OK, So Taylor and Mensch are now reporting a sealed indictment

[LaydeeBug]

will serve as an impetus for impeachment. Maybe wait for there to be a bit more meat on that bone, but there it is:

Link to tweet

[The Blue Flower]

1. His tweets tomorrow will give an indication if it's true

Watch him in the next few days. He has a lot of tells.

[wcmagumba]

2. Seeing is believing...

can hope this to be true but.....

[GP6971]

3. I'm not holding my breath

but I sure hope it's true

[jberryhill]

4. The FISA court has no authority to issue indictments

The FISA court reviews surveillance warrant applications. That's it.

It does not have the general powers of a US District Court.

To suggest the FISA court has "issued a sealed indictment" is complete bullshit.

[Qutzupalotl]

5. The grand jury issued the indictment. n/t

[jberryhill]

7. And what, pray tell, would the FISA court have to do with that?

If there is going to be a criminal prosecution, the indictment would need to be filed with a US District Court which, unlike FISA, conducts criminal charges.

Your comment has absolutely nothing to do with the limited jurisdiction of the FISA court. What is it you were attempting to say?

Simply post a link to the appropriate section of 28 US Code that grants the FISA court this hitherto unknown power.

[Qutzupalotl]

11. Here is a fuller explanation of the story.

https://patribotics.blog/2017/05/14/exclusive-sealed-indictment-granted-against-donald-trump/

[jberryhill]

14. Ah, a five month old blog explains it all.....

"While it is understood that the Supremacy Clause of the Constitution means that, until Mr. Trump is impeached, he cannot be prosecuted..."

That is two separate layers of BULLSHIT.

First the "Supremacy Clause of the Constitution" means that federal law supersedes state law on matters properly within federal jurisdiction. It has JACK SHIT to do with whether there can be a criminal prosecution of a sitting president.

Second, whether a president can be criminally prosecution is not a "Supremacy Clause" issue. It would be a Separation of Powers issue.

http://www.nytimes.com/1998/01/25/weekinreview/the-nation-a-primer-prosecuting-a-president.html

"The short answer to one of the oldest of constitutional questions is that there is no clear answer. The Constitution's text, which sets out procedures for impeaching and removing executive branch officials and Federal judges from office, does not resolve the issue."

That blog makes it clearer that its authors have no fucking clue.

[onenote]

18. + a really big number

Thanks for trying to bring reality to this fantasy fest.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

32. I don't think I have to prove my anti-Trump or anti-Deplorable bona fides.

These fantasies get us nowhere.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

31. Custom dictates the president would be removed from office via impeachment and then prosecuted.

As to Taylor and Mensch I don't understand why they would make binary predictions that will be quickly proven or disproven.

[sharedvalues]

16. Maybe nothing? Mensch doesn't mention FISC

Maybe Taylor not being a lawyer dropped FISC in a confusing way.

But the FISC system is a little more complicated than you mention. There is the FISC which hears warrant requests. Then there is the 3-judge FIS Court of Review (FISCR). And decisions by that court are subject to appellate review by SCOTUS.

FISCR has occasionally handled cases that are not purely warrant requests:
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Foreign_Intelligence_Surveillance_Court_of_Review
They reviewed the Constitutionality of a law in In Re Directives..

So maybe the FISCR was involved in a Constitutionality issue around surveillance, in the course of the grand jury proceedings? I realize I am reaching a bit. But if the grand jury proceedings had an issue that needed appellate review, it is possible FISCR might hear it.

[jberryhill]

17. FISC is an appellate court

FISC reviews decisions of FISA. As a court of review, it CERTAINLY would not get into anything having to do with a criminal prosecution.

[sharedvalues]

29. FISCR is the appellate court

[jberryhill]

35. Yes, I was replying to your mention of FISCR

[sharedvalues]

37. And FISA is not a court. It's an Act.

[jberryhill]

38. The point remains

1 - the FISA court does not issue indictments.

2 - the FISA review court does not issue indictments.

3 - the Supremacy Clause has NOTHING to do with whether an individual can be prosecuted by the feds, in a federal court, under federal law.

[sharedvalues]

39. Point: you misuse "FISA" as much as Taylor

Pot. Black. You called FISA an appellate court. FISC is the court. FISA is an act.

I'm out. History will tell if Taylor is right.

[jberryhill]

41. You do know that the tweet links to a blog

Would you care to discuss the substantive idiocy of the blog post to which it was linked?

[sharedvalues]

42. You misused FISA/FISC

That's my only point.

I do also agree with you on the Constitutional analysis given by Mensch a few months ago on her site.

[sharedvalues]

44. Also: I agree about computer tech

Mensch's knowledge about tech is quite limited.

What she says about exchanging voter info for ad targeting I find plausible.

What she says about python databases I find much less plausible.

That said I think she has good IC sources in the UK so when she leaks something that UK counterintelligence would be in a position to know, and would want to have released, I pay attention.

[dhill926]

6. thank you...

[jberryhill]

10. Please explain WHAT THE FUCK that has to do with anything?

If a Grand Jury issues a bill of indictment, then it will be filed in a court capable of conducting a criminal proceeding.

The FISA court does not hold trials. It only reviews surveillance warrant applications and issues warrants.

Do you understand Article III of the Constitution and how the jurisdiction of courts is established by legislation?

[TNLib]

13. I didn't realize the tweet said FISA court

I assumed it was from the Grand Jury that has already been confirmed.

[jberryhill]

15. See my post above, apparently the associated blog has more nonsense

[customerserviceguy]

26. There's a lot of wishful thinking around here

And I understand it, yet, it all comes down to facts, thanks for making them clear.

[H2O Man]

9. Right.

The only federal grand jury that I'm aware of looking into person/people in the Trump campaign/administration isn't connected to a FISA court.

[leftofcool]

12. FISA does not issue sealed indictments

[Dem2]

19. After reading alll the posts in this thread

seems the odds anything like this is happening is close to 0.

[yodermon]

20. Claude's "clarifying tweet" doesn't help much.

Link to tweet

Um (1) grand juries aren't under "auspices" of a fisa court.
(2) if it's sealed, why do I now know about it. I'd rather it go through the proper channels than be leaked.

[L. Coyote]

21. I posted this a while ago:

EXCLUSIVE: Sealed Indictment granted against Donald Trump

[Madam45for2923]

22. FISA court can convene a grand jury who can issue a true bill.

Link to tweet

[Lee-Lee]

36. No it can't

And whoever posted the tweet you were using to prove it must have realized that because the tweet is gone.

[Kingofalldems]

23. A little update here for the naysayers:

Link to tweet

I'm not saying it's true---it is interesting

[LaydeeBug]

25. Yep, that clarifies. I'm still waiting for some more meat on that bone, but it's worth a thread.

[jberryhill]

27. The blog post is still nonsense

And the "update" was likely triggered by them finding out that it was too obviously bullshit.

[SHRED]

24. And Orin Hatch is getting security briefings to become President

Yeah...right.



https://patribotics.blog/2017/05/13/trumps-presidency-ended-may-9th-hatch-getting-security-briefings/

[Johnny2X2X]

28. These two are trying to make Libs look like fools

This is exactly what Trump wants. For this all to look like the Left looking like conspiracy nuts.

[Ellipsis]

30. Indictments out of Eastern District of Virginia-under Dana Boante?

https://mobile.twitter.com/TrueFactsStated/status/863720527986348032

[onenote]

33. Right. The guy that did what Sally Yates was unwilling to do.

The guy who just got a promotion from Jeff Sessions two weeks ago.

Right.

[Ellipsis]

34. Yes Boante...

...second in the line of succession to be the Attorney General of the United States. The order of succession was modified by an Executive Order signed by President Donald Trump on February 9, 2017, which reversed a previous Executive Order by President Barack Obama that changed the order of succession, without explanation, to remove Boente from the list.

[Lee-Lee]

40. Here is the thing about sealed indictments

Very, very few people know about them. That's by intent because the whole reason to seal them is keep all the targets of the investigation and those associated with them unaware so they can't maneuver around the investigation or destroy evidence.

The grand jury members, the prosecutors who obtained it, and the clerk of court who seals it.

That's it until it's time to act one it and the LE making the arrest are given it. They don't have a secret message board where they let everyone know about the sealed indictments out there.

The odds of "multiple sources" involved being willing to leak it are slim to none, since the whole point of it being sealed is to not tip off the parties indicted or those associated with them that action is coming. So they would be making it much harder.

The only ones who would be making thier jobs harder would be the actual members of the grand jury, who would be risking some very serious charges and jail time to leak, or the clerk of court who would be risking even more.

And if the prosecution or any LE aware leaked this they would be impeding the investigation and actually helping the Trump admin with the heads up.

So the odds of having multiple people in the very small number who know about a sealed indictment leaking about us seems very, very slim to me. It would mean they were willing to break the law in a way that also would be harmful to any investigation just to leak it.

[sharedvalues]

43. One source is likely GCHQ

I'd bet a few dollars that Mensch's main source is GCHQ or British counterintelligence. They know a lot.


I agree with you that it's odd how these leaks are making it out to Twitter.
All of Taylor's sources now know he's got an audience. And so anyone who might be leaking to him is doing so on purpose, I believe.

[Lee-Lee]

45. I doubt an intelligence agency would be leaking that

If they are, they have serious internal issues.

As I described above the number of people who would even be aware of a sealed indictment like this would be very, very, very small. As in the 16-23 people actually sitting on the grand jury, the prosecution, the court recorder present and the clerk. That's it.

And if these reports are real you can be damm sure right now the US Attorneys office has FBI agents and their own investigators piled deep into every single one of those people combing through everything they have done every minute of every day since the True Bills were handed down and their cyber forensics people deep inside all the computers.

That's why I doubt an intelligence agency would release that. It would be way,way too risky because with such a very limited pool of people the info could have come from it would be a huge risk of compromising the source for no gain. When you have a source getting you information as inside and good as that you don't risk compromising it for no gain.

[sharedvalues]

46. UK has an agenda. And more people than that know

US Marshals have to make arrests. They need a plan. So people there know. Several DOJ people know too.

As for GCHQ - if the UK thinks Trump is a criminal you bet they would leak if it would help America. And those leaks might even be officially sanctioned, tacitly or not.