re: FISA Application Breakdown

He’s willfully obtuse. Ignore his dumb arse.

ETA: enjoyed the breakdown in the OP. Solid work.

quote:

---

Each renewal contains more info in every section dealing with what the warrant has yielded

quote:
In FISA application the first, Section V is two pages, and it's withheld under the following FOIA exemptions:
national security, withheld by statute (non-discretionary), law-enforcement proceeding, identity of a confidential source, and secret law-enforcement sources and methods

VI is 3 pages:
national security, withheld by statute (non-discretionary), pending law-enforcement matter, personal privacy, identity of a confidential source (only 2 of 3 pages withheld under this), and secret law-enforcement investigative techniques

By the time we get to FISA application the second, the completely blacked out section VI from before is now section VII, and there's a whole new section VI. Combined, VI-VII are now 15 pages of black-out.

They *really* don't want you to know what's in here. E.g. they are withholding even unclassified sub-headings within this section to keep it entirely opaque (this one withheld under pending law-enforcement matter and investigative technique exemptions).

By the time we get to FISA application the fourth, these three sections have ballooned to 32 pages of entirely opaque content, with the exception of VII (G), which appears in application the third, and which references Carter Page's Feb 2017 letter to DOJ.

---

this is nonsense. you can't surmise anything from changing length of a given section.

quote:

---

That is not true. Each of the renewals is longer thn the previous warrants.

Yes, way to be behind in the discussion. This has been addressed.

---

quote:

---

And this is actually a big issue. FISA renewals are supposed to incorporate new found evidence procured from the original and each subsequent renewal to secure each proceeding renewal. But there is none of that in any of these renewals. It's virtually 1 application with 3 identical renewals still using nothing but the justifications from the original application. That's a big no no right there.

---

It's been addressed? Are you kidding me?

You said there was NONE of any new found evidence in the renewal applications. So now your explanation of why the renewal application went from 5 to 32 pages is that it may just be a list of contacts without other information.

27 pages of just a list of contacts.

Now isn't the purpose of providing information in the renewal applications to give the judge some evidence that the purpose of the warrant is being fulfilled. Of course it is.

So your story is that the FBI gave the judge a bare bones list of contacts to prove the warrant was fruitful so it would be renewed.

You need to come up with a better excuse for those extra 27 pages.

quote:

---

Good lord, dude, do you expect us to really believe you've read the unredacted apps or can you actually read through pages and pages of solid blocks of black ink?

---

Never said I read the unredacted applications.

That’s the point. I’ve read the redacted ones and accounted for what we can all only see.

I have not made baseless ignorant and biased assumptions about what is under the blacked out parts. Only you have done that.

quote:

---

have not made baseless ignorant and biased assumptions about what is under the blacked out parts.

---

So you're just treating it like there's no information there

How else could your original statement work?

All I've said, which is irrefutable, is that there is extra information in every renewal.

How can you possibly say "there is none of that"?

You're making a way bigger assumption than the author of the link.

I'm fairly certain you just didn't expect anybody to check your work.

quote:

---

I showed several instances of the application flat out lying. I showed where completely unverified information from unverified sources was used. I showed where unverified news articles were used. I showed where the FBI avoided informing the FISC who funded the Dossier. And I showed where the FBI knew the Yahoo article was sourced by Steele, and yet they continued to used it like a 2nd independent corroborating source, then continued to lie in each renewal claiming they didn’t believe Steele was the source. They never asked Isikoff who sourced his article, so it’s an irrefutable attempt at obfuscation and willful dishonesty. But you want to sit here and not only avoid discussing those issues, but then insist that we’re supposed to believe they followed protocol with the rest of it???

---

got DAMN. It’s a massacre in here. Just take the L, juice.

Or don’t. I’m enjoying the beatdown.

quote:

---

got DAMN. It’s a massacre in here. Just take the L, juice. 

Or don’t. I’m enjoying the beatdown.

---

He'll never give up, this is what he does.

If he can't argue against the main point being presented he'll just start nitpicking semantics and playing dumb, trying to make a point (which always fails) that way.

My best advice - give up, he's one of those people

ETA - and like clockwork he does his best to prove my point ^^^^^^

There are probably as few as offended as I am by government surveillance, and distrusting of federal law enforcement.

There are probably few that have been following this as closely as I.

This said, there a couple of points JT is making that are worthy of consideration. And there are a few places where both Gowdy and Nunes are slightly off base.

Down vote away. But I'd at least consider these things.

quote:

---

TBoy

---

quote:

---

What propaganda source did you copy that from?

---

Not sure if serious.

quote:

---

So you're just treating it like there's no information there

How else could your original statement work?

All I've said, which is irrefutable, is that there is extra information in every renewal.

How can you possibly say "there is none of that"?

You're making a way bigger assumption than the author of the link.

---

No, I’m using my brain and very VERY simple common sense.

This has been asked of you multiple times now... If the renewals follow protocol, which means there is new evidence uncovered/collected in the previous 90 day warrant period to sustain probable cause to extend the warrant another 90 days (a renewal), then WHY IS CARTER PAGE STILL A FREE MAN AND NEVER CHARGED?

An intelligent reasonable person would come to the incredibly obvious conclusion that he’s never been charged with a crime because the FBI/DOJ does not have evidence of him committing a crime.

Therefore it’s a virtual certainty that those additional pages of redactions show no evidence of wrongdoing.

Let me rephrase this to emphasize the obnoxiously huge point of this again....

It’s abundantly illogical for Carter Page to be walking free if there were evidence of wrongdoing found, which was the supposed requirement to justify the warrant renewals.

In addition, there’s no way I’m going to afford the FBI credibility that they followed proper protocol when I just found them being outrageously dishonest throughout the unredacted parts.


Do you even understand how telling it is that you have continually ignored the malfeasances in the application just to try to claim redemption with a part that you can’t even prove yourself because it’s all redacted?

Jesus, man. Do you have ANY integrity at all?