FISA Warrant Docs

  • You are viewing Orangepower as a Guest. To start new threads, reply to posts, or participate in polls or contests - you must register. Registration is free and easy. Click Here to register.
Jul 20, 2018
328
100
43
Oklahoma City
#41
The fisa abuse is something that should never have happened. That's an area where the law says "trust us" since there's no oversight. Plus the judges are on the federal bench and considered above reproach.
It should never have happened, but the way the system is set up, it was bound to happen sooner or later. This time because of TDS, next time perhaps by people who hate a certain liberal politician.

The fact that these secret courts don't include an adversarial component is the big problem. Our normal judicial system is based on two sides making arguments. In the FISC system there is just one side presenting "evidence" to be evaluated. Throw in a corrupt investigator or two and viola, big problem. And that's not to say that everyone involved in the chain of evidence or who signed off on the applications is compromised, but if the "evidence" is already in place, how do they know if it's verified and accurate? They're simply following the evidence as presented by the investigators.

It's a real problem, regardless of those who can't or won't see it.......... and I have no idea how it gets fixed. But the first step is acknowledging the problem exists.
 
Nov 6, 2010
242
146
593
#43
Pretty weak to claim cutting the Political space would increase flow on OSU sports subjects. My posts are down to about 20 a year now. That's all I ever posted on the sports sites. I'm probably not the only one, but at the least it won't increase somebodies post count, they'll just move elsewhere. IMO

And yes, it certainly wasn't their finest hour.
I remember when someone got upset about a certain poster's content and called the mods over to the zoo, and Tra said he wished they didn't even have an OTB. Guess he got his wish.
 
Jul 20, 2018
328
100
43
Oklahoma City
#44

So............... other than singling out the fact you don't recognize TDS as a living, breathing "entity", you seem, by not challenging the rest of the statement to implicitly agree with all my other sentiments.

I call that acceptable progress.

The bridge to rational thinking is built one pier at a time. ;)
 
Last edited:
Jul 20, 2018
328
100
43
Oklahoma City
#46
I remember when someone got upset about a certain poster's content and called the mods over to the zoo, and Tra said he wished they didn't even have an OTB. Guess he got his wish.
Glad you made it Teach!

Little warning though..... by association, you've already been labeled a conspiracy nut. Most ironic since the hard core conservatives on the other board thought you liberal through and through. lol

You'll just have to show them your true colors! :D

 

bleedinorange

Federal Marshal
Jan 11, 2010
15,309
29,553
743
On the highway to heck
#48
So............... other than singling out the fact you don't recognize TDS as a living, breathing "entity", you seem, by not challenging the rest of the statement to implicitly agree with all my other sentiments.

I call that acceptable progress.

The bridge to rational thinking is built one pier at a time. ;)
Lol! He's the poster child for TDS. No one in the asylum thinks they're crazy.
 

CaliforniaCowboy

Federal Marshal
Oct 15, 2003
14,437
2,204
1,743
So Cal
#50
I think you are a step or two behind. Try to keep up. Even the new guy who appears to be a conspiracy nut seems to be ahead of you.
In one of the more stunning revelations contained in the report compiled by the Justice Department’s watchdog, former FBI Director James Comey claimed he doesn’t remember the moment he decided – and put down in writing -- that Hillary Clinton had committed crimes.

We know that on or about May 2, 2016, Comey composed a statement summarizing Clinton’s mishandling of classified documents, concluding that she was “grossly negligent.” Those pivotal words have a distinct legal meaning, and are drawn directly from a federal statute, 18 U.S.C. 793(f), which makes it a felony to handle classified documents in a “grossly negligent” manner.

Comey used the exact phrase not once, but twice.

Based on Comey’s finding, Clinton should have faced a multiple-count criminal indictment, since the FBI discovered that she had stored 110 classified emails on her unauthorized, private computer server. Other people had been prosecuted for similar conduct that jeopardized national security in violation of the law. Yet, Comey – despite characterizing Clinton’s actions with the clear language denoting violation of the law - saw to it that no charges were ever brought against Clinton.

Under questioning, Comey admitted to the Inspector General Michael Horowitz that he authored the May 2 statement and penned every word of it himself. But then he offered the implausible claim that “he did not recall that his original draft used the term 'gross negligence,' and did not recall discussions about that issue.”

Comey’s amnesia is preposterous. He would have us believe that, as FBI director, he memorialized in print his decision that the leading candidate for president of the United States had committed crimes, yet later could not recollect anything about the most important decision of his career.

The truth is that Comey well remembers what he wrote, because he participated in subsequent discussions with top officials at the FBI about Clinton’s “gross negligence.” Several meetings were held on the subject and contemporaneous notes prove that Comey was in attendance. Those records show that although Comey was convinced that Clinton was “grossly negligent” in violation of the law, he was determined to clear her notwithstanding. To achieve this somersault and absolve the soon-to-be Democratic nominee, the legally damning terminology would have to be stricken from his statement.

Metadata shows that on June 6, the FBI’s lead investigator on the case, Peter Strzok, sat down at his office computer to cleanse his boss’s statement of the vexing term, “gross negligence.” With the help of his paramour and FBI lawyer Lisa Page, the words “extremely careless” were substituted to make Clinton appear less criminally culpable. Page told the IG that “to use a term that actually has a legal definition would be confusing.”

It most certainly would. After all, how could Clinton be exonerated under the “gross negligence” law if that very phrase was used to describe her behavior? The phrases mean the same thing, but only one appears in the statute.

Strozk and Page also expunged from Comey’s statement his reference to another statute that Clinton had plainly violated. She should have been charged under the statute’s “intent” provisions. With Comey’s consent and encouragement, the pair sanitized his findings of fact and contorted his conclusions of law. Clinton, who had not even been interviewed by the FBI yet, was free and clear. The investigation was a sham.

Comey may not have remembered writing the words that should have indicted Clinton, but he had complete recall of his inability to read the law. He told the IG he thought “Congress intended for there to be some level of willfulness present even to prove a ‘gross negligence’ violation.” If Comey had ever read the legislative history, he would have known that in 1948, Congress amended the original Espionage Act of 1917 to add a “gross negligence” provision that did not require intent or willfulness.

Amnesia must be contagious at the FBI. Testifying before Congress, Strzok feigned no recollection of using his computer to make the critical alteration that cleared Clinton. He did, however, directly implicate the FBI director.

“Ultimately, he (Comey) made the decision to change that wording,” said Strzok.

But wait, how could Comey order a change in the words he doesn’t remember writing? Their stories don’t jibe. At least one of them is lying.

Strzok’s memory repression must be acute. He also informed Congress he does “not recall writing” the infamous text message to his lover, Page, vowing to “stop” Trump from being elected president.

“What I can tell you is that text in no way suggested that I or the FBI would take any action to influence the candidacy,” Strzok insisted.

That is a remarkably dexterous explanation for something he does not remember doing. When confronted with a myriad of other messages extoling Clinton and disparaging Trump, Strzok had the temerity to say, “I do not have bias.” Later, “Those text messages are not indicative of bias.”

No one with an ounce of intelligence could possibly buy the self-serving rubbish that Strzok was peddling. This includes the inspector general who, after an exhaustive investigation, concluded that the Strzok-Page communications “are not only indicative of a biased state of mind but imply a willingness to take official action to impact a presidential candidate’s electoral process.”

Just as Comey, Strzok, Page and company conspired to clear Hillary Clinton, they likewise concocted their “insurance policy,” a scam investigation of then-candidate Donald Trump. The FBI had no legal basis to initiate its investigation into Trump and his campaign. Facts were invented or exaggerated. Laws were perverted or ignored. The law enforcers became the law breakers. Comey’s scheme to leak pilfered presidential memos in order to trigger the appointment of his friend, Robert Mueller, as special counsel was a devious maneuver by an unscrupulous man. Comey’s insinuation that the president obstructed justice was another canard designed to inflame the liberal media. Sure enough, they became his witting accessories.

Compare all of this – that there was never any credible evidence that Trump or his campaign collaborated with Russia to win the presidency – with the fact that there was ample evidence that Clinton had broken the law.

This is the story of “The Russia Hoax.”
 

Cimarron

It's not dying I'm talking about, it's living.
Jun 28, 2007
51,772
17,964
1,743
#51
In one of the more stunning revelations contained in the report compiled by the Justice Department’s watchdog, former FBI Director James Comey claimed he doesn’t remember the moment he decided – and put down in writing -- that Hillary Clinton had committed crimes.
A crime committed by a former Secretary of State and leading candidate for President of the United States actively being investigated for crimes by the Director of the FBI and he can't remember writting down that she had committed crimes?

It's a lie.
 

RxCowboy

Has no Rx for his orange obsession.
A/V Subscriber
Nov 8, 2004
65,293
47,643
1,743
Wishing I was in Stillwater
#52
From the WSJ editorial page:

The FBI’s FISA Faults
The documents show the bureau relied heavily on the Steele dossier.

By The Editorial Board
July 23, 2018 7:34 p.m. ET

The FBI over the weekend finally released its Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act applications for warrants against former Trump aide Carter Page, and now we know why the bureau resisted disclosure. Even in heavily redacted form, the applications confirm that the FBI relied on dubious partisan evidence to justify its warrant and withheld relevant information from the court.

The applications also vindicate the criticism of the FBI’s surveillance requests that were laid out in February by House Intelligence Chairman Devin Nunes. The committee’s findings were based on a review of the FISA applications, which were still classified at the time. The main Nunes claim was that the FBI made the Steele dossier—which was commissioned by the Clinton campaign and Democratic National Committee—“an essential” part of its initial application. The FISA documents confirm this.

More than half of the first FISA application’s 66 pages are devoted to technical matters and a history of Russian electoral interference. Of the roughly 25 pages that focus on Mr. Page, much of it reports his dealings with Russians, his response to the news that he was under investigation, and a largely redacted conclusion.

The guts of the application is titled “Page’s Coordination With Russian Government Officials on 2016 U.S. Presidential Election Influence Activities.” This is the FBI’s evidence section, and, though heavily redacted, it looks to be almost entirely dossier-related.

Its opening paragraph says that the “FBI has learned that Page met with at least two Russian officials” on a trip to Russia in 2016 and that it got this information from an “FBI confidential human source (Source #1),” who is dossier author Christopher Steele. Most of what is unredacted that follows details the dossier’s claims about these Russian meetings, with further reference to “Source #1.”

This is important given that FBI assistant director Bill Priestap told Congressional investigators in October 2017 that the FBI’s efforts to corroborate the dossier were still in their “infancy” at the time of the first application. Months later former FBI Director Jim Comey referred to the dossier as “salacious and unverified.” To date no investigator has offered public proof of the dossier’s most damaging claims. Yet on the basis of an uncorroborated document commissioned by a rival presidential campaign, the FBI accused a U.S. citizen of being an “agent of a foreign power” who should be wiretapped.

Mr. Nunes also reported that the FBI did not inform the FISA court that the dossier and trusted “source” (Christopher Steele) were paid by the Clinton campaign. And sure enough, nowhere do the FISA applications mention the words Clinton, Democratic National Committee, Fusion GPS (the Clinton-financed oppo research firm that hired Mr. Steele), or Fusion co-founder Glenn Simpson.

Several convoluted footnotes refer to “Source #1” (Mr. Steele) and a “U.S.-based law firm” (Clinton firm Perkins Coie), as well as an “identified U.S. person” (Mr. Simpson) who was “likely” interested in discrediting Mr. Trump. These obscure references are quickly followed by another footnote in which the FBI says that, despite that motivation, it is confident that “Source #1” is “credible.” So the FBI was vouching for this partisan source.

It’s true that the first application doesn’t mention any names. But it does refer to “Candidate #1” (who is clearly Donald Trump ), “Candidate #2” ( Hillary Clinton ) and “Political Party #1” (Republicans). The FBI had an obligation to tell the court that the dossier and its “credible” source had been retained and paid for by “Candidate #2” and “Political Party #2” (Democrats), but it didn’t. By the way, Mr. Comey signed three of these applications, yet he claimed on his recent book tour that he “still” didn’t know who paid for the dossier.

The FISA documents also confirm that the FBI cited a Sept. 23, 2016 story in Yahoo News to buttress its Steele dossier information with the court—even though Mr. Steele was also the source for the Yahoo News story.

Democrats insist that the FBI used the Yahoo story only to describe Mr. Page’s response to the investigation, not for corroboration. The applications show otherwise. The FBI cites the Yahoo News story after its dossier-evidence section, noting that the story said that “intelligence reports” and a “well-placed Western intelligence source” had also made claims like those in the dossier. But the “reports” were the dossier, and the “Western intelligence source” was Mr. Steele.


***
Our media friends are dismissing all this as no big deal because they say Mr. Page’s history of personal Russian dealings justified his surveillance in any case. Yet so far no one has produced evidence that Mr. Page was anything but an innocent abroad who liked to boast about his contacts. He certainly was a minor figure in the Trump campaign.

And that still doesn’t justify the FBI’s use of uncorroborated partisan smears as part of its application. At best the FBI appears to have played fast and loose with the facts to stretch the ethical boundaries of the FISA statute. At worst the FBI dissembled to target a man because they wanted to unleash a counterintelligence campaign against a presidential campaign. Either one tarnishes the FBI’s reputation.

Democrats and their media allies won’t admit any of this because they are invested in the narrative that Russian meddling elected Donald Trump. But two years of investigation later we’re still waiting to see evidence of that. What the FISA applications show is that the FBI did abuse its surveillance powers. There’s still more to learn, and Mr. Trump should declassify and release everything that can be safely disclosed.

Appeared in the July 24, 2018, print edition.
 

CowboyOrangeFan

Mmmm, yeah.
A/V Subscriber
Jun 9, 2006
4,833
3,453
1,743
Florida
#54
He said it was 50/50 in regards to one source.

Along with the other evidence, that seems plenty good enough to get a warrant to see if someone is helping a hostile foreign power. Especially someone who said he was helping the Kremlin.

Keep f’ing that chicken. Eventually you will come up with something. Although I would think you guys would be hiding in shame after Nunes was proven to be the fool he is and so many of you put so much faith into his idiotic memo.
 

CaliforniaCowboy

Federal Marshal
Oct 15, 2003
14,437
2,204
1,743
So Cal
#55
He said it was 50/50 in regards to one source.

Along with the other evidence, that seems plenty good enough to get a warrant to see if someone is helping a hostile foreign power. Especially someone who said he was helping the Kremlin.

Keep f’ing that chicken. Eventually you will come up with something. Although I would think you guys would be hiding in shame after Nunes was proven to be the fool he is and so many of you put so much faith into his idiotic memo.
what in the world does any of that post even mean? 50/50? That's solid? Flip a coin?

Along with what other evidence - there was no other evidence. All of the "evidence" was manufactured by or lied about and endorsed by the FBI, - all of it.

I don't happen to recall Nunes being proven a fool, or any idiotic memo. Can you link to that?
 

CaliforniaCowboy

Federal Marshal
Oct 15, 2003
14,437
2,204
1,743
So Cal
#57
And here's a breakdown on the FISA application from one of the nation's leading experts on FISA. And one of the best legal/political sites out there.
https://www.lawfareblog.com/what-make-carter-page-fisa-applications

he seems to dance around technicalities to prove that he is correct in his first report on the issue, and not on the issue of whether the information was "misleading" or "verified application".

Democrats and the press also say that the FISA application documents disprove another GOP claim: that the FBI never told the court that the dossier had been bought and paid for by the Clinton campaign.

Well, here's what the application does say in a footnote on page 16 (we've added the names where the document leaves them out):

"Steele was approached by an identified U.S. person, who indicated that a U.S.-based law firm had hired the identified U.S. person to conduct research regarding (Trump's) ties to Russia."

The footnote goes on to say that "the identified U.S. person never advised (Steele) as to the motivation behind the research into (Trump's) ties to Russia. The FBI speculates that the identified U.S. person was likely looking for information that could be used to discredit (Trump's) campaign."

Does anyone see "Clinton" or "DNC" or "opposing presidential campaign" mentioned?

Instead, the footnote is full of weasel words. The FBI "speculates" that he "was likely" looking for information that "could discredit" Trump.

Democrats say the court could have easily figured out what the footnote meant. But can anyone who is not hopelessly partisan honestly say that the wishy-washy phrasing is anything remotely like the truth?

More to the point, can anyone say with confidence that the FISA court would have reacted the same way had that last sentence in that footnote read: "The FBI has learned that the financing for the Steele investigation came from the Clinton campaign and the Democratic National Committee, and that Steele himself has a clear bias against Trump"?

Another Problem Surfaces
What about the other claims in that Nunes memo that the application documents supposedly undercut?

Well, the Washington Examiner's Byron York went through the Nunes memo paragraph by paragraph, and could only find one where the document differs from the Nunes memo.

(more)
https://www.investors.com/politics/...ele-dossier-trump-russia-carter-page-wiretap/
 
Jul 20, 2018
49
29
18
50
Broken Arrow, Ok.
#58
He said it was 50/50 in regards to one source.

Along with the other evidence, that seems plenty good enough to get a warrant to see if someone is helping a hostile foreign power. Especially someone who said he was helping the Kremlin.

Keep f’ing that chicken. Eventually you will come up with something. Although I would think you guys would be hiding in shame after Nunes was proven to be the fool he is and so many of you put so much faith into his idiotic memo.
50/50? I’ll do you one better. Comey said the evidence was salacious and unverified, meaning it was worthless.

Here’s another. In one of the texts from Peter Strzok to his mistress, he said of the investigation,” there’s no there there”.

Year two, and still nothing on Trump/Russia collusion. Just a bunch of sore losers taking turns f-ing a chicken.
 

CowboyOrangeFan

Mmmm, yeah.
A/V Subscriber
Jun 9, 2006
4,833
3,453
1,743
Florida
#59
50/50? I’ll do you one better. Comey said the evidence was salacious and unverified, meaning it was worthless.

Here’s another. In one of the texts from Peter Strzok to his mistress, he said of the investigation,” there’s no there there”.

Year two, and still nothing on Trump/Russia collusion. Just a bunch of sore losers taking turns f-ing a chicken.
Another case of Trump Derangement Syndrome. You buy all of his BS, so you seem to think (just like he does) the whole investigation is about him. He may have colluded. He may not have. Mueller will be the one to present that evidence if it exists. Though that isn’t the whole enchilada.

Keep f’in that chicken and remember, don’t rush the monkey.
 
Jul 20, 2018
49
29
18
50
Broken Arrow, Ok.
#60
Buy what bs?
Another case of Trump Derangement Syndrome. You buy all of his BS, so you seem to think (just like he does) the whole investigation is about him. He may have colluded. He may not have. Mueller will be the one to present that evidence if it exists. Though that isn’t the whole enchilada.

Keep f’in that chicken and remember, don’t rush the monkey.
If Trump says he didn’t collude with the Russians to effect the outcome of the election, I believe him. At least until proven otherwise.

Btw, How would you like your chicken served, fried or baked?