House Intelligence FISA memo released: What it says

originally posted by: CrawlingChaos

originally posted by: introvert

originally posted by: CrawlingChaos
a reply to: theantediluvian

No, Comey's statement was that the dossier was salacious and unverified.

He didn't state "parts"...

And you ignored the most important part, the fact he stated the dossier as a whole was unverified.

He did not say the dossier was unverified as a whole. In the comment he made, he was speaking about "material" he was briefing Trump about. He did not say he briefed him on the entirety of the dossier. The "material" he was discussing with Trump was salacious and unverified.

Wrong. In his Senate hearing, Comey told the senate committee that the document REMAINED unverified in his testimony during June 2017.

If it wasn't verified in June 2017, it certainly wasn't verified in Sept 2016 when it was used for a warrant.

No. That is incorrect. Comey was asked about the dossier being verified and he said that he couldn't comment, as that was classified.

www.redstate.com...

a reply to: face23785

reading between the lines, the only other so called evidence
was a news story or two planted by one of the Fusion GOS minions.

So basically, it was all unverified garbage.

Unless, there is a new story out today that Obama had his own dossier,
and they may have used some garbage from that too.

Garbage, Garbage, Garbage.

originally posted by: xxspockyxx

originally posted by: introvert
a reply to: RadioRobert

Yes. An oppo hit piece created by a man who hated Trump, paid for by political opponents (and the FBI?), sold by the people who hired the wife of a senior Justice official concurrently, and whose verification was so weak it apparently references an online news bit leaked by the same creator as "evidence" of veracity.

It was not a hit piece. It was an opposition research piece that was not meant for public publication. A hit piece is.

It's sort of a Big deal. Not as BIG(currently) as people were perhaps hoping/fearing, but Big. Enough to warrant independent investigation. I look forward to seeing the Dem memo and what, if anything, the FBI and Justice are able to provide to give us the "context" we are missing.

Yes, context is a big deal.

I think we should look for proper context before we jump too far.

Did anyone point out yet where anyone confirmed that any of the dossier was verified at all?

There have been some aspects of the dossier that has turned out to be true, yes.

a reply to: face23785

That's what the memo claims. What I'm saying is, he needs to be asked to verify that.

I agree; that would be the easiest way to verify his claim, and that one question ("was the FISA warrant based on the Steele dossier?") goes to the heart of the matter.

However, we do have some evidence that it was true. Since, as you say, declassifying the memo effectively declassified McCabe's answer, why have we not heard from the Democrats that this was a false narrative? Some of them sat in on the classified meeting. One would think since they are so dead-set against the memo, they would happily point out any inaccuracies that were declassified.

ETA: I stand corrected. As I hit reply, I heard a report that some Democrats are indeed challenging the report of McCabe's statements.

TheRedneck

a reply to: burntheships

Reading between the lines = speculation right?

originally posted by: introvert

originally posted by: xxspockyxx

originally posted by: introvert
a reply to: RadioRobert

Yes. An oppo hit piece created by a man who hated Trump, paid for by political opponents (and the FBI?), sold by the people who hired the wife of a senior Justice official concurrently, and whose verification was so weak it apparently references an online news bit leaked by the same creator as "evidence" of veracity.

It was not a hit piece. It was an opposition research piece that was not meant for public publication. A hit piece is.

It's sort of a Big deal. Not as BIG(currently) as people were perhaps hoping/fearing, but Big. Enough to warrant independent investigation. I look forward to seeing the Dem memo and what, if anything, the FBI and Justice are able to provide to give us the "context" we are missing.

Yes, context is a big deal.

I think we should look for proper context before we jump too far.

Did anyone point out yet where anyone confirmed that any of the dossier was verified at all?

There have been some aspects of the dossier that has turned out to be true, yes.

They spelled Trump's name correctly.

originally posted by: face23785
So the guy who wrote it (Steele) didn't intend it for public release? The same guy (Steele) who leaked a bunch of the contents to Yahoo News?

Once Steele leaked to Yahoo, the FBI used the Yahoo story to corroborate the Steele memo to the FISA court.
Wow, what a bunch of no good Mother Pluckers. Talk about nefarious circular flawed logic. LOL

originally posted by: TheRedneck
a reply to: face23785

That's what the memo claims. What I'm saying is, he needs to be asked to verify that.

I agree; that would be the easiest way to verify his claim, and that one question ("was the FISA warrant based on the Steele dossier?") goes to the heart of the matter.

However, we do have some evidence that it was true. Since, as you say, declassifying the memo effectively declassified McCabe's answer, why have we not heard from the Democrats that this was a false narrative? Some of them sat in on the classified meeting. One would think since they are so dead-set against the memo, they would happily point out any inaccuracies that were declassified.

TheRedneck

They actually have come out saying that part isn't true. The only way we'll find out who is telling the truth is to declassify the transcript.

originally posted by: mzinga
a reply to: burntheships

Reading between the lines = speculation right?

No, reading the news stories out today.

Just like the news stories that were used in the FISA warrant.

You will need to read the entire MEMO.

originally posted by: JBurns
Now my question is, how long has this been going on? How many others are victim to this? Looking past Obama even into Bush Jr., how many were targeted under his orders/guidance?

My guess is forever...

George Washington and JFK were both well aware of this kind of thing happening.

In fact JFK was murdered soon after he vowed to expose it.

Past presidents of the United States and other high profile political leaders have repeatedly issued warnings over the last 214 years that the U.S. government is under the control of an “invisible government owing no allegiance and acknowledging no responsibility to the people.”

According to six of our former presidents, one vice-president, and a myriad of other high profile political leaders, an invisible government that is “incredibly evil in intent” has been in control of the U.S. government “ever since the days of Andrew Jackson” (since at least 1836). They “virtually run the United States government for their own selfish purposes. They practically control both parties…

From Washington to JFK: Former Presidents Warn About Illuminati

a reply to: burntheships

I read the entire memo. WIthout reading the FISA application it is all speculation and hearsay written by a partisan congressman.

originally posted by: face23785

originally posted by: TheRedneck
a reply to: face23785

That's what the memo claims. What I'm saying is, he needs to be asked to verify that.

I agree; that would be the easiest way to verify his claim, and that one question ("was the FISA warrant based on the Steele dossier?") goes to the heart of the matter.

However, we do have some evidence that it was true. Since, as you say, declassifying the memo effectively declassified McCabe's answer, why have we not heard from the Democrats that this was a false narrative? Some of them sat in on the classified meeting. One would think since they are so dead-set against the memo, they would happily point out any inaccuracies that were declassified.

TheRedneck

They actually have come out saying that part isn't true. The only way we'll find out who is telling the truth is to declassify the transcript.

[url=https://www.thedailybeast.com/sources-devin-nunes-memo-is-100-wrong-about-andrew-mccabe-and-steele-dossier-for-carter-page-fisa-warrant]Source[/u rl]

So essentially Republicans who were in that hearing said he said that, Democrats said he didn't. We need McCabe to confirm or deny what he said. And if anyone accuses him of lying at that point, declassify the hearing transcript. Even if you redact the whole thing except that part, I want to see it.

ETA: For whatever reason I can't get that to link right.

a reply to: face23785

Yes, I just heard that, and edited it into my original post. The stories are flying hot and heavy today, and it's hard to keep up.

Let me say, if the Steele dossier was not required in order to obtain a warrant, the issue becomes less one of FISA and Democratic conspiracy to conduct illegal surveillance, and more of simple poor decisions within the FBI. Either way, some heads are surely going to roll.

TheRedneck

originally posted by: face23785

originally posted by: introvert

originally posted by: xxspockyxx

originally posted by: introvert
a reply to: RadioRobert

Yes. An oppo hit piece created by a man who hated Trump, paid for by political opponents (and the FBI?), sold by the people who hired the wife of a senior Justice official concurrently, and whose verification was so weak it apparently references an online news bit leaked by the same creator as "evidence" of veracity.

It was not a hit piece. It was an opposition research piece that was not meant for public publication. A hit piece is.

It's sort of a Big deal. Not as BIG(currently) as people were perhaps hoping/fearing, but Big. Enough to warrant independent investigation. I look forward to seeing the Dem memo and what, if anything, the FBI and Justice are able to provide to give us the "context" we are missing.

Yes, context is a big deal.

I think we should look for proper context before we jump too far.

Did anyone point out yet where anyone confirmed that any of the dossier was verified at all?

There have been some aspects of the dossier that has turned out to be true, yes.

They spelled Trump's name correctly.

That is one aspect, yes.

Kudos to you for a bit of humor.

a reply to: soberbacchus

And yet doesn't name one wrong thing.

originally posted by: introvert

originally posted by: face23785

originally posted by: introvert

originally posted by: xxspockyxx

originally posted by: introvert
a reply to: RadioRobert

Yes. An oppo hit piece created by a man who hated Trump, paid for by political opponents (and the FBI?), sold by the people who hired the wife of a senior Justice official concurrently, and whose verification was so weak it apparently references an online news bit leaked by the same creator as "evidence" of veracity.

It was not a hit piece. It was an opposition research piece that was not meant for public publication. A hit piece is.

It's sort of a Big deal. Not as BIG(currently) as people were perhaps hoping/fearing, but Big. Enough to warrant independent investigation. I look forward to seeing the Dem memo and what, if anything, the FBI and Justice are able to provide to give us the "context" we are missing.

Yes, context is a big deal.

I think we should look for proper context before we jump too far.

Did anyone point out yet where anyone confirmed that any of the dossier was verified at all?

There have been some aspects of the dossier that has turned out to be true, yes.

They spelled Trump's name correctly.

That is one aspect, yes.

Kudos to you for a bit of humor.

Seriously, all I've heard that they verified as correct was information that was already publicly available, like Page took a trip to Russia. Was there anything new in it that was verified that you can point us to?

originally posted by: TheRedneck
a reply to: face23785

Yes, I just heard that, and edited it into my original post. The stories are flying hot and heavy today, and it's hard to keep up.

Let me say, if the Steele dossier was not required in order to obtain a warrant, the issue becomes less one of FISA and Democratic conspiracy to conduct illegal surveillance, and more of simple poor decisions within the FBI. Either way, some heads are surely going to roll.

TheRedneck

It's not a new problem.

In 2002, The FISA court complained that FBI agents made more than 75 false or misleading claims to secure warrants; a top FBI counterrorism official was prohibited from ever appearing there again. The court also rebuffed Attorney General John Ashcroft’s proposal to radically transform its purpose by making it easier for prosecutors to use FISA warrants to sweep up evidence for criminal prosecutions.

Just FYI... Nunes is being interviewed on Fox in 45 minutes. Maybe that will shed some light.

TheRedneck

originally posted by: face23785

originally posted by: introvert

originally posted by: face23785

originally posted by: introvert

originally posted by: xxspockyxx

originally posted by: introvert
a reply to: RadioRobert

Yes. An oppo hit piece created by a man who hated Trump, paid for by political opponents (and the FBI?), sold by the people who hired the wife of a senior Justice official concurrently, and whose verification was so weak it apparently references an online news bit leaked by the same creator as "evidence" of veracity.

It was not a hit piece. It was an opposition research piece that was not meant for public publication. A hit piece is.

It's sort of a Big deal. Not as BIG(currently) as people were perhaps hoping/fearing, but Big. Enough to warrant independent investigation. I look forward to seeing the Dem memo and what, if anything, the FBI and Justice are able to provide to give us the "context" we are missing.

Yes, context is a big deal.

I think we should look for proper context before we jump too far.

Did anyone point out yet where anyone confirmed that any of the dossier was verified at all?

There have been some aspects of the dossier that has turned out to be true, yes.

They spelled Trump's name correctly.

That is one aspect, yes.

Kudos to you for a bit of humor.

Seriously, all I've heard that they verified as correct was information that was already publicly available, like Page took a trip to Russia. Was there anything new in it that was verified that you can point us to?

Anything new that is not already publicly-available? No. I don't know of anything off hand.

a reply to: luthier

2002 would be under Bush Jr.'s administration. Not surprising.

TheRedneck