The memo seems to state that there would have been no FISA surveillance of Trump without the Steele document, paid for by Clinton. The memo states that the feds knew Steele was desperate to prevent trump from being potus, and that he was in contact with then deputy attorney general Ohr, whose wife worked for Fusion, the company that team Clinton paid to do the opposition research.

A highly dubious document was used to apply for the warrant to spy on team trump (provided by team hilary), and at least some of the people involved had an obvious personal bias.

Not as interesting as who shot JFK, but it seems to contain what the right said it contained. Let the games begin.

So 4 fisa judges all were hood winked into approving not once, but renewed surveillance; you must be drinking the Trump coolaid. I'd suggest you go easy on that stuff, it will make you mad, crazy and prone to watching eight hours of TV while tweeting nonsense during commercials.

So 4 fisa judges all were hood winked into approving not once, but renewed surveillance; you must be drinking the Trump coolaid. I'd suggest you go easy on that stuff, it will make you mad, crazy and prone to watching eight hours of TV while tweeting nonsense during commercials.
Jim doesn't realize the FISA application was like 60 pages long. It was all about Steele...he's drunk.

he memos out and no evidence presented just more of the same conspiracies and innuendo

text messages, The Steele dossier, and new target in The Nunes memo Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein

from an article
this somehow proves that the investigation into the Trump campaign’s Russia ties is entirely based on support for Clinton within the FBI and anti-Trump animus.


the memo’s claims are impossible to evaluate without seeing the underlying intelligence it was based on.

so where is the evidence

maybe nunes should look at this time linehttp://billmoyers.com/story/trump-russia-timeline/

most interesting memo I've read today....

The DNC is reportedly 'dead broke.'

The Democratic National Committee had a rough 2017, plagued by leadership troubles, internal squabbling, and unflattering reports. To top it off, the party ended the year "dead broke," says The Intercept's Ryan Grim.

The Democratic Party is carrying more than $6 million in debt, according to year-end filings — and has just $6.5 million in the bank. Do the math, and the party is working with just over $400,000 overall. Meanwhile, the Republicans are swimming in pools of money. The Republican National Committee had raised $132 million by the end of 2017 — about twice as much as the DNC — and entered 2018 with almost $40 million to spare, with not a penny of debt.

Jim doesn't realize the FISA application was like 60 pages long. It was all about Steele...he's drunk.

The memo says that it's likely that they would not have sought FISA surveillance, if not for what was in the Steele document, does it not? IF that's true (and maybe it's not), it doesn't matter what else was in there.

I'm sober. You're utterly and completely unable to process that which doesn't serve your agenda.

I think the left out part is the corroborating evidence from sources that should not be identified for intelligence reasons.
I have seen nothing that indicates that Steele would have a reason to be anti Trump.
My understanding is:
Steele was in charge of the MI6 Russian desk for a number of years. He was tasked by a consultant with finding smoke in russia about Trump, He found enough that he called people he knows in intelligence in US and said I see smoke, you should look into this. I have heard that there was purportedly similar calls from others in Intelligence. Would you have sat on it?
Time will tell and so will all the books people write in the next few years.
Just remember as soon as the republicans don't get what they want they will throw him to the wolves. We'll see how the midterms turn out.
Pelle sub agnina latitat mens saepe lupina

The investigation into Russian collusion had already begun before the Steele doc. became to light. Wray said that the Steele doc. would not be the basis of a FISA application and people are saying that the memo lies about what Wray said. W/o the underlying info. of the FISA application, no one would know what is true. The standards of the court would require more evidence other than the Steele doc or a Yahoo report. That is why this memo is a joke, it makes claims that you and I can't disprove and that is what Schift was so pissed. Should have been released by infowars or Veritas project.

This is all about Rosenstein as he said he wouldn't fire Mueller absent misconduct.

Still no explanation for the Trump team infatuation w/the Russians and why all the meetings and lies about those meetings.

most interesting memo I've read today....

The DNC is reportedly 'dead broke.'

The Democratic National Committee had a rough 2017, plagued by leadership troubles, internal squabbling, and unflattering reports. To top it off, the party ended the year "dead broke," says The Intercept's Ryan Grim.

The Democratic Party is carrying more than $6 million in debt, according to year-end filings — and has just $6.5 million in the bank. Do the math, and the party is working with just over $400,000 overall. Meanwhile, the Republicans are swimming in pools of money. The Republican National Committee had raised $132 million by the end of 2017 — about twice as much as the DNC — and entered 2018 with almost $40 million to spare, with not a penny of debt.
And if you believe in a multi party system that should really scare you.
In the past 50 years the top 10% has gained more and more of the wealth and is getting closer to being able to just buy elections. Look at how much the Kochs have raised for the next election cycle. We are not headed for a good place, with a functioning democracy.

The standards of the court would require more evidence other than the Steele doc .

And you would know this how?

it's sad that the democrats do not appear to be benefitting from the Trump Boom.....you'd they could fund raise off of all of this

And if you believe in a multi party system that should really scare you.
In the past 50 years the top 10% has gained more and more of the wealth and is getting closer to being able to just buy elections. Look at how much the Kochs have raised for the next election cycle. We are not headed for a good place, with a functioning democracy.

don't forget the Russians

There where 3 extensions of the FISA warrant. Those wouldn't have been approved w/there being something there.

This tearing down of our instituions will have long term ramifications.

And you would know this how?

Everthing that I have read.

In the past 50 years the top 10% has gained more and more of the wealth and is getting closer to being able to just buy elections. Look at how much the Kochs have raised for the next election cycle. We are not headed for a good place, with a functioning democracy.

"the top 10% has gained more and more of the wealth "

Can't stop that. Would you pass a law saying that once you have a certain net worth, that you can no longer work or invest in the stock market?

"getting closer to being able to just buy elections."

Hilary far outspent Trump last year.

"Look at how much the Kochs have raised for the next election cycle."

How come everyone is concerned about how much the Kochs raise for the GOP, but no one cares how much the labor unions raise for democrats? I hear what you are saying on this, and I would support serious campaign finance reform. But it's also scary that the Koch brothers, who as far as I know have never done anything wrong, are routinely demonized on the floor of Congress by democrats. Would you want your elected officials attacking you like that?

There where 3 extensions of the FISA warrant. Those wouldn't have been approved w/there being something there.



so where is the there? maybe in the democrat memo?:hee:

Everthing that I have read.

Oh, well if Rachael Maddow wrote that's the case, then by jiminy, that's good enough for me.

I have no idea what the truth is. I am pretty confident that the memo contains pretty much what the GOP said it would contain. I can't say anything about it's validity.

Oh, well if Rachael Maddow wrote that's the case, then by jiminy, that's good enough for me.

I have no idea what the truth is. I am pretty confident that the memo contains pretty much what the GOP said it would contain. I can't say anything about it's validity.

the left clearly overplayed this one....

did Christopher Wray resign yet? oh, that's right that was fake news

Oh, well if Rachael Maddow wrote that's the case, then by jiminy, that's good enough for me.

I have no idea what the truth is. I am pretty confident that the memo contains pretty much what the GOP said it would contain. I can't say anything about it's validity.

You do seem to have a thing for her given how much you comment on her.

There where 3 extensions of the FISA warrant. Those wouldn't have been approved w/there being something there.

This tearing down of our instituions will have long term ramifications.

What's been torn down, exactly?

I thought the democrats claimed that resistance is healthy? I mean, resistance was racist from 2009 - 2016, but other than that, I thought it was healthy to bring truth to light and to question authority. I guess the value of that, depends on whose ox is getting gored.

You do seem to have a thing for her given how much you comment on her.

she's a great fisherman

so where is the there? maybe in the democrat memo?:hee:

That the Trump team had inappropriate contacts with the Russians and have repeatedly lied and then lied again. Have you missed that over the last year? Nothing on the crook Papadappolis.

Why don't they release the Dem. memo so we all can get a full picture and hear both sides of the story.

Seems like the memo has done what it set out to do.

That the Trump team had inappropriate contacts with the Russians and have repeatedly lied and then lied again. Have you missed that over the last year?

sexual harassment? the Russian lawyer was pretty hot

the Russian lawyer was pretty hot

You and I certainly disagree on some things.

So how does this memo undermine the Mueller investigation, etc?

You and I certainly disagree on some things.

heh ...heh..:buds:

So how does this memo undermine the Mueller investigation, etc?

There’s clearly more to the mueller investigation than what’s related to the memo. It doesn’t undermine the entirety of that investigation. It does show that personal political agendas were at play in securing the carter page FISA warrant, imo
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

It does show that personal political agendas were at play in securing the carter page FISA warrant, imo
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device
Seriously Jim?

We needed this memo to learn that there was some politically motivated agents? We knew that long ago and they were re-assigned. This is nothing more than a shiny object to re-direct the people’s attention.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

What did Sarah Sanders say last year. if you're attacking the FBI because you're under criminal investigation you're losing.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

I believe Carter page was under investigation for like 3 years because he was thought to be a Russian agent.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

I believe Carter page was under investigation for like 3 years because he was thought to be a Russian agent.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device
Or a stooge...funny how he fit right in with the Trump org.

http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2018/02/02/alan-dershowitz-nunes-fisa-memo-deserves-more-investigation-time-for-nonpartisan-commission.html
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Yes it’s Fox News, but written by notedmliberal Alan dershowitz.

I'm about to walk out of the house so I only scanned it but isn't that's something the committee could have looked into instead of having the Republicans for the first time in history release their own partisan memo?
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

I'm about to walk out of the house so I only scanned it but isn't that's something the committee could have looked into instead of having the Republicans for the first time in history release their own partisan memo?
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device
No, the only way for our non-partisan agencies to police themselves is to create partisan stunts intended to subvert the function of our democracy.

No, the only way for our non-partisan agencies to police themselves is to create partisan stunts intended to subvert the function of our democracy.

do you have the flu or something?...you sound as though you are battling a very high fever

Interesting memo today, unsure if it is enough IMO to re-chart the investigation.

Curious if the unauthorized 702 "about query" violations that were stopped by Adm. Mike Rogers were related to the FISA court actions based on the Steele Dossier?? THAT would be interesting.

And if you believe in a multi party system that should really scare you.

This is so funny - not you Pete - but the Democrats have finally run out of their own money :laugha: :humpty: - maybe they feel they have a right to the RNC's now :laugha:

You and I certainly disagree on some things.

Paul - I agree with you on this one. Now the Russian Spy Anna Whatshernameoff - she was hot...

Here's one for Jim.

http://www.businessinsider.com/devin-nunes-admits-he-didnt-view-memo-intelligence-russia-investigation-2018-2?utm_content=bufferaede5&utm_medium=social&utm_source=facebook.com&utm_campaign=buffer-bi

Making America great again.. divide and conquer

this is all slight of hand ..by the time the country wakes up it will be to late

even Obama.never attacked the CIA FBI or the DOJ like this POTUS and his minions. .. Some here would of had a melt down ... justifiably....if he had .. now they try to rationilze Trump behavior,, I find it hard to understand

Seems the Dow was influenced by the memo as well

so if the Bush Justice Department and FBI had used a "dossier" which had been paid for by the Romney campaign and presented to a FISA court to obtain a warrant authorizing surveillance of an Obama campaign adviser prior to the 2008 election never divulging to the court that the "dossier" was a product of paid political opposition research from an author who had stated to a senior Justice Department official that he was “desperate” to prevent Obama from being elected president.



that would not have been a problem for the left...right?

so if the Bush Justice Department and FBI had used a "dossier" which had been paid for by the Romney campaign and presented to a FISA court to obtain a warrant authorizing surveillance of an Obama campaign adviser prior to the 2008 election never divulging to the court that the "dossier" was a product of paid political opposition research from an author who had stated to a senior Justice Department official that he was “desperate” to prevent Obama from being elected president.



that would not have been a problem for the left...right?

I’d also like to know what’s in there that’s a threat to national security, which the left went berserk over. Were the nuke launch codes in the memo and I missed it?

And in your hypothetical, you’d also need to include that deputy attorney general had a wife who ran for the senate and took huge money from the Koch brothers, and an FBI assistant director whose wife worked at Fusion GPS, the company that put together the dossier.

Nope, nothing to see, move along.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

so if the Bush Justice Department and FBI had used a "dossier" which had been paid for by the Romney campaign and presented to a FISA court to obtain a warrant authorizing surveillance of an Obama campaign adviser prior to the 2008 election never divulging to the court that the "dossier" was a product of paid political opposition research from an author who had stated to a senior Justice Department official that he was “desperate” to prevent Obama from being elected president.



that would not have been a problem for the left...right?


your example is as much a fantasy as the Nunes Memo . using innuendo , conjecture and conspiracy theories and presented as Fact

Only the American right has had a consistent, large, and organized faction based on paranoid conspiracism for six decades.

interesting read https://slate.com/news-and-politics/2018/02/right-wing-conspiracy-theories-from-the-1960s-to-today.html

Well I guess it's over. Trump just claimed the Memo completely vindicates him in the Russia investigations.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

You would have to be a moron or completely drunk on Trump cool aid, to not see this for what it is. It’s just one of what is now a truly astounding number of moves to discredit anyone associated with either the initial Russia investigation or now the Meuller investigation. Ironically the more of these moves Trump makes, the more he helps Meuller build a case of obstruction of justice.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

I bet the FISA folks are a bit angry that they were mislead...repeatedly

I think Scott was asking a fair question. Would the Democrats complain about the investigation if there was a Democratic president. Of course they would. But I think this goes far beyond what the Democrats would do. The Republicans are claiming there's a deep state and that the highest levels of the justice department and the FBI are basically crooked. It's my understanding with Watergate that both parties were critical of Nixon. With the Clinton investigations I'm sure the Democrats put up a defense of him. But again I don't think they claimed there's a deep state and certainly did not put out a bipartisan memo that the FBI basically said is full of BS. The Republicans seem to have a propensity to believe anything they hear. Pizzagate Scott rich, Etc.maybe it Hhas something to do with Info wars, Breitbart and veritas. when those entities put out their stories and they proved to be made up they just come out with another story a few weeks later and people believe them.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

your example is as much a fantasy as the Nunes Memo . using innuendo , conjecture and conspiracy theories and presented as Fact.

Nothing in the memo, as far as I know, has been revealed to be untrue. A series of "facts" are presented in the memo. Any pertinent facts that have been left out can easily be stated. So far, the only innuendo is that the facts in the memo can be misleading because of some supposed omissions.

This memo is just an attempt to promote the idea that the investigation was started as a result of a corrupted and partisian process. if you could prove that you can prove the entire investigation is biased. It has failed to do that. The page warrant is only one small part of a much larger investigation. It confirmed the contacts between Papadopoulos and the Russians and that was the reason for the opening of the investigation.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

I bet the FISA folks are a bit angry that they were mislead...repeatedly
I've seen nothing to indicate any FISA folks were misled.

McCabe stated under oath that without the Steele "dossier" there would not have been a FISA warrant to wire tap Page. There was a previous attempt to get a warrant on Page which was (which rarely happens) denied. The unverified dossier was the key element needed to get the warrant. Any information gathered via use of the warrant would be fruit of the poisoned tree and therefore inadmissible.

And if that is somehow in dispute, it still does not absolve the FBI from presenting the "dossier" to a FISA judge without revealing that it was not verified and was paid for by an opposition party or candidate. The knowing use of such a faulty document to get a warrant is, undeniably, a corruption of the process.

As far as Papadopoulos goes, he was guilty of lying to the FBI, not of seeking dirt on Hillary (which would not have been enough "evidence" to get a FISA warrant to spy on Papadopoulos, and certainly not enough to do so on Page).

McCabe stated under oath that without the Steele "dossier" there would not have been a FISA warrant to wire tap Page. There was a previous attempt to get a warrant on Page which was (which rarely happens) denied. The unverified dossier was the key element needed to get the warrant. Any information gathered via use of the warrant would be fruit of the poisoned tree and therefore inadmissible.
The Democrats in the same hearing have stated in writing that McCabe's remark is mis-characterized in the memo.

And if that is somehow in dispute, it still does not absolve the FBI from presenting the "dossier" to a FISA judge without revealing that it was not verified and was paid for by an opposition party or candidate. The knowing use of such a faulty document to get a warrant is, undeniably, a corruption of the process.
My understanding is that the use of the dossier was presented as political in nature in the FISA request. Remember both Republicans and Democrats contributed to it's creation.

As far as Papadopoulos goes, he was guilty of lying to the FBI, not of seeking dirt on Hillary (which would not have been enough "evidence" to get a FISA warrant to spy on Papadopoulos, and certainly not enough to do so on Page).
Page was already under a FISA warrant which had been renewed THREE times for a list of concerns all having nothing to do with the Dossier and everything about his potentially illegal dealings with Russians.

The Democrats in the same hearing have stated in writing that McCabe's remark is mis-characterized in the memo.

Did the Democrats elaborate further what they meant by mischaracterized? If not, their statement would be, as WDMSO would say, innuendo.

My understanding is that the use of the dossier was presented as political in nature in the FISA request. Remember both Republicans and Democrats contributed to it's creation.

My understanding is that the FISA court assumes that evidence is verified. That the court would not consider unverified information as evidence--so would not have granted this warrant if it had known it was not verified. And the Republicans (McCain) who contributed to its creation were trying to stop Trump from being the nominee. Certainly, the Democrats were an opposition party. The motivation, in either case, was anti-Trump. And the McCain original contribution which ended well before the dossier became "evidence" for a warrant does not diminish the Clinton campaign motivation.

Page was already under a FISA warrant which had been renewed THREE times for a list of concerns all having nothing to do with the Dossier and everything about his potentially illegal dealings with Russians.

I am not aware of a FISA warrant on Page surveillance before the one issued with the dossier being used as evidence. I've heard of one that was dismissed before the dossier was used. And if there was already a FISA warrant to surveil Page, why would the FBI have to apply for a new one?

Did the Democrats elaborate further what they meant by mischaracterized? If not, their statement would be, as WDMSO would say, innuendo.
They certainly did in their response to the memo which is classified.

My understanding is that the FISA court assumes that evidence is verified. That the court would not consider unverified information as evidence--so would not have granted this warrant if it had known it was not verified. And the Republicans (McCain) who contributed to its creation were trying to stop Trump from being the nominee. Certainly, the Democrats were an opposition party. The motivation, in either case, was anti-Trump. And the McCain original contribution which ended well before the dossier became "evidence" for a warrant does not diminish the Clinton campaign motivation.
I believe the FISA standard is just that it has to be reasonable not that is has to be verified. Steele is a known reputable source and of lot of the Dossier has proven to have merit. But it also certainly sounds like there were many pieces of evidence used to justify the warrant according to those who have read it.

I am not aware of a FISA warrant on Page surveillance before the one issued with the dossier being used as evidence. I've heard of one that was dismissed before the dossier was used. And if there was already a FISA warrant to surveil Page, why would the FBI have to apply for a new one.
He already was under surveillance and the warrant had been renewed three times I believe. For that to occur they would have to have shown the previous warrants were producing valuable information and/or bring new evidence.

I'm not sure how long they last but I do know a FISA warrant is time bound.

Another factor to consider is how all this came about. Steele was concerned there was a real crime going on and contacted the FBI himself.

Spence is butchering the timeline and distorting facts...I feel mislead reading his memos

They certainly did in their response to the memo which is classified.

Well, until we know what the Dems meant by mischaracterized, their statement is of no use. And since the memo was declassified, why would responses to it be classified? And if those in-committee responses are still somehow classified, explanations given outside of the official committee briefs need not be classified. Democrats whether from the committee or not, can give personal opinions about how the memo mischaracterizes.

I believe the FISA standard is just that it has to be reasonable not that is has to be verified.

"Reasonable" is too vague and subjective to be used as a standard to allow intrusion of 4th Amendment rights. The standard is much higher than merely being reasonable: "Known as Woods procedures after Michael J. Woods, the FBI Special Agent attorney who developed this layer of approval, DOJ verifies the accuracy of every fact stated in the application. If anything looks unsubstantiated, the application is sent back to the FBI to provide additional evidentiary support – this game of bureaucratic chutes and ladders continues until DOJ is satisfied that the facts in the FISA application can both be corroborated and meet the legal standards for the court."

Steele is a known reputable source and of lot of the Dossier has proven to have merit. But it also certainly sounds like there were many pieces of evidence used to justify the warrant according to those who have read it.

That's just evasive gibberish. The "dossier" is not a verified document.

He already was under surveillance and the warrant had been renewed three times I believe. For that to occur they would have to have shown the previous warrants were producing valuable information and/or bring new evidence.

Again, I don't know of which warrant you are referring to. There was an application for a warrant to surveil Page, just prior to the one under discussion, that was not allowed. Which, according to your statement, should have been allowed if the previous warrants (if they existed) were producing valuable information or bringing new information. When the "dossier" was submitted as evidence on the next try, the warrant was granted.

Another factor to consider is how all this came about. Steele was concerned there was a real crime going on and contacted the FBI himself.

Conjecturing motivation which seems sketchy to begin with could well be considered as mischaracterization. Did he on his own volition, out of some idealistic compulsion, go about digging up dirt? We can't know that, nor is it relevant to the accuracy of the "dossier." We do know that he was paid a great deal of money to do it.

Spence is butchering the timeline and distorting facts...I feel mislead reading his memos
Be specific or be gone.

Be specific or be gone.

If you read my post just before this one by you, you will note a concern about your FISA warrants on Page timeline. You keep stating that there were FISA warrants on Page before the "dossier" granted one. I didn't find a record of any. But if there were, they apparently were not fruitful enough to continue being granted since the FISA application, submitted shortly before the "dossier" one, was not allowed. Were there actually previous warrants, or are you confusing the current one with some supposed previous ones?

Well, until we know what the Dems meant by mischaracterized, their statement is of no use. And since the memo was declassified, why would responses to it be classified? And if those in-committee responses are still somehow classified, explanations given outside of the official committee briefs need not be classified. Democrats whether from the committee or not, can give personal opinions about how the memo mischaracterizes.
I think the fact that they've stated it, documented it and asked the Republicans to make it public says quite a lot.

"Reasonable" is too vague and subjective to be used as a standard to allow intrusion of 4th Amendment rights. The standard is much higher than merely being reasonable: "Known as Woods procedures after Michael J. Woods, the FBI Special Agent attorney who developed this layer of approval, DOJ verifies the accuracy of every fact stated in the application. If anything looks unsubstantiated, the application is sent back to the FBI to provide additional evidentiary support – this game of bureaucratic chutes and ladders continues until DOJ is satisfied that the facts in the FISA application can both be corroborated and meet the legal standards for the court."
Reasonable here is in context of the FBI's process...which doesn't require information to be proven. The standard is very high which is why to your point above FISA requests are rarely denied.

That's just evasive gibberish. The "dossier" is not a verified document.
It's a collection of items some verified and some not. That doesn't invalidate the entire collection.


Again, I don't know of which warrant you are referring to. There was an application for a warrant to surveil Page, just prior to the one under discussion, that was not allowed. Which, according to your statement, should have been allowed if the previous warrants (if they existed) were producing valuable information or bringing new information. When the "dossier" was submitted as evidence on the next try, the warrant was granted.
I think some of the Dossier was included in the last extension which was signed off on by Trump appointees.

Conjecturing motivation which seems sketchy to begin with could well be considered as mischaracterization. Did he on his own volition, out of some idealistic compulsion, go about digging up dirt? We can't know that, nor is it relevant to the accuracy of the "dossier." We do know that he was paid a great deal of money to do it.
I have no idea how much Steele was paid. His employer was paid a decent amount although I'd assume if you want good quality research it doesn't come cheap.

Actually it looks like the WP, NYT and WSJ are all reporting the political nature of the dossier was fully disclosed in the FISA application.

I think the fact that they've stated it, documented it and asked the Republicans to make it public says quite a lot.

????????????????

Reasonable here is in context of the FBI's process...which doesn't require information to be proven. The standard is very high which is why to your point above FISA requests are rarely denied.

????????????????

It's a collection of items some verified and some not. That doesn't invalidate the entire collection.

????????????????

I think some of the Dossier was included in the last extension which was signed off on by Trump appointees.

???????????????

I have no idea how much Steele was paid. His employer was paid a decent amount although I'd assume if you want good quality research it doesn't come cheap.

???????????????????

???????????????????

I know right?

I know right?

"Know" ????????????????

"Know" ????????????????

he's clearly lost his mind

he's clearly lost his mind
Seems like senior Republicans, senior Democrats, the FBI and most of the Media agree with what I'm saying.

Who's lost their mind?

Seems like senior Republicans, senior Democrats, the FBI and most of the Media agree with what I'm saying.

Who's lost their mind?

Seems like they all have.

Seems like they all have.
Maybe that should tell you something.

Maybe that should tell you something.

The herd instinct.

"Seems"

spence talk

I think the fact that they've stated it, documented it and asked the Republicans to make it public says quite a lot.

You have this squishy writing quality of "seeming" or appearing to be saying something, but is infused with a peculiar verbal fog that obscures what, if anything, you are actually saying.


Reasonable here is in context of the FBI's process...which doesn't require information to be proven. The standard is very high which is why to your point above FISA requests are rarely denied.

More of the high quality squish. The "context of the FBI's process"! Yes... the context of process! "Reasonable" somehow is a chameleon word that changes meaning in different contexts. A less sophisticated writer might just avoid using words which are too complex contextually, and rather would just go straight to the actual FBI standard (which requires verification and substantiation of evidence). On the other hand, I suppose, if submitting unverified evidence for a FISA warrant can be done through some context of process, which is not specified or listed in the manual, rather than the actual process, then a warrant can theoretically, in a Machiavellian agreement, be issued on squishier grounds, such as evidence only need be "reasonable."

BTW, Comey had directly told Trump that the dossier was "salacious and unverified." But, of course, in your "context of the FBI's process," it would be unreasonable to require the dossier to be verified in order to use it as evidence for a FISA warrant.

It's a collection of items some verified and some not. That doesn't invalidate the entire collection.

More indefinite squish. "Some verified"--what was verified? There were various media articles used as corroboration which reported similar things as were in the dossier, but the problem is that those articles were based on information from Steele or from his dossier--a form of circular journalism which merely repeats itself rather than corroborating anything. Steele was removed as an FBI informant because of his contact with media outlets which would obviously taint any so-called corroboration.

And yes, submitting the unverified portions of the "dossier" would be a corruption of the process even if there was something in it that was verified. It would make the whole "evidence" suspect, especially if it was known, as it was, that the "dossier" was discredited.

I think some of the Dossier was included in the last extension which was signed off on by Trump appointees.

The "dossier" was the key factor in all the extensions. And if these extensions are what you referred to as warrants on Page during the three years before the "dossier" inspired FISA warrant, that would obviously be impossible since the "dossier" didn't exist then. As I've said, if such warrants had existed and they produced useful data, then they could have been continuously reinstated. There would not have been a need for an entirely new warrant. If those warrants existed, they obviously didn't reap any useful information.

I have no idea how much Steele was paid. His employer was paid a decent amount although I'd assume if you want good quality research it doesn't come cheap.

The adage says "you get what you pay for." If you ask for high quality dirt, you should be prepared to pay high quality fees. Steele was paid by Fusion, by Clinton campaign, and by the FBI. I think one of those sources, maybe the Clinton campaign, paid him $160,000.

None of the points made in the memo have been claimed to be false. The spin is that without other information, what's in the memo, truthful as it is, can be "misleading." What is stated in the memo is pretty straightforward. It would take a lot of information to make the FBI's actions listed in the memo lawful. We await the further information which will make the memo a "nothingburger."

A lot has been said in this thread and in the spinning media and political pundits about the supposed damage the release of the memo was supposed to inflict on national security and on the integrity of our institutions. I haven't seen anything in the memo as released that endangers national security. And the integrity of the FBI, if it can be damaged by some rogues, was already severely damaged by Comey when he presented a solid case for prosecution of HRC but didn't recommend prosecution to the Attorney General, who had broadcasted ahead of his decision that she would abide by his recommendation. And the abuse the Dems heaped on Comey before and after the election surely would cause no less damage to the integrity of the FBI than would this memo. And, it is not the integrity of the FBI that is in question. It is the integrity of those who manipulated the "process" in an attempt to achieve their ends.

It is the integrity of those who manipulated the "process" in an attempt to achieve their ends.

You talking about the election right?

;)
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

You talking about the election right?

;)
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

I like it when you're happy. So interpret it in anyway that makes you feel good.

BTW, I was sorry to hear what happened to the space your business occupied so many years. I hope you find something as nice or better. I wish you the best.

I like it when you're happy. So interpret it in anyway that makes you feel good.

BTW, I was sorry to hear what happened to the space your business occupied so many years. I hope you find something as nice or better. I wish you the best.
Thanks. I’ll find something.. I’m actually happy I have to move. My current studio is way too small
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Thanks. I’ll find something.. I’m actually happy I have to move. My current studio is way too small
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

I like that.

https://www.rferl.org/a/russia-spy-chiefs-washington/29010324.html?utm_content=bufferb6b63&utm_medium=social&utm_source=facebook.com&utm_campaign=buffer


not suggesting what it means but very interesting

In testimony before Congress, fbi director Comey called the dossier salacious and unverified. Those are his words. Yet he signed off using it to help obtain FISA warrants against a presidential campaign. The salacious and unverified dossier was prepared by a company that employed the wife of the deputy attorney general.

Nothing concerning there? Nothing at all?
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

In testimony before Congress, fbi director Comey called the dossier salacious and unverified. Those are his words. Yet he signed off using it to help obtain FISA warrants against a presidential campaign. The salacious and unverified dossier was prepared by a company that employed the wife of the deputy attorney general.

Nothing concerning there? Nothing at all?
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

and the FISA warrant that was applied for required evidence of some pretty serious wrong doing.....what exactly has Carter Page been charged with or arrested for to date?

In testimony before Congress, fbi director Comey called the dossier salacious and unverified. Those are his words.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device
He said it contained items that were...not the entire thing Jim.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

and the FISA warrant that was applied for required evidence of some pretty serious wrong doing.....what exactly has Carter Page been charged with or arrested for to date?
Ummm he was being recruited as a Russian spy...
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Ummm he was being recruited as a Russian spy...
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device


ummmm...."salacious and unverified"


http://thehill.com/opinion/campaign/372233-nunes-memo-raises-question-did-fbi-violate-woods-procedures

He said it contained items that were...not the entire thing Jim.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

not even Sean Hannity suggests that every word of the dossier is incorrect. So not sure what your point is.

You spin with the best of them.

ummmm...."salacious and unverified"


http://thehill.com/opinion/campaign/372233-nunes-memo-raises-question-did-fbi-violate-woods-procedures

I think you're forgetting he was under surveillance before the Dossier.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

ummmm...."salacious and unverified"


http://thehill.com/opinion/campaign/372233-nunes-memo-raises-question-did-fbi-violate-woods-procedures

Comey will go down as one of the biggest weasels of all time.

You have the deputy AG whose wife worked at Fusion GPS. You have the deputy head of the FBI whose wife took a jillion dollars in campaign contributions from the democrats. You have Loretta Lynch meting with Bill Clinton alone on a jet while his wife was supposedly being investigated. You have texts between two liberal FBI agents sleeping with each other, determined to everything they can to ensure a Hilary victory.

All of these political appointees assumed (like I did) that Hilary was going to win, and they likely all wanted to get on her good side by helping her out. They went all-in on a Hilary victory, and figured they had nothing to lose. Well she lost. And she didn't lose to a gracious person like Bush or Romney, she lost to a guy who is about as vindictive as they come.

These liberals who stuck their necks out for Hilary, must be sh*tting their pants worried about what the hell Trump is going to do. And they would be right to be sh*tting their pants. It's sounds very cliché, but they messed with the wrong guy, man did they mess with the wrong guy.

His strategists must be salivating at putting together the schedule of public floggings, all leading up to the fall midterms. If he plays his cards right, he can really help the GOIP with this in swing states.

This is a guy who truly gets his rocks off by sticking it to his adversaries. I cannot imagine the reckoning that awaits some of these people. They bet big. They lost big.

There's an old military expression, "when you kick a tiger in the azz, you better have a plan for dealing with his teeth". Here come the fangs.

In testimony before Congress, fbi director Comey called the dossier salacious and unverified. Those are his words. Yet he signed off using it to help obtain FISA warrants against a presidential campaign. The salacious and unverified dossier was prepared by a company that employed the wife of the deputy attorney general.

Nothing concerning there? Nothing at all?
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device
And how would you verify it?
Nothing to see here, move along folks.............

I think you're forgetting he was under surveillance before the Dossier.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

there was no FISA warrant before and without the dossier...that is the issue

And how would you verify it?
Nothing to see here, move along folks.............

How would I verify what? What Comey said? He testified to it.

there was no FISA warrant before and without the dossier...that is the issue

In the end, they gave Trump a huge gift by doing this. They're probably all racing each other to get into the witness protection program to hide from Trump.

I can just see these reptiles making the political calculation, that she was going to win, and if they helped kick her ball onto the fairway during the campaign, surely she would re-pay them for that once she was in power.

Boy did they bet on the wrong horse. I almost can't think of a scenario where you could screw yourself more royally. I would love to see the expressions on these people's faces from election night as the results came in, I'm surprised they didn't all drink the Jonestown Kool Aid.

They are investigating rumours (the dossier) to see if the facts support them, what is so hard to understand about that.
There is a reason that people look for fire if they see smoke.
Trump has lied and cheated to get where he is, he would do anything to win

They are investigating rumours (the dossier) to see if the facts support them, what is so hard to understand about that.
There is a reason that people look for fire if they see smoke.
Trump has lied and cheated to get where he is, he would do anything to win

You are moving the goalposts significantly.

The FBI relied on evidence they knew to be unreliable, to get a judge to sign off on letting the FBI wiretap somebody. It's not supposed to work that way.

Trump is a morally bankrupt reptile, and if he has committed crimes let's find out and get him the hell out of there. But even Trump is entitled to the system playing out fairly.

"There is a reason that people look for fire if they see smoke"

Yes there is. But (1) there are rules to follow when you are looking for fire, and (2) the Clintons have put up more than their fair share of smoke signals, and the left, and their minions in the media, could not care less.

I'm no Trump apologist. But man does it look like there was widespread collusion between the Justice Department and Hilary.

You are moving the goalposts significantly.

The FBI relied on evidence they knew to be unreliable, to get a judge to sign off on letting the FBI wiretap somebody. It's not supposed to work that way.

Trump is a morally bankrupt reptile, and if he has committed crimes let's find out and get him the hell out of there. But even Trump is entitled to the system playing out fairly.

"There is a reason that people look for fire if they see smoke"

Yes there is. But (1) there are rules to follow when you are looking for fire, and (2) the Clintons have put up more than their fair share of smoke signals, and the left, and their minions in the media, could not care less.

I'm no Trump apologist. But man does it look like there was widespread collusion between the Justice Department and Hilary.


Gowdy, a member of the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence, was speaking on CBS's Face the Nation on Sunday. He also said that even if the controversial Steele dossier didn't exist, there would still be a Russia investigation.

That speaks volumes coming from Him

Probable cause is a requirement found in the Fourth Amendment that must usually be met before police make an arrest, conduct a search, or receive a warrant. Courts usually find probable cause when there is a reasonable basis for believing that a crime may have been committed (for an arrest) or when evidence of the crime is present in the place to be searched (for a search). Under exigent circumstances, probable cause can also justify a warrantless search or seizure. Persons arrested without a warrant are required to be brought before a competent authority shortly after the arrest for a prompt judicial determination of probable cause.


So Jim your suggesting the steel document was the only source used to establish Probable cause?

They pulled Trump over for a broken Tail light (possible collusion) but the found a whole bag of something else and Trumps saying thats my Friends stuff not mine.. and the Cops set me up!!! I am the victim of the deep state

there was no FISA warrant before and without the dossier...that is the issue
This is totally untrue.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Gowdy, a member of the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence, was speaking on CBS's Face the Nation on Sunday. He also said that even if the controversial Steele dossier didn't exist, there would still be a Russia investigation.

That speaks volumes coming from Him

BOY are you cherry picking.

He also said that the DOJ would not have gotten FISA approval for wiretaps, without the Steele dossier.

You conveniently left that part out. Gee, I wonder why?

http://wncn.com/2018/02/04/gowdy-says-fisa-warrant-would-not-have-been-authorized-without-steele-dossier/

"That speaks volumes coming from Him"

Since you claim that Gowdy has credibility when he says that there would still be a Mueller investigation, you must also believe Gowdy is equally credible when he says the FISA warrants would not have been granted without presentation of the salacious and unverified Steele dossier? Or are you cherry-picking?

I want Mueller to do a fair thorough and complete investigation, and let the chips fall where they may. I also want Americans to know that a small number of politically-motivated people at the DOJ, abused their authority in an attempt to help Hilary.

Thank you for bringing up Gowdy, and for allowing me to fill in the big item you conveniently excluded.

I heard a rumor that Gowdy is retiring from Congress to be a special prosecutor investigation which laws were broken by the DOJ in their attempts to help Hilary win. Wouldn't that be something?

This is totally untrue.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Be specific or be gone.

They are investigating rumours (the dossier) to see if the facts support them, what is so hard to understand about that.

That process was supposed to have been done before the "dossier" could be used as probable cause for a FISA warrant. Using an unverified document to get a warrant, and then, after having gotten the warrant, the document is investigated to see if it can be used is an absolutely absurd notion.

There is a reason that people look for fire if they see smoke.

And when the fire is actually found to exist, THEN you go about putting it out. Trying to put out a fire before determining that there is one, is another absolutely absurd notion.

Trump has lied and cheated to get where he is, he would do anything to win

[insert here just about any past or present politician] has lied and cheated to get where he or she is . . . would do anything to win.

And has Trump done more legitimate hard work, a whole lot more, other than just the
usual lying and cheating, to get where he is?

What's your point?

Probable cause is a requirement found in the Fourth Amendment that must usually be met before police make an arrest, conduct a search, or receive a warrant. Courts usually find probable cause when there is a reasonable basis for believing that a crime may have been committed (for an arrest) or when evidence of the crime is present in the place to be searched (for a search). Under exigent circumstances, probable cause can also justify a warrantless search or seizure. Persons arrested without a warrant are required to be brought before a competent authority shortly after the arrest for a prompt judicial determination of probable cause.


There is a specific process that must be met in determining the validity of a probable cause before it is presented to a FISA court. That process has been cited a few times in this thread. Perhaps you missed all that?

BOY are you cherry picking.

He also said that the DOJ would not have gotten FISA approval for wiretaps, without the Steele dossier.

You conveniently left that part out. Gee, I wonder why?

http://wncn.com/2018/02/04/gowdy-says-fisa-warrant-would-not-have-been-authorized-without-steele-dossier/

"That speaks volumes coming from Him"

Since you claim that Gowdy has credibility when he says that there would still be a Mueller investigation, you must also believe Gowdy is equally credible when he says the FISA warrants would not have been granted without presentation of the salacious and unverified Steele dossier? Or are you cherry-picking?

I want Mueller to do a fair thorough and complete investigation, and let the chips fall where they may. I also want Americans to know that a small number of politically-motivated people at the DOJ, abused their authority in an attempt to help Hilary.

Thank you for bringing up Gowdy, and for allowing me to fill in the big item you conveniently excluded.

I heard a rumor that Gowdy is retiring from Congress to be a special prosecutor investigation which laws were broken by the DOJ in their attempts to help Hilary win. Wouldn't that be something?

Were do you get your information from

I also want Americans to know that a small number of politically-motivated people at the DOJ, abused their authority in an attempt to help Hilary.

that statement not based in any Facts

Or are you cherry-picking? there would still be a Russian investigation ..... pretty clear

DOJ would not have gotten FISA approval for wiretaps, without the Steele dossier. that his opinion.and a Republican talking point ...

Guess the Judges were all in on it ....whos cherry picking now

Quote:
Originally Posted by scottw
"and the FISA warrant that was applied for required evidence of some pretty serious wrong doing.....what exactly has Carter Page been charged with or arrested for to date?"

Ummm he was being recruited as a Russian spy...
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Spence, pay attention, Scott asked what has Page been charged with or arrested for. The locution "charged with" implies a wrongdoing by whomever is being "charged." "Being recruited," your locution, implies an action by other than whomever is being charged. Carter was not recruiting, he was attempted to be recruited by "Russians." The Russians were the recruiters, and Page would only be complicit with the wrongdoing if he accepted the recruitment and became a Russian spy. And if that were so, why has he not been charged of or arrested for being a Russian spy?

The FBI directly interviewed Page. It did not require a FISA warrant to interview Page. Apparently (unless the FBI is still working to find enough evidence that Page actually became a spy) there is no proof that Page is or was a spy.

Were do you get your information from

I also want Americans to know that a small number of politically-motivated people at the DOJ, abused their authority in an attempt to help Hilary.

that statement not based in any Facts

Or are you cherry-picking? there would still be a Russian investigation ..... pretty clear

DOJ would not have gotten FISA approval for wiretaps, without the Steele dossier. that his opinion.and a Republican talking point ...

Guess the Judges were all in on it ....whos cherry picking now

"Were do you get your information from "

Ummm, NBC? I posted a link. In the same interview on 'Meet The Press' where Gowdy said that there would have been a Mueller investigation with or without the dossier, he also said there would have been no FISA-approved warrants to spy on the Trump campaign. Go watch the interview. Gowdy made two distinct conclusions regarding the dossier. You focused on the one that you liked, and ignored the one you didn't like.

"that statement not based in any Facts "

No?
Loretta Lynch met with Bill Clinton on a private jet after telling reporters to get lost. Soon after, Hilary was exonerated. Soon after that, Hilary said on TV that she would consider keeping Lynch on as AG if she won. Interesting timing, no?

The deputy attorney general (guy named Ohr?)'s wife works for Fusion, the company paid by the Clintons to compile the dossier. That wasn't disclosed, and the guy didn't recuse himself.

The deputy FBI dircetor's wife ran for the senate and took big money from Democrats PACs. That was not disclosed, and he did not recuse himself.

The 2 FBI agents involved in the email investigation, could not have been more clear that they wanted Hilary to win. The emails between the two are public. That was not disclosed, and they did not recuse themselves.

Is any of that not true?

On top of that, you seem to think Trey Gowdy's opinions regarding the dossier are valid. Fine, I will agree with you. In that case, Gowdy made a valid statement when he said there would have been no FISA warrant if not for the dossier. You can't have it both ways, either Gowdy is a trustworthy source or he's not.

"that his (Gowdy's) opinion.and a Republican talking point "

YOU brought Gowdy up, not me. So I can also say that it's a liberal talking point that even without the dossier, Mueller would still be investigating.

Not sure if you are confused, or what...but you were the one who said Gowdy's opinions regarding the dossier, mattered. Not me.

"whos cherry picking now"

Clearly, you.

I admit there would be an investigation of Trump even without the dossier. But I conclude that the dossier had an impact. I admit things that help Trump and that hurt Trump. You can only admit what hurts him, and can't admit anything that makes the left look bad. That is the definition of cherry picking.

"Guess the Judges were all in on it "

According to Gowdy, the judges were fooled by the unverified dossier, and by a Yahoo news story that was presented as verification of the dossier, when in fact it was just a regurgitation of Steele's dossier. Is it "verification" if Steele repeats the same accusations on a different news outlet? Nope.

[insert here just about any past or present politician] has lied and cheated to get where he or she is . . . would do anything to win.

And has Trump done more legitimate hard work, a whole lot more, other than just the
usual lying and cheating, to get where he is?

What's your point?

Most politicians push the envelope of truth thru interpretation, Trump doesn't even try, he just makes up his own alternative facts and then admits it. He thinks that if you say it often and loud enough it makes it true.
I've found that the things people accuse others of are the things they are guilty of. Thieves are quick to accuse others of stealing because they would, etc.
You probably think John Gotti worked hard also, the smoke about Trump is out there if you look and too late the truth will come out.
He was connected in development work in NYC, Atlantic City, why would you think not Russians?

Were do you get your information from

I also want Americans to know that a small number of politically-motivated people at the DOJ, abused their authority in an attempt to help Hilary.

that statement not based in any Facts

Based on the fact that an unverified dossier was used as probable cause to get a FISA warrant.

Or are you cherry-picking? there would still be a Russian investigation ..... pretty clear

So what? the so-called Russian investigation, which seems to have wound down to obstruction of justice rather than collusion, is another story.

DOJ would not have gotten FISA approval for wiretaps, without the Steele dossier. that his opinion.and a Republican talking point ...

McCabe stated so, under oath.

Guess the Judges were all in on it ....whos cherry picking now

The judges assume that the DOJ (under Loretta Lynch at the time) has made sure that all evidence is verified. The judges are not in on it if they are lied to. They are unaware of the omissions and lies. That is the danger being addressed here.

Most politicians push the envelope of truth thru interpretation, Trump doesn't even try, he just makes up his own alternative facts and then admits it. He thinks that if you say it often and loud enough it makes it true.

You're statement validates more than it contradicts (if at all) that Trump is not that much different than our common politicians. They may all have different styles, but, as you say, "Most politicians push the envelope of truth thru interpretation . . . make[s] up [their] own alternative facts and . . . think[s] that if you say it often and loud enough it makes it true.

Of course, neither you nor I have verified our opinion, we just agree that it is so. Except, you claim that Trump is somehow more obvious or egregious.


I've found that the things people accuse others of are the things they are guilty of. Thieves are quick to accuse others of stealing because they would, etc.

So are you guilty of what you accuse Trump of? How about all the Dems who accuse Trump?

You probably think John Gotti worked hard also, the smoke about Trump is out there if you look and too late the truth will come out.
He was connected in development work in NYC, Atlantic City, why would you think not Russians?

I think Trump worked hard within the legitimate scope, spiced with whatever it took to do development work in NYC. I have stated a few times before in other threads that Trump's experience with having to work through the maze of politicians (crooked or otherwise), unions, codes, laws, and all required backscratching and money-greasing to do so, would stand him well as experience to negotiate in the world of politics (crooked or otherwise).

I don't equate Trump with John Gotti. Maybe you do.

The left managed to lose the 2016 electoin (handily) to one of the most un-likeable people on the planet. But they weren't satisfied with that, so they compounded the political disaster by not only losing to him, but allowing him to now present himself as a sympathetic victim.

Who is calling the shots on the left side of the aisle, exactly? Whoever it is, please, keep them there for life. My goodness.

Who is calling the shots on the left side of the aisle, exactly?



her

Actually I think the American people lost the election
But maybe you should listen to the latest “person to lose their mind “ Trey Gowdy
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Actually I think the American people lost the election
But maybe you should listen to the latest “person to lose their mind “ Trey Gowdy
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

You make such a convincing argument/proclamation that nothing to the contrary can possibly be said.

You make such a convincing argument/proclamation that nothing to the contrary can possibly be said.

Gowdy said the FISA warrant would not have been issued without the dossier. He also said that even without the dossier, the Mueller investigation would have proceeded. That would appear to be a very honest and balanced way to look at this, he's not saying Trump is above suspicion. Gowdy might be the only politician on either side I have heard, who is being critical of both sides where they deserve it.

Too bad he's leaving.

Gowdy might be the only politician on either side I have heard, who is being critical of both sides where they deserve it.
Too bad he's leaving.

That's why he can say it, unfortunately both sides run scared of offending the base and losing reelection.

Jim, can we get an update on the memo?

Jim, can we get an update on the memo?

It’s a mental disorder and the gay baker was right.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

It’s a mental disorder and the gay baker was right.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device
What about her emails???

The Dem. memo basically called Nunes a liar.

The Dem. memo basically called Nunes a liar.
No, the Dems are calling Nunes and the Administration liars and providing hard evidence. Did you see Nunes talking about this over the weekend? He looked like when son stops up the toilet and blames it on his brother.

The Dem. memo basically called Nunes a liar.

if the dem. memo is dishonest what does that make nunes?

It’s a mental disorder and the gay baker was right.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Both sides saying the exact opposite as usual. Most people, myself included, will believe their side is probably right, and the other side is lying.

Both sides saying the exact opposite as usual.
Well, no that's not really the case. The Schiff memo disproves the Nunes memo mostly by not saying the information is wrong, but by providing the intentionally omitted details that made is so misleading.

The only item in the Nunes memo that the Dems say was fabricated was the point about how the FISA warrant wouldn't have been issued without the Dossier. People in that meeting said that was taken completely out of context.

You're just going to have to face up to the fact that once again you were duped, all in the name of protecting mother Russia.

Well, no that's not really the case. The Schiff memo disproves the Nunes memo mostly by not saying the information is wrong, but by providing the intentionally omitted details that made is so misleading.

The only item in the Nunes memo that the Dems say was fabricated was the point about how the FISA warrant wouldn't have been issued without the Dossier. People in that meeting said that was taken completely out of context.

You're just going to have to face up to the fact that once again you were duped, all in the name of protecting mother Russia.

"but by providing the intentionally omitted details that made is so misleading"

Did the FISA application include some reliance on the Steele dossier, which was paid for by the Clinton campaign?

"how the FISA warrant wouldn't have been issued without the Dossier"

I presume only the judge knows if that's true.

"You're just going to have to face up to the fact that once again you were duped, all in the name of protecting mother Russia"

I know, I know. Hilary is just the walking embodiment of virtue, and those mean Republicans just won't let her try to serve the world, seeking no gain for herself. I say we strip Mother Theresa of her sainthood, and give it to Hilary.

Did the FISA application include some reliance on the Steele dossier, which was paid for by the Clinton campaign?
Yes, and four federal republican appointed judges and the FBI had no problem with that.

Any other questions?

Yes, and four federal republican appointed judges and the FBI had no problem with that.

Any other questions?

How about this which answers most of Jim' questions? The Schiff Memo Harms Democrats More Than It Helps Them:

https://www.nationalreview.com/2018/02/schiff-memo-russia-investigation-harms-democrats-more-than-helps-them/

How about this which answers most of Jim' questions? The Schiff Memo Harms Democrats More Than It Helps Them:

https://www.nationalreview.com/2018/02/schiff-memo-russia-investigation-harms-democrats-more-than-helps-them/
There's a lot at issue with this piece. 1) It ignores that the Trump campaign was under investigation 7 weeks before the dossier came out 2) The investigation was launched not just because Papadopoulos was in contact with Russians but rather because he was drunk bragging about access to Clinton's emails and 3) FISA protocol is to not name Americans who are not the target of the warrant.

And that's just off the top of my head.

There's a lot at issue with this piece. 1) It ignores that the Trump campaign was under investigation 7 weeks before the dossier came out 2) The investigation was launched not just because Papadopoulos was in contact with Russians but rather because he was drunk bragging about access to Clinton's emails and 3) FISA protocol is to not name Americans who are not the target of the warrant.

And that's just off the top of my head.

It eviscerates the Democrat's memo.

It eviscerates the Democrat's memo.
It really doesn't. What it does so is set up all manners of speculative assertions to be ripped apart. This is classic McCarthy.

It really doesn't . . . This is classic McCarthy.

Yes it does . . . this is classic McCarthy

Yes, and four federal republican appointed judges and the FBI had no problem with that.

Any other questions?

Sure, how's this for starters If 'the FBI' that had no problem with it is riddled with leaders who wanted Hilary to win, who cares that they are OK with it? That they are OK with it, could be more evidence of wrongdoing, not less.

Here's another...how do you know the judges would have been OK with it, if they knew that the Steele dossier was provided by an adversarial political campaign?

Any other pathetic excuses that a 10 year-old can tear to shreds?

Yes it does . . . this is classic McCarthy

he was pretty thorough...I doubt Spence could grasp much through that veil of partisanship and the grief he must be enduring after his Country's loss to the American girls in ice hockey...those Canadian girls felt as entitled to a gold medal as Hillary felt entitled to the Presidency....I'm surprised he can type at this point

Sure, how's this for starters If 'the FBI' that had no problem with it is riddled with leaders who wanted Hilary to win, who cares that they are OK with it? That they are OK with it, could be more evidence of wrongdoing, not less.
Jim, the request has to be approved by Federal Judges before the FBI can sign off on it.

Here's another...how do you know the judges would have been OK with it, if they knew that the Steele dossier was provided by an adversarial political campaign?
The Dossier wasn't provided by an adversarial campaign, it was by a law firm and the FISA request clearly stated it was political opposition research.

Any other pathetic excuses that a 10 year-old can tear to shreds?
Mind bending.

Sure,

Any other pathetic excuses that a 10 year-old can tear to shreds?

Yet you couldn't? SAD!
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Jim, the request has to be approved by Federal Judges before the FBI can sign off on it.

McCarthy: Schiff makes much of the fact that the four FISA warrants (the original authorization and three renewals, at 90-day intervals) were signed by four different FISA-court judges — all apparently appointed to the federal district courts by Republican presidents. This hardly commends the validity of the warrants . . . the issue here is failure to disclose information to the court. If a judge was not made aware of material facts, the judge’s authorization of a warrant does not validate the derelict application.


The Dossier wasn't provided by an adversarial campaign, it was by a law firm

McCarthy: "If you know it’s necessary to disclose that “identified U.S. person” Simpson was being paid by “a U.S.-based law firm” (Perkins-Coie), then it is at least equally necessary to disclose that, in turn, the law firm was being paid by its clients: the Clinton campaign and the DNC. To tell half the story is patently misleading."


and the FISA request clearly stated it was political opposition research.

McCarthy: Schiff comically highlights this DOJ assertion as if it were his home run, when it is in fact damning: “The FBI speculates that the identified U.S. Person was likely looking for information that could be used to discredit Candidate #1’s campaign.” This is the vague reference that Democrats and Trump critics laughably say was adequate disclosure of the dossier’s political motivation. But why would the FBI “speculate” that a political motive was “likely” involved when, in reality, the FBI well knew that a very specific political motive was precisely involved?

There was no reason for supposition here. If the FBI had transparently disclosed that the dossier was a product of the Clinton campaign — oh, sorry, didn’t mean to unmask; if the FBI had transparently disclosed that the dossier was a product of “Candidate #2’s” campaign — then the court would have been informed about the apodictic certainty that the people behind the dossier were trying to discredit the campaign of Candidate #2’s opponent. It is disingenuous to tell a judge that something is “likely” when, in fact, it is beyond any doubt.



Mind bending.

Your posts often are.

remember when Trump was mocked and ridiculed for his wire tapping claims....

remember when Trump was mocked and ridiculed for his wire tapping claims....

Yes, and he still is and should be.

"Terrible! Just found out that Obama had my "wires tapped" in Trump Tower just before the victory. Nothing found. This is McCarthyism!"

"I'd bet a good lawyer could make a great case out of the fact that President Obama was tapping my phones in October, just prior to Election!"

"How low has President Obama gone to tapp my phones during the very sacred election process. This is Nixon/Watergate. Bad (or sick) guy!"

McCarthy: Schiff makes much of the fact that the four FISA warrants (the original authorization and three renewals, at 90-day intervals) were signed by four different FISA-court judges — all apparently appointed to the federal district courts by Republican presidents. This hardly commends the validity of the warrants . . . the issue here is failure to disclose information to the court. If a judge was not made aware of material facts, the judge’s authorization of a warrant does not validate the derelict application.
It's clear now that SOME of the information used in the FISA application was from Steele which was made clear to the Federal judge. If the judge isn't satisfied with the justification for the warrant they don't have to approve it. McCarthy is en effect calling these Federal judges incompetent. Considering he's only seen what's been declassified that's laughable.

McCarthy: "If you know it’s necessary to disclose that “identified U.S. person” Simpson was being paid by “a U.S.-based law firm” (Perkins-Coie), then it is at least equally necessary to disclose that, in turn, the law firm was being paid by its clients: the Clinton campaign and the DNC. To tell half the story is patently misleading."
McCarthy has a clever use of quotes here to mislead his reader, yourself. The FISA requests don't name Simpson or Perkins-Coie because that is the protocol to not name US persons or entities unless they are the subject of the surveillance. By co-mingling the quotes from the warrant with what we know today McCarthy is trying to establish a quid pro quo that would be improper.

McCarthy: Schiff comically highlights this DOJ assertion as if it were his home run, when it is in fact damning: “The FBI speculates that the identified U.S. Person was likely looking for information that could be used to discredit Candidate #1’s campaign.” This is the vague reference that Democrats and Trump critics laughably say was adequate disclosure of the dossier’s political motivation. But why would the FBI “speculate” that a political motive was “likely” involved when, in reality, the FBI well knew that a very specific political motive was precisely involved?
At the time of the FISA request Simpson had not testified about the full nature of their research nor had the FBI led any formal investigation into Steele's potential bias. To hang all this on the word "likely" is comical.

There was no reason for supposition here. If the FBI had transparently disclosed that the dossier was a product of the Clinton campaign — oh, sorry, didn’t mean to unmask; if the FBI had transparently disclosed that the dossier was a product of “Candidate #2’s” campaign — then the court would have been informed about the apodictic certainty that the people behind the dossier were trying to discredit the campaign of Candidate #2’s opponent. It is disingenuous to tell a judge that something is “likely” when, in fact, it is beyond any doubt.
How far did that Nunes "unmasking" stunt go before it was discredited as well?

McCarthy is just presenting one straw man after another. The FBI, the Federal Judiciary, the Clinton campaign...they're all in it together!

People pleading guilty left and right and some how it's still a witch hunt . They only seem to care they can't touch Trump with the collusion lable.. they could careless if those who worked for appointed by Trump are pleading guilty to crimes involving Russians..

SENIOR Adviser on President Donald Trump’s election campaign plead guilty... and you guys are still blaming the steel dossier to funny

People pleading guilty left and right and some how it's still a witch hunt . They only seem to care they can't touch Trump with the collusion lable..
Interesting read of a pretty credible guy. Collusion or not the damage is being done regardless...

https://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2018/02/27/trump-russia-collusion-putin-mueller-michael-hayden-217091

Interesting read of a pretty credible guy. Collusion or not the damage is being done regardless...

https://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2018/02/27/trump-russia-collusion-putin-mueller-michael-hayden-217091

I can hear it now
He is an Independent......
Clearly a deep state operative..........

I think the article puts a different perspective on the situation. He is a critical thinker and shows that this issue is more interesting and convoluted than the politicians or media would have us believe.

some interesting thoughts on Hayden...sorry to interrupt the tongue bath:D


https://www.cjr.org/first_person/cia_michael_hayden_expert.php

some interesting thoughts on Hayden...sorry to interrupt the tongue bath:D


https://www.cjr.org/first_person/cia_michael_hayden_expert.php
A little quote from the article, since selecting portions that are in our favor are en vogue.
"That’s not to say everything Michael Hayden says is inherently wrong. Again, he’s right that President Obama almost certainly did not directly order a “wiretap” of Donald Trump, and he generally has a reasonable positions on Trump’s dangerous Muslim Ban and even encryption."

A little quote from the article, since selecting portions that are in our favor are en vogue.
"That’s not to say everything Michael Hayden says is inherently wrong. Again, he’s right that President Obama almost certainly did not directly order a “wiretap” of Donald Trump, and he generally has a reasonable positions on Trump’s dangerous Muslim Ban and even encryption."

I read that....I didn't select portions...I linked the entire article


it's really funny...during the Bush years...regarding wiretapping...it was portrayed by the left as Bush and Cheney sitting around a monitor all day listening to the phone conversations of average Americans...Google..."Bush Wiretapping"....Trump does essentially the same thing and he's crazy...so I'll admit both Trump and the left are crazy

I read that....I didn't select portions...I linked the entire article


it's really funny...during the Bush years...regarding wiretapping...it was portrayed by the left as Bush and Cheney sitting around a monitor all day listening to the phone conversations of average Americans...Google..."Bush Wiretapping"....Trump does essentially the same thing and he's crazy...so I'll admit both Trump and the left are crazy

Speaking of crazy... the complaint with the Bush era wiretapping was that it was warrantless. Trump is making up something about Obama that never happened. The faulty analogies in this forum? Crazy.

It's clear now that SOME of the information used in the FISA application was from Steele which was made clear to the Federal judge. If the judge isn't satisfied with the justification for the warrant they don't have to approve it. McCarthy is en effect calling these Federal judges incompetent. Considering he's only seen what's been declassified that's laughable.

Pertinent information was withheld from the FISA Court.

McCarthy has a clever use of quotes here to mislead his reader, yourself. The FISA requests don't name Simpson or Perkins-Coie because that is the protocol to not name US persons or entities unless they are the subject of the surveillance. By co-mingling the quotes from the warrant with what we know today McCarthy is trying to establish a quid pro quo that would be improper.

Informing the Court about who paid Perkins-Cole was not withheld because of the protocol. HRC could have been referred to as Candidate #2 just as Trump was referred to as Candidate #1. And the DNC could have been named without breaking protocol.

At the time of the FISA request Simpson had not testified about the full nature of their research nor had the FBI led any formal investigation into Steele's potential bias. To hang all this on the word "likely" is comical.

Did the FBI not know at the time they applied for the FISA warrants that Hillary and the DNC paid the law firm? I don't know. It is implied or alleged that they did. Perhaps that is not true.

How far did that Nunes "unmasking" stunt go before it was discredited as well?

McCarthy is just presenting one straw man after another. The FBI, the Federal Judiciary, the Clinton campaign...they're all in it together!

https://intelligence.house.gov/uploadedfiles/democrat_memo_key_points.pdf

isn't Spence accusing McCarthy of doing exactly what Spence does on a regular basis?...I see what he's doing here

Speaking of crazy... the complaint with the Bush era wiretapping was that it was warrantless. Trump is making up something about Obama that never happened. The faulty analogies in this forum? Crazy.

there was apparently a lot of wiretapping going on...Trump was just being Trump....you know...like "Biden being Biden"

it's really funny...during the Bush years...regarding wiretapping...it was portrayed by the left as Bush and Cheney sitting around a monitor all day listening to the phone conversations of average Americans...Google..."Bush Wiretapping"....Trump does essentially the same thing and he's crazy...so I'll admit both Trump and the left are crazy
You must have a short memory, Bush authorized warrantless wiretapping after 911.

Big, huge, monstrous difference.

yes...very big difference...

the Bush folks were trying to prevent terrorism after 911

members of the Obama admin in collusion with the Hillary campaign were trying to ensure Trump was never elected and.... how was is put?...."have an insurance policy if somehow he was?".....

very troubling...


if Hillary had just gotten elected none of this would be a problem..plan B is a lot of work.......damn Russians

Trump was just being Trump...."

Crazy? Delusional? Paranoid? Factually incorrect? Ok, touche.

Kushner's security clearance downgraded

Crazy? Delusional? Paranoid? Factually incorrect? Ok, touche.

try to understand this....through 8 years of Clinton the media and left told and often scolded the country explaining that lying was perfectly normal, part of the human condition, psychologists and sociologists told us that Clinton made us feel better about our own shortcomings...and that men in power, of course, had sex with their underlings...they needed a stress reliever...and have big egos and even bigger libidos so badda-bing-badda-boom ...and as long as his wife doesn't mind.....Oh...and I was reading back over the Clinton/Communist Chinese money scandal recently...good grief

then...for 8 years we heard Bush=Hitler...Bush=Idiot....

the left and media embraced and promoted the foul mouth comics and the nuts sleeping in the ditch outside his Texas ranch....it was relentless

then... for the next 8 years, if you did not celebrate the new president like it was the second coming of Christ...you were a racist...the media and left bristled and attacked every critique...some fair and some unfair but it was basically a protection racket and Obama leveraged that on a daily basis

Trump...is a big middle finger to those 8+8+8...basically 24 years of the left and media having their way...setting the tone of the political debate in this country....however disheveled Trump may be opposite the lefts ideal preened pseudo-intellectual type.... he's the only figure on the right that's really had the stones to not back down to the thugs on the left...and they ARE thugs...

doesn't make him a good guy....doesn't make him someone to emulate...but at this time he's the new kid that punched the bully in the face...politics is ugly...always has been

that's why he's liked or supported...I don't know if that's good or bad in the long run.... and so far....regarding the economy likes him which means people with jobs and families who don't want to be dependent on government like him because ultimately they care more about what they can provide their families that what a president says or does.....

Tuesday, February 27, 2018

The Rasmussen Reports daily Presidential Tracking Poll for Tuesday shows that 50% of Likely U.S. Voters approve of President Trump’s job performance. Forty-eight percent (48%) disapprove.

By comparison, President Obama earned 43% approval on this date in the second year of his presidency.


the bonus is that he's got the media and left in full cackle on a daily basis....which, though probably wrong...feels really good...which means the more cackling...the better it feels :rolleyes:

so yes..."Trump Being Trump"

great VDH article this morning chronicling the disastrous Obama Russia policies

https://www.nationalreview.com/2018/02/russia-spreading-chaos-fooling-media-exposing-fbi/

Kushner's security clearance downgraded

you should read the whole article...not just the headline

Kushner's security clearance downgraded
Kushner is going to get crushed for using his Govt position to sell property.

The story running now that other government were trying to manipulate him when he improperly had top secret clearance is pretty frightening.

you should read the whole article...not just the headline

I’ve had security clearance and I know how it works.. security clearance or lack of them are just another log on a fire they are unable to extinguish
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Hope Hicks: Close Trump aide and White House communications chief resigns

another one bites the dust :wave:

She was a total smoke show
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Hope Hicks: Close Trump aide and White House communications chief resigns



Sad thing is that everyone who works there ends up w/their reputation in taters.