- 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: Steele relied on claims posted by a random person on CNN website to "verify" dossier
Posted on 3/17/19 at 7:17 pm to Decatur
Posted on 3/17/19 at 7:17 pm to Decatur
You already admitted it was unverified. You are playing games now. The woods procedures require verification. You know this. You also know trump isn’t getting prosecuted and this was all a political stunt. You just don’t care. That is pretty sad. You should think about that.
1
Posted on 3/17/19 at 7:45 pm to BBONDS25
I suggest they followed their policy just like they certified to in the applications. I don’t have any info to the contrary. It’s ultimately up to the satisfaction of the judges. Four different judges agreed four different times. Who am I to disagree with pro judges who do this for a living? 
Posted on 3/17/19 at 7:47 pm to Decatur
quote:
don’t have any info to the contrary.
Except you already admitted it wasn’t verified. That is the point. The judges weren’t made aware of this. it is a big deal. This isn’t difficult stuff.
Posted on 3/17/19 at 7:55 pm to Decatur
quote:
JBird people might start taking your posts seriously. Stahp.
Posted on 3/17/19 at 7:59 pm to Decatur
quote:
How could an article from 2009 verify anything from 2016
Here's how:
The Russian collusion "movie script"
If you really want to know how dirty and disgusting the behavior of the whole Hillary/DNC/FBI/DOJ/Fusion GPS cabal was in working together to weaponize the fake "Trump/Russian collusion" narrative against Trump it's laid out in great detail starting at the 7:45 mark and ending at the 58:38 mark of the above linked video.
Not that any of you TDS infested Trump haters are interested in anything that might dispel y'all's "Muh Russians" narrative, but this is a great summation of why the narrative is complete bull#### if you're actually interested in learning something the MSM refuses to report on
To answer your question, the same movie script with all the same players to show supposed "Russian collusion" by the political enemies of the DNC was unsuccessfully attempted by Hillary/the DNC against the McCain campaign way back in 2007... i.e. ...BEFORE 2009!!! They tried it again in 2016 with more success but now the whole chirade is being exposed and that house of cards is now falling apart
Posted on 3/17/19 at 7:59 pm to BBONDS25
What I said is that they check the declaration for accuracy. They would check Steele’s statements that were made to the FBI as a CHS and make sure those statements were accurately portrayed in the applications.
Where did that not happen here?
Where did that not happen here?
Posted on 3/17/19 at 8:03 pm to Decatur
The woods procedure requires verification. You already correctly admitted there was no verification. There is nothing to argue. The system failed....and you are defending it. Because orange man bad.
It is very sad. You seem intelligent. Than an otherwise intelligent person is so willing to defend a blatant violation of 4th Amendment rights in the name of politics is scary. And likely an indication of why things are so screwed up.
It is very sad. You seem intelligent. Than an otherwise intelligent person is so willing to defend a blatant violation of 4th Amendment rights in the name of politics is scary. And likely an indication of why things are so screwed up.
Posted on 3/17/19 at 8:06 pm to BBONDS25
quote:
The woods procedure requires verification
Do you mind citing what guidance language you’re looking at? I think I’ve been citing the standard accurately.
Posted on 3/17/19 at 8:08 pm to BBONDS25
quote:
Except you already admitted it wasn’t verified. That is the point. The judges weren’t made aware of this. it is a big deal. This isn’t difficult stuff.
He is such a contrarian (purposefully ignoring information to maintain a narrative). My take...he is a shill or he has mental health concerns. Notice he refuses to actually state that he believes in the legitimacy of the dossier.
Posted on 3/17/19 at 8:09 pm to Decatur
Wow just keeps popping up.
Robert Mueller, the former FBI director and current special prosecutor in the Russia case, once was hauled before the nation’s secret intelligence court to address a large number of instances in which the FBI cheated on sensitive surveillance warrants, according to evidence gathered by congressional investigators.
For most of the past 16 years, Mueller’s closed-door encounter escaped public notice because of the secrecy of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court (FISC).
The sin that plagued the FBI two decades ago, and that now lingers over the Russia case, involves the omission of material facts by agents applying for FISA warrants in sensitive counterterrorism and counterintelligence cases.
Such omissions are a serious matter at the FISC, because it is the one court in America where the accused gets no representation or chance to defend himself. And that means the FBI is obligated to disclose evidence of both guilt and innocence about the target of a FISA warrant.
Trisha Anderson, who recently stepped down as the FBI’s principal deputy general counsel, told House investigators late last year in an interview that early in Mueller’s FBI tenure, nearly two decades ago, the FISC summoned the new director to appear before the judges to address concerns about extensive cheating on FISA warrants. LINK
Robert Mueller, the former FBI director and current special prosecutor in the Russia case, once was hauled before the nation’s secret intelligence court to address a large number of instances in which the FBI cheated on sensitive surveillance warrants, according to evidence gathered by congressional investigators.
For most of the past 16 years, Mueller’s closed-door encounter escaped public notice because of the secrecy of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court (FISC).
The sin that plagued the FBI two decades ago, and that now lingers over the Russia case, involves the omission of material facts by agents applying for FISA warrants in sensitive counterterrorism and counterintelligence cases.
Such omissions are a serious matter at the FISC, because it is the one court in America where the accused gets no representation or chance to defend himself. And that means the FBI is obligated to disclose evidence of both guilt and innocence about the target of a FISA warrant.
Trisha Anderson, who recently stepped down as the FBI’s principal deputy general counsel, told House investigators late last year in an interview that early in Mueller’s FBI tenure, nearly two decades ago, the FISC summoned the new director to appear before the judges to address concerns about extensive cheating on FISA warrants. LINK
This post was edited on 3/17/19 at 8:11 pm
Posted on 3/17/19 at 8:14 pm to Decatur
A declassified FISC order from 2002 gives a glimpse into how serious the omissions were: In one case the FBI failed to tell the court that the person they were seeking a FISA warrant to surveil was, in fact, one of their own informants.
The court expressed concern that “misinformation found its way into the FISA applications and remained uncorrected for more than one year despite procedures to verify the accuracy of FISA pleadings.”
Anderson’s testimony isn’t just for the history books. It has as much relevance today as when the judges first became upset with the FBI.
That’s because we now know the FBI, in 2016, omitted significant information from the application for the FISA warrant that allowed it to spy on Trump campaign adviser Carter Page in hopes of finding evidence of collusion between Russia and the GOP presidential nominee’s campaign.
Thanks to congressional oversight and declassified documents, we now know the FBI failed to tell the court that the primary evidence it used to support its warrant — the so-called Steele dossier — was political opposition research produced on behalf of and paid for by the Democratic Party and Hillary Clinton’s campaign, in hopes of harming Trump’s election chances.
We know the FBI falsely told the court in the first application warrant that it knew of no derogatory information about the dossier author, Christopher Steele, a retired British intelligence operative who worked simultaneously as an FBI source and a Clinton campaign opposition researcher. In fact, a senior Justice Department official named Bruce Ohr warned the FBI that Steele was desperate to stop Trump from becoming president, and other evidence showed Steele had been leaking to the media in violation of FBI rules — all derogatory evidence weighing against Steele’s credibility.
Further, we’ve learned from congressional testimony of other FBI officials that the dossier’s contents had not been corroborated by the FBI when it was used in the FISA application — even though the Woods Procedures mentioned above required that only corroborated evidence be used in support of a warrant request.
And, finally, we know from sources that the FBI had other evidence suggesting the innocence of two Trump campaign aides it targeted — Page and George Papadopoulos — that wasn’t provided to the court.
As such evidence has mounted, some Justice and FBI officials have whispered suggestions that the FBI didn’t have an obligation to disclose such information and, therefore, there were no abuses.
Yet, thanks to Anderson’s recounting of the episode from 16-plus years ago, we now know the FISA judges don’t tolerate omissions of material facts and were angry enough in an earlier time to haul the FBI director into court to make their point. Anderson testified Mueller got to see that lesson up close and personal.
The question now is, do the current FISC judges and Justice Department supervisors — Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein and FBI Director Christopher Wray among them — care the same about the integrity of the FISA process?
The court expressed concern that “misinformation found its way into the FISA applications and remained uncorrected for more than one year despite procedures to verify the accuracy of FISA pleadings.”
Anderson’s testimony isn’t just for the history books. It has as much relevance today as when the judges first became upset with the FBI.
That’s because we now know the FBI, in 2016, omitted significant information from the application for the FISA warrant that allowed it to spy on Trump campaign adviser Carter Page in hopes of finding evidence of collusion between Russia and the GOP presidential nominee’s campaign.
Thanks to congressional oversight and declassified documents, we now know the FBI failed to tell the court that the primary evidence it used to support its warrant — the so-called Steele dossier — was political opposition research produced on behalf of and paid for by the Democratic Party and Hillary Clinton’s campaign, in hopes of harming Trump’s election chances.
We know the FBI falsely told the court in the first application warrant that it knew of no derogatory information about the dossier author, Christopher Steele, a retired British intelligence operative who worked simultaneously as an FBI source and a Clinton campaign opposition researcher. In fact, a senior Justice Department official named Bruce Ohr warned the FBI that Steele was desperate to stop Trump from becoming president, and other evidence showed Steele had been leaking to the media in violation of FBI rules — all derogatory evidence weighing against Steele’s credibility.
Further, we’ve learned from congressional testimony of other FBI officials that the dossier’s contents had not been corroborated by the FBI when it was used in the FISA application — even though the Woods Procedures mentioned above required that only corroborated evidence be used in support of a warrant request.
And, finally, we know from sources that the FBI had other evidence suggesting the innocence of two Trump campaign aides it targeted — Page and George Papadopoulos — that wasn’t provided to the court.
As such evidence has mounted, some Justice and FBI officials have whispered suggestions that the FBI didn’t have an obligation to disclose such information and, therefore, there were no abuses.
Yet, thanks to Anderson’s recounting of the episode from 16-plus years ago, we now know the FISA judges don’t tolerate omissions of material facts and were angry enough in an earlier time to haul the FBI director into court to make their point. Anderson testified Mueller got to see that lesson up close and personal.
The question now is, do the current FISC judges and Justice Department supervisors — Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein and FBI Director Christopher Wray among them — care the same about the integrity of the FISA process?
Posted on 3/17/19 at 8:17 pm to Decatur
quote:
think I’ve been citing the standard accurately.
So you are asserting the Woods Procedures do not require each and every fact presented in an FBI request to electronically spy on a U.S. citizen must be thoroughly vetted for accuracy, and presented to the court only if verified?
Yes or no?
This post was edited on 3/17/19 at 8:18 pm
Posted on 3/17/19 at 8:24 pm to Jbird
That’s just the tip of the iceberg. Just wait.
This post was edited on 3/17/19 at 8:26 pm
Posted on 3/17/19 at 8:27 pm to BBONDS25
I think the standard is verifying that Steele gave the statements he gave to the FBI. They offered Steele as a reliable source with a good track record and I’m the judges considered that in support of a probable cause determination.
I’m not seeing a problem here. Haven’t seen any specific objections from anyone that’s had the opportunity to review the file.
I’m not seeing a problem here. Haven’t seen any specific objections from anyone that’s had the opportunity to review the file.
Posted on 3/17/19 at 8:31 pm to Decatur
quote:
I’m not seeing a problem here.
Well that is a fricking shock.
Posted on 3/17/19 at 8:31 pm to Decatur
quote:
think the standard is verifying that Steele gave the statements he gave to the FBI. They offered Steele as a reliable source with a good track record and I’m the judges considered that in support of a probable cause determination
Oh thank you thank you for saying that. It has taken so long for you to get here. Are you ready for the boom????
You are wrong. The standard is verification by the FBI. Not just believing Steele. From Robert Mueller’s own mouth to the Senate Judiciary committee in 2002 regarding updated fisa application requirements (the Woods procedures):
quote:
The form also requires that field offices have verified accuracy of the facts alleged in the form
It’s on page 9 of the linked transcript.
Verification required.
The best part is it is Mueller that destroys your word games here. I can always depend on honest Bob.
This post was edited on 3/17/19 at 8:35 pm
Posted on 3/17/19 at 8:32 pm to Decatur
quote:From where the FISC?
I’m not seeing a problem here. Haven’t seen any specific objections from anyone that’s had the opportunity to review the file.
Posted on 3/17/19 at 8:45 pm to BBONDS25
As I was borrowing from the actual Woods memo.pdf, the declaration is reviewed for accuracy by the case agent. That would involve checking the statements attributable to Steele. I'm pretty sure that's what happened here. The judges who signed off had access to the Woods file. They could have made additional demands for information that the FBI would then try to have to satisfy. That does not appear to be the case here.
quote:
Are you ready for the boom????
Posted on 3/17/19 at 8:47 pm to Decatur
Robert Mueller’s testimony to the senate judiciary committee in 2002:
You calling Mueller a liar?
quote:
The form also requires that field offices have verified accuracy of the facts alleged in the form
You calling Mueller a liar?
Page 7 of 9
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News