House Intelligence FISA memo released: What it says

a reply to: Grambler

The problem with Hillary, is that far too many people lie, and tell rumors, and do not keep justice to the mindset. They tamper with evidence, all cause they hate her. If after all of these years, and investigations something would come up, but it turns out 99% of the time it is just lie and rumor. The last 2 hearings that Hillary was under, pretty much is the best example of this. Benghazi, under Trey Gowdy, ceased being about that and turned into a political witch hunt, where the man was reported to tamper with evidence in an attempt to show wrong doing. And the entire email thing, was all political, to the point where it was holding her to one standard, but other people got a free pass for doing the exact same thing. You can not have it both ways, it is one standard for both, or not at all.


Now here is another point that should be brought up: Trey Gowdy. He is chairman of the House oversight committee. He actually worked on this Memo as well. Why are there no hearings planned or called for immediately? If this is a gross abuse of authority and power, and the head of 2 committees are both claiming this and one actually got to see this, why no hearings to call both the head of the FBI and the DOJ into committee to testify under oath?

originally posted by: Grambler

originally posted by: Greven

originally posted by: Grambler

originally posted by: Greven
Oh good, more cheerleaders.

I ain't going to let someone slide by while accusing me of lying after making up what I wrote.

Again, you said this.

" The memo tries to build the case that the whole dossier is fake,"

The memo does not do this in any way.

It is trying to show the dossier was written and paid for by bias people, and that it was unverified and salacious when the warrant was applied for, and that the dossier was a big part if not most important part of that warrant.

But no where in the memo does it even suggest the whole dossier is fake.

For example, the dossier says that Page went to russia. So you are claiming that the memo is saying that is fake.

That is nowhere in the memo, and for you to claim that somehow the memo is saying this is an outright lie.

For you to then threaten people for pointing this out is laughable.

But please, show me in the memo where it says or implies the whole dossier is fake, and I will happily admit I am wrong.

I will repeat, since it seems you have missed things.

Are you feigning reading incomprehension now to go along with the libel? The entire thrust of the memo is to discredit the FISA warrant based on the Steele dossier. If the dossier were true then, how would that work, exactly?

After Steele was terminated, a source validation report conducted by an independent unit within the FBI assesed Steele's reporting as only minimally corroborated. Yet, in early January 2017, Directory Comey briefed President-elect Trump on a summary of the Steele dossier, even though it was - according to his June 2017 testimony - "salacious and unverified." While the FISA application relied on Steele's past record of credible reporting on other unrelated matters, it ignored or concealed his anti-Trump financial and ideological motivations. Furthermore, Deputy Director McCabe testified before the Committee in December 2017 that no surveillance warrant would have been sought from the FISC without the Steele dossier information.

1) Claim dossier is minimally corroborated.
2) Claim Comey said it was "salacious and unverified."
3) Claim the FISA application ignored or concealed Steele's anti-Trump financial & ideological motivations.
4) Claim the FISA warrant was only sought with the Steele dossier information.

What the hell do you think that says, if it doesn't say what I wrote?

Also, what is up with the whole 'threat' thing? I don't have a #ing gun. I'm said I would contact the mods if you did not correct your post. The one that mischaracterized what I wrote.

Last I will comment on this.

Your post here is completely different than the quote I responded to, which said.

" The memo tries to build the case that the whole dossier is fake,"

As I showed, the memo never remotely said that.

It did say basically your #1, that it was minimally coorborated at the time of the warrant.

It did say #2 that comey said it was salacious and unverified.

It did say your number 3.

#4 it did not claim. It said that McCabe said that there would have been no warrant sought without the dossier.

None of your # 1 through #4 remotely said that the memo said the whole dossier was fake.

So before you call in to question my reading comprehension, and fly off about making reports to the mods, perhaps you ought to read what you said that I quited, and admit that you were wrong, no where did the memo remotely say the whole dossier was fake.

I meant one I had edited, which you had clearly responded to pre-edit.

#4 is a claim by the memo, therefore it is a claim. Now you object to grammar, after being so grossly negligent of it... If a warrant would not have been sought without the dossier, then the warrant was only sought with the dossier. It's the same damn thing.

This is like arguing what the definition of "is" is. What is the meaning of "fake" to you, so we can get on the same page here? How about "build the case" here?

Of course the memo doesn't flat-out say the dossier is fake. It uses several claims, including the demonstrably mischaracterized claim about what Comey said to cast doubt on the dossier as a whole. If they wanted to be accurate, they would have used what Comey actually said, which at most could be construed to cast doubt on parts of the dossier. rather than the whole. However, they purposely did not do this. Ergo, the memo is trying to build the case through claims that the whole dossier is fake.

Oh, here we are back again derailing, when the entire point was just initially flat out calling me a liar... which you continue to do. I fail to see how I am wrong, in this case.

a reply to: Scrubdog

The Russians have all kinds of sanctions in place from oBama and trump. Thr problem is congress wanted further sanctions. And they all ready sanctioned all companies involved and many Russians. But then thr call was to expand that to anyone doing business with Russia.

Well that's stupid if we start sanctioning anyone who buys from Russia it's going to hurt Amarican industries. For example if India buys aircraft from Russia we are supposed to stop selling stuff to India? This would also exclude selling to Europe since most of thr countries rely on Russian gas which is on thr sanctions list. But if we sanction countries dealing with companies in Russia we just excluded sales to Germany poland Italy turkey France Norway and I could keep going. So Trump's right furthering thr sanctions in this situation would be stupid and anti business that would hurt Amarican companies.

originally posted by: sdcigarpig
a reply to: Grambler

Why are there no hearings planned or called for immediately? If this is a gross abuse of authority and power, and the head of 2 committees are both claiming this and one actually got to see this, why no hearings to call both the head of the FBI and the DOJ into committee to testify under oath?

A Schiff, and later the transcript of the vote, let slip that there is a congressional investigation of the DOJ/FBI active. Perhaps they are awaiting the return of the documents they requested in multiple letters this and last week so that they have relevant questions before subpoenaing executive branch heads to hearings (which they already hate having to do).

originally posted by: JinMI
a reply to: Greven

No. The deal for Flynn was that he would cooperate and testify. Holding sentencing over his head is leverage.

Source? Flynn would be in the unique position to dictate the terms (mostly) of his compliance.
It's serious on paper, but in practice, not so much. www.law.cornell.edu...

So, how much did Republicans pay Steele via Fusion GPS?

Source?

Read: Michael Flynn's plea agreement, details of how he lied to FBI

That was a question based on known dates. Republicans may not have paid for anything from Steele. I do not know. This is a conspiracy site, sometimes.

originally posted by: ElectricUniverse

originally posted by: Greven

I welcome all wrongdoing being punished, regardless of party affiliation.

i agree with that.

originally posted by: Greven
Only thing is, there ain't much to back up wrongdoing aside from what's happened to Trump's crew - even this memo is not particularly trustworthy.

Wrong, as i have stated this wasn't the only thing that Congress read. Senators have a security clearance that allows them to read documentation that either corroborates, or denies the memo. Since Congress decided to declassify the memo, it is obvious the charges made in the memo are corroborated by classified information which right now cannot be made public.

This was a House document. Intel committee members likely have security clearances in the House. Last I had heard, Senators didn't get access to it, but perhaps that changed.

I don't know how obvious that may be... a party line vote for / against release doesn't suggest much bipartisan support.

The only people defending this disgracefilul behaviour by our top law enforcement agency are nothing but political hacks or the willing and complaint. The DNC funding a foreign agent whom paid Russian agents to make this flimsy dosssier which the FBI used to spy on the Trump campaign and ultimately take him down. It's absolutely treasonous acts at the highest level all completely politically motivated and guided by hatred of a single person. All citizens should be against this and to all the partisans, what are you going to say when Trump dies it to your team?

originally posted by: mkultra11
The only people defending this disgracefilul behaviour by our top law enforcement agency are nothing but political hacks or the willing and complaint. The DNC funding a foreign agent whom paid Russian agents to make this flimsy dosssier which the FBI used to spy on the Trump campaign and ultimately take him down. It's absolutely treasonous acts at the highest level all completely politically motivated and guided by hatred of a single person. All citizens should be against this and to all the partisans, what are you going to say when Trump dies it to your team?

But, how is this any different fro George Bush using the CIA to create fake intelligence that Saddam had WMD, then using that "fake fact" to take America to war, and send our troops over there to risk their lives, all over some fake evidence created to justify and sanction the policy?

If you allow them and bless them when they do in on one instance, why complain when you find them doing the exact same thing again in another instance?

Who gets to say, when it's appropriate, to use these secret underhand "sources and methods" to get things done, to overcome the little negging obstacles that often stand in the way of implementing policy?

a reply to: Speedtek

yes but if evidence given to judge is found after the fact to be bogus then any evidence found from warrant is tainted.

originally posted by: AMPTAH

originally posted by: mkultra11
The only people defending this disgracefilul behaviour by our top law enforcement agency are nothing but political hacks or the willing and complaint. The DNC funding a foreign agent whom paid Russian agents to make this flimsy dosssier which the FBI used to spy on the Trump campaign and ultimately take him down. It's absolutely treasonous acts at the highest level all completely politically motivated and guided by hatred of a single person. All citizens should be against this and to all the partisans, what are you going to say when Trump dies it to your team?

But, how is this any different fro George Bush using the CIA to create fake intelligence that Saddam had WMD, then using that "fake fact" to take America to war, and send our troops over there to risk their lives, all over some fake evidence created to justify and sanction the policy?

If you allow them and bless them when they do in on one instance, why complain when you find them doing the exact same thing again in another instance?

Who gets to say, when it's appropriate, to use these secret underhand "sources and methods" to get things done, to overcome the little negging obstacles that often stand in the way of implementing policy?

That's exactly my point. When are people going to get it? Either it be invading other countries or a domestic coup against a sitting democratically elected President? Right in your face. Again.

2) The Carter Page FISA application also cited extensively a September 23, 2016, Yahoo News article by Michael Isikoff, which focuses on Page’s July 2016 trip to Moscow. This article does not corroborate the Steele dossier because it is derived from information leaked by Steele himself to Yahoo News. The Page FISA application incorrectly assesses that Steele did not directly provide information to Yahoo News. Steele has admitted in British court filings that he met with Yahoo News—and several other outlets—in September 2016 at the direction of Fusion GPS. Perkins Coie was aware of Steele’s initial media contacts because they hosted at least one meeting in Washington D.C. in 2016 with Steele and Fusion GPS where this matter was discussed.

Does it concern anyone here that your privacy could be violated in this way on the basis of a media report? That something published about you in the media could send the spooks after you? What sort of judge would accept a media account as evidence in a probable cause hearing? Which media providers are acceptable---did they also use reports from The National Inquirer to bolster their claims?

a reply to: dragonridr

There would or could be a lot of bushiness that have issues all around the world with too many sanctions ...take for instance if you can believe it .

I haven’t decided what’s more annoying in the past couple years (maybe longer because time truly does fly).

-Benghazi
-Jade Helm
-Pizzagate
-Seth Rich
-The memo

They’re all overblown conspiracy theories that get extrapolated to the max, yet never materialize into anything even remotely meaningful for the country. They also smack of idioacy and leave out VAST searches of truth.

I’m all about transparency, seeking the truth, etc...

There just comes a time when it becomes dangerous to people’s psyche, and that seems to be happening. There are literally people who are so enraged over this memo that they are willing to “go to war” over what they beleive it means. People actually believe that Hillary and Obama are going to go to jail over this? Do some of you live in reality?

The same people that scream and get triggered because “the left wing mainstream media” won’t take them seriously, then produce this type of garbage that shouldn’t be taken seriously by anybody with a high-school diploma.

Every citizen from every political side of the aisle KNOWS corruption exists in Washington DC. Someone, anyone, just throw out some substantiated proof.

Those who think this Nunes memo blows the lid of some giant conspiracy are akin to the people in UFOlogy who think that a picture of a light in a sky is proof that we’ve been visited by extraterrestrials. Both could very well be true, but if you’re going to make those claims you better be DAMN sure you’ve got the absolute, bottom-dollar, without a shadow of a doubt, damning piece of evidence to back up your claims.

This memo was way over-hyped for what it produced, like every other conspiratorial thing that’s ever been hyped.

Quit hyping BS. If you hype it up, you better deliver. I’ve never seen ANYTHING that has been hyped deliver. Not one thing.

Take a REAL conspiracy like the Gulf of Tonkin incident. There wasn’t some political circus attached to the truth coming out. That’s how actual conspiracies see the light of day, completely naturally and in due time.

Both the Left and the Right look like losers, but at least the left hasn’t come up with these outlandish works of fiction that seemingly permeate the inter webs day in and day out. Hell, even this ongoing Russian Investiagation “witch-hunt” has produced charges on 4 people.

Can someone point me to a conspiracy theory that’s been perpetuated in the past decade by the right-wing in the US that has led to charges? I’m talking about a bigly conspiracy. The kind that gets play on this site multiple times over.

a reply to: sdcigarpig

Comey did testify. He perjured himself.

They are all crooked.

Phase 2 is coming.

a reply to: the owlbear

there about 30 other political parties in us libertanian is first to come to mind. the democratic the party that split the union in the 19th century might just need to be replaced.

originally posted by: Bicent
a reply to: Nikola014

Ya no kidding.. how does this story of corruption threaten national security lol.

It of course doesn't. Just like it clearly isn't "Russian Propaganda" as the Dems breathlessly screeched on about for a few days. Nancy's botox even didn't help. She revealed herself to be actual skeleton. Desperate, low...and I'm going to shut up because I'm not in the mud pit and I don't want a posting ban.

[removed because this isn't the mud-pit - forgot which forum I was in -JB]

Phase 2? Then Phase 3, 4, 5, 6, 7.....

And on and on and on and on...

And nothing will EVER come of it.

Here’s to hoping Phase 1,455,677 has some actual meat to it.

originally posted by: GeechQuestInfo
Phase 2? Then Phase 3, 4, 5, 6, 7.....

And on and on and on and on...

And nothing will EVER come of it.

Here’s to hoping Phase 1,455,677 has some actual meat to it.

You could be right, you could be wrong.

Let the Phases continue and play out.

Like the mueller matter.

a reply to: Jefferton

I think it probably SHOULD be the end of the line for the Democratic party and the Republican party as they exist now (remember kids McCain is deeply involved in this too), but that it likely won't be...

That is a massive mistake on some very key people's parts if they try to play it this way.

One i, frankly, genuinely fear the true consequences of and wish a few more of the rest of you could step back from your partisan battlements to see the very high likelihood this entire situation now has of turning a kind of ugly that no one but psychopaths and sadists truly want!

But please do carry on treating this all like it's a game where the most important thing is making sure no one FROM YOUR TEAM suffers real consequences for doing stuff that's causing very real damage to this country!

Because that's been working out oh so well for all of us hasn't it?

Something I think is interesting, Nunes has not read the FISA applications. He let Gowdy, Schiff, and 1 staffer from each party to read it. Nunes based his memo on information relayed to him by a staffer. Schiff has been clear that he thinks Nunes is not on the up and up about the information. Gowdy has been saying that nothing in the memo undermines the Mueller investigation and in the days before the release he announces he is not seeking re-election. Something fishy is going on beyond normal partisan bickering.