Reply With Quote
You didn't answer the question, Chris.
Chris, who does Lee Stranahan work for?
I can see you have already dismissed this. He founded Populist and has a website citizenjournalismschool.com.
Chris, who does Lee Stranahan work for?
You didn't answer the question, Chris.
Chris, who does Lee Stranahan work for?
Yes.
(3) a statement of the facts and cir stances relied upon by the applicant to justify his belief that— (A) the target of the electronic surveillance is a foreign power or an agent of a foreign power; and
(B) each of the facilities or places at which the electronic surveillance 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/uscode/text/50/1804
If Page was considered an agent of a foreign power, once a le 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.
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?
That would be newsworthy had Page been a part of the Trump campaign at the time.
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 le I outright allows the surveillance of trump vs they violated the law to surveil trump
Do your own research. If you already know the answers to your questions, then make your point. Anything else is chicken . 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.
I did. You did not.
I just wanted to make sure you confirmed you did no research.If you already know the answers to your questions, then make your point. Anything else is chicken .
Considering the source, I see no reason to.You posted less than 3 minutes after my post, so that tells me you didn't watch the video.
I use this account while the investigation is open.You also have no real interest in any kind of conversation, only finger pointing, thus you use a troll account.
You seem upset for some reason.Be thankful I pay you any mind at all churl.
Lee Stranahan works for the government of the Russian Federation.
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 may authorize the emergency employment of electronic surveillance if the Attorney General—
(A) reasonably determines that an emergency situation exists with respect to the employment of electronic surveillance to obtain foreign intelligence information before an order authorizing such surveillance can with due diligence be obtained;
https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/50/1805
Just say he is full of next time, and we can move on. I've never even heard of Lee Stranahan before today.
So now you're saying Lynch was already wiretapping Trump and didn't need a FISA warrant at all.
This gets better and better.
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...
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.
Your only defense for posting that video is ignorance?I've never even heard of Lee Stranahan before today.
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.
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 under this section in cir stances 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 is directed;
(B) the facts and cir stances relied upon by the applicant to justify the applicant’s belief that each new facility or place at which the electronic surveillance 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 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 that have been or are being conducted under the authority of the order.
https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/50/1805
I'm not saying anything. I'm just interpreting the law.
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 cir stances relied upon by the applicant to justify the applicant’s belief that each new facility or place at which the electronic surveillance 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
Interpreting a law to concoct a fantasy.
Amazing to think a former supermarket manager could get so far under your skin.
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.Also:1) What's the difference?
2) What are your dates for both, with links?
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 "cir stances where the nature and location of each of the facilities or places at which the surveillance will be directed is unknown"
Dodge #2.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.
"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.
Lisa and Peter
He wasn't on the campaign anymore when the application was made in October. They specifically waited until he was off the campaign.
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.
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.
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...aving-fbi.html
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
