Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
Where your stupid assumptions fall flat is that it was sent to the FBI and the DOJ for approval before it went to Trump. Schiff even suggested that the WH consult with the DOJ before making his decision.
Check, fool.
My assumption is that the Marxist (((Schiff))) is an unintelligent liar. But I want addressing that. I was guessing what the strategy will be. I may or may not be right but I think I know Democrats and their scumminess. Schiff can suggest all he wants but he knows there is no undoing the truth already out there. He has to have some reason.
He has already been shown a liar when he said the Nunes memo would jeopardize national security. We have seen it...and it doesn't. He lied to avoid transparency. He knowingly lied because he had seen the memo.
So he needs an out. He would have liked for the Republicans to have voted "no" on his request so he could whine and moan about it. But Schiff is a known leaker. We all know that wouldn't have stopped him if he really wanted it out.
So his only hope now is to place something irrelevant but sensitive in the document and hope Trump has it redacted. Then he can cry that his side isn't getting out.
Trump, a stable genius as you know, wont fall for that. Unless (((Schiff))) is trying to kill Agents or something Trump should and I think will release it as written.
And there goes (((schiffs))) last chance.
The embarrassment wont hurt him...his democrat followers had neither the character nor the moral to point out his lies over the Nunes memo so why would they honestly assess this one.
Sure, dope. He sent it to the DOJ and the FBI with the hopes that they won't catch on to his plan. How dumb.
What Schiff did was make the process bullet proof so that any changes Trump makes outside of the recommendations from his own DOJ and FBI will appear, and rightfully so, to be purely political and not in keeping with the standards for release used for the Nunes memo.
So why were (((Schiff))) and his deep state allies claiming the Nunes memo would damage national security? And cause a constitutional crisis? And was changed after approval? These are all lies that had to come out and be exposed. And they were. There is not even a question. He lied over and over.
I will tell you the answer. He thinks YOU are too stupid or too amoral to care. (and I think he is right. He does know his people)That is the only possible answer. He threw the kitchen sink to stop transparency knowing that if it didnt work it's not like any democrat or liberal has the character to ask "hey didnt you say...?"
Exposure being the worst thing that could happen to such a corrupt party I can only assume he needs a hat trrick for his...memo? LOL. Yep he wrote a "memo" too! But the threat of the memo is only a threat. Transparency is deadly. So I am telling you he has to have some excuse this time as to why his "memo" is worthless. He has to ensure Trump redacts it.
If you don't believe that undermining the public trust in the FBI and the FISA system for nothing more than to create politicical cover for the president is indeed damaging to both our national security and our democracy, then there's nothing to discuss further.
.
If you don't believe that undermining the public trust in the FBI and the FISA system for nothing more than to create politicical cover for the president is indeed damaging to both our national security and our democracy, then there's nothing to discuss further.
.
Ahhh...kill the messenger. Typical third world response. But let me ask you this. If you investigate Trump for years and try to undermine him..that doesnt "weaken national security" and flirt with "a constitutional crisis"?
You lying sack of vicious hatred.
FBI and FISA were caught caught undermining our democracy. Transparency didnt do that. They did it. Telling us what they did has in no way undermined national security. Nor caused a constitutional crisis. Nor, again, did they change the memo as (((Schiff) claimed.
We know this to be true because we have now read the memo to the chagrin of secretive Democrats.
As I said (((schiff) knows you and your ilk. He runs no danger from lies which will be exposed. It isnt even a risk for him.
Her ya go, dope.
This is another thread.
Just 42% Think Russia Meddled More in 2016 Election Than FBI
The damage is already done.
You are naive and uneducated. You promote the asinine notion that a person can read a previously unknown report consisting of multiple pages and discern that a paragraph had been left out. You are grabbing at straws to support a nonsensical argument.My god, man! You are dense!Anything submitted to the FISA court has to be 100% checked out. When the FBI got rid of Steele, that too had to be submitted in their FISA renewals. it sure doesn't seem like it was.
Anything submitted to the FISA court has to be 100% checked out
Sure. You don't know that it wasn't. It obviously met the standard four times in front of four different judges.
You're assuming that everyone involved with the application process lied and every judge and their staff is incompetent. That's just dumb.
No, not at all. I'm just assuming these judges have standards.
The FBI approaches FISA and says they have opposition research from a presidential candidate that she paid for, and they want to use it to get a FISA warrant on her opponent and various members of his campaign. They tell the judge that the information was not vetted and they are just taking his word for it. The person who created the dossier is a known Trump hater. What they are looking for is Trump's collusion with Russia even though they don't have an iota of evidence to support their investigation.
And the judge says "Sure, no problem, here's your warrant?"
If you think that's what took place, then I have a bridge I want to sell you.
No, not at all. I'm just assuming these judges have standards.
Yes, standards like failing to include any required information is grounds for rejection.
You're assuming that not a one of four judges was competent enough to catch that.
You talk as if the judge already knew that the DNC and the FBI had paid for the dossier and should have pointed it out and told the petitioners to amend the application to show same. How fucking stupid can one man be?
What the petitioners did was to exclude exculpatory information that was known to them and hopefully not to the judge. That particular exclusion is ILLEGAL and DISHONEST! That makes the application a fraud on the court.
Wake the fuck up!
No, I'm operating under the idea that the judges and their staff are highly competent and don't adjudicate warrants, especially targeting American citizens, based on incomplete information.
There was no exculpatory evidence anywhere in the process.
there are only two optionsYou are naive and uneducated. You promote the asinine notion that a person can read a previously unknown report consisting of multiple pages and discern that a paragraph had been left out. You are grabbing at straws to support a nonsensical argument.My god, man! You are dense!Sure. You don't know that it wasn't. It obviously met the standard four times in front of four different judges.
You're assuming that everyone involved with the application process lied and every judge and their staff is incompetent. That's just dumb.
No, not at all. I'm just assuming these judges have standards.
The FBI approaches FISA and says they have opposition research from a presidential candidate that she paid for, and they want to use it to get a FISA warrant on her opponent and various members of his campaign. They tell the judge that the information was not vetted and they are just taking his word for it. The person who created the dossier is a known Trump hater. What they are looking for is Trump's collusion with Russia even though they don't have an iota of evidence to support their investigation.
And the judge says "Sure, no problem, here's your warrant?"
If you think that's what took place, then I have a bridge I want to sell you.
No, not at all. I'm just assuming these judges have standards.
Yes, standards like failing to include any required information is grounds for rejection.
You're assuming that not a one of four judges was competent enough to catch that.
You talk as if the judge already knew that the DNC and the FBI had paid for the dossier and should have pointed it out and told the petitioners to amend the application to show same. How fucking stupid can one man be?
What the petitioners did was to exclude exculpatory information that was known to them and hopefully not to the judge. That particular exclusion is ILLEGAL and DISHONEST! That makes the application a fraud on the court.
Wake the fuck up!
No, I'm operating under the idea that the judges and their staff are highly competent and don't adjudicate warrants, especially targeting American citizens, based on incomplete information.
There was no exculpatory evidence anywhere in the process.
You are naive and uneducated. You promote the asinine notion that a person can read a previously unknown report consisting of multiple pages and discern that a paragraph had been left out. You are grabbing at straws to support a nonsensical argument.My god, man! You are dense!Sure. You don't know that it wasn't. It obviously met the standard four times in front of four different judges.
You're assuming that everyone involved with the application process lied and every judge and their staff is incompetent. That's just dumb.
No, not at all. I'm just assuming these judges have standards.
The FBI approaches FISA and says they have opposition research from a presidential candidate that she paid for, and they want to use it to get a FISA warrant on her opponent and various members of his campaign. They tell the judge that the information was not vetted and they are just taking his word for it. The person who created the dossier is a known Trump hater. What they are looking for is Trump's collusion with Russia even though they don't have an iota of evidence to support their investigation.
And the judge says "Sure, no problem, here's your warrant?"
If you think that's what took place, then I have a bridge I want to sell you.
No, not at all. I'm just assuming these judges have standards.
Yes, standards like failing to include any required information is grounds for rejection.
You're assuming that not a one of four judges was competent enough to catch that.
You talk as if the judge already knew that the DNC and the FBI had paid for the dossier and should have pointed it out and told the petitioners to amend the application to show same. How fucking stupid can one man be?
What the petitioners did was to exclude exculpatory information that was known to them and hopefully not to the judge. That particular exclusion is ILLEGAL and DISHONEST! That makes the application a fraud on the court.
Wake the fuck up!
No, I'm operating under the idea that the judges and their staff are highly competent and don't adjudicate warrants, especially targeting American citizens, based on incomplete information.
There was no exculpatory evidence anywhere in the process.
there are only two optionsYou are naive and uneducated. You promote the asinine notion that a person can read a previously unknown report consisting of multiple pages and discern that a paragraph had been left out. You are grabbing at straws to support a nonsensical argument.My god, man! You are dense!No, not at all. I'm just assuming these judges have standards.
The FBI approaches FISA and says they have opposition research from a presidential candidate that she paid for, and they want to use it to get a FISA warrant on her opponent and various members of his campaign. They tell the judge that the information was not vetted and they are just taking his word for it. The person who created the dossier is a known Trump hater. What they are looking for is Trump's collusion with Russia even though they don't have an iota of evidence to support their investigation.
And the judge says "Sure, no problem, here's your warrant?"
If you think that's what took place, then I have a bridge I want to sell you.
No, not at all. I'm just assuming these judges have standards.
Yes, standards like failing to include any required information is grounds for rejection.
You're assuming that not a one of four judges was competent enough to catch that.
You talk as if the judge already knew that the DNC and the FBI had paid for the dossier and should have pointed it out and told the petitioners to amend the application to show same. How fucking stupid can one man be?
What the petitioners did was to exclude exculpatory information that was known to them and hopefully not to the judge. That particular exclusion is ILLEGAL and DISHONEST! That makes the application a fraud on the court.
Wake the fuck up!
No, I'm operating under the idea that the judges and their staff are highly competent and don't adjudicate warrants, especially targeting American citizens, based on incomplete information.
There was no exculpatory evidence anywhere in the process.
1- the doj fooled the fisa judge
or
2- the fisa judge knowingly gave out a warrant knowing it was based on phony evidence
either way not good
and another reason to unclassify the fisa applications
and let the sunshine in
either the judge had the wool pulled over his/her eyes
or
he/she is as guilty as those that provided the fake evidence
They were not caught doing any such thing. Nunes omitted key details in his memo to create the appearance of wrong doing. Even worse, we have learned it even contained outright lies.If you don't believe that undermining the public trust in the FBI and the FISA system for nothing more than to create politicical cover for the president is indeed damaging to both our national security and our democracy, then there's nothing to discuss further.
.
Ahhh...kill the messenger. Typical third world response. But let me ask you this. If you investigate Trump for years and try to undermine him..that doesnt "weaken national security" and flirt with "a constitutional crisis"?
You lying sack of vicious hatred.
FBI and FISA were caught caught undermining our democracy. Transparency didnt do that. They did it. Telling us what they did has in no way undermined national security. Nor caused a constitutional crisis. Nor, again, did they change the memo as (((Schiff) claimed.
We know this to be true because we have now read the memo to the chagrin of secretive Democrats.
As I said (((schiff) knows you and your ilk. He runs no danger from lies which will be exposed. It isnt even a risk for him.
Despite your idiocy of framing their actions as limited by just the two cases you mention, there is actually another possibility....there are only two optionsYou are naive and uneducated. You promote the asinine notion that a person can read a previously unknown report consisting of multiple pages and discern that a paragraph had been left out. You are grabbing at straws to support a nonsensical argument.My god, man! You are dense!No, not at all. I'm just assuming these judges have standards.
The FBI approaches FISA and says they have opposition research from a presidential candidate that she paid for, and they want to use it to get a FISA warrant on her opponent and various members of his campaign. They tell the judge that the information was not vetted and they are just taking his word for it. The person who created the dossier is a known Trump hater. What they are looking for is Trump's collusion with Russia even though they don't have an iota of evidence to support their investigation.
And the judge says "Sure, no problem, here's your warrant?"
If you think that's what took place, then I have a bridge I want to sell you.
No, not at all. I'm just assuming these judges have standards.
Yes, standards like failing to include any required information is grounds for rejection.
You're assuming that not a one of four judges was competent enough to catch that.
You talk as if the judge already knew that the DNC and the FBI had paid for the dossier and should have pointed it out and told the petitioners to amend the application to show same. How fucking stupid can one man be?
What the petitioners did was to exclude exculpatory information that was known to them and hopefully not to the judge. That particular exclusion is ILLEGAL and DISHONEST! That makes the application a fraud on the court.
Wake the fuck up!
No, I'm operating under the idea that the judges and their staff are highly competent and don't adjudicate warrants, especially targeting American citizens, based on incomplete information.
There was no exculpatory evidence anywhere in the process.
1- the doj fooled the fisa judge
or
2- the fisa judge knowingly gave out a warrant knowing it was based on phony evidence
either way not good
and another reason to unclassify the fisa applications
and let the sunshine in
either the judge had the wool pulled over his/her eyes
or
he/she is as guilty as those that provided the fake evidence
You were fooled by Nunes.
They were not caught doing any such thing. Nunes omitted key details in his memo to create the appearance of wrong doing. Even worse, we have learned it even contained outright lies.
By that token, where’s the explosive content in the memo which is going to send people to jail? Where’s the content that’s going to end Mueller’s investigation?You were fooled by Nunes.
Hey...wheres that constitutional crisis (((Schiff)) warned of us? How about that real damaging stuff in the memo which would hurt national security. Nope not by impugning the criminals at the FBI as you desperately presented. Here is what Pencilneck Schiff said. : "all while potentially revealing intelligence sources and methods. " (((Schiff))) Opinion | Rep. Nunes’s memo crosses a dangerous line
Hmmm. Im reading the memo...reading the memo...hey (((schiff))) lied! No source and methods released! Now what will he do? Oh wait...I forgot the standards of his audience.
The Clinton Campaigns collusion with Russia, through Steele, we knew already. But not today. Russia and Steele, and Clinton and (((Schiff))) failed to take down our President.
"This decision to employ an obscure rule to order the release of classified information " Pencilneck (((schiff))) Opinion | Rep. Nunes’s memo crosses a dangerous line
By "obscure rule" Schiffenstein must mean a" lawfully created rule used the way it is supposed to be used but which embarrasses democrats".
You were fooled by Nunes.
Hey...wheres that constitutional crisis (((Schiff)) warned of us? How about that real damaging stuff in the memo which would hurt national security. Nope not by impugning the criminals at the FBI as you desperately presented. Here is what Pencilneck Schiff said. : "all while potentially revealing intelligence sources and methods. " (((Schiff))) Opinion | Rep. Nunes’s memo crosses a dangerous line
Hmmm. Im reading the memo...reading the memo...hey (((schiff))) lied! No source and methods released! Now what will he do? Oh wait...I forgot the standards of his audience.
The Clinton Campaigns collusion with Russia, through Steele, we knew already. But not today. Russia and Steele, and Clinton and (((Schiff))) failed to take down our President.
"This decision to employ an obscure rule to order the release of classified information " Pencilneck (((schiff))) Opinion | Rep. Nunes’s memo crosses a dangerous line
By "obscure rule" Schiffenstein must mean a" lawfully created rule used the way it is supposed to be used but which embarrasses democrats".
Well, no, the version sent to Trump was not the identical version passed in the House; so yes, it was changed.They were not caught doing any such thing. Nunes omitted key details in his memo to create the appearance of wrong doing. Even worse, we have learned it even contained outright lies.
But it didnt damage national security, cause a constitutional crisis, or get changed before it was released. Right? The three items (((Schiff))) tried to use to hide this document from the American people
Now which details were left out? Could I see them please? Or are these magical dtails only to be seen in the minds eye?
And which lies did it contain. Surely it wouldn't damage national security if you pointed out where the "lies" are?
Meanwhile, the worst allegations of his memo were the FBI neglected to inform the FISC of the political origins of the dossier and presented unverified Intel from the dossier in order to spy on the political opponent who had backed the dossier. And that McCabe testified there would have been no warrant requested without the dossier.
Meanwhile, the worst allegations of his memo were the FBI neglected to inform the FISC of the political origins of the dossier and presented unverified Intel from the dossier in order to spy on the political opponent who had backed the dossier. And that McCabe testified there would have been no warrant requested without the dossier.
The "dossier" compiled by Christopher Steele (Steele dossier) on behalf of the Democratic National Committee (DNC) and the Hillary Clinton campaign formed an essential part of the Carter Page FISA application...The application does not mention Steele was ultimately working on behalf of—and paid by—the DNC and Clinton campaign, or that the FBI had separately authorized payment to Steele for the same information...he Carter Page FISA application also cited extensively a September 23, 2016, Yahoo Newsarticle by Michael Isikoff, which focuses on Page's July 2016 trip to Moscow. This article does not corroborate the Steele dossier because it is derived from information leaked by Steele himself to Yahoo News. The Page FISA application incorrectly assesses that Steele did not directly provide information to Yahoo News. Steele has admitted in British court filings that he met with Yahoo News—and several other outlets—in September 2016 at the direction of Fusion GPS. Perkins Coie was aware of Steele's initial media contacts because they hosted at least one meeting in Washington D.C. in 2016 with Steele and Fusion GPS where this matter was discussed....in September 2016, Steele admitted to Ohr his feelings against then-candidate Trump when Steele said he "was desperate that Donald Trump not get elected and was passionate about him not, being president." This clear evidence of Steele's bias was recorded by Ohr at the time and subsequently in official FBI files—but not reflected in any of the Page FISA applications...Ohr's wife was employed by Fusion GPS to assist in the cultivation of opposition research on Trump. Ohr later provided the FBI with all of his wife's opposition research, paid for by the DNC and Clinton campaign via Fusion GPS. The Ohrs' relationship with Steele and Fusion GPS was inexplicably concealed from the FISC....FBI assessed Steele's reporting as only minimally corroborated. Yet, in early January 2017, Director Comey briefed President-elect Trump on a summary of the Steele dossier, even though it was—according to his June 2017 testimony—"salacious and unverified."
Furthermore, Deputy Director McCabe testified before the Committee in December 2017 that no surveillance warrant would have been sought from the FISC without the Steele dossier information.
The Papadopoulos information triggered the opening of an FBI counterintelligence investigation in late July 2016 by FBI agent Pete Strzok.... where they both demonstrated a clear bias against Trump and in favor of Clinton, whom Strzok had also investigated. The Strzok/Lisa Page texts also reflect extensive discussions about the investigation, orchestrating leaks to the media, and include a meeting with Deputy Director McCabe to discuss an "insurance" policy against President Trump's election.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Looks pretty plain to me. Embarrassing to Democrats and their FBI allies of course but thats par for the course. Any transparency is always an embarrassment for them.
View attachment 175828
By that token, where’s the explosive content in the memo which is going to send people to jail? Where’s the content that’s going to end Mueller’s investigation?
We've been over this, dope.
