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: 71
169
<< 68  69  70    72  73  74 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Feb, 6 2018 @ 10:15 AM
link   
a reply to: face23785

As usual you’re missing information. I refer you to this thread:

www.abovetopsecret.com...




posted on Feb, 6 2018 @ 10:19 AM
link   

originally posted by: carewemust

WHY is it a big deal AT THIS TIME that the Trump-Russia Dossier was used to obtain a FISA spy warrant on C. Page, when this was first reported waaaay back in April of 2017?


The FBI used information from the explosive, unverified dossier detailing President Donald Trump's alleged ties to Russia to obtain a warrant to secretly monitor former Trump adviser Carter Page.


Source Article - dtd 4.18.2017: www.businessinsider.com...


I still don't understand why Congressmen are so enraged now...like its the first time they have found this out.



posted on Feb, 6 2018 @ 10:57 AM
link   
a reply to: Xcathdra

I know about the Times wanting the rest of it, the warrant and all of the evidence to where it can look at and report such, as the President did let the cat out of the bag, at the request of the Republicans.

But this is not about Justice, it never has been. When this Memo came out, the cry was that there was an injustice being done, that the FBI and DOJ were overstepping their bounds and abusing their authority. A bold accusation, building up the hype, even getting it into the news, people and bots on Twitter all sending out Release the memo tweets. And the President agreed to it. So it was voted on and then sent up, and then the President signed off on it. Then it was that the FBI did not let the Judges know that the reason the last warrant was due to opposition research.

And now it appears as though the Judges who approved, and those who signed off on the warrant, knew some of the information was coming from opposition research.

If Nunes and those hyping the memo had been truthful, completely, then it would look like they were wanting justice. But they did not and thus my conclusion is that this is all political.

Neither political party are angels. This is all political in nature and only for one benefit right now themselves, as it is an election year and they are trying to show the public why they should get to remain in their cushy jobs that none in congress really deserve.



posted on Feb, 6 2018 @ 11:44 AM
link   

originally posted by: MOMof3
a reply to: Xcathdra

Judging evidence and ruling evidence as illegal is part of the job. There were four judges, all perusing same documents. Pretty stupid judges if they didn’t notice an incendiary document like the dossier, especially about the president.


In this case you are incorrect. The issue centers on what the FBI / DOJ put in the warrant application and what they told the judge. In this case they did note in the application that the material was gathered from "political sources". What they did NOT put in the application was who those political sources were.

I guarantee had the FISA judge been provided with those facts, that the info came from the DNC / FusionGPS / Chris Steele and the Clinton campaign and that the Clinton camp and the DNC paid for it, it would not have been granted. We know this because the FBI / DOJ chose to lie by omitting that very relevant information. As has been stated a few times now in order to get a FISA warrant against a US citizen all information used must be verified/corroborated (Woods protocol).

NONE of that was done.
edit on 6-2-2018 by Xcathdra because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 6 2018 @ 11:50 AM
link   
a reply to: sdcigarpig

and given all available public information the FBI and DOJ did in fact overstep their bounds. That was evident when Comey went on the news and decided to act as the Attorney General when he decided she would not be charged. Its been downhill since them and every day more incriminating evidence comes out further detailing the FBI / DOJ / Obama admin crimes in this.



posted on Feb, 6 2018 @ 11:52 AM
link   

originally posted by: Grambler

originally posted by: soberbacchus
a reply to: Xcathdra

You have jumped the shark with your citations lately.

You are posting a ton of outright FAKENEWS.

Your source is a know Fake News site and has a long list of debunked news stories.

SNOPES even has a page dedicate to them:
www.snopes.com...





In this instance, the conservatove treehouse is wrong, Page was not UCE 1, he was Male 1. He wasnt an fbi employee, but he was a witness that was accused of no wrong doing by the FBI>

WHo cares what snopes says, they are a left wing shill site that is wrong all of the time.


What changed? - www.abovetopsecret.com...



posted on Feb, 6 2018 @ 12:13 PM
link   
a reply to: AndyFromMichigan

That's what I am thinking. I checked out Carter Page's Wikipedia page when all this started, and I was a little surprised how he seems to float from one position to another. I read about someone who was pretty successful at not being successful but yet had managed to obtain a PhD degree.


After leaving Merrill Lynch in 2008, Page founded his own investment fund, Global Energy Capital with partner James Richard and a former mid-level Gazprom executive, Sergei Yatsenko. The fund operates out of a Manhattan co-working space shared with a booking agency for wedding bands, and as of late 2017, Page was the firm's sole employee. Other businesspeople working in the Russian energy sector said in 2016 that the fund had yet to actually realize a project.
Bolding mine to accentuate the relevant details.

This is a front business. It exists only to give Page something to claim he does. It's not even covered up good.

Your revelation makes total and complete sense to me. This rabbit hole just opened up a few new chambers.

TheRedneck



posted on Feb, 6 2018 @ 12:17 PM
link   

originally posted by: Xcathdra

originally posted by: Grambler

originally posted by: soberbacchus
a reply to: Xcathdra

You have jumped the shark with your citations lately.

You are posting a ton of outright FAKENEWS.

Your source is a know Fake News site and has a long list of debunked news stories.

SNOPES even has a page dedicate to them:
www.snopes.com...





In this instance, the conservatove treehouse is wrong, Page was not UCE 1, he was Male 1. He wasnt an fbi employee, but he was a witness that was accused of no wrong doing by the FBI>

WHo cares what snopes says, they are a left wing shill site that is wrong all of the time.


What changed? - www.abovetopsecret.com...


If you look through theantedilluvian and my conversation on that thread, you will see that Page testified, and reinforced last night in an interview, that he was Male 1.

I thought male 1 was UCE 1, but its not.

If you read through the FBI original filing, which I linked on that page later, it clearly outlines Male 1, which directlly adds up with Pages story. It says he was a business guy, who had a conversation with these russians, but was unaware of their criminal idea, and he was not accused of wrong doing, but eventually tetsifed for the FBI.

That document also outlines a seperate person called CS 1, who directly almost word for word matches up with the description of UCE in the consrevative treehouse article.

In other words, Male 1, who is page, is a different person than UCE 1, who was a FBI employee working undercover starting in 2012 to spy on the russian criminals.



posted on Feb, 6 2018 @ 12:19 PM
link   
a reply to: Grambler

Gotcha.. thanks for the clarification.



posted on Feb, 6 2018 @ 12:27 PM
link   
a reply to: Grambler

This makes it all the more suspicious that the FBI knew back in 2014 that Carter Page was not a Russian agent, but in 2016 he very conveniently becomes suspicious again just in time to start the current McCarthy-ish Red Scare.



posted on Feb, 6 2018 @ 12:38 PM
link   

originally posted by: MOMof3
a reply to: face23785

As usual you’re missing information. I refer you to this thread:

www.abovetopsecret.com...


I'm not missing that at all. What you're missing is that Nunez acknowledged the application contained a vague reference to political parties that left out key information, which is exactly what I've been saying. Funny how that works, you link to something that says what I've been saying, but I'm missing it. And the Democrats don't dispute that. They're pretending that vague reference was good enough, but they're not disputing that it was only a vague reference and the fact that the dossier was funded by Clinton and the DNC was left out. And that's not even taking into account that the dossier was "corroborated" by a Yahoo News story that was based on the dossier and wasn't even independent reporting.

Look, I realize this Trump-Russia myth has been a vital security blanket for you this past year. It sucks having Trump as your president, but there was still that hope that he was installed by Russia (that's a sick thing to hope for) and that he would be impeached. It's time to face reality though. This narrative is collapsing by the day. Your masters took advantage of the fact that you badly needed something to believe besides the fact that Trump was freely and fairly elected and they played you. It sucks, but everybody gets played sometimes. You need to let go and move on. I promise the world will keep turning.



posted on Feb, 6 2018 @ 12:48 PM
link   

originally posted by: MOMof3
a reply to: face23785

You have your opinion but I will trust the judges. They aren’t that dumb.


You're wrong. And it's not that they're all that dumb. It's because in a warrant application they rule on what is placed before them. They can not investigate. That is not their job. So the process is incumbent on honest and good-faith presentation of the facts. Courts have established that if an officer of the court (prosecutor or law enforcement, in this case) presents information with reckless disregard, the warrant may be invalidated. Reckless dosregard can happen by omission (suppresses information that a "reasonable person" would think "the judge would wish to know" -- like the origin of the information from an anti-Trump investigator paid for by the Clinton's) or by assertion (when "viewing all the evidence, the affiant must have entertained serious doubts as to the truth of his statements OR had obvious reasons to doubt the accuracy of what he reported").

Does that mean the warrant will/should be thrown out? Well, not necessarily. We have to see what exactly they included and how it was presented. Did they admit that parts of the same dossier they used was knowingly false of unverified? Or did they present the dossier in whole or in part? The FBI obviously had reasons to doubt Steele's reliability at one point as they terminated their relationship because they learned he was a hack, peddling off stories to the press. Did they ever mention that? It also depends on what other evidence they produced. IF a judge were to toss the dossier, does probable cause still exist to believe Page was a foreign agent? Probably not, because they were denied at least twice previously, but we don't know that until we see the other evidence.

Side note: this responsibility of law enforcemsnf extends in a trial; the defense has the benefit of playing out their own case and providing exculpatory evidence. The prosecution (and law enforcement by proxy) is even obligated by law to provide you, the defendant, with any exculpatory evidence they may have found. That is just a fancy word to say, if there is anything they learned that might tend to make someone believe the accused is innocent, they must provide it to the defense-- even if the defense didn't ask. AND even if the authorities don't believe the information is credible, they must still provide it to you.



posted on Feb, 6 2018 @ 12:51 PM
link   

originally posted by: AndyFromMichigan
a reply to: Grambler

This makes it all the more suspicious that the FBI knew back in 2014 that Carter Page was not a Russian agent, but in 2016 he very conveniently becomes suspicious again just in time to start the current McCarthy-ish Red Scare.


Yes thats exactly it.

This means in a matter of months they went from believing his testimony enough to use it against a russian criminal, to accusing page himself of being a russian agent.

remember, the fisa application against page is alleged to be a title 1 application to spy directly on him, which means that they had to prove more than russians were trying to cultivate him, they had to show that Page likely was a russian agent.

Nothing in the dossier suggests that. And if the FBi had proof of that in October of 2016, why has Page still yet to be charged with anything?



posted on Feb, 6 2018 @ 01:29 PM
link   
Careful the EU on relying on these memos coming out ... If you read them carefully you can see the deception !



posted on Feb, 6 2018 @ 02:10 PM
link   

originally posted by: Flanker86
Careful the EU on relying on these memos coming out ... If you read them carefully you can see the deception !


My universal translator is malfunctioning... Can you try that again and explain how the EU is involved in an internal memo from the US Congress?



posted on Feb, 6 2018 @ 02:11 PM
link   
a reply to: Xcathdra

Knowing what we know about the FBI and the DOJ, they did not release all of the information. And if Comey was working for the Democrats, then why did he release a statement, that probably cost Clinton the election? Why did Comey not come out and release the information that there was evidence that Russia was helping the Republicans win the elections in 2016? They had the information, they knew about it, even actively looking and investigating such, having various members under surviellence at the time. Why not release it then, instead of now?



posted on Feb, 6 2018 @ 02:14 PM
link   
NM

edit on 2 6 2018 by tadaman because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 6 2018 @ 02:34 PM
link   

originally posted by: sdcigarpig
a reply to: Xcathdra

Knowing what we know about the FBI and the DOJ, they did not release all of the information. And if Comey was working for the Democrats, then why did he release a statement, that probably cost Clinton the election? Why did Comey not come out and release the information that there was evidence that Russia was helping the Republicans win the elections in 2016? They had the information, they knew about it, even actively looking and investigating such, having various members under surviellence at the time. Why not release it then, instead of now?



I don't necessarily believe that Comey was deliberately working with the Democrats in some conspiracy against Trump. But just to play devil's advocate, there could be a lot of reasons for this. For one, real people don't always act in a manner in these kind of schemes that you would expect if you were watching a TV drama. Maybe he didn't think his statement would affect Clinton that much, because being so close to the election most people would already have made up their minds by then. Maybe he thought she was so far ahead that it wouldn't matter and he was just trying to make himself look even-handed. There could be all kinds of reasons.



posted on Feb, 6 2018 @ 02:34 PM
link   
a reply to: sdcigarpig

Because up until about midnight, give or take, on election night it was assumed Clinton was going to win. Also Comey testified to Congress that if any new info popped up he would investigate it. Since the emails were discovered by the NYPD and not the FBI the FBI couldnt control the information the NYPD had.



posted on Feb, 6 2018 @ 03:13 PM
link   
a reply to: RadioRobert

You know the judges? And all the evidence? You were there to witness court proceedings?




top topics



 
169
<< 68  69  70    72  73  74 >>

log in

join