I am neither speculating nor accusing judges of anything.

The things I have asserted, like the fact that the FISA judge was aware of a political bias to the source of the Steele dossier, has been stated by people familiar with the matter, unless they are now lying. I have also made clear where questions are yet to be answered because we don't yet have all the facts.

Yes exactly: one of your choices was what I said, that the reason he was being investigated was because the FBI just wanted to get dirt on Trump. That implies an accusation of political bias in the FBI's surveillance of Page. Why can't you admit that, or do you want to retract what you wrote:

"Is he a real bad hombre who is a national security risk or was he someone through whom dirt could be dug up that would harm Trump's campaign at the last minute. "

whatever!!!! you relied to something that didn't have anything to do with you and now want to argue your case about what you do and don't want to talk about.

Just keep posting your dozens of drivel things a day. Leave me out of it.

We all get you are the resident legal expert here as well as the one with all the pieces of inside knowledge we don't have.

Hey Kay, Donald Trump thinks the sky is blue. Why don't you have at that for a while.....

Only if the answer to that part of the question is yes. Jeez. Asking a question, especially when offering another possible explanation in the very same question, isn't an implication that the question is true. Good gawd you are so bad at this. I don't need to retract anything because I didn't imply anything. The answer is either "bad hombre" in which case there's no political bias or it is "digging up dirt" in which case bias isn't an implication it's the fucking truth. But I don't know the answer to the question nor do I offer any assumptions about that. Perhaps you're confused because my questions are really questions and not statements veiled in the form of a question as yours are. Ciao.

None of us knows f*ck-all about what goes on at the FISC and the mechanism for how a FISA warrant to put an American under surveillance works.

We do know this; according to the Atlanta Journal-Constitution, as of 2013 -- and the court was established as a result of a 1978 law -- only 12 FISA warrants have been denied out of 34,000 requests. To me, that smells of rubber stamping, but we don't know, because the court isn't answerable to the general public nor to the vast majority of Freedom of Information Act requests, I suspect. And expecting that the government is going to police itself in this matter? Don't make me laugh.

Yet none of this seems to worry a significant portion of the people and news media organizations rushing to protect the FBI/DOJ from the predations of this idiot memo. I wonder why that is?

---

"Politics is just show business for ugly people."

The fact that you think it *could* be "just digging for political dirt" is what I was highlighting. If you believe it *could* be that, then you believe the FBI *could* have extreme political bias in their investigation of Carter Page, and yet there is ample evidence they don't. It is just this kind of innuendo against our security services, based on pure speculation and ignoring other information that is so dangerous.

Or maybe it's because FISA requests are never made frivolously.

So now I'm getting criticized for having more knowledge.

If you want more knowledge, do more research, but don't criticize me for having done so. Or do, if you want I guess...

I'm not sure why you (apparently) believe the Dems when they say the court was told when the Repubs say they weren't.

Partly because Trump has a pretty good record of lying but mainly because if you take the Repubs version, it cast doubt on the entire FISA court, the 3 times the warrant was extended and a long list of people who failed on their job. It makes far more sense that they were aware of the political involvement.

Among other things I've expressed curiosity about, I'm more and more curious why Dems (ov TV and on this board) don't want to talk about the dossier.

I think the whole smokescreen by the Republicans and the Nunes memo is to purposefully distract from the dossier because it doesn't paint a good picture of Trump. The dossier is composed of 17 intelligence reports and the Trump team is desparately trying to discredit the intelligence agencies so that tells me, they are the ones with something to hide.

For me the bottom line is that the memo has nothing to do with the Mueller investigation and in that sense, a big failure by Nunes and the Republicans because they were talking about how the release would be so devastating. I think it is damaging but more to Nunes and the GOP who seem to be circling the wagons to protect Trump from something.

Look. You're kind of turning into a jackass here.

1.) I never claimed anything was a "giant conspiracy". I just said we don't have the information to judge anything. So, you made that up.
2.) I also never claimed only one side could lie by omission. So that's another.
3.) You misled people about the nature of Nunes not having read the FISA warrants. Three.
4.) Your pedantic "haven't you read anything" post about some nonexistent 2013 warrant also sticks out. If you're going to be unbearable, at least get it right.

There's a whole lot of this story yet to come out. None of us know all the facts yet.
So why don't you take it down a notch or two?

You're right. I apologize. Let's see what happens.

I can only hope that you continue to bless many of us here with your continued expression of your vast "knowledge" based on your "research". That combined with your apparent utter lack of self awareness makes you one of the most entertaining new comers in this room in quite awhile.

Criticism???? cupcake, please.....

I couldn't agree more. I haven no idea how this comes out. I hope "the right way". Personally, I don't think an investigation should be stopped based on what I have seen.

Unfortunately, this whole thing is in part a product of the political environment of the last several admins and the result of this country as a whole putting up the shit show that is/was the 2 candidates we did for Pres.

Rep Eric swalwell specifically stated that fisa court was told of political bias...don't recall his exact wording. But if a judge hears political bias in midst of campaign and doesn't explore that in detail. That seems screwy. Guess you could be a fisa judge.

how do I refute solid info like that?

I know, it's just so damn hard to get information these days.

But here you go: http://lmgtfy.com/?q=eric+swalwell+fisa

So reading the memo it is pretty obvious Trump is nervous:

First, they are defending Carter freaking Page. They are not attacking the FISA warrant against Manfort, Trump's former campaign chairman. They are not attacking the unmasking of Flynn. So obviously both of those were super solid, if not those would be much better cases to throw doubt upon. Page on the other hand has a documented history of contact with Russian spies and a willingness to work with them. So is he really more important than we think, so deserving this defense? Or is he unimportant and this is the best case Nunes had? Because either answer is really bad.

Second, the FBI had started the investigation into Trump and Russia prior to getting the Steele info. So this means they had multiple or at least one very good and detailed source prior to Steele. They do not just start investigations like this based on some random tip, they had some good info prior to Steele. So there goes the talking point that the DNC created this investigation.

Third, the Steele information has at least partly been corroborated. The memo never details the extent of the corroboration, only at one point it was minimally corroborated. It does not state that was the end and they could not corroborate any further. If Nunes (or his staff that wrote this) knew that was all that could be corroborated, they would have stated that. Something like, after November nothing else in the Steele dossier could be corroborated. So either they don't know if the FBI corroborated more or they do and they left it out of the memo. They probably have some idea if the FBI found out more, since you can bet your ass someone has asked during a closed session with DOJ or the FBI in the past year. Can you imagine them not asking that question? If the answer was good for the memo, they would have included it. Since it is not included, I am thinking it is bad.

Fourth, the memo cleverly says that McCabe testified that the warrant would not have been sought without Steele. The memo does not say the memo would not have been granted without Steele. Those are two separate things and very different. If McCabe said the warrant would not have been granted without Steele, that would be in the memo. Since it is not, either it would have been granted or they did not ask that question. So either they are stupid or the warrant would have been granted without Steele. Neither one is great for Nunes.

Fifth, there were multiple other sources than Steele used to get the warrant. This is obvious, if it was the only source, the memo would say so.

Sixth, the DNC being behind the Steele Dossier became public knowledge prior to the later renewals of the FISA warrant. So the judge knew that the DNC was behind it and still granted the warrant. So even if the judge knew about possible bias with Steele, the underlining info was still strong enough to grant the warrant. Plus judges always assume that informants have bias. How often do you think people come to the police with info and have no background with the person they are reporting?

Seventh, this memo was written from the start with the white house. When Nunes was asked during the committee meeting if he worked with the White House to write the memo, he responded "No." When he was asked if someone on his staff worked with the White House, he ignored the question. Also, the two Republicans that read the underlining report are Gowdy and Nune's staffer. Gowdy had downplayed the memo. So this is all based on Nune's staffer and probably input from the White House. Once again Nune's is undermining the oversight function of his committee, to cover for the White House.

Eight, obviously nothing was really being abused. If there was actual abuse of the system Nune's could scream for an investigation by the justice department. If he did not trust the justice department, he could call for an inspector general from some other place like the DNI to investigate. If he did not want that, he could start an investigation by the committee. The committee could start subpoenaing documents and witnesses. Then deliver a report to the doj or somewhere with damning evidence. Baring that, he could have released a bi-partisan statement about the abuse. Baring that, he could have released his own statement and a minority statement, which is a normal process when the two sides don't agree on the analysis. Since we got this stupid memo, instead of all those other options, he has nothing.

Ninth, how have people not learned already from Nune's behavior that he is simply going to bat for Trump. This is not his first stunt. Why do people keep falling for it? How does anyone trust him? I like how they complain of Steele's bias, but for some reason Nunes being on Trump's transition team is ok.

Tenth, seriously Carter Page? I mean this was the first point, but still it is crazy. I mean this was the strongest case they had? It is so rickity and based on cherry picking qoutes and leaving out information they committee probably has.

So if the GOP is so sure that FISA warrants are being abused so badly why did they just vote overwhelmingly to renew it with no major changes? Are these warrants only unreliable when it is Republicans being surveiled?

Their lamentations are pretty hollow.

---

I'm beginning to think that we are much more fucked than I thought.

You're right. Read 3 previous posts. Eb, chap, and jpo......for more insight.

And this from a person who was supposed to have recused himself from the process due to apparent misconduct with classified information. I guess he's repealed his recusal.

One has to wonder why Trump wants to end an investigation that can prove the innocence he claims.

Quiz:

Who said this?

"Representative Devin Nunes, a man of tremendous courage and grit, may someday be recognized as a Great American Hero for what he has exposed and what he has had to endure!" (2/5/2018)

who cares

The real question is whether a Trump will approve the release of the Dem memo.

---

===============
Proud member of the MSF (Maple Syrup Mafia)