|
Read the rules in the OP before posting, please.In order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a re-read to refresh your memory! The vast majority of you are contributing in a healthy way, keep it up! NOTE: When providing a source, explain why you feel it is relevant and what purpose it adds to the discussion if it's not obvious. Also take note that unsubstantiated tweets/posts meant only to rekindle old arguments can result in a mod action. |
On February 03 2018 03:56 Gorsameth wrote:Show nested quote +On February 03 2018 03:52 xDaunt wrote:On February 03 2018 03:48 Gorsameth wrote:On February 03 2018 03:38 xDaunt wrote:On February 03 2018 03:36 Blitzkrieg0 wrote:On February 03 2018 03:17 xDaunt wrote:On February 03 2018 03:15 Gorsameth wrote:On February 03 2018 03:13 xDaunt wrote:
For all of you on the left who are confused regarding what this memo really means, let me help you out. First and foremost, the memo does not exonerate Trump or anyone else who is being investigated. Trump may still be a Russian agent who will get impeached. However, the memo does strongly suggest that the FBI abused the FISA court process for political purposes, particularly when you look at the memo in the context of all of those Strozk/Page text messages that are out there. The unavoidable conclusion is that the FBI leadership was dirty, and democrats need to halt their unabashed support for Comey, McCabe, et al. Are you talking about secret society meetings within the FBI again? I don't know whether there's a "secret society" or not, but there very clearly is a strong anti-Trump political bias at the FBI. The fact that they concealed the origins of the dossier in the FISA application confirms as such. It's not even debatable anymore. Accepting this is true; does it even matter? The FISA application is practically a rubber stamp, do you really think it would have been denied including that origin story? It very well could. I don't know the FISA application process that well or what standards have to be met, but my gut tells me that the omissions probably are very significant, particularly if the nature of the dossier was misrepresented to the court. Your gut tells you? Or because it was mentioned in a partisan memo written by a man who had to recuse himself from the investigation because he is part of the group being investigated? I highly doubt that there is anything in the memo that is patently untrue. What is more likely is that there are additional, material facts that were omitted. So when the memo says that the FBI concealed the origins of the dossier to the court, I think it is safe to assume that that statement is accurate. As an attorney, I can tell you that it is a big no no to conceal material information like that from a court, which is why my gut tells me that there's a 4th Amendment problem here. The question is whether the FBI presented any other corroborating information. And as a lawyer you should know you can take any statement and twist it out of context and without additional information to mean anything without ever strictly lying.
There's no room for grey area as it pertains to that statement. It's either true or it's not. The smart money is on it being true, particularly when you consider the lengths to which the FBI and democrats fought republicans from discovering how the dossier was paid for.
|
On February 03 2018 03:56 Danglars wrote:Show nested quote +On February 03 2018 03:40 Plansix wrote:On February 03 2018 03:35 Danglars wrote:
Haha now I understand why everybody didn’t want this out. FISA authorization and FBI under heat now. Let’s get the rest out there to compare notes.
Oh man, US politics. This is hilarious. We also don’t know if the FBI told the judge that the dossier was obtained through opposition research and just didn’t say which side paid for it. And we also don’t know if the judge asked for that information. Really, the amount of things we don’t know is pretty staggering. Could likely fill 80-90 pages of a full FISA warrant request. This is the reason the full application must be released. The FBI needs to show that it sufficiently briefed the court about the background and reliability of the dossier, as it understood fully at the time. The FBI also needs to show that further information was presented that shows the dossier wasn’t the lynchpin of the application (and hey Page looks pretty dirty). Democrats are hoping the FBI didn’t mislead the court as much as Nunes alleges, and the application continues with multiple proofs of foreign conspiracy that are good enough to independently convince the court to grant surveillance. Fun times.
It doesn’t need to be released. There is already an investigation into the matter by the inspector general, who will submit their findings to congress once it is done. That is the proper venue for this oversight.
Again, we don’t release evidence in ongoing investigations based on the political whims of the moment. That is an abuse of power and turns the FBI into a political tool for whoever controls congress.
|
On February 03 2018 04:00 warding wrote:Show nested quote +On February 03 2018 03:50 Leporello wrote:
The memo fails its ultimate purpose. If you want to put the FISA process under scrutiny, well, I guess this sort of helps, assuming you believe its assessment of intel is honest, although it purports things that have been sort of dis-proven.
Firing Rod Rosenstein over this, which is the real reason it released, is not going to fly too well. This memo... it just doesn't really say anything.
Carter Page was under surveillance long before the dossier. So... And it makes the assumption that the dossier itself is verbotten material because a democrat once touched it. It's a lot of ridiculous claims that don't even need the underlying intel to fail an actual scrutiny-test. Isn't the ultimate purpose of the memo to control what the public conversation is for the past week and presumably the next few days? I think it's been quite successful in that.
It's too destructive to the GOP to just be a distraction, although it certainly is that.
Trump was just asked today if he wanted to fire Rosenstein, and he did not give a direct answer. That's what this memo was for, and it failed.
Yes, the GOP-faithful will pretend that Trump is the innocent victim of a liberal FBI conspiracy. They were crazy yesterday, they're crazy today. Nothing's changing there.
|
On February 03 2018 04:01 Plansix wrote:Show nested quote +On February 03 2018 03:56 Danglars wrote:On February 03 2018 03:40 Plansix wrote:We also don’t know if the FBI told the judge that the dossier was obtained through opposition research and just didn’t say which side paid for it. And we also don’t know if the judge asked for that information. Really, the amount of things we don’t know is pretty staggering. Could likely fill 80-90 pages of a full FISA warrant request. This is the reason the full application must be released. The FBI needs to show that it sufficiently briefed the court about the background and reliability of the dossier, as it understood fully at the time. The FBI also needs to show that further information was presented that shows the dossier wasn’t the lynchpin of the application (and hey Page looks pretty dirty). Democrats are hoping the FBI didn’t mislead the court as much as Nunes alleges, and the application continues with multiple proofs of foreign conspiracy that are good enough to independently convince the court to grant surveillance. Fun times. It doesn’t need to be released. There is already an investigation into the matter by the inspector general, who will submit their findings to congress once it is done. That is the proper venue for this oversight. Again, we don’t release evidence in ongoing investigations based on the political whims of the moment. This is an abuse of power and turns the FBI into a political tool for whoever controls congress.
This seems to be exactly what the GOP is going for, and all Americans should be seriously worried!
|
If y'all want a good laugh now is the time to check out Breitbart.
Also based on CNNs coverage it seems likely Trump will use this to fire Rosenstein.
|
On February 03 2018 04:01 Plansix wrote:Show nested quote +On February 03 2018 03:56 Danglars wrote:On February 03 2018 03:40 Plansix wrote:We also don’t know if the FBI told the judge that the dossier was obtained through opposition research and just didn’t say which side paid for it. And we also don’t know if the judge asked for that information. Really, the amount of things we don’t know is pretty staggering. Could likely fill 80-90 pages of a full FISA warrant request. This is the reason the full application must be released. The FBI needs to show that it sufficiently briefed the court about the background and reliability of the dossier, as it understood fully at the time. The FBI also needs to show that further information was presented that shows the dossier wasn’t the lynchpin of the application (and hey Page looks pretty dirty). Democrats are hoping the FBI didn’t mislead the court as much as Nunes alleges, and the application continues with multiple proofs of foreign conspiracy that are good enough to independently convince the court to grant surveillance. Fun times. It doesn’t need to be released. There is already an investigation into the matter by the inspector general, who will submit their findings to congress once it is done. That is the proper venue for this oversight. Again, we don’t release evidence in ongoing investigations based on the political whims of the moment. That is an abuse of power and turns the FBI into a political tool for whoever controls congress.
Congress writes the laws granting authority for the FISC. It can defund the department if officials aren’t forthcoming. Your blind faith in the inspector general is troubling. Your partisanship is also on display:
“We don’t know if the FBI told the judge that the dossier...”
But you don’t want the truth proving/disproving released!
“That is an abuse of power and turns the FBI into a political tool”
When we know people at the FBI has been leaking selective information from ongoing investigations for YEARS that has driven this thread and others fixation on Russian collusion. Once Congress gets some credibility out of alleged FISA abuses, you want zero confirmation. Absolutely sickening, Plansix.
|
On February 03 2018 04:01 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On February 03 2018 03:56 Gorsameth wrote:On February 03 2018 03:52 xDaunt wrote:On February 03 2018 03:48 Gorsameth wrote:On February 03 2018 03:38 xDaunt wrote:On February 03 2018 03:36 Blitzkrieg0 wrote:On February 03 2018 03:17 xDaunt wrote:On February 03 2018 03:15 Gorsameth wrote:On February 03 2018 03:13 xDaunt wrote:
For all of you on the left who are confused regarding what this memo really means, let me help you out. First and foremost, the memo does not exonerate Trump or anyone else who is being investigated. Trump may still be a Russian agent who will get impeached. However, the memo does strongly suggest that the FBI abused the FISA court process for political purposes, particularly when you look at the memo in the context of all of those Strozk/Page text messages that are out there. The unavoidable conclusion is that the FBI leadership was dirty, and democrats need to halt their unabashed support for Comey, McCabe, et al. Are you talking about secret society meetings within the FBI again? I don't know whether there's a "secret society" or not, but there very clearly is a strong anti-Trump political bias at the FBI. The fact that they concealed the origins of the dossier in the FISA application confirms as such. It's not even debatable anymore. Accepting this is true; does it even matter? The FISA application is practically a rubber stamp, do you really think it would have been denied including that origin story? It very well could. I don't know the FISA application process that well or what standards have to be met, but my gut tells me that the omissions probably are very significant, particularly if the nature of the dossier was misrepresented to the court. Your gut tells you? Or because it was mentioned in a partisan memo written by a man who had to recuse himself from the investigation because he is part of the group being investigated? I highly doubt that there is anything in the memo that is patently untrue. What is more likely is that there are additional, material facts that were omitted. So when the memo says that the FBI concealed the origins of the dossier to the court, I think it is safe to assume that that statement is accurate. As an attorney, I can tell you that it is a big no no to conceal material information like that from a court, which is why my gut tells me that there's a 4th Amendment problem here. The question is whether the FBI presented any other corroborating information. And as a lawyer you should know you can take any statement and twist it out of context and without additional information to mean anything without ever strictly lying. There's no room for grey area as it pertains to that statement. It's either true or it's not. The smart money is on it being true, particularly when you consider the lengths to which the FBI and democrats fought republicans from discovering how the dossier was paid for.
I assume that the thing itself is true but not that it was "hidden" just that since it was functioning as confirmation to information already presented the court. Basically "Here is what we found and hereis a dossier written by someone not involved in the investigation who also foumd this same stuff."
|
I should’ve asked IyMoon on the betting line of lefties disputing the memo’s summary of FISA abuses, but not wanting the release of the FISC application. Or maybe a partisanship check for him after he alleged I’d forget about wanting primary source materials after memo release ...
|
I think we should start investigating all of the republicans that gave the OK for all of the clinton investigations. After all, we would just be asking questions, right?
LMFAO dangles talking about partisanship, that's a good one.
|
Wait wait wait...
So, if I'm reading the House Intelligence Committee report correctly, their problem is that the Dossier was omitted from the FISA renewal application? As in the application that provides probable cause to justify a continuation of surveillance?
So basically a judge received probable cause that did not rely on the Dossier, approved the FISA renewal, and Nunes doesn't like that they didn't present the evidence that he wants to discredit?
|
On February 03 2018 04:15 Danglars wrote:
I should’ve asked IyMoon on the betting line of lefties disputing the memo’s summary of FISA abuses, but not wanting the release of the FISC application. Or maybe a partisanship check for him after he alleged I’d forget about wanting primary source materials after memo release ...
Whoa now, I have not made a single statement about you today. Whats with the hate?
Also, what was the best on the liberal side again? I can go back and look if need be
|
Have to agree with Danglars on this one its starting to look real bad for fbi, dnc, obama's DoJ and hilldawg. Not gonna count ,my chickens but this whole thing is a stern yiiikes.
I dont think trump will start firing people for a week or 2 and I assume a lot more info is gonna come out so who knows!
|
On February 03 2018 04:18 Taelshin wrote:
Have to agree with Danglars on this one its starting to look real bad for fbi, dnc, obama's DoJ and hilldawg. Not gonna count ,my chickens but this whole thing is a stern yiiikes.
I dont think trump will start firing people for a week or 2 and I assume a lot more info is gonna come out so who knows!
The same FBI that gave trump the election is secretly in on the liberal deep state and is on obama and hillary's payroll, got it.
|
I don't understand what world this is a stern awakening compared to the fact that there have been almost 0 denied FISA warrants which we already knew and have known for years.
Apparently the FBI could have just scribbled crayon into the request and gotten it approved and that would have been better because it wouldn't be politically biased.
But lets just ignore the fact that the politicians trying to play this warrant grant up as some big thing also just approved expanding the FISA system or that they've waited years to make an issue of this.
|
On February 03 2018 04:16 WolfintheSheep wrote:
Wait wait wait...
So, if I'm reading the House Intelligence Committee report correctly, their problem is that the Dossier was omitted from the FISA renewal application? As in the application that provides probable cause to justify a continuation of surveillance?
So basically a judge received probable cause that did not rely on the Dossier, approved the FISA renewal, and Nunes doesn't like that they didn't present the evidence that he wants to discredit?
Yup that’s why it’s nothing. Lol.
|
The funny thing is, this actually helps FBI credibility by showing there was plenty of other stuff presented that helped the investigation's legitimacy. This is why the FBI said it was wildly misleading. They are removing the parts that show this investigation is actually worthwhile.
|
On February 03 2018 04:00 hunts wrote:Show nested quote +On February 03 2018 03:47 MrUniverse wrote:
Honestly reading from this thread, I don't know what to believe.
Was one of the reason the Trump-Russia investigation happened is because of the DNC paid document or not? No, and the document was originally paid for by republicans.
It wasn't. Fusion GPS was originally hired by a Republican candidate, but by the time they engaged Steele they were working for the Clinton campaign.
|
On February 03 2018 04:18 Taelshin wrote:
Have to agree with Danglars on this one its starting to look real bad for fbi, dnc, obama's DoJ and hilldawg. Not gonna count ,my chickens but this whole thing is a stern yiiikes.
I dont think trump will start firing people for a week or 2 and I assume a lot more info is gonna come out so who knows!
The memo was written by a Trump super fan in the House was supposed to have removed himself from the House investigation. He also has refused to answer questions about if the White House helped him draft the memo. Normally this memo would be released with an opposition from the other side of the committee who disagreed, but the Trump super fans in the committee blocked that memo.
So its only looks real bad if you take it at face value and ignore everything surrounding the memo.
|
On February 03 2018 04:18 Taelshin wrote:
Have to agree with Danglars on this one its starting to look real bad for fbi, dnc, obama's DoJ and hilldawg. Not gonna count ,my chickens but this whole thing is a stern yiiikes.
I dont think trump will start firing people for a week or 2 and I assume a lot more info is gonna come out so who knows!
What exactly came out though? A guy whose sole purpose is to help Trump and kill the investigation and the best he could come up with is that when the FBI got there FISA renewal they used Steele dossier as part of there evidence and didn't say who hired Steele.
Not that the findings are in dispute or that anyone was illegally surveiled but just that a whole bunch of nothing that the right wingers who also want to kill the investigation will paint as the proof but of what I am not sure.
|
On February 03 2018 04:26 CatharsisUT wrote:Show nested quote +On February 03 2018 04:00 hunts wrote:On February 03 2018 03:47 MrUniverse wrote:
Honestly reading from this thread, I don't know what to believe.
Was one of the reason the Trump-Russia investigation happened is because of the DNC paid document or not? No, and the document was originally paid for by republicans. It wasn't. Fusion GPS was originally hired by a Republican candidate, but by the time they engaged Steele they were working for the Clinton campaign.
But did that impact the accuracy of Steele's findings?
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
