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.

 

Declassified Steele Memo from Grassley just released

page: 7
81
<< 4  5  6    8  9 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Feb, 7 2018 @ 02:48 AM
link   

originally posted by: BlueAjah
a reply to: carewemust

I am interested in more information about the judge in the FISA court. I know they rotate on a circuit, so theoretically there might have been a different judge for each renewal. And, no one so far has accused the judge of wrong doing. However....

Judge Judy, who as a judge knows how things worked, acted a bit mysteriously the other night when a guest said there must have been a different judge for each renewal. She said "No, there wasn't", and repeated it more than a few times, with a kind of knowing smile. It really seemed like she knew something. Maybe she has judge friends who provided details.



WOW... Four Different FISA Judges,

Excerpted from: theconservativetreehouse.com...

It would be ‘almost’ impossible to have four separate engagements with the FISA court, and gain a different judge on each encounter. It would be entirely impossible to have four separate judges if the original application and all three subsequent renewals went through the same district. (There are only three judges in the DC district – making four separate judges impossible.) Something is entirely fishy about this.


YEP...something is fishy alright. Since that article was published 4 days ago, maybe the Senate memo shed some light on the process tonight??




posted on Feb, 7 2018 @ 03:30 AM
link   

originally posted by: carewemust
FINALLY... Jeff Sessions is preparing to appoint a Special Counsel. The White House signed off on it yesterday.


Good news if true.



posted on Feb, 7 2018 @ 03:47 AM
link   

originally posted by: ErrorErrorError
"Bombshell" nothing burger #3465543
Yawn.
Sean Hannity and Trump supporters aren't doing themselves any favors with these tabloid headlines.
One would think they would tone it down a bit after the memo fiasco, but they keep pushing the same narrative.



Yes you win. You have all of their talking points and in the right order.

Fruitless exercise considering the mounting real evidence.

P



posted on Feb, 7 2018 @ 05:03 AM
link   

originally posted by: pheonix358

originally posted by: ErrorErrorError
"Bombshell" nothing burger #3465543
Yawn.
Sean Hannity and Trump supporters aren't doing themselves any favors with these tabloid headlines.
One would think they would tone it down a bit after the memo fiasco, but they keep pushing the same narrative.



Yes you win. You have all of their talking points and in the right order.

Fruitless exercise considering the mounting real evidence.

P

The 4am talking points memo apparently didn't come through for them, so they will have to use the fallback reply.



posted on Feb, 7 2018 @ 05:48 AM
link   
a reply to: butcherguy

at least they waited until page 6.



posted on Feb, 7 2018 @ 08:44 AM
link   
Washington Post chronology Steele

I hope this link works. What I found interesting is that Steele was afraid the FBI would cover up the story of Trump's dealings with Russia/Russians.



posted on Feb, 7 2018 @ 08:46 AM
link   

originally posted by: Spinoza73
Washington Post chronology Steele

I hope this link works. What I found interesting is that Steele was afraid the FBI would cover up the story of Trump's dealings with Russia/Russians.

Its WAPO, you won't get far with a slanderous and deceitful leftist news rag.

Next.



posted on Feb, 7 2018 @ 08:51 AM
link   

originally posted by: BlueAjah
a reply to: carewemust

I am interested in more information about the judge in the FISA court. I know they rotate on a circuit, so theoretically there might have been a different judge for each renewal. And, no one so far has accused the judge of wrong doing. However....

Judge Judy, who as a judge knows how things worked, acted a bit mysteriously the other night when a guest said there must have been a different judge for each renewal. She said "No, there wasn't", and repeated it more than a few times, with a kind of knowing smile. It really seemed like she knew something. Maybe she has judge friends who provided details.



I'd guess that each case is assigned to a different FISC judge on a rotating basis, but then renewals for that case all go through the same judge that handled the original case, for obvious reasons. That judge is already familiar with the case. It's a continuity thing. That's just speculation on my part, but it would make sense.



posted on Feb, 7 2018 @ 08:51 AM
link   

Newly revealed text messages between FBI paramours Peter Strzok and Lisa Page include an exchange about preparing talking points for then-FBI Director James Comey to give to President Obama, who wanted “to know everything we’re doing.”


SNIP rolls down hill

Watergate was amateur hour.

Collusion between the president,the media,the FBI,DOJ,Foreign spy operative, and a political candidate and her party.

Heads should be rolling.



posted on Feb, 7 2018 @ 09:38 AM
link   

originally posted by: Grambler
the FBI didn't bother to verify Steele dossier, they just relied on his credibility,


I think they knew what they had and who they were dealing with and they couldn't verify squat, it was just means to an end. Besides, once Hillary was in the WH all would be swept under the rug, right?



posted on Feb, 7 2018 @ 09:42 AM
link   

originally posted by: carewemust
Since that article was published 4 days ago, maybe the Senate memo shed some light on the process tonight??


Using different judges is a red flag as it suggests someone is trying to bypass checks in place. As for procedure this is from the other thread on Nunes memo but I will post here so people have an understanding of FISA.

The other issue Democrats A - don't know or b - don't care is something called the woods protocol. It came about back in the early 2000's and applies to the FISA law and US citizens. It requires all information / evidence (each item) that is being used to obtain a FISA warrant against a US citizen to be 100% verified / accurate.

Obtaining a warrant falls under title III of criminal code and requires the government to show probable cause.

A warrant under Title III of the U.S. criminal code by showing a federal court that there is probable cause to believe the target has engaged, or is engaging in, criminal activity. This is a fairly high standard because of a strong presumption in favor of our Fourth Amendment right to privacy, and requires a showing that less intrusive means of obtaining the same information aren’t feasible.


Obtaining a FISA warrant falls under title 1 and weighs individuals right against the Governments right to defend the nation.

a warrant from a secret court, known as the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court (FISC), to conduct electronic surveillance on U.S. persons if they can show probable cause that the target is an “agent of a foreign power” who is “knowingly engag[ing]…in clandestine intelligence activities.”


The standards at a glance -
Standard warrant under title III = is breaking a law.
FISA warrant under title I = might be spying / working for a foreign government.

Steps required to obtain a FISA warrant -
FBI process
* - FBI threat assessment - in order to establish grounds for even opening an investigation on potential FISA subjects.
* -If the U.S. persons have access to classified information or could otherwise be “developed” for intelligence purposes by a foreign spy service, a significant enough threat exists to open an investigation – this would require at least one layer of approval within the FBI, and possibly more if the investigation concerns high-profile individuals.
* - FBI would have to gather evidence to support a the claim that the U.S. target was knowingly working on behalf of a foreign entity.

* - The agent running the investigation fills out all paperwork and submits it. His/Her supervisor reviews and signs off on it. The divisional lawyer for the FBI field office reviews and if approved goes to the SSA for the field office. Once approved there is goes to the FBI HQ for approval by a unit level supervisor. Once approved it goes to the DOJ -

DOJ process
* - At the DOJ attorneys from the National Security Division comb through the application to verify all the assertions made in it. (Woods protocol) attorneys from the National Security Division comb through the application to verify all the assertions made in it until DOJ is satisfied that the facts in the FISA application can both be corroborated and meet the legal standards for the court. If they are not satisfied it gets sent back to the FBI for additional investigations / supporting info.
* - After getting sign-off from a senior DOJ official, a lawyer from DOJ takes the FISA application before the FISC, comprised of eleven federal district judges who sit on the court on a rotating basis. The FISC reviews the application in secret, and decides whether to approve the warrant.

Judicial process
* - Review of all submitted material followed by approval or denial of warrant request.

This is why FISA warrants are almost always granted - the multiple layers of required verification, checks and balances, step by step approval before it even makes it to the DOJ at which point the DOJ reviews and approvals before it makes it to a FISC judge.

Based on all information listed above this lengthy process (put in place to protect US citizens from unwarranted surveillance) was dismissed by senior FBI and DOJ officials. The investigation into the Trump campaign seems to have been handled directly by the upper ranks of the FBI, bypassing multiple levels of checks and balances.

also -

In fact, if some reports are true that the initial FISA applications submitted to the FISC were rejected, prompting the FBI and DOJ to change its targets to the Russian banks doing business with Trump associates rather than the associates themselves (which would only require showing probable cause that the banks are a “foreign power,” which by definition they are), then a FISA application for Trump Tower, if one exists, would have been subject to even more scrutiny than would normally be the case.


Now the info in the FISA memo does not appear to show the FBI / DOJ meeting all requirements to obtain any warrants, supporting McCabes comments to the congressional committee.

Enter the dossier and its misrepresentation by the FBI / DOJ to obtain the warrant.

The unverified dossier never met the legal requirements to be used as evidence to support the warrant application. It was intentionally misrepresented as factual = fraud on the court = fruit of the poisonous tree = deprivation of rights while acting under color of law = prosecution of those involved in this farce.


Source for everything posted above.



posted on Feb, 7 2018 @ 10:10 AM
link   
a reply to: Arnie123

Slanderous news rag? Now that is quite an unbiased stance. Good luck with the alternative facts.



posted on Feb, 7 2018 @ 10:22 AM
link   

originally posted by: Spinoza73
a reply to: Arnie123

Slanderous news rag? Now that is quite an unbiased stance. Good luck with the alternative facts.


If the WP handled Watergate the way they are handling this scandal, Nixon would have finished his full term in office.



posted on Feb, 7 2018 @ 10:58 AM
link   
a reply to: ErrorErrorError

Can you explain the Russian collusion to me ? What exactly did Trump and the Russians do ? After all this time, and investigation there must be some idea of HOW they rigged the election. So what exactly was it ?

Can you explain some of the oddities that are on going ? Why hasn't Page been charged & indicted yet ? He's a freaking Russian Spy and the Obama administration knowing that, let him continue to walk AND rig the election ! Why wouldn't Obama stop the Russian interference that he DID know about ?

Why was Podesta group allowed to retro-actively file, and avoid the money laundering that the other 2 people involved could not avoid ?

According to Samatha Power (later), she never unmasked anyone and someone pretended to be her. How can someone walk into a secure NSA facility and impersonate a well known figure and walk out with unmasked survellience information ?

I have more questions, but lets get those out of the way first.



posted on Feb, 7 2018 @ 11:37 AM
link   
a reply to: Xcathdra

MI6 I think... he'll most probably end up killing himself through sheer force of will and then impossibly zipping and padlocking himself inside a holdall then placing himself in the bath...

Cos that's how those guys roll...
edit on 7-2-2018 by Indrasweb because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 7 2018 @ 11:45 AM
link   

originally posted by: Indrasweb
a reply to: Xcathdra

MI6 I think... he'll most probably end up killing himself through sheer force of will and then impossibly zipping himself than padlocking himself inside a holdall then placing himself in the bath...

Cos that's how those guys roll...

I remember hearing about that. Consider the time that the Russians poisoned that one guy with polonium. There are a million other ways to poison someone, and many of them would escape detection. But they deliberately chose one of the nastiest methods available, in order to send a message.

The guy in the ski bag in the bathtub is the same thing. It is comically absurd to think he did that to himself, or that it was even possible for him to do that to himself. The point was to send a message.



posted on Feb, 7 2018 @ 11:50 AM
link   
a reply to: AndyFromMichigan

Indeed.

Perhaps Steele's car (you know he's got all the mod cons with all that Clinton money) will accelerate uncontrollably, mysteriously burst into flames and then crash in a twisted and flaming pile of molten... haha.. Steele.. .

ETA: What I absolutely do NOT expect to see is him turning up to any kind of hearing and giving his full testimony in front of a judge or jury (however these matters are generally handled)
edit on 7-2-2018 by Indrasweb because: (no reason given)


Oh and further to the point about it being comically absurd to think that the whole 'man in a bag' thing is even possible:

I seem to recall that an investigation into the case even hired a contortionsit to see if they were able to achieve the feat. Unsurprisingly they came to the conclusion that it was fairly unlikely that the guy was able to zip and then padlock himself into his own carry on luggage.
Never mind though cos the press threw out a couple of stories about him maybe being gay and/or a cross dresser, because we all know "the gays and trannies" are into weird # right? Right? And so it was probably his own fault... practically asked for it really...

(the implication it would seem was that he was engaged in some kind of sexual deviance.... that involved secreting himself in inexpensive sports equipment receptacles..... alone..... in his bath, because he might have been 'a bit fruity'... 🤔)
edit on 7-2-2018 by Indrasweb because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 7 2018 @ 12:00 PM
link   
This is all pointing back to BO. He is the only person I believe who is a more narcissistic power hungry DC politician than HRC right now. He micromanaged everything. To think he was in NO WAY involved in ANY of this is a joke.

He is being protected because I do not think he would be quiet. He has two young girls and I think he would flip in a minute. Can anyone else imagine Barack testifying against HRC or vice versa??? They are both now private citizens. I can...it would be great.
edit on Febpm28pmf0000002018-02-07T12:07:34-06:001234 by matafuchs because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 7 2018 @ 12:36 PM
link   

originally posted by: RazorV66
It’s hammer time.










Sorry, I just had to.



posted on Feb, 7 2018 @ 01:52 PM
link   

originally posted by: Xcathdra
More bad news for Democrats:

**PDF LINK**

There was no corroborating information and the dossier was the only evidence used to obtain the FISA warrants. The court was not notified of material facts related to who was behind the dossier or who paid for it. They used the media reports by Yahoo as "corroboration" as well as to explain away discrepancies in the application.Comey tried to pass it off to the Senate intel committee as the FBI used Steele in the past and his information was reliable.


Except the memo you cite specifically debunks what you say it says.

Have you read it?



new topics

top topics



 
81
<< 4  5  6    8  9 >>

log in

join