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

#5,203
#5,203
1972 Grad said:
I guess that you must not be a member of the ACLU because you seem to have no problems with the government illegally surveilling its citizens. Hell, then ACLU doesn't care either if said individuals can be connected to Trump.
Click to expand...


It wasn't illegal in the slightest. The warrants were built on the evidence of many different points and from numerous sources. You find fault with one. The warrants were still completely fine.

No amount of your whining about that one part of it is going to change anything.
 
#5,204
#5,204
lawgator1 said:
It wasn't illegal in the slightest. The warrants were built on the evidence of many different points and from numerous sources. You find fault with one. The warrants were still completely fine.

No amount of your whining about that one part of it is going to change anything.
Click to expand...
Evidence my ass. It was a setup from the get go.
 
  • Like
Reactions: AM64, StarRaider, BigOrangeD and 7 others
#5,205
#5,205
lawgator1 said:
It wasn't illegal in the slightest. The warrants were built on the evidence of many different points and from numerous sources. You find fault with one. The warrants were still completely fine.

No amount of your whining about that one part of it is going to change anything.
Click to expand...
lol you are wither a yuuuuge liar or ignorant liberal sheep
 
  • Like
Reactions: StarRaider and BigOrangeD
#5,207
#5,207
lawgator1 said:
It wasn't illegal in the slightest. The warrants were built on the evidence of many different points and from numerous sources. You find fault with one. The warrants were still completely fine.

No amount of your whining about that one part of it is going to change anything.
Click to expand...
Why did FBI Director Wray apologize to the FISA court?
 
  • Like
Reactions: StarRaider and BigOrangeD
#5,211
#5,211
ajvol01 said:
Why did FBI Director Wray apologize to the FISA court?
Click to expand...

He felt that more information concerning that one source should have been included. He also said that the warrants were nonetheless proper and legal.

I deal with this issue all the time in my legal work. When someone sues contending that a search or arrest warrant was improperly obtained, due to either incorrect or incomplete information in the warrant application for the reviewing judge, the legal question is this:

If the incorrect or incomplete material was omitted from the warrant application, would there still have been probable cause for its issuance?

The is THE legal test on this issue, used by federal courts around the country in dealing with such claims. It is well established by Wray and others that even if you took out the references to Steele dossier, or given more information about the source, the warrant applications would still have contained ample information to result in the warrants being issued:

In Franks v. Delaware, 438 U.S. 154, 171, 98 S.Ct. 2674, 2684, 57 L.Ed.2d 667 (1978), the Supreme Court held that a search warrant is void under the Fourth Amendment if the affidavit supporting the warrant contains “deliberate falsity or ... reckless disregard” for the truth. However, “when material that is the subject of the alleged falsity or reckless disregard is set to one side, [and] there remains sufficient content in the warrant affidavit to support a finding of probable cause[,]” then the warrant is valid. Id. Negligent or innocent mistakes do not violate the Fourth Amendment. Id.

The reasoning in Franks also applies to information omitted from warrant affidavits. Thus, a warrant affidavit violates the Fourth Amendment when it contains omissions “made intentionally or with a reckless disregard for the accuracy of the affidavit.” United States v. Martin, 615 F.2d 318, 329 (5th Cir.1980). A party need not show by direct evidence that the affiant makes an omission recklessly. Rather, it “is possible that when the facts omitted from the affidavit are clearly critical to a finding of probable cause the fact of recklessness may be inferred from proof of the omission itself.” Id. Omissions that are not reckless, but are instead negligent, id., or insignificant and immaterial, will not invalidate a warrant. United States v. Reid, 69 F.3d 1109, 1114 (11th Cir.1995), cert. denied sub. nom., Miller v. United States, 517 U.S. 1228, 116 S.Ct. 1866, 134 L.Ed.2d 964 (1996). Indeed, even intentional or reckless omissions will invalidate a warrant only if inclusion of the omitted facts would have prevented a finding of probable cause. United States v. Jenkins, 901 F.2d 1075, 1080 (11th Cir.1990), cert. denied, 498 U.S. 901, 111 S.Ct. 259, 112 L.Ed.2d 216 (1990). For example, in United States v. Haimowitz, 706 F.2d 1549, 1557 (11th Cir.1983), cert. denied, 464 U.S. 1069, 104 S.Ct. 974, 79 L.Ed.2d 212 (1984), this court held that, where unsavory information relating to the background of an informant was omitted from an affidavit, the warrant was still valid, due in part to the “firsthand character” of the statements coupled with independent corroboration of the information by another person.
Click to expand...

Madiwale v. Savaiko, 117 F.3d 1321 (11th Cir. 1997).
 
#5,212
#5,212
lawgator1 said:
He felt that more information concerning that one source should have been included. He also said that the warrants were nonetheless proper and legal.

I deal with this issue all the time in my legal work. When someone sues contending that a search or arrest warrant was improperly obtained, due to either incorrect or incomplete information in the warrant application for the reviewing judge, the legal question is this:

If the incorrect or incomplete material was omitted from the warrant application, would there still have been probable cause for its issuance?

The is THE legal test on this issue, used by federal courts around the country in dealing with such claims. It is well established by Wray and others that even if you took out the references to Steele dossier, or given more information about the source, the warrant applications would still have contained ample information to result in the warrants being issued:



Madiwale v. Savaiko, 117 F.3d 1321 (11th Cir. 1997).
Click to expand...

fbi-restricts-evidence-collected-from-carter-page-surveillance

The FBI has decided to restrict all information collected from surveillance of former Trump campaign aide Carter Page in 2016 and 2017 after serious mistakes were uncovered in court applications for the wiretaps, according to a new court filing.
The Federal Bureau of Investigation told Boasberg in December that it decided to “sequester all collection the FBI acquired pursuant to the Court’s authorizations” of all four applications, according to the order, reported earlier Thursday by the Wall Street Journal.

The FBI said the restrictions would remain in place pending a review of related investigations and possible litigation.

Boasberg is the presiding judge of the secretive court that oversees the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, which approves classified wiretap applications. Nonetheless, Horowitz said in his report that the FBI acted properly when it began a broad investigation into whether then-candidate Trump or people around him conspired with Russia to interfere in the 2016 election. Horowitz also said he found no political bias in the FBI’s decision to conduct surveillance of Page and other Trump campaign officials,
 
#5,213
#5,213
Mick said:
fbi-restricts-evidence-collected-from-carter-page-surveillance

The FBI has decided to restrict all information collected from surveillance of former Trump campaign aide Carter Page in 2016 and 2017 after serious mistakes were uncovered in court applications for the wiretaps, according to a new court filing.
The Federal Bureau of Investigation told Boasberg in December that it decided to “sequester all collection the FBI acquired pursuant to the Court’s authorizations” of all four applications, according to the order, reported earlier Thursday by the Wall Street Journal.

The FBI said the restrictions would remain in place pending a review of related investigations and possible litigation.

Boasberg is the presiding judge of the secretive court that oversees the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, which approves classified wiretap applications. Nonetheless, Horowitz said in his report that the FBI acted properly when it began a broad investigation into whether then-candidate Trump or people around him conspired with Russia to interfere in the 2016 election. Horowitz also said he found no political bias in the FBI’s decision to conduct surveillance of Page and other Trump campaign officials,
Click to expand...


Pesky facts!!

They don't care. They got the FBI to admit that there were mistakes made in the way it was provided to the reviewing court. That the mistakes were immaterial to the outcome, that they do not want to talk about.
 
#5,215
#5,215
lawgator1 said:
It wasn't illegal in the slightest. The warrants were built on the evidence of many different points and from numerous sources. You find fault with one. The warrants were still completely fine.

No amount of your whining about that one part of it is going to change anything.
Click to expand...
LG they lied for the FISA warrants. It's been proven.

There is no other answer. Not built on evidence. Not legal.
 
  • Like
Reactions: AM64, StarRaider, davethevol and 4 others
#5,217
#5,217
lawgator1 said:
Pesky facts!!

They don't care. They got the FBI to admit that there were mistakes made in the way it was provided to the reviewing court. That the mistakes were immaterial to the outcome, that they do not want to talk about.
Click to expand...
I don't see how Carter Page's lawsuit can proceed while they sequestered all materials gathered. What are your thoughts on the lawsuit in relation to the collected materials that are sequestered?
 
#5,218
#5,218
Mick said:
I don't see how Carter Page's lawsuit can proceed while they sequestered all materials gathered. What are your thoughts on the lawsuit in relation to the collected materials that are sequestered?
Click to expand...


If I read that correctly, all it means is that the FBI/DOJ decided to take all of the information gleaned from the warrants and set it aside, don't use it in criminal cases. Basically self-suppression of the info. That way, the affected persons cannot claim that the evidence against them coming from some other mechanism is tainted.

Its very smart. If prosecutors feel they can convict without evidence from the warrants, then just don't create the sideshow we already see here on this forum of right wingers mindlessly blowing it so far out of proportion.
 
#5,220
#5,220
lawgator1 said:
If I read that correctly, all it means is that the FBI/DOJ decided to take all of the information gleaned from the warrants and set it aside, don't use it in criminal cases. Basically self-suppression of the info. That way, the affected persons cannot claim that the evidence against them coming from some other mechanism is tainted.

Its very smart. If prosecutors feel they can convict without evidence from the warrants, then just don't create the sideshow we already see here on this forum of right wingers mindlessly blowing it so far out of proportion.
Click to expand...


what kind of lawyer are you?
 
  • Like
Reactions: StarRaider and Orange_Vol1321
#5,224
#5,224
Sandman 423 said:
I'm not one. Does that make my question invalid?
Click to expand...
Depends on where you plan on going with your line of questioning? Is this just a warm up question to an actual question about law? Do you need help out of a ticket, divorce, legal dispute in Florida?
 
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.

VN Store



Back
Top