Intelligence Committee To Petition FISA Court

[Hutch Starskey]

Oh? What part of the following is too difficult for you to comprehend...?

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.​

They did not inform the FISA Court that the dossier was financed and
paid for by the DNC/Clinton Campaign.

There are no gray areas in applications. They are all black and white.
No Court is going to "assume" or "read between the lines."

If a lawyer wants something to be read between the lines, he damn well
better have some words between the lines.

The FBI and DOJ both believed they needed the extra weight of the Dossier
to continue to get extensions. The FBI and DOJ both believed that if they
told the court it was a political hit piece paid for by the DNC/Clinton Campaign, the court would not issue the extensions.

So they created the omission, which now that it has been discovered is
going to taint and probably destroy their entire case.

Well stated counselor. LOL Nunes has succeeded in showing to the Trumpbots that Mueller has no case. Of course, you knew that before and were not open to facts

and yet the facts are supporting our beliefs. Again, the position we have always taken is there was no evidence to support the need of Mueller. And now we get verification. don't know what to tell you!

I still don't get why you believe that the warrant on page has anything at all to do with Mueller.

hahahahahahahahaahahaha

You can't be more clear?

What precipitated the appointment of Mueller and what does that have to do with Page?

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.

Presupposing that the initial application was above board with 'all' the information given to the FISC judge (it wasn't). Nor were the x3 subsequent re-ups... This is not opinion, it's tangibly supported with evidence.

How do you know the first FISA warrant was "not above board?" Do you have the warrant application?

Nope... but I do know that the source and already debunked veracity of the 'Steele dossier' were excluded. Remember this was the 'foundation' for the application. Again, not opinion... tangible evidence

What was debunked in the Steele dossier before the application for the extension? That Putin oversaw hacking of the Dems (not only not disproven but proven) That Trump owed millions to Russia. (proven by his kids) That the Russians were seeking access to the Trump campaign? (proven)

Start with this article from Forbes, if I take more than a few sec. I could pull you up more official reports to this effect.
The Trump Dossier Is Fake -- And Here Are The Reasons Why

That's from a year ago, dude.

 

[jc456]

What point are you trying to make?

The Dossier was used in the 3 other applications and the FISA Court
wasn't told it was paid and financed by the DNC and Clinton Campaign.

They hid that from the court. That makes the 3 extensions illegal and very
possibly an abuse of the 4th amendment rights of anybody monitored.

Thus, you can kiss that special counsel goodbye, once SCOTUS has
this presented to them. They'll have no choice, because the FBI/SC
will never be able to distinguish one from the other.

well technically, they couldn't use the same evidence to get the extensions. They had to lie and say they were getting intel that was important to continue to collect. Lie after lie, after lie, after lie. There are three afterward.

Well, did they collect anything useful during the extension?

That is a good question, but the pertinent question is, if the original warrant was improperly granted, anything stemming from additional surveillance would be inadmissible to any court.

That alone should tell you that it probably wasn't just bullshit to begin with.

Incorrect. Many a case has been thrown out due to information that wasn't collected legitimately.

I have no problem with petitioning the court and opening up this warrant for everyone to see.

all four of them. the extensions as well. let's see what they actually found. nothing we know otherwise he'd be in jail.

 

[Hutch Starskey]

What point are you trying to make?

The Dossier was used in the 3 other applications and the FISA Court
wasn't told it was paid and financed by the DNC and Clinton Campaign.

They hid that from the court. That makes the 3 extensions illegal and very
possibly an abuse of the 4th amendment rights of anybody monitored.

Thus, you can kiss that special counsel goodbye, once SCOTUS has
this presented to them. They'll have no choice, because the FBI/SC
will never be able to distinguish one from the other.

well technically, they couldn't use the same evidence to get the extensions. They had to lie and say they were getting intel that was important to continue to collect. Lie after lie, after lie, after lie. There are three afterward.

Well, did they collect anything useful during the extension?

That is a good question, but the pertinent question is, if the original warrant was improperly granted, anything stemming from additional surveillance would be inadmissible to any court.

That alone should tell you that it probably wasn't just bullshit to begin with.

Incorrect. Many a case has been thrown out due to information that wasn't collected legitimately.

I have no problem with petitioning the court and opening up this warrant for everyone to see.

Collected and volunteered are two different things.

 

[jc456]

They did not inform the FISA Court that the dossier was financed and
paid for by the DNC/Clinton Campaign.

There are no gray areas in applications. They are all black and white.
No Court is going to "assume" or "read between the lines."

If a lawyer wants something to be read between the lines, he damn well
better have some words between the lines.

The FBI and DOJ both believed they needed the extra weight of the Dossier
to continue to get extensions. The FBI and DOJ both believed that if they
told the court it was a political hit piece paid for by the DNC/Clinton Campaign, the court would not issue the extensions.

So they created the omission, which now that it has been discovered is
going to taint and probably destroy their entire case.

Well stated counselor. LOL Nunes has succeeded in showing to the Trumpbots that Mueller has no case. Of course, you knew that before and were not open to facts

and yet the facts are supporting our beliefs. Again, the position we have always taken is there was no evidence to support the need of Mueller. And now we get verification. don't know what to tell you!

I still don't get why you believe that the warrant on page has anything at all to do with Mueller.

hahahahahahahahaahahaha

You can't be more clear?

What precipitated the appointment of Mueller and what does that have to do with Page?

Presupposing that the initial application was above board with 'all' the information given to the FISC judge (it wasn't). Nor were the x3 subsequent re-ups... This is not opinion, it's tangibly supported with evidence.

How do you know the first FISA warrant was "not above board?" Do you have the warrant application?

Nope... but I do know that the source and already debunked veracity of the 'Steele dossier' were excluded. Remember this was the 'foundation' for the application. Again, not opinion... tangible evidence

What was debunked in the Steele dossier before the application for the extension? That Putin oversaw hacking of the Dems (not only not disproven but proven) That Trump owed millions to Russia. (proven by his kids) That the Russians were seeking access to the Trump campaign? (proven)

Start with this article from Forbes, if I take more than a few sec. I could pull you up more official reports to this effect.
The Trump Dossier Is Fake -- And Here Are The Reasons Why

That's from a year ago, dude.

the only reason we have mueller is Jeff Session recused himself.

 

[Hutch Starskey]

Does that make the information either irrelevant or incorrect?

Yes it does because for one, it shows intent. Two, the information was never verified.

When you pay somebody looking for an outcome, you usually get that outcome even if it's not totally true. And any court should have questioned why this clown was not still working for his government if he was so reliable and good.

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.

so explain the difference from what Jr. supposedly did?

Huh?

 

[Hutch Starskey]

Well stated counselor. LOL Nunes has succeeded in showing to the Trumpbots that Mueller has no case. Of course, you knew that before and were not open to facts

and yet the facts are supporting our beliefs. Again, the position we have always taken is there was no evidence to support the need of Mueller. And now we get verification. don't know what to tell you!

I still don't get why you believe that the warrant on page has anything at all to do with Mueller.

hahahahahahahahaahahaha

You can't be more clear?

What precipitated the appointment of Mueller and what does that have to do with Page?

How do you know the first FISA warrant was "not above board?" Do you have the warrant application?

Nope... but I do know that the source and already debunked veracity of the 'Steele dossier' were excluded. Remember this was the 'foundation' for the application. Again, not opinion... tangible evidence

What was debunked in the Steele dossier before the application for the extension? That Putin oversaw hacking of the Dems (not only not disproven but proven) That Trump owed millions to Russia. (proven by his kids) That the Russians were seeking access to the Trump campaign? (proven)

Start with this article from Forbes, if I take more than a few sec. I could pull you up more official reports to this effect.
The Trump Dossier Is Fake -- And Here Are The Reasons Why

That's from a year ago, dude.

the only reason we have mueller is Jeff Session recused himself.

That's not quite the whole story, is it?

 

[jc456]

well technically, they couldn't use the same evidence to get the extensions. They had to lie and say they were getting intel that was important to continue to collect. Lie after lie, after lie, after lie. There are three afterward.

Well, did they collect anything useful during the extension?

That is a good question, but the pertinent question is, if the original warrant was improperly granted, anything stemming from additional surveillance would be inadmissible to any court.

That alone should tell you that it probably wasn't just bullshit to begin with.

Incorrect. Many a case has been thrown out due to information that wasn't collected legitimately.

I have no problem with petitioning the court and opening up this warrant for everyone to see.

Collected and volunteered are two different things.

it's still supposed to be validated. You miss that piece. but go figure. right now, the dossier is still fake.

 

[Hutch Starskey]

Oh? What part of the following is too difficult for you to comprehend...?

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.​

They did not inform the FISA Court that the dossier was financed and
paid for by the DNC/Clinton Campaign.

There are no gray areas in applications. They are all black and white.
No Court is going to "assume" or "read between the lines."

If a lawyer wants something to be read between the lines, he damn well
better have some words between the lines.

The FBI and DOJ both believed they needed the extra weight of the Dossier
to continue to get extensions. The FBI and DOJ both believed that if they
told the court it was a political hit piece paid for by the DNC/Clinton Campaign, the court would not issue the extensions.

So they created the omission, which now that it has been discovered is
going to taint and probably destroy their entire case.

Well stated counselor. LOL Nunes has succeeded in showing to the Trumpbots that Mueller has no case. Of course, you knew that before and were not open to facts

and yet the facts are supporting our beliefs. Again, the position we have always taken is there was no evidence to support the need of Mueller. And now we get verification. don't know what to tell you!

No facts support your beliefs because you have no fucking way of knowing either exactly what the FBI thought Page knew or what they learned through the tap extension.

I fking know he was cleared in 2014 when he testified for the FBI in a court case. yes, I do know! Now you post up evidence he was an asset.

How about you post up what you have saying he was cleared. That would get us on the same page.

 

[jc456]

Yes it does because for one, it shows intent. Two, the information was never verified.

When you pay somebody looking for an outcome, you usually get that outcome even if it's not totally true. And any court should have questioned why this clown was not still working for his government if he was so reliable and good.

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.

so explain the difference from what Jr. supposedly did?

Huh?

opposition research? ever hear of that before?

BTW, it is the same thing Schitt just got caught in.

 

[jc456]

They did not inform the FISA Court that the dossier was financed and
paid for by the DNC/Clinton Campaign.

There are no gray areas in applications. They are all black and white.
No Court is going to "assume" or "read between the lines."

If a lawyer wants something to be read between the lines, he damn well
better have some words between the lines.

The FBI and DOJ both believed they needed the extra weight of the Dossier
to continue to get extensions. The FBI and DOJ both believed that if they
told the court it was a political hit piece paid for by the DNC/Clinton Campaign, the court would not issue the extensions.

So they created the omission, which now that it has been discovered is
going to taint and probably destroy their entire case.

Well stated counselor. LOL Nunes has succeeded in showing to the Trumpbots that Mueller has no case. Of course, you knew that before and were not open to facts

and yet the facts are supporting our beliefs. Again, the position we have always taken is there was no evidence to support the need of Mueller. And now we get verification. don't know what to tell you!

No facts support your beliefs because you have no fucking way of knowing either exactly what the FBI thought Page knew or what they learned through the tap extension.

I fking know he was cleared in 2014 when he testified for the FBI in a court case. yes, I do know! Now you post up evidence he was an asset.

How about you post up what you have saying he was cleared. That would get us on the same page.

why don't you post up why you think he was an asset and under investigation after he testified.

 

[bendog]

What point are you trying to make?

The Dossier was used in the 3 other applications and the FISA Court
wasn't told it was paid and financed by the DNC and Clinton Campaign.

They hid that from the court. That makes the 3 extensions illegal and very
possibly an abuse of the 4th amendment rights of anybody monitored.

Thus, you can kiss that special counsel goodbye, once SCOTUS has
this presented to them. They'll have no choice, because the FBI/SC
will never be able to distinguish one from the other.

well technically, they couldn't use the same evidence to get the extensions. They had to lie and say they were getting intel that was important to continue to collect. Lie after lie, after lie, after lie. There are three afterward.

Well, did they collect anything useful during the extension?

That is a good question, but the pertinent question is, if the original warrant was improperly granted, anything stemming from additional surveillance would be inadmissible to any court.

That alone should tell you that it probably wasn't just bullshit to begin with.

Incorrect. Many a case has been thrown out due to information that wasn't collected legitimately.

I have no problem with petitioning the court and opening up this warrant for everyone to see.

IF Steele's information was that Trump and Russia were somehow colluding, and it turns out they were colluding ... the warrant was good to go, even if Steele's information indicated the collusion was not precisely how it turned out to be.

But that assumes there's evidence of a Trump Russia quid pro quo. We have no way to know if there's any such evidence.

 

[jc456]

well technically, they couldn't use the same evidence to get the extensions. They had to lie and say they were getting intel that was important to continue to collect. Lie after lie, after lie, after lie. There are three afterward.

Well, did they collect anything useful during the extension?

That is a good question, but the pertinent question is, if the original warrant was improperly granted, anything stemming from additional surveillance would be inadmissible to any court.

That alone should tell you that it probably wasn't just bullshit to begin with.

Incorrect. Many a case has been thrown out due to information that wasn't collected legitimately.

I have no problem with petitioning the court and opening up this warrant for everyone to see.

IF Steele's information was that Trump and Russia were somehow colluding, and it turns out they were colluding ... the warrant was good to go, even if Steele's information indicated the collusion was not precisely how it turned out to be.

But that assumes there's evidence of a Trump Russia quid pro quo. We have no way to know if there's any such evidence.

 

[Hutch Starskey]

What point are you trying to make?

The Dossier was used in the 3 other applications and the FISA Court
wasn't told it was paid and financed by the DNC and Clinton Campaign.

They hid that from the court. That makes the 3 extensions illegal and very
possibly an abuse of the 4th amendment rights of anybody monitored.

Thus, you can kiss that special counsel goodbye, once SCOTUS has
this presented to them. They'll have no choice, because the FBI/SC
will never be able to distinguish one from the other.

well technically, they couldn't use the same evidence to get the extensions. They had to lie and say they were getting intel that was important to continue to collect. Lie after lie, after lie, after lie. There are three afterward.

Well, did they collect anything useful during the extension?

That is a good question, but the pertinent question is, if the original warrant was improperly granted, anything stemming from additional surveillance would be inadmissible to any court.

That alone should tell you that it probably wasn't just bullshit to begin with.

Do you know that 98% of all applications are given warrants? That's hilarious to even fathom. That pretty much says you bring in a note on a piece of toilet paper you'd get a warrant. so no, that does not qualify as such the the warrant was properly handled.

Yes, because that 98% is all on foreigners. There probably isn't more than a handful of American citizens with a warrant on them at any given time.

 

[Hutch Starskey]

Yes it does because for one, it shows intent. Two, the information was never verified.

When you pay somebody looking for an outcome, you usually get that outcome even if it's not totally true. And any court should have questioned why this clown was not still working for his government if he was so reliable and good.

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 not information obtained from a campaign opponent.

Who says?

 

[jc456]

well technically, they couldn't use the same evidence to get the extensions. They had to lie and say they were getting intel that was important to continue to collect. Lie after lie, after lie, after lie. There are three afterward.

Well, did they collect anything useful during the extension?

That is a good question, but the pertinent question is, if the original warrant was improperly granted, anything stemming from additional surveillance would be inadmissible to any court.

That alone should tell you that it probably wasn't just bullshit to begin with.

Do you know that 98% of all applications are given warrants? That's hilarious to even fathom. That pretty much says you bring in a note on a piece of toilet paper you'd get a warrant. so no, that does not qualify as such the the warrant was properly handled.

Yes, because that 98% is all on foreigners. There probably isn't more than a handful of American citizens with a warrant on them at any given time.

how the fk you know? 98% is 98%. that implies lax policy. fk, you assholes really are pieces of work. you all act like you have all this inside information. grab your chicken and choke it a little longer.

 

[jc456]

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 not information obtained from a campaign opponent.

Who says?

the courts.

 

[Hutch Starskey]

well technically, they couldn't use the same evidence to get the extensions. They had to lie and say they were getting intel that was important to continue to collect. Lie after lie, after lie, after lie. There are three afterward.

Well, did they collect anything useful during the extension?

That is a good question, but the pertinent question is, if the original warrant was improperly granted, anything stemming from additional surveillance would be inadmissible to any court.

That alone should tell you that it probably wasn't just bullshit to begin with.

Incorrect. Many a case has been thrown out due to information that wasn't collected legitimately.

I have no problem with petitioning the court and opening up this warrant for everyone to see.

all four of them. the extensions as well. let's see what they actually found. nothing we know otherwise he'd be in jail.

It's not necessarily true that he would be in jail. Especially if he is working to help get the intelligence.

 

[Hutch Starskey]

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 not information obtained from a campaign opponent.

Who says?

the courts.

Liar.

Post it up.

 

[Hutch Starskey]

Well, did they collect anything useful during the extension?

That is a good question, but the pertinent question is, if the original warrant was improperly granted, anything stemming from additional surveillance would be inadmissible to any court.

That alone should tell you that it probably wasn't just bullshit to begin with.

Incorrect. Many a case has been thrown out due to information that wasn't collected legitimately.

I have no problem with petitioning the court and opening up this warrant for everyone to see.

Collected and volunteered are two different things.

it's still supposed to be validated. You miss that piece. but go figure. right now, the dossier is still fake.

How do you know it wasn't?

 

[Hutch Starskey]

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.

so explain the difference from what Jr. supposedly did?

Huh?

opposition research? ever hear of that before?

BTW, it is the same thing Schitt just got caught in.

You do understand that Jr's meeting was to get information from the Russian government, don't you? The very same govt that hacked the information. That is called collusion. That is not simply opposition research.