"The fact that NOBODY is behind bars for the FISA Abuse is a sign of how bad things are."

It's not over yet. I still have hope that Barr will expose the treachery that went on here. We already know that there are criminal indictments under seal.

.….and hence where we are headed...the slide into the totalitarian state...

But we are already there on that front.
They raided Trumps Lawyer and collected his files?

General Flynn gets bankrupted?
TrueTheVote wins the lawsuit, can't collect legal fees.

Worse. FISA Warrants issued on LIES. THAT concerns me more than this. Yes because it was a real bad guy.

But we have a HUGELY broken system already. The corruption is deep.

And I worked WITH law enforcement. NEVER As... Just to make sure the record is straight. I want no credit I haven't earned.

The fact that NOBODY is behind bars for the FISA Abuse is a sign of how bad things are.

They have been doing this for years. Piss off the government, and they will do anything to GET you.

I think the Supreme Court will overturn it.

👍

Everything looks good because it is being used against a "bad" guy. What I'm concerned about is when this gets used against a political opponent or someone people in authority just don't like. It reminds me far too much of the Roger Stone raid just to go after President Trump or the FISA abuse.

PS - Thank you for your service in law enforcement!

Hmm, an informant... No.
But an informant who was just inside a facility and confirmed seeing what he was looking for, while working with the police, and signaled as much.

That's not "informing". That's confirmation.

This person, acting on behalf of the police, witnessed the situation in real-time. Now, if they ONLY used his "information" AND he was never there, and they just went there and kicked the door down... THEN I agree with you.

I have been those eyes in the past. Sneaking knives/weapons past security screening into courthouses, etc.
I am working on behalf of the police when I do these things. And I expect not to go to jail if security catches me.
It's not a "We barged in, found something, then filled out the paperwork" case.

FINALLY, it is important to know that I have seen the criminal element at work. My old boss was threatened by someone...
They screamed "You wait ... I have the best lawyers money can buy!"
My boss smiled behind the door, with me in the office and said "That's why we buy judges... Arsehole!" [only loud enough for me to hear, LOL]
So, having lived in a world where phone calls are made in advance of the warrants, or because a warrant is being requested...
Maybe I have a different view.

Most entry/search warrants are valid for 365 days. I know of a couple times they were re used on day 364.

An informant doesn't obviate the need for a warrant, they provide probable cause to obtain one. Remember, an informant provides allegations not facts. Allegations must go through a legal process before a judge ascertaining the probability of truth and credibility before the warrant may be issued. In this case, they cut the judge and the legal oversight out of the process until they had already conducted the search. Then they made the warrant application fit what they found, introducing not a confirmation of a hypothesis, but confirmation bias based on what they wanted to find.

There are several other good explanations and examples on the Wikipedia link: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fourth_...

Of particular note are the exceptions granted for warrantless searches. I couldn't find that the argument in this case was based on any of these, meaning that this would create a new precedent - and a dangerous one in my opinion.

Agree. And some of the fault lies with the judge that retroactively issued the warrant. He should have simply said, "No, you don't get one after the fact."

Me dino has caught some flak for pointing out that Trump has his flaws.
Nevertheless, he remains a far better choice than any of the twits the democratic socialist wannabe commie Jackass Party has to offer.

While I think Trump has been infinitely better than the Democratic alternative, I am under no illusions that Trump is the Constitutionalist I would love him to be. He is an anti-socialist and at this point and with what he's done, I'll gladly take that over what Hillary surely would have done.

Interesting...
A warrant is NOT REQUIRED when Probable Cause exists. That is my understanding of the law.

If cops hear a child screaming in horror as they come to my door, and the child is inside. They are given the right to enter, and a MAN was recently charged with Obstruction for trying to stop them from coming in and talking to his wife.

In this case, they had an informant who gave a signal, indicating that drugs were there.

If you SQUINT this is like having a DEPUTIZED Citizen call for help. (I agree, squinting required).

==
The wording by blarman makes it sound like: "they RANDOMLY sacked this guys house, found something, and then later put THAT in their Warrant Request"... That kind of case MUST be thrown out.

But, having overhead the phone calls, having EYES inside, seeing the crime, and then going in before the person has a chance to clean things up...

I'm sorry, I am just not as outraged by this.

Take away the informant.
Take away the signal that drugs were inside.

And I would be on the same page. Otherwise, what we have is:

1) A Person was in felony possession of illegal narcotics
2) An agent (informant) of the police confirmed this with a signal
3) Using said probably cause... This criminal was caught when the police entered the home and found the illegal narcotics!

AGAIN, the facts matter. The judge was right, IMO. IF they expected drugs, and found GUNS, or DEAD BODIES., and the warrant was being done for GUNS.
Then the judge MUST Throw out the GUNS or BODIES, as the probably cause was NOT for those items. They stumbled across them ILLEGALLY in that case.
IF he had drugs + those things. Well, now it's interesting, but I would only let the drugs stand, if I were the judge.

Remember, Trump was totally in favor of the SCOTUS decision on eminent domain in Keto vs. New London. Eminent domain was thus defined as "public good," not "public use," as the Constitution states. Trump the pragmatist very poorly defines many political boundaries.

Where is Henry Bowman?
Everything John Ross wrote about is coming to pass except the solution.

Thanks for posting, blarman. 👍

Unless SCOTUS reverses this ruling the Bill of Rights and the Constitution are finished as the law of the land.
This is a very dark day for the country and the Constitution.

There are reasons the 1st ten amendments were added as a bill of rights...This is a blatant ignoring of those said rights

The article mentions that of the three-judge panel, two were Trump appointees. Apparently the infection in our judicial system transcends political boundaries...

The rule of law does not exist any more.

Abused by Obama who routinely ignored court orders against him and his admin, the deep state took that for granted and now we see the results.

The Judges who approved the illegally obtained evidence were probably appointed by Obama.

We are sinking deeper and deeper into Gestapo "justice".