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.

 

Is it Possible the FISC Judges Were Also Complicit with FBI, DNC and DOJ in Surveilling DJ Trump?

page: 1
18
<<   2 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Feb, 8 2018 @ 01:04 AM
link   
With all the information that is coming forward showing the corruption in the FBI, CIA, DNC, and at least Obama's DOJ, perhaps we should also ask ourselves whether the FISC was involved in this scandal.

After all, the FISC gave the go ahead on investigating Donald J. Trump, his associates and campaign staff when the only evidence presented to the FISC were fake rumors about Trump's campaign staff.

First, people should know that at the time this whole shennannigans was presented to the FISC, all judges of the court had been selected and appointed by former President Obama.

Only one judge has been replaced by President Trump because the previous judge, Susan Webber Wright, term had ended.

Here is a list of the current FISC judges and the date when they were appointed.



www.fisc.uscourts.gov...

Either the FBI, DOJ lied to the FISC, or the FISC themselves were part of this corruption. I am not saying it is 100% true that they are/were corrupt, but it's a possibility when the information provided to the FISC wouldn't stand in any other justice court in the U.S.


edit on 8-2-2018 by ElectricUniverse because: add and correct comment.




posted on Feb, 8 2018 @ 01:26 AM
link   
When are you people going to admit he colluded with Russia ans its not everyone ELSE that is treasonous and colluding... and that its actually him and his organization.

Occams Razor



posted on Feb, 8 2018 @ 01:42 AM
link   
a reply to: ElectricUniverse

One problem with your theory is that Presidents have nothing to do with FISC appointments. That's done exclusively and solely by the SCOTUS Chief Justice. The last three chief justices (everyone who has ever appointed one) have been conservatives. The last 5 I think were Roberts's appointments.
edit on 2018-2-8 by theantediluvian because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 8 2018 @ 01:44 AM
link   
a reply to: Lucidparadox

As soon as evidence is provided.



posted on Feb, 8 2018 @ 01:49 AM
link   
a reply to: Lucidparadox


When are you people

That is the single most asinine statement I have ever read!

What exactly do you mean by that?



posted on Feb, 8 2018 @ 01:54 AM
link   

originally posted by: Lucidparadox
When are you people going to admit he colluded with Russia ans its not everyone ELSE that is treasonous and colluding... and that its actually him and his organization.

Occams Razor



Why would we admit that? Can you show any proof? that Trump colluded with Russia?
Guess what, we can show plenty of proof that the Clinton Campaign colluded with Russia, FBI & DOJ

#stopactingniave.

@ante - last 5 were Roberts appointees, however:

four of the five judges appointed by Chief Justice Roberts to the FISA Court were appointed to their prior federal court positions by Presidents Bill Clinton and Barack Obama.



posted on Feb, 8 2018 @ 02:37 AM
link   
Um yeah we were actually axing that that first day in ze big ATS ultra super mega thread.




posted on Feb, 8 2018 @ 03:13 AM
link   
a reply to: ElectricUniverse




With all the information that is coming forward showing the corruption in the FBI, CIA, DNC, and at least Obama's DOJ, perhaps we should also ask ourselves whether the FISC was involved in this scandal.


Perhaps. However, there is no evidence for that. As of yet at least. On the contrary, the FBI's apparent need to lie by omission when seeking extension suggests that the court itself is not involved.

Let's look at it logically rather than partisanly: Had the court been complicit, it would have made more sense to be forthright about everything. There would then have been no 'paper trail', all anyone could ever say would be that they disagreed with the court's decision.

And that would lead nowhere.

That would be much preferable to something that can be shown as demonstrably wrong, illegal or even treasonous, which some will say the deliberate misuse of a congressional espionage act would be.

So no, until evidence for the contrary is shown, I would tend to believe that the FISC has behaved properly.

edit on 8-2-2018 by DupontDeux because: spelling



posted on Feb, 8 2018 @ 03:34 AM
link   

originally posted by: theantediluvian
a reply to: ElectricUniverse

One problem with your theory is that Presidents have nothing to do with FISC appointments. That's done exclusively and solely by the SCOTUS Chief Justice. The last three chief justices (everyone who has ever appointed one) have been conservatives. The last 5 I think were Roberts's appointments.


The FISC Judges are all Federal Judges before being appointed to the FISA court. Only four of the 11 were appointed by Democrat Presidents.



posted on Feb, 8 2018 @ 04:29 AM
link   
a reply to: ElectricUniverse

The following is my opinion as a member participating in this discussion.



The evidence points to the FBI knowingly using manufactured or fake evidence (the Trump dossier) to gain access to 'spy' on the Trump campaign. Whether or not the evidence was manufactured or faked depends on the original source. There aren't any indicators that members of judiciary knew that about the Nixon style ill-legal actions. None of this detracts from what has occurred and the need for those corrupt individuals to face jail time.

As an ATS Staff Member, I will not moderate in threads such as this where I have participated as a member.



posted on Feb, 8 2018 @ 04:37 AM
link   
a reply to: DupontDeux


Perhaps. However, there is no evidence for that. As of yet at least. On the contrary, the FBI's apparent need to lie by omission when seeking extension suggests that the court itself is not involved.

Not only that but the first time the FISC was approached with the dossier they rejected the warrant.

It wasn't until Yahoo news released its story given to them by Steele that and the dossier is when the FISC court allowed the warrant.

All based upon salacious and unverified information. ( According to Comey)

What a crock!

But no I don't think the FISC was complicit I believe they were lied to.



edit on 8-2-2018 by Diisenchanted because: to add



posted on Feb, 8 2018 @ 04:39 AM
link   
a reply to: ElectricUniverse


I think Contreras was the first and got his ass recused.

They are just district judges tho.

I would say yes, complicit and shopped.




posted on Feb, 8 2018 @ 04:56 AM
link   

originally posted by: Diisenchanted
a reply to: Lucidparadox


When are you people

That is the single most asinine statement I have ever read!

What exactly do you mean by that?


I'm guessing he/she/it might be referring to We, the People. In which case it was a compliment. And we should thank him/her/it for his/her/its kind words and public recognition of our badassery.😉



posted on Feb, 8 2018 @ 05:41 AM
link   

originally posted by: Lucidparadox
When are you people going to admit he colluded with Russia ans its not everyone ELSE that is treasonous and colluding... and that its actually him and his organization.

Occams Razor





Does the democrats doing shifty, illegal things to Trump mean that he can't be touching Putin's gnads? I don't understand "lefty logic" at all.



posted on Feb, 8 2018 @ 05:57 AM
link   
a reply to: ElectricUniverse

I can understand the warrant being issued based on lies and "faulty" evidence in the place. But, is there not the requirement for "other" evidences to be shown for the renewal of the warrant every 90 days or so ?

If there was no other evidence shown, how was the warrant extended all the way until after the election and even after Trump took office. To me, this is what begins to bring the judge into the whole affair.



posted on Feb, 8 2018 @ 06:33 AM
link   

originally posted by: tinymind
a reply to: ElectricUniverse

I can understand the warrant being issued based on lies and "faulty" evidence in the place. But, is there not the requirement for "other" evidences to be shown for the renewal of the warrant every 90 days or so ?

If there was no other evidence shown, how was the warrant extended all the way until after the election and even after Trump took office. To me, this is what begins to bring the judge into the whole affair.


By dragging the Dossier and Steele's faulty trustworthiness in 3 more times Could that be the answer for you?
edit on 8-2-2018 by Justoneman because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 8 2018 @ 06:54 AM
link   
a reply to: ElectricUniverse

There's no evidence being presented about corruption in any of those agencies. Just trump trying to discredit them because they are closing in on his life long habit of corruption and crimes. He's defensive because he has lots to hide. You're all gonna find out that he is the crook and y'all backed him.



posted on Feb, 8 2018 @ 06:56 AM
link   
a reply to: Lucidparadox

Don't worry. A time is coming very rapidly where they will no longer be able to deny this.



posted on Feb, 8 2018 @ 06:57 AM
link   
a reply to: Diisenchanted

So sorry.



posted on Feb, 8 2018 @ 06:59 AM
link   
a reply to: Diisenchanted

You're making that up. You have no idea why any warrant was or was not approved.
Good try though.



new topics

top topics



 
18
<<   2 >>

log in

join