House Intelligence FISA memo released: What it says

a reply to: BlueAjah

Here is the problem with the entire Benghazi committee, it was always political. Trey Gowdy was never interested in getting to the truth, be it from tampering with evidence in an attempt to show that Clinton was guilty, to the endless investigation that yielded nothing. The bottom line is that the real culprit for the tragedy was in the end, lies with the Congress. The Congress, had cut the funding for embassy funding. Even Trey Gowdy in the end admitted that even if the US Military had been alerted, they could not have gotten there fast enough to do any good or rescue anyone. And those in congress, who are responsible for that don't want to admit that they had any responsibility for that, and thus it created a mess. But it is not the first mess that the congress or even the state department got into, that caused far more problems and wasted millions on stuff they could not use. New embassy in Moscow ring a bell?

The other problem problem is separating fact from fiction. How can one tell if a person is guilty on hearsay, or rumor, when anything stated is easily believed and not investigated? Pizzagate anyone? Where it was reported that a child predator ring was taking place in the basement of a pizza place. No one investigated it, swore it was true, only to find out later on after a tragedy took place, that it was false, as the actual building had no basement.

But beyond that, the other question on Hillary comes to this: If this woman is so dangerous, and is committing so many criminal activities, for so long, when why has nothing concrete ever turn up? Don't you think that after 30 years something would have come up, and it would have been exposed by now? The problem there is that any and all investigators in their zeal to try to convict the person, tend to end up lying about the evidence and ruin any and all chances of there ever being a proper investigation or actual truth from coming to light. It happened with the first investigation and continues on today.

The thing about counter intelligence investigations, from what I understand is that it takes time. They can not merely just arrest a person for talking to what is a spy. They have to have very clear evidence in that aspect, for that is the life of a person that one is talking about. Was Carter Page talking to Russian intelligence persons yes, however, would you want to ensure that there is a conviction, or for it to go further underground where it is harder to detect. Sometimes the actual investigation takes a year or more just to have the evidence fully. We listen in on Russian transmissions and they listen in on US transmissions from the embassies. He came to the attention of the FBI and intelligence agencies when they caught the transmission from the Russian embassy, and his name was mentioned, and they listened, then started to investigate him, time and time again, it showed him getting deeper and deeper in and compromised more and more. So they were building a case. Now that could have been ruined.

originally posted by: soberbacchus

originally posted by: bigfatfurrytexan
a reply to: soberbacchus

I can tell by their refusal to participate. Refusal to even stand for soldiers at the SOTU.

When was that? Please cite where in the state of the union that happened?

Or did you just hear about on fox news?

I'll be waiting for a citation. It would a new low if you invented it.

They didn't stand for anything.

a reply to: Grambler
From what I can gather on the FISA warrants is this:

To get a warrant, the FBI has to do a threat assessment, to see if the person is working for a foreign intelligence. Now if the person is mentioned once, or talking to the foreign agent, initially they do not report such, as it is against the law, unless there is a warrant. But they would gather a bit more information. Then the FBI would go in and get initial materials for a warrant to back the probable cause, human sources, physical surveillance, banking and even stuff from the persons trash. Talking to a foreign person is not enough, the FBI has to show that the suspect knew that he or she is helping the foreign government. There has to be evidence.
Once all of that happens, it is all sent to DC where lawyers inside of the FBI look at it and then apply the Woods Procedures: 1) The facts supporting the probable cause. 2) The existence and nature of any related criminal investigations or prosecutions with the subject of the FISA. 3) the existence and nature of any prior or ongoing relationship between the subject and the FBI.

Once all of that happens, it is sent to the DOJ, for a signoff, and then it is sent to the Court. This packet is usually about 30 to 100 pages, containing an affidavit by the FBI agent giving an overview of the evidence, a legal memorandum and an approval letter from the official who signed off on the request.

There are 11 federal judges, all chosen by the Chief Justice of the US Supreme Court. The judge who gets the application reviews the documents, and then reviews or denies the application. And as the judges rotate, there is no guarantee that the same judge will review the same warrant on the same person each time.

Now the final warrant, the one that they are claiming that the Dossier was used, that final warrant would have been signed off on by a man that Trump appointed and approved of: Rosenstein. So if that attorney believed that there was cause, and different justices approved stating that there was cause, maybe there was.

a reply to: BlueAjah

He has not classified anything, but he holds the power to declassify anything within the jurisdiction of the Executive branch of the government.

originally posted by: tadaman
a reply to: soberbacchus

The FBI never considered Steele a VERY reliable source. In fact they were doubtful of him and ultimately cut him out of the loop early.

Steele was vehemently anti Trump and that was part of the concerns raised now that the memo was released.

This is the case since there is now a clear sign that between this source and other such issues with unverified material that gross omissions were made by the FBI and DOJ. These would be critical /material omissions of KNOWN information pertaining to the questionable nature of the sources when the FISA warrants were granted.

If Page can establish that the FBI recklessly put the dossier in front of the court knowing it was dubious, the judge can toss everything stemming from the warrant. Page's lawyers don't need to make the case that the FBI did it deliberately (though if we get more information, they may very well), only that they did not do due diligence to ensure it was true before putting in front of the court.
So exactly what they out in front of the court and what they did to verify that goes to the heart of Page's case. The fact they knew Steele was not reliable and unbiased is going to play a part. It should mean they did more to verify it -- but did they? Doesn't sound like it! We'll see if/when they all release/leak the warrant. You can bet Page will use it as part of a motion to challenge the warrant.

This is why this sort of flagrant flaunting of the rules should irk even the left (like the 302 rumours): bad guys are going to get appeals based on this sort of thing, and some may walk! There is a reason the rules are there! I have no idea if Page is a bad guy or not, but if he is, I can be mad they are jeopardizing their own case. And if he's not, I'm mad that they are abusing surveillance and the FISA system. Obey the law, law enforcement officials!

a reply to: sdcigarpig

No one investigated it, swore it was true, only to find out later on after a tragedy took place, that it was false, as the actual building had no basement. 

Not really my favourite conspiracy, but ...

. Like our sauce — we harvest a whole crop of organic tomatoes — 10 tons of tomatoes every year. Can them all, store them in the basement, have like a harvest party when it gets loaded in.

www.metroweekly.com...

Moving right along, though...

a reply to: RadioRobert

Unfortunately there is a problem all around and a gambit.

It could show that yes, there were people who were compromised working in the election, and or within the white house, with the interest of a foreign government in it.

It could be nothing more than someone who is really innocent, and was not breaking the law.

But the damage is done, and the investigation on Page is ruined by releasing this information. It also means that if the man was working with foreign agents, they have time to get out of the country and in short, get away with what they did and back to safety.

But in for a penny, in for a pound, the damage is already done, might as well just turn on the lights and reveal all of it, that way it lets us all see what the truth is. And maybe this will make sure that the FISA courts get a bit of an oversight as well.

a reply to: sdcigarpig

I am all for oversight. I'm also against backdoor searches. I also bet were going to hear more about the unmasking controversy when more details come out. Who exactly was being surveilled by proxy?
Hey, I was even for review by the agencies before release. Turns out despite all the screeching, I saw nothing that pointed to sources and methods in the document. Just a good faith false alarm from the swamp, eh what?

But the damage is done, and the investigation on Page is ruined by releasing this information. It also means that if the man was working with foreign agents, they have time to get out of the country and in short, get away with what they did and back to safety. 

If the (alleged) spy buddies of Carter Page weren't turned off by his arrest and prosecution, I doubt they are concerned about #releasethememo. Lol

a reply to: Xcathdra

There is a slight problem with that. Reading something into the record makes it a public record. And why members of congress have access to classified information, they are still bound by the same rules and laws that govern classified information. So that means that the Intelligence committee, if they were to read into the record top secret information, then that member could be fined and imprisoned for that. The law is very clear on that. The can not merely read such into the record, as the public would have access to that.

As all of the documents dealing with this, would be under the Executive branch, it would be the President who could order it.

a reply to: sdcigarpig

There is a slight problem with that. Reading something into the record makes it a public record. And why members of congress have access to classified information, they are still bound by the same rules and laws that govern classified information. So that means that the Intelligence committee, if they were to read into the record top secret information, then that member could be fined and imprisoned for that. The law is very clear on that. The can not merely read such into the record, as the public would have access to that. 

Wrong. Congressmen have legal immunity from matters pertaining to speech and debate in session in either House of Congress.

a reply to: soberbacchus

Please cite where in the state of the union that happened?

It happened when Trump introduced a soldier who saved the life of a fallen comrade while under fire and had been awarded a medal for valor. The entire room stood to applaud the soldier's bravery and courage, except the Democrats. Not a single Democrat stood; not a single Democrat applauded. The camera shots were very clear.

And you can forget the quips about Fox. I watched it live on CSPAN. Apparently you haven't seen the SOTU speech yet.

TheRedneck

a reply to: sdcigarpig

Trey Gowdy was never interested in getting to the truth, be it from tampering with evidence in an attempt to show that Clinton was guilty...

That's a pretty serious allegation. I assume you have evidence of it?

...to the endless investigation that yielded nothing.

Ar we talking about Clinton/Benghazi or Mueller/Trump? It's been over a year, you know.

The other problem problem is separating fact from fiction. How can one tell if a person is guilty on hearsay, or rumor, when anything stated is easily believed and not investigated?

Like a dossier that names only one person, whose name is concealed in the public version? Everyone else is referred to as Contact A, Contact B, Contact C, etc. The whole thing reads like a list of rumors from a hen party: a lot of accusation and supposition, no substance or evidence.

On the other hand, the memo has been looked at by the entire House of Representatives, the White House staff, several FBI and DoJ representatives, and not one mentioned falsehoods until after it was released, and then only the Democrats.

Pizzagate anyone?

No, thanks. I remained neutral on that accusation, waiting on some sort of proof (that has never come, to my knowledge). It would be wonderful if others could do so on, oh, say, FBI/DoJ abuse of power accusations until some proof could be shown (or even until the opposing memo could be released).

But beyond that, the other question on Hillary comes to this: If this woman is so dangerous, and is committing so many criminal activities, for so long, when why has nothing concrete ever turn up?

But beyond that, the other question on Trump comes to this: If this man is so dangerous, and is committing so many criminal activities, for so long, when why has nothing concrete ever turn up?

Actually more has turned up on Hillary than on Trump. James Comey himself stated in a press release that her actions had been extremely careless, seconds before saying he was not going to recommend charges because "no attorney would take the case." That was after a few months of FBI investigation. Trump has undergone a year of FBI investigation under Mueller, with no statement of criminal intent or actions, not even carelessness... in fact, previous testimony from assorted intelligence sources (including FBI Director James Comey), on the public record, have stated that Trump was never under investigation himself.

[Carter Page] came to the attention of the FBI and intelligence agencies when they caught the transmission from the Russian embassy, and his name was mentioned, and they listened, then started to investigate him, time and time again, it showed him getting deeper and deeper in and compromised more and more. So they were building a case. Now that could have been ruined.

You might want to be careful about leaking inside, classified FBI information on ATS. I assume from the wording in that statement you know exactly what the investigators were thinking. Remote viewing, perhaps?

TheRedneck

originally posted by: tadaman
a reply to: soberbacchus

The FBI never considered Steele a VERY reliable source. In fact they were doubtful of him and ultimately cut him out of the loop early on.

Steele was vehemently anti Trump and that was part of the concerns raised now that the memo was released.

This is the case since there is now a clear sign that between this source and other such issues with unverified material that gross omissions were made by the FBI and DOJ. These would be critical /material omissions of KNOWN information pertaining to the questionable nature of the sources when the FISA warrants were granted.

The other issue Democrats A - don't know or b - don't care is something called the woods protocol. It came about back in the early 2000's and applies to the FISA law and US citizens. It requires all information / evidence (each item) that is being used to obtain a FISA warrant against a US citizen to be 100% verified / accurate.

Obtaining a warrant falls under title III of criminal code and requires the government to show probable cause.

A warrant under Title III of the U.S. criminal code by showing a federal court that there is probable cause to believe the target has engaged, or is engaging in, criminal activity. This is a fairly high standard because of a strong presumption in favor of our Fourth Amendment right to privacy, and requires a showing that less intrusive means of obtaining the same information aren’t feasible.

Obtaining a FISA warrant falls under title 1 and weighs individuals right against the Governments right to defend the nation.

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.”

The standards at a glance -
Standard warrant under title III = is breaking a law.
FISA warrant under title I = might be spying / working for a foreign government.

Steps required to obtain a FISA warrant -
FBI process
* - FBI threat assessment - in order to establish grounds for even opening an investigation on potential FISA subjects.
* -If the U.S. persons have access to classified information or could otherwise be “developed” for intelligence purposes by a foreign spy service, a significant enough threat exists to open an investigation – this would require at least one layer of approval within the FBI, and possibly more if the investigation concerns high-profile individuals.
* - FBI would have to gather evidence to support a the claim that the U.S. target was knowingly working on behalf of a foreign entity.

* - The agent running the investigation fills out all paperwork and submits it. His/Her supervisor reviews and signs off on it. The divisional lawyer for the FBI field office reviews and if approved goes to the SSA for the field office. Once approved there is goes to the FBI HQ for approval by a unit level supervisor. Once approved it goes to the DOJ -

DOJ process
* - At the DOJ attorneys from the National Security Division comb through the application to verify all the assertions made in it. (Woods protocol) attorneys from the National Security Division comb through the application to verify all the assertions made in it until DOJ is satisfied that the facts in the FISA application can both be corroborated and meet the legal standards for the court. If they are not satisfied it gets sent back to the FBI for additional investigations / supporting info.
* - After getting sign-off from a senior DOJ official, a lawyer from DOJ takes the FISA application before the FISC, comprised of eleven federal district judges who sit on the court on a rotating basis. The FISC reviews the application in secret, and decides whether to approve the warrant.

Judicial process
* - Review of all submitted material followed by approval or denial of warrant request.

This is why FISA warrants are almost always granted - the multiple layers of required verification, checks and balances, step by step approval before it even makes it to the DOJ at which point the DOJ reviews and approvals before it makes it to a FISC judge.

Based on all information listed above this lengthy process (put in place to protect US citizens from unwarranted surveillance) was dismissed by senior FBI and DOJ officials. The investigation into the Trump campaign seems to have been handled directly by the upper ranks of the FBI, bypassing multiple levels of checks and balances.

also -

In fact, if some reports are true that the initial FISA applications submitted to the FISC were rejected, prompting the FBI and DOJ to change its targets to the Russian banks doing business with Trump associates rather than the associates themselves (which would only require showing probable cause that the banks are a “foreign power,” which by definition they are), then a FISA application for Trump Tower, if one exists, would have been subject to even more scrutiny than would normally be the case.

Now the info in the FISA memo does not appear to show the FBI / DOJ meeting all requirements to obtain any warrants, supporting McCabes comments to the congressional committee.

Enter the dossier and its misrepresentation by the FBI / DOJ to obtain the warrant.

The unverified dossier never met the legal requirements to be used as evidence to support the warrant application. It was intentionally misrepresented as factual = fraud on the court = fruit of the poisonous tree = deprivation of rights while acting under color of law = prosecution of those involved in this farce.


Source for everything posted above.

originally posted by: sdcigarpig
a reply to: BlueAjah

But beyond that, the other question on Trump comes to this: If this man is so dangerous, and is committing so many criminal activities, for so long, when why has nothing concrete ever turn up? Don't you think that after 30 years something would have come up, and it would have been exposed by now? The problem there is that any and all investigators in their zeal to try to convict the person, tend to end up lying about the evidence and ruin any and all chances of there ever being a proper investigation or actual truth from coming to light. It happened with the first investigation and continues on today.

There you go, FTFY.

a reply to: Xcathdra

THAT is a very precise and accurate post.

You are a beast.

Now we know the process. Thank you.

Yeah, they didnt do any of that. This investigation into Russia collusion is over but the new ones into weaponized federal institutions will begin.

There were HATCH act violations, FARA violations, election finance law violations, several attempts at defrauding the Judicial branch of government to undermine the executive branch. SEDITION and possible treason charges to come.

and on and on. This situation warrants a special counsel investigation into high crimes against the state.

Also, the DNC almost staged a freaking riot in Chicago. I wont forget that or the other issues highlighted in project veritas.

Voter suppression, voter intimidation and collusion with federal employees and elected officials to undermine a democratic election.

Really I want the Arizona Protests to be answered to. That was a new low. Restricting the free movement of people to and from their candidates rallies.

Insane. And Chicago was reprehensible. Can you imagine Chicago after a PROVOKED riot?

We can be thankful things didnt get worse, or that we didnt elect She demon.

originally posted by: sdcigarpig
a reply to: RadioRobert
...
But the damage is done, and the investigation on Page is ruined by releasing this information. It also means that if the man was working with foreign agents, they have time to get out of the country and in short, get away with what they did and back to safety.

...

Are you saying that this memo was the first time that you heard that Carter Page was under investigation?
That investigation has been in the news for many months.

originally posted by: TheRedneck
a reply to: soberbacchus

Please cite where in the state of the union that happened?

It happened when Trump introduced a soldier who saved the life of a fallen comrade while under fire and had been awarded a medal for valor. The entire room stood to applaud the soldier's bravery and courage, except the Democrats. Not a single Democrat stood; not a single Democrat applauded. The camera shots were very clear.

And you can forget the quips about Fox. I watched it live on CSPAN. Apparently you haven't seen the SOTU speech yet.

TheRedneck

he was Honored at TIME 1:01:20 EVERYONE STANDS AND APPLAUDS



Screen grab: That is Pelosi lower right, Julian Castro above her in the row behind etc.



ALL THE DEMOCRATS STOOD

AND Yet...You say:
The entire room stood to applaud the soldier's bravery and courage, except the Democrats. Not a single Democrat stood; not a single Democrat applauded. The camera shots were very clear.

...

WHY? Why do you guys LIE in horrible ways so often?

I would never Lie about all the GOP not standing for a Medal of Honor recipient?

It is sick BS like this makes me lose faith in ATS.

originally posted by: bigfatfurrytexan
a reply to: soberbacchus

I can tell by their refusal to participate. Refusal to even stand for soldiers at the SOTU.

That is a disgusting (and I mean that sincerely) LIE.

Whether you were told it or invented it, it is a lie.

See above.

originally posted by: burgerbuddy

originally posted by: soberbacchus

originally posted by: bigfatfurrytexan
a reply to: soberbacchus

I can tell by their refusal to participate. Refusal to even stand for soldiers at the SOTU.

When was that? Please cite where in the state of the union that happened?

Or did you just hear about on fox news?

I'll be waiting for a citation. It would a new low if you invented it.

They didn't stand for anything.

They stood for every Honoree...Firefighters, Coast Guard, Police and the Medal of Honor recipient.

You LIE consistently without care or honor.

a reply to: soberbacchus

I don't know what you just posted, but I watched it... live. No Democrats stood. There was a wide shot of the entire chamber after the applause erupted and the whole Democratic side was seated.

I don't care if you get a million videos reworked. I saw what I saw. And so did the rest of the country watching.

TheRedneck