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: 22
169
<< 19  20  21    23  24  25 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Feb, 2 2018 @ 01:22 PM
link   

originally posted by: Wayfarer

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?


Here you go -
Current Membership - Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court

While the CJ appoints them they are federal judges and were appointed by Presidents from both parties over the years.




posted on Feb, 2 2018 @ 01:22 PM
link   

originally posted by: UKTruth

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.

What are you talking about? Oh wait, you are assuming things about my beliefs again like usual. Ok well no need to address this nonsense any further.



posted on Feb, 2 2018 @ 01:23 PM
link   

originally posted by: AboveBoard

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


IRRELEVANT.

The election was in 2016.


(post by Krazysh0t removed for a serious terms and conditions violation)

posted on Feb, 2 2018 @ 01:24 PM
link   

he [ steele ] "was desperate that Donald Trump not get elected and was passionate about him not being president."


there you have it folks

attempted foriegn interference in the 2016 presidential election

i has no dog in this fight - i is just here to fling poo



posted on Feb, 2 2018 @ 01:24 PM
link   



posted on Feb, 2 2018 @ 01:24 PM
link   

originally posted by: soberbacchus

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.


No thats not all it got wrong.

It has not been proven that Page sought a quid pro quo with billions of dollars going to trump if he lifted sanctions.

All it got right was that page went to russia, which was public knowledge, and that he met with russians, and that the rosenft deal, which was public knowledge, was briefly discussed.

That is a far cry from the claims in the dossier, that he personally met with sechin, that he tried to broker a deal for 19% of roseneft in exchange for lifting the sanctions.

Again, you yourself for pages said Page admitted he met with sechin; you were wrong, as was the dossier.



posted on Feb, 2 2018 @ 01:25 PM
link   

originally posted by: underwerks

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?

Which part of the dossier was corroborated at the FISA hearing for the warrant?
When the FBI knew it was a pack of lies written by a Trump hater paid by the opposition party.



posted on Feb, 2 2018 @ 01:25 PM
link   

originally posted by: shooterbrody

Mueller was instructed to look into russia collusion during the 2016 election and crimes that arose from it.
There was no russia collusion with out the dossier.
No collusion, no investigation.


Is there some meme rife in the GOP that means everyone has to play the thickhead.... deny everything, come what may?
There has been collusion, it's been proved, and it's been Trump's team at various times.
Never mind that, Trump's supporters have already satisfied themselves that collusion isn't a crime...



posted on Feb, 2 2018 @ 01:25 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.




.... and in the FISA courts it seems as well.



posted on Feb, 2 2018 @ 01:25 PM
link   

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
a reply to: projectvxn

It's a shame that pictures of a bunch of men jerking each other off would violate the T&C's because that is a picture of what all you posters look like yammering on about this memo that will change nothing.


I am not sure whats worse.. The image you just described or the fact you are intentionally watching it.

Anything on topic? If not you have a good day as there are many other threads you can go to.
edit on 2-2-2018 by Xcathdra because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 2 2018 @ 01:26 PM
link   

originally posted by: projectvxn

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:


What you and every right winger here sounds like right now:



I'll leave it up to the reader to figure out the common theme.




posted on Feb, 2 2018 @ 01:26 PM
link   

originally posted by: ignorant_ape

he [ steele ] "was desperate that Donald Trump not get elected and was passionate about him not being president."


there you have it folks

attempted foriegn interference in the 2016 presidential election

i has no dog in this fight - i is just here to fling poo

You aren't wrong.
Throw some more poo.



posted on Feb, 2 2018 @ 01:26 PM
link   

originally posted by: AboveBoard

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


Hillary clinton and her team were under FBI investigation in the past, so there should be no problem with Trump being able to wiretap and spy on them now.

Thats the standard you are suggesting right?



posted on Feb, 2 2018 @ 01:27 PM
link   

originally posted by: smurfy

originally posted by: shooterbrody

There has been collusion, it's been proved, and it's been Trump's team at various times..


Ok I'll bite

Please show me the collusion you know for a fact.



posted on Feb, 2 2018 @ 01:27 PM
link   
Another duplicate
edit on 2-2-2018 by pavil because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 2 2018 @ 01:27 PM
link   
Duplicate
edit on 2-2-2018 by pavil because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 2 2018 @ 01:27 PM
link   
Sigh another duplicate don't post whIle moving from WiFi to 4G.....
edit on 2-2-2018 by pavil because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 2 2018 @ 01:27 PM
link   
Duplicate
edit on 2-2-2018 by pavil because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 2 2018 @ 01:27 PM
link   
a reply to: Grambler

It is up to you but the person you are responding to does this in these threads. Runs the conversation in circles in hopes of burying the relevant info we are discussing.

We should probably just let it go and stop responding so we dont help derail the thread.

Your choice of course.




top topics



 
169
<< 19  20  21    23  24  25 >>

log in

join