First fallout from the Memo?
- Thread starter BGNO
- Start date
Ok read this story.
Note the wording. "Was recused" not "Recused himself"
And on top of it he is a, ready,FISA judge.
http://amp.washingtontimes.com/news...-muellerflynn-case/?__twitter_impression=true
A little highlight
"The timing of the recusal is curious, to say the least, especially in light of some of the tidbits that have slipped out recently over the contents of the FISA memo compiled by Republicans on the House Intelligence Committee.
Contreras sits on the FISA court. He was assigned to that court in May 2016, months before the FISA warrant was granted to the FBI to spy on members of the Trump campaign and the Trump transition."
Hmmm, one can only speculate.
This is why I'm against the Patriot Act, FISA and all other types of star chamber, rights regulating, BS laws. The FBI and the CIA can take a hike too as far as I'm concerned. We only need them because we stick our nose into everyone else's business and let every America hating hadji into the country who wants to milk us.
This is interesting. Basically judge telling DOJ quit telling me no more docs, Nunes doc reveals there are.
Gives them until 2/14 to respond.
USA Today filed FOIA request.
The Freedom of Information Act lawsuit, filed by the James Madison Project and USA Today reporter Brad Heath in April, sought records from the FBI of FISA applications and authorizations for surveillance of the Trump Organization, President Donald Trump, his campaign and associated people.
A filing from USA Today's lawyers Friday pointed out that the late-October 2016 issuance of the FISA warrant on Page matched the month that Trump claims the Obama administration started wiretapping his phones at Trump Tower in New York.
"I'd bet a good lawyer could make a great case out of the fact that President Obama was tapping my phones in October, just prior to Election!" Trump tweeted in March.
https://amp.cnn.com/cnn/2018/02/02/...nes-memo/index.html?__twitter_impression=true
Gives them until 2/14 to respond.
USA Today filed FOIA request.
The Freedom of Information Act lawsuit, filed by the James Madison Project and USA Today reporter Brad Heath in April, sought records from the FBI of FISA applications and authorizations for surveillance of the Trump Organization, President Donald Trump, his campaign and associated people.
A filing from USA Today's lawyers Friday pointed out that the late-October 2016 issuance of the FISA warrant on Page matched the month that Trump claims the Obama administration started wiretapping his phones at Trump Tower in New York.
"I'd bet a good lawyer could make a great case out of the fact that President Obama was tapping my phones in October, just prior to Election!" Trump tweeted in March.
https://amp.cnn.com/cnn/2018/02/02/...nes-memo/index.html?__twitter_impression=true
BG, can you clarify for me what this tweet is saying?
I assume he's rebutting a WaPo reporter's tweet or article which claimed FBI couldn't have tapped Trump due to the date of the Page warrant because the warrant is somewhat retroactive?
Hard to understand without reading Kessler's WaPo article. Thx
Sure. You are exactly right
People are saying Page wasnt under. Fisa Investigation until October so therefore he wasn't being spied on until after he left team Trump.
This is saying that even though the FISA WARRANT wasn't approved until October,unlike a regular warrant that can only be in effect moving forward, the FBI could go back in time and get all of Pages records from when he was on Team Trump.
So what it does is shows people that claim Trump's team wasn't spied on because Page was no longer there are incorrect.
This "what's it matter Page was no longer a part of the team" is a false narrative.
While technically correct he wasn't, they can go all the way back to before he was and all time in between to cull information.
@BPKY
Here's an attorneys input I found.
Fisa allows 3 hops.
So if I tell you,you tell your sister and she tells her boss we can all be named and questioned on info picked up.
That's pretty alarming.
So if Page talked to Flynn and Flynn talked to Manafort that could have been swept up by Pages Fisa without any warrants on Flynn and Manafort.
That's why Flynn's plea deal has been delayed.
It's a interconnected.
If the info on Page was obtained illegally it's possible that so was info on many others included in Pages 3 hop circle
The judge can vacate the agreement and rule whether the Flynn charges can stand on their own with no assistance from the Page case which we think is no.
That's what makes these nothingburger comments comical.
Anyone who thought this memo was monolithic in a vacuum didn't realize how the tentacles spread throughout all these cases.
They're all intermingled.
No Page,no Manafort,no Flynn.
Popodopoulos loose lips may have started it as some claim but that has zero to do with what facts were or weren't included or omitted from Page FISA app.
They aren't opening a FISA app over some low level staffer drunk bragging in London about Russians .There needed to be more.
Other wise we'd all be under investigation for one thing or another.
Here's an attorneys input I found.
Fisa allows 3 hops.
So if I tell you,you tell your sister and she tells her boss we can all be named and questioned on info picked up.
That's pretty alarming.
So if Page talked to Flynn and Flynn talked to Manafort that could have been swept up by Pages Fisa without any warrants on Flynn and Manafort.
That's why Flynn's plea deal has been delayed.
It's a interconnected.
If the info on Page was obtained illegally it's possible that so was info on many others included in Pages 3 hop circle
The judge can vacate the agreement and rule whether the Flynn charges can stand on their own with no assistance from the Page case which we think is no.
That's what makes these nothingburger comments comical.
Anyone who thought this memo was monolithic in a vacuum didn't realize how the tentacles spread throughout all these cases.
They're all intermingled.
No Page,no Manafort,no Flynn.
Popodopoulos loose lips may have started it as some claim but that has zero to do with what facts were or weren't included or omitted from Page FISA app.
They aren't opening a FISA app over some low level staffer drunk bragging in London about Russians .There needed to be more.
Other wise we'd all be under investigation for one thing or another.
Last edited:
So if Page spoke to trump, even if it was prior to the warrant being issued, the FBI could listen to any communication of Trump's that they can access from a database they collect on most everyone?
Or can the FBI surveil, without a warrant, any people Page talked to up to two degrees of seperation?
EDIT - nevermind. I see you edited your prior post to include this while I was driving. ThX again.
Or can the FBI surveil, without a warrant, any people Page talked to up to two degrees of seperation?
EDIT - nevermind. I see you edited your prior post to include this while I was driving. ThX again.
That's the way I understand it. They can go back to whenever .
Now the President is a special case so I honestly don't have an answer there.
But your other questions,degrees of separation is correct.
This is why these Fisa courts exist, because of the potential of so many others being swept up or they'd just get a regular warrant with limitations
Here's the big takeaway.
If the FBI were ILLEGALLY monitoring Page before October and the Fisa, the Fisa could now be used to justify info they received illegally before. they can now claim hey we had a FISA to justify releasing any info on Page.
Instead of saying,hey back in March we were illegally spying on Page,since we got a FISA 10 MONTHS later that makes it ok because we were hopeful at some point in the future we would get a FISA. It's ludicrous
No it doesn't. They obviously didn't feel they had a good Fisa case in March or they would have presented it then.
Sure sounds like it. In a FISA warrant they can get any correspondence on both of us FOREVER as long as they are in the NSA archives from what this Constitutional lawyer is saying.
That is why when Americans get caught up in Foreign 702 Fisa apps they are to be masked because 702 is Foreign only.
But the domestic section sure sounds like every thing is fair game as long as one of us in under a FISA warrant.
I don't wanna be like a few here that just blurt out thoughts as tho they're facts
I've been reading on this Fisa stuff for a while but I'm only parroting what this Constitutional lawyer I follow on Twitter is saying.
It's really detailed as are many legal documents and quite frankly Im just not qualified to editorialize any statements myself
I've been reading on this Fisa stuff for a while but I'm only parroting what this Constitutional lawyer I follow on Twitter is saying.
It's really detailed as are many legal documents and quite frankly Im just not qualified to editorialize any statements myself
I know you have a great interest in this so here's an article on some FISA WARRANT info called "WOODS PROCEDURES" and how the process is supposed to work.
It's long,but not as long as some of my posts lol
http://thehill.com/opinion/campaign...oods-procedures?amp&__twitter_impression=true
Yeah thats pretty big.
So if you've verified 90% of the Steele dossier but didn't confirm the piss party that's it.
Also it bears no difference in the dossier was 5%,95%,whatever.
If it was used they felt it was needed in the application or they wouldn't have submitted it.
This......
And it sure shit doesn’t stand on anything this Steele thought or thought he knew which caused him to want to stop Trump.
I give you ......
Crooked Hillary Clinton.
Lol. Yeah they don't need me to give my Gym Membership Card at Giant Eagle so why would i.?
The fact remains they used it,didn't vet it, and after the FISA was granted are now seemingly trying to say it had no material effect on the outcome.
Number one, the only one who has seen the app is Gowdy to my knowledge.
Not Pelosi,et Al.
Number two, if they felt it had no material effect then why include it if there was other more compelling info you did include ?
The Rs keep depantsing the Dems.
No no it's a grave attack on our intelligence committee. People could die,etc,etc
39 seconds after release.
It's a big nothing burger.
They keep outing their own dishonesty and hyperbole.
PLUS these FISA judges should be livid that they got played.
And the Fisa judges DO have the power to subpoena any one who vouched for these apps to come in and explain themselves
Last edited:
Now the Dem talking point is the Fisa judge was informed that the dossier was provided from someone with a political bias.
Well,duh, that's a LONG way from saying the DNC and HRC actually paid for it.
Any one here with kids that's a great lesson in framing your answer in an honest but misleading and incomplete way.
Well,duh, that's a LONG way from saying the DNC and HRC actually paid for it.
Any one here with kids that's a great lesson in framing your answer in an honest but misleading and incomplete way.
Its pretty clear why progressives are not alarmed with the 4th amendment violation. Its consistent with their desire for a co
I’m for full transparency. There should be a public hearing win the judge to answer these simple questions. Also the transcript of Mcabes testimony should be publisheD
If the Dems are telling the truth then the Rs should suffer the consequences of lying to the public
If the Ds are lying then the same should hold true as well
This issue is too serious to not have the full light of day shine in the truth
Anyone who opposes the truth is likely hiding something
I’m for full transparency. There should be a public hearing win the judge to answer these simple questions. Also the transcript of Mcabes testimony should be publisheD
If the Dems are telling the truth then the Rs should suffer the consequences of lying to the public
If the Ds are lying then the same should hold true as well
This issue is too serious to not have the full light of day shine in the truth
Anyone who opposes the truth is likely hiding something
100 %
The lawyer for the FBI present when McCabe testified was one of the FBI personnel who vetted the memo and apparently didn't object to the language.
