#ReleaseTheMemo

[Proud Tiger 4,261]

One thing I haven't seen said...........FISA WASN'T told how the dossier was prepared let alone that it was bogus. In other words the court didn't know it was the Clinton campaign and the DNC were at the root of it. Not to mention there were e-mails between two senior FBI officials who openly were trying to make sure Trump didn't get elected. Folks this isn't isn't Russia involved in our election it is our OWN gov't. If that doesn't concern you I don't know will. This isn't about Dems and Rs. It is about the very fabric of our country and the integrity of our key institutions.

Some here will think it's a laughing matter but they are clueless.  Just watch their posts and you be the judge.

[AUDub 11,153]

8 minutes ago, Proud Tiger said:

One thing I haven't seen said...........FISA WASN'T told how the dossier was prepared let alone that it was bogus. In other words the court didn't know it was the Clinton campaign and the DNC were at the root of it. Not to mention there were e-mails between two senior FBI officials who openly were trying to make sure Trump didn't get elected. Folks this isn't isn't Russia involved in our election it is our OWN gov't. If that doesn't concern you I don't know will. This isn't about Dems and Rs i

It is about the very fabric of our country and the integrity of our key institutions.

[Auburnfan91 1,407]

10 hours ago, MDM4AU said:

Sorry if this has already been covered here. I am at the farm and not paying much attention to the news and don't have the greatest connection...

The dossier was originally conceived and funded as "opposition research" by Republicans against Trump. OR is nothing new. But if I understand everything, the republicans realized it lacked any credibility and Fusion GPS peddled it to the democrats, right? I know this doesn't change anything in the memo, just trying to get my facts straight.

We don't know if the dossier was used to extend FISA warrants on Page but, if it was and those submitting it were aware of how fictitious the dossier was that is a big problem for the FBI.

In a way that would make the FBI look even worse because they knew the dossier was, in the words of James Comey, "salacious and unverified". Yet they still chose to get a new FISA warrant on Page anyway. 

The thing that some folks keep touting on here, as if it give the DOJ/FBI more credibility, is that Carter Page had been under surveillance in 2013. So for 4+ years, going on 5, the DOJ/FBI has been keeping tabs on Page yet somehow they've yet to charge him with anything. Yet, in less than 2 years in the midst of the Russian investigation, they managed to charge both Paul Manafort and George Papadopolous. Something about the Carter Page aspect of the investigation just seems off. If they've been monitoring Page's e-mails and other communications for that long, it just doesn't make sense for him not to be charged with something by now.  You'd think he would have been the 1st one charged with something since he's been under surveillance more than anyone else related to the Trump campaign.

The part that makes me ill with the GOP and Devin Nunes is that they're being so indignant about FISA  yet most of them still voted to reauthorize the FISA Act without imposing any stricter requirements for search warrants before the FBI could start putting Americans under surveillance. They voted to keep the FISA Act as is but they still want run around and talk about the FISA court as a bogeyman........ Nunes and other members of the GOP are being so disingenuous in that regard.

[AUDub 11,153]

10 hours ago, Auburnfan91 said:

In a way that would make the FBI look even worse because they knew the dossier was, in the words of James Comey, "salacious and unverified". Yet they still chose to get a new FISA warrant on Page anyway. 

That’s a very slippery and deceptive quote mine. Patterico, a former prosecutor and a conservative, breaks it down better than I can:

https://www.redstate.com/patterico/2018/02/02/significant-inaccuracy-thememo-calls-credibility-question/

It’s like Radley Balko said, “In the definitive book on the Trump presidency, “Nunes Misunderstood” could be the title of several chapters.“

Quote

The thing that some folks keep touting on here, as if it give the DOJ/FBI more credibility, is that Carter Page had been under surveillance in 2013. So for 4+ years, going on 5, the DOJ/FBI has been keeping tabs on Page yet somehow they've yet to charge him with anything. Yet, in less than 2 years in the midst of the Russian investigation, they managed to charge both Paul Manafort and George Papadopolous. Something about the Carter Page aspect of the investigation just seems off. If they've been monitoring Page's e-mails and other communications for that long, it just doesn't make sense for him not to be charged with something by now.  You'd think he would have been the 1st one charged with something since he's been under surveillance more than anyone else related to the Trump campaign.

It makes perfect since if he was producing evidence. FISA surveillance requires constant renewal, and in order to get the renewal, they need to prove that the surveillance procured new evidence. Have to re-apply every 90 days for a US person, and continue proving every single time that the last 90 days had been fruitful. So specifically, the guy was under FISA warrant starting in 2014, at some point the warrant expired and wasn't pursued again until summer 2016 when intelligence sources suggested that known Russian intelligence asset and current Trump employee Carter Page was once again being courted by Russia. They then got their fall 2016 warrant, the spring 2017 renewal of which is the focus of Devin's ardor.

The thing is that we know there was more going on beyond the dossier. Page was a known Russian asset. He travelled to Russia to meet with an organization he had been passing intelligence to since 2013 related to US sanctions. He did so while that country was engaged in a criminal conspiracy to help the organization who was employing him. Page already had FISA warrants issued for his contacts in the past, so he clearly has a file a mile thick showing the substance of those contacts. 

Papadopoulos, who was Page's coworker, had knowledge of that criminal conspiracy before it became public. At the time the warrant was issued, Papadopoulos had copped a plea and was working as a confidential informant for the FBI.

The idea that "the dossier" was the basis for the FISA warrant is nonsense, even strictly focusing on publicly available information. The Republicans have only seized on this idea because the argument plays well on TV.

Quote

The part that makes me ill with the GOP and Devin Nunes is that they're being so indignant about FISA  yet most of them still voted to reauthorize the FISA Act without imposing any stricter requirements for search warrants before the FBI could start putting Americans under surveillance. They voted to keep the FISA Act as is but they still want run around and talk about the FISA court as a bogeyman........ Nunes and other members of the GOP are being so disingenuous in that regard.

We agree here. The constitutional implications of the FISC practices  in the first place are dire. It does serve an important purpose, but the law of unintended consequences is in play here and FISA warrants authorizing mass collection and storage shouldn't be a thing. FISA warrants targeting those individuals that have provided a court of law probable cause that they are working with foreign intelligence agencies is the opposite of unconstitutional, though. 

[AUFAN78 3,911]

Here are the key points of the memo:

The Steele dossier formed an essential part of the initial and all three renewal FISA applications against Carter Page.

Andrew McCabe confirmed that no FISA warrant would have been sought from the FISA Court without the Steele dossier information.

The political origins of the Steele dossier were known to senior DOJ and FBI officials, but excluded from the FISA applications.

This dossier was paid for by the DNC and Clinton, but this those facts were withheld from the courts in order to obtain the warrant.

 

[AUDub 11,153]

7 minutes ago, AUFAN78 said:

Here are the key points of the memo:

The Steele dossier formed an essential part of the initial and all three renewal FISA applications against Carter Page.

The facts don’t really support that idea, neither as presented nor on the basis of how FISC works. 

7 minutes ago, AUFAN78 said:

Andrew McCabe confirmed that no FISA warrant would have been sought from the FISA Court without the Steele dossier information.

And this is heavily disputed., as well. Let’s see the McCabe's testimony so we can decide for ourselves what he meant. 

7 minutes ago, AUFAN78 said:

The political origins of the Steele dossier were known to senior DOJ and FBI officials, but excluded from the FISA applications.

And this is heavily disputed. Three major news orgs - WSJ, NYT and WaPo - have sources saying it wasn’t.

Given that Nunes hasn’t even read the underlying documents and the guy who did - Gowdy - is distancing himself from the memo, I’m not inclined to take Nunes at his word here.

So let’s see the minority report. Trump could also declassify the warrants at any time too.

7 minutes ago, AUFAN78 said:

This dossier was paid for by the DNC and Clinton, but this those facts were withheld from the courts in order to obtain the warrant.

 

http://thehill.com/policy/national-security/372134-officials-disclosed-sources-political-funding-in-fisa-application

[AUFAN78 3,911]

26 minutes ago, AUDub said:

The facts don’t really support that idea, neither as presented nor on the basis of how FISC works. 

And this is heavily disputed., as well. Let’s see the McCabe's testimony so we can decide for ourselves what he meant. 

And this is heavily disputed. Three major news orgs - WSJ, NYT and WaPo - have sources saying it wasn’t.

Given that Nunes hasn’t even read the underlying documents and the guy who did - Gowdy - is distancing himself from the memo, I’m not inclined to take Nunes at his word here.

So let’s see the minority report. Trump could also declassify the warrants at any time too.

http://thehill.com/policy/national-security/372134-officials-disclosed-sources-political-funding-in-fisa-application

You are getting caught up in the noise. Points of the memo are accurate. Your sources are cherry picking facts.

[AUDub 11,153]

15 minutes ago, AUFAN78 said:

You are getting caught up in the noise. Points of the memo are accurate. Your sources are cherry picking facts.

No, you're spouting bull**** ex cathedra. Do better. 

[AUFAN78 3,911]

Just now, AUDub said:

No, you're spouting bull**** ex cathedra. Do better. 

I understand why facts bother you. It is ok. You'll be fine. Really.

[AUDub 11,153]

11 minutes ago, AUFAN78 said:

I understand why facts bother you. It is ok. You'll be fine. Really.

Just a usual 78 argument, where he once again shows his inability to tell the difference between fact and innuendo. 

[AUFAN78 3,911]

4 minutes ago, AUDub said:

Just a usual 78 argument, where he once again shows his inability to tell the difference between fact and innuendo. 

Those points in the memo have yet to be disproved. Now in the end they may be, but at this point their counter has been noise and distraction. Or in your words, innuendo.

[AUDub 11,153]

4 minutes ago, AUFAN78 said:

Those points in the memo have yet to be disproved. Now in the end they may be, but at this point their counter has been noise and distraction. Or in your words, innuendo.

You automatically assume they are true, calling them "facts."

[AUFAN78 3,911]

5 minutes ago, AUDub said:

You automatically assume they are true, calling them "facts."

I don't assume anything other than you are an easy target. 

[AUDub 11,153]

4 minutes ago, AUFAN78 said:

I don't assume anything other than you are an easy target. 

Are we moving the goalposts now, or are we still to assume you think the memo is "fact?"

[AUFAN78 3,911]

5 minutes ago, AUDub said:

Are we moving the goalposts now, or are we still to assume you think the memo is "fact?"

Just because you move goalposts, never assume I will. 

I would call them points not facts as I stated like three times already. 

[AUDub 11,153]

3 minutes ago, AUFAN78 said:

Just because you move goalposts, never assume I will. 

I would call them points not facts as I stated like four times already.

You said "facts bother me." Were you not referring to the assertions in the memo? 

[AUFAN78 3,911]

1 minute ago, AUDub said:

You said "facts bother me." Were you not referring to the assertions in the memo? 

Yes, as mentioned multiple times now, they are and have been repeatedly called points. 

[AUDub 11,153]

5 minutes ago, AUFAN78 said:

Yes, as mentioned multiple times now, they are and have been repeatedly called points. 

But you called them facts. 

This is why we can’t have nice things. 

[AUFAN78 3,911]

1 minute ago, AUDub said:

But you called them facts. 

This is why we can’t have nice things. 

I think I've stated they were points like a half dozen times now. Are you using some nerdy top secret translator?

[AUDub 11,153]

7 minutes ago, AUFAN78 said:

I think I've stated they were points like a half dozen times now. Are you using some nerdy top secret translator?

You also called them facts and that's the point I was disputing. Going to admit you misspoke or are we to assume what you said stands?

Facts or no? Simple yes or no question. Don't care that you've also referred to them as points. Answer that and we're hunky dory and can move on. 

[AUFAN78 3,911]

1 minute ago, AUDub said:

You also called them facts and that's the point I was disputing. Going to admit you misspoke or are we to assume what you said stands?

Facts or no? Simple yes or no question. Don't care that you've also referred to them as points. Answer that and we're hunky dory and can move on. 

Why do you so childishly focus on the meaningless? Good grief!

So in one six word quip I used fact or facts. Who cares?  I've been calling them points for two hours! 

[AUDub 11,153]

3 minutes ago, AUFAN78 said:

Why do you so childishly focus on the meaningless? Good grief!

So in one six word quip I used fact or facts. Who cares?  I've been calling them points for two hours! 

It's hardly meaningless. Whether what the memo says is factually correct is actually pretty important. 

Also duly noted you simply won't answer. Being able to admit when you're wrong is a strength, not a weakness. 

Once again, this is why we can't have nice things. 

[AUFAN78 3,911]

1 minute ago, AUDub said:

It's hardly meaningless. Whether what the memo says is factually correct is actually pretty important. 

Also duly noted you simply won't answer. Being able to admit when you're wrong is a strength, not a weakness. 

Once again, this is why we can't have nice things. 

Oh it's meaningless unless you are some mental midget.

I answered. Your point? 

I have nice things.   One being a great gym membership. Heading there now. 

[AUDub 11,153]

Just now, AUFAN78 said:

Oh it's meaningless unless you are some mental midget.

Hardly. Some of the stuff insinuated in the memo would be a pretty big deal if true. 

Just now, AUFAN78 said:

I answered. Your point? 

Yes or no? Answer. 

Just now, AUFAN78 said:

I have nice things.   One being a great gym membership. Heading there now. 

Good. Go sweat off all the alcohol you've apparently been imbibing this morning. 

[AUFAN78 3,911]

2 hours ago, AUDub said:

Hardly. Some of the stuff insinuated in the memo would be a pretty big deal if true. 

Yes or no? Answer. 

Good. Go sweat off all the alcohol you've apparently been imbibing this morning. 

Oh Ben. Get your a$$ handed to you and resort to elementary tactics. No thanks. Enjoy the game. Loser.