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.

 

Comey: Dossier Was Unverified Before And After FBI Used It To Obtain Spy Warrants

page: 9
50
<< 6  7  8    10 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Dec, 13 2018 @ 09:55 PM
link   
a reply to: shooterbrody




they should have told the fisa court that regurdless otherwise it is fraud
this is not some wiretap warrant from a county judge
the rules are different and much more stringent for a fisa warrant


They did.

The scribd and PDF documents contain the original application and at least 2 renewal applications. FISA warrants are not 'forever'. The FBI has to demonstrate that the information gathered is forwarding the investigation every 3 months.

The original is dated October 2016, the first renewal is January 2017, the second renewal is April 2017. Steele was terminated in November 2016. Obviously, it could not be noted in October because it hadn't happened yet.

Steele's (Source #1) termination is noted in the middle of page 17 (page 100 of the document dump) of the January renewal application and at the bottom of page 17 and the top of page 18 (pages 198-199 of the document dump) of the April renewal application.




posted on Dec, 13 2018 @ 10:15 PM
link   

originally posted by: shooterbrody

also


in December 2017, then FBI deputy director Andrew McCabe testified that “no surveillance warrant would have been sought” from the FISA court “without the Steele dossier information.”

square that if can


Easy. That is trivial.

McCabe said no such thing. Devon Nunes said that, and lied about it in his infamous memo.

McCabe says Republicans 'mischaracterized' his testimony on Trump dossier


The highly controversial memo from Committee Chairman Devin Nunes claimed McCabe testified that "no surveillance warrant would have been sought" for a Trump campaign aide without a disputed opposition-research dossier on Trump and Russia. Not so says McCabe -- the former No. 2 official at the FBI who signed one of the applications to surveil former Trump campaign foreign policy adviser Carter Page.

"We started the investigations without the dossier. We were proceeding with the investigations before we ever received that information," McCabe told CNN as part of a wide-ranging interview. "Was the dossier material important to the package? Of course, it was. As was every fact included in that package. Was it the majority of what was in the package? Absolutely not."


So was the dossier important or not?

The Democratic rebuttal to the Nunes memo tears it apart

The Steele dossier, per Schiff, was used as supporting evidence to further establish that this trip was sketchy. Specifically, Steele’s sources said that Page met with two Russians close to Putin during his trip (which Page insists didn’t happen).

But then something interesting happened. After the FISA warrant was approved, Schiff writes, “[the] DOJ provided additional information obtained through multiple independent sources that corroborated Steele’s reporting.” The precise nature of those sources is included in the Schiff memo, but it’s redacted in the public copy, to the point where it’s not even clear which specific Steele claims have been vindicated.

Nonetheless, it’s incredibly important. It suggests that Steele’s information was borne out by the FBI’s own work. Citing him wasn’t some kind of intelligence malpractice, or anti-Trump bias, but rather the result of a source who has a track record of providing relevant, correct intelligence.

This is perhaps why the FISA warrant, which has to be renewed every 90 days by law, was renewed three subsequent times — all by judges appointed by Republican presidents.


So, is the source's bias relevant?


The conceptual problem with Nunes’s argument, as opposed to the factual one, is that it doesn’t really matter if Steele was biased. The FBI relies on sources with axes to grind all the time; people typically don’t go to the authorities with damaging information about people they like.

The key question in an application like this isn’t whether the source liked the target; it’s whether the specific claims they’re making are credible. And the Schiff memo points out that the FBI had independent reasons to believe that Steele’s arguments were credible.


On the other hand, what was Nunez motivation? Who is the biased one here?


So how did Nunes get this so wrong? A February interview he did with Fox News provides a bit of a clue. In it, host Bret Baier asks Nunes if he read the October 2016 FISA warrant that figures so prominently in his explosive memo.

“No, I didn’t,” Nunes told Baier.



edit on 13/12/2018 by rnaa because: (no reason given)

edit on 13/12/2018 by rnaa because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 13 2018 @ 10:20 PM
link   
a reply to: rnaa

Using info from a fired source fired for leaking the info in the fisa warrant to the press is fraud on the court
You simply dont understand the high standard for the secret unrepresented fifa warrant on a us citizen



posted on Dec, 13 2018 @ 10:25 PM
link   
a reply to: shooterbrody



Using info from a fired source fired for leaking the info in the fisa warrant to the press is fraud on the court


No it isn't, that is just stupid.

Withholding such information from the court is certainly not going to win you any brownie points, but the FBI did no such thing.

I repeat:



... it doesn’t really matter if Steele was biased. The FBI relies on sources with axes to grind all the time; people typically don’t go to the authorities with damaging information about people they like.

The key question in an application like this isn’t whether the source liked the target; it’s whether the specific claims they’re making are credible. And the Schiff memo points out that the FBI had independent reasons to believe that Steele’s arguments were credible.



posted on Dec, 13 2018 @ 10:26 PM
link   

originally posted by: rnaa

originally posted by: shooterbrody

also


in December 2017, then FBI deputy director Andrew McCabe testified that “no surveillance warrant would have been sought” from the FISA court “without the Steele dossier information.”

square that if can


Easy. That is trivial.

McCabe said no such thing. Devon Nunes said that, and lied about it in his infamous memo.

McCabe says Republicans 'mischaracterized' his testimony on Trump dossier


The highly controversial memo from Committee Chairman Devin Nunes claimed McCabe testified that "no surveillance warrant would have been sought" for a Trump campaign aide without a disputed opposition-research dossier on Trump and Russia. Not so says McCabe -- the former No. 2 official at the FBI who signed one of the applications to surveil former Trump campaign foreign policy adviser Carter Page.

"We started the investigations without the dossier. We were proceeding with the investigations before we ever received that information," McCabe told CNN as part of a wide-ranging interview. "Was the dossier material important to the package? Of course, it was. As was every fact included in that package. Was it the majority of what was in the package? Absolutely not."


So was the dossier important or not?

The Democratic rebuttal to the Nunes memo tears it apart

The Steele dossier, per Schiff, was used as supporting evidence to further establish that this trip was sketchy. Specifically, Steele’s sources said that Page met with two Russians close to Putin during his trip (which Page insists didn’t happen).

But then something interesting happened. After the FISA warrant was approved, Schiff writes, “[the] DOJ provided additional information obtained through multiple independent sources that corroborated Steele’s reporting.” The precise nature of those sources is included in the Schiff memo, but it’s redacted in the public copy, to the point where it’s not even clear which specific Steele claims have been vindicated.

Nonetheless, it’s incredibly important. It suggests that Steele’s information was borne out by the FBI’s own work. Citing him wasn’t some kind of intelligence malpractice, or anti-Trump bias, but rather the result of a source who has a track record of providing relevant, correct intelligence.

This is perhaps why the FISA warrant, which has to be renewed every 90 days by law, was renewed three subsequent times — all by judges appointed by Republican presidents.


So, is the source's bias relevant?


The conceptual problem with Nunes’s argument, as opposed to the factual one, is that it doesn’t really matter if Steele was biased. The FBI relies on sources with axes to grind all the time; people typically don’t go to the authorities with damaging information about people they like.

The key question in an application like this isn’t whether the source liked the target; it’s whether the specific claims they’re making are credible. And the Schiff memo points out that the FBI had independent reasons to believe that Steele’s arguments were credible.


On the other hand, what was Nunez motivation? Who is the biased one here?


So how did Nunes get this so wrong? A February interview he did with Fox News provides a bit of a clue. In it, host Bret Baier asks Nunes if he read the October 2016 FISA warrant that figures so prominently in his explosive memo.

“No, I didn’t,” Nunes told Baier.



Your quote in no way disputes the circular reporting and the leak by steele, or the fact that without the dossier there would be no warrant issued as it was previously denied without the dosdier



posted on Dec, 13 2018 @ 10:27 PM
link   
a reply to: rnaa

You just dont understand the process



posted on Dec, 13 2018 @ 10:41 PM
link   
a reply to: rnaa

You should also look into how many FISA warrant requests are denied
The number is MINISCULE
Without the dossier no fisa

The fbi defrauded the fisa court



posted on Dec, 13 2018 @ 11:25 PM
link   
a reply to: shooterbrody




Your quote in no way disputes the circular reporting and the leak by steele, or the fact that without the dossier there would be no warrant issued as it was previously denied without the dosdier


That is simply untrue.

So you need to provide evidence of that statement.

You are really out of your depth here.



posted on Dec, 13 2018 @ 11:27 PM
link   

originally posted by: shooterbrody
a reply to: rnaa

You should also look into how many FISA warrant requests are denied
The number is MINISCULE
Without the dossier no fisa

The fbi defrauded the fisa court


How. Spell it out point by point by point.

Your entire argument is refuted by the actual application documents that have 99% of the detail redacted.

There is a motto on this site: "Deny Ignorance". I am denying your silliness.



posted on Dec, 13 2018 @ 11:28 PM
link   
a reply to: rnaa

Your stance is literal trump could pay for research saying any dem opponent has someone on their team that is a Chinese spy

That evidence can then be used by people in his fbi t spy on his democratic opponents campaign without verifying that info

If that is the standard, elections mean nothing



posted on Dec, 13 2018 @ 11:28 PM
link   
a reply to: rnaa

Your stance is literal trump could pay for research saying any dem opponent has someone on their team that is a Chinese spy

That evidence can then be used by people in his fbi t spy on his democratic opponents campaign without verifying that info

If that is the standard, elections mean nothing



posted on Dec, 13 2018 @ 11:33 PM
link   
www.theguardian.com...

The Guardian has learned that the FBI applied for a warrant from the foreign intelligence surveillance (Fisa) court over the summer in order to monitor four members of the Trump team suspected of irregular contacts with Russian officials. The Fisa court turned down the application asking FBI counter-intelligence investigators to narrow its focus. According to one report, the FBI was finally granted a warrant in October, but that has not been confirmed, and it is not clear whether any warrant led to a full investigation.

This is common knowledge to anyone who has actually followed this for the past 2 years.
In October the dossier and the circular Yahoo story(based on steele's leak?) Was added.
That is fraud on the court.



posted on Dec, 14 2018 @ 10:12 AM
link   

originally posted by: Grambler
a reply to: rnaa

Your stance is literal trump could pay for research saying any dem opponent has someone on their team that is a Chinese spy

That evidence can then be used by people in his fbi t spy on his democratic opponents campaign without verifying that info

If that is the standard, elections mean nothing


Two honest questions.

I though Carter Page had left the campaign by the time the FISA warrant was issued?

Is the FBI independent, the "deep-state" or actually a tool of the sitting President to be used for illegal political purposes like spying on opponents?

It seems to me that Republicans have cast the FBI as the enemy of the Trump Administration, despite the DOJ reporting to the Executive branch?

Pres. Obama wasn't running for office, so not sure the "political opponent" comparison is sound.

Your reasoning seems to place the FBI as an extension of a political campaign for President, where none of the candidates included the sitting President at the time?

The reasoning gets very confusing for me.



posted on Dec, 14 2018 @ 10:18 AM
link   

originally posted by: shooterbrody
www.theguardian.com...

The Guardian has learned that the FBI applied for a warrant from the foreign intelligence surveillance (Fisa) court over the summer in order to monitor four members of the Trump team suspected of irregular contacts with Russian officials. The Fisa court turned down the application asking FBI counter-intelligence investigators to narrow its focus. According to one report, the FBI was finally granted a warrant in October, but that has not been confirmed, and it is not clear whether any warrant led to a full investigation.

This is common knowledge to anyone who has actually followed this for the past 2 years.



Unsourced anonymous claims published in "The Gaurdian" might or might not be true, but declaring such things "common knowledge" is abusive to "common knowledge".



posted on Dec, 14 2018 @ 10:23 AM
link   
a reply to: Extorris

1. The warrant still allowed the FBI to get all communications from when he was on trumps team, and all future communications he may have with them.

Hence it was used to look at trump communications.

2. Sessions was forced to recuse, and rosenstien was in charge, he clearly wasnt a trump supporter.

3. Pretending Trump wasnt an opponent of Obama is laughable. Sure, I guess Obama was indifferent about rather his party or trump wopn.



posted on Dec, 14 2018 @ 10:36 AM
link   
Comeys saying exactly what he's been told to say..
He's practiced these questions and has the answer laid out. Its how these pathological liars tackle these situations.
If being he being forced to continue the lie via blackmail? or is he still trying to cover his own a55... who' knows.

I'm impressed these criminals have been able to withstand this fact finding mission so long..
Comey, Lynch, Strzok, Mueller, Mccabe, Rosenstein, Clinton....

Seriously, those 7 individuals make up the entire 2000 - 202X deep state (keeping in mind it changes as time goes on)

They've controlled the narrative, the media, the senators, the mouth pieces, the 'guest interviews'...

It feels unlikely they'll drop the ball so badly they'll all be arrested.

The Anti-Establishment types are przying that Trump and his team have enough real dirty to expose and bury these people.. It appears they're playing the long game, but at the same time it feels like they're constrained to actually act.

I dont know where I'm going with this, but this is how it feels... but i have hope!
edit on 14/12/18 by Agit8dChop because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 14 2018 @ 10:52 AM
link   
a reply to: Extorris




Unsourced anonymous claims published in "The Gaurdian" might or might not be true,

they have been correct about other things
the "unsourced claims" led to mccabes testimony and other items causing leo activity scrutiny that led to comey. mccabe, and struczk all being fired
but believe what you like
interesting they have the right timeline for the october approval



but declaring such things "common knowledge" is abusive to "common knowledge".

you are correct
perhaps that is why added references and not just the plain label



This is common knowledge to anyone who has actually followed this for the past 2 years.

anyone who has actually followed this has the aforementioned "common knowledge", sorry some johnny come lately msnbc morning joe viewers do not



posted on Dec, 14 2018 @ 11:37 AM
link   
a reply to: Extorris

www.bbc.com...



The taskforce included six agencies or departments of government. Dealing with the domestic, US, side of the inquiry, were the FBI, the Department of the Treasury, and the Department of Justice. For the foreign and intelligence aspects of the investigation, there were another three agencies: the CIA, the Office of the Director of National Intelligence and the National Security Agency, responsible for electronic spying. Lawyers from the National Security Division in the Department of Justice then drew up an application. They took it to the secret US court that deals with intelligence, the Fisa court, named after the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act. They wanted permission to intercept the electronic records from two Russian banks. Their first application, in June, was rejected outright by the judge. They returned with a more narrowly drawn order in July and were rejected again. Finally, before a new judge, the order was granted, on 15 October, three weeks before election day.

it was not just the guardian reporting this



posted on Dec, 14 2018 @ 12:15 PM
link   
a reply to: shooterbrody

"They wanted permission to intercept the electronic records from two Russian banks. "

This doesn't sound like an application to monitor Trump Campaign members?

If it is, then that might be another can of worms?



posted on Dec, 14 2018 @ 12:36 PM
link   

originally posted by: Extorris
a reply to: shooterbrody

"They wanted permission to intercept the electronic records from two Russian banks. "

This doesn't sound like an application to monitor Trump Campaign members?

If it is, then that might be another can of worms?

oh so they need fisa warrants to spy on foreign banks now?
mkay
what ever you say.....
You do understand the fisa warrants are only for AMERICAN CITIZENS?




top topics



 
50
<< 6  7  8    10 >>

log in

join