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....
Nunes is Trump's biggest defender in Congress. I'm sure his memo attacking the FBI is completely free of bias ...
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. The nitwits bit themselves on the ass again!
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.
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.
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.
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?
"Refresh my memory..." said the Fox to the hen....
Look, GA: brandy! (A little extra bait never hurts, now does it?)
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.
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...
We are all dumber after reading your comments, oo!
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.
How long does it take a TV signal to reach where you live, oo? Hillary lost!
I'll take your lack of response as a concession.
I do concede, oo. You ARE a lot slower than I am.
No personal insults please. All you need is facts to back up your position.
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
There can't be any convictions when all the witnesses end up dropping dead all the time.
So what you're saying is you actually have no evidence at all. I can make all sorts of unproven allegations against Donnie Boy, but I suppose you wouldn't see it as fair to do so. Correct me if I'm mistaken.
You are mistaken, I don't give a crap about Donny.
Not even if he and his cronies were treasonous to our country? Everyone needs to be concerned about that!
I suppose you just hate HRC and Obama more than you like Trump.
Will the REAL treasonous one/group please stand up?
When it comes to presidential elections I, like most people, am voting against the candidate I hate the most.
Tell me, is there anything you actually like about Hillary, besides the fact that she's not Trump?
Okay, apparently you don't consider treason a bad thing, or at least enough to keep you from voting for their opponent. Are the candidates you hate the most always Democrats?
Yes of course. I feel bad for her as she's been villianized for many years by the right and many even accuse her of crimes even though millions have spent by the right with no convictions. And she can speak well and is the most qualified person for POTUS. Trump lies so much you guys don't even notice it or think it's bad.
So Trump is about as guilty of treason as Obama, (although Hillary's uranium deal with the Russians tops both) yet you weren't concerned about it so you don't care about treason except when it's the other guy. Has Trump been convicted? No. I suppose that means by your own logic that he's not guilty.
The uranium deal was signed off on by 8 agencies, with Hillary running one of them. Therefore, the Fox narrative about Hillary being solely responsible for the deal is completely false. Your using Fox talking points is essentially promoting a lie, and I'm sure you want to tell the real truth.
I see you are no longer concerned with treason, and more concerned with defending "innocent" Hillary.
I was debunking your claims, oo. Which in your case is easy to do.
You just admitted in your last post that Hillary was part of the uranium deal that sold 20% of our uranium to Russia.
I don't think you understand what it means to "debunk".
So what, Onus? bet you didn't even know about the other 7, correct? and even if you said you did, you purposely left the other 7 out in your many comments on this issue. So, what'll it be, dude?
And I'll inform you of anther fact you mistakenly left out. Russia cannot export any uranium outside the country. Yes, you're really concerned about the Russians and Hillary, but apparently doesn't give a big f**k about Trump dealing with them? What's that all about?
You pretty much solidified my claim that Hillary took part in selling 20% of our Uranium to Russia. Also by your own reasoning, Trump is not guilty of anything unless convicted, or does that only apply to Hillary?
And you pretty much avoided answering my questions once again, Onus. One more time. Did you know about the other agencies signing off on the uranium deal, or the uranium could not be shipped out of the country? There, even you can understand this time. Of course, it doesn't mean you will answer it.
Or are you "trumping it" as well?
Oh, and it's bad when Trump colludes with the Russians (unproven) but not when Hillary does it (proven).
Got some facts to base your claim on about Hillary's collusion, oo? Of course you don't, as usual. Are you saying the other 7 agencies colluded as well, or just HRC?
No, you made the claim, so furnish something criminal HRC's been convicted of.
Name something criminal that Trump has been convicted of.
Also you said that Trump committed treason, however he hasn't been convicted. Again, only Republicans are guilty of crimes without being convicted.
But Hillary's got a clean slate.
I didn't claim Trump has been convicted of anything yet. You are always claiming HRC is a criminal without any proof.
Typical Con logic!
It's typical Trumpism. We can see the admission that Onusonus said they don't watch TV. It gets denied even though the facts and truth are in plain sight. It's like that old children's story, The Emperor's New Clothes. He's parading down the street naked, and all his cronies are admiring his new outfit. In our time, it's "fake news" when people don't like the truth.
If you can stand it, check out Hannity on Fox News (just for a few minutes, I know it's hard). I have two staunch R friends who even think he's gone insane.
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.
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?
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.
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
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
RG, You are really off on this one. Read the memo.... Time to move on.
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?
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....
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.
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?
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...
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.
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.
Here's the link, which also addresses all objections to the memo in detail: https://theconservativetreehouse.com/20 … ore-145380
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?
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..
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.
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...
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?
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.
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.
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.
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.
That's the whole point of the House Intelligence Committee's demands to see the FISA doucments:
There WAS no evidence.
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.
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.
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?
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.
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.
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.
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...
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.
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.
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!
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?
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?
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.
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.
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.
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.
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?
What part of my comment was over your head?
None of it, L2L. What part of my question did you answer?
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?
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.
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.
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.
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.
You once again managed to ignore my queries, L2L. And your claim it makes no difference whom one voted for is laughable. You obviously are ashamed of your vote by refusing to answer. See, we both can make assumptions about the other. I do try to answer others questions, unlike you.
Your questions are pointless. Ask something of value and it will be answered.
I have no regrets at keeping Hillary from power. I'd do it again, and again. Hopefully, the chances of that cancer taking the reigns are completely gone.
So, no. I'm not embarrassed by the outcome of my action. It is as I hoped.
You are completely unbiased, L2L. Then neither is anyone else biased who posts here. Or do you expect it to work just in your favor because you're so much more informed that the rest of us? No, I don't expect you to respond to these questions either. It'd cramp your style because you are the select one to decide what's of value. Or you seem to think so for some unknown reason....
I didn't say I was unilaterally unbiased. I said, on this issue, I am. Primarily because I put nothing past any of them. I want the truth, whatever it is. But, I want it in a manner we can't dismiss as political propaganda.
At this moment all we are getting is 'he said,she said' magnified by people such a yourself. People who think if they run their mouths long enough we will assume they know something.
I'm waiting for undeniable facts, Randy. On this issue. This memo is no more than what we've already gotten. Which is nothing more than more partisan opinions.
What makes you think I want a biased opinion on this memo,L2L? I'm arguing for both of the memos to be released so we CAN have a realistic look at the issue. Another question for you. Don't you think if a memo had to be released by the rightwing members of the committee the memo from the left should have been released at the same time? The right could have waited you know. Can you explain their reluctance to wait for equal time for the other side. A completely unbiased--that's you--and sensible answer. should be easy for you.
Would say the same for Trump, L2L? And you're totally against HRC because of the crimes she's never been convicted of?
I'll have to agree with you on this one. The memo is very partisan as Nunes has already shown us he'll help Trump any way he can.
Honestly Randy I'd prefer to bypass memos. Because, what are they? Partisan opinions. I want facts. All of them. To hell with claims of secret documents or national security. The public has a right to know but, more importantly, the need. We have lost so much confidence in our government it is now a national crisis.
Right here, right now, we need the truth presented in a manner which precludes belief in partisan spin.
If Trump is guilty....let's make an example. If others are, make an example of them. It doesn't matter what came before. If it were a new start of honesty and accountability I'd be on board. If it's just going to be treated like another witch hunt, with no clear line delineating truth and fiction, with clear violations of ethics going unchallenged then why would I carry a torch?
Yes, I have a strong distaste for Hillary but that does not translate to anything more. I don't like Trump because of it. I don't dislike the Democratic party because of it. I won't lie because of it. That is where I am different from party faithful of either side, such as yourself.
What makes you think I'd lie, L2L? I too want balance in the procedure. You didn't answer my query about why you thought the Nunes memo being released before the Schiff example was any way non-partisan. Please address this issue.
If you could provide the facts about which part of the dossier is fake, then I'd be impressed.
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.
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?
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.
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.
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!
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?
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?
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!
Same liberal logic that got North Korea and Iran a nuclear weapons program.
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.
So blue, how many of the 8 were corrupt? And how did you find out which were indeed corrupt, besides Hillary, of course.
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.
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?
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?
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.
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.
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.
Conservative logic, these are corrupt civil servants.
Oh, I thought you got your "facts" from Fox News. It's good to hear you don't believe their garbage.
Your horribly incorrect memes and ridiculous conspiracy theories from Infowars? Yeah, they do.
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.
How tragic, Hillary got the wrong guy... Don't worry I'm sure the real one went into the witness protection program.
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.
Just what exactly are you......anyway?
Your username means a double burden in crossword lingo. I can sorta see that...
by Jack Lee 2 years ago
This case should be clear cut. Either the DOJ and the FBI are following procedures or they are not?Either the FISA court is doing its job or it is not?We need to get to the bottom of this and it should be bipartisan. Our government and its credibility is at stake. If it is politicized to the point...
by Randy Godwin 2 years ago
To the astonishment of few, the Buffoon-In-Chief has refused to release a Democratic memo debunking the Nunes memo. What else could he do? Nunes refused to answer questions about his staff colluding with the WH on his memo as well. Why? The answer is obvious to those who have seen Nunes in action...
by Don W 2 months ago
"A lawyer for an indicted associate of Rudy Giuliani tells CNN that his client is willing to tell Congress about meetings the top Republican on the House Intelligence Committee had in Vienna last year with a former Ukrainian prosecutor to discuss digging up dirt on Joe Biden...'Mr. Parnas...
by Randy Godwin 2 years ago
Today Sen. Diane Feinstein released the transcripts of the Richard Steele interview against the wishes of Republican committee members. Steel was worried about Trump being possibly blackmailed if he became POTUS and contacted the FBI as he should have. This was before the election and before the...
by ahorseback 2 years ago
After the election ! Pres. Obama may have ordered surveillance of the Trump Administration ! At least some whistleblower[s] are saying - alleging Trump was possible bugged by the Obama administration . This is aside of the whole Russian ...
by JAKE Earthshine 7 months ago
Let’s keep it FACTUAL: A living and evolving repository to store ALL the public evidence, both criminal and civil which exists against Mr. Trump, his family and associates including Michael Cohen, there appears to be more than enough damning evidence to reach a guilty verdict for the average person...
Copyright © 2020 HubPages Inc. and respective owners. Other product and company names shown may be trademarks of their respective owners. HubPages® is a registered Service Mark of HubPages, Inc. HubPages and Hubbers (authors) may earn revenue on this page based on affiliate relationships and advertisements with partners including Amazon, Google, and others.
HubPages Inc, a part of Maven Inc.
|HubPages Device ID||This is used to identify particular browsers or devices when the access the service, and is used for security reasons.|
|Login||This is necessary to sign in to the HubPages Service.|
|HubPages Traffic Pixel||This 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.|
|Remarketing Pixels||We 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 Pixels||We 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.|