#ReleaseTheMemo

[Brad_ATX 13,654]

11 minutes ago, AUFAN78 said:

Underlying evidence, while intriguing, may be irrelevant if this point is proven:

 The memo pointed out that in December 2017, then FBI deputy director Andrew McCabe testified that “no surveillance warrant would have been sought” from the FISA court “without the Steele dossier information.”

 

Potentially, but how the person that pushed this memo doesn't know everything about it inside and out is beyond reckless.

[HVAU 673]

15 minutes ago, AUFAN78 said:

Underlying evidence, while intriguing, may be irrelevant if this point is proven:

 The memo pointed out that in December 2017, then FBI deputy director Andrew McCabe testified that “no surveillance warrant would have been sought” from the FISA court “without the Steele dossier information.”

Was the FISA warrant in question requested in order to surveil Carter Page?  Had Carter Page previously been under surveillance via FISA warrant beginning in 2014?

If the answer to these questions is "yes" (quick hint, that is the correct answer), then the dossier was simply additional evidence supporting the necessity of Page's continued surveillance.

 

[AUFAN78 3,895]

11 minutes ago, Brad_ATX said:

Potentially, but how the person that pushed this memo doesn't know everything about it inside and out is beyond reckless.

Simple analogy, but here goes: If you are aware of Crime A,  I can't see how being aware of a potential B, C, or even D prevent one from reporting A. 

[AUFAN78 3,895]

8 minutes ago, HVAU said:

Was the FISA warrant in question requested in order to surveil Carter Page?  Had Carter Page previously been under surveillance via FISA warrant beginning in 2014?

If the answer to these questions is "yes" (quick hint, that is the correct answer), then the dossier was simply additional evidence supporting the necessity of Page's continued surveillance.

 

Yes and yes.

In 2014 the FISA warrants were not used as the basis to spy on a political opponent.

[Brad_ATX 13,654]

1 minute ago, AUFAN78 said:

Simple analogy, but here goes: If you are aware of Crime A,  I can't see how being aware of a potential B, C, or even D prevent one from reporting A. 

But its not clear that he really knew about Crime A to begin with.

Another analogy: you write a thesis for grad school but fail to properly defend it with correct sourcing.  That wouldn't fly there, and it shouldn't fly when making these kinds of assertions.

[AUFAN78 3,895]

2 minutes ago, Brad_ATX said:

But its not clear that he really knew about Crime A to begin with.

Another analogy: you write a thesis for grad school but fail to properly defend it with correct sourcing.  That wouldn't fly there, and it shouldn't fly when making these kinds of assertions.

I don't think anyone is "clear" about crime A. We are merely speculating at this point. Hopefully the truth prevails. 

[HVAU 673]

9 minutes ago, AUFAN78 said:

Yes and yes.

In 2014 the FISA warrants were not used as the basis to spy on a political opponent.

He had been known to have been a target of Russian espionage recruiting and he had a role in a political campaign with a candidate that has had suspicious ties to Russia.  The surveillance was an attempt to thwart an adversary government.  It wasn't politically motivated, or we would have been notified of it in a manner similar to Comey's October surprise.

[AUFAN78 3,895]

3 minutes ago, HVAU said:

He had been known to have been a target of Russian espionage recruiting and he had a role in a political campaign with a candidate that has had suspicious ties to Russia.  The surveillance was an attempt to thwart an adversary government.  It wasn't politically motivated, or we would have been notified of it in a manner similar to Comey's October surprise.

In 2014? You sure?

[HVAU 673]

3 minutes ago, AUFAN78 said:

In 2014? You sure?

Looks like I was off.  It was 2013.  

"Though he was not well known in Russian policy circles, Page had spent years working in the region before signing up with the Trump campaign. An ex-Moscow-based investment banker, he attracted the attention of the FBI in 2013 when a Russian spy tried to recruit him. "

http://www.newsweek.com/memo-nunes-trump-carter-page-russia-spies-796702

[AUFAN78 3,895]

4 minutes ago, HVAU said:

Looks like I was off.  It was 2013.  

"Though he was not well known in Russian policy circles, Page had spent years working in the region before signing up with the Trump campaign. An ex-Moscow-based investment banker, he attracted the attention of the FBI in 2013 when a Russian spy tried to recruit him. "

http://www.newsweek.com/memo-nunes-trump-carter-page-russia-spies-796702

And he signed up with the Trump campaign when?

[HVAU 673]

7 minutes ago, AUFAN78 said:

And he signed up with the Trump campaign when?

So what your saying is the FBI should have no interest in monitoring Page, who had been recruited by Russian espionage resources, because he went to work for the campaign of Trump, a businessman with Russian interests, some of which he had publicly lied about, and a history of suspicion of money laundering for Russian oligarchs?  The FBI was the institution treading a dangerous, unpatriotic path in this scenario?

[AUFAN78 3,895]

 

 

 

 

 

Rep. Devin Nunes (R-Calif.) on Friday admitted that did not personally review the applications for surveillance warrants that provide the basis of the classified memo released earlier in the day.

Nunes said he relied on the review of committee member Rep. Trey Gowdy (R-S.C.). 

“No, I didn’t,” Nunes told Fox News’ Brett Baier, when asked if he saw the applications.

The memo, released earlier in the day by the House Intelligence Committee, alleges that politically motivated material was used to petition the government for a warrant to surveil an American citizen.

Nunes, the chairman of the committee, brushed off news reports that accused him of not seeing the underlying documents as “bogus.”

He explained that the committee set up an agreement with the Justice Department that would allow just one person to review the documents.

Nunes said he thought Gowdy would be the best choice because of his background as a federal prosecutor, and that Gowdy then shared his notes and observations with the rest of the members.

[AUDub 11,148]

4 minutes ago, AUFAN78 said:

 

 

 

 

 

Rep. Devin Nunes (R-Calif.) on Friday admitted that did not personally review the applications for surveillance warrants that provide the basis of the classified memo released earlier in the day.

Nunes said he relied on the review of committee member Rep. Trey Gowdy (R-S.C.). 

“No, I didn’t,” Nunes told Fox News’ Brett Baier, when asked if he saw the applications.

The memo, released earlier in the day by the House Intelligence Committee, alleges that politically motivated material was used to petition the government for a warrant to surveil an American citizen.

Nunes, the chairman of the committee, brushed off news reports that accused him of not seeing the underlying documents as “bogus.”

He explained that the committee set up an agreement with the Justice Department that would allow just one person to review the documents.

Nunes said he thought Gowdy would be the best choice because of his background as a federal prosecutor, and that Gowdy then shared his notes and observations with the rest of the members.

I think the big takeaway here is that Nunes was calling the Democrats liars for pointing out that the dossier didn't play a huge role in the FISA application...but...he hasn't read it.

Schiff has read it.

Considering Gowdy's reaction since the memo's release, I have to wonder if it was even his idea to release it, or if he realized Nunes was a moron but realized he couldn't stop him from putting it out there.

[AUFAN78 3,895]

Just now, HVAU said:

So what your saying is the FBI should have no interest in monitoring Page, who had been recruited by Russian espionage resources, because he went to work for the campaign of Trump, a businessman with Russian interests, some of which he had publicly lied about, and a history of suspicion of money laundering for Russian oligarchs?  The FBI was the institution treading a dangerous, unpatriotic path in this scenario?

Not at all saying such a thing regarding his 2013 surveil.

I am specifically speaking to warrants potentially gained via specious means to spy on a political adversary.  

[AUDub 11,148]

5 minutes ago, HVAU said:

So what your saying is the FBI should have no interest in monitoring Page, who had been recruited by Russian espionage resources, because he went to work for the campaign of Trump, a businessman with Russian interests, some of which he had publicly lied about, and a history of suspicion of money laundering for Russian oligarchs?  The FBI was the institution treading a dangerous, unpatriotic path in this scenario?

Campaigns are apparently like the safe zone in tag while the IC is it.  

[HVAU 673]

Why would he call reports of him not seeing the documents "bogus" after admitting that he did not see them?  Nunes really lacks the ability to communicate properly. He could call it immaterial as he used Gowdy as a witness to the documents, but "bogus"?

[AUFAN78 3,895]

1 minute ago, AUDub said:

I think the big takeaway here is that Nunes was calling the Democrats liars for pointing out that the dossier didn't play a huge role in the FISA application...but...he hasn't read it.

Schiff has read it.

Considering Gowdy's reaction since the memo's release, I have to wonder if it was even his idea to release it, or if he realized Nunes was a moron but realized he couldn't stop him from putting it out there.

I seem to recall a statement where Gowdy approved the release. I think he went further and suggested he approved the release of the Dems memo as well.

[HVAU 673]

2 minutes ago, AUFAN78 said:

Not at all saying such a thing regarding his 2013 surveil.

I am specifically speaking to warrants potentially gained via specious means to spy on a political adversary.  

Page is Page in 2013 and 2016.  He's still tainted by his Russian connections.  

You keep framing this in the political light, but I stand by my opinion that if this were politically motivated the October surprise would have been much different.

Anyway, I don't think we're going to agree on this.  Hope you have a good night.

[AUDub 11,148]

1 minute ago, AUFAN78 said:

I seem to recall a statement where Gowdy approved the release. I think he went further and suggested he approved the release of the Dems memo as well.

Seriously doubt he wanted it released. As much as I dislike him, Gowdy is an experienced attorney who was probably paying lip service to the myth. His reaction since its release is pretty telling. 

I fell like Nunes is basically the Hill’s version of Leeroy Jenkins. 

[AUFAN78 3,895]

1 minute ago, HVAU said:

Page is Page in 2013 and 2016.  He's still tainted by his Russian connections.  

You keep framing this in the political light, but I stand by my opinion that if this were politically motivated the October surprise would have been much different.

Anyway, I don't think we're going to agree on this.  Hope you have a good night.

You are right. We will likely not agree. Page is Page in 2013 and 2016  is a false equivalency. He reportedly was used in 2016 to acquire three warrants to spy on a political adversary. Not remotely what was happening in 2013.

[homersapien 11,373]

8 hours ago, AUDub said:

What's curious is where we go from here. On its face, this does not give Trump the justification to fire anyone without serious pushback, but that hasn't stopped him before. 

I knew the SOTU aura would have a life measured in hours.  

We have a 'reality show' presidency.

[homersapien 11,373]

8 hours ago, AUDub said:

OK, lunch break. Read the memo. It's hugely unimpressive. Shockingly short too. 

It asserts that Page was only under investigation because of the Dossier. Page had been under FISA investigation since 2014 (2013?).

It asserts that the Dossier was a partisan creation of Hillary and pro-Hillary elements. It was originally conceived and funded by Republicans.

It seems to assert that Papa was under investigation BEFORE and INDEPENDENT OF Page and the Dossier. I have no idea how that was supposed to help the Trump cause.

Without being able to see the classified info behind it to confirm that the Dossier was the only thing used to approve a new Page FISA investigation (which still isn't illegal or necessarily improper, especially if the Dossier is accurate), there is nothing here. It is three pages of complaining about Steele not liking Trump enough to provide the FISA court with very troubling information about Trump and the people in his immediate orbit.

Forget all that crap.  The content is irrelevant. 

The ratings are what count, and they are TERRIFIC!    

[homersapien 11,373]

6 hours ago, Grumps said:

So you think that releasing the memo helps Putin?

It certainly helps his strategic aims.

[AUFAN78 3,895]

Something we haven't discussed.

Where is the "grave danger" so many were speaking about? What sources and/or methods have been revealed?

Sitting here tonight it appears a misrepresentation for political reasons. A diversion to avoid embarrassment. 

What say you?

[homersapien 11,373]

5 hours ago, AUFAN78 said:

He's been loving it since Dems declared he interfered with the election.

WTF happened to conservatism?

I never liked it, but I never considered it to be unpatriotic.