Larry S Ross said:

---

jjeffers1 said:

---

ccatag said:

---

A few posters have made mention of this. With the corruption we see in our government a question I keep having is whether a dirty or corruptible FISA judge might be a possibility we are dealing with? We see judge shopping regularly by prosecutors and people bringing suits. Could there be a FISA judge that might have been compromised?

---

I've done my best to insinuate it. Especially since John Roberts only assigned him (an Obama appointee) to the FISA court in april of 2016. And somehow this issue - which could have ended up on ANY of the 16 judges desks - ends up on his.


My post from 2/1 and I never got an answer.

Wish we knew what was going on behind the scenes w Fisa court judges and chief Roberts whom I think they answer to.
Assuming most are above board what are they thinking about warrants they have approved if fbi is shown to have falsified evidence and or lied to them?
Do they halt approved warrants and make fbi come back and request again and prove to a now skeptical judge they need to spy on someone?
Still wondering.

---

---

One would assume that some type of official response is going to come from the FISA Court. This must be terribly embarrassing to the Court, learning that information to support a FISA warrant application was not only falsified regarding its legitimacy, but such information was also opposition political research...not to mention the circular aspect wherein a news article was presented as collaborating information when the article originated from the same opposition research group. And don't forget...FISA Judge Contreras was suddenly recused from Flynn's case in early December for no specified reason. The knowledge of the falsification aspect of the dossier may have been communicated to the FISA Court by either the HPSIC or Senate Judicial Committee at some time during their investigations.

We also know that Mueller suddenly requested a delay in the sentencing aspect of Flynn's case only a few days ago, and that attorneys for the defense of Gates, Manafort's partner, have requested to be excused 'for unspecified reasons'. So there are likely things occurring in the background which are not being made public.

Perhaps aggiehawg could comment on your questions.

That's overdoing it. Treason is betraying the nation to outsiders, not so much trying to subvert the government from within to retake power, which can be done criminally of course. There is much more to be learned and proven first. Let's be systematic and thoughtful, not rash and vindictive.

RoscoePColtrane said:

---

actually I did answer this question

https://texags.com/forums/16/topics/2912732/replies/51107094

---

No argument from me on your statement they don't answer to Roberts. I said I think they do.i was wrong. My main question still is what happens now w all warrants they have approved from fbi who now have been shown to be suspect? Some who have nothing to do w Trump, Page etc.
are there behind the scences discussions about all those now? How can the judges now feel they have been given true info requests for warrants against anyone?

Treason, as defined by the Constitution, doesn't apply to anything the FBI or DOJ has done.

Sedition comes far closer to what occurred.

I find the bottom comment by Gowdy to be somewhat strange, especially since Gowdy has publicly commented upon the potentially biased makeup of Mueller's investigative team -- most are Clinton political donors, some of which have also represented her. I guess he separates Mueller's investigative aspect from the origin of his initial charge -- the fake dossier played a major role in the whole Russian collusion narrative. No dossier = no SC, similar to no dossier = no FISA warrant.

MouthBQ98 said:

---

That's overdoing it. Treason is betraying the nation to outsiders, not so much trying to subvert the government from within to retake power, which can be done criminally of course. There is much more to be learned and proven first. Let's be systematic and thoughtful, not rash and vindictive.

---

Incorrct

Treason -noun - the crime of betraying one's country, especially by attempting to kill the sovereign or overthrow the government.

It was defined in Article III, Section 3 of the United States Constitution.

Definition: In Article III, Section 3 of the United States Constitution, treason is specifically limited to levying war against that state or aiding the enemies of that state, and conviction requires two witnesses or a confession in open court.

Penalty: U.S. Code Title 18: Death or not less than 5 years imprisonment and not more than life imprisonment without the possibility of parole (minimum fine of $10,000, if not sentenced to death).

Rockdoc said:

---

Question: we seem to have no attorney general, only an assistant AG who's not gonna bring charges on anybody. What the heck is gonna happen when we need charges filed? DOJ where are you?

---

If it's treason Or considered part of a coup... a military tribunal?

There was also the earlier report that indicated problems. I forget who issued it.

Larry S Ross said:

---

RoscoePColtrane said:

---

actually I did answer this question

https://texags.com/forums/16/topics/2912732/replies/51107094

---

No argument from me on your statement they don't answer to Roberts. I said I think they do.i was wrong. My main question still is what happens now w all warrants they have approved from fbi who now have been shown to be suspect? Some who have nothing to do w Trump, Page etc.
are there behind the scences discussions about all those now? How can the judges now feel they have been given true info requests for warrants against anyone?

---

That's the million dollar question IMHO Mueller's investigation is toast. Nothing gathered under the FISA warrant is admissible. Warrant is toast under appeal. Can't count the cases over the years that were thrown out of court based on a bad warrant. I'm talking wrong date, wrong address, site specific details being wrong. THIS THING IS DONE

MouthBQ98 said:

---

That's overdoing it. Treason is betraying the nation to outsiders, not so much trying to subvert the government from within to retake power, which can be done criminally of course. There is much more to be learned and proven first. Let's be systematic and thoughtful, not rash and vindictive.

---

No treason. Sedition is the better term.

http://uscode.house.gov/view.xhtml?path=/prelim@title18/part1/chapter115&edition=prelim

Codes 2384 and 2385 in the link seem the most applicable.

War or enemies? I think idiots trying to retake power are not doing that. They are however at the least clearly committing a conspiracy to systematically violate the 4yh amendment civil rights of American citizens among other crimes.

RoscoePColtrane said:

---

Further documents that have been ignored with the frenzy over the Meno. People need to read these

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

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

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

---

Thanks, I didn't know these existed

SpreadsheetAg said:

---

Rockdoc said:

---

Question: we seem to have no attorney general, only an assistant AG who's not gonna bring charges on anybody. What the heck is gonna happen when we need charges filed? DOJ where are you?

---

If it's treason Or considered part of a coup... a military tribunal?

---

Well who can call for a grand jury and bring charges against, say Comey or McCabe?

Making up evidence to frame a sitting POTUS as an "insurance policy" is pretty damn close to treason

Larry S Ross said:

---

RoscoePColtrane said:

---

actually I did answer this question

https://texags.com/forums/16/topics/2912732/replies/51107094

---

No argument from me on your statement they don't answer to Roberts. I said I think they do.i was wrong. My main question still is what happens now w all warrants they have approved from fbi who now have been shown to be suspect? Some who have nothing to do w Trump, Page etc.
are there behind the scences discussions about all those now? How can the judges now feel they have been given true info requests for warrants against anyone?

---

That's not as problematical as you might think. FISC judges are different than standard federal court judges eventhough they serve as both.

The FISA statute requires that DOJ and FBI (or Nat Sec Unit at DOJ) sign off on FISA requests. That never happens at the lower levels.

Joe Schmo doesn't have an indictment nor information filed against him that is signed by the Director of the FBI and the Attorney General. Doesn't happen.

Which is why the FISA Act was set up the way it was that you needed both the highest levels of FBI and DOJ to be sure they weren't on a fishing expedition and if they were, it lasted only 90 days.

Sounded acceptable in theory at the time. Now we know the FISA Act does not work when there exists corruption, like the Obama Administration.


As a sidenote, what is most curious here is the Comey backstory. When his boss, Ashcroft, is hospitalized Comey went to the mat and beyond on the very subject of domestic surveillance. Just one link for the Google impaired. Now he's on the other side of that very argument.

ETA: I'm tired and can't spell nor type correctly. The Hubs is having more fun on his pain medication than he's had since the 70s. Loves his "F***itdal." He's a hoot but a handful.

Neither did I until I started digging

drcrinum said:

---

Larry S Ross said:

---

jjeffers1 said:

---

ccatag said:

---

A few posters have made mention of this. With the corruption we see in our government a question I keep having is whether a dirty or corruptible FISA judge might be a possibility we are dealing with? We see judge shopping regularly by prosecutors and people bringing suits. Could there be a FISA judge that might have been compromised?

---

I've done my best to insinuate it. Especially since John Roberts only assigned him (an Obama appointee) to the FISA court in april of 2016. And somehow this issue - which could have ended up on ANY of the 16 judges desks - ends up on his.


My post from 2/1 and I never got an answer.

Wish we knew what was going on behind the scenes w Fisa court judges and chief Roberts whom I think they answer to.
Assuming most are above board what are they thinking about warrants they have approved if fbi is shown to have falsified evidence and or lied to them?
Do they halt approved warrants and make fbi come back and request again and prove to a now skeptical judge they need to spy on someone?
Still wondering.

---

---

One would assume that some type of official response is going to come from the FISA Court. This must be terribly embarrassing to the Court, learning that information to support a FISA warrant application was not only falsified regarding its legitimacy, but such information was also opposition political research...not to mention the circular aspect wherein a news article was presented as collaborating information when the article originated from the same opposition research group. And don't forget...FISA Judge Contreras was suddenly recused from Flynn's case in early December for no specified reason. The knowledge of the falsification aspect of the dossier may have been communicated to the FISA Court by either the HPSIC or Senate Judicial Committee at some time during their investigations.

We also know that Mueller suddenly requested a delay in the sentencing aspect of Flynn's case only a few days ago, and that attorneys for the defense of Gates, Manafort's partner, have requested to be excused 'for unspecified reasons'. So there are likely things occurring in the background which are not being made public.

Perhaps aggiehawg could comment on your questions.

---

My concern is that there won't be because Contreras may have heard these and was specifically put into the FISA court for just this purpose. That is a theory at this ppint.

RoscoePColtrane said:

---

Further documents that have been ignored with the frenzy over the Meno. People need to read these

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

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

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

---

Very interesting. Thanks for posting these.
I appreciate that you manage to find so many formal documents.

https://www.grassley.senate.gov/news/news-releases/grassley-investigations-should-be-about-fact-finding-not-undermining-political#.WnUSYaHirTk.twitter

Quote:

---

Grassley: Investigations should be about fact finding, not undermining political adversaries

Feb 02, 2018
BUTLER COUNTY, IOWA Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Chuck Grassley issued the following statement about investigations and scrutiny of the FBI.

"With each passing day, it seems like there are new questions about the conduct of investigators and justice officials over the last few years. But to suggest that the bureau or the department have become wholesale political operations is simply not true. The men and women of our federal law enforcement agencies serve and protect the public with honor. Unfortunately, the choices of a few officials have hung a cloud of doubt around the Justice Department and the FBI.

"It's no secret that I've got serious, long-standing questions about FBI conduct, especially in its handling of politically sensitive investigations over the past two years. Did they follow protocol or pull punches in the investigation into Secretary Clinton's handling of classified information? Did they properly handle investigations during a presidential election or did they allow politics to influence their decisions? Did investigators follow the rules when seeking a FISA warrant to surveil an American citizen, and did they do their due diligence in vetting information from outside sources? Were procedures ignored out of intent or incompetence?

"In Congress, we have a constitutional responsibility to conduct oversight of the executive branch and ensure the laws are properly and consistently executed. Oversight works better when federal agencies cooperate. As attorney General Jeff Sessions said recently, Congress can be a partner to improve federal agencies. However, failure by these agencies to work with Congress must not prevent us from fulfilling our responsibility to ensure the government is functioning properly for the American people. I want transparency and sunlight to burn off this cloud of doubt around the FBI. I hope the bureau and the department want that too.

"Investigations, whether by law enforcement or Congress, should be about fact finding and uncovering the truth, not about undermining a political adversary. The American people deserve full and complete answers."

---

drcrinum said:

---

RoscoePColtrane said:

---

Further documents that have been ignored with the frenzy over the Meno. People need to read these

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

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

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

---

Very interesting. Thanks for posting these.
I appreciate that you manage to find so many formal documents.

---

That's the old cop in me. Documents are vital for me to be confident in something.

Anything in the media to me is automatically suspect. How a reporter gained my trust is do his/her job with integrity. when I was working the John Wood case in '79 I had a local reporter that was huge in finding out local scuttlebutt in the rough side of Palm Heights. He was vital in catching Jimmy Chagra and locking his sorry ass up. Jimmy Chagra and Fred Carrasco were two of the most notorious Mexican gangsters around back in the day.

Quote:

---

Perhaps aggiehawg could comment on your questions.

---

FISA court does't have a Press department, for obvious reasons, duh!

Any other questions??

Gorka said something earlier on Hannity, now it is Gorka, but he was in the White House during this time.

But Gorka popped off on Hannity and said

Quote:

---

"On the 16th of May Rosenstein brought in Robert Mueller to interview for the FBI Chief. Mueller failed the interview because the POTUS didn't want a Bush/Obama holder back in that position, he wanted fresh people. However the next day on the 17th Rod Rosenstein appointed Bob Mueller as the Special Counsel! How can that even be correct?"

---

He went on to rant about other things but that really stuck out to me.

RoscoePColtrane said:

---

Gorka said something earlier on Hannity, now it is Gorka, but he was in the White House during this time.

But Gorka popped off on Hannity and said

Quote:

---

"On the 16th of May Rosenstein brought in Robert Mueller to interview for the FBI Chief. Mueller failed the interview because the POTUS didn't want a Bush/Obama holder back in that position, he wanted fresh people. However the next day on the 17th Rod Rosenstein appointed Bob Mueller as the Special Counsel! How can that even be correct?"

---

He went on to rant about other things but that really stuck out to me.

---

Gorka is like Bannon with a better resume.

That's why I was sure to emphasize it was "Gorka"

Brett Baier's interview with Nunes.
Rather hard hitting with frank direct questions/answers.

Summary:
Memo written by Gowdy, Nunes & several investigative aides, then checked by legals.
Only Gowdy has read the FISA Warrant Application -- per agreement with DOJ.
Memo only addresses FISA abuse, no sources or methods included.
Left out information on Carter Page's background on purpose -- felt he was unfairly treated by FBI/DOJ.
Nunes did not have nice things to say about Dems on Committee -- watch & you will find out.
The Schiff Memo does exist -- Nunes has read it -- it must follow same process to be released.

Quote:

---

Speaking on Fox News just hours after Republicans on the committee released a memo alleging surveillance abuses by the FBI and Department of Justice (DOJ), Nunes said the panel was moving to "phase two" of its investigation.

"We are in the middle of what I call phase two of our investigation, which involves other departments, specifically the State Department and some of the involvement that they had in this," Nunes said.

"That investigation is ongoing and we continue work towards finding answers and asking the right questions to try to get to the bottom of what exactly the State Department was up to in terms of this Russia investigation."

---

This info came out at the end of Baier's interview with Nunes.
Anyone have any clue what this could be about? I don't recall the State Department being mentioned concerning the Trump Russian Collusion investigation.

drcrinum said:

---

Quote:

---

Speaking on Fox News just hours after Republicans on the committee released a memo alleging surveillance abuses by the FBI and Department of Justice (DOJ), Nunes said the panel was moving to "phase two" of its investigation.

"We are in the middle of what I call phase two of our investigation, which involves other departments, specifically the State Department and some of the involvement that they had in this," Nunes said.

"That investigation is ongoing and we continue work towards finding answers and asking the right questions to try to get to the bottom of what exactly the State Department was up to in terms of this Russia investigation."

---

This info came out at the end of Baier's interview with Nunes.
Anyone have any clue what this could be about? I don't recall the State Department being mentioned concerning the Trump Russian Collusion investigation.

---

Remember that John Kerry had his hands in the Dossier too, he's directly n the middle of it, he can't play dumb, which is his normal defense.

drcrinum said:

---

Quote:

---

Speaking on Fox News just hours after Republicans on the committee released a memo alleging surveillance abuses by the FBI and Department of Justice (DOJ), Nunes said the panel was moving to "phase two" of its investigation.

"We are in the middle of what I call phase two of our investigation, which involves other departments, specifically the State Department and some of the involvement that they had in this," Nunes said.

"That investigation is ongoing and we continue work towards finding answers and asking the right questions to try to get to the bottom of what exactly the State Department was up to in terms of this Russia investigation."

---

This info came out at the end of Baier's interview with Nunes.
Anyone have any clue what this could be about? I don't recall the State Department being mentioned concerning the Trump Russian Collusion investigation.

---

Incest.

SpreadsheetAg said:

---

---

What am I looking at?

Michael Isikoff published the article in Yahoo News detailing Carter Page's trip to Moscow in July 2016 was published on September 23, 2016. Fits with the above British court records regarding a law suit filed against Steele.

http://dailycaller.com/2018/02/02/isikoff-stunned-carter-page/

Quote:

---

Investigative journalist Michael Isikoff said Friday that he was surprised to find out that an article he wrote about Carter Page prior to the election was used to obtain a spy warrant against the former Trump campaign adviser.

The revelation, which was made in a memo released by the House Intelligence Committee on Friday, "stuns me," Isikoff said in an episode of his podcast, "Skullduggery."...

Isikoff was shocked, he said, because his very article was based on information that came from Christopher Steele, the former British spy who wrote the dossier. He said it was "a bit beyond me" that the FBI would use his article in the FISA application.

"Obviously the information that I got from Christopher Steele was information the FBI already had," he said, noting that Steele began sharing information from his dossier in July 2016.

Isikoff acknowledged the potential problem with the DOJ and FBI citing his article to support the FISA against Page.

"It's self-referential," he said of the article and its reliance on the dossier.

---

https://threadreaderapp.com/thread/959625030660444160.html


This is an interesting thread on the upcoming Grassly Memo. It's going to be different than the Nunes' Memo. Apparently Grassley is going to reference British court documents obtained from a lawsuit involving Steele...there are discrepancies regarding Steele's written testimony. These British documents include (don't know if others):

https://www.scribd.com/document/370633759/Christopher-Steele-Affidavit-Work-With-GPS-Dossier-Lawsuit

drcrinum said:

---

http://dailycaller.com/2018/02/02/isikoff-stunned-carter-page/

Quote:

---

Investigative journalist Michael Isikoff said Friday that he was surprised to find out that an article he wrote about Carter Page prior to the election was used to obtain a spy warrant against the former Trump campaign adviser.

The revelation, which was made in a memo released by the House Intelligence Committee on Friday, "stuns me," Isikoff said in an episode of his podcast, "Skullduggery."...

Isikoff was shocked, he said, because his very article was based on information that came from Christopher Steele, the former British spy who wrote the dossier. He said it was "a bit beyond me" that the FBI would use his article in the FISA application.

"Obviously the information that I got from Christopher Steele was information the FBI already had," he said, noting that Steele began sharing information from his dossier in July 2016.

Isikoff acknowledged the potential problem with the DOJ and FBI citing his article to support the FISA against Page.

"It's self-referential," he said of the article and its reliance on the dossier.

---

---

rats running for cover playing stupid

This hack is the same hack that covered up the Lewinsky scandal for Bill Clinton, he's complicit you can count on it.

bmks270 said:

---

What am I looking at?

---

It is part of the thread below. Read the threadreader.

https://threadreaderapp.com/thread/959550808953147392.html