Intelligence Committee To Petition FISA Court

[Hutch Starskey]

We've been over this, dope.

You might call this "reinforcing the lesson"

Or lunatic raving.

 

[DOTR]

Well, no, the version sent to Trump was not the identical version passed in the House; so yes, it was changed.

We have both versions. Would you like to show me the changes Warning..if you dont I will

Did it hurt national security? We don’t know. It definitely hurt public trust in the FBI’s ability to conduct clandestine eavesdropping, so that could hurt national security. It might hurt their ability to collect intel from foreign agents who could fear political bickering like this could out them, so that too could hurt national security. But damage to national security is not gauged by measurements readily available to the general public, so it’s not possible to know if there was damage or not.

So where in the memo were the FBI's "clandestine eavesdropping" methods exposed? I missed that. (Hint...it isnt there)

Were any "foreign agents" "outed"? No? Then what the hell are you babbling about? A memo which doesnt out foreign agents may make foreign agents fear being outed?

And of course it is possible to know if there was damage. Since the memo contained nothing damaging to national security we know, for a fact, that it didnt damage national security.

To sum it up..Schiff (who has been humiliated while trying to work with foreign agents against his country) was faced with seeing the tenuousness of his case against Trump exposed. His supporters are neither real bright nor moral. So he decided he had nothing to lose by lying about what was in the memo and trying to scare people into not looking at it.
The memo was released anyhow (schiffs party is beaten and cant demand anything..only whine and cry) and we now see the foot dragging was a lie. A blatant, partisan, self serving with no regard for the country lie.

 

[Hutch Starskey]

Well, no, the version sent to Trump was not the identical version passed in the House; so yes, it was changed.

We have both versions. Would you like to show me the changes Warning..if you dont I will

Did it hurt national security? We don’t know. It definitely hurt public trust in the FBI’s ability to conduct clandestine eavesdropping, so that could hurt national security. It might hurt their ability to collect intel from foreign agents who could fear political bickering like this could out them, so that too could hurt national security. But damage to national security is not gauged by measurements readily available to the general public, so it’s not possible to know if there was damage or not.

So where in the memo were the FBI's "clandestine eavesdropping" methods exposed? I missed that. (Hint...it isnt there)

Were any "foreign agents" "outed"? No? Then what the hell are you babbling about? A memo which doesnt out foreign agents may make foreign agents fear being outed?

View attachment 175831


And of course it is possible to know if there was damage. Since the memo contained nothing damaging to national security we know, for a fact, that it didnt damage national security.

To sum it up..Schiff (who has been humiliated while trying to work with foreign agents against his country) was faced with seeing the tenuousness of his case against Trump exposed. His supporters are neither real bright nor moral. So he decided he had nothing to lose by lying about what was in the memo and trying to scare people into not looking at it.
The memo was released anyhow (schiffs party is beaten and cant demand anything..only whine and cry) and we now see the foot dragging was a lie. A blatant, partisan, self serving with no regard for the country lie.

Were any "foreign agents" "outed"?

Umm...Carter Page was unmasked for the world to see, fool.

 

[Faun]

Meanwhile, the worst allegations of his memo were the FBI neglected to inform the FISC of the political origins of the dossier and presented unverified Intel from the dossier in order to spy on the political opponent who had backed the dossier. And that McCabe testified there would have been no warrant requested without the dossier.

The "dossier" compiled by Christopher Steele (Steele dossier) on behalf of the Democratic National Committee (DNC) and the Hillary Clinton campaign formed an essential part of the Carter Page FISA application...The application does not mention Steele was ultimately working on behalf of—and paid by—the DNC and Clinton campaign, or that the FBI had separately authorized payment to Steele for the same information...he Carter Page FISA application also cited extensively a September 23, 2016, Yahoo Newsarticle by Michael Isikoff, which focuses on Page's July 2016 trip to Moscow. This article does not corroborate the Steele dossier because it is derived from information leaked by Steele himself to Yahoo News. The Page FISA application incorrectly assesses that Steele did not directly provide information to Yahoo News. Steele has admitted in British court filings that he met with Yahoo News—and several other outlets—in September 2016 at the direction of Fusion GPS. Perkins Coie was aware of Steele's initial media contacts because they hosted at least one meeting in Washington D.C. in 2016 with Steele and Fusion GPS where this matter was discussed....in September 2016, Steele admitted to Ohr his feelings against then-candidate Trump when Steele said he "was desperate that Donald Trump not get elected and was passionate about him not, being president." This clear evidence of Steele's bias was recorded by Ohr at the time and subsequently in official FBI files—but not reflected in any of the Page FISA applications...Ohr's wife was employed by Fusion GPS to assist in the cultivation of opposition research on Trump. Ohr later provided the FBI with all of his wife's opposition research, paid for by the DNC and Clinton campaign via Fusion GPS. The Ohrs' relationship with Steele and Fusion GPS was inexplicably concealed from the FISC....FBI assessed Steele's reporting as only minimally corroborated. Yet, in early January 2017, Director Comey briefed President-elect Trump on a summary of the Steele dossier, even though it was—according to his June 2017 testimony—"salacious and unverified."

Furthermore, Deputy Director McCabe testified before the Committee in December 2017 that no surveillance warrant would have been sought from the FISC without the Steele dossier information.

The Papadopoulos information triggered the opening of an FBI counterintelligence investigation in late July 2016 by FBI agent Pete Strzok.... where they both demonstrated a clear bias against Trump and in favor of Clinton, whom Strzok had also investigated. The Strzok/Lisa Page texts also reflect extensive discussions about the investigation, orchestrating leaks to the media, and include a meeting with Deputy Director McCabe to discuss an "insurance" policy against President Trump's election.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Looks pretty plain to me. Embarrassing to Democrats and their FBI allies of course but thats par for the course. Any transparency is always an embarrassment for them.

View attachment 175828

Wow, thank you. You made my point even better than I did. You quote from the Nunes memo and the part you highlighted the brightest was the memo’s claim that Comey’s summary of the dossier is that it was “salacious and unverified.” You then point out how that looks “pretty plain” to you.

You were duped by Nunes’ memo and you don’t even know it. That’s the point. That’s why it was so wrong of the way Republicans handled this matter. It should have been investigated by an independent counsel behind closed doors to sort out. Instead, for the sake of grandstanding, Republicans decided to air our dirty laundry for the whole world to see. Even worse, they did so dishonestly by painting a false picture by mixing some facts with some half truths and some lies. All for political gain to protect Trump who feels the Mueller noose around his neck tightening and to protect their party in an election year shaping up to be devastating for the GOP.

Which brings me back to where you (collectively) were duped. And using the example you used. You highlighted, “Yet, in early January 2017, Director Comey briefed President-elect Trump on a summary of the Steele dossier, even though it was—according to his June 2017 testimony—"salacious and unverified." ”

^^^ that ^^^ was NOT according to Comey’s testimony. While Nunes cherry-picked the phrase, ”salacious and unverified,” from Comey’s testimony to create the illusion Comey was speaking of the entirety of the dossier, Comey’s full testimony was clearly speaking of only the parts which could have potentially created an embarrassment for the president. Other reports identified that as the salacious and unverified claim that Trump paid Russian prostitutes to perform a golden shower.

I first met then-President-Elect Trump on Friday, January 6 in a conference room at Trump Tower in New York. I was there with other Intelligence Community (IC) leaders to brief him and his new national security team on the findings of an IC assessment concerning Russian efforts to interfere in the election. At the conclusion of that briefing, I remained alone with the President Elect to brief him on some personally sensitive aspects of the information assembled during the assessment.

The IC leadership thought it important, for a variety of reasons, to alert the incoming President to the existence of this material, even though it was salacious and unverified. Among those reasons were: (1) we knew the media was about to publicly report the material and we believed the IC should not keep knowledge of the material and its imminent release from the President-Elect; and (2) to the extent there was some effort to compromise an incoming President, we could blunt any such effort with a defensive briefing.

The Director of National Intelligence asked that I personally do this portion of the briefing because I was staying in my position and because the material implicated the FBI's counter-intelligence responsibilities. We also agreed I would do it alone to minimize potential embarrassment to the President-Elect. Although we agreed it made sense for me to do the briefing, the FBI's leadership and I were concerned that the briefing might create a situation where a new President came into office uncertain about whether the FBI was conducting a counter-intelligence investigation of his personal conduct.​

It looks “pretty plain” to you because you’re only seeing what you want to see; which was Nunes’ intent which is why he cherry-picked much of the contents in that memo. And your claim it’s embarrassing for Democrats and the FBI falls short of reality. Evidence of that is even before the Democrat rebuttal memo makes its way into the public domain, Tepublicans are already working furiously on a follow-up memo to their first one because their first memo clearly didn’t embarrass Democrats or the FBI. But again, that’s nothing more that you only seeing what you want to see. Pesky reality is of no concern to you.

 

[jon_berzerk]

Yes, standards like failing to include any required information is grounds for rejection.

You're assuming that not a one of four judges was competent enough to catch that.

My god, man! You are dense!

You talk as if the judge already knew that the DNC and the FBI had paid for the dossier and should have pointed it out and told the petitioners to amend the application to show same. How fucking stupid can one man be?

What the petitioners did was to exclude exculpatory information that was known to them and hopefully not to the judge. That particular exclusion is ILLEGAL and DISHONEST! That makes the application a fraud on the court.

Wake the fuck up!

No, I'm operating under the idea that the judges and their staff are highly competent and don't adjudicate warrants, especially targeting American citizens, based on incomplete information.

There was no exculpatory evidence anywhere in the process.

You are naive and uneducated. You promote the asinine notion that a person can read a previously unknown report consisting of multiple pages and discern that a paragraph had been left out. You are grabbing at straws to support a nonsensical argument.

there are only two options

1- the doj fooled the fisa judge

or

2- the fisa judge knowingly gave out a warrant knowing it was based on phony evidence

either way not good

and another reason to unclassify the fisa applications

and let the sunshine in

either the judge had the wool pulled over his/her eyes

or

he/she is as guilty as those that provided the fake evidence

Of course there's a third option as well.

You were fooled by Nunes.

nope the evidence says otherwise

 

[Uncensored2008]

Sadly, all you rightards are armed with are lies.

With a Monday Vote Expected, Democrats Press to Release Their Own Memo

Democrats have publicly called for the Republican-controlled committee to release a transcript of the interview with Mr. McCabe.​

I love when interweb turds like faun make up their own reality. Remember when you turds lied about the GOP not allowing a Dem memo? Remember when Obama lied about his interactions with the investigation? All you have are lies.

You believe the corrupt shills told the FISA court that the dossier was sourced from Russian intelligence. What the fuck are you going to say when that is not in the dim memo?

I love when interweb turds like faun make up their own reality. Remember when you turds lied about the GOP not allowing a Dem memo? Remember when Obama lied about his interactions with the investigation? All you have are lies.

You believe the corrupt shills told the FISA court that the dossier was sourced from Russian intelligence. What the fuck are you going to say when that is not in the dim memo?

Who knows just how demented your mind is that you think that after your lie about Democrats not wanting McCabe’s testimony released was just thoroughly squashed.

Anyone notice how the Republicans are requesting official documents to explain what actually happened, and the paid posters on here are NOT insisting that those documents will vindicate their position, but instead are trying to still explain away what the last documentation explained, lol.

I am sorry Leftists, but it is more than obvious to anyone with any sense, that NOBODY would demand the release of factual documents from their original source, that would screw their narrative up.

Now Nunez piece was an opinion piece according to you, so your side released their own opinion piece. Yes, or no!

So now, they want the ACTUAL FACTS released, yes!

So if you are soooooooo confident in your take on the whole thing, join us in demanding it all be released! Let the chips fall where they may. Just think, no more conjecture, we will all know, and won't you finally be happy! We will no longer be able to defend our position, you will have won, isn't that correct?

So lets do this, and get it over with. What do you say? We aren't afraid, and you insist you aren't either, so you see, we actually agree on something.

TRANSPARENCY! Obama said he wanted it, Trump says he wants it, we say we want it, now how about you guys!

LOLOLOL

Let’s start with you identifying who are the paid posters here — so we can see if you’re even telling the truth...

Well, does North Korea pay you Fawn, or just promise not to feed your family to the dogs of your dictator if you tell enough lies here, on Twitter, and on Facebook?

Further, they occasionally feed you, which is more than most of your countrymen can say - so that is a form of pay.

Now, when the GOP has 56 in the Senate and retains the house, will those close to you start going to the kennels?

Come on Fawn, just because you're a troll in the employ of a foreign and hostile intelligence agency spreading disinformation in an attempt to corrupt US Elections on behalf of the globalist Communist cabal; just because you are actively working to bring down the legally elected government of the United States doesn't mean that you're a complete pile of shit with no redeeming qualites.

Oh wait, yes it does...

 

[Uncensored2008]

Anything submitted to the FISA court has to be 100% checked out. When the FBI got rid of Steele, that too had to be submitted in their FISA renewals. it sure doesn't seem like it was.

Anything submitted to the FISA court has to be 100% checked out

Sure. You don't know that it wasn't. It obviously met the standard four times in front of four different judges.

You're assuming that everyone involved with the application process lied and every judge and their staff is incompetent. That's just dumb.

No, not at all. I'm just assuming these judges have standards.

The FBI approaches FISA and says they have opposition research from a presidential candidate that she paid for, and they want to use it to get a FISA warrant on her opponent and various members of his campaign. They tell the judge that the information was not vetted and they are just taking his word for it. The person who created the dossier is a known Trump hater. What they are looking for is Trump's collusion with Russia even though they don't have an iota of evidence to support their investigation.

And the judge says "Sure, no problem, here's your warrant?"

If you think that's what took place, then I have a bridge I want to sell you.

And they do all that just so they can spy on someone not affiliated with Trump.

I believe it was an excuse to spy on Trump. After all, they had nothing on Trump in which to request a direct surveillance warrant on him. So they used the next best thing hoping that they could monitor conversations between Page, Trump or his campaign members.

What a retard ^^^

Sure, let's spy on someone not affiliated with Trump ... someone who never met Trump ... someone who never spoke with Trump .......

...... to spy on Trump.

Or, we could spy on Carter Page and use it as an excuse to spy on Trump...

Fawn meets reality

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

There you go again. Asserting that all four judges are incompetent to the "schemes" of the FBI.

Until Comey poisoned the FBI, they were an organization of integrity and honestly. What I think is that the judges didn't read the bottom line expecting nothing nefarious from the agency and skipped to the most relevant parts of the application. If the application gets released line Nunes wants it to, only then will we know what was submitted.

 

[Uncensored2008]

Now we're talking.

Nunes just stated on Fox he was going to petition the court for the entire proceedings.

The Republicans voted to unanimously release the Democrat's back peddle memo.

Grassley now after Steele.

It's getting ugly out there for all the crooks. And I'm going to love the next round of Intelligence Committee reports to hit the headlines over the next several months. And the FBI, IG, report will be a big wort on Comey's nose.

That is the obvious next move.

So, not a single Communists favored releasing the Memo. Not a single Republican voted to suppress the Communist rebuttal.

Now release the entire document so America can see who the crooks and traitors are.

Hint: It's the ones who tried to suppress information.

That should have been the first move.

I'm confused by the tactics of the Communists.

Did they think this would help them?

{(a) that doesn’t solve the problem that the original FISA application against Page evidently relied “heavily” on information passed from a not-very-credible foreign agent and (b) that doesn’t explain why the Bureau allegedly failed to tell the FISA Court in later applications to renew their surveillance of Page that Steele’s info maybe hadn’t been so credible...Grassley and Graham make another good point about Steele’s chattering to the press while his investigation was still ongoing: Once bad actors were aware that he was digging for dirt on Trump, they could have sought him out and fed him any amount of BS in hopes of it trickling through to the FBI and deepening the official suspicion surrounding Team Trump. That’s how Clinton cronies — maybe even Sid Blumenthal — got involved in this clusterfark. Because Steele was supposedly willing to accept even unsolicited tips about Trump, the Clinton team may have fed him rumors to help fill a dossier for which their boss was paying.}

Here's the FISA Memo Nobody's Talking About. It's Much More Damning Than the Much-Discussed Nunes Version.

They should have cloaked themselves in the Nunes memo, now even more proof of crimes by the FBI are out in the light.

The fault with your logic is with your assumption that whatever elements of the dossier were used have no credibility at all. By extension then, you're claiming subterfuge and malfeasance on the part of the FBI. Those are very big claims.
You simply do not know if any of that is true.

In fact they have no credibility at all. British spy Christopher Steele worked with Sydney Blumenthal, a scumbag so sleazy that even Obama, the pig who hired Loretta Lynch, the most corrupt AG in history and who hired actual and in-fact mobster Rahm Emanuel would not allow "Syd Vicious" in the White House, though Hillary begged him to. But Steele on the behest of the FBI in their jihad to elect Hillary Clinton used shit from Blumenthal and Kremlin operatives to fabricate this "dossier."

Gowdy hints Sidney Blumenthal leaked info to dossier author Steele

Despite the efforts of the boot licking leftist press, this is thousands of times bigger than Watergate, there simply is no way to bury it or cover it up.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

Anything submitted to the FISA court has to be 100% checked out. When the FBI got rid of Steele, that too had to be submitted in their FISA renewals. it sure doesn't seem like it was.

Anything submitted to the FISA court has to be 100% checked out

Sure. You don't know that it wasn't. It obviously met the standard four times in front of four different judges.

You're assuming that everyone involved with the application process lied and every judge and their staff is incompetent. That's just dumb.

No, not at all. I'm just assuming these judges have standards.



The FBI approaches FISA and says they have opposition research from a presidential candidate that she paid for, and they want to use it to get a FISA warrant on her opponent and various members of his campaign. They tell the judge that the information was not vetted and they are just taking his word for it. The person who created the dossier is a known Trump hater. What they are looking for is Trump's collusion with Russia even though they don't have an iota of evidence to support their investigation.

And the judge says "Sure, no problem, here's your warrant?"

If you think that's what took place, then I have a bridge I want to sell you.

No, not at all. I'm just assuming these judges have standards.

Yes, standards like failing to include any required information is grounds for rejection.

You're assuming that not a one of four judges was competent enough to catch that.

The judges only know what is presented to them, nothing more. This "footnote" is extremely suspicious. Why didn't they make the fact that this was opposition research and unverified transcending in their application?

The judges only know what is presented to them, nothing more.

No. They know very well what is required for them to properly adjudicate the warrant application.

But they don't do investigative work. That's not part of their job.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

Anything submitted to the FISA court has to be 100% checked out. When the FBI got rid of Steele, that too had to be submitted in their FISA renewals. it sure doesn't seem like it was.

Anything submitted to the FISA court has to be 100% checked out

Sure. You don't know that it wasn't. It obviously met the standard four times in front of four different judges.

You're assuming that everyone involved with the application process lied and every judge and their staff is incompetent. That's just dumb.

No, not at all. I'm just assuming these judges have standards.



The FBI approaches FISA and says they have opposition research from a presidential candidate that she paid for, and they want to use it to get a FISA warrant on her opponent and various members of his campaign. They tell the judge that the information was not vetted and they are just taking his word for it. The person who created the dossier is a known Trump hater. What they are looking for is Trump's collusion with Russia even though they don't have an iota of evidence to support their investigation.

And the judge says "Sure, no problem, here's your warrant?"

If you think that's what took place, then I have a bridge I want to sell you.

No, not at all. I'm just assuming these judges have standards.

Yes, standards like failing to include any required information is grounds for rejection.

You're assuming that not a one of four judges was competent enough to catch that.

The judges only know what is presented to them, nothing more. This "footnote" is extremely suspicious. Why didn't they make the fact that this was opposition research and unverified transcending in their application?

You have yet to demonstrate the evidence they gave the court was unverified.

Yet you continue to claim that to be the case.

That's what was in the Nunes memo.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

The chairman never said the information was not verified. He never identified which parts of the dossier were used. In fact, he never even said anything in his memo about anything being illegal.

He didn't? That's not what I heard. Go to YouTube and dig up Sean Hannity's interview with Nunes on Feb 5th, and tell me he didn't say the information was unverified.

 

[Faun]

I love when interweb turds like faun make up their own reality. Remember when you turds lied about the GOP not allowing a Dem memo? Remember when Obama lied about his interactions with the investigation? All you have are lies.

You believe the corrupt shills told the FISA court that the dossier was sourced from Russian intelligence. What the fuck are you going to say when that is not in the dim memo?

Who knows just how demented your mind is that you think that after your lie about Democrats not wanting McCabe’s testimony released was just thoroughly squashed.

Anyone notice how the Republicans are requesting official documents to explain what actually happened, and the paid posters on here are NOT insisting that those documents will vindicate their position, but instead are trying to still explain away what the last documentation explained, lol.

I am sorry Leftists, but it is more than obvious to anyone with any sense, that NOBODY would demand the release of factual documents from their original source, that would screw their narrative up.

Now Nunez piece was an opinion piece according to you, so your side released their own opinion piece. Yes, or no!

So now, they want the ACTUAL FACTS released, yes!

So if you are soooooooo confident in your take on the whole thing, join us in demanding it all be released! Let the chips fall where they may. Just think, no more conjecture, we will all know, and won't you finally be happy! We will no longer be able to defend our position, you will have won, isn't that correct?

So lets do this, and get it over with. What do you say? We aren't afraid, and you insist you aren't either, so you see, we actually agree on something.

TRANSPARENCY! Obama said he wanted it, Trump says he wants it, we say we want it, now how about you guys!

LOLOLOL

Let’s start with you identifying who are the paid posters here — so we can see if you’re even telling the truth...

Well, does North Korea pay you Fawn, or just promise not to feed your family to the dogs of your dictator if you tell enough lies here, on Twitter, and on Facebook?

Further, they occasionally feed you, which is more than most of your countrymen can say - so that is a form of pay.

Now, when the GOP has 56 in the Senate and retains the house, will those close to you start going to the kennels?

Come on Fawn, just because you're a troll in the employ of a foreign and hostile intelligence agency spreading disinformation in an attempt to corrupt US Elections on behalf of the globalist Communist cabal; just because you are actively working to bring down the legally elected government of the United States doesn't mean that you're a complete pile of shit with no redeeming qualites.

Oh wait, yes it does...

Sorry, but you can’t blame me for your psychotic episodes.

 

[Faun]

The chairman never said the information was not verified. He never identified which parts of the dossier were used. In fact, he never even said anything in his memo about anything being illegal.

He didn't? That's not what I heard. Go to YouTube and dig up Sean Hannity's interview with Nunes on Feb 5th, and tell me he didn't say the information was unverified.

Read his memo.

 

[asaratis]

No, not at all. I'm just assuming these judges have standards.



The FBI approaches FISA and says they have opposition research from a presidential candidate that she paid for, and they want to use it to get a FISA warrant on her opponent and various members of his campaign. They tell the judge that the information was not vetted and they are just taking his word for it. The person who created the dossier is a known Trump hater. What they are looking for is Trump's collusion with Russia even though they don't have an iota of evidence to support their investigation.

And the judge says "Sure, no problem, here's your warrant?"

If you think that's what took place, then I have a bridge I want to sell you.

No, not at all. I'm just assuming these judges have standards.

Yes, standards like failing to include any required information is grounds for rejection.

You're assuming that not a one of four judges was competent enough to catch that.

My god, man! You are dense!

You talk as if the judge already knew that the DNC and the FBI had paid for the dossier and should have pointed it out and told the petitioners to amend the application to show same. How fucking stupid can one man be?

What the petitioners did was to exclude exculpatory information that was known to them and hopefully not to the judge. That particular exclusion is ILLEGAL and DISHONEST! That makes the application a fraud on the court.

Wake the fuck up!

No, I'm operating under the idea that the judges and their staff are highly competent and don't adjudicate warrants, especially targeting American citizens, based on incomplete information.

There was no exculpatory evidence anywhere in the process.

You are naive and uneducated. You promote the asinine notion that a person can read a previously unknown report consisting of multiple pages and discern that a paragraph had been left out. You are grabbing at straws to support a nonsensical argument.

Look, dope. If it was indeed required as you assert, then they would be looking for it, right? Just as they looked for everything else that is required.

You bare evidently more dense than first thought. Please go play in The Rubber Room.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

The chairman never said the information was not verified. He never identified which parts of the dossier were used. In fact, he never even said anything in his memo about anything being illegal.

He didn't? That's not what I heard. Go to YouTube and dig up Sean Hannity's interview with Nunes on Feb 5th, and tell me he didn't say the information was unverified.

Read his memo.

I did.......several times.

 

[DOTR]

Were any "foreign agents" "outed"?

Umm...Carter Page was unmasked for the world to see, fool.

You pathetic dupe. Carter Page wasn’t a foreign asset. And a year ago it was known that A FISA warrant had been issued to monitor him. It was in all the papers. He was not “unmasked “
by the Nunes memo.
So I will hammer you again. What national security issues did the release of the Nunes memo damage? Schiff said it would cause damage to “assets”? He had read the memo. Now you and I have. We see he was a liar. There is no other explanation. And we see you are just a dupe. There is no other explanation there either.

See the proof below ?
See the date ?
Try again?

 

[DOTR]

Meanwhile, the worst allegations of his memo were the FBI neglected to inform the FISC of the political origins of the dossier and presented unverified Intel from the dossier in order to spy on the political opponent who had backed the dossier. And that McCabe testified there would have been no warrant requested without the dossier.

The "dossier" compiled by Christopher Steele (Steele dossier) on behalf of the Democratic National Committee (DNC) and the Hillary Clinton campaign formed an essential part of the Carter Page FISA application...The application does not mention Steele was ultimately working on behalf of—and paid by—the DNC and Clinton campaign, or that the FBI had separately authorized payment to Steele for the same information...he Carter Page FISA application also cited extensively a September 23, 2016, Yahoo Newsarticle by Michael Isikoff, which focuses on Page's July 2016 trip to Moscow. This article does not corroborate the Steele dossier because it is derived from information leaked by Steele himself to Yahoo News. The Page FISA application incorrectly assesses that Steele did not directly provide information to Yahoo News. Steele has admitted in British court filings that he met with Yahoo News—and several other outlets—in September 2016 at the direction of Fusion GPS. Perkins Coie was aware of Steele's initial media contacts because they hosted at least one meeting in Washington D.C. in 2016 with Steele and Fusion GPS where this matter was discussed....in September 2016, Steele admitted to Ohr his feelings against then-candidate Trump when Steele said he "was desperate that Donald Trump not get elected and was passionate about him not, being president." This clear evidence of Steele's bias was recorded by Ohr at the time and subsequently in official FBI files—but not reflected in any of the Page FISA applications...Ohr's wife was employed by Fusion GPS to assist in the cultivation of opposition research on Trump. Ohr later provided the FBI with all of his wife's opposition research, paid for by the DNC and Clinton campaign via Fusion GPS. The Ohrs' relationship with Steele and Fusion GPS was inexplicably concealed from the FISC....FBI assessed Steele's reporting as only minimally corroborated. Yet, in early January 2017, Director Comey briefed President-elect Trump on a summary of the Steele dossier, even though it was—according to his June 2017 testimony—"salacious and unverified."

Furthermore, Deputy Director McCabe testified before the Committee in December 2017 that no surveillance warrant would have been sought from the FISC without the Steele dossier information.

The Papadopoulos information triggered the opening of an FBI counterintelligence investigation in late July 2016 by FBI agent Pete Strzok.... where they both demonstrated a clear bias against Trump and in favor of Clinton, whom Strzok had also investigated. The Strzok/Lisa Page texts also reflect extensive discussions about the investigation, orchestrating leaks to the media, and include a meeting with Deputy Director McCabe to discuss an "insurance" policy against President Trump's election.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Looks pretty plain to me. Embarrassing to Democrats and their FBI allies of course but thats par for the course. Any transparency is always an embarrassment for them.

View attachment 175828

Wow, thank you. You made my point even better than I did. You quote from the Nunes memo and the part you highlighted the brightest was the memo’s claim that Comey’s summary of the dossier is that it was “salacious and unverified.” You then point out how that looks “pretty plain” to you.

You were duped by Nunes’ memo and you don’t even know it. That’s the point. That’s why it was so wrong of the way Republicans handled this matter. It should have been investigated by an independent counsel behind closed doors to sort out. Instead, for the sake of grandstanding, Republicans decided to air our dirty laundry for the whole world to see. Even worse, they did so dishonestly by painting a false picture by mixing some facts with some half truths and some lies. All for political gain to protect Trump who feels the Mueller noose around his neck tightening and to protect their party in an election year shaping up to be devastating for the GOP.

Which brings me back to where you (collectively) were duped. And using the example you used. You highlighted, “Yet, in early January 2017, Director Comey briefed President-elect Trump on a summary of the Steele dossier, even though it was—according to his June 2017 testimony—"salacious and unverified." ”

^^^ that ^^^ was NOT according to Comey’s testimony. While Nunes cherry-picked the phrase, ”salacious and unverified,” from Comey’s testimony to create the illusion Comey was speaking of the entirety of the dossier, Comey’s full testimony was clearly speaking of only the parts which could have potentially created an embarrassment for the president. Other reports identified that as the salacious and unverified claim that Trump paid Russian prostitutes to perform a golden shower.

I first met then-President-Elect Trump on Friday, January 6 in a conference room at Trump Tower in New York. I was there with other Intelligence Community (IC) leaders to brief him and his new national security team on the findings of an IC assessment concerning Russian efforts to interfere in the election. At the conclusion of that briefing, I remained alone with the President Elect to brief him on some personally sensitive aspects of the information assembled during the assessment.

The IC leadership thought it important, for a variety of reasons, to alert the incoming President to the existence of this material, even though it was salacious and unverified. Among those reasons were: (1) we knew the media was about to publicly report the material and we believed the IC should not keep knowledge of the material and its imminent release from the President-Elect; and (2) to the extent there was some effort to compromise an incoming President, we could blunt any such effort with a defensive briefing.

The Director of National Intelligence asked that I personally do this portion of the briefing because I was staying in my position and because the material implicated the FBI's counter-intelligence responsibilities. We also agreed I would do it alone to minimize potential embarrassment to the President-Elect. Although we agreed it made sense for me to do the briefing, the FBI's leadership and I were concerned that the briefing might create a situation where a new President came into office uncertain about whether the FBI was conducting a counter-intelligence investigation of his personal conduct.​

It looks “pretty plain” to you because you’re only seeing what you want to see; which was Nunes’ intent which is why he cherry-picked much of the contents in that memo. And your claim it’s embarrassing for Democrats and the FBI falls short of reality. Evidence of that is even before the Democrat rebuttal memo makes its way into the public domain, Tepublicans are already working furiously on a follow-up memo to their first one because their first memo clearly didn’t embarrass Democrats or the FBI. But again, that’s nothing more that you only seeing what you want to see. Pesky reality is of no concern to you.

That isn’t what Pencilneck Schiff said and it wasn’t what I asked you. If the above is true (and it isn’t) why didn’t Schiff say that?
Instead he lied. He said releasing the Nunes memo would endanger national security. It didn’t. He lied.
He said it would cause a constitutional crisis. It didn’t. He lied.
And he said the Republicans changed the memo. We now see they didn’t. He lied.
And he lied in service of withholding information. Typical. Exposure is what those scumbags fear most.
And this from a man caught on tape, talking to what he thought were foreign agents, bargaining for blackmail information against his own president.
A sniveling treasonous little pencilneck salivating over using foreign agents to bring down our President.

 

[DOTR]

Listen to Pencilneck Schiff thinking he is colluding with foreign agents to help them undo our election.

 

[Hutch Starskey]

There you go again. Asserting that all four judges are incompetent to the "schemes" of the FBI.

Until Comey poisoned the FBI, they were an organization of integrity and honestly. What I think is that the judges didn't read the bottom line expecting nothing nefarious from the agency and skipped to the most relevant parts of the application. If the application gets released line Nunes wants it to, only then will we know what was submitted.

Which would make them incompetent by your description.