Warrants to Spy on Carter Page Obtained Without FISA Court Hearings,

[Common]

A Justice Department (DOJ) filing in response to a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request reveals that neither the initial warrant, nor any of its three renewals, to spy on Carter Page were subjected to a Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) hearing for approval.


On Friday, Judicial Watch announced the DOJ’s filing in response to Judicial Watch’s FOIA request regarding the warrants granted to spy on former Trump campaign advisor Carter Page:



“Judicial Watch today announced that in response to a Judicial Watch Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) lawsuit (https://www.judicialwatch.org/document-archive/jw-v-doj-fisa-transcripts-complaint-01050/), the Justice Department (DOJ) admitted in a court filing (https://www.judicialwatch.org/document-archive/jw-v-doj-fisa-no-hearings-no-transcripts-01050/) last night that the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court held no hearings on the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) spy warrant applications targeting Carter Page, a former Trump campaign part-time advisor who was the subject of four controversial FISA warrants.”


“In the filing the Justice Department finally revealed that the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court held no hearings on the Page FISA spy warrants, first issued in 2016 and subsequently renewed three times:

“[Office of Intelligence] further confirmed that the [Foreign Surveillance Court] considered the Page warrant applications based upon written submissions and did not hold any hearings.”


Indeed the DOJ filing posted (http://www.judicialwatch.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/08/JW-v-DOJ-FISA-no-hearings-no-transcripts-01050.pdf) by Judicial Watch affirms multiple times that no FISA court hearings were held:


“In light of recent public disclosures about Carter Page, NSD confirms that it has conducted a reasonable search and that no such hearings were held with respect to the acknowledged FISA applications. Accordingly, no responsive hearing transcripts exist, and the partial “no records” response was proper.”
….
“Those supervisors reviewed their records and confirmed that, as is typical in proceedings before the FISC, no hearings were held with respect to the acknowledged Carter Page FISA applications, and thus no responsive transcripts exist.”

“Specifically, FOIA staff consulted with knowledgeable subject matter experts in the Office of Intelligence. Those experts confirmed that, as is typical in proceedings before the FISC, no hearings were held with respect to the acknowledged Carter Page FISA applications, and thus no responsive transcripts exist.”


https://www.cnsnews.com/news/article/craig-bannister/warrants-spy-carter-page-obtained-without-fisa-court-hearings-doj

[exotix]

What's Carter Page been charged with ?

[Peter1469]

What's Carter Page been charged with ?

What was he investigated for is the intelligent question.

#stupid

[exotix]

What was he investigated for is the intelligent question.

#stupidTrumps' collusion and conspiracy with Russia ... why else would Trumpf have anything to do with 'em ?

#Duh

[Peter1469]

Trumps' collusion and conspiracy with Russia ... why else would Trumpf have anything to do with 'em ?

#Duh

# retard

[Crepitus]

A Justice Department (DOJ) filing in response to a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request reveals that neither the initial warrant, nor any of its three renewals, to spy on Carter Page were subjected to a Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) hearing for approval.


On Friday, Judicial Watch announced the DOJ’s filing in response to Judicial Watch’s FOIA request regarding the warrants granted to spy on former Trump campaign advisor Carter Page:



“Judicial Watch today announced that in response to a Judicial Watch Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) lawsuit (https://www.judicialwatch.org/document-archive/jw-v-doj-fisa-transcripts-complaint-01050/), the Justice Department (DOJ) admitted in a court filing (https://www.judicialwatch.org/document-archive/jw-v-doj-fisa-no-hearings-no-transcripts-01050/) last night that the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court held no hearings on the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) spy warrant applications targeting Carter Page, a former Trump campaign part-time advisor who was the subject of four controversial FISA warrants.”


“In the filing the Justice Department finally revealed that the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court held no hearings on the Page FISA spy warrants, first issued in 2016 and subsequently renewed three times:

“[Office of Intelligence] further confirmed that the [Foreign Surveillance Court] considered the Page warrant applications based upon written submissions and did not hold any hearings.”


Indeed the DOJ filing posted (http://www.judicialwatch.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/08/JW-v-DOJ-FISA-no-hearings-no-transcripts-01050.pdf) by Judicial Watch affirms multiple times that no FISA court hearings were held:


“In light of recent public disclosures about Carter Page, NSD confirms that it has conducted a reasonable search and that no such hearings were held with respect to the acknowledged FISA applications. Accordingly, no responsive hearing transcripts exist, and the partial “no records” response was proper.”
….
“Those supervisors reviewed their records and confirmed that, as is typical in proceedings before the FISC, no hearings were held with respect to the acknowledged Carter Page FISA applications, and thus no responsive transcripts exist.”

“Specifically, FOIA staff consulted with knowledgeable subject matter experts in the Office of Intelligence. Those experts confirmed that, as is typical in proceedings before the FISC, no hearings were held with respect to the acknowledged Carter Page FISA applications, and thus no responsive transcripts exist.”


https://www.cnsnews.com/news/article/craig-bannister/warrants-spy-carter-page-obtained-without-fisa-court-hearings-doj

Did you miss the phrase "as is typical"?

Hearing aren't normally held about this kinda thing.

[stjames1_53]

Did you miss the phrase "as is typical"?

Hearing aren't normally held about this kinda thing.

FISA warrants are to be signed by a judge. There is no exception. As in every case, a warrant must be obtained to wire tap anyone. Any and all information that results in an unwarranted action, is considered to be tainted and will be tossed. Totally useless........
We call that Due Process, one of the hinge pins of Liberty. I know, to you, that nassie ol' 4th amendment keeps getting in the way.

[stjames1_53]

Trumps' collusion and conspiracy with Russia ... why else would Trumpf have anything to do with 'em ?

#Duh

What collusion?
You realize that you have come full circle and still nothing. Collusion, as you keep ignorantly using it, is not illegal.

[Crepitus]

FISA warrants are to be signed by a judge. There is no exception. As in every case, a warrant must be obtained to wire tap anyone. Any and all information that results in an unwarranted action, is considered to be tainted and will be tossed. Totally useless........
We call that Due Process, one of the hinge pins of Liberty. I know, to you, that nassie ol' 4th amendment keeps getting in the way.

The proper processes were observed.

This is made up nonsense.

Par for the course with you conservative tyoes though, I shouldn't be surprised.

[donttread]

A Justice Department (DOJ) filing in response to a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request reveals that neither the initial warrant, nor any of its three renewals, to spy on Carter Page were subjected to a Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) hearing for approval.


On Friday, Judicial Watch announced the DOJ’s filing in response to Judicial Watch’s FOIA request regarding the warrants granted to spy on former Trump campaign advisor Carter Page:


“Judicial Watch today announced that in response to a Judicial Watch Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) lawsuit (https://www.judicialwatch.org/document-archive/jw-v-doj-fisa-transcripts-complaint-01050/), the Justice Department (DOJ) admitted in a court filing (https://www.judicialwatch.org/document-archive/jw-v-doj-fisa-no-hearings-no-transcripts-01050/) last night that the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court held no hearings on the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) spy warrant applications targeting Carter Page, a former Trump campaign part-time advisor who was the subject of four controversial FISA warrants.”


“In the filing the Justice Department finally revealed that the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court held no hearings on the Page FISA spy warrants, first issued in 2016 and subsequently renewed three times:

“[Office of Intelligence] further confirmed that the [Foreign Surveillance Court] considered the Page warrant applications based upon written submissions and did not hold any hearings.”


Indeed the DOJ filing posted (http://www.judicialwatch.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/08/JW-v-DOJ-FISA-no-hearings-no-transcripts-01050.pdf) by Judicial Watch affirms multiple times that no FISA court hearings were held:


“In light of recent public disclosures about Carter Page, NSD confirms that it has conducted a reasonable search and that no such hearings were held with respect to the acknowledged FISA applications. Accordingly, no responsive hearing transcripts exist, and the partial “no records” response was proper.”
….
“Those supervisors reviewed their records and confirmed that, as is typical in proceedings before the FISC, no hearings were held with respect to the acknowledged Carter Page FISA applications, and thus no responsive transcripts exist.”

“Specifically, FOIA staff consulted with knowledgeable subject matter experts in the Office of Intelligence. Those experts confirmed that, as is typical in proceedings before the FISC, no hearings were held with respect to the acknowledged Carter Page FISA applications, and thus no responsive transcripts exist.”


https://www.cnsnews.com/news/article/craig-bannister/warrants-spy-carter-page-obtained-without-fisa-court-hearings-doj


It's getting so hard to tell which level of government needs which courts approval to spy on what class of American

[Peter1469]

FISA warrants are to be signed by a judge. There is no exception. As in every case, a warrant must be obtained to wire tap anyone. Any and all information that results in an unwarranted action, is considered to be tainted and will be tossed. Totally useless........
We call that Due Process, one of the hinge pins of Liberty. I know, to you, that nassie ol' 4th amendment keeps getting in the way.
You are correct.

What the FBI has done is criminal. I hope the FISA judges slam them. The DOJ lawyers that assisted the FBI ought to have their law licenses stripped from them.

[Hoosier8]

What's Carter Page been charged with ?

According to a Title 1 FISA application he is a spy for a foreign country or a terrorist. Your question is apropos considering the evidence required to get a Title 1 FISA warrant.

[Hoosier8]

The proper processes were observed.

This is made up nonsense.

Par for the course with you conservative tyoes though, I shouldn't be surprised.

You couldn’t be more wrong. Ohr testifies the dossier used to get the warrant was unverified. To get a title one FISA warrant on an American citizen takes the highest amount of VERIFIED evidence. Title one is the most intrusive FISA warrant reserved for foreign spies and terrorists.

The Woods procedure for getting one was not followed.

[Admiral Ackbar]

Trumps' collusion and conspiracy with Russia ... why else would Trumpf have anything to do with 'em ?

#Duh

You know nothing. The real story here is that Carter Pages 4th Amendment Rights were violated for political gain. That is an amazing story and the real lesson in all this nonsense.

[stjames1_53]

The proper processes were observed.

This is made up nonsense.

Par for the course with you conservative tyoes though, I shouldn't be surprised.

4th Amendment: The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

The Fourth Amendment (Amendment IV) to the United States Constitution (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Constitution) is part of the Bill of Rights (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Bill_of_Rights) that prohibits unreasonable searches and seizures (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Search_and_seizure). It requires "reasonable" governmental searches and seizures to be conducted only upon issuance of a warrant (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Warrant_(law)), judicially sanctioned by probable cause (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Probable_cause), supported by oath or affirmation, particularly describing the place to be searched and the persons or things to be seized. Under the Fourth Amendment, search and seizure (including arrest) should be limited in scope according to specific information supplied to the issuing court, usually by a law enforcement officer (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Law_enforcement_officer) who has sworn by it (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Affidavit). Fourth Amendment case law deals with three issues: what government activities constitute "search" and "seizure"; what constitutes probable cause for these actions; and how violations of Fourth Amendment rights should be addressed. Early court decisions limited the amendment's scope to a law enforcement officer's physical intrusion onto private property, but with Katz v. United States (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Katz_v._United_States) (1967), the Supreme Court (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Supreme_Court_of_the_United_States) held that its protections, such as the warrant requirement, extend to the privacy of individuals as well as physical locations. Law enforcement officers need a warrant for most search and seizure activities, but the Court has defined a series of exceptions for consent searches (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Consent_search), motor vehicle searches (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Motor_vehicle_exception), evidence in plain view (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plain_view_doctrine), exigent circumstances (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Exigent_circumstance_in_United_States_law), border searches (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Border_search_exception), and other situations.
The exclusionary rule (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Exclusionary_rule) is one way the amendment is enforced. Established in Weeks v. United States (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Weeks_v._United_States) (1914), this rule holds that evidence (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evidence) obtained as a result of a Fourth Amendment violation is generally inadmissible (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Admissible_evidence) at criminal trials. Evidence discovered as a later result of an illegal search may also be inadmissible as "fruit of the poisonous tree (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fruit_of_the_poisonous_tree)", unless it inevitably would have been discovered by legal means.
The Fourth Amendment was adopted in response to the abuse of the writ of assistance (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Writ_of_assistance), a type of general search warrant (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Search_warrant) issued by the British government (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/British_Empire), and a major source of tension in pre-Revolutionary America (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Revolution). The Fourth Amendment was introduced in Congress in 1789 by James Madison (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/James_Madison), along with the other amendments in the Bill of Rights, in response to Anti-Federalist (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-Federalist) objections to the new Constitution. Congress submitted (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Article_Five_of_the_United_States_Constitution#Pro posing_amendments) the amendment to the states on September 28, 1789. By December 15, 1791, the necessary three-fourths of the states had ratified (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Article_Five_of_the_United_States_Constitution#Rat ification_of_amendments) it. On March 1, 1792, Secretary of State Thomas Jefferson (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thomas_Jefferson) announced the adoption of the amendment.
Because the Bill of Rights did not initially apply to the states, and federal criminal investigations were less common in the first century of the nation's history, there is little significant case law for the Fourth Amendment before the 20th century. The Amendment was held to apply to the states (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Incorporation_of_the_Bill_of_Rights) in Mapp v. Ohio (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mapp_v._Ohio) (1961).

So, no, no procedures were followed. Their charges against Page and any accusations are without merit. They are fruit of the poisoned tree.

[exotix]

You know nothing. The real story here is that Carter Pages 4th Amendment Rights were violated for political gain. That is an amazing story and the real lesson in all this nonsense.Wrong ... you're witnessing yet another instance of self-destruction in worship of a deranged Dolt ... LOL

[stjames1_53]

Wrong ... you're witnessing yet another instance of self-destruction in worship of a deranged Dolt ... LOL
you must be feigning ignorance. You've been shown the law and the reason for the law. Like you and free speech, it is for some and not others?

[stjames1_53]

Wrong ... you're witnessing yet another instance of self-destruction in worship of a deranged Dolt ... LOL

here's the derailment and subsequent train wreck.
https://tse3.mm.bing.net/th?id=OIP.xik49MPFKRTCn0XIllh8UgHaFj&pid=Api

[donttread]

You are correct.

What the FBI has done is criminal. I hope the FISA judges slam them. The DOJ lawyers that assisted the FBI ought to have their law licenses stripped from them.


But without changing oversight or installing other checks and balances it'll all happen all over again and probably already is.the next scanaol we'll here about has already happened or is happening now.

[Captdon]

The FISA court was a major mistake. It is un-American. It is an unreasonable threat to our freedom. It is a mockery of the Fourth Amendment. It akin to a police state.

[Peter1469]

Wrong ... you're witnessing yet another instance of self-destruction in worship of a deranged Dolt ... LOL

Stating what the Constitution says is not Trump support, Exo. Amazing- we must deny the law if needed to attack Trump. Or we support Trump.

Does this make sense to anyone?

[exotix]

Stating what the Constitution says is not Trump support, Exo. Amazing- we must deny the law if needed to attack Trump. Or we support Trump.

Does this make sense to anyone?Easy, ask Trumpf why he picked Carter Page as Foreign Policy adviser ... further, ask Faux how they know this ...




AG Sessions 'Will Be Fired' After Midterms Due to Carter Page Surveillance

http://insider.foxnews.com/2018/09/01/gregg-jarrett-jeff-sessions-will-be-fired-after-midterms-due-carter-page-surveillance

Fox News legal analyst Gregg Jarrett said Saturday on Fox & Friends (http://insider.foxnews.com/show/fox-and-friends) that he believes Attorney General Jeff Sessions will be fired after the midterm elections.

[Peter1469]

Pay attention:

I have asked you repeatedly to not quote me and respond with unrelated babble. Cease and desist.





Easy, ask Trumpf why he picked Carter Page as Foreign Policy adviser ... further, ask Faux how they know this ...




AG Sessions 'Will Be Fired' After Midterms Due to Carter Page Surveillance

http://insider.foxnews.com/2018/09/01/gregg-jarrett-jeff-sessions-will-be-fired-after-midterms-due-carter-page-surveillance

Fox News legal analyst Gregg Jarrett said Saturday on Fox & Friends (http://insider.foxnews.com/show/fox-and-friends) that he believes Attorney General Jeff Sessions will be fired after the midterm elections.

[stjames1_53]

Pay attention:

I have asked you repeatedly to not quote me and respond with unrelated babble. Cease and desist.

derailment number three, today...................

[Tahuyaman]

It's amazing to watch liberals condone partisan motivated corruption in government.

[Peter1469]

This is illegality at the highest levels of US law enforcement. To approve of this just to get Trump is immoral.

One would think that Americans would expect their government to follow the law.

[Tahuyaman]

This is illegality at the highest levels of US law enforcement. To approve of this just to get Trump is immoral.

One would think that Americans would expect their government to follow the law.

Is that the precedent has been set that this kind of corruption and illegal conduct by government t is no big deal, watch how the left hyperventilates when the tables are turned.

[Peter1469]

Is that the precedent has been set that this kind of corruption and illegal conduct by government t is no big deal, watch how the left hyperventilates when the tables are turned.

Hopefully the tables will not be turned.

Hopefully, the Department of Justice and the FBI will be returned to doing their jobs and not being the tools of politicians.

We probably need a purging of some current high level political appointees. They need jail time. We need to put non-partisan patriots in their place.

[Crepitus]

4th Amendment: The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

The Fourth Amendment (Amendment IV) to the United States Constitution (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Constitution) is part of the Bill of Rights (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Bill_of_Rights) that prohibits unreasonable searches and seizures (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Search_and_seizure). It requires "reasonable" governmental searches and seizures to be conducted only upon issuance of a warrant (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Warrant_(law)), judicially sanctioned by probable cause (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Probable_cause), supported by oath or affirmation, particularly describing the place to be searched and the persons or things to be seized. Under the Fourth Amendment, search and seizure (including arrest) should be limited in scope according to specific information supplied to the issuing court, usually by a law enforcement officer (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Law_enforcement_officer) who has sworn by it (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Affidavit). Fourth Amendment case law deals with three issues: what government activities constitute "search" and "seizure"; what constitutes probable cause for these actions; and how violations of Fourth Amendment rights should be addressed. Early court decisions limited the amendment's scope to a law enforcement officer's physical intrusion onto private property, but with Katz v. United States (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Katz_v._United_States) (1967), the Supreme Court (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Supreme_Court_of_the_United_States) held that its protections, such as the warrant requirement, extend to the privacy of individuals as well as physical locations. Law enforcement officers need a warrant for most search and seizure activities, but the Court has defined a series of exceptions for consent searches (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Consent_search), motor vehicle searches (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Motor_vehicle_exception), evidence in plain view (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plain_view_doctrine), exigent circumstances (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Exigent_circumstance_in_United_States_law), border searches (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Border_search_exception), and other situations.
The exclusionary rule (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Exclusionary_rule) is one way the amendment is enforced. Established in Weeks v. United States (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Weeks_v._United_States) (1914), this rule holds that evidence (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evidence) obtained as a result of a Fourth Amendment violation is generally inadmissible (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Admissible_evidence) at criminal trials. Evidence discovered as a later result of an illegal search may also be inadmissible as "fruit of the poisonous tree (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fruit_of_the_poisonous_tree)", unless it inevitably would have been discovered by legal means.
The Fourth Amendment was adopted in response to the abuse of the writ of assistance (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Writ_of_assistance), a type of general search warrant (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Search_warrant) issued by the British government (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/British_Empire), and a major source of tension in pre-Revolutionary America (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Revolution). The Fourth Amendment was introduced in Congress in 1789 by James Madison (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/James_Madison), along with the other amendments in the Bill of Rights, in response to Anti-Federalist (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-Federalist) objections to the new Constitution. Congress submitted (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Article_Five_of_the_United_States_Constitution#Pro posing_amendments) the amendment to the states on September 28, 1789. By December 15, 1791, the necessary three-fourths of the states had ratified (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Article_Five_of_the_United_States_Constitution#Rat ification_of_amendments) it. On March 1, 1792, Secretary of State Thomas Jefferson (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thomas_Jefferson) announced the adoption of the amendment.
Because the Bill of Rights did not initially apply to the states, and federal criminal investigations were less common in the first century of the nation's history, there is little significant case law for the Fourth Amendment before the 20th century. The Amendment was held to apply to the states (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Incorporation_of_the_Bill_of_Rights) in Mapp v. Ohio (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mapp_v._Ohio) (1961).

So, no, no procedures were followed. Their charges against Page and any accusations are without merit. They are fruit of the poisoned tree.

Wonk wonk wonk.

You think the fisa court SOP violates the Constitution?

[Peter1469]

Wonk wonk wonk.

You think the fisa court SOP violates the Constitution?

The FISA courts expect that the Department of Justice will be truthful - I don't think that assumption is valid after what we have learned.

#sad

I expect a lot of DoJ attorneys will be facing their bars fighting for their licenses.

[Hoosier8]

Wonk wonk wonk.

You think the fisa court SOP violates the Constitution?

You mean when it is not followed like the Page FISA?

To spy on Americans the highest level of accuracy must be used. The unverified dossier was used.

There are strict rules requiring that each and every fact presented in an FBI request to electronically spy on a U.S. citizen be extreme-vetted for accuracy — and presented to the court only if verified.

[Crepitus]

You mean when it is not followed like the Page FISA?

To spy on Americans the highest level of accuracy must be used. The unverified dossier was used.

There are strict rules requiring that each and every fact presented in an FBI request to electronically spy on a U.S. citizen be extreme-vetted for accuracy — and presented to the court only if verified.

It's right there in the OP.

"Those experts confirmed that, as is typical in proceedings before the FISC, no hearings were held with respect to the acknowledged Carter Page FISA applications,"

[Hoosier8]

It's right there in the OP.

"Those experts confirmed that, as is typical in proceedings before the FISC, no hearings were held with respect to the acknowledged Carter Page FISA applications,"

Nor was verified information supplied required by the court.

[Crepitus]

Nor was verified information supplied required by the court.

Goalpost move.

SMH.

I'm.outta here for tonight, you nut-bars are too irritating.

[stjames1_53]

Goalpost move.

SMH.

I'm.outta here for tonight, you nut-bars are too irritating.

What your missing is that the FISA warrant to spy on page was not legit. The findings agree with this assessment. Any information that was used is without teeth.
But let's see if your theory holds up. Cops can now enter your house and search it without a warrant and/or wiretap your phone without permission from a judge.
Now you're going to get convicted for items and information that was obtained without a properly signed warrant from a proper judge.
You think you will walk?
The only reason you're irritated is that we are correct, as usual..............

[Hoosier8]

Goalpost move.

SMH.

I'm.outta here for tonight, you nut-bars are too irritating.
Translation: You approve of wrongdoing.

[Captdon]

Wonk wonk wonk.

You think the fisa court SOP violates the Constitution?

It does.

[Captdon]

It's right there in the OP.

"Those experts confirmed that, as is typical in proceedings before the FISC, no hearings were held with respect to the acknowledged Carter Page FISA applications,"

Th FISA courts violate the 4th Amendment. There is nothing "reasonable" about the reason or no reasons about these warrants. When the next AG goes after Clinton the left will scream.