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

[Roustabout]

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.

Delivering the mail is simple and I bet they don't have that kind of success rate.

 

[Vol0725]

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?

I don’t think the courts merely rubber-stamp applications. The process is a give-and-take one, and though the FISA court rarely rejects warrants, the DOJ does modify many warrants in response to the court’s concerns. Moreover, since surveillance of foreign threats to the U.S. is an executive responsibility, the court should approve them unless it appears that the FBI and the DOJ are abusing the process.

In any event, the issue here is failure to disclose information to the court. If a judge was not made aware of material facts, the judge’s authorization of a warrant does not validate the derelict application. (That said, it is difficult to understand why judges would not be troubled by the lack of corroboration of Steele’s unidentified Russian hearsay informants.)

 

[roosterjbh]

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.

*I cannot continue to defend my position, so I will throw out an insult and end the conversation*

 

[Orange_Crush]

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?

The judge's job is to protect US citizens' rights from snooping. A 97%+ approval rate is a massive failure of such duties.

 

[Orange_Crush]

I don’t think the courts merely rubber-stamp applications. The process is a give-and-take one, and though the FISA court rarely rejects warrants, the DOJ does modify many warrants in response to the court’s concerns. Moreover, since surveillance of foreign threats to the U.S. is an executive responsibility, the court should approve them unless it appears that the FBI and the DOJ are abusing the process.

In any event, the issue here is failure to disclose information to the court. If a judge was not made aware of material facts, the judge’s authorization of a warrant does not validate the derelict application. (That said, it is difficult to understand why judges would not be troubled by the lack of corroboration of Steele’s unidentified Russian hearsay informants.)

Are you serious? The judges, whose job is to protect the rights of the citizens, are coaching the investigators as to how to better write warrants, so they can have a 97%+ approval rate? And you say this is a GOOD thing?

I hope I'm misunderstanding your point.

 

[Vol0725]

Are you serious? The judges, whose job is to protect the rights of the citizens, are coaching the investigators as to how to better write warrants, so they can have a 97%+ approval rate? And you say this is a GOOD thing?

I hope I'm misunderstanding your point.

I was reading from a former Chief US Asst Atty who’s familiar with the process very intimately and has headed up several major investigation so I figured it credible.

What’s your experience with the FISA process, that might clarify my interpretation of his experience and opinion?

 

[Vol0725]

*I cannot continue to defend my position, so I will throw out an insult and end the conversation*

Lol. You’ve figured me out. 💋
I said what I said, because you can’t debate with angry LG and I didn’t think he was clear on what I was stating and that could be my fault. Additionally it’s not a short response and I didn’t have the time or desire at that moment.

So...

Maybe you can let us know what you think, and explain to us why this is legal? Watch this and legally debate why an former DOJ attorney, federal prosecutor and former special counsel is wrong: Federal Contractor Spying - YouTube

Let me lay it out for you...

Government spying on the Trump campaign ‘may have’ begun early in 2016, perhaps sooner, by private contractors working for the FBI. The Federal Government admits it conducted illegal surveillance on American citizens through private contractors. The details are in a 99-page FISA Court memorandum and opinion issued by Judge Rosemary Collyer: Top Secret FISA Court Order - President Obama Spying on Political Enemies

So what I was asking is, does this draw any concerns to you? Let me clear the path for you, if you haven’t read the documents.

A court order released in April 2017 from the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court (FISA) found that the DOJ, FBI and NSA, under former President Obama, routinely violated American privacy protections while scouring through overseas intercepts; and failed to disclose the extent of the problem until the final days before Donald Trump was elected president in 2016.

In describing the violations, the FISA court said the illegal searches conducted by the FBI under Obama were “widespread” and created a “very serious Fourth Amendment issue.” These new discoveries come from unsealed FISA court documents dated April 26, 2017 and center around a hearing dated October 26, 2016, just days before the 2016 election; in which the FISA court apparently learned for the first time of “widespread” and illegal spying on American citizens by the DOJ and FBI under the Obama administration.

Now I ask you...Does this concern you in the least, or is it a bunch of B.S. ?

 

[lawgator1]

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.

You simply do not know what you are talking about and you are wrong. Completely.

Have you ever been in front of a federal judge? I have. For over twenty years. To a T, they inquire. They have armies of clerks, licensed attorneys, who also read everything and suggest shortcomings. Federal courts ask follow up questions like nonbody's business. You have your i's dotted and your t's crossed.

 

[lawgator1]

The judge's job is to protect US citizens' rights from snooping. A 97%+ approval rate is a massive failure of such duties.

You have zero basis for saying that. It is a popular myth amongst libertarians that such an approval rate must mean something, and it means absolutely squadoosh.

You cannot possibly know from that number anything without knowing what the contents were of the applications. Your assumption that the number means anything is utterly baseless.

On the other hand, we know who these judges are in this case and we know how thorough they are. And now that we have a fuller picture with the Dem memo, we can see that the Republicans and Nunes flat out lied in their memo trying to make it look like the judges weren't told things that they were, in fact told.

 

[Orange_Crush]

I was reading from a former Chief US Asst Atty who’s familiar with the process very intimately and has headed up several major investigation so I figured it credible.

What’s your experience with the FISA process, that might clarify my interpretation of his experience and opinion?

My experience is that I by definition don't trust attorneys, especially DAs, nor judges that used to be attorneys. That's not the group I begin with a default trust.

97%+ approval makes that stamp look pretty dang rubber, and bringing up that the judges help the lawyers rewrite warrant requests to get the % up to that number is more incriminating that comforting. I don't care what an investigative US attorney says.

 

[Orange_Crush]

You have zero basis for saying that. It is a popular myth amongst libertarians that such an approval rate must mean something, and it means absolutely squadoosh.

You cannot possibly know from that number anything without knowing what the contents were of the applications. Your assumption that the number means anything is utterly baseless.

On the other hand, we know who these judges are in this case and we know how thorough they are. And now that we have a fuller picture with the Dem memo, we can see that the Republicans and Nunes flat out lied in their memo trying to make it look like the judges weren't told things that they were, in fact told.

Ha! Good one.

Schiff Memo Harms Democrats, Helps Republicans | National Review

I suspect the judges are going down as well.

 

[Vol0725]

My experience is that I by definition don't trust attorneys, especially DAs, nor judges that used to be attorneys. That's not the group I begin with a default trust.

97%+ approval makes that stamp look pretty dang rubber, and bringing up that the judges help the lawyers rewrite warrant requests to get the % up to that number is more incriminating that comforting. I don't care what an investigative attorney friend says.

Oh I get ya, makes sense. I understand that and agree, it’s a good ole boys/girls club behind closed doors, and if you don’t believe that you are extremely naive. So, point taken.

In regards to the FISC it’s based solely on no cross or defense, which is a conundrum with trusting human beings to never be biased or misleading; or maybe they are misinterpreting unintentionally, or possibly intentionally lie or omit relevant facts. I get it, one sided, no cross to defend.

It appears the FISC is really accountable to no one. But, maybe I’m wrong.

 

[lawgator1]

Oh I get ya, makes sense. I understand that and agree, it’s a good ole boys/girls club behind closed doors, and if you don’t believe that you are extremely naive. So, point taken.

In regards to the FISC it’s based solely on no cross or defense, which is a conundrum with trusting human beings to never be biased or misleading; or maybe they are misinterpreting unintentionally, or possibly intentionally lie or omit relevant facts. I get it, one sided, no cross to defend.

Did you read the 100 page order that YOU linked here yesterday? It showed a VERY thorough examination of a FISA warrant application, did it not? Complete even with concerns and criticisms (which you pointed out)?

 

[Orange_Crush]

Oh I get ya, makes sense. I understand that and agree, it’s a good ole boys/girls club behind closed doors, and if you don’t believe that you are extremely naive. So, point taken.

In regards to the FISC it’s based solely on no cross or defense, which is a conundrum with trusting human beings to never be biased or misleading; or maybe they are misinterpreting unintentionally, or possibly intentionally lie or omit relevant facts. I get it, one sided, no cross to defend.

I know someone who got a DUI last year. First offense. (No excuse.)

The DA literally said:

if you hire an attorney to represent you, and plead guilty, I will plea you down to xxx, otherwise, you'll get full sentence of zzz.

Friend says: "I don't need an attorney to plea guilty. Just let me plead guilty and plea me down."

DA: "it doesn't work like that. You hire an attorney to represent you and then plead guilty, or you get full sentence."


I literally stood six feet away and listened to this conversation first hand. Defenders, DAs, Judges... They're all attorneys who grease one another's hands. It's not a justice system. It's extortion.

And LG... As a part of the problem, you can kick rocks. Your opinion is soiled from the first syllable.

 

[Orange_Crush]

You have zero basis for saying that. It is a popular myth amongst libertarians that such an approval rate must mean something, and it means absolutely squadoosh.

You cannot possibly know from that number anything without knowing what the contents were of the applications. Your assumption that the number means anything is utterly baseless.

On the other hand, we know who these judges are in this case and we know how thorough they are. And now that we have a fuller picture with the Dem memo, we can see that the Republicans and Nunes flat out lied in their memo trying to make it look like the judges weren't told things that they were, in fact told.

PS: I don't have to see every at-bat of the season to know when a batter sucked. The stats speak for themselves.

 

[OuterBanksVol]

I know someone who got a DUI last year. First offense. (No excuse.)

The DA literally said:

if you hire an attorney to represent you, and plead guilty, I will plea you down to xxx, otherwise, you'll get full sentence of zzz.

Friend says: "I don't need an attorney to plea guilty. Just let me plead guilty and plea me down."

DA: "it doesn't work like that. You hire an attorney to represent you and then plead guilty, or you get full sentence."


I literally stood six feet away and listened to this conversation first hand. Defenders, DAs, Judges... They're all attorneys who grease one another's hands. It's not a justice system. It's extortion.

And LG... As a part of the problem, you can kick rocks. Your opinion is soiled from the first syllable.

This is 100% true here in the Outer Banks. Everyone - courts, DAs, defense attorneys - wash each other's hands. It's horrible.

 

[Orange_Crush]

This is 100% true here in thed Outer Banks. Everyone - courts, DAs, defense attorneys - wash each other's hands. It's horrible.

See? We've found common ground. First round on me.

 

[Vol0725]

This is 100% true here in the Outer Banks. Everyone - courts, DAs, defense attorneys - wash each other's hands. It's horrible.

I gave you a thumbs up. We agree, I know first hand personally. It’s a good ole boy system when necessary. And money, paid to an attorney, doesn’t hurt your case. Now, I’ll plead the 5th.

 

[Vol_Doc]

I don’t think the courts merely rubber-stamp applications. The process is a give-and-take one, and though the FISA court rarely rejects warrants, the DOJ does modify many warrants in response to the court’s concerns. Moreover, since surveillance of foreign threats to the U.S. is an executive responsibility, the court should approve them unless it appears that the FBI and the DOJ are abusing the process.

In any event, the issue here is failure to disclose information to the court. If a judge was not made aware of material facts, the judge’s authorization of a warrant does not validate the derelict application. (That said, it is difficult to understand why judges would not be troubled by the lack of corroboration of Steele’s unidentified Russian hearsay informants.)

How about this. Can you say, with a straight face, that you and the GOP for that matter would be so fired up about this if Carter Page was a Democrat who had worked for Clinton and the DNC? Be honest.

 

[Vol0725]

How about this. Can you say, with a straight face, that you and the GOP for that matter would be so fired up about this if Carter Page was a Democrat who had worked for Clinton and the DNC? Be honest.

Likely not 'as much', but a small amount. I believe in protection of civil liberties, regardless of one's political beliefs.

Question, could you imagine if this was reversed, what would the media narrative be and what would they be covering?

 

[Vol0725]

Trump should thank the Dems for their memo, it helps him.

Schiff Memo Harms Democrats, Helps Republicans | National Review


The Dems memo is a disaster for them, why did they release it?

Byron York: Assessing the new Democratic intel memo

 

[OuterBanksVol]

See? We've found common ground. First round on me.

:good!:

 

[Vol0725]

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?

Justifying Surveillance of Carter Page Would Have Been Pretty Easy - Hit & Run : Reason.com

The FBI needed probable cause to believe he was an agent of a foreign power, a standard that is not hard to meet.

Syracuse University law professor William Banks says, the government's burden is not very demanding. "Carter Page was doing business in Russia, talking to Russian diplomats who may have been involved in intelligence activities in the United States," Banks told the Times. "Game over. The standards are incredibly open-ended."

 

[Vol_Doc]

Likely not 'as much', but a small amount. I believe in protection of civil liberties, regardless of one's political beliefs.

Question, could you imagine if this was reversed, what would the media narrative be and what would they be covering?

Fox News would be crucifying her and defending the FISA warrant. CNN et al would be crying foul and defending civil liberties. Basically, the exact opposite of what's happening now. It's stupid partisanship in both cases.

 

[Vol0725]

Fox News would be crucifying her and defending the FISA warrant. CNN et al would be crying foul and defending civil liberties. Basically, the exact opposite of what's happening now. It's stupid partisanship in both cases.

I can respect that.

But if the rolls reversed it would be much more apocalyptic. I'd just have to add that it would be outright onslaught media dem Armageddon.