|
Post by robeiae on Jul 31, 2018 7:37:53 GMT -5
Part of why FISA exists is to protect citizens from US intelligence agencies, to be blunt. The purpose of the FISA court is to make sure this is happening, that requests for surveillance aren't pushing the envelope. Imo, the court is letting things go the other way: intelligence agencies are getting authorization for surveillance--through the court--that they should never have gotten. This goes back to previous admins (like the metadata bullshit, which clearly violated FISA), to be sure. It's hardly a new development. And in that regard, I'm sure there are people on the Right who were just fine with spying on US citizens--in the name of national security--when it didn't involve anyone on their presumptive "side."
|
|
|
Post by Amadan on Jul 31, 2018 7:58:48 GMT -5
It is still not clear to me what specifically you think was wrong with the warrant in this case. If the FBI genuinely believes a US person is acting as an agent of a foreign power and wants the assistance of the IC in surveilling their foreign communications, they are supposed to get a FISA warrant. How else do you think it should work? Should it be impossible for our intelligence agencies to intercept the communications of US persons under any circumstances whatsoever, even if it's believed they are spies?
|
|
|
Post by robeiae on Jul 31, 2018 8:49:57 GMT -5
Whether or not the FBI's--or any other agencies--suspicions are "legitimate" is an open question. And the standards for obtaining court-authorized surveillance of US citizens are supposed to be pretty high, given that this is all done in secret and the targets have no opportunity to offer anything to counter what the government offers to justify such surveillance, when--unlike typical criminal warrants for surveillance--the government isn't required to show probable cause of a crime (which is something that needs to be changed, imo).
In this particular case, I don't think what the FBI "had" on Page was anywhere close to being sufficient justification for the warrants (that kept getting renewed). One can argue how significant the Steele dossier was or wasn't, but the mere fact that the FBI included it as evidence indicates--imo--that the warrant was a severe reach and shouldn't have been granted.
Beyond that, I also think the whole thing obviously had a political component. People can deny it to the nth degree, but dumbasses like Strzok make that a tough sell, imo.
|
|
|
Post by celawson on Jul 31, 2018 10:20:41 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by robeiae on Jul 25, 2020 15:05:25 GMT -5
I'll post this here, since it should serve to--idealisitically--put the stupidity of the Steele Dossier to bed, once and for all. Of course, it won't. All of the vocal never-Trumpers (the "conservative" checkmakrk crowd on twitter) and the folks on the left who have lived and breathed Russian "collusion" are never going to let it go, are never going to have the intellectual cojones to admit they were wrong. Anyway: Meet the Steele Dossier's 'Primary Subsource': Fabulist Russian From Democrat Think Tank Whose Boozy Past the FBI IgnoredSome bits: Odd twist, my ass. Hill denied personally knowing Steele's Russian source. They might as well have been journos from WaPo and the NYT swapping stories... Shocking. Yet he still managed to compile Steele's dossier. I wonder how... "Fabulist" is an apt designation. Yet, he managed to take in the leadership of the FBI.
|
|
|
Post by robeiae on Jul 25, 2020 15:24:42 GMT -5
Case(s) in point:
Lol on the "risking his life." From whom? Steele? He offered a bunch of made up bullshit that probably had Putin in stitches for weeks. One more:
If you read the NYT piece, it admits that Danchenko was full of shit. It seems to me that he made his own bed. And then some.
Oh, and this is entertaining:
|
|
|
Post by robeiae on Aug 4, 2020 8:46:07 GMT -5
Here's Mollie Hemingway at the Federalist jumping on Savage and others for not admitting the "collusion" narrative was--at absolute best--deeply flawed: thefederalist.com/2020/08/03/media-silent-as-christopher-steele-hero-spymaster-narrative-crumbles/Yes it's the Federalist, but all the mainstream outlets are covering their asses and licking their wounds, hoping that this all doesn't serve to somehow benefit Trump to the extent that he might actually get re-elected. Oh, and I looked at the CNN article form 2017 that she cites. Here it is: www.cnn.com/2017/01/10/politics/donald-trump-intelligence-report-russia/index.htmlAnd yeah, it actually says this [my boldface]: So the CNN writers are either: 1) flagrantly lying here; they're just making that line up about the "US intelligence agencies," or 2) A (high-placed) source in these intelligence agencies lied to them, which probably reflects how these intelligence agencies (the FBI) deceived the FISA court Either way, I wonder how many members of the anti-Trump crowd will actually admit that there was never anything even approaching a case for collusion. I'm seriously starting to entertain the possibility of an Clinton/Obama-led conspiracy...
|
|
|
Post by robeiae on Aug 15, 2020 7:45:12 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by robeiae on Aug 19, 2020 8:55:05 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by robeiae on Sept 11, 2020 13:15:47 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by robeiae on Sept 24, 2020 8:06:21 GMT -5
Some more shit that most media folks will ignore, because it doesn't serve to damage Trump: www.realclearinvestigations.com/articles/2020/09/24/secret_report_how_cias_brennan_overruled_dissenting_analysts_who_thought_russia_favored_hillary_125315.htmlThis is stuff Durham is uncovering, simply by reading the material and talking to the people who did the research and wrote the material. And figuring out what went down isn't rocket science; it's downright simplistic: Brennan and others (we know many of the names) thought Trump was a loose cannon, a joke, a huckster, someone who just could not be trusted (allowing that they were/are right doesn't change anything), so they were operating under a simple bias against Trump, as they assessed things. Steele (who was clearly is a dishonest huckster, himself) played on that bias by offering up a fabricated "report" that played on the worst fears of Brennan and company. They ate Steele's shit up without a second thought and proceeded to ignore any and all evidence that ran counter to the central premise of Putin being all-in for Trump and Trump knowing it. Assholes.
|
|
|
Post by robeiae on Sept 25, 2020 7:19:26 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by robeiae on Oct 6, 2020 20:00:47 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by robeiae on Oct 7, 2020 8:52:54 GMT -5
Here's Brennan "explaining" himself and those notes: www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2020/10/07/former_cia_director_brennan_blasts_dni_ratcliffes_appalling_selective_declassificaion_of_info.htmlHe may be right about Ratcliffe's motives. But then, the same sort of criticism can be fairly leveled at a number of people who were in the FBI and/or Justice, that their efforts to investigate Trump were about advancing the political interests of Clinton and the Dem Party. He looks like a jackass--imo--here. And his last comment misses the boat, as well. Ratcliffe and Durham don't need to portray this stuff as unlawful per se, just as nakedly partisan. And whether Brennan can admit it now or not, his own words demonstrate that he knew this was the case from the get-go. Of course, he has a book out now, so....
|
|
|
Post by robeiae on Oct 7, 2020 14:27:45 GMT -5
|
|