The Trump Presidency...

Concerning the FISA memo take a look at this very well presented video:


In the 2nd part he explains that it is all about a FISA 702 article 1 warrant making the situation even worse.
But it's actually the other way round. The FISA approval of the Carter Page surveillance was under Title 1 — not Section 702. That's an entirely different kettle of fish. A much bigger one, too.

The crucial and enormous difference between a Title 1 warrant and a Section 702 warrant is now starting to be more widely presented.

Approval for a Title 1 warrant application is supposed to be be extremely rigorous, well-supported with rock-solid documentation — because it's such a huge, serious matter. It basically allowed everyone even peripherally or casually connected to Carter Page — i.e. everyone in the Trump campaign — to be investigated in as if they were suspected agents of a foreign power. In other words, spies.

That's the very big deal here. The warranted surveillance dragnet could extend to thousands of people. The FISA Memo summarises that it was all based on fabricated and paid-for evidence, fraudulently presented and knowingly signed off by the head (3 times) and the deputy head (once) of the FBI.

This is why this is many magnitudes bigger than Watergate.

Careful mate.

It doesn't matter that you are 100% correct. You just need to be more subtle.

Pro tip. A world of hurt is about to descend on you.

Let me tell you how it goes.

Firstly, your Vid source is going to be savagely attacked. By the usual suspects. Your man introduced QAnon into the conversation. Bold move BTW. It doesn't matter that the distinction you made between a FISA section I and a Section VII application has merit. You will be derided as conspiracy loon and accused of owning a pillowcase and a set of scissors. If you want to stick your head over the parapet, get used to it. That's just the way things roll around here.

Secondly, none of the abuse directed at you will remotely address your point. That is there is a critical difference between different types of FISA warrants and different criteria for them. The implications of your salient point "the warranted surveillance dragnet could extend to thousands of people" (Specifically DJT.) will either be lost or completely ignored.

Thirdly, Title I FISA warrants are firstly designed to target foreign terrorists and foreign spies.

Anne Coulter makes the case that Title I FISA applications only exist to monitor American citizens in the first place because "we have all these "American citizens," like Omar Mateen (Pulse nightclub), Syed Farook (San Bernardino), Dzhokhar Tsarnaev (Boston Marathon), and Abdulrahman al-Awlaki (killed by Obama drone strike in Yemen)."

Title I was never intended to target such typically gormless examples of Minnesota nice such as Carter Page. That's a fact. You have nailed it.

This is as you suggest many magnitudes bigger than Watergate.

The reason why it is bigger than Watergate is because Watergate was uncovered largely because of (justifiably) outraged Democratic politicians, a tenacious media and a fearless and forthright investigation by the FBI and the DOJ.

In this iteration, we still certainly still have outraged Democratic politicians. The big difference is that now the media is completely compliant. The investigation by the FBI and the DOJ appears to be a horrendously politicised.

Well done. You are 100% correct.

Good luck.
 
Last edited:
Clearly the Democrats ensured they put national security information in their memo which meant it would never be released.

They did this because they cannot handle the truth.

Have I got the rebuttal right?
Nunes memo was 4 partisan pages. You'll recall there was quite a bit of fuss before it was released that it would bring the whole national security system crashing down because of disclosure of sources and methods? No one would ever inform to the FBI again ever etc...

And then after it was released - nothing.

The Dems equally partisan Countermemo runs to 10 pages. That creates 2.5 more opportunities to plant those potential 'national security' landmines that they seemed so concerned about last week.

It will be released. It is only prudent to flick it back to the FBI/DOJ for de-mining.

Fairplay all round.

When the Den countermemo is released it needs to absolutely and comprehensively debunk the (R) narrative that the original FISA warrant was almost entirely based on the circular evidence Christopher Steele provided.

For the Democrat counter-memo to be credible it needs to include a really big 'something else', that justified the issue of the original FISA warrant.
 
I'm not following you. Why do you think that?

We don't agree on everything but I think we both agree that sunlight is disinfectant.

How can the current exposition of facts - spun from either aisle be a bad thing?
I tend to think that there are internal avenues of redress within FISA for irregularities.

Normally, I would agree that sunshine is indeed the best disinfectant.

However, if the cost is the compramise of capabilitity or methodology to the Russians (for example), I think the balance should be towards protection of intelligence capability. The Americans are going to need it.
 
Trump blocks release of Russia memo drafted by Democrats
Trump has blocked the Democrat memo. Caveats from the FBI.
As Trump attacks U.S. law enforcement, another top official quits
Trump appointee Rachel Brand has resigned.
He really does have no shame.

And making life so difficult for senior FBI ( et al) staff that they have to resign is just, as has been pointed out previously, a tactic to undermine the investigation into collusion between Team Trump and Russia. There is also the side effect of the loss of faith in these bodies.

Putin must be cackling with glee.
 
Last edited:
I'm not following you. Why do you think that?

We don't agree on everything but I think we both agree that sunlight is disinfectant.

How can the current exposition of facts - spun from either aisle be a bad thing?
If intelligence sources, findings and TTPs are revealed lives could be at risk.

Plus, by examining what is or isn't mentioned, capabilities can potentially be revealed, and the effects of any Maskirovka confirmed.
 
Careful mate.

It doesn't matter that you are 100% correct. You just need to be more subtle.

Pro tip. A world of hurt is about to descend on you.

Let me tell you how it goes.

Firstly, your Vid source is going to be savagely attacked. By the usual suspects. Your man introduced QAnon into the conversation. Bold move BTW. It doesn't matter that the distinction you made between a FISA section I and a Section VII application has merit. You will be derided as conspiracy loon and accused of owning a pillowcase and a set of scissors. If you want to stick your head over the parapet, get used to it. That's just the way things roll around here.

Secondly, none of the abuse directed at you will remotely address your point. That is there is a critical difference between different types of FISA warrants and different criteria for them. The implications of your salient point "the warranted surveillance dragnet could extend to thousands of people" (Specifically DJT.) will either be lost or completely ignored.

Thirdly, Title I FISA warrants are firstly designed to target foreign terrorists and foreign spies.

Anne Coulter makes the case that Title I FISA applications only exist to monitor American citizens in the first place because "we have all these "American citizens," like Omar Mateen (Pulse nightclub), Syed Farook (San Bernardino), Dzhokhar Tsarnaev (Boston Marathon), and Abdulrahman al-Awlaki (killed by Obama drone strike in Yemen)."

Title I was never intended to target such typically gormless examples of Minnesota nice such as Carter Page. That's a fact. You have nailed it.

This is as you suggest many magnitudes bigger than Watergate.

The reason why it is bigger than Watergate is because Watergate was uncovered largely because of (justifiably) outraged Democratic politicians, a tenacious media and a fearless and forthright investigation by the FBI and the DOJ.

In this iteration, we still certainly still have outraged Democratic politicians. The big difference is that now the media is completely compliant. The investigation by the FBI and the DOJ appears to be a horrendously politicised.

Well done. You are 100% correct.

Good luck.
Hey chippymick thank you for your kind words. The tinfoil / conspiraloon-accusation-wielding brigade is something that might have bothered me when I was 11, but have no idea of the size of **** I don't give. The saddest thing in all this is the loss in confidence in law enforcement officials all because of small percentage of scumbags at the top.

Even though Trump might be little more than an orange-coloured Ponzi scheme, he's largely independent, not in the pockets of the globalists, and is to quite an extent a highly irritating obstacle to New World Order / Deep State agendas.

The mainstream media is acting almost in complete synchronisation as a propaganda arm for the Deep State. Quite a few people still buy mainstream media propaganda, no doubt including some in the military. Moral of the story: be smart and look deeper. Don't necessarily swallow what you see and hear on the BBC, CBC, CNN, CNBC, Al Jazeera and RT especially, they're controlled and choreographed, too.
 
Hey chippymick thank you for your kind words. The tinfoil / conspiraloon-accusation-wielding brigade is something that might have bothered me when I was 11, but have no idea of the size of **** I don't give. The saddest thing in all this is the loss in confidence in law enforcement officials all because of small percentage of scumbags at the top.

Even though Trump might be little more than an orange-coloured Ponzi scheme, he's largely independent, not in the pockets of the globalists, and is to quite an extent a highly irritating obstacle to New World Order / Deep State agendas.

The mainstream media is acting almost in complete synchronisation as a propaganda arm for the Deep State. Quite a few people still buy mainstream media propaganda, no doubt including some in the military. Moral of the story: be smart and look deeper. Don't necessarily swallow what you see and hear on the BBC, CBC, CNN, CNBC, Al Jazeera and RT especially, they're controlled and choreographed, too.
You do realise that you're pretty much echoing Team Trump with this summary?

Senior LEOs are bad; the FBI is bad ( or the senior ones are...) Trump isn't self interested... FAKE NOOS... etc.
 
Erm.... isn't it working something like this?

Senior law enforcement were bad last week, when a memo was released over the objections of the FBI Director.

Senior law enforcement are good this week, when a memo is not released because of the objections of the FBI Director.

It all seems a bit Humpty Dumpty to me

When I use a word," Humpty Dumpty said, in rather a scornful tone, "it means just what I choose it to mean- neither more nor less." "The question is," said Alice, "whether you can make words mean so many different things." "The question is," said Humpty Dumpty, "which is to be master-that's all."
But I do note that my sarcasm earlier in the thread has come to pass

 
Erm.... isn't it working something like this?

Senior law enforcement were bad last week, when a memo was released over the objections of the FBI Director.

Senior law enforcement are good this week, when a memo is not released because of the objections of the FBI Director.

It all seems a bit Humpty Dumpty to me



But I do note that my sarcasm earlier in the thread has come to pass

Trump has tweeted exactly what I said yesterday "Nunes memo was 4 partisan pages. You'll recall there was quite a bit of fuss before it was released that it would bring the whole national security system crashing down because of disclosure of sources and methods? No one would ever inform to the FBI again ever etc..."

The dems complained about disclosure of sources and methods with respect to the Nunes Memo. @SOCALSapper was bang on the money on Tuesday when he wrote


"Every republican on the intelligence committee has voted to release the democrat memo... not one democrat voted to release the Nunez memo.

I say - Let’s see it. The wailing of ‘national security concerns’ were completely unfounded, let’s see why they have got."

The Dems only available strategy is a 10 page rebuttal that will be more heavily redacted than the Grassley Graham memo. It is deliberate.

It is even quite easy to predict where the heaviest redactions will occur.

I predicted the content of the Nunes memo quite accurately.

So this is my prediction for the Schiff Counter Memo.

Protestations of Rosenstein's innocence. They will pick on this one because Rod Rosenstein was mentioned in the Nunes Memo twice. He is the only member of the DOJ/FBI FISA Warrant Cabal who has not been sacked or demoted. (Apart from Priestap, but watch this space.) Because of that I am almost inclined to agree with Schiff that Rosenstein might be blameless. I am always conscious of the fact that Trump sacked Comey on the advice of Rosenstein...

A whole lot of dissembling whether the Clinton/Steele dossier was “essential” to the FISA application. They have to play this card even though it exposes Schiff to charges of extreme hypocrisy. If the amendments to the FISA act, that Schiff proposed back in 2013 had been adopted, the FISA warrant on Carter Page would never have issued...

A justification that the FBI properly informed the FISA court that the Clinton/Steele dossier was politically motivated. In two foot notes...

The FBI's previous interest in Carter Page. This will be the area I predict that will be most heavily redacted. Again this is deliberate because of his involvement in the Buryakov case and goes directly to 'sources and methods'...

That the FBI's Russia investigation existed before the Clinton/Steele dossier was published: They will of course mention George Papadopoulos. What they will neglect to mention is that Steele was on the FBI payroll three weeks before anyone in the FBI had ever heard of Papadopoulos...

A deliberate attempt to conflate the FISA application with an (R) effort to undermine the Mueller enquiry. This has already been addressed by Trey Gowdy. Gowdy has already said

"There is a Russia investigation without a dossier. So to the extent the memo deals with the dossier and the FISA process, the dossier has nothing to do with the meeting at Trump Tower. The dossier has nothing to do with an email sent by Cambridge Analytica. The dossier really has nothing to do with George Papadopoulos' meeting in Great Britain. It also doesn't have anything to do with obstruction of justice. So there's going to be a Russia probe, even without a dossier."

We still need answers about all the things Gowdy lists. Mueller will provide them. The FISA warrant controversy is currently unconnected to the Mueller enquiry.

We also need many answers regarding the FISA Application on Carter Page. Call me Nostradamus if you like but we won't get them from Schiff's Counter memo.

We will however get a whole lot of deliberate obfuscation.

10 pages are needed to rebut a 4 page memo?

Please...
 
Last edited:
C’mon Boumer - Panetta has clearly laid his cards on the table as a left wing partisan hack. He is the source?
Panetta is a living and breathing example of the Peter Principle.

"A tendency in most organizational hierarchies, such as that of a political party is for every participant to rise in the hierarchy through promotion until they reach the levels of their respective incompetence."

Panetta's only real life experience that qualified him to become Sec Def and Director of the CIA was the very short time he spent between 1964 and 1966 as a 2nd Lt in USA Int Corp.

Other than being a partisan hack, as you rightly explain, this meteoric rise is due to that one ancient experience. That's it.

Quite unbelievable given that he is barely articulate. Amazing in fact.

Panetta was a member of the chairman of the Vietnam Era Veterans Caucus in the House of Representatives.

In that capacity he got to pin medals on some actual veterans and controversially invent new ones for those in the gray area.

Oh, and he never toured...

Panetta had zero street cred in 1968. It never got any better.
 
Last edited:
Panetta is a living and breathing example of the Peter Principle.

"A tendency in most organizational hierarchies, such as that of a political party is for every participant to rise in the hierarchy through promotion until they reach the levels of their respective incompetence."

Panetta's only real life experience that qualified him to become Sec Def and Director of the CIA was the very short time he spent between 1964 and 1966 as a 2nd Lt in USA Int Corp.

Other than being a partisan hack, as you rightly explain, this meteoric rise is due to that one ancient experience. That's it.

Quite unbelievable given that he is barely articulate. Amazing in fact.

Panetta was a member of the chairman of the Vietnam Era Veterans Caucus in the House of Representatives.

In that capacity he got to pin medals on some actual veterans and controversially invent new ones for those in the gray area.

Oh, and he never toured...

Panetta had zero street cred in 1968. It never got better.
Pot shots at an ex servicemen from a civiy is a bit of a poor show, he was a second Lt so I'm certain the decisions about who gets deployed and where was above his pay grade.
 
Pot shots at an ex servicemen from a civiy is a bit of a poor show, he was a second Lt so I'm certain the decisions about who gets deployed and where was above his pay grade.
Interesting twist!

You've reverted from being one of this threads foremost resident wrongologists to joining the back of the conga line of umbrage takers. What a sad decline...

Still, I'd like to ask you.

Apart from being a partisan hack what other career highlights did Panetta have that qualified him for Sec Def or Head of the CIA?

Also, I've predicted what is in the Schiff memo (and already rebutted it.)
  • Protestations of Rosenstein's innocence.
  • A whole lot of dissembling whether the Clinton/Steele dossier was “essential” to the FISA application.
  • A justification that the FBI properly informed the FISA court that the Clinton/Steele dossier was politically motivated.
  • The FBI's previous interest in Carter Page.
  • That the FBI's Russia investigation existed before the Clinton/Steele dossier was published:
  • A deliberate attempt to conflate the FISA application with an (R) effort to undermine the Mueller enquiry.
On the eve (Maybe Tuesday at the latest) of the release of the Schiff Countermemo is there anything of any substance in that lot that you wish to dispute?
 
Last edited:

Latest Threads

New Posts