Horse Racing Forum - PaceAdvantage.Com - Horse Racing Message Board

Go Back   Horse Racing Forum - PaceAdvantage.Com - Horse Racing Message Board > Off Topic > Off Topic - General


Reply
 
Thread Tools Rate Thread
Old 08-31-2018, 11:45 PM   #16
Tom
The Voice of Reason!
 
Tom's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: Canandaigua, New york
Posts: 112,470
Judge Judy has more integrity than the entire US Judicial System.

TRUMP - appoint JJ!
__________________
Who does the Racing Form Detective like in this one?
Tom is offline   Reply With Quote Reply
Old 08-31-2018, 11:49 PM   #17
VigorsTheGrey
Veteran
 
Join Date: Feb 2016
Posts: 4,553
Quote:
Originally Posted by fast4522 View Post
You will see a movie about it, likely not what you want.
Really not sure how this all ends, and I don't have a side one way or another...it would be nice if the real story were told to us all but slim chance of that...

Stuff like this often gets obscured for ages, lost in the vaults of secrecy, national security, you know...that's why I don't pick sides anymore.
VigorsTheGrey is offline   Reply With Quote Reply
Old 08-31-2018, 11:57 PM   #18
fast4522
Registered User
 
fast4522's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2004
Location: New Hampshire
Posts: 14,400
Quote:
Originally Posted by VigorsTheGrey View Post
Really not sure how this all ends, and I don't have a side one way or another...it would be nice if the real story were told to us all but slim chance of that...

Stuff like this often gets obscured for ages, lost in the vaults of secrecy, national security, you know...that's why I don't pick sides anymore.
I tell you what, you and I can revisit this one year from now.

Attached Images
File Type: jpg VTG.jpg (62.1 KB, 14 views)

Last edited by fast4522; 08-31-2018 at 11:59 PM.
fast4522 is offline   Reply With Quote Reply
Old 09-01-2018, 12:01 AM   #19
davew
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2011
Posts: 22,461
Quote:
Originally Posted by VigorsTheGrey View Post
For those of you who have not seen the FISA document...here it is in all its redacted glory...composed of several parts, each containing multiple pages.

The page numbers are at the bottom of each page. The legal persons ssociated with these filings sign in at the end of each section.

Some of the names that are shown include:

James Comey
Sally Q.Yates
Rod J. Rosenstein
Dana J. Boente

Andrew G. McGabe

Michael W. Mosman
Anne C. Conway
Raymond J. Deanie
Please forgive me if I get the names wrong...

This document may very well go down as one of he most important documents in US History...my suggestion is for all of us to become very acquainted with it...there is a very important political education here... That no doubt will become the focus of lively discussion for years...

...too bad the TopSecret document was only released in heavily redacted format...I would have loved to read the full account...maybe someday it will be made into a movie....
https://cryptome.org/2018/07/FISA-Spy-Carter-Page.pdf medium size download.
it is interesting that Trump has not declassified any documents yet, maybe Adam Shiffty is right
davew is offline   Reply With Quote Reply
Old 09-01-2018, 12:08 AM   #20
VigorsTheGrey
Veteran
 
Join Date: Feb 2016
Posts: 4,553
Quote:
Originally Posted by ReplayRandall View Post
FYI, the identities of FISA judges are kept secret, but the person who appoints the Judges that sit on the FISA Courts is ----->Chief Justice John Roberts
Mosman/ G.W Bush
Conway/ Roberts
Dearie/ Roberts
VigorsTheGrey is offline   Reply With Quote Reply
Old 09-01-2018, 12:18 AM   #21
VigorsTheGrey
Veteran
 
Join Date: Feb 2016
Posts: 4,553
Dana J. Boente resigned abruptly in Oct 2017
https://www.cnbc.com/2017/11/08/sena...signation.html

Also,

Wikipedia:
On October 27, 2017 Boente announced his intention to resign as U.S. Attorney and as acting assistant attorney general for the National Security Division; he said he would remain in the positions until a replacement is confirmed.[18][19]

On January 23, 2018, Boente was named general counsel to the FBI by the director Christopher Wray, filling the vacancy after James Baker's reassignment to another part of the bureau.[20]

On April 11, 2018, Rachel Maddow showed on The Rachel Maddow Show on MSNBC notes from Boente where Boente documented his conversation with James Comey about Comey's experiences with Donald Trump. Maddow also showed a letter from Boente to the Department of Justice wherein Boente relays a request to other officials to preserve "Documents and Responsive Materials" about Trump's dismissal of James Comey as Director of the Federal Bureau of Investigation.[21]

Last edited by VigorsTheGrey; 09-01-2018 at 12:25 AM.
VigorsTheGrey is offline   Reply With Quote Reply
Old 09-01-2018, 01:03 AM   #22
VigorsTheGrey
Veteran
 
Join Date: Feb 2016
Posts: 4,553
Quote:
Originally Posted by PaceAdvantage View Post
They just rubber stamped it...fun times:

https://www.judicialwatch.org/press-...page-warrants/
"Also rare is for FISA warrant requests to be turned down. During the 25 years from 1979 to 2004, 18,742 warrants were granted, while only four were rejected. Fewer than 200 requests had to be modified before being accepted, almost all of them in 2003 and 2004. The four rejected requests were all from 2003, and all four were partially granted after being submitted for reconsideration by the government. Of the requests that had to be modified, few were before the year 2000. During the next eight years, from 2004 to 2012, there were over 15,100 additional warrants granted, and another seven being rejected. Over the entire 33-year period, the FISA court granted 33,942 warrants, with only 12 denials – a rejection rate of 0.03 percent of the total requests.[5] This does not include the number of warrants that were modified by the FISA court.[6]"

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unit...eillance_Court
Since FISA was enacted in 1978, we've had three chief justices, and they have all been conservative Republicans, so I think one can worry that there is insufficient diversity."[32] Since May 2014, however, four of the five judges appointed by Chief Justice Roberts to the FISA Court were appointed to their prior federal court positions by Presidents Bill Clinton and Barack Obama.

Last edited by VigorsTheGrey; 09-01-2018 at 01:13 AM.
VigorsTheGrey is offline   Reply With Quote Reply
Old 09-01-2018, 11:26 AM   #23
chadk66
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2013
Posts: 5,414
Quote:
Originally Posted by ReplayRandall View Post
FYI, the identities of FISA judges are kept secret, but the person who appoints the Judges that sit on the FISA Courts is ----->Chief Justice John Roberts
so is Roberts the only one that can remove them or can congress do it?
chadk66 is offline   Reply With Quote Reply
Old 09-01-2018, 03:04 PM   #24
mostpost
Registered User
 
mostpost's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: North Riverside, Il.
Posts: 16,047
Quote:
Originally Posted by PaceAdvantage View Post
They just rubber stamped it...fun times:

https://www.judicialwatch.org/press-...page-warrants/
Just what sort of hearing should they have held? Do you think Carter Page or his attorneys should have been allowed to argue why he should not have been surveilled? The whole idea behind a wiretap is that the person not know that he is being watched/listened to. Otherwise he will change his behavior. He will be "A good boy".


Justice Department has done thousands of these warrants. I'm sure they know what to put in these warrants; and I am sure if the court has questions they will ask them.


I read the application posted by Vigors the Grey in this thread. in the unredacted part there is no mention of the Steele Dossier, no mention of Hillary Clinton, no mention of Bruce Ohr, no mention of Peter Strozk and no mention of the DNC. So all that is just a diversion by Judicial Watch.

Remember that all the material that was redacted for the public release, was not redacted in the version the court saw. The entirety of the document was all the court needed to approve the request.
__________________
"When you come at the King, You'd best not miss." Omar Little
mostpost is offline   Reply With Quote Reply
Old 09-01-2018, 03:06 PM   #25
PaceAdvantage
PA Steward
 
PaceAdvantage's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: Del Boca Vista
Posts: 88,183
Quote:
Originally Posted by mostpost View Post
Just what sort of hearing should they have held? Do you think Carter Page or his attorneys should have been allowed to argue why he should not have been surveilled?
Oh yes. That's exactly what I was talking about and expected. That's because I'm a ****ing moron who didn't go beyond a 3rd grade education. Thanks for setting me straight.
__________________
@paceadvantage | Support the site and become a today!
PaceAdvantage is offline   Reply With Quote Reply
Old 09-01-2018, 03:29 PM   #26
davew
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2011
Posts: 22,461
Quote:
Originally Posted by mostpost View Post
Just what sort of hearing should they have held? Do you think Carter Page or his attorneys should have been allowed to argue why he should not have been surveilled? The whole idea behind a wiretap is that the person not know that he is being watched/listened to. Otherwise he will change his behavior. He will be "A good boy".


Justice Department has done thousands of these warrants. I'm sure they know what to put in these warrants; and I am sure if the court has questions they will ask them.


I read the application posted by Vigors the Grey in this thread. in the unredacted part there is no mention of the Steele Dossier, no mention of Hillary Clinton, no mention of Bruce Ohr, no mention of Peter Strozk and no mention of the DNC. So all that is just a diversion by Judicial Watch.

Remember that all the material that was redacted for the public release, was not redacted in the version the court saw. The entirety of the document was all the court needed to approve the request.
the hearings are for the judges to ask questions to clarify vague points

the 0bama administration weaponized the government and only the dimwits do not recognize this or feel it is alright because the end justifies any means possible.

wiretaps are a joke anyway, because the NSA is keeping ALL calls for later reference ... (after terrorists attacks and such)
davew is offline   Reply With Quote Reply
Old 09-01-2018, 03:37 PM   #27
mostpost
Registered User
 
mostpost's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: North Riverside, Il.
Posts: 16,047
Quote:
Originally Posted by VigorsTheGrey View Post
"Also rare is for FISA warrant requests to be turned down. During the 25 years from 1979 to 2004, 18,742 warrants were granted, while only four were rejected. Fewer than 200 requests had to be modified before being accepted, almost all of them in 2003 and 2004. The four rejected requests were all from 2003, and all four were partially granted after being submitted for reconsideration by the government. Of the requests that had to be modified, few were before the year 2000. During the next eight years, from 2004 to 2012, there were over 15,100 additional warrants granted, and another seven being rejected. Over the entire 33-year period, the FISA court granted 33,942 warrants, with only 12 denials – a rejection rate of 0.03 percent of the total requests.[5] This does not include the number of warrants that were modified by the FISA court.[6]"

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unit...eillance_Court
Since FISA was enacted in 1978, we've had three chief justices, and they have all been conservative Republicans, so I think one can worry that there is insufficient diversity."[32] Since May 2014, however, four of the five judges appointed by Chief Justice Roberts to the FISA Court were appointed to their prior federal court positions by Presidents Bill Clinton and Barack Obama.
That is the same link that I clicked on with very different results. Why did you only include results up to 2004 when they go all the way to 2018. In the past two years with a similar number of applications, 68 requests have been rejected and 1220 modified before being approved.


According to the same Wikipedia article, this is how the court guards against rubber stamping.
The accusation of being a "rubber stamp" was rejected by FISA Court president Reggie B. Walton who wrote in a letter to Senator Patrick J. Leahy: "The annual statistics provided to Congress by the Attorney General ... – frequently cited to in press reports as a suggestion that the Court's approval rate of application is over 99% – reflect only the number of final applications submitted to and acted on by the Court. These statistics do not reflect the fact that many applications are altered to prior or final submission or even withheld from final submission entirely, often after an indication that a judge would not approve them."[17] He added: "There is a rigorous review process of applications submitted by the executive branch, spearheaded initially by five judicial branch lawyers who are national security experts and then by the judges, to ensure that the court's authorizations comport with what the applicable statutes authorize."[18] In a following letter Walton stated that the government had revamped 24.4% of its requests in the face of court questions and demands in time from July 1, 2013 to September 30, 2013.[19][20][21] This figure became available after Walton decided in the summer of 2013 that the FISC would begin keeping its own tally of how Justice Department warrant applications for electronic surveillance fared – and would track for the first time when the government withdrew or resubmitted those applications with changes.[21] Some requests are modified by the court but ultimately granted, while the percentage of denied requests is statistically negligible (11 denied requests out of around 34,000 granted in 35 years – equivalent to 0.03%).[7][16][22][23] The accusation that the FISC is a "rubber stamp" court was also rejected by Robert S. Litt (General Counsel of Office of the Director of National Intelligence): "When [the Government] prepares an application for [a section 215 order, it] first submit[s] to the [FISC] what's called a "read copy", which the court staff will review and comment on. [A]nd they will almost invariably come back with questions, concerns, problems that they see. And there is an iterative process back and forth between the Government and the [FISC] to take care of those concerns so that at the end of the day, we're confident that we're presenting something that the [FISC] will approve. That is hardly a rubber stamp. It's rather extensive and serious judicial oversight of this process."[24]


You can see by reading the second bolded portion above that the reason there are so few rejections is that requests are carefully reviewed and modified even before they reach the court itself.
__________________
"When you come at the King, You'd best not miss." Omar Little
mostpost is offline   Reply With Quote Reply
Old 09-01-2018, 03:49 PM   #28
Tom
The Voice of Reason!
 
Tom's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: Canandaigua, New york
Posts: 112,470
Quote:
In the past two years with a similar number of applications, 68 requests have been rejected and 1220 modified before being approved.
All the more reason to hold a hearing and NOT rubber stamp anything.

Why do you whine and cry when all anyone is asking is due diligence and the following of the law? Whatcha hiding, dude?
__________________
Who does the Racing Form Detective like in this one?
Tom is offline   Reply With Quote Reply
Old 09-01-2018, 03:49 PM   #29
mostpost
Registered User
 
mostpost's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: North Riverside, Il.
Posts: 16,047
Quote:
Originally Posted by davew View Post
the hearings are for the judges to ask questions to clarify vague points
See my reply #27 in this thread. The reason there is seldom a need for judges to clarify vague points is that there is a process in place to make sure there are no vague points before the request goes to the court.

the 0bama administration weaponized the government and only the dimwits do not recognize this or feel it is alright because the end justifies any means possible.

It's Obama. It's always Obama.

wiretaps are a joke anyway, because the NSA is keeping ALL calls for later reference ... (after terrorists attacks and such)
Do you think that every call made in the United States is being recorded by the NSA? It may be that phone companies are maintaining a record of who called who and when. And it may be that the NSA could have access to those records at some time, but that does not mean there is any record of the content of those calls.
__________________
"When you come at the King, You'd best not miss." Omar Little
mostpost is offline   Reply With Quote Reply
Old 09-01-2018, 03:52 PM   #30
mostpost
Registered User
 
mostpost's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: North Riverside, Il.
Posts: 16,047
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tom View Post
All the more reason to hold a hearing and NOT rubber stamp anything.

Why do you whine and cry when all anyone is asking is due diligence and the following of the law? Whatcha hiding, dude?
Judicial Watch is nothing more than an arm of the Republican Party. Totally in bed with the conservatives. There sole purpose is to sow doubt among the ignorant faithful.
__________________
"When you come at the King, You'd best not miss." Omar Little
mostpost is offline   Reply With Quote Reply
Reply




Thread Tools
Rate This Thread
Rate This Thread:

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump

» Advertisement
Powered by vBadvanced CMPS v3.2.3

All times are GMT -4. The time now is 06:15 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.9
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Copyright 1999 - 2023 -- PaceAdvantage.Com -- All Rights Reserved
We are a participant in the Amazon Services LLC Associates Program, an affiliate advertising program
designed to provide a means for us to earn fees by linking to Amazon.com and affiliated sites.