Congress Criminal Referral Clinton, Comey, McCabe, Lynch, Strzok, and Page to DOJ

#4,151
#4,151
Mick said:
I believe that's the purpose when conducting foreign surveillance. Your concern is the 2 hop metadata collection? I think it's need to allow more hops. Rudy contacts Parnas, Parnas contacts Ukraine associates, Ukraine associates contact..............ah forget it, too many hops.
Click to expand...

FWIW, the problems are in the warrant’s ability to encompass to additional targets in a six degrees of Kevin Bacon kind of way, and the lack of a requirement that the initial target be suspected of an actual crime or terrorist organization involvement. Congress could probably beef up FISA requirements for Americans without compromising national security.
 
#4,152
#4,152
RockyTop85 said:
FWIW, the problems are in the warrant’s ability to encompass to additional targets in a six degrees of Kevin Bacon kind of way, and the lack of a requirement that the initial target be suspected of an actual crime or terrorist organization involvement. Congress could probably beef up FISA requirements for Americans without compromising national security.
Click to expand...
Carter Page was definitely suspected of being involved in a conspiracy against America. Do you agree with that?
 
#4,156
#4,156
RockyTop85 said:
It’s too bad it was blown up into this hyper politicized, warrant-invalidating silver bullet for the last few years. There’s a basis for procedural reforms here.
Click to expand...

Had they not been used against Trump, the Fox News crowd wouldn't care a whit about FISA warrants.
 
#4,160
#4,160
37L1 said:
Carter Page has yet to be charged with any crime. Do you agree with that?
Click to expand...
Nowhere does it state that he has to be indicted and neither has any of the Deep State. Do you agree with that? Back to ignore you go, you have nothing to offer.
 
#4,161
#4,161

RAISING THE BARR
GREGG JARRETT: Biggest reveal in IG report is what happened after release
As to the first action, Barr concluded that the IG report “makes clear that the FBI launched an intrusive investigation of a U.S. presidential campaign on the thinnest of suspicions that, in my view, were insufficient to justify the steps taken.”
In plain terms, Barr is convinced that the FBI was wrong to investigate Trump and his campaign, because the evidence was conspicuously deficient. Barr noted that the FBI “pushed forward” with its investigation even in the face of “consistently exculpatory” evidence.

As to the second action, Barr condemned those same FBI officials who “misled the FISA court, omitted critical exculpatory facts from their filings, and suppressed or ignored information negating the reliability of their principal source.”
The FBI relied on Christopher Steele as its major source for information presented to the FISA Court. The ex-British spy had assembled his unverified “dossier” of hearsay information from supposed sources that were largely anonymous.
The FBI knew Steele was unreliable, yet the bureau vouched for him as credible. Evidence was concealed and the FISA Court was deceived.
...
Click to expand...
 
#4,162
#4,162
1575981815956.jpeg
Prosecutor in criminal review of alleged surveillance abuses against Trump team sparks new intrigue
In the hours after U.S. Attorney John Durham announced Monday that he did not "agree" with key findings by Justice Department Inspector General Michael E. Horowitz, speculation swirled over what Durham has uncovered in his ongoing review into potential surveillance abuses against President Trump's team.
Durham's inquiry has had a broader scope than Horowitz's, including a focus on foreign actors as well as the CIA, while Horowitz concentrated his attention on the DOJ and FBI.
Additionally, Durham's criminal review has had additional investigative resources not available to Horowitz.
...
Click to expand...
 
  • Like
Reactions: Orangeburst
#4,164
#4,164
After the 2016 election the FBI wanted a Confidential Human Source (CHS) to get a position in the Trump administration.

How in the world are liberals defending the FBI on this?

ELaYp1vXYAANRG0
 
  • Like
Reactions: hjeagle1vol, Orange_Vol1321 and BigOrangeD
#4,169
#4,169
Mick said:
Yes. I'm going to post this link for future reference:
https://www.fisc.uscourts.gov/sites/default/files/FISC Rules of Procedure.pdf

If there's something you want highlight, we can discuss it later.
Click to expand...
My beef is with the procedural requirements in the statute.

Section 702 was grafted on under the bush admin and it was intended to allow surveillance of non US Citizens overseas. So no criminal suspicion required to get this warrant. Very low standard.

The scope of these warrants is so broad that American digital communications are routinely collected and catalogued.

Article I is similarly broad but applies to surveillance of foreign powers or agents of foreign powers. Again, both of those terms are very broadly defined.

As far as I know all the warrants hop to some degree and all of the warrants are necessarily handled ex parte.

Using Page as an example: this report seems to contain examples of the type of self-righteous justification of impropriety that often goes on among law enforcement community members all the time. And there’s really no remedy. You see that they lied or violated procedures a number of times and this does not invalidate the warrant.

Any of these features individually may not be a big deal most of them make sense, but in combination I think they are extremely problematic.
 
  • Like
Reactions: BigOrangeD
#4,172
#4,172
RockyTop85 said:
My beef is with the procedural requirements in the statute.

Section 702 was grafted on under the bush admin and it was intended to allow surveillance of non US Citizens overseas. So no criminal suspicion required to get this warrant. Very low standard.

The scope of these warrants is so broad that American digital communications are routinely collected and catalogued.

Article I is similarly broad but applies to surveillance of foreign powers or agents of foreign powers. Again, both of those terms are very broadly defined.

As far as I know all the warrants hop to some degree and all of the warrants are necessarily handled ex parte.

Using Page as an example: this report seems to contain examples of the type of self-righteous justification of impropriety that often goes on among law enforcement community members all the time. And there’s really no remedy. You see that they lied or violated procedures a number of times and this does not invalidate the warrant.

Any of these features individually may not be a big deal most of them make sense, but in combination I think they are extremely problematic.
Click to expand...

Very well said . The FISA process in general should at a minimum scare anyone that just sits down and thinks about how easily it could be abused . We are relying on those involved to always be honest and without bias .
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: Orangeburst, davethevol, tbwhhs and 1 other person
#4,173
#4,173
RockyTop85 said:
My beef is with the procedural requirements in the statute.

Section 702 was grafted on under the bush admin and it was intended to allow surveillance of non US Citizens overseas. So no criminal suspicion required to get this warrant. Very low standard.

The scope of these warrants is so broad that American digital communications are routinely collected and catalogued.

Article I is similarly broad but applies to surveillance of foreign powers or agents of foreign powers. Again, both of those terms are very broadly defined.

As far as I know all the warrants hop to some degree and all of the warrants are necessarily handled ex parte.

Using Page as an example: this report seems to contain examples of the type of self-righteous justification of impropriety that often goes on among law enforcement community members all the time. And there’s really no remedy. You see that they lied or violated procedures a number of times and this does not invalidate the warrant.

Any of these features individually may not be a big deal most of them make sense, but in combination I think they are extremely problematic.
Click to expand...
Do the corrective actions suggested remedy this?
 
#4,174
#4,174
NurseGoodVol said:
Do the corrective actions suggested remedy this?
Click to expand...
I haven’t seen a list of everything Wray has suggested, but a lot of my grievances are in the statute and would need congressional action to change.

Like @0nelilreb said, if the FBI is the only one making changes then we’re just relying on the fox to guard the hen house. Like most law enforcement, I think the FBI generally has good intentions but I don’t like relying on them to determine how much the ends justify their own means.

That’s why we need a functioning congress and why we need a president who doesn’t say this was a deep state coup to overthrow the government (of which he was not a part when the actions took place).
 
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.

VN Store



Back
Top