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.
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.
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.
originally posted by: butcherguy
a reply to: underwerks
Whatever the judge heard
He heard lies.
That is the point of all this.
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.
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.
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.
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
2 - The document this memo is opining over is not released and we have no idea how to confirm it beyond this memo?
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.
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.
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.
That is how spying works? Who else would they source information about secret Russian operations from? An Ouija board?
you make no sense. Getting intelligence from Russian sources is BAD...Lock up all the CIA..
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.
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.
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.
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.
So with that said...why would that translate into cooking up fake information to throw the elected president under the bus?
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
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?
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!"
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.