Will You Accept the Findings of the Muller Probe?

[Red]

1. Does any actual evidence exist that we should question the FISA judge?
2. That we should question this judge's motives?
3. Has this judge previously displayed an inability to set aside any prejudice they have to follow the law?
4. Anything that supports "someone else" directed this judge to sign off on it?

I don't think there is only one judge involved. This from Wikipedia:

When the court was founded, it was composed of seven federal districtjudges appointed by the Chief Justice of the United States, each serving a seven-year term, with one judge being appointed each year. In 2001, the USA PATRIOT Act expanded the court from seven to eleven judges, and required that at least three of the Court's judges live within twenty miles (32 km) of the District of Columbia. No judge may be appointed to this court more than once, and no judge may be appointed to both the Court of Review and the FISA court.

Chief Justice John Roberts has appointed all of the current judges.[40]

Edit:
Guess this comment requires a correction:

https://www.lawfareblog.com/how-fisa-court-really-works

"Applications under FISA are heard by a single FISC judge, and by statute and rule the government may not ask a second judge to consider an application for electronic surveillance or a physical search after one FISC judge has denied it. Instead, if a judge denies such an application, the government’s only statutory remedy is to take an appeal to the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court of Review."

(FISA is also known as FISC)

 

[Stars Fan]

I think it's impossible to judge Trump by a normal person's standards. He is not normal at all. And I get that you would not make the same sorts of decisions he has (neither would I) but it is pretty crazy to categorize him as stupid. If you didn't hate him so much I think you could see that he's been incredibly successful in a wide variety of different endeavors.

So were Al Capone, Whitey Bulger, and Neil Sedaka.

 

[Joe Bagadonuts]

I don't think there is only one judge involved. This from Wikipedia:

When the court was founded, it was composed of seven federal districtjudges appointed by the Chief Justice of the United States, each serving a seven-year term, with one judge being appointed each year. In 2001, the USA PATRIOT Act expanded the court from seven to eleven judges, and required that at least three of the Court's judges live within twenty miles (32 km) of the District of Columbia. No judge may be appointed to this court more than once, and no judge may be appointed to both the Court of Review and the FISA court.

Chief Justice John Roberts has appointed all of the current judges.[40]

Edit:
Guess this comment requires a correction:

https://www.lawfareblog.com/how-fisa-court-really-works

"Applications under FISA are heard by a single FISC judge, and by statute and rule the government may not ask a second judge to consider an application for electronic surveillance or a physical search after one FISC judge has denied it. Instead, if a judge denies such an application, the government’s only statutory remedy is to take an appeal to the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court of Review."

(FISA is also known as FISC)

I almost mentioned this when I responded to Harambe's post. I haven't heard anyone questioning the ethics of the judges. I have heard people suggest that exculpatory evidence (such as info about Christopher Steele, his motivations and the veracity of his report) may have been withheld. I have heard that the judge may have been told that the dossier was verified when it was not, etc. I do think we should be very concerned about how this court works and its tremendous powers. I think that if any of us discovered that the FBI had done to us what they apparently did to Carter Page we would be more than a little bit freaked out.

 

[Harambe]

I guess you're going to have to wait for their report to come out to find out the answers to your questions.

This is what we're trying to get away from. The distinction has to be made on why investigate. In Donalds collusion case, there's clear motive, opportunity, a clear action, proven guilty supporting staff, and now money changing hands. In the case of the judge, all that's been brought up seems to be "Why did they make that decision" and "I bet 'bama did it!"

Bring me something besides perceived motive and I'll be for a proper investigation.

I don't think there is only one judge involved. This from Wikipedia:

When the court was founded, it was composed of seven federal districtjudges appointed by the Chief Justice of the United States, each serving a seven-year term, with one judge being appointed each year. In 2001, the USA PATRIOT Act expanded the court from seven to eleven judges, and required that at least three of the Court's judges live within twenty miles (32 km) of the District of Columbia. No judge may be appointed to this court more than once, and no judge may be appointed to both the Court of Review and the FISA court.

Chief Justice John Roberts has appointed all of the current judges.[40]

Edit:
Guess this comment requires a correction:

https://www.lawfareblog.com/how-fisa-court-really-works

"Applications under FISA are heard by a single FISC judge, and by statute and rule the government may not ask a second judge to consider an application for electronic surveillance or a physical search after one FISC judge has denied it. Instead, if a judge denies such an application, the government’s only statutory remedy is to take an appeal to the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court of Review."

(FISA is also known as FISC)

This is more helpful. Thank you. I think this PDF has the approved warrant.

https://int.nyt.com/data/documenthe...isa-documents-foia-release/full/optimized.pdf

There's a lot of information there, and a ton of it redacted, but it's dated 2017. I can't find copies of the warrants requested in 2016. To your credit, although only one judged signs a document, different judges have signed different approvals.

 

[Joe Bagadonuts]

This is what we're trying to get away from. The distinction has to be made on why investigate. In Donalds collusion case, there's clear motive, opportunity, a clear action, proven guilty supporting staff, and now money changing hands. In the case of the judge, all that's been brought up seems to be "Why did they make that decision" and "I bet 'bama did it!"

Bring me something besides perceived motive and I'll be for a proper investigation.

You don't see anything because you don't want to see anything. There are plenty of questions that need answers. For instance: why did our government seek and obtain a search warrant on Carter Page, but then not charge him with a crime? I know that does not look troubling to you, but it does to a lot of people.

 

[One Brow]

You don't see anything because you don't want to see anything. There are plenty of questions that need answers. For instance: why did our government seek and obtain a search warrant on Carter Page, but then not charge him with a crime? I know that does not look troubling to you, but it does to a lot of people.

Your saying it would be more comforting if every person who was the recipient of a search warrant was charged with a crime?

 

[Harambe]

You don't see anything because you don't want to see anything. There are plenty of questions that need answers. For instance: why did our government seek and obtain a search warrant on Carter Page, but then not charge him with a crime? I know that does not look troubling to you, but it does to a lot of people.

I might not want to, which is why I'm asking you to change my mind.

A plausible answer to your question is simple; After monitoring Carter Page, although they had reason to do so, they couldn't find anything concrete enough to charge him. Is it really that impossible to believe?

 

[Zombie]

Today I learned every single warrant issued must end in arrest and criminal charges. Makes a lot of sense when you think about it.

 

[Joe Bagadonuts]

Your saying it would be more comforting if every person who was the recipient of a search warrant was charged with a crime?

I think it's more than a little strange that a super secret court would be allowed to renew an application multiple times in order to perform surveillance on a guy who apparently did not commit a crime. I think the only reason you're okay with it was that the person being surveiled was associated with Trump.

 

[Joe Bagadonuts]

I might not want to, which is why I'm asking you to change my mind.

A plausible answer to your question is simple; After monitoring Carter Page, although they had reason to do so, they couldn't find anything concrete enough to charge him. Is it really that impossible to believe?

So they renewed the application three more times... but still didn't find anything. Hmm, maybe they weren't after Carter Page after all. Could it be that our government was simply trying to use him as an unwitting pawn?

 

[fishonjazz]

Trump has not achieved my version of success, but I think it's pretty obvious he has achieved his. I get that you don't like him, but to suggest that he's not intelligent or has not been successful is flat out silly. On a side note, based on your financial advice I'm guessing you are now rolling in dough these days. Congrats on that!

What makes you think he is intelligent? Serious question.

Can't just be that he has money cause lots of dumbasses have money. What are his SAT/ACT scores? What great papers has he written? Things of that nature.

Sent from my ONEPLUS A6013 using JazzFanz mobile app

 

[Harambe]

So they renewed the application three more times... but still didn't find anything. Hmm, maybe they weren't after Carter Page after all. Could it be that our government was simply trying to use him as an unwitting pawn?

You realize you have stepped into conspiracy theories at this point, yes?

Yes, when you want to believe there's an ulterior motive, that might look suspicious.

Now imagine there isn't a conspiracy. The available data supported a warrant, but they wrote it up for for all of the Donald Trump campaign. It gets denied, as the court doesn't want to be dragged into political hooha, and they identify that it might be a stretch to think the entire organization are foreign agents. So they go back to the drawing boards and establish a stronger case, but naming Carter Page specifically instead of the whole campaign, and writing out everything on that person specifically. A warrant is then issued for 90 days. And the new data collected still pointed to suspicious activity, so it was extended 90 days. And the new data still supported suspicious activity so it was extended for 90 days. And the new data supported suspicious activity so it was extended for 90 days. So after a year of balancing following through with political backlash, the FBI admits they're not going to get anything.