Intelligence Committee To Petition FISA Court

[Faun]

Oh? What part of the following is too difficult for you to comprehend...?

Republicans concede key FBI 'footnote' in Carter Page warrant

Devin Nunes said Monday the FBI had disclosed political backing for a Trump-Russia dossier in October 2016, but a controversial GOP memo released last week did not mention it.

Republican leaders are acknowledging that the FBI disclosed the political origins of a private dossier the bureau cited in an application to surveil former Trump campaign adviser Carter Page, undermining a controversial GOP memo released Friday and fueling Democratic demands to declassify more information about the bureau’s actions.​

They did not inform the FISA Court that the dossier was financed and
paid for by the DNC/Clinton Campaign.

There are no gray areas in applications. They are all black and white.
No Court is going to "assume" or "read between the lines."

If a lawyer wants something to be read between the lines, he damn well
better have some words between the lines.

The FBI and DOJ both believed they needed the extra weight of the Dossier
to continue to get extensions. The FBI and DOJ both believed that if they
told the court it was a political hit piece paid for by the DNC/Clinton Campaign, the court would not issue the extensions.

So they created the omission, which now that it has been discovered is
going to taint and probably destroy their entire case.

<smh>

I just fucking showed you they disclosed the political origins of the dossier. That you still can’t understand that is on you.

Nope...you haven't shown shit. The Grassley-Graham criminal referral
on Steele to the DOJ has just been partially unredacted and even that referral
points to the fact that the FBI never told the FISA Court that Steele
was paid for by the Clinton Campaign.

The referral is even better because the FBI refused to pay Steele because they knew he was lying to them, and then a week later they returned to the
FISA Court and still vouched for Steele's credibility, to get an extension on the FISA Warrant.

Sorry, but the lies are crumbling around you.

Nice attempt at diversion, but we were discussing if the FBI informed the FISC of the orgins of the dossier, not its veracity.

And as you’ve been shown repeatedly, the FBI disclosed the political origins of the dossier. Your hollow denials cannot alter that.

Keep trying, but the fact is, y'all are on the wrong side of history
here.

They didn't tell the FISA Court that...

Rge Clinton Campaign/DNC paid for it.

That the they (FBI) had refused to pay Steele because they knew he was lying

That the Ohr's were feeding the information to the Dossier

That Clinton stooge Blumenthal was giving info to Steele.

Before this fucking thing is over you people will be lucky if you
don't lose seats in California and New York.

LOLOL

You’re too funny. You’re actually claiming the FBI didn’t tell the FISA court what Republicans are now eating crow over.



Very good. You should personally contact Nunes and tell him he didn’t have to concede that point because you know it’s not true.

 

[Faun]

<smh>

I just fucking showed you they disclosed the political origins of the dossier. That you still can’t understand that is on you.

Nope...you haven't shown shit. The Grassley-Graham criminal referral
on Steele to the DOJ has just been partially unredacted and even that referral
points to the fact that the FBI never told the FISA Court that Steele
was paid for by the Clinton Campaign.

The referral is even better because the FBI refused to pay Steele because they knew he was lying to them, and then a week later they returned to the
FISA Court and still vouched for Steele's credibility, to get an extension on the FISA Warrant.

Sorry, but the lies are crumbling around you.

It also seems to me that the FBI didn't inform the courts that since the original filing, they fired Steele and didn't even pay him because his information was so questionable and that he shared it with the media.

I would think that if they filed for an extension of their warrant, told the court that their main information was compromised, that there is no way in hell they would have reissued the surveillance warrant three different times.

Correct.

Which is why the FBI never told them.

The FBI applied for the warrant before firing Steele. Next lie...?

Not the 3 extensions, they didn't.

So? They had already confirmed parts of the dossier.

 

[MACAULAY]

The Grassley Memo backs up the Nunes Memo and makes whatever shit Schiff wants to shovel pretty much irrelevant.

We need to see the FISA Application itself so we can know who all broke the law---and prosecute them. Obviously, the DOJ/FBI is incapable of investigating itself.

Declassified Grassley Document Confirms FISA Memo's Explosive Claims

• A declassified document from the Senate Judiciary Committee confirms that the FBI "relied heavily" on an unverified dossier in order to obtain FISA surveillance warrants on one-time Trump advisor Carter Page
• Unredacted portions of the document reveal the FBI's extensive involvement with the creator of the dossier, former UK spy Christopher Steele
• Despite Steele lying to the FBI which led to the agency ending their relationship, they still used his unverified memo and vouched for his reputation to obtain the FISA warrants
• The unredacted memo clarifies that the FBI notified the FISA court of the dossier's political origins "to a vaguely limited extent"
• The FBI has withheld the notes from their meetings with Steele
• Steele received information for an unpublished second dossier from the Obama State Department led by John Kerry at the time
• Much of the information in this "Grassley Memo" matches with the contents of the "Nunes Memo" released by the House Intelligence Committee last Friday.

 

[jon_berzerk]

Oh? What part of the following is too difficult for you to comprehend...?

Republicans concede key FBI 'footnote' in Carter Page warrant

Devin Nunes said Monday the FBI had disclosed political backing for a Trump-Russia dossier in October 2016, but a controversial GOP memo released last week did not mention it.

Republican leaders are acknowledging that the FBI disclosed the political origins of a private dossier the bureau cited in an application to surveil former Trump campaign adviser Carter Page, undermining a controversial GOP memo released Friday and fueling Democratic demands to declassify more information about the bureau’s actions.​

They did not inform the FISA Court that the dossier was financed and
paid for by the DNC/Clinton Campaign.

There are no gray areas in applications. They are all black and white.
No Court is going to "assume" or "read between the lines."

If a lawyer wants something to be read between the lines, he damn well
better have some words between the lines.

The FBI and DOJ both believed they needed the extra weight of the Dossier
to continue to get extensions. The FBI and DOJ both believed that if they
told the court it was a political hit piece paid for by the DNC/Clinton Campaign, the court would not issue the extensions.

So they created the omission, which now that it has been discovered is
going to taint and probably destroy their entire case.

<smh>

I just fucking showed you they disclosed the political origins of the dossier. That you still can’t understand that is on you.

Nope...you haven't shown shit. The Grassley-Graham criminal referral
on Steele to the DOJ has just been partially unredacted and even that referral
points to the fact that the FBI never told the FISA Court that Steele
was paid for by the Clinton Campaign.

The referral is even better because the FBI refused to pay Steele because they knew he was lying to them, and then a week later they returned to the
FISA Court and still vouched for Steele's credibility, to get an extension on the FISA Warrant.

Sorry, but the lies are crumbling around you.

It also seems to me that the FBI didn't inform the courts that since the original filing, they fired Steele and didn't even pay him because his information was so questionable and that he shared it with the media.

I would think that if they filed for an extension of their warrant, told the court that their main information was compromised, that there is no way in hell they would have reissued the surveillance warrant three different times.

Correct.

Which is why the FBI never told them.

yes in order to get the warrant(s) they had to suppress that information

 

[OldGringo]

Those who have carefully read the Nunes memo will notice that it never says the application to monitor Carter Page was illegal.

That is yet to be determined. It was however obtained under a false pretense. I can't imagine that withholding information in a FISA application is legal.

Oh? Prove it was obtained under a false pretense...?

While you’re at it, demonstrate what the government hoped to gain from Trump by wiretapping someone who was not working for the Trump campaign and who had never met Trump?

It's a coming, it's a coming. Right now it looks like they withheld very important information from the court to falsely get that warrant. You see, to investigate a crime, you need evidence that such a crime possibly could have been committed. Opposition research isn't enough for that, especially when it is paid for by the opponent of the people you are spying on to prove the crime.

Ray. I must disagree a little bit. "Opposition research" paid for by the other side might every well be the basis or starting point for probable cause. It just does not reach the credibility threshold all by itself. What they should have done is verified enough of the dossier to show that probable cause would exist outside the dossier. Then, they could simply identify the dossier to the Court and acknowledge that if could be a biased set of allegations, and then show how they had confirmed most of them. Seems to me they could have rehabilitated the otherwise biased and flawed document. Also, Rule 13, always applies to federal court proceedings. It mandates that any and every time that prosecutors gain knowledge that there is a flaw in any prior document before the court that they correct it. I think it requires immediate action. That means if you learn it on a Friday, you show up Monday, or the following day if it is earlier in the week. You can never wait until your 90 days runs and just casually mention it to the judge. Seems to me we can take the timeline of when the FBI and DOJ got info that the Steele info was bogus, and see if they immediately notified the court. When Steele went to the media outlets and was trying to sell this information, they should have notified the court they had to fire him for that fundamental dishonesty, and trying to peddle that same information for both money and his own political motivation.
It is pretty hard for a DOJ attorney or senior FBI agent to claim they did not understand or simply made a mistake when only the very best qualified folks can even get into those jobs. Seems to me that they may have obtained data about Flynn lying on unrelated matters would not be sufficient to extend that warrant. Time will tell.

 

[mikegriffith1]

Yeeeah, and let's see if Democrats back the request to release all of the FISA proceedings. Let's just see.

So far Dems have been virtually mute about releasing the McCabe transcript, even though they claim that Nunes has misquoted McCabe's testimony. Well, there's one way to settle that point in a hurry: release the transcript of McCabe's testimony. If he did in fact say that without the Steele dossier there would have been no FISA application, Schiff & Co. will once again be exposed as liars.

 

[Faun]

Yeeeah, and let's see if Democrats back the request to release all of the FISA proceedings. Let's just see.

So far Dems have been virtually mute about releasing the McCabe transcript, even though they claim that Nunes has misquoted McCabe's testimony. Well, there's one way to settle that point in a hurry: release the transcript of McCabe's testimony. If he did in fact say that without the Steele dossier there would have been no FISA application, Schiff & Co. will once again be exposed as liars.

Liar...

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

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

 

[OldGringo]

Wow. Good post. Does anybody read things like that before the comment? Anyway, Rule 13 of the FISA rules struck me as worth posting. Seems to me everybody on both sides would agree that the Steele information went from maybe to aw hell no pretty quick. So it will be interesting to see what Mr. Comey did to correct the last 3 affidavits of probable cause for renewing the FISA spying on civilian authorizations Thank you for posting these links.

Rule 13. Correction of Misstatement or Omission; Disclosure of Non-Compliance. (a) Correction of Material Facts. If the government discovers that a submission to the Court contained a misstatement or omission of material fact, the government, in writing, must immediately inform the Judge to whom the submission was made of: (1) the misstatement or omission; (2) any necessary correction; (3) the facts and circumstances relevant to the misstatement or omission; ( 4) any modifications the government has made or proposes to make in how it will implement any authority or approval granted by the Court; and (5) how the government proposes to dispose of or treat any information obtained as a result of the misstatement or omission.

Here is the thing about that. Right now, the claim is that the information was not omitted. The statement is that the information was annotated in a footnote. This means that the Steele information was deliberately understated and buried in a document that is hundreds of pages in length. That leaves a few questions that need to be answered, such as:

1. Did the FISA judge apply due diligence to the warrant and go through the document thoroughly?
2. How was the information annotated? This would speak directly to the intent of McCabe.
3. Would the information, if properly brought to the FISA courts attention, have been an immediate disqualifier for the warrant?

I don't think that Rule 13 would actually apply if the information was included. Which is why it becomes imperative that this document be released to a trusted neutral party for review; or released to the public. Clearly, the FISA court has been used as a political tool. Now we need to determine to what extent, who is culpable, and what to do about it to prevent it from happening in the future.

 

[OldGringo]

Well, I basically agree, but I have not seen that footnote. I think you are correct that it takes more than a footnote saying it was originally a political document. At the point the FBI knew Steele was meeting with 2 or more media outlets to try and get it published before the election, then I think under Rule 13, they had a duty to notify the court that Steele's political motivation was showing through. If they had new issue based on the first warrant, then it might be enough to ignore the Steele motivation, and probably confirm part of the Steele data, maybe, but we really do not have enough data at this stage to really know. I think anybody who makes an absolute statement at this stage is pretty hollow. All we know is there are a bunch of emails that show absolute bias and pretty sloppy work by the attorneys. Maybe a year from now we will know. I will be looking for definitive information about Christmas. I do think that there will be a lot of game playing before the midterms.

 

[usmbguest5318]

Ray. I must disagree a little bit. "Opposition research" paid for by the other side might every well be the basis or starting point for probable cause. It just does not reach the credibility threshold all by itself. What they should have done is verified enough of the dossier to show that probable cause would exist outside the dossier. Then, they could simply identify the dossier to the Court and acknowledge that if could be a biased set of allegations, and then show how they had confirmed most of them.

Seems to me they could have rehabilitated the otherwise biased and flawed document. Also, Rule 13, always applies to federal court proceedings. It mandates that any and every time that prosecutors gain knowledge that there is a flaw in any prior document before the court that they correct it. I think it requires immediate action. That means if you learn it on a Friday, you show up Monday, or the following day if it is earlier in the week. You can never wait until your 90 days runs and just casually mention it to the judge. Seems to me we can take the timeline of when the FBI and DOJ got info that the Steele info was bogus, and see if they immediately notified the court. When Steele went to the media outlets and was trying to sell this information, they should have notified the court they had to fire him for that fundamental dishonesty, and trying to peddle that same information for both money and his own political motivation.

It is pretty hard for a DOJ attorney or senior FBI agent to claim they did not understand or simply made a mistake when only the very best qualified folks can even get into those jobs. Seems to me that they may have obtained data about Flynn lying on unrelated matters would not be sufficient to extend that warrant. Time will tell.

Several things seem to be consistently forgotten or ignored by members here remaking on the Steele dossier's inclusion in the application for a surveillance warrant:

• "Burden of proof" -- The content of a surveillance warrant don't have to rise to the same probative level that does evidence presented at trial. That the content shows "reasonable plausibility," if one will, of there possibly having been or being criminal activity and/or intentions is good enough for a court to authorise law enforcement investigators to undertake intrusive surveillance measures such as wiretaps, searches and/or seizures of information. After all, the whole point of the investigative process is to determine whether criminal activity occurred (is occurring); that process cannot be squelched merely because the current body of gathered information doesn't prove a crime has transpired.
  • Sometimes an investigation reveals that something criminal did happen.
  • Sometimes investigations reveal that something criminal happened but that because there is no indication of intent, the act cannot be criminally prosecuted.
  • Sometimes investigations do not arrive at a conclusion about whether a crime happened or didn't happen.
  • Sometimes investigations reveal that no criminal act or criminal intent to act existed.
• Materiality -- [I discuss this later in this post.]

QUOTE="OldGringo, post: 19238452, member: 68822"]then show how they had confirmed most of them[/QUOTE]
They would need to take the sort of action you describe -- good points/ideas that you introduced, and well presented, BTW -- only with regard to the dossier elements that actually appeared as an element militating for there being probable cause that a crime(s) may have been committed and/or that Carter Page was party to their commission. Thus, even if the entire document were somehow submitted (as an addendum, exhibit or appendix), a simple statement that makes clear that they are not using unconfirmed allegations as part of the basis for the warrant request -- verbiage to the effect of "though we have have not confirmed all claims/events in Exhibit "X," the Steele dossier, we have confirmed the Exhibit "X" claims we here assert contribute to our belief that there is probable cause for thinking one or more crimes may have been and may continue to be committed by Carter Page and individuals with whom he communicates via electronic means" -- would, assuming the judge grants the surveillance request, obviate prosecutors' need to remark, (pursuant to Rule 13), subsequently on the unrelied-upon parts of the dossier's content found in the full version of the dossier.

I have not seen the FISA application that four times resulted in the FBI receiving from the FISC authorization to "wiretap" Carter Page; consequently, I don't know what elements of the Steele dossier were offered as being suggestive that crimes may have been or (then) may have continued to be committed.

Rule 13, always applies to federal court proceedings.

It is critical to note that the FISC's Rule 13 begins as follows:

(a) Correction of Material Facts. If the government discovers that a submission to the Court contained a misstatement or omission of material fact...​

It is essential to not that the information omitted must be "material." What makes information material? Well, all sorts of things do; however, one thing that makes an omission of information immaterial is that information having no bearing on what one may logically conclude based on that information's existence in an argument. Consequently, while one may or may not disclose that pieces of information used to justify the assertion that intrusive surveillance methods are needed to determine whether criminally prosecutable acts occurred, the fact that the information was obtained from "this or that" source is not material. It's not because ad hominem lines of refutation/attestation of merit are almost always fallacious.

For example, the fact that "your" enemy overheard "you" state "you" committed a crime does not take away from or make untrue the fact that "you" claimed to have committed it. Now, if "your" enemy reports to authorities that you made that claim, that that individual is "your" enemy and knowing so does indeed mean that his/her claim cannot be the sole basis for obtaining authorization for implementing intrusive surveillance techniques. Insofar as a warrant application includes "your" enemy's assertion along with other indicative information and declarations makes "your" enemy's declaration immaterial, but it is nonetheless rightly included in the warrant application.

Aside:

Rule 13, always applies to federal court proceedings.

All appellate courts have a "writ of certiorari" process whereby an appellate court may take it upon itself to review the proceedings of lower courts within their jurisdiction. Additionally, one may petition an appellate court to undertake such a review; petitioners do so by submitting a writ of certiorari, which if the writ is granted merit, the appellate court will commence a review of the relevant proceedings and decisions made in the relevant lower court. The thing to keep in mind is that writs of certiorari are themselves relevant submissions in appellate courts, not courts of original jurisdiction, so to speak, which is what the FISC is.

Rule 13 in the FISC's procedural rules is the FISC's "due diligence" approach to implementing an analogue to the certiorari process. It's likely, however, that something similar to Rule 13 exists in all courts.​

 

[JBond]

Devin duped me? Well, when he stops by tonight I will inform him of
that.

btw...Nobody disclosed that the memo was bought and paid for by the
DNC and the Clinton Campaign. That's a pretty big omission.

Oh? What part of the following is too difficult for you to comprehend...?

Republicans concede key FBI 'footnote' in Carter Page warrant

Devin Nunes said Monday the FBI had disclosed political backing for a Trump-Russia dossier in October 2016, but a controversial GOP memo released last week did not mention it.

Republican leaders are acknowledging that the FBI disclosed the political origins of a private dossier the bureau cited in an application to surveil former Trump campaign adviser Carter Page, undermining a controversial GOP memo released Friday and fueling Democratic demands to declassify more information about the bureau’s actions.​

They did not inform the FISA Court that the dossier was financed and
paid for by the DNC/Clinton Campaign.

There are no gray areas in applications. They are all black and white.
No Court is going to "assume" or "read between the lines."

If a lawyer wants something to be read between the lines, he damn well
better have some words between the lines.

The FBI and DOJ both believed they needed the extra weight of the Dossier
to continue to get extensions. The FBI and DOJ both believed that if they
told the court it was a political hit piece paid for by the DNC/Clinton Campaign, the court would not issue the extensions.

So they created the omission, which now that it has been discovered is
going to taint and probably destroy their entire case.

<smh>

I just fucking showed you they disclosed the political origins of the dossier. That you still can’t understand that is on you.

Nope...you haven't shown shit. The Grassley-Graham criminal referral
on Steele to the DOJ has just been partially unredacted and even that referral
points to the fact that the FBI never told the FISA Court that Steele
was paid for by the Clinton Campaign.

The referral is even better because the FBI refused to pay Steele because they knew he was lying to them, and then a week later they returned to the
FISA Court and still vouched for Steele's credibility, to get an extension on the FISA Warrant.

Sorry, but the lies are crumbling around you.

Nice attempt at diversion, but we were discussing if the FBI informed the FISC of the orgins of the dossier, not its veracity.

And as you’ve been shown repeatedly, the FBI disclosed the political origins of the dossier. Your hollow denials cannot alter that.

They did not disclose it was sourced from Russian intelligence agents.

 

[Faun]

Oh? What part of the following is too difficult for you to comprehend...?

Republicans concede key FBI 'footnote' in Carter Page warrant

Devin Nunes said Monday the FBI had disclosed political backing for a Trump-Russia dossier in October 2016, but a controversial GOP memo released last week did not mention it.

Republican leaders are acknowledging that the FBI disclosed the political origins of a private dossier the bureau cited in an application to surveil former Trump campaign adviser Carter Page, undermining a controversial GOP memo released Friday and fueling Democratic demands to declassify more information about the bureau’s actions.​

They did not inform the FISA Court that the dossier was financed and
paid for by the DNC/Clinton Campaign.

There are no gray areas in applications. They are all black and white.
No Court is going to "assume" or "read between the lines."

If a lawyer wants something to be read between the lines, he damn well
better have some words between the lines.

The FBI and DOJ both believed they needed the extra weight of the Dossier
to continue to get extensions. The FBI and DOJ both believed that if they
told the court it was a political hit piece paid for by the DNC/Clinton Campaign, the court would not issue the extensions.

So they created the omission, which now that it has been discovered is
going to taint and probably destroy their entire case.

<smh>

I just fucking showed you they disclosed the political origins of the dossier. That you still can’t understand that is on you.

Nope...you haven't shown shit. The Grassley-Graham criminal referral
on Steele to the DOJ has just been partially unredacted and even that referral
points to the fact that the FBI never told the FISA Court that Steele
was paid for by the Clinton Campaign.

The referral is even better because the FBI refused to pay Steele because they knew he was lying to them, and then a week later they returned to the
FISA Court and still vouched for Steele's credibility, to get an extension on the FISA Warrant.

Sorry, but the lies are crumbling around you.

Nice attempt at diversion, but we were discussing if the FBI informed the FISC of the orgins of the dossier, not its veracity.

And as you’ve been shown repeatedly, the FBI disclosed the political origins of the dossier. Your hollow denials cannot alter that.

They did not disclose it was sourced from Russian intelligence agents.

Oh? Why don’t you post the FISA warrant request and prove that....

 

[JBond]

They did not inform the FISA Court that the dossier was financed and
paid for by the DNC/Clinton Campaign.

There are no gray areas in applications. They are all black and white.
No Court is going to "assume" or "read between the lines."

If a lawyer wants something to be read between the lines, he damn well
better have some words between the lines.

The FBI and DOJ both believed they needed the extra weight of the Dossier
to continue to get extensions. The FBI and DOJ both believed that if they
told the court it was a political hit piece paid for by the DNC/Clinton Campaign, the court would not issue the extensions.

So they created the omission, which now that it has been discovered is
going to taint and probably destroy their entire case.

<smh>

I just fucking showed you they disclosed the political origins of the dossier. That you still can’t understand that is on you.

Nope...you haven't shown shit. The Grassley-Graham criminal referral
on Steele to the DOJ has just been partially unredacted and even that referral
points to the fact that the FBI never told the FISA Court that Steele
was paid for by the Clinton Campaign.

The referral is even better because the FBI refused to pay Steele because they knew he was lying to them, and then a week later they returned to the
FISA Court and still vouched for Steele's credibility, to get an extension on the FISA Warrant.

Sorry, but the lies are crumbling around you.

Nice attempt at diversion, but we were discussing if the FBI informed the FISC of the orgins of the dossier, not its veracity.

And as you’ve been shown repeatedly, the FBI disclosed the political origins of the dossier. Your hollow denials cannot alter that.

They did not disclose it was sourced from Russian intelligence agents.

Oh? Why don’t you post the FISA warrant request and prove that....

Show me one report that they did. It has been reported the the source was political. Nothing about Clinton and the DNC sourcing it from Russian intelligence agents.

 

[Faun]

<smh>

I just fucking showed you they disclosed the political origins of the dossier. That you still can’t understand that is on you.

Nope...you haven't shown shit. The Grassley-Graham criminal referral
on Steele to the DOJ has just been partially unredacted and even that referral
points to the fact that the FBI never told the FISA Court that Steele
was paid for by the Clinton Campaign.

The referral is even better because the FBI refused to pay Steele because they knew he was lying to them, and then a week later they returned to the
FISA Court and still vouched for Steele's credibility, to get an extension on the FISA Warrant.

Sorry, but the lies are crumbling around you.

Nice attempt at diversion, but we were discussing if the FBI informed the FISC of the orgins of the dossier, not its veracity.

And as you’ve been shown repeatedly, the FBI disclosed the political origins of the dossier. Your hollow denials cannot alter that.

They did not disclose it was sourced from Russian intelligence agents.

Oh? Why don’t you post the FISA warrant request and prove that....

Show me one report that they did. It has been reported the the source was political. Nothing about Clinton and the DNC sourcing it from Russian intelligence agents.

I don’t have to show you shit. You clearly made up a claim you can’t prove. And because you can’t prove yourself right, you want me to prove you wrong.

 

[DJT for Life]

Nope...you haven't shown shit. The Grassley-Graham criminal referral
on Steele to the DOJ has just been partially unredacted and even that referral
points to the fact that the FBI never told the FISA Court that Steele
was paid for by the Clinton Campaign.

The referral is even better because the FBI refused to pay Steele because they knew he was lying to them, and then a week later they returned to the
FISA Court and still vouched for Steele's credibility, to get an extension on the FISA Warrant.

Sorry, but the lies are crumbling around you.

Nice attempt at diversion, but we were discussing if the FBI informed the FISC of the orgins of the dossier, not its veracity.

And as you’ve been shown repeatedly, the FBI disclosed the political origins of the dossier. Your hollow denials cannot alter that.

They did not disclose it was sourced from Russian intelligence agents.

Oh? Why don’t you post the FISA warrant request and prove that....

Show me one report that they did. It has been reported the the source was political. Nothing about Clinton and the DNC sourcing it from Russian intelligence agents.

I don’t have to show you shit. You clearly made up a claim you can’t prove. And because you can’t prove yourself right, you want me to prove you wrong.

You can't show me shit, because you're wrong

 

[Faun]

Nice attempt at diversion, but we were discussing if the FBI informed the FISC of the orgins of the dossier, not its veracity.

And as you’ve been shown repeatedly, the FBI disclosed the political origins of the dossier. Your hollow denials cannot alter that.

They did not disclose it was sourced from Russian intelligence agents.

Oh? Why don’t you post the FISA warrant request and prove that....

Show me one report that they did. It has been reported the the source was political. Nothing about Clinton and the DNC sourcing it from Russian intelligence agents.

I don’t have to show you shit. You clearly made up a claim you can’t prove. And because you can’t prove yourself right, you want me to prove you wrong.

You can't show me shit, because you're wrong

Oh? Are you a jbond sock?

Regardless, the claim is... they [the FBI] did not disclose it [Steele’s dossier] was sourced from Russian intelligence agents.

See if you can prove that ^^^

 

[Tom Horn]

Rice, Mills, and Lynch all knew what was going on too.

Add in Holder and Van Jones and you got Hussein Mau Mau Brigade.....send a black to Harvard and they come out a communist.

 

[jon_berzerk]

the ball is rolling all the faster now

House Judiciary Chairman Bob Goodlatte

has written a letter to Presiding fisa Court Judge Rosemary Collyer

requesting the FBI application documents “Title 1” surveillance request against carter page

 

[jon_berzerk]

she in the past had been pretty short with the obama administration abuse of the fisc

one of her past opinions here

her ruling states the illegal searches conducted by the NSA

under Obama were “widespread” and created a “very serious Fourth Amendment issue.”

Top Secret FISA Court Order - President Obama Spying on Political Enemies

 

[JBond]

They did not disclose it was sourced from Russian intelligence agents.

Oh? Why don’t you post the FISA warrant request and prove that....

Show me one report that they did. It has been reported the the source was political. Nothing about Clinton and the DNC sourcing it from Russian intelligence agents.

I don’t have to show you shit. You clearly made up a claim you can’t prove. And because you can’t prove yourself right, you want me to prove you wrong.

You can't show me shit, because you're wrong

Oh? Are you a jbond sock?

Regardless, the claim is... they [the FBI] did not disclose it [Steele’s dossier] was sourced from Russian intelligence agents.

See if you can prove that ^^^

Nunes memo: Justice Department's FISA application never disclosed Steele dossier's ties to Clinton

There is a reason Democrats are fighting the release of more info including testimony.