House Intelligence FISA memo released: What it says

originally posted by: sdcigarpig
...
Evidence is what I am saying we need, show us the warrant that was mentioned, treat we the people like a judge and show us the hard cold evidence, and the truth, not a memo that already got caught breaking protocol and lying about it.

This is evidence. BTW, the FBI asked the Trump administration to make some changes to the memo... So you are wrong in claiming that "they got caught breaking protocol and lying about it"...

originally posted by: sdcigarpig
They say they based this memo off of documents from the DOJ and the FBI, well how about we the people see it, get it all out in the light, let we the people see the proof.

For that to happen Congress would have to declassify all evidence...

originally posted by: sdcigarpig
Do you really trust the politicians fully, believing everything that they say? Like say a wall that another country is going to pay for it as was promised, yet it appears we are going to have to pay for anyways, and not get reimbursed.

First of all, what the heck does that have to do with this?...
Second of all, you don't even know yet how it is going to be done. It is very possible that PRESIDENT Trump will try to find some way to make the Mexican government fund at least partly for the wall. There are ways to do it such as increasing tariffs on Mexico on imported Mexican products.

originally posted by: JohnnyCanuck

originally posted by: Xcathdra

originally posted by: JohnnyCanuck

originally posted by: Xcathdra
The FISA memo has been released.

And apparently the Dems have compiled a memo that refutes some of what has been stated by Nunes. But the Republicans have voted not to release it.
Release the memo!

Incorrect.. Democrats are lying about that.

The intel committee actually approved, unanimously, to release the Democrats memo to the full house for review. They were told they had to use the exact same process Republicans had to use.

Vote to release to the House. Determine if it needs to be released publicly and if it is a vote is held. POTUS then gets 5 days to review.

Blah, blah, blah. Release the memo!

When it goes through the process it will be.

a reply to: Greven

You are just making it up as you go I see.

a reply to: Xcathdra

If this was classified, to conceal the FBI/DOJ crimes, then why release a memo which only alludes to said crimes, and show no proof to the public? Why make it political? Why not release all of it, get it out in the open for all to see, read, look at, examine, showing proof that there was something wrong there?

I have a question: If a prosecuting attorney tampers with evidence, would any trial he has or argument hold weight?

Here you have Nunes, who tampered with evidence, and lied about it earlier. Why should we believe him now, when it deals with the same stuff that he got caught earlier?

Is what he is producing? I don't know, but based on his prior actions, we should at least be very cautious and careful about what this man put out for political reasons, and demand to see the whole evidence behind it. Unless we no longer care about justice, and think that this is ok in this case. If Carter Page is innocent, then let there be a trial, where all of this is out and have the state prove him guilty.

Not by memo, but by evidence.

a reply to: JohnnyCanuck

And apparently the Dems have compiled a memo

Like the dossier they compiled ????
I am sure they have. And in the process of compiling more....

originally posted by: sdcigarpig
If this was classified, to conceal the FBI/DOJ crimes, then why release a memo which only alludes to said crimes, and show no proof to the public? Why make it political? Why not release all of it, get it out in the open for all to see, read, look at, examine, showing proof that there was something wrong there?

As the memo clearly shows there was no reason to classify it except for Democrats wanting to protect Democrats who broke the law. They could have used a normal court however by using a FISA court the information becomes classified and is exempt from FOIA requests.

originally posted by: sdcigarpig
I have a question: If a prosecuting attorney tampers with evidence, would any trial he has or argument hold weight?

Nope

originally posted by: sdcigarpigHere you have Nunes, who tampered with evidence, and lied about it earlier. Why should we believe him now, when it deals with the same stuff that he got caught earlier?

He didnt tamper with evidence. The changes made to the memo were at the request of the FBI for a sources / method issue and the remaining changes were grammar corrections Democrats wanted corrected.

originally posted by: sdcigarpig
Is what he is producing? I don't know, but based on his prior actions, we should at least be very cautious and careful about what this man put out for political reasons, and demand to see the whole evidence behind it. Unless we no longer care about justice, and think that this is ok in this case. If Carter Page is innocent, then let there be a trial, where all of this is out and have the state prove him guilty.

Not by memo, but by evidence.

Carter Page IS innocent. It is up to the government to convince a judge or jury he is guilty.

Given what was done to obtain the FISA warrant his prosecution is done and I imagine charges wil be dismissed with prejudice in addition to dismissal for brady and giglio violations.

a reply to: Grambler

If that is the case, then put out the warrant, let we the people see the warrant, and all of the information that goes along with such, get it out in the open and for everyone to see.


This is how it should be viewed: You are on trial. The Prosecuting Attorney, has been caught earlier with tampering with Evidence, in an attempt to show that you are guilty. Would you think that there would be justice if that man was still allowed to proceed and prosecute you?

Nunes, from the get go, has been very political, in an attempt to curry favor. He was seen to get and share documents with the White House and lied about it, only to be shown he lied. Now he is back creating a memo, and yet we are expected to accept this from the direction of a person who already been shown to be untrustworthy. That should not be, and thus this should be taken with caution and say show us the evidence, all of it, including the Warrant, and all that went with that.

a reply to: Greven

So, please do tell us what parts have been verified?... As far as I know there was only ONE THING, ok maybe two, that could be verified about the dossier...and that was that Page had made a trip to Russia, and that Trump and Melania made a trip to Moscow and stayed in the same suite as Obama and Michele had stayed in when they themselves had made a trip to Moscow... THAT'S IT... Nothing else has been verified as far as I know...

But go ahead and keep trying to make claims which are completely wrong...

originally posted by: Xcathdra
a reply to: Greven

You are just making it up as you go I see.

What am I making up?

Just a reminder, that Trey Gowdy is one of the researchers on the team for the MEMO. He was checking the warrants and checking back with the team to confer with them. I have a hard time, believing that Gowdy would be off on his facts given the man's experience and just how sharp he is. Its going to be quite the task to debunk this MEMO. My guess, is that rather than Debunk, the spin will be something along the lines of "certain persons were investgated previous to the campaign etc".

All of that aside, given how we see most of the MEDIA reacting, the Dem's this week (recall, Schiff never wanted GPS to be forced to disclose who funded them), and the responses by Comey himself, this MEMO is reverberating and its hitting these folks right where they wish not to be hit.

a reply to: Xcathdra

But Nunes, did. Back when Trump first got into office, Nunes was sneaking over to the White house and then announced about illegal wiretapping. And oh my goodness there was evidence, supposedly found. Then Nunes lied, he had nothing to do with it, never been to the white house. Then it was yeah, he did go over and was sharing information with the White House.

There is the problem. Nunes in short tampered with evidence once, So why should his memo be trusted now. The man did it once, so there is no guarantee this is the truth, and the whole truth. It is done for a political stunt and that is all.

Now that the cat is out of the bag, they might as well release all of it so all of us can see, and not go off of the word of a man who, has tampered with evidence before, on his word as this is the truth.

Michael Weiss‏Verified account @michaeldweiss

The SVR tried to recruit Carter Page. The FBI has known about this 2013. Why? Because the FBI arrested the SVR recruiters (on a separate issue). Page is "Male-1" in this FBI complaint. To say that Steele's dossier led to Page's surveillance is ridiculous.

***PDF LINK*** UNITED STATES OF AMERICA -v. -EVGENY BURYAKOV, a/k/a "Zhenya," IGOR SPORYSHEV, and
VICTOR PODOBNYY,



Carter Page is Male-1 and the guy who tried recruiting Page was arrested. Nothing from this incident would allow continuation of surveillance and nothing from this incident would have a bearing on whats currently going on.

originally posted by: ElectricUniverse
a reply to: Greven

So, please do tell us what parts have been verified?... As far as I know there was only ONE THING, ok maybe two, that could be verified about the dossier...and that was that Page had made a trip to Russia, and that Trump and Melania made a trip to Moscow and stayed in the same suite as Obama and Michele had stayed in when they themselves had made a trip to Moscow... THAT'S IT... Nothing else has been verified as far as I know...

But go ahead and keep trying to make claims which are completely wrong...

I don't know crap about the dossier's veracity and nobody here does either.

Also, it is irrelevant - y'all are getting distracted by this partisan memo.

Note the very last page - the one that says FBI counterintelligence investigation had been initiated based on Papadopoulos in July 2016 against Carter Page.

Note also that the FISA warrant was renewed several times. If they hadn't found anything, the court wouldn't have renewed it once - let alone three times. This is a protection against abuse that requires renewal every 90 days.

originally posted by: sdcigarpig
But Nunes, did. Back when Trump first got into office, Nunes was sneaking over to the White house and then announced about illegal wiretapping. And oh my goodness there was evidence, supposedly found. Then Nunes lied, he had nothing to do with it, never been to the white house. Then it was yeah, he did go over and was sharing information with the White House.

There is the problem. Nunes in short tampered with evidence once, So why should his memo be trusted now. The man did it once, so there is no guarantee this is the truth, and the whole truth. It is done for a political stunt and that is all.

Now that the cat is out of the bag, they might as well release all of it so all of us can see, and not go off of the word of a man who, has tampered with evidence before, on his word as this is the truth.

Nunes underwent a 10 month long ethics investigation and was cleared. He did not tamper with any evidence.

The memo is based on documents supplied by the FBI and DOJ.

What it says...I know it says that the investigations were brought about due to Russians approaching the Trump campaign, not some dossier. So there goes at least one gaping gunshot wound to your own foot. OOPS!

But keep grasping. I certainly do not trust the FBI 100% but I damn sure trust them over some elected partisan politician who will do anything to stay elected and keep his party in power so they can push through an agenda.

You're hanging your wild ass theories on some random FBI agent with a so-called agenda or bias.
Completely ignoring the fact that Strzok was ALSO instrumental in re-opening the investigation into HRC....RIGHT BEFORE THE ELECTION.

Your little "deep state" actors sure aren't deep stating correctly.

Bout the only thing I got out of the memo for certain is this:

Damn glad my name isn't Andrew NcCabe.

originally posted by: talisman
Just a reminder, that Trey Gowdy is one of the researchers on the team for the MEMO. He was checking the warrants and checking back with the team to confer with them. I have a hard time, believing that Gowdy would be off on his facts given the man's experience and just how sharp he is. Its going to be quite the task to debunk this MEMO. My guess, is that rather than Debunk, the spin will be something along the lines of "certain persons were investgated previous to the campaign etc".

All of that aside, given how we see most of the MEDIA reacting, the Dem's this week (recall, Schiff never wanted GPS to be forced to disclose who funded them), and the responses by Comey himself, this MEMO is reverberating and its hitting these folks right where they wish not to be hit.

Trey Gowdy said this, though - Gowdy: Nunes memo does not discredit Mueller probe in any way.

originally posted by: IgnoranceIsntBlisss
a reply to: projectvxn

You know iggy, that meme is the whole story and will best sum it up 100 years from now. Reminds me a bit of the "TeaPot Dome scandal"


www.history.com...

"The scandal involved ornery oil tycoons, poker-playing politicians, illegal liquor sales, a murder-suicide, a womanizing president and a bagful of bribery cash delivered on the sly."

originally posted by: Greven

originally posted by: talisman
Just a reminder, that Trey Gowdy is one of the researchers on the team for the MEMO. He was checking the warrants and checking back with the team to confer with them. I have a hard time, believing that Gowdy would be off on his facts given the man's experience and just how sharp he is. Its going to be quite the task to debunk this MEMO. My guess, is that rather than Debunk, the spin will be something along the lines of "certain persons were investgated previous to the campaign etc".

All of that aside, given how we see most of the MEDIA reacting, the Dem's this week (recall, Schiff never wanted GPS to be forced to disclose who funded them), and the responses by Comey himself, this MEMO is reverberating and its hitting these folks right where they wish not to be hit.

Trey Gowdy said this, though - Gowdy: Nunes memo does not discredit Mueller probe in any way.

Thats because everything in the memo deals with stuff before Mueller became special counsel.

originally posted by: face23785

originally posted by: luthier

originally posted by: face23785

originally posted by: network dude

originally posted by: CB328
Is there anything in this memo that says Trump's buddies aren't guilty?? I didn't think so.

Guilty of what? Obstructing an investigation that never should have happened?

Is that an impeachable offence?

Nevermind that Comey and other DOJ officials have testified repeatedly that the administration hasn't hampered the investigation in any way.

The trump Jr and Hope Hicks are the newest issue.

Comey never really said he wasn't being told to stand down on Flynn. He alludes that the president was making a sort of threat. Then trump steps on his own foot in tweets..

It isn't exactly clear sailing.

"I hope you can drop this, I hope you can let Flynn go" doesn't sound like a threat to me. I think you'd have a hard time convincing the Senate that it was too.

Right now 100% of the Dems will vote to not drop it. Spoiled losers are even worse than rotten winners. At least the winners DID something to WIN.. Damn...