Free Republic
Browse · Search
General/Chat
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Top FBI Lawyer Admits She Didn't Read Trump Spy Warrant Before Signing It
NN ^ | 2019-02-08 21:00 | Jay Greenberg

Posted on 02/09/2019 10:44:25 AM PST by McQ444

The senior FBI lawyer who signed off on the FISA warrant to spy on Donald Trump's campaign advisor, Carter Page, has admitted during a congressional testimony that she didn't read the document before signing it.

(Excerpt) Read more at nnettle.com ...


TOPICS: Local News; Military/Veterans; Miscellaneous
KEYWORDS: 3freeperaccounts; billpriestap; blogpimp; carterpage; clickbait; davidlaufman; fbi; fisagate; gayblog; getajob; jamescomey; johnbrennan; jonny5; lisapage; peterstrzok; robertmueller; sockpuppet; spygate; trishaanderson; trump; witchhunt
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-6061-72 next last
To: McQ444

NN is a dubious source.


41 posted on 02/09/2019 11:25:22 AM PST by PghBaldy (12/14 - 930am -rampage begins... 12/15 - 1030am - Obama's advance team scouts photo-op locations.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: McQ444
Anderson claimed that in the case of the Page FISA, her approval was “more administrative in nature”

Hannah Arendt: "[E.] was not Iago and not Macbeth, and nothing would have been farther from his mind than to determine with Richard III 'to prove a villain.' Except for an extraordinary diligence in looking out for his personal advancement, he had no motives at all… He merely, to put the matter colloquially, never realized what he was doing… It was sheer thoughtlessness—something by no means identical with stupidity—that predisposed him to become one of the greatest criminals of that period. "

42 posted on 02/09/2019 11:25:45 AM PST by aspasia
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: McQ444

IIRC, Comey said he didn’t read it either.


43 posted on 02/09/2019 11:25:58 AM PST by Sacajaweau
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: norwaypinesavage

As we saw with Hillary, incompetence is a perfectly adequate defense when it comes to criminal violations. I will admit that it requires a significant amount of liberal street cred along with a threat of retribution to pull that particular trick.


44 posted on 02/09/2019 11:30:56 AM PST by Tallguy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 40 | View Replies]

To: McQ444

Funny. Must be a habit if rubber-stamping F_I bureaucrats. Rosenweasel basically said the same thing in testimony.


45 posted on 02/09/2019 11:34:01 AM PST by SERKIT ("Blazing Saddles" explains it all.......)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: SpaceBar
She should spend a decade in a women’s correctional facility.

With Hillary as her roommate.

46 posted on 02/09/2019 11:34:28 AM PST by ssaftler (Beam me up, Scotty! There's no intelligent life left in this country!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: McQ444
It appears, that only the secretary that typed it knew what was in this FISA request {or any other FISA request} that goes forward to SPY ON AMERICAN CITIZEN.

The judge knew that this process was sloppy and this whole bunch of bullshit is a wink, wink, nod, nod, between the corrupt fbi, doj and the court system.

How can anyone have any confidence in our corrupt law keepers?

47 posted on 02/09/2019 11:35:35 AM PST by USS Alaska (Nuke all mooselimb terrorists, today.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Phillyred
Guarantee you the judges are in on this too. Does ANYONE know who the judge is????

I assume it's yet another Obama judge.

48 posted on 02/09/2019 11:41:17 AM PST by Pollster1 ("Governments derive their just powers from the consent of the governed")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: Phillyred

There were a number of judges involved in this FISA scam. The FISA judges are picked by Chief Justice Roberts, and he is responsible for making clear to them what constitutes abuse.


49 posted on 02/09/2019 11:41:38 AM PST by jjotto (Next week, BOOM!, for sure!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: McQ444

Does it make her look worse to have read it or not read it?


50 posted on 02/09/2019 11:44:42 AM PST by gunsequalfreedom
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: jjotto

Roberts is DISGUSTINGLY a HUGE disappointment! LEFTY!


51 posted on 02/09/2019 11:45:18 AM PST by Ann Archy (Abortion....... The HUMAN Sacrifice to the god of Convenience.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 49 | View Replies]

To: All

This lawyer needs to be fired and disbarred!


52 posted on 02/09/2019 11:58:38 AM PST by Retvet (Retvet)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: SERKIT
Rosenweasel basically said the same thing in testimony.

Yup, while trying to lecture Rep. Gohmert on "the process."

53 posted on 02/09/2019 12:00:39 PM PST by aspasia
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 45 | View Replies]

To: aspasia
watch from Jun 2018

Gohmert: "You approved the [FISA] filing . . ."

Rosenstein: "That's my job. That's my job."

G: "OK, you approved it. When you approve a FISA application, in your mind does that mean you should read it and understand what's part of it?"

R: "You should certainly understand what's part of it, sir . . "

G: "But that's . . you're parsing words . . .That doesn't mean you need to read it, in your opinion. Is that correct?"

R: "It depends on the circumstances, sir and ah, [smiles]"

G: "Well tell me then, being a former felony state judge . . ."

R: "yes"

G: "If I had somebody like you come before me . . ."

R: "I'm not the one [inaudible or before the judge], sir."

G: "The guy that signed and approved an application for a warrant had not . . ."

R: "I don't think . . . "

G: "even read the application that would allow spying on someone"

R: "That would be atrocious"

G: "I would look at everything he signed from then on with a jaundiced eye and I'm telling you I was a little bit concerned . . ."

R: "Will you even give a chance to explain, sir."

G: "Well, you have. You said . . ."

R: "No I have not!"

G: "approved it."

R: "I did approve it."

G: "I didn't ask that question, because you've said you approve it, but you took out the words . . ."

Goodlatte: "The gentleman's will . ."

G: "That you read it."

Goodlatte: "The gentleman will suspend. I just want to make it clear that you will be afforded the full opportunity to respond once his time is expired."

G: "My time continued to run while the chairman took up some of my time."

Goodlatte:"You'll have that, too."

G: "And actually, I didn't have a question, I was taking the words that the Deputy Attorney General himself said. Let me ask you about this . . .

---snip---

R: "I completely understand your concern, and this FISA process is being reviewed by the Inspector General. If he finds some problem with it I'll respect that. Now, we don't talk about FISAs. It's illegal for us to talk about FISAs. And this particular example is the result the intelligence committee--certain information was declassified--so I'm comfortable talking about that. You have to understand in context, sir, that the department had made the decision to disclose the existence of a FISA to the House and Senate before I got there. Before I got there. What I signed was what is called a renewal application. It had already been approved three different times by a federal judge, it was signed under oath by an FBI agent who attested it was true and correct. Now if he was wrong, we'll hold him accountable. But let's allow the process to conclude before we jump to conclusions about that, because I assure you, sir, I'll be just as offended as you, if I find there was some incorrect information in that application.

54 posted on 02/09/2019 12:42:48 PM PST by aspasia
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 53 | View Replies]

To: McQ444

Trisha Anderson, the head of the bureau’s National Security and Cyber Law Branch and principal deputy general counsel for the FBI, signed off on the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) application before forwarding the document to then-FBI Director James Comey, despite not having read it, she said.

Wasn’t this the exact same claim made by McCabe?? WTF! You sign a legal document, you own it. Do they think claiming they didn’t read it exonerates them from culpability.

No wait. I forgot. They’re the F’n B. I. Of course they’re exempt from all laws.


55 posted on 02/09/2019 12:48:18 PM PST by Flick Lives
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Tallguy
Right. In this situation which would you rather — admit to a potential corruption felony, or merely incompetence? She’s clearly opted for the latter.

I don't know. One corruption charge? Or admit you don't read the legal documents you sign, implying the potential for her to have not read ANY OTHER DOCUMENTS she signed either! That certainly seems to open up quite a can of worms on every document she has fraudulently submitted, giving every single target she's been involved in the opportunity to show incorrect procedures in their legal proceedings. If there's even a question that their cases weren't properly handled, that's a lot of potential convictions/FISA stuff that could get tossed out!
56 posted on 02/09/2019 12:56:11 PM PST by Svartalfiar
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: McQ444

Nota Bene:

A FISA in her branch had to be signed by an SES!

The Senior Executive Service [SES] is the DC Gatekeeper: political appointments to control the actual experts in the civil servant grades.

She “served” as a rubber stamp - as long as the target was Swamp-appoved. Had it been one of Hillary’s minions, she would have “served” as the firewall.

SES is Swamp Central.


57 posted on 02/09/2019 2:39:51 PM PST by YogicCowboy ("I am not entirely on anyone's side, because no one is entirely on mine." - J. R. R. Tolkien)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: McQ444

Are’t you testifying that you DID read it when you sign it?


58 posted on 02/09/2019 2:45:15 PM PST by Blood of Tyrants (Being woke means you can be nasty and hateful and use and racist slurs but feel morally superior.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: McQ444

Didn’t need to.


59 posted on 02/09/2019 3:07:08 PM PST by TBP (Progressives lack compassion and tolerance. Their self-aggrandizement is all that matters.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Phillyred
Maybe. But at a minimum they should be subject to congressional scrutiny.

On Congressional Oversight of Lower Federal Courts.

60 posted on 02/09/2019 3:59:54 PM PST by Jacquerie (ArticleVBlog.com)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-6061-72 next last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
General/Chat
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson