FISA ‘Info Suggests Documents Catastrophically Bad For Dems’: Adam Schiff Leaks Dry Up

originally posted by: RickinVa
Time will tell...it always does.

You guys seem focused to disprove something that hasn't been presented yet, nor do you know the contents there of.


Carry on.

I will just wait and see what comes out. If anything.

Meanwhile, "you guys" jump to conclusions without evidence.

originally posted by: Grambler
BTW i have noticed many more mainstream places picking up this story.

Just google memo and you will see a bunch more that were put up recently.

Love it when you try to validate a story with MSM google results.

LOL.

originally posted by: soberbacchus

originally posted by: Grambler
BTW i have noticed many more mainstream places picking up this story.

Just google memo and you will see a bunch more that were put up recently.

Love it when you try to validate a story with MSM google results.

LOL.

I think the story was quite validated by the actual videos you can watch of the congressmen discussing this.

People asked why the media wasnt covering it, I showed that more are.

Newly released data by the US Courts show that the Washington DC.-based Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court (FISA court) rejected nine applications during the final year of the Obama administration's tenure.

It's the largest number of requests the FISA court has denied in its entire four-decade history.

ZDnet

Washington (CNN)The FBI last year used a dossier of allegations of Russian ties to Donald Trump's campaign as part of the justification to win approval to secretly monitor a Trump associate, according to US officials briefed on the investigation.

The dossier has also been cited by FBI Director James Comey in some of his briefings to members of Congress in recent weeks, as one of the sources of information the bureau has used to bolster its investigation, according to US officials briefed on the probe.

CNN

(Reuters) - The U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia judge presiding over the criminal case for President Donald Trump’s former National Security Adviser Michael Flynn has been recused from handling the case, a court spokeswoman said on Thursday.

...

He was also appointed to the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court in May 2016 for a term lasting through 2023.

Reuters

That corner they're painting themselves into is getting smaller and smaller.

originally posted by: Grambler

originally posted by: luthier
a reply to: Grambler

Trying again for a warrant is not a red flag. It's perfectly normal. It's proof it works. They presented more information.

If they had info and Steele had the same info it is what it is.

The dosier has not been proven false yet. Steele hasn't been interviewed and the info has not been release that would verify or dismiss it.

Again, you ignore the head of the FBI at the time of the warrant admitted months later in testimony in front of congress that it was salacious and unverified. So for him to give the go ahead to use it, especially knowing it was paid for by hillarys team as oppo research, is a scandal of epic proportions.

Its not a matter of proving the dossier false; its a matter of was it veirfied when it was used to help spy on trumps team. Comey admits is was not.


Now as for the red flag of going back to the fisa court.

First, Fisa accepts 99.7 of the request for warrants. So the fact that they originally said know about Page is shocking.

But then for the FBI to go back, that means they had to have something to put it over the top, because what they presented originally wasnt enough. If the dossier was used in part to help push it over the top, again, it is unbelievably corrupt.

Federal courts convicted 93% of defendants in 2012.

Why do you suppose that is?

Because the feds tend to do a damn good job at making an airtight criminal case before charging someone with something.

Has it been leaked yet? What's the hold up?

originally posted by: Greven

originally posted by: Grambler

originally posted by: luthier
a reply to: Grambler

Trying again for a warrant is not a red flag. It's perfectly normal. It's proof it works. They presented more information.

If they had info and Steele had the same info it is what it is.

The dosier has not been proven false yet. Steele hasn't been interviewed and the info has not been release that would verify or dismiss it.

Again, you ignore the head of the FBI at the time of the warrant admitted months later in testimony in front of congress that it was salacious and unverified. So for him to give the go ahead to use it, especially knowing it was paid for by hillarys team as oppo research, is a scandal of epic proportions.

Its not a matter of proving the dossier false; its a matter of was it veirfied when it was used to help spy on trumps team. Comey admits is was not.


Now as for the red flag of going back to the fisa court.

First, Fisa accepts 99.7 of the request for warrants. So the fact that they originally said know about Page is shocking.

But then for the FBI to go back, that means they had to have something to put it over the top, because what they presented originally wasnt enough. If the dossier was used in part to help push it over the top, again, it is unbelievably corrupt.

Federal courts convicted 93% of defendants in 2012.

Why do you suppose that is?

Because the feds tend to do a damn good job at making an airtight criminal case before charging someone with something.

Yet the fisa court, that is almost a guarantee, rejected there first attempt.

So if that dossier was used to push it over the top, it was outrageous and will have dire consequences.

a reply to: craterman

It won't leak unless someone breaks the law, if it's a classified memo as has been alleged.

Apparently, the Intelligence Committee could declassify the memo - at which point it could be leaked or shared. So too can the President.

originally posted by: craterman
Has it been leaked yet? What's the hold up?

Because it's been the sneaky Dems leaking the entire time?

I hear Trump is just letting them all squirm.

#ReleaseTheMemo!

originally posted by: Grambler

originally posted by: Greven

originally posted by: Grambler

originally posted by: luthier
a reply to: Grambler

Trying again for a warrant is not a red flag. It's perfectly normal. It's proof it works. They presented more information.

If they had info and Steele had the same info it is what it is.

The dosier has not been proven false yet. Steele hasn't been interviewed and the info has not been release that would verify or dismiss it.

Again, you ignore the head of the FBI at the time of the warrant admitted months later in testimony in front of congress that it was salacious and unverified. So for him to give the go ahead to use it, especially knowing it was paid for by hillarys team as oppo research, is a scandal of epic proportions.

Its not a matter of proving the dossier false; its a matter of was it veirfied when it was used to help spy on trumps team. Comey admits is was not.


Now as for the red flag of going back to the fisa court.

First, Fisa accepts 99.7 of the request for warrants. So the fact that they originally said know about Page is shocking.

But then for the FBI to go back, that means they had to have something to put it over the top, because what they presented originally wasnt enough. If the dossier was used in part to help push it over the top, again, it is unbelievably corrupt.

Federal courts convicted 93% of defendants in 2012.

Why do you suppose that is?

Because the feds tend to do a damn good job at making an airtight criminal case before charging someone with something.

Yet the fisa court, that is almost a guarantee, rejected there first attempt.

So if that dossier was used to push it over the top, it was outrageous and will have dire consequences.

This is pure speculation, using unsubstantiated claims from anonymous sources.

To wit, what we know is:
1) There was an attempt to obtain a FISA warrant
2) This attempt was denied.
3) Another attempt was made to obtain a FISA warrant.
4) The FISA warrant was approved.

You're adding all the rest.

So let me get this straight, Feinstein can leak a document (which didn't hurt Trump in the least) but she turns around and votes against this? This document is catastrophic for Dems, which is why they're trying to suppress it.

A patriot should pull a Feinstein, and leak the document anyhow. How will the left explain this though? Why are the Dems engaging in selective information release? They're clearly manipulating the left, and trying to manipulate us.

I refuse to be manipulated any longer. There is no Russian hacking. No Russian crimes. And especially no Russian "collusion"

Democrats have been outed as foolish liars, while our beliefs have been proven right time and time again.

Heads need to roll over this. But I'll settle for never having to hear another screechy Democrat drone on about Soviets hiding in the shower.

Stars and flag for this OP, glad to see this information getting out there Tim.

originally posted by: JBurns
So let me get this straight, Feinstein can leak a document (which didn't hurt Trump in the least) but she turns around and votes against this? This document is catastrophic for Dems, which is why they're trying to suppress it.

A patriot should pull a Feinstein, and leak the document anyhow. How will the left explain this though? Why are the Dems engaging in selective information release? They're clearly manipulating the left, and trying to manipulate us.

I refuse to be manipulated any longer. There is no Russian hacking. No Russian crimes. And especially no Russian "collusion"

Democrats have been outed as foolish liars, while our beliefs have been proven right time and time again.

Heads need to roll over this. But I'll settle for never having to hear another screechy Democrat drone on about Soviets hiding in the shower.

Senate committee rules are different from House committee rules. She is the ranking minority member for the intel committee and under their rules she can unilaterally release info / documents.

The House intel committee does not have that ability under their rules.

a reply to: Xcathdra


Ah, thanks for explaining that

I do find it amusing how much the Dems are opposing this. It must pretty much destroy their narrative

a reply to: Xcathdra

Beyond that, I don't think it was a classified document that Feinstein released.

Classified documents have different rules than unclassified documents.

a reply to: Greven


Know what else we don't know, to wit?

We don't know if "The Russians" or anyone REALLY "hacked" the DNC server. Why? Only DNC paid private contractor Crowdstrike had access to the servers. The DNC refused to let the FBI/DISA/etc investigate or look at the servers.

www.wired.com...

thehill.com...

Bill Binney, an NSA leaker, analyzed Crowdstrike's material and concluded the stolen files were taken locally and copied to a USB flash drive.

The entire narrative had failed to produce any substantial evidence verifying a single one of its claims.

For instance, in the beginning when Obama/Clapper claimed all 17 intelligence agencies reached the Russia-attack conclusion "unanimously." This was a blatant lie. We now know that ONLY 2 single agencies reached this conclusion, with a third agency (NSA - the real experts in "hacking" BTW) being unsure (50% certain). 2 1/2 out of 17 intelligence agencies is anything but "unanimous." How much would you like to bet exposed agents like Peter Strozok were among the individuals making the affirmative claims? Nothing they say is credible, and neither is their investigative activities. That's the problem with being outed/exposed.

This is a complete farce and fabrication. All the evidence we do actually have suggests this was the largest nothing-burger to ever disgrace this country. And shame on the Democrats for peddling this sour-grape nonsense.

a reply to: Xcathdra

So Adam Schiff has a loose set of lips.

I guess thats ok. Right?

I say we start revenge eating our politicians like people used to do.

ABC news is reporting The Memo to be four pages.

Do we have any other information about it?

If it is classified then it must have been written by
an agency that has the power to classify, right?

Schiff is making it sound like some low brow Republican
wrote it. This can't be the case, such an obviously
disinformation statement. He needs to be removed
from office for ethical reasons.

originally posted by: tadaman
a reply to: Xcathdra

So Adam Schiff has a loose set of lips.

I guess thats ok. Right?

I say we start revenge eating our politicians like people used to do.

He is a Democrat so yes. Rules / laws dont apply to them.

originally posted by: burntheships
ABC news is reporting The Memo to be four pages.

Do we have any other information about it?

If it is classified then it must have been written by
an agency that has the power to classify, right?

Schiff is making it sound like some low brow Republican
wrote it. This can't be the case, such an obviously
disinformation statement. He needs to be removed
from office for ethical reasons.

The memo is 4 pages long and highlights the investigation that Nunes is conducting.

a reply to: burntheships


Schiff is a disgrace also. He knows he is full of #, and is only putting on a performance for the rabid far-left's base. Sycophants will cheer on the political witch-hunt because it stalls Trump's agenda (to some degree) and obstruction is their goal.

We've seen them for their true colors, once again. If there was any doubt they were playing some kind of a game, their opposition to the release of these documents should clear things up. It certainly did for me. We will soon find out what is in those pages, and then we'll know what these #####'s have known for months (or even since the beginning). If we find out they were pushing this narrative in spite of this knowledge, then I can't see the Democratic party itself remaining an actual part of our political institutions.