Tweet
The FISA warrants were granred under false or at least misleading premises. Sure sounds criminal to me.
-
Shut the fuck up Donny! -
The Wall Street Journal, NY Times, and Wash Post ALL had stories that came out last night that said the same thing: the FISA court was told every time that some of the info came from a politically biased source. We'll probably find out if that's true or not when the Dem memo comes out and if the actual application ever gets released. TRUMP COULD DO THAT AT ANY TIME BUT HASN'T.
Politically biased material isn't inadmissible evidence btw. Nor is evidence gained after an improper FISA warrant. As the tweet from Andrew McCarthy above describes, the FISA court doesn't work the way a criminal court does.
I think it would be politically stupid for Trump and Nunes to try and prevent the Dem memo from coming out, btw. Nunes says he will release it but refused to commit to a timetable on WHEN it'll be released last night on Special Report. And of course it'll have to get by Trump too. I think he's probably inclined to block it but it would look bad.Comment
-
[ame]https://twitter.com/SarahHuckabee/status/794255968448020480[/ame]Comment
-
DSL,
I think we can all agree that it's a dangerous precedent to set if a presidential candidate -during an election- is wire-tapped because a warrant on a former staffer.
It sets up all manner of issues."The problem with quotes on the Internet is that it is sometimes hard to verify their authenticity." -Abraham LincolnComment
-
Kapture is being misleading here, as I think you're aware. The warrant authorizes surveillence of Page's phones, computer, whatever. It does not authorize the FBI to tap everyone on the Trump campaign or Trump himself. It's possible that while monitoring Page, they might've found emails or calls from other campaign officials. But if they wanted a direct wiretap on, say, Manafort's phone, that would've needed another warrant. These aren't blank checks to place additional taps on everyone your person of interest interacts with.Originally posted by AlabamAlum View Post
BTW, I'm old enough to remember when Trumpists said Carter Page pretty much had nothing to do with Trump and if he was doing shady things that's his problem, not Trump's. Now he's so critical that spying on him was like spying on the entire Trump organizationComment
-
Maybe I'm wrong, but I'm pretty sure a FISA warrant on one individual does not authorize you you put additional taps on every single person that person-of-interest interacts with. So if Page receives an email from Manafort during those 3 months, I'm pretty sure the FBI doesn't automatically have the power to then tap Manafort...and then tap everyone Manafort interacts with...and then tap all of THEIR contacts...and so onOriginally posted by AlabamAlum View PostComment
-
It’s been a pretty good week for PDJT. Good SOTU, Ds fight like mad to block a memo on preposterous grounds and thereby imbue it with a legitimacy it probably doesn’t deserve, and the talking points are now focused on how the Obama DOJ didn’t actually investigate someone somewhat related to PDJT on the basis of debunked Oppo research. And throw in wildly improved polling for the Rs including folks finally starting to get past D smear of tax plan.
Politics is perception. Great week, IMO, for PDJT.Dan Patrick: What was your reaction to [Urban Meyer being hired]?
Brady Hoke: You know.....not....good.Comment
-
Somewhat disagree. The tax cut will be good for them. But no one cares about the SOTU after a week in even normal circumstances...and Trump changed the subject to the Nunes memo literally the day after SOTU.Originally posted by iam416 View Post
And yes, I'll grant you that plenty of Dems made a phony argument that the memo imperiled national security. However, I've quoted several on the right hysterically claiming that the memo proves activity far worse than Watergate and in the case of the good Dr. Gorka, 100 times worse than the tyranny of George III. So there's plenty of hysteria on that side too and I'm not sure it's all ignored by the voters.
(And just as an example...I'll try to find the link for evidence, but Obama's State of the Union in 2010 had great reviews from the public...and the Dems went on in 2010 to get slaughtered. Other things were going on, surely, but a good SOTU means nothing for elections...except maybe an early primary)Comment
-
Well, if Kapture alluded to is correct, my point stands. If what you are saying is correct, then ...well, there is a first time for everything.Originally posted by Dr. Strangelove View Post"The problem with quotes on the Internet is that it is sometimes hard to verify their authenticity." -Abraham LincolnComment
-
1. NYT WaPo, WSJ have been anti-Trump throughout. Again, anonymous sources. I'm waiting for the Dem memo which should provide chapter and verse of this disclosure of the dossier's provenance. The only fact we have at this point is Andrew McCabe saying that but for the dossier and the Yahoo article, the warrant would not have issued. I want to see the transcript of the McCabe testimony too.(1)Four separate judges accept a FISA warrant and 3 renewals based on evidence that they were told was partially paid for by political actors. They got all 4 warrants, (2) which means they acquired intelligence from Page or that the entire FISA system is a sham.
(3)In which case, the vast majority of Republicans recently voted to extend the sham and even expand its powers. Including Devin Nunes.
2. It means no such thing. It only means that the original warrant is reissued. If there has been any intelligence gained from the surveillance of an American citizen, I suspect we would know it by now. Nothing has come out that was obtained from that surveillance.
3. Section 702 deals only with foreign nationals and the FISA courts (the "F" is for "Foreign", Strangelove). No one voted to allow FISA courts to surveil American citizens.
One question I have is how Carter Page is connected to the dossier, other than the (false) allegation that he is/was a Russian operative. My presumption is that IF there were any good faith by anyone in the FBI, it was to prevent a situation in which the President could be blackmailed.
The only danger Trump presents is that the Dems cannot intentionally change the demographics of the US to establish a one-party state, and they cannot expand the payments to the 85% of their base that pays no taxes. I didn't vote for Trump, but, so far, he has done fine.Comment
-
The FBI were not targeting Page incidentally as an outcome of foreign intelligence collection; the FBI was targeting Carter Page directly. AND as such they carried full surveillance authority upon all of this activities, interactions, communications and contacts therein.Originally posted by AlabamAlum View Post
Because of this direct approach, any group, organization or entity who came in contact with U.S. Person Carter Page was then open for ancillary review and FBI investigation.* Those who engaged in contact with Carter Page became subject to surveillance and searches in the same manner as if Page*was*an actual foreign agent.
What exactally is a FISA Title I?
Going back to those tweets from Trump in early 2017 about the 0bama admin wiretapping Trump tower just before the election, he has known since then. Of course the media and the dems all came out then and said how crazy it was for Trump to be making these accusations, but the media has been running cover for the dems forever, just like they are doing now. They are an extention of the democrat party, their own propaganda machine.Comment
-
Also, DSL, an extention doesnt necessarily mean evidence was found
(2) Extensions of an order issued under this title may be granted on the same basis as an original order upon an application for an extension and new findings made in the same manner as required for an original order, except that*
(A) an extension of an order under this Act for a surveillance targeted against a foreign power, a defined in paragraph (5), (6), or (7) of section 101(a), or against a foreign power as defined in section 101(a)(4) that is not a United States person, may be for a period not to exceed one year if the judge finds probable cause to believe that no communication of any individual United States person will be acquired during the period, and
(B) an extension of an order under this Act for a surveillance targeted against an agent of a foreign power who is not a United States person may be for a period not to exceed 1 year.Comment
-
China and Russia continue to play Putin's cock holster like a fiddle.
“Outside of a dog, a book is a man's best friend. Inside of a dog, it's too dark to read.” - Groucho MarxComment
-
[ame]https://twitter.com/guypbenson/status/959607369767538696[/ame]Comment
-
Good research Kapture. I didn't know any of that. Ultimately, the facts will come out.
On the other hand, here is a video of Tucker Carlson interviewing a Dem congressman who sits on the intelligence committee. The best part is at about 6:00 where the Dem starts telling Carlson that Carlson is doing Putin's bidding and that Russian bots are the reason interest in the memo is high. The man is utterly detached from reality.
[ame="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bWfZlQmkkig"]Tucker Carlson VS Eric Swalwell FISA Memo 02.02.2018 - YouTube[/ame]Comment
Comment