I've not seen any documented claims to that effect. I'm not doubting you, but do you have evidence that could be used to support that claim, particularly to a skeptic?
House memo states disputed dossier was key to FBI’s FISA warrant to surveil members of Team Trump
- Thread starter dennishoddy
- Start Date
How about Hilary's possession and use of a private server to conduct some of her work as the Secretary of State? She is only one person but doesn't that count?
Woody
They aren't saying how, which is stretching the truth. The Memo was altered by the FBI to conceal Intel assets, as well as grammatical corrections. But the Schiff was on the news before it was even done saying that the GOP altered it to protect the President. So while it was in fact altered, people will still believe Schiff because none of those tard dem followers will ever really read the memo and take Schiff at his word
So you have never heard of LEOs stretching the truth to obtain a warrant?
It counts as to one person; I'm referring specifically to the following claim:
That's a much bolder claim that "SecState did it," and one I've not seen credibly corroborated.
You mean testilying? Yeah, I've heard of it.
C'mon, guys, you know me--I do my best to cite sources to kill the "yeah, well, says you!" counterargument. I also play in other forums, and even have liberal friends (some of whom are also lawyers!). It's a whole lot easier to smack them around when I can say "you're wrong, and here's the proof" than just saying "you're wrong." Bonus points when I can use sources like NYT, WaPo, etc. because then they don't get to argue media bias.
I don't ask for proof to call y'all liars; I ask so that I have something to bolster those claims when I repeat them elsewhere.
And what is exactly you do not believe or doubt. The documentation is out there if you look for it. Everything, I mean EVERYTHING I mentioned in my post is on verified text messages. Never believe the MSM, your freedom will depend on it.
For starters
https://saraacarter.com/new-strzok-page-emails-discuss-evasion-message-archiving/
Last edited:
That's a far cry from "nearly every sob in fed agencies is using burner phones", which is patently false. I don't use one and I've never seen any of the agents with various federal agencies I work with use one. Every call I've ever received from them was from official cell phones listed in their global address listing.
There are legitimate undercover reasons to use a non-official (but catalogued and tracked) cell phone, but even those would be subject to discovery. Are there bad agents like Strozk and Paige that do it? Undoubtedly. But the signal to noise ratio in your claim is pretty poor.
Bottom line is Comey lied to somebody. He used the dossier in FISA court to get a warrant under oath. He then told the congressional committee under oath that it wasn't worth wiping your ass with. Which one was a lie? Doesn't matter, it's perjury any way you slice it.
This is just the beginning, I wonder if indictments will happen before Trump's first term is up?
This is just the beginning, I wonder if indictments will happen before Trump's first term is up?
That link has no sourcing whatsoever. "A portion of the text messages." "A letter." Nothing that actually authenticates the claim; hell, there's nothing there that actually provides any evidence of her claims.
Here is an excellent article on how to read and evaluate news stories (regardless of publication outfit): https://www.popehat.com/2017/01/19/how-to-read-news-like-a-search-warrant-application/ . It has nothing to do with MSM/alternative sources, and everything to do with credibility. An excerpt that's directly on-point:
Attribution: Around the time I became a federal prosecutor, thanks to a series of unfavorable Ninth Circuit decisions (which, naturally, I resented at the time as unfairly anti-government), the U.S. Attorney's Office began emphasizing attribution in reviewing search warrant applications and prosecutor training. Put simply, attribution means this: for each fact asserted in the warrant application, how does the affiant know it? if the affiant learned the fact from someone else, how did that person know it?
So...how does Ms. Carter know what she's asserting? She claims "a letter," with impressive names on it, but how did she get that letter? Can we see a copy of it, ideally in a form that the principals will acknowledge, or is this "some guy told me that he saw a letter that said this?"
Failure of attribution isn't fatal, though. Poor attribution can be mitigated by
Corroboration: Anonymous or obscure sources are not inherently impermissible in search warrants or in journalism. A search warrant may rely in part on an anonymous source if the affiant corroborates that source — that is, offers other facts supporting what the source says. In theory a warrant application should corroborate facts only an insider could know. "My source told me that methamphetamine is being cooked at a green house at 123 Elm. I traveled to 123 Elm and observed that the house is, in fact, green" is not meaningful corroboration. "My source told me that suspect ROBERT is cooking methamphetamine at 123 Elm, that he began cooking in March 2016, and that he had precursor chemicals delivered there beginning in April. Based on my review of the Southern California Edison records described above, I noted that there was a 300% spike in energy usage at 123 Elm beginning in March 2016. My review of the UPS records described in paragraph 17 above showed a series of deliveries from an online chemical supply company beginning in April of 2016" is good corroboration.
See how much stronger that makes the claim?
That's a far cry from "nearly every sob in fed agencies is using burner phones", which is patently false. I don't use one and I've never seen any of the agents with various federal agencies I work with use one. Every call I've ever received from them was from official cell phones listed in their global address listing.
There are legitimate undercover reasons to use a non-official (but catalogued and tracked) cell phone, but even those would be subject to discovery. Are there bad agents like Strozk and Paige that do it? Undoubtedly. But the signal to noise ratio in your claim is pretty poor.
As the old saying goes, "extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof." I've had any number of people call me a crazy conspiracy theorist when I tell them about a secret CIA program experimenting with human mind control. When I tell them details of Project MK Ultra, they usually dismiss me as an anti-government kook who'll believe anything.
When I show them the Senate committee report on said program (and provide the Library of Congress call number so they can verify it independently), they start taking me a whole lot more seriously.
Extraordinary proof.
So...the original question stands. You asserted that a large portion of federal agents is using burner phones. Please put up some proof for that claim, something that I can use to at least give pause to those who trust the government as a matter of course. Random blogs with no corroboration, no links, no evidence aren't it.
LOL, I work for them and know firsthand they can't be trusted, but extraordinary claims like that one are just silly.
Similar threads
Latest posts
-
-
-
-
-
South East OK Glock 9mm "Pistole 80" Classic Edition (The Original Glock Pistol)- Latest: OK Corgi Rancher
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
