Declassified Steele Memo from Grassley just released

originally posted by: soberbacchus

originally posted by: Xcathdra
More bad news for Democrats:

**PDF LINK**

There was no corroborating information and the dossier was the only evidence used to obtain the FISA warrants. The court was not notified of material facts related to who was behind the dossier or who paid for it. They used the media reports by Yahoo as "corroboration" as well as to explain away discrepancies in the application.Comey tried to pass it off to the Senate intel committee as the FBI used Steele in the past and his information was reliable.

Except the memo you cite specifically debunks what you say it says.

Have you read it?

I did... If thats what you think then apparently you either did not read it or did not understand it.

originally posted by: Xcathdra

originally posted by: soberbacchus

originally posted by: Xcathdra
More bad news for Democrats:

**PDF LINK**

There was no corroborating information and the dossier was the only evidence used to obtain the FISA warrants. The court was not notified of material facts related to who was behind the dossier or who paid for it. They used the media reports by Yahoo as "corroboration" as well as to explain away discrepancies in the application.Comey tried to pass it off to the Senate intel committee as the FBI used Steele in the past and his information was reliable.

Except the memo you cite specifically debunks what you say it says.

Have you read it?

I did... If thats what you think then apparently you either did not read it or did not understand it.

I did read it in detail. Always do.

The Dossier was NOT the only piece of evidence.
The Dossier was Corroborated before inclusion.
The court WAS made aware of the political anti-trump funding of the dossier.

All of that is revealed in your link.

Your OP is BS

originally posted by: soberbacchus

originally posted by: Xcathdra

originally posted by: soberbacchus

originally posted by: Xcathdra
More bad news for Democrats:

**PDF LINK**

There was no corroborating information and the dossier was the only evidence used to obtain the FISA warrants. The court was not notified of material facts related to who was behind the dossier or who paid for it. They used the media reports by Yahoo as "corroboration" as well as to explain away discrepancies in the application.Comey tried to pass it off to the Senate intel committee as the FBI used Steele in the past and his information was reliable.

Except the memo you cite specifically debunks what you say it says.

Have you read it?

I did... If thats what you think then apparently you either did not read it or did not understand it.

I did read it in detail. Always do.

The Dossier was NOT the only piece of evidence.

It does say that the dossier was the bulk of the application.

The Dossier was Corroborated before inclusion.

No it doesnt, it says the opposite. Please link your proof of this.

The court WAS made aware of the political anti-trump funding of the dossier.

They were not told that it was funded by hillarys team ofr the dnc, they had a footnote about it being connected to a political source like a law firm.

This is nowhere near acceptable, and is a clear obfuscation to keep the court from knowing hillarys team paid for it.

a reply to: Grambler

You said the Link said the Dossier was not corroborated.

Understanding the convenience of redacting politically inconvenient facts..

What o you think this means?



This is Grassley..
Saying the FBI took "Important Investigative Steps"
"based on Steele's information"

WHY redact around that?

Hmmm..

The FBI took "important investigative steps"

Around validating the Steele information?

But we can't tell you what?

a reply to: soberbacchus

That quote says that they are heavily relying on Steele's credibility. It does not say that they found other corroborating evidence. And we know what Steele's "credibility" is like.

originally posted by: BlueAjah
a reply to: soberbacchus

That quote says that they are heavily relying on Steele's credibility. It does not say that they found other corroborating evidence. And we know what Steele's "credibility" is like.

He knows,

Just like he knew that Carter Page was accused of no wrong doing by the fbi, and actually helped the fbi by tetsifying against a russian criminal, but still took to ats to mislead people that the 2016 warrant was somehow more justified because of that previous inscident

originally posted by: BlueAjah
a reply to: soberbacchus

That quote says that they are heavily relying on Steele's credibility.

Thank you!
Does it say that the Dossier was the ONLY piece of evidence used, like the OP claims in the first sentence?

the dossier was the only evidence used to obtain the FISA warrants.

Doesn't look like it to me. Why say "the bulk of the allegations" if it was the ONLY thing used????



FOR THAT MATTER...why say "The FBI took important investigative steps based on Mr. Steele's information"?

If it was not looked into?

a reply to: soberbacchus

The legal question isn't if there was any other evidence. The question is was that evidence sufficient to establish probable cause in the absence of the dossier. And really that only matters if you cede the argument that they misled the court by omission or assertion.

Here is the problem that I see. We keep hearing about all these things, but, I tend to feel they will all die the death of a congressional committee and Inspector Generals rebuke, which will result in a few slap on the wrists. I don't see a Grand Jury nor do I see legitimate Jeopardy except for Trump as a Special Prosecutor is breathing down his spine. Rosenstein obviously, had his own hand in this, in taking down the President. Its nice to see Memo's and talk shows go on endlessly on the corruption, but it just seems like it goes nowhere and overall becomes a major waste of time.

I mean, How many more times does Hannity have to do the "Tick Tock" thing, to get ratings, and have everyone with their jaw open to the ground amazed at the corruption that far exceeds watergate? We see the Memos coming, we see the Dems aided by the establishment, just tie up any movement with another political argument against any new evidence.

All of what I mentioned speaks to a much LARGER problem going on. The Establishment, The Deep State, however you want to call it is not being drained, but moves foward focusing on its end game. The return of the Status Quo and the dem's and the rest of the public happy its over and back to the Truman Show of Politics.

Nothing is really changing. Grassley's Memo is interesting, but where is the Warrant for Steele? I see one for Assange. IS there one for Steel and all the crap he pulled? Things are not changing, and some of the stuff that has come out far exceeds watergate, but what is the point when it goes absolutely nowhere>?

It's not a declassified anything. It's a referral for an investigation. Again calm down. Nothing's changed for trump. He's still in enormous trouble.

originally posted by: neo96
Trump haters do wonders for their credibility

American politics!

The greatest show on earth.

BOOM! Kudo's to those who predicted the claims by the D's and RINO's about the "collusion" were the very things that those bozo's would be hiding. Those really in collusion with Hillary were doing it 1st in this election even if anybody else did it at all.

Now the use of the media to attack for their defense the same thing they are now proven to have tried to do, is to distract from their own treason.

originally posted by: AgarthaSeed

originally posted by: carewemust
The lack of "breaking news" from the liberal media on this Graham-Grassley bombshell is very telling.

Ask and you shall receive

www.cbsnews.com...

The title of this article says it all. Spin city.

Right now the "red handed fox" has been proven to be in our hen house of the upper levels of the Federal government who are using the agencies for political gain of their friends and benefactors. These leaks and whopper lies they have been using in those leaks is a national security issue that has morphed into sedition. We have to get it started to end the unchecked corruption for all.

a reply to: Grambler

It says that but that's a lie. Don't you see they have to first discredit the dossier then insist that it alone was used to obtain the warrant or their conspiracy theories, of which there seems to be a never ending stream, are useless. But they keep getting screwed up in the ...dare I say it.. Sure why not...They keep getting screwed up on the footnotes ...that explain what's going on. Lol.

a reply to: Xcathdra

This house of cards will fall one way or another. Either through the biblical sense or the justice sense. The meek/righteous inherits the earth.

What we are witnessing, is the beginning stages of the fall of Babylon. However, keep this in mind, those who are corrupted will not go away quietly. It has taken them centuries of their quest for Globalization, and they will not stop this agenda.
Expect a backlash by the left, or a false flag event. Because that is how the left rolls.

S&F

originally posted by: RadioRobert
a reply to: soberbacchus

The legal question isn't if there was any other evidence.

Of course the legal question is "if there was any other evidence"?? What kind of cowardly running with the goal posts is that???

THE OP:

originally posted by: Xcathdra
There was no corroborating information and the dossier was the only evidence used to obtain the FISA warrants.

FALSE

The court was not notified of material facts related to who was behind the dossier or who paid for it.

FALSE

AND debunked by the Ops own link!



A) The FBI took "Important investigative Steps" "based on the Steele Dossier"..But the OP said the link proves there was no Corroborating evidence?
B) "Relying Heavily"?? "Bulk of the application"??? The OPS first sentence says the link was the ONLY evidence??

Reading a Nth degree political letter that still felt it has to include these admissions??

The OP was and is BS.

originally posted by: soberbacchus

originally posted by: RadioRobert
a reply to: soberbacchus

The legal question isn't if there was any other evidence.

Of course the legal question is "if there was any other evidence"?? What kind of cowardly running with the goal posts is that???

The Supreme Court in Franks v Delaware decided much differently. Can you cite the basis for your dissenting legal opinion?

a reply to: soberbacchus

You're reading it wrong, is the problem.

" The documents we reviewed show that the FBI took important investigative steps largely based on Mr.Steele's information"

They are not discussing investigative steps looking at the dossier, they are discussing the investigations into the people IN the dossier. Mr.Steele's information, is the dossier. Breaking the sentence down with basic grammar, shows that 'information' is not the subject, the investigative steps are the subject. The 'information' is the basis for the action of investigating.

"And relying heavily on his credibility"

This statement is the foundation, for excepting the 'information' that the investigatory steps are based upon. They relied on his credibility, that the information was accurate to commit an investigation (the actual subject of the sentence).


You're reading it wrong.

The last sentence, not redacted states : The Bulk of the application consists of allegations against Page that were disclosed to the FBI by Mr.Steele and are also outlined in....

This clearly reads the application for the warrant was in bulk based on the "information"(dossier) provided by Mr.Steele.

So yes the FISA warrant is in bulk based off the dossier that the FBI did not verify, because they relied on his credibility. Which if I ever get into trouble with the FBI I hope I get that same benefit of doubt heh.

originally posted by: Sillyolme
It's not a declassified anything. It's a referral for an investigation. Again calm down. Nothing's changed for trump. He's still in enormous trouble.

Can you hear multitudes reading that rolling their eyes? Theres more evidence of credibility in a debatable memo than there is in nearly 2 years of baseless accusations.

originally posted by: CrawlingChaos
a reply to: soberbacchus

You're reading it wrong, is the problem.

Because words don't have the same meaning whilst read through right wing glasses smeared with the stank of BS.