DOJ-NSD FISA spying on Trump campaign...VERY BIG DEAL

Anything and Everything political, express your view, but play nice
madhatter
Signature Poster
Posts: 18340
Joined: Apr 2nd, '08, 17:26

Re: DOJ-NSD FISA spying on Trump campaign...VERY BIG DEAL

Post by madhatter »

Kpdemello wrote:
mh wrote:you keep saying papadopoulous, what about him? specifically?
He apparently tried to arrange a meet between the Russians and Trump to facilitate obtaining information from the Russians that Trump could use against Hillary.
mh wrote:as far as teh dosier, the FBI was caught without question omitting key facts about the dossier that were detrimental to its validity,
I disagree that these omitted facts were "detrimental to its validity" or that putting them in would have changed the result. Just because a report was compiled based on the request/order of a rival does not make the results of that report invalid. The facts in the report could still be quite true. In fact, why would Hillary want a report that contained false information? That wouldn't be very useful to her, would it?then why not include those known facts? as far as I know any and all known evidence must be presented to a FISA court...
mh wrote:they also were caught intentionally circular referncing a news article as backup to the dossier despite knowiong that teh article was based on the dossier itself as told by the dossiers author...teh FBI knew this and intentionally hid it from teh FISA warrant application ( that is what we really need to see)
Yeah this is embarrassing for the FBI if it's true, but is it? I don't really trust the Republican memo at this point. Also, would it have changed the result of the FISA application if that yahoo article were left out? We don't know because we don't know what else was in the application.
mh wrote:actually it's is very much complete enoughto warrant an investigation into it, especially basedon your previously stated "criteria" however those accused contend that it's "incomplete" and you take their word for it
I agree that there's enough to warrant an investigation into the application process that the FBI/DOJ used in this case. I am on record in this thread as saying that it should be investigated. But an investigation does not mean that anyone did anything wrong - maybe they did, maybe they didn't. The investigation is supposed to look into it to see whether there was any wrongdoing.
mh wrote:none of em have any thing to do with russian collusion or actions taken by or on behalf of the trump campaign...you keep acting as if procedural crimes are evidence of this other as yet un-named crime...
Both Flynn and Papadopoulous plead guilty to lying it matters not about what...about their conversations with Russians during the campaign. How is that unrelated to allegations of Russian collusion? their conversations were not illegal in any way...their failure to disclose them to the FBI however was...It seems directly on point to me.
that's why yer not a lawyer...


President Trump recently tweeted claiming that former President Obama wiretapped him during his campaign. One can only imagine how nuts the media would have gone if the roles had been reversed: President Trump wiretapping either Obama or the Clintons, though his DOJ could have authority to do just that given the expansive leaks of intelligence information by Obama and Clinton supporters the last few months. Heck, he could wiretap the media at this point, legally and legitimately, as the sources of these unlawful leaks, for which Obama himself set precedent. Do liberals understand what Pandora’s Box Obama opened up by Obama using the powers of the NSA, CIA and FBI to spy on his political opponents? Even Nixon never did that.

If the stories are correct, Obama or his officials might even face prosecution. But, we are still early in all of this and there are a lot of rumors flying around so the key is if the reports are accurate. We just don’t know at this time. The stories currently are three-fold: first, that Obama’s team tried to get a warrant from a regular, Article III federal court on Trump, and was told no by someone along the way (maybe the FBI), as the evidence was that weak or non-existent; second, Obama’s team then tried to circumvent the federal judiciary’s independent role by trying to mislabel the issue one of “foreign agents,” and tried to obtain a warrant from the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act “courts”, and were again turned down, when the court saw Trump named (an extremely rare act of FISA court refusal of the government, suggesting the evidence was truly non-existent against Trump); and so, third, Obama circumvented both the regular command of the FBI and the regularly appointed federal courts, by placing the entire case as a FISA case (and apparently under Sally Yates at DOJ) as a “foreign” case, and then omitted Trump’s name from a surveillance warrant submitted to the FISA court, which the FISA court unwittingly granted, which Obama then misused to spy on Trump and many connected to Trump. Are these allegations true? We don’t know yet, but if any part of them are then Obama and/or his officials could face serious trouble.
Rather shockingly, no law currently forbids misusing the power of the presidency to spy on one’s adversaries. What the law does forbid is lying to any judicial officer to obtain any means of surveillance. What the law does forbid, under criminal penalty, is the misuse of FISA. Both derive from the protections of the Fourth Amendment itself. Under section 1809, FISA makes it a crime for anyone to either “engage in” electronic surveillance under “color of law” under FISA without following the law’s restrictions, or “disclose” or “use” information gathered from it in contravention of the statute’s sharp constrictions.


President Trump recently tweeted claiming that former President Obama wiretapped him during his campaign. One can only imagine how nuts the media would have gone if the roles had been reversed: President Trump wiretapping either Obama or the Clintons, though his DOJ could have authority to do just that given the expansive leaks of intelligence information by Obama and Clinton supporters the last few months. Heck, he could wiretap the media at this point, legally and legitimately, as the sources of these unlawful leaks, for which Obama himself set precedent. Do liberals understand what Pandora’s Box Obama opened up by Obama using the powers of the NSA, CIA and FBI to spy on his political opponents? Even Nixon never did that.

If the stories are correct, Obama or his officials might even face prosecution. But, we are still early in all of this and there are a lot of rumors flying around so the key is if the reports are accurate. We just don’t know at this time. The stories currently are three-fold: first, that Obama’s team tried to get a warrant from a regular, Article III federal court on Trump, and was told no by someone along the way (maybe the FBI), as the evidence was that weak or non-existent; second, Obama’s team then tried to circumvent the federal judiciary’s independent role by trying to mislabel the issue one of “foreign agents,” and tried to obtain a warrant from the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act “courts”, and were again turned down, when the court saw Trump named (an extremely rare act of FISA court refusal of the government, suggesting the evidence was truly non-existent against Trump); and so, third, Obama circumvented both the regular command of the FBI and the regularly appointed federal courts, by placing the entire case as a FISA case (and apparently under Sally Yates at DOJ) as a “foreign” case, and then omitted Trump’s name from a surveillance warrant submitted to the FISA court, which the FISA court unwittingly granted, which Obama then misused to spy on Trump and many connected to Trump. Are these allegations true? We don’t know yet, but if any part of them are then Obama and/or his officials could face serious trouble.

Can a President be charged with a crime? Only once out of office. While in office, impeachment remains the exclusive remedy in order to avoid a single judicial branch trying to overturn an election, such as a grand jury in any part of the country could. Once out of office, a President remains immune from civil liability for his duties while President, under a 1982 decision of the United States Supreme Court. However, as the Nixon pardon attests, nothing forecloses a criminal prosecution of the President after his presidency is complete for crimes against the country. Obama, the Constitutional lawyer, should know that.

What crimes could have been committed? Ironically, for Democrats falsely accusing Attorney General Sessions, perjury and conspiracy to commit perjury, as well as intentional violations of FISA. Rather shockingly, no law currently forbids misusing the power of the presidency to spy on one’s adversaries. What the law does forbid is lying to any judicial officer to obtain any means of surveillance. What the law does forbid, under criminal penalty, is the misuse of FISA. Both derive from the protections of the Fourth Amendment itself. Under section 1809, FISA makes it a crime for anyone to either “engage in” electronic surveillance under “color of law” under FISA without following the law’s restrictions, or “disclose” or “use” information gathered from it in contravention of the statute’s sharp constrictions.

FISA, 50 USC 1801, et seq., is a very limited method of obtaining surveillance authority. The reason for its strict limits is that FISA evades the regular federal court process, by not allowing regularly, Constitutionally appointed federal judges and their magistrates to authorize surveillance the Fourth Amendment would otherwise forbid. Instead, the Chief Justice handpicks the FISA court members, who have shown an exceptional deference to the executive branch. This is because FISA court members trust the government is only bringing them surveillance about pending terror attacks or “grave hostile” war-like attacks, as the FISA statute limits itself to. Thus, a FISA application can only be used in very limited circumstances.

One important reminder about electronic surveillance. Occasionally, a law enforcement officer will hear or see or record information not allowed by the warrant, but incidental or accidental to otherwise lawful surveillance. Their job is to immediately stop listening, stop recording, and to delete such information. This is what you occasionally see in films where the agent in the van hears the conversation turn away from something criminal to a personal discussion, and the agent then turns off the listening device and stops the recording. Such films simply recognize long-standing legal practice.

FISA can only be used for “foreign intelligence information.” Now that sounds broad, but is in fact very limited under the law. The only “foreign intelligence information” allowed as a basis for surveillance is information necessary to protect the United States against actual or potential “grave” “hostile” attack, war-like sabotage or international terror. Second, it can only be used to eavesdrop on conversations where the parties to the conversation are a foreign power or an agent of a foreign power. An agent of a foreign power cannot be a United States person unless they are knowingly involved in criminal espionage. No warrant is allowed on that person unless a FISA court finds probable cause the United States person is knowingly engaged in criminal espionage. Even then, if it involves a United States person, special steps must be taken to “minimize the acquisition and retention, and prohibit the dissemination, of non publicly available information concerning un-consenting United States persons.”

This includes procedures that require they never identify the person, or the conversation, being surveilled, to the public where that information is not evidence of a particular crime. Third, the kind of information sought concerns solely information about a pending or actual attack on the country. That is why the law limits itself to sabotage incidents involving war, not any form or kind of “sabotage,” explicitly limiting itself to those acts identified in section 105 of Title 18 of the United States Code.
Here are the problematic aspects of the Obama surveillance on Trump’s team, and on Trump himself. First, it is not apparent FISA could ever be invoked. Second, it is possible Obama’s team may have perjured themselves before the FISA court by withholding material information essential to the FISA court’s willingness to permit the government surveillance. Third, it could be that Obama’s team illegally disseminated and disclosed FISA information in direct violation of the statute precisely prohibiting such dissemination and disclosure. FISA prohibits, under criminal penalty, Obama’s team from doing any of the three.
nah trump must be hiding something... :beat
mach es sehr schnell

'exponential reciprocation'- The practice of always giving back more than you take....
Kpdemello
Tree Psycho
Posts: 1917
Joined: Feb 2nd, '16, 14:19

Re: DOJ-NSD FISA spying on Trump campaign...VERY BIG DEAL

Post by Kpdemello »

madhatter wrote:then why not include those known facts? as far as I know any and all known evidence must be presented to a FISA court...
How do you know they weren't? The Republican memo mentions nothing about it, and the FBI/DOJ says it omitted things.
madhatter wrote:that's why yer not a lawyer...


:lol:
madhatter
Signature Poster
Posts: 18340
Joined: Apr 2nd, '08, 17:26

Re: DOJ-NSD FISA spying on Trump campaign...VERY BIG DEAL

Post by madhatter »

Kpdemello wrote:
madhatter wrote:done w this roundy roundy ya gotta investigate to have evidence to start an investigation...you know that's not how it works...and you'd be rightfully outraged if it happened to you...
I'm not sure I understand what you're saying here. Police investigate based on suspicions all the time. Sometimes they're reasonable, sometimes not at all. But that is definitely how it works. There's a big difference between investigating and obtaining a warrant. Maybe that's the disconnect? You don't need evidence to investigate somebody. You do need evidence to obtain a warrant.
we're not talking about routine police work here...we are talking about an official FBI investigation in which people have been called to testify based on information gleaned from an illegally obtained FISA warrant...

again no FISA warrant, no FBI investigation...

HOWEVER for the hundredth time the nunes memo only deals with the FISA warrant...and the propagandist orchestrated illegal leaks to the press in order to damage the president...it has nothing to do with trump and russian collusion etc...that will come later...right now the focus is on the FBI/DOJ and soon to be the state dept...we are also awaiting the IG report which should be out soon...


no more time for this...I don't feel like you have an understanding of, or interest in anything other than "get trump" and are willing to create false equivalencies in order to justify the means to an end...

kinda like what it seems happened at the FBI...
mach es sehr schnell

'exponential reciprocation'- The practice of always giving back more than you take....
Kpdemello
Tree Psycho
Posts: 1917
Joined: Feb 2nd, '16, 14:19

Re: DOJ-NSD FISA spying on Trump campaign...VERY BIG DEAL

Post by Kpdemello »

madhatter wrote:we're not talking about routine police work here...we are talking about an official FBI investigation in which people have been called to testify based on information gleaned from an illegally obtained FISA warrant...

again no FISA warrant, no FBI investigation...
You've got it backwards. First comes the start of the FBI investigation, then comes the application for the warrant. I presume the warrant then lead to further evidence that warranted the appointment of a special prosecutor, but I don't think we have all those details.
madhatter wrote:HOWEVER for the hundredth time the nunes memo only deals with the FISA warrant...and the propagandist orchestrated illegal leaks to the press in order to damage the president...it has nothing to do with trump and russian collusion etc...that will come later...right now the focus is on the FBI/DOJ and soon to be the state dept...we are also awaiting the IG report which should be out soon...
Um, okay... what's your point here?

madhatter wrote:no more time for this...I don't feel like you have an understanding of, or interest in anything other than "get trump" and are willing to create false equivalencies in order to justify the means to an end...

kinda like what it seems happened at the FBI...
Funny, I was just thinking how you seem to lack an understanding of how a police/FBI investigation works and all you seem to care about is branding this one as a politically motivated witch hunt despite lacking any evidence to support that particular conspiracy theory.
madhatter
Signature Poster
Posts: 18340
Joined: Apr 2nd, '08, 17:26

Re: DOJ-NSD FISA spying on Trump campaign...VERY BIG DEAL

Post by madhatter »

Kpdemello wrote:
madhatter wrote:then why not include those known facts? as far as I know any and all known evidence must be presented to a FISA court...
How do you know they weren't? The Republican memo mentions nothing about it, and the FBI/DOJ says it omitted things.we have testimony from the FBI and a preview of the schiff memo...we know that no disclosure of ohrs wife to fusion GPS was made, we know that Glenn simpson 's personal feelings as officially noted by ohr were not presented, we know that the fact that the DNC/Clinton paid for the dossier and supplied info on its contents to the state dept who fwd'd it to the FBI as admitted to by a state dept official were not presented to the court, we know that the FBI knew that the yahoo news article was written about the dossier and info in it and in no way corroborated it...we know that an FBI official testified that without the dossier there would be no warrant, we know that a warrant was turned down when applied for prior to the usage of the doissier...
madhatter wrote:that's why yer not a lawyer...


:lol:
your conclusions may vary based on your preconceived notions and failure to critically and objectively assess information...but emotions won't rule the day here...and the above is way more than enough evidence that these
What the law does forbid is lying to any judicial officer to obtain any means of surveillance. What the law does forbid, under criminal penalty, is the misuse of FISA. Both derive from the protections of the Fourth Amendment itself.
Wex
ALL PAGESARTICLESESPAÑOLINBOX PROJECTSEARCHFAQ
Fourth Amendment


FOURTH AMENDMENT: AN OVERVIEW

I. INTERESTS PROTECTED

The Fourth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution provides that "[t]he right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized."

The ultimate goal of this provision is to protect people’s right to privacy and freedom from unreasonable intrusions by the government. However, the Fourth Amendment does not guarantee protection from all searches and seizures, but only those done by the government and deemed unreasonable under the law.

To claim violation of Fourth Amendment as the basis for suppressing a relevant evidence, the court had long required that the claimant must prove that he himself was the victim of an invasion of privacy to have a valid standing to claim protection under the Fourth Amendment. However, the Supreme Court has departed from such requirement, issue of exclusion is to be determined solely upon a resolution of the substantive question whether the claimant's Fourth Amendment rights have been violated, which in turn requires that the claimant demonstrates a justifiable expectation of privacy, which was arbitrarily violated by the government.

In general, most warrantless searches of private premises are prohibited under the Fourth Amendment, unless specific exception applies. For instance, a warrantless search may be lawful, if an officer has asked and is given consent to search; if the search is incident to a lawful arrest; if there is probable cause to search and there is exigent circumstance calling for the warrantless search. Exigent circumstances exist in situations where a situation where people are in imminent danger, where evidence faces imminent destruction, or prior to a suspect's imminent escape.

On the other hand, warrantless search and seizure of properties are not illegal, if the objects being searched are in plain view. Further, warrantless seizure of abandoned property, or of properties on an open field do not violate Fourth Amendment, because it is considered that having expectation of privacy right to an abandoned property or to properties on an open field is not reasonable.
However, in some states, there are some exception to this limitation, where some state authorities have granted protection to open fields. States can always establish higher standards for searches and seizures protection than what is required by the Fourth Amendment, but states cannot allow conducts that violate the Fourth Amendment.

Where there was a violation of one’s fourth amendment rights by federal officials, A bivens action can be filed against federal law enforcement officials for damages, resulting from an unlawful search and seizure. Under the Bivens action, the claimant needs to prove that there has been a constitutional violation of the fourth amendment rights by federal officials acting under the color of law.

However, the protection under the Fourth Amendment can be waived if one voluntarily consents to or does not object to evidence collected during a warrantless search or seizure.



II. SEARCHES AND SEIZURES UNDER FOURTH AMENDMENT

The courts must determine what constitutes a search or seizure under the Fourth Amendment. If the conduct challenged does not fall within the Fourth Amendment, the individual will not enjoy protection under Fourth Amendment.

A. Search

A search under Fourth Amendment occurs when a governmental employee or agent of the government violates an individual's reasonable expectation of privacy.

Strip searches and visual body cavity searches, including anal or genital inspections, constitute reasonable searches under the Fourth Amendment when supported by probable cause and conducted in a reasonable manner.

A dog-sniff inspection is invalid under the Fourth Amendment if the the inspection violates a reasonable expectation of privacy. Electronic surveillance is also considered a search under the Fourth A
mach es sehr schnell

'exponential reciprocation'- The practice of always giving back more than you take....
madhatter
Signature Poster
Posts: 18340
Joined: Apr 2nd, '08, 17:26

Re: DOJ-NSD FISA spying on Trump campaign...VERY BIG DEAL

Post by madhatter »

Kpdemello wrote:
madhatter wrote:we're not talking about routine police work here...we are talking about an official FBI investigation in which people have been called to testify based on information gleaned from an illegally obtained FISA warrant...

again no FISA warrant, no FBI investigation...
You've got it backwards. First comes the start of the FBI investigation, then comes the application for the warrant. I presume the warrant then lead to further evidence that warranted the appointment of a special prosecutor, but I don't think we have all those details. that's how its supposed to happen however the timeline says differently...
madhatter wrote:HOWEVER for the hundredth time the nunes memo only deals with the FISA warrant...and the propagandist orchestrated illegal leaks to the press in order to damage the president...it has nothing to do with trump and russian collusion etc...that will come later...right now the focus is on the FBI/DOJ and soon to be the state dept...we are also awaiting the IG report which should be out soon...
Um, okay... what's your point here?you keep confusing the two as if they are not two completely separate incidents...

madhatter wrote:no more time for this...I don't feel like you have an understanding of, or interest in anything other than "get trump" and are willing to create false equivalencies in order to justify the means to an end...

kinda like what it seems happened at the FBI...
Funny, I was just thinking how you seem to lack an understanding of how a police/FBI investigation you keep confusing an illegal FISA warrant with an investigation...works and all you seem to care about is branding this one as a politically motivated witch hunt despite lacking any evidence to support that particular conspiracy theory.
until the motivations and methodology for obtaining the FISA warrant was determined we can;t even remotely determine whether or not the mueller investigation was warranted...anything obtained illegally during any kind of surveillance would be inadmissible as evidence...the mueller investigation occurred well after and as a result of the FISA warrant...

how much evidence do you need to establish a motive? are the page strzok texts not enough right there?is the direct involvement of McCabe not enough?the fact that he intentionally hid or otherwise withheld the weiner emails from comey et al not evidence of a crime in and of itself? is not the admission of the state dept official as having been instrumental in fwding steele dossier info to the FBI and media not enough? there's more than enough there to indicate a political motive...

seriously I have no more time for this...
mach es sehr schnell

'exponential reciprocation'- The practice of always giving back more than you take....
Kpdemello
Tree Psycho
Posts: 1917
Joined: Feb 2nd, '16, 14:19

Re: DOJ-NSD FISA spying on Trump campaign...VERY BIG DEAL

Post by Kpdemello »

madhatter wrote:we have testimony from the FBI and a preview of the schiff memo...we know that no disclosure of ohrs wife to fusion GPS was made, we know that Glenn simpson 's personal feelings as officially noted by ohr were not presented, we know that the fact that the DNC/Clinton paid for the dossier and supplied info on its contents to the state dept who fwd'd it to the FBI as admitted to by a state dept official were not presented to the court, we know that the FBI knew that the yahoo news article was written about the dossier and info in it and in no way corroborated it...we know that an FBI official testified that without the dossier there would be no warrant, we know that a warrant was turned down when applied for prior to the usage of the doissier...
I'm not sure we "know" any of this. Many of these accusations were made by the Republican memo, but the FBI claims that it left out lots of things and there's a Democratic rebuttal that we have yet to see. Regardless, many of these issues do not appear to be fatal to the validity of the FISA warrant. We have no way to know about the validity of the warrant without evaluating the full application, which the Republican memo did not do. I agree an investigation into the application process may be warranted, but frankly I don't think that doing it in the political arena to be used as political capital for either party is the appropriate venue. Probably this should be referred to a law enforcement agency for investigation or perhaps a special prosecutor should be appointed.
madhatter wrote:your conclusions may vary based on your preconceived notions and failure to critically and objectively assess information...but emotions won't rule the day here...and the above is way more than enough evidence that these
What the law does forbid is lying to any judicial officer to obtain any means of surveillance. What the law does forbid, under criminal penalty, is the misuse of FISA. Both derive from the protections of the Fourth Amendment itself.
I don't think it's possible to establish a misuse of FISA without a review of the full application for the FISA warrant. Anything less is reviewing only pieces of the evidence without giving all of the evidence a fair hearing. Certainly if FISA was misused here than people should be punished. But a highly criticized, politically charged memorandum by the President's own party is hardly sufficient evidence of a misuse of FISA, unless you are a partisan who unquestioningly accepts the arguments of your party's side without giving the other side a fair hearing.
Kpdemello
Tree Psycho
Posts: 1917
Joined: Feb 2nd, '16, 14:19

Re: DOJ-NSD FISA spying on Trump campaign...VERY BIG DEAL

Post by Kpdemello »

madhatter wrote:you keep confusing an illegal FISA warrant with an investigation...
Let me clarify. The FBI investigation began before Mueller was appointed. So this started when the FBI (among other agencies) started looking into Russian collusion. Then the FBI/DOJ applied for a FISA warrant, then Mueller was appointed to start *his* investigation into the Trump campaign.

Perhaps your confusion is resulting from my use of the term "investigation" which is not in reference to Mueller but in reference to the investigation the FBI began before applying for the FISA warrant.
madhatter wrote:until the motivations and methodology for obtaining the FISA warrant was determined we can;t even remotely determine whether or not the mueller investigation was warranted...anything obtained illegally during any kind of surveillance would be inadmissible as evidence...the mueller investigation occurred well after and as a result of the FISA warrant...
I'm not sure we know with certainty what specific evidence led to Mueller's appointment, do we?

As to the legality of surveillance, again, we still don't know all of what was in the FISA application, so we don't know if the FISA warrant was legal or not.
madhatter wrote:how much evidence do you need to establish a motive? are the page strzok texts not enough right there?is the direct involvement of McCabe not enough?the fact that he intentionally hid or otherwise withheld the weiner emails from comey et al not evidence of a crime in and of itself? is not the admission of the state dept official as having been instrumental in fwding steele dossier info to the FBI and media not enough? there's more than enough there to indicate a political motive...
None of that is evidence that proves anything in court or out. Does it raise suspicions? Sure, but I'm not even sure if all of that is true or just parroted from some BS conservative web sites you frequent. In any case, motive alone proves nothing. Just because someone has motive to do something doesn't mean they in fact did it. Or, in this case, just because some FBI agents may not have cared for Trump does not mean that they didn't conduct a fair and thorough investigation here. Show me actual evidence of that, not just accusations and supposition.
madhatter
Signature Poster
Posts: 18340
Joined: Apr 2nd, '08, 17:26

Re: DOJ-NSD FISA spying on Trump campaign...VERY BIG DEAL

Post by madhatter »

Kpdemello wrote:
madhatter wrote:you keep confusing an illegal FISA warrant with an investigation...
Let me clarify. The FBI investigation began before Mueller was appointed. that's again a completely different story that you conveniently tie to the separate issue of a special counsel investigation based on the FISA warrant which is the point of contention here...So this started when the FBI (among other agencies) started looking into Russian collusion. Then the FBI/DOJ applied for a FISA warrant, then Mueller was appointed to start *his* investigation into the Trump campaign.
yep the FISA warrant was precursor to the special counsel...no FISA warrant no mueller, yer getting warmer here...
Perhaps your confusion is resulting from my use of the term "investigation" which is not in reference to Mueller but in reference to the investigation the FBI began before applying for the FISA warrant.
madhatter wrote:until the motivations and methodology for obtaining the FISA warrant was determined we can;t even remotely determine whether or not the mueller investigation was warranted...anything obtained illegally during any kind of surveillance would be inadmissible as evidence...the mueller investigation occurred well after and as a result of the FISA warrant...
I'm not sure we know with certainty what specific evidence led to Mueller's appointment, do we?

As to the legality of surveillance, again, we still don't know all of what was in the FISA application, so we don't know if the FISA warrant was legal or not.
madhatter wrote:how much evidence do you need to establish a motive? are the page strzok texts not enough right there?is the direct involvement of McCabe not enough?the fact that he intentionally hid or otherwise withheld the weiner emails from comey et al not evidence of a crime in and of itself? is not the admission of the state dept official as having been instrumental in fwding steele dossier info to the FBI and media not enough? there's more than enough there to indicate a political motive...
None of that is evidence that proves anything in court or out. Does it raise suspicions? Sure, but I'm not even sure if all of that is trueyou could actually ya know investigate and see for yourself... as far as I can see most if not all of it is verified by official quotes, released evidence, direct confessions etc... or just parroted from some BS conservative web sites you frequent. which are?In any case, motive alone proves nothing. Just because someone has motive to do something doesn't mean they in fact did it.
oh we've already established that something was done,( FISA warrant ) we are now trying to establish the motive...was it legitimate or a politically motivated hit job...

as far as mueller he is supposed to be appointed to investigate a specific crime which has never been named ( feel free to correct by supplying said crime)...thus largely negating any need for a special counsel to investigate a crime that never occurred or which there is no evidence of it ever occurring...

mueller simply has been shown the man and is now searching for a crime for which to charge him...but thus far it's only turned up evidence of wrongdoing at the FBI/DOJ/state dept...
mach es sehr schnell

'exponential reciprocation'- The practice of always giving back more than you take....
Kpdemello
Tree Psycho
Posts: 1917
Joined: Feb 2nd, '16, 14:19

Re: DOJ-NSD FISA spying on Trump campaign...VERY BIG DEAL

Post by Kpdemello »

madhatter wrote:as far as mueller he is supposed to be appointed to investigate a specific crime which has never been named ( feel free to correct by supplying said crime)...thus largely negating any need for a special counsel to investigate a crime that never occurred or which there is no evidence of it ever occurring...
That's actually not how the special prosecutor law works (or really any investigation, for that matter). Go read the statute. The special prosecutor is appointed to investigate a matter, not necessarily a specific named crime. There are few times when any investigation focuses on a specific named crime. I'm not sure why you're so hung up on that. Often times investigations start into suspected amorphous illegal activity and find all sorts of crimes that are unrelated to the original reason for starting the investigation. It doesn't make the crimes actually committed any less wrong.

In this case, the matter has been specifically named. Go read the order. It says that Mueller was appointed to investigate any links and/or coordination between Trump's campaign and Russia. Now I know that Fox News has made some claims that such "collusion" isn't actually a crime, but there are a number of potential crimes at issue:

Fraud (18 USC 1030); wire fraud (18 USC 1343); illegal contributions and donations by foreign nationals (52 USC 30121); aiding and abetting Russia in the above crimes (18 USC 2); conspiracy to violate the above crimes (18 USC 371). Not to mention that working with a foreign government to undermine a U.S. election could be considered treason.
madhatter wrote:mueller simply has been shown the man and is now searching for a crime for which to charge him..
Funny, that's just what Clinton supporters said when his special prosecutor was appointed. It's a position of willful ignorance.
madhatter wrote:but thus far it's only turned up evidence of wrongdoing at the FBI/DOJ/state dept...
You're basing your entire case for evidence of wrongdoing on a partisan memo released by one side with no rebuttal. In any case, if it did turn up such evidence, good. Let's get to the bottom of it. That's what the investigation is supposed to do. If this is a politically motivated witch hunt, and that's what Mueller finds and reports, it will exonerate Trump and do damage to his enemies. You should welcome that outcome and fully support the investigation.
Kpdemello
Tree Psycho
Posts: 1917
Joined: Feb 2nd, '16, 14:19

Re: DOJ-NSD FISA spying on Trump campaign...VERY BIG DEAL

Post by Kpdemello »

madhatter wrote:oh we've already established that something was done,( FISA warrant ) we are now trying to establish the motive...was it legitimate or a politically motivated hit job...
Right. But just because the people involved in the investigation might not have liked Trump, or might have loved Hillary, does not mean that they couldn't put their political bias aside and do their jobs like professionals. Accusing the FBI of political partisanship in its investigation of Russian collusion is a big charge. How about providing some evidence beyond some texts between two agents who didn't really care much for Trump, or a partisan, politically charged memo that opponents say left out material information?
madhatter
Signature Poster
Posts: 18340
Joined: Apr 2nd, '08, 17:26

Re: DOJ-NSD FISA spying on Trump campaign...VERY BIG DEAL

Post by madhatter »

Kpdemello wrote:
madhatter wrote:as far as mueller he is supposed to be appointed to investigate a specific crime which has never been named ( feel free to correct by supplying said crime)...thus largely negating any need for a special counsel to investigate a crime that never occurred or which there is no evidence of it ever occurring...
That's actually not how the special prosecutor law works (or really any investigation, for that matter). Go read the statute. The special prosecutor is appointed to investigate a matter, not necessarily a specific named crime. There are few times when any investigation focuses on a specific named crime. I'm not sure why you're so hung up on that. Often times investigations start into suspected amorphous illegal activity and find all sorts of crimes that are unrelated to the original reason for starting the investigation. It doesn't make the crimes actually committed any less wrong.not sure you actually understand any of this or specifically how a warrant'surveillance works...

In this case, the matter has been specifically named. Go read the order. It says that Mueller was appointed to investigate any links and/or coordination between Trump's campaign and Russia. Now I know that Fox News has made some claims that such "collusion" isn't actually a crime, but there are a number of potential crimes at issue:

Fraud (18 USC 1030); wire fraud (18 USC 1343); illegal contributions and donations by foreign nationals (52 USC 30121); aiding and abetting Russia in the above crimes (18 USC 2); conspiracy to violate the above crimes (18 USC 371). Not to mention that working with a foreign government to undermine a U.S. election could be considered treason.
madhatter wrote:mueller simply has been shown the man and is now searching for a crime for which to charge him..
Funny, that's just what Clinton supporters said when his special prosecutor was appointed. It's a position of willful ignorance.I was totally against clinton being investigated as to who he had consensual sex with intern or not... it was ridiculous... I as on his side...the difference there according to the timeline of events

Fall 1997: Tripp to begin taping conversations in which Lewinsky details her alleged affair with the president.

October 1997: Tripp meets with Newsweek's Michael Isikoff, Lucianne & Jonah Goldberg at Jonah's apartment in Washington, according to a Newsweek report. The Goldberg's listen to a tape of Tripp/Lewinsky conversations.

January 1998
Jan. 7, 1998: Lewinsky files an affidavit in the Jones case in which she denies ever having a sexual relationship with President Clinton.

Jan. 9: Tripp delivers the tapes to her lawyer, Jim Moody.

Jan. 12: Linda Tripp contacts the office of Whitewater Independent Counsel Ken Starr to talk about Lewinsky and the tapes she made of their conversations. The tapes allegedly have Lewinsky detailing an affair with Clinton and indicate that Clinton and Clinton friend Vernon Jordan told Lewinsky to lie about the alleged affair under oath.

Jan. 13, 1998: Tripp, wired by FBI agents working with Starr, meets with Lewinsky at the Ritz-Carlton Hotel bar in Pentagon City, Va., and records their conversation.

Jan. 14, 1998: Lewinsky gives Tripp a document headed "Points to make in an affidavit," coaching Tripp on what to tell Jones' lawyers about Kathleen Willey, another former White House staffer. Willey recently had testified about alleged unsolicited sexual advances made by the president in 1993.

Jan. 16, 1998: Starr contacts Attorney General Janet Reno to get permission to expand his probe. Reno agrees and submits the request to a panel of three federal judges. The judges agree to allow Starr to formally investigate the possibility of subornation of perjury and obstruction of justice in the Jones case. Tripp and Lewinsky meet again at the Ritz-Carlton. FBI agents and U.S. attorneys intercede and take Lewinsky to a hotel room, where they question her and offer her immunity. Lewinsky contacts her mother, Marcia Lewis, who travels down from New York City by train. Lewis contacts her ex-husband, who calls attorney William Ginsburg, a family friend. Ginsburg advises her not to accept the immunity deal until he learns more.
Fall 1997: Tripp to begin taping conversations in which Lewinsky details her alleged affair with the president.

October 1997: Tripp meets with Newsweek's Michael Isikoff, Lucianne & Jonah Goldberg at Jonah's apartment in Washington, according to a Newsweek report. The Goldberg's listen to a tape of Tripp/Lewinsky conversations.
Jan. 17, 1998: Ginsburg flies to Washington to represent Lewinsky. Clinton gives his deposition in the Jones lawsuit, in which he denies having a sexual relationship with Lewinsky

madhatter wrote:but thus far it's only turned up evidence of wrongdoing at the FBI/DOJ/state dept...


You're basing your entire case for evidence of wrongdoing on a partisan memo released by one side with no rebuttal. In any case, if it did turn up such evidence, good. Let's get to the bottom of it. That's what the investigation is supposed to do. If this is a politically motivated witch hunt, and that's what Mueller finds and reports, it will exonerate Trump and do damage to his enemies. You should welcome that outcome and fully support the investigation.
yer making sh!t up, intertwining numerous unrelated incidents etc...its really a waste of time here,,,you simply obfuscate and drag things out beyond eternity...

Under the current law, the special counsel's focus is somewhat more limited, with the scope of the investigation set by the attorney general and confined to investigating criminal matters.The job is the equivalent of a U.S. attorney, but is not subject to day-to-day supervision by the Justice Department. he's not a private investigator or beat cop...


https://www.law.cornell.edu/cfr/text/28/600.4" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
§ 600.4 Jurisdiction.
(a)Original jurisdiction. The jurisdiction of a Special Counsel shall be established by the Attorney General. The Special Counsel will be provided with a specific factual statement of the matter to be investigated. The jurisdiction of a Special Counsel shall also include the authority to investigate and prosecute federal crimes committed in the course of, and with intent to interfere with, the Special Counsel's investigation, such as perjury, obstruction of justice, destruction of evidence, and intimidation of witnesses; and to conduct appeals arising out of the matter being investigated and/or prosecuted.

§ 600.7 Conduct and accountability.
(a) A Special Counsel shall comply with the rules, regulations, procedures, practices and policies of the Department of Justice. He or she shall consult with appropriate offices within the Department for guidance with respect to established practices, policies and procedures of the Department, including ethics and security regulations and procedures. Should the Special Counsel conclude that the extraordinary circumstances of any particular decision would render compliance with required review and approval procedures by the designated Departmental component inappropriate, he or she may consult directly with the Attorney General.

(b) The Special Counsel shall not be subject to the day-to-day supervision of any official of the Department. However, the Attorney General may request that the Special Counsel provide an explanation for any investigative or prosecutorial step, and may after review conclude that the action is so inappropriate or unwarranted under established Departmental practices that it should not be pursued. In conducting that review, the Attorney General will give great weight to the views of the Special Counsel. If the Attorney General concludes that a proposed action by a Special Counsel should not be pursued, the Attorney General shall notify Congress as specified in § 600.9(a)(3).

(c) The Special Counsel and staff shall be subject to disciplinary action for misconduct and breach of ethical duties under the same standards and to the same extent as are other employees of the Department of Justice. Inquiries into such matters shall be handled through the appropriate office of the Department upon the approval of the Attorney General.

(d) The Special Counsel may be disciplined or removed from office only by the personal action of the Attorney General. The Attorney General may remove a Special Counsel for misconduct, dereliction of duty, incapacity, conflict of interest, or for other good cause, including violation of Departmental policies. The Attorney General shall inform the Special Counsel in writing of the specific reason for his or her removal.


that specific factual statement ( the dossier and its subsequent FISA warrant) as far as we can tell has no fact to it...

but again that will be determined by the initial investigation into the FISA warrant...

the comparison the the clinton case is amusing but irrelevant...there is no such "factual statement of evidence" upon which mueller is acting...he's simply winging it...

this all goes away immediately if the D's don't take the house in the fall...

that's been the goal all along, discredit trump, destroy his credibility and hopefully find something, anything that can be used as grounds for impeachment proceedings in the house, which of course will never amount to anything anyway since you;d need 2/3 of the senate to remove him, but will further damage and otherwise hamper the president for the second two years of his presidency at which time the D's can hope to have inflicted enough damage retake the oval office......

good luck w all that, cuz it;s never gonna happen...unfortunately we'll have our president hamstrung at every turn by obstructionist sore losers who refuse to accept the outcome of the 16 election and aren't interested in policy or governing but simply in power and self preservation...but outside of the bluest of blue enclaves no one is buying the D propaganda...and in those enclaves the lunatic progressives are primary-ing the incumbents...
mach es sehr schnell

'exponential reciprocation'- The practice of always giving back more than you take....
Kpdemello
Tree Psycho
Posts: 1917
Joined: Feb 2nd, '16, 14:19

Re: DOJ-NSD FISA spying on Trump campaign...VERY BIG DEAL

Post by Kpdemello »

its really a waste of time here
As I look back on the litany of posts we've both made in this thread, I can't help but agree.
madhatter
Signature Poster
Posts: 18340
Joined: Apr 2nd, '08, 17:26

Re: DOJ-NSD FISA spying on Trump campaign...VERY BIG DEAL

Post by madhatter »

Comey

In addition to Deputy Attorney General Sally Yates, VP Joe Biden, Obama and Rice, the fifth participant in the Jan 5, 2017 meeting was none other than former FBI Director James Brien Comey Jr., also known as "Boyscoutish" Jim.

What's notable about Comey's attendance in the meeting is that it appears he misled Congress about his contact with President Obama.

Previously, Comey contended he only met with the Obama twice, once in 2015 and another “to say goodbye in late 2016,” according the former FBI director’s June 8, 2017, testimony before the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence.

“I spoke alone with President Obama twice in person (and never on the phone) – once in 2015 to discuss law enforcement policy issues and a second time, briefly, for him to say goodbye in late 2016,” Comey’s opening statement read. -Daily Caller

Comey's prepared statement to congress deliberately omits the January 5 meeting, and qualifies his meetings with Obama as "alone." In other words, since the Jan 5 meeting wasn't "alone," Comey didn't include it - thus, it appears he deliberately mislead Congress about his communications with President Obama.

So while the former FBI Director painted a picture of minimal communication between the FBI, DOJ, and the Obama Administration in his briefing to Congress - we now know that they were in virtual lockstep over their efforts to surveil Donald Trump as a candidate, an incoming President, and a sitting President.

Obama

We also learned in the last week that President Obama was far more "hands on" the FBI investigation than he previously admitted - as revealed in a batch of text messages between anti-Trump FBI agents Peter Strzok and Lisa Page, in which Page tells Strzok "potus wants to know everything we're doing."


yep not a smidgen...though in fairness a sh!tload technically isn't a smidgen...

guess you all will be clamoring for him to join papadopoupos and flynn now huh?
mach es sehr schnell

'exponential reciprocation'- The practice of always giving back more than you take....
Kpdemello
Tree Psycho
Posts: 1917
Joined: Feb 2nd, '16, 14:19

Re: DOJ-NSD FISA spying on Trump campaign...VERY BIG DEAL

Post by Kpdemello »

I'm kinda done with this, but I took a quick look into this one because you piqued my curiosity. This appears to be a he-said, she-said, and the basis of this information is some email Susan Rice sent to herself about this Jan 5 meeting that Comey apparently neglected to mention to congress. If true, yeah it's bad if Comey misled congress (edit: according to a Zero Hedge article, which apparently misrepresented Comey's testimony - see my next post). But again, I think Comey deserves the same presumption of innocence as does Trump - lets have a fair investigation to see what's true and what's not. I'm not about to accept that this email is factual or that Comey deliberately misled Congress, a pretty serious charge, without a fair investigation. This is a very different situation from two people who plead guilty, and admitted to lying, by the way.

But in any case, in that same email, it says:

“The President stressed that he is not asking about, initiating or instructing anything from a law enforcement perspective. He reiterated that our law enforcement team needs to proceed as it normally would by the book,” she continued.

So if you're going to believe what the email said about Comey, are you then going to deny what it says about Obama? Because it kind of flies in the face of your broader point that Obama was directing this Russia investigation for politically motivated reasons.

http://dailycaller.com/2018/02/12/susan ... uguration/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

P.S. you should stop reading crazy right-wing propaganda sites like Zero Hedge. They seem to twist facts to support a very particular point of view. Edit: apparently they also lie.
Last edited by Kpdemello on Feb 14th, '18, 08:45, edited 3 times in total.
Post Reply