akm91 said:

---

I'm assuming this is a closed hearing?

---

CSPAN

Great video.
Now we know why Sidney has had such an interest in this case.
She said she was also under surveillance.

Not sure anything of substance will happen from Yates testifying. Wasn't Ohr's session behind closed doors?

Feinstein's opening comments are simply outrageous knowing what we know now. Thanks Ms. China apologist.

A few minutes behind catching up on her video. This ***** is f***** lying her ass off because all of this crap has been proven false.

This ***** needs to hang too. **** her and **** liberals.

Yates is tapdancing here. She's conflating criminal investigations (Logan Act) and counterintelligence investigations wherein Flynn was already exonerated on January 4, 2017.

She also just lied about the national security reasons for the January 5, 2017. Susan Rice was there. Rice has testified before that she in no way held anything back during her briefings with Flynn. Meaning the horse was already out of the barn well before that meeting.

Good!

Maybe we can get her in front of Amy Berman Jackson for the Stone treatment!

Ya think? Sorry for the cynicism, just can't help it.

The truth of what was discussed between Flynn and Kislyak were in the transcripts. Once the transcripts (or cuts) are available, they don't need to know what Flynn's memory of them is. Not a chance to further explain, he doesn't need to further explain.

How can Flynn be subject to blackmail by the Russians when the everyone knows there are transcripts of the calls? The Russians know what he said. Obama knew what he said. So where's the opportunity for blackmail?

and the . . . "we couldn't figure out why Russia didn't retaliate" mantra is garbage. They knew exactly what was discussed - in real time.

Aggie Jurist said:

---

and the . . . "we couldn't figure out why Russia didn't retaliate" mantra is garbage. They knew exactly what was discussed - in real time.

---

Exactly. The national security pretext is just that-a pretext.

WRONG! Errors in warrants do negate the information gleaned thereby. And the Carter Page FISA application was not properly predicated upon probable cause.

aggiehawg said:

---

WRONG! Errors in warrants do negate the information gleaned thereby. And the Carter Page FISA application was not properly predicated upon probable

---

Not questioning you, but asking

Are FISA warrants some how viewed differently than criminal warrants?

edit: like they are given latitude or have been in regards to "National Security"

pacecar02 said:

---

aggiehawg said:

---

WRONG! Errors in warrants do negate the information gleaned thereby. And the Carter Page FISA application was not properly predicated upon probable

---

Not questioning you, but asking

Are FISA warrants some how viewed differently than criminal warrants?

edit: like they are given latitude or have been in regards to "National Security"

---

If you sign that something in the Woods file or in the warrant request is factual then it better be as you are considered testifying. You are also responsible for exculpatory info. So claiming Page was an agent of Russia while he was actually work ing for the CIA is a pretty bad lie which can land someone in jail.

These are extremely stringent.

EKUAg said:

---

pacecar02 said:

---

aggiehawg said:

---

WRONG! Errors in warrants do negate the information gleaned thereby. And the Carter Page FISA application was not properly predicated upon probable

---

Not questioning you, but asking

Are FISA warrants some how viewed differently than criminal warrants?

edit: like they are given latitude or have been in regards to "National Security"

---

If you sign that something in the Woods file or in the warrant request is factual then it better be as you are considered testifying. You are also responsible for exculpatory info. So claiming Page was an agent of Russia while he was actually work ing for the CIA is a pretty bad lie which can land someone in jail.

These are extremely stringent.

---

Obviously FISA is and has been abused and there seems to be so many layers of insulation that no one is accountable(or at least to now no one has been made to account). Perfect bureaucracy

Is a remedy then to distinguish info from FISA not be used in criminal cases against Americans and a separate criminal warrant be issued. Would the likelihood of prosecutions for falsehoods and misdeeds be more likely?

#notalawyer

edit: Point being FISA needs to cleaned up or gotten rid of in my opinion. Too powerful a tool to be misused.

pacecar02 said:

---

aggiehawg said:

---

WRONG! Errors in warrants do negate the information gleaned thereby. And the Carter Page FISA application was not properly predicated upon probable

---

Not questioning you, but asking

Are FISA warrants some how viewed differently than criminal warrants?

edit: like they are given latitude or have been in regards to "National Security"

---

That's the problem with the constant conflation of criminal investigations and counter-intel investigations.

Due process rights are violated when a warrant filled with errors, omissions and outright lies in a criminal investigation negates the use of the information gleaned thereby. For the investigation to continue after such a discovery of a flawed warrant by what is called "parallel construction," that is other methods of obtaining the same information.

Since FISA warrants completely dispose of 4th Amendment rights when applied to an American citizen, it is incumbent upon FBI and Nat Sec Division of DOJ to go overboard in verifying every single thing stated or implied in such a warrant. That process is called the Woods Procedures. In fact, when Mueller was Director of the FBI, the FISA court chided the FBI for the sloppy applications and forced him to write the Woods Procedures in the first place. All warrants require probable cause, but FISA warrants require even better predicated probable cause through those procedures. And every renewal application is required to show additional probable cause for the extension of such an intrusive process.

RiskManager93 said:

---

For those who've questioned whether Rosenstein was a white or black hat, after following the Sharyl Atkisson litigation and her efforts in trying to uncover the identities of those who hacked her laptop, it's pretty clear to me now.

That ******* wore his black hat proudly and I hope he burns.

https://sharylattkisson.com/2020/08/read-new-attkisson-v-rosenstein-for-government-computer-intrusions/

---

Curious this could be wrapped up quickly. I am confused why AJ Barr hasn't released all pertinent information and documents to Sheryl Attkisson's attorneys.

No one in DOJ knew what was going on?

Quote:

---

---

That's nice. Now punish someone for it.

FLYNN UPDATE while Yates is on-going.

ETA: Doesn't this sound like they will punt it back down to Sullivan?

will25u said:

---

FLYNN UPDATE while Yates is on-going.

ETA: Doesn't this sound like they will punt it back down to Sullivan?

---

They're just dragging it all out. The outcome is nearly irrelevant at this point. Such an egregious miscarriage of justice.

JJMt said:

---

I actually find that encouraging from the CtApp. Sounds like they may be leaning to forcing Sullivan to recuse, and then allowing his replacement to dismiss. That way they don't have to rule on the merits of dismissal. It's a weak thing to do, but good news for Flynn (assuming that I'm reading the tea leaves right in interpreting their questions).

---

Hope so. I also think the judges that are arguing that the full en banc can't reverse the panel's decision without doing serious damage to their own precedent in Fokker are swaying other judges to look for an easy exit such as you proposed.

LOL. Cruz just crushed her.

Quote:

---

Hope so. I also think the judges that are arguing that the full en banc can't reverse the panel's decision without doing serious damage to their own precedent in Fokker are swaying other judges to look for an easy exit such as you proposed.

---

This would be a pretty transparent affirmation of the mandamus without actually affirming. Both sides get to claim victory, but Sullivan does not really get to save face - not that he cares.