aggiehawg said:

---

I'm confused. That whole section about his "tax strategy" is relevant to the DC case?

---

Yeah I'm still scratching my head as to relevance.

DC Docket movement

Wonder what is happening over at CNN, there's a rumor Zucker may be out for good.

Reportedly he's taking a leave of absence for health reasons, but the word is it will turn permanent.

That would put some Dems in the media in awkward position. They hate Assange and blame him in part for Hillary's loss. If Trump's DOJ tries to extradite him to the US for publishing classified information?

What's more important? First Amendment or revenge?

https://int.nyt.com/data/documenthelper/95-carter-page-fisa-documents-foia-release/full/optimized.pdf

Carter Page's FISA documents, 80+% redacted. However, on scanning, they clearly show use of the dossier and Isikoff's September 2016 Yahoo News article, and it appears they distorted Page's use as an FBI asset. It also references Page's letter to Comey in September 2016 where he denies meeting with certain Russian officials.

Well that's a load of nothing but I was really looking for the signature blocks. Each time the DOJ lawyer signing the app is redacted in full. Could be the same or different people.

As to the authorizing signatures, here's the run down:

• October 2016 Original Application: Comey, Sally Yates, order signed by FISC Judge Rosemary Collyer.
• January 2017 Renewal Application: Comey, Sally Yates, order signed by FISC Judge Michael Mosman
• April 2017 Renewal Application: Comey, Dana Boente, order signed by FISC Judge Anne Conway
• June 2017 Renewal Application: Andy McCabe, Rosenstein, order signed by FISC Judge Raymond Dearie.

For some weird reason, the exact dates when the applications were made and the orders entered are redacted. I truly have no idea why the exact day is sooooo important.

I imagine they have to all sign on the same day? Internet sleuths might be able to narrow down who was in dc to be able to tell who signed?

Just a thought. Stupid to redact to cover your butt, but there anyway

Tapper is getting him on camera tomorrow

Line Ate Member said:

---

I imagine they have to all sign on the same day? Internet sleuths might be able to narrow down who was in dc to be able to tell who signed?

Just a thought. Stupid to redact to cover your butt, but there anyway

---

Look at the docs, even the day of the filing on the FISC stamp is redacted. As I said, weird.

Well then...are they supposed to be signed on the same day? Maybe there is proof that the surveillance started before the signed dates of all parties?

aggiehawg said:

---

Line Ate Member said:

---

I imagine they have to all sign on the same day? Internet sleuths might be able to narrow down who was in dc to be able to tell who signed?

Just a thought. Stupid to redact to cover your butt, but there anyway

---

Look at the docs, even the day of the filing on the FISC stamp is redacted. As I said, weird.

---

You are not the only person who noted that anomaly.

drcrinum said:

---

---

What, exactly, was he guilty of?

Interesting list of names

redline248 said:

---

drcrinum said:

---

---

What, exactly, was he guilty of?

---

Nothing.

redline248 said:

---

drcrinum said:

---

---

What, exactly, was he guilty of?

---

He was just a vessel

FISA Judges that signed them

Rosemary Collyer - Bush
Michael Mosman - Bush
Anne Conway - Bush
Raymond Dearie - Reagan

If there is more than one 'original' FISA application, then not only the dates would be redacted, but also material within the applications which differs...perhaps this explains why so much material is redacted. Otherwise I cannot understand why so much material is redacted...unless it was to hide Wikipedia referenced materials.

Methinks Rosemary Collyer must be embarrassed by this time.

Notice the DOJ signers

Comey on three of the and McCabe on one.

My question is, not all of those signature lines have to be used, just one of them.

Remember Rosenstein said on the FISA he signed

"I disagree with the characterization of the FISA application I signed"

Rosey didn't sign any of these.

Who did Rosey sign to spy on.

https://threadreaderapp.com/thread/1020800287601250305.html?refreshed=1532221330


Short thread by Techno Fog.
Several items:
1) The FBI paid Steele an undisclosed amount.
2) The FBI lied about Steele not being a source for the Isikoff article.

drcrinum said:

---

aggiehawg said:

---

Line Ate Member said:

---

I imagine they have to all sign on the same day? Internet sleuths might be able to narrow down who was in dc to be able to tell who signed?

Just a thought. Stupid to redact to cover your butt, but there anyway

---

Look at the docs, even the day of the filing on the FISC stamp is redacted. As I said, weird.

---

You are not the only person who noted that anomaly.

---

My initial thought was that there was a gap between one order expiring before the renewal, thus every date needed to be redacted for liability purposes, i.e. violation of Carter Page's civil rights by spying on him without a valid warrant.

My WAG.

RoscoePColtrane said:

---

bmks270 said:

---

RoscoePColtrane said:

---

---

Do you think she was a spy then?

---

Jesus people need to lighten the **** up. Was the reason I used the slant eyed icon on the post.

The actual girl isn't near that good looking

And the local piss ant to run it with it's half a cent is laughable

---

Not sure if wood

Out of all of the alphabet agencies, I'm 100% sure State was bent, and still is.

It was crooked from 2010, at least, but maybe the entire Obama administration. I'm sure there are, or were, sympathetic Dems in State, but after the hiring practices that were outed by the news, I was absolutely sure of it once continued non-compliance of questions, and official requests (which is still going on) continued month after month, and turned into years.

There's got to be 50-100 people who were involved in Clinton's shenannigans. She screwed up too many times, and there were too damned many non-answers to official questions.

Rex is onto something, it's still ongoing but here's the first of it

https://threadreaderapp.com/thread/1020867208736411648.html

Well looking through all 412 pages one thing is for certain, they only mention a Source #1, never saw any mention of a Source #2 or #3 only references to MSM articles. Maybe there is something behind all that blackness, but why would you have to redact a redaction?

Source #1 we know is Steele. His "dossier" is their evidence. That's it, and that's pretty unbelievable.

Also Strzok used Carter Page's Sept. 2016 letter to Comey as a "pretext" to open investigation on him




They also used an article from Politico where they interviewed Kelly Anne Conway as evidence



https://www.politico.com/story/2016/09/carter-page-trump-conway-228641

And they used an article from WaPo to get a FISA warrant on Carter Page




https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/josh-rogin/wp/2016/09/26/trumps-russia-adviser-speaks-out-calls-accusations-complete-garbage/?utm_term=.1e24351d79fd

This one I am still trying to see what fits in these redactions, I think it's EO 12333 preempting the official release by Obama's amendments to it.

Correct me if I'm wrong - but didn't Judge Ellis get this stuff?

Could Statues of Limitation have anything to do with all of this redaction of names, actions, dates, etc.?

Like, are there any that fall off after 2 years...3 years?

Because we are in July, 2018 now, and the dregs of this whole investigation began just over 2 years ago...

SeMgCo87 said:

---

Could Statues of Limitation have anything to do with all of this redaction of names, actions, dates, etc.?

Like, are there any that fall off after 2 years...3 years?

Because we are in July, 2018 now, and the dregs of this whole investigation began just over 2 years ago...

---