>>2483178

The 5 things to look for

The implication from Q is they fucked something up. My guess is either -

1. The criminal statute wasn't sufficient for a FISA

2. They didn't use any new evidence

3. They didn't tell the court Page was an FBI informant himself

4. They exceeded the period deadline

5. Or Title 1 doesn't provide the ability to go backwards in time (which they did)?

>>2483540

What is your point anon? They had all that.

>>2483527

>Comped FBI/DOJ/(WH/) used Title I in order to allow more vicious surveillance of Trump and campaign.

Hard for us to know without all the details of FISA rules, but this seems correct.

They knew Page wasn't a spy, yet used this route.

>>2483819

>>2483883

>>2483926

Seems more like a Saudi threat

Saudi Arabia appeared to threaten Canada with a 9/11-style attack in a feud over human rights

https://www.businessinsider.com/saudi-arabia-appeared-to-threaten-canada-with-a-911-style-attack-2018-8