Lindsey Graham: We're Calling in All Officials Who Signed Carter Page FISA Warrant to Testify

[Lesh]

"The Democrats refused to LET the FBI see their server"

Absolutely untrue and I provided quote and link.

 

[Lesh]

I still want an answer as to why the Carter Page FISA warrant is so important to Trumpers.

Carter Page had been fired BECAUSE OF HIS RUSSIAN CONTACTS by the time the first FISA warrant was issued.

He had no contact with the Trump campaign at that point.

 

[playtime]

i heard the same thing & i certainly hope mueller is involved all the way. i trust bob mueller. i do not trust the person who made iran/CONtra go away, who auditioned for the current AG gig by writing an 18 page essay on why he should get it. do you think barr would have gone as far as he has, if the american people didn't demand it?

AND, there is absolutely NO reason why the gang of 8 can't view the unredacted report. there are precedents already in place with both watergate & bill clinton's grand jury info. not allowing those members of congress to view for themselves what they need to, just reeks of acover up.

No, nobody sees the un-redacted version. There are too many leakers especially on the Democrat side, and no, Clinton and Nixon's wasn't seen un-redacted either.

bullshit. barr can request it being unredacted & given to the very people who have the same TOP SECRET security clearance as he does. there was plenty of unredacted info that starr quoted from the grand jury that was for public consumption alright - let alone the persons who constitutionally are allowed to see.

Excerpts From Clinton's Grand Jury Testimony as Quoted in Starr's Report to Congress

And you have no idea what un-redacted parts Congress would see. You're making assumptions.

But what I said is that the Clinton and Nixon investigations were redacted to whatever degree. Very few have seen a totally un-redacted version. In this case, there are second, third and probably fourth parties that need not be revealed. And let's be honest for once. The only reason Congress wants an un-redacted version is to make false claims against Barr and Trump that can't be proven.

nobody is saying to release the entire unredacted report to those that have a lesse security clearance than the gang of 8 & AG; let alone the general public, ray ray.

nice try. now the cracks are starting to show from within. remember the pentagon papers? history might just repeat itself.

Riddle me this: why does the Congress need to see any un-redacted reports? Can you give me one reason?

The only reason is they are trying to find anything suspicious about Trump for political purposes; to cast doubt on his innocence. It's not worth it. Quit playing politics with this already. We had the 2.5 year Mueller investigation, the IRS has seen Trump's tax returns dozens of times. There's nothing there. If there was ever an anti-Trump person, it's Mueller.

The Democrats should just get out of this with a smidgen of integrity and let it go. Give it up. Concentrate on 2020 instead of trying to change the past. It's not working.

Riddle me this: why does the Congress need to see any un-redacted reports? Can you give me one reason?

it's their fucking job. they have the clearances & they a co-equal branch of government. the AG serves at the pleasure of the prez, & it's congress' j-o-b to safeguard the henhouse if it's suspected that a fox is in that role.

The only reason is they are trying to find anything suspicious about Trump for political purposes; to cast doubt on his innocence.

mmmmm- trump is doing that all by himself... if he was innocent he would want to have as much transparency as possible & so would his AG.

It's not worth it.

oh raymond.......... it is SO worth it.

Quit playing politics with this already.

this ain't no party, this ain't no disco, this ain't no foolin' around.

We had the 2.5 year Mueller investigation,

it is less than 2 years, ray ray.... don't fib.

the IRS has seen Trump's tax returns dozens of times.

so? i'm not so sure there is anything nefarious in his returns - me thinx he's been lying bigley about how much he's actually worth. he doesn't want people to know that, cause i'm not thinking he's even close to being a billionaire, but much much less. he straight up lied for years how much his daddy from the bronx - NOT GERMANY - gave him.... said it was a million dollars, when it was much more than that.

There's nothing there.

you don't know that cause he keeps saying they are under audit.... but early on he said he would after they were done & then he knew that wasn't gonna fly any longer & he he said he wasn't going to at all. why? cause there's plenty there.....

If there was ever an anti-Trump person, it's Mueller.

^^^ ^^^

The Democrats should just get out of this with a smidgen of integrity and let it go.

^^^ ^^^

Give it up.



Concentrate on 2020 instead of trying to change the past. It's not working.

ya it is.

 

[playtime]

But Trump had nothing to do with it. So how would reading an un-redacted report tell you anything?

If that's true then why hide it?

It's not hiding, they're following the law...dumbass.

congress critters can see it all because of their clearances & as for the grand jury info - barr can also request that go straight to congress. they wouldn't deny the request anyway. AND you think mueller didn't provide his own summary that could go straight to the public considering the very real interest & anticipation we had all this time? are you kidding me?

 

[Thinker101]

But Trump had nothing to do with it. So how would reading an un-redacted report tell you anything?

If that's true then why hide it?

It's not hiding, they're following the law...dumbass.

congress critters can see it all because of their clearances & as for the grand jury info - barr can also request that go straight to congress. they wouldn't deny the request anyway. AND you think mueller didn't provide his own summary that could go straight to the public considering the very real interest & anticipation we had all this time? are you kidding me?

Really?! Did you get a copy of Mueller's summary?
Explainer: Can Democratic subpoenas force the release of Mueller's Trump-Russia report?

 

[imawhosure]

FBI's Comey: Republicans also hacked by Russia - CNNPolitics

Don't read your own links, do ya. From your article in the very first paragraph:

Washington (CNN)Top intelligence officials indicated on Tuesday that the GOP was also a Russian hacking target but that none of the information obtained was leaked.

FBI director James Comey told a Senate panel that there was "penetration on the Republican side of the aisle and old Republican National Committee domains" no longer in use. Republicans have previously denied their organizations were hacked.

Comey said there was no sign "that the Trump campaign or the current RNC was successfully hacked."

House GOP Campaign Arm Says It Was Hacked During The 2018 Election Cycle

Again, from your article:

It wasn't immediately clear who might be responsible for the cyberattack, but the news followed months of increased preparations by the government to defend against foreign influence in America's democracy.

Prosecutors say Russian military intelligence officers pilfered sensitive material with the aim of releasing it to embarrass Democrats. So far, there doesn't appear to have been any release of data taken in this year's intrusion of Republicans' campaign operation.

Pointing out that Russia hacked the Republicans and chose NOT to release any of the results of those hacks doesn't make you guys look too good

ANOTHER MISCHARACTERIZATION by Leshy pooh-) They TRIED to hack the Republicans, but did not succeed.

Why do you have to lie? Do you have to FABRICATE facts to support your position?

Of course you do, you phony baloney!

 

[Thinker101]

But Trump had nothing to do with it. So how would reading an un-redacted report tell you anything?

If that's true then why hide it?

It's not hiding, they're following the law...dumbass.

congress critters can see it all because of their clearances & as for the grand jury info - barr can also request that go straight to congress. they wouldn't deny the request anyway. AND you think mueller didn't provide his own summary that could go straight to the public considering the very real interest & anticipation we had all this time? are you kidding me?

Here's another, slick.
time.com/5558083/mueller-report-release-starr/

 

[Lesh]

I still want an answer as to why the Carter Page FISA warrant is so important to Trumpers.

Carter Page had been fired BECAUSE OF HIS RUSSIAN CONTACTS by the time the first FISA warrant was issued.

He had no contact with the Trump campaign at that point.

Did this ever get a response?

 

[playtime]

But Trump had nothing to do with it. So how would reading an un-redacted report tell you anything?

If that's true then why hide it?

It's not hiding, they're following the law...dumbass.

congress critters can see it all because of their clearances & as for the grand jury info - barr can also request that go straight to congress. they wouldn't deny the request anyway. AND you think mueller didn't provide his own summary that could go straight to the public considering the very real interest & anticipation we had all this time? are you kidding me?

Really?! Did you get a copy of Mueller's summary?
Explainer: Can Democratic subpoenas force the release of Mueller's Trump-Russia report?

that's the point spidey - NObody got mueller's summary. from your link:

CAN CONGRESS SUBPOENA DOCUMENTS FROM THE EXECUTIVE BRANCH?

Yes. Committees of the House and Senate possess the power to issues subpoenas for documents held by the executive branch or other subjects in investigations. Under the U.S. Constitution, Congress is a co-equal branch of the federal government alongside the executive branch and judiciary.

If Barr refuses to comply with a Judiciary Committee subpoena to obtain the full report and underlying investigative material, the House could vote to hold him "in contempt" and turn to the courts to enforce the subpoena. Legal experts said that process could take years.

Barr's "principal conclusions" letter said Mueller's inquiry did not establish that Trump's campaign team conspired with Russia. Barr also said Mueller did not reach a conclusion on whether the Republican president committed obstruction of justice but also did not exonerate him. Barr subsequently concluded that Trump had not engaged in criminal obstruction.

A 1974 court decision involving Republican President Richard Nixon gives Democrats strong ammunition to argue that they are entitled to any grand jury information redacted by Barr. Leon Jaworski, a special prosecutor during the Watergate scandal, produced a report that relied on evidence from grand jury proceedings.

Under U.S. law, grand jury testimony generally must be kept secret. But if a grand jury matter involves "grave hostile acts of a foreign power" or other intelligence information, the information can be shared with appropriate government officials. The law also lets a judge release grand jury information when strong public interest is at stake.

If Barr were to cite executive privilege in redacting material, a 1974 Supreme Court ruling could come into play. Nixon withheld tape recordings and other material subpoenaed by Jaworski, citing executive privilege. The high court then ordered him to give the material to a federal district court, saying the president's interest in keeping his communications secret was outweighed by the judiciary's need for evidence.

thanx for pretty much proving what i just said.

 

[Thinker101]

But Trump had nothing to do with it. So how would reading an un-redacted report tell you anything?

If that's true then why hide it?

It's not hiding, they're following the law...dumbass.

congress critters can see it all because of their clearances & as for the grand jury info - barr can also request that go straight to congress. they wouldn't deny the request anyway. AND you think mueller didn't provide his own summary that could go straight to the public considering the very real interest & anticipation we had all this time? are you kidding me?

Really?! Did you get a copy of Mueller's summary?
Explainer: Can Democratic subpoenas force the release of Mueller's Trump-Russia report?

that's the point spidey - NObody got mueller's summary. from your link:

CAN CONGRESS SUBPOENA DOCUMENTS FROM THE EXECUTIVE BRANCH?

Yes. Committees of the House and Senate possess the power to issues subpoenas for documents held by the executive branch or other subjects in investigations. Under the U.S. Constitution, Congress is a co-equal branch of the federal government alongside the executive branch and judiciary.

If Barr refuses to comply with a Judiciary Committee subpoena to obtain the full report and underlying investigative material, the House could vote to hold him "in contempt" and turn to the courts to enforce the subpoena. Legal experts said that process could take years.

Barr's "principal conclusions" letter said Mueller's inquiry did not establish that Trump's campaign team conspired with Russia. Barr also said Mueller did not reach a conclusion on whether the Republican president committed obstruction of justice but also did not exonerate him. Barr subsequently concluded that Trump had not engaged in criminal obstruction.

A 1974 court decision involving Republican President Richard Nixon gives Democrats strong ammunition to argue that they are entitled to any grand jury information redacted by Barr. Leon Jaworski, a special prosecutor during the Watergate scandal, produced a report that relied on evidence from grand jury proceedings.

Under U.S. law, grand jury testimony generally must be kept secret. But if a grand jury matter involves "grave hostile acts of a foreign power" or other intelligence information, the information can be shared with appropriate government officials. The law also lets a judge release grand jury information when strong public interest is at stake.

If Barr were to cite executive privilege in redacting material, a 1974 Supreme Court ruling could come into play. Nixon withheld tape recordings and other material subpoenaed by Jaworski, citing executive privilege. The high court then ordered him to give the material to a federal district court, saying the president's interest in keeping his communications secret was outweighed by the judiciary's need for evidence.

thanx for pretty much proving what i just said.

Guessing you also read the part saying enforcing the subpoena could take years. Taking a page out of the Hillary handbook, subpoenas don't really mean squat.

 

[playtime]

But Trump had nothing to do with it. So how would reading an un-redacted report tell you anything?

If that's true then why hide it?

It's not hiding, they're following the law...dumbass.

congress critters can see it all because of their clearances & as for the grand jury info - barr can also request that go straight to congress. they wouldn't deny the request anyway. AND you think mueller didn't provide his own summary that could go straight to the public considering the very real interest & anticipation we had all this time? are you kidding me?

Here's another, slick.
time.com/5558083/mueller-report-release-starr/

from your link:

As a result of that process, independent counsels generally wrote their reports assuming they would be made public

we didn't see no stinkin' summary by mueller, now did we? no... no we did not. given every sick treasonous scenerio swirling around trump, his family, his associates, his cabinet & administration, you think mueller wouldn't have written one himself already pre scrubbed for public view, only to leave it up to trump's compromised AG?

you silly silly little arachnid...

 

[playtime]

If that's true then why hide it?

It's not hiding, they're following the law...dumbass.

congress critters can see it all because of their clearances & as for the grand jury info - barr can also request that go straight to congress. they wouldn't deny the request anyway. AND you think mueller didn't provide his own summary that could go straight to the public considering the very real interest & anticipation we had all this time? are you kidding me?

Really?! Did you get a copy of Mueller's summary?
Explainer: Can Democratic subpoenas force the release of Mueller's Trump-Russia report?

that's the point spidey - NObody got mueller's summary. from your link:

CAN CONGRESS SUBPOENA DOCUMENTS FROM THE EXECUTIVE BRANCH?

Yes. Committees of the House and Senate possess the power to issues subpoenas for documents held by the executive branch or other subjects in investigations. Under the U.S. Constitution, Congress is a co-equal branch of the federal government alongside the executive branch and judiciary.

If Barr refuses to comply with a Judiciary Committee subpoena to obtain the full report and underlying investigative material, the House could vote to hold him "in contempt" and turn to the courts to enforce the subpoena. Legal experts said that process could take years.

Barr's "principal conclusions" letter said Mueller's inquiry did not establish that Trump's campaign team conspired with Russia. Barr also said Mueller did not reach a conclusion on whether the Republican president committed obstruction of justice but also did not exonerate him. Barr subsequently concluded that Trump had not engaged in criminal obstruction.

A 1974 court decision involving Republican President Richard Nixon gives Democrats strong ammunition to argue that they are entitled to any grand jury information redacted by Barr. Leon Jaworski, a special prosecutor during the Watergate scandal, produced a report that relied on evidence from grand jury proceedings.

Under U.S. law, grand jury testimony generally must be kept secret. But if a grand jury matter involves "grave hostile acts of a foreign power" or other intelligence information, the information can be shared with appropriate government officials. The law also lets a judge release grand jury information when strong public interest is at stake.

If Barr were to cite executive privilege in redacting material, a 1974 Supreme Court ruling could come into play. Nixon withheld tape recordings and other material subpoenaed by Jaworski, citing executive privilege. The high court then ordered him to give the material to a federal district court, saying the president's interest in keeping his communications secret was outweighed by the judiciary's need for evidence.

thanx for pretty much proving what i just said.

Guessing you also read the part saying enforcing the subpoena could take years. Taking a page out of the Hillary handbook, subpoenas don't really mean squat.

it won't take years. look how the crazy train is already hitting the rails.

besides - did we win the first revolution overnight?

 

[Thinker101]

It's not hiding, they're following the law...dumbass.

congress critters can see it all because of their clearances & as for the grand jury info - barr can also request that go straight to congress. they wouldn't deny the request anyway. AND you think mueller didn't provide his own summary that could go straight to the public considering the very real interest & anticipation we had all this time? are you kidding me?

Really?! Did you get a copy of Mueller's summary?
Explainer: Can Democratic subpoenas force the release of Mueller's Trump-Russia report?

that's the point spidey - NObody got mueller's summary. from your link:

CAN CONGRESS SUBPOENA DOCUMENTS FROM THE EXECUTIVE BRANCH?

Yes. Committees of the House and Senate possess the power to issues subpoenas for documents held by the executive branch or other subjects in investigations. Under the U.S. Constitution, Congress is a co-equal branch of the federal government alongside the executive branch and judiciary.

If Barr refuses to comply with a Judiciary Committee subpoena to obtain the full report and underlying investigative material, the House could vote to hold him "in contempt" and turn to the courts to enforce the subpoena. Legal experts said that process could take years.

Barr's "principal conclusions" letter said Mueller's inquiry did not establish that Trump's campaign team conspired with Russia. Barr also said Mueller did not reach a conclusion on whether the Republican president committed obstruction of justice but also did not exonerate him. Barr subsequently concluded that Trump had not engaged in criminal obstruction.

A 1974 court decision involving Republican President Richard Nixon gives Democrats strong ammunition to argue that they are entitled to any grand jury information redacted by Barr. Leon Jaworski, a special prosecutor during the Watergate scandal, produced a report that relied on evidence from grand jury proceedings.

Under U.S. law, grand jury testimony generally must be kept secret. But if a grand jury matter involves "grave hostile acts of a foreign power" or other intelligence information, the information can be shared with appropriate government officials. The law also lets a judge release grand jury information when strong public interest is at stake.

If Barr were to cite executive privilege in redacting material, a 1974 Supreme Court ruling could come into play. Nixon withheld tape recordings and other material subpoenaed by Jaworski, citing executive privilege. The high court then ordered him to give the material to a federal district court, saying the president's interest in keeping his communications secret was outweighed by the judiciary's need for evidence.

thanx for pretty much proving what i just said.

Guessing you also read the part saying enforcing the subpoena could take years. Taking a page out of the Hillary handbook, subpoenas don't really mean squat.

it won't take years. look how the crazy train is already hitting the rails.

besides - did we win the first revolution overnight?

Speaking of crazy trains, from the link.
A situation analogous to the current subpoena fight unfolded during the presidency of Trump's Democratic predecessor Barack Obama. In 2012, the House, then controlled by Republicans, subpoenaed internal Justice Department documents related to a failed federal law enforcement operation to track illegal gun sales, dubbed "Fast and Furious." Obama's attorney general, Eric Holder, refused to comply. The House voted to hold him in contempt, marking the first time in U.S. history that Congress took such action against a sitting member of a president's Cabinet.

The Justice Department later turned over thousands of pages of documents but the matter was not resolved until after Obama left office, with a settlement reached in 2018.

 

[playtime]

congress critters can see it all because of their clearances & as for the grand jury info - barr can also request that go straight to congress. they wouldn't deny the request anyway. AND you think mueller didn't provide his own summary that could go straight to the public considering the very real interest & anticipation we had all this time? are you kidding me?

Really?! Did you get a copy of Mueller's summary?
Explainer: Can Democratic subpoenas force the release of Mueller's Trump-Russia report?

that's the point spidey - NObody got mueller's summary. from your link:

CAN CONGRESS SUBPOENA DOCUMENTS FROM THE EXECUTIVE BRANCH?

Yes. Committees of the House and Senate possess the power to issues subpoenas for documents held by the executive branch or other subjects in investigations. Under the U.S. Constitution, Congress is a co-equal branch of the federal government alongside the executive branch and judiciary.

If Barr refuses to comply with a Judiciary Committee subpoena to obtain the full report and underlying investigative material, the House could vote to hold him "in contempt" and turn to the courts to enforce the subpoena. Legal experts said that process could take years.

Barr's "principal conclusions" letter said Mueller's inquiry did not establish that Trump's campaign team conspired with Russia. Barr also said Mueller did not reach a conclusion on whether the Republican president committed obstruction of justice but also did not exonerate him. Barr subsequently concluded that Trump had not engaged in criminal obstruction.

A 1974 court decision involving Republican President Richard Nixon gives Democrats strong ammunition to argue that they are entitled to any grand jury information redacted by Barr. Leon Jaworski, a special prosecutor during the Watergate scandal, produced a report that relied on evidence from grand jury proceedings.

Under U.S. law, grand jury testimony generally must be kept secret. But if a grand jury matter involves "grave hostile acts of a foreign power" or other intelligence information, the information can be shared with appropriate government officials. The law also lets a judge release grand jury information when strong public interest is at stake.

If Barr were to cite executive privilege in redacting material, a 1974 Supreme Court ruling could come into play. Nixon withheld tape recordings and other material subpoenaed by Jaworski, citing executive privilege. The high court then ordered him to give the material to a federal district court, saying the president's interest in keeping his communications secret was outweighed by the judiciary's need for evidence.

thanx for pretty much proving what i just said.

Guessing you also read the part saying enforcing the subpoena could take years. Taking a page out of the Hillary handbook, subpoenas don't really mean squat.

it won't take years. look how the crazy train is already hitting the rails.

besides - did we win the first revolution overnight?

Speaking of crazy trains, from the link.
A situation analogous to the current subpoena fight unfolded during the presidency of Trump's Democratic predecessor Barack Obama. In 2012, the House, then controlled by Republicans, subpoenaed internal Justice Department documents related to a failed federal law enforcement operation to track illegal gun sales, dubbed "Fast and Furious." Obama's attorney general, Eric Holder, refused to comply. The House voted to hold him in contempt, marking the first time in U.S. history that Congress took such action against a sitting member of a president's Cabinet.

The Justice Department later turned over thousands of pages of documents but the matter was not resolved until after Obama left office, with a settlement reached in 2018.

wow wow wow............ first hillary, now obama!!!! lol.... tick tock. besides...the public is much more engaged in this one.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

I still want an answer as to why the Carter Page FISA warrant is so important to Trumpers.

Carter Page had been fired BECAUSE OF HIS RUSSIAN CONTACTS by the time the first FISA warrant was issued.

He had no contact with the Trump campaign at that point.

Because the warrant was issued under false pretenses. The FBI provided the court with un-substantiated info from a foreign agent who got some of his material from the Russian government in effort to change an election. Plus it was paid for as opposition research by Trump's opponent and her party.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

"The Democrats refused to LET the FBI see their server"

Absolutely untrue and I provided quote and link.

No, you didn't provide anything. I provided a report from the Clinton News Network, an agency you on the left hold near and dear to your heart. Or are you going to tell us CNN lied about the entire story?

 

[Lesh]

I still want an answer as to why the Carter Page FISA warrant is so important to Trumpers.

Carter Page had been fired BECAUSE OF HIS RUSSIAN CONTACTS by the time the first FISA warrant was issued.

He had no contact with the Trump campaign at that point.

Because the warrant was issued under false pretenses. The FBI provided the court with un-substantiated info from a foreign agent who got some of his material from the Russian government in effort to change an election. Plus it was paid for as opposition research by Trump's opponent and her party.

What?

First of all the Nunes Memo showed that the FISA warrant was primarily issued because of what PapaD said drunkenly in a bar months prior

Second...why all this concern over Carter Page? He had nothing to do with Trump at that point and a long history of Russian contacts...including the fact that he was fired from the Trump campaign when those contacts became public.

So again...why all this Sturm und Drang about Carter fucking Page?

 

[Lesh]

"The Democrats refused to LET the FBI see their server"

Absolutely untrue and I provided quote and link.

No, you didn't provide anything. I provided a report from the Clinton News Network, an agency you on the left hold near and dear to your heart. Or are you going to tell us CNN lied about the entire story?

I provided you with a link showing that nothing was hidden from the FBI and that it was normal to have a third party image the hard drive.

Shrug. What's the issue? You understand what a hard drive image is?

 

[JusticeHammer]

I still want an answer as to why the Carter Page FISA warrant is so important to Trumpers.

Carter Page had been fired BECAUSE OF HIS RUSSIAN CONTACTS by the time the first FISA warrant was issued.

He had no contact with the Trump campaign at that point.

Then why did mueller go after him? You mean the fisa warrants that was obtained with lies? Because libs are idiot scumbags.

 

[Lesh]

Then why did mueller go after him? You mean the fisa warrants that was obtained with lies? Because libs are idiot scumbags.

A. Mueller had nothing to do with Carter

B. The little weasel got FIRED because his Russian connections had become known