Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
1. Show me in the memo where it said MAIN basis you can't invent text because it would fit the narrative better. Even more by saying MAIN you admit that there were other reasons to believe Page was a person of interest for the intelligence community. This immediately makes the whole narrative suspect.1. The FBI used Steele's dossier as the main basis for their FISA application to spy on Trump campaign volunteer Carter Page, even though the FBI officials involved with the matter knew that the dossier had not been properly vetted or verified. According to the head of the FBI's counterintelligence division, Assistant Director Bill Priestap, corroboration of the Steele dossier was in its "infancy" at the time of the initial Page FISA application. After Steele was terminated, a source validation report conducted by an independent unit within FBI assessed Steele's reporting as only minimally corroborated. Then-FBI Director James Comey called the dossier "salacious and unverified" when he testified in June 2017 (yet Comey signed one of the FISA warrant extensions).
2. The FBI used news articles sourced by Steele, including a Yahoo News article that had Steele as its source, to corroborate Steele's dossier.
3. The FBI falsely told the court in its FISA application that Steele did not provide information to Yahoo News about Page’s Moscow trip. But British court filings show that Steele admitted he met with Yahoo News in September 2016, two months before the FBI got its initial warrant, to discuss the trip at the direction of Fusion GPS.
4. When the FBI submitted the FISA application, which was based largely on Steele's dossier, the FBI knew that Steele was being paid by the DNC and Hillary Clinton.
5. The FBI did not tell the FISA court that information cited in its FISA application was gathered by someone who was being paid by Trump’s political opponents.
6. The FBI knew that Steele was working for Fusion GPS, a research firm that was hired by a law firm that was receiving large payments from the Clinton campaign and the DNC. The FBI also knew that the DNC and the Clinton campaign had paid Steele $160K directly. The FBI chose not to tell the FISA court about these financial connections.
7. Without the Steele dossier, the FBI would not have tried to get a FISA warrant to spy on Carter Page.
8. Even when the FBI submitted renewal applications, three of them, they never told the FISA court about the Steele dossier or Steele's financial connections with the DNC and the Clinton campaign.
9. Soon after getting the first FISA warrant, the FBI fired Steele for making unauthorized disclosures and lying to the FBI! Yet, even then, the FBI officials involved with the FISA warrant did not tell the FISA court that they had used Steele's dossier as their main source and that they had dismissed Steele as a source for disreputable conduct.
10. While the FBI was working on getting the first FISA warrant, then-Associate Deputy Attorney General Bruce Ohr’s wife was working for Fusion GPS, the firm that hired Steele to dig up dirt on Trump. At the firm, she helped conduct opposition research on Trump and his associates. The FBI did not inform the FISA court about any of this information.
'Nunes memo' revelations prove the FBI makes up its own rules
Outcry over the Nunes memo is damning for Democrats and FBI
5 Most Damning Truths From the FISA Memo
2. This is actually contested. "In reality, the article made was not “derived” from Steele. Isikoff, citing “multiple sources,” reported that U.S. intelligence officials had briefed senior members of Congress on Page's activities in Russia.:"Analysis | The memo’s description of a supposedly key news report is wrong
3. Meeting with the press is not the same as giving them the story in question.
4. So? The fact that the story comes from a source with a bias says nothing of it's accuracy. If someone gets accused of rape and it comes out that victim didn't like the rapist beforehand does that make the accusation by definition inadmissible? Btw the Steele dossier has aspects of it that have since been corroborated.
5. Again something that's contested The central argument in the Nunes memo may have just been debunked. But again why does it matter in the slightest to it's accuracy?
6. See point 5
7. Again being contested. especially because Page first showed up on the FBI's radar in 2013 LOOOOONG before Steele.FBI was 'given second Trump-Russia dossier'
8. Here we get to another thing the memo admitted. In order to get a renewal you have to get additional facts to the original warrant. In other words the Steele dossier couldn't be used in the renewals, the FBI had to be able to establish that they had turned up more evidence. Pretty important if you are trying to establish that the FBI went after Page unjustly.
9. See point 5 and 6
10. So if I have a company that has tens of thousands of employees, if the wife of one of those employees is working for a company that has a connection with a dossier accusing someone of espionage, that is so material to the FACTS of that dossier that it null in voids the accusations? Not the employee but the wife of the employee? I don't think so.
Now I'll make some points of my own.
11. The memo admits contacts with Russia first became suspect not because of the Steele dossier but because of Papadopoulos.
12. Nobody is trying to claim that Page didn't have contacts with the Russians.
13. Page was already gone from the Trump campaign when the warrant was issued. Making the accusation that it was a part of a campaign against Trump dubious at best.
14. The memo makes absolutely no mention of the Mueller investigation, again making it hard to say it is compromised in any way.
15. As a conclusion. It's pretty pathetic that Nunes released this memo which doesn't give any new facts. Clearly can't establish any real wrongdoing. It relies on half truths and destroys his committees credibility with the intelligence community.
Again being contested. especially because Page first showed up on the FBI's radar in 2013 LOOOOONG before Steele.
yet the fbi was never able to get a fisa court to issue a warrant to wiretap
until they added the fake dossier to the application
why do you leave that part out
They leave it out because it doesn't fit the narrative. These people aren't looking for the truth. They are desperately trying to cover it up.
no and they are slimy desperately trying to switch players
this is why pinning them down with the memo they want released will be so awesome
by doing so they are playing once again right into the hands of trump
who is about rope-a-dope again
You keep relying on the false information in the Nunes Memo for your talking points. And you say them like everybody believes Nunes lies.
LOL! Oh, ok! So the memo is nothing but "lies." And all the sources it cites and quotes--Dems will of course support releasing all of them so they can prove that Nunes has misquoted them, right? Right? Right?
Devon Nunes is hardly an unbiased reporter here. He was part of the transition team who was forced to recuse himself for conflict of interest. He is essentially dishonest and a Trump loyalist.
Ohhhhhhhhhhhhhh, so NOW even potential bias matters, hey?!!! Can we apply this same logic to Steele, who "passionately" wanted to keep Trump from being elected, who got huge sums of money from the DNC and Hillary, and who was even fired by the FBI for proving to be dishonest and unreliable?!! Can we? Yes? Yes? And we can also apply your logic to Strzok, who helped whitewash Hillary's e-mail and private server crimes and who revealed his loathing of Trump in messages with his lover? Can we? Yes? Yes? Please reply.
Your arguments are a joke.
Adam Schiff is the kind of scumbag that snowflakes trust. That's how they end up with a corrupt criminal like Hillary for a candidate. I am so happy that she didn't get elected. I don't think this country could have recovered from it.Trey Gowdy read the FISA application and wrote a reliable and detailed report on it. He is a former prosecutor with a remarakable record and is one of the most Ethicsl and Honest men in Government who unfortunately is disgusted by DC corruption and would rather return to Justice.
Adam Schiff by contrast in a treacherous untrustworthy scum bag and Clinton Obama Sycophant, who is not only a Partisan Liar and a traitor to his own country and The Intelligence Committee, he has continually tried to block any attempts at Transparency so we can get to the bottom of this.
He warned “The Public” of a Horrific Political Armaggedon if The Memo was released and that The Memo would expose all kinds of intelligence gathering methods and classified Sources and Endanger American Lives and it did none of that.
He sat there and BOLD FACED LIED to We The People, and when The Memo came out, He Lied Again & Said it was nothing, was a cherry picked nothing burger.
He is the asshole who tried to stop Nunes from informing The President of FBI Corruption which was his duty to do so, then had Nunes suspended from The Intelligence Committee to move him out of the way so he could control it and Obstruct the eventual release of this kind of information.
He forced Nunes to go through an Ethics Investigation and falsely accused him of multitudes of crimes to prevent Nunes from getting back on The Committee.
Nunes was cleared of everything, and Adam Schiff can no longer Obstruct the Intelligence Committee’s work anymore.
This is why we now were able to see The Memo and why it has taken so long to expose the Corruption in The FBI, DOJ & State Department!
And No Thanks to Shitty Adam Schiff!
And as a footnote here:
Adam Schiff is heavily invested in numerous Russian Corporations...interesting, huh?
You keep relying on the false information in the Nunes Memo for your talking points. And you say them like everybody believes Nunes lies.
LOL! Oh, ok! So the memo is nothing but "lies." And all the sources it cites and quotes--Dems will of course support releasing all of them so they can prove that Nunes has misquoted them, right? Right? Right?
Devon Nunes is hardly an unbiased reporter here. He was part of the transition team who was forced to recuse himself for conflict of interest. He is essentially dishonest and a Trump loyalist.
Ohhhhhhhhhhhhhh, so NOW even potential bias matters, hey?!!! Can we apply this same logic to Steele, who "passionately" wanted to keep Trump from being elected, who got huge sums of money from the DNC and Hillary, and who was even fired by the FBI for proving to be dishonest and unreliable?!! Can we? Yes? Yes? And we can also apply your logic to Strzok, who helped whitewash Hillary's e-mail and private server crimes and who revealed his loathing of Trump in messages with his lover? Can we? Yes? Yes? Please reply.
Your arguments are a joke.
How can you write a Memo based on a document you’ve never seen?
You keep hanging you hat on assertions Nunes makes based on a document he’s never seen. Those who have seen the warrant application say that the Nunes Memo is false.
Why wasn’t the Democrat Memo released? Why keep the version written by people who HAVE seen the FISA application hidden from the public?
Adam Schiff is the kind of scumbag that snowflakes trust. That's how they endup with a corrupt criminal like Hillary for a candidate. I am so happy that she didn't get elected. I don't think this country could have recovered from it.Trey Gowdy read the FISA application and wrote a reliable and detailed report on it. He is a former prosecutor with a remarakable record and is one of the most Ethicsl and Honest men in Government who unfortunately is disgusted by DC corruption and would rather return to Justice.
Adam Schiff by contrast in a treacherous untrustworthy scum bag and Clinton Obama Sycophant, who is not only a Partisan Liar and a traitor to his own country and The Intelligence Committee, he has continually tried to block any attempts at Transparency so we can get to the bottom of this.
He warned “The Public” of a Horrific Political Armaggedon if The Memo was released and that The Memo would expose all kinds of intelligence gathering methods and classified Sources and Endanger American Lives and it did none of that.
He sat there and BOLD FACED LIED to We The People, and when The Memo came out, He Lied Again & Said it was nothing, was a cherry picked nothing burger.
He is the asshole who tried to stop Nunes from informing The President of FBI Corruption which was his duty to do so, then had Nunes suspended from The Intelligence Committee to move him out of the way so he could control it and Obstruct the eventual release of this kind of information.
He forced Nunes to go through an Ethics Investigation and falsely accused him of multitudes of crimes to prevent Nunes from getting back on The Committee.
Nunes was cleared of everything, and Adam Schiff can no longer Obstruct the Intelligence Committee’s work anymore.
This is why we now were able to see The Memo and why it has taken so long to expose the Corruption in The FBI, DOJ & State Department!
And No Thanks to Shitty Adam Schiff!
And as a footnote here:
Adam Schiff is heavily invested in numerous Russian Corporations...interesting, huh?
1. Show me in the memo where it said MAIN basis you can't invent text because it would fit the narrative better. Even more by saying MAIN you admit that there were other reasons to believe Page was a person of interest for the intelligence community. This immediately makes the whole narrative suspect.1. The FBI used Steele's dossier as the main basis for their FISA application to spy on Trump campaign volunteer Carter Page, even though the FBI officials involved with the matter knew that the dossier had not been properly vetted or verified. According to the head of the FBI's counterintelligence division, Assistant Director Bill Priestap, corroboration of the Steele dossier was in its "infancy" at the time of the initial Page FISA application. After Steele was terminated, a source validation report conducted by an independent unit within FBI assessed Steele's reporting as only minimally corroborated. Then-FBI Director James Comey called the dossier "salacious and unverified" when he testified in June 2017 (yet Comey signed one of the FISA warrant extensions).
2. The FBI used news articles sourced by Steele, including a Yahoo News article that had Steele as its source, to corroborate Steele's dossier.
3. The FBI falsely told the court in its FISA application that Steele did not provide information to Yahoo News about Page’s Moscow trip. But British court filings show that Steele admitted he met with Yahoo News in September 2016, two months before the FBI got its initial warrant, to discuss the trip at the direction of Fusion GPS.
4. When the FBI submitted the FISA application, which was based largely on Steele's dossier, the FBI knew that Steele was being paid by the DNC and Hillary Clinton.
5. The FBI did not tell the FISA court that information cited in its FISA application was gathered by someone who was being paid by Trump’s political opponents.
6. The FBI knew that Steele was working for Fusion GPS, a research firm that was hired by a law firm that was receiving large payments from the Clinton campaign and the DNC. The FBI also knew that the DNC and the Clinton campaign had paid Steele $160K directly. The FBI chose not to tell the FISA court about these financial connections.
7. Without the Steele dossier, the FBI would not have tried to get a FISA warrant to spy on Carter Page.
8. Even when the FBI submitted renewal applications, three of them, they never told the FISA court about the Steele dossier or Steele's financial connections with the DNC and the Clinton campaign.
9. Soon after getting the first FISA warrant, the FBI fired Steele for making unauthorized disclosures and lying to the FBI! Yet, even then, the FBI officials involved with the FISA warrant did not tell the FISA court that they had used Steele's dossier as their main source and that they had dismissed Steele as a source for disreputable conduct.
10. While the FBI was working on getting the first FISA warrant, then-Associate Deputy Attorney General Bruce Ohr’s wife was working for Fusion GPS, the firm that hired Steele to dig up dirt on Trump. At the firm, she helped conduct opposition research on Trump and his associates. The FBI did not inform the FISA court about any of this information.
'Nunes memo' revelations prove the FBI makes up its own rules
Outcry over the Nunes memo is damning for Democrats and FBI
5 Most Damning Truths From the FISA Memo
2. This is actually contested. "In reality, the article made was not “derived” from Steele. Isikoff, citing “multiple sources,” reported that U.S. intelligence officials had briefed senior members of Congress on Page's activities in Russia.:"Analysis | The memo’s description of a supposedly key news report is wrong
3. Meeting with the press is not the same as giving them the story in question.
4. So? The fact that the story comes from a source with a bias says nothing of it's accuracy. If someone gets accused of rape and it comes out that victim didn't like the rapist beforehand does that make the accusation by definition inadmissible? Btw the Steele dossier has aspects of it that have since been corroborated.
5. Again something that's contested The central argument in the Nunes memo may have just been debunked. But again why does it matter in the slightest to it's accuracy?
6. See point 5
7. Again being contested. especially because Page first showed up on the FBI's radar in 2013 LOOOOONG before Steele.FBI was 'given second Trump-Russia dossier'
8. Here we get to another thing the memo admitted. In order to get a renewal you have to get additional facts to the original warrant. In other words the Steele dossier couldn't be used in the renewals, the FBI had to be able to establish that they had turned up more evidence. Pretty important if you are trying to establish that the FBI went after Page unjustly.
9. See point 5 and 6
10. So if I have a company that has tens of thousands of employees, if the wife of one of those employees is working for a company that has a connection with a dossier accusing someone of espionage, that is so material to the FACTS of that dossier that it null in voids the accusations? Not the employee but the wife of the employee? I don't think so.
Now I'll make some points of my own.
11. The memo admits contacts with Russia first became suspect not because of the Steele dossier but because of Papadopoulos.
12. Nobody is trying to claim that Page didn't have contacts with the Russians.
13. Page was already gone from the Trump campaign when the warrant was issued. Making the accusation that it was a part of a campaign against Trump dubious at best.
14. The memo makes absolutely no mention of the Mueller investigation, again making it hard to say it is compromised in any way.
15. As a conclusion. It's pretty pathetic that Nunes released this memo which doesn't give any new facts. Clearly can't establish any real wrongdoing. It relies on half truths and destroys his committees credibility with the intelligence community.
Again being contested. especially because Page first showed up on the FBI's radar in 2013 LOOOOONG before Steele.
yet the fbi was never able to get a fisa court to issue a warrant to wiretap
until they added the fake dossier to the application
why do you leave that part out
They leave it out because it doesn't fit the narrative. These people aren't looking for the truth. They are desperately trying to cover it up.
no and they are slimy desperately trying to switch players
this is why pinning them down with the memo they want released will be so awesome
by doing so they are playing once again right into the hands of trump
who is about rope-a-dope again
Yes, Trump is using rope-a-dope, on the American people. Why we are all obsessed with this flippin amateurish partisan memo the Trump administration has quietly passed the deadline for the implementation of sanctions against Russia passed by almost unanimous Congressional consent.
Analysis | The Trump administration’s weird explanation for withholding Russia sanctions
Not for nothing Nunes is the one that decides what's released. He has the majority so if it proves what he contests he's free to release it, why hasn't he????? Right, right,right?You keep relying on the false information in the Nunes Memo for your talking points. And you say them like everybody believes Nunes lies.
LOL! Oh, ok! So the memo is nothing but "lies." And all the sources it cites and quotes--Dems will of course support releasing all of them so they can prove that Nunes has misquoted them, right? Right? Right?
Devon Nunes is hardly an unbiased reporter here. He was part of the transition team who was forced to recuse himself for conflict of interest. He is essentially dishonest and a Trump loyalist.
Ohhhhhhhhhhhhhh, so NOW even potential bias matters, hey?!!! Can we apply this same logic to Steele, who "passionately" wanted to keep Trump from being elected, who got huge sums of money from the DNC and Hillary, and who was even fired by the FBI for proving to be dishonest and unreliable?!! Can we? Yes? Yes? And we can also apply your logic to Strzok, who helped whitewash Hillary's e-mail and private server crimes and who revealed his loathing of Trump in messages with his lover? Can we? Yes? Yes? Please reply.
Your arguments are a joke.
And you know that how? FISA warrants are sealed, do you have information none of the rest of the world has?1. Show me in the memo where it said MAIN basis you can't invent text because it would fit the narrative better. Even more by saying MAIN you admit that there were other reasons to believe Page was a person of interest for the intelligence community. This immediately makes the whole narrative suspect.1. The FBI used Steele's dossier as the main basis for their FISA application to spy on Trump campaign volunteer Carter Page, even though the FBI officials involved with the matter knew that the dossier had not been properly vetted or verified. According to the head of the FBI's counterintelligence division, Assistant Director Bill Priestap, corroboration of the Steele dossier was in its "infancy" at the time of the initial Page FISA application. After Steele was terminated, a source validation report conducted by an independent unit within FBI assessed Steele's reporting as only minimally corroborated. Then-FBI Director James Comey called the dossier "salacious and unverified" when he testified in June 2017 (yet Comey signed one of the FISA warrant extensions).
2. The FBI used news articles sourced by Steele, including a Yahoo News article that had Steele as its source, to corroborate Steele's dossier.
3. The FBI falsely told the court in its FISA application that Steele did not provide information to Yahoo News about Page’s Moscow trip. But British court filings show that Steele admitted he met with Yahoo News in September 2016, two months before the FBI got its initial warrant, to discuss the trip at the direction of Fusion GPS.
4. When the FBI submitted the FISA application, which was based largely on Steele's dossier, the FBI knew that Steele was being paid by the DNC and Hillary Clinton.
5. The FBI did not tell the FISA court that information cited in its FISA application was gathered by someone who was being paid by Trump’s political opponents.
6. The FBI knew that Steele was working for Fusion GPS, a research firm that was hired by a law firm that was receiving large payments from the Clinton campaign and the DNC. The FBI also knew that the DNC and the Clinton campaign had paid Steele $160K directly. The FBI chose not to tell the FISA court about these financial connections.
7. Without the Steele dossier, the FBI would not have tried to get a FISA warrant to spy on Carter Page.
8. Even when the FBI submitted renewal applications, three of them, they never told the FISA court about the Steele dossier or Steele's financial connections with the DNC and the Clinton campaign.
9. Soon after getting the first FISA warrant, the FBI fired Steele for making unauthorized disclosures and lying to the FBI! Yet, even then, the FBI officials involved with the FISA warrant did not tell the FISA court that they had used Steele's dossier as their main source and that they had dismissed Steele as a source for disreputable conduct.
10. While the FBI was working on getting the first FISA warrant, then-Associate Deputy Attorney General Bruce Ohr’s wife was working for Fusion GPS, the firm that hired Steele to dig up dirt on Trump. At the firm, she helped conduct opposition research on Trump and his associates. The FBI did not inform the FISA court about any of this information.
'Nunes memo' revelations prove the FBI makes up its own rules
Outcry over the Nunes memo is damning for Democrats and FBI
5 Most Damning Truths From the FISA Memo
2. This is actually contested. "In reality, the article made was not “derived” from Steele. Isikoff, citing “multiple sources,” reported that U.S. intelligence officials had briefed senior members of Congress on Page's activities in Russia.:"Analysis | The memo’s description of a supposedly key news report is wrong
3. Meeting with the press is not the same as giving them the story in question.
4. So? The fact that the story comes from a source with a bias says nothing of it's accuracy. If someone gets accused of rape and it comes out that victim didn't like the rapist beforehand does that make the accusation by definition inadmissible? Btw the Steele dossier has aspects of it that have since been corroborated.
5. Again something that's contested The central argument in the Nunes memo may have just been debunked. But again why does it matter in the slightest to it's accuracy?
6. See point 5
7. Again being contested. especially because Page first showed up on the FBI's radar in 2013 LOOOOONG before Steele.FBI was 'given second Trump-Russia dossier'
8. Here we get to another thing the memo admitted. In order to get a renewal you have to get additional facts to the original warrant. In other words the Steele dossier couldn't be used in the renewals, the FBI had to be able to establish that they had turned up more evidence. Pretty important if you are trying to establish that the FBI went after Page unjustly.
9. See point 5 and 6
10. So if I have a company that has tens of thousands of employees, if the wife of one of those employees is working for a company that has a connection with a dossier accusing someone of espionage, that is so material to the FACTS of that dossier that it null in voids the accusations? Not the employee but the wife of the employee? I don't think so.
Now I'll make some points of my own.
11. The memo admits contacts with Russia first became suspect not because of the Steele dossier but because of Papadopoulos.
12. Nobody is trying to claim that Page didn't have contacts with the Russians.
13. Page was already gone from the Trump campaign when the warrant was issued. Making the accusation that it was a part of a campaign against Trump dubious at best.
14. The memo makes absolutely no mention of the Mueller investigation, again making it hard to say it is compromised in any way.
15. As a conclusion. It's pretty pathetic that Nunes released this memo which doesn't give any new facts. Clearly can't establish any real wrongdoing. It relies on half truths and destroys his committees credibility with the intelligence community.
Again being contested. especially because Page first showed up on the FBI's radar in 2013 LOOOOONG before Steele.
yet the fbi was never able to get a fisa court to issue a warrant to wiretap
until they added the fake dossier to the application
why do you leave that part out
They leave it out because it doesn't fit the narrative. These people aren't looking for the truth. They are desperately trying to cover it up.
And you know that how? FISA warrants are sealed, do you have information none of the rest of the world has?1. Show me in the memo where it said MAIN basis you can't invent text because it would fit the narrative better. Even more by saying MAIN you admit that there were other reasons to believe Page was a person of interest for the intelligence community. This immediately makes the whole narrative suspect.1. The FBI used Steele's dossier as the main basis for their FISA application to spy on Trump campaign volunteer Carter Page, even though the FBI officials involved with the matter knew that the dossier had not been properly vetted or verified. According to the head of the FBI's counterintelligence division, Assistant Director Bill Priestap, corroboration of the Steele dossier was in its "infancy" at the time of the initial Page FISA application. After Steele was terminated, a source validation report conducted by an independent unit within FBI assessed Steele's reporting as only minimally corroborated. Then-FBI Director James Comey called the dossier "salacious and unverified" when he testified in June 2017 (yet Comey signed one of the FISA warrant extensions).
2. The FBI used news articles sourced by Steele, including a Yahoo News article that had Steele as its source, to corroborate Steele's dossier.
3. The FBI falsely told the court in its FISA application that Steele did not provide information to Yahoo News about Page’s Moscow trip. But British court filings show that Steele admitted he met with Yahoo News in September 2016, two months before the FBI got its initial warrant, to discuss the trip at the direction of Fusion GPS.
4. When the FBI submitted the FISA application, which was based largely on Steele's dossier, the FBI knew that Steele was being paid by the DNC and Hillary Clinton.
5. The FBI did not tell the FISA court that information cited in its FISA application was gathered by someone who was being paid by Trump’s political opponents.
6. The FBI knew that Steele was working for Fusion GPS, a research firm that was hired by a law firm that was receiving large payments from the Clinton campaign and the DNC. The FBI also knew that the DNC and the Clinton campaign had paid Steele $160K directly. The FBI chose not to tell the FISA court about these financial connections.
7. Without the Steele dossier, the FBI would not have tried to get a FISA warrant to spy on Carter Page.
8. Even when the FBI submitted renewal applications, three of them, they never told the FISA court about the Steele dossier or Steele's financial connections with the DNC and the Clinton campaign.
9. Soon after getting the first FISA warrant, the FBI fired Steele for making unauthorized disclosures and lying to the FBI! Yet, even then, the FBI officials involved with the FISA warrant did not tell the FISA court that they had used Steele's dossier as their main source and that they had dismissed Steele as a source for disreputable conduct.
10. While the FBI was working on getting the first FISA warrant, then-Associate Deputy Attorney General Bruce Ohr’s wife was working for Fusion GPS, the firm that hired Steele to dig up dirt on Trump. At the firm, she helped conduct opposition research on Trump and his associates. The FBI did not inform the FISA court about any of this information.
'Nunes memo' revelations prove the FBI makes up its own rules
Outcry over the Nunes memo is damning for Democrats and FBI
5 Most Damning Truths From the FISA Memo
2. This is actually contested. "In reality, the article made was not “derived” from Steele. Isikoff, citing “multiple sources,” reported that U.S. intelligence officials had briefed senior members of Congress on Page's activities in Russia.:"Analysis | The memo’s description of a supposedly key news report is wrong
3. Meeting with the press is not the same as giving them the story in question.
4. So? The fact that the story comes from a source with a bias says nothing of it's accuracy. If someone gets accused of rape and it comes out that victim didn't like the rapist beforehand does that make the accusation by definition inadmissible? Btw the Steele dossier has aspects of it that have since been corroborated.
5. Again something that's contested The central argument in the Nunes memo may have just been debunked. But again why does it matter in the slightest to it's accuracy?
6. See point 5
7. Again being contested. especially because Page first showed up on the FBI's radar in 2013 LOOOOONG before Steele.FBI was 'given second Trump-Russia dossier'
8. Here we get to another thing the memo admitted. In order to get a renewal you have to get additional facts to the original warrant. In other words the Steele dossier couldn't be used in the renewals, the FBI had to be able to establish that they had turned up more evidence. Pretty important if you are trying to establish that the FBI went after Page unjustly.
9. See point 5 and 6
10. So if I have a company that has tens of thousands of employees, if the wife of one of those employees is working for a company that has a connection with a dossier accusing someone of espionage, that is so material to the FACTS of that dossier that it null in voids the accusations? Not the employee but the wife of the employee? I don't think so.
Now I'll make some points of my own.
11. The memo admits contacts with Russia first became suspect not because of the Steele dossier but because of Papadopoulos.
12. Nobody is trying to claim that Page didn't have contacts with the Russians.
13. Page was already gone from the Trump campaign when the warrant was issued. Making the accusation that it was a part of a campaign against Trump dubious at best.
14. The memo makes absolutely no mention of the Mueller investigation, again making it hard to say it is compromised in any way.
15. As a conclusion. It's pretty pathetic that Nunes released this memo which doesn't give any new facts. Clearly can't establish any real wrongdoing. It relies on half truths and destroys his committees credibility with the intelligence community.
Again being contested. especially because Page first showed up on the FBI's radar in 2013 LOOOOONG before Steele.
yet the fbi was never able to get a fisa court to issue a warrant to wiretap
until they added the fake dossier to the application
why do you leave that part out
They leave it out because it doesn't fit the narrative. These people aren't looking for the truth. They are desperately trying to cover it up.
Here's the thing....none of that is true.... and the Democratic response when it is released will show the parts that are not true....1. The FBI used Steele's dossier as the main basis for their FISA application to spy on Trump campaign volunteer Carter Page, even though the FBI officials involved with the matter knew that the dossier had not been properly vetted or verified. According to the head of the FBI's counterintelligence division, Assistant Director Bill Priestap, corroboration of the Steele dossier was in its "infancy" at the time of the initial Page FISA application. After Steele was terminated, a source validation report conducted by an independent unit within FBI assessed Steele's reporting as only minimally corroborated. Then-FBI Director James Comey called the dossier "salacious and unverified" when he testified in June 2017 (yet Comey signed one of the FISA warrant extensions).
2. The FBI used news articles sourced by Steele, including a Yahoo News article that had Steele as its source, to corroborate Steele's dossier.
3. The FBI falsely told the court in its FISA application that Steele did not provide information to Yahoo News about Page’s Moscow trip. But British court filings show that Steele admitted he met with Yahoo News in September 2016, two months before the FBI got its initial warrant, to discuss the trip at the direction of Fusion GPS.
4. When the FBI submitted the FISA application, which was based largely on Steele's dossier, the FBI knew that Steele was being paid by the DNC and Hillary Clinton.
5. The FBI did not tell the FISA court that information cited in its FISA application was gathered by someone who was being paid by Trump’s political opponents.
6. The FBI knew that Steele was working for Fusion GPS, a research firm that was hired by a law firm that was receiving large payments from the Clinton campaign and the DNC. The FBI also knew that the DNC and the Clinton campaign had paid Steele $160K directly. The FBI chose not to tell the FISA court about these financial connections.
7. Without the Steele dossier, the FBI would not have tried to get a FISA warrant to spy on Carter Page.
8. Even when the FBI submitted renewal applications, three of them, they never told the FISA court about the Steele dossier or Steele's financial connections with the DNC and the Clinton campaign.
9. Soon after getting the first FISA warrant, the FBI fired Steele for making unauthorized disclosures and lying to the FBI! Yet, even then, the FBI officials involved with the FISA warrant did not tell the FISA court that they had used Steele's dossier as their main source and that they had dismissed Steele as a source for disreputable conduct.
10. While the FBI was working on getting the first FISA warrant, then-Associate Deputy Attorney General Bruce Ohr’s wife was working for Fusion GPS, the firm that hired Steele to dig up dirt on Trump. At the firm, she helped conduct opposition research on Trump and his associates. The FBI did not inform the FISA court about any of this information.
'Nunes memo' revelations prove the FBI makes up its own rules
Outcry over the Nunes memo is damning for Democrats and FBI
5 Most Damning Truths From the FISA Memo
You can believe what you want, and I can believe what I want..... because neither of us will ever be able to see the underlying material to verify.....
I don't trust Nunes, who never even read the underlying material that this 1st year law student staffer wrote for him....Adam Schiff the Minority chair for the Intel committee did read the under-lying material and said there were several things in the releasethememo were inaccurate due to omissions, the Justice department run by sessions said the same and the Republican hand picked by Trump FBI Director Christopher Ray....have all said that the Nunes memo is inaccurate because it left out pertinent information and facts....
Allegedly the Judge was told that the dossier was paid for opposition research, the Justice department had to show the Judge that Steele was a reliable source, the FISA warrant was not issued due to the dossier but to due other intelligence as well.... 4 different Judges on 4 different occasions approved and renewed the 90 day FISA surveillance on Carter Page, that means they showed probable cause that Carter Page was acting as an agent for a foreign power, and that each wire tap period of 90 days SHOWED the tap was working and showed the Judge the evidence that important information for our National Security was being gathered, through the tap on Page.
The tap did not begin until AFTER Page left the Trump campaign team....
And the Trump team CLAIMED Carter Page was a nobody, no one of importance on their team, never went to any f their important foreign policy meetings etc etc etc and DISOWNED him completely, in September.....a month before he was ever tapped....
so let's just say, I know this Nunes release the memo gate thing is not even close to the truth just from logic, let alone from what the Dem memo, when Trump releases it, will clarify many of those points from the right wing that you posted....
Actually, it's Nunes' memo which claims McCabe said, "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."Why did you dance around the fact that Comey, McCabe, Ohr, etc., failed to disclose to the FISA court that the main basis--or any degree of basis
I'm including this question again because I notice that you once again chose not to try to answer it. The Nunes memo says that the Steele dossier was "an essential part" of the FISA application and that McCabe himself testified that there would have been no FISA application without the Steele dossier (more on this below).
If the Nunes memo gives "no new information,"
FORKUP: Give me any information that was new in the memo. If I can't find that information by another source before Friday you'll have a point.
No, I'm just asking you to explain why the Dems so desperately fought the memo's release if it contains no new information? If it truly contains nothing new, then why did the Dems fight like rabid dogs to keep it sealed? Why?
And where is the supposedly damaging disclosure of "sources and methods"
FORKUP: I don't know, neither do i care since it does nothing to further your point of bias.
One of the Dems' arguments against releasing the memo was that it revealed sources and methods relating to intelligence collection. But we now see that that was a lie, that it contains no such information.
What were the supposed other sources for the Yahoo News article?
FORKUP: The unnamed kind.
Yeeeeeeah. Uh-huuuuuuh. Hummmmmmm. Anyway, you're avoiding the point that to "corroborate" a dossier by citing a news article cited in the dossier is shabby, pathetic "corroboration," especially when supposedly validating information presented in a FISA application.
And you realize that the FBI included that Yahoo News article in the FISA application, right? Right? Right? You knew that, right? This is pointed out in the Nunes memo, which I'm wondering if you've ever actually read.
The FBI normally does not ask for FISA warrants on people out of the blue
FORKUP: If you admit that, doesn't that destroy the argument that the FBI unjustly went after Page? You can't on the one hand blame the Steele dossier for going after Page and then admit that yes he was already a person of interest of the FBI. A warrant is not an indictment, and investigating possible foreign agents is one of the core responsibilities of the FBI. And one of the ways to investigate is monitor communication.
LOL. Uh, ok. And for how many American citizens who are working on political campaigns does the FBI seek a FISA warrant to wiretap them? Hey? 1 in 1,000? 1 every 20 years? Seeking a FISA warrant under these circumstances is extraordinarily rare, if not unprecedented.
And, again, you avoid the point that the argument that the FBI already had an interest in him is a pointless diversion because the FBI never asks for FISA warrants in *any* kind of investigation unless they have already been investigating the person or have received information on that person from another law enforcement source. A sleazy dossier prepared by a disreputable former spy who's on the DNC and Clinton payroll does not constitute valid information from a law enforcement source.
As the Nunes memo correctly observes, "This article does not corroborate the Steele dossier because it is derived from information leaked by Steele himself to Yahoo News" (Section 2).
Are you seriously claiming that this was not material information that the court deserved and needed to know?!
FORKUP: Yes I do. You can't tie Ohr to any wrongdoing in the investigation, in fact he was the one reporting on Steele's bias according to the memo,
Oh my goodness. What a joke. Let me state the obvious, which you keep ignoring: Ohr should have told the FISA court that the FISA application included information from a shady, unconfirmed dossier prepared by a discredited former spy who was taking huge sums of money from the DNC and Hilllary. And he should have told the court that the information that his wife provided was open to question, at the very least, because she was taking part in Fusion GPS's search for dirt on Trump, and because she worked for the same firm that Steele worked for.
And Ohr did not "report" on Steele's bias. He recorded it but did not inform the FISA court about Steele's "passionate" desire to keep Trump from being elected, not once during the four application processes (the original and the three renewals).
In a courtroom, when a witness is shown to have a powerful motivation to lie and/or withhold information, this is considered crucial information.
FORKUP: you can't tie Ohr's wife besides her employment, too the Steele dossier, she could be a cleaning lady for all we know. So why oh why does it have any bearing on the FISA warrant.
A "cleaning lady for all we know"?! You are not to be taken seriously. She was taking part in the Fusion GPS oppo-research effort to dig up dirt on Trump, and was getting paid to do it! But, nah, no need to tell the FISA court about that, right, even though Ohr passed along all of his wife's dirt on Trump to the FBI? Again, you are not to be taken seriously.
FORKUP: Btw. I put a lot of time and effort in going your 10 points. Yet you haven't addressed point 13 and 14 of me.
That's because they don't deserve a response but are pointless diversions from the real issues at hand.
contained information on Papadopoulos and that that information triggered the Russian-collusion
FORKUP: The memo states that the Russia investigation was triggered in late July 2016, yet Pages warrant was issued on October 16. So tell me how do you come to the conclusion it was Steele who triggered the investigation into Papadopolous. Your timeline of events is faulty. If anything that paragraph admits that the FBI had good reason to consider the entire Trump campaign as suspect.
Sigh. . . . Sheesh. . . . The dates you jump on are noted and discussed in the Nunes memo! Good grief, let's try this yet again: The information on Papadopoulos was around long before the Page FISA application was drafted and submitted. With me so far? That same information was included in the FISA application, as the Nunes memo states. So the Papadopoulos information triggered the Russian-collusion witch hunt by the ardently anti-Trump Pete Strzok, the same guy who helped with the Clinton whitewash, and that same information was included in the Carter Page FISA application.
You keep focusing on the FISA application and keep ignoring the point that the pre-existing Papadopoulos information contained in that application had already been used to trigger Strzok's Russian-collusion "investigation."
Do you need this diagrammed on a blackboard or something? Would pictures help? The point is *not* that the FISA application triggered the Russian-collusion "investigation." The point is that the Papadopoulos information both triggered Strzok's witch hunt and was used again in the FISA application.
Finally, to get back to the role that the Steele dossier played in the FISA application, not only does the Nunes memo note that the Steele dossier formed "an essential part of the Carter Page FISA application" (Section 1), but it states that McCabe himself testified that without the Steele dossier, there would have been no Page FISA application:
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. (Section 4)
Actually, it's Nunes' memo which claims McCabe said, "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."Why did you dance around the fact that Comey, McCabe, Ohr, etc., failed to disclose to the FISA court that the main basis--or any degree of basis
I'm including this question again because I notice that you once again chose not to try to answer it. The Nunes memo says that the Steele dossier was "an essential part" of the FISA application and that McCabe himself testified that there would have been no FISA application without the Steele dossier (more on this below).
If the Nunes memo gives "no new information,"
FORKUP: Give me any information that was new in the memo. If I can't find that information by another source before Friday you'll have a point.
No, I'm just asking you to explain why the Dems so desperately fought the memo's release if it contains no new information? If it truly contains nothing new, then why did the Dems fight like rabid dogs to keep it sealed? Why?
And where is the supposedly damaging disclosure of "sources and methods"
FORKUP: I don't know, neither do i care since it does nothing to further your point of bias.
One of the Dems' arguments against releasing the memo was that it revealed sources and methods relating to intelligence collection. But we now see that that was a lie, that it contains no such information.
What were the supposed other sources for the Yahoo News article?
FORKUP: The unnamed kind.
Yeeeeeeah. Uh-huuuuuuh. Hummmmmmm. Anyway, you're avoiding the point that to "corroborate" a dossier by citing a news article cited in the dossier is shabby, pathetic "corroboration," especially when supposedly validating information presented in a FISA application.
And you realize that the FBI included that Yahoo News article in the FISA application, right? Right? Right? You knew that, right? This is pointed out in the Nunes memo, which I'm wondering if you've ever actually read.
The FBI normally does not ask for FISA warrants on people out of the blue
FORKUP: If you admit that, doesn't that destroy the argument that the FBI unjustly went after Page? You can't on the one hand blame the Steele dossier for going after Page and then admit that yes he was already a person of interest of the FBI. A warrant is not an indictment, and investigating possible foreign agents is one of the core responsibilities of the FBI. And one of the ways to investigate is monitor communication.
LOL. Uh, ok. And for how many American citizens who are working on political campaigns does the FBI seek a FISA warrant to wiretap them? Hey? 1 in 1,000? 1 every 20 years? Seeking a FISA warrant under these circumstances is extraordinarily rare, if not unprecedented.
And, again, you avoid the point that the argument that the FBI already had an interest in him is a pointless diversion because the FBI never asks for FISA warrants in *any* kind of investigation unless they have already been investigating the person or have received information on that person from another law enforcement source. A sleazy dossier prepared by a disreputable former spy who's on the DNC and Clinton payroll does not constitute valid information from a law enforcement source.
As the Nunes memo correctly observes, "This article does not corroborate the Steele dossier because it is derived from information leaked by Steele himself to Yahoo News" (Section 2).
Are you seriously claiming that this was not material information that the court deserved and needed to know?!
FORKUP: Yes I do. You can't tie Ohr to any wrongdoing in the investigation, in fact he was the one reporting on Steele's bias according to the memo,
Oh my goodness. What a joke. Let me state the obvious, which you keep ignoring: Ohr should have told the FISA court that the FISA application included information from a shady, unconfirmed dossier prepared by a discredited former spy who was taking huge sums of money from the DNC and Hilllary. And he should have told the court that the information that his wife provided was open to question, at the very least, because she was taking part in Fusion GPS's search for dirt on Trump, and because she worked for the same firm that Steele worked for.
And Ohr did not "report" on Steele's bias. He recorded it but did not inform the FISA court about Steele's "passionate" desire to keep Trump from being elected, not once during the four application processes (the original and the three renewals).
In a courtroom, when a witness is shown to have a powerful motivation to lie and/or withhold information, this is considered crucial information.
FORKUP: you can't tie Ohr's wife besides her employment, too the Steele dossier, she could be a cleaning lady for all we know. So why oh why does it have any bearing on the FISA warrant.
A "cleaning lady for all we know"?! You are not to be taken seriously. She was taking part in the Fusion GPS oppo-research effort to dig up dirt on Trump, and was getting paid to do it! But, nah, no need to tell the FISA court about that, right, even though Ohr passed along all of his wife's dirt on Trump to the FBI? Again, you are not to be taken seriously.
FORKUP: Btw. I put a lot of time and effort in going your 10 points. Yet you haven't addressed point 13 and 14 of me.
That's because they don't deserve a response but are pointless diversions from the real issues at hand.
contained information on Papadopoulos and that that information triggered the Russian-collusion
FORKUP: The memo states that the Russia investigation was triggered in late July 2016, yet Pages warrant was issued on October 16. So tell me how do you come to the conclusion it was Steele who triggered the investigation into Papadopolous. Your timeline of events is faulty. If anything that paragraph admits that the FBI had good reason to consider the entire Trump campaign as suspect.
Sigh. . . . Sheesh. . . . The dates you jump on are noted and discussed in the Nunes memo! Good grief, let's try this yet again: The information on Papadopoulos was around long before the Page FISA application was drafted and submitted. With me so far? That same information was included in the FISA application, as the Nunes memo states. So the Papadopoulos information triggered the Russian-collusion witch hunt by the ardently anti-Trump Pete Strzok, the same guy who helped with the Clinton whitewash, and that same information was included in the Carter Page FISA application.
You keep focusing on the FISA application and keep ignoring the point that the pre-existing Papadopoulos information contained in that application had already been used to trigger Strzok's Russian-collusion "investigation."
Do you need this diagrammed on a blackboard or something? Would pictures help? The point is *not* that the FISA application triggered the Russian-collusion "investigation." The point is that the Papadopoulos information both triggered Strzok's witch hunt and was used again in the FISA application.
Finally, to get back to the role that the Steele dossier played in the FISA application, not only does the Nunes memo note that the Steele dossier formed "an essential part of the Carter Page FISA application" (Section 1), but it states that McCabe himself testified that without the Steele dossier, there would have been no Page FISA application:
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. (Section 4)
But that is not an actual McCabe quote. It's a paraphrase of how Nunes' memo wants to portray whatever McCabe actually said.
Had McCabe actually said no warrant would have been sought without the dossier, why didn't didn't the memo quote him verbatim??
Why did you dance around the fact that Comey, McCabe, Ohr, etc., failed to disclose to the FISA court that the main basis--or any degree of basis
Why did you dance around the fact that Comey, McCabe, Ohr, etc., failed to disclose to the FISA court that the main basis--or even a partial basis--of their application was a dossier prepared by a shady man who was getting paid by the DNC and the Clinton campaign? It is amazing that you will not confront that serious omission.
I didn't dance around it. I answered it a few times in my original post. Supposed bias is no reason to make evidence inadmissable. Judges routinely accept evidence from biased sources.Even if FISA Warrant is Based on Politically Biased Source, It Probably Won’t Amount to Anything LegallyWhy did you dance around the fact that Comey, McCabe, Ohr, etc., failed to disclose to the FISA court that the main basis--or even a partial basis--of their application was a dossier prepared by a shady man who was getting paid by the DNC and the Clinton campaign?
Still irrelevant to your point.No, I'm just asking you to explain why the Dems so desperately fought the memo's release if it contains no new information? If it truly contains nothing new, then why did the Dems fight like rabid dogs to keep it sealed? Why?
irrelevantOne of the Dems' arguments against releasing the memo was that it revealed sources and methods relating to intelligence collection. But we now see that that was a lie, that it contains no such information.
Yes I did, I also know that other things besides that and the Steele dossier were included. The memo specified the Papadopolous case and who knows what else.And you realize that the FBI included that Yahoo News article in the FISA application, right? Right? Right? You knew that, right? This is pointed out in the Nunes memo, which I'm wondering if you've ever actually read.
How many American citizens who work on political campaigns bragged to working for the Kremlin before?Carter Page Touted Kremlin Contacts in 2013 Letter. Or admitted to give Russian information on the energy business? Russian Spies Tried to Recruit Carter Page Before He Advised TrumpLOL. Uh, ok. And for how many American citizens who are working on political campaigns does the FBI seek a FISA warrant to wiretap them? Hey? 1 in 1,000? 1 every 20 years?
It destroys your claim of bias. Claiming the FBI was investigating him but then claim it's biased because it asked for a warrant is bizarre to say the least.FBI never asks for FISA warrants in *any* kind of investigation unless they have already been investigating the person
Bias doesn't destroy the validity, neither can you claim the dossier stood by itselfA sleazy dossier prepared by a disreputable former spy who's on the DNC and Clinton payroll does not constitute valid information from a law enforcement source.
You don't think it's that the FISA warrant was issued after Page left the campaign is important when you are trying to claim bias against the campaign? Why not? I think that goes right to the heart of the issue.That's because they don't deserve a response but are pointless diversions from the real issues at hand.
Yes and therefore makes the hiring of Page by the Trump campaign even more interesting from a counter espionage standpoint since now you have 2 people in the campaign trying to cultivate or have direct links to the Russian government. Three if you count Manafort.The dates you jump on are noted and discussed in the Nunes memo! Good grief, let's try this yet again: The information on Papadopoulos was around long before the Page FISA application was drafted and submitted.
Again that's being contested and could easily be resolved if Nunes released the relevant transcript which he hasn't. Convenient don't you think?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.
Nice Spin... too bad none of you're conjecture is true...Here's the thing....none of that is true.... and the Democratic response when it is released will show the parts that are not true....1. The FBI used Steele's dossier as the main basis for their FISA application to spy on Trump campaign volunteer Carter Page, even though the FBI officials involved with the matter knew that the dossier had not been properly vetted or verified. According to the head of the FBI's counterintelligence division, Assistant Director Bill Priestap, corroboration of the Steele dossier was in its "infancy" at the time of the initial Page FISA application. After Steele was terminated, a source validation report conducted by an independent unit within FBI assessed Steele's reporting as only minimally corroborated. Then-FBI Director James Comey called the dossier "salacious and unverified" when he testified in June 2017 (yet Comey signed one of the FISA warrant extensions).
2. The FBI used news articles sourced by Steele, including a Yahoo News article that had Steele as its source, to corroborate Steele's dossier.
3. The FBI falsely told the court in its FISA application that Steele did not provide information to Yahoo News about Page’s Moscow trip. But British court filings show that Steele admitted he met with Yahoo News in September 2016, two months before the FBI got its initial warrant, to discuss the trip at the direction of Fusion GPS.
4. When the FBI submitted the FISA application, which was based largely on Steele's dossier, the FBI knew that Steele was being paid by the DNC and Hillary Clinton.
5. The FBI did not tell the FISA court that information cited in its FISA application was gathered by someone who was being paid by Trump’s political opponents.
6. The FBI knew that Steele was working for Fusion GPS, a research firm that was hired by a law firm that was receiving large payments from the Clinton campaign and the DNC. The FBI also knew that the DNC and the Clinton campaign had paid Steele $160K directly. The FBI chose not to tell the FISA court about these financial connections.
7. Without the Steele dossier, the FBI would not have tried to get a FISA warrant to spy on Carter Page.
8. Even when the FBI submitted renewal applications, three of them, they never told the FISA court about the Steele dossier or Steele's financial connections with the DNC and the Clinton campaign.
9. Soon after getting the first FISA warrant, the FBI fired Steele for making unauthorized disclosures and lying to the FBI! Yet, even then, the FBI officials involved with the FISA warrant did not tell the FISA court that they had used Steele's dossier as their main source and that they had dismissed Steele as a source for disreputable conduct.
10. While the FBI was working on getting the first FISA warrant, then-Associate Deputy Attorney General Bruce Ohr’s wife was working for Fusion GPS, the firm that hired Steele to dig up dirt on Trump. At the firm, she helped conduct opposition research on Trump and his associates. The FBI did not inform the FISA court about any of this information.
'Nunes memo' revelations prove the FBI makes up its own rules
Outcry over the Nunes memo is damning for Democrats and FBI
5 Most Damning Truths From the FISA Memo
You can believe what you want, and I can believe what I want..... because neither of us will ever be able to see the underlying material to verify.....
I don't trust Nunes, who never even read the underlying material that this 1st year law student staffer wrote for him....Adam Schiff the Minority chair for the Intel committee did read the under-lying material and said there were several things in the releasethememo were inaccurate due to omissions, the Justice department run by sessions said the same and the Republican hand picked by Trump FBI Director Christopher Ray....have all said that the Nunes memo is inaccurate because it left out pertinent information and facts....
Allegedly the Judge was told that the dossier was paid for opposition research, the Justice department had to show the Judge that Steele was a reliable source, the FISA warrant was not issued due to the dossier but to due other intelligence as well.... 4 different Judges on 4 different occasions approved and renewed the 90 day FISA surveillance on Carter Page, that means they showed probable cause that Carter Page was acting as an agent for a foreign power, and that each wire tap period of 90 days SHOWED the tap was working and showed the Judge the evidence that important information for our National Security was being gathered, through the tap on Page.
The tap did not begin until AFTER Page left the Trump campaign team....
And the Trump team CLAIMED Carter Page was a nobody, no one of importance on their team, never went to any f their important foreign policy meetings etc etc etc and DISOWNED him completely, in September.....a month before he was ever tapped....
so let's just say, I know this Nunes release the memo gate thing is not even close to the truth just from logic, let alone from what the Dem memo, when Trump releases it, will clarify many of those points from the right wing that you posted....
There were also quotes in the memo. Why paraphrase one of the key points of the memo?Actually, it's Nunes' memo which claims McCabe said, "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."Why did you dance around the fact that Comey, McCabe, Ohr, etc., failed to disclose to the FISA court that the main basis--or any degree of basis
I'm including this question again because I notice that you once again chose not to try to answer it. The Nunes memo says that the Steele dossier was "an essential part" of the FISA application and that McCabe himself testified that there would have been no FISA application without the Steele dossier (more on this below).
If the Nunes memo gives "no new information,"
FORKUP: Give me any information that was new in the memo. If I can't find that information by another source before Friday you'll have a point.
No, I'm just asking you to explain why the Dems so desperately fought the memo's release if it contains no new information? If it truly contains nothing new, then why did the Dems fight like rabid dogs to keep it sealed? Why?
And where is the supposedly damaging disclosure of "sources and methods"
FORKUP: I don't know, neither do i care since it does nothing to further your point of bias.
One of the Dems' arguments against releasing the memo was that it revealed sources and methods relating to intelligence collection. But we now see that that was a lie, that it contains no such information.
What were the supposed other sources for the Yahoo News article?
FORKUP: The unnamed kind.
Yeeeeeeah. Uh-huuuuuuh. Hummmmmmm. Anyway, you're avoiding the point that to "corroborate" a dossier by citing a news article cited in the dossier is shabby, pathetic "corroboration," especially when supposedly validating information presented in a FISA application.
And you realize that the FBI included that Yahoo News article in the FISA application, right? Right? Right? You knew that, right? This is pointed out in the Nunes memo, which I'm wondering if you've ever actually read.
The FBI normally does not ask for FISA warrants on people out of the blue
FORKUP: If you admit that, doesn't that destroy the argument that the FBI unjustly went after Page? You can't on the one hand blame the Steele dossier for going after Page and then admit that yes he was already a person of interest of the FBI. A warrant is not an indictment, and investigating possible foreign agents is one of the core responsibilities of the FBI. And one of the ways to investigate is monitor communication.
LOL. Uh, ok. And for how many American citizens who are working on political campaigns does the FBI seek a FISA warrant to wiretap them? Hey? 1 in 1,000? 1 every 20 years? Seeking a FISA warrant under these circumstances is extraordinarily rare, if not unprecedented.
And, again, you avoid the point that the argument that the FBI already had an interest in him is a pointless diversion because the FBI never asks for FISA warrants in *any* kind of investigation unless they have already been investigating the person or have received information on that person from another law enforcement source. A sleazy dossier prepared by a disreputable former spy who's on the DNC and Clinton payroll does not constitute valid information from a law enforcement source.
As the Nunes memo correctly observes, "This article does not corroborate the Steele dossier because it is derived from information leaked by Steele himself to Yahoo News" (Section 2).
Are you seriously claiming that this was not material information that the court deserved and needed to know?!
FORKUP: Yes I do. You can't tie Ohr to any wrongdoing in the investigation, in fact he was the one reporting on Steele's bias according to the memo,
Oh my goodness. What a joke. Let me state the obvious, which you keep ignoring: Ohr should have told the FISA court that the FISA application included information from a shady, unconfirmed dossier prepared by a discredited former spy who was taking huge sums of money from the DNC and Hilllary. And he should have told the court that the information that his wife provided was open to question, at the very least, because she was taking part in Fusion GPS's search for dirt on Trump, and because she worked for the same firm that Steele worked for.
And Ohr did not "report" on Steele's bias. He recorded it but did not inform the FISA court about Steele's "passionate" desire to keep Trump from being elected, not once during the four application processes (the original and the three renewals).
In a courtroom, when a witness is shown to have a powerful motivation to lie and/or withhold information, this is considered crucial information.
FORKUP: you can't tie Ohr's wife besides her employment, too the Steele dossier, she could be a cleaning lady for all we know. So why oh why does it have any bearing on the FISA warrant.
A "cleaning lady for all we know"?! You are not to be taken seriously. She was taking part in the Fusion GPS oppo-research effort to dig up dirt on Trump, and was getting paid to do it! But, nah, no need to tell the FISA court about that, right, even though Ohr passed along all of his wife's dirt on Trump to the FBI? Again, you are not to be taken seriously.
FORKUP: Btw. I put a lot of time and effort in going your 10 points. Yet you haven't addressed point 13 and 14 of me.
That's because they don't deserve a response but are pointless diversions from the real issues at hand.
contained information on Papadopoulos and that that information triggered the Russian-collusion
FORKUP: The memo states that the Russia investigation was triggered in late July 2016, yet Pages warrant was issued on October 16. So tell me how do you come to the conclusion it was Steele who triggered the investigation into Papadopolous. Your timeline of events is faulty. If anything that paragraph admits that the FBI had good reason to consider the entire Trump campaign as suspect.
Sigh. . . . Sheesh. . . . The dates you jump on are noted and discussed in the Nunes memo! Good grief, let's try this yet again: The information on Papadopoulos was around long before the Page FISA application was drafted and submitted. With me so far? That same information was included in the FISA application, as the Nunes memo states. So the Papadopoulos information triggered the Russian-collusion witch hunt by the ardently anti-Trump Pete Strzok, the same guy who helped with the Clinton whitewash, and that same information was included in the Carter Page FISA application.
You keep focusing on the FISA application and keep ignoring the point that the pre-existing Papadopoulos information contained in that application had already been used to trigger Strzok's Russian-collusion "investigation."
Do you need this diagrammed on a blackboard or something? Would pictures help? The point is *not* that the FISA application triggered the Russian-collusion "investigation." The point is that the Papadopoulos information both triggered Strzok's witch hunt and was used again in the FISA application.
Finally, to get back to the role that the Steele dossier played in the FISA application, not only does the Nunes memo note that the Steele dossier formed "an essential part of the Carter Page FISA application" (Section 1), but it states that McCabe himself testified that without the Steele dossier, there would have been no Page FISA application:
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. (Section 4)
But that is not an actual McCabe quote. It's a paraphrase of how Nunes' memo wants to portray whatever McCabe actually said.
Had McCabe actually said no warrant would have been sought without the dossier, why didn't didn't the memo quote him verbatim??
Uh, it's called a paraphrase, one of several in the memo. Nunes has addressed this and has noted that the transcript of McCabe's testimony clearly conveys and supports this paraphrase. Nunes has also said he strongly supports releasing the transcript of McCabe's testimony.
You Dems will fully support releasing McCabe's testimony, right? Right? Right?
1. Show me in the memo where it said MAIN basis you can't invent text because it would fit the narrative better. Even more by saying MAIN you admit that there were other reasons to believe Page was a person of interest for the intelligence community. This immediately makes the whole narrative suspect.1. The FBI used Steele's dossier as the main basis for their FISA application to spy on Trump campaign volunteer Carter Page, even though the FBI officials involved with the matter knew that the dossier had not been properly vetted or verified. According to the head of the FBI's counterintelligence division, Assistant Director Bill Priestap, corroboration of the Steele dossier was in its "infancy" at the time of the initial Page FISA application. After Steele was terminated, a source validation report conducted by an independent unit within FBI assessed Steele's reporting as only minimally corroborated. Then-FBI Director James Comey called the dossier "salacious and unverified" when he testified in June 2017 (yet Comey signed one of the FISA warrant extensions).
2. The FBI used news articles sourced by Steele, including a Yahoo News article that had Steele as its source, to corroborate Steele's dossier.
3. The FBI falsely told the court in its FISA application that Steele did not provide information to Yahoo News about Page’s Moscow trip. But British court filings show that Steele admitted he met with Yahoo News in September 2016, two months before the FBI got its initial warrant, to discuss the trip at the direction of Fusion GPS.
4. When the FBI submitted the FISA application, which was based largely on Steele's dossier, the FBI knew that Steele was being paid by the DNC and Hillary Clinton.
5. The FBI did not tell the FISA court that information cited in its FISA application was gathered by someone who was being paid by Trump’s political opponents.
6. The FBI knew that Steele was working for Fusion GPS, a research firm that was hired by a law firm that was receiving large payments from the Clinton campaign and the DNC. The FBI also knew that the DNC and the Clinton campaign had paid Steele $160K directly. The FBI chose not to tell the FISA court about these financial connections.
7. Without the Steele dossier, the FBI would not have tried to get a FISA warrant to spy on Carter Page.
8. Even when the FBI submitted renewal applications, three of them, they never told the FISA court about the Steele dossier or Steele's financial connections with the DNC and the Clinton campaign.
9. Soon after getting the first FISA warrant, the FBI fired Steele for making unauthorized disclosures and lying to the FBI! Yet, even then, the FBI officials involved with the FISA warrant did not tell the FISA court that they had used Steele's dossier as their main source and that they had dismissed Steele as a source for disreputable conduct.
10. While the FBI was working on getting the first FISA warrant, then-Associate Deputy Attorney General Bruce Ohr’s wife was working for Fusion GPS, the firm that hired Steele to dig up dirt on Trump. At the firm, she helped conduct opposition research on Trump and his associates. The FBI did not inform the FISA court about any of this information.
'Nunes memo' revelations prove the FBI makes up its own rules
Outcry over the Nunes memo is damning for Democrats and FBI
5 Most Damning Truths From the FISA Memo
2. This is actually contested. "In reality, the article made was not “derived” from Steele. Isikoff, citing “multiple sources,” reported that U.S. intelligence officials had briefed senior members of Congress on Page's activities in Russia.:"Analysis | The memo’s description of a supposedly key news report is wrong
3. Meeting with the press is not the same as giving them the story in question.
4. So? The fact that the story comes from a source with a bias says nothing of it's accuracy. If someone gets accused of rape and it comes out that victim didn't like the rapist beforehand does that make the accusation by definition inadmissible? Btw the Steele dossier has aspects of it that have since been corroborated.
5. Again something that's contested The central argument in the Nunes memo may have just been debunked. But again why does it matter in the slightest to it's accuracy?
6. See point 5
7. Again being contested. especially because Page first showed up on the FBI's radar in 2013 LOOOOONG before Steele.FBI was 'given second Trump-Russia dossier'
8. Here we get to another thing the memo admitted. In order to get a renewal you have to get additional facts to the original warrant. In other words the Steele dossier couldn't be used in the renewals, the FBI had to be able to establish that they had turned up more evidence. Pretty important if you are trying to establish that the FBI went after Page unjustly.
9. See point 5 and 6
10. So if I have a company that has tens of thousands of employees, if the wife of one of those employees is working for a company that has a connection with a dossier accusing someone of espionage, that is so material to the FACTS of that dossier that it null in voids the accusations? Not the employee but the wife of the employee? I don't think so.
Now I'll make some points of my own.
11. The memo admits contacts with Russia first became suspect not because of the Steele dossier but because of Papadopoulos.
12. Nobody is trying to claim that Page didn't have contacts with the Russians.
13. Page was already gone from the Trump campaign when the warrant was issued. Making the accusation that it was a part of a campaign against Trump dubious at best.
14. The memo makes absolutely no mention of the Mueller investigation, again making it hard to say it is compromised in any way.
15. As a conclusion. It's pretty pathetic that Nunes released this memo which doesn't give any new facts. Clearly can't establish any real wrongdoing. It relies on half truths and destroys his committees credibility with the intelligence community.
What a pack of lies, half-truths, and distortions. Some points in reply:
Why did you avoid the fact that Comey himself said the Steele dossier was “salacious and unverified"? That according to Assistant Director Bill Priestap, corroboration of the Steele dossier was in its “infancy” at the time of the initial Page FISA application? That after Steele was terminated, a source validation report conducted by an independent unit within FBI assessed Steele’s reporting as only minimally corroborated?
Why did you dance around the fact that Comey, McCabe, Ohr, etc., failed to disclose to the FISA court that the main basis--or even a partial basis--of their application was a dossier prepared by a shady man who was getting paid by the DNC and the Clinton campaign? It is amazing that you will not confront that serious omission.
If the Nunes memo gives "no new information," why did the Dems fight like crazed dogs to keep it sealed? And where is the supposedly damaging disclosure of "sources and methods" that the Dems claimed the Nunes memo contained and that they used as one of their excuses for opposing the memo's release?
What were the supposed other sources for the Yahoo News article? Even if Steele was a minor/secondary source for the article, citing the article as corroboration for Steele's dossier was shabby, disreputable vetting. Since when do news stories constitute corroboration for material used in a FISA warrant application? Since when? Please answer this question.
The Nunes memo states that McCabe testified that without the Steele dossier, there would have been no FISA warrant application. Oh, this is "contested" and "disputed." Well, yeah, Dems are disputing all kinds of clear, obvious facts that they don't have the honesty and patriotism to admit. I trust that the Dems will not object to releasing the transcript of McCable's classified testimony so that we can verify that McCabe said what Nunes says he said. Right? Right?
OF COURSE Page was already being investigated when the FBI asked for the FISA warrant! Duh! This is a Dem talking point that all the liberal networks keep repeating. Do you guys even think before you voice such silly stuff? The FBI normally does not ask for FISA warrants on people out of the blue, on people they know nothing about until the time they prepare the warrant application. So of course Page had already "appeared on their radar"! The point is that when the FBI went to get a FISA warrant on him, they used a lying dossier done by a shady character who was taking big bucks from the Clintons and the DNC to dig up dirt on Trump, and that the FBI did not even inform the FISA court that that dossier formed any part of the basis for the FISA application.
You argue that "the memo admits contacts with Russia first became suspect not because of the Steele dossier but because of Papadopoulos." Uh, you left out something, didn't you? The memo also states that the FISA application contained information on Papadopoulos and that that information triggered the Russian-collusion investigation. Let's the read the relevant part of the memo, shall we? Here you go:
The Page FISA application also mentions information regarding fellow Trump campaign advisor George Papadopoulos, but there is no evidence of any cooperation or conspiracy between Page and Papadopoulos. The Papadopoulos information triggered the opening of an FBI counterintelligence investigation in late July 2016 by FBI agent Pete Strzok. (Section 5)
Did you somehow miss that part of the memo when you skimmed over it? Have you actually read the memo, or are you relying on Democratic summaries of it? If you read the memo, how did you miss the above information?
If the FBI had not used the Steele dossier, there would have been no FISA application and no information on Papadopoulos to trigger the Russian-collusion witch hunt.
What was the supposed additional information that justified the FISA warrant extensions? And why didn't Comey and McCabe & Company bother to inform the FISA court about Steele's firing, his receipt of $160K from the DNC/Clinton campaign, and his role with Fusion GPS?
If the Steele dossier was not the main basis of the FISA application, then what was? Let's see it. The Nunes memo says that McCabe testified that there would have been no FISA application without the Steele dossier. You "dispute" that? Good, then I trust you'll strongly support releasing McCabe's testimony. Right? Right?
I find your excuses for the hiding of Ohr's wife's connection with Fusion GPS almost comical. Let's get some facts straight: "During this same time period, 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 [the FISA court]." Are you seriously claiming that this was not material information that the court deserved and needed to know?!
Why did you dance around the fact that Comey, McCabe, Ohr, etc., failed to disclose to the FISA court that the main basis--or any degree of basisWhy did you dance around the fact that Comey, McCabe, Ohr, etc., failed to disclose to the FISA court that the main basis--or even a partial basis--of their application was a dossier prepared by a shady man who was getting paid by the DNC and the Clinton campaign? It is amazing that you will not confront that serious omission.
I didn't dance around it. I answered it a few times in my original post. Supposed bias is no reason to make evidence inadmissable. Judges routinely accept evidence from biased sources.Even if FISA Warrant is Based on Politically Biased Source, It Probably Won’t Amount to Anything LegallyWhy did you dance around the fact that Comey, McCabe, Ohr, etc., failed to disclose to the FISA court that the main basis--or even a partial basis--of their application was a dossier prepared by a shady man who was getting paid by the DNC and the Clinton campaign?
Still irrelevant to your point.No, I'm just asking you to explain why the Dems so desperately fought the memo's release if it contains no new information? If it truly contains nothing new, then why did the Dems fight like rabid dogs to keep it sealed? Why?
irrelevantOne of the Dems' arguments against releasing the memo was that it revealed sources and methods relating to intelligence collection. But we now see that that was a lie, that it contains no such information.
Yes I did, I also know that other things besides that and the Steele dossier were included. The memo specified the Papadopolous case and who knows what else.And you realize that the FBI included that Yahoo News article in the FISA application, right? Right? Right? You knew that, right? This is pointed out in the Nunes memo, which I'm wondering if you've ever actually read.
How many American citizens who work on political campaigns bragged to working for the Kremlin before?Carter Page Touted Kremlin Contacts in 2013 Letter. Or admitted to give Russian information on the energy business? Russian Spies Tried to Recruit Carter Page Before He Advised TrumpLOL. Uh, ok. And for how many American citizens who are working on political campaigns does the FBI seek a FISA warrant to wiretap them? Hey? 1 in 1,000? 1 every 20 years?
Or first denied then admitted he met with Russian officials during 2 trips to Moscow in 2016 Former Trump adviser Page met Russian officials in 2016 Moscow trips
Seems to me those things standing alone would warrant further investigation by the FBI.
It destroys your claim of bias. Claiming the FBI was investigating him but then claim it's biased because it asked for a warrant is bizarre to say the least.FBI never asks for FISA warrants in *any* kind of investigation unless they have already been investigating the person
Bias doesn't destroy the validity, neither can you claim the dossier stood by itselfA sleazy dossier prepared by a disreputable former spy who's on the DNC and Clinton payroll does not constitute valid information from a law enforcement source.
You don't think it's that the FISA warrant was issued after Page left the campaign is important when you are trying to claim bias against the campaign? Why not? I think that goes right to the heart of the issue.That's because they don't deserve a response but are pointless diversions from the real issues at hand.
The same goes for the fact that in no way does the Mueller campaign gets compromised since Trump is trying to use the memo as vindication.
Yes and therefore makes the hiring of Page by the Trump campaign even more interesting from a counter espionage standpoint since now you have 2 people in the campaign trying to cultivate or have direct links to the Russian government. Three if you count Manafort.The dates you jump on are noted and discussed in the Nunes memo! Good grief, let's try this yet again: The information on Papadopoulos was around long before the Page FISA application was drafted and submitted.
Again that's being contested and could easily be resolved if Nunes released the relevant transcript which he hasn't. Convenient don't you think?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.
But also, these acts reveal that they used these as an excuse to1. The FBI used Steele's dossier as the main basis for their FISA application to spy on Trump campaign volunteer Carter Page, even though the FBI officials involved with the matter knew that the dossier had not been properly vetted or verified. According to the head of the FBI's counterintelligence division, Assistant Director Bill Priestap, corroboration of the Steele dossier was in its "infancy" at the time of the initial Page FISA application. After Steele was terminated, a source validation report conducted by an independent unit within FBI assessed Steele's reporting as only minimally corroborated. Then-FBI Director James Comey called the dossier "salacious and unverified" when he testified in June 2017 (yet Comey signed one of the FISA warrant extensions).
2. The FBI used news articles sourced by Steele, including a Yahoo News article that had Steele as its source, to corroborate Steele's dossier.
3. The FBI falsely told the court in its FISA application that Steele did not provide information to Yahoo News about Page’s Moscow trip. But British court filings show that Steele admitted he met with Yahoo News in September 2016, two months before the FBI got its initial warrant, to discuss the trip at the direction of Fusion GPS.
4. When the FBI submitted the FISA application, which was based largely on Steele's dossier, the FBI knew that Steele was being paid by the DNC and Hillary Clinton.
5. The FBI did not tell the FISA court that information cited in its FISA application was gathered by someone who was being paid by Trump’s political opponents.
6. The FBI knew that Steele was working for Fusion GPS, a research firm that was hired by a law firm that was receiving large payments from the Clinton campaign and the DNC. The FBI also knew that the DNC and the Clinton campaign had paid Steele $160K directly. The FBI chose not to tell the FISA court about these financial connections.
7. Without the Steele dossier, the FBI would not have tried to get a FISA warrant to spy on Carter Page.
8. Even when the FBI submitted renewal applications, three of them, they never told the FISA court about the Steele dossier or Steele's financial connections with the DNC and the Clinton campaign.
9. Soon after getting the first FISA warrant, the FBI fired Steele for making unauthorized disclosures and lying to the FBI! Yet, even then, the FBI officials involved with the FISA warrant did not tell the FISA court that they had used Steele's dossier as their main source and that they had dismissed Steele as a source for disreputable conduct.
10. While the FBI was working on getting the first FISA warrant, then-Associate Deputy Attorney General Bruce Ohr’s wife was working for Fusion GPS, the firm that hired Steele to dig up dirt on Trump. At the firm, she helped conduct opposition research on Trump and his associates. The FBI did not inform the FISA court about any of this information.
'Nunes memo' revelations prove the FBI makes up its own rules
Outcry over the Nunes memo is damning for Democrats and FBI
5 Most Damning Truths From the FISA Memo
Why did you dance around the fact that Comey, McCabe, Ohr, etc., failed to disclose to the FISA court that the main basis--or any degree of basisWhy did you dance around the fact that Comey, McCabe, Ohr, etc., failed to disclose to the FISA court that the main basis--or even a partial basis--of their application was a dossier prepared by a shady man who was getting paid by the DNC and the Clinton campaign? It is amazing that you will not confront that serious omission.
I didn't dance around it. I answered it a few times in my original post. Supposed bias is no reason to make evidence inadmissable. Judges routinely accept evidence from biased sources.Even if FISA Warrant is Based on Politically Biased Source, It Probably Won’t Amount to Anything LegallyWhy did you dance around the fact that Comey, McCabe, Ohr, etc., failed to disclose to the FISA court that the main basis--or even a partial basis--of their application was a dossier prepared by a shady man who was getting paid by the DNC and the Clinton campaign?
Still irrelevant to your point.No, I'm just asking you to explain why the Dems so desperately fought the memo's release if it contains no new information? If it truly contains nothing new, then why did the Dems fight like rabid dogs to keep it sealed? Why?
irrelevantOne of the Dems' arguments against releasing the memo was that it revealed sources and methods relating to intelligence collection. But we now see that that was a lie, that it contains no such information.
Yes I did, I also know that other things besides that and the Steele dossier were included. The memo specified the Papadopolous case and who knows what else.And you realize that the FBI included that Yahoo News article in the FISA application, right? Right? Right? You knew that, right? This is pointed out in the Nunes memo, which I'm wondering if you've ever actually read.
How many American citizens who work on political campaigns bragged to working for the Kremlin before?Carter Page Touted Kremlin Contacts in 2013 Letter. Or admitted to give Russian information on the energy business? Russian Spies Tried to Recruit Carter Page Before He Advised TrumpLOL. Uh, ok. And for how many American citizens who are working on political campaigns does the FBI seek a FISA warrant to wiretap them? Hey? 1 in 1,000? 1 every 20 years?
Or first denied then admitted he met with Russian officials during 2 trips to Moscow in 2016 Former Trump adviser Page met Russian officials in 2016 Moscow trips
Seems to me those things standing alone would warrant further investigation by the FBI.
It destroys your claim of bias. Claiming the FBI was investigating him but then claim it's biased because it asked for a warrant is bizarre to say the least.FBI never asks for FISA warrants in *any* kind of investigation unless they have already been investigating the person
Bias doesn't destroy the validity, neither can you claim the dossier stood by itselfA sleazy dossier prepared by a disreputable former spy who's on the DNC and Clinton payroll does not constitute valid information from a law enforcement source.
You don't think it's that the FISA warrant was issued after Page left the campaign is important when you are trying to claim bias against the campaign? Why not? I think that goes right to the heart of the issue.That's because they don't deserve a response but are pointless diversions from the real issues at hand.
The same goes for the fact that in no way does the Mueller campaign gets compromised since Trump is trying to use the memo as vindication.
Yes and therefore makes the hiring of Page by the Trump campaign even more interesting from a counter espionage standpoint since now you have 2 people in the campaign trying to cultivate or have direct links to the Russian government. Three if you count Manafort.The dates you jump on are noted and discussed in the Nunes memo! Good grief, let's try this yet again: The information on Papadopoulos was around long before the Page FISA application was drafted and submitted.
Again that's being contested and could easily be resolved if Nunes released the relevant transcript which he hasn't. Convenient don't you think?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.
I see we're gonna go around in circles because you won't admit anything. But, a few points in reply:
* "Bias" is one thing; actively working for and taking money from the person's enemies is something entirely different.
* No, judges do not routinely routinely accept evidence from a source who is being paid by the subject's enemies to dig up dirt on him and who proves so unreliable that even those enemies fire him for being dishonest and unreliable. You must be kidding.
* The court in this case did not know it was accepting information from such a disreputable source because Comey, McCabe, etc., never told the court about the source's character, motivation, and financial connections.
* It is beyond silly to say that the fact that the FBI was already investigating Page proves there was no bias. The fact that the FBI used the Steele dossier as an "ESSENTIAL" part of the FISA application and then failed to reveal that the information was coming from that dossier shows clear bias, as do the texts from Strzok.
* If the initial information on Page was as compelling as you claim, then why did the FBI have to use the Steele dossier at all, much less as an "ESSENTIAL" part of the FISA application? And, oh, what happened to Carter Page?
* According to the memo, McCabe testified that there would have been no FISA application without the Steele dossier. You can "dispute" this all you want, but that's what the memo says in black and white. And when we get the McCabe transcript released, we will see that Nunes has accurately reflected what McCabe said.
* The fact that even when the FBI submitted renewal FISA applications, they never revealed that the information came from shady sources like the Steele dossier and the Steele-fed Yahoo News article shows that this was a politically motivated effort, not a fact-based one.
* No matter how you want to bend and twist the truth, at a minimum the Nunes memo shows that senior FBI and JD officials lied to a FISA court to spy on an American citizen who was working on a campaign that they did not want to see win. That is the stuff of banana republics, not to mention a serious violation of law.
And....... the warrant was still not used to spy on Trump.Why did you dance around the fact that Comey, McCabe, Ohr, etc., failed to disclose to the FISA court that the main basis--or any degree of basisWhy did you dance around the fact that Comey, McCabe, Ohr, etc., failed to disclose to the FISA court that the main basis--or even a partial basis--of their application was a dossier prepared by a shady man who was getting paid by the DNC and the Clinton campaign? It is amazing that you will not confront that serious omission.
I didn't dance around it. I answered it a few times in my original post. Supposed bias is no reason to make evidence inadmissable. Judges routinely accept evidence from biased sources.Even if FISA Warrant is Based on Politically Biased Source, It Probably Won’t Amount to Anything LegallyWhy did you dance around the fact that Comey, McCabe, Ohr, etc., failed to disclose to the FISA court that the main basis--or even a partial basis--of their application was a dossier prepared by a shady man who was getting paid by the DNC and the Clinton campaign?
Still irrelevant to your point.No, I'm just asking you to explain why the Dems so desperately fought the memo's release if it contains no new information? If it truly contains nothing new, then why did the Dems fight like rabid dogs to keep it sealed? Why?
irrelevantOne of the Dems' arguments against releasing the memo was that it revealed sources and methods relating to intelligence collection. But we now see that that was a lie, that it contains no such information.
Yes I did, I also know that other things besides that and the Steele dossier were included. The memo specified the Papadopolous case and who knows what else.And you realize that the FBI included that Yahoo News article in the FISA application, right? Right? Right? You knew that, right? This is pointed out in the Nunes memo, which I'm wondering if you've ever actually read.
How many American citizens who work on political campaigns bragged to working for the Kremlin before?Carter Page Touted Kremlin Contacts in 2013 Letter. Or admitted to give Russian information on the energy business? Russian Spies Tried to Recruit Carter Page Before He Advised TrumpLOL. Uh, ok. And for how many American citizens who are working on political campaigns does the FBI seek a FISA warrant to wiretap them? Hey? 1 in 1,000? 1 every 20 years?
Or first denied then admitted he met with Russian officials during 2 trips to Moscow in 2016 Former Trump adviser Page met Russian officials in 2016 Moscow trips
Seems to me those things standing alone would warrant further investigation by the FBI.
It destroys your claim of bias. Claiming the FBI was investigating him but then claim it's biased because it asked for a warrant is bizarre to say the least.FBI never asks for FISA warrants in *any* kind of investigation unless they have already been investigating the person
Bias doesn't destroy the validity, neither can you claim the dossier stood by itselfA sleazy dossier prepared by a disreputable former spy who's on the DNC and Clinton payroll does not constitute valid information from a law enforcement source.
You don't think it's that the FISA warrant was issued after Page left the campaign is important when you are trying to claim bias against the campaign? Why not? I think that goes right to the heart of the issue.That's because they don't deserve a response but are pointless diversions from the real issues at hand.
The same goes for the fact that in no way does the Mueller campaign gets compromised since Trump is trying to use the memo as vindication.
Yes and therefore makes the hiring of Page by the Trump campaign even more interesting from a counter espionage standpoint since now you have 2 people in the campaign trying to cultivate or have direct links to the Russian government. Three if you count Manafort.The dates you jump on are noted and discussed in the Nunes memo! Good grief, let's try this yet again: The information on Papadopoulos was around long before the Page FISA application was drafted and submitted.
Again that's being contested and could easily be resolved if Nunes released the relevant transcript which he hasn't. Convenient don't you think?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.
I see we're gonna go around in circles because you won't admit anything. But, a few points in reply:
* "Bias" is one thing; actively working for and taking money from the person's enemies is something entirely different.
* No, judges do not routinely routinely accept evidence from a source who is being paid by the subject's enemies to dig up dirt on him and who proves so unreliable that even those enemies fire him for being dishonest and unreliable. You must be kidding.
* The court in this case did not know it was accepting information from such a disreputable source because Comey, McCabe, etc., never told the court about the source's character, motivation, and financial connections.
* It is beyond silly to say that the fact that the FBI was already investigating Page proves there was no bias. The fact that the FBI used the Steele dossier as an "ESSENTIAL" part of the FISA application and then failed to reveal that the information was coming from that dossier shows clear bias, as do the texts from Strzok.
* If the initial information on Page was as compelling as you claim, then why did the FBI have to use the Steele dossier at all, much less as an "ESSENTIAL" part of the FISA application? And, oh, what happened to Carter Page?
* According to the memo, McCabe testified that there would have been no FISA application without the Steele dossier. You can "dispute" this all you want, but that's what the memo says in black and white. And when we get the McCabe transcript released, we will see that Nunes has accurately reflected what McCabe said.
* The fact that even when the FBI submitted renewal FISA applications, they never revealed that the information came from shady sources like the Steele dossier and the Steele-fed Yahoo News article shows that this was a politically motivated effort, not a fact-based one.
* No matter how you want to bend and twist the truth, at a minimum the Nunes memo shows that senior FBI and JD officials lied to a FISA court to spy on an American citizen who was working on a campaign that they did not want to see win. That is the stuff of banana republics, not to mention a serious violation of law.
