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.
Sad, sordid and sullied mess that Hillary is so utterly consumed with power that her and Barry used the FBI and FISA to try and swing the election, then conjured up the Russia story to cover their tracks. Federal politics is dispicable
Also, those of you who say "intent" is meaningless are in fact meaningless as to comment worthiness
How do you know the first FISA warrant was "not above board?" Do you have the warrant application?Presupposing that the initial application was above board with 'all' the information given to the FISC judge (it wasn't). Nor were the x3 subsequent re-ups... This is not opinion, it's tangibly supported with evidence.Does that make the information either irrelevant or incorrect?
Yes it does because for one, it shows intent. Two, the information was never verified.
When you pay somebody looking for an outcome, you usually get that outcome even if it's not totally true. And any court should have questioned why this clown was not still working for his government if he was so reliable and good.
The motives of the informant have no bearing on the validity of the information.
You have no idea what was used from the dossier or if it had been corroborated.
The court sure wanted to know what the intent of the informant was. It's one of the questions on the FISA application. I can't wait to see how it was answered too because Steele was a well known Trump hater.
The intent is irrelevant. If I inform the cops on you and you get arrested, my feelings or motives are irrelevant as long as the information is reliable.
Obviously it was reliable as it was used subsequently for three renewals.
So all the FBI had for a tap on Page was some unknown's allegation that Page was involved with the Russians and TrumP?Does that make the information either irrelevant or incorrect?
Yes it does because for one, it shows intent. Two, the information was never verified.
When you pay somebody looking for an outcome, you usually get that outcome even if it's not totally true. And any court should have questioned why this clown was not still working for his government if he was so reliable and good.
The motives of the informant have no bearing on the validity of the information.
You have no idea what was used from the dossier or if it had been corroborated.
The court sure wanted to know what the intent of the informant was. It's one of the questions on the FISA application. I can't wait to see how it was answered too because Steele was a well known Trump hater.
The intent is irrelevant. If I inform the cops on you and you get arrested, my feelings or motives are irrelevant as long as the information is reliable.
Obviously it was reliable as it was used subsequently for three renewals.
You go to police and tell them I have illegal narcotics in my home. There isn't a court in the country that would issue a search warrant based on that information alone.
Your claim would have to be investigated, the DEA would have to set up phony drug purchases from me. They would need to have evidence such as the narcotics, and then they can approach the court for a warrant.
For all the police know, you may be a nosy neighbor that wants to get even with me because I blew my snow on your lawn in the winter, or setup a surveillance camera pointed at your property. So you made the whole thing up for revenge.
When the FBI approaches the court with evidence, that evidence has to have been investigated first. It has to be presented as a factual claim--not some guy working for Hillary.
Nope... but I do know that the source and, already debunked veracity, of the 'Steele dossier' were excluded. Remember, this was the 'foundation' for the FISA application. Again, not opinion... tangible supported by the evidenceHow do you know the first FISA warrant was "not above board?" Do you have the warrant application?Presupposing that the initial application was above board with 'all' the information given to the FISC judge (it wasn't). Nor were the x3 subsequent re-ups... This is not opinion, it's tangibly supported with evidence.Yes it does because for one, it shows intent. Two, the information was never verified.
When you pay somebody looking for an outcome, you usually get that outcome even if it's not totally true. And any court should have questioned why this clown was not still working for his government if he was so reliable and good.
The motives of the informant have no bearing on the validity of the information.
You have no idea what was used from the dossier or if it had been corroborated.
The court sure wanted to know what the intent of the informant was. It's one of the questions on the FISA application. I can't wait to see how it was answered too because Steele was a well known Trump hater.
The intent is irrelevant. If I inform the cops on you and you get arrested, my feelings or motives are irrelevant as long as the information is reliable.
Obviously it was reliable as it was used subsequently for three renewals.
and cleared by the FBI in 2013. If he was an asset to the Russians, why wouldn't he be in jail?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.
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.
The FISA system does not investigate crime.
They gather intelligence. Specifically from foreign sources or their agents and assets.
The warrant on Page came about because he had travelled to Russia that summer and met with several high ranking Russian officials. Some of these meetings were described in the dossier. That is why it was used as corroborating information on the warrant application. Page has since confirmed those meetings happened in his testimony before congress.
Carter Page's testimony is filled with bombshells — and supports key portions of the Steele dossier
And what was illegal about those meetings? Why is he walking around a free man today?
You people on the left have been chasing this Russia ghost for over a year now, and making claims of changing the election. Nothing to prove that. However the person who did have Russian connections and did try to change the election you stick up for because she's a Democrat.
Who said it was illegal?
He was targeted because of his history of acting as a foreign agent and the nature of who and when he was meeting.
What was debunked in the Steele dossier before the application for the extension? That Putin oversaw hacking of the Dems (not only not disproven but proven) That Trump owed millions to Russia. (proven by his kids) That the Russians were seeking access to the Trump campaign? (proven)Nope... but I do know that the source and already debunked veracity of the 'Steele dossier' were excluded. Remember this was the 'foundation' for the application. Again, not opinion... tangible evidenceHow do you know the first FISA warrant was "not above board?" Do you have the warrant application?Presupposing that the initial application was above board with 'all' the information given to the FISC judge (it wasn't). Nor were the x3 subsequent re-ups... This is not opinion, it's tangibly supported with evidence.The motives of the informant have no bearing on the validity of the information.
You have no idea what was used from the dossier or if it had been corroborated.
The court sure wanted to know what the intent of the informant was. It's one of the questions on the FISA application. I can't wait to see how it was answered too because Steele was a well known Trump hater.
The intent is irrelevant. If I inform the cops on you and you get arrested, my feelings or motives are irrelevant as long as the information is reliable.
Obviously it was reliable as it was used subsequently for three renewals.
Yep and what you described is a ladle full of sentiment designed to cover or vacate factsSad, sordid and sullied mess that Hillary is so utterly consumed with power that her and Barry used the FBI and FISA to try and swing the election, then conjured up the Russia story to cover their tracks. Federal politics is dispicable
Also, those of you who say "intent" is meaningless are in fact meaningless as to comment worthiness
But remember to reveal the 'cancer' is to "diminish" the 'above reproach' trust and respect that our nation and the world have for these 'venerable' institutions; thereby "undermining the Nation". It's what I'm hearing on the MSM...
What was debunked in the Steele dossier before the application for the extension? That Putin oversaw hacking of the Dems (not only not disproven but proven) That Trump owed millions to Russia. (proven by his kids) That the Russians were seeking access to the Trump campaign? (proven)Nope... but I do know that the source and already debunked veracity of the 'Steele dossier' were excluded. Remember this was the 'foundation' for the application. Again, not opinion... tangible evidenceHow do you know the first FISA warrant was "not above board?" Do you have the warrant application?Presupposing that the initial application was above board with 'all' the information given to the FISC judge (it wasn't). Nor were the x3 subsequent re-ups... This is not opinion, it's tangibly supported with evidence.The court sure wanted to know what the intent of the informant was. It's one of the questions on the FISA application. I can't wait to see how it was answered too because Steele was a well known Trump hater.
The intent is irrelevant. If I inform the cops on you and you get arrested, my feelings or motives are irrelevant as long as the information is reliable.
Obviously it was reliable as it was used subsequently for three renewals.
Presupposing that the initial application was above board with 'all' the information given to the FISC judge (it wasn't). Nor were the x3 subsequent re-ups... This is not opinion, it's tangibly supported with evidence.Does that make the information either irrelevant or incorrect?
Yes it does because for one, it shows intent. Two, the information was never verified.
When you pay somebody looking for an outcome, you usually get that outcome even if it's not totally true. And any court should have questioned why this clown was not still working for his government if he was so reliable and good.
The motives of the informant have no bearing on the validity of the information.
You have no idea what was used from the dossier or if it had been corroborated.
The court sure wanted to know what the intent of the informant was. It's one of the questions on the FISA application. I can't wait to see how it was answered too because Steele was a well known Trump hater.
The intent is irrelevant. If I inform the cops on you and you get arrested, my feelings or motives are irrelevant as long as the information is reliable.
Obviously it was reliable as it was used subsequently for three renewals.
That is a good question, but the pertinent question is, if the original warrant was improperly granted, anything stemming from additional surveillance would be inadmissible to any court.Well, did they collect anything useful during the extension?well technically, they couldn't use the same evidence to get the extensions. They had to lie and say they were getting intel that was important to continue to collect. Lie after lie, after lie, after lie. There are three afterward.Those who have carefully read the Nunes memo will notice that it never says the application to monitor Carter Page was illegal.
What point are you trying to make?
The Dossier was used in the 3 other applications and the FISA Court
wasn't told it was paid and financed by the DNC and Clinton Campaign.
They hid that from the court. That makes the 3 extensions illegal and very
possibly an abuse of the 4th amendment rights of anybody monitored.
Thus, you can kiss that special counsel goodbye, once SCOTUS has
this presented to them. They'll have no choice, because the FBI/SC
will never be able to distinguish one from the other.
LOL, not going to bother responding you your tripe... The facts are out there...Yep and what you described is a ladle full of sentiment designed to cover or vacate factsSad, sordid and sullied mess that Hillary is so utterly consumed with power that her and Barry used the FBI and FISA to try and swing the election, then conjured up the Russia story to cover their tracks. Federal politics is dispicable
Also, those of you who say "intent" is meaningless are in fact meaningless as to comment worthiness
But remember to reveal the 'cancer' is to "diminish" the 'above reproach' trust and respect that our nation and the world have for these 'venerable' institutions; thereby "undermining the Nation". It's what I'm hearing on the MSM...
Does that make the information either irrelevant or incorrect?
Yes it does because for one, it shows intent. Two, the information was never verified.
When you pay somebody looking for an outcome, you usually get that outcome even if it's not totally true. And any court should have questioned why this clown was not still working for his government if he was so reliable and good.
The motives of the informant have no bearing on the validity of the information.
You have no idea what was used from the dossier or if it had been corroborated.
The court sure wanted to know what the intent of the informant was. It's one of the questions on the FISA application. I can't wait to see how it was answered too because Steele was a well known Trump hater.
The intent is irrelevant. If I inform the cops on you and you get arrested, my feelings or motives are irrelevant as long as the information is reliable.
Obviously it was reliable as it was used subsequently for three renewals.
You go to police and tell them I have illegal narcotics in my home. There isn't a court in the country that would issue a search warrant based on that information alone.
Your claim would have to be investigated, the DEA would have to set up phony drug purchases from me. They would need to have evidence such as the narcotics, and then they can approach the court for a warrant.
For all the police know, you may be a nosy neighbor that wants to get even with me because I blew my snow on your lawn in the winter, or setup a surveillance camera pointed at your property. So you made the whole thing up for revenge.
When the FBI approaches the court with evidence, that evidence has to have been investigated first. It has to be presented as a factual claim--not some guy working for Hillary.
so explain the difference from what Jr. supposedly did?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.
Does that make the information either irrelevant or incorrect?
Yes it does because for one, it shows intent. Two, the information was never verified.
When you pay somebody looking for an outcome, you usually get that outcome even if it's not totally true. And any court should have questioned why this clown was not still working for his government if he was so reliable and good.
The motives of the informant have no bearing on the validity of the information.
You have no idea what was used from the dossier or if it had been corroborated.
The court sure wanted to know what the intent of the informant was. It's one of the questions on the FISA application. I can't wait to see how it was answered too because Steele was a well known Trump hater.
The intent is irrelevant. If I inform the cops on you and you get arrested, my feelings or motives are irrelevant as long as the information is reliable.
Obviously it was reliable as it was used subsequently for three renewals.
I fking know he was cleared in 2014 when he testified for the FBI in a court case. yes, I do know! Now you post up evidence he was an asset.No facts support your beliefs because you have no fucking way of knowing either exactly what the FBI thought Page knew or what they learned through the tap extension.and yet the facts are supporting our beliefs. Again, the position we have always taken is there was no evidence to support the need of Mueller. And now we get verification. don't know what to tell you!Well stated counselor. LOL Nunes has succeeded in showing to the Trumpbots that Mueller has no case. Of course, you knew that before and were not open to factsOh? What part of the following is too difficult for you to comprehend...?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.
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.
and not information obtained from a campaign opponent.Does that make the information either irrelevant or incorrect?
Yes it does because for one, it shows intent. Two, the information was never verified.
When you pay somebody looking for an outcome, you usually get that outcome even if it's not totally true. And any court should have questioned why this clown was not still working for his government if he was so reliable and good.
The motives of the informant have no bearing on the validity of the information.
You have no idea what was used from the dossier or if it had been corroborated.
The court sure wanted to know what the intent of the informant was. It's one of the questions on the FISA application. I can't wait to see how it was answered too because Steele was a well known Trump hater.
The intent is irrelevant. If I inform the cops on you and you get arrested, my feelings or motives are irrelevant as long as the information is reliable.
Obviously it was reliable as it was used subsequently for three renewals.
You go to police and tell them I have illegal narcotics in my home. There isn't a court in the country that would issue a search warrant based on that information alone.
Your claim would have to be investigated, the DEA would have to set up phony drug purchases from me. They would need to have evidence such as the narcotics, and then they can approach the court for a warrant.
For all the police know, you may be a nosy neighbor that wants to get even with me because I blew my snow on your lawn in the winter, or setup a surveillance camera pointed at your property. So you made the whole thing up for revenge.
When the FBI approaches the court with evidence, that evidence has to have been investigated first. It has to be presented as a factual claim--not some guy working for Hillary.
hahahahahahahahaahahahaand yet the facts are supporting our beliefs. Again, the position we have always taken is there was no evidence to support the need of Mueller. And now we get verification. don't know what to tell you!Well stated counselor. LOL Nunes has succeeded in showing to the Trumpbots that Mueller has no case. Of course, you knew that before and were not open to factsOh? What part of the following is too difficult for you to comprehend...?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.
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.
I still don't get why you believe that the warrant on page has anything at all to do with Mueller.
he was cleared. he handled classified documents. anyone working in the WH has to be cleared. He had not completed the whole process, but had interim clearance. They just stated so at the WH Briefing.and cleared by the FBI in 2013. If he was an asset to the Russians, why wouldn't he be in jail?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.
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.
The FISA system does not investigate crime.
They gather intelligence. Specifically from foreign sources or their agents and assets.
The warrant on Page came about because he had travelled to Russia that summer and met with several high ranking Russian officials. Some of these meetings were described in the dossier. That is why it was used as corroborating information on the warrant application. Page has since confirmed those meetings happened in his testimony before congress.
Carter Page's testimony is filled with bombshells — and supports key portions of the Steele dossier
And what was illegal about those meetings? Why is he walking around a free man today?
You people on the left have been chasing this Russia ghost for over a year now, and making claims of changing the election. Nothing to prove that. However the person who did have Russian connections and did try to change the election you stick up for because she's a Democrat.
Who said it was illegal?
He was targeted because of his history of acting as a foreign agent and the nature of who and when he was meeting.
Was he cleared or did he just stop acting as an agent and a warrant was no longer warranted.
As to why he hasn't been charged? I couldn't say. The point of the FISA system is to gain intelligence and not to prosecute. I would assume he's more valuable in that capacity rather than sitting in prison. Maybe he's a double agent
That is a good question, but the pertinent question is, if the original warrant was improperly granted, anything stemming from additional surveillance would be inadmissible to any court.Well, did they collect anything useful during the extension?well technically, they couldn't use the same evidence to get the extensions. They had to lie and say they were getting intel that was important to continue to collect. Lie after lie, after lie, after lie. There are three afterward.Those who have carefully read the Nunes memo will notice that it never says the application to monitor Carter Page was illegal.
What point are you trying to make?
The Dossier was used in the 3 other applications and the FISA Court
wasn't told it was paid and financed by the DNC and Clinton Campaign.
They hid that from the court. That makes the 3 extensions illegal and very
possibly an abuse of the 4th amendment rights of anybody monitored.
Thus, you can kiss that special counsel goodbye, once SCOTUS has
this presented to them. They'll have no choice, because the FBI/SC
will never be able to distinguish one from the other.
Do you know that 98% of all applications are given warrants? That's hilarious to even fathom. That pretty much says you bring in a note on a piece of toilet paper you'd get a warrant. so no, that does not qualify as such the the warrant was properly handled.That is a good question, but the pertinent question is, if the original warrant was improperly granted, anything stemming from additional surveillance would be inadmissible to any court.Well, did they collect anything useful during the extension?well technically, they couldn't use the same evidence to get the extensions. They had to lie and say they were getting intel that was important to continue to collect. Lie after lie, after lie, after lie. There are three afterward.Those who have carefully read the Nunes memo will notice that it never says the application to monitor Carter Page was illegal.
What point are you trying to make?
The Dossier was used in the 3 other applications and the FISA Court
wasn't told it was paid and financed by the DNC and Clinton Campaign.
They hid that from the court. That makes the 3 extensions illegal and very
possibly an abuse of the 4th amendment rights of anybody monitored.
Thus, you can kiss that special counsel goodbye, once SCOTUS has
this presented to them. They'll have no choice, because the FBI/SC
will never be able to distinguish one from the other.
That alone should tell you that it probably wasn't just bullshit to begin with.
Incorrect. Many a case has been thrown out due to information that wasn't collected legitimately.That is a good question, but the pertinent question is, if the original warrant was improperly granted, anything stemming from additional surveillance would be inadmissible to any court.Well, did they collect anything useful during the extension?well technically, they couldn't use the same evidence to get the extensions. They had to lie and say they were getting intel that was important to continue to collect. Lie after lie, after lie, after lie. There are three afterward.Those who have carefully read the Nunes memo will notice that it never says the application to monitor Carter Page was illegal.
What point are you trying to make?
The Dossier was used in the 3 other applications and the FISA Court
wasn't told it was paid and financed by the DNC and Clinton Campaign.
They hid that from the court. That makes the 3 extensions illegal and very
possibly an abuse of the 4th amendment rights of anybody monitored.
Thus, you can kiss that special counsel goodbye, once SCOTUS has
this presented to them. They'll have no choice, because the FBI/SC
will never be able to distinguish one from the other.
That alone should tell you that it probably wasn't just bullshit to begin with.
