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.

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

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

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.

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.

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.

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...

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.

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.

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?

His Wikipedia page says it was 2014.

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.

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.

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???

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.

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.

No, I asked whether it was that OR BECAUSE HE WAS A BAD HOMBRE. I didn't accuse the FBI of anything.

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?"

Because him being surveiled in 2013 in no way means that intent of his surveillance in 2017 was not to get dirt on Trump. That's literally the issue in question. I don't know what the intent was. I think intent is really hard to prove and I don't like making assumptions or accusations about intent. But the Repubs are accusing malintent. And the dossier being tied up in all this is a bad look for the Dems. I'm puzzled why the Dems fought so hard to keep this memo confidential when it seems there's nothing to it. What were they afraid of? I want to know the answer to that.

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 ask questions that aren't really questions. You try to set traps for people which aren't very clever. Stuff like that.