So, you think this memo thing has legs?

[WoundedKnee]

Yes, it does make it a falsified application for a warrant. And yes, I am aware that a lot of people on your side of the aisle are denying he said that, but they have been playing loose with with their charges such as the serious charge that Nunez was about to give away secrets and expose methods. That was a lie, and they knew it, it was all about using the media to keep their voters well uninformed.

 

[bellisarius]

Yes, it does make it a falsified application for a warrant. And yes, I am aware that a lot of people on your side of the aisle are denying he said that, but they have been playing loose with with their charges such as the serious charge that Nunez was about to give away secrets and expose methods. That was a lie, and they knew it, it was all about using the media to keep their voters well uninformed.

Let me amend that. It was to keep all other voters than their own uninformed. Most of their voters would vote for dead people............and they have.

 

[WoundedKnee]

lol...

 

[RobDownSouth]

What "false" FISA request would that be?

"False FISA Request" is Fox and Friends' talking point of the day.
WoundedKnee (nee 4est_4est_Gump, tribal birth name Dances_With_Falsehoods) is simply regurgitatin' talking points at the behest of his masters.

Debunking the "False FISA Request" whining

 

[about_average]

Yes, it does make it a falsified application for a warrant. And yes, I am aware that a lot of people on your side of the aisle are denying he said that, but they have been playing loose with with their charges such as the serious charge that Nunez was about to give away secrets and expose methods. That was a lie, and they knew it, it was all about using the media to keep their voters well uninformed.

My side of the isle? What are you talking about? I don't work for the FBI.

Your inability to provide any evidence to support your claim wasn't overshadowed by your attempted distraction.

But let's take your BS at face value.
How does it make it a false FISA? They apparently used it to get the warrant, the judge gave them the warrant.
What exactly did they falsify?
Did they lie about the evidence? If so, what specifically was the lie?

 

[Rightguide]

I see that the usual suspects are still trying to desperately spin this as a Democratic party scandal.

....and getting less traction than a Queerbait pronouncement.
SAD.

Only because Democrats aren't interested in truth, only politically expedient talking points written by adolescents.

 

[RobDownSouth]

My side of the isle? What are you talking about? I don't work for the FBI.

Your inability to provide any evidence to support your claim wasn't overshadowed by your attempted distraction.

But let's take your BS at face value.
How does it make it a false FISA? They apparently used it to get the warrant, the judge gave them the warrant.
What exactly did they falsify?
Did they lie about the evidence? If so, what specifically was the lie?

He doesn't know.
He doesn't care.
He's just repeating what they told him to repeat.

 

[about_average]

"False FISA Request" is Fox and Friends' talking point of the day.
WoundedKnee (nee 4est_4est_Gump, tribal birth name Dances_With_Falsehoods) is simply regurgitatin' talking points at the behest of his masters.

Debunking the "False FISA Request" whining

Quote the key paragraph? I don't have a WP subscription and the wayback machine can't archive it.

 

[Rightguide]

My side of the isle? What are you talking about? I don't work for the FBI.

Your inability to provide any evidence to support your claim wasn't overshadowed by your attempted distraction.

But let's take your BS at face value.
How does it make it a false FISA? They apparently used it to get the warrant, the judge gave them the warrant.
What exactly did they falsify?
Did they lie about the evidence? If so, what specifically was the lie?

From the article I posted in #130:

"The point is: There are strict rules requiring that each and every fact presented in an FBI request to electronically spy on a U.S. citizen be extreme-vetted for accuracy — and presented to the court only if verified

There’s no dispute that at least some, if not a great deal, of information in the anti-Trump “Steele dossier” was unverified or false. Former FBI director James Comey testified as much himself before a Senate committee in June 2017. Comey repeatedly referred to “salacious” and “unverified” material in the dossier, which turned out to be paid political opposition research against Donald Trump funded first by Republicans, then by the Democratic National Committee and the Hillary Clinton campaign."

 

[about_average]

Only because Democrats aren't interested in truth, only politically expedient talking points written by adolescents.

Fox and Nunes have a lot of issues with integrity. but I wouldn't call them adolescents.

The only prominent person I can think of that fits that description is our current president, though "adolescent" suggests an age way beyond what he actually acts. Most adolescents know the difference between the truth and a lie.

 

[Luk]

From the article I posted in #130:

"The point is: There are strict rules requiring that each and every fact presented in an FBI request to electronically spy on a U.S. citizen be extreme-vetted for accuracy — and presented to the court only if verified

There’s no dispute that at least some, if not a great deal, of information in the anti-Trump “Steele dossier” was unverified or false. Former FBI director James Comey testified as much himself before a Senate committee in June 2017. Comey repeatedly referred to “salacious” and “unverified” material in the dossier, which turned out to be paid political opposition research against Donald Trump funded first by Republicans, then by the Democratic National Committee and the Hillary Clinton campaign."

You posted an op-ed gleaned from a partisan note from a napkin written in pencil, ya disingenious dipshit.

 

[WoundedKnee]

There was a lie, a lie of omission and that would be the Russian "collusion" involved in making the case against Page. In fact, they considered him an idiot, not an agent. The dossier should have never been presented to the court, or to the press, the reporting of which was then claimed to be an independent confirmation. I linked to VDH up above, you really should look at it, unless, of course, your mind is already made up.

 

[about_average]

From the article I posted in #130:

"The point is: There are strict rules requiring that each and every fact presented in an FBI request to electronically spy on a U.S. citizen be extreme-vetted for accuracy — and presented to the court only if verified

There’s no dispute that at least some, if not a great deal, of information in the anti-Trump “Steele dossier” was unverified or false. Former FBI director James Comey testified as much himself before a Senate committee in June 2017. Comey repeatedly referred to “salacious” and “unverified” material in the dossier, which turned out to be paid political opposition research against Donald Trump funded first by Republicans, then by the Democratic National Committee and the Hillary Clinton campaign."

LMAO, you're hilarious.

I'll spell it out for you.
A person's opinion piece that takes two words completely out of context as evidence is proof of absolutely nothing.

It's really not a difficult concept to understand if you have even a minimal ability to think critically.

 

[about_average]

There was a lie, a lie of omission and that would be the Russian "collusion" involved in making the case against Page. In fact, they considered him an idiot, not an agent. The dossier should have never been presented to the court, or to the press, the reporting of which was then claimed to be an independent confirmation. I linked to VDH up above, you really should look at it, unless, of course, your mind is already made up.

So please link to the FISA warrant rule that requires every single detail to be included in the request for a FISA warrant.
Also please link to the warrant itself so we know which things were omitted, since you have obviously read it and know what was omitted.

 

[Luk]

LMAO, you're hilarious.

I'll spell it out for you.
A person's opinion piece that takes two words completely out of context as evidence is proof of absolutely nothing.

It's really not a difficult concept to understand if you have even a minimal ability to think critically.

He's a liar and partisan fucktard who is constantly duped by opinion pieces and "The Onion" like articles.

 

[WoundedKnee]

In interviews before its release, Gowdy told us the memo would show, among other things, that the FBI included uncorroborated information, obtained at the behest of a rival political campaign and presented to the FISA court (FISC) as verified intelligence, to obtain a warrant on an American citizen under false pretenses. Gowdy assured us that no classified information would be revealed, and no sources and methods would be burned, by releasing the memo.

“If you think your viewers want to know whether or not the dossier was used in court proceedings, whether or not it was vetted before it was used, whether or not it’s ever been vetted,” Gowdy said, “if you are interested in who paid for the dossier, if you are interested in Christopher Steele’s relationship with Hillary Clinton and the Democratic National Committee, then you will want the memo to come out.”

Schiff, on the other hand, warned us the memo would contain highly classified, cherry-picked, and misleading information, which would reveal intelligence sources and methods that should never see the light of day. He told us that releasing the memo would harm our national security capabilities with respect to FISA procedures, and needlessly undermine our faith in the FBI and DOJ, for no other purpose than partisan political gain.

He said as much in a Washington Post op-ed two days before the memo was released: “Intelligence agencies can no longer be confident that material they provide the committee will not be repurposed and manipulated for reasons having nothing to do with national security. As a result, they will be far more reluctant to share their secrets with us in the future. Moreover, sources of information that the agencies rely upon may dry up, since they can no longer count on secrecy when the political winds are blowing. This is a grave cost for short-term political gain.”

http://thefederalist.com/2018/02/06...-things-house-intel-memo-heres-right-matters/

 

[WoundedKnee]

Any time, anywhere, to any judge, misleading him/her with unverified "facts" is a crime. Presenting a political document as an instrument of the intelligence community is a crime.

 

[Rightguide]

LMAO, you're hilarious.

I'll spell it out for you.
A person's opinion piece that takes two words completely out of context as evidence is proof of absolutely nothing.

It's really not a difficult concept to understand if you have even a minimal ability to think critically.

Read the article, learn about the "Woods Procedure" who developed it, why it was developed, and under whose FBI directorship. The ask yourself if those rules were followed under Comey or if it would have been possible to submit the "dossier" as evidence if they were being followed. Don't be totally fucking stupid. In the article is a link to another article written last year on the same subject at JustSecurity:

https://www.justsecurity.org/38422/aint-easy-fisa-warrant-fbi-agent

It outlines the procedure (Wood's Procedure) for obtaining a FISA warrant as well. In reading the procedure you will note (if your honest) that the dossier as described by Comey's sworn testimony before Congress could not have been put before the FISC as probable cause for a FISA warrant to spy on an American citizen. So why were the Wood's Rules either be tossed out the window or falsely sworn to by high ranking political actors in the DOJ and the FBI? Why?

 

[Rightguide]

Any time, anywhere, to any judge, misleading him/her with unverified "facts" is a crime. Presenting a political document as an instrument of the intelligence community is a crime.

These Democrat automatons don't want to know the truth or the facts if they interrupt their political designs or talking points.

 

[Luk]

Throw out an op-ed as fact and then when you get your card pulled, you scream, "CONSPIRACY!". What a twat.

 

[Aglaopheme]

Opposition research is just that, research done by or commissioned by the opposition. It diesn’t mean the info is incorrect. Get over it. They were told it was oppo research, just as they were told the same about the Shearer memo. I’m guessing we are going to be hearing a lot more about that. Again, just because it is research done by the opposition doesn’t mean it doesn’t have legs. Clearly, the FBI and Mueller believes it does.

 

[HisArpy]

Good read.

The trail of bread crumbs is starting to lead back to another Clinton crony, Sidney Blumenthal. That thread has been picked up by the Senate investigation.

Seconded. Very informative and lays out a coherent argument about a lot of little bits and pieces as well as looking forward to what may still come. Lots of "Oh, really? bits in there and the realization that this will probably take a few years to get to the bottom of.

For those who missed it (because it's back a page or 2), here's the linky:

Linky

 

[HisArpy]

Opposition research is just that, research done by or commissioned by the opposition. It diesn’t mean the info is incorrect. Get over it. They were told it was oppo research, just as they were told the same about the Shearer memo. I’m guessing we are going to be hearing a lot more about that. Again, just because it is research done by the opposition doesn’t mean it doesn’t have legs. Clearly, the FBI and Mueller believes it does.

The Wood's Rule REQUIRES that the information be verified, not just submitted.

Whether the FISA court was told it was oppo research or not is under a cloud of debate. However, what ISN'T in doubt is that the memo was still unverified and should NEVER have been presented to the FISA court as part of a warrant application. The affiant (the person making the request) swears under oath the the information is TRUE AND CORRECT. Unverified information cannot be sworn to as such.

This means that whoever made the request and swore the information was true, committed perjury (at the least), manufactured evidence, and perpetrated a fraud upon the court. Every person who was involved is also guilty of those offenses (including Rod Rosenstein who requested renewals of the warrant).

 

[richard_daily]

Yes, it does make it a falsified application for a warrant. And yes, I am aware that a lot of people on your side of the aisle are denying he said that, but they have been playing loose with with their charges such as the serious charge that Nunez was about to give away secrets and expose methods. That was a lie, and they knew it, it was all about using the media to keep their voters well uninformed.

Wrong.

People draw information from all sorts of sources. Page has been under investigation since 2013, when he claimed to be working for the Russian government. Fast forward to 2016 and one bad source doesn't take away 3 years of work making of keeping an eye on him from the FBI.

The steel papers weren't the start of the FBIs investigation into Page, so even if this is a mistake, it doesnt' take away the fact that they'd already been looking at him for 3 years, before Trump even hired him for his campaign.

 

[Que]

Opposition research is just that, research done by or commissioned by the opposition. It diesn’t mean the info is incorrect. Get over it. They were told it was oppo research, just as they were told the same about the Shearer memo. I’m guessing we are going to be hearing a lot more about that. Again, just because it is research done by the opposition doesn’t mean it doesn’t have legs. Clearly, the FBI and Mueller believes it does.

A footnote saying that the information "may have a political taint" is not at all the disclosure you are fleshing out above. The entirety of the "information" was a narrative written for Hillary and the DNC and peddled several locations and those disparate end recipients from the same actual source were used to "corroborate" each other.

It was done to innoculate Clinton from the easilly made charge that she was beholden to the Russians for the money they had given her. Trump's campaign didn't actually harp on that, so the bullshit "dossier" wasn't released publically until after she lost, and within hours of her (reluctant) concession speech her strategists decided it would spice up the "we lost because boris and natasha hacked our deplorable emails" excuse. We know this because there were reporters in the room when they decided to do just that. We did not know this at the time because those reporters kept that information for the book that they wrote about the Clinton campaign.

You can pretend that it's perfectly okay to do exactly what they did but don't pretend that they didn't do exactly what they did. The "dossier" was only called that because a super-spy was hired to take bullshit fed to him by Clinton cronies and apparently authored by him or random contacts of his and give it the imprimateur of "research." Oppositon research involves actually going out and finding out things that are true, not making up stuff and throwing it in a manila folder. Making up things is called fiction not research.