Memo is out

[spence]

Originally Posted by scottw

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

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

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by wdmso

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-say...teele-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?

[scottw]

Originally Posted by spence

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

Be specific or be gone.

[detbuch]

Originally Posted by Pete F.

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?

[detbuch]

Originally Posted by wdmso

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?

[wdmso]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

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-say...teele-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

[detbuch]

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?"

Originally Posted by spence

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.

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by wdmso

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.

[Pete F.]

Originally Posted by detbuch

[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?

[detbuch]

Originally Posted by wdmso

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.

[detbuch]

Originally Posted by Pete F.

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.

[Jim in CT]

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.

[scottw]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

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

her

[Pete F.]

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

[detbuch]

Originally Posted by Pete F.

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.

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by detbuch

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.

[RIROCKHOUND]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

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.

[spence]

Jim, can we get an update on the memo?

[Nebe]

Originally Posted by spence

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

[spence]

Originally Posted by Nebe

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

What about her emails???

[PaulS]

The Dem. memo basically called Nunes a liar.

[spence]

Originally Posted by PaulS

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.

[scottw]

Originally Posted by PaulS

The Dem. memo basically called Nunes a liar.

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

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by Nebe

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.

[spence]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

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.

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by spence

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.

[spence]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

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?

[detbuch]

Originally Posted by spence

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/...an-helps-them/

[spence]

Originally Posted by detbuch

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

https://www.nationalreview.com/2018/...an-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.

[detbuch]

Originally Posted by spence

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.