Well Brenner (and an entire entourage from the FBI) was already in London in April 2016 before the Podesta hack.
–Konrad
The dossier was never used because it wasn’t credible. You want me to believe that the Russian government was trying to discredit Trump with something so absurd? I think the Russians are a little smarter than you give them credit.
Still doesn’t explain why even Trump’s own appointee to the CIA doesn’t agree with you.
The Pee-pee dossier was* used to obtain the FISA warrants.
The oppo-research piece was fed to Steele by five different Russian sources:
John Brennan was an Obama appointee.
–Konrad
Or are you talking about Mike Pompeo, the Trump appointee.
I don’t think that Pompeo would give the Steele dossier any credibility.
Reference please.
–Konrad
The FISA warrants were for people in the far periphery of the Trump campaign and were not a factor in the election since they weren’t even known at the time.
I’m not referring to John Brennan. I’m referring to Pompeo. Did you not read the article I linked earlier?
Are you kidding? Once you have a FISA warrant, you can spy on anyone three hops away. This means the entire Trump campaign.
I read “Pompeo Affirms, Reluctantly, That Russia Tried to Help Trump Win” He was pressed into saying…
“Yes, sir,” he said. But that was only after he initially said the judgment that Russian President Vladimir Putin wanted to help Trump win “was the least confirmed, that is, there was the least support for that” in the report issued by the CIA, the FBI and the National Security Agency in January 2017, a few weeks before Trump took office.
That was not a strong yes, nor is it a denial.
Also, the article did not offer up anything more or less about the Steele dossier.
–Konrad
Ah, the three hops fallacy. You and Conan must read the same trashy blogs. Three hops refers to meta data only. Not to mention the warrants were obtained says before the election.
Tell me, how did the FISA warrants harm the Trump campaign?
All I said is that Russia wanted to help Trump. Pompeo acknowledges this. Want a list of more Republicans who agree with me?
The surveillance of Carter Page that began in October of 2016 was Not made public during that time, which in no way benefited Hillary Clinton’s campaign.
So you are telling me that the Carter page surveillance was not electronic, but by Spies? Yes, the first FISA warrant was turned down. Then they managed to get a warrant on Carter page in October 2016, and renewed it several times,
Who knows what tactical intelligence was leaked to the DNC through the election and afterwards.
As we already discussed earlier, Pompeo was forced to answer yes to a question.
Sure.
–Konrad
You know the difference between actual surveillance and meta-data, right? They couldn’t monitor anyone else’s communications, just Page’s. The three hop rule is cited on a lot of blogs with bad reputation but is generally false.
Tell me. How much information was leaked to the DNC. Tell me how surevillance of Page hurt their campaign. Anything?
Of course not. Page was barely part of the campaign to begin with and there is exactly zero evidence the surveillance was used for anything other than the investigation.
Actual surveillance is physically spying on someone.
Meta data is the data accompanied with all electronic communications. Eg. E-mails, phone calls, etc.
October 2016: The FBI and the Justice Department obtain a FISA warrant to monitor Page’s communications after convincing a Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court judge that there is probable cause to believe Page is acting as an agent of a foreign power, namely Russia.
This is most certainly a CALEA lawful intercept. This is different from the NSA dragnet where only the Metadata is collected. A FISA warrant means that all electronic communications were collected. I assure you that the three hop rule fully applies in this case.
Carter Page did nothing. He’s not been indicted, arrested or prosecuted. But he’s had to pay for attorneys to defend him.
But you don’t know for a fact … yet.
–Konrad
With a FISA warrant, they could read Page’s email, texts and listen to phone calls. That is surveillance. They couldn’t do any of that “three hops away”.
Of course they can.
Whether eavesdropping is done for national-security purposes under FISA [the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act] or for law-enforcement purposes under criminal statutes, the objective is always the same: to uncover the full scope of a conspiratorial enterprise. The point is to identify all of the conspirators, and especially to establish the complicity of the most insulated leaders. Carter Page may have been the surveillance target named in the FISA warrant, but he was of low rank in the alleged conspiracy. The point of monitoring Page was to determine exactly what he was doing and, just as crucial, who was directing him.
This conspiratorial enterprise is limited by the three hop rule.
–Konrad
It used to be a three-hop rule. It’s been narrowed to a two-hop rule since Snowden.
–Konrad
This is the Hill take on unmasking that was done. As you can see request jumped from 650 plus to nearly 2000.
Normally, when government officials receive intelligence reports, the names of American citizens are redacted to protect their privacy. But officials can request that names — listed as “U.S. Person 1,” for example — be unmasked internally in order to give context about the potential value of the intelligence.
According to the report — published by the Director of National Intelligence — the NSA may disseminate a U.S. person’s identity only if doing so meets one of a set of specified reasons under the agency’s guidelines.
Among those reasons is if the identity was necessary to understand foreign intelligence information or if the communication contained evidence of a crime and was being disseminated to law enforcement authorities.
The NSA provides the true identity of a masked person only if the official making the request has a legitimate “need to know,” according to the report, and has the appropriate security clearances — and if “the dissemination of the U.S. person’s identity would be consistent with NSA’s minimization procedures.”
As we seen Susan Rice and Samantha Power had access.
1 Like
The information that they can access in each of those “hops” is only meta data. Who they called. Not what they said.
The article (which you failed to link) includes references that support this.
Sorry the hosts of this blog have turned-off editing.
So you think that when they get a FISA warrant to collect not only the meta-data, but the whole electronic conversation that the two-hop rule does not apply? Wow. Are you ever mistaken.
–Konrad
Since you are rebutting, why don’t you back up what you think the FISA rules were under the Carter Page surveillance?
–Konrad
FISA’s License to Hop
A few weeks ago, Americans learned, from a letter sent by Sen. Charles Grassley (R-Iowa) to former National Security Adviser Susan Rice, that Rice had sent herself an unusual “email for the record” on Barack Obama’s last day in office. In the email, Rice claimed to be memorializing a high-level meeting of Obama officials in January 2017, at which they discussed whether to limit the information they were sharing with President-Elect Donald Trump on the investigation of Russian interference in the 2016 election.
Former federal prosecutor Andrew C. McCarthy, writing at National Review Online, concluded that the purpose of this meeting was to keep Trump in the dark about the extent to which he himself was under investigation. He concludes from the fact of the email’s existence and its odd timing that the device of briefing Trump on limited portions of the documentation was a tactic —one intended to obscure the fact that Trump was a target of the investigation, even if he was not technically the subject of it. In fact, McCarthy wrote, given the type of investigation, Trump was effectively the main target.
I’ve posted this before years ago, in fact had it bookmarked after doing some cleaning out. Had to delete all my old Hannity forum bookmarks. This is from ACLU.
I was looking for this last time this subject was brought up by the same idiots bring it up now.
This is really getting old now.
Below is a handy visualization demonstrating the staggering scope of just what the government is doing. We learned this summer that when NSA analysts want to search through the phone records of terrorism suspects, they also search through the records of anyone “three hops” away from that suspect. If three sounds like a small number to you, consider what that means if each of those “hops” has just 40 contacts. The size of the government’s dragnet suddenly becomes clearer and considerably more frightening.
Now they did change it to two hops since then.
Enjoy.
1 Like