FBI and DOJ beyond reproach... (Page 2)

I think we each see what we want to believe and disbelieve. I see Schiff and I hear a political hack who defends the dem position at all costs. I see Gaudy as a darn good lawyer seeking the truth. I suppose the other sides see the opposite.

Except you're making a huge assumption that the info obtained for the Clinton campaign was the only evidence presented to get the warrant, and its incredibly unlikely that's the case. If that's what happened, then yeah, we need hearings, and to get to the bottom of it. But what's way more likely was that it was used to corraborate info from other sources that (tin foil hat time) conveniently the Republicans arent releasing, and all together it made a case for surveillence.
And the warrant was approved by a hand picked trump appointee who apparently felt there was enough evidence to continue surveillance on a guy who had been under investigation for ties to Russia for three years before trump even announced he was running for president.
But sure, a partisan report cherry picking data without input from the other party seems like the appropriate way to address this dire attack on our civil liberties... How about they just release the warrant so we can see the evidence that was presented and we can judge whether it was inappropriate or not. Oh wait, can't release that either...
If you really want to give your tin foil hat a workout, how about questioning why the same congressmen who are so alarmed about this warrant were ok with recently voting to extend programs that allow the same untrustworthy fbi to conduct the same sort of surveillance that doesn't even need a warrant....

No, I was referring to Page

And McCabe can't just write up some sloppy fisa warrant on his own and go to the court. Every fisa warrant has to be approved by a bunch of independent DOJ lawyers who go over and verify every fact in the application, so don't forget to include them in your conspiracy too.

And here's some info I found about Page. It's not like they decided out of the blue to accuse him of being a spy.
~~~~
It’s important to understand that just because the FBI receives information (like the Steele dossier), the Bureau cannot immediately run to a FISA court and obtain a warrant. A FISA warrant itself does not make a case; rather, it’s an investigative tool used in support of an existing national security case, one that normally would have been opened months, if not years, prior. In fact, FISA warrants can be approved only for what are called Full Investigations. This is the most serious class of investigations within the FBI, and it requires an “articulable factual basis” to open: For counterintelligence cases on U.S. persons (USPERs), these cases involve facts demonstrating that the subject is in contact with and working on behalf of a foreign intelligence service.

Page was already on the FBI’s radar as far back as 2013, when it obtained recordings of Russian foreign intelligence officials discussing targeting Page for recruitment. FBI officials at that time interviewed Page and warned him that he was being targeted—Page admitted that he had been in contact with these officers (not knowing they were Russian intelligence operatives) and has said that he shared “immaterial information and publicly available research documents” with the Russian spies. As former CIA officers and I have described, this would be consistent with the early stage of an intelligence-recruitment process, and the FBI would have likely kept tabs on Russia’s efforts to see if it persisted and succeeded. There are even reports that Page was under FISA surveillance in 2014, which could have strengthened the basis for a new FISA warrant in 2016 with renewed Russian interest in him. The Wall Street Journal reported that U.S. intelligence obtained intercepts as early as spring 2015 of Russians discussing “meetings held outside the U.S. involving Russian government officials and Trump business associates or advisers.” By the time Page joined the Trump campaign in 2016, the FBI would have had three years to monitor the recruitment process unfolding. Page continued his contacts with Russia through this time, and his unusual trip to Moscow in summer 2016 was no secret. This recruitment process is what the FBI would have outlined in its application to the FISA court to obtain surveillance in 2016 by demonstrating how and why Page was “engaging in clandestine intelligence activity on behalf of a foreign power.”

Heh, probably. Don't get me wrong, I'm all for a discussion about domestic surveillance, warrantless wiretapping... But it seems pretty clear that's not the intent of the memo. The intent is just to smear the investigation by any means necessary. Maybe I'll be proved wrong when it comes out, but I'm not holding my breath..

Everything thing I hear is that both sides are cherrypick if their info. What I would like to see is a version of the facts that everyone can agree is accurate. Is that really such a stretch?

Perhaps that is what is in the memo. I don't think the memo is going just be an essay or op-ed or speculation/conjecture....I would expect it to contain data and date.....dates of what happened when, who approved what, who said or wrote what, etc. Gaudy is a darn good lawyer IMO and I don't think he is going to put out 'opinions'. Every time I have seen him interviewed he seems genuinely interested in provable facts. But of course, like everyone else, have no idea what is in the memo. Guess we will know soon enough.

My guess is the memo is going to state facts, not opinions. So the dem memo would have to dispute facts and that is hard to do. Not saying they won't try by claiming, "this is out of context" or "not the whole story" etc. A lot of reps who read the memo said they were very concerned and some said "jaw-dropping". You don't...or at least I don't, get 'concerned' or about opinions. Opinions are never described as "jaw dropping".

It's one thing to say, "Strzok and Page were biased". It's another thing to say, "Strzok sent a text to Page saying....." which is demonstrably a fact. It's one thing to say "The FBI may have used the dossier to get a warrant..." It's another thing to say, "On Sept 14, 2016 the FBI submitted as evidence the dossier as Exhibit A to the FISA court".

I am anxious to see both memos......



Edited by Rogillio 2018-01-31 7:15 AM

Schiff: Republican Memo "Terrible Mischaracterization Of The Events," "Deeply Misleading"


Did I call it or what?!


I read a line in an article on why the memo matters and they went on to talk about Trump and Mueller. No! It matters because the integrity of FBI has been questioned and Americans need to know about it and we need to fix it!

Darn, I jinxed him! Just read that Trey Gowdy won't be seeking re-election.

Edited by Rogillio 2018-01-31 12:12 PM

From CNN:
"Already, at least 36 House Republicans have announced they are retiring, running for another office or resigning outright."







Attachments
----------------
DBWjsdRUIAAKRWa.jpg (51KB - 6 downloads)

It's not must republicans.

https://ballotpedia.org/List_of_U.S._Congress_incumbents_who_are_not...


Democratic Party 15 Democratic members of the U.S. House

Republican Party 34 Republican members of the U.S. House

This obviously does not include Gowdy who announced today.


Reps hold 247 seats
Dem hold 188 seats

So reps are losing 34/247 or 14%
And dems are losing 15/188 or 8%

Just a FWIW.

Mueller is putting off Flynn's sentencing to May.


"U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia Judge Rudolph Contreras took Flynn’s guilty plea on Dec. 1, 2017 – but just days later, Contreras recused himself from the case.

Contreras also is a judge on the U.S. Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) court.


Things that make you go: hmmm......

Watching the news about the memo.

Here’s a thought. What if the memo is about more than the FISA warrant? I’ve read for months that the FBI may have used the dossier to get a FISA warrant. Hardly seems like it would take 4 pages to prove that. Just what if’ing