Win / Conspiracies
Conspiracies
Communities Topics Log In Sign Up
Sign In
Hot
All Posts
Settings
All
Profile
Saved
Upvoted
Hidden
Messages

Your Communities

General
AskWin
Funny
Technology
Animals
Sports
Gaming
DIY
Health
Positive
Privacy
News
Changelogs

More Communities

frenworld
OhTwitter
MillionDollarExtreme
NoNewNormal
Ladies
Conspiracies
GreatAwakening
IP2Always
GameDev
ParallelSociety
Privacy Policy
Terms of Service
Content Policy
DEFAULT COMMUNITIES • All General AskWin Funny Technology Animals Sports Gaming DIY Health Positive Privacy
Conspiracies Conspiracy Theories & Facts
hot new rising top

Sign In or Create an Account

12
According to a newly released transcript of an interview with FBI agent Joe Pientka, the FBI claims it "lost" the document, known as a Woods file, of all of the information/sources substantiating the first Carter Page FISA warrant. (www.judiciary.senate.gov)
posted 4 years ago by axolotl_peyotl 4 years ago by axolotl_peyotl +12 / -0
4 comments share
4 comments share save hide report block hide replies
Comments (4)
sorted by:
▲ 3 ▼
– PutinLovesCats 3 points 4 years ago +3 / -0

My, my... How how awfully convenient.

permalink save report block reply
▲ 1 ▼
– No_More_Hair 1 point 4 years ago +1 / -0

Hey bank, I lost a very important document saying I have $1.5 million dollars, it's totally real, but just lost. I'm gonna need that money deposited. And if anybody argues that I don't have $1.5 million I will launch a social media campaign to say you work with the enemy.

permalink save report block reply
▲ 1 ▼
– Beaustrodamus 1 point 4 years ago +1 / -0

Which is to say that they likely destroyed both the Woods Files for the initial FISA warrant, as well as the 1st renewal, and then manufactured them based on what could not incriminate them after the fact...

permalink save report block reply
▲ 1 ▼
– Beaustrodamus 1 point 4 years ago +1 / -0

And the first renewal. Per the interview with Supervisiory Special Agent 1 Pg 43

MR. Berger ... So we don't have that original file and that's what creates the problem here, because at the heart of this entire matter and personnel law is notice. Right? Notice, what is expected of him. You're demanding an accounting. How is he to know what he's supposed to do unless he's told per policy what he's supposed to look at? We don't know what that original file alerted him to. So I'm reluctant to have him answer those questions.

MR. BAKER: I'm still confused who this reconstructed one, who reconstructed it. Did he go back in and redo it?

MR. BERGER: We learned and I believe I learned and we learned on Sunday, August 24th that the file that the OIG relied on and the file that we were being shown by the Bureau of Internal Affairs Unit was reconstructed by the case agent. There is a note in the file indicating that it was reconstructed from the original file on May 18, 2018, and where is the original file? We asked. No one knows. That's the one we want to look at.

MR. BAKER: So it was reconstructed from the original file?

MR. BERGER: There is a note. It's a non-sworn note saying this file was reconstructed from an original file. That's what it says in so many words, the same for Renewal No. 1, by the way, which is not involved here, but they run into the same problem. The thing is it was reconstructed. So it really is a hearsay document. So we have Case Agent No. 1 who is saying this is what the original document says and we're supposed to accept that as hearsay with no reliability factor whatsoever.

MR. BAKER: I understand the evidentiary problem. What I don't get is why is somebody reconstructing something from the original when you have the original?

MR. BERGER: That is a mystery that is yet to be resolved.

permalink save report block reply

GIFs

Conspiracies Wiki & Links

Conspiracies Book List

External Digital Book Libraries

Mod Logs

Honor Roll

Conspiracies.win: This is a forum for free thinking and for discussing issues which have captured your imagination. Please respect other views and opinions, and keep an open mind. Our goal is to create a fairer and more transparent world for a better future.

Community Rules: <click this link for a detailed explanation of the rules

Rule 1: Be respectful. Attack the argument, not the person.

Rule 2: Don't abuse the report function.

Rule 3: No excessive, unnecessary and/or bullying "meta" posts.

To prevent SPAM, posts from accounts younger than 4 days old, and/or with <50 points, wont appear in the feed until approved by a mod.

Disclaimer: Submissions/comments of exceptionally low quality, trolling, stalking, spam, and those submissions/comments determined to be intentionally misleading, calls to violence and/or abuse of other users here, may all be removed at moderator's discretion.

Moderators

  • Doggos
  • axolotl_peyotl
  • trinadin
  • PutinLovesCats
  • clemaneuverers
  • C
Message the Moderators

Terms of Service | Privacy Policy

2025.03.01 - j6rsh (status)

Copyright © 2024.

Terms of Service | Privacy Policy