Posted on 09/23/2021 10:59:32 AM PDT by bitt
I'm not sure that is true. I believe there has to be a special investigator/prosecutor like Durham to bring indictments like he just did against Michael Sussmann.
According to the indictment, Sussmann -- a prominent cybersecurity lawyer whose law firm Perkins Coie worked for Hillary Clinton's 2016 campaign -- lied at a September 2016 meeting with then-FBI General Counsel James Baker in which Sussmann shared information about possible connections between the Trump Organization and a Russian bank.
IIRC, the head judge at FISA gave the FBI the riot act for not thoroughly vetting their witness/evidence when applying for warrants. The problem was until now, even the FBI "supposedly" didn't know Sussmann was lying. I believe more will fall, but not Comey or Hillary because they now have an excuse in Sussmann.
Mark Levin: It's time for FISA court judges to face scrutiny
Most notable to me in his words is that the FISC judge he filed an amicus brief with lied to him in her response.
Heh. They don't answer to anybody. Not to say Obama didn't appreciate the assist, just that the agencies are out of the reach of any meaningful control.
The law has no power against gpovernment thugs. FISA was supposed to control and curtail the snoop - it had the reverse effect. Constitution? Lip service, sure.
The words on paper have no power.
Did the Obama team also team up with the CCP, Fauci, Soros, & Gates to create the bioweapon used for the current genocide & unleash it on the American people and the world?
No. No court has the power to indict. The most power a court has is criminal contempt, otherwise courts are supposed to judge cases that are brought by law enforcement.
The FISA court is a make-work boondogel whith the purpose of fooling the public into a false beliefe that snooping regulated. factr is, 100% of what is said on wire (typed, vocal) is captured. All of it. It is considered "not snooping" as a matter of law.
I guess it comes down to the word “indict.” My mistake.
The fact remains, not one FISC judge has availed themselves of any of the remedies available to them in response to the felonies committed in their courts.
Any opinion as to why that is?
The judges would claim to have used the best remedy available. They bar certain individuals from the various intelligence services from appearing before the court.
That’s called accountability.
The judges are invested in their own version of “integrity.” This involves not facing reality, but instead confining the thought process to what they want to see, excluding material that would “harm integrity.”
The whole thing is a sham erected for the purpose of misleading the public.
They make good money doing it too.
I think we’re on the same page about them. However, so far, I have not heard that they’ve even claimed to have acted on these crimes.
I am disgusted, but not surprised, that the one judge replied to Levin with a lie. In a legal document no less.
Technically, the acts aren't crimes. It's a function of "not following the rules" or some similar artifact of the process that exists to create the illusion of integrity.
I've seen at least on FISC document barring one or two FBI lawyers from presenting warrants to the FISA court.
FBI agents in Carter Page probe barred from FISA court requests
-- I am disgusted, but not surprised, that the one judge replied to Levin with a lie. --
It's not a lie if you believe it.
The problem has always been that while the FBI was gunning for Trump, their witnesses were not vetted because they believed their lies, or appeared to have believed. So, the FISA court doesn't really have a case for contempt. I could be wrong. Russia, Russia, Russia went on for years and was difficult to follow it at the time, much less now remember.
That said, I don't believe in a secretive un-Constitutional court like FISA. It was only time until their absolute power got corrupted by bad actors. It should be disbanded. Like I said, even the head judge stated frustration that the FBI didn't provide FISA with the facts for their initial warrants. Then the FBI continued to get same type snooping warrants with the same info, IIRC.
And while we're at disbanding FISA, get rid of the political DHS. Bad Bush mistake to push it, but everyone wanted something big done after 9/11.
No witnesses appeared before the court. The FBI agents who submitted the warrant applications vouched for the integrity of the information by submitting it. It is most certainly a felony to intentionally lie to a FedMob court, in spite of what Cbolt claims. (and, yes, I know you are a lawyer, Cbolt)
Timing of this declass probably coordinated with Durham investigation. Upcoming Durham indictments will reference this ruling no doubt.
DHS was waiting for an excuse to happen. Hart-Rudmann Commission, aka U.S. Commission on National Security/21st Century.
FISA came about in part in response to a case known as “the Keith Case.” The government has always snooped without warrants, and always will (snoop to the extent technology permits - judge made law will conform to this).
The “protections” in the bill of rights are mostly illusions. “None of them is absolute” is the starting point for erosion.
My point above.
The legal defintion of “lie” is very narrow when applied to a government actor.
On paper, an ex parte process (where only one side appears before the court) requires the participant to use more candor and less guile that would be used in an adversarial process, like a trial. But all warrants are ex parte, andcops, FBI, etc. will follow the pattern that they know works. It is uncommon for a wronged person to figure it out, and even more uncommon for them to have the means and will to fight back.
The system is highly rigged against the public. All the pros in the system know this, even (maybe especially) the defense lawyers.
At any rate, it is naive to expect honesty here.
My attitude has been anything but expectant of honesty ... but I've sure gotten a lot of pushback on it.
That’s because, as a nation, we’ve been conditioned to just accept it and have another beer.
Republicans/conservatives would’ve (and have) been sent to rot in jail for far less.
They know that there is no opposition to what they’re doing, and that’s why it will continue.
Rogue? Just doing what the boss wanted.
Exactly. We are witnessing a fully bipartisan coupist assault on Trump, his associates, his voters and the MAGA agenda.
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.