Trump Attorneys Approve of Second Special Counsel To Probe FBI and DOJ

*FISA warrant should it be released? and what about a second special counsel?*

**

Presidents attorneys have addressed this and said yes to a second special counsel.

FISA: That document along with any other that the House Intelligence Committee chooses to vote out of its committee through its process and all the House procedures, we would entertain like anything else.

www.zerohedge.com...

Now just to be clear, this isnt them saying there is a second special counsel coming, only that they want one.

I personally do not like these special counsels; didnt like them against trump, dont really want them now.

However, seeing as how we already have the one against trump, it seems that there is just as many questions as to the behavior of the doj and fbi, so perhaps a special counsel should be formed.

It is clear not only that there is smoke around how these agencies acted, but also that they continue to stinewall oversight committees, and try to keep the public from seeing anything that may be critical of them.

And surely all of those that have cheered for the Muellers investigation, and said anyone interested in solving corruption should not be against it, I am sure those same people would welcome this second special counsel.

a reply to: Grambler

I suspect after the DOJ IG's findings come out...there will be calls for a special prosecutor.


No need before then.

I don't know what the best legal procedure is to indict those guilty of spying on American citizens for partisan purposes but I hope Trump goes for the throat. The trail on this fiasco goes all the way to the top, past Comey, Hillary, Steele, Ohr, Fusion GPS. Not only was the original FISA warrant based on made up allegations but the 3 subsequent renewals were all based on fraud and deceit.

If we do not punish those responsible we might as well call the swamp the Republic and resign ourselves to memories of freedom and liberty. A pass now will only seal the power of the deep state to remain beyond reach.

a reply to: Grambler

I wonder if we will hear any grumbling from "them"? "They" have been all about letting the investigation continue, and being a fair and honest endeavor.

I welcome it, as this needs to be uncovered, and prosecuted if true.

Do you know how hard it is to find someone to prosecute law enforcement? And even if you find a prosecutor willing to prosecute their brothers di you know how hard it will be to get a conviction?

a reply to: Grambler

Republican leaders are acknowledging that the FBI disclosed the political origins of a private dossier the bureau cited in an application to surveil former Trump campaign adviser Carter Page, undermining a controversial GOP memo released Friday and fueling Democratic demands to declassify more information about the bureau’s actions.

House Intelligence Committee Chairman Devin Nunes said Monday that the FBI had disclosed possible political backing for a Trump-Russia dossier in October 2016, but a controversial GOP memo released last week did not mention it.

So like I was saying. It's the fisa courts that are the problem. ..

Judge disputed pundits who claimed the FISA court has a threshold when it comes to allowing surveillance. Napolitano called the court a "rubber stamp".

The FISA court grants 99%+ of all requests for warrants and only hears from one side of each case, the governments. As a result, its proceedings have been plagued by falsehoods. In 2002, The FISA court complained that FBI agents made more than 75 false or misleading claims to secure warrants; a top FBI counterrorism official was prohibited from ever appearing there again.

originally posted by: iwanttobelieve70


Do you know how hard it is to find someone to prosecute law enforcement? And even if you find a prosecutor willing to prosecute their brothers di you know how hard it will be to get a conviction?

There has to be a scenario when the top of the Federal Law Enforcement and Prosecution has violated the Constitution...

Who would step in to replace the upper echelon of DOJ/FBI while enemies domestic are reaping what they have sown?

a reply to: luthier

You get no argument from me; I am against the fisa courts.

However, in this situation, we have the FBI taking hullary paid for unveiried dossier to them to get a warrant, and that warrants invetsigation.

a reply to: Grambler

And it seems like the judges knew this as even nunes has stated. Which directly contradicts his memo.

originally posted by: luthier
a reply to: Grambler

And it seems like the judges knew this as even nunes has stated. Which directly contradicts his memo.

No no one has alleged that the court knew hillary paid for this dossier.

They said a footnote said it was connected to a political entity.

Why would they not mention Hillarys teeam or the DNC?

And even aside from that, there is still the problem of the fbi presenting the info as if it was verified when several top feds are suppoded to have said it was only minimally so.

originally posted by: Grambler

originally posted by: luthier
a reply to: Grambler

And it seems like the judges knew this as even nunes has stated. Which directly contradicts his memo.

No no one has alleged that the court knew hillary paid for this dossier.

They said a footnote said it was connected to a political entity.

Why would they not mention Hillarys teeam or the DNC?

And even aside from that, there is still the problem of the fbi presenting the info as if it was verified when several top feds are suppoded to have said it was only minimally so.

No Nunes said it was a footnote.

That alone contradicts the memo.

We actually have no idea so stop projecting the FBI didn't inform the FISA court.

The FISA courts are incredibly easy to obtan warrants and violate the 4th.

a reply to: luthier

This is something Snowden tweeted the other day. 99 percent of FISA requests are granted. He also tweeted...I believe it was him or Assange, that this is the first time the government has actually publicly admitted that FISA warrants even exist.

So if this is commonplace knowledge (within the government) as it appears to be, that is the FBI can basically use any flimsy excuse to obtain a FISA warrant, then this memo is the opening to take down and destroy the whole FISA warrant process. Or...it is an attempt to have the Russian investigation shut down sort of under threat of taking the whole system down. If I'm not mistaken, this is already a constitutional crisis! How can FISA, with it's completely compromised processes, be allowed to continue? Also both sides knew all about this and let it go on for how long?

a reply to: tiredoflooking

It's a public debated process. The fisa amendment bills are on record.

Nunes and gowdy both voted three weeks ago to expand fisa while having this memo ready to go.

a reply to: luthier

OK... but never before has the public had a behind the scenes look at what exactly goes on. You have judges in your comment above quoted making complaints about FBI methods. This is just a big eye opener for the public, behind the scenes, if you will.

originally posted by: luthier

originally posted by: Grambler

originally posted by: luthier
a reply to: Grambler

And it seems like the judges knew this as even nunes has stated. Which directly contradicts his memo.

No no one has alleged that the court knew hillary paid for this dossier.

They said a footnote said it was connected to a political entity.

Why would they not mention Hillarys teeam or the DNC?

And even aside from that, there is still the problem of the fbi presenting the info as if it was verified when several top feds are suppoded to have said it was only minimally so.

No Nunes said it was a footnote.

That alone contradicts the memo.

We actually have no idea so stop projecting the FBI didn't inform the FISA court.

The FISA courts are incredibly easy to obtan warrants and violate the 4th.

I find your stance to be hilarious.

You are against the fisa court, so vehemently downplay calling out the abuse in the current situation.

I do have an idea, I siad that no one has claimed since the release of the memo that has seen it that the fbi mehtioned the dnc or Hillarys team paying for it.

Pl;ease link me to that claim.

originally posted by: tiredoflooking
a reply to: luthier

OK... but never before has the public had a behind the scenes look at what exactly goes on. You have judges in your comment above quoted making complaints about FBI methods. This is just a big eye opener for the public, behind the scenes, if you will.

If you are not new to politics you would have seen the debates since 911. When the first abuses started coming to light. It was reported during ashcroft.
www.slate.com...

arstechnica.com...

originally posted by: Grambler

originally posted by: luthier

originally posted by: Grambler

originally posted by: luthier
a reply to: Grambler

And it seems like the judges knew this as even nunes has stated. Which directly contradicts his memo.

No no one has alleged that the court knew hillary paid for this dossier.

They said a footnote said it was connected to a political entity.

Why would they not mention Hillarys teeam or the DNC?

And even aside from that, there is still the problem of the fbi presenting the info as if it was verified when several top feds are suppoded to have said it was only minimally so.

No Nunes said it was a footnote.

That alone contradicts the memo.

We actually have no idea so stop projecting the FBI didn't inform the FISA court.

The FISA courts are incredibly easy to obtan warrants and violate the 4th.

I find your stance to be hilarious.

You are against the fisa court, so vehemently downplay calling out the abuse in the current situation.

I do have an idea, I siad that no one has claimed since the release of the memo that has seen it that the fbi mehtioned the dnc or Hillarys team paying for it.

Pl;ease link me to that claim.

I likewise find it amusing that you completely bought in and trust Devin nunes who has railed against those trying to stop spying for years.

Yeah its a problem. It should be made public.

With evidence.

Any realistic person not completely blinded with Co formation bias would want evidence.

Actual proof not liars words.

originally posted by: luthier

originally posted by: Grambler

originally posted by: luthier

originally posted by: Grambler

originally posted by: luthier
a reply to: Grambler

And it seems like the judges knew this as even nunes has stated. Which directly contradicts his memo.

No no one has alleged that the court knew hillary paid for this dossier.

They said a footnote said it was connected to a political entity.

Why would they not mention Hillarys teeam or the DNC?

And even aside from that, there is still the problem of the fbi presenting the info as if it was verified when several top feds are suppoded to have said it was only minimally so.

No Nunes said it was a footnote.

That alone contradicts the memo.

We actually have no idea so stop projecting the FBI didn't inform the FISA court.

The FISA courts are incredibly easy to obtan warrants and violate the 4th.

I find your stance to be hilarious.

You are against the fisa court, so vehemently downplay calling out the abuse in the current situation.

I do have an idea, I siad that no one has claimed since the release of the memo that has seen it that the fbi mehtioned the dnc or Hillarys team paying for it.

Pl;ease link me to that claim.

I likewise find it amusing that you completely bought in and trust Devin nunes who has railed against those trying to stop spying for years.

Yeah its a problem. It should be made public.

With evidence.

Any realistic person not completely blinded with Co formation bias would want evidence.

Actual proof not liars words.

I have said repeatedly that untol the underlying evidnce is released, I do not take his or anyones word.

I am discussing if this is true, it is a big deal, to a lot of people saying that evn if true its not a big deal.

It seems you are saying so what, this is a non story because Fisa is bad.

If thats not what your saying I apologize, but thats how it seems.

originally posted by: Grambler

originally posted by: luthier

originally posted by: Grambler

originally posted by: luthier

originally posted by: Grambler

originally posted by: luthier
a reply to: Grambler

And it seems like the judges knew this as even nunes has stated. Which directly contradicts his memo.

No no one has alleged that the court knew hillary paid for this dossier.

They said a footnote said it was connected to a political entity.

Why would they not mention Hillarys teeam or the DNC?

And even aside from that, there is still the problem of the fbi presenting the info as if it was verified when several top feds are suppoded to have said it was only minimally so.

No Nunes said it was a footnote.

That alone contradicts the memo.

We actually have no idea so stop projecting the FBI didn't inform the FISA court.

The FISA courts are incredibly easy to obtan warrants and violate the 4th.

I find your stance to be hilarious.

You are against the fisa court, so vehemently downplay calling out the abuse in the current situation.

I do have an idea, I siad that no one has claimed since the release of the memo that has seen it that the fbi mehtioned the dnc or Hillarys team paying for it.

Pl;ease link me to that claim.

I likewise find it amusing that you completely bought in and trust Devin nunes who has railed against those trying to stop spying for years.

Yeah its a problem. It should be made public.

With evidence.

Any realistic person not completely blinded with Co formation bias would want evidence.

Actual proof not liars words.

I have said repeatedly that untol the underlying evidnce is released, I do not take his or anyones word.

I am discussing if this is true, it is a big deal, to a lot of people saying that evn if true its not a big deal.

It seems you are saying so what, this is a non story because Fisa is bad.

If thats not what your saying I apologize, but thats how it seems.

I am not exactly saying this but I am also saying it. Just like a politician heh?

I have been railing against the danger of this stuff for decades.

I am not surprised in the least and what I am saying it just happens to be convenient to call it out now.

I look at it like a sports game where you could call a foul at any play. You can throw the game by calling only one sides fouls.

It's a joke. If we were to have the info we should be pissed how nunes voted on fisa and sat on this.

The court is a rubber stamp.

If it's true it's just as much nunes fault for being so pro surveillance for at least 5 years. He has railed against positions like Paul and Amash.

Turns out they were right all along.

originally posted by: luthier
a reply to: tiredoflooking

It's a public debated process. The fisa amendment bills are on record.

Nunes and gowdy both voted three weeks ago to expand fisa while having this memo ready to go.

Of course they did, what better tool do they have at their disposal presently than the FISA court to expose those that abused it. The deep state never believed they'ed loose their foothold over controlling the situation.