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.

 

Justice Department Discloses No FISA Court Hearings Held on Carter Page Warrants

page: 2
40
<< 1    3  4 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Aug, 31 2018 @ 04:26 PM
link   
Some background from an article dated Feb 9, 2018.....

Devin Nunes demands transcripts from FISA court hearings on Carter Page warrant

💥💥😃💥💥




posted on Aug, 31 2018 @ 04:36 PM
link   

originally posted by: xuenchen
Some background from an article dated Feb 9, 2018.....

Devin Nunes demands transcripts from FISA court hearings on Carter Page warrant

💥💥😃💥💥


Well, no wonder Nunes didn't get them. They don't exist. This is huuuuge, imo....not just BIG, but HUGE. A warrant to spy on an American citizen within our own country during a presidential election, and no hearings were held on the FISA application?!!!

There has been some serious cover-up of some serious criminality. We The People should demand answers. Everybody is blackmailing everybody else---gridlock.
edit on 31-8-2018 by queenofswords because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 31 2018 @ 04:50 PM
link   
It is time to donate bigly to Judicial Watch. If it weren't for them, so much would remain in the dark.



posted on Aug, 31 2018 @ 05:32 PM
link   
a reply to: Stevenjames15

All Mueller and the gang seem to be doing is setting a precedent to be used on the dems themselves eventually. The sealed indictments don't seem to worry anyone on the left.



posted on Aug, 31 2018 @ 06:47 PM
link   

originally posted by: 14377
So much for big news from the Mueller investigation .

I bet you Chuck Todd won't be able to top this. .


I was trying to find that thread so I could ask how today's bombshell is coming along.




posted on Aug, 31 2018 @ 06:54 PM
link   
FISA Courts are suppose to oversee request for surveillance warrants within the United States on foreign spies. Carter Paige is an American citizen, so not even sure if they should have asked a FISA court.

Certainly I would think they should have had some sort of hearing. The Judge needs to address the matter and should do so publically, as nothing so far seems remotely secret about this whole affair, other than a bunch of CYOA.



posted on Aug, 31 2018 @ 07:20 PM
link   
a reply to: Grambler

Ummm....


One similarity to a typical criminal court is that an appeals process is available. If a FISA court judge denies a search request, that judge must explain the reasons for the denial. Then, a panel of three federal judges appointed by the chief justice reviews the search request. This panel is called the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court of Review. If the request is again denied, the U.S. Supreme Court has the authority to review the decision. There is no option for appeal by the person being investigated because he or she is unaware of the surveillance.


Why is there no paper trail of this?

Where is the reason for the denial?

Why have I never heard about the Court of Review before today?

Roberts had a hand in this, then? Is that why he retired when the going got tough?

Does this somehow explain his sudden change of heart on the Obamacare ruling?

How deep does this go, really?


edit on 31-8-2018 by Lumenari because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 31 2018 @ 07:23 PM
link   
a reply to: Lumenari

I had read that earlier.

I believe that FBI did not submit the rejected application of page to the review board.

Instead they elected to reailor the warrant, and submit it anew.

Then it went through the original process, and the fisa judge granted the warrant.

But still, it is incredible that they didnt even have a hearing.

I think the every fisa judge that signed off on this should have to testify before congress.



posted on Aug, 31 2018 @ 07:25 PM
link   

originally posted by: Lumenari
a reply to: Grambler

Ummm....


One similarity to a typical criminal court is that an appeals process is available. If a FISA court judge denies a search request, that judge must explain the reasons for the denial. Then, a panel of three federal judges appointed by the chief justice reviews the search request. This panel is called the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court of Review. If the request is again denied, the U.S. Supreme Court has the authority to review the decision. There is no option for appeal by the person being investigated because he or she is unaware of the surveillance.


Why is there no paper trail of this?

Where is the reason for the denial?

Why have I never heard about the Court of Review before today?

Roberts had a hand in this, then?

How deep does this go, really?



Well we know the FISA app was denied at least once, so SOMEBODY reviewed it. It appears that 3 judges had to....whatcha want to bet their names come out next week?



posted on Aug, 31 2018 @ 07:31 PM
link   

originally posted by: Vasa Croe

originally posted by: Lumenari
a reply to: Grambler

Ummm....


One similarity to a typical criminal court is that an appeals process is available. If a FISA court judge denies a search request, that judge must explain the reasons for the denial. Then, a panel of three federal judges appointed by the chief justice reviews the search request. This panel is called the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court of Review. If the request is again denied, the U.S. Supreme Court has the authority to review the decision. There is no option for appeal by the person being investigated because he or she is unaware of the surveillance.


Why is there no paper trail of this?

Where is the reason for the denial?

Why have I never heard about the Court of Review before today?

Roberts had a hand in this, then?

How deep does this go, really?



Well we know the FISA app was denied at least once, so SOMEBODY reviewed it. It appears that 3 judges had to....whatcha want to bet their names come out next week?


Again I dont think so.

Judges only would review it had the FBI appealed the orginal judges denial.

They did not do that.

Instead they went back and resumbitted the application with changes, probably with the dossier being the most notable.

The second judge then acceoted this application like he would any new one, and granted it.

SO the review court never had to have a hearing, becauise the FBI never asked for a review.



posted on Aug, 31 2018 @ 07:33 PM
link   
Gee whiz, according to former FBI director, James Comey, “It is a pain in the neck to get permission to conduct electronic surveillance in the United States." Looks pretty easy to me, when the FISA judges base their decisions on just "written submissions."


Applications for FISA warrants, Comey said, are often thicker than his wrists, and that thickness represents all the work Justice Department attorneys and FBI agents have to do to convince a judge that such surveillance is appropriate in an investigation.



Comey has declined to discuss the details of the Russia probe, but in an appearance last month, he cited the process for getting FISA warrants as proof that the government’s surveillance powers are very carefully used, with significant oversight.



“It is a pain in the neck to get permission to conduct electronic surveillance in the United States. And that’s good,’’ he told an audience at the University of Texas in Austin.

www.washingtonpost.com... 11e7-ad74-3a742a6e93a7_story.html?noredirect=on&utm_term=.bdeea0f9f060

Definitely makes you scratch your head, when someone states this about Raymond Dearie, one of the four judges who signed off on the FISA warrants.


Scott Hechinger, a public defender in Brooklyn, clerked for Dearie, the Reagan appointee. “He’s no rubber stamp,” Hechinger wrote in a string of impassioned tweets defending his former boss: “If you look him up on judge rating websites, the consensus is in line w/ reality: An incredibly good man. A fair jurist. Smart & knowledgeable about the law. One ‘flaw’ — takes too long to render decisions. I saw why firsthand. He always wanted to make sure he got the law right.



“The allegations from Trump about FISA have long burned me up,” he concluded. “I’m sure it has him too (though he is incredibly tight lipped about his FISA service). … And in the case of approving surveillance of Carter Page, I know he applied the same care, allegiance to the Constitution, fairness, and deliberation he put into every decision big or small I ever saw him make.”

www.washingtonpost.com... presidential-falsehoods/5b5541e71b326b1e646954c3/?utm_term=.4bfc73b2477f

You sure about that Scott?

edit on 8/31/2018 by shawmanfromny because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 31 2018 @ 07:36 PM
link   
So the political book of our time keeps moving toward a fantasy novel



posted on Aug, 31 2018 @ 07:36 PM
link   

originally posted by: Grambler
a reply to: Lumenari

I had read that earlier.

I believe that FBI did not submit the rejected application of page to the review board.

Instead they elected to reailor the warrant, and submit it anew.

Then it went through the original process, and the fisa judge granted the warrant.

But still, it is incredible that they didnt even have a hearing.

I think the every fisa judge that signed off on this should have to testify before congress.



Retailoring is not a part of the law though.

Where is the denial paperwork from the original FISA warrant?

Why did they not follow the process?



posted on Aug, 31 2018 @ 07:37 PM
link   

originally posted by: Grambler

originally posted by: Vasa Croe

originally posted by: Lumenari
a reply to: Grambler

Ummm....


One similarity to a typical criminal court is that an appeals process is available. If a FISA court judge denies a search request, that judge must explain the reasons for the denial. Then, a panel of three federal judges appointed by the chief justice reviews the search request. This panel is called the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court of Review. If the request is again denied, the U.S. Supreme Court has the authority to review the decision. There is no option for appeal by the person being investigated because he or she is unaware of the surveillance.


Why is there no paper trail of this?

Where is the reason for the denial?

Why have I never heard about the Court of Review before today?

Roberts had a hand in this, then?

How deep does this go, really?



Well we know the FISA app was denied at least once, so SOMEBODY reviewed it. It appears that 3 judges had to....whatcha want to bet their names come out next week?


Again I dont think so.

Judges only would review it had the FBI appealed the orginal judges denial.

They did not do that.

Instead they went back and resumbitted the application with changes, probably with the dossier being the most notable.

The second judge then acceoted this application like he would any new one, and granted it.

SO the review court never had to have a hearing, becauise the FBI never asked for a review.


Then I would like to know if the one who denied it first was the one that finally approved it.

That would tell me they were working with the FBI to get it to the point of approval.

Do they get to pick who they submit the application to?



posted on Aug, 31 2018 @ 07:41 PM
link   

originally posted by: Vasa Croe

originally posted by: Lumenari
a reply to: Grambler

Ummm....


One similarity to a typical criminal court is that an appeals process is available. If a FISA court judge denies a search request, that judge must explain the reasons for the denial. Then, a panel of three federal judges appointed by the chief justice reviews the search request. This panel is called the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court of Review. If the request is again denied, the U.S. Supreme Court has the authority to review the decision. There is no option for appeal by the person being investigated because he or she is unaware of the surveillance.


Why is there no paper trail of this?

Where is the reason for the denial?

Why have I never heard about the Court of Review before today?

Roberts had a hand in this, then?

How deep does this go, really?



Well we know the FISA app was denied at least once, so SOMEBODY reviewed it. It appears that 3 judges had to....whatcha want to bet their names come out next week?


What troubles me is the deeper issue.

Roberts would have had to put the review judges together.

Roberts was all over the map the last three years as far as his opinions... he even contradicted his own rulings to keep Obamacare going before that.

I may be digging too deep on something that isn't anything at all, but...

I wonder.
edit on 31-8-2018 by Lumenari because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 31 2018 @ 07:42 PM
link   

originally posted by: Lumenari

originally posted by: Vasa Croe

originally posted by: Lumenari
a reply to: Grambler

Ummm....


One similarity to a typical criminal court is that an appeals process is available. If a FISA court judge denies a search request, that judge must explain the reasons for the denial. Then, a panel of three federal judges appointed by the chief justice reviews the search request. This panel is called the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court of Review. If the request is again denied, the U.S. Supreme Court has the authority to review the decision. There is no option for appeal by the person being investigated because he or she is unaware of the surveillance.


Why is there no paper trail of this?

Where is the reason for the denial?

Why have I never heard about the Court of Review before today?

Roberts had a hand in this, then?

How deep does this go, really?



Well we know the FISA app was denied at least once, so SOMEBODY reviewed it. It appears that 3 judges had to....whatcha want to bet their names come out next week?


What troubles me is the deeper issue.

Roberts would have had to put the review judges together.

Roberts was all over the map the last three years as far as his opinions... he even contradicted his own rulings to keep Obamacare going.

I may be digging too deep on something that isn't anything at all, but...

I wonder.


I'd say you're on the right track....



posted on Aug, 31 2018 @ 07:51 PM
link   
a reply to: shawmanfromny

It seems to me that one's previous reputation for being a standup guy/gal, thorough, fair, etc., etc., has let a lot of people get by with a lot of shenanigans later on.

Good people do turn bad and do wrong things for various reasons, so judges and others in authority should not get lazy and just trust others because of a past good name.

I get sick of every pundit starting out with...."so-and-so has a stellar reputation, served in the military honorably, and has x-amount of years as a loyal civil servant, blah blah blah. Some of those people turn out to be really baaaad actors later thinking they can get by on their "stellar" reputation.



posted on Aug, 31 2018 @ 07:52 PM
link   

originally posted by: Vasa Croe

originally posted by: Lumenari

originally posted by: Vasa Croe

originally posted by: Lumenari
a reply to: Grambler

Ummm....


One similarity to a typical criminal court is that an appeals process is available. If a FISA court judge denies a search request, that judge must explain the reasons for the denial. Then, a panel of three federal judges appointed by the chief justice reviews the search request. This panel is called the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court of Review. If the request is again denied, the U.S. Supreme Court has the authority to review the decision. There is no option for appeal by the person being investigated because he or she is unaware of the surveillance.


Why is there no paper trail of this?

Where is the reason for the denial?

Why have I never heard about the Court of Review before today?

Roberts had a hand in this, then?

How deep does this go, really?



Well we know the FISA app was denied at least once, so SOMEBODY reviewed it. It appears that 3 judges had to....whatcha want to bet their names come out next week?


What troubles me is the deeper issue.

Roberts would have had to put the review judges together.

Roberts was all over the map the last three years as far as his opinions... he even contradicted his own rulings to keep Obamacare going.

I may be digging too deep on something that isn't anything at all, but...

I wonder.


I'd say you're on the right track....


As Grambler said, maybe they just rewrote the request and submitted it as a whole new thing.

Which, in my humble opinion, is just gaming the system.

But it wasn't reported that way. The initial FISA warrant was denied (no paperwork there) and another one, with the Steele dossier included, proved enough to get the warrant. It was the inclusion of the dossier that got the warrant issued, according to the crooked fired director.

However, there should be some record of a denial.

Seems there are no records? I do get it that it may have not had a hearing before a judge, which I think would be at the least irregular but I am not privy on how this normally goes.

But there damn well should be a record of denial somewhere. If there isn't that, then how far up did it go with no record before it was granted? Because the chain would have been the judge, the review board and then a Supreme Court determination, which would not be a matter of public record on a FISA warrant.

Which all goes back to Roberts as a swing vote and 4 liberal judges....


edit on 31-8-2018 by Lumenari because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 31 2018 @ 07:53 PM
link   

originally posted by: Lumenari

originally posted by: Vasa Croe

originally posted by: Lumenari

originally posted by: Vasa Croe

originally posted by: Lumenari
a reply to: Grambler

Ummm....


One similarity to a typical criminal court is that an appeals process is available. If a FISA court judge denies a search request, that judge must explain the reasons for the denial. Then, a panel of three federal judges appointed by the chief justice reviews the search request. This panel is called the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court of Review. If the request is again denied, the U.S. Supreme Court has the authority to review the decision. There is no option for appeal by the person being investigated because he or she is unaware of the surveillance.


Why is there no paper trail of this?

Where is the reason for the denial?

Why have I never heard about the Court of Review before today?

Roberts had a hand in this, then?

How deep does this go, really?



Well we know the FISA app was denied at least once, so SOMEBODY reviewed it. It appears that 3 judges had to....whatcha want to bet their names come out next week?


What troubles me is the deeper issue.

Roberts would have had to put the review judges together.

Roberts was all over the map the last three years as far as his opinions... he even contradicted his own rulings to keep Obamacare going.

I may be digging too deep on something that isn't anything at all, but...

I wonder.


I'd say you're on the right track....


As Grambler said, maybe they just rewrote the request and submitted it as a whole new thing.

Which, in my humble opinion, is just gaming the system.

But it wasn't reported that way. The initial FISA warrant was denied (no paperwork there) and another one, with the Steele dossier included, proved enough to get the warrant. It was the inclusion of the dossier that got the warrant issued, according to the crooked fired director.

However, there should be some record of a denial.

Seems there are no records? I do get it that it may have not had a hearing before a judge, which I think would be at the least irregular but I am not privy on how this normally goes.

But there damn well should be a record of denial somewhere. If there isn't that, then how far up did it go with no record before it was granted?



Keep digging....



posted on Aug, 31 2018 @ 08:09 PM
link   
a reply to: Vasa Croe

Sorry, I was free thinking and updated my post.

It all comes back to John Glover Roberts Jr.

Interesting.







 
40
<< 1    3  4 >>

log in

join