Suffice to say, Ron Swanson would not be impressed.

Tell me somewhere, at least one Republican is embarrassed by this.

---

"Are you sure we're going fast enough?" - Emil Zatopek

Even Roger Goodell can do better than that.

Really? That’s what all the fuss is about?

---

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

No shit. I was kind of expecting something we didn't already know.

Now, I'm really curious as to what the Dem's rebuttal memo has to say.

---

--------------------------
The secret of a long life is you try not to shorten it.
-Nobody

Reports now indicate that the Democratic members of the committee are claiming that one or more persons cited in the report had their comments taken out of context and that the synopsis of their testimony does not comport with the actual testimony given. They're apparently calling for release of the transcript.

Also interesting is that, apparently, they typically release these reports in the fashion of a SCOTUS ruling, with dissenting opinions included at the conclusion of the memo. That wasn't the case with this report.

Why not?

---

The devil made me do it the first time, second time I done it on my own - W

Yea really.. There's nothing in it. hats what the big fight was over??? LMAO!! What a fucking shit show.

Fucking congress is so far down the partisan hole, if the 'pubs said the dems were great people and you could trust your kids with them, the dems would immediately say they were not and they could not be trust with your kids.

---

--------------------------
The secret of a long life is you try not to shorten it.
-Nobody

I guess a silver lining about all this is we get to learn more about how our government works.

Like, for example, that all of the current FISA judges were appointed as such by that well known libtard deep stater Chief Justice John Roberts? Oh man, this must go really deep!

There is a saying that goes around law schools. I may not get it perfectly, but it goes something like this:

"When you have the truth, pound the truth. When you have the law, pound the law. When you have neither, pound the table."

To me, this seems like an obvious attempt to pound the table by the House GOP and our President. If the Special Council investigation was really just a "nothing burger" then I highly doubt that Nunes would have ever done something so drastically dumb. With criminal convictions already made and with the focus on the investigation focusing more and more on obstruction (and oh my goodness just wait for money laundering charges), this seems like a hail mary to try and garner enough political support to fire Rosenstein and to put someone in his place that would place some serious restrains on the special council. The memo release is an admission that there really is something to the Russian meddling and potential conspiracy with a subsequent obstruction of justice by our current White House (and maybe some in the GOP congress).

Also, Carter Page had FISA warrants on him dating back to 2013. A judge has to approve a FISA warrant and any renewal. The Steele Dossier wasn't even around when our intelligence agencies grew increasingly concerned about this guy. But even so, Trump and his team have said that Carter Page is not a big player in their campaign, so why so afraid?

My hope is that high-quality investigative journalism digs in deeper and that transcripts are released to help mitigate any enthusiasm for this memo - all while the special council continues to focus on the truth of what really happened.

Here's the problem I have with the memo. Who is telling the truth? I suspect neither side at this point. If the memo is true, it is kind of troubling. However, there is nothing behind what the memo is alleging. There's no source. Nothing to make it believable.

Yup. In my line of work when someone says a wrong has been committed, they file a motion. They spin their chosen facts, apply their chosen law while ignoring contrary law.

Then the other side does the same thing.

Then an objective third party weighs the evidence against the law and says yes or no.

What we have here is the first act above only.

I'd no sooner believe a Nunes (ok, staff) written memo than I'd believe a Pelosi written memo

And Im saying this as Trump supporter!! LOL!!

Well, I commend you for having a reasonable approach. Have to say I have never heard a Trump supporter do anything but support.

Wouldn't the fact that 3 Russians had turned Mr. Page - calling him Male 1 or even "useful idiot" - 2 of whom fed to Russia and 1 of whom is in jail, be a relevant factor for Mr. Nunes' staff to have considered as justification for the oft renewed warrant?

-
yes on all that, the problem is that we may not see the dem memo (they will probably see no reason after the reception this partisan piece gets), and will not see anything in the way of the FBI being transparent. That last bit is the real problem; with the FBI known for over-classifying documents, FISA courts being used what appears to be excessively (bypassing the normal warrant process) and no real congressional oversight, no way to get at the truth, they have utter control of everyone in every way. The IG is our only hope for some sunlight. Speaking of which, the left is usually all for spilling govt secrets, and libertarians are usually very much for sunlight to ensure govt is operating uprightly. All these folks seem really quiet, and that's the real danger of having a guy so widely hated as POTUS.

I thought I read the FBI had issued a FISA warrant on Page before he was even involved with the Trump campaign.

This.

And it's hilarious to me reading liberals here saying this is nothing and conservatives on another site I visit saying this is proof of conspiracy.

My personal opinion, FWIW, is this is about what I expected -- a partisan attack being partisan defended and I know not a lot more than I did yesterday. I do wonder why the Dems fought so hard to keep this from coming out. That, to me, looks worse than anything in the memo.

No doubt Dems got played a little bit here, pubs had nearly a week to puff of their chest, claim corruption corruption corruption at that FBI and DOJ before they even offered "proof". On the other hand, the memo was then released and basically didn't show any corruption. Seriously, it shows none. Page hasn't even been charged with anything. In a weird way, pubs would have been better off if the memo wasn't actually released as they could continue to sell this false narrative.

All that being said, Nunes managed to open a new precedent whereby the minority members and opinions of a committee are excluded in totality. All the power is effectively rolled up to the committee chair and fuck everyone else. Ryan refused to check such power and now this will be the new norm. Also, agents may now be less willing to seek FISA warrants, thereby slowing intelligence gathering and poking gaping holes in major line of defense. I don't think that benefits America.

Claiming partisan politics here implies that the truth is equally in between both parties. I think its pretty damn clear there is a party that is more right and a party that is more wrong in this mess.

So, taking this memo purely at face value, is nobody the least bit concerned that a US citizen was spied on by US intelligence based completely on evidence paid for political opponents?

Again, I'm just reading what's in the memo, and FBI Director Wray has gone on record as saying what's in it has been cherry picked and taken out of context, but assuming there is at least some legitimacy to this, I am a bit bothered by the notion that one could use information gathered for political purposes to spy on a US citizen inside the United States.

George

---

___________________________________________________
Taco cat spelled backwards is....taco cat.

You're a little more comfortable with this whole dossier thing and how it was used than I am if that's how you feel.

Are you taking it at face value, given all that we know, all that we don't, and the undeniable motive of POTUS to discredit and derail the Mueller investigation through this vehicle?

I'm certainly not, and with good reason. I'll save my outrage for when the truth is discernable.

---

The devil made me do it the first time, second time I done it on my own - W

Well, that's why I'm not claiming outrage at the moment, just some concern. Like I said, if there is any truth to this (which perhaps there is not), regardless of the motive of the POTUS at the moment, if the rules of the FISA court were abused for political advantage, that ought to concern us all.

---

___________________________________________________
Taco cat spelled backwards is....taco cat.

I have not read the dossier at all. No idea what is in it. If what they did was take information in there at face value without corroboration, yeah, that is a problem. But if what they did was use information that they had good reason to believe is true, then they don't need to really worry all that much how the person who developed it went about the gathering. And I have no idea which way this goes, so it could be really bad, or it could be nothing to worry about, or somewhere in between.

I can find evidence of wrongdoing and pass it along to the cops. It could be evidence that the cops couldn't have otherwise seen without a warrant. That doesn't mean the cops shouldn't use it.

---

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

I agree with your sentiment. Can you imagine if this was related to HRC and the tables were turned? Holy shit...

If FISA was a abused, that needs sorting out. Doesn't mean Page, et al aren't neck deep in a mess.

The IG report is what I believe will be insightful, factual, and interesting.

Yeah, me neither. I pretty much agree with your analysis, which is why I’m heavily caveating my statements.

---

___________________________________________________
Taco cat spelled backwards is....taco cat.

I knew there was no substance. Since when has Trump ever kept his mouth shut? He would have been on a non-stop twitter tirade if there was anything at all. There is one thing we can always count on, Trump boasting.

My initial $.02

It all depends on your prior biases. If you think that Trump and the Pubs are evil then this is just some subterfuge to throw everyone off their obvious treasonous guilt. If you believe the Dems would stop at nothing to get rid of Trump then it would be patently obvious that this is exactly the kind of thing we could expect.

Conversely, if you trust either of those groups then what's it to you, really, if they're out there doing the best they can? I mean, they meant well, right?

Well, when the right wing went off we got the KKK, when the left when crazy we got the weekend.

"Furthermore, [FBI] Deputy Director [Andrew] McCabe testified before the committee in December 2017 that no surveillance warrant would have been sought from the FISC without the Steele dossier information."

Oh, yeah, nothing to see here. Move along.

I'm not sure what you're saying here.

If party A pays for information which suggests that someone in Party B is working for a foreign Govt, against the interests of the USA, would not a reasonable person want the allegation of working for a foreign govt investigated, rather than focus on the fact that the information was paid for in the first place?

The fact that the information was paid for may we’ll go to the weight that it should be given. But if it is corroborated or supported in some other way - and the Nunes memo seems to skirt around that point and instead suggest that the Steele dossier was the only thing relied upon, then the fact of payment for the initial information becomes less and less important.

In the end, one has to look at the substance of the allegation and take a view on whether or not there is some truth (or risk of truth) in it, regardless of how it came to be relied on or who supplied. Trying to direct 100% of the focus on the source of the information or payment for it is basically “look! There’s a squirrel!” tactics.

Oh, so we’re saying something now?

Party A probably shouldn't work with a foreign government to get information on Party B working with a foreign government.

If someone is secretly working for a foreign government, where exactly do you think that information is going to come from?

---

Slowguy

(insert pithy phrase here...)

Maybe US intelligence/counterintelligence agencies?

But you are right, I am sure the Russians were going to be totally forthcoming about secretly working Trump.

Yeah, I said something. Evidently it triggered you. I'm sorry.

You think Russian counter intelligence set Trump up?

Oh.

Where the intelligence came from is much less concerning to me than whether the intelligence is legitimate enough to be concerned. Furthermore, the memo does not is indicate that the FISA warrant is based completely on evidence paid for by political opponents. I thought it was widely reported that Page was on the FBI radar as early as 2013.

BTW - Where are all these FISA hawks defending muslim/American rights?

Again, I don’t necessarily disagree, and I will further add that I don’t know specifically what the rules of the FISA court are. But there are plenty of laws in the US that govern whether or not information can be used against somebody based on how that information was gathered. If the FISA court decided to spy on a US citizen based on information that should not have been used in the first place, that is a problem, regardless of whether or not that information was 100% accurate.

---

___________________________________________________
Taco cat spelled backwards is....taco cat.

So you don’t care if information was illegally gathered, as long as it is accurate? That sort of thing would go against a LOT of judicial rulings in this country.

---

___________________________________________________
Taco cat spelled backwards is....taco cat.

US Intelligence agencies aren't allowed to collect intelligence on US citizens, absent a bunch of restrictions. The initial info is still most likely to come from a foreign entity, or through collection on a foreign entity.

---

Slowguy

(insert pithy phrase here...)

Sure it does. This is the federal equivalent of the John Doe investigations in Wisconsin against supporters and staffers of Gov Scott Walker. It turns out the reason DA John Chisholm initiated the investigations was because his wife, a president of a teachers union, burst into tear when Walker won the Gov office. The WI Supreme Court ultimately found it to be gross abuses of process. This too was based on personal political agendas.

---

If there are no dogs in Heaven, then when I die I want to go where they went. - Will Rogers

Emery's Third Coast Triathlon | Tri Wisconsin Triathlon Team | Push Endurance | GLWR

"completely'

False

Apparently he is saying he is unaware the KKK was set up by Democrats who were angry about Republicans freeing their slaves.

I assume you meant "the Dems, the FBI, the FISC judges, and the DoJ", right?

---

----------------------------------
"Go yell at an M&M"

An advocate for "stop and frisk" I assume you are?

You "thought" Page was on the FBI radar as early as 2013 because that's the new talking point to defend this abortion of civil rights. WTF does "on the radar" mean anyway. You should look into that claim before quoting it.

You know who's on my radar? Jennifer Anniston. Sounds pretty dumb, doesn't it.

Shhhh. You don’t want to point out anything that’s against his narrative. He’ll call you a racist.

---

----------------------------------------------------------------

My training

Here's what I think of all this. And who's got the popcorn? ;-)

---

"Politics is just show business for ugly people."

Radar = Page’s name came up as recruitment target in a wire tapped conversation by the FBI between Russian spies in 2013. He was interviewed at that point in time by the FBI. Page subsequently has taken numerous business trips to and from Moscow as recently as 2016. In the middle of all of this he managed to insert himself (or be inserted) into the Trump campaign.

That’s what the fuck that means.

And with all of this surveillance he has been charged with or indicted for what? I must've missed that.

A) Do you expect 100% hit rate on people being investigated?

B) He isn’t out of the woods.

This is honestly nonsensical, these rebuttals. Seriously if his name was Muhammed and the country in question was Iran, you fuckers would be asking why he isnt in Guantanamo. I cannot fucking imagine the shitshow this country would be in if Muhammed then also worked on Hillary’s campaign.

I honestly expect nothing of this board, but holy motherfuck is it off the deep end these days.

What information was gathered illegally? Or are you speaking hypothetically?

You must also understand the FBI can't respond, because other information they may have used for the FISA warrant is classified, so they can't come out and tell the public what else may have been included in the FISA filing.

Flipping back and forth between Fox News and MSNBC tonight is like an episode of the Twilight Zone.

What's your point? That If he hasn't yet been charged then it's all a giant conspiracy?!

Page was being investigated well before the Steele dossier. McCabe testified that it was not the sole source of evidence for the FISA application (which, ironically, the GOP memo supports) and the courts WERE made aware there were political connections to the Steele dossier (originally Republican and then Democratic funded). So it is not true that the court was unaware of the political connections, and again, the Steele dossier was by no means the sole source of intelligence that was being used in the FISA applications. And it may very well be that there was information in the Steele dossier that HAD been corroborated. We don't know and likely never will because it's classified information. The FISA applications (there were 4) each time had to show the surveillance was yielding results, so the FBI must have gathered new information in its investigation that was sufficient for the subsequent applications to be granted.

John McCain said it best:

“The latest attacks against the FBI and Department of Justice serve no American interests ― no party’s, no President’s, only Putin’s. The American people deserve to know all the facts surrounding Russia’s ongoing efforts to subvert our democracy, which is why Special Counsel Mueller’s investigation must proceed unimpeded. Our nation’s elected officials, including the president, must stop looking at this investigation through the lens of politics and manufacturing political sideshows. If we continue to undermine our own rule of law, we are doing Putin’s job for him.”

No kidding. It's really, really depressing, knowing that most people will get their information on this issue entirely from one source or the other, and they're operating in entirely separate universes right now, and both seem convinced the opposition party has just committed or enabled the worst crime in the history of American politics.

Hannity was blathering on about how this is sufficient to dismiss Mueller and have all charges dropped against Manafort and Flynn. I mean, holy shit.

I've watched most of the coverage on CNN, and it's no secret where their hosts stand on the issue, but at least they're bringing on panel guests with expertise on the subject and are making sound logical and technical arguments.

---

The devil made me do it the first time, second time I done it on my own - W

Word. ;-)

---

"Politics is just show business for ugly people."

Sure. I guess I could have wrote down all Pubs (and their associated institutions) that are treasonous as well. It seems like we're making a pretty good list in some of the other threads.

The shame in all of this is that everyday americans believe MSNBC is the leftist equivalent of Fox News.

When all is said and done there will be a clear right and wrong side. I will bet dollars to donuts that the MSNBC will have been closer to the truth of the matter tha Fox News by an extremely wide margin.

My point is that the rule of law was not followed in this case. Period. We have processes set up in the US so those we trust with power can not operate unencumbered and trample civil rights. Dem, repub, we have civil rights.

In this country, we cannot go fishing at the expense of trampling civil rights and then say it's OK if we find something. Like I said above, think stop-and-frisk.

I don't care if they find out this guy is Putin. If they wanted to spy on him, they should have followed the rules.

As you aptly point out, like McCain said, "If we continue to undermine our own rule of law, we are doing Putin’s job for him."

1. I expect 100% following the rules if we are to spy on people.
2. I don't care if he's not out of the woods. I am not going to justify or defend this based on what is found or not. Spying on Americans without proper cause is wrong. Period.
3. Muslims should also not be spied on without proper cause and documentation.

Anything else?

Please can you clarify exactly who broke what law by doing what, because you seem certain someone broke a law?

Please expand on "without proper cause."

Have you read the FISA warrants? Apparently not even Nunes has read them, with is frankly incredible.

So what. None of that would have been sufficient for a FISA warrant.

The FBI has already testified to congress that the FISA warrant would not have been requested if not for the Steele Dossier. So, but for the dossier that Hillary paid for, there is no basis to request spying. Had the FBI informed the court that the dossier was the product of political opposition research AND that the FBI had not verified any information in the dossier, the court would never have granted the FISA warrant.

So the FBI dupes a court -- there will be sanctions coming on that -- to spy on someone who is campaigning for President. The Watergate burglary is a petty crime in comparison.

With Watergate the republicans eventually turned on Nixon. The democrats will turn on Obama and the FBI on this too. Soon. Many people will soon be embarrassed by their blind faith in the Obama administration.

---

________
It doesn't really matter what Phil is saying, the music of his voice is the appropriate soundtrack for a bicycle race. HTupolev

MSNBC offers more opinion than any other "news" network on the air
https://www.forbes.com/...by-far/#7c6da3855f8c

Absolutely, 100% true. Bet on it.

"Opinion" does not equal bias and misinformation. It can mean that (Fox News), but doesn't have to mean that.

Where this is concerned I think there are 3 kinds of people: those who think Fox News is evil, those who think CNN/MSNBC is evil, and those who see them both for what they are. And what they each are is an avenue through which advertising is sold. Neither of them provide a completely unbiased look at things because both sides have figured out that outrage sells so they present material in a way that outrages their desired audiences. When someone defends one network over the other, to me, they are just showing their own bias and inability to see what they are watching. If you think the "opinion" on MSNBC isn't biased and trying to present one side as more right than another then it's not my responsibility (or ability) to change that view. But it does show me your bias. Remember when Rachel Maddow had Trump's tax returns? That was hilarious. FTR, I watch em all, don't like any of them. My fav FN guys are Neil Cavuto and Stuart Varney and my fav MSNBC personalities are Rachel Maddow and Lawrence O'Donnell.

Hahahahahaha! MSNBC and Fox are two sides of the same coin. All I know is I feel stupider after watching either one of them.

In fact, all three of the major cable news nets are on par with Alex Jones and InfoWars these days. Actually, Jones probably has better production values. ;-)

---

"Politics is just show business for ugly people."

QFT:

---

________
It doesn't really matter what Phil is saying, the music of his voice is the appropriate soundtrack for a bicycle race. HTupolev

Rachel was def out over the tips of her skis on the tax return nonsense, but doesnt even begin to compare to Hannity pushing the Seth Rich conspiracy theory.

I'm not defending Fox News and especially not Hannity, you on the other hand......................

BK, do you realise that this is what Trump and Bannon have been trying to persuade people to believe for the last two years?

Because once you undermine the public’s faith in mainstream journalism, you open the door to being able to do just what the fuck you want without fearing the media. Which basically mean you can do just what the fuck you want. And you elevate shits like Alex Jones to some form of pseudo-respectability into the bargain.

It is a genuine disaster.

I check smerconish on saturday...

I defend the truth and I think its clear to most with a brain that what MSNBC presents night in and night out is closer to the truth. This will become known, with 1 big caveat. Republicans I fear will choose to shut this investigation down. Ask yourself why so many Republicans are suddenly retiring from congress.

Good stuff from him right here:
https://www.cnn.com/...o-vs-actual-memo.cnn

If you don't favor MSNBC you don't have a brain. Beauty.

I don't know why a few ("so many") Republicans are "suddenly" retiring from Congress. And neither do you. Truth? It's pretty clear to me you're not interested in that or you wouldn't be so free with true Scotsman arguments and innuendo.

One more thing, I can't wait to read the Dem memo. I think it will really define the partisan nature of this whole thing -- 2 totally different views of the same issue, neither being as honest as they are partisan.

Agree, almost whole show (except eagle part....not so much). Seriously disagree that many lawyers think prez cannot be indicted....rather u have to go congressional route. With hyper partisan stuff in congress justice(?) not likely served by them. Wish Buckley still around.

Listen dude. 4 people have already been charged in Mueller’s investigation. That’s a fact. Mueller is a decorated Marine that was a Republican appointee as FBI director. For your own sake and the sake of your family name, I truly hope you wake the fuck up.

One more thing, I can't wait to read the Dem memo. I think it will really define the partisan nature of this whole thing -- 2 totally different views of the same issue, neither being as honest as they are partisan.

You can have a point of view but there are facts in the memo and facts that were purposefully deleted. Once we see the entire thing, it will become clear the Republicans were picking and choosing things to discredit the FBI, ammunition the can use later against Mueller.

It's very disturbing that people don't see this for what it is, an attempted smear campaign and the memo that was released, showing the investigation was going on 3 months before this attempted smokescreen just proves it. The memo really backfired and Nunes is left looking really bad.

I find both Maddow and Hannity unwatchable. I genuinely dislike them as people.

I don't trust mainstream journalism, especially not of the MSNBC/FOX/CNN variety. I don't trust opinion journalism, which suffuses those three news nets, oftentimes making it almost impossible to distinguish between "hard news" and "opinion news." I trust my own senses and my ability to learn things, and that's it. I've been in the middle of it and seen it with my own eyes (and even participated in it from time to time). Almost all journalists are biased or partisan in one direction or another.

What I've seen these last few weeks, in this furor over the release of this memo, is a mainstream press doing its best to cover for government in a way it NEVER would have in the Pentagon Papers/Watergate days -- giving the lie to its proclamations about the need for transparency in government. That should worry all of you. Because it appears the fourth estate, in large part, has been co-opted by forces on both sides of the political divide and is doing their work, not its own (and certainly not ours).

What I also want to know is why Democrats and the news media -- in their screaming about the memo exposing "sources and methods" and jeopardizing national security, neither of which that document even came close to doing -- lied so baldfacedly about the contents of the memo, and why the FBI and DOJ fought so vigorously to prevent the thing even seeing the light of day? I mean, given what everyone here is saying about the innocuousness of the contents anyway.

It seems to me we need to make sure government bends to our will, not that government bends us to its will, which is what it appears -- on the face of things -- that the FBI, the DOJ and most other aspects of government are continually attempting, and all the while aided by a significant portion of the media that seems to be cheerleading government in its efforts to do so.

---

"Politics is just show business for ugly people."

Fair point. In doing some research, I cam across this interesting document. Take a look and let me know what you think.

http://constitutionus.com/

I can't seem to find what these four people were charged with? I'm wondering if they were charged with the things they were being investigated for or other things that were uncovered during the investigation? I'll Google it. Let me know if you beat me to it.

Colluding with the Russians of course. That is what Mueller has proved -- that Trump and his minions conspired with the Russians to rig the election.

Or has everyone in the FBI, including Comey, testified that there is no evidence of Trump colluding with the Russians?

---

________
It doesn't really matter what Phil is saying, the music of his voice is the appropriate soundtrack for a bicycle race. HTupolev

You're surprised that a Congressman signed off on something he's never read? That's standard operating procedure on the hill.

---

The devil made me do it the first time, second time I done it on my own - W

Cute. How about givibg some details on the point you're trying to make.

Again, how do you know the FBI did not have propper cause? What details were in the FISA warrant? Was the FISA warrant restricted to information in the Steele dossier, or Was there other information about Page that concerned authorities? Was relying on information in the Steele dossier unconstitutional? The judges were told it was information gained through political sources.

I'm wondering if they were charged with the things they were being investigated for or other things that were uncovered during the investigation?

Well, that's okay and proves they did nothing wrong...

Everyone move along now, nothing more to see here.

Since everyone's looking for the partisan angles, it's probably worth remembering that the FISA court is one of the most conservative in the country. 12 of the 14 judges that have served on it this year are Republicans.

They are only Republicans if they defend the President at all costs.

If not, then they are traitors, have Trump Derangement Syndrome and/or umm...why don't they investigate HILLARY !!!!

You must be new around here.

Here is the opinion of a former homicide prosecutor who now works as a civil rights counselor. Take a look and let me know what you think.

https://www.cnn.com/...n-opinion/index.html

-
I don't know if that matters, as the rub here, at least in the Nunes memo, is with what is being offered to the court for consideration, not bias among the judges. There's probably no bias anyway, as their answer is virtually always yes.

I believe it was JSA who explained why that high approval rate is misleading, largely because of the rigorous process involved in bringing the final proposal to the judge.

---

The devil made me do it the first time, second time I done it on my own - W

Are you aware the committee had an agreement with DOJ to have only one member of the committee read the warrants? The Nunes memo relies on that person's summary of the documents, along with other testimony.

Well, in that case, I'm filled with warm and fuzzies.

So the memo is the result of a broken telephone game.

This discussion is basically over. The memo has no redeeming value.

---

How does Danny Hart sit down with balls that big?

Here's the bottom line from Flyover Country, USA. Most of us don't trust any of those pr*cks in D.C. ;-)

---

"Politics is just show business for ugly people."

Which makes sense, for practical reasons. You rely on the person in your committee who is most capable of understanding the material as it's presented, and in context. That's sort of how committees work--appropriate delegation of responsibilities. It's a silly line of attack, criticizing Nunes for not reading all the source material personally.

That, of course, suggests that the committee chair seems to believe that anyone with a D after their name is incapable of contributing to that committee, given how they broke precedent and excluded their dissenting views entirely.

---

The devil made me do it the first time, second time I done it on my own - W

Right, so it will be interesting to see what the Dem side says in their memo about the dossier - who paid for it, what was the reason it was compiled, how was it presented to the FISA court. My guess is their story will be quite a bit different. But I don't see how you put a bow on something like that.

I also wanna know what someone like Page was doing working for the Trump campaign. That's the first question I would ask a Repub.

What's better to ask is how all this BS and stupidity was started as the result of some greedy money-seeking nobody like Carter Page, who appears to be the entire basis upon which a full-blown government investigation and numerous congressional hearings were based.

Again, he hasn't been charged with anything, as yet. And the folks charged with something are charged with process crimes, such as lying to the FBI during an interview, and that's about it. Paul Manafort's been charged with stuff that happened before he joined Donny Two Scoops' campaign.

If this is all that's going to result from this nonsense, then I call that money poorly spent. But the longer it can be dragged out to November 2018 (and November 2020, I suppose), the better it may be for the party currently out of power in DC, right?

---

"Politics is just show business for ugly people."

;-) ;-)

---

"Politics is just show business for ugly people."

You don't actually believe what you wrote above, do you? And if you do, then you need to do some more reading. I'll start you off with this quote by Trey Gowdy, who has read the FISA warrant...

"Pressing the point, CBS News White House and senior foreign affairs correspondent Margaret Brennan asked: "The memo has no impact on the Russia probe?"

"Not to me, it doesn't — and I was pretty integrally involved in the drafting of it," Gowdy, a former federal prosecutor, said. "There is a Russia investigation without a dossier. So to the extent the memo deals with the dossier and the FISA process, the dossier has nothing to do with the meeting at Trump Tower. The dossier has nothing to do with an email sent by Cambridge Analytica. The dossier really has nothing to do with George Papadopoulos' meeting in Great Britain. It also doesn't have anything to do with obstruction of justice. So there's going to be a Russia probe, even without a dossier." "

He's basically saying Trump is wrong when Trump Tweeted yesterday that the memo "totally vindicates me." And that comment by Trump, as well as Trump Jr.'s comments that the memo is "sweet revenge" speak to the fact that Trump released the memo for PERSONAL reasons, NOT for the best interests of the American people.

So it goes in the parallel universes of politics. It could not be any more clear.

I wonder what Gowdy's plans are for the future. He's not getting a judgeship appointment from Trump after that statement, that much is certain.

---

The devil made me do it the first time, second time I done it on my own - W

I think the other pertinent question regarding Page is: why was he being surveiled? 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. And the truth, as it often does, may lie somewhere in between, a concept that does not fit neatly into R/D, right/wrong.

You do know the FBI got a FISA warrant to surveil Page back in 2013, long before he had anything to do with the Trump campaign? You should do more research into Carter Page's past.

Your question is a little backwards. It should be, why was someone with suspicious connections with the Kremlin hired in the first place by the Trump team. And why did everyone on Trump's team effectively disown Page when it came to light he was being investigated? A bit like Papadopulous...

Your habit of starting a post with a condescending question is annoying as hell.

Yes, I know he was surveiied in 2013. I also know that he was surveiled again right before the election. There are 2 possible explanations for that, both outlined by me right here. .As for asking why Page was involved with the Trump campaign, I asked that very fricking question about 2 posts up (edit: post #105 in this thread).

So I'm really not sure what the point of your post was. Frankly, I think you aren't very good at this internet thing.

Right, so it will be interesting to see what the Dem side says in their memo about the dossier - who paid for it, what was the reason it was compiled, how was it presented to the FISA court. My guess is their story will be quite a bit different. But I don't see how you put a bow on something like that.

The Republicans are saying the fact that the Dems paid to investigate Carter Page based on Christopher Steel's dossier taints the entire investigation into Russia. However, the memo itself says the FBI was investigating the Russian connection 3 months before the dossier came to light?

The memo contradicts what the Republicans are saying and shows there is no connection at all with the Russian investigation.

Now, the Dems are saying that the court was told that the Clinton campaign was helping to finance the dossier which shoots down their other argument.

Nunes shot himself in the foot and is just proof that this is a political attempt to discredit Mueller.

What a joke.

I think the "fruit of the poisonous tree" stuff is a lame argument.

I'm not sure why you (apparently) believe the Dems when they say the court was told when the Repubs say they weren't. Wouldn't a more prudent approach be to wait and see on that? And my take on that would be -- see, we can't trust anything these guys say because they clearly are incapable on telling the truth - the Dem version of the story favors them and the Repub version favors them. They're like children-- you touched me, no I didn't, yes you did!!!!

The memo didn't impress me, and I wasn't expecting to be impressed. It's about what I expected.

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. The existence of such activity, even if not illegal, is really nasty politics. I've no illusions that such things are one sided, but this Dem dossier is right in front of us and you and the Dems seem to want to just gloss right over it's existence.

Seriously, didnt I point this out a long time ago? What is becoming clear on this thread is how many people have not followed this investigation at all. They had no idea Page was identified by the FBI years ago. They don’t know that the FISA warrant was obtained after Page left the Trump campaign. They dont realize why Papadapolous matters. Think about the fact that nobody knew who Papadapolous was until he was charged. That fact alone should make us wonder what else Mueller knows that we do not and why his work should continue. I consistently overestimate the collective intelligence of Americans.

Well, Mueller himself does not get undermined, but they are trying to cut the legs the investigation is based on. My beef is still that it seems impossible for congress to exercise any oversight over the justice dept, and that is not as intended, and can be very dangerous. Remember it was not that long ago, mid 2017, that FISA activity was in the news, after it came out that Obama's DOJ fessed up just before Obama exited, in Oct 2016 that they had not been abiding by the rules, even after the FISC explicitly warned them in 2011. No repercussions, and interestingly the most concerned seemed to be dems, with Wyden and Udall penning this missive:
https://www.wyden.senate.gov/news/press-releases/wyden-and-udall-statement-on-the-declassification-of-fisa-court-opinions-on-bulk-collection-of-phone-data
-
As I posted before, it's telling that usually dems and libertarians are the ones attacking law enforcement agencies, with pubs defending. Some serious role reversal here.

Maybe judges not too bright either. Every judge should ask is there a bias in information presented? And explore nature of such. If fisa seekers hide or deny then, judge should say....you better be right or there will be consequences.

They ere surveillance papa too. And as previously mentioned, carter was involved with Russians spy's/agents couple of years before with 1 conviction and 2 fleeing back to Russia. And that's not red flag?

Do you have a reference for this claim? I've never read about a FISA warrant for Page in 2013.

so the burden was on the judge to determine if all bias was disclosed? Because someone who goes out of their way to not disclose bias will just admit to it because the judge asks it there is any???

And you're claiming the judge is not too bright???

I've also read a FISA warrant for Carter Page was denied in the Summer of 2016. That was evidently before the dossier was submitted as evidence, and could go toward supporting the thesis that the dossier was the critical piece of evidence for the Oct 2016 FISA warrant. Of course, the fact that there is so much mystery around these FISA warrants doesn't help people like us get to the bottom of this thing. It's sooooo easy to lie by admission when the real evidence is hidden from all but a few eyes.

yes, that's it... it's all a giant conspiracy by the secret elite and the (Republican appointed) FISA judges are complicit in the scheme...

By the way, Christopher Steele had a high degree of credibilty following his work on FIFA, so it is not unreasonable for the judges to rely on information he unearthed to contribute to their decision, regardless of who paid for that work.

And it's also so easy to lie by omission, which is effectively what the Nunes memo does.

you asked if the only reason Page was being investigated was because he was on Team Trump. That makes a strong accusation against the FBI. I explained that Page was being investigated well before he was on Team Trump, which counters what you said. Fairly straightforward really.

And If you knew he was surveilled as far back as 2013, then why even ask the question "was he being surveilled just to get dirt on Trump?"

By the way, I'm not sure what you mean by not very good at this internet thing? We're having a discussion through electronic communication. It's not very different than other forms of communication, unless you can enlighten me of some special thing going on in the interwebs.

you don't just walk in front of a FISA judge, flash a couple of pages in front of them and then get a FISA warrant. It is a very thorough process and in this case we don't know all the details of what the judge was told and what he subsequently asked. We have heard that he was told the dossier was sourced by political actors. Beyond that we don't know much more, though we do know it was not ONLY the dossier that was relied on. There is also some pretty alarming things in the dossier, some of which have been corroborated and perhaps more has been corroborated through intelligence information than we are aware of.

people who do walk in front of a FISA judge to get a FISA warrant have certain duties. One is to disclose any known biases. I agree with you that we don't know a lot of things (on both sides of this). Which is why unlike you I am staying out of most of the speculation at this point. I don't know what the biases were or whether they were disclosed or concealed by accident or on purpose.

That doesn't mean someone should be able to accuse/speculate that a judge is not being very bright because the burden to uncover biases was on him.

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)

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)

I'll guess Devin Nunes said it.

who cares

Thanks for coming on a thread about the GOP memo to tell us you don't care about the GOP memo.

he should

EDIT: and Congressman Ryan, who I love, who was talking about how we need to shine a light on and disinfect certain areas of govt should support and/or push for it

Is Nadler's "rebuttal" the Democrat memo?

https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/donald-trump/democratic-rebuttal-calls-nunes-memo-deliberately-misleading-n844426

-
Nunes was accused of leaking classified info, immediately recused himself until cleared, was cleared.
-
https://www.nytimes.com/...-of-trump-aides.html

Thanks for the clarification.

No.. I dont care who Kay was quoting.

Here's what I know: If the media were doctors they'd be inundated by malpractice suits.

1. Poorly sourced news stories abound.

2. They print rumor as fact.

3. They peddle so-called "news" as clickbait.

4. Reporting is just blatantly biased these days.

5. Fact checking is also nonexistent these days.

6. Editing is largely incompetent.

7. Jagoff reporters write obvious nonsense that's refuted in less than 24 hours.

8. It's all layered over with a thick slab of journalistic hubris and sophomoric smugness.

But they've all graduated from journalism school nowadays, which makes them believe they're automatically the smartest people in any room, for some unknown -- and undeserved, regardless -- reason.

And yet we have folks here arguing for their sagaciousness and veracity.

Now that's funny, I don't care who you are. ;-)

---

"Politics is just show business for ugly people."

while I don't disagree the same thing was true 1.5 years ago. It was just a different set of folks her doing the arguing.

Sounds like a description of nearly every thread you start. ;)

That is not the actual memo that would include the facts of misleading, that is what requires being released, since those facts are classified. We are still waiting for the Democrats equivalent memo.

Yep that is all true, that is why the washington post fell for project veritas's lies. Ohh, wait they did not, because they fact check, because they look into their sources, because they do not just print rumor.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/...m_term=.697b9e9e356e

While journalists are not perfect, the major media outlets do a generally good job of checking their sources. I trust them a lot more than I would trust Nunes.

You are posting on slowtwitch about your love for a man that lied about his marathon time by over a hour? I think that may be ban worthy.

Hahaha! Takes one to know one! ;-)

Eh, at least I-m honest about what I'm up to, amirite? LOL!

---

"Politics is just show business for ugly people."

Yeah but he's a good looking man when he lies (I'd insert the picture of him curling in muscle shirt here if I could find it). EDIT!!





Hasn't been my first ban worthy moment this week. Probably wont be the last.

I'm not making a comment about the Nunes memo, just journalist in response to your statements.

What do you think many journalists and editors prefer? A factual unbiased article that gets minimal clicks, or a biased article full of inaccuracies that gets a ton of clicks and comments?

Based on the click-bait subjects and articles that I see - I think they care more about the clicks. With the ability to gauge reader interest based on the number of clicks and comments, some are throwing integrity out the window in favor of clicks.

speaking of ban worthy........would you prefer this visual of someone who lies??

It sounds to me like that memo has already been written. The politically savvy thing would be to have so much confidential info that memo that Trump couldn’t responsibly release it.

Yea, I am not sure if it is better or worse for the democrats to get their memo released. I lean towards it being better for them to get it released, since it could address Nunes memo. But it would not be believed by the people that believed Nunes memo in the first place, because their is nothing to help those people. I also think releasing the democrat memo helps lessen the damage to our ability to have oversight of intelligence agencies, but can see an argument that it damages it further by simply continuing to politicize the oversight committee.

I personally want to see it release, because even the Nunes memo is revealing and gave good insight, but at a large cost.
We are reliant on Trump approving the release of information that could damage the Nunes memo, so it may not happen.

I would disagree the big bomb shell stories that are factually unbiased get plenty of clicks and also add credibility to the media outlet. Sure day to day stories may need a jazzy headline to get clicks and may affect the body of the article, but these big stories are going to get clicks while remaining unbiased (or at lease as unbiased as possible).

Damn he has small hands compared to his arse.

Fixed it for you.

Looks like Nunes and Gowdy are now admitting that the FISA court was told that the Steele information had possible political bias, just that it did not say it came from the DNC or Clinton. Why they think the judge needed to be told obvious information is beyond me, do they really think the judge thought the info came from the Green party? I think it is obvious they phrased it the way they did in the memo, Nunes wanted to mislead.


https://www.politico.com/...-page-warrant-390795

Nunes should be a laughing stock right now. It is a tragedy that he is not.

Par for the course to me, they didn't lie per se, but they didn't tell the truth. I'd be shocked if the Dem memo was much better in that regard.

I do disagree with you that a footnote saying there was "possible political bias" is the same as saying it was paid for by ________________, especially if the DNC, a Dem PAC, or Hillary's campaign is what goes in the blank. That's the same thing as what Nunes did -- not lying and not telling the truth.

In both cases what was done was done for partisan or otherwise selfish reasons and not in an attempt to be as transparent and honest as possible. The whole thing is a game to them and they have no respect for us because we keep re-electing the mother fuckers.

The criminal referral for dossier author Christopher Steele, who basically was paid by Fusion GPS, which was employed by cutout law firm Perkins-Coie -- which was working on behalf of the Clinton folks to find dirt on Donny Two Scoops. I'm betting that was very, very difficult.

The referral itself is heavily redacted, so fair warning.

Steele is being referred to the prosecutorial arms of the government for a possible violation of 18 USC 1001. A violation of this section of the US Code makes it criminal to lie or to mislead or conceal by trickery any material fact to a federal tribunal or inquiry. The document is so heavily redacted that I can't figure out just exactly what it is Steele's being accused of misleading the FBI about. It appears to be either:

1. The timing of when he told the FBI he gave briefings to the media. In other words, Steele claimed these briefings occurred at the end of October 2016 but in fact he has now admitted some occurred in the summer/early fall of 2016.

OR (and)

2. That Steele remained in close contact with a Clinton associate (whose name is redacted) and possibly someone else closely related to the Clinton organization (his name is also redacted), both of whom appear to have been feeding Steele "intelligence," which he may have passed off as his own product and the result of his effort alone.

Those redacted names most likely belong to non-intelligence officers/longtime Hillary Clinton "fixers" and smear merchants Sidney Blumenthal and Cody Shearer, the latter being, probably, the genesis of the second dossier that Steele wrote, which is also noted in the criminal referral.

Shearer himself isn't a counterintel bubba or anything remotely close to being so. He's just a dirt seller, like his pal Blumenthal. And they both appear to have avidly fed a smorgasbord of rumors to Steele who, himself eager to take out Two Scoops, lapped it up like a hungry British bulldog. ;-)

---

"Politics is just show business for ugly people."

Why is this "referral" relevant at all? The relevant info here is the FISA warrant application. Which, as I think we will see, was above board.

The completely separate and partisan attempt to smear Steele will be judged on its own merits. But we know this: 1. the Steele dossier was never the only source for the initial FISA warrant and there's every reason to believe the parts of it that were relevant were corroborated independently. 2. The Steele dossier could not have been the basis for the 3 FISA renewals because the law demands ongoing, new, evidence of probable cause. So the sad attempts to draw Rosenstein into this are just that.... sad!

---

_______________________________________________

I think that's a pretty silly question. The "referral" pertains to one (or two) of the most discussed and politically relevant investigations of all time. Your post shows that you really don't want new information on the topic and have already reached your conclusion. As does your usage of:

"as I think we will see" (aka I emotionally want to believe)
"there's every reason" (politician speak for I have no evidence)
"the law demands" (lol...cause the feds never break their own laws)

Please, let the adults discuss new information when it comes to light. If you simply want affirmation news, as indicated by your post, please tune your television sets to CNN.

I find it interesting because it shows just how dirty the dossier was...and how heavily the Russians seem to have touched our campaigns (seems stronger on the Dem side as more evidence comes out).

Looking forward to more facts.

---

----------------------------------------------------------------

My training

Couple of things. The FISA warrant may not have been above board, the avowals here to the contrary. This article lays out a pretty damning bill of particulars as relates to the entire sordid mess undertaken to create the investigation in the first place. That the government would go this far to tip the scales in favor of one candidate should worry all of you. But it apparently doesn't, for some reason. I guess holding government accountable for its actions is out of fashion these days. More's the pity.

"There can be no question, at this point, that certain higher ups in the FBI and the DOJ did not want Hillary to be indicted and did not want Donald Trump to become President. Those efforts were not entirely independent of each other."

Also, I've been a law-and-order guy most of my adult life (my misspent youth was another matter entirely ;-). I have close relatives (uncles and now several cousins) in the Detroit and other city police departments. I will defend a cop's right to enforce the law in almost all circumstances and I've given them the benefit of the doubt over the years and decades. BUT... after the memo and this tidbit of news why should we automatically, or even necessarily, trust the FBI/DOJ about anything right now?

FBI instructed local police to ignore procedures.

"The government response also reveals that Oregon State Police SWAT troopers at the scene, ordinarily required to wear body cameras, didn't that day at the request of the FBI. The FBI did obtain video from FBI surveillance planes flying above the scene.


State police detectives also normally record interviews of officers who might be involved in a shooting, but they didn't that night when questioning the FBI Hostage Rescue Team members, again at the FBI's request. A follow-up interview with the hostage team members also came with unusual conditions, prosecutors note."


At this point, I think it should be the default position with our government that anything it says -- and that includes the current guy in the White House as well as the FBI/DOJ and DoD (for what it's worth, I'm a retired military officer, but that doesn't mean I take everything it says at face value) -- should be double and triple-checked and then held up to the light of public examination.

The fish always rots from the head, and this fish began rotting seriously in early-to-mid-2016, as people in government began to worry that the guy currently in the White House might actually have a shot at the Republican nomination and then the White House. So they began to take steps to make sure that didn't happen. Now, I didn't vote for either Donny Two Scoops or Felonia Milhous von Pantsuit (Johnson/Weld) and I wouldn't vote for either of them today, if we had a do-over.

But what the government did in this case was wrong, and it started at the very top, with a sitting president who knowingly violated the law by communicating with his then-Secretary of State via non-government email accounts, using a fake name. Several members of that president's inner council, including his then-Attorney General, also did so. That violates every tenet of open government and transparency that's both formally as well as ethically required. Given these folks were so cavalier with that simple transparency and records-keeping requirement, what makes us think they didn't go farther? The answer, based on available evidence, is that they did. And that needs to be investigated.

---

"Politics is just show business for ugly people."

Sigh...

The FISA application on Page was a month before the election, AFTER he had left the Trump campaign, and kept secret until well AFTER the election. To try to spin this into affecting the elections is crazy. Especially when you factor in the very public re-opening of the Clinton investigation by "deep state" Republicans like Comey and Szork.... the claim is just nutso.

---

_______________________________________________

 



Steve my language for the first two is because so far Nunes and Trump have prevented the full info from coming out. Let's come back to this when the Democratic memo is released.

And no, I've not yet seen evidence of the FISC granting a warrant on specious grounds, especially the absolutely insane notion that Republicans in the DOJ and FBI abused the system to elect a Democrat. The Democrat they screwed over by publicly re-opening an investigation on with 10 days to the election.

---

_______________________________________________

Agreed.

Although I caution you against dismissing "insane notions" relating to our politicians or gubmint employees. As both Drumpf and HRC have proven.....nothing is beyond the realm of imagination when it comes to feddies and politicians doing stupid/illegal shit.

I wouldn't be surprised if it turns out the FBI was actively working against Trump (or still is). I wouldn't be surprised if they weren't/aren't. Water is pretty murky right now, hopefully we get some new info in the demmy memo.

Again it probably won't matter for 90% of folks. Libbies think Putin controls Trump and Pubbies think HRC should be in jail. Probably some truth in both.

---

----------------------------------------------------------------

My training

I disagree. Nunes was purposefully being misleading. The FISA application lacked specificity, unless that specificity was important in judging the content of the FISA application, there is no reason to care that it was not included. Is the bias really any different if the Cruze campaign paid for it or if the Clinton campaign paid for it? Why would that affect the judge's ruling? That precision was not required to give the judge all the information they needed to evaluated possible biases. Steele had been a source for the FBI previously, do you expect them to state in the application the exact number of times he had provided true information or would something like "many" or "multiple" sufficed?

Also, maybe not singling out Clinton/DNC was closer to the truth. While Steele only came on while Fusion GPS was being funded by Clinton/DNC, they did do research on Trump's Russian connection that was funded by republicans. So did Steele also provide information from Fusion GPS that was funded by republicans? Did he use that information to start his own investigation and considers it a part of his own search? It may not be true to just say Clinton/DNC.

So, no there is a huge difference between what the FISA application may have said and what Nunes did. The FBI provided the information the judge needed, Nunes purposefully misled.

You don't know what information the judge needed. Neither Nunes in his memo, nor the FBI in their petition to the court, fully disclosed everything that they knew. It's clear to me that Nunes did it out of partisan politics. I don't know why the FBI did it (and neither do you), but IF (and this is the operative question in this whole thing) they did it in a partisan fashion it's a HUGE FRICKING DEAL. I expect a Congressman to be a slimy political POS. I need to be able to trust that the FBI isn't going to come after me because they don't like my politics. It's bad enough that the IRS did that and nobody gave a damn. I'm certain you're not ok with the FBI being political and even weaponized. Let's be sure they weren't.

I am fine with the IG investigating the FBI, that is there job and adds to my trust of the FBI. I am very concerned if they were acting for political reasons. I am very honest, that would be very dangerous. But Nunes politicizing the intelligence oversight role of his committee is equally dangerous. Following the Church Committee the US implemented a pretty unprecedented oversight system of a countrie's intelligence agencies, seriously the UK and other countries think it is crazy to give politicians that level of oversight, since they were bound to leak it and use it for political purposes. For the next three decades that system has worked pretty well, at least better than any other oversight system. It is heavily based on the intelligence agencies trusting congress to act honestly in the oversight responsibility, and really the intelligence committees have been the most bi partisan and least political committees for the past decades. Now Nunes is breaking that trust, not by going after possible abuse, but by using it as a political weapon. The committee in the past has gone after abuse in the intelligence agencies and it great that they have. You are concerned about the FBI being weaponized, it is equally concerning that Nunes is weaponizing his oversight role. I

If the FBI did do something wrong, Nunes would not have to been purposefully misleading in the memo. He would have stated what they did wrong. He would have stated what was in the memo and why it was not sufficient. He could state why the judge needed that information, but he did not. He did none of those things, he only misled. Why would he need to mislead if he had an actual argument?


Fine, let us ignore all of Nunes previous actions, statements, and known bias. We can imagine that Nunes thinks there is actual wrong doing. What should he do? He should recommend an investigation by the IG of the DOJ, which this is all based on a report by them anyway. Ok, let us say he does not trust them to investigate their own, he could have the IG from somewhere like DNI investigate. If he thinks no other inspector generals can be trusted, the committee itself could investigate. They have a staff, they can issue subpoenas and call witnesses. They could do this in secret to not tip people off. Or they could do the normal joint memo with the minority party, if they can't agree they could release a majority and minority opinion, which is common practice. Since he did none of these, it is obvious he does not care about actually investigating this and wants to score political points. So either there was abuse and he thinks it is more important to score points or there was not abuse and he is just trying to score points.

To sum it up, Nunes is doing this because of political reasons:
1: If there was actual wrong doing, the memo would not need to mislead. It could clearly state why this was abuse.
2: If there is actual wrong doing, releasing a memo is not the way to address wrong doing.

If you want to address those two points, go right ahead.

Fact checking is also nonexistent these days.

I know that in the age of Trump it's easy to make general statements about the media and simply reply that it's all fake but the idea that fact checking is non-existent is absolutely not true.

Don't mix what Trump says with the media. It's a false equivalence that Trump is trying to sell but like almost everything he says, is not true.

The house committee repeatedly requested information from the FBI to the point that they issued a couple of subpoenas. They were stonewalled. Here's a synopsis up to the point that the FBI finally at least said they'd comply:

https://www.redstate.com/streiff/2017/10/27/fbi-complies-house-committee-subpoena/

I'm not defending Nunes, haven't and won't. I hope you see that. I'm just not ready to give the FBI a pass on this yet, although you make some good arguments in their favor. I think we need to see the transcripts from the FISA hearings. If there's something to this it should be clear from those. If Nunes made this whole thing up then I would favor his expulsion from Congress.

To sum it up, Nunes is doing this because of political reasons:

Enough said, that is exactly what he is doing.

Ohh so this was while Nunes had recussed himself from investigations involving Russia and Trump? He did that because he had already weaponized secret information. Yet, while he was "recused" he requested this information. Should the FBI give him that information while he has recused himself? The FBI did comply. Do you think Nunes actions made it more or less likely that the FBI would fight the request? They did fulfill their legal obligations in the end. Also remember that scanal ended up being nothing but lies by Nunes? Do some people have the memory of a gold fish?

So now Nunes is only making the situation worse. Do you think his actions are making it more likely or less likely the FBI will be forthcoming?

-
We've got an entire "dossier" that was created for political reasons, and most of look at it and say, "well, how much is true; does it matter; actionable?". My first impulse is to look at the Nunes memo in the same way, then I remember that the FBI is not going to declassify anything so that we can even know; this whole exercise is a waste of time, and certainly will not change anyone's view of their side.

The Dems are fighting awful hard to keep this stuff quiet. I can think of only 2 reasons they would do that:

1) everything the Repubs are saying are blatant lies
2) there's something in all of this that they want to keep hidden

Really, would either surprise you?

I see a lot of DNC talking points in the huffing and puffing that the memo is a now a "nothingburger" (when, just last week it would have meant the death of the Republic if it was released). ;-)

Anyway, here are the bottom lines:

-- In the FISA application, a footnote vaguely stated that the Steele smear document (because that's what it was) was commissioned by a "political source." That's not the same as coming out and stating that "Donny Two Scoops' opponent in the 2016 election commissioned this soupcon of unverified rumors and smears, and now his opponent seeks to initiate a criminal process against him to even out the email investigation against her." Is that hyperbolic on my part? Doesn't seem that way to me, because as far as I can tell, that's exactly what took place.

-- We also KNOW that Felonia Milhous von Pantsuit paid for an intelligence operation that was mainly concerned with taking down any opponents that might have stood in her way in her march to the White House (this operation was headed by Sidney Blumenthal and Cody Shearer) and it was abetted by Fusion GPS and the Clinton/DNC-aligned law firm, Perkins-Coie, who paid former MI6 spy guy Christopher Steele -- who in his own words was "desperate to ensure Two Scoops not win the presidency."

Madam Pantsuit then got her buds in the FBI to open a counterintelligence investigation against the Two Scoops campaign at almost the same day that the Pantsuit email investigation threatened to destroy her. She desperately needed something, anything, to pin on the Manhattan real estate developer and reality TV star in order to distract from her own criminal wrongdoing. This much is clear.

Everything that ensued was because of that second bottom line.

---

"Politics is just show business for ugly people."

Quote:

-- In the FISA application, a footnote vaguely stated that the Steele smear document (because that's what it was) was commissioned by a "political source." That's not the same as coming out and stating that "Donny Two Scoops' opponent in the 2016 election commissioned this soupcon of unverified rumors and smears, and now his opponent seeks to initiate a criminal process against him to even out the email investigation against her." Is that hyperbolic on my part? Doesn't seem that way to me, because as far as I can tell, that's exactly what took place.

Yeah, but I have a hard time believing a judge couldn't put 2 and 2 and 2 together. Donald Trump? Is that the guy running for President?

Still, it is weird that a Donald Trump dossier is important to spy on someone who isn't Donald Trump. I remember a lot of investigation leaks throwing the Trump team off balance at the beginning of Trump's term. Where those leaks assoicated with this Carter Page/Trump dossier FISA warrant?

Just looks like either side is trying to get a political win for the day, but it's a big deal if we find either narrative (or both) true. DOJ politicized/weaponized or Collusion on the Trump side. An obstruction charge against Trump would not be any more of a surprise to me than the next lie he utters, though dems will have a big haha and win, I don't know how anyone could be shocked. I am heartened to read quotes from stories like the one linked below, that add some confidence in the character and work of the IG.
-
He is really one of the smartest and fairest people I have ever had the pleasure to work with,” said Bill Hamel, who served as assistant inspector general for investigations at the Department of Education. “He’s a straight shooter and a fair guy. He’s an honest broker.”
-
Horowitz’s work has earned him respect among his peers. He has been twice elected to lead the Council of the Inspectors General on Integrity and Efficiency, the independent panel of inspectors general across the federal government.
“He is a man of the utmost integrity who is willing to call the shots as he sees them,” said Stanley Twardy, a Stamford, Conn.-based lawyer who has known Horowitz professionally since his days as a U.S. attorney.
-
http://thehill.com/policy/national-security/372457-ig-poised-to-reignite-war-over-fbis-clinton-case

It's clear in your writing style how partisan you are and how your mind is very made up.

I would suggest you read the analysis of the Steele dossier I posted for efernand. It was raw intelligence gathered from various sources, some trusted, some less so. Even intelligence from trusted sources can be flase or misleading, even sometimes when the source believes the information is correct themselves. That's the nature of clandestine intelligence gathering. It is up to analysts to analyze and decipher the information to see what is usable.

But beyond that, much of the Steele dossier HAS now been corroborated (again, read the link I posted), while some has been found not accurate.

And given what Steele believed to be true in the dossier, it was not surprising that, for the sake of western allies, he was desperate for Trump not to become president. That needn't be a political bias. It's why he gave the information to the FBI.

But the IG had already investigated the FISA applications, that is the report that this whole memo thing is based on (although he did not even read it, his staff member did). If the DOJ IG said that nothing was wrong, why are you believe Nunes? This was looked into.

This is the second time that he has claimed secret information was damning and it turned out to be nothing! Was the first time not enough for him to be expelled from Congress? Should we at least ignore him when he does it now?

Pot meet Kettle.

Gawd, no kidding.

X3

I guess I'm confused then....
http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/...page/article/2648102

So did you actually try to learn something by reading the article I posted, written by an ex-CIA serviceman, or was it indeed too long for you to hold your concentration, as I feared?

-
Probably will happen eventually, especially after the Obama admin was strongly criticized by the FISC for not adhering to FISA rules, and especially continuing to do so after being warned of same back in 2011. The rules look strong on paper, but we don't know what is being done in practice. Here's what the ACLU had to say:
-
The American Civil Liberties Union said the newly disclosed violations are some of the most serious to ever be documented and strongly call into question the U.S. intelligence community’s ability to police itself and safeguard American’s privacy as guaranteed by the Constitution’s Fourth Amendment protections against unlawful search and seizure.
“I think what this emphasizes is the shocking lack of oversight of these programs,” said Neema Singh Guliani, the ACLU’s legislative counsel in Washington.
“You have these problems going on for years that only come to the attention of the court late in the game and then it takes additional years to change its practices.
“I think it does call into question all those defenses that we kept hearing, that we always have a robust oversight structure and we have culture of adherence to privacy standards,” she added. “And the headline now is they actually haven’t been in compliacne for years and the FISA court itself says in its opinion is that the NSA suffers from a culture of a lack of candor.”

https://www.circa.com/story/2017/05/23/politics/obama-intel-agency-secretly-conducted-illegal-searches-on-americans-for-years

I'm not seeing the article you posted, but I have learned that you can't do anything other than regurgitate dem talking points.

Did you read the Timeline article that BK posted. It lays out a pretty damning rundown of what happened and why. Including the failed attempt to get a FISA warrant on Page before the Steele dossier. Have you read where it's come out that the Clinton campaign was feeding information to Steele? You seem to be putting a lot of faith into a document/person/process that is so irreconcilably tainted that anything that it says that is correct, would only be by coincidence.

that's called "knowledge". It's based on "research".

Here it is again for you...

http://forum.slowtwitch.com/...ost=6555484#p6555484

Yes, I've read the article linked above. It - like Nunes' memo - contains many biases and omissions and begins to get rather tabloid-like when comparing the length of Clinton's testimony to the FBI with Angelina Jolie's. It downplays the roles of Page and Popadopulous in the campaign and asserts with no proof things like "the Trump campaign did not know about Carter Page's links/trips to Russia" which is patently false. Sessions even lied about his knowledge of Page's 2016 trip.

But I will say this (again): any illegal behavior by Clinton, or members of the DOJ and FBI should be investigated and prosecuted. I have always maintained that Clinton is a lying POS and she should not have got away with what she did with the emails.

But that does not absolve or vindicate Trump and his team for anything they were doing illegally with the Russians, whether it was colluding over Russia's actions to influence the election, or offering quid pro quo's over sanction relief that may have been related to "dirt" the Russians have on Trump - be it money laundering or anything else.

And if the FISA court initially refused a warrant to spy on Page, it demonstrates they had a high bar for granting that privilege to the FBI. Which means that when they did grant the warrant, they had credible reasons to do so.

Let me know when you have read the article I posted for you, again.

Another insightful shot from the cheap seats. You two are like peas in a pod.

I guess I was mistaken, news of the IG's investigation was breaking at the same time this memo came up. They could have asked the inspector general about this without this memo. Once again if he did not trust the DOJ IG, there are tons of ways to actually handle this.