House Intelligence FISA memo released: What it says

a reply to: sdcigarpig

What makes you think that the President has personally classified anything about this evidence?

originally posted by: soberbacchus

originally posted by: Grambler
a reply to: soberbacchus

Hard ot take you seriously when you are trying to say the inveiried parts of the dossier were just spelling errors.

Unbelievable.

Impossible to take you seriously when you are dishonest.

I did not say the unverified parts of the dossier were spelling errors.

I said:
GRAMBLER: "and that had parts that they knew were false,"

were spelling errors.

* Do you know the difference between "Unverified" and "False"

Why would you misrepresent what I said?

How am I to take YOU seriously when you are dishonest with what I said?

I guess is didnt understand what you are saying.

Where did what I type have a spelling error, and why would that be relevant?

And it wasnt just unverified; we know that there were things that were false, such as Cohen meeting in pargue.

So if that is what you were calling a spelling error, you are wrong.

This is all so entertaining.

Hey remember how everyone said that the dossier was true, that it was paid for by republicans, and was not the source of the spying they also said didnt happen?

Remember how people also said the Trump Jr meeting wasnt set up by FGPS, or that FGPS wasnt getting paid by both the DNC and Clinton in violation of campaign finance laws?

Then the whole enchilada was used against a standing president and his administration even though everyone knew it was bogus oppo research from a rival politician and her party...


Good track record I say.

originally posted by: Grambler

originally posted by: soberbacchus

originally posted by: Grambler
a reply to: soberbacchus

Hard ot take you seriously when you are trying to say the inveiried parts of the dossier were just spelling errors.

Unbelievable.

Impossible to take you seriously when you are dishonest.

I did not say the unverified parts of the dossier were spelling errors.

I said:
GRAMBLER: "and that had parts that they knew were false,"

were spelling errors.

* Do you know the difference between "Unverified" and "False"

Why would you misrepresent what I said?

How am I to take YOU seriously when you are dishonest with what I said?

And it wasnt just unverified; we know that there were things that were false, such as Cohen meeting in pargue.

So if that is what you were calling a spelling error, you are wrong.

That is incorrect.

As of Christmas it was still being investigated.
He was in Europe at the time.
Has failed to account for his full itinerary while there.
His Passport would have permitted him to travel to Prague without any stamps (EU).
He was clearly aware of that when he showed his Passport on twitter, which seemed a knowingly inadequate defense.
It is still being investigated.

Cohen has come under close scrutiny for several Trump-Russia controversies, including emailing Putin’s spokesman two weeks before the first GOP primary to ask for his help in advancing a proposal to build a Trump Tower development project in Moscow. He also was linked to a proposed pro-Russian peace plan for Ukraine involving Felix Sater, a former Trump business associate with Russian government connections.

Cohen has strenuously denied that a Prague meeting occurred, and he provided a copy of his passport to BuzzFeed in May. The passport was stamped for entry and exit to the United Kingdom and Italy — but not the Czech Republic, whose capital is Prague. “I have never been to Prague in my life. #fakenews,” Cohen tweeted on Jan. 10.

His passport stamps show that he traveled twice to London in 2016 and once to Italy, from July 9 to July 17.

Cohen’s passport would not show any record of a visit to Prague if he entered the EU through Italy, traveled to the Czech Republic, and then returned to his point of EU entry. A congressional official said the issue is “still active” for investigators.

www.politico.com...

a reply to: soberbacchus

It also came from a credible former MI6 agent

So credible they stopped using him as an informant and omitted all the relevant details like that he was hired to do a hit job on a candidate by the other candidate.

a reply to: BlueAjah

If there was so much evidence against Carter Page, then why is he still walking around? 

And why did the FISC court reject at least two prior attempts?

a reply to: RadioRobert

First of all I never said he was destroying the foundations of democracy. However, I am saying that he now needs to declassify this information and get it into the light. I am not naive. And here is how I see it:

Let do this in a hypothetical situation: I have access to classified information. I look at it and accuse you of abusing your power and authority. Now don't you think you have the right to reply to clear your name and or defend yourself infront of the people who heard about it?

That is what is going on here, they take memo, used classified information to say the FBI and DOJ have abused their authority. Now those people have to work and clear their name. They can not cause it is classified, so the President in the interest of Justice, should declassify all of the related documents so they can present their side of the story and show such.

a reply to: sdcigarpig

You really think they have an excuse? They will get a chance to defend themselves in court.

a reply to: sdcigarpig

I'm all for that happening. I think it should. I'm anxious to see the Dem memo, too, but watching the last week of the screaming harpies saying releasing the memo (that looks pretty innocuous in terms of classified methods or sources) was undermining democracy and endangering national security, etc, etc. How do you honestly think the press and opposition party is going to frame the unilateral declassification and release of the underlying source material? He's playing it smart and letting congressional committees do their jobs so he's not the focus of the heat. Don't blame him a bit.
I look at the behaviour of the parties involved to see what I think is happening. The same people with the most to lose if the accusations are true, and the most to gain if the accusations are false, are deadset against releasing any sort of relevant information. The rationalizations given so far are ad hoc and disjointed. The release has been both extremely dangerous -- and incredibly benign so don't pay attention to it. That's it? The release lacks relevant context -- but we won't tell you what or let you see it. Trust us.

I don't trust either party, but it looks like one party is trying to gather and release info, and the other party is trying its damnedest to bury the whole story and pretend it doesn't exist. That stinks.

a reply to: soberbacchus

Your own post proves that it was easily proven that Cohen never met russians in prague at the time that the dossier says.

'The dossier says he met them in august.

His passport says he was in london in July, not august.

Therefore he couldnt have been in prague at the time the dossier says.

The fbi could have found this out in 1 day.

a reply to: RadioRobert

Thats the thing. The dems could pitch in to help find truth. Instead they are standing in chambers with their fingers in their ears, screeching.

If there is no "there" there, then help show this. By participating in the process. It all looks so suspect.

originally posted by: Grambler
a reply to: soberbacchus

Your own post proves that it was easily proven that Cohen never met russians in prague at the time that the dossier says.

'The dossier says he met them in august.

His passport says he was in london in July, not august.

Therefore he couldnt have been in prague at the time the dossier says.

The fbi could have found this out in 1 day.

Agreed. The FBI could have easily found this out, yet ignored it. This alone goes to show they never were interested in proving the dossier wrong.

originally posted by: bigfatfurrytexan
a reply to: RadioRobert

Thats the thing. The dems could pitch in to help find truth. Instead they are standing in chambers with their fingers in their ears, screeching.

???

Those who constructed the memo were aware of the Truth and chose to intentionally ignore and misrepresent it.
Why would they want to pitch in on an effort to deceive the public and derail a legitimate investigation?

originally posted by: Grambler
a reply to: soberbacchus

Your own post proves that it was easily proven that Cohen never met russians in prague at the time that the dossier says.

'The dossier says he met them in august.

His passport says he was in london in July, not august.

The DOSSIER:
"The Kremlin insider was unsure of the identities of the PA officials with whom COHEN met secretly in August, or the exact date/s and locations of the meeting/s. "

Admittedly it also has different source that thought August.
Steele never alleged certainty where there was none. He simply gathered intelligence.

It was raw intelligence for further investigation.

To set a standard that the entire document must be precise and verified before any part of it can be considered verified defies logic.

The FISA warrant was not for Cohen.

It was for Carter Page.

a reply to: soberbacchus

What possible reason would the Intelligence Committee have for creating a memo this serious that is not truthful? They would know that it would easily be disproven, and their rep would be in tatters.

The FBI said there was nothing false in the memo. They even made their own edits before it was released.

It was only the Dems who threw a temper tantrum and wanted it to not be released. If they thought it was false, then why would they do that? Logic says they would have been happy to have it released, and then when the truth would come out they could have used that against the GOP.

originally posted by: soberbacchus

originally posted by: Grambler
a reply to: soberbacchus

Your own post proves that it was easily proven that Cohen never met russians in prague at the time that the dossier says.

'The dossier says he met them in august.

His passport says he was in london in July, not august.

The DOSSIER:
"The Kremlin insider was unsure of the identities of the PA officials with whom COHEN met secretly in August, or the exact date/s and locations of the meeting/s. "

Admittedly it also has different source that thought August.
Steele never alleged certainty where there was none. He simply gathered intelligence.

It was raw intelligence for further investigation.

To set a standard that the entire document must be precise and verified before any part of it can be considered verified defies logic.

The FISA warrant was not for Cohen.

It was for Carter Page.

Yes the other sources said it was august.

I am not saying that the entire thing should be verified before its used for spying, but it should almost be entirely verified, especially when the dossier was created by a guy who admitted he was desperate for trump to not get elected, and he was paid by trumps opponent.

Yes it warrant was for page, but if the dossier to get that is proven false or salacious and unverified in other areas, that should be taken into account.

You would be screaming if trump pays for a dossier against Schumer of someone, then uses that to spy on him and associates, even if its only minimally verified.

a reply to: soberbacchus

Because they are elected to participate in and represent during the democratic process

originally posted by: Grambler

originally posted by: soberbacchus

originally posted by: Grambler
a reply to: soberbacchus

Your own post proves that it was easily proven that Cohen never met russians in prague at the time that the dossier says.

'The dossier says he met them in august.

His passport says he was in london in July, not august.

The DOSSIER:
"The Kremlin insider was unsure of the identities of the PA officials with whom COHEN met secretly in August, or the exact date/s and locations of the meeting/s. "

Admittedly it also has different source that thought August.
Steele never alleged certainty where there was none. He simply gathered intelligence.

It was raw intelligence for further investigation.

To set a standard that the entire document must be precise and verified before any part of it can be considered verified defies logic.

The FISA warrant was not for Cohen.

It was for Carter Page.

You would be screaming if trump pays for a dossier against Schumer of someone, then uses that to spy on him and associates, even if its only minimally verified.

If Trump pays for a Dossier on Schumer and gives it the FBI.
The Dossier claims..

A) Schumer likes hookers and could be blackmailed
B) Schumer's lawyer met with Russian agents
C) Schumer's aide met with Russian agents x, y at place and time x,y.

Then yes, the FBI should check to see if any of it can be verified.
If they can't verify A,B..that does not mean it isn't true. It just means it isn't valid for any kind of warranted investigation.
If they can independently verify C, then a FISA warrant for C is valid.

As it stands Carter Page wasn't even working for the Trump Campaign at the time the FISA warrant was issued.

They don't need to Verify A+B+C in order for C to be verified.

When the FBI applies for the FISA warrant, they should make the court that the original information that tipped them off before they independently verified it originated as political opposition work.

The FBI did that with the Trump Dossier.

a reply to: soberbacchus

The DOSSIER: 
"The Kremlin insider was unsure of the identities of the PA officials with whom COHEN met secretly in August, or the exact date/s and locations of the meeting/s. " 

You're okay with the feds surveiling you as long as the evidence meets the strenuous verification process of "Someone in Russia says soberbaccus met someone at someone at some point somewhere. They're not sure who, where or when"?

That statement says absolutely nothing. There is nothing to debunk in that statement because if is completely evidenceless. "Russian asserted statement with zero relevant details like even who, where or when."

If that's how comfortable you are surrendering your rights, drop the sober from your handle.

originally posted by: bigfatfurrytexan
a reply to: soberbacchus

Because they are elected to participate in and represent during the democratic process

And they are doing that.

They are not elected to participate in efforts to derail or obstruct a legitimate investigation through dishonesty with the public.