(07-22-2018 03:50 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote: (07-22-2018 03:14 PM)tanqtonic Wrote: (07-22-2018 12:55 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote: (07-22-2018 11:48 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote: Color me shocked that Obama officials signed off on a warrant while Obama was still in office. Who did you expect to sign off on it, Sessions??? What a weird strike against the FISA application that still needed to be approved, and was reapproved multiple times...
The question is not who but how.
Yep.
Quote:Quote:I’ve read through a bit of the application and it seems like they used Steele’s info, which they disclosed and called a credible source due to his previous work with the FBI, and other lines of evidence. The FBI appears to have been certain that Putin and Russia were trying to stir up trouble and Page looked like a conduit they were trying to use. Why is it surprising that a warrant was then granted? I’m with Rubio who says that it doesn’t seem like the FBI did anything wrong in requesting this warrant.
I heard an interview on CNN with Adam Schiff several months ago in which he said that they did not use all of the dossier to support the warrant request, only parts that specifically excluded the racy sexual stuff, and the "most of" what was used had been verified. If that is correct, then the warrant was not properly requested.
I dont think Lad is tuned in that the verification in the warrant is the verification that everything in the warrant is known to the signatory as first hand knowledge. Big problem for simply wrapping the dossier in a cover letter and dropping it off in the FISA court inbox.
Further, I dont think Lad is especially attuned to the very big problem of hearsay, and double hearsay in the warrant. It is pretty fing obvious.
Again further, Lad doesnt seem to especially attuned to the misdirection and misleading assertions regarding the provenance in the verified warrant. Actually these statements are far more likely untruths, since the FBI knew precisely where the dossier originated from, and downplayed the stinking crap out of it with words like 'probably' and 'most likely'. But then again the libs pretty much pooh poohed this notion when it was addressed with the release of the Nunes memo (which, given the warrant here, seems precisely on point in most respects when reading it against the actual text.)
And, Lad doesnt seem especially disturbed that one of the major foundations of the warrant was the memo, and the warrant also cites new stories for confirmation. Unfortunately those are the same news stories that Brennan pimped out to anyone who would write about them, ostensibly then used as circular confirmation of the memo in the released warrant.
Or doesnt want to be tuned in to or disturbed. Dont know which.
I’m not especially disturbed that a credible FBI informant’s intelligence (remember, Steele had a history of providing credible intel to the FBI) was used as evidence in the FISA warrant.
And I’ve said this multiple times before, that a lot of my opinion of not thinking this is an issue, is that judges who seem to have no reason to grant a warrant without probably cause, felt it was appropriate to not only grant the original warrant, but then renew it three or four times. As a layman in legal issues, it’s hard for me to get to up in arms when it appears like people who are much more experienced and knowledgeable in granting FISA warrants deemed it appropriate multiple times.
And while you are also well versed in law, you have not seen the unredacted version of the app, which means you don’t have a full picture of the application, right? You’re reaching your conclusions based off of your reading of a heavily redacted warrant request, right?
Lad: what doesnt seem to even cross your mind is that there is good evidence of a corrupt act in what we see.
Had burgers at family gathering of friend who was #3 in a USAtty office, and we talked about 'what is visible' and the implications. Here is the outline of what we discussed:
Fact 1: The warrant has substantial reliance on the Steele memo. (not even going to go into those problems)
Fact 2: The warrant specifically articulates references to news articles as confirmation of the memo.
Fact 3: The Steele dossier was pimped out by Brennan, maybe Rice to the new organizations. And it is this that the cites reference. (not even going to get into the issue of these being self referential references, which is problematic.)
Fact 4: Brennan executed the document.
Fact 5: The FBI absolutely knew the news citations were self-referential.
Fact 6: No one bothered to include any of those salient facts to the warrant court. Zero. Nada. Zilch. Not only is the fact that the news references were self-referential to the Steele memo (due to Fact 3) no one fing bothered to disclose this highly material fact to the FISA court. Not once did this happen, It happened every fing time the thing was re-upped.
That series *is* the definition of a corrupt act. Period. Withholding from a court material information regarding the contents of a warrant application. Think about it Lad. There is decent prima facie evidence *just in the unredacted portion* here that a judge was lied to.
And that doesnt even touch on the blatant misrepresentations re: the provenance of the dossier contained in the warrant.
What has been revealed unredacted is fing sick, to be blunt.
If Strzok is the redacted signature, that could be really fun for that Damien-wannabe.
My friend told me today that he had heard that Brennan was going to be subpoeaned to have a chat with Congress. We will see if his unnamed friend has chops in this.
To me the misrepresentation of the provenance *and* the specific non-inclusion of highly relevant information relating to the veracity of a specifically named source (the news stories, the non-inclusion of *their* genesis from Steele) is pretty much the most singular 'wtf' issue here.
But probably more 'no-smoke'.