Release the Krak... err FISA Memo!

[snarfbot]

well they tried to get the fisa warrant a couple times before and were denied.

 

[zinfamous]

Why does it matter who granted the warrants? It sounds like based on the information that was in requests, it should have been approved. The question isn't why were warrants given, but why was the FBI/DOJ purposely falsifying the warrant requests.

what? that claim was never made. Where do you even get this nonsense?

 

[fskimospy]

So you don't believe any politician? They are all liars to a greater or lesser extent.

He got caught lying about this exact topic in the exact same way. I mean come on.

 

[snarfbot]

lol. no literate person could possibly bring this analysis after reading the memo. This memo more or less legitimizes Steele more than he was before. ....If you're paying attention, anyway.

Fucking hilarious.

no reasonable person would make that leap. quite the opposite.

 

[fskimospy]

well they tried to get the fisa warrant a couple times before and were denied.

Citation?

 

[brycejones]

Ok, remain blind to the facts.

So much projection in this post.

 

[Jhhnn]

Ok, remain blind to the facts.

I thought you said you hadn't reached any conclusions but here you are, representing what Nunes said to be fact...

 

[K1052]

There were multiple sources of information used to obtain the FISA warrant, not just the Steele dossier. Because those sources are classified, they can't be revealed without compromising national security. And..As far as I know Nunes has never seen the information used to obtain the FISA warrent. The only people in the House Intelligence committee have seen it, Trey Gowdy and Adam Schiff, as well as the rest of the Gang of Eight. Nunes is on the Gang of Eight but for some reason had Gowdy view the information instead of doing it himself.

Let's assume for the sake of argument that Steele really was biased. Had a dislike for Trump. Would love to see him not get elected.

So in the course of his research, he's expecting to see the usual tawdry behavior: stuff he's been engaging in for the last 40 years: treating people rudely, girlfriends on the side, deceptive shady business deals. But instead he finds that Trump is in bed with the Russians.

So he goes to the FBI and shares his information...not the least bit reluctantly, but it's the right thing to do anyway.

Would anyone involved seriously say "Well, this information is obviously tainted by Steele's bias, and we can't use it"

What we don't know is if Steele's bias developed prior to gathering intel for the dossier or during it. But that's really irrelevant at this point in the shadow of the larger question of can the intel he gathered be corroborated or not.

 

[Puffnstuff]

Ok, remain blind to the facts.

Brother the fact is that verifiable facts are considered by the court irrespective of the intent of the provider. For example; when someone is intent on getting a family member or friend's conviction overturned they hunt facts and when provided to the court they are considered irrespective of that party's intent which was to affect the outcome. Steele didn't illegally obtain information so his facts stand.

 

[pcgeek11]

Nice whataboutism. Nonetheless, I don't. Show me a single person who had access to the memo itself that expressed concern that it did, and then show me how that would even be relevant given the fact that Nunes modified the memo to include "corrections proposed by Democrats" prior to it's release.



Again? Find a single person who had access to the underlying intelligence that supports this claim. A single one.

I have no idea what was edited out other than what was requested by the FBI and the Dems along with grammatical corrections.

The Dossier was in the FISA request and as a supporting source the Yahoo news article was cited.

It has been reported that court papers show Steele admitted to meeting with Yahoo News, among other outlets including The Washington Post and the New York Times. The question from there is how much Isikoff relied upon information from Steele.

 

[fskimospy]

I have no idea what was edited out other than what was requested by the FBI and the Dems along with grammatical corrections.

So are you willing to admit your previous statements about how sources were wrong about classified information were wrong or at least likely wrong?

The Dossier was in the FISA request and as a supporting source the Yahoo news article was cited.

It has been reported that court papers show Steele admitted to meeting with Yahoo News, among other outlets including The Washington Post and the New York Times. The question from there is how much Isikoff relied upon information from Steele.

For like the fifth time, people who have seen the application have said that the Yahoo article was not used as a supporting source.

 

[pcgeek11]

I thought you said you hadn't reached any conclusions but here you are, representing what Nunes said to be fact...

I am talking about Steele feeding information about the dossier to Yahoo News and then the FISA Request using that as a source to back up the dossier credibility.

Steeles involvement with Yahoo News is verified by British Court records.

 

[pcgeek11]

He got caught lying about this exact topic in the exact same way. I mean come on.

Nice dodge.

 

[snarfbot]

Citation?

http://www.thegatewaypundit.com/201...ed-fisa-court-added-fake-dossier-knowing-lie/

it was denied, at least once. and as stated elsewhere in the article, the fisa court basically approves everything that comes through it, (1 out 10000 on average is refused) so you can rest assured that it was extraordinarily unwarranted!

 

[MomentsofSanity]

http://www.thegatewaypundit.com/201...ed-fisa-court-added-fake-dossier-knowing-lie/

it was denied, at least once. and as stated elsewhere in the article, the fisa court basically approves everything that comes through it, (1 out 10000 on average is refused) so you can rest assured that it was extraordinarily unwarranted!

First off did you know that more FISA requests were sent back in 2016 than in any other year for clarification/rejection than any other year? Hardly a rubber stand process. Also, warrants anywhere are rarely rejected as the people filing them are well aware of what threshhold must be met to be successful. That doesn't mean they hand them out, it means it's no secret what hoops you better jump through before filing.

 

[interchange]

http://www.thegatewaypundit.com/201...ed-fisa-court-added-fake-dossier-knowing-lie/

it was denied, at least once. and as stated elsewhere in the article, the fisa court basically approves everything that comes through it, (1 out 10000 on average is refused) so you can rest assured that it was extraordinarily unwarranted!

The name snarfbot makes more sense every post.

 

[Amused]

http://www.thegatewaypundit.com/201...ed-fisa-court-added-fake-dossier-knowing-lie/

it was denied, at least once. and as stated elsewhere in the article, the fisa court basically approves everything that comes through it, (1 out 10000 on average is refused) so you can rest assured that it was extraordinarily unwarranted!

Oh wow. That entire article is bullshit. And Gateway Pundit has the same credibility oas Trump himself with a long history of misinformation and lies.

Try again from a credible source.

Note they never connect the dots. Just claim one dot means another dot.

Why the fsck are people so gullable?

Meanwhile, in reality land, Page was on his THIRD FISA renewal which started in 2013 as inadvertently shown by the memo release.

The FBI and DOJ obtained one initial FISA warrant targeting Carter Page and three FISA renewals from the FISC. As required by statute (50 U.S.C. §,1805(d)(l)), a FISA order on an American citizen must be renewed by the FISC every 90 days and each renewal requires a separate finding of probable cause.

Whoops.

Narrative fail.

 

[soundforbjt]

well they tried to get the fisa warrant a couple times before and were denied.

Link? Nvm should have known it would be a fail.

 

[pcgeek11]

So are you willing to admit your previous statements about how sources were wrong about classified information were wrong or at least likely wrong?

For like the fifth time, people who have seen the application have said that the Yahoo article was not used as a supporting source.

Nancey Peloci:

“President Trump has surrendered his constitutional responsibility as Commander-in-Chief by releasing highly classified and distorted intelligence. By not protecting intelligence sources and methods, he just sent his friend Putin a bouquet."

Look for the XX time I don't know what was removed, neither do you. I wish we did have all of the information so there wouldn't be all of this guessing and people said bull shit. I'm looking forward to the Dems version to see what it says. I'm sure they will also spin it as I am sure the Reps spun this. That is what they all do.

I don't believe everything the Dems say as they are also proven liars, the same holds for the Reps. The truth lies somewhere in the middle.

 

[fskimospy]

http://www.thegatewaypundit.com/201...ed-fisa-court-added-fake-dossier-knowing-lie/

it was denied, at least once. and as stated elsewhere in the article, the fisa court basically approves everything that comes through it, (1 out 10000 on average is refused) so you can rest assured that it was extraordinarily unwarranted!

Your source is crazed ranting without any actual evidence.

Did you seriously not notice this? Embarrassing.

 

[snarfbot]

First off did you know that more FISA requests were sent back in 2016 than in any other year for clarification/rejection than any other year? Hardly a rubber stand process. Also, warrants anywhere are rarely rejected as the people filing them are well aware of what threshhold must be met to be successful. That doesn't mean they hand them out, it means it's no secret what hoops you better jump through before filing.

wow interesting, are you privy to this information or do you want to share your sources? i would be interested in why the outgoing administration was so interested in spying on its own citizens during an election. that seems to lend credence to the theory that the administration was leveraging its spy apparatus to spy on opponents of its party.

 

[snarfbot]

Your source is crazed ranting without any actual evidence.

Did you seriously not notice this? Embarrassing.

no, your post is actually whats called a bald assertion though.

 

[MomentsofSanity]

wow interesting, are you privy to this information or do you want to share your sources? i would be interested in why the outgoing administration was so interested in spying on its own citizens during an election. that seems to lend credence to the theory that the administration was leveraging its spy apparatus to spy on opponents of its party.

It doesn’t mean that at all. It means that all FISA requests were given more scrutiny in recent years.

http://www.newsweek.com/how-get-fisa-warrant-797323

That said, judges rarely deny requests for warrants, approving more than 99 percent, according to The Wall Street Journal. In 33 years the court had rejected only 11 of 33,900 requests.

As more scrutiny has come to the court in recent years, there has been an uptick in rejections. Nine requests were rejected in 2016, a record high, although the vast majority of requests were still approved.

The increased scrutiny actually supports the argument the request would have had to have been proper and with merit. The number of requests were average.

 

[Jhhnn]

have no idea what was edited out other than what was requested by the FBI and the Dems along with grammatical corrections.

You just represented an unverifiable Nunes contention as fact. But you haven't jumped to any conclusions, obviously.

 

[interchange]

Nancey Peloci:

“President Trump has surrendered his constitutional responsibility as Commander-in-Chief by releasing highly classified and distorted intelligence. By not protecting intelligence sources and methods, he just sent his friend Putin a bouquet."

Look for the XX time I don't know what was removed, neither do you. I wish we did have all of the information so there wouldn't be all of this guessing and people said bull shit. I'm looking forward to the Dems version to see what it says. I'm sure they will also spin it as I am sure the Reps spun this. That is what they all do.

I don't believe everything the Dems say as they are also proven liars, the same holds for the Reps. The truth lies somewhere in the middle.

Bravo. Nancy Pelosi made a statement that none of us here agree with, raising these objections after the memo was released no less.

Here are the words you used:
"I thought this memo spelled the end and was going to out all of these sources and methods."
"There have been people that read it that said sources and methods would be revealed and that classified information would also. There was none."

Still waiting.