Summary of Evidence Released - What It Says

[hadit]

Because getting such warrants on fraudulent info is a no no.

Who says it was fraudulent? Obviously the FISA court judges felt it was pertinent to the case.

They weren't given all the information about it, so he could they?

That has not been verified or even shown to have been necessary. Obviously it's more important that the information be correct than the motives of the informant are. Whether the DNC or Clinton indirectly paid for it is irrelevant if the information is correct.

We know that it obviously was as renewals require that the previous surveillance must be shown to have garnered new information. It was renewed another three times after the application highlighted in the memo.

When judging the credibility of the information, motive most certainly enters the picture. Why do you think partisans argue about who funds political polls during campaigns?

The FBI determined the credibility of the information before including it in the application. Obviously it was credible as the warrant was renewed another three times.

They did not disclose all the information about the source of the application.

 

[Hutch Starskey]

It's a steaming pile is the point. Now, what parts if it are true and what parts are steaming and stinking?

Or you really don't know what's in it but really want bad things to be true?

No one knows which parts have been verified and which parts haven’t. I’ve pointed that out repeatedly. But Nunes never read the FISA documents which made the basis of his claim so it’s impossible to say the FBI presented unverified evidence to the FISC.

This blows Nunes’ bullshit claims out of the water.

While we don't know for sure, it's fairly safe to infer that only the portions of the dossier that pertain to Page himself would be pertinent in a warrant application specific to Page.

Obviously the salacious parts would not be relevant.

The problem, however, is that the salacious parts WERE part of it, and they detract credibility from the rest of it. The fact that they were included throws doubt on the rest of it. "Your honor, my neighbor has been operating a meth lab in his basement. Oh, and he was also abducted by aliens at least three times".

The problem, however, is that the salacious parts WERE part of it,

Liar.
You have no way to know that.
How would they be pertinent in a warrant application specific to Page?

You misunderstand. They were part of the dossier itself, and throw doubt on the rest of the document.

Who said they used the entire dossier?

 

[Hutch Starskey]

Who says it was fraudulent? Obviously the FISA court judges felt it was pertinent to the case.

They weren't given all the information about it, so he could they?

That has not been verified or even shown to have been necessary. Obviously it's more important that the information be correct than the motives of the informant are. Whether the DNC or Clinton indirectly paid for it is irrelevant if the information is correct.

We know that it obviously was as renewals require that the previous surveillance must be shown to have garnered new information. It was renewed another three times after the application highlighted in the memo.

When judging the credibility of the information, motive most certainly enters the picture. Why do you think partisans argue about who funds political polls during campaigns?

The FBI determined the credibility of the information before including it in the application. Obviously it was credible as the warrant was renewed another three times.

They did not disclose all the information about the source of the application.

Was it necessary to the process?

 

[Hutch Starskey]

Carter Page's testimony is filled with bombshells — and supports key portions of the Steele dossier

 

[TheProgressivePatriot]

Update!!!!

Durbin: Firing Mueller or Rosenstein over Nunes memo 'could precipitate a constitutional crisis' - CNNPolitics

 

[hadit]

No one knows which parts have been verified and which parts haven’t. I’ve pointed that out repeatedly. But Nunes never read the FISA documents which made the basis of his claim so it’s impossible to say the FBI presented unverified evidence to the FISC.

This blows Nunes’ bullshit claims out of the water.

While we don't know for sure, it's fairly safe to infer that only the portions of the dossier that pertain to Page himself would be pertinent in a warrant application specific to Page.

Obviously the salacious parts would not be relevant.

The problem, however, is that the salacious parts WERE part of it, and they detract credibility from the rest of it. The fact that they were included throws doubt on the rest of it. "Your honor, my neighbor has been operating a meth lab in his basement. Oh, and he was also abducted by aliens at least three times".

The problem, however, is that the salacious parts WERE part of it,

Liar.
You have no way to know that.
How would they be pertinent in a warrant application specific to Page?

You misunderstand. They were part of the dossier itself, and throw doubt on the rest of the document.

Who said they used the entire dossier?

IOW, they relied on cherry picked evidence?

Let's put it this way. Fox News reports that Hillary eats her boogers in the same story that they report she made a deal with NK to let them develop nuclear weapons. You want to get a warrant to tap her phone calls, so you use the story to convince the court. Now, do you accept the story because it sounds plausible, or do you, because of the salacious part of the story, go out and verify that she made the deal? If you verify the deal, you don't need the story any more, right?

In this case, they used cherry picked parts of the story to convince the FISA court without telling them the whole story.

 

[hadit]

They weren't given all the information about it, so he could they?

That has not been verified or even shown to have been necessary. Obviously it's more important that the information be correct than the motives of the informant are. Whether the DNC or Clinton indirectly paid for it is irrelevant if the information is correct.

We know that it obviously was as renewals require that the previous surveillance must be shown to have garnered new information. It was renewed another three times after the application highlighted in the memo.

When judging the credibility of the information, motive most certainly enters the picture. Why do you think partisans argue about who funds political polls during campaigns?

The FBI determined the credibility of the information before including it in the application. Obviously it was credible as the warrant was renewed another three times.

They did not disclose all the information about the source of the application.

Was it necessary to the process?

Cherry picking parts of the evidence isn't telling the whole story. I think they knew the court would reject the application if they divulged it. That's a problem.

 

[Hutch Starskey]

While we don't know for sure, it's fairly safe to infer that only the portions of the dossier that pertain to Page himself would be pertinent in a warrant application specific to Page.

Obviously the salacious parts would not be relevant.

The problem, however, is that the salacious parts WERE part of it, and they detract credibility from the rest of it. The fact that they were included throws doubt on the rest of it. "Your honor, my neighbor has been operating a meth lab in his basement. Oh, and he was also abducted by aliens at least three times".

The problem, however, is that the salacious parts WERE part of it,

Liar.
You have no way to know that.
How would they be pertinent in a warrant application specific to Page?

You misunderstand. They were part of the dossier itself, and throw doubt on the rest of the document.

Who said they used the entire dossier?

IOW, they relied on cherry picked evidence?

Let's put it this way. Fox News reports that Hillary eats her boogers in the same story that they report she made a deal with NK to let them develop nuclear weapons. You want to get a warrant to tap her phone calls, so you use the story to convince the court. Now, do you accept the story because it sounds plausible, or do you, because of the salacious part of the story, go out and verify that she made the deal? If you verify the deal, you don't need the story any more, right?

In this case, they used cherry picked parts of the story to convince the FISA court without telling them the whole story.

IOW, they relied on cherry picked evidence?

No.
IOW, they used the information from the dossier that was only pertinent to Page as he alone was the subject of the warrant.

Why is that so hard to undetstand?

 

[Hutch Starskey]

That has not been verified or even shown to have been necessary. Obviously it's more important that the information be correct than the motives of the informant are. Whether the DNC or Clinton indirectly paid for it is irrelevant if the information is correct.

We know that it obviously was as renewals require that the previous surveillance must be shown to have garnered new information. It was renewed another three times after the application highlighted in the memo.

When judging the credibility of the information, motive most certainly enters the picture. Why do you think partisans argue about who funds political polls during campaigns?

The FBI determined the credibility of the information before including it in the application. Obviously it was credible as the warrant was renewed another three times.

They did not disclose all the information about the source of the application.

Was it necessary to the process?

Cherry picking parts of the evidence isn't telling the whole story. I think they knew the court would reject the application if they divulged it. That's a problem.

The 'whole story' wasn't relevant to Page or the application.

 

[healthmyths]

They don't have to. The fact that information about the steaming pile was withheld when it was presented in court is a problem. Tell you what. Since you know what all is in the pile that is factual, list it for us.

The claim that it was a steaming pile remains unproven.

Really? You're going to stand behind the hookers pissing on the bed crap as a true story? Laughable.

I did no such thing. What a pity you have to lie to prop your position up.

It's a steaming pile is the point. Now, what parts if it are true and what parts are steaming and stinking?

Or you really don't know what's in it but really want bad things to be true?

No one knows which parts have been verified and which parts haven’t. I’ve pointed that out repeatedly. But Nunes never read the FISA documents which made the basis of his claim so it’s impossible to say the FBI presented unverified evidence to the FISC.

This blows Nunes’ bullshit claims out of the water.

Kashyap Patel, Main Author of Secret Memo, Is No Stranger to Quarrels
According to congressional sources, he is the primary author of the politically charged memo, released on Friday by the committee chairman, Representative Devin Nunes, over the opposition of the F.B.I. and the intelligence community, that accuses federal officials of bias against President Trump.

Democrats, led by Representative Adam B. Schiff, the ranking minority member on the committee, were scathing in their criticism of both the report and the decision to release it to the public.
Kashyap Patel, Main Author of Secret Memo, Is No Stranger to Quarrels

Now here is an interest point from the above article:
In early 2016, during a court appearance in Houston, Mr. Patel found himself in the cross hairs of Judge Lynn N. Hughes of Federal District Court, who became incensed that Mr. Patel had used the internet credentials of another lawyer to give notice that he would be involved in a terrorism case, and then did not like how he was dressed.
“The last thing I need here, Mr. Patel,” the judge said, according to a transcript of the hearing, “is a bureaucrat who flies down here at great expense and causes trouble rather than actually is a productive member of the team.”
He was berated by a federal judge who then issued an “Order on Ineptitude” directed at the entire agency.

Very interesting that this judge issues the "Order on Ineptitude" but the FISA courts allowed a private citizen to be wiretapped based on a dossier that was allowed admission into the FISA hearing but was proven to be completely fabricated.
Christopher Steele, a former top British intelligence official with deep ties in Moscow who was held in high regard in Washington. He produced a series of salacious, but unverified reports that are now universally referred to as “the Steele dossier,” and their publication 10 days before Trump’s inauguration supercharged claims on the left that the president or his team may have conspired with Russia to win the 2016 election.
Democrats Embraced a Flawed Dossier—And Gave Republicans an Opening

So an unverified report was used to gain the FISA warrants.
That at the minimum is incompetence and at the maximum a criminal act!

 

[TheProgressivePatriot]

Update!! Breaking News

Gowdy: Nunes memo has no impact on Russia probe - CNNPolitics

Washington (CNN)South Carolina Republican Rep. Trey Gowdy said the recently released, controversial GOP memo alleging FBI abuses of its surveillance authority does not have "any impact on the Russia probe," and even without the Steele dossier, there would be a Russia investigation.

"There is a Russia investigation without a dossier," Gowdy said in an interview that aired Sunday on CBS's "Face the Nation," days after he announced his decision not to seek re-election.
President Donald Trump authorized the release of the memo from the House Intelligence Committee on Friday, and has since claimed it "totally vindicates" him in the ongoing investigation around allegations of possible coordination between his associates and Russia to influence the 2016 election.

 

[boedicca]

I most certainly did not. I actually read the memo; clearly you did not. But that's hardly a surprise as I doubt that reading comprehension is one of your core skill sets.

Courts have already ruled previously that a biased purpose or partisan purpose for the evidence to have been gathered by an informant or otherwise... that the Justice Department uses to submit to the FISA court.... is no reason to throw out or not use the factual evidence submitted....

There is nothing factual in the opposition research provided by the Clinton Campaign which the FBI laundered to gin up FISA warrants to spy on a political campaign.

Sure,dope. All of the dozens of people who worked on the warrants, not to mention the judges themselves, were either fooled or part of your conspiracy.

Yep. That's exactly how it looks.

I hope the FISA judges look into how they were duped, and make a statement.

Sure, dope. Page was never surveilled as a foreign agent prior to working for Trump, he didn't travel to Russia to meet with Russian officials while working for Trump and he hasn't been surveilled since leaving the Trump team.

It was all just based solely on the dossier.

Occam's Razor says: As he hasn't been charged with anything, then there is no there there. After years and years of spying on Page, nada-zip-zilch.

 

[Hutch Starskey]

Courts have already ruled previously that a biased purpose or partisan purpose for the evidence to have been gathered by an informant or otherwise... that the Justice Department uses to submit to the FISA court.... is no reason to throw out or not use the factual evidence submitted....

There is nothing factual in the opposition research provided by the Clinton Campaign which the FBI laundered to gin up FISA warrants to spy on a political campaign.

Sure,dope. All of the dozens of people who worked on the warrants, not to mention the judges themselves, were either fooled or part of your conspiracy.

Yep. That's exactly how it looks.

I hope the FISA judges look into how they were duped, and make a statement.

Sure, dope. Page was never surveilled as a foreign agent prior to working for Trump, he didn't travel to Russia to meet with Russian officials while working for Trump and he hasn't been surveilled since leaving the Trump team.

It was all just based solely on the dossier.

Occam's Razor says: As he hasn't been charged with anything, then there is no there there. After years and years of spying on Page, nada-zip-zilch.

Really?
The only thing that says is, after four years, Page is a good producer. Why prosecute when we can renew over and over and continue to get results? That is the standard for renewal after all. Producing results.

 

[Faun]

You made that shit up. You have no idea if any of those were even necessary disclosures or disqualifying omissions.

I most certainly did not. I actually read the memo; clearly you did not. But that's hardly a surprise as I doubt that reading comprehension is one of your core skill sets.

Courts have already ruled previously that a biased purpose or partisan purpose for the evidence to have been gathered by an informant or otherwise... that the Justice Department uses to submit to the FISA court.... is no reason to throw out or not use the factual evidence submitted....

There is nothing factual in the opposition research provided by the Clinton Campaign which the FBI laundered to gin up FISA warrants to spy on a political campaign.

Sure,dope. All of the dozens of people who worked on the warrants, not to mention the judges themselves, were either fooled or part of your conspiracy.

Yep. That's exactly how it looks.

I hope the FISA judges look into how they were duped, and make a statement.

LOL

How about starting with your evidence they were duped...

 

[Faun]

There’s nothing in the Nunes memo which describes which parts of the dossier are not verified and which parts were used to obtain the warrant. And my point is you’ve been wrong about virtually everything you’ve said about that this

No I haven't been wrong at all... you have...

LOLOLOLOL

You’ve been wrong about virtually everthing regarding Nunes’s memo.

You said Flynn was not convicted ... he was

You said Flynn had not had his day in court ... he did

You said Flynn had not pled guilty in front of a judge ... he did

You said Flynn would withdraw his guilty plea ... he hasn’t

You said there was a guilty plea in front of a grand jury ... there wasn’t

You said Flynn would walk because of the memo ... he hasn’t

You said folks would go to jail over this ... no one’s been indicted

You said the dossier was used to spy on the Trump campaign ... it wasn’t

You said the memo won’t come out until after the Super Bowl ... it didn’t

You said Flynn was fired from the campaign ... he wasn’t

You said Mueller saw the memo before it was released ... he didn’t

You said to plead guilty, a jury has to be present ... they don’t

You said to plead guilty, an attorney has to be present ... they don’t

You said Flynn’s trial was put off until May ... it wasn’t

About the only thing you got right was when you agreed with me that Flynn’s only chance to walk is with a presidential pardon.

you have been telling us Trump would be impeached by now...

You’re wrong about that too, Spunky. I never called for, of predicted, trump’s impeachment.

You really can’t get anything right.

 

[bripat9643]

Because getting such warrants on fraudulent info is a no no.

Regrettably, you have no proof the evidence offered from the dossier was fraudulent.

I don't have to. It is up to the accuser to prove their point. The salacious and unsupported (not my words, BTW) dossier is problematic.

LOL

The accusation is that the FBI relied on fake evidence to obtain a warrant. Glad you admit the accusers of such have to prove it.

They can’t.

They don't have to. The fact that information about the steaming pile was withheld when it was presented in court is a problem. Tell you what. Since you know what all is in the pile that is factual, list it for us.

The claim that it was a steaming pile remains unproven.

No it doesn't. Comey sdmitted it was a steaming pile. So did McCabe.

Sent from my SM-G935P using USMessageBoard.com mobile app

 

[bripat9643]

Yes.

How do you know?

Because getting such warrants on fraudulent info is a no no.

Regrettably, you have no proof the evidence offered from the dossier was fraudulent.

I have NO proof that you are truly one of the most ignorant person in the world do I...yet I can make that observation and no one will validate it!
The same with the dossier. It is Steele's word only.

Not, it’s not just Steele’s word. Some of it was confirmed by the FBI.

McCabe testified to Congress that nothing in it had been confirmed.

Sent from my SM-G935P using USMessageBoard.com mobile app

 

[Faun]

It's a steaming pile is the point. Now, what parts if it are true and what parts are steaming and stinking?

Or you really don't know what's in it but really want bad things to be true?

No one knows which parts have been verified and which parts haven’t. I’ve pointed that out repeatedly. But Nunes never read the FISA documents which made the basis of his claim so it’s impossible to say the FBI presented unverified evidence to the FISC.

This blows Nunes’ bullshit claims out of the water.

While we don't know for sure, it's fairly safe to infer that only the portions of the dossier that pertain to Page himself would be pertinent in a warrant application specific to Page.

Obviously the salacious parts would not be relevant.

The problem, however, is that the salacious parts WERE part of it, and they detract credibility from the rest of it. The fact that they were included throws doubt on the rest of it. "Your honor, my neighbor has been operating a meth lab in his basement. Oh, and he was also abducted by aliens at least three times".

The problem, however, is that the salacious parts WERE part of it,

Liar.
You have no way to know that.
How would they be pertinent in a warrant application specific to Page?

You misunderstand. They were part of the dossier itself, and throw doubt on the rest of the document.

Nonsense. They don’t throw out the verified parts of the dossier because some other parts were not verified. I’ll also point out that not verified ≠ verified as false.

 

[Faun]

How do you know?

Because getting such warrants on fraudulent info is a no no.

Regrettably, you have no proof the evidence offered from the dossier was fraudulent.

I have NO proof that you are truly one of the most ignorant person in the world do I...yet I can make that observation and no one will validate it!
The same with the dossier. It is Steele's word only.

Not, it’s not just Steele’s word. Some of it was confirmed by the FBI.

McCabe testified to Congress that nothing in it had been confirmed.

Sent from my SM-G935P using USMessageBoard.com mobile app

Quote him...

 

[jc456]

jillian, relax and watch Tucker and Hannity tonight. It will help you I guarantee it! Hazelnut = triggered!

why would I watch lying psychotic trumploons?

poor dear.... what a thin skinned little trump flake you are

Not as bad as butthurt lefturds