Posted on 08/01/2018 8:35:01 AM PDT by Yo-Yo
On Tuesday evening, the dark recesses of the Internet lit up with talk of politics.
“Tampa rally, live coverage,” wrote “Dan,” posting a link to President Trump’s Tampa speech in a thread on 8chan, an anonymous image board also known as Infinitechan or Infinitychan, which might be best described as the unglued twin of better-known 4chan, a message board already untethered from reality.
The thread invited “requests to Q,” an anonymous user claiming to be a government agent with top security clearance, waging war against the so-called deep state in service to the 45th president. “Q” feeds disciples, or “bakers,” scraps of intelligence, or “bread crumbs,” that they scramble to bake into an understanding of the “storm” — the community’s term, drawn from Trump’s cryptic reference last year to “the calm before the storm” — for the president’s final conquest over elites, globalists and deep-state saboteurs.
(Excerpt) Read more at washingtonpost.com ...
Yeah, Huber’s been at it for nine months. Sure is getting amazing results, huh.
Or maybe it’s more QBS.
You haven’t practiced any law unless it’s in some place like Mexico.
Your own vituperative statements flag you as uninformed, to say the least, and definitely NOT a lawyer except in your own mind.
I guess that $400 a year I have to pay the State Bar is also a part of my imagination? I should be able to get it back then, right?
You are obviously too idiotic to continue discussing anything of any value. Have a nice day!
And now the ad hominems. Of course, expected.
You are not a lawyer and I don’t think you even have the talent to play one on TV.
I agree w/ that. I think Q is a Trumpian conduit that allows the admins' message to get out in cryptic that thrills his fans and scares his enemies.
“And now the ad hominems. Of course, expected.”
umm who started the attack? imo you are out of bounds fwiw
regards
rs
“And now the ad hominems. Of course, expected.”
umm who started the attack? imo you are out of bounds fwiw
regards
rs
There was no ‘attack’ unless it’s prewired in the minds of those that refuse to face facts.
Here is a layout of the facts, again.
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/3675638/posts?page=43#43
your 43 was fine and well stated it is after that things got dicey imo...maybe you should check the home page of your opponent:
“Retired criminal prosecutor 35 years”
methinks that qualifies one as being an attorney....
your 43 was fine and well stated it is after that things got dicey imo...maybe you should check the home page of your opponent:
“Retired criminal prosecutor 35 years”
methinks that qualifies one as being an attorney....
Stating that FOIA does not cover classified information is hardly profound.
He is not a lawyer, a prosecutor. That’s not an ‘attack’.
Anyone can say ANYTHING on the internet. It doesn’t make it true.
The FACT is the gossiping about the FISA documents BEFORE they were OFFICIALLY released, that gossip would be treated as HEARSAY in a court of law, meaning valued as trash. This is FACT.
Saying one is a lawyer of forty-some-odd fantasy years is IRRELEVANT.
Any real lawyer would never make such a statement. A genuinely licensed attorney would agree that ‘talk’ of a FISA document is worthless unless it is ADMISSABLE.
The big Q drop of July was the OFFICIAL declassification and release of the FISA documents. That is BIG because it is ADMISSABLE in a court of law.
After that drop, there is no more speculation, gossip, hearsay.
Now it’s on the table ready to be admitted to a court of law.
It may be a bit of a let-down for those that read about the ‘gossip’ of the FISA documents. Too bad. It does NOT change the fact that the OFFICIAL release is BIG news.
Over and over again Trump criticizes Sessions while Q says to trust Sessions.
When you support Sessions you are not supporting Trump's criticisms of Sessions.
You are not reading the import of the content in the statement that FOIA does not cover FISA.
The question you should be asking yourself is how did the OFFICIAL FISA documents get released if not by FOIA?
Therein lies the answer.
The first step in “dealing” with truth is ridicule. Violent opposition is next.
So the government can properly evaluate classified information before its disclosure in open court, CIPA section 5(a) requires that a defendant provide notice to the government of her intent to disclose classified information. [31] Failure by the defendant to provide such notice may preclude disclosure of the information or examination of the witness. [32] If the government objects to disclosure allowed by the court, the court must dismiss the indictment or information, unless “the interests of justice would not be served by dismissal.” [33] The court may, however, order other appropriate action instead of dismissing the action. [34]
CIPA specifically protects the examination of a witness who might reveal classified information during examination by the defendant. [35] Section 8(c) allows the government to object to any line of questioning that “may require the witness to disclose classified information not previously found to be admissible.” [36] After such an objection, the court is required to determine if the response by the witness will disclose classified information. [37]
CIPA has withstood constitutional challenge. [38] In United States v. Wilson, [39] the Second Circuit upheld CIPA’s notice provision as applied to a defendant who was barred from testifying about the classified details of his work. [40] The defendant wanted to testify in the district court that the activities for which he was being prosecuted were part of his work for U.S. intelligence. [41] The district court, relying on CIPA, would allow testimony regarding Wilson’s employment by intelligence agencies and involvement in covert operations, but it would not allow that testimony to include details of any operations. [42] The Second Circuit found this situation to be exactly what Congress intended CIPA to cover. [43] Similarly, the Eleventh Circuit upheld the use of CIPA’s notice provision in a prosecution for fraud on the Armed Forces against a defendant who wished to reveal details of classified military intelligence operations. [44]
United States v. Jolliff [45] involved a challenge to the notice provision based on the defendant’s Fifth Amendment privilege against self-incrimination. [46] The defendant asserted that the notice provision required him to reveal classified information to individuals who were not cleared to know such information—namely, the judge and defense counsel—in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 798, which criminalizes such disclosure. [47] The court found that because the judge did not require a security clearance to view the classified information, [48] and because the government had offered to provide the defendant’s attorney a sufficient security clearance, there was no Fifth Amendment violation. [49]
Another challenge to CIPA involved former National Security Advisor John Poindexter, who was prosecuted for his involvement in the Iran-Contra scandal. [50] Poindexter, like those mentioned previously, challenged CIPA’s notice provision as a violation of his Fifth Amendment rights. [51] He also challenged it for violating his rights to counsel, due process, and to confront the witnesses against him. [52] None of these challenges succeeded. [53] The court dismissed Poindexter’s Confrontation Clause challenge, which was based on CIPA’s requirement that Poindexter notify the prosecution of his intention to elicit classified information from prosecution witnesses on cross-examination. [54] In rejecting this challenge, the court stated that the Confrontation Clause provided Poindexter “an opportunity for effective cross-examination, not cross-examination that is effective in whatever way, and to whatever extent, the defense might wish.” [55]
A more contemporary case, decided after Crawford but before Clark, also addressed the Sixth Amendment issues raised by using classified evidence. In In re Terrorist Bombings of U.S. Embassies in East Africa, [56] the Second Circuit held that the defendant’s Sixth Amendment right to present a defense [57] was not violated even though the defendant himself was not allowed to review the classified information presented by the government. [58] In doing so, the court did not address any of the then-recent Confrontation Clause cases. Instead, the court relied on Chambers v. Mississippi, [59] a case from 1973, for the proposition that “a criminal defendant’s right to cross-examine the witnesses in his case ‘is not absolute and may, in appropriate cases, bow to accommodate other legitimate interests in the criminal trial process.’” [60]
CIPA’s passage provided courts an avenue for addressing the issues caused by greymail, and created a process for introducing classified information in criminal proceedings. Classified information can only be introduced at trial if it complies with Constitutional requirements, including the Confrontation Clause. [61] As will be discussed below, the Confrontation Clause’s interpretation changed significantly in the wake of the Court’s decision in Crawford, requiring a reevaluation of exactly what limits remain on the introduction of classified evidence.
how much of the redacted information is truly classified how much is embarrassment and how much is withheld due to ongoing investigations? is the privately funded dossier classified? is statements that page is a foreign russian agent classified or is it a lie? how can the name of the fbi special agent who signed the verification be withheld?
All admissible evidence must be authenticated...what is the provenance of the documents supporting the request for FISA warrants? Can a person be called to testify about what they did, is it classified if it does not include means and methods of intelligence gathering? What about right to fair trial would that not make most everything that is not REALLY classified fair game?
ofcourse it is big news it shuts up the MSM or makes them lie about it and now the public knows what we have surmised for months. regards
rs.
The question you should be asking yourself is how did the OFFICIAL FISA documents get released if not by FOIA?
I said FOIA doesn't cover "classified information". I never said that FOIA doesn't cover FISA information. The documents were released by standard procedure FOIA.
A FOIA request was made for FISA docs. The DOJ redacted classified information from the FISA docs. The newly unclassified, redacted docs were then released.
Why do you think that this is not what happened?
You are ‘cluttering’ the thread because all you post above pertains to ‘classified’ documents.
The partially redacted FISA documents that were released are DECLASSIFIED. Ergo, CIPA does not apply.
The BIG news drop of July alluded to by Q is the DECLASSIFIED partially redacted release of the FOIA documents. Now there is CLEAR INCONTROVERTIBLE OFFICIAL EVIDENCE that those who attempted to rig the 2016 election and then attempt to remove a duly elected President violated the law in seeking FISA approval to do their dirty work.
And not a peep from the Mockingbirds.
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.