Reply With Quote
did the yahoo article have any corroboration or sources besides steele?
damn...either the FISC judge was misled or in on the fix.
do we know to what extent the judge relied on the yahoo article in granting the warrant?
damn...either the FISC judge was misled or in on the fix.
did the yahoo article have any corroboration or sources besides steele?
damn...either the FISC judge was misled or in on the fix.
do we know to what extent the judge relied on the yahoo article in granting the warrant?
”Isikoff was shocked, he said, because his very article was based on information that came from Christopher Steele, the former British spy who wrote the dossier. He said it was “a bit beyond me” that the FBI would use his article in the FISA application.”
“It’s self-referential,” he said of the article and its reliance on the dossier.
“My story is about the FBI’s own investigation,” he continued.
“It’s self-referential,” he said of the article and its reliance on the dossier.
“My story is about the FBI’s own investigation,” he continued.
“So it seems a little odd that they would be citing the Yahoo! News story about the matter that they are investigating themselves based on the same material that had been separately presented to the FBI before I was ever briefed by Christopher Steele.”
After reading that excerpt from the Grassley memo that’s your ing concern?do we know to what extent the judge relied on the yahoo article in granting the warrant?
The bulk of the application is the Steele dossier claims with no additional information corroborating them, with exception of the Isikoff article.
It’s shocking to me that you of all people are still fighting tooth and nail to deny what actually transpired.
Democratic Sen. Mark Warner texted with Russian oligarch lobbyist in effort to contact dossier author Christopher Steele
Sen. Mark Warner, the top Democrat on the Senate Intelligence Committee who has been leading a congressional investigation into President Trump's alleged ties to Russia, had extensive contact last year with a lobbyist for a Russian oligarch who was offering Warner access to former British spy and dossier author Christopher Steele, according to text messages obtained exclusively by Fox News.
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2018...er-steele.html
https://www.scribd.com/do ent/3711...stopher-Steele
Deny? He's asking the right questions, you're the one playing 'connect the dots' on allegation, the burden of proof is on you...
It's a secret court (which is bad enough), and real solutions were offered in the past, like having an opposition lawyer representing citizens, that never went anywhere (with the previous or current administration).
I'm not seeing a disclosure requirement like that in the statutes. Where did you see it? I might have missed something...
I'm way more concerned that after these alleged abuses, Congress keeps authorizing the overreach and secrecy of that court (a court that, for those that forgot, gained a lot of it's powers with the Patriot Act, on a different Republican administration) under the mantra of national security...
So, even if we were to play "jump to conclusions", as our buddy TSA here, what is being done to rein in the court's power? What assurances we have this won't happen again in the future by this or any future administrations, regardless of their party denomination?
“he’s asking the right questions”
today’s lawyers
I still remember FromWayDowntown actually mentioning exactly this scenario back in the day when (R)s here were defending the Patriot Act, tbh... "you do understand that if you hand over that kind of power to the executive, eventually a Democrat can actually use that power, right? I don't want you ever complaining about that, ever"... deja vu.
He was asking you for evidence, but then you say he's 'denying'... I guess there's a communication problem somewhere, tbh.“he’s asking the right questions”
I’m not even sure the court is the problem. The problem seems to be the abuse of powers granted by the court. Nunes directly addresses those with a laundry list of amendments added before 702 reauthorized.
https://intelligence.house.gov/uploa...as_amended.pdf
It’s a long running pattern of what and from whom he asks for evidence.
Agree 100%. Changes need to happen to eliminate these scenarios in the future.
Democratic Sen. Mark Warner texted with Russian oligarch lobbyist in effort to contact dossier author Christopher Steele
Sen. Mark Warner, the top Democrat on the Senate Intelligence Committee who has been leading a congressional investigation into President Trump's alleged ties to Russia, had extensive contact last year with a lobbyist for a Russian oligarch who was offering Warner access to former British spy and dossier author Christopher Steele, according to text messages obtained exclusively by Fox News.
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2018...er-steele.html
https://www.scribd.com/do ent/3711...stopher-Steele
The bolded is an oxymoron.
Section 702 was actually issued as the Protect America Act of 2007 was set to expire, and basically uses the same wording. Signed into law by dubya himself.
It was set to expire on Dec 31st, 2012, but was extended by the senate two days prior, and extension for 5 years (expiration of Dec 31st, 2017).
And no, Nunes simply added more procedural steps that don't really address the fact that as long as this is a secret court, with secret, confidential decisions, no citizen representation, etc, it suffers from a dramatic credibility problem and it's wide open for abuse.
Don't want to just pile on Nunes, Democrats voted for this repeatedly as well.
tbh, maybe spurraider21 is Barry's lawyer...
damn, they grow up so fast, tbh...
And to save some time, let me explain why it's an oxymoron: this particular court doesn't have two sides and a judge. It has one side and a judge. It's the executive and the executive is also doing the monitoring (yes, even with the Nunes amendments), gee, isn't that great.
So, even if we were to give them good faith in their job to the poor judges, judges sometimes get it wrong. Heck, it happens all the time. Lower courts get overruled on appeal, they get overruled by the SCOTUS.
But there's no appeal process here, since there's no challenger side. This whole court construct is nothing like our judiciary, where transparency and the ability to challenge rulings is the norm.
It's a broken system (on purpose, at this point, it's been over 10 years) to pretend there's some sort of oversight.
If you know any history about FISA, and why it came to existence (Nixon actually eavesdropping on journalists), this whole thing is a complete travesty.
You think Nunes just added more procedural steps? Have you really read the new bill as recently amended?
We are concerned with separate yet related issues. You are more concerned with the FISC itself. I’m more concerned with the abuses from those granted power by the court. Nunes amendments directly address my concerns.
You wanna go over them one by one?
Basically, anything reading "The Attorney General, in consultation with the Director of National Intelligence, shall adopt..." it's the executive monitoring the executive...
Anything where the FBI has to allege it's a natsec matter, well, what's stopping them?
Rinse, repeat...
Judge got it wrong? Who's going to challenge that? Nobody obviously, there's no adversarial side on that court. Did Nunes fix that? Obviously not, that's not the intent.
Any court can, mistakenly, grant relative powers. The real justice comes from actually being able to challenge that.
The fact that this court does not operate like any judiciary court, it's the problem. The court is the problem. No procedural amendments can fix a sham court.
FWIW, I don't blame Nunes, even if he wanted to sink that court, he can't. It's a great tool for politicians, and both parties are well aware of the niceties of a secret court that largely rubberstamps their requests...
(see here for some stats: https://www.emptywheel.net/2017/06/2...le-iii-courts/)
Looking at those stats, you can see also why you can't sink that court. Even regular judges don't get in the way of LEO generally speaking. The difference with Article III, is that you can actually challenge later on whether the surveillance was legit, and you can access the do ents, etc. None of that applies to FISC.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
