the intel was gotten incorrectly.

Kinda like the Bush military service letter and Dan Rather story

They got caught..and they are pissed!!!!

In a criminal proceeding, of course one has the right to challenge whether a warrant was issued on probable cause and, if not, to exclude evidence obtained via the warrant.

The problem is, one does that in court, not the media, and in the context of impeachment, it really doesn't matter.

Specifically from a FISA court? I've heard conflicting reports today on how high that standard is.

And--IF the warrant is thrown out for whatever reason, what will the next step be, in taking you-know-who down?

What you may have is some impressive figure like "they approve 99% of all applications", as if that figure is supposed to mean something.

How often does any other court reject a warrant application from a law enforcement agency? A good deal of searches these days are based on electronic warrants which are literally phoned in. It's unusual for a court to reject a warrant application.

Another big deal made about the FISA court in breathless screeds is "there is no opportunity for the other side to object!" Well, again, how the fuck often does that happen in a criminal investigation. If the cops think you are running a gambling parlor in the back room of your establishment, it's not as if you get any kind of notice to appear to challenge the warrant they are going to get before they raid your joint. Again, it takes another perfectly normal thing, and makes it seem strange by conflating what this court does with a trial court.

But, the point remains, if the basis was invalid, the evidence can be thrown out. No one currently charged with a crime in the Mueller investigation is objecting to the basis of the warrants yet, as they haven't gotten very far down the road.

"IF the warrant is thrown out for whatever reason, what will the next step be, in taking you-know-who down?"

That's an entirely different question. It's not as if impeachment follows due process protections for the person being impeached. The relevant question there is "did he do that stuff?" and not "we are going to pretend he didn't do that stuff because the warrant was no good."

Carter Page was under surveillance in 2013. Has he been under surveillance continually since then? Since the warrant has to be renewed every three months, would it be unusual to have a person under surveillance continually for four years, especially if no charges were brought at all during that time? If the surveillance ceased at some point prior to the 2016 campaign, would the existence of a previous warrant be grounds enough to get a new one, when someone is involved in activity relevant to a presidential campaign? Or, would there have to be new probable cause?

Remember when the pukes were trying to pass this legislation? Their rationale was what are you afraid of? If you're not doing anything wrong it won't matter to you anyway.....

Our spies were spying on the Russian spies. I think this is perfectly normal. Then, low and behold, all these Trumpsters start showing up talking to the Russians. They couldn't ignore that, could they?