DOJ Opens Investigation of FISA Warrants

[Proud Tiger 4,261]

Following release of the GOP and Dem. memos on the FISA warrants, the DOJ has opened an investigation. This is good but the only problem I see is the investigation will be conducted by the DOJ IG who has limited powers. Maybe it will ultimately lead to a broader congressional investigation. Wonder if Mueller is also looking at it.

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2018/02/27/sessions-doj-inspector-general-to-probe-fisa-abuse-allegations.html

[homersapien 11,453]

To investigate what exactly?

Nunes claims were debunked.  There's no controversy here, just an attempt to manufacture one as a diversion.

[NolaAuTiger 3,295]

11 hours ago, homersapien said:

To investigate what exactly?

Nunes claims were debunked.  There's no controversy here, just an attempt to manufacture one as a diversion.

Are you kidding? This investigation of FISA abuse should've happened LONG AGO. What some stupid memo, republican or democrat, says is irrelevant. 

[AUFAN78 3,926]

11 hours ago, homersapien said:

To investigate what exactly?

Nunes claims were debunked.  There's no controversy here, just an attempt to manufacture one as a diversion.

Perhaps, but we don't exactly know the validity of your claim just yet. Time will tell. 

p.s.  IM green pooh and tell him to come out of the shadows. No need to be such an effeminate goob.  

[Proud Tiger 4,261]

1 hour ago, NolaAuTiger said:

Are you kidding? This investigation of FISA abuse should've happened LONG AGO. What some stupid memo, republican or democrat, says is irrelevant. 

homie is back in his cave.

[homersapien 11,453]

Well, does anyone care to address the substance of my post and explain the precise issue that merits investigation, and what the evidence is to support it?

(And let's not forget this is the serious forum.)

Thanks in advance.

[NolaAuTiger 3,295]

10 hours ago, homersapien said:

Well, does anyone care to address the substance of my post and explain the precise issue that merits investigation, and what the evidence is to support it?

(And let's not forget this is the serious forum.)

Thanks in advance.

Unfortunately, news articles don't provide much. The issue in this investigation is going to be the extent to which the dossier played a role in the issuance of the FISA warrant, given that its nature was arguably political. Everything is blurry after that. One will have to parse through the specific statutes in the Act itself. That Hillary was not mentioned in the application, to my knowledge, isn't something that republicans should harp on entirely - because FISA applications don't have to name any American Citizen other than the one against whom surveillance is being sought. However, many times provisions in Acts such as these are written in such ambiguous fashion, sound interpretative methods can lead to different results. If information was withheld from the court, that would be an abuse. 

I personally do not think the FISA process is constitutional at all, given that the court is an Art. III court under the Constitution . 

[DKW 86 7,441]

The warrants are done in secret. The American public has a right to hear from a third party that there has been a review and what that review found. 

The basis for this should be nothing more than responsible oversight. These warrants are used against the American Public, a review to insure no abuse is going on sounds like just good governance, nothing nefarious at all. The Patriot Act and other Right Infringing Acts by Congress should be reviewed periodically. That is just good sound policy. It is extremely telling when people get all worked the hell up over reasonable governmental action.

[Proud Tiger 4,261]

It seems that assumed pertinent facts are:

1. The dossier was used as the primary basis for the warrants.

2. The court was not made aware of the dossier background or that the DNC/Clinton campaign paid for it.

This alone is the basis for an investigation by DOJ lawyers or even a special counsel to establish the actual facts. At least one FISA judge involved seems to be signaling she feels misled by making it be known that the documentation used to obtain the warrants is readily available to the WH and congress.

 

[homersapien 11,453]

7 hours ago, NolaAuTiger said:

Unfortunately, news articles don't provide much. The issue in this investigation is going to be the extent to which the dossier played a role in the issuance of the FISA warrant, given that its nature was arguably political. Everything is blurry after that. One will have to parse through the specific statutes in the Act itself. That Hillary was not mentioned in the application, to my knowledge, isn't something that republicans should harp on entirely - because FISA applications don't have to name any American Citizen other than the one against whom surveillance is being sought. However, many times provisions in Acts such as these are written in such ambiguous fashion, sound interpretative methods can lead to different results. If information was withheld from the court, that would be an abuse. 

I personally do not think the FISA process is constitutional at all, given that the court is an Art. III court under the Constitution . 

Just as I expected.  There's nothing about this that we don't know already.

The Nunes memo was a desperate and transparent attempt to protect Trump by claiming one of the warrants used in the investigation was invalid.  That's balderdash.  There was plenty of justification for a warrant to investigate Page.  I won't bother to repeat the details, one can read them for themselves:

http://thefederalist.com/2018/03/01/house-democrats-fisa-memo-confirms-republicans-charges-abuse/

https://www.vox.com/world/2018/2/24/17048936/democrat-rebuttal-nunes-schiff-memo

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/the-nunes-memo-continues-to-backfire/2018/02/26/6647de50-1b2d-11e8-b2d9-08e748f892c0_story.html?utm_term=.f51fd2c1d959

http://nymag.com/daily/intelligencer/2018/02/the-nunes-memo-is-fake-and-the-russia-scandal-is-very-real.html

 

As far as the FISA process in general,  that's a different issue than the ongoing investigation.  The investigation is proceeding legally.  If you want to review the FISA process as a whole, then by all means make that case.  But it comes across as hollow when the clear intent is to dismiss an investigation in progress.

All of this smoke about the FBI and illegal warrants is just that, smoke.  None of it changes whatever facts the investigation turns up.

[homersapien 11,453]

2 minutes ago, Proud Tiger said:

It seems that assumed pertinent facts are:

1. The dossier was used as the primary basis for the warrants.

2. The court was not made aware of the dossier background or that the DNC/Clinton campaign paid for it.

This alone is the basis for an investigation by DOJ lawyers or even a special counsel to establish the actual facts. At least one FISA judge involved seems to be signaling she feels misled by making it be known that the documentation used to obtain the warrants is readily available to the WH and congress.

 

And both of those assumed pertinent "facts" are not facts at all.  The actual facts are contained in the documents at issue.  We don't need DOK lawyers or a special counsel to read those documents and tell us what they say. 

But if it's necessary to put an end to the obfuscation, then by all means, have them do it.  

[NolaAuTiger 3,295]

2 hours ago, homersapien said:

Just as I expected.  There's nothing about this that we don't know already.

The Nunes memo was a desparate and transparent attempt to protect Trump by claiming one of the warrants used in the investigation was invalid.  That's balderdash.  There was plenty of justification for a warrant to investigate Page.  I won't bother to repeat the details, one can read them for themselves:

http://thefederalist.com/2018/03/01/house-democrats-fisa-memo-confirms-republicans-charges-abuse/

https://www.vox.com/world/2018/2/24/17048936/democrat-rebuttal-nunes-schiff-memo

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/the-nunes-memo-continues-to-backfire/2018/02/26/6647de50-1b2d-11e8-b2d9-08e748f892c0_story.html?utm_term=.f51fd2c1d959

http://nymag.com/daily/intelligencer/2018/02/the-nunes-memo-is-fake-and-the-russia-scandal-is-very-real.html

 

As far as the FISA process in general,  that's a different issue than the ongoing investigation.  The investigation is proceeding legally.  If you want to review the FISA process as a whole, then by all means make that case.  But it comes across as hollow when the clear intent is to dismiss an investigation in progress.

All of this smoke about the FBI and illegal warrants is just that, smoke.  None of it changes whatever facts the investigation turns up.

Well, that’s the thing with these investigations... we actually only know that which isn’t protected by confidentiality. Now, when an indictment comes out, that stuff comes to light. So to just blow it off would be premature.

I would disagree that it’s hollow becuase the essence of the concern includes the potential of abuse.

[homersapien 11,453]

18 hours ago, Proud Tiger said:

homie is back in his cave.

Wrong forum.  You're suppose to address substance here,  not fling poo.

[homersapien 11,453]

1 hour ago, NolaAuTiger said:

Well, that’s the thing with these investigations... we actually only know that which isn’t protected by confidentiality. Now, when an indictment comes out, that stuff comes to light. So to just blow it off would be premature.

I would disagree that it’s hollow becuase the essence of the concern includes the potential of abuse.

There would be no concern for the "potential of abuse" if the object of the investigation included Hillary Clinton.

[NolaAuTiger 3,295]

11 minutes ago, homersapien said:

There would be no concern for the "potential of abuse" if the object of the investigation included Hillary Clinton.

In other words, if it wasn't substantially motivated by political reasons, perhaps so. You must keep in mind, the FISA court is an Art. III court - which reinforces my prior concern before the fact. 

Many, not just myself, have long been concerned with FISA court abuse and Constitutionality. 

EDIT: I misread what you said. Ok, if you're going to start playing the "well if the roles were reversed" card, then I'm going to tap out. It's a silly argument that really doesn't offer much substance. We can argue about that in another thread. I was merely offering a civil answer to your question, per my knowledge. 

[homersapien 11,453]

7 minutes ago, NolaAuTiger said:

In other words, if it wasn't substantially motivated by political reasons, perhaps so. 

But only in this instance. Many, not just myself, have long been concerned with FISA court. 

My point is this particular controversy about the abuse of a FISA warrants is politically driven.  

[NolaAuTiger 3,295]

6 minutes ago, homersapien said:

My point is this particular controversy about the abuse of a FISA warrants is politically driven.  

Please see my edit.

The seeking of the FISA warrant, or rather the extensions of it, were politically driven. That warrants investigation on its own merit. I wouldn't say this particular instance is politically driven. 

I'm thankful we are finally talking about the FISA process. It's complete BS and IMO, unlawful

We can get the judge to witness, in secret, to the extent which the dossier played a role in the issuance/extensions of the warrant. This investigation can turn up something or nothing. But there's a completely bigger issue at play here. 

[homersapien 11,453]

11 minutes ago, NolaAuTiger said:

Please see my edit.

The seeking of the FISA warrant, or rather the extensions of it, were politically driven. That warrants investigation on its own merit. I wouldn't say this particular instance is politically driven. 

I'm thankful we are finally talking about the FISA process. It's complete BS and IMO, unlawful

How can one conclude this warrant was politically driven? 

First, it didn't totally rely on the Steele dossier - which we don't know to be false in the first place - and the judge was told the Steele dossier was funded by a partisan source.  The facts relating to the warrant application are known.  Are you saying the judge was biased?

And if you really think the entire FISA process is "BS and unlawful" then any details justifying this particular warrent are moot anyway, right?

[NolaAuTiger 3,295]

7 minutes ago, homersapien said:

How can one conclude this warrent politically driven? 

I said the seeking of the warrant. If the dossier played any role whatsoever in any extensions given, then the seeking was of a political nature - be it in part or in whole.

7 minutes ago, homersapien said:

First, it didn't totally rely on the Steele dossier - which we don't know to be false in the first place - and the judge was told the Steele dossier was funded by a partisan source.  The facts relating to the warrent application are known.  Are you saying the judge was biased?

It doesn't matter if it wasn't totally relied upon, it still played a part. All the facts are not known because of the immense amount of confidentiality that hasn't surfaced - that's why I said the judge should testify as a witness, in secret. There are many factors that are still sealed. No, I am not implementing the judge. 

 

7 minutes ago, homersapien said:

And if you really think the entire FISA process is "BS and unlawful" then any details justifying this particular warrent are moot anyway, right?

Sure, they're moot. I was just simply trying to answer the question you posed. 

[Proud Tiger 4,261]

Another reason we need to get the truth on the FISA warrants.

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2018/03/01/nunes-fbi-may-have-violated-criminal-statutes-in-fisa-application-to-spy-on-trump-adviser-carter-page.html

[Proud Tiger 4,261]

Not FISA related but just confirms the bad stuff going on in the top levels of the FBI. This from the NYT

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2018/03/01/doj-report-expected-to-cast-harsh-eye-on-mccabe-for-leaking-to-press-about-confidential-investigation.html

[homersapien 11,453]

16 hours ago, NolaAuTiger said:

I said the seeking of the warrant. If the dossier played any role whatsoever in any extensions given, then the seeking was of a political nature - be it in part or in whole.

So seeking the warrant was political even if the warrant is not? 

Sorry, but you'll have to explain that.

[homersapien 11,453]

16 hours ago, NolaAuTiger said:

It doesn't matter if it wasn't totally relied upon, it still played a part. All the facts are not known because of the immense amount of confidentiality that hasn't surfaced - that's why I said the judge should testify as a witness, in secret. There are many factors that are still sealed. No, I am not implementing the judge. 

The fact that the Steele memorandum was cited as one of the reasons for the warrant in no way makes the warrant itself invalid due to political bias.   The judge was informed of all the facts and circumstances in the application.  Granting of the warrant was reasonable - as will undoubtedly be shown when the facts are revealed. 

Claiming the warrant was illegal on the basis of political bias is not reasonable.  It's merely a way to attack the investigation itself as being illegitimate, which is certainly not the case.  Is a judge supposed to simply ignore hard evidence because it came from a partisan source?  Wouldn't that require the judge to assume the investigator must be politically motivated?  What evidence is there to assume that about Mueller?

And I think you meant to say 'implicating' instead of "implementing".

[NolaAuTiger 3,295]

1 minute ago, homersapien said:

So seeking the warrant was political even if the warrant is not? 

Sorry, but you'll have to explain that.

The warrant itself is nothing other than a grant of permission/approval in the lay sense. It's the basis of the warrant, and any subsequent extensions, in this case that could be worrisome. 

In the area of electronic surveillance, judge advocates must analyze three key aspects in each situation: purpose, approval authority, and process. They must ensure that the purpose for the desired collection of information is primarily one of counterintelligence and not law enforcement, or in this case, political. 
 

 

[NolaAuTiger 3,295]

2 minutes ago, homersapien said:

The fact that the Steele memorandum was cited as one of the reasons for the warrant in no way makes the warrant itself invalid due to political bias.   The judge was informed of all the facts and circumstances in the application.  Granting of the warrant was reasonable - as will undoubtedly be shown when the facts are revealed. 

Claiming the warrant was illegal on the basis of political bias is not reasonable.  It's merely a way to attack the investigation itself as being illegitimate, which is certainly not the case.

And I think you meant to say 'implicating' instead of "implementing".

With all due respect, you don't quite grasp the aspects of the FISA process. You're not to blame for that though, as I'm sure the majority of American citizens aren't fully aware of all that goes into it. Fox and CNN are clueless also.