Judicial Watch: Justice Department Discloses No FISA Court Hearings Held on Carter Page Warrants

Was recruited, Worked with the fbi
Then went back for more.
No idea what Cohen and Prague have to do with it.

 

And they would know this how when granting their warrants? It used to be taken for granted that you had to pass over a high bar in order for your own country to spy on you. Now thanks to rubes like you it's expected you'll have Big Brother watching your every move.

 

No one said anything about an investigation. I said the law is illegal and I want to challenge the legality of the law.

 

Scofflaw judges are a threat to liberty.

 

How the FISA Court Really Works - Lawfare - …

22 hours ago · Contrary to what allies of the president have suggested, the absence of a hearing regarding the Carter Page FISA application is not cause for alarm or a conclusion that the court glossed over a FISA application.

https://www.lawfareblog.com/how-fisa-court-really-works

 

Given that the FBI is crooked, why should ordinary Americans believe that the FISA courts are any less corrupt?

"Something similar is happening now at the FBI, with the Washington wagons circling the agency to protect it from charges of corruption. This time, the appropriate tag line is “too big to believe.”

Yet each day brings credible reports suggesting there is a massive scandal involving the top ranks of America’s premier law enforcement agency. The reports, which feature talk among agents of a “secret society” and suddenly missing text messages, point to the existence both of a cabal dedicated to defeating Donald Trump in 2016 and of a plan to let Hillary Clinton skate free in the classified email probe.

If either one is true — and I believe both probably are — it would mean FBI leaders betrayed the nation by abusing their powers in a bid to pick the president."
THE NEW YORK POST, Evidence suggests a massive scandal is brewing at the FBI, By Michael Goodwin January 23, 2018.
https://nypost.com/2018/01/23/evidence-suggests-a-massive-scandal-is-brewing-at-the-fbi/

 

LOLOL.. so stay ignorant. I don't care.

 

This leftist blogger may claim the FISA court is not a rubber stamp outfit but a 99.97% rate at which FISA grants warrants speaks for itself.

 

Published by the Lawfare Institute in Cooperation With Brookings Institute. You're at a real disadvantage.

 

https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/brookings-institute/
I think not.

The idea that is being passed off, that FISA is a really conscientious court that does scrutinize what is brought before them, despite their obvious well earned reputation as rubber stamp court is belied by the fact that the court with enormous credulity swallowed everything hook, like and sinker that the FBI fed to it without blinking an eye.

Not a rubber stamp court? The number 99.97% does not lie. https://www.stanfordlawreview.org/o...nce-surveillance-court-really-a-rubber-stamp/

 

Should I believe you are really in the know?

"More support for this view involves the FBI’s use of the Russian dossier on Trump that was paid for by the Clinton campaign and the Democratic National Committee. It is almost certain that the FBI used the dossier to get FISA court warrants to spy on Trump associates, meaning it used the opposition research of the party in power to convince a court to let it spy on the candidate of the other party — likely without telling the court of the dossier’s political link.

Even worse, there is growing reason to believe someone in President Barack Obama’s administration turned over classified information about Trump to the Clinton campaign."
THE NEW YORK POST, Evidence suggests a massive scandal is brewing at the FBI, By Michael Goodwin January 23, 2018.
https://nypost.com/2018/01/23/evidence-suggests-a-massive-scandal-is-brewing-at-the-fbi/

 

I’d wager it’s in the 20+ redacted pages.

 

NY Post is pretty much a tabloid.... and your article is 8 months old.

 

.

 

Goodwin is a Pulitzer Prize winner.

 

“Nobody said anything “ about that? Look above.

 

And even more salient how.

 

Might you elaborate on how the FBI does a thorough job of documenting its FISA requests, or are you simply trying to "think positive" in the face of overwhelming evidence to the contrary?

 

There is no evidence to the contrary, let alone "overwhelming evidence".

All you seem to be doing is repeating conclusory Trumpisms with nothing to support them.

 

Most Americans across the spectrum now know that the FBI has been led by corrupt senior executives for a very long time.
The FBI has become incredible and unreliable.

"One fact emerges from the poll of 900 people conducted from Jan. 25 to Feb. 2: The public doesn't necessarily buy into the Democratic narrative that the Trump campaign "colluded" with Russia to tamper with the 2016 presidential election.

The poll also suggests that many Americans think the roots of the allegations made against Trump extend beyond the two major party campaigns in the last presidential election and deep into the Obama era's intelligence and law enforcement bureaucracies, and may involve active political bias on the part of supposedly nonpartisan employees of both the Justice Department and FBI."
INVESTORS BUSINESS DAILY, Most Think Obama White House Spied On Trump Campaign, Want Special Counsel: IBD/TIPP Poll, 2/05/2018.
https://www.investors.com/politics/...p-campaign-want-special-counsel-ibdtipp-poll/

 

You're citing to a poll to "prove" that the FISA application was somehow not enough? *LOL* Read an informed source for a change--not that it will help.

https://www.lawfareblog.com/what-make-carter-page-fisa-applications

Based on this back and forth between the HPSCI partisans, I wrote on Lawfare at the time that the FBI’s disclosures on Steele “amply satisfie[d] the requirements” for FISA applications, and that the central irony of the Nunes memo was that it “tried to deceive the American people in precisely the same way that it falsely accused the FBI of deceiving the FISA Court.” The Nunes memo accused the FBI of dishonesty in failing to disclose information about Steele, but in fact the Nunes memo itself was dishonest in failing to disclose what the FBI disclosed. I said then, and I still believe, that the “Nunes memo was dishonest. And if it is allowed to stand, we risk significant collateral damage to essential elements of our democracy.”

Now we have some additional information in the form of the redacted FISA applications themselves, and the Nunes memo looks even worse. In my earlier post, I observed that the FBI’s disclosures about Steele were contained in a footnote, but argued that this did not detract from their sufficiency: “As someone who has read and approved many FISA applications and dealt extensively with the FISA Court, I will anticipate and reject a claim that the disclosure was somehow insufficient because it appeared in a footnote; in my experience, the court reads the footnotes.” Now we can see that the footnote disclosing Steele’s possible bias takes up more than a full page in the applications, so there is literally no way the FISA Court could have missed it. The FBI gave the court enough information to evaluate Steele’s credibility.

 

Without seeing how the FBI characterized Steele's bias there's no way to know if the footnote informed the court of misled it.

 

What part of "Ad Hom" fallacy did you not get the first time. MSNBC and CNN are fake news central but, this does not mean everything they put out there is fake.

As stated previously - Judicial Watch obtains documents - often previously classified - and publishes them. This is not fake news. Perhaps some of the commentary in relation to these documents is "opinion" . .. but that has nothing to do with the documents themselves being fake.

 

You're making assumptions without any basis for them.

1. There's no evidence that Steele, a former MI6 agent who had worked with us in the past, was "biased" at all. In fact, when he started to believe that Trump may be subject to being leveraged, he revealed that to his longtime colleagues in the US. Screw the Trumpers for trying to vilify a guy who was our friend and ally:

https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2018/03/12/christopher-steele-the-man-behind-the-trump-dossier

Steele had spent more than twenty years in M.I.6, most of it focussing on Russia. For three years, in the nineties, he spied in Moscow under diplomatic cover. Between 2006 and 2009, he ran the service’s Russia desk, at its headquarters, in London. He was fluent in Russian, and widely considered to be an expert on the country. He’d also advised on nation-building in Iraq. As a British citizen, however, he was not especially knowledgeable about American politics. Peter Fritsch, a co-founder at Fusion who has worked closely with Steele, said of him, “He’s a career public-service officer, and in England civil servants haven’t been drawn into politics in quite the same way they have here. He’s a little naïve about the public square.”

2. You're assuming that the FBI didn't disclose the background of the dossier. That's also a load of Donald--pay particular attention to the highlighted text:

(From my earlier, well-informed source, who can place this into proper context)

Based on this back and forth between the HPSCI partisans, I wrote on Lawfare at the time that the FBI’s disclosures on Steele “amply satisfie[d] the requirements” for FISA applications, and that the central irony of the Nunes memo was that it “tried to deceive the American people in precisely the same way that it falsely accused the FBI of deceiving the FISA Court.” The Nunes memo accused the FBI of dishonesty in failing to disclose information about Steele, but in fact the Nunes memo itself was dishonest in failing to disclose what the FBI disclosed. I said then, and I still believe, that the “Nunes memo was dishonest. And if it is allowed to stand, we risk significant collateral damage to essential elements of our democracy.”

Now we have some additional information in the form of the redacted FISA applications themselves, and the Nunes memo looks even worse. In my earlier post, I observed that the FBI’s disclosures about Steele were contained in a footnote, but argued that this did not detract from their sufficiency: “As someone who has read and approved many FISA applications and dealt extensively with the FISA Court, I will anticipate and reject a claim that the disclosure was somehow insufficient because it appeared in a footnote; in my experience, the court reads the footnotes.” Now we can see that the footnote disclosing Steele’s possible bias takes up more than a full page in the applications, so there is literally no way the FISA Court could have missed it. The FBI gave the court enough information to evaluate Steele’s credibility.