Reply With Quote
TSA. Fake Patriot.
You're the real patriot, djohn. Proud and unafraid.
TSA just wants to destroy America.
TSA. Fake Patriot.
F.B.I. officials disagreed in 2016 about how aggressively and publicly to pursue the Russia inquiry before the election. But there was little debate about what seemed to be afoot. John O. Brennan, who retired this year after four years as C.I.A. director, told Congress in May that he had been concerned about multiple contacts between Russian officials and Trump advisers.
Meaning, intel was already shared between agencies before the dossier.Potatoe crew.
What relevance does the start of the investigation have to do with using the dem paid for Steele dossier to obtain the FISA warrant?
You can’t run from the same dossier you pimped for a year.
When was the FISA warrant you're talking about granted?
Was there only the one FISA warrant or were there others?
As someone who obtained FISA warrants while conducting counterintelligence investigations for the FBI, I can attest to the fact that they not only don’t involve the White House, but the process includes too many layers of approval to be granted without strong evidence.
There are two ways to obtain a wiretap – also known as electronic surveillance – on U.S. persons (citizens and permanent residents), and both include the courts. For criminal investigations, the FBI can seek a warrant under le III of the U.S. criminal code by showing a federal court that there is probable cause to believe the target has engaged, or is engaging in, criminal activity. This is a fairly high standard because of a strong presumption in favor of our Fourth Amendment right to privacy, and requires a showing that less intrusive means of obtaining the same information aren’t feasible.
The standard for electronic surveillance for foreign intelligence purposes, though, is a little lower. This is because when it comes to national security, as opposed to criminal prosecutions, our Fourth Amendment rights are balanced against the government’s interest in protecting the country. The Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) allows the FBI to get a warrant from a secret court, known as the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court (FISC), to conduct electronic surveillance on U.S. persons if they can show probable cause that the target is an “agent of a foreign power” who is “knowingly engag[ing]…in clandestine intelligence activities.” In other words, the government has to show that the target might be spying for a foreign government or organization.
But even under this standard, it’s not like the FBI can just decide to stop by a FISC to get a FISA warrant after going through the McDonald’s drive-thru for lunch. To even begin the process leading to a FISA, the FBI has to follow several steps outlined in the Attorney General Guidelines, which govern FBI investigations. First, the FBI has to conduct a “threat assessment” in order to establish grounds for even opening an investigation on potential FISA subjects. If a threat exists, the FBI must then formally open an investigation into possible foreign intelligence activity.
What does this look like in practice? Well, say, hypothetically, that a group of U.S. persons seem to have not infrequent contact with diplomats known to be Russian spies, whom the FBI are already monitoring. (Pro-tip: While it’s possible that such contacts could be accidental – I mean, hypothetically, the Trump inner circle could be a riot to hang out with socially – spies, particularly Russian ones, are pretty good at what they do and don’t spend time with people unless there’s a good reason.) The FBI might determine that, if the U.S. persons have access to classified information or could otherwise be “developed” for intelligence purposes by a foreign spy service, a significant enough threat exists to open an investigation – this would require at least one layer of approval within the FBI, and possibly more if the investigation concerns high-profile individuals.
The case still wouldn’t be FISA bound. FISA warrant investigations can’t be opened “solely on the basis of First Amendment activities,” so mere fraternization, even with sketchy people, wouldn’t be enough. The FBI would have to gather evidence to support a the claim that the U.S. target was knowingly working on behalf of a foreign en y. This could include information gathered from other methods like human sources, physical surveillance, bank transactions or even do ents found in the target’s trash. This takes some time, and, when enough evidence had been ac ulated, would be outlined in an affidavit and application stating the grounds for the FISA warrant. The completed FISA application would go up for approval through the FBI chain of command, including a Supervisor, the Chief Division Counsel (the highest lawyer within that FBI field office), and finally, the Special Agent in Charge of the field office, before making its way to FBI Headquarters to get approval by (at least) the Unit-level Supervisor there. If you’re exhausted already, hang on: There’s more.
The FISA application then travels to the Justice Department where attorneys from the National Security Division comb through the application to verify all the assertions made in it. Known as “Woods procedures” after Michael J. Woods, the FBI Special Agent attorney who developed this layer of approval, DOJ verifies the accuracy of every fact stated in the application. If anything looks unsubstantiated, the application is sent back to the FBI to provide additional evidentiary support – this game of bureaucratic chutes and ladders continues until DOJ is satisfied that the facts in the FISA application can both be corroborated and meet the legal standards for the court. After getting sign-off from a senior DOJ official (finally!), a lawyer from DOJ takes the FISA application before the FISC, comprised of eleven federal district judges who sit on the court on a rotating basis. The FISC reviews the application in secret, and decides whether to approve the warrant.
Now, it’s true that since its inception in 1978, the FISC has approved the vast majority of the over 25,000 FISA applications it has reviewed – some estimates put the number at over 99 percent. But that’s not surprising given the extensive process described above. In fact, if some reports are true that the initial FISA applications submitted to the FISC were rejected, prompting the FBI and DOJ to change its targets to the Russian banks doing business with Trump associates rather than the associates themselves (which would only require showing probable cause that the banks are a “foreign power,” which by definition they are), then a FISA application for Trump Tower, if one exists, would have been subject to even more scrutiny than would normally be the case.
In short, the FISA warrant process is designed to protect against the very abuse of power that the President has accused his predecessor of exercising. You could even say that FISA applications go through an “extreme vetting” process before being granted – something that the Trump administration ought to support
I'm requesting some details sundance may be unable or unwilling to produce.
quote the question, don’t answer it, fire off two more questions. Sad.
keep digging your hole djohn, the tree of woe’s roots run deep
Read the article on the procedures of how a FISA warrant is obtained.
Pavlov ...why doesn't TSA want to read this?
Dodge #1.
You don't think the start date is relevant and refused to discuss it but now want to argue about it. Now you don't want to discuss what you've been whining about all along.
When was the FISA warrant you're talking about granted?
Was there only the one FISA warrant or were there others?
Answer the questions, brave patriot.
He'll just say that every single person involved is corrupt. He's done it before.
What relevance does the start of the investigation have to do with using the dem paid for Steele dossier to obtain the FISA warrant?
Quote and dodge this again I dare you
Read the rules on how a warrant is obtained.
It could show that something else was involved in the FISA application since the investigation had been going on for months.
Quote and dodge this again I dare youtough guy
When was the FISA warrant you're talking about granted?
Was there only the one FISA warrant or were there others?
Answer the questions, brave patriot.
nice a 2 for 1 dodger
What relevance does the start of the investigation have to do with using the dem paid for Steele dossier to obtain the FISA warrant?
What relevance does your argument have if you don't know the requirements for a FISA warrant to be granted?
Whatever else was used is irrelevant to the fact that the Steele’s dossier was used at all in obtaining the FISA warrant.It could show that something else was involved in the FISA application since the investigation had been going on for months.
When was the FISA warrant you're talking about granted?
Was there only the one FISA warrant or were there others?
Answer the questions, brave patriot. I TRIPLE DOG DARE YA
Dem paid for opposition used was used by the FBI to justify a FISA warrant.
Fusion GPS working with both the FBI/DOJ in compiling
Major abuse of 702 by FBI/DOJ by outside contractors per FISC audit
Top FBI/DOJ officials involved retiring/reassigned/demoted all under investigation
And you want to sit here and argue about the investigation start date as if it matters
Dodge #3Whatever else was used is irrelevant to the fact that the Steele’s dossier was used at all in obtaining the FISA warrant.
Dem paid for opposition used was used by the FBI to justify a FISA warrant.
Fusion GPS working with both the FBI/DOJ in compiling
Major abuse of 702 by FBI/DOJ by outside contractors per FISC audit
Top FBI/DOJ officials involved retiring/reassigned/demoted all under investigation
And you want to sit here and argue about the investigation start date as if it matters
When was the FISA warrant you're talking about granted?
Was there only the one FISA warrant or were there others?
Answer the questions, brave patriot.
What must happen before a FISA warrant can be granted?Whatever else was used is irrelevant to the fact that the Steele’s dossier was used at all in obtaining the FISA warrant.
Dem paid for opposition used was used by the FBI to justify a FISA warrant.
Fusion GPS working with both the FBI/DOJ in compiling
Major abuse of 702 by FBI/DOJ by outside contractors per FISC audit
Top FBI/DOJ officials involved retiring/reassigned/demoted all under investigation
And you want to sit here and argue about the investigation start date as if it matters
And since the dossier is publicly available, what specific information from the dossier was used in the FISA warrant?
Three factual questions for our brave patriot from me on the topic he says he wants to discuss.
So far he has answered 0.
Lordy!
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
