Intelligence Committee To Petition FISA Court

[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!

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.

I never said he was.

 

[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.

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.

It doesn't imply that at all, dope.
It could just as easily imply that the FBI is very good at compiling complete and well documented applications.

 

[bendog]

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.

Given that Mueller hasn't charged Page with a crime, and squeezed him to talk for a plea deal, I think it's pretty obvious Page is not going to be accused of a crime. Rather, I think all that I've read about Page is that he was simply a go between from Russia to Trump, and possibly not a very effective one at that. But if the FBI had a reasonable basis to think he was passing information from one camp to another, that would be probable cause to tap his phone.

 

[usmbguest5318]

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

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.

if the original warrant was improperly granted

Hypothesis contrary to fact --> Yet Nunes' memo does not assert that any of the four separate FISA warrants were improperly granted by any of the four separate jurists who granted them.

 

[jc456]

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.

Well is he an FBI agent then? That truly would nullify that warrant! Hahahaha Hahahaha

 

[jc456]

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.

Given that Mueller hasn't charged Page with a crime, and squeezed him to talk for a plea deal, I think it's pretty obvious Page is not going to be accused of a crime. Rather, I think all that I've read about Page is that he was simply a go between from Russia to Trump, and possibly not a very effective one at that. But if the FBI had a reasonable basis to think he was passing information from one camp to another, that would be probable cause to tap his phone.

So just as I said

 

[usmbguest5318]

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.

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

We already know what the warrant says. You can see what it says if you want: ELECTRONIC SURVEILLANCE MANUAL PROCEDURES and CASE LAW FORMS. All the damn warrant says is essentially "I grant the FBI authorization to conduct for 90 days the surveillance activity for which they've requested permission." (Of course, there are literally more words than that, but that what it boils down to.)

The document that has not been released and that would be probative in determining what process actions may have been perfunctory performed is the warrant application, not the goddamn warrant. A warrant and warrant application are not synonymous, not in the least. Your remark above shows just how little rigorous circumspection and integrity you've given to considering and discussing the matter -- because how much discursive rigor does it take to write the word "application" after the word "warrant?" almost none -- all the while not actually having performed the the first iota of examination into what currently is available to the public.

 

[jc456]

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

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.

if the original warrant was improperly granted

Hypothesis contrary to fact --> Yet Nunes' memo does not assert that any of the four separate FISA warrants were improperly granted by any of the four separate jurists who granted them.

Not yet

 

[jc456]

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.

Nope from a lawyer . No difference to Steele. Where’d his information come from?

 

[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.

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

We already know what the warrant says. You can see what it says if you want: ELECTRONIC SURVEILLANCE MANUAL PROCEDURES and CASE LAW FORMS. All the damn warrant says is essentially "I grant the FBI authorization to conduct for 90 days the surveillance activity for which they've requested permission." (Of course, there are literally more words than that, but that what it boils down to.)

The document that has not been released and that would be probative in determining what process actions may have been perfunctory performed is the warrant application, not the goddamn warrant. A warrant and warrant application are not synonymous, not in the least. Your remark above shows just how little rigorous circumspection and integrity you've given to considering and discussing the matter -- because how much discursive rigor does it take to write the word "application" after the word "warrant?" almost none -- all the while not actually having performed the the first iota of examination into what currently is available to the public.

LOL, it’s the application dumb fk.

 

[jc456]

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.

I never said he was.

Then there was no need for a warrant!

 

[Hutch Starskey]

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.

Well is he an FBI agent then? That truly would nullify that warrant! Hahahaha Hahahaha

He's not FBI but he could certainly have an arrangement wherein he is required to be proactive in collecting intelligence in exchange for his freedom. It makes sense when you think the warrant was renewed three times. He has no legal counsel and isn't afraid to talk openly.

 

[Hutch Starskey]

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.

I never said he was.

Then there was no need for a warrant!

Obviously there was as four have been granted.

 

[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.

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.

Nope from a lawyer . No difference to Steele. Where’d his information come from?

Yes, dope.

From a lawyer who said she represented the Russian govt.

 

[jc456]

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.

Well is he an FBI agent then? That truly would nullify that warrant! Hahahaha Hahahaha

He's not FBI but he could certainly have an arrangement wherein he is required to be proactive in collecting intelligence in exchange for his freedom. It makes sense when you think the warrant was renewed three times. He has no legal counsel and isn't afraid to talk openly.

Makes no sense! It’s all made up. The memo exposes it.

 

[jc456]

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.

I never said he was.

Then there was no need for a warrant!

Obviously there was as four have been granted.

We will see when the applications are released. Stay tuned

 

[Faun]

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.

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.

 

[jc456]

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.

Nope from a lawyer . No difference to Steele. Where’d his information come from?

Yes, dope.

From a lawyer who said she represented the Russian govt.

Nope. She was supposed to provide Hitlery data. She didn’t and why it stopped. Opposition research

 

[Faun]

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.

Well is he an FBI agent then? That truly would nullify that warrant! Hahahaha Hahahaha

He's not FBI but he could certainly have an arrangement wherein he is required to be proactive in collecting intelligence in exchange for his freedom. It makes sense when you think the warrant was renewed three times. He has no legal counsel and isn't afraid to talk openly.

Makes no sense! It’s all made up. The memo exposes it.

You mean the memo which lied and claimed the FBI did not reveal the political origins of the dossier to the FISC? That memo?

 

[westwall]

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 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.