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. Charlie says:

    Shut it down, shut it all down. What ever good FISA was the government has proven that it can not be trusted with this power.

    Benjamin Franklin Quotes. “They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety.”

    Liked by 3 people

  2. Bill Hollinger says:

    On Lou Dobbs recently, Joe DiGenova said the DOJ IG has concluded the final 3 FISA warrants were ILLEGALLY obtained, and since the Solomon report about the letter from the State dept to the FBI warning them about Steel, which was withheld from the IG, the IG has reopened his investigation into the first FISA application.

    Liked by 11 people

    • YeahYouRight says:

      And this was why St Jim was sending out pictures of himself in the woods. He believes *The Woods Procedure* is his legal fig leaf.

      God, I hope he’s wrong.

      Liked by 3 people

    • WSB says:

      Solomon was on Sean’s radio show advising that he will have new information tonight about the State Department. Described an easily verifiable fact that no one bothered to look up. He used the word ‘consciously’.

      Liked by 3 people

      • Sandra-VA says:

        It is the assertion that Alfa Bank was covertly signaling Trump Org via pings. Immediately debunked the minute the professor friend of Clinton spread it on twitter…

        https://thehill.com/opinion/white-house/444884-christopher-steeles-nugget-of-fools-gold-was-easily-disproven-but-fbi

        Excerpt:

        “Multiple sources confirm to me that the attachment that Deputy Assistant Secretary of State Kathleen Kavalec sent to then-FBI section chief Stephen Laycock on Oct. 13, 2016, was a summary from Steele’s company alleging Trump and Russia might be communicating through a computer server at Russia’s Alfa Bank.

        This long debunked allegation has floated around Washington since the summer of 2016, compliments of Hillary Clinton backers ranging from a university computer science professor who spread it across the internet to a lawyer for Clinton’s campaign who delivered it to the FBI in July 2016.

        The theory — worthy of a spy novel — was that a series of data pings between a computer in Trump Tower and Alfa Bank in Moscow actually was a secret beacon alerting the Putin and Trump teams that it was time to talk about colluding on hijacking the American presidential election.”

        Liked by 3 people

        • Dutchman says:

          Sandra-VA;
          Well, it COULD have been that,…..
          There are so many ‘red flags’,…
          How about that Russia doesn’t HAVE an embassy, or a consulate even, in miami?

          Or, I don’t know,…that a self aknowledged germaphobe doesn’t pay prostitutes to pee on his bed,…
          Or that Cohen was never in Prague, or

          How about that Putin isn’t an idiot, and acts in his and Russias self interest, and so would prefer Hillary to Trump?

          So MANY red flags, if only they hadn’t turned a deliberate blind eye.

          Liked by 1 person

        • WSB says:

          So, if part of a FISA, it would have been documented source. Isn’t the professor friend of Hillary the origin?

          Like

        • ATheoK says:

          “The theory — worthy of a spy novel — was that a series of data pings between a computer in Trump Tower and Alfa Bank in Moscow actually was a secret beacon alerting the Putin and Trump teams”

          Uh, no!
          That is more akin to a lame Star Trek plot where background noise carries secret communications…
          Except there are massive differences between clumsy attempts to send messages via dot-dash-dash signals hidden in common broadband hello pings. Detailed communications immediately bloat the signal.

          It also disregards the fact that the receiving server has to recognize, accept and acknowledge successful reads of incoming pings.
          If they are special purpose encrypted coded messages hidden in pingback communications, then the messages are not acceptable to servers and rejected out of hand.

          Which is what happened when the FBI’s plant had the bank send pings, believing that just pinging Trump’s server could portray the possibility of server communications. Only Trump Tower’s server rejected the pings leaving the bank server with a bunch of timeouts. Weissman was unable to construct any remotely plausible possibility.

          Like

    • cboldt says:

      Illegally obtained or not …
      50 USC 1809 says “It is a defense to a prosecution under subsection (a) that the defendant was a law enforcement or investigative officer engaged in the course of his official duties and the electronic surveillance was authorized by and conducted pursuant to a search warrant or court order of a court of competent jurisdiction.”

      Like

      • joemeba says:

        The key words here are ‘It is a defense to a prosecution’ and as everyone knows, every defense is not successful, complete, or effective. These persons are at the top of the legal system chain of command and are certainly well aware that this as it was deployed was only giving the color of law to a very shady operation. It was and is their job and duty to see Justice delivered to all persons. The intent of the law was not followed and could not be followed by having the same person who ‘wrote the paper’ ‘mark the grade’ on it as well, and then have the IG sign off on it.. It is the height of deception to think that this ‘defense’ is whole unto itself and thus there is no crime as the law was evaded by ‘legally colored contortions.

        Liked by 2 people

        • cboldt says:

          Has any law enforcement officer in the US ever been charged and convicted for unlawful wiretapping? Or lost a civil case? I don’t know of a single case wit hthat outcome. The typical outcome is suppression of evidence, or throw the (civil) case out, e.g., “state secret” in Hepting v. AT&T or Al-Haramain v. Obama.

          Like

    • JDubb says:

      Sundance, I don’t know if I would rely on the expertise of this Sally Moyer character..

      If I remember right, Bill Moyer of PBS infamy, was also a hard-core Lib and a former LBJ Staffer.

      If the two are related I would expect her ‘legal advice’ to have a leftist tilt to it.

      Like

  3. Brant says:

    Having Wikipedia as the source material in the footnotes of your middle/high school term paper gets you a failing grade. Having Wikipedia as the source material for your counter intelligence spy mission wiping out 3 plus years of a duly elected President gets you a buncha atta boys and invites to elite DC parties.

    Liked by 14 people

    • Craig D says:

      Reply to Brant May 21 at 6:28 pm – Great comment and observation. We are living in a bizarro world (according to Seinfeld a world where everything is upside down), where the Deep State can spy on anyone based on hearsay and made up notions. If this is the case (and it most likely is), President Trump draining the swamp is all nonsense. You cannot make sense (drain the swamp) out of nonsense (Washington politics). It is all a game, just enjoy the ride. Nothing is going to happen as far as the President bringing justice to the planners of coup (Comey, Brennan, Yates, McCabe etc.). And the kicker is, “they (the deep state) know it!

      Like

  4. Chris says:

    https://www.justsecurity.org/38422/aint-easy-fisa-warrant-fbi-agent/

    Seems like facts must be verified, not just sourced.

    Liked by 2 people

  5. Kleen says:

    I think we are disagreeing with each other but saying the same thing

    We have seen the incriminating information, we are seeing them lie, hide, smear etc

    We know what the constitution says. What they did is unconstitutional.

    No doubt they broke the law except it looks like internally they had their own set of laws and this is not new. So, yes they broke the law, but internally it’s just business as usual.

    They have been abusing power for a long time, and it involves so many high level oficials that it became normal and they just don’t care anymore. Notice how Hillary was acting annoyed when had to be inconvenienced with testifying? She was not worried, she was condescending and arrogant. She knew the system.

    They have been caught before. And continue to abuse power.

    Now, we have to guess who are the honest people not involved in years of abuse of power to actually clean the house.

    Now what? Who do we trust?

    Liked by 4 people

    • grandmotherpatriot says:

      Only the Voters can tether Federal Officials. President Trump is doing a great job of cleaning up the Swamp.

      Liked by 1 person

      • YvonneMarie says:

        But most of the voters in my home district of 32 years voted blue in 2018.
        They live in big homes. They are mostly immigrants from India & the rest of Asia.
        They voted Democrat for everything except legal marijuana. That got voted in anyway !!!

        Like

    • Dutchman says:

      Kleen;
      You may be on to something; instead of getting caught up in legalities like;
      Treason requires state of war, and ARE we in a State of War, and this whole issue of whether the warrants are legal cause court signed off on them, etc

      Go straight to the heart;
      Violating the Constitutional rights of U.S. Citisens.
      I know for a fact that there have been individuals sentenced to Federal prison for significsnt terms, who were convicted of violating constitutional right to life, liberty and pursuit of happiness. They murdered someone.

      But, under State law, they couldn’t be prosecuted,, so Fed prosecutors charged them with Constitutional rights violation.

      Its,…another way to go?

      Like

      • KnowSERENoFear says:

        We the People v US Federal government…class action law suit….government broke contract entered in 1789…exercised authorities not enumerated in the Constitution…Federal government dissolved.

        Like

    • KnowSERENoFear says:

      This is exactly what happens when unconstitutional agencies are allowed to exist and exercise administrative law in violation of the Constitution.

      This is what happens when departure from the Constitution is accepted (and encouraged) when it benefits a agenda.

      Liked by 2 people

    • WSB says:

      Who prosecutes the corrupt prosecutors?

      Liked by 2 people

  6. Sherri Young says:

    Here’s the link to the FBI organizational chart I have found helpful. Sally Moyer, Trisha Anderson, and others in the office of legal counsel appear to the far right side of the page.

    http://thespygateproject.org/resources/FBI_2016_HQ.pdf

    Liked by 2 people

    • I look at the photo of this Moyer person and I find it unbelievable that she would be in any position of power or even close to power. She looks unprofessional and barely out of college. Is she the best and the brightest standard in the FBI.

      Liked by 2 people

    • farrier105 says:

      In all organizations there is a public organizational chart and an informal organizational chart. The informal is more important as it is how the real “operators” in an organization function. By “operators,” I mean anti-social, psychopathic/sociopathic, practitioners of what psychologists call “Relational Aggression:” Workplace psychological bullies. Such characters include informants for higher-ups, ladder climbers, clique bosses, etc. They wield more influence over Powers that Be in the organization than the organizational chart reflects.

      Government bureaucracies at all levels, like the FBI, are alive with workplace bullies and destructive cliques. Add in a workplace bully having illicit sexual relations with a boss, and you really have a mess. Those kind of power links never show up on the organizational chart, but they can be the most destructive of all.

      Liked by 1 person

  7. grandmotherpatriot says:

    I would like to see the Rice File that Obama and Company placed in a lockbox.
    How many people did the Obama Regime spy on?

    Like

  8. BigTalkers says:

    …from the IG anyway.

    Like

  9. huecowacko says:

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

    In a nutshell, they all get away.

    Like

    • Jederman says:

      They may indeed only because they usually do, and ONLY if Barr hangs his hat solely on the IG report.

      Then, of course the document is a Baker/Moyer product. It DMS until an ethical review of the FISA law is applied.

      Liked by 1 person

    • As a man thinkth says:

      Hue…no they don’t get away…It will be proven that the FISA judges approving these warrants were part of the coupe…maybe as high as Roberts…

      Liked by 1 person

  10. thedoc00 says:

    Is just me or did each and every congressional critter essentially ask a question and then answer the question in the same breath?? There is are not many, if any, real questions in these transcripts. Just a bunch of statements that essentially allowed the interviewee to just yep, that’s the answer….just what you said. This is all a load of rubbish and will provide cover to all the participants.

    Liked by 2 people

    • fanbeav says:

      That is why these house and senate hearings are “kabuki”. We need REAL prosecutors to hold our government accountable. Not some IG who can write a report that basically puts it into writing and then it gets filed away and the FBI/DOJ get more training!

      Liked by 3 people

  11. erinsmemole says:

    I think everyone is looking at this in the wrong way. When FBI went to the FISA court on Pres Trump, they were originally turned down. There was no connection. When they went back, with additional information, it was issued. I think it was “predicated” on Michael Cohen being overseas (can’t remember where, Hungary?). Their problem is that it was the wrong Michael Cohen, therefore the warrant was invalid. They squeezed the hell out of that man, but could not place him anywhere but in CA with his kid at Stanford.

    Liked by 2 people

    • jackphatz says:

      Prague but I don’t remember why he was supposedly there.

      Like

    • California Joe says:

      All federal law enforcement agencies have immediate access to the Airline Reporting Agency which has a central database of airline passenger ticket information which can be searched by passenger name and provide every airline flight taken anywhere in the world including the date, time, flight number, airline, departure and destination airport code, seat number and credit card number used to purchase the ticket. There’s no way the FBI and DOJ didn’t know in 20 minutes that Michael Cohen never went to Prague!

      Liked by 3 people

  12. NYY32311 says:

    “If this approach, and legal outlook”

    I normally appreciate the reading material and insight here, but this pure BS. If the left standing donkeys interpretation – is what this article hinges on. Again – the interpretation of an extreme, corrupt, liberal donkey – is what this article hinges on before sowing the seed of – they’ll all get away.

    If they’ll all get away, because it was legal due the interpretation of this individual, why don’t you stop posting articles about it – put your money where your mouth is CNN Jr?

    Like

    • TreeClimber says:

      Maybe because we just found out today. Maybe because it’s important it’s all exposed. Maybe because this ^ will never change until we all stand up and say BURN THE WHOLE DAMN THING DOWN?

      Liked by 1 person

      • MustangBlues says:

        Hey Tree,

        ” say BURN THE WHOLE DAMN THING DOWN?”

        No, its not the thing that is the problem, it is the infection it carries.

        Fumigate, disinfect, excise the rot and gangrene,

        Then fresh culture and American government can begin again.

        Like

        • NYY32311 says:

          I disagree, it is the thing that is problem – the thing promotes graft, greed and corruption to name a few of the lesser evils inherent to it – sometimes you have to start over.

          Like

  13. Angel Martin 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.

    FUBAR.

    It’s circular.

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

    Yup !

    Bureaucracy is risk-adverse. And they determine the rules they are judged by (eg. Woods Procedures is an FBI creation).

    If there is any penalty for all this, it will be on the Agent who wrote the original FISA and the SSA who approved it. Since they are the only ones who are responsible for even looking at the Woods Procedures in the normal course.

    All the higher ups will say: “I took the representations I read at face value”.

    At best this will trigger legislative changes to the FISA (and not just new FBI rules). But all the higher ups walk because they complied with the “rules” that allowed this, while representing to the public that there was a “rigorous” review process in the FISA to prevent abuse !

    Liked by 1 person

    • Rami says:

      If I am not mistaken, Mueller is the “author” of the Woods procedure. This was done, I believe because the FISA court caught the FBI fudging the FISA requests around 2002. Mueller was called before the FISC and the result was the Woods procedure. Seems to me, they knew what they were doing. But, they were never going to get caught, Hillary was not suppose to lose and no one would ever know they played loosey goosey with the courts, again. What is happening now, is explaining. ” This is how it’s done,, always has been since I’ve been here, this is the way I was instructed/taught.” You know, same as Clinton and his depends on what the word “is, is”.

      Like

  14. Blind no Longer says:

    If I am understanding this correctly, then all it takes to be spied on is somebody says something and the press or “source” report on it. FUBAR is right…burn it down to the ground and DON’T start over. The FBI cannot be fixed!!!! This is sickening!!

    Liked by 2 people

  15. For Eyes says:

    Everyone has a boss. Everyone. And if a department is doing something systematically wrong and illegal then the boss is at fault with them, and perhaps more so.

    Liked by 1 person

  16. clulessgrandpa says:

    This is depressing.

    Liked by 2 people

  17. JIM COMEY IS A WEASEL_DOUG says:

    We have finally I’d Azra Turk.

    Hillary Campaign was working on a tight budget.

    Liked by 8 people

  18. 335blues says:

    “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.”
    If I understand this correctly, then the ‘FISA’ system is actually a communist-style secret court
    system where the government can investigate and charge any citizen for just about anything as long as the government investigators can spell correctly?
    This is, of course, unconstitutional regardless of whether the courts deem it otherwise.
    But now we all know what the ‘FISA’ system is all about.
    It grants unlimited power to the government, and the Constitution be damned.

    Liked by 3 people

  19. Stop pussy footing around. Look at this “woman”. The only thing she cares about is her job, pension, and birth control pills. She was placed in this slot because when presented with a “sticky” situation like this, she will think first about her job, pension, and birth control pills before she even gets to the merits of the case. In fact, the only credible evidence in the case for her is that the (R) candidate for President is a threat to her job, pension, and birth control pills – no other evidence is needed! Why do we even take any of this seriously? Look at her! Her superiors knew they had a mark!

    Liked by 4 people

  20. Ed Rueda says:

    This is inconsistent with an ex parte hearing

    Liked by 1 person

  21. Gadsden says:

    Andy McCarthy pointed this out to undercover Huber the other day. It’s gonna be WAY harder to pin these people down legally than a lot of people realize. We really need this USAttorney to put all of the pieces to together and start flipping people. It will just take one key conspirator to flip, then the whole house of cards comes tumbling down.

    Like

    • cboldt says:

      It’s gonna be WAY harder to pin these people down legally than a lot of people realize.

      Yep. The law is written to protect law enforcement, and court-made law provides layers of immunity to protect law enforcement from consequences for mistakes.

      Criminal leaking covers very narrow categories of information – check the statutes.

      Congress never bothered to write a law to criminalize use of government resources to rig an election, probably because it’s common practice, and none of them wants to be charged for doing what they normally do.

      Like

    • Dutchman says:

      Touches on what I have been saying in my comments for some time.
      When I have said we don’t want trials, we want guilty pleas. Need such an airtight case that their only hope is to plead guilty, flip on others, and hope they breath free air before they croak.

      Trials that result in aquittals would actually be worse than no trials, and I don’t like posting that, but its true.

      The defence ‘presented’ in this stringy haired hags testimony is only one of a variety of defences they will use to try to confuse a jury, along with “this is JUST ‘politics’ (everybody does it) the ever popular SOG defence (“It wasn’t ME, it was Some Other Guy”) the “I vas juste vallowink orders” defence, etc.

      ANYTHING to create “reasonable doubt” in a jury.

      Its a mess folks, and yeah part of the problem is they came up with a novel crime, so there is no specific law against it.

      Thats why its a ‘soft-coup’. We KNOW what they did,…but PROVE IT!
      With admissable evidence, and beyind ANY doubt. Togh business, folks.

      Liked by 3 people

  22. Eric says:

    Totally a misrepresentation of what “verified” means. There’s no way the Woods Procedures mean anything close to what Moyer is saying they mean. An ex-parte, secret warrant to wiretap and spy (which were previously abused) – and the remedy is they need to be cited better?

    Liked by 1 person

  23. mtg50 says:

    The Woods file is simply that,a file. The questioner misstates the purpose of the Woods file when he describes it as ” a check on the accuracy of facts and statements made”. Moyer corrects him by describing it correctly as a repository of all documents that verify the internal consistency of the FISA document so, as she says, it’s all in one place for future review. It has nothing to do with the law regarding the need to verify the actual basis or evidence used in the document.This is a non-issue. The internal consistency of the Woods file is not a defense of a fraudulent FISA

    Liked by 2 people

  24. Justin Green says:

    FISA Procedures related to omissions, promulgated pursuant to 50 USC 1803g are below. DISCLAIMER: I’m not a lawyer. I did stay at a Holiday Inn a few years back, however.
    Now, were the Woods Procedures established pursuant to a delegation of US law? I don’t think that they were. These procedures were, however:

    Rule 13. Correction of Misstatement or Omission; Disclosure of Non-Compliance.
    (a) Correction of Material Facts. If the government discovers that a submission to the
    Court contained a misstatement or omission of material fact, the government, in writing,
    must immediately inform the Judge to whom the submission was made of:
    (1) the misstatement or omission;
    (2) any necessary correction;
    (3) the facts and circumstances relevant to the misstatement or omission;
    ( 4) any modifications the government has made or proposes to make in how it will
    implement any authority or approval granted by the Court; and
    (5) how the government proposes to dispose of or treat any information obtained
    as a result of the misstatement or omission.
    (b) Disclosure of Non-Compliance. If the government discovers that any authority or
    approval granted by the Court has been implemented in a manner that did not comply
    with the Court’s authorization or approval or with applicable law, the government, in
    writing, must immediately inform the Judge to whom the submission was made of:
    (1) the non-compliance;
    (2) the facts and circumstances relevant to the non-compliance;
    (3) any modifications the government has made or proposes to make in how it will
    implement any authority or approval granted by the Court; and
    ( 4) how the government proposes to dispose of or treat any information obtained
    as a result of the non-compliance.

    These appear to have been violated in multiple ways. To my knowledge, no corrective filings were made.

    Liked by 2 people

  25. Justin Green says:

    Further, from time to time, I sense a bit of despair in Sundance’s posts.

    Don’t give up. You’ve done the entire country a huge service in documenting this as you have. Keep up the good work, pretty please!

    Liked by 2 people

  26. The word is “integrity”. As long as the formal documents follow the letter of the law – that is all the appropriate “blanks” are filled in – these people claim they are above reproach. Screw you – we are not your dupes – the appearance of propriety is not enough – the allegations have to be credible s**tbirds. We will make sure you are examined in such a manner so you will have to demonstrate WHY you thought the allegations were credible!

    Liked by 2 people

    • Justin Green says:

      Yes, this particular legal fallacy is called “form over substance”. Often times, it doesn’t pass judicial muster, and won’t here if examined by honest judges.

      Liked by 2 people

  27. Shadrach says:

    Hmmm. Worrisome. From this article, written in 1997: https://fas.org/irp/agency/doj/fisa/sojudge.pdf

    A couple of footnotes:
    27. Keith, 407 U.S. 297. See also Halperin v. Kissinger, 807 F.2d 180 (D.C. Cir. 1986) (holding that a purportedly political motive for a warrantless wiretap of a national security staffer was irrelevant if an objectively reasonable national security rationale was also present); United States v. Brown, 484 F.2d 418, 426 (5th Cir. 1973), cert. denied, 415 U.S. 960 (1974) (“the President’s . . . inherent power to protect national security in the conduct of foreign affairs” authorized “warrantless wiretaps for the purpose of gathering foreign intelligence”).

    Also there seem to be indications that the President can order warrantless wiretaps.

    32. TheFISA,anauthorizationofCongress,increasedthePresident’spowerinthisarea:
    When the President acts pursuant to an expressed or implied authorization of Congress, his authority is at its maximum, for it includes all that he possesses in his own right plus all that Congress can delegate . . . . A seizure executed by the President pursuant to an act of Congress would be supported by the strongest of presumptions and the widest latitude of judicial interpretation, and the burden of persuasion would rest heavily upon any who might attack it.

    How’d they lock up that famous gangster? Tax fraud? I expect justice will be served regardless if they can slip this particular noose, even if it takes a circuitous route.

    Liked by 1 person

    • Shadrach says:

      This is interesting (from article referenced above)

      The FISA is not an all encompassing source of approval for all intelligence-gathering situations. As noted earlier, the FISA only regulates the collection of information about activities involving a foreign power or an agent of a foreign power. Additionally, the FISA does not regulate all of the collection techniques employed for counterintelligence investigations. The use of concealed monitoring, searches and examinations of mail, physical surveillance, and undisclosed participation in organizations all have separate approval schemes.

      I need to go back and listen to Devin Nunes’ early-on interview, where he said he saw things at the WH location. The exact wording….

      Liked by 1 person

      • Shadrach says:

        “Details about U.S. persons involved in the incoming administration with little or no apparent foreign intelligence value were widely disseminated in intelligence community reports.”

        Now I will stop talking to myself 🙂

        Liked by 1 person

    • What was “objectively reasonable” about relying upon opposition research in a counter intelligence investigation? Stop being a dupe – the only appropriate response to such an outlandish claim is a loud guffaw!!!

      Like

      • Shadrach says:

        It is a quote from a legal document.

        But “Objectively Reasonable” is precisely the problem.

        Liked by 1 person

      • A “legitimate national security rationale” is not making sure that her royal cankleness is elevated to the highest throne of the realm!!!

        Liked by 1 person

        • Shadrach says:

          And if they can do FISAs on certain of these people (remember FISAs can be retroactive) then they can hopefully look back and see if they can find something like this.

          These people were careless, (Page/Strozk texts) so it’s not out of the realm of possibility.

          Liked by 1 person

          • ann says:

            What I gleaned from Moyers transcript is a disturbing complacency, incompetence and negligent command within the Bureau/DoJ counterintell/espionage, indeed, throughout the organization.
            Ex
            The DoJBureau has a record of failure : (Awan, Clinton, Feinstein )
            Years of massive long term breaches are not detected , punished and thus do not deter abuse by violators of high status and peers.

            The Bureau and DoJ are unfit institutional custodians for our country’s security and to enforce federal law.

            Like

        • Shadrach says:

          Also, such a FISA can be requested, because apparently there’s a good chance Steele was (knowingly or unknowingly) doing the bidding of Russia…referring to the State Dept. memo that lists Russian agents as sources. It’s almost karmic 🙂

          Like

          • Good point – it was, in effect, the exact opposite of a “legitimate national security rationale”. Heck, the Russians knew she couldn’t even handle her emails properly when Secretary of State – why wouldn’t they want this unindicted security risk as President of the US?

            Like

  28. Appalled says:

    This novel interpretation of the Woods procedures reminds me of Pontius Pilate: “What is truth?”

    Like

  29. d says:

    So the Woods procedure is nothing we thought it was? It is just a file of your information, and we were told it was a procedure that verifies the information? Am I understanding this right?

    A fake verification process with the veneer of a verification process

    Like

    • Angel Martin says:

      Frankly, we should have suspected they were blowing smoke when Deep State representatives would get on TV and go on and on about how FISA featured “rigorous verification” and “many levels” of review.

      Like

    • Jim in TN says:

      I thought the woods procedure had everybody in the chain of command swear to the validity of the information presented to the court.

      I guess the information is in the woods file.

      Remember, by having headquarters do the investigation, the procedure, if followed, has been shorted.

      Like

  30. Genie says:

    Poor Sally. Hates everybody and everything.

    Like

  31. Bogeyfree says:

    So all it takes is for the bias and fake news media to publish an article saying an anonymous source says you are a spy then the FBI can use it to open a Title 1 FISA surveillance and no questions asked?

    If so then we are not much different than KGB or the Gestap.

    Like

  32. ShoNuf says:

    what the hell is that thing???

    Liked by 1 person

  33. @Sundance or lurking lawyer/ristvan,
    That last sentence scares me. Is there a final determination as to what the rules are and if that slug’s testimony is true?

    Like

  34. Burnt Toast says:

    I think Moyer was, at best. deliberately misleading. Lacking candor.

    Verifying events is an entirely different matter than verifying somebody said/wrote an event occurred. If the later is true then the FISA court is much more lax than virtually any ‘legal’ system imaginable.

    For example, try getting a court order for a claimed payment solely upon the claim that somebody owes you money without reason for debt or evidence, and without defendant having the opportunity to present their case against the alleged debt.
    Or being charged with murder ex parte without a corpse.

    Like

  35. Kevin says:

    Hmmm…not sure why everyone’s getting all worked up about the Woods Procedures. If the Obama Admin was spying on Trump and other Americans illegally long before they applied for the FISA. and the FISA was just cover for ongoing long term abuses…which I believe Sundance has touched on many times…then who really cares whether they obtained the FISA “by the book”…because the actual illegality occurred long before the FISA and they should all hang for that alone. Just a thought. Keep the faith!

    Liked by 2 people

  36. Baby El says:

    Boy, she’s a dish!

    Liked by 1 person

    • HEH says:

      Well she is doing just fine now as an attorney at Covington & Burling, one of DC’s most expensive and also home to PARTNER Eric Holder!

      Like

  37. Albertus Magnus says:

    For the life of me, I wonder what people expected?

    Did you trust, Q’s plan? You should have known better.

    Did you think that MOST of the folks running the FBI/State Department/DOJIntelligence Community had integrity? You should have known better, although as Americans’ we deserve better.

    Just because people are evil, did you think they were stupid? You should have known better.

    It appears, that it may turn out that MOST of this was a legal coverup perpetrated in case PDJT because President, and then was extended because he was. Are you surprised they are going to get away with MOST of it? I am. And if you are surprised as well, then we ALL should have known better.

    What I worry about going forward is how so many people who support PDJT who have been lead to believe that people are going to jail are going to react when that doesn’t happen. Too many internet gurus and talk show pundits who make their living by hyping up emotions on our side for the resulting donations and views.

    There is going to be a major let down, it seems. And those responsible for egging on the fantasy of cankles, Obama and the rest going to jail should have all known better.

    Liked by 1 person

  38. Bogeyfree says:

    Think about what this potentially says and means…………

    So now a rouge or small group leadership within the FBI and DOJ can now make up a totally fabricated story with known bogus support material, feed it to the fake news media and then submit it all to the FISA court to gain two hop surveillance on anyone they dislike 24/7 for as many 90 day renewals as they want until they crush that person via financial, social and emotional destruction.

    And in the case of PT not only can they frame him via a made up Russia Collusion BS story where they all walk, the Congress gets to impeach (at least in the house) the President not because he committed any crimes but solely because THEY DISLIKE HIM!

    What does this say going forward to all Americans and where our government is headed.

    If Barr sweeps this all away there will be no Republic as we and our founding fathers knew it and designed it 243 years ago.

    It truly comes down to two people, AG Barr and PT who can save our Republic and also the world because if the good ole USA is no longer the beacon of law and order and good in the world then deep, dark, evil will run 100K times more wild across this planet.

    Like

  39. Mark McQueen says:

    The FISA warrant was issued because the applicant SWORE the information was accurate. The Woods procedure requires vetting and verification. The Woods procedure applies to the facts presented. You can’t LEGALLY “game” the Woods procedure any more than you can LEGALLY present fraudulent, unverified information as fact to the FISC. This lady’s BS testimony is just that. BS. Nothing about it is a “legal analysis”.

    Like

    • CopperTop says:

      Thanks Mark. I made a longer statement somewhere. Your sentiment is mine. PLUS I think she’s discussing an emergency application from someone like an AG…her testimony is not vetted by the interviewers about under what types of FISA is she referring to.

      Liked by 1 person

  40. Joe says:

    This is a civil rights violation. Breaks the constitution which supercededs all.

    Like

  41. Sally Moyer was reported as being agent 5 in the IG report calling trump supporters “retarded”
    https://www.redstate.com/alexparker/2018/06/22/sally-moyer-fbi-identified/

    Like

  42. Dutchman says:

    Those who would attempt to exchange LIBERTY for SECURITY, will get NEITHER!

    This is the inevitable result of boil the frog, slowly .

    FIRST, they came for the mafia types, and I wasn’t IN the mafia (and they are well, you know, gangsters) so I said nothing.

    Then, they came for the drug dealers, and they are, well you know SCUM, so I said nothing.

    Then, they set up ‘muslims’ as ‘terrorists’, and so, nuff said I said nothing.

    Then, they went after the Tea Party, and I grumbled a little, but really said nothing.

    Then, they went after people who ‘volonteered’ to work for a Presidential campaign, (and the Candidate) and now, NOW I am PISSED, cause Now they are coming after ME!

    Boil the frog, slowly has morphed into “the frog is so close to being cooked, ee can go ahead and turn the heat to HIGH, cause he is too cooked to be able to jump out of the pot!

    And, they MAY be right,…

    Liked by 1 person

  43. CopperTop says:

    Regardless of Ms. Moyer’s candid responses on Woods. She does not explainl role of the affiant in totality.

    What else does the an affiant swear to? The affiant isn’t just saying ‘I checked everything against a biblography.’ That’s not something that one ‘swears’ to in any Federal form that I’ve ever seen. Thats what WOODS is a check on procedure not on veracity of the signer.
    [Ms. Moyer is covering Cohen in her explanation by the way as well. My old/tired false fact Cohen harp…the fact he is an atty is the ONLY reason this FISA on Page was approved…that atty client privilege meant Cohen could not reasonably be presumed to be accessible for an interview due to his relationship as an atty] But the notion of Cohen being in Prague and that this is the Trump ‘Cohen’ still had to be sworn to by someone. [Yes RR always felt he was off the hook as a result]. This still is damning to Ohr /Brennan.

    Second there is a review step where the question is asked (maybe it’s Woods I can’t remember for sure) where the person under surveillance is presumed accessible in other ways unless they fail one test/or another. Carter Page made himself accessible via letter to Comey in August 2016. THIS still need to be hunted down.

    I also DID NOT SEE in her testimony a clear division between what an emergency FISA (AG level 14 day special cases) procedure is vs the standard procedure. She sounds to me like she is discussing an emergency request to the court

    Finally…the all walk except they all leaked and Comey leaked classified info WRAY MUST GO or Comey beats Statute of Lim.

    Liked by 1 person

  44. Bob, Esq. says:

    From the Owl Farm:
    “There is nothing in the world more irresponsible and depraved than [the FBI] in the depths of a [sanctimony] binge.

    “Where’s the [sanctimony]?” said [the FBI]. “The [law] isn’t working.”

    This is the [problem with being coked to the gills on your sanctimony]: it makes you behave like the village drunkard in some early Irish novel . . . total loss of all basic [reasoning] skills: [tunnel] vision, no [equity], [forked] tongue – severance of all connection between [facts and law]. Which is interesting, because the brain continues to function more or less normally . . . you can actually watch yourself behaving in this terrible way, but you can’t control it.

    You approach the [FISA Court] and you know that when you get there, you have to give the [judge probable cause] or he won’t [let you spy on a presidential campaign] . . . but when you get there, everything goes wrong: you see yourself mumbling in Footnote 8: “Dogs F(@*’d the Pope, no fault of mine… Besides, the FBI wouldn’t give any oldprivate contractor access to raw FISA information.—to fuse into a fictional dossier and launder through an ex-British spy creating the illusion of actionable intelligence and probable cause for a fraudulent counterintelligence investigation into a presidential candidate and duly elected president—because that would be illegal.
    Treasonous even. Orders from Captain Zeep.”
    – Hunter S. Thompson.

    Like

  45. Kleen says:

    If what she said is true then Trump should use FISA on every single Democrat and loud mouth celebrities. Let’s see how that goes.

    Like

  46. jambo says:

    Tricia Anderson, FBI Principal Deputy General Counsel within the Office of General Counsel sees it differently in her Oversight committee interview

    “What is a Woods file?

    A Woods file is a file of documents that’s maintained to support the accuracy of every individual fact that’s contained in a FISA application.

    So this is a file. Any fact that is presented in the application, this file documents the source of that individual fact?

    That’s correct.

    And it would probably be more robust than the actual application. My understanding would be the application is asserting the fact but it might not have every detail about the fact or where the fact came from, where the
    Woods file would have all of that as a repository.

    That could be the case, yes.”

    The Woods file has to justify the assertions in the FISA application.

    Bob says x, The Woods file has to say who Bob is why he should be trusted and how he would have been in a position to know x, else what Bob said should not have been included in the application.

    The application was a fraudulent attempted cover up for the unauthorised spying that had been taking place for years under Obama.

    They are still all criminals.

    Like

  47. Bryan Alexander says:

    I’m wondering why Evelyn Farkas was worried about the Obama Shadow Administration losing their source of information. It appears that you slip “Agent of a Foreign Power” in front of someone’s name on a FISA warrant and the NSA will gather everything down to your REM Sleep cycle brainwaves. And the FISA judges apparently don’t even read the warrant application.

    (A long pause here)

    There is a reason that Comey and those FBI toadies are so smug and arrogant. They have worked the system for so long that they have figured out how to abuse and misuse the most powerful law allowing spying on American citizens.

    They fully believe they can get away with it, because they know the “white hats” will not want to burn down the entire institution just to get them, because that is what it WILL take to get them.

    Liked by 1 person

  48. CopperTop says:

    Sally Moyer testimony. Read here before buying her BS :https://www.fisc.uscourts.gov/sites/default/files/FISC%20Rules%20of%20Procedure.pdf

    Liked by 1 person

  49. TradeBait says:

    Being fired is not enough – that’s what we are saying. Anything less than charges, perp walks, convictions and severe penalties proves there are two separate justice systems. There is enough there to charge. The first charge is for lying under oath by over half to them. If one of us did that we would be charged. You can’t lie, you simply plead the fifth or state the response relates to classified material. These responses then dictate the next actions. Lying is a crime. They did and it is in evidence. The second charge is withholding evidence. All letter agencies have withheld evidence legitimately requested and required ever step of the way. They couched the results. Couching is a legal term for camouflaging or cloaking something of importance. Intentionally phrasing and responding in a way to paint a different picture of reality. That is a crime – it is a way of hiding truth and supporting lies/liars. The third charge is destroying evidence. That covers another batch of proven criminal acts. It goes on and on. Sorry – circular logic may be how they play the game and attempt to avoid prosecution, but it doesn’t cover up the crimes.

    I do want to thank these snob-azz NWO criminals for openly disclosing their criminality and incompetence. Now We the People no longer have to guess if things are as bad as they appear. That is no longer a valid question to consider.

    Like

  50. CopperTop says:

    from the FISC procedure documentation:

    “Rule 1. Scope of Rules. These rules, which are promulgated pursuant to 50 U.S.C. § 1803(g),
    govern all proceedings in the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court (“the Court”). Issues not
    addressed in these rules or the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, as amended (“the Act”),
    may be resolved under the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure or the Federal Rules of Civil
    Procedure. ”

    Judge Collyer’s huge report is addressing everything that is INCORRECT about the FISC as a matter of plain old ordinary law. Law for which there are Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure…that need to be followed…

    AKA proper PREDICATTE

    Liked by 1 person

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