Are you talking about the 3 trump Mrs it was granted, or saying it was denied 3 times?
Nunes going beyond DOJ/FBI
- Thread starter TarHeelEer
- Start date
No you asked what evidence existed that Hillary and Dems were spying on Trump. Nothing there I linked to is unproven fact. Just facts you choose to ignore as non existent evidence.
Last edited:
Re-Linked
The case still wouldn’t be FISA bound. FISA warrant investigations can’t be opened “solely on the basis of First Amendment activities,” so mere fraternization, even with sketchy people, wouldn’t be enough. The FBI would have to gather evidence to support a the claim that the U.S. target was knowingly working on behalf of a foreign entity. This could include information gathered from other methods like human sources, physical surveillance, bank transactions or even documents found in the target’s trash. This takes some time, and, when enough evidence had been accumulated, would be outlined in an affidavit and application stating the grounds for the FISA warrant. The completed FISA application would go up for approval through the FBI chain of command, including a Supervisor, the Chief Division Counsel (the highest lawyer within that FBI field office), and finally, the Special Agent in Charge of the field office, before making its way to FBI Headquarters to get approval by (at least) the Unit-level Supervisor there. If you’re exhausted already, hang on: There’s more.
The FISA application then travels to the Justice Department where attorneys from the National Security Division comb through the application to verify all the assertions made in it. Known as “Woods procedures” after Michael J. Woods, the FBI Special Agent attorney who developed this layer of approval, DOJ verifies the accuracy of every fact stated in the application. If anything looks unsubstantiated, the application is sent back to the FBI to provide additional evidentiary support – this game of bureaucratic chutes and ladders continues until DOJ is satisfied that the facts in the FISA application can both be corroborated and meet the legal standards for the court. After getting sign-off from a senior DOJ official (finally!), a lawyer from DOJ takes the FISA application before the FISC, comprised of eleven federal district judges who sit on the court on a rotating basis. The FISC reviews the application in secret, and decides whether to approve the warrant.
I'm politely suggesting you take your Leftist head out of your ass. At some point you won't be able to appear as ignorant as you do now, it'll be confirmed.
I'll offer no excuses if a FISA warrant was issued in error. In fact, I'd be furious.
Can’t wait. Sad day when conservative propaganda sources and db geniuses are the lone sources of truth.
Like that dossier which was used to get the illegal warrants in the first place. That was a real good piece of "evidence" to launch an investigation into the campaign of the opposition party. Lots of National security concerns there.
Read THE's post on why a FISA warrant is even granted in the first place and then try to figure out how that fake dossier met any of those conditions?
It wasn’t the only piece of evidence used. And we don’t even know what parts of the dossier was actually used either.
I can understand how a relativist such as yourself always has a hard time accepting facts no matter where they come from. But at some point you have to abandon that strategy when 1 plus 1 equals 2, no matter who reveals that inarguable fact to you.
I don't say fake, because that's not the standard needed, and then we would have to prove that it's fake. No, unsubstantiated is all it takes. And McCabe supposedly admitted as much in his behind closed doors testimony.
We can deal with fake later on.
That's why were trying to get to the bottom of what else was used and why boomer? Because that little piece of information was about as bogus as it gets.
Again, the only thing substantiated, supposedly by McCabe in his testimony, was that Page had traveled to Russia, and not even what he did there. That was in December 2017.
To me "unsubstantiated" in this case means "fake" because no one told that FISA court it (dossier) was nothing but raw political intel in which case it would not have passed the threshold to meet conditions of the FISA warrant. There was a reason the court wasn't told the sourcing of that dossier.
Last edited:
Nunes did that already......whoops, no he only posted some of what was used. Trump is going to do it then surely......whoops, no he is “fishing” in between tweets.
That's a pretty significant phrasing. We don't know the other evidence or how much of the dossier was used in the application. The warrant is now out in the open, does the FISA court have any recourse if they were lied to?
My non-security clearance status doesn't allow me to see that.
I didn’t read any facts you posted. I read you post things you suspect as facts, but that’s not the same thing.
You keep denying facts, so where's yours to make the statement that the dossier wasn't all that was presented to the FISA court? What else was that we know of as fact? We do know about that dossier...anything else that we know of?
Youre more informed than me, I thought maybe Nunes got that declassified. Again, yet another nugget that could be mined out from underneath all the partisan Bullsh1t, if the majority party in Committee wanted the truth out and transparent, don’t you think?
Last edited:
You probably accepted the "fact" that there was no spying on Trump's campaign either. Isn't that what we were told until the facts you still deny proved otherwise? Yup.
Not according to the summaries of the sections in the statute. The target has ability to sue, and Congress has oversight. Doesn't seem that the court has any action possible. You can dig deeper if you like.
TITLE I—ELECTRONIC SURVEILLANCE WITHIN THE UNITED STATES FOR FOREIGN INTELLIGENCE PURPOSES
Sec. 101. Definitions.
Sec. 102. Authorization for electronic surveillance for foreign intelligence purposes.
Sec. 103. Designation of judges.
Sec. 104. Application for an order.
Sec. 105. Issuance of an order.
Sec. 106. Use of inforuiatiou.
Sec. 107. Report of electronic surveillance.
Sec. 108. Congressional oversight.
Sec. 109. Penalties.
Sec. 110. Civil liability.
Sec. 111. Authorization during time of war.
Link
I’m pretty sure your truth crusader Nunes said the dossier wasn’t the only evidence used.....whoops, no he didn’t read the docs did he?
Oh, does it make it FACT that Gowdy (the one that actually read the docs) said that the dossier was not the only exclusive information used on the application? Hunh? Does that make it a fact to you? That both Schiff and Gowdy say the same thing about that.......fact?
I know you don't. So stop saying there was more than what we already know was presented to them (FISA court) in the form of that "unsubstantiated" dossier financed by Hillary and the DNC. If there was other information offered for granting that FISA warrant, we haven't heard it yet. You keep posting there was other evidence. You don't know that.
Oh good grief, the frigging FBI got a FISA warrant on a guy that was actively working with them on a case involving Russians. How do you people not get this.
I know both members of the committee that read the application said there was other evidence. So....nah....I think I’ll keep saying that, because it’s a fact.
Gowdy did say it wasn't the only source of information, but he also said it was the primary source of information and he also said it was not properly sourced to the court. (not told of its origins or corroborating evidence)
![[eyeroll]](http://l.yimg.com/j/assets/img/emoticons/rolleye/rolleye0011.r191677.gif "Eye roll [eyeroll]")
It will be nice to know what else it was? All I want to know is why those warrants were granted and why the names caught in that spying were unmasked and by whom?
Oh so Gowdy made the determination of what the court used as its central piece of evidence? You guys obviously think the FISA court was in on this?
I don't know what the FISA court knew or didn't know...they assumed the information they were being presented while that FISA was requested was both accurate and Truthful. It was neither, and Gowdy at least knows that.
He does not. He didn’t even tell us what parts of the dossier were used. He also said the court was misled as to the sourcing of the dossier, but that is disputed. Although, I don’t think Clinton or the DNC was specifically referenced.
Gowdy read the actual application. I think he knows what was there and what wasn't?
It is said that the court was told that the dossier was funded by “political entities”, butnthats taking Schiff’s word for it. Not a fact at all.
