Surveillance Balls Are Rolling Out has been added as a related post - related requested by newtboy on that post.

Trey Gowedy did read the FISA documents and did provide great incite in writing the Nunes memo.


Don't think there was any direct reading of any part of the memo from fake news outlets.


As for the memo::: Bombshell.::::::


Comey own words indicated that this dossier is “salacious and unverified."
McCabe testified “that no surveillance warrant would have been sought from the FISA court without the Steele dossier information”

Yet both signed off to obtain / renew the FISA surveillance.

The fact that the FISA has to be renewed every 90 days and that top leadership ( FBI Director James Comey, McCabe,) and others. The fact that they had to re-sign off every 90 days makes this even worse.


James Comey signed three FISA applications
Deputy Director Andrew McCabe signed one.
Sally Yates, and Rod Rosenstein each signed one or more FISA applications on behalf of DOJ.

They all knew this was a bad document and this was for political reasons.

McCabe wife working for Global Fusion GPS worked on this steel document. McCabe’s wife received 500k for her political run from Hillary Clinton.

The Muller investigation was started due to this dossier. An un verified political slanted document.


Since this memo came out we find out that Hillary Clinton/DNC passed info to Steele to put in the dossier ..

The market drop is not from the memo. The market is fine , slight pull back from explosive growth. Hoped you did some stock shopping Friday.

As for the memo::: Bombshell.::::::
Using the minimally verified Steele dossier that the Clinton/ DNC ,( started by the RNC) then gave to FBI/DOJ is fine with me. IF IT WERE TRUE.


According to the head of the FBI's counter intelligence division, corroboration of the Steele dossier was in its "infancy" at the time of the initial
Page FISA application. After Steele was terminated, a source validation report conducted by an independent unit within FBI assessed Steele's reporting as only minimally corroborated.

The rubbing point is that the FBI/DOJ used this material supplied by Steele to obtain a FISA warrant to spy on an American citizen, Carter Page to indirectly to spy on Trump for political reasons.

Comey own words indicated that this dossier is “salacious and unverified."
McCabe testified “that no surveillance warrant would have been sought from the FISA court without the Steele dossier information”

Yet both signed off to obtain / renew the FISA surveillance.

The fact that the FISA has to be renewed every 90 days and that top leadership ( FBI Director James Comey, McCabe,) and others. The fact that they had to re-sign off every 90 days makes this even worse.


James Comey signed three FISA applications
Deputy Director Andrew McCabe signed one.
Sally Yates, and Rod Rosenstein each signed one or more FISA applications on behalf of DOJ.

They all knew this was a bad document and this was for political reasons.

McCabe wife working for Global Fusion GPS worked on this steel document. McCabe’s wife received 500k for her political run from Hillary Clinton.

The Muller investigation was started due to this dossier. An un verified political slanted document.


This is just the starting point for the American people, as more info is put forth.

With respect to the FISA court itself-- they did their job. The information brought to the court is to be true and accurate.

Your video, Vox: How job surveillance is transforming trucking in Americ, has made it into the Top 15 New Videos listing. Congratulations on your achievement. For your contribution you have been awarded 1 Power Point.

If a drone's AI is sophisticated enough to find a human face, I think they could program it to detect a wall outlet and recharge itself if the battery is running too low...
But mostly the design is for being dropped and fly a short distance to target and releasing projectile. Kamikaze Bee.
this does have a Black Mirror vibe- very well done.

There was a point when aerial drones were only used for surveillance, because of ethical concerns about arming them. We crossed that line (16 years ago today), but kill-orders still have to come from a human, and that's the line that the A.I. professor (end of video) hopes we never cross.
I'll give it 10 years.

Pretty fucking disgusting, but hardly surprising. That guy is a hero. I hope they get the shaft for illegally entering and surveillance inside his home without a warrant (which seem indisputable) and he walks away with $10mil from their budget or more.

Counterpunch ran a rant by John Steppling yesterday, titled The Magic Liberal.

As you can deduct from the title, the author takes aim at liberals, with focus on their public reaction to Comey's defenestration and their sudden love affair with institutions (law enforcement/intelligence agencies) that have proven time and time again to be an enemy of the public.

Check out this (admittedly rather long) snippet:

And so we return to the firing of James Comey. And this story has less to do with the Trump’s motivations and the fact that Comey probably needed to be fired (though not because of anything to do with Russia Gate) than it does with the sudden open embracing of throughly corrupt and compromised institutions.

I’ve had people tell me the integrity of the Judiciary in peril. One wonders how such sentences can be uttered with a straight face. I have read people writing of the attack on Democracy signaled by Comey’s firing. What can that possibly mean to anyone who says it? The anti democratic actions of Obama over 8 years seems to pass unnoticed. What was NDAA? Obama expanded surveillance, prosecuted whistleblowers and expanded military tribunals. And this just scratches the surface. What was TTP for that matter?

And yet, if you can find me a liberal willing to actually debate this, I will clean your house for a year, free.

No, the New Victorian, the american white educated liberal is in crises. He or she is in a panic over Trump not because they fear global conflagration or nuclear annihilation, but because their Yoga class might get cancelled. They are forever aggrieved over the violation of feelings — of selected vulnerable groups. This never includes the poor, Arabs, Communists or Africans. Well, ok, on occasion it does include Africans but only in very broad abstract ways (i.e. when George Clooney argues for saving South Sudan or whateverthefuckever it was he was on about).

The adoration of the White Helmets, a proven group of psychopathic jihadist mercenaries is a perfect example. The White Helmets fit the white paternalist narrative. It is a form of colonial logic. The subaltern needs rescue. And its just so wonderful that some clearly teachable Arabs can help themselves with the rescue. Lets give them an Oscar. The style codes are what matters here.

Taping foreign diplomats is, unfortunately, the norm these days (and for decades or longer), and anyone with 1/4 of a brain would know (keeping in mind that Carnivore came to light decades ago, and Snowden clued us in to far worse surveillance of ordinary people daily) that calls to and from Russian diplomats would be recorded, and the fact that he was 1. surprised his team's conversations with numerous Russian agents were recorded, 2. didn't understand that when you call someone who's obviously going to be under surveillance you will also be recorded, so you shouldn't lie about it, and 3. jumped directly to making a specific unsupported and outrageous accusation directly against Obama that could not be true as he described it shows, at best, a criminal level of naivete and a tenuous grasp on reality or, more likely, a sociopathic penchant for lying to distract from his self serving illicit actions. (Wow, nice run on sentence, huh?)

I won't address the sad state of news, but it is impossible to deal in fact without contradicting Trump's daily 3am rants complaining about things he clearly doesn't understand, so "anti-Trump" is really pro-fact, something even faux can't completely ignore, try as they might.

What transcript of what conversation?! Trump claimed to have been tapped, based on a Fox report, based on an Alex Jones theory. No evidence, like a transcript of any conversations Trump has had, has ever been produced....none. I have o idea what you're talking about.
And Faux news itself had to do a special report clearly stating that they never received the tips Napolitano claimed they had received in his commentary implicating the British, and they have NO evidence he was ever under surveillance....full stop.
Napolitano's commentary was pure bullshit, and they've apparently (astonishingly) taken him off the air for spreading it.
"The Russians did it" is from the FBI....Comey's the name, inserting himself into politics is his game....but he's backed up by the heads of no less than 17 intelligence agencies on the Russian involvement claim.

@bcglorf
i feel i have to ask you a question,and i feel quite foolish for not thinking of asking it before.

i do not ask this snidely,or with any disrespect.

are you a neo-conservative?

because this "If he was on America soil, I'd agree with you. If he was living in a European apartment, I'd agree with you. Heck, if he was living in Russia I'd agree with you."

is almost verbatim the counter argument that was published,ad nauseum,in the weekly standard.which is a neo-conservative publication.edited by bill-the bloody-kristol.

and it would also explain why we sometimes just simply cannot agree on some issues.

ok,let's unpack your comment above that quoted.i won;t address the rest of your comment,not because i find it unworthy,it is simply a reiteration of your original argument,which we have addressed already.

so...
you find that it is the region,the actual soil that a person is on that makes the difference between legal prosecution..and assassination.

ok,i disagree,but the MCA of 2006 and the NDAA of 2012 actually agree with you and give the president cover to deem an american citizen an "enemy combatant".however,the region where this "enemy combatant" is not the deciding factor,though many have tried to make a different case,the simple fact is that the president CAN deem you an "enemy combatant' and CAN order your assassination by drone,or seal team or any military outlet,or spec-ops...regardless of where you are at that moment.

now you attempt to justify this order of death by "The reality is he was supporting mass killing from within a lawless part of the world were no police or courts would touch him. He was living were the only force capable of serving any manner of arrest warrant was military."

if THIS were a true statement,and the ONLY avenue left was for a drone strike.then how do you explain how this man was able to:foment dissent,organize in such a large capacity to incite others to violence and co-ordinate on such an impressive scale?

anwars al awlaki went to yemen to find refuge..yes,this is true.
but a btter qustion is:was the yemeni government being unreasonable and un-co-operative to a point where legal extradition was no longer a viable option?

well,when we look at what the state department was attempting to do and the yemeni response,which was simply:provide evidence that anwars al awlaki has perpetrated a terrorist attack,and we will release him.it is not like they,and the US government,didn't know where he lived.

this is EXACTLY what happened with afghanistan in regards to osama bin laden.

and BOTH times,the US state department could not provide conclusive evidence that either bin laden,or awlaki had actually perpetrated a terrorist act.

in fact,some people forget that in the days after 9/11 osama actually denied having anything to do with 9/11,though he praised the act.

so here we have the US on one hand.with the largest military on the planet,the largest and most encompassing surveillance system.so vast the stasi would be green with envy.a country whose military and intelligence apparatus is so massive and vast that we pay other countries to house black sites.so when t he president states "america does not torture",he is not lying,we pay OTHER people to torture.

so when i see the counter argument that the US simply cannot adhere to international laws,nevermind their OWN laws,because they cannot "get" their guy.

is bullshit.

it's not that they cannot "find" nor "get" their target.the simple fact is that a sovereign nation has decided to disobey it's master and defy the US.so the US defies international treaties and laws and simply sends in a drone and missiles that fucker down.

mission accomplished.

but lets ask another question.
when do you stop being an american citizen?
at what point do you lose all rights as a citizen?
do we use cell phone coverage as a metric?
the obedience of the country in question?

i am just being a smart ass right now,because the point is moot.
the president can deem me an "enemy combatant" and if he so chose,send a drone to target my house,and he would have the legal protection to have done so.

and considering just how critical i am,and have been,of bush,obama and both the republican and democrats.

it would not be a hard job for the US state department and department of justice to make a case that i was a hardline radical dissident,who was inciting violence and stirring up hatred in people towards the US government,and even though i have never engaged in terrorism,nor engaged in violence against the state.

all they would need to do is link me with ONE person who did happen to perpetrate violence and slap the blame on me.

i wonder if that would be the point where you might..maybe..begin to question the validity of stripping an american citizen of their rights,and outright have them executed.

because that is what is on the line right now.
and i am sorry but "he spoke nasty things about us,and some of those terrorists listened to him,and he praised violence against us".

the argument might as well be:enoch hurt our feelings.

tell ya what.
let's use the same metric that you are using:
that awlaki incited violence and there were deaths directly due to his words.

in 2008 jim david akinsson walked into a unitarian church in tennesee and shot and killed two people,and wounded seven others.

akinsson was ex military and had a rabid hatred of liberals,democrats and homosexuals.

he also happened to own every book by sean hannity,and was an avid watcher of FOX news.akinsson claimed that hannity and his show had convinced him that thsoe dirty liberals were ruining his country,and he targeted the unitarian church because it "was against god".

now,is hannity guilty of incitement?
should he be held accountable for those shot dead?
by YOUR logic,yes..yes he should.

now what if hannity had taken off to find refuge in yemen?
do we send a drone?

because,again using YOUR logic,yes..yes we do.

i am trying my best to get you to reconsider your position,because..in my opinion...on an elementary moral scale..to strip someone of their rights due to words,praise and/or support..and then to have them executed without due process,or have at least the ability to defend themselves.

is wrong.

i realize i am simply making the same argument,but using different examples.which is why i asked,sincerely,if you were a neo-conservative.

because they believe strongly that the power and authority of the american empire is absolute.they are of the mind that "might makes right",and that they have a legal,and moral,obligation to expand americas interest,be it financial or industrial,and to use the worlds largest military in order to achieve those goals.they also are of the belief that the best defense is the best offense,and to protect the empire by any means necessary.(usually military).

which is pretty reflective of our conversations,and indicative of where our disagreements lie.

i dunno,but i suspect that i have not,nor will i,change your position on this matter.

but i tried dude...i really did try.

Your video, Welcome To Surveillance Nation, has made it into the Top 15 New Videos listing. Congratulations on your achievement. For your contribution you have been awarded 1 Power Point.

This, to me, is why Snowden falls 100% into the "hero" box rather than "traitor".

Are there legitimate, beneficial-to-society ways to use surveillance? Sure. Like catching those arson/murderers mentioned in the video. Are there legitimately scary-as-fuck 1984-esque ways to abuse surveillance? Absolutely.

The problem is that we can't decide as a society where the line between acceptable and unacceptable is if we don't know exactly what surveillance is going on and how it is being used. At the very least, I think we need to know enough to be certain that normal legal rights are maintained -- principles like innocence until proven guilty, no ex-post-facto laws/prosecution, and other constitutional protections.