DOJ Opens Investigation of FISA Warrants

[homersapien 11,453]

16 hours ago, NolaAuTiger said:

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

Yet you keep making the argument that circumstances in the warrant application make the warrant improper.  That seems to be a specious argument given you think the process itself is improper.   Presumably, in your mind, any warrant would have been improper regardless of its justification.   

[NolaAuTiger 3,295]

1 minute ago, homersapien said:

Yet you keep making the argument that circumstances in the warrant application make the warrant improper.  That seems to be a specious argument given you think the process itself is improper.   Presumably, in your mind, any warrant would have been improper regardless of its justification.   

That really doesn't weaken my answer in any way though. Look, even for one who believes the process is valid could still agree with my answer to your question in regards to this particular instance. Again, it would help if you had an in-depth working knowledge of the FISA process.

[homersapien 11,453]

9 minutes ago, NolaAuTiger said:

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. 
 

 

I see nothing there that suggests this warrant was illegal or inappropriate.

[homersapien 11,453]

1 minute ago, NolaAuTiger said:

That really doesn't weaken my answer in any way though. Look, even for one who believes the process is valid could still agree with my answer to your question in regards to this particular instance. Again, it would help if you had an in-depth working knowledge of the FISA process.

Perhaps it would help if you could explain your superior, in-depth working knowledge of the FISA process in such a way that a layman such as myself could understand your objection to this warrant.

[NolaAuTiger 3,295]

33 minutes ago, homersapien said:

I see nothing there that suggests this warrant was illegal or inappropriate.

 

31 minutes ago, homersapien said:

Perhaps it would help if you could explain your superior, in-depth working knowledge of the FISA process in such a way that a layman such as myself could understand your objection to this warrant.

For starters:

Read FISA, Sec. 1801(b)(2)(A)-(E). Page was an American citizen. FISA law required the federal agencies to show that his activities on behalf of Russia were likely a violation of federal criminal law. The dossier (the funding of such, unbeknownst to the judge) alleges such conduct. Democrats substantiate nothing else that does. The issue with this contention is that it's highly probable that its wrong. Page swore under oath, numerous times, that he had no such contact or conversations with the Russian agents. He even sent a written denial to Comey in 2016 where he offered to meet with the FBI to resolve the issue. Also, the FISA process was never meant to be weaponized, as it arguably was here given who funded the dossier. 

We are also aware of Steele's admission to Ohr that he was "desperate that Trump not get elected and was passionate about him not being president." This bias was not reflected in any way re FISA apps. But, even though Steele was an anti-trump guy and the source of his pay may have been the DNC and Clinton campaign, it's still uncertain as to whether there was a legal obligation to disclose those matters to the FISA court. It's difficult to tell whether such omissions should have been a fatal defect. 

We do not have access to the actual documents to see if Steele's information is corroborated. 

This is not a cut and dry issue. You shouldn't act like it is - makes you look ignorant. I honestly don't know where I stand on it because there so much that is unknown (documents we haven't seen) - investigators can parse that out

[homersapien 11,453]

1 hour ago, NolaAuTiger said:

 

For starters:

Read FISA, Sec. 1801(b)(2)(A)-(E). Page was an American citizen. FISA law required the federal agencies to show that his activities on behalf of Russia were likely a violation of federal criminal law. The dossier (the funding of such, unbeknownst to the judge) alleges such conduct. Democrats substantiate nothing else that does. The issue with this contention is that it's highly probable that its wrong. Page swore under oath, numerous times, that he had no such contact or conversations with the Russian agents. He even sent a written denial to Comey in 2016 where he offered to meet with the FBI to resolve the issue. Also, the FISA process was never meant to be weaponized, as it arguably was here given who funded the dossier. 

We are also aware of Steele's admission to Ohr that he was "desperate that Trump not get elected and was passionate about him not being president." This bias was not reflected in any way re FISA apps. But, even though Steele was an anti-trump guy and the source of his pay may have been the DNC and Clinton campaign, it's still uncertain as to whether there was a legal obligation to disclose those matters to the FISA court. It's difficult to tell whether such omissions should have been a fatal defect. 

We do not have access to the actual documents to see if Steele's information is corroborated. 

This is not a cut and dry issue. You shouldn't act like it is - makes you look ignorant. I honestly don't know where I stand on it because there so much that is unknown (documents we haven't seen) - investigators can parse that out

Fail

And the funding of the Steele dossier was revealed to the judge.  

And again, the Steele document was not the sole justification used for the warrant.

Once you remove the false claims of what the FISA application did - or more accurately - did not contain, and remove all of the partisan-based claims of nefarious motivation on Mueller's part, it is a cut and dried matter.  Your attempts to prove otherwise are really nothing more than obfuscation.

This is a classic attempt of arguing the law when the facts are against you.

[NolaAuTiger 3,295]

12 minutes ago, homersapien said:

Fail

And the funding of the Steele dossier was revealed to the judge.  

And again, the Steele document was not the sole justification used for the warrant.

Once you remove the false claims of what the FISA application did - or more accurately - did not contain, and remove all of the partisan-based claims of nefarious motivation on Mueller's part, it is a cut and dried matter.  Your attempts to prove otherwise are really nothing more than obfuscation

Holy s*** you're ignorant. I'm not attempting to prove anything! I'm pointing to specific areas of concern. Are you just looking for an argument? I'm providing a neutral basis for the investigation. I'm not arguing one way or another. It's not a cut and dry matter.

No, it was not (source of funding) at the time the application went before the court.

 The Washington Post reported ... that Justice Department officials made "ample disclosure of relevant, material facts" to the court that a political entity provided financial backing for the research, though they did not name Hillary Clinton's presidential campaign or the Democratic National Committee (DNC). 

For all the public knows, yes it was the sole justification Homer. The Steele document, for all we know, was the sole justification that Page's conduct was in violation of federal criminal law, as required by the Law that I cited. 

Be reasonable and acknowledge that the public doesn't know everything. We haven't seen all of the documents. You're being too arrogant and too prideful for a reasonable discussion. It doesn't help for a civil discussion. 

[homersapien 11,453]

16 minutes ago, NolaAuTiger said:

Holy s*** you're ignorant. I'm not attempting to prove anything! I'm pointing to specific areas of concern. Are you just looking for an argument? I'm providing a neutral basis for the investigation. I'm not arguing one way or another. It's not a cut and dry matter.

No, it was not (source of funding) at the time the application went before the court.

 The Washington Post reported ... that Justice Department officials made "ample disclosure of relevant, material facts" to the court that a political entity provided financial backing for the research, though they did not name Hillary Clinton's presidential campaign or the Democratic National Committee (DNC). 

For all the public knows, yes it was the sole justification Homer. The Steele document, for all we know, was the sole justification that Page's conduct was in violation of federal criminal law, as required by the Law that I cited. 

Be reasonable and acknowledge that the public doesn't know everything. We haven't seen all of the documents. You're being too arrogant and too prideful for a reasonable discussion. It doesn't help for a civil discussion. 

I have never said the public knows everything.  I am saying the explicit effort by some Republicans - Nunes in particular - to delegitimize the warrant to surveil Page is without merit.

And we do know that the Steele dossier is just one element of about 40 that were contained in the warrant application.  There were other known elements of communcation between Page and the Russians that were revealed outside of the Steele dossier.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/politics/wp/2018/01/31/what-we-know-about-the-warrant-to-surveil-carter-page/?utm_term=.b1f86bf9bc37

And Holy s***, stop with the insults.  They aren't helping your case.  In fact, they just make you look like a jerk.

[NolaAuTiger 3,295]

1 minute ago, homersapien said:

There were other known elements of communcation between Page and the Russians that were revealed outside of the Steele dossier.

Communication does not imply violation of federal criminal law. The only thing that implies such is the dossier. 

[NolaAuTiger 3,295]

4 minutes ago, homersapien said:

And Holy s***, stop with the insults.  They aren't helping your case.  In fact, they just make you look like a jerk.

I'm not insulting you. Go read my comments again. They don't call for rebuttals. I provided legal citation. Think of it what you will. Let the investigation run its course. If you honestly think the investigation is a waste of time and you have the final answer, then i'm sorry but you're ignorant. 

[homersapien 11,453]

1 hour ago, NolaAuTiger said:

I'm not insulting you. Go read my comments again. They don't call for rebuttals. I provided legal citation. Think of it what you will. Let the investigation run its course. If you honestly think the investigation is a waste of time and you have the final answer, then i'm sorry but you're ignorant. 

Likewise, if you honestly think the investigation is a waste of time because there's nothing that merits investigation, then, I'm sorry, but you're ignorant.

Good grief. 

[homersapien 11,453]

I am tempted to ask how "Holy s*** but you're ignorant" doesn't qualify as an insult, but no doubt, you have a long explanation that I'd just as soon forgo. 

 

[homersapien 11,453]

14 hours ago, NolaAuTiger said:

Communication does not imply violation of federal criminal law. The only thing that implies such is the dossier. 

I seriously doubt that any justification for a FISA warrant must be a "violation of federal criminal law", but I'm sure you can quote that. 

Or - to put it in terms you might better relate to - I would accept that suspicion of a legal violation would qualify, but proof of such a violation necessarily requires a criminal conviction.  Surely a FISA warrant can be obtained for reasons that fall short of a legal conviction.

[NolaAuTiger 3,295]

2 minutes ago, homersapien said:

I would accept that suspicion of a legal violation  would qualify, but proof of such a violation necessarily requires a criminal conviction.  Surely a FISA warrant can be obtained for reasons that fall short of a legal conviction

Please refer to the earlier legal citation from 50 U.S. Code Sec. 1801.

Pretty much you're correct. The standard for foreign intelligence purposes is lower - as opposed to domestic.

The dossier is the only thing that democrats have pointed to which would've made such a claim (the potential of violation of federal criminal law re Page). That its nature was primarily political, Steele's bias, and in light of lack of corroboration based on Page's sworn oath and written denial, the foundation of the warrant as it relates to the necessary potential of violation of criminal law re Page is troublesome. 

The standard for electronic surveillance for foreign intelligence purposes, though, is a little lower. This is because when it comes to national security, as opposed to criminal prosecutions, our Fourth Amendment rights are balanced against the government’s interest in protecting the country. The Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) allows the FBI to get a warrant from a secret court, known as the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court (FISC), to conduct electronic surveillance on U.S. persons if they can show probable cause that the target is an “agent of a foreign power” who is “knowingly engag[ing]…in clandestine intelligence activities.” In other words, the government has to show that the target might be spying for a foreign government or organization.

 

[homersapien 11,453]

12 hours ago, NolaAuTiger said:

Please refer to the earlier legal citation from 50 U.S. Code Sec. 1801.

Pretty much you're correct. The standard for foreign intelligence purposes is lower - as opposed to domestic.

The dossier is the only thing that democrats have pointed to which would've made such a claim (the potential of violation of federal criminal law re Page). That its nature was primarily political, Steele's bias, and in light of lack of corroboration based on Page's sworn oath and written denial, the foundation of the warrant as it relates to the necessary potential of violation of criminal law re Page is troublesome. 

The standard for electronic surveillance for foreign intelligence purposes, though, is a little lower. This is because when it comes to national security, as opposed to criminal prosecutions, our Fourth Amendment rights are balanced against the government’s interest in protecting the country. The Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) allows the FBI to get a warrant from a secret court, known as the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court (FISC), to conduct electronic surveillance on U.S. persons if they can show probable cause that the target is an “agent of a foreign power” who is “knowingly engag[ing]…in clandestine intelligence activities.” In other words, the government has to show that the target might be spying for a foreign government or organization.

Thanks.  

[DKW 86 7,441]

Homer, you are like Goebbels. Simply repeating words does not make them true.

Any reasonable person can see a large amount of squish in the FISA Applications. 

The judge was told less than half of what he should have been told. Truth be known, the Steel Dossier should never have been used at all, Comey thought it was basically toilet paper at the time. The Dossier was in large part a smear sheet. There are few facts that check out at all and the FBI has said so.

As to the investigation: It should go forward, like I said the American People need to see transparency on the FISA Court. If everything is cool, so be it, and the American People will know that the FISA Process can be trusted. If you really believe that everything is okay with the FISA Warrants, then you should be supporting the investigation so as to shut the other side up. A review from time to time of any Warrant Process is always a good thing. I would like to see a review just so the folks dealing with FISA know the American public havent all gone to sleep.

Me personally, they have uncovered enough money laundering to satisfy me already. I am enjoying the ever-loving-hell watching the 1%ers eating some crow. Let them go on and find more. Trump has been playing fast and loose with the Truth for 30 years. Time his bad business decisions catch up with him and his buddies. I will cheer the loudest if they haul all of them away for real crimes.

Sometimes, i think some folks want others in jail just because they do not like their politics. I dont like a lot of American Politics, but I want everyone to get their Free Speech Rights. If they are going to jail, let it be for real provable crimes, not just because someone dislikes them.

[NolaAuTiger 3,295]

5 hours ago, homersapien said:

Thanks.  

You're correct about the level of probable cause re foreign intelligence.

That doesn't move the needle though, unfortunately. So grab some popcorn, crack open a beer (or pour a glass of lemonade), and watch as things unfold. Hopefully the other documents will be released. There certainly is a way that could happen. 

[AuburnNTexas 7,174]

On 3/2/2018 at 9:06 AM, 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.  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".

What gets me about this whole thing from both you and those who disagree with you is that neither of you really know the truth but both sides seem to think their view of the facts are correct. So much has been redacted even the democrats and the republicans who have seen some of the information only were shown parts and what they saw was redacted. One of the FISA judges has said she has no objections to a review of what was used to get the warrants and has no objection to the public seeing it.

I know there are people in the government that have taken sides based on the leaks to the newspapers both the leaks on Hillary and on Trump.  While I believe most people in the Government are honorable and do the best job that they can I am not naive enough to think that some are  not influenced by their political views.

[homersapien 11,453]

15 hours ago, AuburnNTexas said:

What gets me about this whole thing from both you and those who disagree with you is that neither of you really know the truth but both sides seem to think their view of the facts are correct. So much has been redacted even the democrats and the republicans who have seen some of the information only were shown parts and what they saw was redacted. One of the FISA judges has said she has no objections to a review of what was used to get the warrants and has no objection to the public seeing it.

I know there are people in the government that have taken sides based on the leaks to the newspapers both the leaks on Hillary and on Trump.  While I believe most people in the Government are honorable and do the best job that they can I am not naive enough to think that some are  not influenced by their political views.

OK, that's fair.  I will admit that I am going on what I know based on an accumulation of what I read and hear.  And I admit that we don't know everything.

But I don't see how any reasonable person can see Nune's gambit for what it was, regardless of how the Democrats responded. 

[WDavE 332]

I guess we should just disregard that the papers/report were are against federal election laws and that the DNC/Hillary should be charged.

Hillary's lawyers picked the emails the government got to look at and now her lawyers or the DNC lawyers paid for the report. Must be nice being made of Teflon.

[homersapien 11,453]

1 hour ago, WDavE said:

I guess we should just disregard that the papers/report were are against federal election laws and that the DNC/Hillary should be charged.

Hillary's lawyers picked the emails the government got to look at and now her lawyers or the DNC lawyers paid for the report. Must be nice being made of Teflon.

We should until someone presents a convincing legal case it's so.