Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

FISA MEMO RELEASED

Collapse
X
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

    #46
    Originally posted by TX H210 SS View Post

    I don't feel there was a rush to release the memo, considering this ordeal has been dragging on and on. This memo is a summary of conclusions based on review of case documents...this is not a conclusion of what I would call an investigation. What the memo does is show there needs to be a thorough investigation of the investigation. There is an investigation by the Inspector General and the Republicans have seen an interim report but chose not to wait for the final report. Why ?

    Naming the source as a political source is subjective at best and doesn't identify the relationship of the source to those parties involved in the investigation. To imply such a vague phrase conveys to the magistrate the information was paid for by Democrat presidential candidate to someone retained to report disparaging information on an opponent and the focus of the wire is employed to oversee the election of that opponent isn't realistic. While you may feel it is subjective, it is all that is required by Law. The court, if it felt that it required more could have and may have asked for greater clarification. Either way the court was convinced that all the evidence presented including the report, was relevant and constituted probable grounds.

    Again, this memo isn't a fact and I understand that....all I'm saying is the facts need to be verified, investigated and reviewed by competent sources and that aint anyone with a political agenda. So why release something that is not a fact when the facts exist ? Could it be for political or criminal gain such as to cast doubt on the actual facts when they do come out ? Obstruction of justice ?

    The 90 day continuance involves disclosure that information being obtained is relevant to the investigation for which the warrant was obtained. Should the original warrant issuance be discredited then nothing obtained as result is admissible for anything other than gossip. The warrant was obtained to determine IF there was Russian interference AND collusion in the Trump Campaign. In order to EXTEND the warrant, it must be shown that evidence supporting the original purpose was of the warrant was found. In other words, that NEW and SUPPORTING evidence indicating interference and collusion was found. Not once but three times. Yours and the Republicans focus is on whether the Steele Dossier was the main or only probable cause evidence and that it was improperly presented. If it was not and is not, then any evidence found as a result is NOT part of the poison tree and can be used legally. What should be of greater concern to people is the evidence that was uncovered as a result of the warrant and the fact that it exists not how it was obtained.

    There is NOTHING outside the warrant that can be used to bolster the probable cause of the warrant period....if it's not in the affidavit seeking the warrant then it doesn't exist in eveyes of the court. If the officer seeking the warrant has other info that's not included in the document, then that info can not be included in the basis for establishing probable cause for the issuance of that warrant. It either has to be written in the affidavit or attached to it as an addendum. You are correct that the evidence used to prove probable grounds MUST be included. There is nothing in the memo to say that it was not. What you are missing is that the requirement is to include ENOUGH evidence to show probable cause. There is no requirement to submit ALL evidence, only enough to show that probable cause exists and the warrant should be issued. There is also nothing that eliminates or excludes evidence outside of the warrant from being admitted at trial.

    The answer to all this falls in the affidavit presented to the judge for the warrant. Do we need to see that document.....NO. That document will contain information as to processes the public doesn't need to know.....but a competent source does need to review it and investigate the info that was put in it. Then don't put out a memo that requires that document to determine the validity and veracity of your conclusions. As indicated the Inspector General is investigating.

    If the memo does turn out to be accurate....there will be more hell than a little but for those involved. At this point it's not clear that the Democrats put Steele up to turning this over to the fbi and initiating any federal investigation...the implication is there that this occurred, but that's all.....it could be that Steele saw a chance to get paid twice for the babble and jumped on it. To me the BIG question is was the source disclosed to the judge and did the info reported as facts get verified to actually be facts. First I believe Steele has already indicated that they did not, that he reported it due to the National Security implications. Second you just answered your own question. The facts were verified as facts or else extensions would NOT have been granted three subsequent times.

    I'm obviously a Trump supporter, but all this memo shows me is there needs to be an investigation of the investigation.
    .

    Comment


      #47
      Originally posted by donyt View Post
      What you are missing is that the requirement is to include ENOUGH evidence to show probable cause. There is no requirement to submit ALL evidence, only enough to show that probable cause exists and the warrant should be issued. .
      This sort of logic is EXACTLY why we're in a constitution crisis with this. The Fourth Amendment rights of several people have been violated. You CANNOT intentionally withhold evidence or mislead a Judge in order to get a warrant.

      Custom CNC Design And Dash Panels

      iBoatNW

      1980 CHB Europa 42 Trawler- "Honey Badger"

      Comment


        #48
        Originally posted by SomeSailor View Post

        This sort of logic is EXACTLY why we're in a constitution crisis with this. The Fourth Amendment rights of several people have been violated. You CANNOT intentionally withhold evidence or mislead a Judge in order to get a warrant.
        1. You would have to show EVIDENCE of intent to withhold information. Did you see any EVIDENCE in the Memo ?
        2. The withheld EVIDENCE would have to have been prejudicial to the extent that the court would not have issued the warrant if it had seen it. Have you seen any EVIDENCE of that in the Memo ?

        Comment


          #49
          https://www.cbsnews.com/news/breakin...esident-trump/

          Wonder how Gowdy feels about it.

          Comment


            #50
            Originally posted by SomeSailor View Post

            This sort of logic is EXACTLY why we're in a constitution crisis with this. The Fourth Amendment rights of several people have been violated. You CANNOT intentionally withhold evidence or mislead a Judge in order to get a warrant.
            The only crisis is Donald Trump firing James Comey, and him continually trying to interfere with Mueller investigation. Hell, now you have other Republicans colluding with him. I guess none of that concerns you and the right wing echo chamber.

            Comment


              #51
              I agree with him. This is more about an abuse of the FISA process than anything else. USING the the FISA court to do something that could have been done in an open court is a perfect example of the problem.

              It'll be curious to see how much of this comes out over time. Since it's all classified, it may take some time. This is every bit as troubling as Watergate.

              Custom CNC Design And Dash Panels

              iBoatNW

              1980 CHB Europa 42 Trawler- "Honey Badger"

              Comment


                #52
                Originally posted by iceclimber View Post
                Wonder how John McCain feels about it.

                https://www.mccain.senate.gov/public...on-the-fbi-doj

                Comment


                  #53
                  Originally posted by SomeSailor View Post
                  I agree with him. This is more about an abuse of the FISA process than anything else. USING the the FISA court to do something that could have been done in an open court is a perfect example of the problem.

                  It'll be curious to see how much of this comes out over time. Since it's all classified, it may take some time. This is every bit as troubling as Watergate.
                  lol !

                  Comment


                    #54
                    Originally posted by SomeSailor View Post
                    I agree with him. This is more about an abuse of the FISA process than anything else. USING the the FISA court to do something that could have been done in an open court is a perfect example of the problem.

                    It'll be curious to see how much of this comes out over time. Since it's all classified, it may take some time. This is every bit as troubling as Watergate.
                    It is troubling in that both investigations involve the corruption of the government at the highest level, the President. Like Watergate it may also end with the same result.

                    Comment


                      #55
                      Originally posted by SomeSailor View Post
                      I agree with him. This is more about an abuse of the FISA process than anything else. USING the the FISA court to do something that could have been done in an open court is a perfect example of the problem.

                      It'll be curious to see how much of this comes out over time. Since it's all classified, it may take some time. This is every bit as troubling as Watergate.
                      And the plot thickens ...
                      Obama Appointed FISA Court Judges Involved in Numerous Questionable and Controversial Actions


                      2003 Bayliner 245
                      2007 Sedona F21

                      Comment


                        #56
                        Several of you guys are missing the most important point...

                        IF, and that is a big IF the Muller investigation had used on ANY information contained in the wiretap of Carter Page. That means if they even used information to point to areas to investigate. That is a concept you need to understand... IF the Page wiretap gave Muller even the IDEA to investigate in a certain area, the fruits of that investigation will be inadmissible.

                        Spend some time reading guys. Lots of court cases at the appellate court level have defined what is is a “good” warrant and what is not. If the source of the information used to establish probable cause was not included in the search warrant affidavit, then the evidence will be excluded.

                        Corruption or not. Political motive or not. This looks like really bad police work.

                        KEVIN SANDERS
                        4788 LISAS WAY
                        SEWARD, ALASKA

                        Comment


                          #57
                          Yep... Gotta pay back for those appointments...

                          "Just sign here Sir..."

                          Custom CNC Design And Dash Panels

                          iBoatNW

                          1980 CHB Europa 42 Trawler- "Honey Badger"

                          Comment


                            #58
                            Originally posted by ksanders View Post
                            Reading 4th ammendment cases at the appelate and supreme court level was a hobby for a few years. It is Very interesting reading. The 4th ammendment has two centuries of court cases that define (and significantly narrow) the search and siezure rules.
                            Yep. This opens the door for a constitutional crisis if not dealt with properly. Most of our entire legal system has been based on 4th Amendment precedence. Violate that and you open a bottle you might not be able to get a lid on again.

                            The whole idea that you can knowingly withhold exculpatory facts from a FEDERAL Judge in order to obtain a warrant is absurd.
                            Custom CNC Design And Dash Panels

                            iBoatNW

                            1980 CHB Europa 42 Trawler- "Honey Badger"

                            Comment


                              #59
                              Originally posted by ksanders View Post
                              Several of you guys are missing the most important point...

                              IF, and that is a big IF the Muller investigation had used on ANY information contained in the wiretap of Carter Page. That means if they even used information to point to areas to investigate. That is a concept you need to understand... IF the Page wiretap gave Muller even the IDEA to investigate in a certain area, the fruits of that investigation will be inadmissible.

                              Spend some time reading guys. Lots of court cases at the applet court level have defined what is is a “good” warrant and what is not. If the source of the information used to establish probable cause was not included in the search warrant affidavit, then the evidence will be excluded.

                              Corruption or not. Political motive or not. This looks like really bad police work.
                              From wikipedia
                              Fruit of the poisonous tree
                              is a legal metaphor in the United States used to describe evidence that is obtained illegally.[1] The logic of the terminology is that if the source (the "tree") of the evidence or evidence itself is tainted, then anything gained (the "fruit") from it is tainted as well.
                              2003 Bayliner 245
                              2007 Sedona F21

                              Comment


                                #60
                                Originally posted by ksanders View Post
                                Several of you guys are missing the most important point...

                                IF, and that is a big IF the Muller investigation had used on ANY information contained in the wiretap of Carter Page. That means if they even used information to point to areas to investigate. That is a concept you need to understand... IF the Page wiretap gave Muller even the IDEA to investigate in a certain area, the fruits of that investigation will be inadmissible.

                                Reading 4th ammendment cases at the appelate and supreme court level was a hobby for a few years. It is Very interesting reading. The 4th ammendment has two centuries of court cases that define (and significantly narrow) the search and siezure rules.
                                While that may be true it is based on, IF and it's a big IF, the original submission or any subsequent submissions for the FISA warrant are tainted. Until the evidence is produced to show otherwise the warrants were valid and therefore the information gathered can be used as evidence in any trial.

                                What concerns me most is the continued position of many that any violation of the 4th amendment would somehow make any collusion with a foreign enemy like Russia acceptable. When a rapist's, or a murder's conviction gets thrown out for a 4th amendment violation I don't see many cheering on the criminal and saying the rape or murder was acceptable. Why is this any different ?

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X