Posted on 02/02/2018 1:15:34 PM PST by Hojczyk
And here are some salient points:
* DOJ and FBI failed to mention in their FISA application that it was based on opposition research paid for by the Clinton campaign and the DNC, even though this apparently was known to the FBI. The application apparently tried to mislead the FISA court by saying that Steele “was working for a named U.S. person”–the memo doesn’t tell us who that person was–but not disclosing Fusion GPS or Glenn Simpson, let alone Hillary Clinton and the DNC. This appears to be a deliberate deception of the court
The memo leaves much unsaid. The timing is unclear, at least to me. It sounds as though the FBI continued to renew its FISA warrant long after it had terminated its relationship with Steele and knew, or should have known, that his information was bogus. Why? Did the FBI tell the FISA court in these renewal applications that it had terminated its relationship with Steele, or that it had been unable to corroborate his claims? Presumably not.
Also, we don’t know what was done with the information that was collected about Carter Page–and, of course, about anyone with whom he communicated. This is where the enormous number of “unmasking” requests by Obama officials like Susan Rice come in. Did the Obama administration use the ill-gotten FISA warrants to spy, not only on Carter Page, but on others who had some relationship with Trump, or even Trump himself? Did the Obama administration pass information obtained from improper surveillance on to the Clinton campaign, or leak it to the press after the election?
The Intelligence Committee memo is a major step forward, but we have not yet gotten to the bottom of what happened in the heavily-politicized Department of Justice and FBI.
(Excerpt) Read more at powerlineblog.com ...
http://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/2018/02/what-the-house-intelligence-committee-memo-says.php
A good summary..
They are lawyers
It says the corrupt democraps subverted the constitution and politicized and weaponized the DOJ and FBI to try to keep Trump out of office and they’re still trying.
The problem is that 99.99%..of these warrants are allowed..
So they can make anything and give it to the judge...
They just happened to get caught this time..
We live in a police state..
The dossier good.
The Memo bad.
FYI
What The Memo should have footnoted is that FISA Courts grant warrants 99.9997% of the time.
(According to Judge Napolitano who just announced that astounding number.)
99.9997%. Got that?
99.9997%
Further, there is no one present before the judge and prepared to argue or advocate for the targeted American citizen.
FISA is NOTHING if not a RUBBER STAMP for every single application. Nappy calls for a complete overhaul of the FISA system.
Need a citation/link about that chick who bragged about spreading intel all over the Obama administration . . .
One of the key points of the memo that were not already known is that Rod Rosenstein signed off on a reauthorization of said fraudulently obtained FISA warrant.
That little detail right there gives President Trump all the ammo he needs to fire Rosenstein on the spot and replace him with someone who isn’t implicated in the FBI/DOJ’s illegal activities.
“The memo doesn’t say anything, it’s all fake and it’s also dangerous somehow. At least that’s what Democrats and the media are saying!!!”
Well, Demholes, which is it, hmmmm?
“One of the key points of the memo that were not already known is that Rod Rosenstein signed off on a reauthorization of said fraudulently obtained FISA warrant.
That little detail right there gives President Trump all the ammo he needs to fire Rosenstein on the spot and replace him with someone who isn’t implicated in the FBI/DOJ’s illegal activities.”
Holder has never been prosecuted for perjury and I doubt if Comey and his gang of Democrat liars will be either.
Posted on May 29, 2013 by John Hinderaker in Holder Justice Department, Obama Administration Scandals
Did Eric Holder Commit Perjury? It Looks That Way
In his testimony before the House Judiciary Committee, Eric Holder was asked whether the Justice Department could prosecute reporters under the Espionage Act of 1917. This was his answer:
In regard to potential prosecution of the press for the disclosure of material — this is not something I’ve ever been involved in, heard of, or would think would be wise policy.
Later, the Department of Justice disclosed that Holder had personally approved the application for the search warrant for James Rosen’s Gmail account:
[T]he Department took great care in deciding that a search warrant was necessary in the Kim matter, vetting the decision at the highest levels of the Department, including discussions with the Attorney General. After extensive deliberations, and after following all applicable laws, regulations and policies, the Department sought an appropriately tailored search warrant under the Privacy Protection Act.
Paul argued this morning that on its face, a perjury charge against Holder seems strong. How could the Attorney General have said that he had never “been involved in,” or even “heard of” the “potential prosecution of the press,” in view of the Rosen search warrant? My own first instinct was to be skeptical of any issue of perjury, on the theory that it would have made sense to search Rosen’s emails even if the only target of the criminal investigation was Kim.
So to test that defense, I went back to the Affidavit by FBI agent Reginald Reyes to see exactly what the Obama administration told the judge (if anything) about Rosen’s status as a potential defendant.
As has been widely reported, the affidavit says repeatedly that there is probable cause to believe that Rosen is guilty of a crime, and that his email account will provide evidence of a crime, as well as “fruits of crime, or other items illegally possessed.” But the affidavit goes even beyond that. It specifically says that the FBI is looking for evidence of both Kim’s and Rosen’s guilt:
Mr. Kim’s missing responses to the Reporter’s emails would materially assist the FBI’s investigation as they could be expected to establish further the fact of the disclosures, their content, and Mr. Kim’s and the Reporter’s intent in making them, and could be expected to constitute direct evidence of their guilt or innocence.
Emphasis added. But the real clincher is Paragraph 45, which states in part:
Because of the Reporter’s own potential criminal liability in this matter, we believe that requesting the voluntary production of the materials from Reporter would be futile and would pose a substantial threat to the integrity of the investigation and of the evidence we seek to obtain by warrant.
Emphasis added. Paragraph 46 sums up:
Based on the above, there is probable cause to believe that the Reporter (along with Mr. Kim) has committed a violation of 18 U.S.C. § 793(d) either as Mr. Kim’s co-conspirator and/or aider and abettor, and that evidence of that crime is likely contained within the _______@gmail.com account.
So the issue is rather squarely posed: Holder testified that he had never “been involved in” or even “heard of” any “potential prosecution of the press for the disclosure of material.” And yet, he participated in “extensive deliberations,” “discussed” and approved of the filing of an application for a search warrant that specifically represented to the court that a reporter has “potential criminal liability in this matter.” It is hard to imagine a more direct contradiction.
Paul quoted Richard Nixon’s statement that perjury is “an awful hard rap to prove,” and because perjury is so dependent on the defendant’s state of mind, Nixon was right. Still, in this instance there appears to be a sound basis to investigate whether Holder should be criminally prosecuted.
http://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/2013/05/did-eric-holder-commit-perjury-it-looks-that-way.php
Juan Williams needs to stop digging. He is in a deep hole, already!
I had just switched on the TV when I heard Juan Willaims say the memo was “comical” or something like that. At that point I turned to RT.
There’s nothing there we didn’t already know. Arrests should have made as soon as Stozts’ emails came out.
Nothing will come of this.
The courts ALWAYS accepts the fbi’s word as fact.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.