Flynn in major trouble for speaking to Russia about sanctions

[RandomGuy]

Wasn’t his trip to Russia part of the dossier?

IT was. As was Manfort's dealings.

[RandomGuy]

why hasn't Trump prosecuted Hillary?

not sure. maybe he's part of the deceit too or lining up his ducks first. i'm no agent of any gov office so i couldn't answer that exactly. who knows? but truth is, regardless of everything, classified info is classified and those who are negligent in keeping said info classified deserve to rot in jail. that is a crime and slaps on the wrist to those up top need to ing stop already. no law for them and a different set of laws for us; that needs to end.

Isn't going to happen with the current corrupt president.

[RandomGuy]

Why don't you walk us through the standards for evidence brought before a FISA court? It won't look good for you.

What actual story? The NYT was no bombs like you thought it was. You looked stupid parading it around and today you feel stupider. The Obama administration first sought a FISA warrant on Trump associates before Australia contacted US in July 2016. The investigation had already begun.

I predict TSA won't answer this question.

[spurraider21]

Oh, but that's true.

I thought the whole dossier was made up.

Pee pee!

IT was. As was Manfort's dealings.

point being that Darrin saying the Carter page moscow visit was used to get the FISA warrant ins't the same as him saying "the dossier wasn't used to get the warrant."

[Pavlov]

point being that Darrin saying the Carter page moscow visit was used to get the FISA warrant ins't the same as him saying "the dossier wasn't used to get the warrant."

His narrative is nothing in the dossier was ever corroborated and a judge just took everyone's word for it because Hannity and National Review

[DarrinS]

His narrative is nothing in the dossier was ever corroborated and a judge just took everyone's word for it because Hannity and National Review

Nope

[Pavlov]

Nope

What is your narrative then, Darrin? Let's see it.

[TSA]

TSA DarrinS read this tweet thread. Gives almost full context.

Gives almost full context

[spurraider21]

Gives almost full context

well, you wouldn't have completely full context unless they released all the texts in that conversation string.

did you read through that tweet thread though? fairly interesting imo

[spurraider21]

[TSA]

Why don't you walk us through the standards for evidence brought before a FISA court? It won't look good for you.



I predict TSA won't answer this question.

FISC court. Stop assuming the standards were followed.


Back in April, they leaked because they figured it would wound President Trump: After all, if the dossier had been used to obtain a FISA warrant, that must mean that the dossier’s sensational allegations of a traitorous Trump-Russia conspiracy were true. That is, the leakers assumed, just as many of us familiar with the FISA process assumed, that the Justice Department would never put information in a FISA warrant application unless the FBI had first corroborated it.

Subsequently, however, former FBI director James Comey told a Senate committee that the dossier remained “salacious and unverified.” Obviously, if the FBI had not verified the dossier by the time Comey testified in June 2017, then the Bureau cannot possibly have verified the dossier when DOJ sought the FISA warrant nine months earlier, in September 2016.

Then in October, it emerged that the Clinton campaign paid for the dossier. More recently, we learned that anti-Trump bias ran rampant in the upper ranks of the Bureau and the Justice Department — to the point that a top FBI counterintelligence agent spoke of the Bureau’s need for an “insurance policy” against the risk of a Trump presidency. Right before Christmas, reporting from Fox News strongly suggested that the FBI, though apparently aware that the dossier was a partisan campaign project, had verified none of its sensational claims. Finally, in a Fox News interview on Sunday, Senator Lindsey Graham (R., S.C.), who has inspected relevant classified do ents, indicated that the Justice Department used the dossier in its application without disclosing its partisan political genesis to the FISA court

[spurraider21]

national review? hold up lemme rebut that with some salon and dailykos articles

[djohn2oo8]

FISC court. Stop assuming the standards were followed.


Back in April, they leaked because they figured it would wound President Trump: After all, if the dossier had been used to obtain a FISA warrant, that must mean that the dossier’s sensational allegations of a traitorous Trump-Russia conspiracy were true. That is, the leakers assumed, just as many of us familiar with the FISA process assumed, that the Justice Department would never put information in a FISA warrant application unless the FBI had first corroborated it.

Subsequently, however, former FBI director James Comey told a Senate committee that the dossier remained “salacious and unverified.” Obviously, if the FBI had not verified the dossier by the time Comey testified in June 2017, then the Bureau cannot possibly have verified the dossier when DOJ sought the FISA warrant nine months earlier, in September 2016.

Then in October, it emerged that the Clinton campaign paid for the dossier. More recently, we learned that anti-Trump bias ran rampant in the upper ranks of the Bureau and the Justice Department — to the point that a top FBI counterintelligence agent spoke of the Bureau’s need for an “insurance policy” against the risk of a Trump presidency. Right before Christmas, reporting from Fox News strongly suggested that the FBI, though apparently aware that the dossier was a partisan campaign project, had verified none of its sensational claims. Finally, in a Fox News interview on Sunday, Senator Lindsey Graham (R., S.C.), who has inspected relevant classified do ents, indicated that the Justice Department used the dossier in its application without disclosing its partisan political genesis to the FISA court

So what are the standards?

[TSA]

well, you wouldn't have completely full context unless they released all the texts in that conversation string.

did you read through that tweet thread though? fairly interesting imo

The interpretation by someone of four texts. That’s interesting?

The top counterintelligence agent in the FBI doesn’t get demoted to HR for innocent texts. I’m sure the OIG handed over texts that were far more damning and could not be released to the public.

[TSA]

national review? hold up lemme rebut that with some salon and dailykos articles

You can’t argue the timeline

[djohn2oo8]

What are the standards, TSA?

[Pavlov]

You can’t argue the timeline

You can't post FISA standards.

[spurraider21]

The interpretation by someone of four texts. That’s interesting?

yeah, its an interesting interpretation of the infamous insurance policy text, given the timing of it.

The top counterintelligence agent in the FBI doesn’t get demoted to HR for innocent texts. I’m sure the OIG handed over texts that were far more damning and could not be released to the public.

sure. its also good practice not only to remove actual conflicts of interest but also appearances of conflicts of interest, which are equally damaging in the court of public opinion. until we have full context, it's all speculation.

pretty sure one time you asked me about conflicts on interest that i mentioned when it came up with a judge i was externing for. back when he was a practicing attorney, that he had once been retained by the defendant (edison electric) for an unrelated matter (eminent domain). even though there was no actual conflict, he had to disclose it, because NOT doing so would give the appearance of an actual conflict.

sidenote: the parties ended up waiving the conflict and it proceeded to trial

You can’t argue the timeline

timeline doesn't establish the standards of obtaining a FISA warrant

[TSA]

You can't post FISA standards.

Apparently you can’t either.

[djohn2oo8]

Apparently you can’t either.

I asked you 3 times. Spurraider just asked you. Pav asked you too. Can you post them or not?

[TSA]

yeah, its an interesting interpretation of the infamous insurance policy text, given the timing of it.


sure. its also good practice not only to remove actual conflicts of interest but also appearances of conflicts of interest, which are equally damaging in the court of public opinion. until we have full context, it's all speculation.

pretty sure one time you asked me about conflicts on interest that i mentioned when it came up with a judge i was externing for. back when he was a practicing attorney, that he had once been retained by the defendant (edison electric) for an unrelated matter (eminent domain). even though there was no actual conflict, he had to disclose it, because NOT doing so would give the appearance of an actual conflict.

sidenote: the parties ended up waiving the conflict and it proceeded to trial


timeline doesn't establish the standards of obtaining a FISA warrant

We know the dossier was used to obtain the warrant. We know the dossier was unverified when it was used to obtain the warrant.

“Subsequently, however, former FBI director James Comey told a Senate committee that the dossier remained “salacious and unverified.” Obviously, if the FBI had not verified the dossier by the time Comey testified in June 2017, then the Bureau cannot possibly have verified the dossier when DOJ sought the FISA warrant nine months earlier, in September 2016.”


Would obtaining a FISA warrant using an unverified dossier be practicing good standards?

[djohn2oo8]

I asked you 3 times. Spurraider just asked you. Pav asked you too. Can you post them or not?

TSA

[TSA]

TSA

Would obtaining a FISA warrant using an unverified dossier be practicing good standards?

[djohn2oo8]

Would obtaining a FISA warrant using an unverified dossier be practicing good standards?

Do you know the standards for obtaining one?

[TSA]

What are the odds that the judge who recused himself from the Flynn case was also the judge who signed off on the FISA warrant?

http://www.fisc.uscourts.gov/current-membership