Koko78 Posted February 24, 2018 Share Posted February 24, 2018 3 minutes ago, Doc Brown said: I just wonder how many of these FISA warrants over the years (over 99% approved by judges) were based off shoddy intelligence. This abuse will continue for at least six years as Congress reauthorized section 702 of the FISA program without any significant changes. This is exactly why I would not support FISA when those asshats in Washington wrote it, and why I never will. I am not a fan of secret information in secret courts being used to eliminate Constitutional rights. Whatever protections they wrote in it for US citizens were always going to be ignored for expedience. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Deranged Rhino Posted February 24, 2018 Author Share Posted February 24, 2018 Just now, Doc Brown said: I just wonder how many of these FISA warrants over the years (over 99% approved by judges) were based off shoddy intelligence. This abuse will continue for at least six years as Congress reauthorized section 702 of the FISA program without any significant changes. 702 and FISA Title 1 are very different though, Doc. 702 is bulk collection - and is supposed to only be able to be accessed when examining foreign nationals. If Americans are swept up in 702 collections, there needs to be a separate warrant to unmask their names. We know this system was being abused by CrowdStrike and FusionGPS working inside the FBI as subcontractors for an unknown period of time. We also know that Mike Rogers and the FISC shut this spigot off and instituted new safeguards to prevent that abuse from happening again. The 702 renewal featured new language which came from Rogers' investigation. But that does nothing to address the FISC which, I agree, needs to be updated to protect people's 4th and 5th amendments. There needs to be an advocate to argue for the other side - that would go a long ways to helping. I think that will be the end result of this scandal after the indictments and prosecutions - a reformed FISC with a public advocate/defender being included in the hearings and application process. ************** Charge and response by HPSCI Majority: https://intelligence.house.gov/uploadedfiles/democrat_memo_charge_and_response.pdf Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
row_33 Posted February 24, 2018 Share Posted February 24, 2018 20 minutes ago, Doc Brown said: I just wonder how many of these FISA warrants over the years (over 99% approved by judges) were based off shoddy intelligence. This abuse will continue for at least six years as Congress reauthorized section 702 of the FISA program without any significant changes. Rubber stamp process Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Doc Brown Posted February 24, 2018 Share Posted February 24, 2018 18 minutes ago, Deranged Rhino said: 702 and FISA Title 1 are very different though, Doc. 702 is bulk collection - and is supposed to only be able to be accessed when examining foreign nationals. If Americans are swept up in 702 collections, there needs to be a separate warrant to unmask their names. We know this system was being abused by CrowdStrike and FusionGPS working inside the FBI as subcontractors for an unknown period of time. We also know that Mike Rogers and the FISC shut this spigot off and instituted new safeguards to prevent that abuse from happening again. The 702 renewal featured new language which came from Rogers' investigation. But that does nothing to address the FISC which, I agree, needs to be updated to protect people's 4th and 5th amendments. There needs to be an advocate to argue for the other side - that would go a long ways to helping. I think that will be the end result of this scandal after the indictments and prosecutions - a reformed FISC with a public advocate/defender being included in the hearings and application process. ************** Charge and response by HPSCI Majority: https://intelligence.house.gov/uploadedfiles/democrat_memo_charge_and_response.pdf Thanks for the correction. From my understanding to get a FISA Title 1 warrant on somebody you need to show probable cause that a person is an agent of a foreign power. I think Row is correct that it's a rubber stamp process by the judge given their faith in the intelligence agencies. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DC Tom Posted February 25, 2018 Share Posted February 25, 2018 1 hour ago, Doc Brown said: I just wonder how many of these FISA warrants over the years (over 99% approved by judges) were based off shoddy intelligence. This abuse will continue for at least six years as Congress reauthorized section 702 of the FISA program without any significant changes. Part of the problem is that intelligence is like science: you can never be completely sure you're correct, so you mitigate that by adhering to a rigorous, standard process. Good intel and science can still be wrong, "good" vs. "shoddy" ultimately comes down to the intellectual rigor behind the answer, not the answer itself. I suspect the FISA courts don't - and can't - evaluate that, though. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
row_33 Posted February 25, 2018 Share Posted February 25, 2018 It’s not faith in the intel, it’s just an old boys network with the right handshake and the accusation fits the narrative the Dems insist on 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Deranged Rhino Posted February 25, 2018 Author Share Posted February 25, 2018 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nanker Posted February 25, 2018 Share Posted February 25, 2018 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bob in Mich Posted February 25, 2018 Share Posted February 25, 2018 58 minutes ago, Nanker said: If this FISA application was submitted in September of 2016 and the application claimed that the dossier appeared politically motivated to discredit the Trump campaign, wouldn't a reasonable Republican appointed FISA court judge conclude that the Hillary Clinton campaign was the party being referenced? Certainly you Nanker would assume this was Hillary without any further explanation in the application. Why is it an 'aha moment' that Hillary is not named explicitly, or am I missing your emoji point? Schiff memo: "Contrary to the Majority's assertion that DOJ fails to mention that Steele's research was commissioned by 'political actors' to 'obtain derogatory information on Donald Trump's ties to Russia,' DOJ in fact informed the Court accurately that Steele was hired by politically-motivated US persons and entities and that his research appeared intended for use 'to discredit' Trump's campaign." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nanker Posted February 25, 2018 Share Posted February 25, 2018 a reasonable Republican appointed FISA court judge You know which judge approved it? I haven't heard the name revealed. DOJ in fact informed the Court accurately that Steele was hired by politically-motivated US persons and entities and that his research appeared intended for use 'to discredit' Trump's campaign." John McCain? Ted Cruz? Marco Rubio? The "Never Trumpers"? George Soros? Tony Podesta? The NFT? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
/dev/null Posted February 25, 2018 Share Posted February 25, 2018 16 hours ago, Cinga said: Here is my favorite part so far: easier to ask forgiveness than permission but when it comes to FISA, who needs either? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
row_33 Posted February 25, 2018 Share Posted February 25, 2018 GOP appointments have mostly been very liberal in rulings. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bob in Mich Posted February 25, 2018 Share Posted February 25, 2018 40 minutes ago, Nanker said: a reasonable Republican appointed FISA court judge You know which judge approved it? I haven't heard the name revealed. DOJ in fact informed the Court accurately that Steele was hired by politically-motivated US persons and entities and that his research appeared intended for use 'to discredit' Trump's campaign." John McCain? Ted Cruz? Marco Rubio? The "Never Trumpers"? George Soros? Tony Podesta? The NFT? I believe I read somewhere that one of the 4 FISA-Page judges was appointed by Reagan, one by Bush 1 and 2 by GW Bush. In a quick search the only link I saw pop up however seemed to be a WSJ subscription article, so perhaps it was on a tv/youtube news story. So, let me withdraw the 'republican appointed' modifier as it is unnecessary to ask the question. Isn't it a reasonable assumption that any judge at this level, knowing that this was politically motivated and intended to discredit the candidate, is wise enough to realize that he/she has to be suspect of the information in that dossier? Any of the other possibilities you mentioned aside from Hillary, don't seem to alter that point. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nanker Posted February 25, 2018 Share Posted February 25, 2018 (edited) I think it's more like 10 of the eleven FISA judges were put there by B. O. W. left office in 2009. Trump took office in January, 2017. Edited February 25, 2018 by Nanker veracity Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
3rdnlng Posted February 25, 2018 Share Posted February 25, 2018 7 minutes ago, Bob in Mich said: I believe I read somewhere that one of the 4 FISA-Page judges was appointed by Reagan, one by Bush 1 and 2 by GW Bush. In a quick search the only link I saw pop up however seemed to be a WSJ subscription article, so perhaps it was on a tv/youtube news story. So, let me withdraw the 'republican appointed' modifier as it is unnecessary to ask the question. Isn't it a reasonable assumption that any judge at this level, knowing that this was politically motivated and intended to discredit the candidate, is wise enough to realize that he/she has to be suspect of the information in that dossier? Any of the other possibilities you mentioned aside from Hillary, don't seem to alter that point. It is incumbent upon the party seeking the warrant to provide all information to the judge. There is no one there to oppose the warrant or to represent the person that will be spied on, therefor it is essential that all information be provided to the judge. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Warren Zevon Posted February 25, 2018 Share Posted February 25, 2018 Schiff destroyed any credibility Nunes had left 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
3rdnlng Posted February 25, 2018 Share Posted February 25, 2018 3 minutes ago, Nanker said: I think it's more like 10 of the eleven FISA judges were put there by B. O. W. left office in 2009. Trump took office in January, 2017. The only judge not put there was Kugler who must have been appointed by Trump, obviously well after the dirty deed was done. 1 minute ago, garybusey said: Schiff destroyed any credibility Nunes had left Why don't you go ahead and describe how he did that? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Warren Zevon Posted February 25, 2018 Share Posted February 25, 2018 The dirty deed? Lol Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cinga Posted February 25, 2018 Share Posted February 25, 2018 4 minutes ago, garybusey said: Schiff destroyed any credibility he Nunes had left Fixed it for you Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Warren Zevon Posted February 25, 2018 Share Posted February 25, 2018 4 minutes ago, Cinga said: Fixed it for you Thanks that was so funny how you did that Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts