So, you think this memo thing has legs?

[about_average]

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.

Again, provide a link to the warrant request so we can all see the same proof that you've seen that what they submitted wasn't accurate.

 

[Que]

Apparently you, missed this. I'll repeat it.

A person's opinion piece that takes two words completely out of context as evidence is proof of absolutely nothing.

Comey's own characterization of the dossier from his sworn testimoney is not evidence of how Comey, who signed off on the FISA warrant would characterize the dossier?

That's not even a logical contortion. That's simply nonsense.

 

[HisArpy]

The "salacious and unverified dossier" is a side note at best in the Russia investigation.

FALSE. The dossier was an integral part of getting the FISA warrant and without it, the warrant wouldn't have been issued.

McCabe's testimony

Trump's familiy members met with Russian officials under the pretext that they would be getting information from a foreign government on Clinton.

This is all absolute fact.

That alone would be enough to open this investigation, however there are countless more examples that add to the growing pile against Trump.

TRUE. Trump's son met with a Russian lawyer. Note, however, that there's NOTHING ILLEGAL about that. Rex Tillerson met with Russian officials all the time in the course of his job duties for Exxon-Mobil and no one's saying HE is a "Russian agent" now are they? Why? Because it's not illegal to talk to ANYONE, be they American, Afghani, South African, or even Russian.

It now looks like the angle will be money laundering and obstruction of justice. Both of which are bad news for the cheeto.

FALSE. There is nothing to this line of reasoning. It may be a fantasy by those who oppose Trump, but the US Constitution is very clear that Trump has the authority to use his executive powers as he sees fit. There is some authority which even asserts he may use those powers to violate the law and be immune for it. (See eg, the travel ban debate and a religious test).

Secondly, obstruction of justice requires Trump, in this instance, to have (or tried to) blocked the investigation. What Trump did was fire Comey. He then immediately nominated Wray to replace him and let the investigation continue. He did not order anyone to stop investigating anything. Nor did his firing of Comey hinder the investigation in any way.

The money laundering thing is a joke. A final attempt to try to tack something, ANYTHING onto Trump to prove all the false narratives about him have to be true because Trump is such an evil person he HAS TO HAVE done something bad. It's nothing but malicious slander.

 

[about_average]

Comey's own characterization of the dossier from his sworn testimoney is not evidence of how Comey, who signed off on the FISA warrant would characterize the dossier?

That's not even a logical contortion. That's simply nonsense.

So your position is that comey went to testify, sat down, said "salacious and unverified" and then left the hearing.

Talk about nonsense.... LOL

Or maybe you just can't figure out what the phrase "two words out of context" means.

It has to be one or the other.

 

[about_average]

FALSE. The dossier was an integral part of getting the FISA warrant and without it, the warrant wouldn't have been issued.

McCabe's testimony

Fake link title.
That wasn't a link to McCabe's testimony.
It was a link to a report that contained this (which you obviously missed)

Andrew McCabe's testimony in which he allegedly said that the agency would not have pursued placing a Trump campaign adviser under surveillance without the unverified "Trump dossier" written by former British spy Christopher Steele

:

TRUE. Trump's son met with a Russian lawyer. Note, however, that there's NOTHING ILLEGAL about that.

No one, that I know of, has claimed he did anything illegal.
What he did do was attempt to work with a foreign government to obtain what was likely illegally obtained information in order to influence a US election.

And Trump the candidate likely knew what he was up to since he blabbed before the meeting about soon to be released bombshell information that was then never released.

 

[HisArpy]

Good. Have you contacted your congresspeople and let them know your position?

Why is this important to you? And how does it further the debate on the Memo?

Of course it doesn't do anything of the sort. What it does is allow you to point a finger at your opponent in the debate because you have NOTHING other than finger pointing.

Very bad debate form.

Holding someone without charging them for 17 years is not the american way.

Are you ok with secret military courts? I'm not.

They are designated "enemy combatants". Under the law, they can be held indefinitely. If you don't like it, lobby YOUR congresscritter to change the law.

Military tribunal's are usually not secret. However, there are times when courts are closed to the public and the testimony obtained during that closure is classified for various reasons. This applies to military, Federal, as well as State courts for all manner of offenses. This is well rooted in our judicial system and you don't have to like it. Be aware, however, that your displeasure at what you didn't realize has been happening since the civil war era doesn't mean a damn thing to those in charge.

 

[BobBalouski]

You are wrong. According to Comey's sworn testimony it was “salacious and unverified.” Bill Priestap testified that corroboration of the dossier was in its "infancy" at the time of the intitial Page FISA application. When Comey went to the White House to inform the President of the Dossier he told Trump it was salacious and unverifiable. The fact is this dossier should never have been used to apply for a warrant in the first place according to "Wood's Procedure" which was the DOJ standard for such applications.

Amazing that subordinate Comey would purposely lie to his boss like that when just weeks earlier the FBI cited that "salacious and unverified" dossier to obtain a FISA warrant against Carter Page, WITHOUT informing the judge of either its political partisan Party financing or it's total political partisan dirt job purpose, or that almost everything in it was gathered by a paid foreign agent from Russian government sources.

And Priestap is no doubt criminal lawyering-up because (for only one reason) the FBI had already paid Steele/Fusion for its interest in the dossier when the Fwarrant against Page was issued.

 

[Que]

So your position is that comey went to testify, sat down, said "salacious and unverified" and then left the hearing.

Talk about nonsense.... LOL

Or maybe you just can't figure out what the phrase "two words out of context" means.

It has to be one or the other.

You're taking two words as if they didn't have ANY context. He was specifically referring to information within the dossier there was in fact salacious and unverified. You don't get to put salacious and unverified information into a fisa warrant. Do try to follow along.

Even if you want to argue (as you apparently are in a veiled way) that somehow this salacious and unverified information that Comeyis clearly stating was within that specific Dossier is somehow surrounded by and sandwich with a huge volume of verified, valid information you still can't include the false stuff without clearly identifying what portions of it you know to be false, believe to be false or cannot verify.

You want to argue that they're taken out of context and you need to do the work and contextualize those words and explain why it is that it's okay that Coney believed that at least some of the information in there was salacious and unverified but still thought it was proper to submit it to the court. You haven't done anything even close to that other than whine that it's out of context.


no shit that they're out of context because they are two sets of statements about the reliability of that bullshit dossier, both made by Comey that conflict with each other. They must necessarily be out of context with each other because they were not made in the same place.

The statement that was made in an environment when the people asking him about it knew that it was bullshit and he was going to have to prop up point-by-point all the bullshit if he said anything other the fact that they was salacious an unverified which is the only true statement he's ever made about it.

In the FISA Court, they had no idea that ANY of the information contained therin was considered by James Comey to be "salacious and unverified."

Comey hasn't said what portion of it is salacious, what portion of it is unverified and what portion (if ANY) Is verified.

 

[HisArpy]

Fake link title.
That wasn't a link to McCabe's testimony.
It was a link to a report that contained this (which you obviously missed):

Andrew McCabe's testimony in which he allegedly said that the agency would not have pursued placing a Trump campaign adviser under surveillance without the unverified "Trump dossier" written by former British spy Christopher Steele

Now you're grasping at straws. Of course we don't know what McCabe's actual testimony was, it's classified. However, across the search result spectrum, and what's been uniformly presented across the media, Everyone is in pretty much agreement that McCabe testified that the dossier was integral to the warrant.

No one, that I know of, has claimed he did anything illegal.
What he did do was attempt to work with a foreign government to obtain what was likely illegally obtained information in order to influence a US election.

And Trump the candidate likely knew what he was up to since he blabbed before the meeting about soon to be released bombshell information that was then never released.

So, you admit he did nothing illegal when he met with the Russian lawyer. Good. End of conversation on this issue. All Russian Collusion allegations disproven.

Meeting with someone to obtain what you characterize as "likely illegally obtained information" is NOT ILLEGAL either. "Likely illegal" isn't "illegal" either. What it is, is an attempt to bootstrap something with no evidentiary support into another baseless allegation.

Whether Trump personally knew or not isn't relevant because his knowledge of LEGAL ACTS doesn't prove anything criminal.

You're really grasping here. Seriously.

 

[about_average]

You're taking two words as if they didn't have ANY context. He was specifically referring to information within the dossier there was in fact salacious and unverified. You don't get to put salacious and unverified information into a fisa warrant. Do try to follow along.

I'm following fine. No one has shown the salacious and unverified information was included. People have only claimed it was.

Even if you want to argue (as you apparently are in a veiled way) that somehow this salacious and unverified information that Comeyis clearly stating was within that specific Dossier is somehow surrounded by and sandwich with a huge volume of verified, valid information you still can't include the false stuff without clearly identifying what portions of it you know to be false, believe to be false or cannot verify.

And no one has shown it was included.

You want to argue that they're taken out of context and you need to do the work and contextualize those words and explain why it is that it's okay that Coney believed that at least some of the information in there was salacious and unverified but still thought it was proper to submit it to the court. You haven't done anything even close to that other than whine that it's out of context.

You can read Comey's testimony as easily as I did.
Stating an indisputable fact isn't whining.

 

[about_average]

Now you're grasping at straws. Of course we don't know what McCabe's actual testimony was, it's classified. However, across the search result spectrum, and what's been uniformly presented across the media, Everyone is in pretty much agreement that McCabe testified that the dossier was integral to the warrant.

At least you admit no one really knows and also admit that it wasn't the only information in the request as Nunes tried to make out.

So, you admit he did nothing illegal when he met with the Russian lawyer. Good. End of conversation on this issue. All Russian Collusion allegations disproven.

Admit? it's never been in dispute.

Meeting with someone to obtain what you characterize as "likely illegally obtained information" is NOT ILLEGAL either. "Likely illegal" isn't "illegal" either. What it is, is an attempt to bootstrap something with no evidentiary support into another baseless allegation.

Who claimed it was illegal? All I've said was that it was an attempt to collude with the Russian government.
Obtaining any opposition research that isn't public record is illegal.
Information in the public record is hardly "highly sensitive.

Whether Trump personally knew or not isn't relevant because his knowledge of LEGAL ACTS doesn't prove anything criminal.

But knowledge of attempted acts that such as the above is a major character statement.
And we already know Trump has no qualms about violating the law, using people and taking credit for other people's efforts that he had nothing to do with.
If he knew about Trump jr's plans it's just another example of him being a scumbag.

 

[Que]

No one has shown any information included was true or verified. They only swore under oath that it was.

Was there a particular piece of information that you can point to that you know was true and verified and included in that FISA warrant application?

You're not even willing to concede that without the Steele dossier there would have been no FISA warrant which is exactly what McCabe is ALLEGED to have stated. No one that was present for that interview or who has access to the transcripts of said interview including McCabe has disputed the ALLEGATION that McCabe said what he is ALLEGED to have quite plainly asserted.

You sure as hell can't point to a set of verified FACTS in the widely discredited Steele fabriction that would justify surveilng Page who they KNEW would be speaking on wiretapped phones with Trump campaign officials, lest the point of the discussion be lost in your ridiculous obfuscations.

 

[WoundedKnee]

Shiff himself let the cat out of the bad this morning. He has sent the White House a memo which must be redacted, he seemed quite pleased with himself because the next serious charge will be that this is just more evidence of obstruction of justice on the part of the Trump Team.

 

[Que]

Shiff himself let the cat out of the bad this morning. He has sent the White House a memo which must be redacted, he seemed quite pleased with himself because the next serious charge will be that this is just more evidence of obstruction of justice on the part of the Trump Team.

Four pages with no sources and methods included is a national security catatrophe and a Constitutional crisis. Eleven pages of redaction bait is fine.

It's a ridiculous gambit. Nothing in any of the Dem's obfuscation memo is going to be from any place that Mueller would not already have access to the full unredacted documents.

Even if Trump selectively redacts in an effort to make himself look better, it has nothing to do with obstruction. He probably will take that Democrat bait they will then leak classified information to call him a liar which he will be of course, and they will be the only ones that are actually violating the law in doing so. But of course there will be no consequences for their leaks.

 

[WoundedKnee]

You've seen the direction of the conversation here. It will play very well with the Democrat base who will not see it for what it is, but further proof that not only is Trump obstructing justice, but that Mueller will now be able to take him down.

 

[BobBalouski]

Trump's familiy members met with Russian officials under the pretext that they would be getting information from a foreign government on Clinton.

Hillary Clinton's campaign, the Democratic National Committee, and possibly even Obama for America, paid $millions$ for a foreign agent to gather information from Russian government sources on Trump. Which the FBI then also contributed $$ to and abetted in getting that dossier info distributed among the press, and then used that dossier's allegations obtained from Russian government sources to obtain a FISA warrant against an American citizen - without informing the issuing judge of the infamous dossier itself.

Guess what, wannabe? There is no crime in either example of soliciting and/or using information from the Russians on either Clinton or Trump, because such collusion is NOT A CRIME.

Now, tell the class the actual criminal difference between how the Trump campaign used whatever Russian info it got and what the Clinton/Democrat/Obama administration did with their Russian information?

 

[HisArpy]

At least you admit no one really knows and also admit that it wasn't the only information in the request as Nunes tried to make out.


Admit? it's never been in dispute.

Who claimed it was illegal? All I've said was that it was an attempt to collude with the Russian government.
Obtaining any opposition research that isn't public record is illegal.
Information in the public record is hardly "highly sensitive.

But knowledge of attempted acts that such as the above is a major character statement.
And we already know Trump has no qualms about violating the law, using people and taking credit for other people's efforts that he had nothing to do with.
If he knew about Trump jr's plans it's just another example of him being a scumbag.

Your logic is very circular.

You admit it's not illegal. You admit that the legality of the meeting was never in dispute. Yet, Russian collusion is the key question. And you're trying to bootstrap a LEGAL meeting into an illegal act to collude with the Russians? Very weird thinking.

It's as if I have a meeting with Nezhul to buy a couple of ties (WITH "Made in Russia" on them) for a gift to someone else, and even though that's legal, the fact that I had the meeting means I'm illegally colluding with him? Like I said, weird thinking

Cite please for your premise that obtaining opposition research that isn't in the public record makes it illegal.

Character statements are not "illegal acts". Being a "scumbag" isn't either (remember Bill Clinton?). What they are, are projections of YOUR beliefs onto another person. This is why character evidence is frowned upon by everyone.

 

[Hypoxia]

Clueless as to the reasons for the Electoral College? Without it, only high-population states would determine elections and smaller, low-population states would never see a national politician nor have any say in the national governance...

The electoral college was a political ploy, not a matter of principle. As-is, high-population states (where most people are) only see prexy candidates when the state is marginal. In a popular vote system, EVERY citizen's vote matters, and candidates will be forced everyone, not only their own bases.

...thanks to the pernicious evil that is the 17th Amendment, which really should be repealed along with the 16th, and most certainly the 19th!

16th: By Art.I Sect.8 ("...the power to lay and collect taxes...") we'd still have constitutional income taxes even without the 16th, which merely requires uniformity: "...without apportionment among the several States, and without regard to any census or enumeration." What happens without uniformity? Can Texans be taxed at ten times the Oregonian rate?

17th: Having senators chosen by good-old-boys networks of gerrymandered legislators rewards losers. Y'all haven't yet figured out that's bad, hey?

19th: So, women should not vote. You live alone, right? Or maybe with a loyal dog? Any women you approach run away, sure, soon as they hear you.

 

[RobDownSouth]

The Nunes Memo sure isn't getting the traction Trump thought it would. The boys are spinning furiously today.

 

[HisArpy]

You've seen the direction of the conversation here. It will play very well with the Democrat base who will not see it for what it is, but further proof that not only is Trump obstructing justice, but that Mueller will now be able to take him down.

Trump can derail that by having the DOJ and FBI review and make redaction suggestions. He then merely needs to follow those suggestions. As he did with the Nunes memo. That he didn't redact anything (nor not much) suggests that the Nunes memo was clean.

If the Dem response memo is clean as well, then there will be no redactions made.

If there are redactions, then that suggests the memo was an attempt to leak classified info.

 

[Hypoxia]

Hillary Clinton's campaign, the Democratic National Committee, and possibly even Obama for America, paid $millions$ for a foreign agent to gather information from Russian government sources on Trump. Which the FBI then also contributed $$ to and abetted in getting that dossier info distributed among the press, and then used that dossier's allegations obtained from Russian government sources to obtain a FISA warrant against an American citizen - without informing the issuing judge of the infamous dossier itself.

Everything you say was contradicted by Trey Gowdy, who has read the info, which you haven't. In school, reporting on a book you haven't read is called 'cheating'. Looks like Nunes cheats, too.

 

[BobBalouski]

No one has shown any information included was true or verified. They only swore under oath that it was.

Was there a particular piece of information that you can point to that you know was true and verified and included in that FISA warrant application?

You're not even willing to concede that without the Steele dossier there would have been no FISA warrant which is exactly what McCabe is ALLEGED to have stated. No one that was present for that interview or who has access to the transcripts of said interview including McCabe has disputed the ALLEGATION that McCabe said what he is ALLEGED to have quite plainly asserted.

You sure as hell can't point to a set of verified FACTS in the widely discredited Steele fabriction that would justify surveilng Page who they KNEW would be speaking on wiretapped phones with Trump campaign officials, lest the point of the discussion be lost in your ridiculous obfuscations.

Page was long gone from any connection to the Trump campaign when the Fwarrant was issued against him. And having only attended 1 very insignificant, hastily arranged meeting with other campaign "advisors" earlier in 2016, and especially after being totally dismissed from the Trump campaign the second his Russian past came to light, I can't believe Page was in any degree of contact at all with anyone connected with the Trump campaign for the Fwarrant to be of any benefit in that regard.

What Fwarrants do do is allow the collection of any and all communications to or from the warranted Party as far back as the FBI can track them, and an Fwarrant's power also allows the FBI to enter the warranted Party's residence(s) and place of business(es) SECRETLY to snoop all they want and also to install all the eavesdropping and surveillance stuff they want. Carter Page was under this anti-American, anti-Amendment IV violation for a solid 6 months (initial 90-day Fwarrant + 3 90-day renewals).

The Constitution specifically does not give ANY branch of federal government any iota of power to offend Amendment IV so unconstitutionally. If any branch of federal government wishes to violate the Constitution so obscenely, to do it LEGALLY it must, of course, wait on the States to ratify its draconian intent.

 

[WoundedKnee]

I stand by what I said. The Left has such a hatred of Trump that they will pay attention to nothing other than "The White House" and "redactions." No amount of talking to them will dissuade them from that twin notion because it is personal with them. The source of the redactions will be dismissed as collusion with Trump to obstruct justice. Look at all of the frenzied effort to support the FISA warrant no matter where the story goes. The FBI, especially Comey, did nothing wrong, or political other than to hurt Hillary with a last-minute investigation that found nothing in a record amount of time for DC. Hell, they wanted Comey fired. So this has become an issue where the narrative is the driving force of perception much like "Hands Up Don't Shoot!"

 

[HisArpy]

Everything you say was contradicted by Trey Gowdy, who has read the info, which you haven't. In school, reporting on a book you haven't read is called 'cheating'. Looks like Nunes cheats, too.

It's interesting that you ascribe the contents of the memo only to Nunes. The memo is a summation of the evidence of the INTELLIGENCE COMMITTEE STAFF as a whole. Not Nunes himself.

Go read the title of the memo if you don't believe me. You can even read the contents of the memo itself. The header of the memo states clearly that it's from HPSCI Majority Staff. House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence STAFF. Not Nunes himself or personally.

Which blows your entire argument that Nunes hasn't seen all of the evidence himself and therefore the memo is a fraud out of the water.

 

[Aglaopheme]

I stand by what I said. The Left has such a hatred of Trump that they will pay attention to nothing other than "The White House" and "redactions." No amount of talking to them will dissuade them from that twin notion because it is personal with them. The source of the redactions will be dismissed as collusion with Trump to obstruct justice. Look at all of the frenzied effort to support the FISA warrant no matter where the story goes. The FBI, especially Comey, did nothing wrong, or political other than to hurt Hillary with a last-minute investigation that found nothing in a record amount of time for DC. Hell, they wanted Comey fired. So this has become an issue where the narrative is the driving force of perception much like "Hands Up Don't Shoot!"

Do you think the exact same thing can be said about the right?