- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- 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: FISA Application Breakdown
Posted on 7/23/18 at 10:19 am to SidewalkDawg
Posted on 7/23/18 at 10:19 am to SidewalkDawg
quote:Read the link I supplied. It is way more detailed, and less biased. I can go line by line with beef if he wants and we can build something objective.
However, You still need to deal with what he has objectively shown as wrongdoing.
Hell, we can start with his next completely assumed assertion: That the FBI lied about compensating Steele
It's a partially redacted sentence that he either believes ended when the redaction began, or assumes it says Steele was paid for this testimony. In reality, it probably says he was paid before by the FBI for info, going by context. Either way, they're both assumptions, and neither are objective facts. The objective fact is Steele was not compensated, and the app goes on to explain why.
So there's one outright falsehood and one biased assumption, rendered as objective fact, by beef in his first 3 points.
This post was edited on 7/23/18 at 10:20 am
3
Posted on 7/23/18 at 10:22 am to JuiceTerry
quote:
In reality, it probably says he was paid before by the FBI for info, going by context.
There would have been no reason to redact the words "previously" or "before" in such a sentence.
Posted on 7/23/18 at 10:24 am to JuiceTerry
quote:
In reality, it probably says he was paid before by the FBI for info, going by context
We know that Steele had been paid by the FBI in the past so it could be that.
I think it was reported that Steele in 2016 had some arrangement that paid for some of his expenses but he was not hired as an informant.
Hard to tell how this is described in the redaction.
Posted on 7/23/18 at 10:41 am to imjustafatkid
quote:Sure there could be. "compensated during _____ investigation"
There would have been no reason to redact the words "previously" or "before" in such a sentence.
This post was edited on 7/23/18 at 10:42 am
Posted on 7/23/18 at 10:41 am to BeefDawg
Pretty much every read I have seen of the memo is that its legit. Hell, even Nunes and Meadows instead of crowing about it supporting their position instead are calling for fewer redactions. I do tend to agree there are too many redactions.
Posted on 7/23/18 at 10:43 am to LuckyTiger
quote:
As a former Assistant US Attorney...and proud to have been one...I cannot express in words just how appalled I am at what I read in that FISA. This is astonishingly corrupt.
Post more please. Your experience is needed to clarify things to this board.
Posted on 7/23/18 at 10:45 am to brian_wilson
It's hard to say, of course, without knowing what's beneath them and the nature of the ongoing investigation, sources, and methods, etc. It sure would make it easier for us news obsessives, though. I was about to say it would make it less Rashomon-like, but we don't need redactions here to read wildly different interpretations into news. 
Posted on 7/23/18 at 11:05 am to Decatur
quote:
The “September 23rd News Article” (Isikoff Yahoo article) was included in the section “Page’s Denial of Cooperation with the Russian Government” because Page subsequently sent a letter to the FBI denying the allegations in the article. This was not being used as a parallel source for Steele. Seems pretty clear to me. They also cite a “September 26th News Article” to support the Page denial but I’m not sure which article it’s referencing.
I would agree with you on this except the FBI goes out of their way to state, "The FBI does not believe that [Steele] is the source of the Yahoo article."
And even when they make the addendum in the 1st renewal specifically explaining why they fired Steele (for admitting to leaking to news organizations), they again go out of their way to claim that the don't believe Yahoo News was one of the news organizations Steele leaked to.
There is ZERO logical reason to continually LIE about knowing the Yahoo article was sourced by Steele if they weren't trying to make anyone reading these applications believe it was a legitimate 2nd independent corroborating source.
Do you understand that?
Why lie and not explain that the article Page sent them a denial letter about was sourced by Steele?
Why go out of your way to act like the article Page is denying and calling false is a legit story from an unrelated independent source when you know it's not?
Why did they not even call Michael Isikoff to ask him who his source was? (which Isikoff said the FBI never asked him)
You know why they didn't even try to confirm with Isikoff if his article was an from an independent 2nd source? Because they knew it was Steele.
Do you not realize that any judge reading this application is going to come away from the “Page’s Denial of Cooperation with the Russian Government” section believing 2 things:
1. Page is calling that article false.
and
2. That article matches details in the Dossier, and the FBI believes it was conveyed by a 2nd independent corroborating source. Hmm, 2 sources with the same details makes the Dossier, and this entire application's assertions, much more credible.
This was a clear attempt to do exactly that. Give the Dossier and Steele more credibility. And they simply used Page's denial letter as a reason to insert the Isikoff article.
And then made a point to lie and assert the Isikoff article was legit.
Posted on 7/23/18 at 11:11 am to JuiceTerry
quote:
Read the link I supplied. It is way more detailed, and less biased. I can go line by line with beef if he wants and we can build something objective.
Hell, we can start with his next completely assumed assertion: That the FBI lied about compensating Steele
It's a partially redacted sentence that he either believes ended when the redaction began, or assumes it says Steele was paid for this testimony. In reality, it probably says he was paid before by the FBI for info, going by context. Either way, they're both assumptions, and neither are objective facts. The objective fact is Steele was not compensated, and the app goes on to explain why.
So there's one outright falsehood and one biased assumption, rendered as objective fact, by beef in his first 3 points.
All your contradictions are full of assumptions based on nothing.
And, they all defy simple common sense and logic.
Right, JT, there's evidence of crimes under those 27 pages of complete redactions.
The FBI and DOJ just didn't feel like prosecuting Page. They've giving him a free-be. They had a change of heart and like the guy so they're just ignoring all the evidence of crimes they collected.
You are so brilliant at use of common sense.
SMH
Posted on 7/23/18 at 11:16 am to BeefDawg
From 2013-2015, Carter Page worked with the FBI to help catch Russian spies. A year later he was supposedly working as "an agent of Russia" and "conspiring with Russia"?
LINK
Was Carter Page a plant? That would explain why he hasn't been indicted... but also raises the question- Did they get a FISA warrant on their own plant to spy on Trump?
LINK
Was Carter Page a plant? That would explain why he hasn't been indicted... but also raises the question- Did they get a FISA warrant on their own plant to spy on Trump?
This post was edited on 7/23/18 at 11:20 am
Posted on 7/23/18 at 11:20 am to TBoy
quote:
What propaganda source did you copy that from?
Um he has pictures of the actual documents released dumbass
Posted on 7/23/18 at 11:22 am to BeefDawg
quote:
if they weren't trying to make anyone reading these applications believe it was a legitimate 2nd independent corroborating source.
The bottom line is that four separate judges (who had the benefit of reading the unredacted materials) on four separate occasions determined there was probable cause that Page was knowingly engaging in clandestine intelligence activities.
I think they knew what they were looking at.
Posted on 7/23/18 at 11:26 am to brian_wilson
quote:Considering this is the very first time a FISA warrant application has ever been disclosed, asking for sources and methods more than already made available, is a little too convenient for the GRU and the rest of Russian intelligence not to mention China, et al.
Pretty much every read I have seen of the memo is that its legit. Hell, even Nunes and Meadows instead of crowing about it supporting their position instead are calling for fewer redactions. I do tend to agree there are too many redactions.
Posted on 7/23/18 at 11:49 am to Decatur
quote:
The bottom line is that four separate judges (who had the benefit of reading the unredacted materials) on four separate occasions determined there was probable cause that Page was knowingly engaging in clandestine intelligence activities.
I think they knew what they were looking at.
Jesus Christ, all you Lefties do is make biased assumptions.
The judges pretty much rubber-stamp these things. If they have a senior FBI official claiming that lies and misrepresentations are facts and describing them deceptively to appear legitimate and valid, the judge isn't an investigator or psychic, so they're typically going to take their word for it. Especially when they also have the FBI director and assistant AG signing off on it too.
I mean read what you just said again.
You're suggesting that the judge was somehow supposed to know that the Yahoo article and the same details in the Dossier were sourced by the same person, even though the FBI stated multiple times in the applications that they did not believe they were sourced by the same person.
How? How in the blue hell were the judges supposed to know this?
AND... if they did know this, why in the hell would they continue to believe that Steele was a credible source??
The judges signed off on the warrant because the FBI specifically said "We believe Steele is credible." and "We don't believe he is the source of the Yahoo article."
You guys make some of the most asinine assertions, it's just crazy.
This post was edited on 7/23/18 at 11:52 am
Posted on 7/23/18 at 12:15 pm to BeefDawg
quote:
All your contradictions are full of assumptions based on nothing.
Juiecterry trying to think hes smart
Posted on 7/23/18 at 12:35 pm to BeefDawg
It's probably already been pointed out but listening to Bongino he points out the following:
1. The FBI swore the dossier in the FISI warrant was verified (using the Woods Procedure) while simultaneously informing Trump, congress and the media the dossier is "salacious and unverified".
2. The dossier was critical to obtaining the warrant. This comes from Andrew McCabe's congressional testimony.
3. Bill Preistap (FBI Counterintelligence Head) when asked about the verification process (Woods Procedure) he stated "the verification process was in it's infancy".
So the FBI swore to the veracity of the information in the dossier despite these three factors.
THE FBI LIED TO THE FISA COURT!
4. Then you have the Strzok text: "there is no there there."
For the past 2 fricking years we have been wasting time on this BULL shite.
1. The FBI swore the dossier in the FISI warrant was verified (using the Woods Procedure) while simultaneously informing Trump, congress and the media the dossier is "salacious and unverified".
2. The dossier was critical to obtaining the warrant. This comes from Andrew McCabe's congressional testimony.
3. Bill Preistap (FBI Counterintelligence Head) when asked about the verification process (Woods Procedure) he stated "the verification process was in it's infancy".
So the FBI swore to the veracity of the information in the dossier despite these three factors.
THE FBI LIED TO THE FISA COURT!
4. Then you have the Strzok text: "there is no there there."
For the past 2 fricking years we have been wasting time on this BULL shite.
Posted on 7/23/18 at 12:55 pm to BeefDawg
quote:
You're suggesting that the judge was somehow supposed to know that the Yahoo article and the same details in the Dossier were sourced by the same person,
I think it’s pretty obvious that the Yahoo article was describing what was included in the Steele memos but the Yahoo article was not being offered as another source for those alleged acts. The article was included in a section on Page’s denials because it was that very article that Page based his denials on when he wrote a letter to the FBI a few days after the article was published.
Posted on 7/23/18 at 1:02 pm to BeefDawg
The requirements to obtain a FISA warrant:
1) Unlike domestic criminal surveillance warrants issued under Title III of the Omnibus Crime Control and Safe Streets Act of 1968 (the "Wiretap Act") , agents need to demonstrate probable cause to believe that the "target of the surveillance is a foreign power or agent of a foreign power," that "a significant purpose" of the surveillance is to obtain "foreign intelligence information," and that appropriate "minimization procedures" are in place. 50 U.S.C. § 1804.
2) Agents do not need to demonstrate that commission of a crime is imminent.
Cater Page was clearly targeted by Russians to act as an agent of a foreign power. There is no need to demonstrate that a crime was committed. The arguement that states, “why is Page still free if the FISA is justifiable”, is bogus. Each application is longer and all it would take would be Page having further contacts with Russian agents seeking to use him.
1) Unlike domestic criminal surveillance warrants issued under Title III of the Omnibus Crime Control and Safe Streets Act of 1968 (the "Wiretap Act") , agents need to demonstrate probable cause to believe that the "target of the surveillance is a foreign power or agent of a foreign power," that "a significant purpose" of the surveillance is to obtain "foreign intelligence information," and that appropriate "minimization procedures" are in place. 50 U.S.C. § 1804.
2) Agents do not need to demonstrate that commission of a crime is imminent.
Cater Page was clearly targeted by Russians to act as an agent of a foreign power. There is no need to demonstrate that a crime was committed. The arguement that states, “why is Page still free if the FISA is justifiable”, is bogus. Each application is longer and all it would take would be Page having further contacts with Russian agents seeking to use him.
Posted on 7/23/18 at 1:12 pm to B4YOU
quote:
agents need to demonstrate probable cause to believe that the "target of the surveillance is a foreign power or agent of a foreign power," that "a significant purpose" of the surveillance is to obtain "foreign intelligence information," and that appropriate "minimization procedures" are in place. 50 U.S.C. § 1804.
The FBI failed this test.
Posted on 7/23/18 at 1:18 pm to GumboPot
quote:
For the past 2 fricking years we have been wasting time on this BULL shite.
Mueller and everyone working on this farce should have future wages garnished to return the money spent on this BS "investigation".
Page 7 of 11
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News