Hannity Confirms Dossier was used to obtain the FISA warrant

a reply to: Zelun

Okay, so what you're doing here is called an ad hominem argument. This is an argument which attacks the person, rather than the argument being made. In this case you are implying that we (those of us who are arguing with you) believe the earth to be flat, thus any argument we make must be similarly nonsensical. This is a mistake. I personally do not believe the Earth to be flat, though I cannot speak for everyone. In any case such a belief would have no bearing on the topic of discussion.

Will this fit in a signature space?

originally posted by: introvert

originally posted by: Wardaddy454

originally posted by: introvert
a reply to: bigfatfurrytexan

So she was potentially part of a grander conspiracy.

Sure. To use my earlier example, it's also possible aliens are involved in this conspiracy.

At what point is it reasonable to spend time, money and resources to investigate conspiracies that are based on very loose connections or probabilities?

At what point? When the DNC, that gives money to it's presidential candidate, also contracts oppo research from a firm that then receives information from a foreign agent whom receives it from foreign government agents. When that research leads to unmasking, FISA warrants, and opens up a broad investigation into the the opposing candidate.

And from some accounts, Hillary was all but queen of the DNC at the time. If those accounts are to be believed, Hillary =/= DNC in 2016, Which means she, through the DNC, paid for the info that lead to the above.

If that's not grounds to investigate, I don't know what is.

Ground to investigate something that is not illegal?

That does not make sense.

Then why is Trump being investigated?

originally posted by: bigfatfurrytexan
a reply to: introvert

If hillary contracted its creation.....she colluded with foreign agents

Yep. British agent(s). Russian agent(s).

a reply to: JinMI

Thanks for the compliment. I don't know, my sig is very short and I've never felt like changing it. If not as text, maybe as an image?

originally posted by: bigfatfurrytexan
a reply to: Scrubdog

And yet here we are. A year down the road, and the only crimes uncovered are from prior to the individuals time with Trump, mostly dating to their time with Hillary

So while your bias can make you believe things that sound truthy, they have yet to be shown as true.

Oh, I am highly content to simply let Mueller take the time he needs for his investigation.

You note the time it's taken, it would likely have taken less time had Trump let Comey investigate it given he was already deep into it, although that seemed to be the problem. Now Mueller is deep into it and Fox was talking about firing Mueller not long ago.

I smell so much smoke and see lots of flames already going down, Manafort, Flynn, etc. and I will trust Mueller's judgment to say he's done or make his charges. So long as he's allowed to finish.

Hannity just said that proof is coming next week that several illegally-obtained FISA spy warrants were obtained during the Obama Administration.

originally posted by: carewemust
Hannity just said that proof is coming next week that several illegally-obtained FISA spy warrants were obtained during the Obama Administration.

Any FISA warrant / regular warrant obtained using information that is portrayed as something its not is illegal.

a reply to: Xcathdra


This revelation by Hannity is quite amazing, not quite as astounding as these other eye catching headlines I found though..........

" Hilter confirms he was just misunderstood"

"Manson confirms his entire clan was really people just trying to help"

"Trump confirms he is a Stable Genius "



Well I guess we can all relax now, Hannity has it all confirmed, and with no bias.

I'm going to Disney World!!!!!



MTUBY

a reply to: ParkerCramer

Nice try but the point Hannity made remains. If the dossier was used for the FISA warrant then the warrant was illegally obtained.

In order to legally convince a court to sign off on a warrant probable cause must be submitted. Not guesses turned into false accusations which are then twisted to sound plausible while being misrepresented.

originally posted by: Xcathdra
a reply to: ParkerCramer

Nice try but the point Hannity made remains. If the dossier was used for the FISA warrant then the warrant was illegally obtained.

In order to legally convince a court to sign off on a warrant probable cause must be submitted. Not guesses turned into false accusations which are then twisted to sound plausible while being misrepresented.

Do you think you should call the FISA court and tell them the standard?

The court knows well exactly what is required and would not have signed off on anything that were "guesses turned into false accusations (which part is false by the way? Nunes got asked this question yesterday and referred the reporter to the committee ....that he heads) and twisted to sound plausible while being misrepresented."

If an agent lied to the Court, then it's up to the Agency to discipline the agent, just as if a cop did it.

You people really need to use something beyond Hannity to get your info. Hannity pretending to know more than the MI-6 Russian desk chief is precious, though.

It would shock me if Hannity wasn't on the Russian payroll.

some more insight into this mess.

https:// theconservativetreehouse.com/2018/01/11/the-doj-and-fbi-worked-with-fusion-gps-on-operation-trump/amp/?__twitter_impression=true

i am sure the media being flooded with trumps potty mouth is more important than spying on your opponent during an election.

a reply to: Scrubdog

Ok lets try this again since a lot of people don't seem to understand how this works.

The 4th amendment does NOT apply to the individual. It DOES apply to the government.

When a warrant is applied for it is incumbent on the person filing for the warrant to meet all the criteria. The judge reviews the material submitted and decides from there. The judge does not start his own investigation of the facts presented. Since a person is swearing under oath (written) it is assumed, and required, the information being presented is factual and accurate. It is why, when information is not accurate, there are severe legal consequences, both for the person submitting the documents as well as the person / items that were targeted in the application (becomes inadmissible).

If the info submitted is false then the warrant issued off of that information is null and void and by extension, anything collected as a result of the warrant is fruit of the poisonous tree (some narrow, and rare, exceptions exist and usually apply when there is more than one source of evidence or meets an exception)

In general -
**PDF** APPLICATION FOR A SEARCH WARRANT FEDERAL DISTRICT COURT**PDF**

The pertinent part that is required on all applications regardless if it is local, state, federal or FISA related.

I, a federal law enforcement officer or an attorney for the government, request a search warrant and state under
penalty of perjury that I have reason to believe that on the following person or property (identify the person or describe the property to be searched and give its location):

There is no room for leeway. You either submit factual information that rises to the level of probable cause or you dont get a warrant. Twisting information to make it appear as something it is not is committing a fraud on the court and applies to both civil and criminal realms. A prosecutor must review the submitted application and sign off on it before submitting it to a judge. Again its incumbent on the officer that everything is lawful when it is submitted. The same applies to a prosecutor running his own investigations (like a special counsel).

Mistakes do happen and are dealt with accordingly. When it is not a mistake but an intentional act it is dealt with harshly.

As an officer of the court they are held to a high standard and as such, what they testify to or submit in an official capacity is expected to be in full compliance of all laws, requirements, etc.

An officer of the court is -

Any person who , in some degree in function of their professional or similar qualifications, have a legal part—and hence legal and deontological obligations—in the complex functioning of the judicial system as a whole, in order to forge justice out of the application of the law and the simultaneous pursuit of the legitimate interests of all parties and the general good of society.

That includes law enforcement officers who are considered subject matter experts in their field.

Hopefully this makes sense and allows people a basic understanding of why this is such a big deal.

originally posted by: Xcathdra
a reply to: Scrubdog

Ok lets try this again since a lot of people don't seem to understand how this works.

The 4th amendment does NOT apply to the individual. It DOES apply to the government.

When a warrant is applied for it is incumbent on the person filing for the warrant to meet all the criteria. The judge reviews the material submitted and decides from there. The judge does not start his own investigation of the facts presented. Since a person is swearing under oath (written) it is assumed, and required, the information being presented is factual and accurate. It is why, when information is not accurate, there are severe legal consequences, both for the person submitting the documents as well as the person / items that were targeted in the application (becomes inadmissible).

If the info submitted is false then the warrant issued off of that information is null and void and by extension, anything collected as a result of the warrant is fruit of the poisonous tree (some narrow, and rare, exceptions exist and usually apply when there is more than one source of evidence or meets an exception)

In general -
**PDF** APPLICATION FOR A SEARCH WARRANT FEDERAL DISTRICT COURT**PDF**

The pertinent part that is required on all applications regardless if it is local, state, federal or FISA related.

I, a federal law enforcement officer or an attorney for the government, request a search warrant and state under
penalty of perjury that I have reason to believe that on the following person or property (identify the person or describe the property to be searched and give its location):

There is no room for leeway. You either submit factual information that rises to the level of probable cause or you dont get a warrant. Twisting information to make it appear as something it is not is committing a fraud on the court and applies to both civil and criminal realms. A prosecutor must review the submitted application and sign off on it before submitting it to a judge. Again its incumbent on the officer that everything is lawful when it is submitted. The same applies to a prosecutor running his own investigations (like a special counsel).

Mistakes do happen and are dealt with accordingly. When it is not a mistake but an intentional act it is dealt with harshly.

As an officer of the court they are held to a high standard and as such, what they testify to or submit in an official capacity is expected to be in full compliance of all laws, requirements, etc.

An officer of the court is -

Any person who , in some degree in function of their professional or similar qualifications, have a legal part—and hence legal and deontological obligations—in the complex functioning of the judicial system as a whole, in order to forge justice out of the application of the law and the simultaneous pursuit of the legitimate interests of all parties and the general good of society.

That includes law enforcement officers who are considered subject matter experts in their field.

Hopefully this makes sense and allows people a basic understanding of why this is such a big deal.

Thank you, my 20 years practicing criminal defense work evidently aren't much use.

Errors by t he officer swearing Probable Cause affidavit are dealt with by Suppression motions, not "harshly." Errors end up helping the accused, every time, which is as it should be in a country where we uphold the rights of the accused. Our founding fathers were criminals. They were highly suspicious of the state.

Regardless, I am more aware of the system than you have any idea about. One part that I am more than aware of is that the judges are quite good at sniffing out affidavits that do not rise to the level of Probable Cause. That is Especially true in specialty courts like the FISA court.

What is happening here is you pretend to know what was in the affidavit, and pretend to know whether the affidavit met the definition of probable cause. You pretend to know that the FBI didnt have its own requisite level of knowledge to swear to the affidavit. Moreover, the affidavit absolutely could use the Steele dossier as a "source" that has been proven trustworthy. I submit to you that the ex head of MI-6's Russian desk is as credible source as exists on the planet, he's just saying things you don't like.

Speaking of which, there is a ton of "I already know" and "Hannity says ...." here. I am more than happy to allow Mueller to finish his work prior to making any conclusions. Given the mountain of evidence, from his own son's email to admitting he fired Comey to stop the investigation, through all the plea agreements, it is thoroughly ridiculous to claim that there aren't serious problems with Trump's ties to Russia.

He's also just never said nary a word that wasn't fawning about Putin or Russia. Compare that to any other nation. That alone isn't anywhere near enough to prove there's a problem, but it is highly strange and very few on the right seem to even acknowledge just how strange it is.

a reply to: Scrubdog

You said it not me.

Given your lack of understanding in this area I actually question it when you say you spent 20 years practicing criminal defense law. Given its a basic in Con / Stat law you should know why it is a major issue if a person lied in a warrant application and what it does to any cases related to it once the lie is exposed (and by lie I mean direct or by omission).

The fact you don't seem to understand how a warrant is granted and the responsibility of the players involved also tends to undermine your claim.

Since you failed to address anything in my posts and instead keep coming back to the "I already know" and "Hannity" says. Also since you don't know whats in the affidavits its kind of rich using that excuse. Given the entire Dossier was released and since it was used to obtain the warrant and since nothing has been corroborated in it except Paige going to Russia what else was used to justify spying on Trump / his campaign?

As I have stated many times now in different threads dealing with this topic- IF the affidavit was used to secure the FISA warrant then the entire mess is done. This is not a hard concept to understand, especially for someone who has practiced law as long as you claim.

originally posted by: Xcathdra
a reply to: ParkerCramer

Nice try but the point Hannity made remains. If the dossier was used for the FISA warrant then the warrant was illegally obtained.

In order to legally convince a court to sign off on a warrant probable cause must be submitted. Not guesses turned into false accusations which are then twisted to sound plausible while being misrepresented.

And certainly not taking an absurd story created by a 4chan troll and repackaging it as "intelligence."

Actually, the fact that Steele did this calls into question every other claim he makes. He's not much of an intelligence agent if he made a mistake like that.

a reply to: AndyFromMichigan

Actually, the fact that Steele did this calls into question every other claim he makes. He's not much of an intelligence agent if he made a mistake like that.

I don't think it was a mistake. They knew that such drivel would inflame the msm and hit the headlines. Steele was working as a private contractor---despite what some folks would have us think---he is no longer a part of any government intelligence agency. As always---follow the money. Sex always brings in the most money so taking that basement dweller's story was the jackpot.

originally posted by: Grambler

originally posted by: introvert
a reply to: bigfatfurrytexan

Is the whole imvestigation not that colluding with foreign agents to sway the election is illegal? If thats not the case then what is Mueller doing?

Yes, but that has nothing to do with Hillary, Steele or the dossier.

I disagree.

Here is the law you cited that don jr. may have broke thaat you felt warranted an investigation into trumps team.

(b)Contributions and donations by foreign nationals in connection with elections. A foreign national shall not, directly or indirectly, make a contribution or a donation of money or other thing of value, or expressly or impliedly promise to make a contribution or a donation, in connection with any Federal, State, or local election.

www.law.cornell.edu...

Hillary and the DNC knew that they paid for came from a foriegn national, who sourced kremlin officials, and yet they accepted this thing of value and lied about paying for it for a year.

And John McCain was in this too, right?
So he too is guilty!

originally posted by: Xcathdra
a reply to: Scrubdog

You said it not me.

Given your lack of understanding in this area I actually question it when you say you spent 20 years practicing criminal defense law. Given its a basic in Con / Stat law you should know why it is a major issue if a person lied in a warrant application and what it does to any cases related to it once the lie is exposed (and by lie I mean direct or by omission).

The fact you don't seem to understand how a warrant is granted and the responsibility of the players involved also tends to undermine your claim.

Since you failed to address anything in my posts and instead keep coming back to the "I already know" and "Hannity" says. Also since you don't know whats in the affidavits its kind of rich using that excuse. Given the entire Dossier was released and since it was used to obtain the warrant and since nothing has been corroborated in it except Paige going to Russia what else was used to justify spying on Trump / his campaign?

As I have stated many times now in different threads dealing with this topic- IF the affidavit was used to secure the FISA warrant then the entire mess is done. This is not a hard concept to understand, especially for someone who has practiced law as long as you claim.

Gotcha, Ace.

I'll go back to my day job,

And much of the dossier has been corroborated, parts have not, none of it has been proven false.

Regardless, adieu.

a reply to: Scrubdog

Which parts? Some guy went to Russia for something one time?
How would you feel if you were guilty until proven innocent?

originally posted by: xxspockyxx
a reply to: Scrubdog

Which parts? Some guy went to Russia for something one time?
How would you feel if you were guilty until proven innocent?

He wont answer the question on what parts have been corroborated because he cant. Not even FusionGPS head could answer that question when Congress asked. They will blindly just keep repeating its been corroborated and then deflect when asked to identify what was corroborated. It seems to be a problem the left keeps having.

The hole they have dug for themselves has now far exceeded the latter heigth to get out of it. Time for them to start learning Chinese because by the time this is over with it is where they will pop up.