|
Post by soonernvolved on Jul 23, 2018 13:17:51 GMT -6
Honestly, it should have been done a long time ago:
|
|
|
Post by soonernvolved on Jul 23, 2018 13:18:33 GMT -6
|
|
|
Post by soonernvolved on Jul 23, 2018 13:23:36 GMT -6
|
|
|
Post by soonernvolved on Jul 23, 2018 13:25:37 GMT -6
thefederalist.com/2018/07/23/confirmed-doj-used-materially-false-information-to-secure-wiretaps-on-trump-associate/Confirmed: DOJ Used Materially False Information To Secure Wiretaps On Trump Associate Newly released documents confirm House and Senate investigators' claims that the Department of Justice and FBI used materially false and misleading information to secure wiretaps on Carter Page. Mollie Hemingway By Mollie Hemingway JULY 23, 2018 Newly released documents confirm House and Senate investigators’ claims that the Department of Justice and FBI used materially false and misleading information to secure wiretaps on Carter Page, a former volunteer foreign policy advisor to President Trump. The highly redacted documents released in response to Freedom of Information Act requests show how the FBI was able to convince the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court to surveil the Naval Academy graduate and energy consultant for a year of his life. The wiretap was applied for and granted in October 2016, shortly before the end of the presidential campaign. Approved applications last for 90 days. The Department of Justice requested and received three renewals, for a total of one year of surveillance. Despite claiming to the court in 2016 that “the FBI believes that Page has been collaborating and conspiring with the Russian Government,” the government has yet to charge Page with breaking any of the serious laws it alleges he knowingly transgressed. Here is what the highly redacted FISA applications show us thus far. The Dossier Provided an Essential Part Of Application As members of the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence and Senate Judiciary Committee previously reported, a salacious and unverified dossier was essential to the government’s case for spying on Page. The information from the dossier is presented to the court as if it’s believable. For instance, the application states, “the FBI has learned that Page met with at least two Russian officials during this trip.” The only way it learned that was through the dossier. Steele’s claim that Page had a “secret meeting with Igor Sechin, who is the President of Rosneft and a close associate to Russian President Putin” to lift sanctions is included.
Another secret meeting with Igor Nikolayevich Divyekin to discuss releasing dirt on “Candidate #2” to “Candidate #1’s campaign” is mentioned. Also, while Page had left the campaign by the time the wiretap was sought, it is clear that the FBI believed its wiretap would find information on the Trump campaign, stating that the “Russian government’s efforts are being coordinated with Page and perhaps other individuals associated” with the Trump campaign.
The Dossier Was Not Verified
As House and Senate members reported, there is no evidence the dossier was verified before being used in the applications. For instance, there is no evidence as of July 2018 that either of the two meetings above that Steele claimed happened ever occurred. There was obviously no verification of these claims in 2016, or even an indication that the FBI desired verification. Page has repeatedly denied that he met with these individuals.
The Applications Employed Circular Reporting As senators Charles Grassley (R-Iowa) and Lindsay Graham (R-S.C.) wrote earlier this year, “The application appears to contain no additional information corroborating the dossier allegations against Mr. Page, although it does cite to a news article that appears to be sourced to Mr. Steele’s dossier as well.”
As the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence reported, “The Carter Page FISA application also cited extensively a September 23, 2016, Yahoo News article by Michael Isikoff, which focuses on Page’s July 2016 trip to Moscow. This article does not corroborate the Steele dossier because it is derived from information leaked by Steele himself to Yahoo News.”
These reports are accurate — the Yahoo News story sourced to Steele is cited extensively and repeatedly. Even worse, the FBI repeatedly claimed Steele is not the source of the article. Isikoff has confirmed Steele was of course his source.
Cites Steele’s Credibility, Despite Overwhelming Evidence To Doubt It
For the first application, the FBI reported that the previous reporting of Steele (identified as Source #1) had been corroborated and used in criminal proceedings and that Steele was deemed “reliable” by the FBI. They said they were unaware of any derogatory information on him. They said he wasn’t told about the motivation of the funder of the research.
There are a few problems with this. One is that the application itself admits that Steele was working with sub-sources. We now know he never visited Russia for his research but had other people gathering information from Russians, including from Russian government officials. Since the information was actually provided by these second- and third-hand sources, it is their reliability the FBI should swear to, not Steele’s. Just because he once had reliable information or had a source with reliable information doesn’t mean that all or even most of the sources he compensated for information will be even remotely reliable.
The other problem is that at some point in the process, the FBI realized their source was unreliable in multiple ways, yet they continued to swear to the court otherwise. Soon after the first application, the FBI had to terminate the relationship with Steele because he broke a promise to not share information with the press.
What’s more, he broke that promise out of fear that Clinton might lose the election, suggesting extreme motivation. He claimed he had not shared information with the press before the end of October 2016, but that was not true. He later testified to a British court that he’d briefed numerous media outlets throughout the waning months of the U.S. election.
The Applications Made Materially False Claims
Again, the dossier was essential to the wiretap applications, and its credibility was sourced not to the veracity of its claims, but to its author. So Steele’s lies were a problem. How did the FBI and DOJ handle this? Not well.
The FISA applications cited Isikoff’s September 23 Yahoo News article, which you would have to be an idiot to not realize was sourced to Steele. Take this paragraph, for example:
|
|
|
Post by kcrufnek on Jul 23, 2018 14:10:20 GMT -6
In a ruling Monday, Judge T.S. Ellis, a Reagan appointee ordered Mueller to publicly name the five witnesses who got immunity–a huge blow to the Special Counsel. www.politico.com/story/2018/07/23/mueller-witnesses-immunity-735966A federal judge ruled Monday that special counsel Robert Mueller must make public the identities of five witnesses that his prosecutors have granted immunity in exchange for their testimony at the upcoming criminal trial of former Donald Trump campaign manager Paul Manafort. U.S. District Court Judge T.S. Ellis III gave the order to unseal the witnesses’ identities, as well as a complete list of who is going to be called by prosecutors to testify, at the end of a 30-minute hearing in his Alexandria, Virginia, courtroom that primarily revolved around Manafort’s motion to postpone his case until he’s finished fighting a separate suite of charges brought by Mueller in Washington. Ellis heard arguments on Manafort’s plea for the delay — with the longtime GOP operative seated at the defense table, clean shaven and in his green jail jumpsuit — and said he would release a decision at 2 p.m. For now, potential jurors for Manafort’s Virginia trial are expected to arrive at the federal courthouse on Tuesday, with jury selection set to begin on Wednesday. ....... If it’s one or both Podesta brothers, then it will really be good. Makes you wonder if he will comply. No one else seems to think they have to do so.
|
|
|
Post by kcrufnek on Jul 23, 2018 14:11:27 GMT -6
Honestly, it should have been done a long time ago: Like the day they left the job.
|
|
|
Post by soonernvolved on Jul 23, 2018 14:38:43 GMT -6
Techno Fog @techno_Fog Replying to @techno_Fog Motions just unsealed re: Donna Duggan, Conor O'Brien, and Cindy Laporta 3:16 PM - Jul 23, 2018 162 148 people are talking about this
|
|
|
Post by soonernvolved on Jul 23, 2018 14:40:34 GMT -6
Techno Fog @techno_Fog Replying to @techno_Fog Other unsealed motions for use immunity witnesses James Brennan and Dennis Raico 3:18 PM - Jul 23, 2018 140 121 people are talking about this
|
|
|
Post by soonernvolved on Jul 23, 2018 14:41:29 GMT -6
Techno Fog @techno_Fog Replying to @techno_Fog Raico: bank lender Brennan: broker Laporta: accountant O'Brien: accountant Duggan: not sure. 3:24 PM - Jul 23, 2018
156
112 people are talking about this ......
Techno Fog @techno_Fog Replying to @techno_Fog The EDVA case involves tax/bank fraud, which is actually easier to prove than the charges in the DC case.
My suspicion - and I think I'm right on this - is that Podesta will get immunity for the DC case. 9:48 PM - Jul 19, 2018
435
254 people are talking about this
|
|
|
Post by sooner98 on Jul 23, 2018 15:21:51 GMT -6
In a ruling Monday, Judge T.S. Ellis, a Reagan appointee ordered Mueller to publicly name the five witnesses who got immunity–a huge blow to the Special Counsel. www.politico.com/story/2018/07/23/mueller-witnesses-immunity-735966A federal judge ruled Monday that special counsel Robert Mueller must make public the identities of five witnesses that his prosecutors have granted immunity in exchange for their testimony at the upcoming criminal trial of former Donald Trump campaign manager Paul Manafort. U.S. District Court Judge T.S. Ellis III gave the order to unseal the witnesses’ identities, as well as a complete list of who is going to be called by prosecutors to testify, at the end of a 30-minute hearing in his Alexandria, Virginia, courtroom that primarily revolved around Manafort’s motion to postpone his case until he’s finished fighting a separate suite of charges brought by Mueller in Washington. Ellis heard arguments on Manafort’s plea for the delay — with the longtime GOP operative seated at the defense table, clean shaven and in his green jail jumpsuit — and said he would release a decision at 2 p.m. For now, potential jurors for Manafort’s Virginia trial are expected to arrive at the federal courthouse on Tuesday, with jury selection set to begin on Wednesday. ....... If it’s one or both Podesta brothers, then it will really be good. Looks like they failed to judge-shop this one properly.
|
|
|
Post by trumped on Jul 23, 2018 16:13:24 GMT -6
Jack Posobiec🇺🇸 @jackposobiec · Jul 22 The Carter Page FISA warrant is shocking
The FBI spied on the Trump campaign based on a fake dossier and fake news articles
No evidence presented whatsoever
We were never supposed to know
|
|
|
Post by soonernvolved on Jul 23, 2018 16:30:55 GMT -6
Clapper responds to Trump considering terminating his security clearances: www.cnn.com/2018/07/23/politics/james-clapper-revoking-clearances-petty/index.html?utm_source=twCNNi&utm_term=image&utm_medium=social&utm_content=2018-07-23T21%3A16%3A24Former Director of National Intelligence James Clapper says President Donald Trump’s consideration of revoking his and several other former national security officials’ security clearances is a “very, very petty thing to do.” When asked about the process for removing the security clearances of former officials, Clapper said it was within the President’s power to do so. “There is a formal process for doing this,” Clapper said. “But you know, I guess, legally the President has that prerogative, and he can suspend and revoke clearances as he sees fit. If he chooses to do it for political reasons, I think that’s a terrible precedent, and it’s a really sad commentary and it’s an abuse of the system.”
|
|
|
Post by soonernvolved on Jul 23, 2018 16:31:23 GMT -6
|
|
|
Post by kcrufnek on Jul 23, 2018 18:22:40 GMT -6
Clapper responds to Trump considering terminating his security clearances: www.cnn.com/2018/07/23/politics/james-clapper-revoking-clearances-petty/index.html?utm_source=twCNNi&utm_term=image&utm_medium=social&utm_content=2018-07-23T21%3A16%3A24Former Director of National Intelligence James Clapper says President Donald Trump’s consideration of revoking his and several other former national security officials’ security clearances is a “very, very petty thing to do.” When asked about the process for removing the security clearances of former officials, Clapper said it was within the President’s power to do so. “There is a formal process for doing this,” Clapper said. “But you know, I guess, legally the President has that prerogative, and he can suspend and revoke clearances as he sees fit. If he chooses to do it for political reasons, I think that’s a terrible precedent, and it’s a really sad commentary and it’s an abuse of the system.” Once upon a time, when outgoing people would help their replacements transition, this was necessary. Now these people are going on TV and elsewhere and are being paid to be a talking head. Should Hannity get clearance too? There is no reason someone out of a job two years should still have these credentials. Clapper needs to shut up. He should have lost those when he lied to Congress.
|
|
|
Post by Boots on Jul 23, 2018 20:21:33 GMT -6
Techno Fog @techno_Fog Replying to @techno_Fog Raico: bank lender Brennan: broker Laporta: accountant O'Brien: accountant Duggan: not sure. 3:24 PM - Jul 23, 2018 156 112 people are talking about this ...... Techno Fog @techno_Fog Replying to @techno_Fog The EDVA case involves tax/bank fraud, which is actually easier to prove than the charges in the DC case. My suspicion - and I think I'm right on this - is that Podesta will get immunity for the DC case. 9:48 PM - Jul 19, 2018 435 254 people are talking about this Its bank fraud. What the fuck does any of that have to do with Russia ?
|
|
|
Post by Cooter Brown on Jul 24, 2018 6:06:10 GMT -6
Clapper responds to Trump considering terminating his security clearances: www.cnn.com/2018/07/23/politics/james-clapper-revoking-clearances-petty/index.html?utm_source=twCNNi&utm_term=image&utm_medium=social&utm_content=2018-07-23T21%3A16%3A24Former Director of National Intelligence James Clapper says President Donald Trump’s consideration of revoking his and several other former national security officials’ security clearances is a “very, very petty thing to do.” When asked about the process for removing the security clearances of former officials, Clapper said it was within the President’s power to do so. “There is a formal process for doing this,” Clapper said. “But you know, I guess, legally the President has that prerogative, and he can suspend and revoke clearances as he sees fit. If he chooses to do it for political reasons, I think that’s a terrible precedent, and it’s a really sad commentary and it’s an abuse of the system.” Once upon a time, when outgoing people would help their replacements transition, this was necessary. Now these people are going on TV and elsewhere and are being paid to be a talking head. Should Hannity get clearance too? There is no reason someone out of a job two years should still have these credentials. Clapper needs to shut up. He should have lost those when he lied to Congress. ^^^^THIS There is ZERO reason why Clapper (or ANYONE who is not working in a billet requiring a clearance) should maintain said clearance...it I quit my job, my clearance goes inactive and after 2 years...it's dead and I would be required to start over again. NOTHING BURGER
|
|
|
Post by Cooter Brown on Jul 24, 2018 6:06:42 GMT -6
Techno Fog @techno_Fog Replying to @techno_Fog Raico: bank lender Brennan: broker Laporta: accountant O'Brien: accountant Duggan: not sure. 3:24 PM - Jul 23, 2018 156 112 people are talking about this ...... Techno Fog @techno_Fog Replying to @techno_Fog The EDVA case involves tax/bank fraud, which is actually easier to prove than the charges in the DC case. My suspicion - and I think I'm right on this - is that Podesta will get immunity for the DC case. 9:48 PM - Jul 19, 2018 435 254 people are talking about this Its bank fraud. What the fuck does any of that have to do with Russia ? EXACTLY!!!! Not ONE mention of ANYTHING Russian related.
|
|
|
Post by soonernvolved on Jul 24, 2018 6:23:34 GMT -6
Carter Page: It’s funny in July of 2016, two months before the Yahoo news article came out I started getting these calls from various news reporters, the Wall Street Journal, New York Times, Washington Post, CNN, all asking me about these same two names of people I’ve never even heard of, I’ve heard of Sachin, I never even heard of (Igor) Diveykin. So it was obvious. Some people told me from the media they heard it from the Clinton campaign, etc.
|
|
|
Post by soonernvolved on Jul 24, 2018 8:03:11 GMT -6
Techno Fog @techno_Fog Replying to @techno_Fog Raico: bank lender Brennan: broker Laporta: accountant O'Brien: accountant Duggan: not sure. 3:24 PM - Jul 23, 2018 156 112 people are talking about this ...... Techno Fog @techno_Fog Replying to @techno_Fog The EDVA case involves tax/bank fraud, which is actually easier to prove than the charges in the DC case. My suspicion - and I think I'm right on this - is that Podesta will get immunity for the DC case. 9:48 PM - Jul 19, 2018 435 254 people are talking about this Its bank fraud. What the fuck does any of that have to do with Russia ? I was reading other articles, comments, etc and came across one that interested me. Basically, if an investigation began under false pretenses,(I.e. falsifying intelligence, lying/misleading the court to get warrants, etc), and any crimes were discovered, would they still be tried, or would they be thrown out since the investigation that discovered them violated judiciary ethical standards/ laws/etc? I have been searching for an answer to it, but have not found one. Would you happen to know by chance?
|
|
|
Post by kcrufnek on Jul 24, 2018 8:40:36 GMT -6
|
|
ou48a
Quarantined
Posts: 79
|
Post by ou48a on Jul 24, 2018 9:57:05 GMT -6
We know that government corruption in the justices department, FBI, the Clintons and in other areas will be sweep under the rug if the democrats regain control of any branch of government.
If you vote or give any support to a signal democrat even if its only words it’s tantamount to enabling the continuation of corruption and to not allow the guilty to be held accountable.
|
|
|
Post by soonernvolved on Jul 24, 2018 10:18:57 GMT -6
Donald J. Trump ✔ @realdonaldtrump I’m very concerned that Russia will be fighting very hard to have an impact on the upcoming Election. Based on the fact that no President has been tougher on Russia than me, they will be pushing very hard for the Democrats. They definitely don’t want Trump! 11:50 AM - Jul 24, 2018
17.7K
20.6K people are talking about this
|
|
|
Post by soonernvolved on Jul 24, 2018 10:21:22 GMT -6
dailycaller.com/2018/07/24/fusion-gps-doubted-dossier-source/The veracity of the Steele dossier is once again a topic of intense debate following the Justice Department’s release of secret warrants that the FBI used to monitor former Trump campaign adviser Carter Page. The four applications, which were obtained under the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA), show that the bureau relied heavily on the dossier, which was funded by the Clinton campaign and DNC, to obtain the warrants, which accused Page of being a secret Kremlin agent. But not only do many of the allegations in the dossier remain unverified, there is reason to doubt the credibility of a major source for the 35-page document, including for claims that the Kremlin has blackmail material on President Donald Trump and about Page’s alleged involvement in a collusion conspiracy.
|
|
|
Post by heff on Jul 24, 2018 11:43:58 GMT -6
We know that government corruption in the justices department, FBI, the Clintons and in other areas will be sweep under the rug if the democrats regain control of any branch of government. If you vote or give any support to a signal democrat even if its only words it’s tantamount to enabling the continuation of corruption and to not allow the guilty to be held accountable. This.
It's what's so frustrating about classical liberals and conservatives like PrincipledCon and Stinger.
The fate of Western Civilization is at stake.
To fall for the same trite, tired bullshit from the Fifth Column and its frontline puppets (Hollywood, Entertainment/Infotainment, Media/Journalism, Academia) in this country is tantamount to siding with the enemy at this point.
|
|
|
Post by sooner98 on Jul 24, 2018 12:50:07 GMT -6
|
|
|
Post by soonernvolved on Jul 24, 2018 14:52:10 GMT -6
Mark Meadows ✔ @repmarkmeadows Potential FISA abuse has been a central issue in Congress' investigation of the DOJ. The Carter Page FISA application revealed Rod Rosenstein signed the document and authorized surveillance. Mr. Rosenstein is a fact witness and should recuse himself from this process immediately. 2:03 PM - Jul 24, 2018
4,052
3,031 people are talking about this
Mark Meadows ✔ @repmarkmeadows Potential FISA abuse has been a central issue in Congress' investigation of the DOJ. The Carter Page FISA application revealed Rod Rosenstein signed the document and authorized surveillance. Mr. Rosenstein is a fact witness and should recuse himself from this process immediately. 2:03 PM - Jul 24, 2018
4,052
3,031 people are talking about this
|
|
|
Post by Boots on Jul 24, 2018 14:58:36 GMT -6
Its bank fraud. What the fuck does any of that have to do with Russia ? I was reading other articles, comments, etc and came across one that interested me. Basically, if an investigation began under false pretenses,(I.e. falsifying intelligence, lying/misleading the court to get warrants, etc), and any crimes were discovered, would they still be tried, or would they be thrown out since the investigation that discovered them violated judiciary ethical standards/ laws/etc? I have been searching for an answer to it, but have not found one. Would you happen to know by chance? They can still go after you. And I have been saying Rosenstein was a witness since it was revealed he approved the warrants.
|
|
|
Post by kcrufnek on Jul 24, 2018 16:29:53 GMT -6
Clapper responds to Trump considering terminating his security clearances: www.cnn.com/2018/07/23/politics/james-clapper-revoking-clearances-petty/index.html?utm_source=twCNNi&utm_term=image&utm_medium=social&utm_content=2018-07-23T21%3A16%3A24Former Director of National Intelligence James Clapper says President Donald Trump’s consideration of revoking his and several other former national security officials’ security clearances is a “very, very petty thing to do.” When asked about the process for removing the security clearances of former officials, Clapper said it was within the President’s power to do so. “There is a formal process for doing this,” Clapper said. “But you know, I guess, legally the President has that prerogative, and he can suspend and revoke clearances as he sees fit. If he chooses to do it for political reasons, I think that’s a terrible precedent, and it’s a really sad commentary and it’s an abuse of the system.” Hard to believe but Howard Dean was just on saying that this is a bad idea. I'm shocked.
|
|
|
Post by soonernvolved on Jul 24, 2018 16:40:38 GMT -6
I was reading other articles, comments, etc and came across one that interested me. Basically, if an investigation began under false pretenses,(I.e. falsifying intelligence, lying/misleading the court to get warrants, etc), and any crimes were discovered, would they still be tried, or would they be thrown out since the investigation that discovered them violated judiciary ethical standards/ laws/etc? I have been searching for an answer to it, but have not found one. Would you happen to know by chance? They can still go after you. And I have been saying Rosenstein was a witness since it was revealed he approved the warrants. Ok. That’s what I was leaning towards but wanted to know from someone more experienced with those matters. I appreciate the answer. Agree with you on Rosenstein. It’s nice to see some in Congress asking him to recuse himself because he is a witness now,(better late than never), but I strongly doubt he will do it.
|
|
|
Post by soonernvolved on Jul 24, 2018 17:25:32 GMT -6
Paul Sperry @paulsperry_ FBI's failure to disclose the role of Clinton campaign in FISA app not just criminal but UNCONSTITUTIONAL. Affiants & certifiers KNEW her role AT THE TIME, yet deliberately blinded 4 FISC judges to material facts that speak to the integrity of the source & credibility of evidence 1:42 PM - Jul 24, 2018 1,317 829 people are talking about this ....... Byron York ✔ @byronyork When FISA application was released, critics who slammed the Nunes memo last February started slamming it again. But there's a problem: It's almost entirely accurate, and the FISA memo supports that view. ow.ly/AMq530l4tpK 6:21 AM - Jul 23, 2018
|
|