The more I read about the FISA Court, the more it seems apparent congress needs to put a choker chain on this process.

Grassley has clearly stated from what he saw of records for the warrants for Carter Page that the court was lied to. The Isikoff story was reported to the court as not being sourced by the dossier. (it was)

With this whole mess tearing the country apart, Collyer's letter sounded pretty casual given her court was tricked four times in the Page warrants. Her reply is " go check w the people that you think lied"

Especially since Dep AG Rod Rosenstein signed off on the 4th warrant.

This massive chronic attempt to hide behind "national security" is getting very old.

quote:

Originally posted by sdy:
The more I read about the FISA Court, the more it seems apparent congress needs to put a choker chain on this process.

Grassley has clearly stated from what he saw of records for the warrants for Carter Page that the court was lied to. The Isikoff story was reported to the court as not being sourced by the dossier. (it was)

With this whole mess tearing the country apart, Collyer's letter sounded pretty casual given her court was tricked four times in the Page warrants. Her reply is " go check w the people that you think lied"

Especially since Dep AG Rod Rosenstein signed off on the 4th warrant.

This massive chronic attempt to hide behind "national security" is getting very old.

Remember that courts are going to be much more passive, much more reticent, avoiding getting involved unless and until an actual case or controversy is presented.

It’s not so much “check with the people you think lied.” After all, presumably, everything filed with the court was produced by the DOJ. Let the executive branch deal with oversight.

It is perhaps a loophole that Congressional sanctions are enforced by the DOJ. That may need some creative solution work.

quote:

Originally posted by JALLEN:

It is perhaps a loophole that Congressional sanctions are enforced by the DOJ.

I guess I'm a slow reader or slow learner. Please help me out and show me where those sanctions were enforced. This administration or the one before it.

quote:

avoiding getting involved unless and until an actual case or controversy is presented

The Grassley memo lays out that controversy in clear terms. The memo said the dossier was used as the primary evidence that Carter Page was a Russian foreign agent.

The Isikoff story was falsely used as corroboration, and that no further dossier verification was provided. That should have the FISA court furious.

Unless Grassley is completely incorrect (and remember Feinstein's rebuttal proved nothing), the FISA court judges know right now that they were scammed by FBI/DoJ.

Given this FISA court is so very special because of secret hearings which lead to secret surveillance of Americans in the most technically advanced ways possible, addressing abuse of the process should be of the highest priority of the presiding judge of the FISA court.

I think it speaks volumes that the judges that were lied to and deceived don't appear to give a flying fuck that they were duped and tricked

for them, this must simply be business as usual

which says a lot about the integrity of the FISA judges

quote:

Originally posted by nhtagmember:
I think it speaks volumes that the judges that were lied to and deceived don't appear to give a flying fuck that they were duped and tricked

for them, this must simply be business as usual

which says a lot about the integrity of the FISA judges

It does not.

Judges are lied to a lot, of course. Judges have very limited courses of action, exceeding which involves the loss of impartiality which leads to recusals. Unlike private persons, a judge can’t just saddle up and ride off to redress truth, justice and the American way.

It has not been proven, by evidence, that anyone misrepresented anything material. We haven’t seen the application, and do not know what they were told, by whom.

quote:

Originally posted by sdy:

quote:

avoiding getting involved unless and until an actual case or controversy is presented

The Grassley memo lays out that controversy in clear terms. The memo said the dossier was used as the primary evidence that Carter Page was a Russian foreign agent.

The Isikoff story was falsely used as corroboration, and that no further dossier verification was provided. That should have the FISA court furious.

Unless Grassley is completely incorrect (and remember Feinstein's rebuttal proved nothing), the FISA court judges know right now that they were scammed by FBI/DoJ.

Given this FISA court is so very special because of secret hearings which lead to secret surveillance of Americans in the most technically advanced ways possible, addressing abuse of the process should be of the highest priority of the presiding judge of the FISA court.

That is not likely within the jurisdiction of that court.

Except for a contempt committed in its presence, Courts have to wait for a case to be brought by a proper party alleging a case or controversy for which relief can be granted. They can't just read something in the newspaper and start flinging orders about.

quote:

just read something in the newspaper

come on now. The Grassley memo was not "something in the newspaper"

Sen Chuck Grassley is the chair of the Senate Judiciary Comm.

wiki:

Senator Grassley has been on this committee every year that he’s served in the Senate and today has a leadership position as the committee’s Chairman.

The Committee on the Judiciary is one of the Senate’s original standing committees and has a broad and influential jurisdiction, including crime, antitrust, bankruptcy, intellectual property, the federal courts and judges, civil liberties, constitutional law and amendments, and immigration.

********

Rep Goodlatte is chair of the House Judiciary Comm. In a hearing not long ago, Goodlatte told FBI Dir Wray that the Judiciary Comm has oversight of the FISC court.


You can have the last word. I've made my point as clearly as I can.

quote:

Originally posted by sdy:

quote:

just read something in the newspaper

come on now. The Grassley memo was not "something in the newspaper"

Sen Chuck Grassley is the chair of the Senate Judiciary Comm.

wiki:

Senator Grassley has been on this committee every year that he’s served in the Senate and today has a leadership position as the committee’s Chairman.

The Committee on the Judiciary is one of the Senate’s original standing committees and has a broad and influential jurisdiction, including crime, antitrust, bankruptcy, intellectual property, the federal courts and judges, civil liberties, constitutional law and amendments, and immigration.

********

Rep Goodlatte is chair of the House Judiciary Comm. In a hearing not long ago, Goodlatte told FBI Dir Wray that the Judiciary Comm has oversight of the FISC court.


You can have the last word. I've made my point as clearly as I can.

I was exaggerating for effect. The court can do nothing official with the Grassley memo.

Grassley can do nothing with the court, except amending statutes, fiddling with budgets. The judges are all Article III judges, the court has a defined limited jurisdiction, and it is not like some executive branch agency.

The DOJ can take the allegations in the Grassley memo, gather evidence to prove them and bring cases in federal court, like any other prosecution. Maybe that will happen.

I previously posted :

"I wonder what happened to Nunes demand that Ohr, Strzok, and Page testify to his committee ?"

Conservative Treehouse (CT) has a theory

Now CT has come up w some really good stuff, but occasionally they seem over aggressive to make "connect the dots" predictions.

So we will have to see if this prediction pans out.

https://theconservativetreehou...ongress/#more-145896

the theory they put forth is that neither the Nunes committee or the Grassley comm has interviewed these people recently.

CT notes that Strzok, Page, Ohr, Baker and Priestap are still employed.

And CT then theorizes that all 5 are providing testimony to the DoJ IG Horowitz.

You can read the article and make your own assessment.

Quite an interesting possibility. I thought it had enough potential to be true that others here might like to read it.

Near as I can tell, the FISA court is a kangaroo court at best. Worthless comes to mind... approx 34,000 requests for warrants over 30+ years and between 12-18 as far as I can tell were turned down.

The most requests turned down and a huge anomaly to an otherwise stunningly inept and/or corrupt process, was in 2016 when the FISA court denied 9 requests from the Magical Muslim's administration.

quote:

Originally posted by sdy:
I previously posted :

"I wonder what happened to Nunes demand that Ohr, Strzok, and Page testify to his committee ?"

Conservative Treehouse (CT) has a theory

Now CT has come up w some really good stuff, but occasionally they seem over aggressive to make "connect the dots" predictions.

So we will have to see if this prediction pans out.

https://theconservativetreehou...ongress/#more-145896

the theory they put forth is that neither the Nunes committee or the Grassley comm has interviewed these people recently.

CT notes that Strzok, Page, Ohr, Baker and Priestap are still employed.

And CT then theorizes that all 5 are providing testimony to the DoJ IG Horowitz.

You can read the article and make your own assessment.

Quite an interesting possibility. I thought it had enough potential to be true that others here might like to read it.

This is the article that Veeper and I linked to yesterday https://sigforum.com/eve/forums...35/m/9740051734/p/17.

I wonder what is like to get up every morning, shower, shave, dress, eat breakfast and drive to the office knowing you are in that much shit, that you will be spending your day wondering when the guy with cuffs will come read you your rights, if the answers you are giving, can give, will get you off the hook, that soon, maybe very soon, all you have dreamed of and worked for, is going to crash down around you, maybe your pension and health care benefits, everything..... disgraced!

I bet water cooler/coffee room chats are terse.

quote:

Originally posted by bigredfish:
Near as I can tell, the FISA court is a kangaroo court at best. Worthless comes to mind... approx 34,000 requests for warrants over 30+ years and between 12-18 as far as I can tell were turned down.

The most requests turned down and a huge anomaly to an otherwise stunningly inept and/or corrupt process, was in 2016 when the FISA court denied 9 requests from the Magical Muslim's administration.

While this instance is a complete shit-show, don't read too much into the approval/disapproval rate. For even an ordinary 'ol run-of-the-mill criminal search warrant to be denied would be exceedingly unusual in the Federal system. Probable Cause is a fairly easy standard to meet and by the time the application gets to a magistrate, it's already been screened by prosecutor (and sent back & forth for revisions, re-writes, more/better facts.

maybe Mr Ethics will explain it all

quote:

Originally posted by sdy:


maybe Mr Ethics will explain it all

I feel sure it will be both novel and imaginative.

quote:

Originally posted by JALLEN:

quote:

Originally posted by sdy:


maybe Mr Ethics will explain it all

I feel sure it will be both A novel and imaginative.

FIFY.

I am sure that at the end of the day, Comey will land back at his brother's firm. He will still have his law license, and will get back to representing other shady Democrat political foundations/operatives. Business as usual in the swamp.

quote:

Originally posted by HKAngusKL:
Business as usual in the swamp.

No and the reason is President Donald Trump.

Same as it ever was Same as it ever was Same as it ever was Same as it ever was Same as it ever was Same as it ever was Same as it ever was Same as it ever was Same as it ever was Same as it ever was Same as it ever was Same as it ever was Same as it ever was Same as it ever was Same as it ever was Same as it ever was

This thread got started because of the release of the Nunes memo on 2 Feb 2018.

Shortly after that, the Grassley memo was released with a number of FBI redactions removed from the first version of the Grassley memo.

The 2 documents support each other.

Looking back at Andrew McCabe’s congressional testimony on 20 Dec 2017, we can see how McCabe got trapped. McCabe announced his plans to retire within a day or so of his congressional testimony.

http://www.washingtonexaminer....hing/article/2644225

Byron York reported on McCabe’s testimony

In a seven-hour interview with the House Intelligence Committee Wednesday, FBI Deputy Director Andrew McCabe repeatedly declined to answer whether the bureau has been able to verify the substantive allegations in the dossier, or even to identify a substantive allegation that has been corroborated, according to sources familiar with the questioning.

The dossier portion of the interview began with McCabe being asked if he thought the dossier met the standard of credibility the FBI required to open an investigation. McCabe said he believed it did

McCabe was asked to point to anything in the dossier that he knew to be true. McCabe noted that the dossier said, accurately, that the unpaid, low-level Trump foreign policy adviser Carter Page visited Moscow in July 2016.

Page's Moscow trip was reported in the press at the time it happened; the simple fact that he was in Russia was not a revelation. Lawmakers reminded McCabe that Page's presence in Moscow was long established and then asked again: Was there anything more in the dossier that McCabe now knows to be true?

McCabe, according to sources, said he did not know how to answer the question.

On a number of occasions, when asked about what in the dossier had been corroborated by the FBI, McCabe gave answers such as — these are not precise quotes — I can't answer that, or I don't know how to answer that

After the questioning established that McCabe would not verify any substantive allegation in the dossier, he was asked if he stood by its veracity. McCabe said he did.

********************

In February 2018, the Nunes and Grassley memos established that the dossier was at the center of the 4 FISA court applications. We didn’t know that for sure until those memos came out.

So on 20 Dec 2017, McCabe could not say the dossier wasn’t true. He knew what the FISA applications said. He was trapped.


****************

adding: this would be a great idea

http://www.washingtonexaminer....tion/article/2648001

House Intelligence Committee Chairman Devin Nunes, R-Calif., said he is not opposed to releasing the transcript of FBI Deputy Director Andrew McCabe's testimony in which he allegedly said that the agency would not have pursued placing a Trump campaign adviser under surveillance without the unverified "Trump dossier" written by former British spy Christopher Steele.

too bad McCabe's testimony wasn't public