It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

House Intelligence FISA memo released: What it says

page: 21
169
<< 18  19  20    22  23  24 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Feb, 2 2018 @ 01:12 PM
link   

originally posted by: Krazysh0t

originally posted by: underwerks

originally posted by: butcherguy

originally posted by: underwerks

originally posted by: butcherguy
a reply to: underwerks



How is that outrageous? You get put under surveillance because of rumors most times, and that's how they collect evidence. That's how investigations work, down to your local PD.

No.
That isn't how the FISA court works.
Rumors don't cut it.



Actually, all that's required is for a judge to sign off on it..


Each application for one of these surveillance warrants (called a FISA warrant) is made before an individual judge of the court. The court may allow third parties to submit briefs as amici curiae. When the U.S. Attorney General determines that an emergency exists, the Attorney General may authorize the emergency employment of electronic surveillance before obtaining the necessary authorization from the FISC, if the Attorney General or their designee notifies a judge of the court at the time of authorization and applies for a warrant as soon as practicable but not more than seven days after authorization of such surveillance, as required by 50 U.S.C. § 1805.


Link

Whether rumor is good enough is up to the judge in question, and the case presented to him.

Then why did McCabe say that they needed the dossier to get the FISA warrant?
Why was a warrant denied previously?

IF a rumor is enough???

I guess a judge didn't agree with it.

Whatever the case, we're arguing over nothing.

Whatever the judge heard, he thought it was important enough to authorize surveillance. And without having access to the same exact information the judge had, neither of us really know anything. I mean, I can speculate all day, but I'm more interested in the facts.

FACTS?!?! What are those things? Only hearsay and slander are admissible evidence in partisan courts.


Indeed - including, in this case, the FISA court.




posted on Feb, 2 2018 @ 01:13 PM
link   

originally posted by: UKTruth

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
a reply to: bigfatfurrytexan

Lol. Suuuuuure. I read the memo. It just makes a bunch of outstanding claims. Great confirmation bias fodder though for this sentence alone:

The “dossier” compiled by Christopher Steele (Steele dossier) on behalf of the Democratic National Committee (DNC) and the Hillary Clinton campaign formed an essential part of the Carter Page FISA application.

Never mind that there is no evidence or arguments presented backing up the essentially of the dossier, but the memo says it so confirmation bias warriors are going to jump on it.


I assume you, therefore, want the SC shut down, right? We've seen no evidence that Russia meddled in the election. So far we only have the intelligence services word on it.

I trust them more than a partisan hack like Devin Nunes who MAGICALLY gets a bug up his butt to investigate FBI mishandling investigations in the middle of an investigation and not after it has finished like how things normally proceed. Somehow this bug doesn't have to do with helping Trump either, someone who benefits IMMENSELY from wanting the investigation to go away.

It's a wonder why you guys think that all the people with motives to make the investigation go away are the more trustworthy party. I wish I could employ a defense like that if -I- were under investigation for something. "I'm not guilty! The police are just corrupt and out to get me! Investigate them!"
edit on 2-2-2018 by Krazysh0t because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 2 2018 @ 01:13 PM
link   

originally posted by: butcherguy
a reply to: underwerks




Whatever the judge heard

He heard lies.
That is the point of all this.

And you know that how?



posted on Feb, 2 2018 @ 01:14 PM
link   
a reply to: soberbacchus

Try improving your reading skills.

When McCabe testified to Congress he claimed the dossier was verified. When pressed on what parts were verified McCabe could only provide Page and Russia. When he was asked about that McCabe said they could only confirm Page traveled to Russia but did not know why or who he met.

* - Carter Page rebuts Democrats latching onto ‘completely false’ Russia dossier

* - Byron York: Frustrated lawmakers pressed FBI's McCabe for answers on Trump dossier. They got nothing.

McCabe was asked to point to anything in the dossier that he knew to be true. McCabe noted that the dossier said, accurately, that the unpaid, low-level Trump foreign policy adviser Carter Page visited Moscow in July 2016.

McCabe's questioners were not impressed. Page's Moscow trip was reported in the press at the time it happened; the simple fact that he was in Russia was not a revelation. Lawmakers reminded McCabe that Page's presence in Moscow was long established and then asked again: Was there anything more in the dossier that McCabe now knows to be true? McCabe, according to sources, said he did not know how to answer the question.

The dossier, of course, reported much more than the fact of Page's travel to Moscow. It said Russians linked to Vladimir Putin offered Page money in exchange for persuading Trump to end U.S. sanctions on Russia. Specifically, it said Page met with Igor Sechin, the Putin-connected head of Rosneft, Russia's giant, state-owned oil company, and also with Igor Divyekin, a top official in the Putin government. The dossier reported that Sechin offered to pay Page or other Trump associates tens of millions of dollars to end the sanctions.

None of that has been verified.


try again



posted on Feb, 2 2018 @ 01:15 PM
link   
TOCK?

hmmmm... and I'm all outta popcorn..



posted on Feb, 2 2018 @ 01:15 PM
link   

originally posted by: LesMisanthrope
If the memo is true, this is banana republic type stuff. These are clear abuses of power, collusion, and attempts to influence a democratic election through surreptitious means, all of it approved by top brass within the previous "scandal free" administration.


All the FISA judges were appointed by Chief Justice John Roberts (you know, that obviously Democratic and Democratic appointed SC justice)..... I guess we're going to have to throw him in the gulag too eh comrade?



posted on Feb, 2 2018 @ 01:15 PM
link   
The reason the D's didn't want the memo released ?

Because they didn't want you knowing they paid for this snip!

To the tune of $1,000,000.

And blown a hell of a lot more over the course of a year.


NATSEC ?

Not a damn thing to do with.



posted on Feb, 2 2018 @ 01:15 PM
link   

originally posted by: LesMisanthrope

originally posted by: Abysha

originally posted by: Xcathdra

originally posted by: Abysha
I just want to make sure I'm absorbing this all correctly since things have been happening at a pace that is difficult to keep up with and I don't even know what I'm looking at sometimes, lol.


Its cool no worries.



originally posted by: Abysha
1 - The memo is basically a GOP op-ed? What makes this more legit than say the DNC version of this that hasn't been released?

It was drafted by the intelligence committee. Nothing in the memo is disputed. Democrats argue its out of context. The intel committee unanimously voted to approve the Democratic memo for release to the full house. They have to go through the exact same process Republicans did. Democrats apparently dont like that.



originally posted by: Abysha
2 - The document this memo is opining over is not released and we have no idea how to confirm it beyond this memo?
The dossier was released. It was published by Buzzfeed. It has NOT been corroborated and several people now have stated that under oath to the congressional committees investigating this mess. The memo released today revealed the FBI/DOJ knew it was not verified / corroborated.



originally posted by: Abysha
3 - Even the memo states that the Steele thing wasn't the only corroborating factor for the warrant. Am I reading that right?

Partially. Steele and Fusiongps shopped the dossier around to media outlets to report on it. The media reports were then used as "corroboration / credibility" to the dossier itself (called circular reporting). With that said the first 2 times they tried to obtain a FISA warrant they were denied by the court. The 3rd time used the dossier and the warrant was granted. I maintain there was nothing else supporting the dossier. Others think the info from the first 2 times supported the dossier to the extent of granting the warrant.



originally posted by: Abysha
4 - Is this release just a preemptive cushion to assuage the impact of future findings by the FBI since their reputation in the eyes of some is essentially "fake news"?

That all depends on how you see the information thus far. Personally I think the whole trump russia collusion narrative is bs and is done by democrats who were butt hurt that Clinton lost.



originally posted by: Abysha
In any case, this is a mess. I'm hoping this last year has at least accomplished one thing: making third-party folk (like the Green Party and the Libertarian Party) legitimately viable options in 2020.

Agreed.



Thank you for the catch-up. It's definitely one of those things I'll reserve judgement on until the dust settles, I think.


It's for the best. The rhetoric on both sides have only served to obfuscate the reality here.

All I know is, looking at the press for the past couple years, only one side of the rhetoric has gotten any airplay, while the rest is dismissed out of hand.


The blueberry kool-aid might be easier to find than the raspberry kool-aid but they are both full of food coloring and you know it's all garbage when you forget to add the sugar.

I'm gonna just stick to water for a while, lol.



posted on Feb, 2 2018 @ 01:16 PM
link   

originally posted by: Grambler
a reply to: soberbacchus

Again, you have not ressponded to the fact that the dossier was wrong; Page never met with sechin.

This is no small matter.

You dont get to say well page met with someone and discussed something, so this proves that even though the dossier had the names wrong and the specifics of the discussion havent been proved, it is corroborated.


Hillarious...You set the bar at exact.

The Dossier claimed:

Page was in Moscow on X date (Check and public)
Page met with Igor Sechin (He met with Sechin's VP #2 and head of investments) miss?
Page discussed lifting US Sanctions (Page admitted to discussing sanctions)
Page discussed trading a stake in the rosneft deal in trade for US sanction policy (Page admitted discussing Rosneft deal)

All of these admissions came after nearly a year of denying the same and are now part of the congressional record.

So...The Dossier was how much correct? How Much incorrect? and how much unknown?

The Dossier only got CEO vs. VP of Rosneft wrong.
It got the time, place, company execs, topics of a secret meeting with Carter Page all correct.
Despite Page initially denying it.

Your claim that we only know that he was in Moscow is bunk.



posted on Feb, 2 2018 @ 01:16 PM
link   

originally posted by: soberbacchus





Source please?



Russian interference in the 2016 election has gotten an enormous amount of U.S. media attention. But Russia has been intervening in foreign elections for decades. Has it been effective?

We decided to find out. To assess the impact of Russian meddling, we put together and examined a data set of all 27 Russian electoral interventions since 1991.

We identified two waves of Russian meddling since the early 1990s. The first wave lasted until 2014 and targeted only post-Soviet countries. Since then, a second wave has expanded dramatically into established Western democracies.


www.washingtonpost.com... term=.13de6c32986c







That is how spying works? Who else would they source information about secret Russian operations from? An Ouija board?


I am glad you find using kremlin sourced to get dirt to prove the other side used kremlin sources to get dirt is a reasonable strategy.

I do not find it so. If getting dirt from russians is wrong, its wrong on all sides.






you make no sense. Getting intelligence from Russian sources is BAD...Lock up all the CIA..




So then why was the trump tower meeting with don jr bad? He was just trying to get intel from russia.
edit on 2-2-2018 by Grambler because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 2 2018 @ 01:17 PM
link   

originally posted by: UKTruth

originally posted by: Krazysh0t

originally posted by: underwerks

originally posted by: butcherguy

originally posted by: underwerks

originally posted by: butcherguy
a reply to: underwerks



How is that outrageous? You get put under surveillance because of rumors most times, and that's how they collect evidence. That's how investigations work, down to your local PD.

No.
That isn't how the FISA court works.
Rumors don't cut it.



Actually, all that's required is for a judge to sign off on it..


Each application for one of these surveillance warrants (called a FISA warrant) is made before an individual judge of the court. The court may allow third parties to submit briefs as amici curiae. When the U.S. Attorney General determines that an emergency exists, the Attorney General may authorize the emergency employment of electronic surveillance before obtaining the necessary authorization from the FISC, if the Attorney General or their designee notifies a judge of the court at the time of authorization and applies for a warrant as soon as practicable but not more than seven days after authorization of such surveillance, as required by 50 U.S.C. § 1805.


Link

Whether rumor is good enough is up to the judge in question, and the case presented to him.

Then why did McCabe say that they needed the dossier to get the FISA warrant?
Why was a warrant denied previously?

IF a rumor is enough???

I guess a judge didn't agree with it.

Whatever the case, we're arguing over nothing.

Whatever the judge heard, he thought it was important enough to authorize surveillance. And without having access to the same exact information the judge had, neither of us really know anything. I mean, I can speculate all day, but I'm more interested in the facts.

FACTS?!?! What are those things? Only hearsay and slander are admissible evidence in partisan courts.


Indeed - including, in this case, the FISA court.

Where are they? I hadn't heard the full 60 page document that this memo summarizes was released? Just the partisan confirmation bias toilet paper that was released today.



posted on Feb, 2 2018 @ 01:17 PM
link   

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
a reply to: Grambler

The memo makes a lot of claims. None of which I believe.


Thats fine if you dont believe it.

I only have a problem with those that do believe it, but find it no big deal.


+4 more 
posted on Feb, 2 2018 @ 01:17 PM
link   

originally posted by: Krazysh0t

originally posted by: underwerks

originally posted by: butcherguy

originally posted by: underwerks

originally posted by: butcherguy
a reply to: underwerks



How is that outrageous? You get put under surveillance because of rumors most times, and that's how they collect evidence. That's how investigations work, down to your local PD.

No.
That isn't how the FISA court works.
Rumors don't cut it.



Actually, all that's required is for a judge to sign off on it..


Each application for one of these surveillance warrants (called a FISA warrant) is made before an individual judge of the court. The court may allow third parties to submit briefs as amici curiae. When the U.S. Attorney General determines that an emergency exists, the Attorney General may authorize the emergency employment of electronic surveillance before obtaining the necessary authorization from the FISC, if the Attorney General or their designee notifies a judge of the court at the time of authorization and applies for a warrant as soon as practicable but not more than seven days after authorization of such surveillance, as required by 50 U.S.C. § 1805.


Link

Whether rumor is good enough is up to the judge in question, and the case presented to him.

Then why did McCabe say that they needed the dossier to get the FISA warrant?
Why was a warrant denied previously?

IF a rumor is enough???

I guess a judge didn't agree with it.

Whatever the case, we're arguing over nothing.

Whatever the judge heard, he thought it was important enough to authorize surveillance. And without having access to the same exact information the judge had, neither of us really know anything. I mean, I can speculate all day, but I'm more interested in the facts.

FACTS?!?! What are those things? Only hearsay and slander are admissible evidence in partisan courts.


You DO realize that ATS is a discussion board, and not some kind of court, right? So you can push that Grand Soapbox of Hyperbole back under the staircase, as its not really needed here.

We have something to discuss. We are discussing it. WHich is what ATS is for: discussing conspiracy



posted on Feb, 2 2018 @ 01:17 PM
link   

originally posted by: Grambler

originally posted by: soberbacchus

originally posted by: Grambler
a reply to: soberbacchus

Please show me where Page admitted meeting sechin.

I see that he denied in it testimony.


One of those was Igor Sechin, the CEO of the Rosneft oil company, which is majority owned by the Russian government. According to the dossier, Sechin and Page had a secret meeting on Moscow on either July 7 or July 8, at which Sechin offered Trump associates a large stake in his company and Page said Trump would lift US sanctions on Rosneft if elected.

Page contemptuously denied all of this, straightforwardly asserting that he’s never met Sechin in a way that sounded more or less believable.

But then, under questioning, Page admitted that during that trip, he met with one of Sechin’s subordinates — Andrey Baranov, the head of investor relations at Rosneft, with whom he had a preexisting relationship.


www.vox.com...

I will await your proof that this article is false and Page testified he did meet sechin.



Right...Page met with Sechin's VP of Investments and discussed both the Rosneft Deal and US Sanctions.

He did not meet with Sechin (As far as we know) directly.

Steele himself has said he thinks the intelligence he gathered is 70-80% accurate.

As it stands YOU falsely claimed:


So far, we know things such as Page was in russia is true, which was public knowledge.

Thats about it regarding page.


The Dossier said Page, while in Moscow met with Sechin (Inaccurate, he met with Sechin's #2 and head of investments)
to discuss trading stakes in the Oil Giant Rosneft in trade for Trump to lift US Sanctions.

Page has since admitted under oath:
While in Moscow he met with Sechin's #2 and discussed the Rosneft Deal and US Sanctions, but did not elaborate.

The Dossier was pretty damn accurate with the exception that Carrter Page met with the VP instead of Pres. of Rosneft.
And it was right about discussion topics. Sanctions, Trump, Rosneft deal.
Whether a trade was proposed we still don't know.


So you seek to disprove my claim by showing proof that the dossier was wrong; Page never met with sechin.

Very strange.


Hey it's all they got.....

Dems: " I kept telling you Steele's Dossier wasn't accurate".

It's truly comical.



posted on Feb, 2 2018 @ 01:18 PM
link   
a reply to: bigfatfurrytexan


Investigations into foreign meddling? You mean we pay them all that money and it never occured to them before that this was going on? After we do it ourselves, the theives didn't even think to lock their doors?

Of course it should be investigated and monitored. Should have been all along. The fact that it wasn't is a HUGE black eye to the Federal Government to begin with.


I'm not sure I understand what you're trying to say here. That USIC was caught with its pants down? That's an odd sentiment because on the one hand, you're essentially saying that they're not doing their jobs but on the other hand, that doing their jobs — investigating said interference — is politically motivated. It's kind of a damned if you do, damned if you don't situation, no?

I think it's inherent problem when you've got this foreign interference AND there are members of a campaign staff with a past linking them to spies of that foreign government (e.g. Carter Page and the spy ring that was grooming him as an asset in 2013-14) who is throwing up serious red flags. To do their jobs in their case, they have to do something (investigate Page in this case) that will be instantly viewed as "politically motivated" because he had been part of the campaign.

I would argue that NOT investigating Carter Page would be dereliction of their duty.


So with that said...why would that translate into cooking up fake information to throw the elected president under the bus?


Explain again what about the surveillance of Carter Page was, "cooking up fake information" let along doing so "to throw the elected president under the bus?" That's not even an allegation that's seriously on the table after reading the memo. The allegation is essentially that the FBI/DOJ officials who composed the FISA warrant didn't adequately inform the FISC judge as to the nature of some of the information that was included in the warrant application.

There's nothing in the memo that comes close to showing that an intent to do harm to Donald Trump. Just allegations about bias based on dubious interpretations of Strzok's text messages and the memo doesn't even connect any dots between Strzok and the FISA warrant application OR *any* dealings with Christopher Steele.

It's a neat slight of hand trick I guess — to collocate the bits about the FISA warrant, the FBI & Steele and the seemingly unrelated Strzok texts (interpretations of the texts) so that they're easily conflated in the minds of the audience.



posted on Feb, 2 2018 @ 01:18 PM
link   

originally posted by: neo96
a reply to: AboveBoard




No. He’s been under surveillance since 2014.


Because it isn't true.



The FBI obtained a secret court order last summer to monitor the communications of an adviser to presidential candidate Donald Trump, part of an investigation into possible links between Russia and the campaign, law enforcement and other U.S. officials said.



DX


Annnd I'm trying to tell you that he was under surveillance re: his interactions with Russian spies since at least 2014, if not 2013. He's been on the radar of the CI for many years, and prior to being involved in Trump's campaign.

Link



posted on Feb, 2 2018 @ 01:19 PM
link   

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
a reply to: Grambler

The memo makes a lot of claims. None of which I believe.


What you and every democrat sound like right now:




posted on Feb, 2 2018 @ 01:19 PM
link   
a reply to: Wayfarer




All the FISA judges were appointed by Chief Justice John Roberts (you know, that obviously Democratic and Democratic appointed SC justice)..... I guess we're going to have to throw him in the gulag too eh comrade?


If we were to make specious connections, make guilty by association for long enough, it might just work. You get started on that.



posted on Feb, 2 2018 @ 01:21 PM
link   

originally posted by: Krazysh0t

originally posted by: UKTruth

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
a reply to: bigfatfurrytexan

Lol. Suuuuuure. I read the memo. It just makes a bunch of outstanding claims. Great confirmation bias fodder though for this sentence alone:

The “dossier” compiled by Christopher Steele (Steele dossier) on behalf of the Democratic National Committee (DNC) and the Hillary Clinton campaign formed an essential part of the Carter Page FISA application.

Never mind that there is no evidence or arguments presented backing up the essentially of the dossier, but the memo says it so confirmation bias warriors are going to jump on it.


I assume you, therefore, want the SC shut down, right? We've seen no evidence that Russia meddled in the election. So far we only have the intelligence services word on it.

I trust them more than a partisan hack like Devin Nunes who MAGICALLY gets a bug up his butt to investigate FBI mishandling investigations in the middle of an investigation and not after it has finished like how things normally proceed. Somehow this bug doesn't have to do with helping Trump either, someone who benefits IMMENSELY from wanting the investigation to go away.

It's a wonder why you guys think that all the people with motives to make the investigation go away are the more trustworthy party. I wish I could employ a defense like that if -I- were under investigation for something. "I'm not guilty! The police are just corrupt and out to get me! Investigate them!"


Ah, I see, so as long as your own confirmation bias is met, no evidence is needed. But when it's not, you cite the requirement for evidence. Thanks for clearing that up for us.



posted on Feb, 2 2018 @ 01:21 PM
link   

originally posted by: theantediluvian

originally posted by: Asktheanimals
TLDR version:
The FBI and Democratic party used Fusion GPS to obtain fraudulent warrants from the FISA court to spy on the President-elect Donald Trump and his campaign.

Mueller, Comey, McCabe and many top Democrats colluded on this.


Perhaps you should refrain from TLDR anything. This part is entirely false:

"to spy on the President-elect Donald Trump and his campaign."

As proven BY THE MEMO, ironically enough. The FISA warrant app was submitted and approved on October 21st, 2016. Carter Page had left the campaign a month earlier. So that's just materially false.


What the Hell kind of mental gynasticks is that?

PAGE LEFT THE CAMPAIGN. How the eff is Trump guilty of snip?



new topics

top topics



 
169
<< 18  19  20    22  23  24 >>

log in

join