House Intelligence memo released: What it says

This is not a rebuttal to what you quoted. Try again.

 

Perhaps schiffs memo needs more space for lies?

Seems strange that schiff and pals would claim the nunes memo is dangerous to national security, so they demand the ability to do the same damn thing.....

 

Wait a minute - I thought Democrats opposed the release of these memos before they supported them.

They just spent the last couple of weeks lying to the American people about how "dangerous", "reckless", "a threat to national security", etc., they are. When did they magically/conveniently stop being "dangerous", "reckless", "a threat to national security", etc.?

 

If he has truth on his side, it would be nice if he explained instead of making what amounts to unsupported claims.

 

Polly wanna cracker? You're parroting a Trump tweet. It's not surprising you don't have an original thought.

 

How about those of us who are sick of both sides? Why should we have to put up with assh*les playing political games?

I prefer having a watchdog on the secret process. I don't trust Trump, Obama, Hillary, Pence, Ryan. McConnell, Pelosi, Schumer et al. I mean that, too. I can detail lies and half-truths told by each one of these people.

 

I wouldn't give Trump a pass. Mueller should keep looking.

 

I think my generalization about Trump supporters is a fair one. Republicans have pushed the wildly expensive and arguably cruel "war on drugs" for decades. Millions of Americans have been jailed. It's one of the reasons I don't support most Republicans.

 

@RepLeeZeldin


Friends don't let friends on @HouseIntelComm compromise good sources & methods. Schiff deliberately & unnecessarily loaded up his memo w/many sources & methods that shouldn't be released & he knows it. There's a 0% chance this isn't deliberate to play games, meddle & obstruct.

6:36 AM - 5 Feb 2018
Byron York‏Verified account @ByronYork 1h1 hour ago


Update on House Intel Dem memo. So far, 48 Ds and 58 Rs have read Dem memo. Back when GOP memo was available for review, 211 Rs and 59 Ds read it. More Dems read GOP memo than have read Dem memo so far.

79 replies 459 retweets 806 likes

 

BS, you owe me an apology. You can make good by starting a thread on the 'war on drugs', link me and I'll participate.

"All generalizations are false, including this one."

 

Bingo, and in due time this investigation will visit that very issue, take it to the bank.

 

Schiff also said Nunes “made material changes to the memo he sent to White House”, which we know is untrue. Schiff has been lying consistently, which is something those who have been following this know and understand, and he is being exposed for what he is as this saga slowly unfolds.

 

Nobody is looking to give Trump a pass. We all know, after all this time, there is nothing there.

But if Mueller is genuinely interested in 'Russian collusion', and is not just playing political games, then he would have to examine the collusion between the DNC, Hillary Clinton, Christopher Steele, Fusion, and the Russians who supplied the information to them.

Do you agree?

 

So you advocate a special prosecutor looking into the Dossier and how it was used to get FISA warrants then?

 

I'm sure you don't expect a direct answer to that.

 

That's a dumb question, ^^^ because verifying/disprove is exactly what the FBI is doing now.

the memo uses the three points I outlined then says these three points makes the dossier irrelevant and every action taken to verify/disprove illegal which is absurd. Completely ignoring critically important information in the dossier.
As far as I'm concerned the potential national security threat within the dossier, supersedes all of these arguments and demand verification/discredit, which is what the FBI is doing now. In fact had they ignored the dossier, it would have been gross negligence.

 

Who are you quoting?

Republicans have pushed the "war on drugs" for years.

 

At this point, there's no proof either Clinton or Trump sold out the country.

I'm interested in what the Russians are doing to interfere in our elections. There is a rather suspect crowd around here that uses known Russian propaganda sources.

 

So has every other political ideology, save maybe anarchists and libertarians. Conservatives of the Buckley variety have always been opposed to the war on drugs.

Oh, Twain.

 

That's true but only one of them is being investigated while any evidence of 'Russian collusion' lies with the DNC and Hillary Clinton. And of course the investigation regards collusion with the Russians, not 'selling out the country'.

You can easily see the consequences of that interference. The FBI and FISA, Congressional Oversight and the FBI, Democrats and Republicans at each others throats, charging patriotic Americans who have served their country well for generations being charged with treason, lying, espionage, and so on.

Americans are turning on each other rather than directing their attention to any Russians, except some vague references to Putin. Otherwise it's American against American. What better job could the Russians do? How much more effective could they possibly be? And, as you can see, it's the left who are playing into their hands.

 

Wait till Mueller exposes Trump's money laundering and tax evasion.

 

Nunes claimed the yahoo memo was used to corroborate the charges in the Steele dossier.

But, there is no evidence that there was an attempt to convince the FISA judge of the truth of any of those charges.

At issue was that information was becoming public. The yahoo article is part of that evidence - REGARDLESS of whether it or the Steele dossier had serious errors.

AGAIN, the point was that with information touching the Page investigation becoming public, there was an argument for exigency - whether the information had serious errors or not.

Exigency is an important factor in getting a FISA surveillance warrant. If moving slower (without surveillance of a US citizen) is good enough, then the warrant could well be denied.

 

k

 

So far Trump has filled the WH cesspool...... twice.

Cabinet members fired by Trump or resigned in one year....

FBI Deputy Director Andrew McCabe

Omarosa Manigault, the director of communications

Tom Price The secretary of health and human services

Sebastian Gorka a senior policy adviser.

Steve Bannon White House officials confirmed that Trump had dismissed Bannon, his chief strategist

Anthony Scaramucci White House communications director

Reince Priebus resigned as White House chief of staff

Sean Spicer White House press secretary

Michael Dubke White House communications director

Shaub resigned as the director of the Office of Government Ethics

James Comey Trump fired Comey as FBI director

Michael Flynn national security adviser

Sally Yates acting attorney general

Preet Bharara Trump fired Bharara as the US attorney for the Southern District of Manhattan

Katie Walsh, the former deputy chief of staff

Now he has to try to get a whole new mafia.

 

Yes. Only it was not corroboration at all, as the lying Steele was the source for both.

There most certainly is, the Committee has taken sworn testimony from both the DOJ and the FBI. Both have been obstructing the Committee, refusing document production, slow rolling other requests, Steele has been referred by the Committee for prosecution for lying to the FBI based on his Committee Testimony. If the FBI has exculpatory evidence, the burden is on them to produce it, as only they seem to have it.

You are arguing that this a "we are in too big a hurry to meet the probable cause standard" in the FISA regulations that govern government spying on US citizens? That is a fanciful fabrication.

We know the FBI was investigating Page in July — when he went to Russia and the Bureau started getting Steele’s reports. Nevertheless, how long the agents were investigating before applying for a FISA warrant has nothing to do with what they put in the warrant application. They could have been investigating Trump and Page for a hundred years before approaching the FISA court; warrants are issued based on the quality of the information proffered to the court, not the duration of the information-gathering process.

Second, to justify a FISA warrant, the Justice Department had to show probable cause that the clandestine activity in which Page supposedly engaged on Russia’s behalf may have involved federal crimes. (See sec. 1801(b) of Title 50, U.S. Code.) This is a salient omission. The Steele dossier alleges that Page was implicated in crimes — potentially heinous ones.

Interestingly though, despite spying the hell out of him and everyone he came into contact with, Page has not been charged with any crimes, and that there are no obvious reasons for suspecting him of crimes besides what is alleged in the dossier (allegations he strenuously denies). That is, FISA law appears to make the dossier more relevant and problematic, not less.

On the question of criminality, some point to Page’s involvement in a prior FBI investigation involving Russia, and darkly observe that he “was on the Bureau’s radar screen for years” before the October 2016 FISA warrant application — as if this supposition were a substitute for FISA’s legal requirement of proving criminal activity. But the 2013 investigation into which Page stumbled was a case of Russian agents trying to recruit him as a source. Far from doing anything criminal, Page appears to have cooperated with the FBI and Justice Department to nail the Russian spies. (See the Justice Department’s complaint in United States v. Buryakov, at pp. 12–13 — Page is “Male-1,” whom the Russian spy Victor Podobnyy refers to as an “idiot,” and whose 2013 interview by the FBI is described in paragraph 34.) It appears that in the prior case, Page worked with the United States against Russia; that does not jibe with the allegation in the FISA warrant application that he worked with Russia against the United States. It appears no good deed does go unpunished.

Putting aside the glaring omission in FISA’s probable-cause requirements, the claim that the law requires a finding that Page was a foreign agent does nothing to establish that Page was, in fact, a foreign agent. The question is whether the alleged facts presented in the warrant application showed that he was a foreign agent involved in potential federal crimes. No one seems to want to address that.

http://www.nationalreview.com/article/456093/jerrold-nadler-memo-rebuttal-weak-unpersuasive