President Trump

[Liar Loan]

It's going to be released once the classified information that could jeopardize sources is removed.

 

[eyephone]

I will side with the FBI. I respect and have confidence in the FBI. I would like to add Trump appointed the new FBI Director Chris Wray which he is opposed  releasing the memo. (From what I read in the article)

I have to say this: It?s really unfortunate how Trump is attacking the FBI for political reasons. The FBI is the top law enforcement in the US and I would say the world.

First Comey, then McCabe, and now undermining the FBI by potentially releasing the memo. (I will update my comment if Trump decides not release the memo.)

The FBI will only remain the top law enforcement agency in the world if they uphold their oath to defend the Constitution.  Skirting around the 4th Amendment to monitor a US citizen without probable cause weakens our nation more than the release of a memo.  Carter Page was not the only person spied upon by the FBI on questionable grounds, he's just the most prominent at the moment.  We can't have those who serve on Presidential campaigns worry that they might be subject to wiretapping for supporting the wrong candidate.  That erodes the Constitution, weakens our democracy, and makes the FBI a political tool for the party in power.  We are no better than Russia if that's how our intelligence agencies are going to be used.

• FBI used dossier to obtain FISA warrant, which would not have been obtained without the dossier (confirmed by McCabe)
• FBI did not disclose to FISC that the dossier was paid for by Clinton campaign and DNC, despite knowing this fact
• FBI used Yahoo News article to corroborate dossier to obtain FISA warrant, however Yahoo News was fed information from Steele himself = circular reporting
• Steele admitted to Bruce Ohr that he "was desperate that Donald Trump not get elected and was passionate about him not becoming president"

The FBI as an institution may do a lot of good, but the people at the top clearly abused their power to use flimsy evidence to spy on the Trump campaign.

This is only one side. Then why not release the Democrat memo?

Democrat memo needs to go through the same review process as Republican memo.  Looking forward to seeing their side of the story.

I agree. Let?s see both sides.

 

[Irvinecommuter]

I will side with the FBI. I respect and have confidence in the FBI. I would like to add Trump appointed the new FBI Director Chris Wray which he is opposed  releasing the memo. (From what I read in the article)

I have to say this: It?s really unfortunate how Trump is attacking the FBI for political reasons. The FBI is the top law enforcement in the US and I would say the world.

First Comey, then McCabe, and now undermining the FBI by potentially releasing the memo. (I will update my comment if Trump decides not release the memo.)

The FBI will only remain the top law enforcement agency in the world if they uphold their oath to defend the Constitution.  Skirting around the 4th Amendment to monitor a US citizen without probable cause weakens our nation more than the release of a memo.  Carter Page was not the only person spied upon by the FBI on questionable grounds, he's just the most prominent at the moment.  We can't have those who serve on Presidential campaigns worry that they might be subject to wiretapping for supporting the wrong candidate.  That erodes the Constitution, weakens our democracy, and makes the FBI a political tool for the party in power.  We are no better than Russia if that's how our intelligence agencies are going to be used.

• FBI used dossier to obtain FISA warrant, which would not have been obtained without the dossier (confirmed by McCabe)
• FBI did not disclose to FISC that the dossier was paid for by Clinton campaign and DNC, despite knowing this fact
• FBI used Yahoo News article to corroborate dossier to obtain FISA warrant, however Yahoo News was fed information from Steele himself = circular reporting
• Steele admitted to Bruce Ohr that he "was desperate that Donald Trump not get elected and was passionate about him not becoming president"

The FBI as an institution may do a lot of good, but the people at the top clearly abused their power to use flimsy evidence to spy on the Trump campaign.

This is a hack job.  Warrants are based upon flawed and biased opinions all the time.  Anonymous sources and informants are commonly used.  Warrants are based upon probable cause and meant to be used to collect actual evidence for charges. 

 

[Irvinecommuter]

I will side with the FBI. I respect and have confidence in the FBI. I would like to add Trump appointed the new FBI Director Chris Wray which he is opposed  releasing the memo. (From what I read in the article)

I have to say this: It?s really unfortunate how Trump is attacking the FBI for political reasons. The FBI is the top law enforcement in the US and I would say the world.

First Comey, then McCabe, and now undermining the FBI by potentially releasing the memo. (I will update my comment if Trump decides not release the memo.)

The FBI will only remain the top law enforcement agency in the world if they uphold their oath to defend the Constitution.  Skirting around the 4th Amendment to monitor a US citizen without probable cause weakens our nation more than the release of a memo.  Carter Page was not the only person spied upon by the FBI on questionable grounds, he's just the most prominent at the moment.  We can't have those who serve on Presidential campaigns worry that they might be subject to wiretapping for supporting the wrong candidate.  That erodes the Constitution, weakens our democracy, and makes the FBI a political tool for the party in power.  We are no better than Russia if that's how our intelligence agencies are going to be used.

And yet Devin Nunes signed the reauthorization of the FISA program just days ago.  Pure political hack job.

 

[Liar Loan]

This is a hack job.  Warrants are based upon flawed and biased opinions all the time.  Anonymous sources and informants are commonly used.  Warrants are based upon probable cause and meant to be used to collect actual evidence for charges.

You are completely missing the bigger picture here.  This isn't about just Trump anymore.

Obama intel agency secretly conducted illegal searches on Americans for years

The National Security Agency under former President Barack Obama routinely violated American privacy protections while scouring through overseas intercepts and failed to disclose the extent of the problems until the final days before Donald Trump was elected president last fall, according to once top-secret documents that chronicle some of the most serious constitutional abuses to date by the U.S. intelligence community.

The Obama administration self-disclosed the problems at a closed-door hearing Oct. 26 before the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court that set off alarm. Trump was elected less than two weeks later.

The normally supportive court censured administration officials, saying the failure to disclose the extent of the violations earlier amounted to an ?institutional lack of candor? and that the improper searches constituted a ?very serious Fourth Amendment issue,? according to a recently unsealed court document dated April 26, 2017.

Circa has reported that there was a three-fold increase in NSA data searches about Americans and a rise in the unmasking of U.S. person?s identities in intelligence reports after Obama loosened the privacy rules in 2011.

Speaking Wednesday on Fox News, Sen. Rand Paul (R-KY) said there was an apparent effort under the Obama Administration to increase the number of unmaskings of Americans.

"If we determine this to be true, this is an enormous abuse of power," Paul said. ?This will dwarf all other stories.?

?There are hundreds and hundreds of people,? Paul added.

The American Civil Liberties Union said the newly disclosed violations are some of the most serious to ever be documented and strongly call into question the U.S. intelligence community?s ability to police itself and safeguard American?s privacy as guaranteed by the Constitution?s Fourth Amendment protections against unlawful search and seizure.

?I think what this emphasizes is the shocking lack of oversight of these programs,? said Neema Singh Guliani, the ACLU?s legislative counsel in Washington.

https://www.circa.com/story/2017/05...ucted-illegal-searches-on-americans-for-years

Essentially what Obama's Justice Department was doing was using their FISA warrants of foreign officials as a backdoor to spy on Americans whom they couldn't get authorization to spy on through normal channels.  This is what happened to Carter Page and it's how they were able to monitor Trump's campaign. 

If you talk to a Russian even about something innocuous like vodka imports, boom, you have opened the door to having all your communications monitored.

 

[Liar Loan]

And yet Devin Nunes signed the reauthorization of the FISA program just days ago.  Pure political hack job.

See my prior post.  It's because the FISA court has already shut down the abuses that were occurring during the Obama administration.  Nobody is arguing that FISA monitoring doesn't accomplish intelligence objectives against foreign adversaries.  It's that the program was weaponized against US citizens illegally, in complete violation of the 4th Amendment.

 

[Kings]

I will side with the FBI. I respect and have confidence in the FBI. I would like to add Trump appointed the new FBI Director Chris Wray which he is opposed  releasing the memo. (From what I read in the article)

I have to say this: It?s really unfortunate how Trump is attacking the FBI for political reasons. The FBI is the top law enforcement in the US and I would say the world.

First Comey, then McCabe, and now undermining the FBI by potentially releasing the memo. (I will update my comment if Trump decides not release the memo.)

The FBI will only remain the top law enforcement agency in the world if they uphold their oath to defend the Constitution.  Skirting around the 4th Amendment to monitor a US citizen without probable cause weakens our nation more than the release of a memo.  Carter Page was not the only person spied upon by the FBI on questionable grounds, he's just the most prominent at the moment.  We can't have those who serve on Presidential campaigns worry that they might be subject to wiretapping for supporting the wrong candidate.  That erodes the Constitution, weakens our democracy, and makes the FBI a political tool for the party in power.  We are no better than Russia if that's how our intelligence agencies are going to be used.

And yet Devin Nunes signed the reauthorization of the FISA program just days ago.  Pure political hack job.

Different FISA Section.

?Let?s be very clear about what Section 702 does: It enables our intelligence community to collect communications from foreign terrorists, on foreign soil, who threaten America and our allies,? Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell, R-Ky., said in a statement Thursday. ?Make no mistake, Section 702 does not allow the targeting of American citizens. Nor does it permit the targeting of anyone ?no matter their nationality?who is known to be located here in the U.S.? 
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/201...sial-fisa-surveillance-provision.html[/quote]

 

[Irvinecommuter]

And yet Devin Nunes signed the reauthorization of the FISA program just days ago.  Pure political hack job.

See my prior post.  It's because the FISA court has already shut down the abuses that were occurring during the Obama administration.  Nobody is arguing that FISA monitoring doesn't accomplish intelligence objectives against foreign adversaries.  It's that the program was weaponized against US citizens illegally, in complete violation of the 4th Amendment.

That has nothing to do with this...warrants are issued based upon unknown sources/informants all the time.  Judges do not issue warrants on "evidence".  The officers/agents tell the judge...this is why we think this is a good lead and we need a warrant to try and obtain evidence.  It was not weaponized on anything...they had leads on a potential issue and the judge agreed with them.  The memo even concedes that George P was the main grounds as to why the warrant was issued.

How many of you have actually read a warrant application?  I have read a few and they all pretty much based upon unnamed informants and sources.

Part of the problem is that judges figure that of course informants are often biased. Informants usually have ulterior motives, and judges don't need to be told that. A helpful case is United States v. Strifler, 851 F.2d 1197, 1201 (9th Cir. 1988), in which the government obtained a warrant to search a house for a meth lab inside. Probable cause was based largely on a confidential informant who told the police that he had not only seen a meth lab in the house but had even helped others to try to manufacture meth there. The magistrate judge issued the warrant based on the informant's detailed tip. The search was successful and charges followed.

The defendants challenged the warrant on the ground that the affidavit had failed to mention the remarkable ulterior motives of the informant. The affidavit didn't mention that the "informant" was actually a married couple that had been in a quarrel with the defendants; that the couple was facing criminal charges themselves and had been "guaranteed by the prosecutor that they would not be prosecuted if they provided information"; and that they had been paid by the government for giving the information. The affidavit didn't mention any of that. A big deal, right?

According to the court, no. "It would have to be a very naive magistrate who would suppose that a confidential informant would drop in off the street with such detailed evidence and not have an ulterior motive," Judge Noonan wrote. "The magistrate would naturally have assumed that the informant was not a disinterested citizen."  The fact that the magistrate wasn't told that the "informant" was guaranteed to go free and paid for the information didn't matter, as "the magistrate was given reason to think the informant knew a good deal about what was going on" inside the house. 

https://www.lawfareblog.com/dubious-legal-claim-behind-releasethememo

The memo is less than a nothingburger and revealed for no reason but to deflect attention.
https://www.politico.com/interactives/2018/02/01/what-is-in-the-nunes-memo-fbi-released-analysis/

 

[Irvinecommuter]

Similarly, the memo notes that various important people, including former FBI Director James Comey and Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein, reapproved the FISA surveillance after the initial application. The implication is that these people were either incompetent, because they failed to notice the omissions in the application, or complicit in an effort to deceive the court.

But there?s another possibility that?s left unmentioned: Perhaps the FISA surveillance on Page revealed disturbing Russian connections that warranted continued surveillance. Page had a longtime history of connections with the Russian government? so much so that in 2013, Russian agents approached him with the intent of turning him into an asset (a point the Nunes memo never notes).

This, experts say, is almost certainly what happened.

?It?s reapproved if you have new information justifying the original probable cause and the government?s need to listen,? writes Asha Rangappa, a former FBI special agent and current Yale lecturer. ?Kind of the point of requiring the extension. Sounds like the gov [made] its burden not once, but THREE times.?

And ... that?s it, really.

The memo doesn?t prove its core claim, that there were real omissions in the FISA application related to the Steele dossier ? it merely asserts them. Nor does it contain any evidence that these omissions, if they were made intentionally, undermine the validity of the FISA warrant. There?s just no there there.

?If this is their evidence of ?Worse than Watergate,? it?s thin,? Sanchez concludes. ?This reads like something you?d put together to *sound* scandalous to someone who isn?t going to parse it closely.?

https://www.vox.com/world/2018/2/2/16965086/nunes-memo-dud-release

 

[Irvinecommuter]

And you have apparently no problems with a member of Congress unveiling top secret information as a political ploy.

"A memo can be a weapon of partisan mass distraction," he added. "Especially at a pivotal moment in American democracy when it behooves the man in charge for supporters to believe the institutions can't be trusted, the investigators are corrupt and the news media are liars. Context matters."

In his monologue, Smith also targeted Nunes, who Smith noted was involved in a meeting with the Trump White House last year that resulted in his recusal from the Russia investigation.

"Remember, this began with Devin Nunes. The same Devin Nunes who last year made White House surveillance claims, staged a rush to the White House to purportedly share surveillance information with the administration, but actually took information from the administration and staged a report of it," Smith told viewers.

"At its core, it was PR, and it was bogus," he added.

http://thehill.com/homenews/media/3...th-nunes-memo-is-a-weapon-of-mass-distraction

 

[fortune11]

Watching all the media coverage of this stupid memo ?- even the worst MAGAsphere high priests are struggling hilariously to sell the memo while the closeted MAGA hats are already asking to move on  ? what a cluster  f **

 

[Irvinecommuter]

Watching all the media coverage of this stupid memo ?- even the worst MAGAsphere high priests are struggling hilariously to sell the memo while the closeted MAGA hats are already asking to move on  ? what a cluster  f **

But hey...that's good ground to reveal top secret information!

 

[fortune11]

What one cant figure out is ?

The official GOP position is that police are an incorruptible force when it comes to patrolling Black neighborhoods, but

also the top law enforcement agency in the nation is corrupt in its investigation of Trump

I guess this is what they mean by ?so much winning that your heads will be ? splodin ?

 

[Irvinecommuter]

This is insane.  Everyone is allegedly conspiring against Trump including Rosenstein, the FBI, the Justice Department.

This is how a dictator tries to tear down the opposition...smears, inneundos, and lies.
http://thehill.com/homenews/house/3...pt-involvement-in-russia-probe?rnd=1517615149

 

[Liar Loan]

Irvinecommuter - How many applications for FISA warrants have you reviewed in your legal career?  Be honest.

The FISA law is designed to make monitoring an American citizen possible only in cases where there is very strong evidence of wrongdoing, and can be obtained only when a larger FBI investigation has already begun.

https://www.politico.com/story/2018/02/02/trump-nunes-memo-released-384977

So here are the facts that you've gotten wrong:

-FISA warrants against US citizens are not based on unknown sources/informants, but on verified intelligence that is part of a larger investigation.
-Judges in FISA cases issue warrants against US citizens only when there is VERY STRONG EVIDENCE, not just some leads that maybe a judge will agree with.
-The FBI didn't have any leads.  All they had was the dossier, a work of unverified and salacious material funded by the DNC/HRC Campaign.  The dossier is so lacking in credibility that even the news media refused to publish it.

 

[Irvinecommuter]

Irvinecommuter - How many applications for FISA warrants have you reviewed in your legal career?  Be honest.

The FISA law is designed to make monitoring an American citizen possible only in cases where there is very strong evidence of wrongdoing, and can be obtained only when a larger FBI investigation has already begun.

https://www.politico.com/story/2018/02/02/trump-nunes-memo-released-384977

So here are the facts that you've gotten wrong:

-FISA warrants against US citizens are not based on unknown sources/informants, but on verified intelligence that is part of a larger investigation.
-Judges in FISA cases issue warrants against US citizens only when there is VERY STRONG EVIDENCE, not just some leads that maybe a judge will agree with.
-The FBI didn't have any leads.  All they had was the dossier, a work of unverified and salacious material funded by the DNC/HRC Campaign.  The dossier is so lacking in credibility that even the news media refused to publish it.

You understand that this was the 4th renewal of the same FISA warrant...that means that the warrant was already approve 4 time previously right?  The surveillance of Carter Page began in 2013.  That was folded into the investigation that started with George Papadopoulos' misconduct.  Warrants are not a singular event...they are issued with a totality of circumstances in mind.

Not to mention, this is one side of the argument...which is already super weak.

We have not even talked about Nunes running to the press without allowing the FBI or the DOJ to vet.  There is an internal process where things like this can be handled.  The current DOJ and FBI, headed by Trump appointee, both vehemently objected to the release of the dossier.  That doesn't bother you?  Seriously.

 

[Kings]

Irvinecommuter - How many applications for FISA warrants have you reviewed in your legal career?  Be honest.

The FISA law is designed to make monitoring an American citizen possible only in cases where there is very strong evidence of wrongdoing, and can be obtained only when a larger FBI investigation has already begun.

https://www.politico.com/story/2018/02/02/trump-nunes-memo-released-384977

So here are the facts that you've gotten wrong:

-FISA warrants against US citizens are not based on unknown sources/informants, but on verified intelligence that is part of a larger investigation.
-Judges in FISA cases issue warrants against US citizens only when there is VERY STRONG EVIDENCE, not just some leads that maybe a judge will agree with.
-The FBI didn't have any leads.  All they had was the dossier, a work of unverified and salacious material funded by the DNC/HRC Campaign.  The dossier is so lacking in credibility that even the news media refused to publish it.

You understand that this was the 4th renewal of the same FISA warrant...that means that the warrant was already approve 4 time previously right?  The surveillance of Carte Page began in 2013.

Not to mention, this is one side of the argument...which is already super weak.

We have not even talked about Nunes running to the press without allowing the FBI or the DOJ to vet.  There is an internal process where things like this can be handled.  The current DOJ and FBI, headed by Trump appointee, both vehemently objected to the release of the dossier.  That doesn't bother you?  Seriously.

The warrant was not approved 4 times before 2016.

The memo stated that on Oct. 21, 2016, the Justice Department and the FBI ?sought and received? a FISA probable cause order authorizing ?electronic surveillance? on Page from the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court. At the time, Page was a volunteer adviser on the Trump campaign.

According to the memo, the FBI and DOJ obtained ?one initial FISA warrant? targeting Page, and three FISA renewals from the FISA court. The statute required that every 90 days, a FISA order on an American citizen ?must be renewed.?

The memo stated that then-FBI Director Comey signed three FISA applications for Page and McCabe signed one.

Trump?s current Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein also signed at least one FISA application for Page ? along with former Deputy Attorney General Sally Yates and former Acting Deputy Attorney General Dana Boente.

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2018/02/02/house-memo-states-disputed-dossier-was-key-to-fbi-s-fisa-warrant-to-surveil-members-team-trump.html

 

[Irvinecommuter]

The warrant was not approved 4 times before 2016.

The memo stated that on Oct. 21, 2016, the Justice Department and the FBI ?sought and received? a FISA probable cause order authorizing ?electronic surveillance? on Page from the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court. At the time, Page was a volunteer adviser on the Trump campaign.

According to the memo, the FBI and DOJ obtained ?one initial FISA warrant? targeting Page, and three FISA renewals from the FISA court. The statute required that every 90 days, a FISA order on an American citizen ?must be renewed.?

The memo stated that then-FBI Director Comey signed three FISA applications for Page and McCabe signed one.

Trump?s current Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein also signed at least one FISA application for Page ? along with former Deputy Attorney General Sally Yates and former Acting Deputy Attorney General Dana Boente.

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2018/02/02/house-memo-states-disputed-dossier-was-key-to-fbi-s-fisa-warrant-to-surveil-members-team-trump.html

What is the difference between the warrant being issued versus renewed?  A judge has to be convinced that the warrant should remain and thus the renewal.  Same standard.

 

[Liar Loan]

What one cant figure out is ?

The official GOP position is that police are an incorruptible force when it comes to patrolling Black neighborhoods, but

also the top law enforcement agency in the nation is corrupt in its investigation of Trump

The 50,000 texts released between Peter Strouk and Lisa Page confirm the corruption.  They openly talk about leaking classified information to the press, coming up with an "insurance policy" in case Trump is elected, and remind themselves they shouldn't be having these conversations on their work devices.  Oops. 

That's why they have both been demoted and removed from the special counsel investigation.

 

[Liar Loan]

You understand that this was the 4th renewal of the same FISA warrant...that means that the warrant was already approve 4 time previously right?  The surveillance of Carter Page began in 2013.  That was folded into the investigation that started with George Papadopoulos' misconduct.  Warrants are not a singular event...they are issued with a totality of circumstances in mind.

Your timeline is off.  The original Title I FISA warrant was issued on October 21st, 2016, and was renewed every 90 days thereafter.

The prior investigation in 2013 had nothing to do with the current monitoring of the Trump campaign.  Page was also not accused of any wrongdoing in that investigation.