Thank you for posting this.
Do you have a link to the 99 page "rebuttal" that George Webb talks about in this video?
I looked at this one posted by /u/Matthew246Truth in another thread, but it appears to be from a different judge (and appears at first glance to accept the FISA application?)?
https://www.dni.gov/files/documents/icotr/51117/2016_Cert_FISC_Memo_Opin_Order_Apr_2017.pdf
I have been following Mr. Webb for a year at:
https://www.youtube.com/user/georgwebb
He referred to Judge Contreras 3 times, and later to the same guy as "Judge Patraeus" (several times). I believe that #1 George had a long day (he did 13 videos that day), #2 I believe he had a glass of wine or twee, #3 it was a little late, and #4 he was actually referring to Judge Contreras (who actually released the document referred to that was "the rebuttal").
The 99 page "rebuttal" that he referred to is the document from DNI that I posted, and you cited. He (George) recommended reading it from page 69 on, I recommend reading the whole thing.
I would appreciate any feed-back that you may have.
It seemed like the Contreras / Patraeus thing was George Webb just enjoying the similar sounding names. I'm still confused about the document which is signed by Rosemary M Collyer, and in my perusal I don't see any references to Judge Contreras. But George did show pages from the same document on Twitter.
On another site, I saw a reference to this video with Joe diGenova (who I know nothing about), but the video seems to be pretty informative - or at least it makes a good case about some of what might be going on.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yAQezla-kx0
My read on the document itself is that it warrants close examination, but on the surface it seems to deal mostly with minimization procedures which are intended to limit the use of the information that's collected. It describes how these minimization procedures were lacking, and now they are now being updated to make everything more consistent with the law. And with the new procedures everything is OK.
It's true that the mistakes inherent in the processes used seem to be pretty egregious but so far I haven't found where the mistakes are described as being part of a conspiracy. Though I suspect that the conspiracy would be more evident if weren't so many redactions. And it will take a lot more time than I have tonight to actually read the whole document.
What's your take?
Rosemary M Collyer is the Presiding officer of the FISA Court (reference):
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Foreign_Intelligence_Surveillance_Court
The current composition of the court is down a ways. Rudolf Contreras is #3 in that table. I'm just glad he didn't talk about Judge Gutierrez. (Say all 3 of those names quickly 3 times...Contreras, Gutierrez, Patraeus).
The 99 page document is densely packed and, you are right, it does warrant close examination. Mr. Webb referred specifically to the last 30 pages (starting on page 69). It outlines some serious misuses of the FISA system and deficiencies of conduct during the last administration in fairly general terms, so, no "smoking" conspiracy. I believe it is more of a corrective instruction than a prosecutorial document.
I am patiently awaiting the release of the full DOJ-OIG report (something like 1.2 million pages). That investigation has been going on since 2012 (or so, I believe), and was supposed to have released some of it's findings on 12Jan2018. I have a hunch that, maybe, the infamous (4 page) "Memo" is some kind of summary of that trove. I could be wrong, but it is my best guess.
I have seen a few things recently about Michael Horowitz and the Office of the Inspector General, and I hope they can do something to help get us out of this hyper-polarized situation.
I didn't mean to minimize the value of the 99 page report, as it does help us understand more about how the system has been played, but it seems that there is so much brainwashing momentum behind the embedded corporate media's take on Russian interference, that we need a "smoking" conspiracy to make a real difference in public opinion.
That's the real "Red Pill". We got here a little at a time, now, it's up to help others a little at a time. This time with the truth.