Intelligence Committee To Petition FISA Court

[Hutch Starskey]

The intent is irrelevant. If I inform the cops on you and you get arrested, my feelings or motives are irrelevant as long as the information is reliable.

Obviously it was reliable as it was used subsequently for three renewals.

You go to police and tell them I have illegal narcotics in my home. There isn't a court in the country that would issue a search warrant based on that information alone.

Your claim would have to be investigated, the DEA would have to set up phony drug purchases from me. They would need to have evidence such as the narcotics, and then they can approach the court for a warrant.

For all the police know, you may be a nosy neighbor that wants to get even with me because I blew my snow on your lawn in the winter, or setup a surveillance camera pointed at your property. So you made the whole thing up for revenge.

When the FBI approaches the court with evidence, that evidence has to have been investigated first. It has to be presented as a factual claim--not some guy working for Hillary.

I said if it were reliable. That assumes the due diligence has been done. You don't have any idea of how the dossier information was used, what it was used in conjunction with or what steps had been taken to verify or corroborate the information.

The biggest mistakes you dopes make is assuming the dossier is 100% nonsense and that Russia didn't interfere.

Anything submitted to the FISA court has to be 100% checked out. When the FBI got rid of Steele, that too had to be submitted in their FISA renewals. it sure doesn't seem like it was.

Anything submitted to the FISA court has to be 100% checked out

Sure. You don't know that it wasn't. It obviously met the standard four times in front of four different judges.

You're assuming that everyone involved with the application process lied and every judge and their staff is incompetent. That's just dumb.

You project too much. It doesn't take everyone involved in the process to be dishonest to get an OMISSION past the reviewers or the judge or judges. What judge do you know of that can recognize that something like that has been left out of an application? If Ray is dumb, you are dumber. (Y'all could make a movie!)

Sure, dope. It's not like an omission could be rejected as an incomplete application at all.

 

[DOTR]

Now we're talking.

Nunes just stated on Fox he was going to petition the court for the entire proceedings.

The Republicans voted to unanimously release the Democrat's back peddle memo.

Grassley now after Steele.

It's getting ugly out there for all the crooks. And I'm going to love the next round of Intelligence Committee reports to hit the headlines over the next several months. And the FBI, IG, report will be a big wort on Comey's nose.

I have a feeling I know what Pencineck Schiffs strategy was. First he assumed his scribblings would be blocked. But the good old party, the republicans, voted unanimously to accede to his request....another chess move by the GOP against the checker playing democrats. So he has to release nonsense now.
So I suspect he has one more trick up his skinny sleeve. (((Schiff))) has undoubtedly included lots of classified info he hopes will be redacted. Then he can scream "Oy Vey Trump redacted the most important parts not fair!"
I want Trump to release it completely and without FBI review. Release it just as (((Schiff))) wrote it. And they can live with the consequences. Surely Pencilneck wouldn't hurt national security.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

The court sure wanted to know what the intent of the informant was. It's one of the questions on the FISA application. I can't wait to see how it was answered too because Steele was a well known Trump hater.

The intent is irrelevant. If I inform the cops on you and you get arrested, my feelings or motives are irrelevant as long as the information is reliable.

Obviously it was reliable as it was used subsequently for three renewals.

You go to police and tell them I have illegal narcotics in my home. There isn't a court in the country that would issue a search warrant based on that information alone.

Your claim would have to be investigated, the DEA would have to set up phony drug purchases from me. They would need to have evidence such as the narcotics, and then they can approach the court for a warrant.

For all the police know, you may be a nosy neighbor that wants to get even with me because I blew my snow on your lawn in the winter, or setup a surveillance camera pointed at your property. So you made the whole thing up for revenge.

When the FBI approaches the court with evidence, that evidence has to have been investigated first. It has to be presented as a factual claim--not some guy working for Hillary.

I said if it were reliable. That assumes the due diligence has been done. You don't have any idea of how the dossier information was used, what it was used in conjunction with or what steps had been taken to verify or corroborate the information.

The biggest mistakes you dopes make is assuming the dossier is 100% nonsense and that Russia didn't interfere.

Anything submitted to the FISA court has to be 100% checked out. When the FBI got rid of Steele, that too had to be submitted in their FISA renewals. it sure doesn't seem like it was.

Anything submitted to the FISA court has to be 100% checked out

Sure. You don't know that it wasn't. It obviously met the standard four times in front of four different judges.

You're assuming that everyone involved with the application process lied and every judge and their staff is incompetent. That's just dumb.

No, not at all. I'm just assuming these judges have standards.

The FBI approaches FISA and says they have opposition research from a presidential candidate that she paid for, and they want to use it to get a FISA warrant on her opponent and various members of his campaign. They tell the judge that the information was not vetted and they are just taking his word for it. The person who created the dossier is a known Trump hater. What they are looking for is Trump's collusion with Russia even though they don't have an iota of evidence to support their investigation.

And the judge says "Sure, no problem, here's your warrant?"

If you think that's what took place, then I have a bridge I want to sell you.

 

[Hutch Starskey]

Now we're talking.

Nunes just stated on Fox he was going to petition the court for the entire proceedings.

The Republicans voted to unanimously release the Democrat's back peddle memo.

Grassley now after Steele.

It's getting ugly out there for all the crooks. And I'm going to love the next round of Intelligence Committee reports to hit the headlines over the next several months. And the FBI, IG, report will be a big wort on Comey's nose.

I have a feeling I know what Pencineck Schiffs strategy was. First he assumed his scribblings would be blocked. But the good old party, the republicans, voted unanimously to accede to his request....another chess move by the GOP against the checker playing democrats. So he has to release nonsense now.
So I suspect he has one more trick up his skinny sleeve. (((Schiff))) has undoubtedly included lots of classified info he hopes will be redacted. Then he can scream "Oy Vey Trump redacted the most important parts not fair!"
I want Trump to release it completely and without FBI review. Release it just as (((Schiff))) wrote it. And they can live with the consequences. Surely Pencilneck wouldn't hurt national security.

Where your stupid assumptions fall flat is that it was sent to the FBI and the DOJ for approval before it went to Trump. Schiff even suggested that the WH consult with the DOJ before making his decision.

Check, fool.

 

[Hutch Starskey]

The intent is irrelevant. If I inform the cops on you and you get arrested, my feelings or motives are irrelevant as long as the information is reliable.

Obviously it was reliable as it was used subsequently for three renewals.

You go to police and tell them I have illegal narcotics in my home. There isn't a court in the country that would issue a search warrant based on that information alone.

Your claim would have to be investigated, the DEA would have to set up phony drug purchases from me. They would need to have evidence such as the narcotics, and then they can approach the court for a warrant.

For all the police know, you may be a nosy neighbor that wants to get even with me because I blew my snow on your lawn in the winter, or setup a surveillance camera pointed at your property. So you made the whole thing up for revenge.

When the FBI approaches the court with evidence, that evidence has to have been investigated first. It has to be presented as a factual claim--not some guy working for Hillary.

I said if it were reliable. That assumes the due diligence has been done. You don't have any idea of how the dossier information was used, what it was used in conjunction with or what steps had been taken to verify or corroborate the information.

The biggest mistakes you dopes make is assuming the dossier is 100% nonsense and that Russia didn't interfere.

Anything submitted to the FISA court has to be 100% checked out. When the FBI got rid of Steele, that too had to be submitted in their FISA renewals. it sure doesn't seem like it was.

Anything submitted to the FISA court has to be 100% checked out

Sure. You don't know that it wasn't. It obviously met the standard four times in front of four different judges.

You're assuming that everyone involved with the application process lied and every judge and their staff is incompetent. That's just dumb.

No, not at all. I'm just assuming these judges have standards.



The FBI approaches FISA and says they have opposition research from a presidential candidate that she paid for, and they want to use it to get a FISA warrant on her opponent and various members of his campaign. They tell the judge that the information was not vetted and they are just taking his word for it. The person who created the dossier is a known Trump hater. What they are looking for is Trump's collusion with Russia even though they don't have an iota of evidence to support their investigation.

And the judge says "Sure, no problem, here's your warrant?"

If you think that's what took place, then I have a bridge I want to sell you.

No, not at all. I'm just assuming these judges have standards.

Yes, standards like failing to include any required information is grounds for rejection.

You're assuming that not a one of four judges was competent enough to catch that.

 

[asaratis]

You go to police and tell them I have illegal narcotics in my home. There isn't a court in the country that would issue a search warrant based on that information alone.

Your claim would have to be investigated, the DEA would have to set up phony drug purchases from me. They would need to have evidence such as the narcotics, and then they can approach the court for a warrant.

For all the police know, you may be a nosy neighbor that wants to get even with me because I blew my snow on your lawn in the winter, or setup a surveillance camera pointed at your property. So you made the whole thing up for revenge.

When the FBI approaches the court with evidence, that evidence has to have been investigated first. It has to be presented as a factual claim--not some guy working for Hillary.

I said if it were reliable. That assumes the due diligence has been done. You don't have any idea of how the dossier information was used, what it was used in conjunction with or what steps had been taken to verify or corroborate the information.

The biggest mistakes you dopes make is assuming the dossier is 100% nonsense and that Russia didn't interfere.

Anything submitted to the FISA court has to be 100% checked out. When the FBI got rid of Steele, that too had to be submitted in their FISA renewals. it sure doesn't seem like it was.

Anything submitted to the FISA court has to be 100% checked out

Sure. You don't know that it wasn't. It obviously met the standard four times in front of four different judges.

You're assuming that everyone involved with the application process lied and every judge and their staff is incompetent. That's just dumb.

You project too much. It doesn't take everyone involved in the process to be dishonest to get an OMISSION past the reviewers or the judge or judges. What judge do you know of that can recognize that something like that has been left out of an application? If Ray is dumb, you are dumber. (Y'all could make a movie!)

Sure, dope. It's not like an omission could be rejected as an incomplete application at all.

The omissions were not obvious to anyone other than the submitting liars. It's not like they failed to check a box that required a check mark.

You're such a dupe. I'm surprised you can dress yourself without sticking a diaper pin in your own ass.

 

[asaratis]

You go to police and tell them I have illegal narcotics in my home. There isn't a court in the country that would issue a search warrant based on that information alone.

Your claim would have to be investigated, the DEA would have to set up phony drug purchases from me. They would need to have evidence such as the narcotics, and then they can approach the court for a warrant.

For all the police know, you may be a nosy neighbor that wants to get even with me because I blew my snow on your lawn in the winter, or setup a surveillance camera pointed at your property. So you made the whole thing up for revenge.

When the FBI approaches the court with evidence, that evidence has to have been investigated first. It has to be presented as a factual claim--not some guy working for Hillary.

I said if it were reliable. That assumes the due diligence has been done. You don't have any idea of how the dossier information was used, what it was used in conjunction with or what steps had been taken to verify or corroborate the information.

The biggest mistakes you dopes make is assuming the dossier is 100% nonsense and that Russia didn't interfere.

Anything submitted to the FISA court has to be 100% checked out. When the FBI got rid of Steele, that too had to be submitted in their FISA renewals. it sure doesn't seem like it was.

Anything submitted to the FISA court has to be 100% checked out

Sure. You don't know that it wasn't. It obviously met the standard four times in front of four different judges.

You're assuming that everyone involved with the application process lied and every judge and their staff is incompetent. That's just dumb.

No, not at all. I'm just assuming these judges have standards.



The FBI approaches FISA and says they have opposition research from a presidential candidate that she paid for, and they want to use it to get a FISA warrant on her opponent and various members of his campaign. They tell the judge that the information was not vetted and they are just taking his word for it. The person who created the dossier is a known Trump hater. What they are looking for is Trump's collusion with Russia even though they don't have an iota of evidence to support their investigation.

And the judge says "Sure, no problem, here's your warrant?"

If you think that's what took place, then I have a bridge I want to sell you.

No, not at all. I'm just assuming these judges have standards.

Yes, standards like failing to include any required information is grounds for rejection.

You're assuming that not a one of four judges was competent enough to catch that.

My god, man! You are dense!

You talk as if the judge already knew that the DNC and the FBI had paid for the dossier and should have pointed it out and told the petitioners to amend the application to show same. How fucking stupid can one man be?

What the petitioners did was to exclude exculpatory information that was known to them and hopefully not to the judge. That particular exclusion is ILLEGAL and DISHONEST! That makes the application a fraud on the court.

Wake the fuck up!

 

[DOTR]

Where your stupid assumptions fall flat is that it was sent to the FBI and the DOJ for approval before it went to Trump. Schiff even suggested that the WH consult with the DOJ before making his decision.

Check, fool.

My assumption is that the Marxist (((Schiff))) is an unintelligent liar. But I want addressing that. I was guessing what the strategy will be. I may or may not be right but I think I know Democrats and their scumminess. Schiff can suggest all he wants but he knows there is no undoing the truth already out there. He has to have some reason.
He has already been shown a liar when he said the Nunes memo would jeopardize national security. We have seen it...and it doesn't. He lied to avoid transparency. He knowingly lied because he had seen the memo.
So he needs an out. He would have liked for the Republicans to have voted "no" on his request so he could whine and moan about it. But Schiff is a known leaker. We all know that wouldn't have stopped him if he really wanted it out.
So his only hope now is to place something irrelevant but sensitive in the document and hope Trump has it redacted. Then he can cry that his side isn't getting out.
Trump, a stable genius as you know, wont fall for that. Unless (((Schiff))) is trying to kill Agents or something Trump should and I think will release it as written.
And there goes (((schiffs))) last chance.

The embarrassment wont hurt him...his democrat followers had neither the character nor the moral to point out his lies over the Nunes memo so why would they honestly assess this one.

 

[DOTR]

Claim: (((schiff))) and his deep state buddies said that releasing the Nunes memo would cause (1) a constitutional crisis and (2 )“risk harm to national security and to ongoing investigations.”
Fact: We have seen the memo. It didnt cause a constitutional crisis. it didnt damage national security.

Claim: (((schiff))) claimed the republicans doctored the memo before releasing it
Fact: We have seen both versions and Schiff lied again. There is no material difference.

Schiff is a liar with a fear of transparency and truth. No lie is too great for him.

 

[Faun]

The motives of the informant have no bearing on the validity of the information.
You have no idea what was used from the dossier or if it had been corroborated.

The court sure wanted to know what the intent of the informant was. It's one of the questions on the FISA application. I can't wait to see how it was answered too because Steele was a well known Trump hater.

The intent is irrelevant. If I inform the cops on you and you get arrested, my feelings or motives are irrelevant as long as the information is reliable.

Obviously it was reliable as it was used subsequently for three renewals.

You go to police and tell them I have illegal narcotics in my home. There isn't a court in the country that would issue a search warrant based on that information alone.

Your claim would have to be investigated, the DEA would have to set up phony drug purchases from me. They would need to have evidence such as the narcotics, and then they can approach the court for a warrant.

For all the police know, you may be a nosy neighbor that wants to get even with me because I blew my snow on your lawn in the winter, or setup a surveillance camera pointed at your property. So you made the whole thing up for revenge.

When the FBI approaches the court with evidence, that evidence has to have been investigated first. It has to be presented as a factual claim--not some guy working for Hillary.

And the FBI did investigate and confirm some of the details of the dossier.

No, they didn't. They have done nothing to corroborate any part of the dossier.

You really don't know shit, do ya?

How true is the Trump-Russia dossier? One year later, what we know about its claims

Verified: Former Trump campaign adviser Carter Page met with representatives of Russian state-owned oil giant Rosneft.

Verified: The Kremlin targeted educated youth and swing state voters during its cyber attacks in the 2016 campaign.

Verified: Trump maintains ties to rich businessmen from Azerbaijan.​

 

[westwall]

The court sure wanted to know what the intent of the informant was. It's one of the questions on the FISA application. I can't wait to see how it was answered too because Steele was a well known Trump hater.

The intent is irrelevant. If I inform the cops on you and you get arrested, my feelings or motives are irrelevant as long as the information is reliable.

Obviously it was reliable as it was used subsequently for three renewals.

You go to police and tell them I have illegal narcotics in my home. There isn't a court in the country that would issue a search warrant based on that information alone.

Your claim would have to be investigated, the DEA would have to set up phony drug purchases from me. They would need to have evidence such as the narcotics, and then they can approach the court for a warrant.

For all the police know, you may be a nosy neighbor that wants to get even with me because I blew my snow on your lawn in the winter, or setup a surveillance camera pointed at your property. So you made the whole thing up for revenge.

When the FBI approaches the court with evidence, that evidence has to have been investigated first. It has to be presented as a factual claim--not some guy working for Hillary.

And the FBI did investigate and confirm some of the details of the dossier.

No, they didn't. They have done nothing to corroborate any part of the dossier.

You really don't know shit, do ya?

How true is the Trump-Russia dossier? One year later, what we know about its claims

Verified: Former Trump campaign adviser Carter Page met with representatives of Russian state-owned oil giant Rosneft.

Verified: The Kremlin targeted educated youth and swing state voters during its cyber attacks in the 2016 campaign.

Verified: Trump maintains ties to rich businessmen from Azerbaijan.​

All of which was well known years before. You think this qualifies as evidence? Dude, you're making yourself look stupider and stupider every minute.

 

[leftwinger]

Once you get it by the "first judge", maybe the next three just rubber-stamp extesions? Thinking heavy verification went on at step 1?

 

[Faun]

The motives of the informant have no bearing on the validity of the information.
You have no idea what was used from the dossier or if it had been corroborated.

The court sure wanted to know what the intent of the informant was. It's one of the questions on the FISA application. I can't wait to see how it was answered too because Steele was a well known Trump hater.

The intent is irrelevant. If I inform the cops on you and you get arrested, my feelings or motives are irrelevant as long as the information is reliable.

Obviously it was reliable as it was used subsequently for three renewals.

You go to police and tell them I have illegal narcotics in my home. There isn't a court in the country that would issue a search warrant based on that information alone.

Your claim would have to be investigated, the DEA would have to set up phony drug purchases from me. They would need to have evidence such as the narcotics, and then they can approach the court for a warrant.

For all the police know, you may be a nosy neighbor that wants to get even with me because I blew my snow on your lawn in the winter, or setup a surveillance camera pointed at your property. So you made the whole thing up for revenge.

When the FBI approaches the court with evidence, that evidence has to have been investigated first. It has to be presented as a factual claim--not some guy working for Hillary.

And the FBI did investigate and confirm some of the details of the dossier.

They are not to confirm "some" of anything. If they are going to use the dossier, they need to verify all of it.

LOLOL

Sure, ya fruit-loop dingus.

 

[Faun]

The motives of the informant have no bearing on the validity of the information.
You have no idea what was used from the dossier or if it had been corroborated.

The court sure wanted to know what the intent of the informant was. It's one of the questions on the FISA application. I can't wait to see how it was answered too because Steele was a well known Trump hater.

The intent is irrelevant. If I inform the cops on you and you get arrested, my feelings or motives are irrelevant as long as the information is reliable.

Obviously it was reliable as it was used subsequently for three renewals.

You go to police and tell them I have illegal narcotics in my home. There isn't a court in the country that would issue a search warrant based on that information alone.

Your claim would have to be investigated, the DEA would have to set up phony drug purchases from me. They would need to have evidence such as the narcotics, and then they can approach the court for a warrant.

For all the police know, you may be a nosy neighbor that wants to get even with me because I blew my snow on your lawn in the winter, or setup a surveillance camera pointed at your property. So you made the whole thing up for revenge.

When the FBI approaches the court with evidence, that evidence has to have been investigated first. It has to be presented as a factual claim--not some guy working for Hillary.

I said if it were reliable. That assumes the due diligence has been done. You don't have any idea of how the dossier information was used, what it was used in conjunction with or what steps had been taken to verify or corroborate the information.

The biggest mistakes you dopes make is assuming the dossier is 100% nonsense and that Russia didn't interfere.

Anything submitted to the FISA court has to be 100% checked out. When the FBI got rid of Steele, that too had to be submitted in their FISA renewals. it sure doesn't seem like it was.

Great, let's see your evidence that they submitted non-verified material....

 

[Faun]

The intent is irrelevant. If I inform the cops on you and you get arrested, my feelings or motives are irrelevant as long as the information is reliable.

Obviously it was reliable as it was used subsequently for three renewals.

You go to police and tell them I have illegal narcotics in my home. There isn't a court in the country that would issue a search warrant based on that information alone.

Your claim would have to be investigated, the DEA would have to set up phony drug purchases from me. They would need to have evidence such as the narcotics, and then they can approach the court for a warrant.

For all the police know, you may be a nosy neighbor that wants to get even with me because I blew my snow on your lawn in the winter, or setup a surveillance camera pointed at your property. So you made the whole thing up for revenge.

When the FBI approaches the court with evidence, that evidence has to have been investigated first. It has to be presented as a factual claim--not some guy working for Hillary.

I said if it were reliable. That assumes the due diligence has been done. You don't have any idea of how the dossier information was used, what it was used in conjunction with or what steps had been taken to verify or corroborate the information.

The biggest mistakes you dopes make is assuming the dossier is 100% nonsense and that Russia didn't interfere.

Anything submitted to the FISA court has to be 100% checked out. When the FBI got rid of Steele, that too had to be submitted in their FISA renewals. it sure doesn't seem like it was.

Anything submitted to the FISA court has to be 100% checked out

Sure. You don't know that it wasn't. It obviously met the standard four times in front of four different judges.

You're assuming that everyone involved with the application process lied and every judge and their staff is incompetent. That's just dumb.

No, not at all. I'm just assuming these judges have standards.

The FBI approaches FISA and says they have opposition research from a presidential candidate that she paid for, and they want to use it to get a FISA warrant on her opponent and various members of his campaign. They tell the judge that the information was not vetted and they are just taking his word for it. The person who created the dossier is a known Trump hater. What they are looking for is Trump's collusion with Russia even though they don't have an iota of evidence to support their investigation.

And the judge says "Sure, no problem, here's your warrant?"

If you think that's what took place, then I have a bridge I want to sell you.

And they do all that just so they can spy on someone not affiliated with Trump.

 

[Faun]

I said if it were reliable. That assumes the due diligence has been done. You don't have any idea of how the dossier information was used, what it was used in conjunction with or what steps had been taken to verify or corroborate the information.

The biggest mistakes you dopes make is assuming the dossier is 100% nonsense and that Russia didn't interfere.

Anything submitted to the FISA court has to be 100% checked out. When the FBI got rid of Steele, that too had to be submitted in their FISA renewals. it sure doesn't seem like it was.

Anything submitted to the FISA court has to be 100% checked out

Sure. You don't know that it wasn't. It obviously met the standard four times in front of four different judges.

You're assuming that everyone involved with the application process lied and every judge and their staff is incompetent. That's just dumb.

No, not at all. I'm just assuming these judges have standards.



The FBI approaches FISA and says they have opposition research from a presidential candidate that she paid for, and they want to use it to get a FISA warrant on her opponent and various members of his campaign. They tell the judge that the information was not vetted and they are just taking his word for it. The person who created the dossier is a known Trump hater. What they are looking for is Trump's collusion with Russia even though they don't have an iota of evidence to support their investigation.

And the judge says "Sure, no problem, here's your warrant?"

If you think that's what took place, then I have a bridge I want to sell you.

No, not at all. I'm just assuming these judges have standards.

Yes, standards like failing to include any required information is grounds for rejection.

You're assuming that not a one of four judges was competent enough to catch that.

My god, man! You are dense!

You talk as if the judge already knew that the DNC and the FBI had paid for the dossier and should have pointed it out and told the petitioners to amend the application to show same. How fucking stupid can one man be?

What the petitioners did was to exclude exculpatory information that was known to them and hopefully not to the judge. That particular exclusion is ILLEGAL and DISHONEST! That makes the application a fraud on the court.

Wake the fuck up!

Really? They committed fraud? Well that can only mean you've seen the portions of the dossier they presented -- what was it?

 

[Faun]

The intent is irrelevant. If I inform the cops on you and you get arrested, my feelings or motives are irrelevant as long as the information is reliable.

Obviously it was reliable as it was used subsequently for three renewals.

You go to police and tell them I have illegal narcotics in my home. There isn't a court in the country that would issue a search warrant based on that information alone.

Your claim would have to be investigated, the DEA would have to set up phony drug purchases from me. They would need to have evidence such as the narcotics, and then they can approach the court for a warrant.

For all the police know, you may be a nosy neighbor that wants to get even with me because I blew my snow on your lawn in the winter, or setup a surveillance camera pointed at your property. So you made the whole thing up for revenge.

When the FBI approaches the court with evidence, that evidence has to have been investigated first. It has to be presented as a factual claim--not some guy working for Hillary.

And the FBI did investigate and confirm some of the details of the dossier.

No, they didn't. They have done nothing to corroborate any part of the dossier.

You really don't know shit, do ya?

How true is the Trump-Russia dossier? One year later, what we know about its claims

Verified: Former Trump campaign adviser Carter Page met with representatives of Russian state-owned oil giant Rosneft.

Verified: The Kremlin targeted educated youth and swing state voters during its cyber attacks in the 2016 campaign.

Verified: Trump maintains ties to rich businessmen from Azerbaijan.​

All of which was well known years before. You think this qualifies as evidence? Dude, you're making yourself look stupider and stupider every minute.

LOLOL

As if it matters when it was known. But thanks for admitting they confirmed parts of the dossier and confessing you outright lied earlier when you falsely claimed they had done nothing to corroborate any part of the dossier.

 

[OldGringo]

Those who have carefully read the Nunes memo will notice that it never says the application to monitor Carter Page was illegal.

That is yet to be determined. It was however obtained under a false pretense. I can't imagine that withholding information in a FISA application is legal.

Oh? Prove it was obtained under a false pretense...?

While you’re at it, demonstrate what the government hoped to gain from Trump by wiretapping someone who was not working for the Trump campaign and who had never met Trump?

It's a coming, it's a coming. Right now it looks like they withheld very important information from the court to falsely get that warrant. You see, to investigate a crime, you need evidence that such a crime possibly could have been committed. Opposition research isn't enough for that, especially when it is paid for by the opponent of the people you are spying on to prove the crime.

You see, to investigate a crime, you need evidence that such a crime possibly could have been committed. Opposition research isn't enough for that, especially when it is paid for by the opponent of the people you are spying on to prove the crime.

The FISA system does not investigate crime.
They gather intelligence. Specifically from foreign sources or their agents and assets.

The warrant on Page came about because he had travelled to Russia that summer and met with several high ranking Russian officials. Some of these meetings were described in the dossier. That is why it was used as corroborating information on the warrant application. Page has since confirmed those meetings happened in his testimony before congress.

Carter Page's testimony is filled with bombshells — and supports key portions of the Steele dossier

Your comment is that "the FISA system does not investigate crime" is something I would like to comment upon. Yes and no and here is why. The subject of government spying on US Citizens is a pretty big deal. Back in the 60s,70s. we saw multiple agencies including the operation CHAOS was "spying" on not only war protesters, but people like the women's liberation movement and all sorts of groups. Operation CHAOS - Wikipedia. I think it was Watergate, that had 2 CIA agents involved and Congress decided to create oversight on both intelligence and law enforcement folks involved in intelligence type activities, so they created the FISA courts as a regulating agency. United States Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court - Wikipedia. I commend this wicki link to your reading. I have one more point to make and it goes like this> There are 4 priorities in a counter intelligence investigation and in order of critical need are as follows: 1. Identify a foreign counterintelligence source or activity (could be hacking, electronic, special, etc). 2. Neutralize the counterintelligence threat. 3. Exploit the source (make them a double agent or channel of false information, etc. 4. Prosecution. I mention this because prosecution is at the bottom of the list in importance to the security of the nation. In this case it appears they put criminal elements at the top, which is certainly OK, just not the most common procedure. Please read the wicki link because it shows thru 2013, 36,000 FISA warrants had been issued, only 12 were denied. So when they say FUSA warrants are just rubber stamped by judges, that would appear a logical conclusion. For what it is worth.

 

[The Original Tree]

FISA needs to be ended After what we are seeing.

 

[asaratis]

The court sure wanted to know what the intent of the informant was. It's one of the questions on the FISA application. I can't wait to see how it was answered too because Steele was a well known Trump hater.

The intent is irrelevant. If I inform the cops on you and you get arrested, my feelings or motives are irrelevant as long as the information is reliable.

Obviously it was reliable as it was used subsequently for three renewals.

You go to police and tell them I have illegal narcotics in my home. There isn't a court in the country that would issue a search warrant based on that information alone.

Your claim would have to be investigated, the DEA would have to set up phony drug purchases from me. They would need to have evidence such as the narcotics, and then they can approach the court for a warrant.

For all the police know, you may be a nosy neighbor that wants to get even with me because I blew my snow on your lawn in the winter, or setup a surveillance camera pointed at your property. So you made the whole thing up for revenge.

When the FBI approaches the court with evidence, that evidence has to have been investigated first. It has to be presented as a factual claim--not some guy working for Hillary.

I said if it were reliable. That assumes the due diligence has been done. You don't have any idea of how the dossier information was used, what it was used in conjunction with or what steps had been taken to verify or corroborate the information.

The biggest mistakes you dopes make is assuming the dossier is 100% nonsense and that Russia didn't interfere.

Anything submitted to the FISA court has to be 100% checked out. When the FBI got rid of Steele, that too had to be submitted in their FISA renewals. it sure doesn't seem like it was.

Great, let's see your evidence that they submitted non-verified material....

Sometimes I accuse my dog not only of being too stupid to learn, but also too stupid to play with. You remind me of my dog. I love my dog, but she is stupid. I have come now to love your stupidity as I do that of my dog.