monitoring Trump and relevant contemporary events

georgeob1 wrote:

Good points. My understanding is that several of these warrants were indeed extended past 90 days by administrative actions of senior DOJ officials. Is that true?

Yeah, George, 6 times (a total of 540 days) by Comey, McCabe, Yates, Rosenstein and another guy whose name I forget. Each renewal required a "de novo" showing of probable cause, too.

However, the memo discredits that the Steele document was the "source" for the investigation. OOPSY.

Deputy Director McCabe testified before the Committee in December, 2017, that no surveillance warrant would have been sought from the FISC without the Steele dossier information.

Do you think Mueller shares the leftist delusion that it's obstruction when the official in charge of an investigation decides not to pursue the investigation?

Or do you think he understands the reality that officials decide nDo you think Mueller shares the leftist delusion that it's obstruction when the official in charge of an investigation decides not to pursue the investigation?

Or do you think he understands the reality that officials decide not to pursue investigations all the time and that's not obstruction? ot to pursue investigations all the time and that's not obstruction?

The question appears to involve whether or not they went back to the FISA court before the extension went into effect. I don't claim to know the answer here.

layman wrote:

georgeob1 wrote:

Good points. My understanding is that several of these warrants were indeed extended past 90 days by administrative actions of senior DOJ officials. Is that true?

Yeah, George, 6 times (a total of 540 days) by Comey, McCabe, Yates, Rosenstein and another guy whose name I forget. Each renewal required a "de novo" showing of probable cause, too.

To all what I read, a judge reportedly signed off, indicating that the initial surveillance had produced evidence, according to the legal requirements for extensions.
So that's fake news,m too? No judge was involved?

(The normal procedure would have been: before the original 90 days have expired, a renewal application is submitted to a judge [often not the same judge who heard the original request,given the rotation on the surveillance court]. If approved, the FBI would have got another 90 days.)

Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.) delivered a harsh rebuke against fellow Republicans who agreed to release a memo by House Intelligence Chairman Devin Nunes against the wishes of the U.S. intelligence community.

Nunes on Friday released the memo after President Donald Trump declassified it. The memo alleges that officials at the FBI and Department of Justice displayed active bias against the Trump campaign in the early stages of the Russia investigation, which was later taken over by special counsel Robert Mueller.

In a statement shortly before the memo’s release, McCain didn’t pull any punches.

“In 2016, the Russian government engaged in an elaborate plot to interfere in an American election and undermine our democracy,” McCain said. “Russia employed the same tactics it has used to influence elections around the world, from France and Germany to Ukraine, Montenegro and beyond.”

McCain said Russia’s interference has, at best, sown political discord and succeeded in “dividing us from each other.” Attacking the intelligence community is not how to fix the discord, he said.

Ahead of its impending releases, the FBI took the extraordinary step of issuing a public statement to express its “grave concerns about material omissions of fact that fundamentally impact the memo’s accuracy.”

“The latest attacks against the FBI and Department of Justice serve no American interests ― no party’s, no President’s, only Putin’s,” McCain added. “The American people deserve to know all the facts surrounding Russia’s ongoing efforts to subvert our democracy, which is why Special Counsel Mueller’s investigation must proceed unimpeded. Our nation’s elected officials, including the president, must stop looking at this investigation through the lens of politics and manufacturing political sideshows. If we continue to undermine our own rule of law, we are doing Putin’s job for him.”

On Thursday, House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi sent a letter to House Speaker Paul Ryan to demand that Nunes be removed from his position.

“Congressman Nunes’ deliberately dishonest actions make him unfit to serve as Chairman, and he must be removed immediately from his position,” she said.

h/t New Yorker

The Memo wrote:

Deputy Director McCabe testified before the Committee in December, 2017, that no surveillance warrant would have been sought from the FISC without the Steele dossier information.

Consider an analogy. Say there’s a murder in a small town and the police aren’t making any progress. In frustration, the family of the victim hires a private investigator who turns up evidence and gives it to the police. What should the police do? Answer: They should act on it if there’s something there.

What basis did you even think you had for your false claim, I wonder?

georgeob1 wrote:

The question appears to involve whether or not they went back to the FISA court before the extension went into effect. I don't claim to know the answer here.

How could it work without going to the court?

The problem is with all the things they DIDN'T tell the court, but were obligated to, such as:

.... .... ....

layman wrote:

The problem is with all the things they DIDN'T tell the court, but were obligated to, such as:

.... .... ....

Can you please give the source where such is noted?
Besides that: is everything now openly published what was said and/or shown in the FISA court, too?