Judicial Watch: Justice Department Discloses No FISA Court Hearings Held on Carter Page Warrants

He was? Source?

Then Hillary murdelized his ass?

Just like poor Johnston Wilson McGill? You guys will buy anything from RW and Russian ************:

https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/clinton-mcgill-found-dead/

The list of people that Hillary and Bill Clinton have purportedly killed to enhance their political careers grew a little bit longer in April 2017 when the web site geopolitica.ru published an article claiming that Johnston Wilson (J.W.) McGill, an assistant for the former Secretary of State, had died under mysterious circumstances:

Johnston Wilson McGill, 34, was pronounced dead on his couch by a private doctor after suffering an apparent heart attack. It has happened just days after being summoned to appear before Trey Gowdy’s congressional committee to testify about Hillary Clinton’s email server. McGill was one of Clinton’s aides. The death was reported hapanned [sic] at her home of “natural causes.”

Does this whole thing seem a little bit odd to anyone else? It feels oddly like we’ve seen things like this happen before to people who could possibly incriminate Hillary Clinton. Unfortunately, as the doctor who pronounced has an impeccable record and is an authorized coroner in new York, the findings will be accepted and entered into public record.

 

You were there? You have a source?

Of course not.

 

Now you are running a diversion to change the subject from seth rich

His death and the DNC hacking were not properly investigated

 

I gave you a source

Comey himself said the FBI was not allowed to examine the DNC server

Comey: DNC denied FBI's requests for access to hacked servers

 

Well, no.

Hey, I've got an idea! Let's conspire to invent a hoax. Then, we can use the established procedures ti have him removed. The people will be with us!

 

When POTUS does it, it cannot be ILLEGAL. Sorry for the error.

 

A warrant isn’t a “judgement”

 

Depends on how you're using the term. It IS a court order authorizing an action that otherwise would violate the rights of the citizens its levied against. Its only supposed to issue upon a showing of probable cause. If you don't review the facts to MAKE that showing of probable cause, and you instead get a rubber stamp without making a showing of probable cause, whether you COULD HAVE shown probable cause or not won't matter: The warrant and all its fruits will be thrown out and the parties involved likely subject to censure.

 

LOL, so far that is what is known by everyone except those with their heads in the sand.

 

LOL, sure mister Ostrich. The FISA warrants were obtained using the fake dossier which Comey admitted was still unverified.

 

Sure they were. Of course you cannot prove they were debunked other than your usual false narrative.

 

"Yet". Mostly because the DC police stonewalled any investigation.

Assange may yet come to town, bearing gifts (murder conspiracy indictments for various DNC operatives).

 

You plainly didn't read the article. Oh, and you fabricated the part where "Hillary did it!!!" That's more bullshit.

The FBI asked for access to assist in getting the Russians out of the cloud-based servers, not in "investigating" Hillary, and stuff.

https://www.thedailybeast.com/trumps-missing-dnc-server-is-neither-missing-nor-a-server

Trump and his allies are capitalizing on a basic misapprehension of how computer intrusion investigations work. (gee! What a surprise!) Investigating a virtual crime isn’t a like investigating a murder. The Russians didn’t leave DNA evidence on the server racks and fingerprints on the keyboards. All the evidence of their comings and goings was on the computer hard drives, and in memory, and in the ephemeral network transmissions to and from the GRU’s command-and-control servers.

When cyber investigators respond to an incident, they capture that evidence in a process called “imaging.” They make an exact byte-for-byte copy of the hard drives. They do the same for the machine’s memory, capturing evidence that would otherwise be lost at the next reboot, and they monitor and store the traffic passing through the victim’s network. This has been standard procedure in computer intrusion investigations for decades. The images, not the computer’s hardware, provide the evidence.

Both the DNC and the security firm Crowdstrike, hired to respond to the breach, have said repeatedly over the years that they gave the FBI a copy of all the DNC images back in 2016. The DNC reiterated that Monday in a statement to the Daily Beast.

“The FBI was given images of servers, forensic copies, as well as a host of other forensic information we collected from our systems,” said Adrienne Watson, the DNC’s deputy communications director. “We were in close contact and worked cooperatively with the FBI and were always responsive to their requests. Any suggestion that they were denied access to what they wanted for their investigation is completely incorrect.”

 

I already have, along with numerous others. Why you keep repeating lies and nonsense is quite puzzling.

 

More conspiracies?

Good arguing, dude.

 

Assange has already gone on record that the leak dumps came from a DNC insider. Dead men don't talk.

 

My money's on a Bernie Bro staffer with an IT degree. I think Seth is a "dead end". I don't think Assange would sit on a political assassination.

 

It's amusing that the group of folks always denying settled fact because "Where's the evidence, and stuff?!!" are the very same people who believe any damned thing from the RW where there's no evidence to support the claims.

 

Did you guys believe this planted story, too? I bet that you did.

 

^^ Nemesis said to himself ^^ Shades O Bob Dole style. :: So ... if I ain't interrupting the convo with the voices in your head ... Is Assange lying about his source? It's as simple as that. Seth Rich? Probably not IMO ... but impossible Assange's source was an insider?

 

You cant claim russians hacked the DNC server without examining it

 

In one interview, WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange appeared to suggest that Rich, 27, was the source of the WikiLeaks-exposed DNC emails.

Assange hinted at the newest revelations during an interview on the Dutch television program Nieuwsuur.

“Our whistleblowers go to significant efforts to give us material, at often very significant risks,” Assange said. “There was a 27 year old, works for the DNC, who was shot in the back, murdered just a few weeks ago for unknown reasons other than that he was walking down the street in Washington.”

The interviewer interjected, “That was just a robbery, I believe, wasn’t it?”

Assange replied, “No, there’s no finding.”

The interviewer asked, “What are you suggesting?”

“I’m suggesting that our sources take risks and they become concerned to see things occurring like that,” Assange continued.

“But was he one of your sources then?” asked the interviewer.

“We don’t comment on who our sources are,” Assange said. “We have to understand how high the stakes are in the United States. Our sources are, you know, our sources face serious risks. That’s why they come to us, so we can protect their anonymity.”

 

Didn't say "a" judgement did I.

 

Mine was a question

How do you issue proper judgement without all the facts and a proper vetting of them?

 

That's already been answered. It's not a "judgment", it's the issuance of a warrant.

You don't try your case before a judge issuing a warrant; you need probable cause, and much more in FISA matters.

You can look this stuff up for yourself. You knew that, right?