WSJ Reports Four Separate FISA Court Judges Approved Renewals To Carter Page Surveillance…

According to a Wall Street Journal report, Carter Page was on the radar of the FBI since 2013 “when Russian spies made an attempt to recruit him.”  However, for some undetermined reason the FBI waited until October 21st, 2016, to apply for Title I surveillance authority through the FISA court.

Additionally, according to their reporting, after FISC approval there were three more renewal applications for a total of four submissions to the FISA court.  A source tells the Journal all four FBI requests were reviewed by four different judges:

[…] The memo describes the process by which the government got a secret warrant under the law that governs the secret court, the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, for Mr. Page.

[…]  At least two of those renewals occurred while Mr. Trump was president and at least one was authorized by a Justice Department official he appointed. A person familiar with the matter said that four separate federal judges approved the surveillance of Mr. Page, and all of those judges were appointed by Republican presidents. (link)

If this is factually correct it raises an interesting dynamic because there are not that many FISA Court Judges in Washington DC. [FISA Court Link]

♦Judge Rosemary M Collyer is the presiding FISA judge and was the signatory for the court’s 99-page opinion written, April 2017, in the aftermath of the DOJ, FBI and NSA admissions to violating the FISA-702(16)(17) rules and procedures.  [See Here]

♦Judge Rudolph Contreras is a FISA judge and the original DC circuit presiding judge who accepted the Mike Flynn plea (Dec. 1, 2017) and then ‘was recused’ five days later. [See Here]

Accepting there are only three DC circuit judges:  Rosemary Collyer, Rudolph Contreras and James Boasberg; and accepting that four different judges approved the DOJ/FBI application and renewals for Title I surveillance of Carter Page; it seems almost certain that Collyer and Contreras were involved in the Justice Department effort to identify Carter Page as an ‘American working on behalf of a foreign government’.

It would be ‘almost’ impossible to have four separate engagements with the FISA court, and gain a different judge on each encounter.  It would be entirely impossible to have four separate judges if the original application and all three subsequent renewals went through the same district.  (There are only three judges in the DC district – making four separate judges impossible.)   Something is entirely fishy about this.

Either the WSJ source is incorrect, or the greater likelihood is the DOJ was strategically approaching a different FISA judge each time.

This entry was posted in Conspiracy ?, Dept Of Justice, FBI, media bias, President Trump, Spying, THE BIG UGLY. Bookmark the permalink.

681 Responses to WSJ Reports Four Separate FISA Court Judges Approved Renewals To Carter Page Surveillance…

  1. phoenixRising says:

    Liked by 4 people

  2. Stormyeyes says:

    Liked by 3 people

    • Sassy says:

      I heard that last night on FOX and couldn’t believe my ears. There were no details given. This, in and of itself, seems like a firing offense–if true, of course. The memo already proves they abused their power and wielded it against a U.S. citizen. Now he’s threatening to misuse his power by aiming it at the representatives of the people who have the constitutional right to oversee his activities? Or was this just another of his snarking jokes?

      Under what scenario would Rosenstein have the authority to subpoena the calls and texts of the Intel Committee? He still reports to Sessions, who still reports to the President of the United States. What “crime” would he be investigating, or does he imagine that FOIA would apply? In which case, if it does apply, then we ought to put in a request for his texts and calls as well as Mueller’s and Comey’s.

      Liked by 1 person

    • thinkthinkthink says:

      My gut says this accusation against Rosenstein has been made because some with ill intent are getting uncomfortable and want to smear him.


      • Bulldog84 says:

        I wonder if you are correct. Is Rosenstein playing a black hat as part of a ruse?

        Take the case of retired Marine Gen. James E. “Hoss” Cartwright, who leaked to a New York Times reporter details about a highly classified operation to hobble Iran’s nuclear enrichment capability through cyber-sabotage.

        Per WaPo in March, 2015:

        “Details of the joint program, including its code name, Olympic Games, were revealed by Times reporter David E. Sanger in a book and article in June 2012. The sabotage of Iranian nuclear centrifuges by the computer worm dubbed Stuxnet had emerged two years earlier, and security experts speculated that it was the work of the United States and Israel.

        Confirmation of the joint authorship set off a political controversy, with congressional Republicans charging that the White House had deliberately leaked information to enhance Obama’s national security credentials as he sought reelection.

        Attorney General Eric H. Holder Jr. assigned Rod J. Rosenstein, the U.S. attorney for Maryland, to investigate the leak. His office declined to comment.

        FBI investigators focused on Cartwright in the fall of 2012, officials said. They interviewed him at least twice, according to people who are familiar with the case and who spoke on the condition of anonymity because of the sensitivity of the investigation. During the first interview, Cartwright had to go to the hospital.”

        “Cartwright, who retired in 2011, had White House authorization to speak with reporters, according to people familiar with the matter.”

        Cartwright, prosecuted by Rosenstein, eventually pled guilty in 2016. During his last few days in office, Obama pardoned him.

        A retired Marine general has a meltdown when being questioned about a NYT leak of classified information concerning Iran, and the case is assigned to Rosenstein, who secures a guilty plea, but has his efforts thwarted when Obama issues a last-minute pardon.

        In a curious coincidence, the general happens to be the grandfather of Peter Strzok’s first cousin.

        Who recommended the pardon?

        Is Rosenstein a white hat who is playing black hat? Does he actually have faith in Mueller? Who knows what to think?

        Liked by 1 person

    • cali says:

      Rod Rosenstein has been and continue to be a black hat. The threat with the intent to stop investigating the DOJ and FBI tells you pretty much where his allegiance lies. After all he and Mueller go back may years.
      It was Rosenstein who’s prosecuting three individuals involved in the uranium one deal was on the down low.
      Then there is the CGI scandal swapping out brand name Aids drugs destined for Haiti with unadulterated Aid drugs from a company in India that made people ill.
      Hillary got away with it but Rosenstein finally prosecuted the Indian drug maker by slapping a 500 million dollar judgement years later and long after Clinton left the state department. Rosenstein is also believed to be a leaker.
      Q and team let it be known that Rosenstein will be fired in the near future.


      • Bulldog84 says:

        Could it be that Uranium One was another instance in which Rosenstein was trying to do the right thing, was thwarted and therefore knows exactly how crooked some of his current colleagues are?

        Think about it: Rosenstein recommends Comey’s firing. Rosenstein also recommends Mueller as special counsel. Mueller’s then-firm, WilmerHale, at the time has in its client roster Paul Manafort, Ivanka Trump, and Jared Kushner. Mueller is given an extremely broad mandate.

        Rosenstein acts recalcitrant in turning over documents to Nunes, but then does so anyway.

        Ask me another time and I might say, “What was I thinking?” Right now, I just don’t know.


  3. JAS says:

    I think we’re trying to conflate FISA requests and unmasking.

    Yes, the FISA requests were illegally obtained, but I believe the unmasking came first and it is a separate issue. The FISA requests could have been the “Insurance” mentioned in the Strozk texts. And Farkas was in a panic that they would lose that ability with the change in administration.

    Furthermore, the odds become really slim when you take into account that the news were all over the place about unmasking and the dossier being fake by the second FISA renewal, at the latest.

    The Flynn’s unmasking deal started at the Washington Post, immediately followed by the NYT. Here is what Gowdy asked Comey at the hearing in March 2017 (Comey and Rogers were together at that hearing):
    GOWDY: All right.

    In January of this year, the Washington Post reported, according to a senior U.S. government official, a named U.S. citizen — and I will not use the name — a named U.S. citizen phoned the Russian ambassador several times on December 29.

    In February of this year, the Washington Post reported nine, nine current and former officials who were in senior positions at multiple agencies at the time of the call, spoke on the condition of anonymity to discuss intelligence matters and that officials began pouring over intelligence reports, intercepted communications, and diplomatic cables.


    My time is up so I will say this for this round. I thought it was against the law to disseminate classified information. Is it?

    COMEY: Yes, sir. It’s a serious crime. I’m not going to comment on those particular articles because I don’t want to, in any circumstance, compound a criminal act by confirming that it was classified information but in general, yes, it’s a serious crime and it should be for the reasons you said.

    Then later asks about unmasking:

    GOWDY: Director Comey, I am not arguing with you and I do agree that culture is important, but if there are 100 people who have the ability to unmask and the knowledge of a previously masked name, then that’s 100 different potential sources of investigation and the smaller the number is, the easier your investigation is.

    So the number is relevant. I can see the culture is relevant. NSA, FBI, what other U.S. government agencies have the authority to unmask a U.S. citizen’s name?

    – SNIP –

    GOWDY: All right, so that’s four. The NSA, FBI, CIA, Main Justice. Does the White House have the authority to unmask a U.S. citizen’s name?

    COMEY: I think other elements of the government that are consumers of our products can ask the collectors to unmask. The unmasking resides with those who collected the information.

    – SNIP –

    So how would you begin your investigation, assuming for the sake of argument that a U.S. citizen’s name appeared in the Washington Post and the New York Times unlawfully. Where would you begin that investigation?

    COMEY: Well, I’m not gonna talk about any particular investigation…

    GOWDY: That’s why I said in theory.

    COMEY: You would start by figuring out, so who are the suspects? Who touched the information that you’ve concluded ended up unlawfully in the newspaper and start with that universe and then use investigative tools and techniques to see if you can eliminate people, or include people as more serious suspects.

    GOWDY: Do you know whether Director Clapper knew the name of the U.S. citizen that appeared in the New York Times and Washington Post?

    COMEY: I can’t say in this forum because again, I don’t wanna confirm that there was classified information in the newspaper.

    GOWDY: Would he have access to an unmasked name?

    COMEY: In — in some circumstances, sure, he was the director of national intelligence. But I’m not talking about the particular.

    GOWDY: Would Director Brennan have access to an unmasked U.S. citizen’s name?

    COMEY: In some circumstances, yes.

    GOWDY: Would National Security Adviser Susan Rice have access to an unmasked U.S. citizen’s name?

    COMEY: I think any — yes, in general, and any other national security adviser would, I think, as a matter of their ordinary course of their business.

    GOWDY: Would former White House Advisor Ben Rhodes have access to an unmasked U.S. citizen’s name?

    COMEY: I don’t know the answer to that.

    GOWDY: Would former Attorney General Loretta Lynch have access to an unmasked U.S. citizen’s name? COMEY: In general, yes, as would any attorney general.

    GOWDY: So that would also include Acting AG Sally Yates?

    COMEY: Same answer.

    GOWDY: Did you brief President Obama on — well, I’ll just ask you. Did you brief President Obama on any calls involving Michael Flynn?

    COMEY: I’m not gonna get into either that particular case that matter, or any conversations I had with the president. So I can’t answer that.

    Liked by 2 people

    • cboldt says:

      FISA application/warrant and unmasking are related. FISA aims to get foreign intelligence, and admits up front that the target may have contact with people who have 4th amendment rights. To protect those rights, the surveillance for foreign intelligence includes a defined protocol for “minimization.” “Masking” is one way that “minimization” is accomplished. The ID of people who are unrelated to any sort of foreign intelligence info is redacted to protect their 4th amendment rights.
      Unmasking is an end-around the FISA application, done outside of the court’s view. It is a knowing deviation from the minimization protocoal agreed to before the court.

      Liked by 3 people

      • JAS says:

        Correct. But, if I’m not mistaken,Obama greatly expanded the availability of unmasked information down the line towards the end of his term.

        That I think is the availability that Farkas said they were going to lose. So, in come the dossier, and the FISA requests to keep it information flowing…..

        Liked by 4 people

        • cboldt says:

          I agree with all that. Just pointing out that it is downstream, after, outside, independent of the FISA warrant application and approval process.
          FISA has a warrantless surveillance procedure too, and that includes minimization/masking.

          Liked by 1 person

        • cboldt says:

          Oh – the point I was making as that unmasking could have come before the FISA application, if surveillance was warrantless, but more likely the unmasking under discussion came AFTER, not BEFORE the FISA applcation. Easy enough to check. What is the timeframe of the unmasking, before or after the election?


    • Newt Love says:

      JAS, who are you, and how did you get these transcripts?
      No, don’t answer that! I will just trust you, and enjoy reading.


    • OSP says:

      What does “SNIP” designate?


      • Guy-Blanc Déploré says:

        The cutting out of intermediary text, usually in relation to removing irrelevant or unnecessary content from the original source material.


  4. Caius Lowell says:

    Well, in the DNC’s defense, it was Yahoo! News, the gold standard in investigative journalism /s

    Liked by 1 person

  5. Tangledweb says:

    USSC ruling that when issuing warrants based on hearsay that the information / informant is reliable (I.e, Steele dossier / C. Steele) and exculpatory info, if any, must be provided. (Relevant information withheld by DOJ/FBI in Carter Page warrant – see Nunes Memo.)

    Steele paid Russians for info used in dossier. This is double hearsay. So, DOJ/FBI required to demonstrate that source of double hearsay info … from our friends the Russians … was reliable for the warrant / renewal … in a case were our enemies the Russians were attempting to flip Carter Page as an agent! This is stunning! Just another reason key relevant info not provided to courts for warrant and renewals!

    Liked by 2 people

    • cboldt says:

      Beware of conflating the “exculpatory info” line of criminal investigation, with the FISA process. The threshold in FISA is that the target is an agent of a foreign power. The court is NOT going to second guess the applicant on that count.
      There aren’t many FISA-related cases. Maybe a score. Start with the Keith case and work from there. In resealed case (FISC court) is good. Lots of debate about what can be made public too, including an opinion out of FISC in November 2017. ACLU and some Yale Clinic are the persistent “in your face” to FISC.


    • D. Manny says:

      “Steele paid Russians for info used in dossier. This is double hearsay”

      That’s incorrect. He paid somebody else to get the info, and we still have no clue just how many layers that onion extends.

      And by the time they requested the warrants, they had already fired the source for truthfulness issues.

      Liked by 1 person

      • Newt Love says:

        But we don’t need to worry about double or triple hearsay, because Michael (Remington) Steele had briefed Yahoo News, which was used as collaboration of the Steele Memo, and the (LYING) FIB was good to go.
        It’s a Circle Jerk between the HRC Campaign, Fusion GPS, the FIB (FBI) and the Obama DoJ, to completely ignore the Rule of Law, and the US Constitution, especially the 4th Amendment, to get Election INTEL on the opposition candidate, Donald Trump, and the President Elect Trump, and on into the term of the Duly Elected President Donald J. Trump.
        Yeah, the Obama FBI and the Obama DoJ need to be indicted, tried and convicted of their crimes against the people of the USA.

        From Animal House (1978):
        Greek (Fraternity) Council Member Greg Marmalard: But Delta’s already on probation.
        Dean Vernon Wormer: They are? Well, as of this moment, they’re on DOUBLE SECRET PROBATION!

        To which FBI Director Comey said: “The traitor, Donald Trump, is going down for his crimes!”

        I say to Comey and the rest of the OBAMA FBI and OBAMA DoJ:
        From Animal House (1978): Dean Vernon Wormer: Fat, drunk and stupid is no way to go through life, son.


    • D. Manny says:

      And Rick Wilson was talking about all those same things in the dossier before Fusion was even hired by Perkins Coie.


    • Neil Horn says:

      If Muller charges POTUS with crimes, then the evidence will be secret, because sources and methods cannot be revealed. The public would then be reliant on the word of the investigators?

      Liked by 1 person

      • Newt Love says:

        Yeah, like any of us “public” trusts the LYING LEADERSHIP of the OBAMA FBI or OBAMA DoJ, which includes many of the Current FBI, and DoJ, that are serving in the Mueller Special School Counselor (Anti-American) Brigade.

        At this point, any “Fruit of the Poisoned Tree” that Mueller is, tries to use to attack our DULY ELECTED PRESIDENT, I may be tempted to take up arms against that Cheka / NAZI / KGB Police State operation to OVERTHROW THE US GOVERNMENT!

        Mueller was the guy who couriered the 10 ounce sample of the US Yellow Cake (raw mined uranium) inside a lead-lined Diplomatic Bag to Moscow, so that the Russians could test the quality of the merchandise that Hillary was offering in the Uranium One deal.
        Since when is that a duty of the then Director of the FBI, Robert Mueller? Robert Mueller is a complete stooge for HRC and her foundation. Mueller is a TRAITOR to the people of the USA.


        • G. Combs says:

          “…Mueller was the guy who couriered the 10 ounce sample of the US Yellow Cake (raw mined uranium) inside a lead-lined Diplomatic Bag to Moscow, so that the Russians could test the quality of the merchandise that Hillary was offering in the Uranium One deal….”

          Sorry, that is the WRONG sample. The uranium in question was from a theft of RUSSIAN uranium that was given to the USA to analyze and ID by Georgian officials. It was then sent via Mueller to Russia to confirm ID. (I still think Mueller is a complete SLEAZE but we need to stick to the facts.)

          Bulletin of Atomic Scientists
          “[…]As often happens in nuclear smuggling cases, Georgian officials initially transferred the material to the FBI, so the Bureau could conduct a nuclear forensic examination of the material to attempt to determine from where the material had been stolen. Given the location of the seizure, it was highly likely that control of the material was lost during the chaotic period after the breakup of the Soviet Union. Therefore, Russian authorities would want, and the United States and Georgia would need, for Russian scientists to compare the sample to materials from their facilities to attempt to identify the source of the theft. There is precedent for this action; international nuclear forensic cooperation is a common way to attempt to resolve attribution questions, as supported by the International Technical Working Group (ITWG)—a multi-national, informal organization of laboratory scientists, law enforcement personnel, and regulatory officials dedicated to dealing with nuclear security threats…

          The initial smuggling incident was widely discussed when it happened. Sources described to The Atlantic how a 49-year-old mechanic, Oleg Khintsagov, a Russian citizen, went to the Georgian capital of Tbilisi attempting to sell approximately 100g of weapon-grade HEU, carried in a plastic bag. Fortunately for us, and unfortunately for him, Khintsagov’s buyer was an undercover Georgian agent. Although there were some near-misses, Khintsagov was ultimately arrested, tried, and sentenced.

          After Khintsagov was arrested, the Georgian government allowed the seized material to be analyzed by the United States. After this occurred, the Georgians then allowed the United States to give a small sample to the Russians for further analysis, [….]”


    • Alistar says:

      I just wonder if the “judicial” branch of our constitutional republic with the responsibility for these decisions, are as disgusted and ashamed of this activity as I am. Big difference: we trust judges to ask the hard questions and not buy into the lying and deception. Every American in the judicial branch from Chief Justice Roberts down to the latest grad from law school should remember the 4th Ammendment and their sacred responsibility to make sure corrupt and depraved politicians keep their thumb off lady liberty and her scales of justice. Disgraceful betrayal of trust.

      Liked by 1 person

      • G. Combs says:

        The judicial branch has been very badly compromised over the last 100 years.

        “Anyone accused of a crime in this country is entitled to a jury trial.”

        The Constitution may say so but, in fact, this is simply not the case — and becoming less so as politicians fiddle with legal definitions and sentencing standards in order specifically to reduce the number of persons entitled to a trial….

        ….As Thomas Jefferson put it to Tom Paine in a 1789 letter, “I consider trial by jury as the only anchor ever yet imagined by man, by which a government can be held to the principles of its constitution.” ….

        Here is how the politicians have gotten around the US Constitution to make sure citizens are denied their right to a trial:

        [….]The Seventh Amendment, passed by the First Congress without debate, cured the omission by declaring that the right to a jury trial shall be preserved in common-law cases… The Supreme Court has, however, arrived at a more limited interpretation. It applies the amendment’s guarantee to the kinds of cases that “existed under the English common law when the amendment was adopted,” …

        The right to trial by jury is not constitutionally guaranteed in certain classes of civil cases that are concededly “suits at common law,” particularly when “public” or governmental rights are at issue…. the rule is that “[o]nly those incidents which are regarded as fundamental, as inherent in and of the essence of the system of trial by jury, are placed beyond the reach of the legislature.” Markman v. Westview Instruments (1996). In those situations, too, the Seventh Amendment does not restrain congressional choice.

        In contrast to the near-universal support for the civil jury trial in the eighteenth and early nineteenth centuries, modern jurists consider civil jury trial neither “implicit in the concept of ordered liberty,” Palko v. State of Connecticut (1937), nor “fundamental to the American scheme of justice,” Duncan v. Louisiana (1968).!/amendments/7/essays/159/right-to-jury-in-civil-cases

        So there went our last constraint on the Federal government. Without a trial by jury we lost our RIGHT to overrule idiotic laws and regulations via Jury Nullification.

        On top of that Soros has gotten into the act.
        George Soros Buying Judges Now?
        George Soros Still Quietly Buying District Attorneys Seats


  6. Apollo says:

    “Judge Rudolph Contreras is a FISA judge and the original DC circuit presiding judge….”

    Quick correction: Judge Contreras is not on the DC Circuit (which is a federal court of appeals); he’s on the US District Court for DC (which is a step down). The DC Circuit is the nation’s most prestigious court other than the Supreme Court (indeed, 3/9 of the present SCOTUS was on the DC Cir immediately prior to their elevation); the situation would be even more worrying than it already is if Contreras were actually a judge there.

    Liked by 2 people

    • Newt Love says:

      Contreras is a complete fraud. He approved the FISA warrant based on the Steele Memo, and then was happy to execute the guilty plea of LTG Michael Flynn, who was NOT ALLOWED HIS MIRANDA RIGHT TO COUNSEL when (traitor) FIB Agent Peter Strzok “interviewed” him under oath, which the schemer Strzok was able to entrap LTG Michael Flynn into a discrepancy, which the traitorous FIB (not the US FBI) on which they were able to indict LTG Michael Flynn.

      A small clique of like minded people were able to take over the top of the OBAMA FBI and the OBAMA DoJ, and use the FISA courts to indict and press charges against innocent people.

      What’s next? People disappearing in the middle of the night, never to be heard from again? Is Arcanicide to become the normal in these United States?

      Indict, try, and convict (when possible) ALL of the actors in the treasonous events of the OBAMA FBI and OBAMA DoJ, and then the US Congress (House and Senate) need to write new LAWS that will prevent this Lenin-Trotsky attempted coup from ever happening in America again!


      • Newt Love says:

        FISA Court Judge Contreras needs to be impeached!


        • Newt Love says:

          And then after that, former Judge Contreras needs to be indicted, prosecuted, and convicted for his part in this conspiracy to overthrow the US Government, and the Duly Elected President of the United States, President Donald J. Trump.


          • Newt Love says:

            Who knew that the FIB (formerly known as the FBI) were prone to “Judge Shopping” to get a judge who would roll-over and give them what ever they wanted.

            Special School Counselor Robber MuleEar (of the Donkey Party) is likely to employ the same “Judge Shopping” tricks to get his prosecution of the US President in the most virulent courtroom as possible.


  7. John Rawls says:

    Can’t wait for Schiff memo. In anticipation, its worth considering what that pack-of-lies Schiff will concoct; so I’ve looking at how the master narrative about Page is being currently transformed in the media.

    From Newsweek, I noticed… “The Russians were charged in a criminal case in 2015, though Page was not identified as their object of interest until April 2017.” What happened in April 2017? This corresponds to the last known FISA renewal.

    From DBeast, I finally realized the point of Simpson saying people have died over the Dossier. This interjection attempts to further tie Page to Sechin.

    It’s also interesting to compare the DBeast narrative to Page’s transcript. Schiff honed in on Page’s contacts in Moscow trip. Beast makes it seem like a really clandestine affair. I don’t get that from Page’s testimony. Relevant parts start around p. 35 or so.

    Click to access carter_page_hpsci_hearing_transcript_nov_2_2017.pdf

    Liked by 3 people

    • Apollo says:

      Would be amazing if Schiff were foolhardy enough to actually commit lies to paper! I’m almost hoping for it–it’ll make the eventual prosecution that much simpler.

      Liked by 3 people

      • John Rawls says:

        He seems to be a pathological liar. The circumstance is ripe for him to overly spin what’s known. Good chance he’ll over play his hand.

        Liked by 4 people

        • Alistar says:

          Confirmation bias can present a powerful blind spot. I think he, like millions on the left, believe their lies.

          Liked by 2 people

          • G. Combs says:


            The Philosophy Of Karl Marx
            “[…]Marx accepted the philoso­phy of Hegel as the only sound and adequate explanation of the uni­verse. According to this philosophy, “the only immutable thing is the abstraction of movement.” The one universal phenomenon is change, and the only universal form of this phenomenon is its complete abstrac­tion. Thus, Hegel accepted as real only that which existed in the mind. Objective phenomena and events were of no consequence; only the con­ceptions of them possessed by human minds were real. Ideas, not ob­jects, were the stuff of which the universe was made. The universe and all events therein existed and took place only in the mind, and any change was a change in ideas.[…]”

            This is why it is impossible to win an argument with a Marxist using objective reality. It is also why the idea of CONSENSUS was such a large part of the Global Warming arguments of the Marxists.
            “[…]To Marx the thing the mind perceived was realty in itself. Objective existence was exterior to the mind of man, and ideas were the reflections of those exterior phenomena. The phenomena to be explained were there­fore the objective events in the universe and not the ideas of those events residing within the mind. It might be said that Marx rejected Hegel’s idealism and substituted for it realism. The thesis and antithesis became to Marx actual opposing forces existing in the universe, with synthesis the resulting objective phenomenon that, becoming in its turn thesis or antithesis, played its part in the creation of a new synthetic phenomenon.[…]”

            The IPCC mandate states:

            The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) was established by the United Nations Environmental Programme (UNEP) and the World Meteorological Organization (WMO) in 1988 to assess the scientific, technical and socio-economic information relevant for the understanding of human induced climate change, its potential impacts and options for mitigation and adaptation.

            Humans were tried and found guilty BEFORE the IPCC ever looked at a scientific fact. The IPCC mandate is not to figure out what factors effect the climate but to dig up the facts needed to hang the human race. The IPCC assumes the role of prosecution and and the skeptics that of the defense but the judge (aka the media) refuses to allow the defense council into the court room. Academia is providing the manufactured evidence to ‘frame’ the human race and they are KNOWINGLY doing so. In other words Academics who prides themselves as being ‘lofty socialists’ untainted by plebeian capitalism are KNOWINGLY selling the rest of the human race into the slavery designed by the bankers and corporate elite. (Agenda 21)

            “We need to get some broad based support, to capture the public’s imagination… So we have to offer up scary scenarios, make simplified, dramatic statements and make little mention of any doubts… Each of us has to decide what the right balance is between being effective and being honest.” ~ Prof. Stephen Schneider, Stanford Professor of Climatology, lead author of many IPCC reports

            “The data doesn’t matter. We’re not basing our recommendations on the data. We’re basing them on the climate models.” ~ Prof. Chris Folland, Hadley Centre for Climate Prediction and Research

            “The models are convenient fictions that provide something very useful.” ~ Dr David Frame, climate modeler, Oxford University

            “The only way to get our society to truly change is to frighten people with the possibility of a catastrophe.” ~ Daniel Botkin emeritus professor Department of Ecology, Evolution, and Marine Biology, University of California, Santa Barbara.


      • I look forward to White House Counsel asking Schiff to swear under oath that his memo is TRUE and supported FULLY by ALL of his ATTACHED EVIDENCE that he has PERSONALLY VETTED as CORROBORATED by MULTIPLE UNIMPEACHABLE SOURCES.

        Liked by 2 people

  8. mormoninsider says: Breitbart has not been my favorite site but this good.
    The so-called Russian Dossier, the creation of Fusion GPS and former British spy Christopher Steele, is a political document — namely, opposition research, created for the Democrat National Committee and Hillary Clinton’s 2016 presidential campaign.
    Using what it knew was opposition research paid for by the Clinton campaign, in October of 2016, the FBI and DOJ obtained a FISA warrant from the secret Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court to install a wiretap to spy on Hillary Clinton’s opponent — the Trump campaign, specifically Carter Page. This spying would last for a year.
    It should be noted that the FISA court was set up to stop foreign terrorists. The fact that the FBI and DOJ would use this court to not only wiretap an American but to wiretap a presidential campaign belies belief. Why Obama’s FBI and DOJ used this court as opposed to a normal court is obvious. As you will see below, a normal court probably would have denied the wiretap.
    Worse still, in the summer of 2016, Obama’s DOJ had already opened a counter-intelligence investigation into the Trump campaign. The fact that nothing from that months-old partisan investigation was used to obtain the Page wiretap is revealing.
    According to the Nunes memo, an “essential” part of the FISA wiretap application was the Steele dossier, which again is a partisan political document created for the Clinton campaign.
    So essential was this partisan dossier, Andrew McCabe, the disgraced former-Deputy Director of the FBI, admitted in December that “no surveillance warrant would have been sought” without the dossier.
    Not only did the FBI knowingly use a document from a partisan campaign to obtain a FISA warrant to spy on the competing campaign, the FBI knew the dossier was mostly “salacious and unverified.” We know this because disgraced former-FBI Director James Comey told us so in June of 2017.
    According to the Nunes memo, “Steele told [former FBI official Bruce] Ohr, he ‘was desperate that Donald Trump not get elected and was passionate about him not being president.’”
    Ohr, who was part of the FBI’s anti-Trump Russian investigation, was not only friendly with Steele, Ohr’s own wife worked with Steele at Fusion GPS doing opposition research (the dossier) against Trump for the Clinton campaign.
    Despite a) knowing the dossier was opposition research paid for by the Clinton campaign b) knowing the dossier was “salacious and unverified” c) knowing Steele was desperate to destroy Trump d) the breathtaking conflict of interest in having an investigator’s own wife working on the dossier, the FBI still went to the FISA court to obtain permission to spy on Hillary Clinton’s opponent.
    In order to obtain a warrant to spy on the Trump campaign, all of the conflicts of interest above were withheld from the FISA court — an indefensible (and possibly illegal) lie of omission.
    Even worse, in order to legitimize a warrant request based on a piece of partisan opposition research they knew was “salacious and unverified,” the FBI and DOJ used a media report to bolster the findings in the phony dossier. The FBI and DOJ told the court that the media report was independent verification of the dossier. But this was not true, and, according to the Nunes memo, the FBI and DOJ knew this was not true. The truth is that the phony dossier was the source of this media report.
    Also hidden from the FISA court was the fact that the FBI obtained Steele as a source but had to fire him in October of 2016 when, in a bid to use his phony dossier to derail the Trump campaign, he leaked his information to the far-left Mother Jones.
    Although the FBI and DOJ were willing participants in pushing a “salacious and unverified” narrative against a presidential candidate (primarily through media leaks), this was all hidden from congressional investigators. To begin with, for months, while under oath, Comey said he did not know where the dossier came from — meaning from the Clinton campaign. The Wall Street Journal explains:
    We also know the FBI wasn’t straight with Congress, as it hid most of these facts from investigators in a briefing on the dossier in January 2017. The FBI did not tell Congress about Mr. Steele’s connection to the Clinton campaign, and the House had to issue subpoenas for Fusion bank records to discover the truth. Nor did the FBI tell investigators that it continued receiving information from Mr. Steele and Fusion even after it had terminated him. The memo says the bureau’s intermediary was Justice Department official Bruce Ohr, whose wife, incredibly, worked for Fusion.

    All of this dishonesty occurred under Comey, the man our media now hold up as a living saint, a man so desperate to destroy Trump, he not only oversaw those committing the above abuses, he leaked classified information to the news media in order to see a Special Prosecutor appointed against Trump, which his pal, Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein, immediately did.
    And finally…

    16. Much of the “salacious and unverified” material in the dossier came from the Russians. In other words, those disgusting dossier lies about Trump’s personal behavior came from Russian operatives. So there is no question that it was the Clinton campaign, Democrats, Steele, the FBI, and DOJ who colluded with the Russians to rig a presidential election.

    Liked by 6 people

    • Every regular reader at the Treehouse already knows this because of the work that Sundance and Dave from NY have done over the past year… need to give Breitbart credit for them suddenly having a “A-Ha Moment”.
      It wouldn’t surprise me if they didn’t purloin sundance’s investigatory work.

      Liked by 4 people

    • Newt Love says:

      Glad you are catching up on the material so far.
      Read the CTR post on the Page being investigated under FISA (702) (and not FISA (703)).

      The FIB (the agency formerly known as FBI) had put Carter Page in as a person working for a foreign government, (Russia) so that as such, they could readily collect on ANY US PERSON who was part of a call, a conference call, or an email with Carter Page.

      That gave the FIB (the agency formerly known as FBI) complete FISA (702) access (including collateral collection) to anyone directly in communication with Carter Page. That also extended the reach of the FISA (703) access to “About” inquiries, giving a deeper penetration into the Trump circle.

      Crafty little batterds in the FIB (the agency formerly known as FBI) ! ! !


      • Newt Love says:

        Ooops! I didn’t fix a cut and paste typo!
        “complete FISA (702) access” should have been “complete FISA (703) access”


  9. MaineCoon says:

    Linked is an June 2013 article that details the rotational system of the FISC judges court.

    FTA: “Selected by the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court, FISA judges serve for staggered seven-year terms. Although the court carries 11 judges at a time, 14 have served this year because of routine turnover.”

    If the above 2013 circumstances held for the timeframe of the warrants in question, might there have neen 14 potential FISC judges not just 11 in the above chart?

    FTA: Every few months, the FISA judges set aside their regular, public cases, travel to Washington, and take the bench inside a secure, windowless courtroom at 333 Constitution Avenue. Prosecutors and federal agents appear to answer questions about warrants before individual judges, rather than a panel.

    Generally, the judges rotate on a week-long schedule. Three judges live in the Washington area and are available for emergencies. FISA judges do not receive extra pay.”

    It seems that the rotational sequence of the sitting FISC judges plus the routine turnover (expiring term/new term judges) could potentially result in a different judge each time the warrant was issued plus the 3 renewals.

    One would have to review the warrant applications to see which judges approved/renewed them and review the rotational timeline of the FISC judges over that time frame to determine if it was the ordinary sequence or if something suspicious occurred, imo.

    Liked by 2 people

  10. Curious what you think of this thread from twitter. Pertains to the memo as well as an insight into James Clapper and the fisa process discussed in the memo.

    Liked by 3 people

  11. D. Manny says:

    2016-03-10 Rick Wilson tweets: I wish I had control of The Thing
    2016-03-11 Rick WIlson tweets about “The thing” again, indicating it is not his property
    2016-03-11 Rick Wilson tweets: Dear media outlets in possession of The Thing; I know you’re scared about legal. Have an intern post it on YouTube and then “discover” it.
    Sort of like, you need to put it on Yahoo and then pretend you “discover” it?

    Liked by 2 people

  12. Stormyeyes says:

    Liked by 2 people

  13. tazz2293 says:

    FISA/FISC – In the aftermath of 9/11, Americans wanting to feel a bit safer in essence handed over even more of their liberties and freedom to a nameless/faceless government and to a secret court/judge.

    Amendment IV
    The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

    He who would trade liberty for some temporary security, deserves neither liberty nor security.

    Liked by 5 people

    • ForGodandCountry says:

      I don’t think it’s a stretch to say America is getting dumb and dumber.

      Then again, that’s just what the Goebbelists have been wanting and working very hard for for quite some time now.

      Liked by 3 people

      • tazz2293 says:

        Let’s just hope more and more are waking up.

        I chastised some yesterday for appearing to have given up. Today I am of a similar mind though I have not given up. I just see that the whole thing may be too out of control for one good man to make right.

        If President Trump and We the People are not successful we will have no other choice than to capitulate to our would be masters or bear arms against those who would impose their tyranny on us.

        “The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time, with the blood of patriots and tyrants. It is its natural manure.”. Thomas Jefferson

        It has been too long and the tree is sick from the inside out.

        Liked by 3 people

        • WSB says:

          Tazz, I always have hope. I remember how deluded we were in 1979, wearing sweaters with elbow patches, sitting in gas lines and not flushing toilets until really necessary. What was the chant? ‘If it’s yellow, let it mellow. If it’s brown, flush it down.’

          Then came the inauguration ball for Nancy and Ronnie.

          Next thing you know, two years later, we are up to our eyeballs in shoulder pads, makeup, jewelry and suits, suits, suits!

          It was the Shining City on the Hill!!!!!

          Liked by 1 person

    • kallibella says:

      Agree. I remember feeling really angry at this decision to give the Government more power and especially this kind of power.
      I was so angry at how they were treating us, and I hated the fact that my government considered me a suspect every time I bought a plane ticket and wanted/needed to fly somewhere. All this because of what? Remember???!!!! Political correctness: the Government did NOT want to profile and consequently plenty of gradmas’ had their knitting needles confiscated by TSA and plenty of little kids were padded down and possibly had their diapers inspected.

      Liked by 4 people

    • cboldt says:

      FISA dates back to 1970’s. United States v. United States District Court, 407 U.S. 297 (1972) [“Keith” case] was a significant impetus.
      Warrantless FISA (1802) was the hot topic in the wake of 9/11.

      Liked by 2 people

    • Bakokitty says:

      Funny,but not so funny, but I did not vote to give away my 4th amendment rights to nameless govt. entities nor do I believe the majority of Americans voted to do this either.
      I think this entire concept of a government agency that hold rulings in secret must be abolished, it violates the very some of reasons this country was founded upon.
      Freedom of speech, association.

      Liked by 3 people

    • I did not ever support the Patriot Act stuff…all clearly an abridgement of our constitutional rights…all done by Bush…and now used by obama/Dems,,,what’s the difference. Secret courts imo are clearly unconstitutional…who in their right mind would think that was ok.

      Liked by 1 person

  14. phoenixRising says:

    Liked by 2 people

  15. Bulldog84 says:

    Having worked for a non-DC judge who was on the FISA court (some time ago), my understanding was that they generally take turns presiding in non-emergent cases. A non-DC judge will be scheduled well in advance to travel to DC for a session.

    If things there are still run this way, it’s virtually impossible to guess who could have presided over a particular warrant application.

    Liked by 3 people

    • Chickficshun says:

      Actually to me that would indicate you could know who will be presiding if it scheduled well in advance. If you know a judge is on a regular rotation. Just wait for his rotation. Those warrants are for 90 days. Who says you have to wait the whole 90 days to renew. There are 11 judges who serve 1 week at a time. So a complete rotation is 11 weeks.
      So find the FISA judge schedule, if it exists and match up the renewal dates. Actually look at the renewal dates and see if the are exactly a certain number of weeks apart everytime.

      Liked by 2 people

      • MaineCoon says:

        That doesn’t take into acount the routine expirtion of terms with replacement of new judges thrown into the rotation as explained in my upthread post. This could explain the high likiliehood of having different judges execute the warrants.

        Liked by 1 person

        • Frederick says:

          Each Judge was simply EXTENDING the original first warrant. Each of those extensions could have been done days or weeks or even months BEFORE the prior one expired. The ‘probability’ shown is meaningless because the renewal requests were not random.


  16. AH_C says:

    Since CJ Roberts has oversight of the FISC, could he also sign off?

    Liked by 1 person

  17. Deplorable_Vespucciland says:

    Those judges approved 99% of applications over the years because they believed in those who brought them. Thanks to this recently exposed abuse of trust, those days are over.

    Liked by 2 people

  18. Ziiggii says:

    Liked by 2 people

  19. anthohmy says:

    FBI on boarding Boente right now despite his John Hancock on the renewal. Trump signed an EO to put him in the spot where he could actively participate in putting a bogus request before the Court.

    Boente is still standing, the Judge isn’t.


  20. rozelave says:

    is Carter Page still being wire tapped today?


    • Chickficshun says:

      Seriously. Poor shlub. I hope he sues the f’ing pants off everyone and make a mint.
      Sssions is busy settling and apologizing to IRS targeted victim groups. Maybe he should help this guy out.

      Liked by 1 person

  21. Donna in Oregon says:

    I noted this article about Judge will rule due to Nunes Memo on FOIA case.
    WASHINGTON (CNN) – A federal judge told the Department of Justice to explain why the release of the House Intelligence Committee’s memo today shouldn’t force investigators to acknowledge the existence of more records related to foreign surveillance.

    So here is the case this article refers to:

    District District of Columbia
    City Washington, DC
    Case Number 1:2017cv01392
    Date Filed 2017-07-14
    Date Closed Open
    Judge Judge Amy Berman Jackson
    Plaintiff JOSH GERSTEIN
    Case Description The James Madison Project and Politico reporter Josh Gerstein submitted FOIA requests to the Department of Justice for records concerning any communications between DOJ and the FBI as to whether President Trump was a target of or a material witness to any investigation. The James Madison Project and Gerstein also requested expedited processing. The agency granted expedited processing but took a 10-day extension for unusual circumstances. The James Madison Project and Gerstein also submitted a FOIA request to the FBI for records for the same information. The agency refused to confirm the existence or non-existence of records under Exemption 7(A) (interference with ongoing investigation or proceeding) and Exemption 7(E) (investigative methods and techniques). The James Madison Project and Gerstein filed an administrative appeal of the FBI’s denial, which was upheld. The James Madison Project and Gerstein then filed suit on both requests.
    Complaint issues: Litigation – Attorney’s fees, Failure to respond within statutory time limit


  22. phoenixRising says:

    Liked by 2 people

  23. David Vicknair says:

    What’s with these FISA judges? Did they exercise even a modicum of professional skepticism? A dossier that on its face could not be the product of a professional investigator, corrobated by a Yahoo article? Yahoo? Really? Or, as the stastics suggest, are they just a rubber stamp in a too cozy relationship?


  24. phoenixRising says:


  25. phoenixRising says:

    Liked by 2 people

  26. phoenixRising says:

    Liked by 2 people

  27. Paula says:

    Wow, you did your homework. I found the FISA Court link a few days ago and, I too, noticed there were only 3 FISA judges in D.C.

    I know Contreras was appointed by Obama, but I am not sure about the other two.

    And, why did Contreras recuse himself from the Flynn case? There are so many unanswered questions and it all comes back to the FISA Court. What was presented in the FISA application?

    Liked by 2 people

  28. jeans2nd says:

    It has been said that the initial FISA order request for Carter Page surveillance was denied.

    It is known that a re-application for a FISA order may be made, but must be made to the same FISC judge.

    But there is another way to gain a FISA order authorization – appeal a denial to the FISC Court of Review, of which there are three judges
    This may be how the four judges were achieved lawfully. FISCR dockets are obviously not made public. Only two are shown on FISCR website
    Interesting that of those two public cases, John Carlin’s name is on one of the filings.

    As researched so far, it appears that re-authorization may go to any of those three judges, but definitive answer is unknown at this time by me. Lack of legal knowledge is def a hindrance.
    Hopefully another knows for sure.

    Liked by 1 person

    • jeans2nd says:

      If the origianl request for the Page FISA order was denied and then subsequently appealed and approved by the FISCR, this would explain the sudden recusal from the Gen Flynn case of Judge Contreras. Contreras may have heard the Jim Jordan question at that day’s House Cmte hearing and realized what happened and why Contreras never saw the re-application again.

      Contreras was a Joe Biden guy, ostensibly an honest straight-shooter – doubtful, being a Biden guy – who may have been too much of a FISC noob to start playing the game.

      At any rate, does Gen Flynn’s attorney not have copies of the FISA orders? If so, Gen Flynn et al know for certain.

      Wld sure like to know if this was the case. Seems like an Obama-Holder-Lynch type of thing to do.
      Rather than re-evaluating your case, improving the case, and re-submitting, bypass the original obstinate judge by appealing and appealing, hammering the judge(s) and the other guy until they run out of money and hope and give up.
      Re-evaluating, improving the argument, and re-submitting is not how these guys operate.

      Liked by 1 person

      • WSB says:

        Great info, jeans2nd.

        My question is…Contreras did not recuse himself. Recusal was not the correct term. He was removed by someone who knew something about something. Obviously, the Flynn case and any previous ones.

        Roberts has oversight over the court. Also, Congress has oversight, and there is a judicial council for grievances. Who removed Contreras?

        Liked by 1 person

    • Nematoad says:

      FISC Review:
      Bryson, William Curtis – Nominated by William J. Clinton on June 22, 1994
      Cabranes, Jose Alberto – Nominated by William J. Clinton on May 24, 1994
      Tallman, Richard C.- Nominated by William J. Clinton on October 20, 1999

      Liked by 1 person

  29. keeler says:

    Contreras was appointed by Obama (nominated July 28, 2011, confirmed March 22nd, 2012.

    Taking the Wall Street Journal’s word at face value that “all of those judges were appointed by Republican Presidents” this would eliminate from Contreras from being one of the four but raises further questions about his recusal from the Flynn case.

    It goes without saying that I am not willing to completely dismiss Contreras based on this report.

    FISA Court Appointments:

    Collyer: GW Bush
    Boasberg: Obama
    Contreras: Obama
    Conway: GW Bush
    Dearie: Reagan
    Eagan: GW Bush
    Jones: Clinton
    Kugler: GW Bush
    Mosman: GW Bush
    Russel: Clinton
    Saylor: GW Bush

    Again, assuming for the moment that the WSJ is correct, this leaves seven candidates for four separate approvals/renewals.

    Another tangles in this mess is the fact that the Washington Post claimed on April 11, 2017 the FBI obtained a FISA warrant for Page in the summer of 2016. This cannot be true given that we now know Page’s FISA warrant dates to October 21, 2016.

    Interestingly, the Post article states that the “summer” FISA warrant was renewed more than once, which we now know was true of the actual FISA warrant. It would therefore appear that the original Post story was conflating whatever constituted the previous Page surveillance with the October 2016 FISA warrant, which someone had apparently leaked to them.

    Is it possible that Contreras’ recusal had nothing to do with the October FISA but with some involvement in the prior Page surveillance (which would have also predated his term on the FISA court, which began May 19, 2016)?


  30. Stormyeyes says:

    Carter FISA judge and Flynn judge one and the same…………..Contraras


  31. truthbomb says:

    @ThomasWictor thinks that Contreras was corrupt and that the only way to determine was to continue submitting phony FISA order request. Wictor thinks this is why Rosenstein (who prosecuted General Cartwright for STUXNET leak despite heavy Obama opposition and eventual Obama pardon (Strzok is related to Cartwright – uncle of Strzok’s first cousin)), signed off on additional FISA order request.

    Liked by 1 person

  32. says:

    As the affiant of a warrant you want to stay with the same judge because going to a new judge means the new judge has to read the original (primary) warrant, wasting the investigators time. if you stick with the same judge, they merely have to read each warrant extension. The original signed affidavit stays with the court clerk, and is preserved as a legal document.

    The FBI investigators would then write reports during their surveillance (most often recorded and then transcribed) to support their, hopefully, forward moving investigation, as evidence. The FISA court request for extensions should include the newest evidence of probable cause in order to support the extension. It makes no sense, and would not fly, to get three extensions with no additional evidence. It will be interesting to see what had been presented, and who the affiant was that swore to this evidence.

    All of this we be a matter of having the FISA courts release copies of the original warrants. The FBI should release their reports to include this supporting evidence. This is all a matter of record.
    Using all different judges means that all of them will likely remember the affidavit since who would forget such a request?

    Liked by 1 person

  33. Rynn69 says:

    And, the point is? All FISA judges appointed under Obama. In my opinion, has any Obama appointee been clean without destructive ideology? I don’t think so.


  34. TwoLaine says:

    THIS might explain why they say a Republican put them there. It’s a subtle nuance, but we know how devious these media people are.

    Two things on Wikipedia jump out at me:

    -1- “In 2011, the Obama administration secretly won permission from the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court to reverse restrictions on the National Security Agency’s use of intercepted phone calls and e-mails, permitting the agency to search deliberately for Americans’ communications in its massive databases. The searches take place under a surveillance program Congress authorized in 2008 under Section 702 of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act. Under that law, the target must be a foreigner “reasonably believed” to be outside the United States, and the court must approve the targeting procedures in an order good for one year. But a warrant for each target would thus no longer be required. That means that communications with Americans could be picked up without a court first determining that there is probable cause that the people they were talking to were terrorists, spies or “foreign powers”. The FISC also extended the length of time that the NSA is allowed to retain intercepted U.S. communications from five years to six years with an extension possible for foreign intelligence or counterintelligence purposes. Both measures were done without public debate or any specific authority from Congress.[13]”

    -2- “On Fox News on March 14, commentator Andrew Napolitano said, “Three intelligence sources have informed Fox News that President Obama went outside the chain of command. … He used GCHQ. What is that? It’s the initials for the British intelligence spying agency. Simply by saying to them, ‘The president needs transcripts of conversations involving candidate Trump’s conversations’ he’s able to get it and there’s no American fingerprints on this.” Two days later, on March 16, White House press spokesperson, Sean Spicer, read this claim to the press. A GCHQ spokesman responded: “Recent allegations made by media commentator Judge Andrew Napolitano about GCHQ being asked to conduct ‘wiretapping’ against the then president elect are nonsense. They are utterly ridiculous and should be ignored.”[76] On March 17, the US made a formal apology to Britain for the accusation.[77]”


    • TwoLaine says:

      The lyin’ Jessica Tarlov just said, “4 Republican Appointees”, i.e., SCOTUS Justice John Roberts, allegedly a Republican.

      That doesn’t mean they got their judgeship through a Republican, they were just appointed to this temp FISC judgeship position by the only person charged with the responsibility to make appointments, an alleged R.


  35. John Hopkins says:

    Don’t get lost in this dossier and forget that the storm has just started. The rumors of another anti-trump dossier written by a political hack that was used as well is a fact. Hillary will be front and center. Grass over in the Senate is on this one as well as Nunes. Storm just started


  36. Carey C says:

    There are 2 Judges on the FISA Court currently that became Federal Judges after being appointed by Barack Obama. Contreras and Boasberg. BOTH are involved in this fiasco. (Yes, I know John Roberts put these 11 judges on the FISA court, Presidents made them Federal Judges first.) Rudolph Contreras signed at least one of the spying warrants and he also accepted the Flynn plea before being recused. James Boasberg just blocked the release of the Comey memo to both the Congress and the public. He chose to allow Robert Mueller the only access to them. I believe the contents of those memos will be the method of entrapment Mueller will use against Trump to get him to say something different that Comey’s memos. Comey set up Trump, knowing he was documenting conversations while Trump was not. In court, written memos done at the time are held to be more accurate than someone’s memory recall of a conversation in the past. Comey knows this. Comey is a slime ball. It is beyond Vegas odds to think that out of 11 FISA Judges, the two Obama judges are both involved. Know also that at least 3 FISA judges must live within I think 23 miles of Washington DC so they can react quickly to warrant requests. The DOJ and FBI and Intell agencies all know the FISA Court calendar of judges and which ones are on call. It is not beyond reality to shop for the FISA Judge you feel will be most likely to approve your warrant request. The process is seriously tainted and needs reform. When the FBI, DOJ and Intelligence perhaps collude with the Judiciary, we are screwed out of due process and have no protection of the Constitution. Look at Flynn and Page and Manafort…their lives can be ruined and bankrupted by warrantless wiretaps and surveillance and secret courts and Grand Juries with no lawyer present for them.


  37. Don Bryan says:

    All it takes is unverified dirt to launch an FBI impeachment campaign against a presidential nominee or president. Hillary and the Obama administration wielded lots of power and liberals in the FBI/DOJ wielded even more by securing FISA warrants in a court system that is flawed, or,
    where FISA applications were fraudulently entered and approved.

    This was not an investigation against Page that serendipitously found the president.
    The FBI, DOJ, and the FISA court system need to be thoroughly investigated with
    grand juries, subpeonas and prosecutions where necessary.


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s