The article is incorrect. The concept of second or third hops applies to section 702. Not title 1 FISA warrants.
While in Rome, Steele also briefed the FBI, who reportedly offered him $50,000 to verify parts of the dossier.
Who reported that Steele was offered $50,000 by the FBI? Link please.
Also, the picture of Jim Jordan is awesome. Really captures what a complete asshat he is.
I’m clueless.
OK … Do you even know where the two hop rule is codified? It’s up to you to prove me wrong with a reference. You have been avoiding this for more than a day now.
–Konrad
So you don’t know who reported that Steele was allegedly offered money to “verify the dossier”? Aren’t your curious why Faux News would include that in the article and not specify who reported it?
The fact of the matter is most of the dossier has been verified in the time since, so I guess it doesn’t really matter.
Says who? Reference please.
–Konrad
Steele could not prove Trump-Russia collusion so no payour. He was fired shortly afterwards.
–Konrad
Konrad. I believe it was under 702 section foriegn intelligent FISA warrant was issue.
You may want to double check that.
Fox pundit makes claim, but provides no corroborating evidence. Typical Fox bull ■■■■■
I believe, just from examining the public sources, that the FBI offered Christopher Steele $50,000 if he could corroborate the dossier
You actually want us to believe leaking the presence of the emails on Weiner’s laptop wasn’t political.
When the person they leaked it to was a member of her opposing candidate?
Do you honestly think people are that dumb to believe this?
They need to make that warrant public. From what I’m seeing no one knows.
Just guessing.
Here are the references for you.
Section 702 FISA:
Title I FISA:
OK … where’s the “two hop” rule?
–Konrad
1 Like
It’s buried in here, and applies to all FISA warrants
50 U.S. Code § 1861 - Access to certain business records for foreign intelligence and international terrorism investigations
–Konrad
They weren’t leaked. Judicial Watch did a FOIA request. The FBI has been very reluctant to come forward with information. Embarrassment? Collusion with the Clinton Campaign? I’m sure there’s an explanation.
–Konrad
OK @dantes Clearly, you don’t know what you are talking about.
Do your research before you claim that the reference I gave you did not know what they are talking about. It’s been up to you for over 24 Hours to back up your POV. You simply don’t know. Admit it. You make all sorts of unsubstantiated claims. This is one of them.
And if you really care about civil liberties, this should concern you. So far all I see is a Hillary-Leftie.
FYI: @conan
–Konrad
I’ve spent some serious time reading about this this afternoon. I’ve come to the conclusion that it has nothing to do with the FISA warrant that Page was subject to.
The US code you wrote is section 215 of the Patriot Act. It doesn’t have anything to do with FISA surveillance warrants. It allows the NSA to query their database of metadata (and only metadata) based on certain parameters.
The FISA warrant used for Page would not allow any “hops”.
We are talking about leaking the very presence of Clinton and Clinton related emails on Weiner’s laptop which occurred in late October 2016. Judicial Watch’s FOIA request came way later. Sorry, but you have the context all wrong.
And all you are doing is rejecting that which is given based purely on your own prejudice.
The NSA sniffers do not just collect metadata. They filter for specific words and when the threshold is crossed on a call, text, or email they are flagged for a human to review.
The Emails were only released as a result of JW’s request in October of 18, a request that the FBI had been stonewalling for months.
