Sally Moyer Transcript…

Sally Moyer was FBI unit chief in the Office of General Counsel (counterintelligence legal unit within the FBI Office of General Counsel). Moyer reported to an unnamed section chief, who reported to Trisha Beth Anderson, who was deputy legal counsel to James Baker.

Ms. Moyer is responsible for the legal compliance within the FBI counterintelligence operations that generated FISA applications:

Pictured Above:  Ms. Sally Moyer

A review of the transcript clarifies a few aspects:

First, the DOJ/FBI team, “the small group”, specifically the legal officials who were ultimately participating in the process that permits politicization and weaponization of government intelligence systems, was also the exact same legal group who reviewed (and approved) the internal inspector general report which outlined their activity.

In essence, the DOJ/FBI bureaucratic corruption is so widespread, the corrupt officials involved are the same people who are the decision-makers in the amount of sunlight the Office of Inspect General is allowed to put forth.  Now the disconnect between the OIG executive summary and the body of content material makes sense:

Secondly, Ms. Moyer explains how verification of the FISA application used against U.S. Person Carter Page is essentially just making sure the citations align to show who is making the claims.

The underlying FISA application material does not need to be verified; rather the source material is just accurately cited and attributed.

Ultimately what this testimony reveals is that any U.S. person can be subjected to a Title-1 FISA surveillance warrant so long as the FBI (and DOJ) can accurately cite the reason for the underlying suspicion.

The merit of the accusation has nothing to do with the citation for the claim.

Consequence – (1) If this approach, and legal outlook, is factually accurate and acceptable, then no FISA abuse is possible from an Inspector General review. (2) The people making the determination of legal acceptability for the IG, are the same people writing the FISA applications being reviewed by the IG.

FUBAR.

It’s circular.

If this legal analysis is accurate, they all get away.

Advertisements
This entry was posted in 4th Amendment, 6th Amendment, Abusive Cops, AG Bill Barr, Big Government, Big Stupid Government, Cold Anger, Conspiracy ?, Decepticons, Deep State, Dem Hypocrisy, Dept Of Justice, FBI, IG Report FISA Abuse, media bias, Notorious Liars, President Trump, Spygate, Spying, THE BIG UGLY, Typical Prog Behavior, Uncategorized, White House Coverup. Bookmark the permalink.

352 Responses to Sally Moyer Transcript…

  1. Arrest Soros says:

    Why would this cabal work so hard to cover their tracks if they didn’t do anything illegal?
    This doesn’t make sense if you believe the cabal set up the SC to cover their tracks.

    Liked by 3 people

    • CopperTop says:

      Yes. Because the Predicate is NOT under FISA but under plain old rule of law. They don’t have the predicate. They tried to manufacture predicate after manufacturing the investigation.

      I’m more hopeful than ever. Predicate matters to Barr. ‘PRESIDENT Trump’ may not but PRESIDENT OF US does.

      Liked by 1 person

    • Zorro says:

      Trump was supposed to resign, like a good little rino, at the mere mention of a sc.

      .

      Liked by 1 person

  2. Justin Green says:

    Again, Woods Procedures be damned. May as well call them the MSLA Guide to Footnoting Term Papers. Which is why the FBI would hire rank amateurs like Stzrok and Page. Political leaning is more important than competence.

    My fourth grader has had to document a “research paper”. That’s all this appears to be, and if so, it doesn’t suffice to meet the burdens of the Fourth and Fifth Amendment. Period.

    Liked by 4 people

    • CopperTop says:

      ^^^^all day J GREEN ^^^

      Like

    • Ackman420 says:

      Lol, thats what I was thinking. It doesn’t take more than a B grade quality term research paper in Political Economy 101 to get a FISA warrant? WTF?
      It’s as if these people are hired out of school and they just keep writing the same mediocre research papers, but these papers ruin people’s lives and shape the direction of our country?!
      That is some serious BS, and no amount of “training” is going to satisfy patriotic Americans.
      Terminations and prosecutions.

      Liked by 2 people

    • richard verney says:

      I do not know what the position is in the United States, but in the UK (and all other Common law countries), it is well settled, that when making an ex parte Application (ie., one where the Defendant is not respresented, and the Court relies upon evidence and argument presented only by the Applicant), that the Applicant is under an obligation to make full and frank disclosure of all relevant and material facts. This extents to facts that counter the Applicant’s position, or which favour the (unrepresented) Defendant (Respondent).

      Obviously US law differes from the position in England (and the ex Commonwealth countries), but often there is considerable similarities. It would very much surprise me if there is not a similar obligation/provision under US law withregard to this particular obligation.

      Like

  3. Earl says:

    I think the overall effort by the federal law enforcement and intelligence community to illegally spy on and frame Donald Trump and members of his campaign is best considered as a ‘conspiracy against rights’ in the federal criminal code, acting to oppress them from their civil right to participate in a presidential election free from unlawful government surveillance or entrapment.

    Proof of a conscious failure to abide by internal procedures such as the Woods procedures should be admissible against the conspirators as probative evidence on the element of criminal intent.

    It appears Sally Moyer is trying out a defense of interpreting the Woods procedures as not requiring substantive corroboration of allegations contained in a US person FISA surveillance warrant application, but merely corroboration that a facts alleged in the application is alleged in some underlying assertion somewhere in the file.

    For example, according to Sally’s claim of how it works, an assertion that the FBI has probable cause to believe a hacking network was run out of the Russian consulate in Miami is corroborated under the Woods procedures by checking the paperwork to see if somewhere in a 302 someone claimed that this was occurring. Not that they were required to verify the allegation itself, for example by checking to see if there really is a Russian consulate in Miami.

    A major problem in bringing criminal charges against the conspirators is the amount of time that has been allowed to pass without a criminal investigation. To prove a conspiracy one of the most important pieces of evidence is communications among the conspirators. These may not now all be available because of the passage of time.

    Liked by 2 people

    • Will Hunt says:

      why this has been allowed to drag on interminably without any corrective action is yet a mystery. I would suggest that in the current environment of electronic communication (of which these people apparently took enormous and carefree advantage) may be negate the adverse impact of the passage of time…. may…

      Like

  4. Jim in TN says:

    Every time a new fact comes out, we find yet more DOJ agencies that display deep corruption in these and other Obama matters.

    Need to take out a good guy that is in the way? Need to put in bad guys that should have been recused? No problem. We have a corrupt section that handles recusals.

    Need to protect personnel that had an IRS employee break the law and give them tax information on their political enemies? No problem. We have a corrupt group that will decide she shouldn’t be prosecuted.

    There are so many of these corrupt groups that have stepped up to protect their guilty fellows that I am losing track of all of them. Redactions – hide our crimes. Review the IG investigation – hide our crimes.

    The laws are not being faithfully executed. The government gives itself a pass. And outsiders are screwed.

    The only thing sure, is that when people start saying somebody from the DOJ is honorable, you can depend on them being corrupt as hell.

    Liked by 9 people

    • Will Hunt says:

      Mr. Barr needs to take a very careful look at the “redaction” policy – who can do it; when they can do; why they can do it; approval process and penalties for violation of the policy

      Like

  5. TexasDude says:

    Uhm … just because something like say a probable cause affidavit has the form and appearance of being legal and legit does not mean it really is.

    If the affidavit is misleading due to factual errors such as withholding exculpatory evidence or the underlying facts were not really factual, but lies that were not investigated and taken at face value means it is invalid and the fruit of the poisonous tree legal concept is in play.

    Yes, while this an intel op against the President, it is also, at the same time, a criminal investigation and every legal precedent and established legal thought on civil rights is in play.

    Liked by 8 people

    • CopperTop says:

      ^^^ all day to you too my man texasDUDE^^^…

      I’m starting to wonder if this SD post is a loyalty test for those of us sticking to what we know about our basic Constitutional protections. ha.

      Liked by 1 person

    • Pale rider says:

      What about international law, Do our civil rights come into play? A whole lot of this doesn’t make sense.
      Just my “conspiracy theory” gone wild but, what if we already are under a globalist international court system? Would make more sense then trying to understand why the constitutional law is being ignored.
      It won’t be a war that implements these changes it will be a process. Once accepted freedoms will be eroded, as we see now. But, just my crazy imagination I’m sure.

      Liked by 1 person

  6. CopperTop says:

    REMINDER: GOWDY (ugh but occasionally useful) oh about a month ago.

    “If a Federal officer records someone even in place where recording by one party is legal. It ain’t legal for that officer to do this.”

    Liked by 3 people

  7. L4grasshopper says:

    Consequence – (1) If this approach, and legal outlook, is factually accurate and acceptable, then no FISA abuse is possible from an Inspector General review. (2) The people making the determination of legal acceptability for the IG, are the same people writing the FISA applications being reviewed by the IG.
    =====
    In all seriousness….IF this is how the FISA process has always worked, THEN we are much farther down the toilet than we ever thought.

    If the CONTENT of supporting information does NOT have to be vetted, but only that X said Y — then just holy scheiss!

    Liked by 7 people

  8. Carrie says:

    It appears to me that Moyers is trying out the Hillary Clinton “no intent” defense that ignorance of the law makes her innocent. The Woods procedure (to my knowledge) has a history and a specific application.
    As per the Hill article by Sharryl Atkinson:

    https://thehill.com/opinion/campaign/372233-nunes-memo-raises-question-did-fbi-violate-woods-procedures

    “Woods Procedures were named for Michael Woods, the FBI official who drafted the rules as head of the Office of General Counsel’s National Security Law Unit. They were instituted in April 2001 to “ensure accuracy with regard to … the facts supporting probable cause” after recurring instances, presumably inadvertent, in which the FBI had presented inaccurate information to the FISA court.

    Prior to Woods Procedures, “[i]ncorrect information was repeated in subsequent and related FISA packages,” the FBI told Congress in August 2003. “By signing and swearing to the declaration, the headquarters agent is attesting to knowledge of what is contained in the declaration.”

    It’s incredible to think of how many FBI and Justice Department officials would have touched the multiple applications to wiretap Trump campaign adviser Carter Page — allegedly granted, at least in part, on the basis of unverified and thus prohibited information — if normal procedures were followed.”

    In addition, multiple steps and levels of people in the FBI are used to further ensure unverified information is not used:

    “According to former FBI agent Asha Rangappa, who wrote of the process last year in JustSecurity.org, the completed FISA application requires approval through the FBI chain of command “including a Supervisor, the Chief Division Counsel (the highest lawyer within that FBI field office), and finally, the Special Agent in Charge of the field office, before making its way to FBI Headquarters to get approval by (at least) the Unit-level Supervisor there.”

    At FBI headquarters, an “action memorandum” is prepared with additional facts culled by analytical personnel assigned to espionage allegations involving certain foreign powers.

    Next, it goes to the Justice Department “where attorneys from the National Security Division comb through the application to verify all the assertions made in it,” wrote Rangappa. “DOJ verifies the accuracy of every fact stated in the application. If anything looks unsubstantiated, the application is sent back to the FBI to provide additional evidentiary support – this game of bureaucratic chutes and ladders continues until DOJ is satisfied that the facts in the FISA application can both be corroborated and meet the legal standards for the court. After getting sign-off from a senior DOJ official (finally!).”

    There’s more

    But there are even more reviews and processes regarding government applications for wiretaps designed to make sure inaccurate or unverified information isn’t used.

    In November 2002, the FBI implemented a special FISA Unit with a unit chief and six staffers, and installed an automated tracking system that connects field offices, headquarters, the National Security Law Branch and the Office of Intelligence, allowing participants to track the process during each stage.

    Starting March 1, 2003, the FBI required field offices to confirm they’ve verified the accuracy of facts presented to the court through the case agent, the field office’s Chief Division Counsel and the Special Agent in Charge.

    All of this information was provided to Congress in 2003. The FBI director at the time also ordered that any issue as to whether a FISA application was factually sufficient was to be brought to his attention. Personally.

    Who was the director of the FBI when all of this careful work was done?

    Robert Mueller.”

    Liked by 8 people

    • Catherine Elstad says:

      it’s a nit…but All of this is NOT required in an emergency request…tho I don’t think it was the AG who was requesting an emergency…

      Sally was not pressed in her testimony if she is referring to an emergency or not.

      An emergency is no longer one with the subsequent reauthorizations…and the 90 day time frame suggest. Her comments therefore on HER end are fine. “OH I thought you meant in a case where we were looking at an emergency application” is all she needs to say to skate on her explanation

      Sally was pitching in the dirt …

      Liked by 1 person

  9. TexasDude says:

    Remember, this was also a criminal investigation and inherent civil rights of the accused, President Trump, is not given up because it started out as a counterintel op.

    Since someone else brought up probable cause …

    Any law enforcement officer only needs reasonable suspicion to investigate a crime or a potential crime. Probable cause is only for arrests and warrants.

    Both reasonable suspicion and probable cause are relative low thresholds.

    What may justify an investigation may not justfy an arrest warrant. Moreover, what may justify an arrest warrant may not stand scrutiny in a trial.

    However, if at anytime there is an omission that would corroborate the presumed innocence of the accused or a misleading of the underlying facts or outright criminal conduct by the investigators, the investigation and any of its discoveries is now tainted.

    Since some of this occurred after Trump was elected and appears to still be occurring, that is Sedition.

    Is there a statutory limit on Sedition?

    I doubt it.

    Liked by 4 people

    • Jan says:

      Not to mention they left out exculpatory evidence on the Carter Page FISA app–like he was an FBI informant who cooperated and helped get 2 Russian agents convicted, that they had not interviewed Carter Page re these allegations made in the app, that Carter Page wrote a letter to Director Comey on 9/25/16 asking for an interview and making other statements to his innocence in circulating rumors in the media, that Page was no longer working on the Trump campaign in late October 2016 when they got the warrant, etc., etc., etc.

      Like

  10. mr.piddles says:

    “It is just like — it is like if you had a paper you were writing and all the footnotes that you had in your paper and you and all the documents for those footnotes, that’s what the Woods file is. It’s just — and we have it in a file so that people can go back and review it.”

    Question: this woman is a lawyer? She was “responsible for the legal compliance within the FBI counterintelligence operations that generated FISA applications”? Not a 16-year old explaining why her term paper is late?

    I read the parts about the Woods file. It doesn’t sound like she quite has a handle on “the process”. Like, or something… uh… yeah.

    Liked by 2 people

  11. covfefe999 says:

    Someone refresh my memory please. What did Bruce Ohr say about his relationship with Christopher Steele? Did Ohr say Steele was a friend? I’m asking because on page 176 of the Moyer transcript Moyer says this:

    We were meeting — one of the reasons that the investigators were talking to Bruce Ohr was to try to get further clarity about Christopher Steele and his reliability. After we had — after the FBI closed him, the investigative team was making efforts to try to figure out if there were other issues or trying to verify the information he had provided. So they wanted to talk to Bruce Ohr because they knew that he had had a relationship with him

    All I know is this, summarized in a media article: Ohr, formerly the associate deputy attorney general and director of the Organized Crime Drug Enforcement Task Force, was demoted after it came to light he met with Steele and Fusion GPS co-founder Glenn Simpson. Ohr met with Steele, but would someone characterize that as a “relationship”?

    Like

    • CopperTop says:

      pg 13 of his testimony. [paraphrase] I was working org crime…became acquainted with Steele Simpson in that capacity …

      so he characterizes it as working relationship

      Liked by 1 person

      • covfefe999 says:

        Thank you so much! I’m going to review that. I really appreciate it.

        Like

        • Indimex says:

          As I recall, in their communications (Steele/Ohr), they did talk about having dinner together with their wives, and make personal, family related inquiries to one another.

          Like

          • CopperTop says:

            Yup. It’s one of the contradictions in his testimony. Mine on page 13 vs yours (after being pressed more…) The follow up details are obvious…to let him know how much they know about his dining habits. He started out giving little and only more when faced with statements he’d have to stack up against evidence like phone/calendar entries.

            Like

  12. Bogeyfree says:

    Let’s see, now the accepted rules are…………..

    I get to make up a bs story on someone

    Then make up bs or unverified supporting “documents”

    Then I get to alter any notes I have taken from people I spoke with weeks/months prior

    Then I get to feed my bs to the media who use unnamed sources to support my bs and push the story up and out 24/7 to help add legitimacy to my bs.

    Now I get to package this nicely make up bundle of bs and attach it to a request to watch every move you make and your closest friends that you communicate with for potentially months and years.

    Then I get to bring in a “special enforcer” or counselor who can run a muck on pretty much anyone in the vicinity and block any prior “information” from being revealed while the enforcer is working.

    And then if anyone starts to “inspect” my work and decides to write up a report about possible bias or violations I may have or done, I get to personally audit and make any changes I want to the summary page that goes out to the public.

    Do I have this right?

    Liked by 2 people

  13. The Woods procedure is just that. A procedure. It’s not law. You can follow the Woods procedure to a tee, but a fraud committed on the court is still fraud, no matter how you try to justify it.

    Liked by 2 people

    • CopperTop says:

      Rightyo…at ONE POINT…we would have all settled for a process crime like ‘failing to meet Woods’…

      But we are talking big kahuna crime now. At the time of Moyer testimony…questions would not have been about the predicate…why?

      Investigating the predicate requires an AG with balz and batz

      Liked by 1 person

    • mr.piddles says:

      Right. As Carrie quoted above: “Prior to Woods Procedures, ‘[i]ncorrect information was repeated in subsequent and related FISA packages,’ […]”.

      So… basically… they needed an internal procedure to avoid committing fraud upon The Court. Again. And again. And again.

      But in the end… I guess the well-intentioned “Woods Procedure” was more of a Nice-To-Have. Seems some folks didn’t get the memo.

      Maybe Wray can consider a section titled “Woods Procedure: Do’s and Don’ts” in his multi-volume Policies And Procedures.

      Like

  14. jx says:

    Woods procedure: https://fas.org/irp/agency/doj/fisa/woods.pdf

    I don’t know if there have been revisions

    Like

  15. AmericanPatriot says:

    What is the Woods File?

    Like

  16. Brian in CA4 says:

    The swamp is just hoping that we accept this justification. I don’t. You can’t abuse your governmental powers to spy on an opposition campaign, without truly legitimate legal justification, and not suffer criminal consequences. The cover up operation is just further evidence that they knew they were up S-creek without a paddle when we deplorables elected Mr. Trump.

    Like

  17. Chilidog says:

    This would explain why nobody seems too worried.

    Like

  18. jx says:

    Mueller answers questions about Woods procedure, June 6, 2002

    https://fas.org/irp/agency/doj/fisa/fbi082903.pdf

    Like

  19. Coast says:

    “If this approach, and legal outlook, is factually accurate and acceptable, then no FISA abuse is possible”
    We have a Constitution that says this ain’t so.

    Liked by 1 person

  20. Hmmm... says:

    The circle of (ir)responsibility:

    Rosenstein testimony: Sure that’s my signature on the FISA but I just trust the fine people who work on it and I don’t actually read it or claim any responsibility.

    Sally Moyer testimony: Sure I work on the FISA but the signature on the FISA from my bosses means I can trust them so I don’t actually read it or claim any responsibility.

    The parallels between this and what happened in 2008 are uncanny. It’s almost like it was this same DOJ that allowed the legal defense construct that prevents accountability for institutional level fraud. Corporate officers were not held accountable for their signatures on disclosure forms in an eerily similar fashion. Sarbanes-Oxley then finally put some legal accountability in place but served to punish the many for the crimes of a few (as well as being an over reaction in many respects).

    Like

    • Dim Osmab says:

      + Trisha Anderson – i didn’t read FISA, i just signed it.
      + James Baker – I read only first pages of Fisa and signed it
      + Comey – i didn’t read FISA, i just signed it.
      + Strzok – a had nothing to do with Fisa application

      Liked by 1 person

    • Dixie says:

      I believe the old saying is “you lie and I’ll swear to it”. This seems to be what they are all doing. Simply covering for each other to put it mildly. At the same time, most appear to be incompetent. If these people work for us, we don’t need any enemies.

      Like

  21. Dim Osmab says:

    Lying to court is still lying to court, the affiant was under oath, and swored that everything in application is true

    Liked by 1 person

    • Hmmm... says:

      This is what gives me slightly more optimism about accountability. The courts have their own reputation to defend and seemingly should be quite irritated by the FBI/DOJ dragging their reputation through the mud. Haven’t seen any indication yet of any action on their part but they haven’t had a full broadside aimed in their direction yet either.

      If the FISA abuse report shows clear and indefensible breaches of constitutional protections then I think they will be forced to act. We’ve seen a few pot shots here and there from the President and Congressman Gohmert but a full assault on the court by segments of the media and a week of tweets should be sufficient to prompt some sort of action.

      Fundamentally I think the DOJ was “stolen” from the executive branch by Congress with an assist from the Judiciary via the FISA. The Judiciary branch has so far remained surprisingly out of the spotlight for their role but that really needs to change. It’s incredible how “Orange man bad” has clouded the ability to see a massive assault on foundational principles.

      Like

      • Beau Geste says:

        Absolutely. The FISC is complicit. Fraud on the Court must be dealt with harshly by the Court. That the “Woods Procedure” is in place, but ignored by the DOJ and FBI makes it much clearer and indefensible that the Court was misled, and necessary information withheld, by using a false oath.
        The Court MUST discipline those responsible for the false oath, and withholding of evidence. It is the FISc’s independent Constitutional responsibility to punish fraudulent representations to obtain spying in violation of the 4th Amendment. The FISC had a responsibility to immediately withdraw the fraudulently-obtained spy warrants, and still should do so. The FISC knows 85% of the spying is illegal, so MUST withdraw all spy warrants it issued based on this illegal spying, and punish/disbar the perpetrators who relied on any such illegal spying.
        The FISC COUrt demanded mewler appear before the Court in 2002 (?) because of fraud on the Court at that time. They should have disbarred mewler then, but he persuaded them that the Woods procedure would stop the Fraud on the Court, because false oaths could be punished…
        The current FISC judges should all be impeached and removed for basic failure of their responsibility to protect unrepresented defendants from fraudulent DOJ/FBI spying requests. .

        Like

  22. Richard Layne Santomauro says:

    This is complete bullshit. This is exactly why Rand Paul railed against this law. The Obama Administration politically weaponized as many departments and agencies that he could. He nearly single-handedly destroyed us, and Hillary would have finished the job. I still have doubts that the Republic can be saved even if Trump wins in 2020. Too many corrupt politicians and RINOS in government and not a large enough DRAIN.

    Liked by 1 person

  23. Uncle Al says:

    On pg. 69, I find this exchange about H-Rod’s mishandling of classified email:

    BY MR. MORGAN:
    Q To your knowledge, did the investigation ever yield any evidence dispositive of Secretary Clinton’s intent at all?
    A I’m sorry, could you repeat it?
    Q Strike that question. Let’s continue on.

    I don’t know quite what to make of this. Was it simply that Moyer didn’t hear the question, or at the other extreme was she dumbfounded by Morgan’s asking it? And what was Morgan’s purpose in quickly moving on past it? Any ideas?

    Like

  24. Jerry Joe says:

    No disagreement with your observations, Sundance: there is no way authors of the FISA warrants would implicate themselves in an IG review. It took me a bit to get to Page 165, from where your second excerpt appears. Sadly, Moyer’s testimony reveals how neutered this Woods procedure (and really dropping a ‘tactical nuke’ on Bongino’s exaltation of the same) has become over time in the upper echelons of authority. Moyer makes an excellent case for the entire dissolution of this process.

    Unfortunately and sorry to report, the whole charade does not bode well for our Chief Justice of the Supreme Court. This is HIS baby; he appointed people to ensure the Constitutional rights of our Citizens were protected. Knowing what we now know, are we to believe that someone was persuaded by what was contained in these applications? or that they were even read? Moyer actually admitted that even without the (biased and undisclosed) testimony of Steele, she felt it was 50/50 that the probable cause threshhold was met. CAN’T WAIT To READ the UNREDACTED fisa APPLICATIONS!! Third branch of government was also meant to protect We the People. The deconstruction of those initial high standards set forth in FISC may be related less to politics and more to human nature, but it was and is the Chief Justice tasked with this oversight.

    Liked by 1 person

    • Jan says:

      Agree with you, JJ. But I hold out NO HOPES for Justice Roberts. He is compromised.

      I’m hoping that Joe diGenova is right–that the IG has found the 3 renewals invalid and is now reassessing the original FISA for Carter Page as invalid as well.

      If we find out that there were FISAs on Papadopoulos, Gen. Flynn and others as well. We’re going to see more FISA abuse.

      This will likely lead to AG Barr being on board with other Republicans calling for a review, rewriting and stricter guidelines re FISA. Dimms no longer care about civil liberties or 4th amendment rights. It interferes with their political agenda to turn this into a Communist country.

      We are hanging by a thread to losing our Constitution, IMHAO.

      Like

      • Hmmm... says:

        If the renewals have issues then Roberts should be impeached. The lack of curiosity from the court becomes extremely suspect. The judicial branch would have been actively interfering with the constitutional powers of the executive by providing cover for a rogue group of non elected bureaucrats to defy their elected boss. The Dems may be right about a couple of things. There needs to be impeachment hearings and there is a constitutional crisis. Except it is the judicial branch that is the problem.

        Like

        • Jerry Joe says:

          Ever since Sundance started this mess, the list of impeachable, prisonable, executable, etc. keeps growing. Un-Alinskyisticallyish, Trump may be the only name missing. If this FISA abuse has already led to changes in its system or personnel, I would think that We the People should have been advised with EXPLANATION. If not, I’m afraid your list is too short.

          Like

  25. If this construction of Woods procedures is true, then it is even more urgent that FISA is reformed. My son (aspiring lawyer) says that appointing a phantom/surrogate “defense counsel” to argue against any FISA request before the judge would be an advisable start.

    Who would pursue this reform? Perhaps Sen. Paul but given the total paralysis in Congress with the rabid partisans in the Democrat party–I have little hope that any reform can occur right now. Meanwhile we are fiddling while our figurative Rome–the USA–burns. So many priorities of issues to solve and we are just STUCK!

    As POTUS would say, “SAD!”

    Liked by 1 person

    • Hmmm... says:

      This is a great example of the Overton window problem that exists. A non represented party should have never existed. Now we are arguing whether it is represented well enough.

      Like

  26. hillbilly4 says:

    From Morning Prayer
    Psalm 36
    Evil whispers to the sinner in the depths of his heart:
    the fear of God does not stand before his eyes.
    Evil’s flattering light disguises his wickedness,
    so that he does not hate it.
    His words are false and deceitful,
    he no longer considers how to do good.
    Even when in bed he plots mischief;
    he follows the wrong path; he does not hate malice.

    Pretty close, no?

    Liked by 1 person

  27. Doug Wiser says:

    What is up with this woman’s hair? Does she apply bacon grease before she goes outside every day?

    Like

  28. Kitty-Kat says:

    I thought that getting a FISA warrant was supposed to be a very difficult process, because spying on citizens is such a reprehensible idea to free people.

    If those are the rules, it’s apparently extraordinarily easy to get a FISA Warrant.

    Liked by 1 person

    • Mark McQueen says:

      The Patriot Act made it even easier. This FISA system is far too isolated and insulated from scrutiny. FISA was always a bad law because it lacks any meaningful protection against abuse.

      Like

  29. TMonroe says:

    “Secondly, Ms. Moyer explains how verification of the FISA application used against U.S. Person Carter Page is essentially just making sure the citations align to show who is making the claims. The underlying FISA application material does not need to be verified; rather the source material is just accurately cited and attributed.”

    But didn’t McCabe assured everyone in his comments that the rank and file were tirelessly working to uphold and safeguard of the rights of every US citizen, as opposed to some Soviet following of orders and passing of the buck?

    Like

  30. zaq123 says:

    Just reading a few of those answer’s she gave, you can tell she’s lying.

    Like

  31. Liberty ONE says:

    Sooooo according to this yahoo Sally when applying for a FISA warrant ya just have to throw enough sh*t against the wall and see what sticks. The ONLY problem with her BS regarding “citations” is that the warrant says VERIFIED meaning assertions/statements CONFIRMED to be TRUE. There better be stacks of 302’s showing this VERIFICATION or they’re toast!

    Like

Leave a Reply

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

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com 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