Recently Released FISA Court Response to DOJ Reveals Direction of Durham Probe – DOJ Requested FISC Approvals…

A very interesting release by ODNI John Ratcliffe [LINK] highlights a June 25, 2020 response from the FISA court to the DOJ.  There are five issues queried by the DOJ seeking guidance from the FISC.  Each issue points to a specific path being taken by the DOJ in general… and the John Durham probe specifically.

Today, the ODNI, in consultation with the Department of Justice, releases a June 25, 2020, opinion by the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court (FISC) evaluating and approving limited circumstances under which the Government may temporarily retain, use, or disclose information that was unlawfully acquired pursuant to a FISC order. (more)

Important note:  We are looking at this in hindsight.  The response from the FISC was dated June 25, 2020, so the request for opinion from the court was before June 25th.

The court opinion tells us for the first time, the DOJ is admitting/stating that ALL FOUR of the Carter Page FISA applications were corrupt upon origination.   This is a big deal. In previous filing with the court (January 2020) DOJ only refuted the predication for the second and third renewal.

Within the FISC reply we see the DOJ stating all four submissions contained material omissions and violations of “the duty of candor” (ie. lying)  by the FBI investigative unit and the DOJ team that assembled the application(s).

As we look closely at the response we see some very specific language that tells a story.

Apparently the DOJ asked the FISA court for guidance on five very specific issues centering around the Carter Page FISA application.  The DOJ is asking for legal guidance to assist them in disclosing information in the FISA file & evidence attached to the FISA file.

The five issues all circle around the FBI/DOJ use of the Carter Page FISA application; and, more importantly, the underlying evidence that is attached to the FISA application.  The five topics are very interesting:

  1.  DOJ requests guidance for distribution of material due to FOIA demands.  FISC gives legal opinion.
  2.  DOJ requests guidance for distribution of material due to ongoing and anticipated civil litigation.  The FISC gives legal opinion and expands to criminal litigation.
  3.  DOJ requests guidance for distribution of material to internal investigative units from the FBI inspectors division (INSD).  FISC gives opinion and advice.
  4.  DOJ requests guidance for distribution of non-minimized information, and/or, minimized information as part of the ongoing Office of Inspector General oversight.  FISC gives opinion and guidance.
  5.  DOJ requests guidance for distribution of material to John Durham probe, both for criminal prosecution and possible evidence gathering attached to other ongoing investigative needs.  FISC gives opinion and guidance.

The opinion from the FISC is only 20 pages long [direct pdf here], and if you skip the citations it’s a pretty straight forward answer from Judge Boasberg to review.  I would strongly urge everyone to take a few minutes and read it… carefully…. to see what John Durham was asking.

Pages #6 and #7 talk specifically about the different requirements for retention and distribution and outlines a cautious approach toward distribution.  One of the disconcerting parts of this segment seems to be the FISA court subtly guiding the DOJ away from using non-minimized raw FISA material in prosecution of intentional malfeasance.   On this issue the court says allowing a target to escape prosecution is part of the penalty upon the DOJ for wrongful assembly.

The court does not consider the DOJ is targeting the “assemblers” for their criminal conduct.  Rather the response is general toward criminals who were targets of a FISA application assembled with corrupt intent. A little weird.

Pages #11 and #12 hit the topic of FOIA production.  The court says “some” FOIA requests might warrant document distribution, but not all.   However, on the topic of Carter Page getting his FOIA fulfilled, the court supports expansive distribution to Mr. Page.

I find the arguments and issues in/around page #14 to be especially noteworthy.  In this segment the court is responding to the underlying raw evidence that would normally be used to assemble a “woods file”.  The court notes the FBI Sentinel system would contain the minimized outcomes (redacted evidence) and this points to a bigger issue.  READ:

Note the woods file would be what is in the Sentinel system.  The government (Durham Probe) needs “access to the case file” beyond what is in the Sentinel system.  Durham wants to see the raw data, the underlying raw intelligence.

Why?

It looks like Durham investigators were already on the trail of the special counsel creating a Woods file…. and/or wants to see if the Steele Dossier is the original substantive documentation that underpins the Woods file.   Notice how INSD previously received “hard copies” of documentation that is presumed to be the Woods file.

Regardless of motive or investigative suspicion, someone wants to compare the raw intel to the intel that made it into the FBI/DOJ Sentinel system.

In response to this inquiry Judge Boasberg notes FBI investigators would have access to the minimized information within the Sentinel system; however, insofar as there was additional inquiry into the raw and non-minimized intelligence, a review and distribution would be permissible so long as there was a strong filter team in place to ensure statutes surrounding FISA security were not violated.

Overall, Boasberg gives permission and approval for all six aspects requested.  However, he does so with several legal qualifiers and distinctions which the DOJ must observe.

Here’s the full reply and opinion.  Strongly suggest the time to review:

.

 

This entry was posted in 1st Amendment, 4th Amendment, Abusive Cops, AG Bill Barr, Big Government, Big Stupid Government, Conspiracy ?, Decepticons, Deep State, Dept Of Justice, Donald Trump, Donald Trump Transition, Election 2016, Election 2020, FBI, IG Report Comey, IG Report FISA Abuse, IG Report McCabe, Legislation, media bias, Notorious Liars, President Trump, Spygate, Spying, THE BIG UGLY, Tripwires, Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

309 Responses to Recently Released FISA Court Response to DOJ Reveals Direction of Durham Probe – DOJ Requested FISC Approvals…

  1. Deplorable Canuck says:

    Still, not just the third and fourth, but the first and second application for FISA warrant was “illegally” obtained! That in itself is a stunning admission by the DOJ and opens them up to massive litigation from Page, which, I hope he takes advantage of. At least there would be some recompense! It should tell everybody willing to listen that the whole Russia hoax was predicated on an original lie!

    Liked by 9 people

    • gary says:

      i just hope it sinks into judge sullivan.

      Liked by 3 people

    • Carrie says:

      Carter Page is most likely CIA and was placed there. He won’t sue his employer. He will just continue to spew word salad during his interviews.

      Liked by 14 people

      • Tramo says:

        You are correct

        Liked by 1 person

      • French Brinton says:

        The crazy thing is that Richard Nixon’s son in law was the person who recommended Carter Page to the Trump Team.

        Like

      • dasantacroce says:

        Always thought so. He even looks fishy.

        Like

      • Krashman Von Stinkputin says:

        Carter Page is most likely CIA and was placed there. He won’t sue his employer.
        Your comment is non-responsive.

        Why would Carter Page sue the CIA when it was the FBI/DOJ-NSD who violated his civil rights with an illegally obtained FISA warrant??

        From the opinion referenced in this thread:
        Pg 12-14
        HERE:https://www.intelligence.gov/assets/documents/702%20Documents/declassified/June_2020_FISC_Opinion.pdf

        2. Page’s Civil LITIGATION
        “The government advises that, on October 12, 2019, Page himself filed a complaint
        against DOJ alleging FOIA and Privacy Act violations, including that he was improperly denied access to his own records….

        The government further reports that Page’s attorneys have advised DOJ of more claims that he may bring against the government, ‘including violations of the Patriot Act, FISA, the Privacy Act, and the Federal Tort Claims Act’….

        Finally, although the Court cannot know the exact nature of claims that Page has not yet
        brought, it is foreseeable that they may seek redress for alleged injury from the unauthorized surveillance and search…..

        The Court consequently concludes that§§ I 809(a)(2) and I 827(a)(2) do not prohibit use or disclosure insofar as necessary for the good-faith conduct of litigation of any future claims brought by Page seeking redress for unlawful surveillance and search or disclosure of the results of such surveillance and search.

        Liked by 1 person

        • Joemama says:

          “Why would Carter Page sue the CIA when it was the FBI/DOJ-NSD who violated his civil rights with an illegally obtained FISA warrant??”

          Peter Strzok worked for both the FBI and the C_A. He appears to be the main guy behind going after Carter Page.

          I keep asking this question, because I don’t know how to answer it:

          Peter Strzok got fired from the FBI. Does he still work for and get paid by the C_A?

          If the answer is yes, he needs to be fired a second time.

          Liked by 1 person

          • Krashman Von Stinkputin says:

            Peter Strzok worked for both the FBI and the C_A.

            You have a link you can share that definitively backs this up?
            I’ve never seen this confirmed.
            Brennan admitted PS was part of his ICA task force….
            And I’ve heard lots of chatter about this

            But I’ve never seen anything approaching a confirmation of this.

            Like

      • WhiteBoard says:

        Carrie – if this is the case – then Clinesmith is innocent. he was ordered to follow a CIA operation.

        Like

    • inspectorudy says:

      I agree and while not being a lawyer I have heard of “Fruit of the poisoned tree” before meaning that anything obtained that came from that original tainted source is poisoned as well and is not permissible in a courtroom. Why wasn’t that the case here? Why weren’t all four FISA warrants thrown out?

      Liked by 1 person

      • gary says:

        they are now. barr gave a speech today about the insubordination in the DOJ. the end is near for the sdny types. the first warrant and the first renewal were clung to by the insiders. . IT’S ALL OVER NOW. l a gunns.

        Liked by 3 people

        • swal106 says:

          Do you really believe that? WHY do you think this Election is being conducted in the way it is? WHAT do you think Covid 19 was about. WHAT do you think ALL this Rioting, Looting and murder is about? EVERY SINGLE bit of it has been to defeat Trump in November. IF they succeed, EVERY BIT of this disappears. WHY do you think Boasberg set this to start in Jan. ’21, AFTER the election? They EVERYONE are corrupted in this. Sullivan is a PRIME example of what I’m talking about. I have absolutely ZERO confidence in ONE person in our entire DOJ/FBI/JUDICIARY.

          Liked by 4 people

          • C2C says:

            Boasberg set it for after election because he wants to see how the election turns out so he knows where to stand. If the evil doers end up winning the election he’s not gonna want to be on record as against them.

            Like

          • jeff montanye says:

            not sure rioting, looting, and murder is the best way to defeat trump in november. imo it is losing the dems an increasing fraction of the black vote as well as the white and hispanic.

            Like

      • JimFromNH2 says:

        …As in those tainted source documents being falsely prepared, and non-factual.

        Like

      • berniekopell says:

        The “fruit of the poisonous tree” doctrine was created by Wong Sun v. US. The link below explains the decision:

        https://law.jrank.org/pages/23977/Wong-Sun-v-United-States-Significance.html

        One of the reasons the FISC is segregating all evidence collected under the Page warrants (now found to be illegal) is to later determine whether that illegally obtained evidence was used to get convictions.

        Like

        • Krashman Von Stinkputin says:

          illegally obtained evidence was used to get convictions.
          We know what every Mueller conviction was and Carter Page wasn’t one of them.

          So… honest question:
          What was the fruit that came from the Carter Page FISA surveillance that poisoned any of them??

          I think we need to think broader than “convictions” to figure out how this surveillance was used.
          My hunch is this is what Nunes stumbled upon and told us about in March 2017 when he held his press conference on “unmaskings”.
          So I will be watching what John Bash (and possibly John Ratcliffe) come up with.

          Like

          • WhiteBoard says:

            Raw data of CHILDREN.

            Raw data of SPOUSES of Random aquaintances of Campaign members

            Nunes personal NAME unmasked.

            there is one portion of the Collyer Report we MUST POSt – it doesnt get enough attnetion

            Liked by 1 person

            • Krashman Von Stinkputin says:

              These were used in Mueller prosecutions??

              Like

              • jeff montanye says:

                the fisa applications were used to surveil the trump campaign, transition team, and administration. the surveillance was double hop: everyone carter page called and everyone those people called; all wiretapped. that’s a lot of poisoned evidence.

                Liked by 1 person

                • Krashman Von Stinkputin says:

                  The fruit of the poisonous tree doctrine prevents the PROSECUTION from admitting certain evidence INTO A CRIMINAL CASE after it has been tainted by a primary illegality. This doctrine is meant to remove illegally-acquired evidence from negatively impacting a criminal DEFENDANT.
                  What PROSECUTION?
                  What EVIDENCE?
                  What CRIMINAL CASE?
                  What DEFENDANT?

                  These are the questions that must be answered to invoke “Poisonous Tree”.

                  Like

      • Bert G. says:

        My understanding is if you sign a false FISA document you are libel and responsible, therefore subject to penalties.

        Like

    • WSB says:

      I am still confused about the first FISA warrant…the one that was denied. Very few FISA’s are denied.

      And with the POS dossier in the appeal, what did the first rejected one have in it?

      Liked by 3 people

      • ann says:

        Great question.

        Liked by 3 people

      • regitiger says:

        my instinct there was nothing substantively different on the first application.

        theories:

        it was voluntarily withdrawn because a fisc.judge (yet unnamed asked uncomfortable questions related to

        predicate
        why the need for “about” 17 clause
        have you exhausted all other means to collect below a 702
        why are we using foreign supplied Intel of dubious origin and content
        are you sure you want to go fishing expedition on prez candidate with this?

        so…they shopped the same application around waiting until rotation of fisc judges… then they got strikeouts fan boy Contreras to sign.

        note:. none of this should imply they waited to start spying and engaging counter intel fraud…one nuance of the fisa power congress gave FBI and the IC is the ability to commence ops using primary executive power (obummer!).,, and then later seek fisc authority.

        isnt the secret police spy state awesome?

        Liked by 1 person

        • WSB says:

          Ha! Yes, it is.

          I would want to review dates for the original. It may have been three months before the first appeal.

          However, I do not believe Contreras was on the bench yet.

          There needs to be further detail on this.

          Like

      • Krashman Von Stinkputin says:

        what did the first rejected one have in it?

        WSB your answer is in the declassified Carter Page FISA application.
        HERE:https://assets.documentcloud.org/documents/4614708/Carter-Page-FISA-Application.pdf
        It had everything you see EXCEPT for the STEELE DOSSIER related material specifically an alleged FEDERAL CRIME

        The Application shows the 2 requirements that need to met to make application:
        1) The Target of this application is a agent of a foreign power
        This was establish when they opened C-H (and assumed when they opened Crossfire Fury(?) the Carter Page specific piece.
        EC on CH HERE:https://justthenews.com/sites/default/files/2020-05/JW-v-DOJ-reply-02743.pdf
        Note on page 5
        Case ID: Crossfire Hurricane; Foreign Agent Registrations Act – Russia

        2) The target IS or ABOUT TO commit a Federal Crime
        page 32:
        “the FBI submits there is probable cause to such activities involve or are about to involve violations of the CRIMINAL statutes of the United States (REDACTED)

        The Steele Dossier eventually gave them the “crime” prerequisite needed.
        Steele Dossier HERE:https://assets.documentcloud.org/documents/3259984/Trump-Intelligence-Allegations.pdf
        (note the reports are NOT in order)
        Carter Page is brought up in undated Report 095
        He is brought up in July 19, 2016 Report 094: “PAGE held secret meetings with SECHIN and DIVYEKIN”

        Report 134 CONVENIENTLY DATED OCTOBER 18, 2016
        Is the MOST IMPORTANT as the Carter Page story has evolved to include THE FEDERAL OFFENSE needed to get the FISA approved:

        “offer (to Carter Page) of large stake in Rosneft in return for lifting sanctions against Russia” QUID-PRO-QUO….a bribe.

        Remember also
        Steele gave this material to the FBI directly AND Isikoff at Yahoo News.
        The FBI used BOTH in the application (knowing it was the same EXACT source)

        THIS WAS the ONLY difference.

        Liked by 1 person

    • The Demon Slick says:

      I believe the original lie is “Russians hacked the dnc servers”. Shawn Henry of crowdstrike admitted under oath they couldn’t prove anyone “took anything out”. In the shifty hearing we didn’t get the transcripts for until 2 years later. There’s the lie that started the ball rolling.

      Liked by 3 people

    • Unless we was acting on the behalf of Brennan et al. That question is still out there.

      I am inclined to think he is not but I am open minded that he is a bad actor.

      Like

  2. Jason Ross says:

    Tick derpa derp tock.

    Liked by 2 people

  3. Carrie says:

    Liked by 3 people

  4. I am actually more optimistic that Barr and Durham may actually prosecute the principals in both the Crossfire Hurricane and the Mueller Investigation than I have been of late.

    First, the sentence that should send chills down the spine of every one of those miscreants is on page 8:

    “in contrast, [Sections] 1809(a)(2) and 1827(a)(2) specifically address the circumstances of this case, WHERE WE ALREADY KNOW (underlined) THAT INFORMATION WAS OBTAINED THROUGH UNLAWFUL SURVEILLANCE AND SEARCH, but the government contemplates using and disclosing it anyway.” When combined with the FISC’s conclusion that the original and three renewal applications were unlawfully obtained, and the DOJ’s refusal to contest that conclusion, this statement is a finding, as a matter of law, that Page was subject to unlawful electronic surveillance, and damn near a declaration that those who used or disclosed the information obtained through those applications committed felonies subject to criminal prosecution.

    At a minimum, this sentence gives Page and his attorneys a finding that the DOJ cannot contest in his civil suit when he seeks the Page FISA information, including the raw Page FISA information, that this decision says the government can disclose in good faith. It may also open the door for Sydney Powell to seek any Brady material applicable to General Flynn collected under the authority of these applications, since the opinion clearly contemplates that type of use on page 18. If General Flynn was ever within two hops of Page, that information may contain Brady material, including the possible confirmation that the FBI and NSD were using Page as a pretext to unlawfully spy on Flynn.

    But it also spells trouble for Mueller and his cohorts because unlawful electronic surveillance of Page occurred during their investigation and, even if the information was obtained before Mueller got his writ, any use by his investigation, at any time, would be unlawful.

    Second, it may be nothing, but I find intriguing the opinion’s use of the phrases “the Page investigation” and “the Page investigative file” on pages 7 and 14 in direct contrast to the phrase “and the broader ‘Crossfire Hurricane’ investigation of Russian interference in the 2016 Presidential election.” Recall, that FBI HQ ordered the New York Field Office to open a FARA investigation into Carter Page on April 1, 2016, almost four months before the official opening of the Crossfire Hurricane investigation on July 31, 2016. And the opinion clearly contemplates that “Page FISA information” is only a part of the underlying Page investigative file. Perhaps Barr and Durham are making the same distinction and investigating the entirety of the FARA investigation of Page and not just its inclusion into Crossfire Hurricane.

    Also, Page FISA information may include any communications demonstrating Page was an undercover employee of the FBI for purposes of the Buryakov FARA investigation and prosecution. For example, to the extent he spoke with SVR agents Sporyshev or Podobnyy by telephone, or communicated with them by email, the original FISA application authorized the electronic surveillance and retention of that information, which would, in turn, demonstrate that the original FISA application did not disclose that the alleged recruitment of Page as an agent of the Russian Federation by the SVR was unsuccessful. It would also demonstrate that he was being run by the NYFO, the SDNY and the DOJ-NSD against these SVR agents if he had any telephone or email communication with FBI agents responsible for his undercover employment or federal prosecutors responsible for ultimately presenting him as a critical chain-of-custody witness against Buryakov.

    Given the DOJ may end up paying Page a hefty sum in compensation for what this opinion conclusively finds is unlawful electronic surveillance, there is little chance that Barr and Durham did not sign off on its declassification by DNI Ratliffe. Cause for cautious optimism.

    Liked by 14 people

  5. WhiteBoard says:

    Go to the fisc website, re view the advisors (amicus)
    They all work with lisa page.. few their tweets..

    Zwillgen ( look at team working there)
    Jefrrees is another – lisa’s lawyer suing DOJ

    David kris – psycho anti trumper

    Challenge. Look it up yourself

    Liked by 5 people

  6. islandpalmtrees says:

    This is only a guess, but I think we are looking at a Correction or Modification. And, the FISCR had to initial. The FISCR appears to be the Clerk of the court.

    -1 – May-18Title I. Applicability of Rules.Rule 1. Scope of Rules. (a)Scope. These rules, which are promulgated pursuant to 50 U.S.C. § 1803(g), govern procedure in the United States Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court of Review (“FISCR”)

    (3)The “Clerk” refers to the Clerk of the Court for the FISCR and the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court (“FISC”).

    (b)Correction or Modification of the Record.(1)If any difference arises about whether the record truly discloses what occurred in the FISC, the difference must be submitted to and settled by the FISC judge who presided over the issue in dispute, and the record conformed accordingly.(2)If anything material to either party is omitted from or misstated in the record, whether by error or accident, the omission or misstatement may be corrected and a supplemental record may be certified and forwarded:(A)on stipulation of the parties;(B)by the FISC before or after the record has been forwarded; or(C)by the FISCR.(3)All other questions as to the form and content of the record must be presented to the FISCR

    http://www.uscourts.gov/sites/default/files/Rules%20of%20the%20Foreign%20Intelligence%20Surveillance%20Court.

    Liked by 1 person

  7. islandpalmtrees says:

    If the above guess is correct then what would cause Judge Boasberg to change the FISA prior to release?

    Liked by 1 person

  8. islandpalmtrees says:

    Judge Boasberg is viewed as corrupt by many. So making or hiding illegal actions would be expected.

    JUST IN: Reps Jordan, Meadows Send Letter to Judge Boasberg Demanding Answers About David Kris’s Appointment to Oversee FISA Reforms

    Liked by 6 people

    • As a Man Thinkth says:

      straight out of the Lawfare starting line up…All with that self righteous arrogant smurk…as though they already know how all of this will end…
      And why not, when the chief justice of the Supreme Court is a card totin member of Lawfare as well…

      Liked by 4 people

    • iwasthere says:

      Indeed, I find it very odd, that Boasberg is not throwing the book at ALL the LE that lied to his court and made them look the fools. No show cause orders. No bar referrals for discipline. He could be putting people in jail on contempt – for example, Clinesmith to tell the Court who was giving the orders. But nope. Nada. Did he even give Clinesmith a didactic lecture at the plea hearing? Nope. Fishy as heck I say. Anyone who have ever appeared before a Federal Judge knows the are ego manics and many have hair triggers. But getting caught submitting doctoring evidence, and then the court acted upon that, and made to look like fools and rubber stamps?? Any judge i’ve ever appeared in front of would have gone nuclear over that.

      Liked by 2 people

    • WhiteBoard says:

      HOLY SH_TTT!~!!!
      David Kris WAS A GD FISC ADVISOR!!!!!!!? i did not make this connection

      WHAT IN THE FCK, is he doing there?

      Island look at the FISC Amicus..
      https://www.fisc.uscourts.gov/amici-curiae

      Liked by 1 person

  9. Just a thought here. If they have a FISA warrant on Carter Page and he’s talked to people in the Special Counsel, does that mean the two hop rule could be used on them? Could the DOJ look at the communications of the members of Muellers team using that FISA warrant?

    Liked by 3 people

    • Angus says:

      No cause it’s no longer in effect

      But also cause our side plays by the rules even if it means suicide.

      I wanted one on mueller after WH meeting (mobile phone); but no dice.

      Some call this honor and lawful conduct.

      I do as well, mostly; but IF it means my children will be unequal under law and IF I know this to be true (because my kind is already unequal, if not slaughtered in the streets for the colors they wear) then my God has dispensed me with special provision to secure Liberty for His Children (to which mine belong); and for this end He wants more than suffering.

      Someone once said (I forget):
      ” the Constitution is not a suicide pact “

      Liked by 2 people

      • “The Constitution is not a suicide pact” is a phrase in American political and legal discourse. The phrase expresses the belief that constitutional restrictions on governmental power must be balanced against the need for survival of the state and its people. It is most often attributed to Abraham Lincoln, as a response to charges that he was violating the United States Constitution by suspending habeas corpus during the American Civil War. Although the phrase echoes statements made by Lincoln, and although versions of the sentiment have been advanced at various times in American history, the precise phrase “suicide pact” was first used in this context by Justice Robert H. Jackson in his dissenting opinion in Terminiello v. Chicago, a 1949 free speech case decided by the U.S. Supreme Court. The phrase also appears in the same context in Kennedy v. Mendoza-Martinez, a 1963 U.S. Supreme Court decision written by Justice Arthur Goldberg.

        https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Constitution_is_not_a_suicide_pact

        Liked by 1 person

  10. Sila says:

    The “color of law” language is the most important and powerful. It typically indicates the illegal use of lawful police powers. Could be good news for those of us skeptical about Barr-Durham investigative intent

    Liked by 2 people

    • Angus says:

      Dear Sila,

      It may be most important as you say but it is not powerful as 95% or more citizens have no clue what that phrase means (it’s actually a bad legal phrase for legislation IMO – it annoys me in this letter how they conflate “unauthorized” with “fraudulent” ! Did you notice that ? They never say fraudulent — somehow the phrase “unauthorized” provisions is used to cover “authorized but fraudulently obtained” FISA’s — I don’t like this spaghetti — I have seen worse though).

      [[ THEY WERE AUTHORIZED

      I SAW THE STAMP.

      YOU AUTHORIZED THEM FISC.

      DO NOT THINK WE DONT NOTICE.

      THEY WERE ___AUTHORIZED___ in every sense that the word “AUTHORIZED” can be used — you effing stamped the application. (Choose better words, please ?). ]]

      So at best it’s a hint (not a dog whistle – a dog whistle is something a large portion of only one side knows – no one hears this); but I hear you — we will see.

      My feelings on Barr have never changed. I have only tried to (let) see (him) from our vantage point. It’s important and generational.

      If I have to tell my kids about the freewheeling accosting of the US election process from inside that every one got away with Scot-free, then she will know I am full of cr@p and not to be fully trusted (as i tell her this is a free people and fair election system).

      My daughter is not stupid.
      Shall I raise her to be stupid ?
      She knows when people are not forthright ?

      Have I raised her wrong ?

      Liked by 2 people

  11. capetribulation1 says:

    When it takes 1 year for each query and another year for each response, it’s no wonder we are going nowhere fast. Unacceptable.

    Liked by 2 people

  12. Angus says:

    Holy **** that was a waste of life reading that.

    I’m gonna leave the accurate interpretation to others (I guess techno was busy) … I assume this isn’t important.

    So … I scratched some notes while I read – for kicks and giggles – this is all complete BS I am typing. Reading this is way harder than reading a California proposition (voting) … is this what is required to keep our republic my fellow citizens ? Is no one we pay with taxes to do this for US ??

    Did you ever notice propositions seem intentionally worded to be confusing ? Always slanted towards more taxes/spending ? … anyway, I DIGRESS

    Pg 0+
    Wtf: that name on the stamp is familiar… but the judges rotate regularly …
    Ok, whatever. Even if this is a test

    (MY) Question:

    “What are the exact procedures, as it pertains to the FBI system, FOR DESTRUCTION AS PER FISA?”

    “IS THIS SIMILAR TO VERIFYING THAT contractor exported DATA WAS DELETED ?”

    “LIKE WITH A CLOTH ?”
    “OR IpHONE-STYLE ?”

    Pg 5
    The “crime” perpetrator is not specified; could it be the FBI itself (it just says if a crime has been committed …)

    Pg 6
    “Nothing requires them to destroy” … “nothing permits them to retain”
    Ho hum … what is in the middle of that soup ?

    Pg 7
    Oct 21 2019 fisc order – oh boy – we have a live one here – rogue operator ?
    What/who was that order ??

    Pg 9
    Yep – not the warrant suspect they are after here …
    “Than that officers” … yep

    Pg 13
    Ok, but still no mention of 4th Amendment, not even once.
    So so many USC numbers idc about. No 4A

    Pg 14
    So ur saying Duggin was INSD ? That’s how ?
    (Btw, it says “and associated woods files” re: hard copies)

    —- gonna spitball:

    1 * Whoever wrote the first ten pages … well done.

    2 * I have a conspiracy theory about the 50 mil to gps:

    This is a real conspiracy tinfoil shot out there:
    But, Wait …

    Pg 15
    “Particular employee” ? Who is that ?

    Pg 17
    They are saying these are particular FBI individuals

    Pg 18
    [The team does not have access to unminimized …] “however, members of the team do have access” … “to the sentinel system” …

    Ok whatever.

    … go fish ? I guess is what we are playing ?

    Oh, dude. FISC is telling FBI where to look in their (FBIS’s) own IT system.

    Wow. Snap

    Pg 19
    Yep. they are saying “dude, we aren’t gonna sequester this so your corrupt department can cover its ass — plus, that could never have been the intent of the law.”

    Duh.

    Hey Weissman,
    Read this release bruh.
    You ever here the story about the cooked goose ?
    Whether it’s about you or not … TAG; you’re it.

    Pg 20 +
    I’m done .. not reading the conclusion.

    — back to the tinfoil:

    What if you had a whole outfit that was geared to mine a database for specific type of info ?

    Like specific queries (scripts) code and compiled maybe … who knows…

    Now, you are sco and you get carte blanche to sift through 100x as much info…

    How do you do it ?
    The scripts + code are already in use somewhere ….
    You don’t want to get Main hQ in on anything you can’t monitor/control completely …

    Maybe you just want to save effort time and use the same scripts / code .:: ?

    Maybe you buy it from them or maybe you ‘export’ it and have them do it … idk

    I wouldn’t want to have to write that junk twice … would you ?

    Glen ? Henry ? Would you be happy to offer ?

    Between the lines = messy stuff and collaborators.

    MEMO TO PERPS:
    You are toast if you lose this election (which you will – I promise).
    Better gear up

    Like

  13. JG3 says:

    For you brilliant, legal guys, on here:

    1. Was/Is all this Obstruction of Justice?

    2. If so, did it influence the 2018 election?

    3. If so, can it be so established, in time? And, can it be used to remove Pelosi from Speaker? before Nov 3rd? Thus, preventing her from becoming president? if election comes down to it?

    Liked by 1 person

  14. Dwayne Diesel says:

    Yes, yes…you good guys have your hands tied. Don’t worry though, the bad guys didn’t have to follow any of the rules so good luck.

    More built in cover IMO. But, also IMO, this release is to show the swamp- we know and we’re very very very on to you…

    Liked by 1 person

  15. Dwayne Diesel says:

    Yes, yes…you good guys have your hands tied. Don’t worry though, the bad guys didn’t have to follow any of the rules so good luck.

    More built in cover IMO. But, also IMO, this release is to show the swamp- we know and we’re very very very on to you…

    Like

    • DefenderOfTroyDonahue says:

      I’m not picking on you, Diesel, because a lot of folks do it . . . but every post on this board is someone’s opinion. All those IMOs are superfluous and quite annoying.

      I wish everyone would cease using IMO and IMHO. At least . . that’s my opinion.

      Like

      • Dwayne Diesel says:

        Interesting you comment about using IMO and IMHO, but then finish that’s my opinion.

        Actually, not all posts are opinions. Some provide facts mingled with opinion, which then if your honest should be prefaced with IMO because you are differentiating between facts and your opinion.

        Like

        • DefenderOfTroyDonahue says:

          Apparently my attempt at ironic humor went whizzing past you like a Nolan Ryan fastball.

          But you do make a reasonable point about facts and opinion. Reasonable . . but not convincing. If I write, “Tomorrow the sky will be blue and Biden will be an idiot” . . . that’s a mixture of fact and opinion, but it’s the opinion which is more of a grabber than the fact.

          In any case . . . I again beseech you and everyone else . . . to avoid tacking IMO and IMHO to your posts. Unneeded and unnerving.

          Like

  16. airedalesrule says:

    Since when and by what authority does the FISC arregate the right to determine its own authorities & rules of operation for ongoing and ex post facto abuse?

    Like

  17. airedalesrule says:

    Since when and by what authority does the FISC arregate the right to determine its own authorities & rules of operation for ongoing and ex post facto abuse?

    Like

  18. Angus says:

    Tell me then (as I mean to box in):

    If nothing can be done,

    A) We are stupid

    B) the system is broken

    C) the government is corrupt

    What else ?? What is the other option ??

    It’s too nuanced a transgression to prosecute ?
    That falls under B)

    We chose the wrong candidate ?
    That falls under A)

    There is no one that will prosecute the case ?
    That falls under C)

    D) ???

    What else is their ??

    No crimes at all ?
    That falls under A) (probably true to an extent)

    It takes time ?
    2 years is a B) with a grade F
    (If it takes this long (2 years) to interview (start — you need to just start dismantling some layers … right ? Ask any systems engineer — DO IT)

    Please help DOJ ?

    Why are you trying to reinvent the wheel ?

    If you need help just let the People know.
    We can learn things very quickly you would be surprised what Americans can and will do.

    Like

    • Joemama says:

      Option D is the second amendment. You use it when options B & C are so egregious and unfix-able that there is no other option. You forceably remove all the criminals and start over.

      We are perilously close to that point.

      Like

  19. Badger says:

    This is like the small cinema downtown in the old days. Newsreel, 2 cartoons, feature followed by intermission (and he sure to visit our Snack Bar), followed by feature.
    In the end, even with the a kid’s student discount, you still come out 75-cents poorer and little wiser.

    Like

  20. SeanNY2 says:

    Couldn’t they have asked Carter Page to allow them to review this material? And wouldn’t his consent have lessened the need for minimization?

    If page assumes that the bad guys have already seen his information, I would think he would want the good guys to see that same information, to help catch the bad guys? Maybe he wouldn’t, but then again it wouldn’t hurt to ask.

    Like

    • Hans says:

      Let’s not get lost in the woods.

      . It’s not about carter Page…. it’s about the two hops and the spying on president Trump,, all the mention of Carter Page is more smoke and mirrors.

      It’s like the elephant in the room… that is avoided by MSM….

      Like

  21. islandpalmtrees says:

    The FISCR is court hidden in plain sight. Look at its ability to stop the actions of FISC.

    We all need to understand this three man panel better.

    On November 16, 2018, the FISCR granted the government’s request “to stay the implementation of those aspects” of the FISC’s orders “that would preclude the FBI from conducting queries of Section 702 information” while the appeal was pending. Id. at 21 n.60.

    Click to access 2018_Cert_FISC_Opinion_04Sep19.pdf

    Like

  22. Tom Hansen says:

    This disclosure immensely benefits Carter Page. I hope he sues the DOJ/FBI for a gazillion dollars and gets every penny of it. However, I see no indictments on the horizon for all those who participated in the grand on going coup. The Federal Government is rotten to its core, aka The Swamp.

    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