FISA Memo

[Pirata]

I was careful to state that Hillary paid for it which we know as a fact I purposely did not say that she initiated it because there is know evidence she did.

That is why I added the nuance statement.

The gist of theory is that opponents of Trump got the fisa to initiate investigation on Page with the hopes of finding dirt and then being able to expand to additional surveillance on Trump.

I believe some version based on that entral theme is plausible. But please recognize that I am only saying plausible. I not saying it happened. Please also recognize that I have stayed at the plausibility of both sides

We just don't know yet

 

[Pirata]

I just took a minute to look at the definition of plausible again. I am using it in the sense of possible or conceivable as opposed to likely or probable.

That word seems to have a wide range of interpretation.

 

[Merge]

The gist of theory is that opponents of Trump got the fisa to initiate investigation on Page with the hopes of finding dirt and then being able to expand to additional surveillance on Trump.

if Hillary’s camp knew that Carter Page was recruited to be a Russian asset when they engaged Fusion, wouldn’t they have used that during their campaign at some point?

Unless you are saying the opponents of Trump were within the FBI, the same group that basically handed the election to Trump in the finals days by announcing they are reopening the investigation into Hillary but did not discuss their investigation into Trump at the time?

Sure I guess it’s within the realm of possibility, though feels rather unlikely because if they were anti Trump they could have leaked details on the Russia investigation before the election to help Hillary’s chances.

Still... your plausible theory is not where the Nunes memo went. That memo was basically saying 4 judges were either wrong in allowing the warrant on Page, or 4 judges were mislead due to political motivations.

And again... sure within the realm of possibility, but probability seems fairly low in my opinion.

 

[Merge]

I'd like to see McCabe's actual testimony and the report the Inspector General is going to issue in a few weeks as well.

Indeed. I want all on the table.

 

[Section112]

Thought the memo was slightly damaging but really a non-event for the most part. The FBI/Justice Dept is not looking good in all of this though with the texts and wishy washy Comey and the meeting with Clinton on the tarmac. But we knew all of that. This memo does not add much to the conversation IMO and I think the WH folks and Nunes need to focus on getting stuff done. This is just another distraction that is not helping them with their own agenda. If they focus and do good things like getting DACA done, that will help them IMO more than any of this.

Lots of Dems don't like Trey Gowdy, but he tells the truth on everything without fail and has great instincts. He said this memo really proves nothing and I trust his judgement more than most others on capitol hill.

 

[Merge]

Lots of Dems don't like Trey Gowdy, but he tells the truth on everything without fail and has great instincts. He said this memo really proves nothing and I trust his judgement more than most others on capitol hill.

Interesting timing with Gowdy though, no?
He reads the FISA docs, presents the information to Nunes who drafts a memo with what Gowdy told him. Then Gowdy announces he will not seek reelection and says the Nunes memo has no impact on the Russia investigation - Directly countering Nunes as well as Trump.

 

[Section112]

Interesting timing with Gowdy though, no?
He reads the FISA docs, presents the information to Nunes who drafts a memo with what Gowdy told him. Then Gowdy announces he will not seek reelection and says the Nunes memo has no impact on the Russia investigation - Directly countering Nunes as well as Trump.

Like I said he tells the truth. He was doing his job presenting the facts and he completely disagrees that the FISA warrant should have been made. He is trying to show that there is a problem with granting these warrants, especially this one because the evidence it was based on was very flimsy at best and wants it pointed out for the future. I agree with him totally.

At the same time he said "I say investigate everything Russia did, but admit that this was a really sloppy process that you engaged in to surveil a U.S. citizen." But he also said this has nothing to do with the Trump Russia investigation. He said FISA warrant or not one does not have a lot to do with the other and he even said that opinion probably does not agree with his party implying Trump and Nunes. The guy never skirts the truth and also has a lot of common sense. Said he is leaving because he enjoys the process of justice more than being a politician.
https://www.cbsnews.com/news/trey-g...uld-not-have-been-authorized-without-dossier/

 

[Merge]

He is trying to show that there is a problem with granting these warrants, especially this one because the evidence it was based on was very flimsy at best and wants it pointed out for the future.

When asked if the surveillance on Page was justified, Gowdy says "we'll never know" because there were three parts to the FISA application including other info on page.

It appears to me (this is where my opinion comes in guys) that the dossier may have been used as a means to corroborate other information they had on Page.

Gowdy seems very concerned over that process but not as much the result of the process.
My questions about the process would be the following:

Is there any law which says that information obtained in political opposition research can not be used as evidence to obtain a warrant?

Should it make a difference who is providing the data? (reputable FBI source for example)

Was Chris Steele a reputable source previously for the FBI?

Does someone not liking Trump prevent them from offering information on him?

I'm not even sure it matters if the warrant would have been issued without the dossier, but I am interested to know what the other info they had on Page was.

 

[Section112]

Gowdy should be concerned about the process - seems noone else is. That is actually the kind of politician I want to be questioning things. Too many only care about the result and they will do anything to get "the result they want" - and that my friend is the problem.

 

[Merge]

Gowdy should be concerned about the process - seems noone else is. That is actually the kind of politician I want to be questioning things. Too many only care about the result and they will do anything to get "the result they want" - and that my friend is the problem.

I don't disagree with that at all, but since they released this memo, shouldn't they also explain what violations they are alleging?

Is it just that the disclosure in the application was not adequate?

Democrats are saying it was so I hope we get to see it... but even so... I don't see a violation on an actual law being alleged.

 

[Section112]

I think some of the Repubs (Nunes and maybe Trump) are trying to show a pattern of questionable decisions and bias by Justice. Not sure they are alleging breaking the law just questioning the process. I don't think they are going to get what they want out of all of this. The Dem memo should come out too. I doubt it will shed much more light because each memo will have it's built in bias. The conclusion I have is oversight is not working because it seems everything is politicized now. Dems want Trump and Repubs to look bad and Repubs want Dems and Justice to look bad. Americans actually want something done. Politicians are just trying to win elections and keep their cushy jobs and pensions and insider info.

 

[Pirata]

112,

Well said.

 

[Merge]

The conclusion I have is oversight is not working because it seems everything is politicized now.

That's the part I am having a hard time with. This isn’t just political leadership, this is the leadership of our intelligence community and department of justice.

I don’t disagree that things appear more politicized now, but I am not ready to sign on to the idea that our IC, DOJ and justices who approved the warrants were politically motivated to investigate Trump (and Carter Page). If the FBI wanted to crush Trumps chances in the election, they had the opportunity to do so.

 

[Section112]

That's the part I am having a hard time with. This isn’t just political leadership, this is the leadership of our intelligence community and department of justice.

I don’t disagree that things appear more politicized now, but I am not ready to sign on to the idea that our IC, DOJ and justices who approved the warrants were politically motivated to investigate Trump (and Carter Page). If the FBI wanted to crush Trumps chances in the election, they had the opportunity to do so.

The Justice Dept and intelligence community has gone off the rails before and probably will again. Not surprising to me at all.

 

[Pirata]

According to Steeles crack detective work, Resneft was going to pay Carter Page $12B if Trump got elected and sanctions were lifted.

While that is not as great as the $100B that Dr. Evil held the world hostage for, it does seem a tad on the ludicrous side.

Riiiiiiight.

 

[cernjSHU]

The Trump organization and the far right are so concerned with what the basis of the FISA warrant is for. I am sure that they had no issues when normal search warrants and wiretaps are based upon information with people that not 9nly have criminal records but are trying to get a break from the government for the charges that they are currently facing.

As long as that info was corroborated, it should does not matter. The question people should be concerning themselves with is not how they got the warrant but what did that FISA warrant reveal. Was there criminal conduct or wasn’t there criminal conduct.

 

[Merge]

The Justice Dept and intelligence community has gone off the rails before and probably will again. Not surprising to me at all.

Anything is possible... but like I said. They all could have killed Trump's chances to win the election if they wanted to and were willing to abuse their powers. The fact that they didn't even leak anything should be enough of a sign that they were not abusing their power against Trump.

 

[Pirata]

Are you saying you're not concerned that the most powerful law enforcement agency in the United States might be using their powers to further a political agenda.

The odds that Page committed any crime appear to be very low. He was being investigated because it was felt that he was unkowingly being recruited.

I am not concerned that this is a democrat-republican issue it just happens that if true it was the Democrats. I am concerned that any political party would have the ability to use federal law enforcement for their own purposes.

The above was written in response to your post.

Having said that I am now becoming of the mind (my opinion) that the FBI was not motivated by moving the Democratic agenda forward. I think they had Page in their sites and the dossier was a convenient way for them to extend the FISA warrant to allow them to continue their surveillance. I don't think they thought page have committed any crime it was just the potential that the Russians were recruiting him.

From an oversight perspective I think Gowdy calling them out on it was reasonable. We should all be concerned about that kind of thing.. unfortunately it has gone beyond oversight and became a political issue.

 

[Section112]

Anything is possible... but like I said. They all could have killed Trump's chances to win the election if they wanted to and were willing to abuse their powers. The fact that they didn't even leak anything should be enough of a sign that they were not abusing their power against Trump.

But they like everyone else never thought Trump would win.

 

[SPK145]

The Trump organization and the far right are so concerned with what the basis of the FISA warrant is for. I am sure that they had no issues when normal search warrants and wiretaps are based upon information with people that not 9nly have criminal records but are trying to get a break from the government for the charges that they are currently facing.

And Nunes is one of the bigger proponents of warrantless wiretaps, go figure.

As long as that info was corroborated, it should does not matter. The question people should be concerning themselves with is not how they got the warrant but what did that FISA warrant reveal. Was there criminal conduct or wasn’t there criminal conduct.

The question is what did McCabe really say? If the warrant would not have been issued without the dossier, than that shows real corruption at the FBI and Justice Department as they all knew who funded the dossier and knew that it was complete B/S.

 

[Merge]

Are you saying you're not concerned that the most powerful law enforcement agency in the United States might be using their powers to further a political agenda.

Look, anything is possible... but the facts in this case are that the FBI had an investigation into Trump's ties to Russia and they did not release details to the public. To me, that suggests they were not trying to harm Trump's chances. Do you agree with that?

. I think they had Page in their sites and the dossier was a convenient way for them to extend the FISA warrant to allow them to continue their surveillanc

Exactly. Had Steele been a reputable source for the FBI in the past?
(I believe he was)

Keep in mind Page KNEW that he was being watched by the FBI in 2015, and they told him they believed he was targeted as a potential Russian asset. OF COURSE the FBI would want to keep an eye on him and his interactions with Russia.

From an oversight perspective I think Gowdy calling them out on it was reasonable. We should all be concerned about that kind of thing.. unfortunately it has gone beyond oversight and became a political issue.

and that is fine. We have congressional oversight on this - Gowdy is free to question and investigate if the process was politically motivated or not. That was not the intent of the memo though.

At the end of the day
Page was an FBI target prior to joining the campaign.
Manafort was dirty as hell prior to joining the campaign
Flynn failed to disclose that he was acting on behalf of a foreign government during the campaign, and was told he was compromised and was STILL hired by Trump.
Don Jr took a meeting to obtain information which would have been illegal to obtain.
Trump refused to release his tax returns.
Trump failed to enforce the sanctions voted on by the house 419-3 and the senate 98-2.

I'm leaving out a lot, but you get the point. Don't do all of that and there would not be a Russia investigation.

 

[Merge]

The question is what did McCabe really say? If the warrant would not have been issued without the dossier, than that shows real corruption at the FBI and Justice Department as they all knew who funded the dossier and knew that it was complete B/S.

I would like to know what McCabe said as well... but, does it matter?

Again. Steele was a reputable source for the FBI.
Is information gathered during a opposition research campaign from someone who has been a reputable source to the FBI become inadmissible?

Dems are saying that is not what McCabe said... but, would it even matter?

I fully understand the optics may be bad, but is there an actual violation here?

It sounds like the dossier was used to corroborate other information they had.

 

[SPK145]

Trump failed to enforce the sanctions voted on by the house 419-3 and the senate 98-2.

This is very troublesome, the president is supposed to faithfully execute the laws as promulgated by the legislative branch, congress!!! We have subrogated this for quite some time now, years.

 

[SPK145]

Again. Steele was a reputable source for the FBI.

We sure about that?

 

[Merge]

We sure about that?

Ex Mi-6 agent who the FBI has contracted with previously.
Unless you are aware of something to suggest he is not a reputable source? Does the FBI normally contract with people they do not deem to be reputable?

Keep in mind, Steele was brought in by Glenn Simpson at Fusion who also worked with Steele previously, and believed he was reputable. Steele was brought in because of what Simpson was hearing about Trump and Russia, and that was an area of strength for Steele.

Simpson testified to congress that the report from Steele was viewed as credible because it matched up with other information the FBI already had (likely referring to the Papadopolous exchanges)

So entirely possible that the dossier was used as corroborating evidence in a FISA application.

My question though... again - Why is that a problem?
Is it against a rule or law? Is there anything which would prevent the FBI from using information obtained through opposition research?

 

[Pirata]

I assume they can present anything they want to a FISA judge. it's up to the judge to accept or reject it.

 

[Section112]

Ex Mi-6 agent who the FBI has contracted with previously.
Unless you are aware of something to suggest he is not a reputable source? Does the FBI normally contract with people they do not deem to be reputable?

Keep in mind, Steele was brought in by Glenn Simpson at Fusion who also worked with Steele previously, and believed he was reputable. Steele was brought in because of what Simpson was hearing about Trump and Russia, and that was an area of strength for Steele.

Simpson testified to congress that the report from Steele was viewed as credible because it matched up with other information the FBI already had (likely referring to the Papadopolous exchanges)

So entirely possible that the dossier was used as corroborating evidence in a FISA application.

My question though... again - Why is that a problem?
Is it against a rule or law? Is there anything which would prevent the FBI from using information obtained through opposition research?

It's a problem because it implies bias. Whoever funds the research guides the research. It happens everywhere. If I want to get an opinion on why global warming is really occuring I go to a scientist who believes in global warming and fund his/her research.

It's also a problem because if the FBI wants to learn more about this guy why don't they have their own source and it shows how easy it is to get a FISA warrant. If they did they wouldn't even have to bring the dossier into play. And the FBI admitted that without the dossier they don't get the FISA warrant. Listen I have no idea who is telling the truth but if you listen to Carter Page he has never even talked to Trump let alone met him and says he is an academic who poses no threat and the NY Times accounts of him are 100% false. Who do you believe? Not sure but wouldn't you want more sources to get a FISA warrant that allows you into Page's underwear drawer?

 

[Merge]

It's a problem because it implies bias.

I get that. I get the optics... but, is bias against the law in regards to obtaining warrants?

It's also a problem because if the FBI wants to learn more about this guy why don't they have their own source and it shows how easy it is to get a FISA warrant.

The FBI had Russians on tape talking about Page in 2013. Their own sources? and from Simpson's testimony - the dossier confirmed other sources.

wouldn't you want more sources to get a FISA warrant that allows you into Page's underwear drawer?

They did have more sources.

 

[Section112]

I get that. I get the optics... but, is bias against the law in regards to obtaining warrants?



The FBI had Russians on tape talking about Page in 2013. Their own sources? and from Simpson's testimony - the dossier confirmed other sources.



They did have more sources.

Then why did they need to dossier?

 

[Merge]

Then why did they need to dossier?

Why is that relevant?

Assume for a moment that they had enough for the warrant before the dossier. Then they receive the dossier from an ex MI-6 agent, someone who has worked with the FBI previously... Why wouldn't they include it?

Even assume the dossier was used as corroborating evidence... I am still not sure what the issue is here outside of optics.

 

[Section112]

Why is that relevant?

Assume for a moment that they had enough for the warrant before the dossier. Then they receive the dossier from an ex MI-6 agent, someone who has worked with the FBI previously... Why wouldn't they include it?

Even assume the dossier was used as corroborating evidence... I am still not sure what the issue is here outside of optics.

Assume for a moment they didn't think they had enough evidence and included the dossier or lead with the dossier? If they didn't think they needed it why was it included? I don't know but just playing devil's advocate.

And again I do not know who to believe and do not trust either party. But here is a crazy thought - maybe the guy is innocent and did nothing wrong and all of this is over reaching. He says he never met or ever talked to Trump. So far they haven't charged him with a thing even after all of this. If true did the FBI overreach with all of this? Bias again is at the center of this entire issue.

 

[Merge]

And again I do not know who to believe and do not trust either party. But here is a crazy thought - maybe the guy is innocent and did nothing wrong and all of this is over reaching. He says he never met or ever talked to Trump. So far they haven't charged him with a thing even after all of this. If true did the FBI overreach with all of this? Bias again is at the center of this entire issue.

Not every warrant issued ends with charges filed. Just like in 2013, it is entirely possible that the warrant issued on Page did not lead to any evidence of wrongdoing.
Does that mean that the FBI should not get a warrant to put surveillance on him when they have multiple sources showing that there may be a problem?

If they put surveillance on him without a warrant, I would agree it was over reaching.
That's not what happened though. They obtained a warrant, which the DOJ signed off on and 4 judges approved.

So what is the issue here? Bias is not illegal.

 

[Section112]

I think the issue is FISA warrants are serious business and without much proof the Repubs are implying that they are too easy to get and bias may have been part of it. Again like I said I don't think they are going to get what they want out of it. I think they are trying to shine a light on the FBI/Justice and add in all the other stuff that went on to show that maybe things are not on the up and up. They will probably appeal to their base and the other side will argue that there is nothing to see here.

 

[Merge]

What you just described is exactly my problem with what happened.

The committee has processes and procedures in place for oversight and to investigate potential abuses.

Releasing this memo to the public leaving out a ton of information in order to muddy the waters around this investigation should not be one of them.

Will be interesting to see what Trump does on the dem memo. WH said today he will listen to the advice of the FBI... just like he didn't do a week ago.

 

[Section112]

Rand Paul believes it is an infringement on our 4th Amendment rights. And he is the only one in Congress that has made this complaint for years no matter who (which side) was abusing the power. A lot of people don't like him but he will complain about stuff for years and then it will rear its ugly head and then you say Rand had a point. In this case it's the Repubs complaining but they have plenty of dirt on their hands as well.

http://forliberty.news/2018/02/06/rand-slams-surveillance-state/

 

[Merge]

Rand Paul believes it is an infringement on our 4th Amendment rights.

I'd slow down a bit on that one.
Rand is vocal critic of FISA section 702 which could allow warrantless collection of private data of US citizens.

In regards to Page, for this to be a violation of the 4th amendment - you would have to show that there was no probable cause to monitor Page... Someone who has been on the FBI radar for years, someone who called himself an "an informal advisor to the staff of the Kremlin", someone who has been notified that the Russians were attempting to recruit him...

I hope he files suit against the violation of his 4th Amendment rights.
Discovery will be interesting to say the least.

I wonder why he hasn't done so already instead of having the GOP make this about optics instead of laws.

 

[Section112]

I thought you knew that optics win elections but not court cases.

 

[Merge]

I thought you knew that optics win elections but not court cases.

Is there a court case claiming the 4th amendment was violated in regards to Page?

(there isn't)

Now, ask yourself why there isn't a court case but we have a political document instead...

They don't care that no rights or law was violated here. They want you to believe there was... and apparently that is working.

 

[Section112]

You are very literal. Curious are you a first child? What I said in one sentence was implying exactly what you said in 5 sentences. We agree.

 

[Merge]

You are very literal. Curious are you a first child? What I said in one sentence was implying exactly what you said in 5 sentences. We agree.

Apologies. Hard to read tone on here sometimes (especially when I am used to you disagreeing with me)

Not a first child. Youngest of 3, so much worse.