Key Revelations in the Nunes Memo that Democrats Keep Ignoring

[forkup]

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.

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?

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 Legally

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?

Still irrelevant to your point.

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.

irrelevant

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.

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.

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?

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 Trump
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.

FBI never asks for FISA warrants in *any* kind of investigation unless they have already been investigating the person

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.

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.

Bias doesn't destroy the validity, neither can you claim the dossier stood by itself

That's because they don't deserve a response but are pointless diversions from the real issues at hand.

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.
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.

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.

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.

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.

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?

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.

I see we're gonna go around in circles because you won't admit anything. But, a few points in reply:

Not for nothing. I'm one of the few people on this forum who actually can show, that I put the truth before my opinion when those 2 don't mesh.

I'm gonna do something here you'll probably find weird. I just did a search about the amount of people that actually used a gun to prevent burglary. Now I just said that the government should try to help the most amount of people. I found that statistically it is more likely to stop a crime by owning a gun then it is to be used in a crime. So in light of this I find my objection to handguns in the house untenable.

One of the few people who can show, that my position on certain things, as for instance law enforcement doesn't change when that position puts me at odds with, what you'd consider my own side.

Comey did what he had to do when he got new information. He notified congress the moment he got it. He took politics out of the equation, protecting the integrity of the bureau. He also knew politics would be put into it the moment it got released, but in my opinion acted in the best interest for his agency.

I very much doubt you can say the same. So when you find me going around in circles, you should examine if your arguments are actually compelling enough.

* "Bias" is one thing; actively working for and taking money from the person's enemies is something entirely different.

How is it different? Of all the reasons someone shows bias to someone else money seems paltry compared to revenge, lust, hate to name a few. So why do you think this is particularly damning?

* The court in this case did not know it was accepting information from such a disreputable source

Says you, it's disputed and neither of us has seen the underlining intelligence, making this an opinion.

The fact that the FBI used the Steele dossier as an "ESSENTIAL" part of the FISA application

Again, says you and the memo. Unless you can prove this besides a memo written by a single party, again an opinion.

* 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

The same reason every prosecutor keeps on investigating after the first piece of evidence is uncovered. More information makes a stronger case.

According to the memo, McCabe testified that there would have been no FISA application without the Steele dossier.

ACCORDING to the memo. You just made my point. It's contested so without the underlining information, why would the memo's version of events be more accurate then the Democrats version?

* The fact that even when the FBI submitted renewal FISA applications

A renewal can not rely on the Steele dossier. This means that regardless of any supposed wrongdoing Page still gave enough probable cause besides that to warrant renewals. Confirming again that Page wasn't an innocent victim.

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.

How does the Comey memo a few weeks before the election fit in that story? If they really would have been desperate enough to get Hilary they would have sat on it until after the election. Why would they be willing to on the one hand go after the Trump campaign by doctoring evidence and on the other hand destroy that work by releasing they found new e-mails?

* If the initial information on Page was as compelling as you claim

These are not claims, confirmed instances A Former Trump Adviser Met With A Russian Spy, The biggest bombshells in Carter Page’s Russia testimony to Congress Unlike the memo, the underlying information is readily available.

 

[mikegriffith1]

You are the congenital liar. Comey never testified that all of the dossier was salacious and unverified. He said there were parts of it that were verified, unverified and salacious. That is his testimony. Some of it had been verified.

Oh, ok. So, uh, it's okay to use a memo that "only" has "parts" that are "salacious and unverified" in a FISA application?! And it's also okay not to tell the FISA court that one of the "essential" sources for your FISA application contains "salacious and unverified" claims?

And it's likewise okay not to tell the FISA court that that "essential" source was written by a shady ex-spy who was getting paid big bucks by Hillary and the DNC to dig up dirt on Trump and who was later fired even by the FBI because he was found to be dishonest and unreliable?

The founder of Fusion GPS stated it was his impression that the FBI already had some of the information.

Oh! The founder of the firm that took took hundreds of thousands of dollars to dig up dirt on Trump and that used a disreputable ex-spy to do it said that, hey?! Well, gee! There you go, right?! It must be true!

Have you even read the Steele dossier? You might wanna break down and read it. Just keep in mind that it was written by a guy who was not only taking in handfuls of money to smear Trump but who was later fired even by the FBI because he was found to be dishonest and unreliable.

If the information is verified, it doesn't matter how it came about.

Which parts of the dossier were verified? Which ones? Funny that when Comey was asked point-blank by Rep. Burr if the FBI had been able to confirm a single one of the criminal claims in the dossier, he would not even say yes or no. Instead, he claimed that he could not answer that question in open session! Yeah, uh-huh. Can't even say yes or no, hey?

Now, gee, why couldn't Comey at least just say yes or no? A more believable answer would have been to say, "Yes, we were able to confirm parts of the memo, but I can't go into any details in open session." But he wouldn't even say whether or not the FBI had confirmed a shred of that dossier.

Again you seem to have no understanding of how a calendar works.

And you seem to have a reading comprehension problem, or else you simply did not read my replies. I've pointed out several times, as the memo points out, that the information on Papadopoulos was used by Strzok to start the Russian-collusion witch hunt before the FISA application was even drafted and that that same information found its way into the FISA application. Did you miss that part?

The memo states the FISA warrant was obtained in October. The trouble is that ;Paige left in September. October comes after September. At the time the FISA warrant was obtained, Paige was a former Trump campaign worker. Also the Trump campaign stated that Paige had no major role in the campaign and had not met with Trump.

First of all, it's "Page," not "Paige." You can't even get that basic fact straight. Maybe some of your liberal sources misspell his name.

You ignore the fact that although Page was dismissed from the Trump campaign in September 2016, he kept in e-mail contact with some of Trump's foreign policy advisers, and the FBI might have suspected that Page would make covert contact with Trump campaign officials to pass along a (non-existent) Russian offer of support in exchange for a promise of sanctions relief.

By the way, the FBI wire-tapped Page for a year and obviously found nothing for which to indict him. If they found any evidence of wrongdoing, where's the indictment? Where is it?

All your accusations come from the memo.

And all of your denials, diversions, and distortions come from Democratic talking points.

There is no independent source to confirm the memo.

REALLY? What about the McCabe transcript? What about the FISA application? What about Strzok's text messages? Republicans are calling for the release of McCabe's testimony transcript, for starters. Why aren't Dems joining in that call, hey? If, as they say, Nunes has misquoted McCabe's testimony, we can settle this in five minutes by releasing the transcript of his testimony. Now, gee, why do you suppose Dems aren't beating down the door to get that transcript released? Gosh, I can't imagine!

Trump's Chief of Staff says it is underwhelming. Former Republican AG Alberto Gonzalez says he has no confidence in it.

Really? I doubt that you're accurately representing Kelly's views on the memo. And I couldn't care less what Gonzalez thinks about it. But, I ask yet again: If there's nothing to this memo, why did the Dems fight like rabid dogs and tell all kinds of lies about it to try to keep it from being released?

The underlying material was not released so there is no way to confirm the memo.

Oh, there most certainly is a way to confirm the memo: release the McCabe transcript, and also the FISA application. Republicans are calling for the release of the McCabe transcript for now, and are suggesting that the FISA application should be released after that. Gee, what are the Dems saying about all this? Take a guess.

 

[Faun]

You are the congenital liar. Comey never testified that all of the dossier was salacious and unverified. He said there were parts of it that were verified, unverified and salacious. That is his testimony. Some of it had been verified.

Oh, ok. So, uh, it's okay to use a memo that "only" has "parts" that are "salacious and unverified" in a FISA application?! And it's also okay not to tell the FISA court that one of the "essential" sources for your FISA application contains "salacious and unverified" claims?

And there's where the memo begins to fall apart since it offers zero evidence that the unverified parts were presented to the FISC.

And it's likewise okay not to tell the FISA court that that "essential" source was written by a shady ex-spy who was getting paid big bucks to dig up dirt on Trump and who was later fired even by the FBI because he was found to be dishonest and unreliable?

How could the FBI inform the FISC their source was fired at a later date, after the date they filed for the warrant?

And who says the FBI didn't inform the FISC the dossier was politically backed?

 

[mikegriffith1]

And there's where the memo begins to fall apart since it offers zero evidence that the unverified parts were presented to the FISC.

Huh? The memo does not say that only parts of the dossier were used. It says the dossier was an "essential" part of the FISA application. There is no suggestion that only part of the dossier was used.

Here's a basic principle of intelligence and law enforcement: You don't use *any* part of a dossier that comes from such a questionable source and that was paid for by the target's political enemies unless you have ironclad verification that every key claim therein is valid. Nothing of the sort had been done with the Steele dossier:

. . . 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. (Section 4)​

How could the FBI inform the FISC their source was fired at a later date, after the date they filed for the warrant?

Sheesh, are you kidding? Are you really making such a dumb argument? The FBI asked for renewals of the warrant after they fired Steele. They could have, and of course should have, advised the FISA court of this fact and of Steele's character and conduct when they applied for those renewals.

And who says the FBI didn't inform the FISC the dossier was politically backed?

WHAT?! Who says they did?! The memo says they did not, and not one of the principals named in the memo has claimed that "oh, no, I did tell the court that an 'essential' part of the application consisted of a smear dossier paid for by the DNC and Hillary."

Sheesh, can you read? It's people like you who help reduce nations to banana republics and dictatorships.

And now we find out that the Grassley-Graham criminal referral supports key aspects of the Nunes memo.

Criminal referral backs up Nunes on dossier claims, as Dems push rebuttal memo

 

[bendog]

And there's where the memo begins to fall apart since it offers zero evidence that the unverified parts were presented to the FISC.

Huh? The memo does not say that only parts of the dossier were used. It says the dossier was an "essential" part of the FISA application. There is no suggestion that only part of the dossier was used.

Here's a basic principle of intelligence and law enforcement: You don't use *any* part of a dossier that comes from such a questionable source and that was paid for by the target's political enemies unless you have ironclad verification that every key claim therein is valid. Nothing of the sort had been done with the Steele dossier:

. . . 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. (Section 4)​

How could the FBI inform the FISC their source was fired at a later date, after the date they filed for the warrant?

Sheesh, are you kidding? Are you really making such a dumb argument? The FBI asked for renewals of the warrant after they fired Steele. They could have, and of course should have, advised the FISA court of this fact and of Steele's character and conduct when they applied for those renewals.

And who says the FBI didn't inform the FISC the dossier was politically backed?

WHAT?! Who says they did?! The memo says they did not, and not one of the principals named in the memo has claimed that "oh, no, I did tell the court that an 'essential' part of the application consisted of a smear dossier paid for by the DNC and Hillary."

Sheesh, can you read? It's people like you who help reduce nations to banana republics and dictatorships.

And now we find out that the Grassley-Graham criminal referral supports key aspects of the Nunes memo.

Criminal referral backs up Nunes on dossier claims, as Dems push rebuttal memo

Every fact or allegation in the Steele memos could not possibly have been used. You may be able to say that without specific facts being asserted as quite possibly true and based on sources found to be credible, the warrant extension would not have been granted.

But that really proves nothing, because parts of Steele's memos are known to be true. If the FBI didnt' disclose Steele's motives were perhaps taited, you'd probably have something, at least imo.

 

[mikegriffith1]

Every fact or allegation in the Steele memos could not possibly have been used. You may be able to say that without specific facts being asserted as quite possibly true and based on sources found to be credible, the warrant extension would not have been granted.

But that really proves nothing, because parts of Steele's memos are known to be true. If the FBI didnt' disclose Steele's motives were perhaps taited, you'd probably have something, at least imo.

I guess you missed the part of my reply, which you quoted, where I noted that the head of FBI counterintel said that vetting of Steele's dossier was in its "infancy" when the FISA application was submitted, and that an internal review found that the dossier had only been "minimally" verified.

The Nunes memo states that McCabe himself testified that without the Steele dossier, there would have been no FISA application. The memo also states that the Steele dossier was an "essential" part of the FISA application.

At a minimum, this suggests that at least large chunks of the Steele dossier were used in the application. The dossier is only 35 pages long. That's not an excessively long document to include/use in a FISA application.

My point is that even if only parts were used, *none* of the dossier should not have been used until all of its key claims had been verified, and that, if used, the FISA court should have been made aware of the dossier's political and financial origins.

 

[bendog]

Every fact or allegation in the Steele memos could not possibly have been used. You may be able to say that without specific facts being asserted as quite possibly true and based on sources found to be credible, the warrant extension would not have been granted.

But that really proves nothing, because parts of Steele's memos are known to be true. If the FBI didnt' disclose Steele's motives were perhaps taited, you'd probably have something, at least imo.

I guess you missed the part of my reply, which you quoted, where I noted that the head of FBI counterintel said that vetting of Steele's dossier was in its "infancy" when the FISA application was submitted, and that an internal review found that the dossier had only been "minimally" verified.

The Nunes memo states that McCabe himself testified that without the Steele dossier, there would have been no FISA application. The memo also states that the Steele dossier was an "essential" part of the FISA application.

At a minimum, this suggests that at least large chunks of the Steele dossier were used in the application. The dossier is only 35 pages long. That's not an excessively long document to include/use in a FISA application.

My point is that even if only parts were used, *none* of the dossier should not have been used until all of its key claims had been verified, and that, if used, the FISA court should have been made aware of the dossier's political and financial origins.

I understand your point is "My point is that even if only parts were used, *none* of the dossier should not have been used until all of its key claims had been verified, and that, if used, the FISA court should have been made aware of the dossier's political and financial origins"

However, that's not how warrants work. Information is not "verified" in terms of being proven true. For example, it's impossible for a police officer to know a confidential informant is telling him the truth that person A will be carrying a bag of coke into a specific building on a specific day. Rather what has to be proven is that its more likely than not true, based upon sources known to be credible by the person(s) applying for the warrant, and likely to result in evidence of a crime.

Probable cause applies to fisa and "regular old" search warrants. Probable cause - Wikipedia

We have no way of knowing what specifically the agents said was more likely than not true.

Fisa warrants are subject to "extra" checking inside the FBI. That is supervisors have to sign off on every alleged fact. What will be interesting will be if the Inspector General makes any investigation and findings as to whether that occurred with Page.

and the FISA court was advised the Steele information had a political taint.

 

[radical right]

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.

You know that a warrant has to be supported by a sworn affidavit supporting all the facts being alleged. We know Steele didn't swear an affidavit , so who swore the facts used from the dossier were true? And since federal warrants operate under the hearsay rule, the person swearing an affidavit would have to include his personal knowledge of the facts.

 

[hazlnut]

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

#1 is completely false and impossible. Nothing gets in front of a FISA judge until it's rigorously vetted multiple times.


You people still haven't come to accept that items in the Steele Dossier have been investigated and found to be true by the FBI.

That's right -- the Steele Dossier, though politically motivated, contains allegations backed up by FACTS.

These FACTS can be presented to back up transcripts of the wire taps.

In order to get the FISA warrant extended another 90 days -- THE MAIN EVIDENCE is transcripts from the first 90 days proving that Carter was up to no good.... Get it?



I won't waste my time with the rest.

FAIL

 

[busybee01]

You are the congenital liar. Comey never testified that all of the dossier was salacious and unverified. He said there were parts of it that were verified, unverified and salacious. That is his testimony. Some of it had been verified.

Oh, ok. So, uh, it's okay to use a memo that "only" has "parts" that are "salacious and unverified" in a FISA application?! And it's also okay not to tell the FISA court that one of the "essential" sources for your FISA application contains "salacious and unverified" claims?

And it's likewise okay not to tell the FISA court that that "essential" source was written by a shady ex-spy who was getting paid big bucks by Hillary and the DNC to dig up dirt on Trump and who was later fired even by the FBI because he was found to be dishonest and unreliable?

The founder of Fusion GPS stated it was his impression that the FBI already had some of the information.

Oh! The founder of the firm that took took hundreds of thousands of dollars to dig up dirt on Trump and that used a disreputable ex-spy to do it said that, hey?! Well, gee! There you go, right?! It must be true!

Have you even read the Steele dossier? You might wanna break down and read it. Just keep in mind that it was written by a guy who was not only taking in handfuls of money to smear Trump but who was later fired even by the FBI because he was found to be dishonest and unreliable.

If the information is verified, it doesn't matter how it came about.

Which parts of the dossier were verified? Which ones? Funny that when Comey was asked point-blank by Rep. Burr if the FBI had been able to confirm a single one of the criminal claims in the dossier, he would not even say yes or no. Instead, he claimed that he could not answer that question in open session! Yeah, uh-huh. Can't even say yes or no, hey?

Now, gee, why couldn't Comey at least just say yes or no? A more believable answer would have been to say, "Yes, we were able to confirm parts of the memo, but I can't go into any details in open session." But he wouldn't even say whether or not the FBI had confirmed a shred of that dossier.

Again you seem to have no understanding of how a calendar works.

And you seem to have a reading comprehension problem, or else you simply did not read my replies. I've pointed out several times, as the memo points out, that the information on Papadopoulos was used by Strzok to start the Russian-collusion witch hunt before the FISA application was even drafted and that that same information found its way into the FISA application. Did you miss that part?

The memo states the FISA warrant was obtained in October. The trouble is that ;Paige left in September. October comes after September. At the time the FISA warrant was obtained, Paige was a former Trump campaign worker. Also the Trump campaign stated that Paige had no major role in the campaign and had not met with Trump.

First of all, it's "Page," not "Paige." You can't even get that basic fact straight. Maybe some of your liberal sources misspell his name.

You ignore the fact that although Page was dismissed from the Trump campaign in September 2016, he kept in e-mail contact with some of Trump's foreign policy advisers, and the FBI might have suspected that Page would make covert contact with Trump campaign officials to pass along a (non-existent) Russian offer of support in exchange for a promise of sanctions relief.

By the way, the FBI wire-tapped Page for a year and obviously found nothing for which to indict him. If they found any evidence of wrongdoing, where's the indictment? Where is it?

All your accusations come from the memo.

And all of your denials, diversions, and distortions come from Democratic talking points.

There is no independent source to confirm the memo.

REALLY? What about the McCabe transcript? What about the FISA application? What about Strzok's text messages? Republicans are calling for the release of McCabe's testimony transcript, for starters. Why aren't Dems joining in that call, hey? If, as they say, Nunes has misquoted McCabe's testimony, we can settle this in five minutes by releasing the transcript of his testimony. Now, gee, why do you suppose Dems aren't beating down the door to get that transcript released? Gosh, I can't imagine!

Trump's Chief of Staff says it is underwhelming. Former Republican AG Alberto Gonzalez says he has no confidence in it.

Really? I doubt that you're accurately representing Kelly's views on the memo. And I couldn't care less what Gonzalez thinks about it. But, I ask yet again: If there's nothing to this memo, why did the Dems fight like rabid dogs and tell all kinds of lies about it to try to keep it from being released?

The underlying material was not released so there is no way to confirm the memo.

Oh, there most certainly is a way to confirm the memo: release the McCabe transcript, and also the FISA application. Republicans are calling for the release of the McCabe transcript for now, and are suggesting that the FISA application should be released after that. Gee, what are the Dems saying about all this? Take a guess.

Oh, ok. So, uh, it's okay to use a memo that "only" has "parts" that are "salacious and unverified" in a FISA application?! And it's also okay not to tell the FISA court that one of the "essential" sources for your FISA application contains "salacious and unverified" claims?

And it's likewise okay not to tell the FISA court that that "essential" source was written by a shady ex-spy who was getting paid big bucks by Hillary and the DNC to dig up dirt on Trump and who was later fired even by the FBI because he was found to be dishonest and unreliable?​

I suppose you have seen the FISA document. Nunes has admitted that he has not seen it and admitted that the application does say it was a political document. The dossier contains verified information as well. Also unverified and salacious does not mean it is not true. It means that it cannot be proven true or false.

Steele is not a shady ex-spy. His investigation of FIFA uncovered major corruption and led to major reforms. The head of FIFA was forced out because of it. He was fired because he talked to the press about it.

Oh! The founder of the firm that took took hundreds of thousands of dollars to dig up dirt on Trump and that used a disreputable ex-spy to do it said that, hey?! Well, gee! There you go, right?! It must be true!

Have you even read the Steele dossier? You might wanna break down and read it. Just keep in mind that it was written by a guy who was not only taking in handfuls of money to smear Trump but who was later fired even by the FBI because he was found to be dishonest and unreliable.

He was fired because he talked to the press. He is not a disreputable ex-spy. You are the disreputable one. You will smear anyone to protect Trump. Nunes is the shady one.

Which parts of the dossier were verified? Which ones? Funny that when Comey was asked point-blank by Rep. Burr if the FBI had been able to confirm a single one of the criminal claims in the dossier, he would not even say yes or no. Instead, he claimed that he could not answer that question in open session! Yeah, uh-huh. Can't even say yes or no, hey?

Now, gee, why couldn't Comey at least just say yes or no? A more believable answer would have been to say, "Yes, we were able to confirm parts of the memo, but I can't go into any details in open session." But he wouldn't even say whether or not the FBI had confirmed a shred of that dossier.

If it was completely unverified then Comey would have been able to say no. The fact that he could only answer the question in secret clearly indicates that parts were verified. So now you are giving us your approved answer. Since he didn't give your approved answer then you think he is lying.

COMEY: The president called me I believe shortly before he was inaugurated as a follow-up to our conversation, private conversation on January the 6th. He just wanted to reiterate his rejection of that allegation and talk about—- he’d thought about it more. And why he thought it wasn’t true. The verified — unverified and salacious parts.

And you seem to have a reading comprehension problem, or else you simply did not read my replies. I've pointed out several times, as the memo points out, that the information on Papadopoulos was used by Strzok to start the Russian-collusion witch hunt before the FISA application was even drafted and that that same information found its way into the FISA application. Did you miss that part?

Maybe you need to read the memo. It states that the FISA warrant was used to spy on the Trump campaign. Also even Trey Gowdy says the memo has no bearing on Mueller's investigation.

First of all, it's "Page," not "Paige." You can't even get that basic fact straight. Maybe some of your liberal sources misspell his name.

You ignore the fact that although Page was dismissed from the Trump campaign in September 2016, he kept in e-mail contact with some of Trump's foreign policy advisers, and the FBI might have suspected that Page would make covert contact with Trump campaign officials to pass along a (non-existent) Russian offer of support in exchange for a promise of sanctions relief.

By the way, the FBI wire-tapped Page for a year and obviously found nothing for which to indict him. If they found any evidence of wrongdoing, where's the indictment? Where is it?

That wouldn't work in a dime store novel. Your argument is a piece of shit. Trump himself said he doesn't remember meeting with Page and the campaign says he was a low level worker.

October 21. 2017 is less than 4 months ago not a year. The fact is that the FBI had enough for a FISA warrant. Don't forget that the FBI never got any evidence that Capone was a gangster even though everyone knew he was.

And all of your denials, diversions, and distortions come from Democratic talking points.

You can't stand anyone who thinks for themselves. You parrot Nunes' talking points which is what the memo is.

REALLY? What about the McCabe transcript? What about the FISA application? What about Strzok's text messages? Republicans are calling for the release of McCabe's testimony transcript, for starters. Why aren't Dems joining in that call, hey? If, as they say, Nunes has misquoted McCabe's testimony, we can settle this in five minutes by releasing the transcript of his testimony. Now, gee, why do you suppose Dems aren't beating down the door to get that transcript released? Gosh, I can't imagine!

We have seen neither the McCabe transcript nor the FISA warrant. Neither has Nunes and he has admitted that the political nature of the dossier was disclosed. You have no idea what the Democrats are thinking nor do I. I do suspect that McCabe will tell us more about his testimony after he retires in March.

Really? I doubt that you're accurately representing Kelly's views on the memo. And I couldn't care less what Gonzalez thinks about it. But, I ask yet again: If there's nothing to this memo, why did the Dems fight like rabid dogs and tell all kinds of lies about it to try to keep it from being released?

These are Republicans and according to your argument only Democrats are attacking the memo. Maybe the reason why is because it is a partisan document. Republicans initially blocked the Democrat memo from being released until the position was politically untenable.

Oh, there most certainly is a way to confirm the memo: release the McCabe transcript, and also the FISA application. Republicans are calling for the release of the McCabe transcript for now, and are suggesting that the FISA application should be released after that. Gee, what are the Dems saying about all this? Take a guess.

Being concerned about national security is not a crime. Republicans might want to re-think that after Nunes admitted the FISA application did describe the dossier as a political document.




​

 

[Syriusly]

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

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.
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. !

That pretty much covers the Nunes memo.

1. Confirmed lie: the memo's claim that the FBI never notified the FISA court that the Steele Dossier was paid for by political operatives- Nunes and Gowdy both have confirmed that that claim was false- and was on the FISA application.
2. Half Truth: The Nunes memo notes that the Steele Dossier was paid for by the DNC and Clinton campaign- but leaves out that it was also paid for by Conservative Washington Free Beacon- funded by a Trump GOP rival.
3. Distortion: the Nunes memo claims that Page was a Trump volunteer campaign member- but never mentioned that Page was not a Trump campaign member when the FISA warrant was requested.

The key revelation of the Nunes memo is frankly how partisan Nunes is.

 

[Faun]

And there's where the memo begins to fall apart since it offers zero evidence that the unverified parts were presented to the FISC.

Huh? The memo does not say that only parts of the dossier were used. It says the dossier was an "essential" part of the FISA application. There is no suggestion that only part of the dossier was used.

Here's a basic principle of intelligence and law enforcement: You don't use *any* part of a dossier that comes from such a questionable source and that was paid for by the target's political enemies unless you have ironclad verification that every key claim therein is valid. Nothing of the sort had been done with the Steele dossier:

. . . 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. (Section 4)​

How could the FBI inform the FISC their source was fired at a later date, after the date they filed for the warrant?

Sheesh, are you kidding? Are you really making such a dumb argument? The FBI asked for renewals of the warrant after they fired Steele. They could have, and of course should have, advised the FISA court of this fact and of Steele's character and conduct when they applied for those renewals.

And who says the FBI didn't inform the FISC the dossier was politically backed?

WHAT?! Who says they did?! The memo says they did not, and not one of the principals named in the memo has claimed that "oh, no, I did tell the court that an 'essential' part of the application consisted of a smear dossier paid for by the DNC and Hillary."

Sheesh, can you read? It's people like you who help reduce nations to banana republics and dictatorships.

And now we find out that the Grassley-Graham criminal referral supports key aspects of the Nunes memo.

Criminal referral backs up Nunes on dossier claims, as Dems push rebuttal memo

You have that backwards. It’s up to the nutty right, who claims fake intelligence was given to a FISC to obtain a warrant, to prove it. All Nunes’ memo states is that the dossier was used; but he doesn’t detail which allegations were used. And we know some of the dossier was verified. Since you don’t know if any unverified parts were used for the warrant, you can’t unequivocally state the FBI obtained a warrant on false evidence. Hence, the memo falls apart.

 

[Syriusly]

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

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.
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.

Exactly- Nunes left everything out that didn't fit the Trump cover up narrative.

 

[Syriusly]

And there's where the memo begins to fall apart since it offers zero evidence that the unverified parts were presented to the FISC.

Huh? The memo does not say that only parts of the dossier were used. It says the dossier was an "essential" part of the FISA application. There is no suggestion that only part of the dossier was used.

Here's a basic principle of intelligence and law enforcement: You don't use *any* part of a dossier that comes from such a questionable source and that was paid for by the target's political enemies unless you have ironclad verification that every key claim therein is valid. Nothing of the sort had been done with the Steele dossier:

. . . 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. (Section 4)​

How could the FBI inform the FISC their source was fired at a later date, after the date they filed for the warrant?

Sheesh, are you kidding? Are you really making such a dumb argument? The FBI asked for renewals of the warrant after they fired Steele. They could have, and of course should have, advised the FISA court of this fact and of Steele's character and conduct when they applied for those renewals.

And who says the FBI didn't inform the FISC the dossier was politically backed?

WHAT?! Who says they did?! The memo says they did not, and not one of the principals named in the memo has claimed that "oh, no, I did tell the court that an 'essential' part of the application consisted of a smear dossier paid for by the DNC and Hillary."

Sheesh, can you read? It's people like you who help reduce nations to banana republics and dictatorships.

And now we find out that the Grassley-Graham criminal referral supports key aspects of the Nunes memo.

Criminal referral backs up Nunes on dossier claims, as Dems push rebuttal memo

You have that backwards. It’s up to the nutty right, who claims fake intelligence was given to a FISC to obtain a warrant, to prove it. All Nunes’ memo states is that the dossier was used; but he doesn’t detail which allegations were used. And we know some of the dossier was verified. Since you don’t know if any unverified parts were used for the warrant, you can’t unequivocally state the FBI obtained a warrant on false evidence. Hence, the memo falls apart.

The memo falls apart completely when you read the last paragraph. Frankly that was about the only honest paragraph in the memo.

 

[Syriusly]

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.

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?

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 Legally

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?

Still irrelevant to your point.

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.

irrelevant

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.

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.

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?

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 Trump
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.

FBI never asks for FISA warrants in *any* kind of investigation unless they have already been investigating the person

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.

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.

Bias doesn't destroy the validity, neither can you claim the dossier stood by itself

That's because they don't deserve a response but are pointless diversions from the real issues at hand.

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.
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.

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.

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.

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.

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?

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.

Or anyone on the Trump campaign.

 

[Syriusly]

[
My point is that even if only parts were used, *none* of the dossier should not have been used until all of its key claims had been verified, and that, if used, the FISA court should have been made aware of the dossier's political and financial origins.

Nunes has even admitted that the FISA application noted the political and financial origins

"A footnote saying something may be political is a far cry from letting the American people know that the Democrats and the Hillary campaign paid for dirt that the FBI then used to get a warrant on an American citizen to spy on another campaign,"

This is such a bizarre admission by Nunes that he lied.

Why does he think that the "American people' should be notified by the FBI when it applies for a FISA warrant?

 

[Faun]

And who says the FBI didn't inform the FISC the dossier was politically backed?

WHAT?! Who says they did?! The memo says they did not, and not one of the principals named in the memo has claimed that "oh, no, I did tell the court that an 'essential' part of the application consisted of a smear dossier paid for by the DNC and Hillary."

Sheesh, can you read? It's people like you who help reduce nations to banana republics and dictatorships.

And now we find out that the Grassley-Graham criminal referral supports key aspects of the Nunes memo.

Criminal referral backs up Nunes on dossier claims, as Dems push rebuttal memo

Before you say others are responsible for inspiring banana republics, you should acquaint yourself with the facts. You know, so you don’t look like such an ass.

The memo says they didn’t reveal the dossier’s backers — but Nunes was lying.

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.​

 

[Faun]

Every fact or allegation in the Steele memos could not possibly have been used. You may be able to say that without specific facts being asserted as quite possibly true and based on sources found to be credible, the warrant extension would not have been granted.

But that really proves nothing, because parts of Steele's memos are known to be true. If the FBI didnt' disclose Steele's motives were perhaps taited, you'd probably have something, at least imo.

I guess you missed the part of my reply, which you quoted, where I noted that the head of FBI counterintel said that vetting of Steele's dossier was in its "infancy" when the FISA application was submitted, and that an internal review found that the dossier had only been "minimally" verified.

The Nunes memo states that McCabe himself testified that without the Steele dossier, there would have been no FISA application. The memo also states that the Steele dossier was an "essential" part of the FISA application.

At a minimum, this suggests that at least large chunks of the Steele dossier were used in the application. The dossier is only 35 pages long. That's not an excessively long document to include/use in a FISA application.

My point is that even if only parts were used, *none* of the dossier should not have been used until all of its key claims had been verified, and that, if used, the FISA court should have been made aware of the dossier's political and financial origins.

It matters not if it was in its infancy. Parts were verified.

 

[Syriusly]

Every fact or allegation in the Steele memos could not possibly have been used. You may be able to say that without specific facts being asserted as quite possibly true and based on sources found to be credible, the warrant extension would not have been granted.

But that really proves nothing, because parts of Steele's memos are known to be true. If the FBI didnt' disclose Steele's motives were perhaps taited, you'd probably have something, at least imo.

I guess you missed the part of my reply, which you quoted, where I noted that the head of FBI counterintel said that vetting of Steele's dossier was in its "infancy" when the FISA application was submitted, and that an internal review found that the dossier had only been "minimally" verified.

The Nunes memo states that McCabe himself testified that without the Steele dossier, there would have been no FISA application. The memo also states that the Steele dossier was an "essential" part of the FISA application.

At a minimum, this suggests that at least large chunks of the Steele dossier were used in the application. The dossier is only 35 pages long. That's not an excessively long document to include/use in a FISA application.

My point is that even if only parts were used, *none* of the dossier should not have been used until all of its key claims had been verified, and that, if used, the FISA court should have been made aware of the dossier's political and financial origins.

It matters not if it was in its infancy. Parts were verified.

Just want to point out- the Republicans have never been so very concerned about the FISA application process before.

Fascinating to hear that they think that the FBI should only provide the court with absolutely verified claims before requesting a search warrant or wire tap.

Notice how not a single Republican has called for a full review of FISA practices to ensure that this is happening to other targets of FISA investigations?

 

[DustyInfinity]

What about Carter Page? I don't really care about what caused investigations. The arguments against the attack on Page are weak. The progressives obviously don't care about the corruption in this case. I miss the liberals, because they would at least look for the truth. I've never seen the media try so hard 'not' to look for something.