Intelligence Committee To Petition FISA Court

[Faun]

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?

Please see post #220 above.

Dear faun,

In a court of law, it is illegal to withhold known exculpatory information (that which is known by the prosecutor to be advantageous to the defense of the accused) from the court. It constitutes a fraud upon the court. This is true no matter what else is included in the evidence (information) presented to the court.

I don't need to see what was presented in the application. All I need to know is that the prosecutors knew that the DNC and the FBI paid for the dossier and that they knew C. Steele's dossier was flawed and they they knew that C. Steele had expressed hatred for Trump....and they DID NOT PRESENT THAT INFORMATION TO THE COURT.

That information is exculpatory. It's deliberate omission from the FISC application for a warrant was ILLEGAL AND CONSTITUTES A FRAUD UPON THE COURT.

If you do not understand the definition of exculpatory, I suggest you either look it up or read below....or have someone read them to you.

exculpatory evidence definition - Google Search

Exculpatory evidence is evidence favorable to the defendant in a criminal trial that exonerates or tends to exonerate the defendant of guilt. It is the opposite of inculpatory evidence, which tends to prove guilt.
Exculpatory evidence - Wikipedia

Exculpatory evidence - Wikipedia


Fraudulent Concealment Of Evidence - Malpractice | Laws.com

"If one side does not share all the evidence their side has they in turn as a lawyer commit legal malpractice. Fraudulent concealment of evidence is legal malpractice in itself, and it also shows negligence on the part of the attorney another form of legal malpractice. On top of that it is also criminal to conceal evidence as the courts deem it as a fraud. In basic it is one of the worst moves an attorney can do outside of blatantly misrepresenting their client’s interests."

Liar....

The FBI did in fact reveal the political origins of the dossier...

Republicans concede key FBI 'footnote' in Carter Page warrant

Devin Nunes said Monday the FBI had disclosed political backing for a Trump-Russia dossier in October 2016, but a controversial GOP memo released last week did not mention it.

Republican leaders are acknowledging that the FBI disclosed the political origins of a private dossier the bureau cited in an application to surveil former Trump campaign adviser Carter Page, undermining a controversial GOP memo released Friday and fueling Democratic demands to declassify more information about the bureau’s actions.​

 

[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.

The judges only know what is presented to them, nothing more. This "footnote" is extremely suspicious. Why didn't they make the fact that this was opposition research and unverified transcending in their application?

You have yet to demonstrate the evidence they gave the court was unverified.

Yet you continue to claim that to be the case.

 

[Faun]

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.

They pulled shit from "who's who in the world" for that crap. It didn't need to be "verified" because it was in published reports all over the fucking world, you clown.

Yet it was verified. Thanks again for admitting they confirmed parts of the dossier and thanks again for admitting you outright lied earlier when you falsely claimed they had done nothing to corroborate any part of the dossier.

 

[westwall]

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.

They pulled shit from "who's who in the world" for that crap. It didn't need to be "verified" because it was in published reports all over the fucking world, you clown.

Yet it was verified. Thanks again for admitting they confirmed parts of the dossier and thanks again for admitting you outright lied earlier when you falsely claimed they had done nothing to corroborate any part of the dossier.

Yeah, it was as "verified" as opening a fucking phone book. Truly dude, you're flailing is amusing as hell! And for that we thank you!

 

[Faun]

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.

They pulled shit from "who's who in the world" for that crap. It didn't need to be "verified" because it was in published reports all over the fucking world, you clown.

Yet it was verified. Thanks again for admitting they confirmed parts of the dossier and thanks again for admitting you outright lied earlier when you falsely claimed they had done nothing to corroborate any part of the dossier.

Yeah, it was as "verified" as opening a fucking phone book. Truly dude, you're flailing is amusing as hell! And for that we thank you!

LOLOL

That's quite the imagination you've got there.

But thanks again for those admissions of yours.

 

[westwall]

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.

They pulled shit from "who's who in the world" for that crap. It didn't need to be "verified" because it was in published reports all over the fucking world, you clown.

Yet it was verified. Thanks again for admitting they confirmed parts of the dossier and thanks again for admitting you outright lied earlier when you falsely claimed they had done nothing to corroborate any part of the dossier.

Yeah, it was as "verified" as opening a fucking phone book. Truly dude, you're flailing is amusing as hell! And for that we thank you!

LOLOL

That's quite the imagination you've got there.

But thanks again for those admissions of yours.

No imagination needed clown boy. It is what is known as a fact. But we all know you fools don't do facts.

 

[Faun]

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.

They pulled shit from "who's who in the world" for that crap. It didn't need to be "verified" because it was in published reports all over the fucking world, you clown.

Yet it was verified. Thanks again for admitting they confirmed parts of the dossier and thanks again for admitting you outright lied earlier when you falsely claimed they had done nothing to corroborate any part of the dossier.

Yeah, it was as "verified" as opening a fucking phone book. Truly dude, you're flailing is amusing as hell! And for that we thank you!

LOLOL

That's quite the imagination you've got there.

But thanks again for those admissions of yours.

No imagination needed clown boy. It is what is known as a fact. But we all know you fools don't do facts.

Spits the idiot who says unverified parts of the dossier were in fact, verified.

 

[westwall]

They pulled shit from "who's who in the world" for that crap. It didn't need to be "verified" because it was in published reports all over the fucking world, you clown.

Yet it was verified. Thanks again for admitting they confirmed parts of the dossier and thanks again for admitting you outright lied earlier when you falsely claimed they had done nothing to corroborate any part of the dossier.

Yeah, it was as "verified" as opening a fucking phone book. Truly dude, you're flailing is amusing as hell! And for that we thank you!

LOLOL

That's quite the imagination you've got there.

But thanks again for those admissions of yours.

No imagination needed clown boy. It is what is known as a fact. But we all know you fools don't do facts.

Spits the idiot who says unverified parts of the dossier were in fact, verified.

The "dossier" was written by a bunch of political hacks, it is primarily made up of fantasy's that the shrilary and co. dreamed up, that which was actually factual, was what any 6 year old could obtain with a 10 second google search. Wow. Quite the "investigation" to hang your hat on. Time for you to grow up.

 

[Faun]

Yet it was verified. Thanks again for admitting they confirmed parts of the dossier and thanks again for admitting you outright lied earlier when you falsely claimed they had done nothing to corroborate any part of the dossier.

Yeah, it was as "verified" as opening a fucking phone book. Truly dude, you're flailing is amusing as hell! And for that we thank you!

LOLOL

That's quite the imagination you've got there.

But thanks again for those admissions of yours.

No imagination needed clown boy. It is what is known as a fact. But we all know you fools don't do facts.

Spits the idiot who says unverified parts of the dossier were in fact, verified.

The "dossier" was written by a bunch of political hacks, it is primarily made up of fantasy's that the shrilary and co. dreamed up, that which was actually factual, was what any 6 year old could obtain with a 10 second google search. Wow. Quite the "investigation" to hang your hat on. Time for you to grow up.

A-a-a-and .... parts were verified.

You said do yourself.

After saying they weren’t.

 

[usmbguest5318]

Note to readers of this post:

I don't care if you don't read the essay I wrote, but forewarned is forearmed. Please be respectful enough to simply not respond to it if you don't read it, for there's a fair chance you will incur from me some vitriol if you respond with some BS and it's clear your response ignores something I in my essay addressed. I didn't solicit my friends for input on the FISC/FISA, read all the stuff they pushed my way, and then take the time to share with you the results of my research to receive in return "peanut gallery" remarks.
​

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.

Your comment is that "the FISA system does not investigate crime" is something I would like to comment upon.

I, for one, understand well why you would; it's apt to do so for the FISC's theoretical genesis derives from what was thought of as a need for investigating risks to national security and abuses of the USIC.

As you noted, FISA was a response to two interrelated developments:

• the Supreme Court’s 1972 decision in the Keith case declining to articulate a domestic intelligence exception to the Warrant Clause of the Fourth Amendment, and
• a series of intelligence abuses documented by the Church Committee several years later.

Together with the creation of the congressional intelligence committees and a series of other reforms, FISA was part of a larger structural accommodation between the three branches of government: The Executive Branch agreed to have many of its foreign intelligence surveillance activities subjected to far greater legal oversight and accountability, in exchange for which Congress and the courts agreed to provide such oversight and accountability in secret. To that end, the core of FISA as originally enacted was the authority provided by Title I of the Act, which empowered the government to obtain secret warrants for electronic -- and, later, physical -- surveillance of individuals whom the government had probable cause to believe were acting as an agent, or on behalf, of a foreign power.

To supervise these new “FISA warrants,” Congress created a specialized court -- the FISC -- to hear government applications ex parte and in camera. The court would be staffed by seven (now eleven) sitting Article III district judges selected to serve seven year terms by the Chief Justice of the United States, three of whom “shall reside within 20 miles of the District of Columbia.” Except in emergencies (where, presumably, the locally resident judges would be available), the judges otherwise rotate through the FISC, such that each judge is on duty in Washington for one out of every eleven weeks.

If the FISC denies the government’s application, Congress authorized the government to either seek rehearing before the entire FISC, sitting en banc, appeal to the newly created Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court of Review (FISCR) [1] staffed by three sitting circuit judges designated by the Chief Justice, or both. If unsuccessful there, FISA authorized the government to appeal to the Supreme Court. As originally constituted, FISA thus contemplated that the FISC would resolve individualized warrant applications on a case-by-case basis, ex parte and in camera, and with only the government authorized to participate -- and, if necessary, to appeal.

Separate from the substantive foreign intelligence surveillance authorities codified in FISA, Congress justified the creation of a new, specialized court largely on grounds of expediency: “Requiring the special court to sit continuously in the District of Columbia will facilitate necessary security procedures and, by ensuring that at least one judge is always available, will ensure speedy access to it by the Attorney General when timeliness is essential for intelligence purposes.” [2] Moreover, a specialized court would “likely...be able to put claims of national security in a better perspective and to have greater confidence in interpreting this bill than judges who do not have occasion to deal with the surveillances under this bill.” [2]

Congress’s confidence notwithstanding, at least some experts feared that such a categorically ex parte structure for the FISC would raise serious Article III concerns. Thus, then-Professor (and future Judge) Laurence Silberman testified that “[a]lthough it is true that judges have traditionally issued search warrants ex parte, they have done so as part of a criminal investigative process which...for the most part, leads to a trial, a traditional adversary proceeding.” [3] FISA surveillance, in contrast, was designed principally (if not primarily) to facilitate foreign intelligence investigations, not criminal prosecutions. Indeed, that very orientation away from ordinary law enforcement helped to allay what otherwise might have been serious Fourth Amendment (and prudent) objections to FISA’s lower probable cause standard. [4]

Silberman’s objections were largely mooted by a memorandum (and subsequent congressional testimony) prepared by the Justice Department’s Office of Legal Counsel (OLC). Although the OLC agreed that the Article III question was “difficult,” it concluded that the structure FISA contemplated for the FISC was probably constitutional, both because (1) “FISA Court judges...would still be applying the law to the facts of a particular case” and (2) “in normal criminal cases, the government is permitted to persuade a court of the need for a warrant without the target being present.” [3 - Harmon testimony] In other words, the constitutional defense of the FISC turned on the limited scope of the review it was providing and the analogy to “ordinary” warrant applications -- which, despite typically involving ex parte, in camera proceedings, were understood to raise no Article III questions insofar as they were ancillary to subsequent criminal (or civil) proceedings. [5]

To further pretermit these constitutional objections, Congress revised the draft of FISA to help strengthen the analogy to “ordinary” warrants. FISA as thus enacted required that criminal defendants be notified when “any information obtained or derived from an electronic surveillance” was to be used in their prosecutions. The statute also provided an express cause of action for damages for an “aggrieved person” who was subjected to unlawful surveillance under FISA. And although FISA warrants were not typically meant to produce evidence to be used in criminal prosecutions, the fact that they could be collaterally attacked in at least some cases provided both a vehicle for raising Article III objections and the rejoinder courts would supply in rejecting them. In other words, because of the analogy to ordinary warrants and the concrete nature of the question that the FISC’s judges were asked to resolve in approving a government application, the FISC raised no unique Article III concerns. [6]

The forgoing describes the original implementation of FISA and the FISC; however, Congress later expanded the FISC's ambit of authority. Congress in 1998 authorized the FISC to approve more than just an individual warrant, giving its judges the power under new “Title V” of the Act to issue “an order authorizing a common carrier, public accommodation facility, physical storage facility, or vehicle rental facility to release records in its possession for an investigation to gather foreign intelligence information or an [FBI] investigation concerning international terrorism....” Whereas "classic" FISA warrant applications required a determination of probable cause to believe that the target was (or was an agent of) a foreign power, this new provision only required a determination that “there are specific and articulable facts giving reason to believe that the person to whom the records pertain is a foreign power or an agent of a foreign power.” Thus, the 1998 amendment still required a nexus to an identified suspect, but the role of the FISC had shifted, fundamentally, from approving something akin to a search warrant to signing off on something that looked much more like a subpoena directed to a (narrow) class of innocent third parties.

After the September 11 attacks, Congress dramatically expanded the business records provision through §215 of the USA PATRIOT Act of 2001. In particular, §215 rewrote Title V to empower the FISC to require “the production of any tangible things (including books, records, papers, documents, and other items) for an investigation to obtain foreign intelligence information not concerning a United States person or to protect against international terrorism or clandestine intelligence activities.” Unlike the 1998 language, § 215 of the USA PATRIOT Act was not limited to a small class of businesses, nor did it require any showing of a connection between the “tangible things” being sought and “a foreign power or an agent of a foreign power.”

Instead, all the government had to show -- and all the FISC was allowed to require -- was that “there are reasonable grounds to believe that the tangible things sought are relevant to an authorized investigation (other than a threat assessment) conducted...to obtain foreign intelligence information not concerning a United States person or to protect against international terrorism or clandestine intelligence activities.” Thus, whereas the 1998 addition of Title V could have been defended as a shift in the degree of the FISC’s review, § 215 represented a shift in kind -- away from any individualized inquiry about suspected agents of a foreign power and toward far broader, “bulk” collection against putatively unidentified individuals.

Perhaps because of the fundamental shift in the role of the FISC that § 215 portended, the USA PATRIOT Act also for the first time authorized adversarial participation before the FISC. Thus, anyone receiving a “production order” under § 215 was given the right to challenge the order before the FISC on the ground that it “does not meet the requirements of [section 215] or is otherwise unlawful.” [7] Furthermore, if such a challenge failed, the recipient was further empowered to petition for review of the FISC’s decision with the FISCR, and, if again unsuccessful, petition for certiorari with the SCOTUS. [8]

thru 2013, 36,000 FISA warrants had been issued, only 12 were denied.

Given the above history of FISA/FISC inception, FISA case law and related jurisprudential analysis, and Congress' procession of updates to FISA code, it becomes clear there are two primary genres of FISC matters -- "classic" ones and, for want of a better term, "post-9/11" matters. The former consist of very straightforward individual surveillance, which is precisely what's involved in the Carter Page case.

In the context of “classic” FISA, then, one may credibly defend the FISC’s process via the analogy to warrants becuse FISA warrants are generally still subject to collateral attack, whether through Franks-like motions to suppress in criminal cases, or through civil suits under FISA’s own cause of action. That, as one might infer from your remark about denail, OldGringo, these efforts rarely succeed does not of itself prove their unavailability. After all, even in the context of “ordinary” warrants, collateral attacks are, in practice, only realistically available in a small minority of cases. Moreover, the point of granting both standard and FISA warrants is investigative. What good is served by a court's refusal to grant investigators the authority to, well, figure out just what happened?


Notes:

1. See also: EPIC - Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court (FISC)
2. See:
   • Uniting and Strengthening America by...Ensuring Effective Discipline Over Monitoring...
   • Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act 1978
   • Senate Report No. 95-701
3. See:
   • Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, Hearings on H.R. 5794, H.R. 9745, H.R. 7308 and H.R. 5632 Before the Subcomm. on Legislation of the House Permanent Select Comm. on Intelligence
     • Part 1A
     • Part 1B [You gotta love the government....they created parts A & C because part B was redacted from the original document]
     • Part 1C
4. I could have done without including this part of the essay, but I recall someone on here remarking about a higher burden of proof for FISC matters, and I responded that the very opposite is what makes sense....Oh, I just recalled who it was...It's the now-understood-by-me-to-be sycophant Bill O'Reilly put forth as someone who was supposed to know what he was talking about re: FISA/FISC to help O'Reilly build a "staircase on facts." Well, that's one shaky staircase if it's built on anything having to do with the burden of proof, the higher standard that guy alleges exists for FISA surveillance warrant applications (~7:45). (And no, until I'd finished my preparation for this essay, I didn't know for sure that the FISC's burden of proof standard for warrant applications is lower than is a "normal" court's; I just knew it doesn't "smell right" that it would be higher than that of a "normal" court.)
   
   

   While the guy may indeed be right in some respects, it seems to me odd that he be right.

   
   See:
   • The Case for a FISA 'Special Advocate'
     Applications in the non-FISA context require probable cause to believe that the suspect committed a crime. FISA, in contrast, requires probable cause to believe that the target of the surveillance is, or is an agent of, a “foreign power.” The relaxed probable cause standard in the FISA context has been challenged as not satisfying the Fourth Amendment’s Warrant Clause. But that argument was rejected by numerous courts prior to September 11 2001, at least largely because of the “primary purpose” doctrine -- which required the government to certify that the primary purpose of a FISA warrant was foreign intelligence surveillance and not ordinary law enforcement.
     
   • United States v. Truong Dinh Hung
     Because of the need of the executive branch for flexibility, its practical experience, and its constitutional competence, the courts should not require the executive to secure a warrant each time it conducts foreign intelligence surveillance.
     
   • United States v. Johnson -- “[T]he investigation of criminal activity cannot be the primary purpose of the surveillance.”
5. Pfander and Birk have identified FISA warrant proceedings as emblematic of a larger species of “non-contentious jurisdiction” -- cases in which it has long been understood that Article III’s typical requirement of “adverseness” simply does not apply, whether or not the judicial review is ancillary to subsequent proceedings.
   
6. United States v. Megahey
   Applications for electronic surveillance submitted to FISC pursuant to FISA involve concrete questions respecting the application of the Act and are in a form such that a judge is capable of acting on them, much as he might otherwise act on an ex parte application for a warrant. In the case of each application, the FISC judge is statutorily obliged to ensure that each statutory prerequisite is met by the application before he may enter a surveillance order. The FISC judge who is faced with a surveillance application is not faced with an abstract issue of law or called upon to issue an advisory opinion, but is, instead, called upon to ensure that the individuals who are targeted do not have their privacy interests invaded, except in compliance with the detailed requirements of the statute.
   
7. Remember all the hoopla about whether Apple would aid the FBI with decryption? Well, now, if not before, you and I know from what specific code section there was allowed to be such hoopla.
8. Additional Congressional updates to FISC/FISA procedures and authorities:
   • Protect America Act of 2007 (this was a temporary act)
   • FISA Amendments of 2008 (this is the permanent act that supersedes the 2007 one) -- This update:
     • is principally concerned with the collection of information involving non-U.S. persons, but that transited through servers, internet switches, or other infrastructure located within the United State,
     • provides more detail about the nature and extent of the adversarial review process, including procedures for initial, and, if warranted, plenary review, and
     • contains express authorization to hold non-compliant parties in contempt.

 

[Hutch Starskey]

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.

The omissions were not obvious to anyone other than the submitting liars.

Of course. The FBI are very cunning with their subterfuge and the hapless FISA courts are incompetent. Not one judge thought to ask for some background on the political opponent described in the application.

 

[Hutch Starskey]

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!

No, I'm operating under the idea that the judges and their staff are highly competent and don't adjudicate warrants, especially targeting American citizens, based on incomplete information.

There was no exculpatory evidence anywhere in the process.

 

[Hutch Starskey]

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.

Sure, dope. He sent it to the DOJ and the FBI with the hopes that they won't catch on to his plan. How dumb.

What Schiff did was make the process bullet proof so that any changes Trump makes outside of the recommendations from his own DOJ and FBI will appear, and rightfully so, to be purely political and not in keeping with the standards for release used for the Nunes memo.

 

[Hutch Starskey]

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

Yes. They're all seriously incompetent.

 

[Hutch Starskey]

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.

I don't entirely disagree. It's primary purpose, however is to gather intelligence on foreign adversaries. A prosecution is not necessarily a result of those activities.

For example. The Russian ambassador has a warrant. It's purpose is to keep tabs on his activities and glean any bits of intel that contribute to a larger understanding of Russia's intentions. Prosecution is not a goal of that operation unless criminal activity is uncovered.

In regard to Page. Page had met with a number of senior Russian officials at a time that Russia was engaged in an operation meant to interfere in our elections with an unprecedented level of sophistication.

The goal of the warrant was to try and uncover anything that could help our investigation as to how this was done and who was involved. Any prosecutable criminal activity would be secondary to those goals and would be referred to the FBI.

 

[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.

That is the obvious next move.

So, not a single Communists favored releasing the Memo. Not a single Republican voted to suppress the Communist rebuttal.

Now release the entire document so America can see who the crooks and traitors are.

Hint: It's the ones who tried to suppress information.

That should have been the first move.

I'm confused by the tactics of the Communists.

Did they think this would help them?

{(a) that doesn’t solve the problem that the original FISA application against Page evidently relied “heavily” on information passed from a not-very-credible foreign agent and (b) that doesn’t explain why the Bureau allegedly failed to tell the FISA Court in later applications to renew their surveillance of Page that Steele’s info maybe hadn’t been so credible...Grassley and Graham make another good point about Steele’s chattering to the press while his investigation was still ongoing: Once bad actors were aware that he was digging for dirt on Trump, they could have sought him out and fed him any amount of BS in hopes of it trickling through to the FBI and deepening the official suspicion surrounding Team Trump. That’s how Clinton cronies — maybe even Sid Blumenthal — got involved in this clusterfark. Because Steele was supposedly willing to accept even unsolicited tips about Trump, the Clinton team may have fed him rumors to help fill a dossier for which their boss was paying.}

Here's the FISA Memo Nobody's Talking About. It's Much More Damning Than the Much-Discussed Nunes Version.

They should have cloaked themselves in the Nunes memo, now even more proof of crimes by the FBI are out in the light.

The fault with your logic is with your assumption that whatever elements of the dossier were used have no credibility at all. By extension then, you're claiming subterfuge and malfeasance on the part of the FBI. Those are very big claims.
You simply do not know if any of that is true.

 

[Hutch Starskey]

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.

The judges only know what is presented to them, nothing more. This "footnote" is extremely suspicious. Why didn't they make the fact that this was opposition research and unverified transcending in their application?

The judges only know what is presented to them, nothing more.

No. They know very well what is required for them to properly adjudicate the warrant application.

 

[Hutch Starskey]

The fact a judge can rubber stamp the violation of a citizen’s rights based on a footnote to knowingly help a rival campaign is egregious and nauseating.

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.

The judges only know what is presented to them, nothing more. This "footnote" is extremely suspicious. Why didn't they make the fact that this was opposition research and unverified transcending in their application?

The fact a judge can rubber stamp the violation of a citizen’s rights based on a footnote to knowingly help a rival campaign is egregious and nauseating.

You're attempting to bring the judges down to your incompetent level of thinking. Just because you would be easily fooled does not mean they would be.

 

[Hutch Starskey]

The fact a judge can rubber stamp the violation of a citizen’s rights based on a footnote to knowingly help a rival campaign is egregious and nauseating.

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.

The judges only know what is presented to them, nothing more. This "footnote" is extremely suspicious. Why didn't they make the fact that this was opposition research and unverified transcending in their application?

Yes it is, but footnotes are very often overlooked and that's why the FBI used them.

From what I read and watched on the news, nobody has cast aspersions on the court or judges. Right now, they are pointing in the direction of the FBI and DOJ. So until the time comes where we learn the court was complicit in this injustice, I prefer to make the assumption that the judges acted in good faith.

Yes it is, but footnotes are very often overlooked and that's why the FBI used them.

There you go again. Asserting that all four judges are incompetent to the "schemes" of the FBI.

From what I read and watched on the news, nobody has cast aspersions on the court or judges.

Just you and your bretheren in this thread.

 

[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.

Sure, dope. He sent it to the DOJ and the FBI with the hopes that they won't catch on to his plan. How dumb.

What Schiff did was make the process bullet proof so that any changes Trump makes outside of the recommendations from his own DOJ and FBI will appear, and rightfully so, to be purely political and not in keeping with the standards for release used for the Nunes memo.

So why were (((Schiff))) and his deep state allies claiming the Nunes memo would damage national security? And cause a constitutional crisis? And was changed after approval? These are all lies that had to come out and be exposed. And they were. There is not even a question. He lied over and over.
I will tell you the answer. He thinks YOU are too stupid or too amoral to care. (and I think he is right. He does know his people)That is the only possible answer. He threw the kitchen sink to stop transparency knowing that if it didnt work it's not like any democrat or liberal has the character to ask "hey didnt you say...?"

Exposure being the worst thing that could happen to such a corrupt party I can only assume he needs a hat trrick for his...memo? LOL. Yep he wrote a "memo" too! But the threat of the memo is only a threat. Transparency is deadly. So I am telling you he has to have some excuse this time as to why his "memo" is worthless. He has to ensure Trump redacts it.