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.

 

Source: FBI Agent Told Congress The Bureau Used Leaked Stories To Obtain Spy Warrants

page: 3
29
<< 1  2   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Aug, 28 2018 @ 09:18 AM
link   
a reply to: odzeandennz

Under investigation for what, say again?

Colluding with China to meddle the election?

Oh wait, that's Hillary.



BUT CHINA!

Sorry, had to.




posted on Aug, 29 2018 @ 12:01 PM
link   
a reply to: shooterbrody


There are some here that do not understand the fisa process.
Obtaining fisa warrants with "stories" is a felony.


Cite the relevant law. Oh, and I am bumping this thread so we can all see whether the claim in the OP has proven true.



posted on Aug, 29 2018 @ 01:14 PM
link   

originally posted by: DJW001
a reply to: shooterbrody


There are some here that do not understand the fisa process.
Obtaining fisa warrants with "stories" is a felony.


Cite the relevant law. Oh, and I am bumping this thread so we can all see whether the claim in the OP has proven true.

Here is the law bub.



SEC. 109. ø50 U.S.C. 1809¿ (a) OFFENSE.—A person is guilty of an offense if he intentionally— (1) engages in electronic surveillance under color of law except as authorized by this Act, chapter 119, 121, or 206 of title 18, United States Code, or any express statutory authorization that is an additional exclusive means for conducting electronic surveillance under section 112; or (2) disclose or uses information obtained under color of law by electronic surveillance, knowing or having reason to known that the information was obtained through electronic surveillance not authorized by this Act, chapter 119, 121, or 206 of title 18, United States Code, or any express statutory authorization that is an additional exclusive means for conducting electronic surveillance under section 112. (b) DEFENSE.—It is a defense to a prosecution under subsection (a) that the defendant was a law enforcement or investigative officer engaged in the course of his official duties and the electronic surveillance was authorized by and conducted pursuant to a search warrant or court order of a court of competent jurisdiction. (c) PENALTY.—An offense in this section is punishable by a fine of not more than $10,000 or imprisonment for not more than five years, or both. (d) JURISDICTION.—There is Federal jurisdiction over an offense under this section if the person committing the offense was an officer or employee of the United States at the time the offense was committed. C

fine of 10k
jail for 5 years



posted on Aug, 30 2018 @ 05:37 AM
link   
a reply to: shooterbrody

A FISA warrant is that authorization. It is up to the FISA court to decide what is adequate grounds to issue that warrant, so I rest my case. You made up something in your head that is not supported by the law you cited.



posted on Aug, 30 2018 @ 05:40 AM
link   

originally posted by: DJW001
a reply to: shooterbrody

A FISA warrant is that authorization. It is up to the FISA court to decide what is adequate grounds to issue that warrant, so I rest my case. You made up something in your head that is not supported by the law you cited.

You just made up all that malarkey.
I sited the law as you asked. Sorry you do not understand it.



posted on Aug, 30 2018 @ 09:02 AM
link   

originally posted by: DJW001
a reply to: shooterbrody


There are some here that do not understand the fisa process.
Obtaining fisa warrants with "stories" is a felony.


Cite the relevant law. Oh, and I am bumping this thread so we can all see whether the claim in the OP has proven true.


The "law" your asking for is actually a requirement put in place by the Court and is called the Woods protocol. It is in place because the courts caught federal agents lying in their applications for FISA warrants pertaining to US citizens. Obtaining a FISA warrant for a foreign national has a low threshold. However when the FISA warrant is for a US citizen all requirements under the Woods protocol are required. This means probable cause and verification (100%) of supporting evidence used in the application.

* - The dossier was used to obtain the FISA warrant.
* - The dossier was unverified and contained misinformation / fabricated material etc.
* - The use of the dossier and the fact it was not 100% verified was the problem.
* - The fact the people who drafted the warrant application intentionally omitted material facts in the application while also signing off on the warrant application that it met all requirements was the crime.


As for the OP verification Bruce Ohr told the committee the FBI did in fact leak info to the media in order to turn around and use it for their warrants (also illegal).


edit on 30-8-2018 by Xcathdra because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 30 2018 @ 09:06 AM
link   

originally posted by: DJW001
a reply to: shooterbrody

A FISA warrant is that authorization. It is up to the FISA court to decide what is adequate grounds to issue that warrant, so I rest my case. You made up something in your head that is not supported by the law you cited.


Uhm no.

ANY warrant application for a US citizen is required to meet establish criteria IE probable cause a crime occurred and all supporting facts for that crime.

The courts responsibility is to ensure the established criteria was met. In the case of the FISA warrants all 4 were submitted and all 4 intentionally left out facts in an effort to portray the warrant info as factual and verified.

As officers of the court the prosecutors and federal agents are required to comply with the requirements. The judge is acting on good faith that the officials submitting the application are being honest and the info in the warrant is accurate and complies with all requirements.

It was not.

The officials perpetrated a fraud on the court by omission of fact in order to obtain a warrant.

The term you should familiarize yourself with is fruit of the poisonous tree.



posted on Aug, 30 2018 @ 09:07 AM
link   
a reply to: Xcathdra

OP Verification is damning.

Time for Jeff Sessions to begin indicting.



posted on Aug, 30 2018 @ 09:10 AM
link   

originally posted by: DJW001
a reply to: shooterbrody

A FISA warrant is that authorization. It is up to the FISA court to decide what is adequate grounds to issue that warrant, so I rest my case. You made up something in your head that is not supported by the law you cited.


Actually the law he cited does apply and is correct.

50 USC - Subchapter I - ELECTRONIC SURVEILLANCE

§ 1801 - Definitions
§ 1802 - Electronic surveillance authorization without court order; certification by Attorney General; reports to Congressional committees; transmittal under seal; duties and compensation of communication common carrier; applications; jurisdiction of court
§ 1803 - Designation of judges
§ 1804 - Applications for court orders
§ 1805 - Issuance of order
§ 1805a - Repealed. Pub. L. 110–261, title IV, § 403(a)(1)(A), July 10, 2008, 122 Stat. 2473
§ 1806 - Use of information
§ 1807 - Report of electronic surveillance
§ 1808 - Report of Attorney General to Congressional committees; limitation on authority or responsibility of information gathering activities of Congressional committees; report of Congressional committees to Congress
§ 1809 - Criminal sanctions
§ 1810 - Civil liability
§ 1811 - Authorization during time of war
§ 1812 - Statement of exclusive means by which electronic surveillance and interception of certain communications may be conducted
§ 1813 - Procedures for the retention of incidentally acquired communications


Here is the entire FISA section -
50 USC Chapter 36 - FOREIGN INTELLIGENCE SURVEILLANCE

SUBCHAPTER I - ELECTRONIC SURVEILLANCE (§§ 1801 to 1813)
SUBCHAPTER II - PHYSICAL SEARCHES (§§ 1821 to 1829)
SUBCHAPTER III - PEN REGISTERS AND TRAP AND TRACE DEVICES FOR FOREIGN INTELLIGENCE PURPOSES (§§ 1841 to 1846)
SUBCHAPTER IV - ACCESS TO CERTAIN BUSINESS RECORDS FOR FOREIGN INTELLIGENCE PURPOSES (§§ 1861 to 1864)
SUBCHAPTER V - OVERSIGHT (§§ 1871 to 1874)
SUBCHAPTER VI - ADDITIONAL PROCEDURES REGARDING CERTAIN PERSONS OUTSIDE THE UNITED STATES (§§ 1881 to 1881g)
SUBCHAPTER VII - PROTECTION OF PERSONS ASSISTING THE GOVERNMENT (§§ 1885 to 1885c)


The law he cited is under subchapter 1.
edit on 30-8-2018 by Xcathdra because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 30 2018 @ 09:24 AM
link   
a reply to: Xcathdra

Aren't these what Rosenstein was dancing around when he was asked if he had read the warrant applications before signing off on them and then he tried saying that he was (paraphrasing) 'trusting the judgement of those who submitted the information?'

In other words, Rosenstein pencil whipped the warrant applications and tried passing the buck when he realized the deep doodoo he was heading for.



posted on Aug, 30 2018 @ 09:25 AM
link   

originally posted by: jadedANDcynical
a reply to: Xcathdra

Aren't these what Rosenstein was dancing around when he was asked if he had read the warrant applications before signing off on them and then he tried saying that he was (paraphrasing) 'trusting the judgement of those who submitted the information?'

In other words, Rosenstein pencil whipped the warrant applications and tried passing the buck when he realized the deep doodoo he was heading for.

Oh I think it will be more than just Rosenstein that is on the hook for this.



posted on Aug, 30 2018 @ 09:28 AM
link   

originally posted by: jadedANDcynical
a reply to: Xcathdra

Aren't these what Rosenstein was dancing around when he was asked if he had read the warrant applications before signing off on them and then he tried saying that he was (paraphrasing) 'trusting the judgement of those who submitted the information?'

In other words, Rosenstein pencil whipped the warrant applications and tried passing the buck when he realized the deep doodoo he was heading for.


Yup and by doing that Rosenstein boxed himself into a legal minefield. If he admits read the applications then he knowingly lied when he signed off on the application. If he admits he didnt read the application and signed off on it he failed to do his job as a prosecutor resulting in the acquisitions of illegal warrants.

It is criminal misconduct either way you go. It is also a violation of DOJ policies either way you go.
edit on 30-8-2018 by Xcathdra because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 30 2018 @ 09:32 AM
link   
a reply to: Xcathdra

So he could expect to be unemployed once mueller turns in his report?
Perhaps that is why the "investigation" is taking so long?



posted on Aug, 30 2018 @ 09:34 AM
link   

originally posted by: shooterbrody
a reply to: Xcathdra

So he could expect to be unemployed once mueller turns in his report?
Perhaps that is why the "investigation" is taking so long?


Mueller is not investigating the FISA abuse issue. IG Horowitz is and yes I would look for Rosenstein to be fired and possibly prosecuted.



posted on Aug, 30 2018 @ 09:38 AM
link   
a reply to: Xcathdra

I understand mueller is not investigating the fisa abuse, but it would be within his scope as it was a crime uncovered while investigating the events of the election.
I do not think anyone will move to remove rosenstein before mueller turns in his report as sessions is recused.



new topics

top topics



 
29
<< 1  2   >>

log in

join