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

Let's stop at point one: Was the guy who was chiefly responsible, or solely responsible, for compiling a document that smeared a political foe of Hillary Clinton with salacious and negative (to say the least) unverified claims really "not biased at all"?
That seems bizarrely ridiculous on the face of things, especially given a previously classified memo from the House Intelligence Committee.

"The document (the memo) also claims that although the FBI had "clear evidence" that the author of the dossier, former British spy Christopher Steele, was biased against then-candidate Trump, it did not convey this to the surveillance court when making its warrant applications. According to the document, Steele told then-Associate Deputy Attorney General Bruce Ohr that he "was desperate that Donald Trump not get elected and was passionate about him not being president." http://thehill.com/policy/national-security/371655-house-panel-releases-nunes-memo

This "friend and ally" of the US produced a politicized for pay hatchet job on the foe of his employer hoping to use his disinformation, which he won't even stand behind in court, to nullify the 2016 presidential election, or at the very least, cripple the presidency of Donald Trump
to an unprecedented degree. You say he's a wonderful friend and ally? I say the evidence shows otherwise.

Considering everyone who worked cooperatively with Steele and gave him work in order to get his dossier to the FISA court in order to open an intelligence operation against the sitting President of the United States of America was on
the opposite side of the political fence from Donald Trump makes it highly unlikely that Steele was anything but highly motivated by animus for Trump.

 

That you prefer to deny what has now become common knowledge tells me all I need to know.

I've long been against the FISA court, but at least it is a reasonable political solution that still in theory respects the 4th Amendment, but this whole thing has reminded that in the end, it's just another rubber stamp court.

 

LOL!

Your argument is that an alt-right talking point fairytale is “common knowledge”, so there’s no need to cite to any facts or credible, knowledgeable sources?

Wow.

I referred to facts and sources; you cite to thin air. Waste of time.

 

This is a detailed and well-researched piece crushing all of the Trump-inspired nonsense cluttering many of your minds:

https://www.npr.org/2018/04/25/5860...w-about-the-russia-investigations-the-dossier

 

This is really the funniest and most egregiously factually challenge red herring the Trump enablers have offered yet.

 

Omigosh!! There weren’t, like, hearings during a process where hearings aren’t required! This is an outrage, and real bad!

 

Then you should have no problem refuting it...............

 

It’s inherently incorrect. The 4th Amendment requires no “hearings “ for a warrant, FISA or otherwise. Where do you claim that your made up argument has some support? Cases? Somewhere else? Where?

 

JW is a proven crackpot web site, you get your news from there then you are propaganda/RW/RU fodder.

 

"So much evidence that Rosenstein has yet to indict a single American with the one charge that would silence everyone: Conspiracy to Intent. That is the 'crime' in which collusion would follow under."

Your own posts effectively refute this notion.

After watching your lickspittle devotion to your tin Furher, there is little doubt in my mind that such a charge (which is all but inevitable at this point) would only set you off on another search for convoluded rationalizations which the right wing noise machine will shortly provide you with.

As for this:

"When a politician can legitimately say something as stupid as he what he said, you know none of this is based on politics. It never was. It's pure hatred for Donald J. Trump"

This is about the last refuge for you Trumpsters. It gives you a simple excuse for dismissing and ignorning all the flagrant corruption, the incompetence, chaos, self dealing, and race baiting that is going on right in front of your face. And you don't even have to think or justify the dismissal. Just claim it's personal hatred. Never mind the record.

Oh, and once again, another Trumpster dances past my question about your obsession with protecting Carter Page.

 

That does not change the fact that you are engaging in fallacy and you seem not to understand the definition of "News". Opinion/editorial is not "news".

First rule of journalism school "thou shalt not editorialize". In cases where JW is editorializing you could be correct although you have provided no examples to back up your claim. I am not familiar enough with the content of JW to comment.

I have however seen declassified documents obtained by Judicial watch. Just because they have some kooky editorial comment does not make these documents "Fake".

 

And this is flat out ignoring what I wrote to go on another 'Trumpster, he's our tin fuhrer' screed, No, he's POTUS until otherwise notified. And no, if Rosenstein/Mueller were able to make such a charge it would be very significant and I'd love to see the evidence behind it.

We are EAGERLY awaiting it. You are eagerly awaiting it. Only at this point, there's absolute confidence that the evidence points towards such a case not existing. And since/if it doesn't exist, we need that report TODAY. He's sucked up enough of the taxpayers money.

 

How do you think warrants are handed out, typically?

 

Not the way that you think they are.

Quote the entire 4th Amendment and point out where a "hearing" is required.

 

Answer the question: They go to a Judge to get a warrant, what do you think the judge is doing at that time?

The FISA court spits on the US Constitution. The Carter Page saga is separate from the Trump thing. It's a gross violation of American constitutional principles.

 

https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/lawfare-blog/
Again, I think not.

 

Uh, no. You’re one of the trumpies making the goofy claim from the OP.

Explain how not requiring an in person “hearing” that’s nowhere to be found in the 4th Amendment is “spitting on the Constitution. Cite facts and actual legal authorities, not some ideological gobbledygook or your own uninformed opinion with zero support.

Thanks in advance.

 

Why? Nothing you’ve posted in this thread furthers the hysterical irrelevance from the OP. Please try to do so, or just concede that you’re wrong and have no support for your claim.

 

If the FBI lies through their teeth to the FISA court in order to get a warrant which they will use as a wedge to get to Trump
(as they did misrepresenting all sorts of facts to the court) then the court has a duty to not just sit there like lumps of clay
and blindly accept all they are told at face value.

They, the court, has an absolute duty to investigate and corroborate, to the degree possible, what James Comey as his boys and girls
are telling FISA. It appears they did not but that's would one would expect from a court the accepts virtually everything they are told.

 

What were the “lies”?

Again—no more goofy rightist talking points. I want facts, not conjecture from someone’s nether region.

Do it. Or not. Just quit wasting our time with that shabby crapola.

 

No their job is either approve or deny. Andy McCarthy has a good piece about exactly that.

https://www.nationalreview.com/2018/09/trump-fisa-warrant-comments-lack-of-hearings-not-problem/

 

Suit yourself.

 

Right. But the court is supposed to have some standard of truth from which they either approve or deny. Just being Peter Stzrok's pal is not
any sort of standard at all from which to approve warrants to spy.

The court simply took everything Comey told them at face value. So what's the point of the FISA court? Why not just take a number
and when the door to the court opens for you simply pick up a pre approved warrant and go about your merry way trying to nullify the results of the 2016 presidential election on specious, false grounds.

Little by little the plot is falling apart. In the end some big names are going to be in real trouble and all the left wing cheer leaders
will complain and whine but they aren't the ones who will be going to prison.

 

The only truth the judge should need is this:
This guy was recruited by Russian spies once, and is still sucking up to putin

 

Why wouldn't anyone think you have a firm grasp on the facts?