192
   

monitoring Trump and relevant contemporary events

 
 
Walter Hinteler
 
  3  
Fri 2 Feb, 2018 01:49 pm
@layman,
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.)
glitterbag
 
  5  
Fri 2 Feb, 2018 01:56 pm
Despite all the hysteria over FISA warrants, it is an incredibly time consuming process which is scrubbed and scrutinized by lawyers and must meet the exacting demands of the court before one is issued. This surveillance tool allows intelligence professionals to sort out innocent non-intent from dangerous activity. An Investigation doesn't mean an indictment will follow, thats why the subjects of an FBI investigations (non-FISA) are not publicized because even the FBI understands that suspicion doesn't mean a crime has been committed. It''s painfully obvious that this presidency has no regard or appreciation for the people who work in intelligence. He can't trust anyone because HE can't be trusted.

So as I type this I see the DOW plunging. It's down about 550 points but the day hasn't ended yet and possibly it will correct.

georgeob1
 
  -3  
Fri 2 Feb, 2018 01:58 pm
@Walter Hinteler,
I agree - you have merely affirmed what Layman 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.
layman
 
  -4  
Fri 2 Feb, 2018 01:58 pm
@farmerman,
farmerman wrote:

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


Maybe you should have actually read it before making that erroneous assertion, eh, Farmer? The memo says:

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.


What basis did you even think you had for your false claim, I wonder?
MontereyJack
 
  2  
Fri 2 Feb, 2018 02:00 pm
@oralloy,
oralloy says:
Quote:
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?


Du you not understand the rightist delusion that when an official suspends an investigation that can implicate himself it. in case there are too many negatives in that version, yes, if Trump suspends an investigation that he can be implicated by, it is obstruction.
s not obstruction?
Walter Hinteler
 
  4  
Fri 2 Feb, 2018 02:02 pm
@georgeob1,
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?
layman
 
  -4  
Fri 2 Feb, 2018 02:02 pm
@Walter Hinteler,
Walter Hinteler wrote:
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.)


You're misreading it Walt. Although George used the word "administrative actions," that was not intended to imply that no court was involved. You're right, of course, that only a Court can approve an extension.
0 Replies
 
revelette1
 
  3  
Fri 2 Feb, 2018 02:02 pm
Sen. John McCain On Nunes Memo Release: 'We Are Doing Putin's Job For Him' (HuffPost)

Quote:
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.
Debra Law
 
  3  
Fri 2 Feb, 2018 02:03 pm
@blatham,
blatham wrote:

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/DU_aX-cW4AEusa6.jpg
h/t New Yorker


LOL

But this shouldn't be funny because it's a true representation of the Trump administration.
0 Replies
 
Walter Hinteler
 
  3  
Fri 2 Feb, 2018 02:05 pm
@layman,
layman wrote:
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.

I've read this some days ago:
Quote:
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.
0 Replies
 
camlok
 
  -2  
Fri 2 Feb, 2018 02:08 pm
@Baldimo,
The internet, and university too, Baldimo, are wonderful places to discover things about language like "stay woke".
0 Replies
 
camlok
 
  0  
Fri 2 Feb, 2018 02:11 pm
@layman,
Quote:
What basis did you even think you had for your false claim, I wonder?


False claims are the very lifeblood of the USA,. That is how propaganda works, which is why the US propaganda system is so incredibly successful.
0 Replies
 
layman
 
  -4  
Fri 2 Feb, 2018 02:14 pm
@Walter Hinteler,
Walter Hinteler wrote:

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 not that the FBI didn't go into court and attempt to show probable cause with each renewal.

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

1. Steele had been terminated by them as a reliable informant.
2. Steele had expressed a "desperation" to keep Trump from being elected.
3. Steele was paid by the political opponents of Trump to produce the documents.
4. The FBI had determined that the dossier could not be substantiated.
5. The FBI told the court that the Yahoo article they brought in did NOT come from Steele, when it did.
6. Ohr's wife's involvement with, and employment by, Fusion
7. Etc.

Put another way, they consciously misled the court in order to obtain a (unwarranted) warrant from the court.
Below viewing threshold (view)
Walter Hinteler
 
  3  
Fri 2 Feb, 2018 02:20 pm
@layman,
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?
revelette1
 
  5  
Fri 2 Feb, 2018 02:22 pm
@Walter Hinteler,
He is probably going by the memo by Nunes which has been edited to be misleading to a desired judgement.
0 Replies
 
Below viewing threshold (view)
layman
 
  -2  
Fri 2 Feb, 2018 02:27 pm
@Walter Hinteler,
Walter Hinteler wrote:

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?


I don't even know what you're asking with your first question. It's in the memo. I have already posted a link to it.

No, EVERYTHING has not been published, but I expect it to be before this is over.
camlok
 
  0  
Fri 2 Feb, 2018 02:30 pm
@oralloy,
No surprise there. That's how cowardly US war criminals always act. That's how those who defend cowardly US war criminals act.
0 Replies
 
MontereyJack
 
  2  
Fri 2 Feb, 2018 02:30 pm
@oralloy,
In the real world, it is likely to be considered a high crime and misdemeanor, an impeachable offense, which is why the more sane of Trump's advisors keep warning him not to go there.
 

Related Topics

Obama '08? - Discussion by sozobe
Let's get rid of the Electoral College - Discussion by Robert Gentel
McCain's VP: - Discussion by Cycloptichorn
Food Stamp Turkeys - Discussion by H2O MAN
The 2008 Democrat Convention - Discussion by Lash
McCain is blowing his election chances. - Discussion by McGentrix
Snowdon is a dummy - Discussion by cicerone imposter
TEA PARTY TO AMERICA: NOW WHAT?! - Discussion by farmerman
 
Copyright © 2024 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.44 seconds on 07/18/2024 at 08:14:15