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: 63
169
<< 60  61  62    64  65  66 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Feb, 4 2018 @ 04:57 PM
link   

originally posted by: RadioRobert
a reply to: soberbacchus




The DOSSIER: 
"The Kremlin insider was unsure of the identities of the PA officials with whom COHEN met secretly in August, or the exact date/s and locations of the meeting/s. " 


You're okay with the feds surveiling you as long as the evidence meets the strenuous verification process of "Someone in Russia says soberbaccus met someone at someone at some point somewhere. They're not sure who, where or when"?



If it has to do with National Security and the President of the United States.

And if the claim is independently verified via further investigation, the FBI then has a right to ask a court for a closer look.




posted on Feb, 4 2018 @ 05:00 PM
link   
a reply to: soberbacchus

They ARE elected to oversee the Justice System.
That is one of their responsibilities.



posted on Feb, 4 2018 @ 05:02 PM
link   

originally posted by: soberbacchus

originally posted by: RadioRobert
a reply to: soberbacchus




The DOSSIER: 
"The Kremlin insider was unsure of the identities of the PA officials with whom COHEN met secretly in August, or the exact date/s and locations of the meeting/s. " 


You're okay with the feds surveiling you as long as the evidence meets the strenuous verification process of "Someone in Russia says soberbaccus met someone at someone at some point somewhere. They're not sure who, where or when"?



If it has to do with National Security and the President of the United States.

And if the claim is independently verified via further investigation, the FBI then has a right to ask a court for a closer look.


I thought the POTUS was not under investigation...
It's scary how far we're apparently willing to abandon the laws protecting our rights as long as it's used against the "right" people/groups...

Can you name the claim in the dossier that is verified by outside intelligence? Independently. Not "Steele shopped the same story to Yahoo!"- Style corroboration.



posted on Feb, 4 2018 @ 05:03 PM
link   

originally posted by: BlueAjah
a reply to: soberbacchus

They ARE elected to oversee the Justice System.
That is one of their responsibilities.


????

And?

The GOP are not engaging in oversight, they are engaging in political stunts at best and an attempt to interfere with a lawful investigation at worst.

Nobody in Congress DEM or GOP is obligated to join Nunes and crew in that effort.



posted on Feb, 4 2018 @ 05:04 PM
link   

originally posted by: RadioRobert

originally posted by: soberbacchus

originally posted by: RadioRobert
a reply to: soberbacchus




The DOSSIER: 
"The Kremlin insider was unsure of the identities of the PA officials with whom COHEN met secretly in August, or the exact date/s and locations of the meeting/s. " 


You're okay with the feds surveiling you as long as the evidence meets the strenuous verification process of "Someone in Russia says soberbaccus met someone at someone at some point somewhere. They're not sure who, where or when"?



If it has to do with National Security and the President of the United States.

And if the claim is independently verified via further investigation, the FBI then has a right to ask a court for a closer look.


I thought the POTUS was not under investigation...
It's scary how far we're apparently willing to abandon the laws protecting our rights as long as it's used against the "right" people/groups...

Can you name the claim in the dossier that is verified by outside intelligence? Independently. Not "Steele shopped the same story to Yahoo!"- Style corroboration.


you can search my posts in thread for the Carter Page recent testimony and links.

No intention of repeating myself every dozen pages.



posted on Feb, 4 2018 @ 05:05 PM
link   

originally posted by: soberbacchus

originally posted by: bigfatfurrytexan
a reply to: soberbacchus

Because they are elected to participate in and represent during the democratic process


And they are doing that.

They are not elected to participate in efforts to derail or obstruct a legitimate investigation through dishonesty with the public.


They are absolutely tasked with oversight of federal agencies of the executive branch by the Constitution. You know, the who!e checks and balances thing you might have learned about in elementary school... To prevent flagrant violations of process or weaponization and politicization of our federal agencies... But that would never happen, right? *cough* IRS *cough, cough*



posted on Feb, 4 2018 @ 05:06 PM
link   
a reply to: soberbacchus

Their investigations have revealed serious abuse of power within the Justice System. It is their responsibility as representatives of the people to identify and stop such abuse. If they shirked that responsibility in order to cover up for the FBI, DOJ, or their political cronies, then THAT would be wrong. That is what the Dems are doing - trying to cover up and stop the public from knowing about the abuses, and thus allow them to continue.



posted on Feb, 4 2018 @ 05:09 PM
link   

originally posted by: BlueAjah
a reply to: soberbacchus

Their investigations have revealed serious abuse of power within the Justice System.


Nope. Lots of bluster, no meat.



posted on Feb, 4 2018 @ 05:12 PM
link   
a reply to: soberbacchus

The meat is there. We have seen it long before it was revealed. The IG is investigating, and hopefully a special prosecutor will be assigned soon. More is coming. The memo is not the end, and is not intended to be all-encompassing. Be patient



posted on Feb, 4 2018 @ 05:18 PM
link   
a reply to: soberbacchus

I am going to go ahead and report to the Feds that you're posting classified information on ATS and that you're employed by the Russians to push this "Russia collusion" narrative to destabilize our democracy. I won't tell them when you said it or what you actually said, but I'm sure as long as they can verify that you once posted on ATS they'll be granted a FISA warrant, so heads up for the blue sedans and strange clicking sounds on the phone!
edit on 4-2-2018 by RadioRobert because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 4 2018 @ 05:56 PM
link   
a reply to: soberbacchus

I can tell by their refusal to participate. Refusal to even stand for soldiers at the SOTU.



posted on Feb, 4 2018 @ 06:33 PM
link   

originally posted by: JBurns

originally posted by: Xcathdra
a reply to: Scrubdog

As a person who has seen them and written them - it is a fraud on the court.


XC..... Don't you love when somebody shoots themselves in the foot? Then again, people pushing their opinion/belief as settled fact has been a hallmark of this entire Russia incident.


Some individuals just get the facts so very wrong. This is the type of assumption that marks their entire case against Trump, though. It is their opinion, which is then repackaged as fact and sent out with a pretty little bow on top.

Case in point, you have indeed written plenty affidavit for search. So what else is this individual (and many other Dems) spouting off as fact (when it is really opinion)? The entire investigation? Material details? Irrelevant details? Who knows, but they have a clear trend at embellishing the truth or parading their opinion as fact

I concur that it is indeed fraud on the court. It is a gross miscarriage of justice that it is allowed to continue


Especially when you consider that Trump's already been cleared by an FBI investigation into him



www.businessinsider.com...

"The FBI says there is no direct connection between Donald Trump and Russia"

theduran.com...

"BBC confirms ‘no evidence found of Trump/Russia collusion’ in FBI probe"


The latest news dismissed the Russia collusion Trump angle. Now they are claiming the entire special counsel is based solely on obstruction of justice for firing Comey. Even though you cant obstruct when exercising constitutional authority and never mind the fact Comey is an administrator and not the field agents in charge of the investigation. Even McCabe testified to Congress no obstruction occurred and Comey's termination had no impact.

So we are once again back to Democrats desperately grasping at straws trying to salvage this sham they created.



posted on Feb, 4 2018 @ 06:39 PM
link   

originally posted by: sdcigarpig
a reply to: Xcathdra

If the information that is classified within the Congress, then yes they can declassify it. However, if said information did not originate within the Legislative branch of the government, then no the Intelligence committee can not declassify that information without the permission of the branch that did such, in this case usually either the head of a department or the Executive branch, namely the President.


Yes they can.

The memo that was recently released was approved by Trump. Had he objected the House would have had a full vote to override and release the memo.

Option 2 is the read it into the Congressional record where the speech and debate clause applies.



posted on Feb, 4 2018 @ 06:41 PM
link   

originally posted by: talisman
Btw, when Rosenstein took Mueller for his interview at the job of running the FBI,
Trump turned him down. The day after Mueller was made Special Prosecutor by Rosenstein.


Mueller was not interviewed to run the FBI. He already maxed out his term and congressional extension and could not be reappointed.



posted on Feb, 4 2018 @ 08:17 PM
link   
Congressional committees were well within their authority to investigate and exercise oversight of the Independent Counsel's behavior.

28 U.S. Code Chapter 40 - INDEPENDENT COUNSEL

* - 28 U.S. Code § 595 - Congressional oversight

(a) Oversight of Conduct of Independent Counsel.—
(1)Congressional oversight.—
The appropriate committees of the Congress shall have oversight jurisdiction with respect to the official conduct of any independent counsel appointed under this chapter, and such independent counsel shall have the duty to cooperate with the exercise of such oversight jurisdiction.

(2)Reports to congress.—
An independent counsel appointed under this chapter shall submit to the Congress annually a report on the activities of the independent counsel, including a description of the progress of any investigation or prosecution conducted by the independent counsel. Such report may omit any matter that in the judgment of the independent counsel should be kept confidential, but shall provide information adequate to justify the expenditures that the office of the independent counsel has made.


(b)Oversight of Conduct of Attorney General.—Within 15 days after receiving an inquiry about a particular case under this chapter, which is a matter of public knowledge, from a committee of the Congress with jurisdiction over this chapter, the Attorney General shall provide the following information to that committee with respect to that case:
(1) When the information about the case was received.
(2) Whether a preliminary investigation is being conducted, and if so, the date it began.
(3) Whether an application for the appointment of an independent counsel or a notification that further investigation is not warranted has been filed with the division of the court, and if so, the date of such filing.

(c)Information Relating to Impeachment.—
An independent counsel shall advise the House of Representatives of any substantial and credible information which such independent counsel receives, in carrying out the independent counsel’s responsibilities under this chapter, that may constitute grounds for an impeachment. Nothing in this chapter or section 49 of this title shall prevent the Congress or either House thereof from obtaining information in the course of an impeachment proceeding.
(Added Pub. L. 95–521, title VI, § 601(a), Oct. 26, 1978, 92 Stat. 1871; amended Pub. L. 97–409, § 2(a)(1), Jan. 3, 1983, 96 Stat. 2139; Pub. L. 100–191, § 2, Dec. 15, 1987, 101 Stat. 1304; Pub. L. 103–270, § 3(g), June 30, 1994, 108 Stat. 734.)



posted on Feb, 4 2018 @ 09:59 PM
link   

originally posted by: bigfatfurrytexan
a reply to: soberbacchus

I can tell by their refusal to participate. Refusal to even stand for soldiers at the SOTU.


When was that? Please cite where in the state of the union that happened?

Or did you just hear about on fox news?

I'll be waiting for a citation. It would a new low if you invented it.
edit on 4-2-2018 by soberbacchus because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 4 2018 @ 10:54 PM
link   

originally posted by: RadioRobert
a reply to: soberbacchus

I am going to go ahead and report to the Feds that you're posting classified information on ATS and that you're employed by the Russians to push this "Russia collusion" narrative to destabilize our democracy.


If I was working for the Next President of the United states and you were a well respected former MI6 agent who had provided credible intelligence before?

Sure, I'd expect them to at least look into it.



posted on Feb, 4 2018 @ 10:54 PM
link   
a reply to: Xcathdra

The dems have moved past grasping at straws to downright delusion. They are literally making up laws that don't even exist.



posted on Feb, 4 2018 @ 10:55 PM
link   
I guess the Dem's sitting stone-faced for the VA reform didn't actually happen. Just Fox reported on it and noticed, so it's obviously not true.



posted on Feb, 4 2018 @ 11:00 PM
link   
a reply to: soberbacchus

The FBI never considered Steele a VERY reliable source. In fact they were doubtful of him and ultimately cut him out of the loop early on.

Steele was vehemently anti Trump and that was part of the concerns raised now that the memo was released.

This is the case since there is now a clear sign that between this source and other such issues with unverified material that gross omissions were made by the FBI and DOJ. These would be critical /material omissions of KNOWN information pertaining to the questionable nature of the sources when the FISA warrants were granted.


edit on 2 4 2018 by tadaman because: (no reason given)



new topics

top topics



 
169
<< 60  61  62    64  65  66 >>

log in

join