- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Coaching Changes
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
re: Comey Admits He Knew Democrats Financed ‘Pee’ Dossier Before FISA Warrant Signoff
Posted on 12/11/18 at 2:21 pm to texridder
Posted on 12/11/18 at 2:21 pm to texridder
Former FBI officials and agents with experience in FISA warrants say the affidavits for Page appear to be “material misrepresentations” and failed to properly follow so-called Woods Procedures requiring accuracy of facts by the sworn declarants. Those procedures were strengthened in 2003 by then-FBI director Robert Mueller, now the special counsel pursuing the Trump-Russia affair.
Withholding material and exculpatory evidence from the FISA applications may also have violated Page’s Fourth Amendment protections against omissions of material facts that would undermine or negate probable cause to search.
“It is illegal,” said veteran FBI agent Michael Biasello. “The affiant" -- the person swearing to the affidavit -- "cannot cherry-pick only information favorable to the case.”
Withholding material and exculpatory evidence from the FISA applications may also have violated Page’s Fourth Amendment protections against omissions of material facts that would undermine or negate probable cause to search.
“It is illegal,” said veteran FBI agent Michael Biasello. “The affiant" -- the person swearing to the affidavit -- "cannot cherry-pick only information favorable to the case.”
2
Posted on 12/11/18 at 2:40 pm to Jbird
quote:
Withholding material and exculpatory evidence from the FISA applications may also have violated Page’s Fourth Amendment protections against omissions of material facts that would undermine or negate probable cause to search.
The operative word in that statement is "may".
It depends on the nature of the exculpatory evidence. All exculpatory evidence is not material.
quote:It is completely stupid to make a generalized statement like that. It depends on the nature of the evidence and it's effect on the determination of the ultimate issue -- which issue was whether there was probable cause to believe that Page was acting as an agent of a foreign power.
“It is illegal,” said veteran FBI agent Michael Biasello. “The affiant" -- the person swearing to the affidavit -- "cannot cherry-pick only information favorable to the case.”
Posted on 12/11/18 at 2:58 pm to texridder
quote:
which issue was whether there was probable cause to believe that Page was acting as an agent of a foreign power.
Still talking about this?
Are you unaware that Page was a willing participant on a counter-espionage operation on behalf of the FBI against a couple of Russian businessmen in NYC?
Assuming, wishfully, that these judges are anything but a rubber stamp, do you think that information would be neat for a prosecutor to share with the FISA judge? Do you think that maybe it's pretty fricking unlikely that a literal agent of the FBI, ON THE PAYROLL, has some kind of ambiguous, personal life that hasn't been considered during the process of being recruited as a counter espionage agent?
It's ridiculous, this road you are going down.
This post was edited on 12/11/18 at 3:00 pm
Posted on 12/11/18 at 4:12 pm to Jbird
quote:
“It is illegal,” said veteran FBI agent Michael Biasello. “The affiant" -- the person swearing to the affidavit -- "cannot cherry-pick only information favorable to the case.”
BTW, Michael Biasello, the FBI agent you quoted, thought the FBI was "cherry-picking" facts in the Page FISA warrant because they failed to disclose that the Russians had referred to Page as an "idiot".
Good call, you relying on Biasello as having any expertise on FISA.
Posted on 12/11/18 at 4:39 pm to MrCarton
quote:I am aware that it has been alleged that Page supposedly left some notes in a book for the Russians to find.
Are you unaware that Page was a willing participant on a counter-espionage operation on behalf of the FBI against a couple of Russian businessmen in NYC?
Page was not identified in that case nor did he participate in the trial.
I have not seen it disclosed that Page was on the FBI payroll and Page has denied that he was a spy, specifically referring to that incident.
Posted on 12/11/18 at 6:02 pm to texridder
None of this matters. Why are you still defending this? We have Comey and Ohr on the record. They intentionally misled the court.
Posted on 12/11/18 at 6:24 pm to Vacherie Saint
quote:
None of this matters. Why are you still defending this? We have Comey and Ohr on the record. They intentionally misled the court.
What does matter is whether there was probable cause to believe Page was the agent of a foreign power and if there were misrepresentations in the warrant application materially relating to that issue?
The only portions of the Dossier that directly relate to that issue are those that discuss Page's trip to Moscow. Are those facts, as stated in the Dossier, in dispute?
Posted on 12/11/18 at 6:51 pm to texridder
quote:
What does matter is whether there was probable cause
I'll try again. If there was sufficient probable cause, they wouldn't have needed to mislead the court. There wouldn't be a need to leak the dossier to Issikoff to manufacture a second source verification and then lie to the court about it four times. The provenance of the dossier all but destroys its credibility. It wasn't fit for print by anyone but buzzfeed, but it's sufficient to issue international search warrants?
They were already months into spying on Page and the campaign at that point with Halper and Downer. Why make shite up when you literally have your people on the inside?
Stop defending this.
This post was edited on 12/11/18 at 7:00 pm
Posted on 12/11/18 at 8:34 pm to BBONDS25
quote:
Decatur did the same thing when he realized the argument that full disclosure isn’t required was a bad one.
Come again?
I'm still wondering why you think not naming Christopher Steele by his actual name in the FISA app is somehow misleading or not providing "full disclosure" to the FISC or whatever standard you claim applies here.
Just to refresh your memory
quote:
They cite an individual who may want to discredit the trump campaign as the source. They Knew who it was. They didn’t disclose.
Posted on 12/11/18 at 8:40 pm to Jjdoc
I mean... who cares?
Posted on 12/11/18 at 8:42 pm to FT
quote:
I mean... who cares?
Vermin scum apparently don't.
Posted on 12/11/18 at 8:46 pm to CptBengal
quote:
the former head of the EFF BEE EYE, with nearly unlimited police power and resources admitted to knowingly using falsified information to begin using the most advanced spying apparatus on the planet to monitor a man running for president against who he thought should win.
You forgot the most absurd part of the entire thing given the Left/MSM witch hunt over the last 2 years, THEY GOT THE INFO IN THE DOSSIER FROM RUSSIA!!!!
Hillary, DNC, and FBI literally colluded with Russia to alter the 2016 election, and not a word about it from the Left or MSM.
Posted on 12/11/18 at 8:49 pm to texridder
quote:
The only portions of the Dossier that directly relate to that issue are those that discuss Page's trip to Moscow. Are those facts, as stated in the Dossier, in dispute?
Yes, he took a trip to Moscow to give a commencement speech. That is all on record.
He was being monitored at the time and had a FISA warrant extended 4 times.
Where are his indictments?
You just can't claim someone is a foreign agent/spy, use that claim to get a FISA warrant on him and the entire campaign of your political opponent, and then come up empty fricking handed.
Where are his indictments?
Posted on 12/11/18 at 8:51 pm to Jjdoc
Comey testified in front of Congress that, he didn’t see a “legal duty” to present exculpatory evidence to the FISA court.
Does this sound like an impartial department head?
Does this sound like an impartial department head?
This post was edited on 12/11/18 at 8:53 pm
Posted on 12/11/18 at 9:32 pm to Vacherie Saint
quote:How many times do I have to say that the only thing in the Dossier that had any relevance to the FISA warrant was whether or not Page was acting as an agent for a foreign power.
There wouldn't be a need to leak the dossier to Issikoff to manufacture a second source verification and then lie to the court about it four times.
Nunes makes a big deal about the Dossier to draw attention away from that fact and to convince the uninitiated that the reason the FISA warrant was granted was the golden shower. And that's just not true.
quote:I couldn't have said it better. You're absolutely right. Since they had Halper, why would they have needed to do any of the things you (and Nunes) claim they did if they had Halper's backup on Page? The answer is none.
They were already months into spying on Page and the campaign at that point with Halper and Downer. Why make shite up when you literally have your people on the inside?
Nunes is a liar. You just proved it to yourself.
Posted on 12/11/18 at 10:03 pm to texridder
quote:
am aware that it has been alleged that Page supposedly left some notes in a book for the Russians to find.
What do you call it when an intelligence agency recruits a person to conduct operations on their behalf?
quote:
Page was not identified in that case nor did he participate in the trial.
Wut? Page acted as witness in the case that was overseen by Pete strOlikiklok. The FBI called Page an innocent victim of two Russian spies attempting to recruit.
quote:
have not seen it disclosed that Page was on the FBI payroll and Page has denied that he was a spy, specifically referring to that incident.
Oh shite, lemme fax you his confidential information pay stubs just for your own personal records then.
You are a total dipshit.
Posted on 12/11/18 at 10:23 pm to IllegalPete
quote:
He was being monitored at the time and had a FISA warrant extended 4 times.
Where are his indictments?
You just can't claim someone is a foreign agent/spy, use that claim to get a FISA warrant on him and the entire campaign of your political opponent, and then come up empty fricking handed.
Actually, they used Page in a counter espionage case less than 2 years prior, a case overseen by non other than Peter Strzok... (yes this is real).
After working for the FBI and being declared innocent, Page is suddenly a big time espionage risk for the FBI, whobma put him under warrants though repeatedly, despite never showing any results from these warrants and extensions. It's almost like the point of the Page FISA warrants had nothing to d with a concern about Page being a foreign spy.
Posted on 12/11/18 at 10:54 pm to gthog61
Who cares who financed it? The information has largely turned out to be true, and nothing in it has been proven false after all this time. Wouldn’t you want the FBI to follow up on information that good?
Posted on 12/11/18 at 10:57 pm to FT
quote:
Who cares who financed it? The information has largely turned out to be true, and nothing in it has been proven false after all this time. Wouldn’t you want the FBI to follow up on information that good?
Noice. Someone will bite.
You and Texkidder Are pretty good at this.
Posted on 12/11/18 at 11:29 pm to MrCarton
But really. When did who tipped off the FBI become a reason for them to investigate crimes or not?
Page 8 of 9
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News