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.

 

Justification for the Steele dossier shows a warrant should be issued to spy on Obama and Hillary

page: 3
51
<< 1  2    4 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Feb, 8 2018 @ 10:57 AM
link   
a reply to: Grambler

The Grassley-Graham referral has an interesting line (and not just because somebody ignored the spellchecker):



I'm sure you're aware that there was an FBI probe into the Clinton Foundation and the CFIUS approval of the Uranium One sale during the election. What kicked it off? Opposition research funded by Trump's biggest financial and logistical backer, Robert Mercer at Trump's last campaign manager Bannon's GAI, published in the book Clinton Cash, written by a Breitbart News editor and former journalist, Peter Schweizer.

The existence of this FBI probe was leaked to the media less than a week before the election.

In I think it was October, AG Sessions directed DOJ prosecutors to review all the documentation on the Uranium One probe, interview FBI agents, etc to determine if a special counsel should be appointed to investigate. Also in October, former Trump transition team member turn congressional stooge and Trump (would be) Witchfinder General, Devin Nunes, unilaterally opened an HPSCI investigation into the same. The latter followed reporting of claims from Douglas Campbell (represented by a dodgy GOP operative) by Hannity's pal John Solomon at The Hill (formerly of the Trump-supporting Sinclair Groups Circa).

I'm sure you're super outraged about the partisan nature of the whole affair, the use of oppo research from Trump campaign-connected people to launch an FBI investigation into his opponent, the egregious political bias of Nunes et al, etc and similarly appalled by the fact that the sitting President is driving investigations into his former opponent who he promised repeatedly to send to prison.

I'm sure you'll expect that Trump not be briefed on any of it either given the hundreds of "lock her up" chants he personally led.

I don't know that a FISA warrant makes *any* sense in this situation as the events being investigated aren't ongoing and took place a number of years ago but do you honestly doubt that the Trump DOJ would hesitate to get a FISA warrant on a former Clinton associate if it were applicable.




posted on Feb, 8 2018 @ 11:04 AM
link   
a reply to: theantediluvian

Was their a warrant out on a member of clintons team to spy on them over this?

But funny you see the complications of using oppo research in this situation, but have no problem with the hillary team paid for steele dossier to spyon someone who was in trumps team.

And unlike with steele, Mercer was not paying Campbell when he found his research.

Again, I told you for months that if so many biased people were investigating hillary like is happening with trump, you would have a problem with it.

And now with people like Campbell nunes and others who aren't even investigators, you express a problem.

The point of this thread is not that Campbell's reputation should be enough for a fisa warrant against Hillary.

It's that using steeles reputation to Do that is ridiculous, and would justify all sorts of spying against all sorts of people for political purposes.


edit on 8-2-2018 by Grambler because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 8 2018 @ 11:20 AM
link   
a reply to: theantediluvian

And further to your last point.

Trump just may try to use the same type of corruption Obama did to spy on his opponent.

That is why even anti trump people should be outraged at what Obama's fbi did.

But instead, they downplay the use of oppo research to spy on opponents, thereby legitimizing its use when trump or anyone else does it.



posted on Feb, 8 2018 @ 11:40 AM
link   

originally posted by: Grambler
a reply to: theantediluvian

And further to your last point.

Trump just may try to use the same type of corruption Obama did to spy on his opponent.

That is why even anti trump people should be outraged at what Obama's fbi did.

But instead, they downplay the use of oppo research to spy on opponents, thereby legitimizing its use when trump or anyone else does it.



THAT is what I have been trying to get folks to pay attention to. If this is ignored, then it's assuemed to be alright. After all, the left doesn't see a problem here. So why not have Trump place his team in key positions and use the FBI, the CIA, the IRS as political weapons. If you don't use all the tools at your disposal, you aren't trying hard enough.



posted on Feb, 8 2018 @ 12:23 PM
link   
a reply to: Grambler


Was their a warrant out on a member of clintons team to spy on them over this?


What would be the purpose of a FISA warrant in this case? The events being investigated occurred 7 years earlier. Unless they're going to travel back in time to do surveillance, it doesn't really make sense.


But funny you see the complications of using look research in this situation, but have no problem with the hillary team paid for steele dossier to spyon someone who was in trumps team.


1. The Steele dossier was not used to spy on anyone though, was it? As I've pointed out a number of times now and as I even showed from the Grassley-Graham referral, what went into the FISA warrant app came from the debriefing of Steele.

2. I do in fact see the complications inherent in using oppo research/info from people being paid for political research in an investigation into the researcher's client's associates.


And unlike with steele, Mercer was not paying Campbell when he found his research.


Which has nothing to do with the FBI investigation during the election.


And now with people like Campbell nines and oters who aren't even investigators, you express a problem.


Nunes shouldn't be allowed near anything and my personal opinion is that he should be ejected from the House or at the very least lose his chairmanship over the HPSCI which he's turned into dysfunctional #show. I'll be actively supporting his challenger in 2018.

As for Campbell, I'm pretty okay with Campbell's hearsay being investigated again by the DOJ/FBI. (from the reporting, it was also looked into by the FBI at the time) What I was doing was pointing out some relevant parallels between what you're outraged about and what you're not outraged about.

I imagine if I was really all that concerned about it, I'd be authoring threads attacking investigations and everyone involved from every imaginable angle.


The point of this thread is not that Campbell's reputation should be enough for a fisa warrant against Hillary.

It's that using steeles reputation to Do that is ridiculous, and would justify all sorts of spying against all sorts of people for political purposes.


I don't believe the FISA warrant for Carter Page was obtained to spy on him for political purposes. In fact, I strongly believe that it was for legitimate national security interests.

It was pretty slick of Grassely et al to narrow this into an issue of Steele's credibility and then impugn it, but that's not exactly the whole story. There's really two components to this — the credibility of the information and the credibility of the person reporting it.

Granted, these two things are linked but it's a mistake to believe that warrants in every court of law in this country aren't regularly issued on the reporting of people who none of us would otherwise consider credible. Criminals turned CI for instance. Unsavory types who are providing information to save their own skins.

I'll also remind you that we're still no closer to knowing what was reported by Steele and included in the FISA warrant app. Nor do we actually know how the information was assessed. This seems really important to me. I'm sure he disclosed the sources. Did he also provide material relating to its collection?

My point here is that it's not merely a matter of the reputation of the person doing the reporting. If a formerly reliable source showed up one day and said he was being hunted by purple unicorns trained by ISIS, clearly it wouldn't matter what his prior reputation was. But if you've got a dead body and a CI who claims to have witnessed the murder and can provide details unknowable to somebody who wasn't there, his information could be deemed reliable for establishing probable cause even if the CI is a known criminal himself.

Remember, warrants are issued for probable cause.

It's a difficult topic to navigate though because the system isn't perfect and can be and is abused. Probable cause is determined by a judge and at the end of the day, it's a best effort thing. That's why the only potentially actionable aspects of this affair appear to be whether or not the DOJ/FBI misled the FISC judge and for Steele personally, whether or not he misled the FBI.



posted on Feb, 8 2018 @ 12:29 PM
link   
a reply to: Grambler


Trump just may try to use the same type of corruption Obama did to spy on his opponent.


I don't know how you feel justified in saying that.

1. What corruption has been proven regarding the obtaining of the FISA warrant?
2. Neither Donald Trump nor his campaign were spied on.
3. What proof is there that the FISA warrant for Carter Page was politically motivated?
4. How in the world are you justifying saying that "Obama did" anything in relation to this?



posted on Feb, 8 2018 @ 12:31 PM
link   
a reply to: Sillyolme

Tick
Tock



posted on Feb, 8 2018 @ 12:33 PM
link   
a reply to: theantediluvian

Good thing we have the next best thing to a time machine...the good ol NSA. You can't believe they dont have literally every bit of communications data sitting in a server bank somewhere to call back on. Legally all they would need is the FISA title 1 warrant and its off to the races they go. Then the cuffs are off and they can actually share the info instead of slipping in bits and pieces like they do illegally...they have to keep it small when they do that as to not be suspected of doing it. Usually that entails laundering the Intel so it doeant look like they provided it without the proper warrant.



posted on Feb, 8 2018 @ 12:36 PM
link   
a reply to: theantediluvian




Unless they're going to travel back in time to do surveillance, it doesn't really make sense. 


All that digital data being hoovered up gets kept. A FISA warrant allows them to access it. That's why the defense that Page had already left the campaign falls flat. It includes the previous data they collected. You know about his interactions within the campaign.
Information within the database about the identity of other US citizens is supposed to be masked, but the way things are going, I bet we hear more about that unmasking scandal soon. Even with the names unmasked they got lots of campaign data. Wonder if at any point the POTUS signed off on warrantless collection, too. Would that be enough if a scandal or no?



posted on Feb, 8 2018 @ 12:41 PM
link   
a reply to: RickyD




Legally all they would need is the FISA title 1 warrant and its off to the races they go. 

Legally...



posted on Feb, 8 2018 @ 12:43 PM
link   

originally posted by: theantediluvian
a reply to: Grambler


What would be the purpose of a FISA warrant in this case? The events being investigated occurred 7 years earlier. Unless they're going to travel back in time to do surveillance, it doesn't really make sense.


Well they would be able to look at all communications from back then, and would be able to listen in on any chatter currently that the people invilved would be having about the current testimoney, etc.

Lets not forget, people have no problem with Mueller going back decades to look and people like trump and manaforts financials, so clearly the timeframe isnt an issue.




1. The Steele dossier was not used to spy on anyone though, was it? As I've pointed out a number of times now and as I even showed from the Grassley-Graham referral, what went into the FISA warrant app came from the debriefing of Steele.


You keep saying this but I dont unverstand what your point is.

Are you really claiming that unless they luterally copy and pasted steeles dossier, then it was perfectly fine for them to use the info that steele found that composed the dossier, even if it wasnt verified?

It makes no sense.

So I guess as long as trump pays for someone to right a dossier about dems, but that isnt directly copied and pasted, he can use the info that guy finds to spy on his opponents.



2. I do in fact see the complications inherent in using oppo research/info from people being paid for political research in an investigation into the researcher's client's associates.


Ok good. The I am sure you will agree that unless the FBI were able to independently veirfiy jjust aboput everything they used from the dossier in the warrant, it was massively corrupt.



Which has nothing to do with the FBI investigation during the election.


Yes it does. The fbi used steele info, knowing he hated trump and was being paid by trumps opponent (and given info by tat same opponent) to spy on someone who was in trumps team.

If that didnt affect his credibility, even though it is being alleged that the FBI didnt verifiy many of the claims they used, and instead relied on his credibility, then certainly Campbells credibility, who was not paid when researching by Obama or hillarys opponents, would be more than enough to get a warrant to spy on Hillarys or Obamas team.



Nunes shouldn't be allowed near anything and my personal opinion is that he should be ejected from the House or at the very least lose his chairmanship over the HPSCI which he's turned into dysfunctional #show. I'll be actively supporting his challenger in 2018.


Again you prove my point. No problem with Rosenstein, or McCabe, or all of the people on Muellers team that donated or worked for hillarys team. Or for that matter schiff.

But nunes and his bias is a problem for you. Maybe now you know how trump supporters feel, to have actual INVESTIGATORS of such bias having a key role in both the Hillary and Trump investigations.






I don't believe the FISA warrant for Carter Page was obtained to spy on him for political purposes. In fact, I strongly believe that it was for legitimate national security interests.


And yet no such warrant on podesta group, uranium one people etc, who also had connectoon to russia, in fact in some cases to known criminals. Looking at everything together, it seems undeniable that some of the agents in charge had a bias against trump, they went incredubly light on Hillary to the poiint where you think the investigations should be looked into, and many other things.

So although there is no proof the page warrant was politcially motivated, there is more than enough evidence to warrant a prosecutor to look into it.




Granted, these two things are linked but it's a mistake to believe that warrants in every court of law in this country aren't regularly issued on the reporting of people who none of us would otherwise consider credible. Criminals turned CI for instance. Unsavory types who are providing information to save their own skins.


Exactly! All the more reason to heavily scritinize info coming from a paid person by the suspects political opponent.

Again, are really happy to let this slide and have trump do the same thing to his opponent? I am not.




My point here is that it's not merely a matter of the reputation of the person doing the reporting. If a formerly reliable source showed up one day and said he was being hunted by purple unicorns trained by ISIS, clearly it wouldn't matter what his prior reputation was. But if you've got a dead body and a CI who claims to have witnessed the murder and can provide details unknowable to somebody who wasn't there, his information could be deemed reliable for establishing probable cause even if the CI is a known criminal himself.

Remember, warrants are issued for probable cause.

It's a difficult topic to navigate though because the system isn't perfect and can be and is abused. Probable cause is determined by a judge and at the end of the day, it's a best effort thing. That's why the only potentially actionable aspects of this affair appear to be whether or not the DOJ/FBI misled the FISC judge and for Steele personally, whether or not he misled the FBI.





But herein lies the problem. Yes, the credibility of the person, and who paid them, etc. isnt everything.

As I explained yesterday, if all of Steeles claims were completely verified, then his reputation matters very little.

But if the grassley memo is true (which we dont know yet) and his reputation was the key factor as most of the claims were not verified, then who paid him, his baises, the fact that he disobeyed the fbi and talked to the media, the salacious claims in the rest of the dossier, all of this matters.

The fact that this could impact an election, and was paid for by one candidate agiant another means that the threshold should be extremely high for using it to spy on someone who was on one of the campaign teams.

The lower this threshold is allowed to be and people not to care, the more likely trump and every other president will do the same thing.
edit on 8-2-2018 by Grambler because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 8 2018 @ 12:48 PM
link   

originally posted by: Grambler
a reply to: smurfy

Campbell worked with the cia as far back as the 1990s.

Complaining about sources is juvenile,

The hill posts many left leaning or anti trump articles.

But as long as they have any article critical of hillary, they must be liars according to you.

Only 100 percent anti trump sorces are reliable to you. Right?

As far as the dossier, if the memos are accurate, the dossier was the bulk of the application, and McCabe admitted there would have been no warrant without the dossier.

And let's not forget, there is much evidence behind Campbell's story, such as people having been arrrsted, money actually going to the Clinton foundation, etc.

But you go ahead and ignore that and say I am spreading disinfo.


Be careful, you slip is showing. Much of what you said there is questionable, and no I am not a Hillary supporter, and no I am not a Democrat, and at 70, I don't really have time for juvenile.
Had you grasped what I said, you would understand that what I am saying is do your own research. There is no 'must' in believing in what The Hill says about anything, there is no must in believing what I say about anything, and Breitbart is just a rag. Do your own research in all the right places...you'll find them if you look.
edit on 8-2-2018 by smurfy because: Text.



posted on Feb, 8 2018 @ 12:51 PM
link   

originally posted by: theantediluvian
a reply to: Grambler



I don't know how you feel justified in saying that.

1. What corruption has been proven regarding the obtaining of the FISA warrant?


If the allegations in the grassley and nunes memos are true, there was corruption, such as withoding evidence from the court, using steele backed news articles to help verifiy steeles claims that went into the fisa warrant, not telling the court hillarys team paid for the info, or gave that same author info through obamas state department, and so forth.


2. Neither Donald Trump nor his campaign were spied on.


That not true. You act as if just because Page wasnt on the team anymore, that the warrant didnt allow them to access all of Pages documents and calls from when he was on the team, and to spy on him to catch furher conversation.

That would be like saying we should now be able to spy on Podesta and look at all of his documents frm hillarys campaign, but because he is no longer working for her campaign, this isnt spying on hillary, which is ridiculous.



3. What proof is there that the FISA warrant for Carter Page was politically motivated?


See my post above; with looking at the whole picture, there is at least enough smoke to waarrant a prosecutor to look into it.

And if this is the standard, how easy will it be for trump or any other president to pay someone for oppo reasearch, then use that research to spy on his opponents, but say it was out of legitimate fears and was not politically motivated.


4. How in the world are you justifying saying that "Obama did" anything in relation to this?


He was in charge of these agencies. he was doing almost unprecednted things to make sure the intel was spread to as many agencies as possible. He was telling foriegn allies trump may be comprimised. His team was unmasking trumps team to make them look bad.

How can you not see that your downplaying of this would play right into trumps hands to spy on his oppoennts based on paid for opp research nesxt electon.

He will jsut say I didnt do it, i read about it in the paper, and you will have to just eat crow.



posted on Feb, 8 2018 @ 01:19 PM
link   

originally posted by: Sillyolme
a reply to: DBCowboy




It's not fair, it's not right, it's not legal, it's not moral, it's not Constitutional


This works best if you stamp your feet and pump your arms while crying at the top of your lungs.


I only do that when Gunther puts ice in my bourbon.



posted on Feb, 8 2018 @ 04:16 PM
link   
a reply to: Grambler

There you go again, not letting people have their double standards. So mean.



posted on Feb, 8 2018 @ 04:25 PM
link   
a reply to: Sillyolme

you're such an embarrassment



posted on Feb, 8 2018 @ 04:37 PM
link   

originally posted by: Sillyolme
a reply to: Grambler

Correction a FISA warrant was issued on someone who used to be part of trumps campaign but wasn't when the warrant was issued.


Correction, the warrant was issued on a U.S. citizen while withholding key information, such as funding from multiple sources aligning with clearly communicated political bias by a federal agency and a presidential candidate, while one also was sorta investigating the other. But, kinda the same thing, right?



posted on Feb, 8 2018 @ 05:42 PM
link   
LMAO. Mueller is coming. Heads are going to roll. I don't think he will be influenced by any of this BS. Hes the only one smart enough to do his job, keep his mouth shut and let the guilty parties hang themselves.



posted on Feb, 8 2018 @ 07:25 PM
link   
a reply to: Sillyolme


Hillary was not charged with anything and careless isn't a crime now or ever.

But gross negligence is.

I think what you meant to say was that Hillary has yet to be charged with a crime.

She is far from innocent.



posted on Feb, 9 2018 @ 01:08 AM
link   
a reply to: CriticalStinker

Exactly!

The real problem is that the rule of law, such as it is now, is only being adhered to if and when it's beneficial to the powerful while being ignored any time it isn't...

The reality is it's multiple interconnected problems, the most serious and urgent of which is the extraordinary powers granted under current laws which are being flagrantly abused and are just plain horribly bad ideas as written currently.

This is what needs to be tackled first because at least then the amount of new damage able to be done "legally" will be vastly reduced and provide a mechanism with which we can clean up the other two issues.

By making this about partisan bs over and over though everyone gets suckered into going nah let's keep these horrible laws a little bit longer so my side can get back at the other side all nice n legal like AND THEN we can get rid of them!

I got bad news for everyone though, you ain't gonna take down the master dirty fighters at the top of the pile with laws they WANT in place because they give them an edge!

It's sad it's ugly it's even straight up effed up but really the only way out of this is to take away their little laws that always give them the advantage, and then sack up and willingly and openly have people voluntarily step up to straight up break the law, take these Aholes down, and then fall on their swords like the proverbial 47 Ronin if that's what a jury of their peers requires of them after the fact!

Anything less than that and you're just perpetuating the cycle
edit on 9-2-2018 by roguetechie because: (no reason given)



new topics

top topics



 
51
<< 1  2    4 >>

log in

join