Source: FBI Agent Told Congress The Bureau Used Leaked Stories To Obtain Spy Warrants

originally posted by: DJW001
a reply to: Grambler

You seem to be conflating a "leak," which is the unauthorized release of real information, with fabricated stories. Why is that?

Wow.

First off, prove any of the "leaks" about trump or his team were real?

Secondly, the entire point of getting a fisa warrant is to prove allegations, hence when the FBI is leaking to get fisa warrants, they arent sure if a story is true or not.

If these leaks are so clearly true, why would the fbi need to back them up with a story they leaked to the press, and then act like the press story is independently confirming their suspicions? Especiaally given the FISA court rubberstamps 97% of the applications?

I have to say though, i am impressed more and more everyday at the lengths people will go to cheer for corruption by the fbi.

Now people say leaking stories to the press, then lying to the fisa court by pretending these press stories are independent corroboration is perfectly fine.

Lets hope for your sake trump doesnt decide to use these powers you cheer for to wiretap all of his opponents.

a reply to: Arnie123

Wow, so you can't determine acronyms AND are unable to read the context of a source properly, so aggressive you mad bro? Chill out.

I know, I get it, things haven't been going your way and now that its all coming to light, everything you championed, defended will all be for naught and that says alot about your character, as should others as well, so what? Own it, live it, keep your head up champ

Read it just fine.

Thanks.

You still a bit salty for being called a bitch in front of your friends yesterday? I can understand. Still haven't learned from it though, as you are still using teenage debate tactics, like the "I know you are but what am I" you pulled above.

originally posted by: introvert
a reply to: Arnie123

Wow, so you can't determine acronyms AND are unable to read the context of a source properly, so aggressive you mad bro? Chill out.

I know, I get it, things haven't been going your way and now that its all coming to light, everything you championed, defended will all be for naught and that says alot about your character, as should others as well, so what? Own it, live it, keep your head up champ

Read it just fine.

Thanks.

You still a bit salty for being called a bitch in front of your friends yesterday? I can understand. Still haven't learned from it though, as you are still using teenage debate tactics, like the "I know you are but what am I" you pulled above.

HaHaHa, triggered 😏

Get some rest, chill an relax and get back to me, oh, freshen up on your reading and acronyms champ ☺️

originally posted by: introvert
a reply to: Arnie123

Wow, so you can't determine acronyms AND are unable to read the context of a source properly, so aggressive you mad bro? Chill out.

I know, I get it, things haven't been going your way and now that its all coming to light, everything you championed, defended will all be for naught and that says alot about your character, as should others as well, so what? Own it, live it, keep your head up champ

You still a bit salty for being called a bitch in front of your friends yesterday?

Honestly, do you ever bring anything to the table other than name calling.

Its very tiresome.

originally posted by: Arnie123

originally posted by: introvert
a reply to: Arnie123

Wow, so you can't determine acronyms AND are unable to read the context of a source properly, so aggressive you mad bro? Chill out.

I know, I get it, things haven't been going your way and now that its all coming to light, everything you championed, defended will all be for naught and that says alot about your character, as should others as well, so what? Own it, live it, keep your head up champ

Read it just fine.

Thanks.

You still a bit salty for being called a bitch in front of your friends yesterday? I can understand. Still haven't learned from it though, as you are still using teenage debate tactics, like the "I know you are but what am I" you pulled above.

HaHaHa, triggered 😏

Get some rest, chill an relax and get back to me, oh, freshen up on your reading and acronyms champ ☺️

Sure.

Anything on the topic itself, or did you just come in to make me the topic and derail?

originally posted by: Grambler

originally posted by: introvert
a reply to: Arnie123

Wow, so you can't determine acronyms AND are unable to read the context of a source properly, so aggressive you mad bro? Chill out.

I know, I get it, things haven't been going your way and now that its all coming to light, everything you championed, defended will all be for naught and that says alot about your character, as should others as well, so what? Own it, live it, keep your head up champ

You still a bit salty for being called a bitch in front of your friends yesterday?

Honestly, do you ever bring anything to the table other than name calling.

Its very tiresome.

Meh, lets just ignore it and move back into the topic of the convo.

Why do you guys keep using Daily Caller as a source?
It's proven time and again that they make these stories up.
I guess we can expect an up tic in these kinds of stories as his legal problems are now snowballing down a steep hill.
Anything to try and misdirection
Thankfully most people will never see a single story out of the daily caller.
This buds for you.

originally posted by: Arnie123

originally posted by: Grambler

originally posted by: introvert
a reply to: Arnie123

Wow, so you can't determine acronyms AND are unable to read the context of a source properly, so aggressive you mad bro? Chill out.

I know, I get it, things haven't been going your way and now that its all coming to light, everything you championed, defended will all be for naught and that says alot about your character, as should others as well, so what? Own it, live it, keep your head up champ

You still a bit salty for being called a bitch in front of your friends yesterday?

Honestly, do you ever bring anything to the table other than name calling.

Its very tiresome.

Meh, lets just ignore it and move back into the topic of the convo.

You're the one that derailed by making me the topic, even though I specifically addressed the issue.

That is the dishonesty I often talk about.

originally posted by: Arnie123

originally posted by: shooterbrody
a reply to: Xcathdra

There are some here that do not understand the fisa process.
Obtaining fisa warrants with "stories" is a felony. Those who signed the applications are in deep trouble.

Precisely and that will be there undoing, you can almost SMELL IT.

dailycaller.com...

A number of top FBI and Justice Department officials neglected to provide essential information to the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court (FISC) when applying for a warrant to surveil former Trump campaign adviser Carter Page, according to the House Intelligence Committee memo produced Friday. The memo states that Former FBI Director James Comey, Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein, former Deputy Director of the FBI Andrew McCabe, and former Attorney General Sally Yates were all required to sign off on the FISC warrant application before it was reviewed and ultimately approved. “As required by statute (50 U.S.C.), a FISA order on an American citizen must be renewed by the ISC every 90 days and each renewal requires a separate finding of probable cause. Then-Director James Comey signed three FISA applications in question on behalf of the FBI, and Deputy Director Andrew McCabe signed one. Sally Yates, then-Acting DAG Dana Boente, and DAG Rod Rosenstein each signed one or more FISA applications,” the memo reads. The memo further claims those officials were aware at the time of their signing that the unsubstantiated Steele opposition research dossier, which was included to bolster their warrant application, was paid for by the Democratic National Committee (DNC) and the Clinton campaign; but the application did not include that information.

They will have some explaining to do.

originally posted by: Sillyolme
Why do you guys keep using Daily Caller as a source?
It's proven time and again that they make these stories up.
I guess we can expect an up tic in these kinds of stories as his legal problems are now snowballing down a steep hill.
Anything to try and misdirection
Thankfully most people will never see a single story out of the daily caller.
This buds for you.

What's funny is that the OP's source casts a lot of doubt on it's own piece with one sentence.

There is no indication that the FBI provided information to Isikoff.

originally posted by: Sillyolme
Why do you guys keep using Daily Caller as a source?
It's proven time and again that they make these stories up.
I guess we can expect an up tic in these kinds of stories as his legal problems are now snowballing down a steep hill.
Anything to try and misdirection
Thankfully most people will never see a single story out of the daily caller.
This buds for you.

I dont see how this is responsive to the substaance of the OP.

we get it, you dont like the daily caller, you like places that never lie or get facts wrong, like CNN or the NYT.

Oooops, they get things wrong and lie all the time.

We should take all of the parts of this story that use anonymous sources with a grain of salt (something you never do when that source is giving dirt on trump)

But much of this story is not from anonymous sources.

We have the name of the agent that testified. we have mark meadows saying that testimony showed that the fbi leaked info to the press then used that for fisa warrants.

originally posted by: introvert

originally posted by: Sillyolme
Why do you guys keep using Daily Caller as a source?
It's proven time and again that they make these stories up.
I guess we can expect an up tic in these kinds of stories as his legal problems are now snowballing down a steep hill.
Anything to try and misdirection
Thankfully most people will never see a single story out of the daily caller.
This buds for you.

What's funny is that the OP's source casts a lot of doubt on it's own piece with one sentence.

There is no indication that the FBI provided information to Isikoff.

I will say again, just because they are not claiming to have proof that they didnt feed the story to isikoff doesnt mean that they didnt do it in other cases; maybe even ones not connected to trump in any way.

That would still be corruption by the FBI.

And as I showed you above, the fact that we know steele was the source for the isikoff article used by the fbi to back up steeles own dossier, after the fbi knew that steele was leaking to the press is corrupt enough regarding that article.

Funny watching the left screaming over this story.

Like the "unnamed officials familiar with the matter" from CNN stories attacking the President are any different.

Now all of a sudden we should just dismiss the possibility and go home. Nothinburger, right?

Hypocrites.

a reply to: Sillyolme

Don't worry, silly.

There will be a time when the MSM won't be able to hide/distract/ignore/deflect from this. You'll turn your TV and CNN will publish this story.

It's gonna be a sad day for ya.. I know.

originally posted by: shooterbrody

originally posted by: Arnie123

originally posted by: shooterbrody
a reply to: Xcathdra

There are some here that do not understand the fisa process.
Obtaining fisa warrants with "stories" is a felony. Those who signed the applications are in deep trouble.

Precisely and that will be there undoing, you can almost SMELL IT.

dailycaller.com...

A number of top FBI and Justice Department officials neglected to provide essential information to the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court (FISC) when applying for a warrant to surveil former Trump campaign adviser Carter Page, according to the House Intelligence Committee memo produced Friday. The memo states that Former FBI Director James Comey, Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein, former Deputy Director of the FBI Andrew McCabe, and former Attorney General Sally Yates were all required to sign off on the FISC warrant application before it was reviewed and ultimately approved. “As required by statute (50 U.S.C.), a FISA order on an American citizen must be renewed by the ISC every 90 days and each renewal requires a separate finding of probable cause. Then-Director James Comey signed three FISA applications in question on behalf of the FBI, and Deputy Director Andrew McCabe signed one. Sally Yates, then-Acting DAG Dana Boente, and DAG Rod Rosenstein each signed one or more FISA applications,” the memo reads. The memo further claims those officials were aware at the time of their signing that the unsubstantiated Steele opposition research dossier, which was included to bolster their warrant application, was paid for by the Democratic National Committee (DNC) and the Clinton campaign; but the application did not include that information.

They will have some explaining to do.

Oh yeah, the system eventually rebounds and voila, corruption revealed.

originally posted by: vinifalou
a reply to: Sillyolme

Don't worry, silly.

There will be a time when the MSM won't be able to hide/distract/ignore/deflect from this. You'll turn your TV and CNN will publish this story.

It's gonna be a sad day for ya.. I know.

Oh I can't wait, I'm sooo looking forward to that day.

originally posted by: introvert

originally posted by: Sillyolme
Why do you guys keep using Daily Caller as a source?
It's proven time and again that they make these stories up.
I guess we can expect an up tic in these kinds of stories as his legal problems are now snowballing down a steep hill.
Anything to try and misdirection
Thankfully most people will never see a single story out of the daily caller.
This buds for you.

What's funny is that the OP's source casts a lot of doubt on it's own piece with one sentence.

There is no indication that the FBI provided information to Isikoff.

amazing isnt it. and when huffpost brings 'unknown ' sources in their articles, the panties are caught in a bunch..

to the skeptics theres never enough evidence, to the believers an unnamed source who might have been in a room during an exchange, is more than enough....

or a Q named Q is revered as a source...

muppets all mupoets.

originally posted by: vinifalou
a reply to: Sillyolme

Don't worry, silly.

There will be a time when the MSM won't be able to hide/distract/ignore/deflect from this. You'll turn your TV and CNN will publish this story.

It's gonna be a sad day for ya.. I know.

keep telling yourselves that. it helps pass the time..

meanwhile in the real world, Kushner is now under investigation in NYC. the first lady's Mia, and Ivanka is laying low...

tick tock

a reply to: odzeandennz

Sure. That is why I like to wait and see what comes out.

If there is one thing we can say for certain, is that these "news" sources like to get things wrong and take things out of context.

It doesn't help when the source itself admits there is no proof and has to rely on language that gives them just enough room for plausible deniability with the claims/sources they do make.

a reply to: Xcathdra

Does this mean FISA needs more than one source to get such a warrant?