Breaking - FusionGPS was a subcontractor for the FBI - ran 702 inquiries w/out FISA

originally posted by: Xcathdra

originally posted by: carewemust
a reply to: xstealth

I just heard that Simpson, the head of Fusion GPS., admitted yesterday that there is no FBI Insider inside the Trump campaign or Trump Administration.

A lot of people are trying to correct this story or hide or some other thing.

FusionGPS is trying to walk back some of Simpsons statements.

Namely the inside source (there was not one) and the claim someone died connected to the dossier (no one died).

Thankyou for summarizing where things stand, Xcathdra. I read in another thread that the pressure is starting to make both little and big "birdies" start to talk, and even sing.

a reply to: theantediluvian

Im waiting for the IG and the Nunez reports.

This is interesting but is pure gossip for now in its current state. And i honestly dont have enough mental bandwidth to do much beyond understand it from 30k feet

If we could just have something i could see from that high.

Could the redacted part be GCHQ ?

a reply to: Xcathdra

Congress just reauthorized the act that made all of this perfectly legal. That is the issue now. For once I am applauding Rand Paul.

a reply to: DJW001

They can reauthorize an act to make it technically legal, not perfectly legal.

This violates the spirit of the law. Unless we are supposed to now allow Trump to use the federal government and its resources against his POLITICAL opponents.

Because thats what happened and its infuriating. I dont pay taxes and live to produce for a government that can now tell me what to think and what political leanings I can have, OR FACE The Consequences., Feels like we are getting some of those consequences for nothing no matter what. Seems kind of relative now.

We were treated like crap and had the weight of OUR GOVERNMENT AGAINST US like we were criminals. You want criminals MFs? You can get that.

Is the message we should take away from this: "Got ya! The law is joke, we all do what we want! WE make the laws suckers!" ???

Because if thats the message I am sure we have one of our own. I do.

SO, the IRS goes after political opponents, the FBI as well. WHO ELSE?

BTW those institutions became political entities in our eyes after this. Lets just keep adding components of our government to that framework until we all just lose our isht.

I am pissed in case anyone missed it.

originally posted by: amfirst1
a reply to: DanteGaland

Wait how do you know Steele didn't get the hoax from kids at 4chan?? After all he is ducking congress because he knows it is BS. Why not reveal the source or testify under oath?

Maybe he doesn't enjoy polonium treats?

a reply to: tadaman

Donald Trump has instructed the Department of Justice to move against a political rival. Who deserves to be locked up?

a reply to: DJW001

Yeah Trump raped my cat too. You guys are so twisted.

Look, have a good day. I dont agree with you nor do I want to figure out why. THAT takes two and I feel that I would be alone in it. I dont care about who likes Trump or Hillary.

I want the truth. Not popular opinion.

a reply to: tadaman

Popular opinion is the basis of democracy.

a reply to: DJW001

Too bad this isnt a democracy.....

a reply to: DJW001

Heres mine: I got one like a butthole.

I dont feel different. When does it start? Do I have to sniff something or scratch something?

Wait, I feel something now. Wow. After dumping my mental frustrations on innocent people based off their political affiliations I feel much better. It was like taking a big nasty dump with my mind! Except No hurt buttholes!

Wait.

originally posted by: bigfatfurrytexan
a reply to: DJW001

Too bad this isnt a democracy.....

Too bad it isn't a dictatorship... yet?

originally posted by: DJW001

originally posted by: bigfatfurrytexan
a reply to: DJW001

Too bad this isnt a democracy.....

Too bad it isn't a dictatorship... yet?

Fluff response.

We are a constitutional republic that is supposed to value the rights of the individual and the rule of law

Trump may be a turd....but as a tool to overturn the tables, hes a welcome relief.

originally posted by: rickymouse
This ain't going to be good for the Democratic party. I wish they would never have let Hillary run for president. Her campaign seems to have taken control of the DNC.

It's not good for the democratic party for sure.

It's looking to me like they were doing everything they could to stop Trump. If I am correct, the false accusations regarding Russian collusion and all the fake docs etc. were the "insurance policy". If they couldn't stop Trump from becoming POTUS, they would convolute and muddy the waters so much they would make Trump ineffective as he would become immersed in his defense and focus on not much else. Unfortunately for the dems, in the process of trying to prove Trumps collusion, they opened the doors for examination that also included themselves in that pool of wrongdoers.

Like an onion, the first layer of nuisance would be pointing to Trump but as each layer is peeled back, a thicker layer is exposed of the true wrongs of Obama and the Clintons. Wrongs which occurred exposing layer after layer of illegal activities and treason against the great United States of America and it's citizens. Crimes committed by people that need to be prosecuted and punished to the full extend of the law.

If the dems were smart, they would have let sleeping dogs lie and let Trump have his day and not flung all the self incriminating B.S. When Trump was finished they could have swooped in and taken over where they left off. Now, they have committed political suicide bringing all their henchmen down with them. They will show themselves to be the most corrupt and overreaching party ever.

a reply to: Xcathdra

Has anyone done an independent verification that the supposed Top Secret FISA Court finding is real? I cannot find it for example, on the FISC website or the website for the Office of Director of National Intelligence. I can't find any reference in any of the discussion as to who exactly is supposed to have released it and where.

Moreover, there is a strange coincidence that this exact same issue was discussed in a FISA Court finding back in 2013. See, for example, a discussion by attorney Carrie Cordero that can be read in full at:

www.lawfareblog.com...

In her article, she summarizes that the Court document discusses:

"A signals intelligence agency that brought an embarrassing and significant technical error to the Court’s attention. No sugar-coating here: there was a major disconnect between one subset of the technical implementation and the manner in which the implementation had been previously reported to the Court. As Ben and Lauren explain here, this called into question the Court’s prior determinations that the NSA’s targeting and minimization procedures were reasonable under the FISA and the Fourth Amendment.

An 80-page opinion from the then-Presiding Judge of the FISA Court, a former federal prosecutor, that takes the government to task for implementing a collection in a way that was different from what the government had originally told the Court.

A Court that fully understood the issues at play, including the application of the technology involved in NSA’s “upstream” collection to the FISA and the Constitution.

A Court that had the authority, ability and willingness to the direct the government to correct its actions. A Court that told the government that it could do better, and insisted that it do so.

A level of confidence that existed between the government and the Court, in that the Court granted the government’s requests to delay its judgment while the government fully investigated the problem and developed information that would help the Court’s consideration of the issues. This confidence enabled important national security surveillance to continue, under the Court’s supervision, while the government gathered data to present to the Court.

A Congress that was fully informed, in accordance with the FISA statute, through copies of the relevant opinions and the underlying written record, briefings by senior officials and additional detailed reports.
An internal government compliance and oversight program that likely involved thousands of man hours over a period of months to uncover the nature of the compliance problem and bring that information to the Court.

A solution reached, in under eight weeks from the Court’s October 3, 2011 opinion, that tightened retention and handling procedures and enabled the Court to find the refined collection activities and procedures compliant with FISA and the reasonableness requirement of the Fourth Amendment."

The full text of the 2013 Court document can be viewed here:

lawfare.s3-us-west-2.amazonaws.com...

The essence of the 85 page 2013 document (which was released by the Office of the Director of National Intelligence) is virtually the same as the supposed Top Secret document discussed in the OP and released within the last few days. The new document is not a word-for-word copy of the 2013 document (the dates are different, for example) but the story line is basically the same.

Interestingly enough, the security markings on the 2013 document (which is known to be authentic) differ from those on the recent document. They are: TOP SECRET//COMINT//ORCON,NOFORN (on the old document) compared to TOP SECRET/SI/ORCON/NOFORN (on the new document). The 2013 classification scheme is formally correct; Top Secret is the highest classification, COMINT is a compartment of Sensitive Compartmented Information (SCI). You have to have a TS clearance to be eligible for access to an SCI compartment. ORCON (Originator Controlled) and NOFORN (No Release to Foreign Nationals) are not classification levels, as such, they are caveats that describe who has the authority to declassify the material and who is not allowed to see it. These 3 different kinds of descriptors are all delimited from each other by different delimiters (double backslashes and commas). The classification scheme in the recently released document seems to me to be erroneous; SI is not a compartment, as far as I know, and all of the different descriptors are all separated by the same delimiters (commas), implying that they are all of the same importance (which they're not)

Could the genuine document from 2013 have been used as a template by someone to produce a recent disinformation document?

This is an honest question. Has someone already figured this out, one way or the other, and I just haven't heard about it?

Inquiring minds want to know.

a reply to: 1947boomer

You raise valid and serious concerns. It could be a copy of an old piece.

originally posted by: DJW001
a reply to: tadaman

Donald Trump has instructed the Department of Justice to move against a political rival. Who deserves to be locked up?

Since Donald Trump is a President who was elected by the people of this nation, the rivals should be locked up, if they broke laws serious enough to deserve being locked up.

originally posted by: carewemust

originally posted by: DJW001
a reply to: tadaman

Donald Trump has instructed the Department of Justice to move against a political rival. Who deserves to be locked up?

Since Donald Trump is a President who was elected by the people of this nation, the rivals should be locked up, if they broke laws serious enough to deserve being locked up.

Donald Trump lost the popular vote. He was not elected by the people, he was elected by a system devised by slave owners. If he establishes the precedent of jailing political rivals, this country will sink to the level of a banana republic. He, and the congressmen and women who back him, will become vulnerable to the same tactics. Is that what you want?

a reply to: DJW001

Good Lord are we back to "but she won the popular vote" drivel?

If people break laws, there needs to be appropriate justice, do you not agree?

originally posted by: pavil
a reply to: DJW001

Good Lord are we back to "but she won the popular vote" drivel?

If people break laws, there needs to be appropriate justice, do you not agree?

It wasn't popular enough for Hillary.

I think everyone in their right minds agrees with your statement/question.