TG just said on face the nation that if theres a 2nd memo about the state department, he doesnt know about it

http://thegatewaypundit.com/2018/02/sara-carter-deep-state-terrified-second-anti-trump-dossier-thats-coming-video/

Quote:

---

Sara Carter says Deep State is "terrified" of the second bogus dossier that is coming out.

Quote:

---

Sara Carter: The second memo that the House Intelligence Committee is putting together. We're still waiting for the Inspector General's report that is going to be coming out. That's going to be directed at Andrew McCabe, now former director Andrew McCabe, and others. And I think they're terrified what's going to come out here.
Here's what we know. There was a second dossier that was put together by a person named Cody Shearer. He is a very controversial activist, a former reporter who worked with the Clintons in the past. And the FBI was also using this second dossier as part of what they were doing to back up the other dossier by Christopher Steele, an unverified dossier. And we believe Chistopher Steele was also sending information to the State Department in bits and snippets. But I think the most important thing here and one of the things they are going to be looking at very closely are the leaks. There were a number of leaks out unverified information by possibly senior members of the Obama administration.

---

---

Start at the 1 minute mark and watch the rest of this video (less than 5 minutes long). Sara really dropping pearls. Much more than the small portion quoted above. Goes also into Grassley, the State Department, and leaks. The rabbit hole is bottomless.

drcrinum said:

---

I'll post a link one more time -- the dossier. You really ought to read it. Good fiction for small minds.

https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/3259984-Trump-Intelligence-Allegations.html

---

That's the dossier? I'll admit I've never seen it or looked into the purported buzzfeed article. Thanks for the link!

HeardAboutPerio said:

---

Roscoe,

what thread did you post this referenced link in and possibly discuss it? I found this in the "how many indictments thread":
https://texags.com/forums/16/topics/2929923/1#discussion

It appears to absolve the FBI etc of any wrong doing using unverified information because it's the foreign intelligence agents responsibility? Really!?

law-apt-3g said:

---

RoscoePColtrane posted a link of an Order which pretty much absolves tres letter agencies of the FISA abuse corruption. see conclusions pg 56

https://www.scribd.com/document/349542716/Top-Secret-FISA-Court-Order-President-Obama-Spying-on-Political-Enemies

---

---

I'm not certain that it truly absolves, it's an opinion but it to me looks more like a whitewash job if you ask me. Under Title 1 of the law, nicknamed "traditional FISA," law enforcement must go before the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court (FISC) to receive a warrant to surveil an individual or group of people. To get that warrant, law enforcement must show probable cause that a person is an agent of a foreign power. That means the government had to demonstrate Page was acting as an operative for Russia. However by their own admittance the FBI has known for years that Carter Page is a knucklehead and not a Russian spy they just used his name. because they were familiar with it, and had spied on him in the past. It was easy to shoe horn him in the dossier to give it some sort of next context, that has turned out to be all crap, other than the fact he traveled to Moscow and gave a paid speech to a bunch of energy investors. There's no proof that he met with Russian operatives, as implied in the dossier. That's just false. SO much redaction in the memorandum it's hard to pinpoint their substance of the argument that they were clean under the 702 FISA, and even if they are under 702, does that include Title 1? That is a legitimate question I think hasn't been answered since they are claiming that this falls under Title 1 and not 702. Mainly I think because they just extended 702 and are trying to justify that vote with all of this on the front burner with this FISA warrant.

When we talk about Title 1 and we say someone has to get a court order based on probable cause, that means there has to be some sort of criminal activity, such as espionage, in order to qualify. Has that been met, based on what we know so far, it does not. That's why it's so important to see the FISA applications.

Nunes' memo alleges that to obtain their warrant, law enforcement officials relied on research from a dossier written by former British intelligence officer Christopher Steele. Yes, that dossier, made public last year and subsequently revealed to be financed in part by the Democratic National Committee and Hillary Clinton's campaign.

You can start to see rough outlines of wrongdoing already: Unverified research, funded by Democrats, led to the surveillance of an advisor to a Republican presidential candidate. But we don't know what other evidence law enforcement may have relied on to obtain a warrant to investigate Page. While the dossier has been cited first, officials could have also included a significant amount of evidence collected by the US intelligence community. That we do not know without seeing the applications. We do have Andrew McCabe swearing under oath that the warrant would not have been obtained without it and that is a problem for the FBI.

Schiff has said he believed the memo was misleading. "It's designed to push out a destructive narrative and further the attacks on the FBI. It's basically a burn-the-house down strategy to protect the president," But it is Adam Schiff and he lies constantly.

Nunes memo makes it look like the FISC judge issued the warrant on shaky grounds. But to assess whether that's the case, you have to know again how FISA works. All of the judges currently serving on the FISC were appointed by a single person: Chief Justice Roberts of the SCOTUS. The judges are tasked with overseeing requests for surveillance warrants. Most requests are granted (99.4% statistically), though the standard is usually higher to target a US person like Page, rather than a foreigner which FISA isn't required. They pretty infrequently turn down wiretap requests, however in this case they were turned down twice prior to this for some reason. We need to see those too. Did they change targets? Or did they just add the dossier and got it approved. More questions that remain unanswered.

The FISC isn't necessarily free from abuses, and merits a healthy amount of skepticism, especially because so much of its process occurs behind closed doors. What we know usually comes from a small set of declassified opinions made public by the Director of National Intelligence's office. And think about who was the DNI during all this. Known liar who has lied under oath on the record, James Clapper. Yet another reason to question all of this crap.

But Title 1 of FISA is not the part most susceptible to abuse. Lost in the conversation over Carter Page is an entirely separate portion of the law, called Section 702. This is the part that most everyone are confusing and it's drives me up the tree to try and explain it to knuckleheads that think they know everything on this board, that and they are just Obama goaltenders and that is even worse IMHO.

The section 702 doesn't involve a judge at all. It authorizes a series of warrantless surveillance programs, several of which were first made public by Snowden. Section 702 is the piece of FISA that most worries civil liberties activists at organizations like Judicial Watch and Electronic Frontier Foundation. Experts say it's much more troublesome than traditional FISA, because it has far less oversight, which is completely true and should be.

Nunes and fellow House Republicans have focused their fretting on Title 1, rather than Section 702, I think deliberately because if they self damage 702, that they just voted to extend, they shoot themselves and the IC in the foot and they will lose 702. This very much bothers me because it is a "version of the truth, purposely being evasive of 702 infractions for political purposes and that burns my balls. Truth is truth and not subjective, call me old fashion if you want. In fact, Nunes actually sponsored the version of a bill passed earlier this month that greatly expanded the surveillance powers authorized under Section 702. He and other Republicans turned down an amendment that would have imposed a warrant requirement on the FBI, requiring officials to go before a judge before it searched through communications pertaining to Americans. That is a damn problem right there. This is where I cross swords with all of these politicians. It's a slightly different authority, but it's very hard for me to enter the mental space of someone who really believes there's this problem of political surveillance abuse and then is uninterested in imposing any additional safeguards on exactly the kind of thing they're worried about. How does this really sound even friggin sane? More like selective worrying. So the memorandum linked above actually opined concern of Section 702, the part of FISA Nunes and his fellow Congressmen just reauthorized and expanded by an overwhelming vote. So they are bending over backwards to concentrate the violations under Title 1 not 702, and that is very very important to remember the separation of the two, and the difference of the two as well. 702 is dirty damn business, and is being abuse constantly IMHO.

Awesome thanks

aggiehawg said:

---

Just think about it. The Russians can say anyone's name in a manner they know will be picked up by our surveillance. Any American's name and the FBI could use that for a full-blown investigation.

In short, the Russians could tie the FBI up in knots anytime it wants to. They could name half the DC area phone book if they wanted.

Somewhere in Russia there's an agent chuckling, "Can't believe they fell for that Page crap."

---

Yes Ma'am exactly, except in this case, I think the FBI went back to the well they knew wasn't dirty and used him out of convenience

RoscoePColtrane said:

---

aggiehawg said:

---

Just think about it. The Russians can say anyone's name in a manner they know will be picked up by our surveillance. Any American's name and the FBI could use that for a full-blown investigation.

In short, the Russians could tie the FBI up in knots anytime it wants to. They could name half the DC area phone book if they wanted.

Somewhere in Russia there's an agent chuckling, "Can't believe they fell for that Page crap."

---

Yes Ma'am exactly

---

They didn't "fall" for the Page crap. They happily used this unwitting dimwit. Nobody at the FBI believed he was a spy. But he was crucial in being able to justify their surveillance. They overstated his credentials and threat and influence constantly.

jjeffers1 said:

---

RoscoePColtrane said:

---

aggiehawg said:

---

Just think about it. The Russians can say anyone's name in a manner they know will be picked up by our surveillance. Any American's name and the FBI could use that for a full-blown investigation.

In short, the Russians could tie the FBI up in knots anytime it wants to. They could name half the DC area phone book if they wanted.

Somewhere in Russia there's an agent chuckling, "Can't believe they fell for that Page crap."

---

Yes Ma'am exactly

---

They didn't "fall" for the Page crap. They happily used this unwitting dimwit. Nobody at the FBI believed he was a spy. But he was crucial in being able to justify their surveillance. They overstated his credentials and threat and influence constantly.

---

BINGO

aggiehawg said:

---

Just think about it. The Russians can say anyone's name in a manner they know will be picked up by our surveillance. Any American's name and the FBI could use that for a full-blown investigation.

In short, the Russians could tie the FBI up in knots anytime it wants to. They could name half the DC area phone book if they wanted.

Somewhere in Russia there's an agent chuckling, "Can't believe they fell for that Page crap."

---

Or when Team Hillary went to Ukraine and discussed smearing Trump, there could have been a thread there for someone to put Page and others onto the FBI radar via intelligence connections.

Hell, there could be contacts in Russia that Hillary straight up bought off with Clinton foundation money to float Trump campaign names onto the Us intelligence tadar.

Is this an accurate statement concerning FISA?
From Wikipedia......

Quote:

---

The President may authorize, through the Attorney General, electronic surveillance without a court order for the period of one year, provided that it is only to acquire foreign intelligence information, that it is solely directed at communications or property controlled exclusively by foreign powers, that there is no substantial likelihood that it will acquire the contents of any communication to which a United States person is a party, and that it be conducted only in accordance with defined minimization procedures.

---

That gives a lot of leeway for abuse.

VaultingChemist said:

---

Is this an accurate statement concerning FISA?
From Wikipedia......

Quote:

---

The President may authorize, through the Attorney General, electronic surveillance without a court order for the period of one year, provided that it is only to acquire foreign intelligence information, that it is solely directed at communications or property controlled exclusively by foreign powers, that there is no substantial likelihood that it will acquire the contents of any communication to which a United States person is a party, and that it be conducted only in accordance with defined minimization procedures.

---

That gives a lot of leeway for abuse.

---

Yes under section 702

VaultingChemist said:

---

Is this an accurate statement concerning FISA?
From Wikipedia......

Quote:

---

The President may authorize, through the Attorney General, electronic surveillance without a court order for the period of one year, provided that it is only to acquire foreign intelligence information, that it is solely directed at communications or property controlled exclusively by foreign powers, that there is no substantial likelihood that it will acquire the contents of any communication to which a United States person is a party, and that it be conducted only in accordance with defined minimization procedures.

---

That gives a lot of leeway for abuse.

---

Think foreign embassies on our soil and it makes sense.

Carter Page was an easy target on which to obtain a FISA warrant under Title 1 because he had already been on the FBI's radar once before involving his Russian 'experiences'. Access to this involvement would have been readily available to an oppo research outfit via court records. I can't download the link to the actual court document -- my antivirus software wouldn't allow it without me messing around with the access restrictions in place -- but you can read the complete document in the following article at Buzzfeed:

https://www.buzzfeed.com/alimwatkins/a-former-trump-adviser-met-with-a-russian-spy?utm_term=.vpQN9KX3b#.qcMGwMKrJ

If you go to the article to view the document, Page is Male-1, and he appears on Pp. 12-13.
(You have seen references to this before, where the Russian operative refers to Page as being an idiot.)

drcrinum said:

---

Carter Page was an easy target on which to obtain a FISA warrant under Title 1 because he had already been on the FBI's radar once before involving his Russian 'experiences'. Access to this involvement would have been readily available to an oppo research outfit via court records. I can't download the link to the actual court document -- my antivirus software wouldn't allow it without me messing around with the access restrictions in place -- but you can read the complete document in the following article at Buzzfeed:

https://www.buzzfeed.com/alimwatkins/a-former-trump-adviser-met-with-a-russian-spy?utm_term=.vpQN9KX3b#.qcMGwMKrJ

If you go to the article to view the document, Page is Male-1, and he appears on Pp. 12-13.
(You have seen references to this before, where the Russian operative refers to Page as being an idiot.)

---

And if not Page, there was always Manafort. That one might have been too tricky to get past a FISA judge, however sense he was Trump's campaign manager.

ETA: Doesn't mean they didn't try, however. They might have.

Under 702, there would be documentation of every request for surveillance made and by whom. Correct?

drcrinum said:

---

Carter Page was an easy target on which to obtain a FISA warrant under Title 1 because he had already been on the FBI's radar once before involving his Russian 'experiences'. Access to this involvement would have been readily available to an oppo research outfit via court records. I can't download the link to the actual court document -- my antivirus software wouldn't allow it without me messing around with the access restrictions in place -- but you can read the complete document in the following article at Buzzfeed:

https://www.buzzfeed.com/alimwatkins/a-former-trump-adviser-met-with-a-russian-spy?utm_term=.vpQN9KX3b#.qcMGwMKrJ

If you go to the article to view the document, Page is Male-1, and he appears on Pp. 12-13.
(You have seen references to this before, where the Russian operative refers to Page as being an idiot.)

---

I posted the actual document before

https://assets.documentcloud.org/documents/3535379/U-S-Accuses-Three-Russians-of-Spying.pdf

VaultingChemist said:

---

Under 702, there would documentation of every request for surveillance made and by whom. Correct?

---

If they were following protocol yes, that's a BIG IF

Sorry...and thanks.

no worries, this thread moves fast and things get swallowed up

aggiehawg said:

---

drcrinum said:

---

Carter Page was an easy target on which to obtain a FISA warrant under Title 1 because he had already been on the FBI's radar once before involving his Russian 'experiences'. Access to this involvement would have been readily available to an oppo research outfit via court records. I can't download the link to the actual court document -- my antivirus software wouldn't allow it without me messing around with the access restrictions in place -- but you can read the complete document in the following article at Buzzfeed:

https://www.buzzfeed.com/alimwatkins/a-former-trump-adviser-met-with-a-russian-spy?utm_term=.vpQN9KX3b#.qcMGwMKrJ

If you go to the article to view the document, Page is Male-1, and he appears on Pp. 12-13.
(You have seen references to this before, where the Russian operative refers to Page as being an idiot.)

---

And if not Page, there was always Manafort. That one might have been too tricky to get past a FISA judge, however sense he was Trump's campaign manager.

ETA: Doesn't mean they didn't try, however. They might have.

---

They may have gone initially after Manafort -- as I understand it, there were 2 applications which were turned down before they obtained the one on Page -- but Manafort formally resigned from the Trump Campaign on August 19, 2016.

drcrinum said:

---

aggiehawg said:

---

drcrinum said:

---

Carter Page was an easy target on which to obtain a FISA warrant under Title 1 because he had already been on the FBI's radar once before involving his Russian 'experiences'. Access to this involvement would have been readily available to an oppo research outfit via court records. I can't download the link to the actual court document -- my antivirus software wouldn't allow it without me messing around with the access restrictions in place -- but you can read the complete document in the following article at Buzzfeed:

https://www.buzzfeed.com/alimwatkins/a-former-trump-adviser-met-with-a-russian-spy?utm_term=.vpQN9KX3b#.qcMGwMKrJ

If you go to the article to view the document, Page is Male-1, and he appears on Pp. 12-13.
(You have seen references to this before, where the Russian operative refers to Page as being an idiot.)

---

And if not Page, there was always Manafort. That one might have been too tricky to get past a FISA judge, however sense he was Trump's campaign manager.

ETA: Doesn't mean they didn't try, however. They might have.

---

They may have gone initially after Manafort -- as I understand it, there were 2 applications which were turned down before they obtained the one on Page -- but Manafort formally resigned from the Trump Campaign on August 19, 2016.

---

And the local DC judges all know Manafort. And they would likely hesitate signing off on a FISA warrant on Manafort because he was a known political operative with vast resources and connections that might not end well for them had there been blowback on a shakey warrant. Page was a nobody with very limited resources and connections. He was a patsy.

https://theconservativetreehouse.com/2018/02/04/sunday-talks-maria-bartiromo-interviews-james-kallstrom-and-rep-john-ratcliffe/

Sunday Talks Maria Bartiromo Interviews James Kallstrom and Rep. John Ratcliffe




Decent interview. Kallstrom's perspectives about the FBI & FISA warrants are worth listening to. Kallstrom doesn't think much of Rosenstein -- (start 12:50) ...was he playing dumb? (regarding re-authorizing the Page warrant)

Several points I noted:

1) (start 11:15) Ratcliff has seen the source documents & says more details coming out about Bruce & Nellie Ohr -- there was a direct pipeline between the DOJ and the DNC/Fusion GPS.

2) (start 13:45) Ratcliffe stated that Comey is under investigation by the IG for Hatch Act violations. I knew there were problems regarding Comey going public with Hillary's e-mail investigation during the election, and there was a formal complaint filed against him; see:
https://www.nytimes.com/2016/10/30/opinion/on-clinton-emails-did-the-fbi-director-abuse-his-power.html?_r=1
but apparently there is a real ongoing investigation. Ratcliffe implied that Comey ought to be careful concerning his recent tweets because of this investigation.

RoscoePColtrane said:

---

HeardAboutPerio said:

---

Roscoe,

what thread did you post this referenced link in and possibly discuss it? I found this in the "how many indictments thread":
https://texags.com/forums/16/topics/2929923/1#discussion

It appears to absolve the FBI etc of any wrong doing using unverified information because it's the foreign intelligence agents responsibility? Really!?

law-apt-3g said:

---

RoscoePColtrane posted a link of an Order which pretty much absolves tres letter agencies of the FISA abuse corruption. see conclusions pg 56

https://www.scribd.com/document/349542716/Top-Secret-FISA-Court-Order-President-Obama-Spying-on-Political-Enemies

---

---

I'm not certain that it truly absolves, it's an opinion but it to me looks more like a whitewash job if you ask me. Under Title 1 of the law, nicknamed "traditional FISA," law enforcement must go before the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court (FISC) to receive a warrant to surveil an individual or group of people. To get that warrant, law enforcement must show probable cause that a person is an agent of a foreign power. That means the government had to demonstrate Page was acting as an operative for Russia. However by their own admittance the FBI has known for years that Carter Page is a knucklehead and not a Russian spy they just used his name. because they were familiar with it, and had spied on him in the past. It was easy to shoe horn him in the dossier to give it some sort of next context, that has turned out to be all crap, other than the fact he traveled to Moscow and gave a paid speech to a bunch of energy investors. There's no proof that he met with Russian operatives, as implied in the dossier. That's just false. SO much redaction in the memorandum it's hard to pinpoint their substance of the argument that they were clean under the 702 FISA, and even if they are under 702, does that include Title 1? That is a legitimate question I think hasn't been answered since they are claiming that this falls under Title 1 and not 702. Mainly I think because they just extended 702 and are trying to justify that vote with all of this on the front burner with this FISA warrant.

When we talk about Title 1 and we say someone has to get a court order based on probable cause, that means there has to be some sort of criminal activity, such as espionage, in order to qualify. Has that been met, based on what we know so far, it does not. That's why it's so important to see the FISA applications.

Nunes' memo alleges that to obtain their warrant, law enforcement officials relied on research from a dossier written by former British intelligence officer Christopher Steele. Yes, that dossier, made public last year and subsequently revealed to be financed in part by the Democratic National Committee and Hillary Clinton's campaign.

You can start to see rough outlines of wrongdoing already: Unverified research, funded by Democrats, led to the surveillance of an advisor to a Republican presidential candidate. But we don't know what other evidence law enforcement may have relied on to obtain a warrant to investigate Page. While the dossier has been cited first, officials could have also included a significant amount of evidence collected by the US intelligence community. That we do not know without seeing the applications. We do have Andrew McCabe swearing under oath that the warrant would not have been obtained without it and that is a problem for the FBI.

Schiff has said he believed the memo was misleading. "It's designed to push out a destructive narrative and further the attacks on the FBI. It's basically a burn-the-house down strategy to protect the president," But it is Adam Schiff and he lies constantly.

Nunes memo makes it look like the FISC judge issued the warrant on shaky grounds. But to assess whether that's the case, you have to know again how FISA works. All of the judges currently serving on the FISC were appointed by a single person: Chief Justice Roberts of the SCOTUS. The judges are tasked with overseeing requests for surveillance warrants. Most requests are granted (99.4% statistically), though the standard is usually higher to target a US person like Page, rather than a foreigner which FISA isn't required. They pretty infrequently turn down wiretap requests, however in this case they were turned down twice prior to this for some reason. We need to see those too. Did they change targets? Or did they just add the dossier and got it approved. More questions that remain unanswered.

The FISC isn't necessarily free from abuses, and merits a healthy amount of skepticism, especially because so much of its process occurs behind closed doors. What we know usually comes from a small set of declassified opinions made public by the Director of National Intelligence's office. And think about who was the DNI during all this. Known liar who has lied under oath on the record, James Clapper. Yet another reason to question all of this crap.

But Title 1 of FISA is not the part most susceptible to abuse. Lost in the conversation over Carter Page is an entirely separate portion of the law, called Section 702. This is the part that most everyone are confusing and it's drives me up the tree to try and explain it to knuckleheads that think they know everything on this board, that and they are just Obama goaltenders and that is even worse IMHO.

The section 702 doesn't involve a judge at all. It authorizes a series of warrantless surveillance programs, several of which were first made public by Snowden. Section 702 is the piece of FISA that most worries civil liberties activists at organizations like Judicial Watch and Electronic Frontier Foundation. Experts say it's much more troublesome than traditional FISA, because it has far less oversight, which is completely true and should be.

Nunes and fellow House Republicans have focused their fretting on Title 1, rather than Section 702, I think deliberately because if they self damage 702, that they just voted to extend, they shoot themselves and the IC in the foot and they will lose 702. This very much bothers me because it is a "version of the truth, purposely being evasive of 702 infractions for political purposes and that burns my balls. Truth is truth and not subjective, call me old fashion if you want. In fact, Nunes actually sponsored the version of a bill passed earlier this month that greatly expanded the surveillance powers authorized under Section 702. He and other Republicans turned down an amendment that would have imposed a warrant requirement on the FBI, requiring officials to go before a judge before it searched through communications pertaining to Americans. That is a damn problem right there. This is where I cross swords with all of these politicians. It's a slightly different authority, but it's very hard for me to enter the mental space of someone who really believes there's this problem of political surveillance abuse and then is uninterested in imposing any additional safeguards on exactly the kind of thing they're worried about. How does this really sound even friggin sane? More like selective worrying. So the memorandum linked above actually opined concern of Section 702, the part of FISA Nunes and his fellow Congressmen just reauthorized and expanded by an overwhelming vote. So they are bending over backwards to concentrate the violations under Title 1 not 702, and that is very very important to remember the separation of the two, and the difference of the two as well. 702 is dirty damn business, and is being abuse constantly IMHO.

---

Worth remembering that Section 215 of the Patriot Act was also in their toolbox, and it was terrifying. It is the "business records" provision that allowed the NSA to indiscriminately demand all US cellular carriers hand over all call/text data from all subscribers, every single day. All of it. Fortunately the law was neutered by the USA Freedom Act to end mass surveillance in that specific manner, which would never have happened without Snowden.

https://www.csis.org/analysis/fact-sheet-section-215-usa-patriot-act

Thank You Bern!

https://threadreaderapp.com/thread/959826294954479616.html


Short thread on the Cater Page FISA Warrant. Asks a major question at its conclusion:

Quote:

---

Assuming warrants renewed every 90d, they allowed surveillance of certain "facilities and places" for 360 day period 10/21/16 to 10/16/17, and issued as follows:

10/21/16 - Original FISA Warrant
1/19/17 - Renewal #1 (90d)
4/19/17 - Renewal #2 (90d)
7/18/17 - Renewal #3 (90d)

Question - What "facilities and places" are covered by the 4 FISA warrants that allowed surveillance for almost a year?

---

I've a suspicion regarding the answer -- it's in Carter Page's written statement prefacing his testimony before the HPSIC on November 2, 2017, page 14 of his testimony not the document page (photo image, can't be copied):

https://intelligence.house.gov/uploadedfiles/carter_page_hpsci_hearing_transcript_nov_2_2017.pdf

Carter Page's office was located in the IBM Building, 590 Madison Ave, which is linked to the Trump Tower by an atrium. Page stated that he frequently dined at Trump Grill, Trump Diner & the Starbucks located in Trump Tower, as well as attending events held in the Trump Tower. In essence, I believe it was presented that Page maintained an office on the Trump Tower premise...almost...and was frequently in contact with various Trump Tower occupants (possibly passing secrets, plotting strategies, conspiring, etc.).

Quote:

---

"Title I" FISA surveillance of U.S. citizens is the most intrusive, exhaustive and far reaching type of search, seizure and surveillance authority, permitting the FBI to look at every scintilla of Mr. Page's life. All communication, travel and contact can be opened and reviewed. All aspects of any of Mr. Page's engagements are subject to being secretly monitored. This is an entirely different level of surveillance authority, the highest possible, and has nothing to do with FISA-702 search queries (Title VII) of U.S. persons....

The "Title I" designation as a foreign agent applied retroactively to any action taken by Mr. Page, and auto-generates an exponential list of other people he came in contact with. Each of those people, groups or organizations could now have their communication reviewed, unmasked and analyzed by the DOJ/FBI with the same surveillance authority granted upon the target, Mr. Page.

---

Bingo! See how that works? Anybody he contacted...retroactively!!!!

Now there is a companion article by Sharyl Attkisson that you need to read in entirety. It specifies all the specific steps that must be followed in order to obtain a Title I warrant. It's unbelievable in detail. The procedures are called the "Woods Procedures". In my opinion, there had to be a 'whole lotta lying' and misrepresentations vomited to get past these safeguards...and they were all signed off by you know who. It's absolutely sickening. Please take the time to read this and then think what had to happen.

http://thehill.com/opinion/campaign/372233-nunes-memo-raises-question-did-fbi-violate-woods-procedures

Quote:

---

Nunes memo raises question: Did FBI violate Woods Procedures?

---

P.S. And who do you think was the FBI Director when the Woods Procedures were developed and enacted?
You guessed it: Mueller.

just skipped to the conclusions regarding the link:
https://www.scribd.com/document/349542716/Top-Secret-FISA-Court-Order-President-Obama-Spying-on-Political-Enemies

Seems like the sharp lawyers who will represent the big fish will bury what is right & wrong with minutiae like this judges order. Expectations of principal, punishment are tempered.

The 2016 election FISA unmasking crap was reviewed and this 2017 Order says no problem, tres letter departments may continue with their FISA FISC protocols...they good.

Ladies and gents, at the risk of repeating a couple of other posts, I need to make sure and thank everyone who's posted here since December 2nd, yes, even our lefties (hard to say that).

Point being is I'm fairly well in tune with the US government, how it operates, and who handles certain things, but I've learned more about the detailed inner workings than I EVER thought possible, and certainly more than I thought I'd be interested in.

OTOH, the human nature portion of this lawless undertaking is right in line with every other question of "why do they do it"---because they can!

Manana!

Quote:

---

Carter Page's office was located in the IBM Building, 590 Madison Ave, which is linked to the Trump Tower by an atrium. Page stated that he frequently dined at Trump Grill, Trump Diner & the Starbucks located in Trump Tower, as well as attending events held in the Trump Tower. In essence, I believe it was presented that Page maintained an office on the Trump Tower premise...almost...and was frequently in contact with various Trump Tower occupants (possibly passing secrets, plotting strategies, conspiring, etc.).

---

Quote:

---

The "Title I" designation as a foreign agent applied retroactively to any action taken by Mr. Page, and auto-generates an exponential list of other people he came in contact with. Each of those people, groups or organizations could now have their communication reviewed, unmasked and analyzed by the DOJ/FBI with the same surveillance authority granted upon the target, Mr. Page.

---

Great stuff. Thanks for sharing.

It's a bit of a reach I think but here's the article

Adam Schiff Might Have Released Classified Information in Attempt to Rebut Nunes Memo

https://lawandcrime.com/legal-analysis/adam-schiff-apparently-released-classified-information-in-attempt-to-rebut-nunes-memo/

BY SHARYL ATTKISSON, OPINION CONTRIBUTOR


Nunes memo raises question: Did FBI violate Woods Procedures?

http://thehill.com/opinion/campaign/372233-nunes-memo-raises-question-did-fbi-violate-woods-procedures