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: Krazysh0t
a reply to: howtonhawky
Read this carefully: To obtain a warrant you just have to show the possibility of wrongdoing. You don't have to prove anything with your initial evidence. The purpose of the warrant is to substantiate the concerns and actually prove if anything was done illegally or not... Y'all seem to be expecting that the investigation had to have fully proven that Trump (actually in this case it was Carter Page) was doing something illegal to get a wire tap. That is beyond ludicrous since if that were already proven then there would be no need for the wiretap. They could just indict and go to court already.
The Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) allows the FBI to get a warrant from a secret court, known as the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court (FISC), to conduct electronic surveillance on U.S. persons if they can show probable cause that the target is an “agent of a foreign power” who is “knowingly engag[ing]…in clandestine intelligence activities.” In other words, the government has to show that the target might be spying for a foreign government or organization.
originally posted by: neo96
a reply to: UKTruth
So collusion with Russia IS actually proven, it's just it was Hillary Clinton, the DNC, and members of Obama's administration who are guilty of it.We also know that Hilllary's campaign colluded with the Ukraine to try and influence the election.
Damn I missed that one.
THANK YOU for pointing it out.
Ukrainian government officials tried to help Hillary Clinton and undermine Trump by publicly questioning his fitness for office. They also disseminated documents implicating a top Trump aide in corruption and suggested they were investigating the matter, only to back away after the election. And they helped Clinton’s allies research damaging information on Trump and his advisers, a Politico investigation found.
www.politico.com...
Team Left had a coalation of the willing.
Ukraine and ex british spies.
originally posted by: Krazysh0t
a reply to: howtonhawky
Read this carefully: To obtain a warrant you just have to show the possibility of wrongdoing. You don't have to prove anything with your initial evidence. The purpose of the warrant is to substantiate the concerns and actually prove if anything was done illegally or not... Y'all seem to be expecting that the investigation had to have fully proven that Trump (actually in this case it was Carter Page) was doing something illegal to get a wire tap. That is beyond ludicrous since if that were already proven then there would be no need for the wiretap. They could just indict and go to court already.
The Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) allows the FBI to get a warrant from a secret court, known as the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court (FISC), to conduct electronic surveillance on U.S. persons if they can show probable cause that the target is an “agent of a foreign power” who is “knowingly engag[ing]…in clandestine intelligence activities.” In other words, the government has to show that the target might be spying for a foreign government or organization.
APPLICATION TO SEARCH WARRANTS
Probable cause exists when there is a fair probability that a search will result in evidence of a crime being discovered.7 For a warrantless search, probable cause can be established by in-court testimony after the search. In the case of a warrant search, however, an affidavit or recorded testimony must support the warrant by indicating on what basis probable cause exists.8
A judge may issue a search warrant if the affidavit in support of the warrant offers sufficient credible information to establish probable cause.9 There is a presumption that police officers are reliable sources of information, and affidavits in support of a warrant will often include their observations.10 When this is the case, the officers’ experience and training become relevant factors in assessing the existence of probable cause.11 Information from victims or witnesses, if included in an affidavit, may be important factors as well.12
The good faith exception that applies to arrests also applies to search warrants: when a defect renders a warrant constitutionally invalid, the evidence does not have to be suppressed if the officers acted in good faith.13 Courts evaluate an officer’s good faith by looking at the nature of the error and how the warrant was executed.14
originally posted by: Krazysh0t
a reply to: UKTruth
You clearly don't know what the issue is about at all. Typing out a disagreement with me doesn't make you correct btw. You have to actually prove your point.
originally posted by: UKTruth
originally posted by: Krazysh0t
a reply to: UKTruth
You clearly don't know what the issue is about at all. Typing out a disagreement with me doesn't make you correct btw. You have to actually prove your point.
Everything I said is verified by both the Republican and Democrat memo's.
You are attempting to avoid the actual issue by labouring on a point about probable cause, which is irrelevant.
The judge was not given the full picture in order to make an informed decision.
originally posted by: Krazysh0t
originally posted by: UKTruth
originally posted by: Krazysh0t
a reply to: UKTruth
You clearly don't know what the issue is about at all. Typing out a disagreement with me doesn't make you correct btw. You have to actually prove your point.
Everything I said is verified by both the Republican and Democrat memo's.
You are attempting to avoid the actual issue by labouring on a point about probable cause, which is irrelevant.
The judge was not given the full picture in order to make an informed decision.
See you are lying. Neither of the memos show that. BOTH memos show that the investigation and wire taps predate the Dossiers existence and the second memo says that the Dossier is only a small fraction of the total evidence used to obtain the warrant. They also show that the warrant was renewal request, not an initial warrant.
THOSE are the facts pointed out by the memo. Facts which y'all keep trying to ignore to talk about nonsense.
originally posted by: Krazysh0t
So you DO know that bias doesn't prevent a court from using evidence to obtain a warrant right? You don't need to prove that someone is guilty to get a warrant; you just have to establish the possibility of guilt. Something that is allowed with biased evidence. This ENTIRE line of inquiry has been proven to be a nothingburger and Nunes shot himself in the foot with the memo fiasco.
originally posted by: Krazysh0t
a reply to: UKTruth
So? The source of the information is irrelevant if the information within is being verified even partially. And again the Dossier makes up a small fraction of the total intelligence used to obtain the warrant. Why do you keep ignoring that part?
It's really starting to reek of desperation how you guys are trying to defend the Trump admin from this investigation. It's truly puzzling why y'all can't just let the investigation happen and the cards fall how they will fall. Instead we have to go through this unprecedented idea of investigating an investigation in mid-investigation. And the goal posts of this meta investigation keep getting moved back as the claims and concerns are constantly found wanting. Yet y'all seem incapable of admitting wrongness on, well ANYTHING.
Meanwhile, even though House Democrats seem to be rebutting a contention that was not made in the Republican memo, there are possible issues with the rebuttal’s claim that the FBI’s investigative team only received Steele’s “reporting” in mid-September, ostensibly referring to the written dossier. The Democrats entirely ignore that last July, Steele reportedly traveled to Rome, where he met with an FBI contact to supply the agency with alleged information he found during the course of his anti-Trump work. The Washington Post reported that Steele met with the FBI on July 5, 2016. The Democratic memo reveals that the DOJ “accurately informed the court that that the FBI initiated its counterintelligence investigation on July 31, 2016.” That is 26 days after Steele met with the FBI in Rome.
originally posted by: Krazysh0t
a reply to: UKTruth
Pretty much. Talking to you guys is a waste of time. I'm not going to beat the same points into the ground over and over. You guys want to focus on nothing and over hype the importance of something to make it seem like the smallest inconsistencies in its origin are somehow nefarious. Well knock yourselves out. The investigation will continue without you anyways. It's not on me to change your minds, and y'all don't ever change your minds anyways.
originally posted by: Krazysh0t
a reply to: UKTruth
See. This is what I'm talking about. "Raise valid points". Lol. All I did was raise valid points. MY narrative is what is allowing the investigation to continue. If YOUR narrative were true then there would be more momentum available to shut the investigation down. It's simple reality of the situation. You just don't understand what is going on as well as you think you do. I blame you constantly leaping to conclusions about the investigation, but that is your personal problem. As always I have deferred my conclusions on the investigation until it has finished.
originally posted by: UKTruth
To your point about the investigation starting before the dossier, that's true, however, the FBI met with Steele a month BEFORE they started the investigation, something else they didn't tell the judge about.
Meanwhile, even though House Democrats seem to be rebutting a contention that was not made in the Republican memo, there are possible issues with the rebuttal’s claim that the FBI’s investigative team only received Steele’s “reporting” in mid-September, ostensibly referring to the written dossier. The Democrats entirely ignore that last July, Steele reportedly traveled to Rome, where he met with an FBI contact to supply the agency with alleged information he found during the course of his anti-Trump work. The Washington Post reported that Steele met with the FBI on July 5, 2016. The Democratic memo reveals that the DOJ “accurately informed the court that that the FBI initiated its counterintelligence investigation on July 31, 2016.” That is 26 days after Steele met with the FBI in Rome.
The idea that the dossier information did not drive the investigation is incorrect.