• We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.

Mueller

Page 7 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.
dyna said:
1) The memo "claims" the warrant would have never been obtained without the Dossier as evidence.

"Futhermore, Deputy Director MccCabe testified before the Committee in December 2017 that no surveillance warrant would have been sought from the FISC without the Steele dossier information."

I think your misunderstanding of the memo is that critical facts about its source were not disclosed in the FISA application.

2) Lastly, the memo claims for the most part the Dossier was unverified. I think there is some question about what was actually verified. It could have been Steele as the source was all that was verified for all that we know.
Click to expand...
Post the links to your quotes.
 
dyna said:
1) The memo "claims" the warrant would have never been obtained without the Dossier as evidence.

"Futhermore, Deputy Director MccCabe testified before the Committee in December 2017 that no surveillance warrant would have been sought from the FISC without the Steele dossier information."

I think your misunderstanding of the memo is that critical facts about its source were not disclosed in the FISA application.

2) Lastly, the memo claims for the most part the Dossier was unverified. I think there is some question about what was actually verified. It could have been Steele as the source was all that was verified for all that we know.
Click to expand...

Why does any of it even matter when Page left the campaign before the warrant was issued? How is that about interfering with the campaign? Why does it matter when the existence of such a warrant only became public knowledge well after the election?

And why does anybody listen to GOP spinmeisters who keep the source material secret? It all comes across too much like Joe McCarthy waving around his list of 200 Communists in the State Dept.
 
dyna said:
1) The memo "claims" the warrant would have never been obtained without the Dossier as evidence.

"Futhermore, Deputy Director MccCabe testified before the Committee in December 2017 that no surveillance warrant would have been sought from the FISC without the Steele dossier information."

I think your misunderstanding of the memo is that critical facts about its source were not disclosed in the FISA application.

2) Lastly, the memo claims for the most part the Dossier was unverified. I think there is some question about what was actually verified. It could have been Steele as the source was all that was verified for all that we know.
Click to expand...

FFS.

REP. GOWDY: "No-- not to me, it doesn't -- and I was pretty integrally involved in the drafting of it. 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."

Nunes' memo also outright. It inaccurately summarizes something that is public record: James Comey's testimony. Nunes claims that James Comey testified in June 2017 that “the Steele dossier” was “salacious and unverified.” The claim is not that a particular portion of the dossier is salacious and unverified. The claim is that Comey testified that the dossier (“it”) is salacious and unverified. And it’s not true. That’s not James Comey’s testimony.​

BURR: In the public domain is this question of the “Steele dossier,” a document that has been around out in for over a year. I’m not sure when the FBI first took possession of it, but the media had it before you had it and we had it. At the time of your departure from the FBI, was the FBI able to confirm any criminal allegations contained in the Steele document?

COMEY: Mr. Chairman, I don’t think that’s a question I can answer in an open setting because it goes into the details of the investigation.

Later in his testimony, Comey referred to certain material as “salacious and unverified” — but he later implied that there were parts of the dossier that were verified and parts that were not. Here is the testimony where Comey used the term “salacious and unverified”:

SEN. SUSAN COLLINS: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Comey, let me begin by thanking you for your voluntary compliance with our request to appear before this committee and assist us in this very important investigation. I want first to ask you about your conversations with the president, three conversations in which you told him that he was not under investigation. The first was during your January 6th meeting, according to your testimony, in which it appears that you actually volunteered that assurance. Is that correct?

COMEY: That’s correct.

COLLINS: Did you limit that statement to counterintelligence invest — investigations, or were you talking about any FBI investigation?

COMEY: I didn’t use the term counterintelligence. I was briefing him about salacious and unverified material. It was in a context of that that he had a strong and defensive reaction about that not being true. My reading of it was it was important for me to assure him we were not person investigating him.

Note well: Comey doesn’t say the entire dossier is “salacious and unverified.” He says he briefed the President about “salacious and unverified material.” Later, under questioning from Tom Cotton, Comey once again said Trump denied the “unverified and salacious parts”:

COMEY: The president called me I believe shortly before he was inaugurated as a follow-up to our conversation, private conversation on January the 6th. He just wanted to reiterate his rejection of that allegation and talk about—- he’d thought about it more. And why he thought it wasn’t true. The verified — unverified and salacious parts.

The FBI is on record saying some parts of the Dossier have been verified. Verified.

Trey Gowdy is on record saying the warrant and investigation were NEVER dependant on the Dossier.

You may as well be a fucking flat earther for how wrong you are here.
 
Amused said:
FFS.

REP. GOWDY: "No-- not to me, it doesn't -- and I was pretty integrally involved in the drafting of it. 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."

Nunes' memo also outright. It inaccurately summarizes something that is public record: James Comey's testimony. Nunes claims that James Comey testified in June 2017 that “the Steele dossier” was “salacious and unverified.” The claim is not that a particular portion of the dossier is salacious and unverified. The claim is that Comey testified that the dossier (“it”) is salacious and unverified. And it’s not true. That’s not James Comey’s testimony.​

BURR: In the public domain is this question of the “Steele dossier,” a document that has been around out in for over a year. I’m not sure when the FBI first took possession of it, but the media had it before you had it and we had it. At the time of your departure from the FBI, was the FBI able to confirm any criminal allegations contained in the Steele document?

COMEY: Mr. Chairman, I don’t think that’s a question I can answer in an open setting because it goes into the details of the investigation.

Later in his testimony, Comey referred to certain material as “salacious and unverified” — but he later implied that there were parts of the dossier that were verified and parts that were not. Here is the testimony where Comey used the term “salacious and unverified”:

SEN. SUSAN COLLINS: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Comey, let me begin by thanking you for your voluntary compliance with our request to appear before this committee and assist us in this very important investigation. I want first to ask you about your conversations with the president, three conversations in which you told him that he was not under investigation. The first was during your January 6th meeting, according to your testimony, in which it appears that you actually volunteered that assurance. Is that correct?

COMEY: That’s correct.

COLLINS: Did you limit that statement to counterintelligence invest — investigations, or were you talking about any FBI investigation?

COMEY: I didn’t use the term counterintelligence. I was briefing him about salacious and unverified material. It was in a context of that that he had a strong and defensive reaction about that not being true. My reading of it was it was important for me to assure him we were not person investigating him.

Note well: Comey doesn’t say the entire dossier is “salacious and unverified.” He says he briefed the President about “salacious and unverified material.” Later, under questioning from Tom Cotton, Comey once again said Trump denied the “unverified and salacious parts”:

COMEY: The president called me I believe shortly before he was inaugurated as a follow-up to our conversation, private conversation on January the 6th. He just wanted to reiterate his rejection of that allegation and talk about—- he’d thought about it more. And why he thought it wasn’t true. The verified — unverified and salacious parts.

The FBI is on record saying some parts of the Dossier have been verified. Verified.

Trey Gowdy is on record saying the warrant and investigation were NEVER dependant on the Dossier.

You may as well be a fucking flat earther for how wrong you are here.
Click to expand...


You know, I keep seeing this completely out of context "quote" from Comey.

So if you watch Comey's testimony, there are only two possible conclusions. You are either willfully ignorant, or intentionally deceptive.

When you watch the video, it's quite clear he mis-spoke (and was stuttering his way through this question in general) and corrected himself.

It's around 30s in :

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uauNg5KCiRo
 
shady28 said:
You know, I keep seeing this completely out of context "quote" from Comey.

So if you watch Comey's testimony, there are only two possible conclusions. You are either willfully ignorant, or intentionally deceptive.

When you watch the video, it's quite clear he mis-spoke (and was stuttering his way through this question in general) and corrected himself.

It's around 30s in :

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uauNg5KCiRo
Click to expand...

He in no way depicts the dossier as fully unverified and on two separate occasions alludes to the fact that some of it was in fact verified.

I know this is inconvenient to your narrative. Especially given the fact that is is firmly established that the dossier was NOT the start of, or evidence used to start the investigation nor obtain the original FISA warrant.
 
Amused said:
FFS.

REP. GOWDY: "No-- not to me, it doesn't -- and I was pretty integrally involved in the drafting of it. 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."

Nunes' memo also outright. It inaccurately summarizes something that is public record: James Comey's testimony. Nunes claims that James Comey testified in June 2017 that “the Steele dossier” was “salacious and unverified.” The claim is not that a particular portion of the dossier is salacious and unverified. The claim is that Comey testified that the dossier (“it”) is salacious and unverified. And it’s not true. That’s not James Comey’s testimony.​

BURR: In the public domain is this question of the “Steele dossier,” a document that has been around out in for over a year. I’m not sure when the FBI first took possession of it, but the media had it before you had it and we had it. At the time of your departure from the FBI, was the FBI able to confirm any criminal allegations contained in the Steele document?

COMEY: Mr. Chairman, I don’t think that’s a question I can answer in an open setting because it goes into the details of the investigation.

Later in his testimony, Comey referred to certain material as “salacious and unverified” — but he later implied that there were parts of the dossier that were verified and parts that were not. Here is the testimony where Comey used the term “salacious and unverified”:

SEN. SUSAN COLLINS: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Comey, let me begin by thanking you for your voluntary compliance with our request to appear before this committee and assist us in this very important investigation. I want first to ask you about your conversations with the president, three conversations in which you told him that he was not under investigation. The first was during your January 6th meeting, according to your testimony, in which it appears that you actually volunteered that assurance. Is that correct?

COMEY: That’s correct.

COLLINS: Did you limit that statement to counterintelligence invest — investigations, or were you talking about any FBI investigation?

COMEY: I didn’t use the term counterintelligence. I was briefing him about salacious and unverified material. It was in a context of that that he had a strong and defensive reaction about that not being true. My reading of it was it was important for me to assure him we were not person investigating him.

Note well: Comey doesn’t say the entire dossier is “salacious and unverified.” He says he briefed the President about “salacious and unverified material.” Later, under questioning from Tom Cotton, Comey once again said Trump denied the “unverified and salacious parts”:

COMEY: The president called me I believe shortly before he was inaugurated as a follow-up to our conversation, private conversation on January the 6th. He just wanted to reiterate his rejection of that allegation and talk about—- he’d thought about it more. And why he thought it wasn’t true. The verified — unverified and salacious parts.

The FBI is on record saying some parts of the Dossier have been verified. Verified.

Trey Gowdy is on record saying the warrant and investigation were NEVER dependant on the Dossier.

You may as well be a fucking flat earther for how wrong you are here.
Click to expand...

Your getting trapped by the tongue twisting of a congressmen. He doesn't deny that the dossier was used to the get the FISA warrant. He is trying to downplay its importance in the investigation.

Which leads to the next point, I'm surprised by now that you don't understand that dossier is a piece of garbage, it is well understood that democrats/FBI are distancing themselves away from the Steele dossier as much as possible. Behind the scenes i'm sure there is a lot of dealing going on to control the flow information/name dropping of those involved to prevent more damage to individuals/FBI/FISA/DNC etc....
 
Last edited:
dyna said:
Your getting trapped by the tongue twisting of a congressmen. He doesn't deny that the dossier was used to the get the FISA warrant. He is trying to downplay its importance in the investigation.

Which leads to the next point, I'm surprised by now that you don't understand that dossier is a piece of garbage, it is well understood that democrats/FBI are distancing themselves away from the Steele dossier as much as possible. Behind the scenes i'm sure there is a lot of dealing going on to control the flow information/name dropping of those involved to prevent more damage to individuals/FBI/FISA/DNC etc....
Click to expand...
So, you have verified links that the dossier is a piece of garbage?

You also realize unlike Nunes, Gowdy has actually read the FISA warrant.
 
dyna said:
Your getting trapped by the tongue twisting of a congressmen. He doesn't deny that the dossier was used to the get the FISA warrant. He is trying to downplay its importance in the investigation.

Which leads to the next point, I'm surprised by now that you don't understand that dossier is a piece of garbage, it is well understood that democrats/FBI are distancing themselves away from the Steele dossier as much as possible. Behind the scenes i'm sure there is a lot of dealing going on to control the flow information/name dropping of those involved to prevent more damage to individuals/FBI/FISA/DNC etc....
Click to expand...

REP. GOWDY: (Who has read the entire FISA warrant and seen all the underlying intelligence) "No-- not to me, it doesn't -- and I was pretty integrally involved in the drafting of it. 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."

Gowdy wasn't able to say this util after he announced his retirement from politics. Why? Because facts go against the GOP ideology now. Gowdy knows this is all going to blow up and wants no part of it.

Gowdy. Mr Tea Party Benghazi himself.
 
It’s both amazing and terrifying how conservatives continue to believe and claim the same things even after confronted with direct quotes and statements of informed individuals to the opposite. Total fantasy world.

Guys, the ‘memo’ blew up in your faces because it was always a brazen, partisan attempt to smear law enforcement to protect the president from an investigation into criminal behavior by him and his administration. That was ALWAYS the only point. You’re just being useful idiots to unscrupulous people who have nothing but contempt for your intelligence.
 
The narrative that Grassley is trying to push as damning evidence is the Clintons were really trying to push the collusion narrative. Steele received a second dossier from a man named Cody Shearer, probably via the Clinton organization. Though, given that they did it secretly, passing the information to the FBI, when all of the polls said that Clinton would win, seems like a bizarre move to make.

https://www.vox.com/world/2018/1/30/16951490/trump-russia-dossier-cody-shearer-memo-nunes

So are the Republicans saying that the Clintons pushed the collusion narrative during a campaign they were confident that they were going to win? Or..They pushed the narrative to influence the election after they had already lost.

So, in a nutshell...Those sneaky Clintons Secretly pushed this collusion narrative, and somehow got the Republican director of the FBI, the FISA court, Where all the judges on this court are appointed by Republican Chief Justice Roberts and Republican Rod Rosenstein on their side.

The things you have to believe to buy into this narrative are astounding.
 
VRAMdemon said:
The narrative that Grassley is trying to push as damning evidence is the Clintons were really trying to push the collusion narrative. Steele received a second dossier from a man named Cody Shearer, probably via the Clinton organization. Though, given that they did it secretly, passing the information to the FBI, when all of the polls said that Clinton would win, seems like a bizarre move to make.

https://www.vox.com/world/2018/1/30/16951490/trump-russia-dossier-cody-shearer-memo-nunes

So are the Republicans saying that the Clintons pushed the collusion narrative during a campaign they were confident that they were going to win? Or..They pushed the narrative to influence the election after they had already lost.

So, in a nutshell...Those sneaky Clintons Secretly pushed this collusion narrative, and somehow got the Republican director of the FBI, the FISA court, Where all the judges on this court are appointed by Republican Chief Justice Roberts and Republican Rod Rosenstein on their side.

The things you have to believe to buy into this narrative are astounding.
Click to expand...
I wonder if that'd work in the court of law.

'Your honor, I did not steal that car. As evidence that I am innocent, I present to you that the prosecution keeps stating that I have stolen it. Have we investigated THEM for stealing the vehicle, or other vehicles as well?'
 
I'm not even seeing collusion as the focus of Muellers probe..The money laundering will be his main focus IMO. Although one theory is that this is the quo in return for the Russian government's quid in helping him get elected and possibly the funding they've provided Trump's and Kushner's various troubled businesses by laundering money into loans through Deutsche Bank. Having Russians or anyone allow him to escape his debts is the way he does business. He would certainly gain personally and directly from that. Knowing what Russian debt collects may be like, he may gain very much.

The Russians may have made a bad investment. You can’t blackmail someone with no capacity for shame. Or you can’t bribe someone with no capacity for gratitude.

As for Trump talking to Mueller, I'm sure his lawyers are concerned that the president, who has a history of lying to investigators, could be charged with lying to investigators. I'm sure they see that their client is too stupid to keep from saying the wrong thing (lying) in such an interview.

Also, fascinating and unexpected that the House Intelligence Committee voted to send the Democratic counter-memo to the White House for review and release. The White House now has to decide (a)whether to release something that will expose the Republican memo as a fraud and a sham and not the "total vindication" that Trump said it was; or (b) look like hypocritical whiny little bitches. I'm going with (b).

Trump, and the Republicans will seemly continue to step on their dicks and insisting they got laid.
 
soundforbjt said:
I just hope it is money laundering, and I hope that they get them at the State level too in NY, then he can’t pardon himself and family.
Click to expand...
That is what I am hoping for. Of course I want Mueller to take him down but I also want Trump to pay in a substantial and meaningful way.
 
dyna said:
I think your misunderstanding of the memo is that critical facts about its source were not disclosed in the FISA application.
Click to expand...

That has already been disproven. The Graham memo clearly states that the initial and renewal FISA applications explain that the source of dossier information emanated from money paid to a law firm from political opponents of Trump.

The only thing in contention is whether the FBI made a sufficient disclosure of these origins. They have a duty to avoid naming specific persons if those specific identities are not important. Plus, in evaluating potential FBI malfeasance, we must limit our judgment to what the FBI knew at the time of the application. If a specific identity was found to be material to the application after the FISC ruled on the information, it's not the FBI's fault for presenting in good faith what they knew. We also can't ignore that the court itself has every right (and plenty of history doing so) to request more details on what is presented to them. They clearly thought the level of the FBI's disclosure was appropriate and sufficient. Not only that, they aren't idiots. They watch the news. There is no way in Hades they didn't know or suspect the identities of who was scrubbed from the application.

Regardless, this question cannot be truly judged by us members of the public because we have very limited access to the underlying information presented to the court. More specifically, Republicans have acted to suppress our access to a greater breadth of information for purely partisan purposes. How could we side with those who actively attempt to limit your access to information for no reason other than because they don't want you to hear more to a story? If that isn't indication that their story is flawed, I don't know what could be.

Lastly, the memo claims for the most part the Dossier was unverified. I think there is some question about what was actually verified. It could have been Steele as the source was all that was verified for all that we know.
Click to expand...

The Graham memo also clearly indicates that there has been some level of verification and corroboration for parts of the memo. None of it has actually been disproven. Thus, if you are presenting to a court evidence to obtain a warrant to look for more evidence where your burden of proof is probable cause, evidence provided from an informant that has been partially verified and to no extent disproven from a person that has a long history of very high reliability in the field of foreign intelligence is really compelling. Again, they only needed to show the court that a reasonable person would look at the evidence and say that it was probably true that Page was involved in something criminal and that a wiretap could lead to the discovery of evidence of a crime.

After all that we have learned, would you possibly say that it is not probably true that Page had involvement in something criminal?
 
Poor Carter Page! The FBI tapped his phone after he left the campaign to interfere with the campaign! And they even got a warrant to do it!

It's all part of the Clinton/Obama deep state conspiracy. I mean, Hillary paid the DNC who paid a law firm who hired fusion GPS who hired Steele who gave the info to the Leftists at the FBI. And they're persecuting the Precious, the Donald, the true Champion of the People!

There's an unverified report that tells us that the FBI didn't verify the info they got from Steele so we need to throw it out & fire everybody responsible! Oh, and Devin Nunes is not a lying weasel!
 
I don't understand the big deal with the FISA court issue given that in the entire history of FISA warrants there has only been one rejected request ever. What exactly is the argument they are trying to make?

It appears the old saying about grand jury indictments and ham sandwiches is probably analogous to FISA court warrants.
 
Sunburn74 said:
I don't understand the big deal with the FISA court issue given that in the entire history of FISA warrants there has only been one rejected request ever. What exactly is the argument they are trying to make?

It appears the old saying about grand jury indictments and ham sandwiches is probably analogous to FISA court warrants.
Click to expand...

Not quite accurate-

https://www.motherjones.com/crime-justice/2013/06/fisa-court-nsa-spying-opinion-reject-request/

I get the impression that there's a lot of back & forth before FISA requests are formally granted or denied. The Court demands that certain standards be met & each instance has unique circumstances. If it's not good enough, it gets shelved until such time as it becomes good enough. Some never make it back off the shelf. Once the standards are met then the request becomes something official for the Court to act upon. Warrants formally requested & not granted would be rare, probably the result of miscommunication.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

Back
Top