~Ray

Judicial Watch announced that, in response to a Judicial Watch Freedom of Information Act lawsuit, the Justice Department admitted in a court filing last night that the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court held no hearings on the FISA spy warrant applications targeting Carter Page (a former Trump campaign part-time advisor who was the subject of four controversial FISA warrants). In the filing the Justice Department finally revealed that the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court held no hearings on the Page FISA spy warrants which were first issued in 2016 and subsequently renewed three times: Judicial Watch President Tom Fitton: "It is disturbing that the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court rubber-stamped the Carter Page spy warrants and held not one hearing on these extraordinary requests to spy on the Trump team. Perhaps the court can now hold hearings on how justice was corrupted by material omissions that Hillary Clinton’s campaign, the DNC, a conflicted Bruce Ohr, a compromised Christopher Steele, and anti-Trumper Peter Strzok were all behind the ‘intelligence’ used to persuade the courts to approve the FISA warrants that targeted the Trump team."

Judicial Watch
https://m.facebook.com/#!/story.php?story_fbid=10156263012046943&id=92925746 942

beerptrol

Misleading report about FISA court hearings

On August 31, 2018, Judicial Watch reported on its blog that the Justice Department "admitted" in a court filing that the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court held no hearings regarding the surveillance application for former Trump adviser Carter Page. In their blog post, Judicial Watch linked to the court filing, which was in response to a FOIA lawsuit, but nowhere in the post was it mentioned that the court filing stated, "Specifically, FOIA staff consulted with knowledgeable subject matter experts in the Office of Intelligence. Those experts confirmed that, as is typical in proceedings before the FISC, no hearings were held with respect to the acknowledged Carter Page FISA applications, and thus no responsive transcripts exist."[15][16] Judicial Watch president Tom Fitton appeared on Fox News that night and stated that the Justice Department said there were no hearings for the Page application, but did not mention that the DOJ said this was "typical in proceedings before the FISC."[17] The Judicial Watch story was reported as scandalous by conservative websites, such as Gateway Pundit.[18][19] The following day, Trump tweeted about the story.[20]

__________________
“If we are to have another contest in the near future of our national existence, I predict that the dividing line will not be Mason and Dixon's but between patriotism and intelligence on the one side, and superstition, ambition and ignorance on the other.”
-- Ulysses S. Grant

Acepimp

So they just rubber-stamp everything, no questions asked. This should be very alarming to anyone with half a brain.

__________________

bronco67

If a Democrat had been the subject of this surveillance, Republicans would be protecting the integrity of sources and methods. That is all. End of story. Fuck you.

__________________

$5 submissions

Sadly, people are driven more by FEELINGS than rationality nowadays...

__________________

dyna mo

Yes, like the poster you quoted.

Here's fisa Rule 17:

(a) Scheduling. The Judge to whom a matter is presented or assigned must determine whether a hearing is necessary and, if so, set the time and place of the hearing.

(b) Ex Parte. Except as the Court otherwise directs or the Rules otherwise provide, a hearing in a non-adversarial matter must be ex parte and conducted within the Court's secure facility.

(c) Appearances. Unless excused, the government official providing the factual information in an application or certification and an attorney for the applicant must attend the hearing, along with other representatives ofthe government, and any other party, as the Court may direct or permit.

(d) Testimony; Oath; Recording of Proceedings. A Judge may take testimony under oath and receive other evidence. The testimony may be recorded electronically or as the Judge may otherwise direct, consistent with the security measures referenced in Rule 3. (Emphasis added.)

sperbonzo

The FISA court does exactly that. It gives a rubber stamp approval to violate the 4th amendment rights of US citizens without due process. But meanwhile, everyone will make this about the Democrats or the Republicans...

Idiots...





.

__________________
Michael Sperber / Acella Financial LLC/ Online Payment Processing

[email protected] / http://Acellafinancial.com/

ICQ 177961090 / Tel +1 909 NET BILL / Skype msperber

Rochard

That is correct.

It's a warrant. They go to a judge and say "We believe we have reason to suspect this person of a crime", and they get a warrant to gather more information. They don't go into a courtroom, hear arguments from the opposing side, don't have hearings... With that said, it is a rubber stamp process. From what I've read they have approved over 30k such warrants, while only denying 12.

(Correct me if I am wrong but....) This is all part of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, which was updated and expanded greatly after 9/11 under President Bush.

Republicans are trying to make this out like the original investigation into Carter Paige was invalid. You can spin it all you want, but a foreign government - Australia - came to the United States government and said Cater Paige was aware of the DNC hacking by the Russians before anyone else did. This means Carter Paige was either directly involved, or had information of a crime that took place - a very serious crime where a foreign government hacked an American political party - and then failed to report it.

__________________
“The choice is no longer between right or left. The choice is between normal and crazy.”
- Sarah Huckabee Sanders

YNOT MAIL | THE BEST ADULT MAILING SOLUTION

AmeliaG

What sperbonzo said.

__________________


Blue Blood's SpookyCash.com

Babe photography portfolio

Bladewire

↑↑↑ Truth

__________________