao "Obama ordered an investigation."

Now you're lying about what you said.

December 2016---Obama orders report on Russian hacking

http://www.cnn.com/2016/12/09/politics/obama-orders-review-into-russian-hacking-of-2016-election/index.html

Link?

I think you’re confusing Russian collusion investigation and Russian election interference investigation.1) What's the difference?

2) What are your dates for both, with links?

Quit dodging.

Chris

02-08-2018, 05:06 PM

Lisa and Peter

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/DVixlmQX4AAHdpc.jpg:large

Pavlov

02-08-2018, 05:07 PM

So the FBI agent submitting the application wouldn't believe that Page, who is now on Trump's campaign team, would use a location that the Trump campaign team was using? Is that you're argument?He wasn't on the campaign anymore when the application was made in October. They specifically waited until he was off the campaign.

TSA

02-08-2018, 05:09 PM

Interpreting a law to concoct a fantasy.

The only fantasy here is that the Obama administration did not abuse the government's intelligence gathering abilities to spy on the Trump's campaign and the President elect.

Chris

02-08-2018, 05:09 PM

BREAKING: Another Longtime Aide To James Comey OUT at FBI

Michael Kortan, the FBI’s Head of Public Affairs and longtime aide to former bureau chief James Comey, is leaving his post.

http://www.thegatewaypundit.com/wp-content/uploads/james-comey-sad-450x270-1-600x361.jpg

The longtime head of public affairs at the FBI -- who was a confidant of former director James Comey -- is planning to retire, Fox News has learned.

A notice went out this week for a retirement get-together for Michael Kortan scheduled for Feb. 15. Since 2009, Kortan has served as assistant director for public affairs, an influential job that controlled media access. He also served under former director Robert Mueller, now leading the Russia probe.

The FBI confirmed to Fox News that Kortan is retiring.

It's unclear whether the retirement was long-planned or in any way precipitated by recent events. The FBI emphasized he was finishing 33 years of service.

After Comey became director in September 2013, Kortan helped facilitate regular on-the-record briefings with beat reporters, a departure from previous directors.

Kortan also was front and center during the Hillary Clinton email investigation, and especially in July 2016 -- coordinating media coverage and handing out copies of Comey’s public statement recommending against criminal charges in the investigation into mishandling of classified information. Kortan more recently surfaced in text messages released between FBI officials Peter Strzok and Lisa Page.

While those texts have drawn attention for their anti-Trump sentiments, Kortan also seemed to surface in a message warning about the contents of 302s, which were FBI interview summaries from the Clinton email case, that weren’t given to Congress up-front. In the September 2016 text, Strzok wrote that “there are VERY inflammatory things in the 302s we didn’t turn over to [Congress]…that are going to come out in FOIA and absolutely inflames Congress. I’m sure Jim and Trisha and Dave and Mike are all considering how things like that play out as they talk amongst themselves.”

“Mike” would appear to be a reference to Kortan.

Kortan is the most recent senior FBI official to retire. Others have been reassigned since Comey was fired by President Trump in May 2017.

Deputy Director Andrew McCabe, who also was close to Comey, is stepping down amid questions about his handling of the Clinton email case.

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2018/02/08/another-longtime-comey-aide-leaving-fbi.html

clambake

02-08-2018, 05:10 PM

The only fantasy here is that the Obama administration did not abuse the government's intelligence gathering abilities to spy on the Trump's campaign and the President elect.

that would be awesome.

Pavlov

02-08-2018, 05:11 PM

The only fantasy here is that the Obama administration did not abuse the government's intelligence gathering abilities to spy on the Trump's campaign and the President elect.Dodge #3.

You still have questions to answer after lying about your own post.

Link?

I think you’re confusing Russian collusion investigation and Russian election interference investigation.1) What's the difference?

2) What are your dates for both, with links?

Quit dodging.

TSA

02-08-2018, 05:12 PM

:lol I'm mocking him and you.

Dodge #2.

:lmao "Obama ordered an investigation."

Now you're lying about what you said.

1) What's the difference?

2) What are your dates for both, with links?

Quit dodging.

Obama ordered an investigation in December 2016. FBI started theirs in April 2106. I provided the December 2016 link, you provided the April 2016 link. Enough with the redundant questions.

You are boring me. Moving on.

TSA

02-08-2018, 05:13 PM

Chris

02-08-2018, 05:14 PM

Add another to the list!

Strzok
McCabe
Yates
Ohr
Baker
Carlin
Laufman
Kortan

Am I missing anyone?

:cry But Flynn lied to the FBI! :cry

spurraider21

02-08-2018, 05:14 PM

Comey

Pavlov

02-08-2018, 05:17 PM

Obama ordered an investigation in December 2016.This is a flat out lie. You even lie about what you post yourself.

December 2016---Obama orders report on Russian hacking

http://www.cnn.com/2016/12/09/politics/obama-orders-review-into-russian-hacking-of-2016-election/index.html

A report is not an investigation.

FBI started theirs in April 2106. I provided the December 2016 link, you provided the April 2016 link. Enough with the redundant questions.

You are boring me. Moving on.Dodge #4.

You said I was getting confused. I asked you to clear it up. You dodged.

Link?

I think you’re confusing Russian collusion investigation and Russian election interference investigation.1) What's the difference?

2) What are your dates for both, with links?[/quote]

Quit dodging.

spurraider21

02-08-2018, 05:17 PM

Obama ordered an investigation in December 2016. FBI started theirs in April 2106. I provided the December 2016 link, you provided the April 2016 link. Enough with the redundant questions.

You are boring me. Moving on.
pretty sure obama's december 2016 thing was specific to cyber activity/hacking... for security purposes. thats different than a broader investigation into russian meddling/influence

Pavlov

02-08-2018, 05:18 PM

pretty sure obama's december 2016 thing was specific to cyber activity/hacking... for security purposes. thats different than a broader investigation into russian meddling/influenceEven TSA said he ordered a report before he lied and said Obama ordered an investigation.

lol

KenMcCoy

02-08-2018, 05:19 PM

He wasn't on the campaign anymore when the application was made in October. They specifically waited until he was off the campaign.

Again, according to the FISA laws, they didn't have to have the court order to begin surveillance as soon as Page turned up on Trump's doorstep. Obtaining the order is only necessary if they wanted to use something they found in Court. It's inadmissible otherwise.

Pavlov

02-08-2018, 05:21 PM

Again, according to the FISA laws, they didn't have to have the court order to begin surveillance as soon as Page turned up on Trump's doorstep. Obtaining the order is only necessary if they wanted to use something they found in Court. It's inadmissible otherwise.Again, you're pushing a fantasy where Lynch just wiretapped Trump without any authorization.

Chris

02-08-2018, 05:24 PM

Again, you're pushing a fantasy where Lynch just wiretapped Trump without any authorization.

..and you're defending Lynch/Hillary because...reasons.

KenMcCoy

02-08-2018, 05:26 PM

Again, you're pushing a fantasy where Lynch just wiretapped Trump without any authorization.

Didn't have to be Lynch...

(g)“Attorney General (https://www.law.cornell.edu/definitions/uscode.php?width=840&height=800&iframe=true&def_id=50-USC-133271130-1534214674&term_occur=1&term_src=title:50:chapter:36:subchapter:I:section: 1801)” means the Attorney General (https://www.law.cornell.edu/definitions/uscode.php?width=840&height=800&iframe=true&def_id=50-USC-133271130-1534214674&term_occur=2&term_src=title:50:chapter:36:subchapter:I:section: 1801) of the United States (or Acting Attorney General (https://www.law.cornell.edu/definitions/uscode.php?width=840&height=800&iframe=true&def_id=50-USC-133271130-1534214674&term_occur=3&term_src=title:50:chapter:36:subchapter:I:section: 1801)), the Deputy Attorney General (https://www.law.cornell.edu/definitions/uscode.php?width=840&height=800&iframe=true&def_id=50-USC-133271130-1534214674&term_occur=4&term_src=title:50:chapter:36:subchapter:I:section: 1801), or, upon the designation of the Attorney General (https://www.law.cornell.edu/definitions/uscode.php?width=840&height=800&iframe=true&def_id=50-USC-133271130-1534214674&term_occur=5&term_src=title:50:chapter:36:subchapter:I:section: 1801), the Assistant Attorney General (https://www.law.cornell.edu/definitions/uscode.php?width=840&height=800&iframe=true&def_id=50-USC-133271130-1534214674&term_occur=6&term_src=title:50:chapter:36:subchapter:I:section: 1801) designated as the Assistant Attorney General (https://www.law.cornell.edu/definitions/uscode.php?width=840&height=800&iframe=true&def_id=50-USC-133271130-1534214674&term_occur=7&term_src=title:50:chapter:36:subchapter:I:section: 1801) for National Security under section 507A of title 28 (https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/28/507A).

https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/50/1801

Pavlov

02-08-2018, 05:26 PM

..and you're defending Lynch/Hillary because...reasons.No need to defend anyone when there is no evidence against them.

Pavlov

02-08-2018, 05:26 PM

Didn't have to be Lynch...

(g)“Attorney General (https://www.law.cornell.edu/definitions/uscode.php?width=840&height=800&iframe=true&def_id=50-USC-133271130-1534214674&term_occur=1&term_src=title:50:chapter:36:subchapter:I:section: 1801)” means the Attorney General (https://www.law.cornell.edu/definitions/uscode.php?width=840&height=800&iframe=true&def_id=50-USC-133271130-1534214674&term_occur=2&term_src=title:50:chapter:36:subchapter:I:section: 1801) of the United States (or Acting Attorney General (https://www.law.cornell.edu/definitions/uscode.php?width=840&height=800&iframe=true&def_id=50-USC-133271130-1534214674&term_occur=3&term_src=title:50:chapter:36:subchapter:I:section: 1801)), the Deputy Attorney General (https://www.law.cornell.edu/definitions/uscode.php?width=840&height=800&iframe=true&def_id=50-USC-133271130-1534214674&term_occur=4&term_src=title:50:chapter:36:subchapter:I:section: 1801), or, upon the designation of the Attorney General (https://www.law.cornell.edu/definitions/uscode.php?width=840&height=800&iframe=true&def_id=50-USC-133271130-1534214674&term_occur=5&term_src=title:50:chapter:36:subchapter:I:section: 1801), the Assistant Attorney General (https://www.law.cornell.edu/definitions/uscode.php?width=840&height=800&iframe=true&def_id=50-USC-133271130-1534214674&term_occur=6&term_src=title:50:chapter:36:subchapter:I:section: 1801) designated as the Assistant Attorney General (https://www.law.cornell.edu/definitions/uscode.php?width=840&height=800&iframe=true&def_id=50-USC-133271130-1534214674&term_occur=7&term_src=title:50:chapter:36:subchapter:I:section: 1801) for National Security under section 507A of title 28 (https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/28/507A).

https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/50/1801OK, who was it in this case?

Name a name.