SOCNET

Go Back   SOCNET: The Special Operations Community Network > General Topics > The Lounge

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #21  
Old 4 February 2018, 18:56
Shadow's Avatar
Shadow Shadow is offline
Problem Solver
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: Everywhere
Posts: 4,576
Quote:
Originally Posted by smp52 View Post

...The FBI's personality was embodied in the persona (in the truest psychological sense) of Hoover. Understand Hoover and one gets a better sense of what drives the FBI both good and bad...
This right here.

Hoover is irrevocably imprinted into the DNA of the FBI, forever.
__________________
"If you force me to do violence, I shall be so savage and so cruel, and hurt you so badly that the thought of revenge shall never cross your mind" --Machiavelli

"Oderint, dum metuant" ("Let them hate, so long as they fear") - Caligula

"Those that know don't talk and those that talk don't know."
Reply With Quote
  #22  
Old 4 February 2018, 19:57
KW Driver's Avatar
KW Driver KW Driver is offline
Been There Done That
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: CONUS
Posts: 779
just saw this, and it's thin reportage, but the first I've heard it.

https://www.zerohedge.com/news/2018-...ubpoena-report

I think leaving the players in the game is probably the best course of action, and keep feeding them rope I suppose. I just hope those who deserve it get the prosecutions they've earned, and others fired who earned that, proximity to retirement benefits be damned.
__________________
Political Correctness is a doctrine fostered by a delusional, illogical and radical minority, rabidly promoted by an unscrupulous mainstream media, which holds forth the proposition that it is entirely possible to pick up a turd by the clean end.
Reply With Quote
  #23  
Old 4 February 2018, 22:31
wildman43's Avatar
wildman43 wildman43 is online now
Never to old to learn
 
Join Date: May 2012
Location: California
Posts: 1,869
Isikoff Stunned His Article Was Used For Trump Spy Warrant

Michael Isikoff is casting even more doubt on the FBI's justification for a FISA spy warrant on the Trump campaign after the release of the House memo. On his podcast Friday, Isikoff said he was 'stunned' to learn that the FBI used his investigative article published on Yahoo News as evidence for the need for a warrant since his article was sourced directly from Chris Steele and the bogus dossier. He called the dossier and the FBI claim 'self-referential' and rather circular in that his article cited the very source which the FBI knew was unsubstantiated and funded by the Hillary campaign. This thing is going sideways for the FBI, quickly.

Reply With Quote
  #24  
Old 4 February 2018, 22:32
wildman43's Avatar
wildman43 wildman43 is online now
Never to old to learn
 
Join Date: May 2012
Location: California
Posts: 1,869
Judge Demands DOJ Explanation After Memo Release

Federal Judge Amit P. Mehta turned up the heat on the Department of Justice immediately after the House memo release on Friday. Mehta demanded Justice officials give an explanation as to whether they still intend to maintain 'no comment' on the existence of records related to the FISA warrant on Trump campaign officials. The DOJ previously refused to say whether any records exist citing 'national security'. So, the department is screwed either way. If they say 'yes', the court will likely subpoena those records. If they say 'no', then the current FOIA suit will proceed and give authority to investigators to start digging for records.
Reply With Quote
  #25  
Old 4 February 2018, 22:37
Sharky's Avatar
Sharky Sharky is offline
Administrator
 
Join Date: Dec 1999
Location: SOCNET
Posts: 19,497
Burn them all.
__________________
I was born my papa's son
When I hit the ground I was on the run
I had one glad hand and the other behind
You can have yours, just give me mine
When the hound dog barkin' in the black of the night
Stick my hand in my pocket, everything's all right

-ZZ Top
Reply With Quote
  #26  
Old 4 February 2018, 23:02
johnnylaw johnnylaw is offline
Wolverines!
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: Tejas
Posts: 671
Cut the head off the snake. Corruption there is mostly from the top down...

Quote:
Originally Posted by Sharky View Post
Burn them all.
Reply With Quote
  #27  
Old 5 February 2018, 00:36
justamedic justamedic is offline
Very Deplorable
 
Join Date: Sep 2014
Location: LV
Posts: 1,217
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sharky View Post
Burn them all.
This!
__________________
"Double tap is a myth. Shoot until the threat changes shape or catches fire. Only then will your enemy know true peace." - Dali Lama
Reply With Quote
  #28  
Old 5 February 2018, 01:42
CB's Avatar
CB CB is offline
BT,WBTWC
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Clarksville, Tennessee
Posts: 1,528
Here's the bottom line:

Obama was able to do "legally" what Richard Nixon attempted to do illegally: Wire tap the headquarters of your political opponent in a presidential election. Richard Nixon tried it with burglars in a building called Watergate. Obama used the FBI.

The memo does have a bit of legal jargon and citations to case law meaningless to most readers, but here is the important parts.

BUT FIRST, A LITTLE BACKGROUND: There are times when a judge considering on how to rule on a motion uses a "one handed" legal standard. That is, the judge never considers "...on the other hand ..." but instead looks solely at the evidence in support. For example, when I am defending a case, and the prosecution has finished its proof ["The State rests"] I can move for a judgment of acquittal. That is, I am saying to the judge "After hearing the sorry, inconsistant, contradictory and incomplete case the prosecution just presented, please don't even make me call my witnesses for the defense. Just dismiss this case right now, and don't waste the jury's time." What standard does the judge use?
He uses a "one handed" standard: "Assuming everything the prosecution witnesses said was true, and resolving all doubts and ambiguities in favor of the prosecution, and disregarding all evidence to the contrary, not weighing the credibility of the witnesses, is there enough to make this case move forward to the next step of defense proof, or if defense waives proof, to the jury?

But what standard does a judge use when deciding to issue a search warrant? (or in this case, electronic surveillance that I will simply call a wiretap).

The judge is to use a "two handed approach." The judge is supposed to listen to all the evidence in favor of the wiretap, but not to assume it is true, and is not disregard evidence to the contrary, and is specifically to weight the credibility of the contrary facts. In other words, the judge is supposed to reason "but on the other hand ..".

The problem, of course, is that the subject of the wiretap is not present, in fact under FISA rules may not be told that a FISA wiretap has been sought by the FBI. See the problem? It is the duty of the FBI agent seeking the wiretap to make a full, open and fair disclosure to the judge:

"Now, here's why I want a wiretap, but you should know the following information that is adverse to my request."

Even if the request is for a simple search warrant for a drug dealer based on a statement of a snitch and a drug dog alert, the police officer is supposed to tell the full truth to the judge:
"Your honor, this snitch has lied to me in two of my previous three cases, be he seems to be telling me the truth this time. Oh, and by the way, my snitch works for an opposing drug cartel who will benefit if the opposition is shut down. And that dog, your honor, well that dog had alerted 84 time before and were were able to recover drugs on only 30 of those cases, but I'm sure that was because the drugs used to be there and the dog was smelling the residue."

Ultimately, it is up to the discretion of the judge to hear a FULL rendering of the facts -- that are supposed to be presented by the party seeking the warrant -- and then make up his mind.

So what the Numes memo outlines, by Sentate committee members who have seen the affidavits in support of the warrant, and the warrant itself, is that the FBI deliberately withheld information adverse to obtaining the wiretap authorization.

Would a hard headed federal judge, neutral and unbiased, have issued an authorization based on:

"Your Honor, one of the people in the Trump campaign visited Russia three years ago and had some kind of talks with some people of influence with the Russian government."

Probably not.

But spice it up with "Your Honor, we have a dossier of information that implies improper contact by people (especially Mr. Case) that shows active contacts, discussions, and policy making meetings with Russian operatives."

Now you've got yourself a wiretap authorization.

And if the FBI had been truthful, and told the FISA judge: "Your Honor, we have a dossier furnished to us by the Hilliary Clinton campaign and the Democratic National Committee [they were one and the same, remember? Sorry Bernie]
that implies improper contact by people ..." would the FISA judge, using a "two handed" standard, have issued the authorization?

Or would the judge have said: "You want me to allow you to wiretap the headquarters of the Trump presidential campaign, based on unproven information brought to you by Hillary Clinton"? Hell no!

So the (President Obama's) FBI kept silent, gave the judge half baked, incomplete and misleading informaton, then enjoyed listening in for months as Donald Trump ran for President. And when Donald Trump announced -- truthfully --
"Obama has been wiretapping my headquarters" the Democrats laughted him off.

But now it appears that he was telling the truth.

And so I return to the most important part of the events described in the memo:

Obama was able to do "legally" what Richard Nixon attempted to do illegally: Wire tap the headquarters of your political opponent in a presidential election.
Reply With Quote
  #29  
Old 5 February 2018, 03:52
Look. Don'tTouch. Look. Don'tTouch. is offline
killjoy
 
Join Date: May 2011
Location: West
Posts: 1,694
Quote:
Originally Posted by wildman43 View Post
Isikoff Stunned His Article Was Used For Trump Spy Warrant

Michael Isikoff is casting even more doubt on the FBI's justification for a FISA spy warrant on the Trump campaign after the release of the House memo. On his podcast Friday, Isikoff said he was 'stunned' to learn that the FBI used his investigative article published on Yahoo News as evidence for the need for a warrant since his article was sourced directly from Chris Steele and the bogus dossier. He called the dossier and the FBI claim 'self-referential' and rather circular in that his article cited the very source which the FBI knew was unsubstantiated and funded by the Hillary campaign. This thing is going sideways for the FBI, quickly.

The rest of the article is here: http://www.con-alerts.com/isikoff-st...p-spy-warrant/

Wildman43, do you think they failed to put this reporter on the payroll or what? I would expect he would have heard "Plata O Plomo".

Quote:
Originally Posted by wildman43 View Post
Judge Demands DOJ Explanation After Memo Release

Federal Judge Amit P. Mehta turned up the heat on the Department of Justice immediately after the House memo release on Friday. Mehta demanded Justice officials give an explanation as to whether they still intend to maintain 'no comment' on the existence of records related to the FISA warrant on Trump campaign officials. The DOJ previously refused to say whether any records exist citing 'national security'. So, the department is screwed either way. If they say 'yes', the court will likely subpoena those records. If they say 'no', then the current FOIA suit will proceed and give authority to investigators to start digging for records.
The rest of the article can be found here: http://www.con-alerts.com/judge-dema...-memo-release/

Wildman43, do you think that not even confirming it's existence seems like a kid pulling a blanket over himself to avoid the monster under the bed or what?

Last edited by Look. Don'tTouch.; 5 February 2018 at 03:59.
Reply With Quote
  #30  
Old 5 February 2018, 07:34
Forestboy Forestboy is offline
Authorized Personnel
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: Upstate
Posts: 4,026
Quote:
Originally Posted by CB View Post
Post
Thank you for explaining it in small words that even this Marine can understand, and hopefully articulate to other crayon eaters....
__________________
The more people I meet, the more I like my dog.
Reply With Quote
  #31  
Old 5 February 2018, 07:53
ET1/ss nuke's Avatar
ET1/ss nuke ET1/ss nuke is offline
If you don't smell ozone, the radiation won't kill you before next week.
 
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: sc
Posts: 5,833
Apparently a Friday release didn't mean it was completely swept under the rug. Here is an MSM article from NYC that I think frankly nails a very real issue here, which is that people's blind rage against POTUS is blinding them into defending the same behavior once reviled by New Yorkers because it was identified with two people they universally hated - Richard Nixon and J. Edgar Hoover.

https://nypost.com/2018/02/03/the-gop-memo-proves-the-deep-state-is-real/
__________________
"I don't know whether the world is run by smart men who are putting us on, or by imbeciles who really mean it." - Twain

"I agree that his intentions are suspect, and that he likely needs to die...." - SOTB

"Just a lone patriot acting alone at a fulcrum point, ideally in a deniable fashion. A perpetrator of accidents." - Magician
Reply With Quote
  #32  
Old 5 February 2018, 08:41
Tycon's Avatar
Tycon Tycon is offline
#BlackRiflesMatter
 
Join Date: May 2016
Location: AZ
Posts: 1,831
Quote:
Originally Posted by CB View Post
Here's the bottom line:

Obama was able to do "legally" what Richard Nixon attempted to do illegally: Wire tap the headquarters of your political opponent in a presidential election. Richard Nixon tried it with burglars in a building called Watergate. Obama used the FBI.
Informative post CB. So, there's a good possibility for some firings and maybe some small wrist-slap from a pissed or embarrassed FISA judge...but no felony or sedition was "legally" committed here...since it was all signed off by the FISA judges.

So, technically, it all falls squarely on the shoulders of the FISA judges, who were (incorrectly, but legally) misled. No basis for any Comey or other indictments?

And, of course any special investigation will likely cause those judges to also be recused and ineffective correct?

So, Comey was right when he tweeted "that's it?".

It boils down to accountability only in the court of "public opinion" where the mainstream media is a wholly-owned subsidiary.

Over before it started? Because they did it (legally) to save the country and the children after all. Obama, Comey, HRC...all heros.

.

Last edited by Tycon; 5 February 2018 at 09:10.
Reply With Quote
  #33  
Old 5 February 2018, 08:43
Polypro's Avatar
Polypro Polypro is offline
BTDT
 
Join Date: Oct 1999
Location: A Noisy Bar In Avalon
Posts: 12,962
I'd tell the IRS that the FBI didn't pay all its taxes...
Reply With Quote
  #34  
Old 5 February 2018, 09:04
Box's Avatar
Box Box is offline
BTDT
 
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: NC
Posts: 3,270
If the New York Times or Washington Post reported a story like that it would be ground breaking. The day the NYT runs a hit piece against the democratic machine - then yes, people may actually start going to jail.
The same goes for Pravda on the Potomac - when the Washington Post does a real hit piece on the dems, it is because someone is already in handcuffs and they are just trying to spin it to sell papers.
The New York Post and Washington Times both tend to lean more to the right than their leftist counterparts.


Comey tweeting, "That's it" is no different than tweeting, "hahahahaha, you got nothing on me -eat fuck and go shit yourself"
__________________
The left is a treasonous movement. The Democrats became a treasonous organization when they fell under the sway of a movement that rejects our system of government, its laws, and its elections. Now their treason is coming to a head.
- Daniel Greenfield
Reply With Quote
  #35  
Old 5 February 2018, 09:22
Tycon's Avatar
Tycon Tycon is offline
#BlackRiflesMatter
 
Join Date: May 2016
Location: AZ
Posts: 1,831
You can't fight a tide of lawyers with just one honest marine by your side.
Reply With Quote
  #36  
Old 5 February 2018, 10:17
TennesseeDave's Avatar
TennesseeDave TennesseeDave is offline
Confirmed User
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: The Volunteer State
Posts: 1,181
Quote:
Originally Posted by Floyd View Post
And another bang up job by the FBI (along with a local Michigan department)
http://www.detroitnews.com/story/new...ted/110085934/

Maybe Nassar was a Hilary supporter?

If the FBI and the locals had done their fucking jobs how many young ladies would have been spared?
CBS actually ran a segment this morning asking if they could have spared at least 40 girls.
Reply With Quote
  #37  
Old 5 February 2018, 10:41
JAFO's Avatar
JAFO JAFO is offline
33,024 - R.I.P.
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: Not so "Great" Plains
Posts: 3,509
CB, Your post could quite possibly win the interwebz for the day.

Quote:
Originally Posted by CB View Post
Here's the bottom line:

Obama was able to do "legally" what Richard Nixon attempted to do illegally: Wire tap the headquarters of your political opponent in a presidential election. Richard Nixon tried it with burglars in a building called Watergate. Obama used the FBI...

And, whatever happened to the 4th Amendment?

Quote:
Originally Posted by CB View Post
The problem, of course, is that the subject of the wiretap is not present, in fact under FISA rules may not be told that a FISA wiretap has been sought by the FBI. See the problem? It is the duty of the FBI agent seeking the wiretap to make a full, open and fair disclosure to the judge:

"Now, here's why I want a wiretap, but you should know the following information that is adverse to my request."
Quote:
Originally Posted by CB View Post
So what the Numes memo outlines, by Sentate committee members who have seen the affidavits in support of the warrant, and the warrant itself, is that the FBI deliberately withheld information adverse to obtaining the wiretap authorization....And if the FBI had been truthful, ...Obama was able to do "legally" what Richard Nixon attempted to do illegally: Wire tap the headquarters of your political opponent in a presidential election.
"Allegedly"

How is it that the everyday Joe doesn't get the same legal representation as those in the swamp. Will all of the information out there, right now, doesn't Congress have the authority to issue subpoenas for al players involved?
__________________
"It's understanding that allows people like us to tolerate a person such as yourself." -Ferris Bueller
Reply With Quote
  #38  
Old 5 February 2018, 10:55
Sharky's Avatar
Sharky Sharky is offline
Administrator
 
Join Date: Dec 1999
Location: SOCNET
Posts: 19,497
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tycon View Post
Informative post CB. So, there's a good possibility for some firings and maybe some small wrist-slap from a pissed or embarrassed FISA judge...but no felony or sedition was "legally" committed here...since it was all signed off by the FISA judges.

So, technically, it all falls squarely on the shoulders of the FISA judges, who were (incorrectly, but legally) misled. No basis for any Comey or other indictments?

And, of course any special investigation will likely cause those judges to also be recused and ineffective correct?

So, Comey was right when he tweeted "that's it?".

It boils down to accountability only in the court of "public opinion" where the mainstream media is a wholly-owned subsidiary.

Over before it started? Because they did it (legally) to save the country and the children after all. Obama, Comey, HRC...all heros.

.
Wrong. What they did was commit multiple felonies. They knowingly and willfully lied to a Federal Judge. Whether by commission or omission makes no difference at all. They then used an illegally attained FISA warrant in an illegal attempt to torpedo the campaign of a Presidential candidate. Then they knowingly and willfully renewed that same warrant to continue their seditious behavior after Trump became President-Elect and continued to use it against a sitting US President. This was also the basis for the Special Counsel investigation.

They did everything they could to make sure that Trump didn't get elected. Once he was elected they did everything they could to remove him from office. They did everything they could to avoid damaging Hillary. They refused to charge anyone in the Clinton circle for anything at all in the biggest example of political corruption in our Nation's history. They became the Law Enforcement arm of the DNC. They violated the trust of the American people, and they violated the trust of every FBI Special Agent who was too busy doing actual work to have been a part of this.
__________________
I was born my papa's son
When I hit the ground I was on the run
I had one glad hand and the other behind
You can have yours, just give me mine
When the hound dog barkin' in the black of the night
Stick my hand in my pocket, everything's all right

-ZZ Top
Reply With Quote
  #39  
Old 5 February 2018, 11:00
B 2/75's Avatar
B 2/75 B 2/75 is offline
Old Scroll
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Black Mountains
Posts: 10,753
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tycon View Post
Informative post CB. So, there's a good possibility for some firings and maybe some small wrist-slap from a pissed or embarrassed FISA judge...but no felony or sedition was "legally" committed here...since it was all signed off by the FISA judges.

So, technically, it all falls squarely on the shoulders of the FISA judges, who were (incorrectly, but legally) misled. No basis for any Comey or other indictments?

And, of course any special investigation will likely cause those judges to also be recused and ineffective correct?

So, Comey was right when he tweeted "that's it?".

It boils down to accountability only in the court of "public opinion" where the mainstream media is a wholly-owned subsidiary.

Over before it started? Because they did it (legally) to save the country and the children after all. Obama, Comey, HRC...all heros.

.

Tycon, I think your misunderstand the situation. The crimes being committed were by FBI and DoJ personnel who knew of the BS nature of the dossier and yet held their noses and and remained silent as they proffered it to the FISA judges, who acted in good faith on the "evidence" they were given. That's an effort to overthrow the US Gov't, and is at least Sedition.

That is a critical link in the legal system: that the evidence given to the judge (or jury) isn't actually tainted, and that the lawyers presenting it are being truthful when they present that tainted evidence. Witnesses are sworn in, but not the lawyers. Maybe they should be. Legal malpractice isn't a crime, as i understand it, but can be punished by disbarment. Perhaps we can get a bit of gouge on that piece of the puzzle from one of the barristers around here.

But NO, the judges, I don't think, will have any culpability at all. And NO, the dossier wasn't submitted into evidence 'legally,' as the bureaucrat lawyers who gave it to the court, and those who directed the FISA package's preparation, were actively working to subvert the US government = Sedition.
__________________

.
"To the last I grapple with thee; from hell's heart I stab at thee, for hate's sake I spit my last breath at thee"
Melville / Captain Ahab
Reply With Quote
  #40  
Old 5 February 2018, 11:19
Tycon's Avatar
Tycon Tycon is offline
#BlackRiflesMatter
 
Join Date: May 2016
Location: AZ
Posts: 1,831
Quote:
Originally Posted by B 2/75 View Post
Tycon, I think your misunderstand the situation. The sedition was indeed being committed by FBI and DoJ personnel who knew of the BS nature of the dossier and yet held their noses and and remained silent as they proffered it to the FISA judges, who acted in good faith on the "evidence" they were given.
No, I do understand the Judges acted in good faith, except I understand they "rubber stamp" approve 99.9999% of FISA applications. That bothers me.

What I get from CB's post is that it's all "legal".

That "legally" maybe the worse that can happen is the Judges (pissed at being lied to) call in Comey (etc) and they be "ordered to show cause" about what they knew and when they knew it (under oath). And, then the worst they get is a "contempt" charge, unless they then purger themselves. No real indictments.

This is my understanding, and exactly as you mentioned:
Quote:
Originally Posted by B 2/75
Witnesses are sworn in, but not the lawyers. Maybe they should be. Legal malpractice isn't a crime, as i understand it, but can be punished by disbarment. Perhaps we can get a bit of guage on that piece of the puzzle from one of the barristers around here.
Spot-on exactly.

Last edited by Tycon; 5 February 2018 at 11:26.
Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Our new posting rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is On



All times are GMT -4. The time now is 21:11.
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.11
Copyright ©2000 - 2018, vBulletin Solutions Inc.
Socnet.com All Rights Reserved
SOCNET 1996-2018