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.
originally posted by: odzeandennz
a reply to: network dude
You'd think with all the bottomless proofs available to the internet, the AG would capitalize. I guess they don't have the ats Twitter feed.
originally posted by: Justoneman
originally posted by: UKTruth
originally posted by: chr0naut
a reply to: xuenchen
Please explain how the outcome of a court case is illegal in some way?
I mean, the FISA court is literally a legal process.
Ah, liberal logic. If you lie through your teeth to the court and get them to rule in your favour for a warrant, all is ok - because the court said you were good to go. Your liberal mindset has corrupted your brain and probably everything else about you.
We might find out ChrO is actually a Conservative Libertarian like myself and others here and is just helping us get our facts straight like we do when we challenge shills and their BS. I have fun with the Astronomy guy on ATS and catching him shilling for lies in Climate. In that case I know way more about the subject just by not parroting the lies, but that doesn't bother silly people at all.
originally posted by: OccamsRazor04
originally posted by: chr0naut
a reply to: xuenchen
Please explain how the outcome of a court case is illegal in some way?
I mean, the FISA court is literally a legal process.
So it is legal to lie to get a warrant?
originally posted by: chr0naut
Please read my original post which was more than the small quoted snippet.
The court is not illegal, nor are its conclusions, even if based upon fraudulent evidence.
originally posted by: chr0naut
originally posted by: xuenchen
a reply to: chr0naut
Page 16.
"Source #1" is Christopher Steele 😎
Page 23 alludes to the Dossier as "results of his research" 😎
Perhaps his name is in one of the redacted sections?
originally posted by: bigfatfurrytexan
a reply to: chr0naut
Spoken like a person unfamiliar with inalienable rights, and more accustomed to a monarchy.
originally posted by: chr0naut
originally posted by: Thenail
a reply to: chr0naut
You’re not supposed to be able to lie to a judge to get a warrant. Especially when the guy you’re wiretapping is your opponent in a presidential race. I figured you’d of known that.
No FISA search warrants were served on Donald Trump (to my knowledge). You are mixing up the people involved. Obama, and several Presidents before him, re-authorized the NSA data collection (which, by the way, Trump has done nothing to stop), not Hillary.
The FISA search warrant against Cohen resulted in a conviction. So, it clearly wasn't groundless.
The FISA warrants against Mannafort resulted in a conviction. So, they clearly weren't groundless.
The FISA warrant against Gates (If there was such a warrant. He could have been charged due to the information gained from the FISA raid on Mannafort) resulted in a conviction. So, it clearly wasn't groundless.
originally posted by: 1947boomer
originally posted by: chr0naut
originally posted by: xuenchen
a reply to: chr0naut
Page 16.
"Source #1" is Christopher Steele 😎
Page 23 alludes to the Dossier as "results of his research" 😎
Perhaps his name is in one of the redacted sections?
It may or may not be, but that is unimportant. The July 19, 2016 update to the dossier made by Steele makes the assertion that Carter Page met with various Russians when he was in Moscow a few weeks earlier, and had secret meetings with some of them. One name Steele mentioned in particular was Igor Sechin, a close associate of Putin and an individual who was personally under US Ukraine-related sanctions. According to Steele, Sechin (and others) discussed with Page the lifting of those sanctions and indicated that they had compromising information on Hilary Clinton that they were willing to share with the Trump campaign. Here is a pointer to the Steele dossier:
www.documentcloud.org...
The FISA court order against Carter Page that was approved in October of 2016 made reference to this set of assertions by Steele, but referred to him as Source #1 (page 16 of FISA warrant). The FBI said that, based on his history and reputation (chief British spy against the Russians) they considered him reliable and credible.
vault.fbi.gov...
There can be no doubt that Source#1 is Steele.
When the redacted Mueller report was published last month, it made reference to material that had presumably been uncovered as a result of the FISA warrant, including records of emails and other communications between Page and the Russians. These records document the fact that Page did go to Moscow in early July, 2016 and did communicate with Igor Sechin, just as Steele (Source #1) had told the FBI (page 99 of Mueller report).
www.politico.com...
There is a lot of text still blacked out in both the FISA warrant and the Mueller report around this discussion, leading to the speculation that the FBI probably has a lot more information about Page and the Russians from covert sources that they are not yet ready to release. The fact that the FBI had tried (unsuccessfully) twice before to get a FISA warrant against Page (starting in early July, as I recall) seems to imply that they had information that predates the Steele dossier on which to predicate a FISA warrant. Presumably, some of that information is contained in the redacted versions of the FISA warrant and has convinced three federal judges (who have seen the unreacted version) that the FISA warrant was well founded. I seem to recall (but I admit that I can't find the reference, right now) that the first two FISA applications were rejected by the judge not because there was insufficient reason to believe that Page was acting for a foreign power, but because the terms of the surveillance that the FBI was asking for were too broad. The judge asked the FBI to make the surveillance more focused and less intrusive. Be that as it may, the FISA application itself says that the FBI made the determination that Page's status as a foreign agent was determined in October 2016, based on evidence provided by the Secretary of State. I'm pretty sure that's why there was a line for John Kerry's signature on the signature page. The Steele information appears to have been incidental to getting the warrant approved.
In summary, in July 2016 Steele told the FBI that Page had just met with certain Russians in Moscow, in October 2016, the FISA court approved the FBI to intercept and recover Page’s communications with the Russians based in part but exclusively on those assertions, and those communications as published in the Mueller report showed that Steele’s information on this point was basically correct. I don't see where there is any lying to the FISA court or fraud in that series of events.
Another point to keep in mind is that the FISA warrant to surveil Page was NOT a criminal proceeding; it was clearly stated to be a counter intelligence matter (page 42). It seems to me that the facts presented easily establish a predicate to begin a counterintelligence investigation, even if they might not predicate a criminal investigation. And, of course, Page was never charged with a crime as a result of this investigation.
originally posted by: CrazyFox
originally posted by: chr0naut
originally posted by: Thenail
a reply to: chr0naut
You’re not supposed to be able to lie to a judge to get a warrant. Especially when the guy you’re wiretapping is your opponent in a presidential race. I figured you’d of known that.
No FISA search warrants were served on Donald Trump (to my knowledge). You are mixing up the people involved. Obama, and several Presidents before him, re-authorized the NSA data collection (which, by the way, Trump has done nothing to stop), not Hillary.
The FISA search warrant against Cohen resulted in a conviction. So, it clearly wasn't groundless.
The FISA warrants against Mannafort resulted in a conviction. So, they clearly weren't groundless.
The FISA warrant against Gates (If there was such a warrant. He could have been charged due to the information gained from the FISA raid on Mannafort) resulted in a conviction. So, it clearly wasn't groundless.
Both convictions had nothing to do with Trump/Russian collusion you forgot to mention that so I thought someone should. Wasn't Manafort a Hillary advisor or Clinton foundation hoopla. "When your bias is against the truth the only one you deceive is yourself" A wise man said that so I can understand your incomprehension of it.
originally posted by: DBCowboy
a reply to: Tarzan the apeman.
If Mueller said anything that differed from his report, then he'd being perjuring himself.
It'd be the ultimate irony if Mueller was arrested for lying to congress.