The FBI Director and the assistant AG have told the WH not to release the memo

#2,429
#2,429
luthervol said:
I don't want to quote Vol0275's post due to its length, but that was a lot of words that said next to nothing.
Click to expand...

It all focuses on the Steele dossier, just like the original Nunes memo. The Schiff memo seemed pretty clear to me that the dossier didn't initiate the investigation, even though it was used for the warrant. It also mentions that parts of the dossier corroborated facts already uncovered. The political motivation against the Trump campaign was laid out in the warrant application, despite the fact that the players weren't specifically identified. Only an idiot would think there wasn't a tie to the Clinton campaign at that point in the election year. The fact that Page wasn't even with the campaign at the time the warrant was executed makes it unlikely that the warrant was even used to spy on Trump. In sum, the Schiff memo basically cuts the legs out from under the Nunes memo.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 2 people
#2,430
#2,430
lawgator1 said:
A very possible scenario here is that collusion is proven to high up campaign officials but they have a hard time getting proof together that Trump knew of it.

Personally I believe that this is the reason we've seen the strategy unfold as it has. Trying to turn someone to give up Trump. Question is, has it already happened?
Click to expand...

It's curious Manafort hasn't flipped yet. With the new charges, he's facing some serious prison time and he's already an old guy. Also costing him big $$$ to fight this nonstop.

Scenarios:

1. He thinks he can beat the rap. Crazy if he believes that.

2. He has nothing of consequence to offer Mueller. Possible and this is what Trump fans should be praying for.

3. He's already flipped. Possible but unlikely. Why waste $ on attorneys? Manafort is in serious financial trouble.

4. He is afraid to turn on Trump and company. Plausible.

5. But the most likely reason is....

Manafort expects Trump to simply pardon him. Trump has that ability and nobody can stop him from doing it. Pardon a convicted money laundered who was in bed with the Russians... oh and ran your Campaign? Sure! Why not.

The game afoot is dirty, dirty pool.
 
#2,431
#2,431
Vol_Doc said:
It all focuses on the Steele dossier, just like the original Nunes memo. The Schiff memo seemed pretty clear to me that the dossier didn't initiate the investigation, even though it was used for the warrant. It also mentions that parts of the dossier corroborated facts already uncovered. The political motivation against the Trump campaign was laid out in the warrant application, despite the fact that the players weren't specifically identified. Only an idiot would think there wasn't a tie to the Clinton campaign at that point in the election year. The fact that Page wasn't even with the campaign at the time the warrant was executed makes it unlikely that the warrant was even used to spy on Trump. In sum, the Schiff memo basically cuts the legs out from under the Nunes memo.
Click to expand...

I believe what’s in question is concerning to everyone. FISA collection on an American citizen is an extremely powerful tool & any abuse of that process is a massive problem that requires transparency, accountability & solutions. Addressing this issue should be of concern for any American, regardless of one's political affiliation.

Now in regards to the FBI counterintelligence investigation beginning...

Both memos agree: The FBI counterintelligence investigation into the Trump campaign and Russia began in July 2016 — before the FBI applied for the Page FISA warrant — although the context surrounding that date in each memo is markedly different.

Nunes memo: "The Page FISA application also mentions information regarding fellow Trump campaign advisor George Papadopoulos, but there is no evidence of any cooperation or conspiracy between Page and Papadopoulos. The Papadopoulos information triggered the opening of an FBI counterintelligence investigation in late July 2016 by FBI agent Pete Strzok. Strzok was reassigned by the Special Counsel's Office to FBI Human Resources for improper text messages with his mistress, FBI Attorney Lisa Page (no known relation to Carter Page), where they both demonstrated a clear bias against Trump and in favor of Clinton, whom Strzok had also investigated."

Schiff memo: "Christopher Steele's reporting, which he began to share with an FBI agent through the end of October 2016, played no role in launching the FBI's counterintelligence investigation into Russian interference and links to the Trump campaign. In fact, Steele's reporting did not reach the counterintelligence team investigating Russia at FBI headquarters until mid-September 2016, more than seven Weeks after the FBI opened its investigation, because the probe's existence was so closely held within the FBI."
 
#2,432
#2,432
Vol_Doc said:
It all focuses on the Steele dossier, just like the original Nunes memo. The Schiff memo seemed pretty clear to me that the dossier didn't initiate the investigation, even though it was used for the warrant. It also mentions that parts of the dossier corroborated facts already uncovered. The political motivation against the Trump campaign was laid out in the warrant application, despite the fact that the players weren't specifically identified. Only an idiot would think there wasn't a tie to the Clinton campaign at that point in the election year. The fact that Page wasn't even with the campaign at the time the warrant was executed makes it unlikely that the warrant was even used to spy on Trump. In sum, the Schiff memo basically cuts the legs out from under the Nunes memo.
Click to expand...

Plus, the judge was free to ask any questions regarding the backing of the dossier. If the answers would have been relevant, the judge would have asked. The fact that the questions were not asked is proof that the information would have had no bearing on the decision.

People who think otherwise should be focused on the judge and no one else.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 2 people
#2,433
#2,433
FISA warrant requests are rubber stamped. Hardly any get rejected. This is a problem.

The U.S. Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act Court (FISA) rejected only 12 of 38,169 requests for surveillance warrants between 1979 and 2015.

This means that about 99.7 percent of warrant requests have been approved in the 36 years since FISA’s inception.

Surveillance Requests Almost Never Rejected | The Daily Caller
 
  • Like
Reactions: 2 people
#2,434
#2,434
37L1 said:
FISA warrant requests are rubber stamped. Hardly any get rejected. This is a problem.

The U.S. Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act Court (FISA) rejected only 12 of 38,169 requests for surveillance warrants between 1979 and 2015.

This means that about 99.7 percent of warrant requests have been approved in the 36 years since FISA’s inception.

Surveillance Requests Almost Never Rejected | The Daily Caller
Click to expand...


That's because they are extremely well done and well researched. As were these.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 3 people
#2,435
#2,435
luthervol said:
Plus, the judge was free to ask any questions regarding the backing of the dossier. If the answers would have been relevant, the judge would have asked. The fact that the questions were not asked is proof that the information would have had no bearing on the decision.

People who think otherwise should be focused on the judge and no one else.
Click to expand...

They are interested in everyone involved.
 
#2,436
#2,436
lawgator1 said:
That's because they are extremely well done and well researched. As were these.
Click to expand...

What’s your opinion of this FACT, that the mainstream media doesn’t cover...

A federal court last year already found egregious and lawless deliberate abuse of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) by the FBI specifically, and certainly implicating DOJ.

The court’s decision reveals that the upper echelon of the FBI (such as James Comey, Andrew McCabe, Peter Strzok and others( deliberately gave unlimited and unsupervised access to the most private raw FISA data to a private contractor. (Can you say Fusion GPS?)

Here’s the 99 page ‘decision’, and I continue below laying out the case...

https://www.dni.gov/files/documents/icotr/51117/2016_Cert_FISC_Memo_Opin_Order_Apr_2017.pdf


NOW FOLLOW ALONG HERE...

How do we know there was really a problem in the FBI and the DOJ? Read the unclassified decision of the special super-secret FISA Court — especially beginning at page 83. The FISA Court oversees our spy agencies and the massive data collection operations of our federal government. It operates in utmost secrecy — too much secrecy.

The unclassified FISA court decision reveals major violations by the FBI. The FBI gave private contractors illegal access to the all of the raw data collected by the NSA. The Court noted “an institutional ‘lack of candor’ on NSA’s part and emphasized that ‘this is a very serious Fourth Amendment issue.’”

Apparently, the saga for the court began on March 9, 2016, when “DOJ oversight personnel conducting a minimization review of the FBI’s *** [redacted] learned that the FBI had disclosed raw FISA information, including but not limited to Section 702-acquired information.

Reading between the redactions, that disclosure involved an entity “largely staffed by private contractors.”

On top of that, “certain *** [redacted] contractors had access to raw FISA information on FBI storage systems. ***[redacted] the ***[redacted] contractors had access to raw FISA information that went well beyond what was necessary to respond to the FBI’s requests.”

According to the Court, the “FBI discontinued the above-described access to raw FISA information as of April 18, 2016.”

The court continued, noting “Restrictions were not in place with regard to the *** [redacted] contractors; their access was not limited to raw information for which the FBI sought assistance and access continued even after they had completed their work in response to an FBI request.

The court catalogues a separate violation by the FBI, but most of it is redacted. Footnote 68 of the Court’s decision includes the statement that “the government acknowledges that those disclosures were improper for other reasons.”

It gets worse. The court wrote in Footnote 69 that “improper access granted to the * * *[redacted] contractors . . . * * *[redacted] . . . seems to have been the result of deliberate decision-making. * * *[redacted] access to FBI systems was the subject of an interagency memorandum of understanding (presumably prepared or reviewed by FBI lawyers), no notice of this practice was given to the FISC until 2016.”

NSA Director Admiral Mike Rogers, whom James Clapper and others sought to have fired, deserves credit for reporting these problems to the FISA court and for stopping the use of the certain queries which facilitated the abuses of the intelligence systems.

#ReleasetheMemo is the least Congress owes to the American people. Personally I think all the warrants, affidavits and TRANSCRIPTs should be released.

And bureaucrats who overstep the law should be prosecuted just like anyone else.

What say you??
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
#2,437
#2,437
Poor liddle Schiff-head

DW1XbWJX0AELjsR


https://intelligence.house.gov/uploadedfiles/democrat_memo_charge_and_response.pdf
 
  • Like
Reactions: 3 people
#2,438
#2,438
Vol0725 said:
What’s your opinion of this FACT, that the mainstream media doesn’t cover...

A federal court last year already found egregious and lawless deliberate abuse of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) by the FBI specifically, and certainly implicating DOJ.

The court’s decision reveals that the upper echelon of the FBI (such as James Comey, Andrew McCabe, Peter Strzok and others( deliberately gave unlimited and unsupervised access to the most private raw FISA data to a private contractor. (Can you say Fusion GPS?)

Here’s the 99 page ‘decision’, and I continue below laying out the case...

https://www.dni.gov/files/documents/icotr/51117/2016_Cert_FISC_Memo_Opin_Order_Apr_2017.pdf


NOW FOLLOW ALONG HERE...

How do we know there was really a problem in the FBI and the DOJ? Read the unclassified decision of the special super-secret FISA Court — especially beginning at page 83. The FISA Court oversees our spy agencies and the massive data collection operations of our federal government. It operates in utmost secrecy — too much secrecy.

The unclassified FISA court decision reveals major violations by the FBI. The FBI gave private contractors illegal access to the all of the raw data collected by the NSA. The Court noted “an institutional ‘lack of candor’ on NSA’s part and emphasized that ‘this is a very serious Fourth Amendment issue.’”

Apparently, the saga for the court began on March 9, 2016, when “DOJ oversight personnel conducting a minimization review of the FBI’s *** [redacted] learned that the FBI had disclosed raw FISA information, including but not limited to Section 702-acquired information.

Reading between the redactions, that disclosure involved an entity “largely staffed by private contractors.”

On top of that, “certain *** [redacted] contractors had access to raw FISA information on FBI storage systems. ***[redacted] the ***[redacted] contractors had access to raw FISA information that went well beyond what was necessary to respond to the FBI’s requests.”

According to the Court, the “FBI discontinued the above-described access to raw FISA information as of April 18, 2016.”

The court continued, noting “Restrictions were not in place with regard to the *** [redacted] contractors; their access was not limited to raw information for which the FBI sought assistance and access continued even after they had completed their work in response to an FBI request.

The court catalogues a separate violation by the FBI, but most of it is redacted. Footnote 68 of the Court’s decision includes the statement that “the government acknowledges that those disclosures were improper for other reasons.”

It gets worse. The court wrote in Footnote 69 that “improper access granted to the * * *[redacted] contractors . . . * * *[redacted] . . . seems to have been the result of deliberate decision-making. * * *[redacted] access to FBI systems was the subject of an interagency memorandum of understanding (presumably prepared or reviewed by FBI lawyers), no notice of this practice was given to the FISC until 2016.”

NSA Director Admiral Mike Rogers, whom James Clapper and others sought to have fired, deserves credit for reporting these problems to the FISA court and for stopping the use of the certain queries which facilitated the abuses of the intelligence systems.

#ReleasetheMemo is the least Congress owes to the American people. Personally I think all the warrants, affidavits and TRANSCRIPTs should be released.

And bureaucrats who overstep the law should be prosecuted just like anyone else.

What say you??
Click to expand...


I say you can't read very well.

First, the Court granted continuing surveillance in that case.

Second, the issue specifically discussed is the "minimization" process whereby the agencies involved limit access to the info. There was a concern expressed - no more- that some private contractor could see it because they were assisting the agency.

They were well trained, did not disseminate it, and the Court found that the agencies had met the statutory requirements.

In other words, you are cherry picking things, taking them entirely out of context, and fabricating a complete falsehood.

As usual.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 5 people
#2,439
#2,439
lawgator1 said:
I say you can't read very well.

First, the Court granted continuing surveillance in that case.

Second, the issue specifically discussed is the "minimization" process whereby the agencies involved limit access to the info. There was a concern expressed - no more- that some private contractor could see it because they were assisting the agency.

They were well trained, did not disseminate it, and the Court found that the agencies had met the statutory requirements.

In other words, you are cherry picking things, taking them entirely out of context, and fabricating a complete falsehood.

As usual.
Click to expand...

I’m not sure we are on the same page...let’s just forget it, your colon is obviously spastic at the moment. Think you need to calm it down.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
#2,441
#2,441
lawgator1 said:
I say you can't read very well.

First, the Court granted continuing surveillance in that case.

Second, the issue specifically discussed is the "minimization" process whereby the agencies involved limit access to the info. There was a concern expressed - no more- that some private contractor could see it because they were assisting the agency.

They were well trained, did not disseminate it, and the Court found that the agencies had met the statutory requirements.

In other words, you are cherry picking things, taking them entirely out of context, and fabricating a complete falsehood.

As usual.
Click to expand...
Does this prove that Trump polluted with the Russians?
 
  • Like
Reactions: 2 people
#2,443
#2,443
I would just shut up about it and run the same scheme on the Democrats in the next election. Hard to win an election with the opponents watching every move you make. No Democrat would bat an eye at the president and his staff surveilling opponents.
 
#2,445
#2,445
37L1 said:
FISA warrant requests are rubber stamped. Hardly any get rejected. This is a problem.

The U.S. Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act Court (FISA) rejected only 12 of 38,169 requests for surveillance warrants between 1979 and 2015.

This means that about 99.7 percent of warrant requests have been approved in the 36 years since FISA’s inception.

Surveillance Requests Almost Never Rejected | The Daily Caller
Click to expand...

I think you've posted this before. I'm not saying there definitely aren't abuses here, but thinking of it analogously, I can't help but wonder what the percentage should be. As a physician, I have to jump through paperwork hoops with insurance carriers to ensure I get paid for services. The information, ordering, supporting documentation, etc required varies quite a bit between carriers. If my office it's doing their job correctly, i should be reimbursed nearly 100% off the time. Is it not plausible that the FBI and DOJ, given their knowledge of requirements for successful FISA application, have a very high approval percentage? If not, why not?
 
  • Like
Reactions: 2 people
#2,446
#2,446
Vol_Doc said:
I think you've posted this before. I'm not saying there definitely aren't abuses here, but thinking of it analogously, I can't help but wonder what the percentage should be. As a physician, I have to jump through paperwork hoops with insurance carriers to ensure I get paid for services. The information, ordering, supporting documentation, etc required varies quite a bit between carriers. If my office it's doing their job correctly, i should be reimbursed nearly 100% off the time. Is it not plausible that the FBI and DOJ, given their knowledge of requirements for successful FISA application, have a very high approval percentage? If not, why not?
Click to expand...
Seriously? With the FBI and DOJ and their recent track record?

Getting a warrant to void a citizen's constitutional rights should never be an easy task and 99.7% success rate on 38,000 attempts is better than the purity of Ivory Soap. If that doesn't even pique your BS button, there is something wrong with you. This is our government we are talking about here, not exactly brain surgery and brain surgeons who I doubt have a 99.7% success rate.
 
Last edited:
#2,449
#2,449
37L1 said:
Seriously? With the FBI and DOJ and their recent track record?

Getting a warrant to void a citizen's constitutional rights should never be an easy task and 99.7% success rate on 38,000 attempts is better than the purity of Ivory Soap. If that doesn't even pique your BS button, there is something wrong with you. This is our government we are talking about here, not exactly brain surgery and brain surgeons who I doubt have a 99.7% success rate.
Click to expand...

So, what do you think an acceptable success rate is? Is there another legal facet we can look at for comparison? What percentage of FISA warrants are actually against American citizens? Based on the FISA description, I'd imagine it's quite low. So, the idea that this is a mechanism primarily to void a citizen's rights seems incorrect. I'd wager the overwhelming majority of those targeted are foreigners. Those Americans targeted would be under suspicion of spying on our country for foreign powers. Is that not something you think is important and worth granting such a warrant?
 
#2,450
#2,450
luthervol said:
Plus, the judge was free to ask any questions regarding the backing of the dossier. If the answers would have been relevant, the judge would have asked. The fact that the questions were not asked is proof that the information would have had no bearing on the decision.

People who think otherwise should be focused on the judge and no one else.
Click to expand...

You obviously have no idea how this works. Judges have an assumed expectation of practice regarding these agencies. You are assuming a judge is an investigator. They aren't, and assume that the agencies have. followed procedure in submitting the warrant.
 
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.
Advertisement

Back
Top