FISA Judges Have Been Informed - What Are They Doing????

Ticks everywhere are outraged.

 

Bruce Ohr... it was part of a FOIA release. Do you not follow the FOIA releases? Do you rely on CNN and MSNBC and DailyKos?

https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2019/jan/20/bruce-ohr-adam-schiff-differ-trump-russia-dossier-/
https://thehill.com/opinion/white-h...arned-steele-dossier-was-connected-to-clinton
https://pjmedia.com/trending/bruce-ohr-fbi-doj-knew-dossier-was-dirty-from-the-beginning/
https://www.foxnews.com/opinion/bru...hings-really-rotten-at-the-justice-department

Please follow something like Judicial Watch. They post the straight up contents of the Government responses.

https://www.judicialwatch.org/press...ials-ties-clinton-dossier-creator-fusion-gps/
https://www.judicialwatch.org/video...ruce-ohr-fusion-gps-dnc-funded-trump-dossier/

You're welcome.

 

That's a good ****ing question. This is really out of control.

 

Be sure to know the law. You are not allowed to include it unless it is VERIFIED. The fine print that it came from a political operation, while incredibly troublesome, is not the point.

 

https://www.lawfareblog.com/document-justice-department-releases-carter-page-fisa-application

 

Laws are seldom stupid.

More fundamentally, though, much of the commentary claiming some clear breach of protocol in the Carter Page FISA simply misunderstands what it means to say that a FISA application has been “verified.” It does not mean that every tip provided by a source has been independently corroborated. Rather, “verification” refers to the process laid out in the so-called “Woods procedures,” which require Justice Department officials to verify that representations made in a submission to the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court match the information in the FBI’s investigative files. If the application relies upon a source for some claim, does the documentation in the case file support that the source actually said what the application presents the source as saying? In this case, then, “verification” would not mean the FBI had necessarily tracked down Steele’s own sources to corroborate his reporting. Rather, it would require that someone “verify” that when the application summarized what Steele had told the FBI, it did so accurately.

https://www.justsecurity.org/61861/note-fisa-verification/

 

"The FBI believes Source #1's reporting herein to be credible".

Just don't ask us why we fired him 8 months before we made up this application for lying and leaking. We don't want to talk about that. ROFL.

Foolish, gullible lefties.

 

It's individuals like this that are the reason as to why our country is in trouble. The burder of proof is on the one being accused and not the one making the accusation now??? Mentally sick stuff, lefties.

 

I didn't say I loved Comey. I'm simply pointing out the OP is wrong or maybe misunderstood by the Trumpers.

 

The FISA abuses are in of themselves separate problems, and even if it leads to capturing criminals, an end to a means is not how we want to govern America.

 

We know at least one thing is true. Cohen was in Prague as stated

 

and the lies keep on coming......

I hear #Prague #CzechRepublic is beautiful in the summertime. I wouldn’t know as I have never been. #Mueller knows everything! - Michael Cohen

 

Yep and they found otherwise after they raided his home.

 

The investigation has progressed far beyond the dossier and the ol' "fruit of the poison tree" defense ain't gonna work.

But I do get how its looking more and more like trump needs "technicalities" to try and get off. Many of the people he surrounded himself with seem to be liars and cheaters and crooks.

 

The law places the burden on the FBI to verify "evidence" before they take it to the FISA judge.

Since it is a highly secret process the law specifies no entity to disprove it.

 

The law requires that the FBI not knowingly use false info, and requires that the agent(s) requesting the warrant swear that they believe the info to be factual. That's it.

Has anyone presented one scintilla of evidence that this wasn't the case? If not, the warrants - and process - are valid.

 

Maybe so, but I stole it from the right. So there's that. It was fun, thanks for playing .

 

WTF? Abusing a FISA Court to spy on the President of the United States is not a "technicality". What inspired you to write such horseshit? Crap. How disappointing.

 

In the FISA court the information provided to the judge has to be PROVEN true. It cannot be speculation. We are not talking about search warrants or usual court proceedings. Because the court is secret and the target cannot defend themselves against the charges the evidence must be proven true before presented. It cannot be speculation, innuendo, or propaganda. The dossier was not only unverified but it has now been shown to be complete horsesh it. The sad thing is it was intended as political dirt paid for by Democrats which was then used by Obama's FBI to spy on their political enemies. It's one of the sickest things we've seen in a long time. It made us look like a pathetic left wing banana republic.

 

Of course you are able to provide a link to the statute that states this, right?

 

"The FISA application travels to the Justice Department where attorneys from the National Security Division comb through the application to verify all the assertions made in it. Known as “Woods procedures” after Michael J. Woods, the FBI Special Agent attorney who developed this layer of approval, DOJ verifies the accuracy of every fact stated in the application. If anything looks unsubstantiated, the application is sent back to the FBI to provide additional evidentiary support – this game of bureaucratic chutes and ladders continues until DOJ is satisfied that the facts in the FISA application can both be corroborated and meet the legal standards for the court."

https://www.justsecurity.org/38422/aint-easy-fisa-warrant-fbi-agent/

If you want to more information just google "FISA Woods Procedures" and you will get a bunch of sources. The FISA is not a normal court. Because the 4th amendment protects individual privacy of American citizens and the nature of the court that prevents targets from being able to defend themselves it's vitally important that all evidence presented be substantiated prior to submission. The dossier, which has absolutely nothing verified, does not meet that standard....or even close to it. That means people like Sally Yates, Jim Comey, Andrew McCabe, and Rod Rosenstein broke the law when they signed their names and presented the dossier information to the court and insinuated it was corroborated.

Any more questions?

 

Lol...That boat sailed the day trump won his rigged election.

 

They don't like to say RT was their source.

 

Which ones? Obama spied on so many.

 

What???? This is some bizarre left wing spin. "Steele called me and called my buddy and swears Michael Cohen was in Prague colluding with the Russians." That's not what "verify" means. Verify means they have travel documents, emails, records, etc. that shows Michael Cohen was actually IN Prague when Steele said he was. Steele writing it down on a piece paper and also telling someone else over the phone the same thing isn't "verifying". Good lord, TDS is nasty.