UH OH,....criminals acting like.......criminals....http://thehill.com/opinion/criminal-justice/371853-new-fbi-messages-reveal-agents-searching-for-way-to-evade-record
Delusional Wack Jobs at TOL
- Thread starter THall
- Start date
I just love it when the libtards and Barbies push the DNC talking point of Carter Page being "under surveillance since 2013" .... they are too stupid to realize one of two things.... either he is as innocent as new born baby, or the people surveying him are as incompetent as they can be.... really guys??? Five years and no indictment??? Libtards are idiots.
Or he was just what the Russians call a "useful fool." His Russian handler seemed to think so. Page may never have actually committed a crime, during the entire time that he was manipulated by the Russians.
And when Trump dropped him, so did his Russian "friends."
Remember, Trump claimed that he didn't even know page. So either he didn't and had no need to know about Page, or he was lying, and the FBI shouldn't have shared the information with him.
Except in America, you have to have probable cause of a CRIME to continue surveillance. What crime did Carter Page commit???????????????????????????????????????? DUH!
Barbi's head will explode when he figures out the real reason Carter Page is not in jail..... he has been working with the FBI, remember, you heard it here first..... What will he do when it comes out that the fake dossier is not Russian, that the info was developed by a Clinton buddy and fed to Steele and the "Russians".
No. Probably cause is not required; only reasonable suspicion.
“The standard for obtaining a FISA warrant is not that high,” Pearlstein said. “It’s not like the FBI has to show proof beyond a reasonable doubt that this guy is an agent. It only has to show it has a reasonable basis to believe this guy is an agent of a foreign power.”
https://www.buzzfeed.com/thomasfran...yed-a-decisive?utm_term=.teKaj3Gpj#.vdKEwJbrw
Show us that. And if he was working for the FBI, how is a warrant to wiretap him then an attack on Trump?
You guys keep running into the same tree, time after time.
Are you carrying water for Hillary and Obama?
They're just misinformed and the Media doesn't help.
From what I gather people he was talking to were under surveillance. So they saw the people talking to him and him to them and them talking about him to each other. But he was not under surveillance.
UNTIL........it gets sticky.
He never met Page. Page was however a volunteer advisor to the campaign. So Trump did rattle his name off a list of foreign policy advisors at one point. But Trump didn't know him personally.
That depends on when the surveillance began, and that hasn't been established.
That was a classic!
Right up there with "Depends on what is is".
No. You only need reasonable suspicion. They lied to you about that.
The earliest FISA warrant on Carter Page was issued in 2013, Shapiro claims it is 2014. If they have been doing surveillance on Page that long and not arrested him, there are very few options.
1. They have probable cause to indict, but,...He is working for the government
2. He is totally innocent
3. They don't have probable cause to indict because they are incompetent
4. They don't have probable cause and should have stopped surveying him long ago.
No, you need probable cause supported by oath or affirmation, the FISA standards are no standard at all, totally unconstitutional. In the FISA court, all you need is an Intel or Fed agent to swear the suspect may be a foreign actor.
Nope. Reasonable suspicion is what is needed.
https://fas.org/sgp/crs/intel/m013006.pdf
FISA warrants operate on reasonable suspicion, not concrete proof: The FBI doesn’t have to prove somebody is a spy or a criminal to get a FISA warrant. Instead, they have to prove they have a reasonable suspicion somebody is an agent of a foreign power, which is not just spies and terrorists, but also anybody who aids and abets them, even unknowingly.
Furthermore, personal motivation on anybody’s part doesn’t matter much in these scenarios: Unsurprisingly, people report criminals to the police for all sorts of reasons, from the noble to the petty, but the courts have ruled repeatedly that omissions only matter if they would have materially affected the judge’s decision. Personal motivation rarely rises to that level, even in some of the most extreme cases exploring this territory. Not helping matters is that it’s easy to confirm details of the dossier independently. In fact, Carter Page himself did so under oath, to the House Intelligence Committee, which is chaired by Devin Nunes.
http://uproxx.com/news/what-is-fisa-warrant-carter-page-russia-devin-nunes/
You have a short memory, or you're very, very young. Not long ago the democrats were making that argument, and the republicans were calling them unpatriotic. Now you guys are hoist by your own petard and whinging about the unfairness of it all.
This is the law now. You made it possible. A conservative Supreme Court ruled it Constitutional. Be careful what you wish for. You might get it.
I'm just showing you how it is. The FISA act was, ironically, set up to put curbs on government spying on U.S. citizens:
The FISA resulted from extensive investigations by Senate Committees into the legality of domestic intelligence activities. These investigations were led separately by Sam Ervin and Frank Church in 1978 as a response to President Richard Nixon’s usage of federal resources to spy on political and activist groups.[2] The act was created to provide judicial and congressional oversight of the government's covert surveillance activities of foreign entities and individuals in the United States, while maintaining the secrecy needed to protect national security.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Foreign_Intelligence_Surveillance_Act
Carter moved to limit government power, not to increase it. I don't think you're dishonest in misrepresenting it. I think you're rather gullible and fell for a fake story.
Yes. More precisely:
The 2008 amendment of FISA gave telecoms immunity, increased the time allotted for warrantless surveillance, and adds provisions for emergency eavesdropping. On June 20, 2008, the House of Representatives passed the amendment with a vote of 293 to 129.[61][62] It passed in the Senate 69 to 28 on July 9, 2008[63] after a failed attempt to strike Title II from the bill by Senator Dodd.[64] On July 10, 2008, President Bush signed it into law.
ibid
We told you that it was a bad idea...
Now you're dismayed and angry to learn that the door swings both ways.
lain: