The Nunes Memo, factual or desperate?

Jump to Last Post 1-31 of 31 discussions (154 posts)
  1. Randy Godwin profile image62
    Randy Godwinposted 6 years ago

    Anyone who actually knows how the FISA warrants are cleared realize they are a compilation of sometimes hundreds of reasons and known evidence before a judge or judges allow the investigators to begin. 

    Nunes--who's already shown he'll assist Trump in throwing mud on the investigation in the House Intel Committee--hasn't even read the underlying classified info the FISA warrants were based on. How could be write a memo on what the underlying reasons were without doing so?

    All in all, It's obvious to those who actually watch and read factual news sources that it's a desperation move by Trump and his right wing cronies because they know Mueller is getting closer to questioning Donald. Despite his "looking forward" to the interview, his lawyers are trying everything to stop him from doing so. Apparently, they know how many lies Trump tells as does everyone.

    The memo will surely be released by Trump because he values his skin much more than he values the security of the country. Have at it Trump fans....

    replyreport
    1. profile image0
      promisemposted 6 years agoin reply to this

      Nunes is Trump's biggest defender in Congress. I'm sure his memo attacking the FBI is completely free of bias ...

      replyreport
      1. Randy Godwin profile image62
        Randy Godwinposted 6 years agoin reply to this

        Nunes shouldn't even be on the committee due to his being so close to Trump during the campaign and the transition. He's already shown he'll break all sorts of norms to benefit Trump and protect him from criminal charges. Anyone can see through this charade, except his fans of course.

        One thing's for sure, since Nunes and his cronies are releasing classified info against the wishes of the FBI and Justice Department then Trump Fans can never bring up Hillary's keeping classified emails on a private server again. lol   The nitwits bit themselves on the ass again!  cool

        replyreport
    2. GA Anderson profile image83
      GA Andersonposted 6 years agoin reply to this

      Hi Randy, I hope you don't mind if I add a little more to the context of your "FISA" Court Warrant information. It may not have any bearing on the issue of the Nunes memo, but it will at least add a bit of balance to your portrayal of "sometimes hundreds of reasons" for a FISA warrant to be issued.

      There may have been hundreds of supporting reasons for the FISA warrant of this discussion, but there is no information that is the case, and much information that it may not have been a correct assumption that it was.

      There are 11 judges on the FISA court panel, and an application is only presented to one of them. So it is just one judge that makes the determination. I didn't find whether those jusdges are on a duty-rotation, or if a FISA applicant can "shop"  for a particular judge to ask. I won't insinuate that is the case here, but I will point out it is a possibility.

      It seems the primary determining factor for a FISA judge is the DOJ AG, (or Deputy AG), signing-off on an affidavit from a senior FBI official summarizing the reasons for the FISA request. The composition of this affidavit could very well have included "hundreds" of tidbits of investigative evidence - or it could be comprised of just one or two "obvious" pieces of evidence. The "obviousness" of those one or two pieces is the determination of the FBI official providing the affidavit.

      Reading between the lines it seems entirely plausible to think that it is possible a warrant could be requested with just one damning, (in the FBI's mind), piece of evidence. I am not saying that is the case here, but only that it is a possibility.

      Considering that only 12, out of 34,000  FISA warrant requests were denied between 1978 and 2013, it doesn't seem too speculative to think that every warrant request was not as massively supported as your "hundreds" of pieces of evidence might imply.

      Of course you could be right that there are hundreds of reasons supporting the FISA warrant of the discussion, but I just thought fleshing out the skeleton of context you provided might paint a more accurate picture of the possibilities. It is not an improbable thought that the warrant being talked about could have been approved on just the evidence of the Steele dossier - if an FBI official and a DOJ AG or Deputy Ag supported its presentation to a FISA judge.

      GA

      replyreport
      1. Randy Godwin profile image62
        Randy Godwinposted 6 years agoin reply to this

        Thanks GA, but we also have to take in consideration that Page had already been under a FISA warrant for quite some time as he was known to have previous contacts with the Russians. More than likely they've gathered even more evidence than simply the dossier--although some of it has been corroborated by other sources--during the previous warrants. I do see your point though.

        This does seem like a bad way to go about it even if there was some suspicion on the part of Trump's BFF Nunes.

        replyreport
        1. GA Anderson profile image83
          GA Andersonposted 6 years agoin reply to this

          Hey bud,
          Like you, I have just read the memo. If there is validity to its claims, I can see the possibility of a legitimate complaint. But my read of the memo leaves me feeling like it is just partisan dissatisfaction with the process.

          That was a big "if" though. If the claims are true, then I can see a partisan motivation for the FISA applications - and that is definitely not something that reflects well on the FBI or DOJ.

          GA

          replyreport
          1. wilderness profile image89
            wildernessposted 6 years agoin reply to this

            Refresh my memory - is this memo about the warrant that was about the wire tapping that Trump said happened and all the Democrats denied as impossible?  The one everyone claimed he was lying about?  That wiretapping?

            replyreport
            1. GA Anderson profile image83
              GA Andersonposted 6 years agoin reply to this

              "Refresh my memory..." said the Fox to the hen....

              GA

              replyreport
              1. wilderness profile image89
                wildernessposted 6 years agoin reply to this

                lol

                Look, GA: brandy! (A little extra bait never hurts, now does it?)

                http://ecx.images-amazon.com/images/I/81uK9adVRuL._SL1500_.jpg

                replyreport
                1. GA Anderson profile image83
                  GA Andersonposted 6 years agoin reply to this

                  Well now Wilderness, since it appears I have been assigned a persona, let me relate a cute story.

                  In my middle-years I used to drink Courvoisier, which is an expensive cognac, but that is only called cognac because of the region where it is produced. It is technically a brandy because it is fermented from fruit, (grapes).

                  I admit I drank it as much for the "snob" effect as the taste. Imagine someone too full of themselves bellying up to a bar laden with beer and cocktail glasses receiving a snifter that looks like a too-short drink - and smiling as I paid too much for too little. And it is typically served in a large brandy snifter like your picture.

                  Well, my very last Courvoisier was served in a too-large snifter. One that allowed my nose to "enter" the glass as I tilted it to drink. (think of your picture, it took a full-tilt to get a drink)

                  What an education. You can take my word for it that the aroma of a brandy that escapes the top of the snifter is not the same as the aroma still in contact with the liquid and confined in the glass bowl of a snifter.

                  When my nose inhaled the enclosed aroma of that cognac ... it was so gawwdd awful that I couldn't even finish the drink, I couldn't believe I was "enjoying" something that smelled that bad.  I have never had Courvoisier since then.

                  But... if your pictured glass had a good Ginger or Blackberry brandy in it. Then cheers, let's pour another.

                  GA

                  replyreport
                  1. wilderness profile image89
                    wildernessposted 6 years agoin reply to this

                    Not much for brandy, thank you.

                    But when I was a teen I worked the closing shift at a gas station, the only one there.  One night an old gentleman came in; a regular customer that often came inside to chat a bit with me.  He said he was moving and would I like some homemade wine?  I said "Sure" and pointed him to my car, saying he could just put it in there as I could not leave the station office.

                    Came closing and I locked up and headed for the car; a '55 chevy belair it was.  He had taken me at my word.  The truck was full, the back seat and floor boards were covered and stacked to the top of the seat.  The front seat passenger area was loaded.  There was enough wine in that car to get the town drunk!

                    Some of it was really good, though - I particularly enjoyed the buttercup wine (can you imagine picking enough buttercup flowers to make a gallon of wine?).  The dandelion was good, too.  And the rose.  And...

                    replyreport
    3. profile image0
      Onusonusposted 6 years agoin reply to this

      You seem desperate not to hear the truth.
      https://scontent-sea1-1.xx.fbcdn.net/v/t1.0-9/27332396_1806416752724559_6188126684147464743_n.jpg?oh=9ed7b6a3828bdbb482a54eb8a7c4a496&oe=5B18E0AD

      replyreport
      1. Randy Godwin profile image62
        Randy Godwinposted 6 years agoin reply to this

        We are all dumber after reading your comments, oo! tongue

        replyreport
        1. profile image0
          Onusonusposted 6 years agoin reply to this

          Because reading the memo would take an exercise in cognitive dissonance. And suddenly the libs have total confidence in their benevolent government.

          I seem to recall a rather robust debate over the need for transparency in government during the first election cycle of Obama. Guess it doesn't count when we're talking about Hillary. 
          http://www.theblaze.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/07/libertymeme.jpg

          replyreport
          1. Randy Godwin profile image62
            Randy Godwinposted 6 years agoin reply to this

            How long does it take a TV signal to reach where you live, oo? Hillary lost!  tongue

            replyreport
            1. profile image0
              Onusonusposted 6 years agoin reply to this

              I'll take your lack of response as a concession.

              replyreport
              1. Randy Godwin profile image62
                Randy Godwinposted 6 years agoin reply to this

                I do concede, oo. You ARE a lot slower than I am.  tongue

                replyreport
                1. profile image0
                  Onusonusposted 6 years agoin reply to this

                  No personal insults please. All you need is facts to back up your position.

                  replyreport
                  1. Randy Godwin profile image62
                    Randy Godwinposted 6 years agoin reply to this

                    Yes, give me a list of convictions Hillary has, oo. Accusing her and Obama without relevant facts is your main commentary on the forums. So, put your money where your mouth is      smile

                    replyreport
  2. Randy Godwin profile image62
    Randy Godwinposted 6 years ago

    Now that the memo is released to the public, it plainly shows the lengths Nunes will go to protect the Liar-In-Chief. The cherry picked memo claims the Steele Dossier was the sole basis on which to renew the Carter Page FISA warrant

    Anyone who believes this is unaware of the procedures taken to ensure the warrant is lawful. Despite the past FISA warrants issued for Page's known Russian connections, each new warrant requires numerous reasons and proof of gains from previous warrants to extend the investigations.

    Trump and Nunes are risking the country's national security simply to protect Trump from being further investigated by Mueller. Traitors who will soon get their due diligence for their efforts to circumvent the law. Not surprising at all for Trump.

    replyreport
    1. GA Anderson profile image83
      GA Andersonposted 6 years agoin reply to this

      Geez Randy, don't you have confidence in your opinions without the need for "spin" reinforcement?

      "...each new warrant requires numerous reasons and proof of gains from previous warrants to extend the investigations."

      Nothing I could find, (using my friend Google of course), concerning FISA warrant renewals  support this. To the contrary, it seems that just the reaffirmation of the original need - and an assertion of continued interest, and, a DOJ and FBI sign-off on the renewal application will get a renewal approved.

      From my nosing around "official" government sources, sorta neutral online sources, and both Left and Right leaning sources - one impression seemed common; the FISA court judge places great reliance on the referrals from the FBI and DOJ. I did not get the impression that the FISA judge went through the supporting materials with great care.

      So what is it that you claim supports such an opposite conclusion as to what it takes to get a renewal?

      GA

      replyreport
      1. Randy Godwin profile image62
        Randy Godwinposted 6 years agoin reply to this

        I got this from a former FBI agent who is experienced in handling FISA warrants. If nothing is gained by a previous warrant then further demonstrations of valid cause are needed. From what I understand from various house committee members on TV there was plenty gained from the previous warrants which made the dossier a minor cause if anything.

        replyreport
  3. blueheron profile image90
    blueheronposted 6 years ago

    Well, it turns out that "the memo" reveals that:

    "According to the document, information from the the so-called Steele dossier was "essential" to the acquisition of surveillance warrants on Trump campaign aide Carter Page. It claims that then-deputy FBI director Andrew McCabe told the committee in December that without the information from the Steele dossier, no surveillance warrant for Page would have been sought.

    "The memo alleges that the political origins of the dossier — paid for by Hillary Clinton and the Democratic National Committee (DNC) — were not disclosed to the clandestine court that signed off on the warrant request."

    Excerpts from the memo:

    "Our findings indicate that, as described below, material and relevant information was omitted....The application does not mention Steele was ultimately working on behalf of—and paid by—the DNC and Clinton campaign, or that the FBI had separately authorized payment to Steele for the same information."

    "The Carter Page FISA application also cited extensively a September 23, 2016, Yahoo News article by Michael Isikoff, which focuses on Page's July 2016 trip to Moscow. This article does not corroborate the Steele dossier because it is derived from information leaked by Steele himself to Yahoo News."

    What this means (among other things): "Absent the dossier, at least one of the surveillance warrants in the case would not have been obtained, and - by implication - the entire Mueller probe is thus on shaky legal ground." https://www.zerohedge.com/news/2018-02- … at-it-says

    replyreport
    1. Randy Godwin profile image62
      Randy Godwinposted 6 years agoin reply to this

      Sorry, but Nunes claims McCabe told the committee the dossier was the main reason for the FISA warrant which others in the room disputes happened. The Dems are asking for the transcripts to be released which will show Nunes to telling another partisan lie. Trump's lies have contaminated the very top of the Republican party who are now trying to protect pathological liar.

      My hopes are the Dems memo will tell the whole story, if Trump will release theirs, which is no guarantee from the POTUS.

      This plainly political partisanship is seen for what it is, trying to protect traitors to the US and nothing more.

      replyreport
    2. GA Anderson profile image83
      GA Andersonposted 6 years agoin reply to this

      You finally got me blueheron, after your repeated linkings to Zerohedge, I finally took a look. Are you connected to the site, or is it just one you like? I don't recall you linking to any other source sites.

      GA

      replyreport
  4. blueheron profile image90
    blueheronposted 6 years ago

    You can read the memo here: http://docs.house.gov/meetings/IG/IG00/ … -SD001.pdf

    It is very slow to load, you'll have to be very patient and maybe refresh a couple of times. (Weird for a 6-page pdf file.) I was able to download the file on the second try.

    replyreport
    1. wilderness profile image89
      wildernessposted 6 years agoin reply to this

      I didn't have any trouble loading it - you probably just hit it at the same time as 10 million other curious people did. big_smile

      replyreport
  5. blueheron profile image90
    blueheronposted 6 years ago

    Randy, the memo is not sourcing what McCabe allegedly said. It is sourcing the FISA documents.

    I assume what you are trying to say is that the memo is not truthful. The only way to settle such a claim is to declassify the original FISA documents.

    Probably the best way to approach that is to release those portions of the FISA documents that address specific objections.

    replyreport
    1. Randy Godwin profile image62
      Randy Godwinposted 6 years agoin reply to this

      Nunes claimed McCabe said the Dossier was the reason for the warrant. We'll see when the transcript of his interview is released.... if Trump and Nunes allow it, of course. Knowing both of the jerks they'll try to keep their fallacious memo in the news as long as possible.

      replyreport
      1. Sharlee01 profile image86
        Sharlee01posted 6 years agoin reply to this

        RG, You are really off on this one. Read the memo.... Time to move on.

        replyreport
        1. Randy Godwin profile image62
          Randy Godwinposted 6 years agoin reply to this

          And I suppose you believed what was in it, Shar? Sean Hannity and others are talking about it as if were factual and were discussing how many years in prison Comey, McCabe, and Rosenstein would get.  No kidding!   What a load......

          replyreport
  6. blueheron profile image90
    blueheronposted 6 years ago

    John Cardillo's tweet:

    ".@comey, you testified under oath to Congress that the dossier was “salacious and unverified,” yet you certified its veracity to the FISA Court prior to that testimony.

    Thats perjury, obstruction of justice, abuse of authority...what am I missing? #ObamaGate"

    Um.... Who's the traitor?

    replyreport
    1. Randy Godwin profile image62
      Randy Godwinposted 6 years agoin reply to this

      Parts of the dossier have been verified now, Heron. From other sources as well. Keep watching Fox News for your info, they'll surely tell you how to think about this memo. When the real news comes out your boy Nunes may take a hike or hide his head in the sand. There were other basis for the FISA warrants on Page including facts learned in the earlier surveillance on him.

      I think Mueller will see this for what it is and Trump will pay the ultimate price in the end for disrupting our National Security with this partisan BS.

      What do they do to traitors theses days, string them up? I hope so....

      replyreport
  7. crankalicious profile image90
    crankaliciousposted 6 years ago

    It would be a help to the American people if such "investigations" were done on a bipartisan basis or independently and that memos, such as this one, were released with the approval of the members of such committees.

    replyreport
  8. Valeant profile image75
    Valeantposted 6 years ago

    I'm sitting back enjoying the fact that Trump has convinced his supporters to be more concerned with some people in government who had negative opinions of him than with the fact that Carter Page is a foreign agent of Russia and there was quid pro quo between Trump's campaign and a hostile foreign government.  Drop the sanctions and they'll help get him elected.  With Trump refusing to enforce sanctions as nearly unanimously voted on by Congress, is there much doubt left here that that is what they agreed on?

    replyreport
    1. Sharlee01 profile image86
      Sharlee01posted 6 years agoin reply to this

      Valeant, Not one thing you have said is fact? The fact is many are concerned with our Government agencies being bias against one or another candidate running for office. Fact... Another fact, many of us would like to know did our FBII use an unvetted or partially vetted dossier to obtain a FISA warrant  on an American citizens. We also do not know if the FISA court was informed that the dossier was paid for by the Democratic party and the Clinton campaign.   These are questions yet to be answered. This is what prompted the Nunes memo. Not sure why so many are having a hard time grasping facts on this mess?  I guess it could be that the media is stirring the waters to make it hard to see how simple this sad Democratic ploy was. They tried to pull a scam, it has blown up in their face, and this time the Clinton's are taking down our two most sacred Government agencies with them.   These two grifter's are going out in a bang. One good thing is , we will finally be rid of them, and history will depict their sad ending...

      replyreport
      1. Randy Godwin profile image62
        Randy Godwinposted 6 years agoin reply to this

        You pretty much made Val's point for him, Shar. Give us links to prove all of your "the fact is.." claims in your comment...please?

        replyreport
  9. blueheron profile image90
    blueheronposted 6 years ago

    The following link clarifies a couple of things related to the FISA warrant on Carter Page.

    "The FISA ‘warrant’ request, against Carter Page, was made October 21st, 2016, under Title I of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act.  Meaning the surveillance application was specifically stating, to the court, the U.S. individual was likely an actual agent of a foreign government, ie. 'a spy.' "

    This is a very serious allegation. Per legal commentary:

    "To spy on Americans through a FISA court, the FBI must show the target is an 'agent of a foreign power,' not merely in contact with a foreign power. The law makes it difficult to show someone is an 'agent of a foreign power' to make sure it is not misused to spy on Americans....Claiming someone is an 'agent of a foreign power' is a difficult standard to ever show, and should never happen to a domestic political opponent in a domestic political campaign."

    What evidence was provided to show that Carter Page was "an agent of a foreign power"--a SPY?

    "To give validity to the underlying position of the DOJ and FBI, the justice department used: the Clinton-Steele Dossier; media reports from -and of- the Clinton-Steele dossier; and opposition research provided by Clinton financed Fusion-GPS through Nellie Ohr, so they could monitor U.S. Person Carter Page.

    "In total, this sketchy assembly of political campaign research was used by the FBI as evidence to back-up their claim U.S. person Carter Page was working as a foreign agent; essentially saying: he was a spy.  This application assembly was then certified on four different occasions by specific officials within the DOJ and FBI." (The FISA warrant was required to be renewed every 90 days.)

    Who signed off on this?

    "Consistent with the requirements under FISA, the application had to be first certified by the Director or Deputy Director of the FBI. It then required the approval of the Attorney General, Deputy Attorney General, or the Senate-confirmed Assistant Attorney General for the National Security Division.

    "The FBI and DOJ obtained one initial FISA warrant targeting Carter Page and three FISA renewals from the FISC. As required by statute, a FISA order on an American citizen must be renewed every 90 days and each renewal requires a separate finding of probably cause. Then-Director James Comey signed three and Deputy Director Andrew McCabe signed one. Then-DAG Sally Yates, then Acting DAG Dana Boente, and DAG Rod Rosenstein each signed one or more FISA applications on behalf of DOJ."

    So we have quite an astonishing number of people at the highest levels of the FBI and DOJ knowingly presenting falsified materials to the FISA court.

    These actions embrace several serious crimes. In view of the motives for these actions (attempting to fix and election, attempting to remove a sitting president), some would say that one of those crimes is sedition.

    replyreport
    1. Randy Godwin profile image62
      Randy Godwinposted 6 years agoin reply to this

      Were you aware the FBI had known about Page's involvement with the Russians and had been watching him since 2013?  Are you sad he's been indicted for working with the Russians, or are you just sad he got caught?

      The FBI found out plenty about Page and even warned him the Russians were trying to use him long before the FISA warrants were applied for. Bet you didn't hear this on Fox. cool

      replyreport
  10. blueheron profile image90
    blueheronposted 6 years ago

    Here's the link, which also addresses all objections to the memo in detail: https://theconservativetreehouse.com/20 … ore-145380

    replyreport
  11. Valeant profile image75
    Valeantposted 6 years ago

    Blueheron,
    You do realize two other members of Trump's campaign have already been charged as failing to register as foreign agents?  How much of a reach is it to assume with his Russia trips that Carter Page was doing some shady things that gave the FBI and a judge cause for reinstituting the FISA surveillance?

    And the investigation into Trump campaign ties began three months before anything to do with Carter Page thanks to Papadopoulos bragging to the Aussies, which was also in the memo.

    So with that as the beginning of the backdrop to the Trump campaign violating US law and concerns about Russian espionage, there was plenty of cause to expand a warrant on Page when he has a past history and is traveling to Russia while working for Trump.

    The bigger question is why don't you care if the Trump campaign was violating the law?

    replyreport
  12. Sharlee01 profile image86
    Sharlee01posted 6 years ago

    RG This will depend on what was submitted in the actual request for the FISA warrants. I would bet money Nunes has the goods before he created his memo. And I am not one to bet. This man would not chance making such a fool of himself. Next step seeing the actual request, and that is not far away..

    replyreport
    1. Randy Godwin profile image62
      Randy Godwinposted 6 years agoin reply to this

      Shar, have you forgotten Nunes already made a fool of himself by getting classified info from Trump, running back to the committee and claiming HE found evidence of wrongdoing on the FISA warrants, and then right back to the WH telling the committee and the world he was taking the info to Trump.

      Of course, everyone found out Nunes and Trump cooked the whole thing up and Nunes had to recuse himself from the Committee. Do you really think he learned his lesson the first time? Hell no! It's the same scam. Why would anyone trust Nunes anyway? He campaigned for Trump and was on Trump's transition team. He shouldn't have anything to do with investigations.

      replyreport
      1. Sharlee01 profile image86
        Sharlee01posted 6 years agoin reply to this

        The main concern is did Government agencies show bias against one or another candidate running for office.  I would like to know did our FBII use an unvetted or partially vetted dossier to obtain a FISA warrant  on an American citizens? We also do not know if the FISA court was informed that the dossier was paid for by the Democratic party and the Clinton campaign.   These are questions yet to be answered. This is what prompted the Nunes memo.  Not sure why so many are having a hard time grasping facts on this mess?  Was the court left in the dark?  If so, several crimes were committed. If the FBI and DOJ were truthful, which we will ultimately find out. Nunes has stirred up unnecessary trouble, and should be run out of his job. If he is right, the  Clinton's have taking down our two most sacred Government agencies, with yet more of their corruption. These two grifter's may go out with a bang, and we will finally be rid of them, and history will depict their sad ending...

        replyreport
        1. Randy Godwin profile image62
          Randy Godwinposted 6 years agoin reply to this

          Shar, so you do agree Nunes was out of line the first time he conspired with Trump on their bogus big news? You don't seem to want to say how you felt about that, but you do think Nunes wouldn't do the same in this instance? Do you believe he suddenly became honest over night? Seriously?

          replyreport
        2. crankalicious profile image90
          crankaliciousposted 6 years agoin reply to this

          WOW! There's actually more concern about bias in the government then about whether or not people conspired with foreign agents in an effort to harm our country.

          Here's a newsflash: everyone has a bias.

          replyreport
  13. blueheron profile image90
    blueheronposted 6 years ago

    Randy, the link I posted in my last comment discusses the Carter Page investigation at some length, and indicates that the basis for this investigation was the falsified (in effect, perjured) evidence presented to the FISA court.

    If you have a link showing that there was some other evidence drawing suspicion onto Carter Page, please present it.

    replyreport
    1. Randy Godwin profile image62
      Randy Godwinposted 6 years agoin reply to this

      Just like Nunes no one has seen the underlying info the FISA warrants are based on. Only Adam Schiff. two of Nunes staffers--they actually wrote the Memo--and Trey Gowdy have inspected the FISA warrants.

      On top of that, Nunes wouldn't answer the question of whether his staffers worked with the WH to write the memo. Trump already knew what was in the memo before he got it some way or another. Wonder why Nunes avoided that question. lol

      At any rate, when the Dems memo gets published--if Trump allows it--it will rebut everything in the cons memo and will explain to people like yourself who do not understand how the system works.

      replyreport
  14. profile image0
    Onusonusposted 6 years ago

    https://scontent-sea1-1.xx.fbcdn.net/v/t1.0-9/27332645_1839834189408264_5189348886020064258_n.jpg?oh=62cea249b3cfbf070b67c338b59343e9&oe=5B164FC4

    replyreport
  15. blueheron profile image90
    blueheronposted 6 years ago

    That's the whole point of the House Intelligence Committee's demands to see the FISA doucments:

    There WAS no evidence.

    replyreport
    1. Valeant profile image75
      Valeantposted 6 years agoin reply to this

      Weird that the GOP members of that committee would not allow the minority memo to be produced.  That's likely the evidence we all know exists and that the GOP memo left out.  The same evidence that Schiff claims exists, but is classified and cannot be produced.

      replyreport
      1. wilderness profile image89
        wildernessposted 6 years agoin reply to this

        Weird?  Why?  It can only be a political rebuttal to a (presumably) factual statement; how in the world can that be relevant to what the FBI did or didn't do?

        Perhaps we need an "independent" investigation into the whole thing?  Because for sure playing politics will not produce anything of value, only spun party declarations that the Democrats, or the Republicans, did not wrong and it won't matter a flip whether the statement is true or not - it will be said anyway.

        replyreport
        1. profile image0
          promisemposted 6 years agoin reply to this

          Why should anyone assume that a memo written by Trump's biggest supporter in Congress is a "factual statement" and therefore doesn't deserve a rebuttal?

          replyreport
          1. wilderness profile image89
            wildernessposted 6 years agoin reply to this

            I guess for the same reason we assume a rebuttal will be factual and not just spun party politics. 

            If it weren't so sad it would be comical.  The only thing that madhouse on the hill cares about is saving face and increasing the power of the party.  Any semblance truth or honesty is long gone from that place, and I don't exempt either party from that.

            replyreport
            1. profile image0
              promisemposted 6 years agoin reply to this

              I think we are in agreement the parties are too focused on their own benefit and not focused enough on the good of the country.

              replyreport
              1. wilderness profile image89
                wildernessposted 6 years agoin reply to this

                I have decided that there is virtually no focus on the good of the country; only what serves the purpose, which shall remain hidden, of the party.  Nor do I think I'm alone, for that's what got Trump into office.  That millions of people feel the same way.

                replyreport
            2. Randy Godwin profile image62
              Randy Godwinposted 6 years agoin reply to this

              People from the FBI and Justice Dept. pleaded with the Cons on the committee to let them come and explain how the warrants were applied for and granted. Nunes said they didn't want their assistance and refused their request.

              Now I understand why...

              replyreport
            3. Jean Bakula profile image88
              Jean Bakulaposted 6 years agoin reply to this

              I think it's bad for anyone to be undermining our FBI and Justice Department. It makes us look bad to the world.

              And why aren't we hiring more tech people to work on our aging system, so nobody can hack us over and over again? They didn't just hack Democrats, they surely hacked Republicans too. Or anyone. And just waiting for the right time for the hackers to release the results so they benefit whoever they want.

              It's better than wasting time on these memos, with lies and counter lies flying in each direction.

              And I can't see why people are still harping on Hillary. As far as I've heard, all of Trump's people are using their personal servers, and they have a lot more leakers than the Clintons ever had.

              It's the same old hypocrisy. Can you imagine the out roar if Obama consorted with porn stars, let his people put the American public in debt for over a trillion dollars,(the party of fiscal conservatives) or insulted half the world? Mexico isn't paying for that wall, we the taxpayers are. I wish this year could be erased. Now Trump wants a big, military parade. He's so childish. Are we supposed to pay for that too? Why not help homeless Veterans instead? It is really sad. I try to keep track of what both sides are saying, but it's a waste of time.

              replyreport
  16. Valeant profile image75
    Valeantposted 6 years ago

    The whole case that the Trump administration is trying to make with this memo is that the dossier was the sole piece used to gain the FISA warrant on Carter Page.  I'd bet the political rebuttal as you called it might be the other factors that were left out of the memo that led the FISA court to authorize the surveillance of Page.

    replyreport
    1. GA Anderson profile image83
      GA Andersonposted 6 years agoin reply to this

      I don't know if I would bet on it Valeant, but I think you are probably right. My question is whether it will have any more verifiable factual basis than the Nunes memo claims.

      GA

      replyreport
  17. blwalker100 profile image55
    blwalker100posted 6 years ago

    There is nothing in this memo that National Security would be compromised, maybe American Security (meaning, you, me, your neighbors, your family) is compromised.
         Nunes isn’t the only member on the intel committee, the committee voted to release, yes republican maj. but the Democrats in the intel committee have not said anything in the memo is untrue, just things were left out, that they feel was important and both memos should footnote the sources of info that it was originated from, which they voted that it should not be included, some disagree, doing so would make things more definitive than a memo that could be debunked as an opinion to the facts, with the exception of the struck, page texts, which is extremely damaging to the FBI.
         People don’t need to be so right or left, look down the middle look at the facts and main stream media is not a good source you can rely on for sure. Washington in general is the true Sin City, Vegas has nothing on what goes behind closed doors in Washington, all I know is the Clinton Machine is extremely corupt and the only collusion going on was the Hilliard camp and the DNC. Blaming the Trump camp for doing what they were doing along. Money, Uranium, Pay to Play, Sex Scandals, mysterious deaths must I go on?
         I’m not being left or right in that conclusion, People just have a bad habit of disappearing. Lots of double answers with whatever is popular at the time and the audience they entertained, not so much with slick Willy, but her is the DEVIL. It all started with “ I have never had any sexual relations with that women, Ms. Lewinski” she must of slipped and fell on that cigar. What you talkin’ about Willy? Hilliary made those women pay in the worse ways...whatever happened to accepting the outcome of the election, everyone else should do the same, he is our President, if there is an issue, the truth always come out. That why they hate Trump so much, he has access to the truth and he should expose it. Drain the Money laundering Swamp!

    replyreport
    1. Randy Godwin profile image62
      Randy Godwinposted 6 years agoin reply to this

      I don't remember seeing you on the forums, bl. I don't who you voted for but I assume it wasn't Hillary. What media do you use for your info? I'd be curious to know. With your references to Bill's bad behavior, I'll bet you thought Trump's own words bragging about his groping women was more than disgusting. Or did you?

      No, you're simply another Fox or Briebart fan wishing to put your--Hannity's--opinion out there. I know all about things in DC as one of my best friends was president for the largest lobbying co. in Washington. A former Iranian hostage, he'd fly home to south Georgia every Fri. and back to DC on Sun. afternoon. He retired a few years ago and as he still knows people in DC, he keeps up to date.

      Now, tell me where you get your information from, especially if it's from someone actually in the game. If you're going to simply state your opinion and expect not to get asked questions, then what's the point? I know, some just want to opine with talking points and ignore questions, but then, they usually can't.

      As I said, I don't know anything about you as your profile is bare except for a photo of...someone. Are you a troll? yikes

      replyreport
  18. Sharlee01 profile image86
    Sharlee01posted 6 years ago

    I will not make the call. I will wait and see what was in the FISA request that was used to get the warrant.  Most likely one or two might go to jail or at lest lose their jobs. Not sure Nunes would have stuck his neck out so far if he did not feel he was on solid footing?

    replyreport
    1. Randy Godwin profile image62
      Randy Godwinposted 6 years agoin reply to this

      Did you even read my reply re Nunes first debacle? If so, do you doubt he would do the same thing again? He's got his neck stuck out so far this time it may bend over like an ostrich!   P

      replyreport
  19. blueheron profile image90
    blueheronposted 6 years ago

    Randy, the source of a person's information is irrelevant. What is important is whether the information is factual. You seem to believe that your own preferences in the matter of news sources are those that are more authoritative. They are not. The mainstream media is in essence a monopoly. Six corporations own 1500 newspapers, 1100 magazines, 9000 radio stations, 1500 TV stations, 2400 publishing companies and 95% of the entertainment/indoctrination programming. Cross directorships mean only a few hundred people control what purports to be the "news"  supposedly reported to the western world.

    Actually, it's worse than that. According to Forbes, 15 billionaires own America's news media companies. Some of these billionaires are not Americans, such as Carlos Slim, who owns a sizeable chunk of the NY Times.

    There have been a number of instances in which government control of the mainstream media has been exposed. Much of what appears in the mainstream media is rather transparently propaganda. A significant proportion of it is straight-up lies. In the entertainment media a very significant proportion of the material consists of propaganda and social engineering--much of it repulsive in the extreme.

    Independent media, while far from perfect, is a far better source of facts and independent analysis. This is where the voices of real people are heard--people who are not controlled by--and compelled to regurgitate--the views and opinions of a small number of elite owners of media monopolies (and, I might add, government operatives). Independent media is in the tradition of the small-town newspaper of the past, or the big city newspaper of the past that employed real investigative journalists, rather than taking their news from the wire services.

    The MSM thoroughly discredited itself over a period of many decades, and more and more people had come to realize this. But during the presidential election they really outdid themselves. Normally I try to avoid ad hominems, but if you place your trust in the MSM, you are extraordinarily obtuse--besides being extraordinarily uninformed.

    replyreport
    1. Randy Godwin profile image62
      Randy Godwinposted 6 years agoin reply to this

      What credentials to you have to back up YOUR opinion, blue? I said I has inside info from a DC knowledgeable person. I can give you his name if you like, and I will if you tell me where you get your unobtuse expert opinions.  I'll be waiting. smile

      replyreport
  20. blueheron profile image90
    blueheronposted 6 years ago

    You say, "People from the FBI and Justice Dept. pleaded with the Cons on the committee to let them come and explain how the warrants were applied for and granted. Nunes said they didn't want their assistance and refused their request."

    Nunes responded to this. He told them that if they wished to present any additional material in the way of explanations or extenuations, they were free to do so--that is, to present these materials to the public.

    replyreport
    1. Randy Godwin profile image62
      Randy Godwinposted 6 years agoin reply to this

      Link or when he said this please. So you're saying the FBI and Justice Dept. didn't want to meet with the committee before the memo was released?

      replyreport
  21. Live to Learn profile image61
    Live to Learnposted 6 years ago

    This may have been pointed out already, but it seems to me there is a greater burden of proof involved in going after members of a presidential campaign. An administration, and all involved, should be concerned with ensuring there is no appearance of impropriety...no room for doubt of intent.

    As of now, I've been given little reason to believe the Obama administration, or any agencies, had any concern about how this would be viewed if exposed to the light of public scrutiny. I have every reason to fear the end was seen to justify the illegal means. I harbor serious doubts which I would like to see further enquiry to either alleviate or substantiate.

    replyreport
    1. Randy Godwin profile image62
      Randy Godwinposted 6 years agoin reply to this

      So, did the underlying classified reasons for the FISA warrant convince you of this? What did it say if you're convinced of your opinion of wrongdoing. How did you get to read this material?  tongue

      replyreport
      1. Live to Learn profile image61
        Live to Learnposted 6 years agoin reply to this

        What part of my comment was over your head?

        replyreport
        1. Randy Godwin profile image62
          Randy Godwinposted 6 years agoin reply to this

          None of it, L2L. What part of my question did you answer?

          replyreport
          1. Live to Learn profile image61
            Live to Learnposted 6 years agoin reply to this

            Since, boiled down to the basics, my comment was that I was left with doubts....further inquiry was (imo) warranted in order to substantiate or alleviate.....,

            Your comment left little doubt you didn't comprehend that. How could I answer a question that had nothing to do with my statement?

            replyreport
            1. Randy Godwin profile image62
              Randy Godwinposted 6 years agoin reply to this

              So I suppose my questions were over your head, L2L since you didn't address them. Two can play at this game. Your turn.......ask me a question I can ignore. tongue

              replyreport
              1. Live to Learn profile image61
                Live to Learnposted 6 years agoin reply to this

                Randy. The truth of my stand is....I don't take sides. Not on this. I have no faith in the honesty or integrity of any party. I would like the truth. I would like to believe that,at some point, it will prevail.

                My hope is that you, and those like you, who simply prattle and pander to whichever party you bow to will not forever keep the truth at bay.

                replyreport
                1. Randy Godwin profile image62
                  Randy Godwinposted 6 years agoin reply to this

                  So are you saying you didn't vote for either Trump or Hillary,L2L? I seem to remember you making pro Trump comments for the most part. Your answer to my first question may indicate the veracity of the above quote.



                  I've never met a totally impartial person from either party, L2L. But I suppose you and Jesus make at least two examples.  cool

                  replyreport
                  1. Live to Learn profile image61
                    Live to Learnposted 6 years agoin reply to this

                    The election is over. Has been for over a year. Who you, or I, voted for is in the past nor is this thread titled 'Who'd you vote for?'

                    One day, you might get this. Get over that. And put the good of the nation before sour grape politics.

                    Who the hell cares about who voted for whom?

                    And, when does religion have anything to do with politics? You need to get a grip.

                    replyreport
  22. Valeant profile image75
    Valeantposted 6 years ago

    If you could provide the facts about which part of the dossier is fake, then I'd be impressed.

    replyreport
  23. Sharlee01 profile image86
    Sharlee01posted 6 years ago

    RG, There just was no proof of Nunes  conspiring with Trump? Do you have any source you provide me with on this? Not sure if he is honest as of yet. Like I stated, I want my questions answered by the FISA court. Were they aware the dossir was not completely vetted, and were they told it was paid for by the DNC, and the Clinton's? This is a new scandal, I have to let go of the old ones. Because nothing is ever followed up on with real evidence. This one is really bad, and I think we the people have a right to have concrete answers. It appears as the months go on that the Government is much more corupt than I ever dreamed.

    replyreport
    1. Randy Godwin profile image62
      Randy Godwinposted 6 years agoin reply to this

      Sure Shar, this only one of many links to several well known sites about the first incident Nunes was involved in. Why do you think he wouldn't do so again.



      https://www.nytimes.com/2017/03/30/us/p … ports.html

      And you--like Fox and other misleading sources--simply forget to mention the dossier was begun by the Washington Beacon, a Conservative site. Or does that make any difference to your argument?

      replyreport
      1. Sharlee01 profile image86
        Sharlee01posted 6 years agoin reply to this

        RG, I have come to the conclusion we are all being played.  Schiff now has prepared a memo disputing the  Nunes memo, and wants his memo relisted  to the public. This water is becoming so muddy! I want to see the original document that was served to the FISA court to obtain the warrant.  This would be to easy, would it not?  It's very plain to see this mess is being created to hide something... We deserve to know what.

        replyreport
        1. Randy Godwin profile image62
          Randy Godwinposted 6 years agoin reply to this

          Sure we're being played, Shar! And it's Nunes and Trump doing the dealing. Schiff's memo will debunk Nunes' memo point by point. Unlike Nunes, Schiff allowed both FBI and DOJ to come speak about the underlying classified info contained in the FISA warrant on Page. Nunes refused to allow the same two agencies to address his memo. I know you don't like to answer questions, but who looks more honest in getting their memo out?

          It would be detrimental to the FISA program to release the entire classified info about Page because it would compromise methods and those doing the actual work of the program. If they can redact some names, and not compromise the entire program, we'd all like to look at the underlying reasons for the warrant.

          replyreport
  24. Randy Godwin profile image62
    Randy Godwinposted 6 years ago

    Not calling any names, but some on the forums seem not to understand how to reply to a particular comment properly. Sometimes when a poster is replying to a person--who's made several different comments--one has to go back through the many comments to understand if the questions and statements match.

    To those who do not avail themselves of the formatting aids on the posting page, it's easy to do and it'll help make your point about particular posts.

    At the very least use the "reply" at the bottom of the comment you're replying to. It will atutomatically appear in your post. Thanks!  smile

    replyreport
  25. Valeant profile image75
    Valeantposted 6 years ago

    Shar,
    Nothing I've said is fact?
    So Manafort and Flynn weren't charged with failing to register as foreign agents?
    The GOP didn't vote against releasing the minority response to the Nunes memo?
    Yeah, ok.

    replyreport
  26. Valeant profile image75
    Valeantposted 6 years ago

    Not this debunked Uranium One conspiracy theory again.  Eight separate government agencies had to approve that deal.  Eight.  And even if it were true, who cares if Russia has more Uranium.  Why are we so worried about them getting more nuclear weapons?  You afraid they could shoot a second round of missiles at us to vaporize us again if it came down to it?

    replyreport
    1. Randy Godwin profile image62
      Randy Godwinposted 6 years agoin reply to this

      I was mistaken about how many agencies were involved and to change my number from 12 to eight. oo is simply using Fox talking points so you can tell why he's so uninformed about the deal. He, like others on these forums are beginning to feel the pressure with the investigation now at Trump's doorstep.

      Trump is trying like heck to avoid meeting Mueller's team on the advice of his attorneys. A subpoena may be forthcoming from Mueller and then Trump will plead the Fifth. Imagine if you'd voted for the jerk....shudder!

      replyreport
    2. profile image0
      Onusonusposted 6 years agoin reply to this

      Same liberal logic that got North Korea and Iran a nuclear weapons program.

      replyreport
  27. blueheron profile image90
    blueheronposted 6 years ago

    If in fact eight separate government agencies approved the Uranium One deal, this does not necessarily lead to the conclusion that the whole thing was on the up and up. There are other possible conclusions to be drawn from this.

    replyreport
    1. Randy Godwin profile image62
      Randy Godwinposted 6 years agoin reply to this

      So blue, how many of the 8 were corrupt? And how did you find out which were indeed corrupt, besides Hillary, of course.

      replyreport
      1. wilderness profile image89
        wildernessposted 6 years agoin reply to this

        Wrong question.  How many were responsible to follow the money trail, and how many were responsible for watching out for sales of strategic materials (national defense)?

        The EPA may have been involved - has to do with mining - and so many have MSHA.  Perhaps whoever oversees corporate sales and checks for monopolies.  Whoever looks after endangered animals?  The only one I can think of that should concern itself with defense and foreign sales was the state department...Hillary's personal kingdom at the time.

        replyreport
        1. Randy Godwin profile image62
          Randy Godwinposted 6 years agoin reply to this

          So you're saying she had them all vote the same on the deal, Dan? Or are you simply opining with no facts to support your argument--or in other words--Trumping it?  cool

          replyreport
          1. wilderness profile image89
            wildernessposted 6 years agoin reply to this

            Are you completely ignorant of how different agencies work, what they do and what their duties are?  Do you think the EPA is responsible for, and exams all proposals for, possible financial fraud?  Do you think when they "sign off" on a proposal they have examined it for national defense and cleared it?  Do you think OSHA does the same? 

            Or is that the task of the State Dept - the same one that does NOT look into possible pollution, destruction of landscape, etc., leaving it for the EPA?

            replyreport
            1. Randy Godwin profile image62
              Randy Godwinposted 6 years agoin reply to this

              Not at all. I  know they don't simply sign an agreement without checking out what it says.





              No, not now Trump's in office. He's probably chosen very rich people to head these agencies as he did for most of his appointments. 



              See my last answer.

              replyreport
              1. wilderness profile image89
                wildernessposted 6 years agoin reply to this

                Good.  Then you also understand that of the 7 agencies there is likely only one that considers if a foreign sale harms national defence, and likely one one that concerns itself with fraud.  And that means that touting that there were 8 agencies overlooking Hillary's possible wrongdoing is a false statement.  And I highly doubt that any agency concerned itself with massive "contributions" right after the Uranium deal, and by many of the people and companies directly connected with that deal.

                replyreport
                1. Valeant profile image75
                  Valeantposted 6 years agoin reply to this

                  The deal required multiple approvals by the U.S., beginning with the Committee on Foreign Investments in the United States. Under federal law, the committee reviews foreign investments that raise potential national security concerns.

                  The Committee on Foreign Investments has nine members, including the secretaries of the treasury, state, defense, homeland security, commerce and energy; the attorney general; and representatives from two White House offices (the United States Trade Representative and the Office of Science and Technology Policy).

                  The committee can’t actually stop a sale from going through — it can only approve a sale. The president is the only one who can stop a sale.

                  So while I will readily admit there are pay-to-play issues with Foundation donations from Uranium One investors that they tried to hide and Bill Clinton speaking fees related to this transaction, saying that Hillary had much say here might be a reach.

                  replyreport
                  1. wilderness profile image89
                    wildernessposted 6 years agoin reply to this

                    That actually makes sense.  I retract my objection.

                    replyreport
  28. Valeant profile image75
    Valeantposted 6 years ago

    Dude still says if.  Unreal.  Confirmed.  Eight.

    replyreport
  29. profile image0
    Onusonusposted 6 years ago

    https://scontent-sea1-1.xx.fbcdn.net/v/t1.0-9/27540474_1067716406702402_5835351884042882625_n.jpg?oh=7df11905b9efd0fe08792fa8c3fe530f&oe=5B167DED

    replyreport
    1. Valeant profile image75
      Valeantposted 6 years agoin reply to this

      Conservative logic, these are corrupt civil servants.

      https://usercontent1.hubstatic.com/13898052.png

      replyreport
      1. profile image0
        Onusonusposted 6 years agoin reply to this

        I'm not a Republican.

        replyreport
        1. Valeant profile image75
          Valeantposted 6 years agoin reply to this

          Who said you were?

          replyreport
        2. Randy Godwin profile image62
          Randy Godwinposted 6 years agoin reply to this

          Oh, I thought you got your "facts" from Fox News. It's good to hear you don't believe their garbage. hmm

          replyreport
          1. profile image0
            Onusonusposted 6 years agoin reply to this

            I don't watch television.

            replyreport
            1. Randy Godwin profile image62
              Randy Godwinposted 6 years agoin reply to this

              No wonder you're wrong so often, oo! Where do you get your "facts" from?

              replyreport
  30. Valeant profile image75
    Valeantposted 6 years ago

    Your horribly incorrect memes and ridiculous conspiracy theories from Infowars? Yeah, they do.

    https://www.snopes.com/uranium-one-vyacheslav-ivanov/

    replyreport
    1. Dean Traylor profile image98
      Dean Traylorposted 6 years agoin reply to this

      Hey Val, I've been seeing  that meme on facebook, lately. As usual, it's the ill informed posting meaningless, exaggerated or poorly written memes. I guess that's a way to make up for that fantastic dud the Nunes Memo has become.

      replyreport
    2. profile image0
      Onusonusposted 6 years agoin reply to this

      How tragic, Hillary got the wrong guy... Don't worry I'm sure the real one went into the witness protection program.

      replyreport
  31. Valeant profile image75
    Valeantposted 6 years ago

    Doubling down, how Trumpian of you.

    replyreport
    1. profile image0
      Onusonusposted 6 years agoin reply to this

      I'm not a Republican.

      replyreport
      1. Valeant profile image75
        Valeantposted 6 years agoin reply to this

        Continuing to cling to such an obviously false conspiracy theory in the face of obvious truth isn't a Republican thing, it's a Trump thing.  It's why many of us don't take you, or him, seriously.

        replyreport
        1. profile image0
          Onusonusposted 6 years agoin reply to this

          I'm not a Trump supporter either.

          And the fact that I got ONE wrong is hardly evidence to your claim.

          replyreport
      2. Randy Godwin profile image62
        Randy Godwinposted 6 years agoin reply to this

        Just what exactly are you......anyway?  yikes

        Your username means a double burden in crossword lingo. I can sorta see that...

        replyreport
        1. profile image0
          Onusonusposted 6 years agoin reply to this

          A person.

          replyreport
          1. Randy Godwin profile image62
            Randy Godwinposted 6 years agoin reply to this

            That could be subjective.

            replyreport
            1. profile image0
              Onusonusposted 6 years agoin reply to this

              Deleted

    jump to first post
     
    working

    This website uses cookies

    As a user in the EEA, your approval is needed on a few things. To provide a better website experience, hubpages.com uses cookies (and other similar technologies) and may collect, process, and share personal data. Please choose which areas of our service you consent to our doing so.

     Necessary
     Features
     Marketing
     Statistics

    For more information on managing or withdrawing consents and how we handle data, visit our Privacy Policy at: https://corp.maven.io/privacy-policy

    Show Details
    Necessary
    HubPages Device IDThis is used to identify particular browsers or devices when the access the service, and is used for security reasons.
    LoginThis is necessary to sign in to the HubPages Service.
    Google RecaptchaThis is used to prevent bots and spam. (Privacy Policy)
    AkismetThis is used to detect comment spam. (Privacy Policy)
    HubPages Google AnalyticsThis is used to provide data on traffic to our website, all personally identifyable data is anonymized. (Privacy Policy)
    HubPages Traffic PixelThis is used to collect data on traffic to articles and other pages on our site. Unless you are signed in to a HubPages account, all personally identifiable information is anonymized.
    Amazon Web ServicesThis is a cloud services platform that we used to host our service. (Privacy Policy)
    CloudflareThis is a cloud CDN service that we use to efficiently deliver files required for our service to operate such as javascript, cascading style sheets, images, and videos. (Privacy Policy)
    Google Hosted LibrariesJavascript software libraries such as jQuery are loaded at endpoints on the googleapis.com or gstatic.com domains, for performance and efficiency reasons. (Privacy Policy)
    Features
    Google Custom SearchThis is feature allows you to search the site. (Privacy Policy)
    Google MapsSome articles have Google Maps embedded in them. (Privacy Policy)
    Google ChartsThis is used to display charts and graphs on articles and the author center. (Privacy Policy)
    Google AdSense Host APIThis service allows you to sign up for or associate a Google AdSense account with HubPages, so that you can earn money from ads on your articles. No data is shared unless you engage with this feature. (Privacy Policy)
    Google YouTubeSome articles have YouTube videos embedded in them. (Privacy Policy)
    VimeoSome articles have Vimeo videos embedded in them. (Privacy Policy)
    PaypalThis is used for a registered author who enrolls in the HubPages Earnings program and requests to be paid via PayPal. No data is shared with Paypal unless you engage with this feature. (Privacy Policy)
    Facebook LoginYou can use this to streamline signing up for, or signing in to your Hubpages account. No data is shared with Facebook unless you engage with this feature. (Privacy Policy)
    MavenThis supports the Maven widget and search functionality. (Privacy Policy)
    Marketing
    Google AdSenseThis is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
    Google DoubleClickGoogle provides ad serving technology and runs an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
    Index ExchangeThis is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
    SovrnThis is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
    Facebook AdsThis is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
    Amazon Unified Ad MarketplaceThis is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
    AppNexusThis is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
    OpenxThis is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
    Rubicon ProjectThis is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
    TripleLiftThis is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
    Say MediaWe partner with Say Media to deliver ad campaigns on our sites. (Privacy Policy)
    Remarketing PixelsWe may use remarketing pixels from advertising networks such as Google AdWords, Bing Ads, and Facebook in order to advertise the HubPages Service to people that have visited our sites.
    Conversion Tracking PixelsWe may use conversion tracking pixels from advertising networks such as Google AdWords, Bing Ads, and Facebook in order to identify when an advertisement has successfully resulted in the desired action, such as signing up for the HubPages Service or publishing an article on the HubPages Service.
    Statistics
    Author Google AnalyticsThis is used to provide traffic data and reports to the authors of articles on the HubPages Service. (Privacy Policy)
    ComscoreComScore is a media measurement and analytics company providing marketing data and analytics to enterprises, media and advertising agencies, and publishers. Non-consent will result in ComScore only processing obfuscated personal data. (Privacy Policy)
    Amazon Tracking PixelSome articles display amazon products as part of the Amazon Affiliate program, this pixel provides traffic statistics for those products (Privacy Policy)
    ClickscoThis is a data management platform studying reader behavior (Privacy Policy)