Lavender Room
Login required to started new threads
Login required to post replies
Post deleted by spudone
[ In reply to ]
Re: Mueller...Mueller...Anyone? [spudone]
[ In reply to ]
also trumps phones were never tapped (the equivalent of your phones in this analogy).
Re: Mueller...Mueller...Anyone? [dave_w]
[ In reply to ]
dave_w wrote:
chaparral wrote:
orphious wrote:
Welp I think Nunes is about to drop criminal charges on about 8 people in the AGs lap.
This is what the fourth or fifth time Nunes has claimed this and every other time it has been a stunt, but this time it is real and not some stunt? I mean this is a man that is suing a fake cow on twitter for making puns. This is the man you think knows anything?
I suggest you put your faith in someone that is competent and not someone that just pulls stunts to get on fox news.
-
I'll take Nunes for the win! "Trumped" up charges while he led the house committee kept him out for like 8 months before they finished slow-walking his innocence, yet we still found from his memo that Hillary was the money and impetus behind the dossier, and that the dossier was important to approval of FISA warrants. Since then we've learned that Schiff lied in his characterization of the same info (and about Nunes' handling of it).
We knew Hillary funded the dossier before Nunes. That was a fact when the dossier became public with buzzfeed. Similarly, the rest of your claims are not based in facts at all and just ignore facts.
Re: Mueller...Mueller...Anyone? [dave_w]
[ In reply to ]
dave_w wrote:
chaparral wrote:
spntrxi wrote:
patentattorney wrote:
can you provide me to a link that trump was spied on? Surveillance of people in trumps orbit is not the same as surveillance of trump. Its like if you have a friend who is a drug dealer, and there is a stake out at the drug dealers house. If you go to the drug dealers house, you are not being spied on.
his campaign... I should have said... do you own leg work since you have short term memory loss. You are just being lazy to be lazy.
Carter Page FISA was applied for and gotten AFTER he had left the campaign.
-
I've read that the approval of that warrant allows a look into all communications; calls, emails, etc, both forward and backward in time. Not true?
Not true.
Even then, wouldn't it make more sense to get a warrant for someone still working on the campaign if you want to "spy" on the campaign?
Re: Mueller...Mueller...Anyone? [chaparral]
[ In reply to ]
chaparral wrote:
dave_w wrote:
chaparral wrote:
orphious wrote:
Welp I think Nunes is about to drop criminal charges on about 8 people in the AGs lap.
This is what the fourth or fifth time Nunes has claimed this and every other time it has been a stunt, but this time it is real and not some stunt? I mean this is a man that is suing a fake cow on twitter for making puns. This is the man you think knows anything?
I suggest you put your faith in someone that is competent and not someone that just pulls stunts to get on fox news.
-
I'll take Nunes for the win! "Trumped" up charges while he led the house committee kept him out for like 8 months before they finished slow-walking his innocence, yet we still found from his memo that Hillary was the money and impetus behind the dossier, and that the dossier was important to approval of FISA warrants. Since then we've learned that Schiff lied in his characterization of the same info (and about Nunes' handling of it).
We knew Hillary funded the dossier before Nunes. That was a fact when the dossier became public with buzzfeed. Similarly, the rest of your claims are not based in facts at all and just ignore facts.
This is when the Hillary connection was made public, it was just "political opponents" in the Buzzfeed report. Nunes revealed that the FISA requests also failed to name the Clinton side, going instead with opponents.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/...m_term=.3b99581b5039
Re: Mueller...Mueller...Anyone? [dave_w]
[ In reply to ]
dave_w wrote:
chaparral wrote:
dave_w wrote:
chaparral wrote:
orphious wrote:
Welp I think Nunes is about to drop criminal charges on about 8 people in the AGs lap.
This is what the fourth or fifth time Nunes has claimed this and every other time it has been a stunt, but this time it is real and not some stunt? I mean this is a man that is suing a fake cow on twitter for making puns. This is the man you think knows anything?
I suggest you put your faith in someone that is competent and not someone that just pulls stunts to get on fox news.
-
I'll take Nunes for the win! "Trumped" up charges while he led the house committee kept him out for like 8 months before they finished slow-walking his innocence, yet we still found from his memo that Hillary was the money and impetus behind the dossier, and that the dossier was important to approval of FISA warrants. Since then we've learned that Schiff lied in his characterization of the same info (and about Nunes' handling of it).
We knew Hillary funded the dossier before Nunes. That was a fact when the dossier became public with buzzfeed. Similarly, the rest of your claims are not based in facts at all and just ignore facts.
-
This is when the Hillary connection was made public, it was just "political opponents" in the Buzzfeed report. Nunes revealed that the FISA requests also failed to name the Clinton side, going instead with opponents.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/...m_term=.3b99581b5039
So once again, it was not due to Nunes that we knew it Clinton that paid for it. Thanks for proving that.
Also, yes the FBI did not name Clinton in the FISA application, because naming her would be against the procedures. For the same reason the application did not mention trump, nor anyone that they were non investigating. That is how they do these things. Same way that the Cohen charging documents did not mention trump, but mentioned "individual 1." It would have been improper to mention Clinton specifically or trump specifically. So yes, Nunes showed *checks notes* that the FBI followed procedure by not naming Clinton.
Re: Mueller...Mueller...Anyone? [chaparral]
[ In reply to ]
Hey don't forget that it was not the original Buzzfeed piece that named the Clinton campaign as funders, but was reported 10 months later. You might want to look into Obama's action in 2011 to see how it plays in the govts ability to look at communications. This is from Wiki, but you can find the same from many sources:
"In 2011, the Obama administration secretly won permission from the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court to reverse restrictions on the National Security Agency's use of intercepted phone calls and e-mails, permitting the agency to search deliberately for Americans' communications in its massive databases."
"In 2011, the Obama administration secretly won permission from the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court to reverse restrictions on the National Security Agency's use of intercepted phone calls and e-mails, permitting the agency to search deliberately for Americans' communications in its massive databases."
Re: Mueller...Mueller...Anyone? [dave_w]
[ In reply to ]
dave_w wrote:
Hey don't forget that it was not the original Buzzfeed piece that named the Clinton campaign as funders, but was reported 10 months later. You might want to look into Obama's action in 2011 to see how it plays in the govts ability to look at communications. This is from Wiki, but you can find the same from many sources: "In 2011, the Obama administration secretly won permission from the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court to reverse restrictions on the National Security Agency's use of intercepted phone calls and e-mails, permitting the agency to search deliberately for Americans' communications in its massive databases."
Still, it was not from Nunes.
You may want to read the two sentences after what you quoted "The searches take place under a surveillance program Congress authorized in 2008 under Section 702 of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act. Under that law, the target must be a foreigner "reasonably believed" to be outside the United States, and the court must approve the targeting procedures in an order good for one year." Was Carter Page a foreigner? That is your first hint what you are referencing does not apply here.
What you quoted only applies to surveillance under section 702, which is not what was not what was used for Carter Page, which was under Title 1.
Re: Mueller...Mueller...Anyone? [chaparral]
[ In reply to ]
chaparral wrote:
dave_w wrote:
Hey don't forget that it was not the original Buzzfeed piece that named the Clinton campaign as funders, but was reported 10 months later. You might want to look into Obama's action in 2011 to see how it plays in the govts ability to look at communications. This is from Wiki, but you can find the same from many sources: "In 2011, the Obama administration secretly won permission from the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court to reverse restrictions on the National Security Agency's use of intercepted phone calls and e-mails, permitting the agency to search deliberately for Americans' communications in its massive databases."
Still, it was not from Nunes.
You may want to read the two sentences after what you quoted "The searches take place under a surveillance program Congress authorized in 2008 under Section 702 of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act. Under that law, the target must be a foreigner "reasonably believed" to be outside the United States, and the court must approve the targeting procedures in an order good for one year." Was Carter Page a foreigner? That is your first hint what you are referencing does not apply here.
What you quoted only applies to surveillance under section 702, which is not what was not what was used for Carter Page, which was under Title 1.
No, not from Nunes, which I made a point of checking and posting the correction, while you avoided admitting your mistake on the other end. Of course I read those lines, the point was that those 5 years, now 6, were available to be combed under the FISA warrant obtained ( If you remember intel agencies under Obama earned a rebuke from the FISA court for abusing the data and looking into Americans anyway.) Either way, the look into Page, or anyone else, would seem to automatically include prior communications for the 702 period, so your "not true" to my question would actually be wrong.
Re: Mueller...Mueller...Anyone? [dave_w]
[ In reply to ]
dave_w wrote:
chaparral wrote:
dave_w wrote:
Hey don't forget that it was not the original Buzzfeed piece that named the Clinton campaign as funders, but was reported 10 months later. You might want to look into Obama's action in 2011 to see how it plays in the govts ability to look at communications. This is from Wiki, but you can find the same from many sources: "In 2011, the Obama administration secretly won permission from the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court to reverse restrictions on the National Security Agency's use of intercepted phone calls and e-mails, permitting the agency to search deliberately for Americans' communications in its massive databases."
Still, it was not from Nunes.
You may want to read the two sentences after what you quoted "The searches take place under a surveillance program Congress authorized in 2008 under Section 702 of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act. Under that law, the target must be a foreigner "reasonably believed" to be outside the United States, and the court must approve the targeting procedures in an order good for one year." Was Carter Page a foreigner? That is your first hint what you are referencing does not apply here.
What you quoted only applies to surveillance under section 702, which is not what was not what was used for Carter Page, which was under Title 1.
-
No, not from Nunes, which I made a point of checking and posting the correction, while you avoided admitting your mistake on the other end. Of course I read those lines, the point was that those 5 years, now 6, were available to be combed under the FISA warrant obtained ( If you remember intel agencies under Obama earned a rebuke from the FISA court for abusing the data and looking into Americans anyway.) Either way, the look into Page, or anyone else, would seem to automatically include prior communications for the 702 period, so your "not true" to my question would actually be wrong.
1st, no that information in the washington post did not come from Nunes.
2nd, you think Carter Page is a foreigner? There was no 702 for Carter Page. That is just a fact. Look at the FISA application released.
Looks like the ball is now squarely in Miss Pelosi's court. Mr Mueller says over to you Congress. She is already on record saying the final solution will not be political. How the republicans in congress read the report still remains key.