As expected, the minority memo--the release of which was delayed by WH until Saturday night to minimize coverage--directly and persuasively refutes central claims of the Nunes memo.
Printable View
As expected, the minority memo--the release of which was delayed by WH until Saturday night to minimize coverage--directly and persuasively refutes central claims of the Nunes memo.
OMG, both "memos" are political documents. They only reflect our polarization, and won't change a damn thing. :(
Yes, facts are political these days.
Intel committee leaking witness testimony to all the right people:
https://amp.cnn.com/cnn/2018/03/06/p...nce/index.html
You know what would really, really make me happy? If the Mueller investigation managed to uncover something worth indicting Nunes on.
No Fuzzy, we can't have good things.
It would be time to create a Church of Mueller.Quote:
Originally Posted by LittleFuzzy
In shocking plot twist, recently released (albeit heavily redacted) FISA documents show Nunes & co. were lying, eg. when they claimed a Yahoo article based on info from Steele was used to corroborate Steele's dossier. Will there be any criticism from within the GOP? Will there be any calls for resignation? Will there be any apologies?
Of course not. This is not a responsible party. They have no integrity and they are currently unfit to govern.
Review:
https://mobile.twitter.com/pwnallthe...00152926384128
(long thread)
Conclusion: Nunes lied, with the help of Gowdy and other Republicans, and then tried to hide the truth. And at least one person on this forum was happy to cheer these scummy fuckers on.
I think what's most notable is not the fact of the lie, but what they're lying in aid of.
Normally, when politicians lie it's to conceal something that makes them look bad or some piece of information that goes counter to their ideological leanings. Not exactly commendable, but at least understandable.
This is something else. Whatever they're up to, they're not looking out for the interests of their country or the people they're supposed to represent.
But this does make them look bad. This makes the entire republican party look bad, and what they don't realize is that their attempts at covering things up—in order to deprive their liberal opponents of ammunition—only makes them look worse. The entire GOP establishment has gone all in on Trump not because they too are Russian assets but because they saw the storm coming and thought they could ride it out without tearing their country apart and setting themselves up for humiliation, and maybe even get a tax cut out of it. They thought Trump couldn't be all that bad and that they could control him, and now they can't cut him loose.
Oh my.
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2018...docs-show.html
"On four occasions, the FBI told the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance (FISA) court that it "did not believe" former British spy Christopher Steele was the direct source for a Yahoo News article implicating former Trump aide Carter Page in Russian collusion, newly released documents reveal.
Instead, the FBI suggested to the court, the September 2016 article by Michael Isikoff was independent corroboration of the salacious, unverified allegations against Trump in the infamous Steele Dossier. Federal authorities used both the Steele Dossier and Yahoo News article to convince the FISA court to authorize a surveillance warrant for Page."
.....
"Critics have charged that Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein, who signed off on the FISA application renewals, should not have approved them without more reliable intelligence."
A YAHOO NEWS ARTICLE WAS USED AS EVIDENCE TO OBTAIN A FISA WARRANT??? Holy fucking shit, serious?
Funny how you start caring about the rights of the acused when they're conservative white men.
Outside of not supporting giving constitutional rights to non-citizens when have I ever dismissed the rights of the accused?Quote:
Originally Posted by Loki
But so back to the Yahoo article = evidence. Do you actually support this? Should the Koch brothers buy Yahoo and just start using their articles as reason for a Trump to surveil the DNC and all Democrats?
I can't stop laughing at how bad that state media article is, or how Lewk swallowed it hook, line and sinker. The documents show the opposite of what the article says it does and I suspect the dumbass who wrote it got his talking points from someone else trying to muddy the waters. The redacted portions contain even more damning material.Quote:
Originally Posted by Loki
No, that's not what the warrant says. Fox News are bullshitting you.Quote:
Originally Posted by Lewkowski
https://int.nyt.com/data/documenthel.../optimized.pdf (pages 22 through 26)
The warrant mentions the September 23rd Article in the context (C O N T E X T) of Page's later denial of those accusations, and the Trump campaign's subsequent distancing of themselves from him, and saying he's nothing to do with the campaign. It does not offer it as corroboration or evidence, merely as background for something else they think is important. Why they mention Page's denial specifically is hard to tell because everything before and after is blacked out.
I haven't read the entire thing, but this appears to be flat out bollocks. The warrant makes no mention of the September article in the context of the Steele dossier that I could find. The link is right up there if anyone wants to prove me wrong.Quote:
Instead, the FBI suggested to the court, the September 2016 article by Michael Isikoff was independent corroboration of the salacious, unverified allegations against Trump in the infamous Steele Dossier. Federal authorities used both the Steele Dossier and Yahoo News article to convince the FISA court to authorize a surveillance warrant for Page.
It is bollocks. The article in question is cited, along with another article, to demonstrate that Page publicly denied his Russian connections, which the FBI at that point knew was false. In addition, the document clearly states that the Yahoo article probably made use of info that had been obtained by Steele, which is basically the opposite of using it to corroborate Steele's findings.
Honestly, this is so fucking embarrassing that lewk would almost be justified in deleting that post.
So I found the article Fox News is on about.
https://www.yahoo.com/news/u-s-intel...l?guccounter=1
Notice anything? Like, what it's actually reporting... it is reporting that US intelligence officials are investigating Carter Page.
Fox News reckons:
So according to Fox News, the FBI was using an article saying that they themselves were investigating Page was corroboration of the Steele dossier. That the investigation was kicked off by an article reporting on the existence of that investigation and they used the article reporting the fact they were investigating as evidence to get a warrant which can only be proof that FBI investigative procedure makes used of closed time-like curves and what the shitting hell is this Doctor Who level bollocks honest to christQuote:
Instead, the FBI suggested to the court, the September 2016 article by Michael Isikoff was independent corroboration of the salacious, unverified allegations against Trump in the infamous Steele Dossier. Federal authorities used both the Steele Dossier and Yahoo News article to convince the FISA court to authorize a surveillance warrant for Page.
What was used to justify the FISA warrant outside of the Steele Dossier?Quote:
Originally Posted by Steely Glint
A more important issue is that Nunes & co. lied about how the article was used. They claimed that the article was used to corroborate Steele's intel even though it was itself based on that same intel. The Schiff memo attempted to correct this lie:Quote:
Originally Posted by Steely Glint
https://pbs.twimg.com/media/DirQDpLW0AALlwa.jpg
We now know that Nunes & co. lied; the article was used to show that Page was lying about his Russian contacts:
https://pbs.twimg.com/media/DirQZvlXkAIreg2.jpg
This is important b/c Page was in effect working as a foreign agent while hiding that fact, by not registering as one and publicly denying that status.
Lewk is now defending the grotesque attempt to protect Trump by obstructing the FBI's work and calling the agency into disrepute through the use of outright lies. It is utterly disgraceful that he cannot acknowledge that Nunes lied about the contents of the FISA app & reauths even when presented with conclusive evidence that this was the case, just as it was when they claimed that the FBI did not disclose the ultimately political nature of Steele's funding & assignment and later when they claimed that the disclosure was too difficult to notice (it was a footnote that covered half a fucking page). These people are irredeemable. They're "owning the libs" by acting like delusional idiots.
Most of this info remains redacted, with only the relevant statutes noted in the apps.Quote:
Originally Posted by Lewkowski
However, it begins like this:
https://pbs.twimg.com/media/DirBl60VMAAqE53.jpg
(with the redacted content--likely providing increasingly detailed information about those contacts w/ Russian intelligence--growing in size for each app)
And continues like this:
https://pbs.twimg.com/media/DisBxKeXsAAmbhn.jpg
Transcript of intercepted convos between two SVR officers talking about Page:
https://pbs.twimg.com/media/Dit2LnxVQAIzUo9.jpg
https://pbs.twimg.com/media/Dit2MFRUwAEV1XC.jpg
As for the Steele memos, the FBI was and remains satisfied that Steele is a reliable source, but of course they went to great lengths to provide independent corroboration. The Schiff memo points out that the FBI's counterintelligence investigation was initiated nearly two months before they received Steele's intel, based on other information that was available to them:
https://www.politico.com/f/?id=00000...1-edefe9d00001
The FISA applications contain redacted sections that describe this information.Quote:
- Christopher Steele's raw intelligence reporting did not inform the rave decision to initiate its counterintelligence investigation in late July 2016. In fact, the FBI's closely-held investigative team only received Steele's reopening in mid-September—more than seven weeks later. The FBI – and, subsequently, the Special Counsel's – investigation into links between the Russian government and Trump campaign associates has been based on troubling law enforcement and intelligence information unrelated to the "dossier."
- DOJ's October 21, 2016 FISA application and three subsequent renewals carefully outlined for the court a multi-pronged rationale for surveilling Page, who, at the time of the first application, was no longer with the Trump campaign. DOJ detailed Page's past relationships with Russian spies and interaction with Russian officials during the 2016 campaign, . DOJ cited multiple sources to support the case for surveilling Page—but made only narrow use or information from Steele's sources about Page's specific activities in 2016, chiefly his suspected July 2016 meetings in Moscow with Russian officials. . In fact, the FBI interviewed Page in March 2016 about his contact with Russian intelligence. the very month candidate Donald Trump named him a foreign policy adviser.
As DOJ informed the Court in subsequent renewals, Steele's reporting about Page's Moscow meetings . DOJ's applications did not otherwise rely on Steele's reporting, including any "salacious" allegations about Trump, and the FBI never paid Steele for this reporting. While explaining why the FBI viewed Steele's reporting and sources as reliable and credible, DOJ also disclosed:
- Steele's prior relationship with the FBI;
- the fact of and reason for his termination as a source; and
- the assessed political motivation of those who hired him.
Now you might chafe at the thought of having to take Schiff's word on anything, but let's be clear: we now know that Nunes lied about the contents of the FISA apps, and we have confirmed that some of Schiff's corrections were accurate.
In closing, I must confess that I find the striking differences between your views on govt. surveillance of brown Muslim Americans (who might hold extremist views) and a non-Muslim white American (who has had suspicious contacts with intelligence officers of a hostile foreign nation and is strongly suspected of having committed numerous criminal violations of US statutes)... to be pretty hilarious. You're turning into a parody of yourself, Lewk.
The underlying logic of trying to tie the FBI's investigation to the Steele Dossier ("The Steele Dossier is unverified, so the FBI shouldn't seek to verify it!") is a fairly significant tell that the people pushing that angle are not operating in good faith.
Agreed, but I understand that some may have issues with using such unverified info to obtain a warrant for extremely intrusive surveillance that can be used to verify the original intel. Of course, that did not happen here, even though the intel came from a reliable source.Quote:
Originally Posted by Steely Glint
Fun part is that the judges who approved the warrant were all GOP nominees. He has gotten so desperate Lewk is no longer restricting himself to a low of party over country.
The Steele Dossier is a political hit job. The author hates Trump and risked his FBI contract (which he actually lost) because he leaked info to the press. So yeah the Dossier is a steaming pile of shit.Quote:
Originally Posted by Steely Glint
Tell me again the success rate of FISA requests?Quote:
Originally Posted by Ominous Gamer
Aimless - so all of that is... jack and shit without more parts being un-redacted. Let me ask you this - without the Steele Dossier would that FISA warrant been issued or was it the critical part of the justification for it? This is important because if it is the critical part and they did not disclose the details tot he FISA court about the obvious bias nature of it you have proof of some real shady shit in an election year.
Secondly lets talk about this:
"In closing, I must confess that I find the striking differences between your views on govt. surveillance of brown Muslim Americans (who might hold extremist views) and a non-Muslim white American (who has had suspicious contacts with intelligence officers of a hostile foreign nation and is strongly suspected of having committed numerous criminal violations of US statutes)... to be pretty hilarious. You're turning into a parody of yourself, Lewk."
Monitoring PUBLIC FACEBOOK PAGES DOESN'T REQUIRE A WARRANT. In addition if you did want to push the envelope, I'd rather have people looking into actual terrorist threats then random spy games.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lewkowski
http://thehill.com/policy/national-s...ing-to-be-trueQuote:
"Some of what was in the dossier was actually corroborated — but separately — in our intelligence community assessment, from other sources that we were confident in," Clapper said.
"The salacious parts, no. That’s never been corroborated," he added. "It would appear to me that as time has gone on more and more of it has been corroborated, but I can’t actually give you a percentage."
The U.S intelligence community doesn't share your assessment.
Haven't you advocated for placing surveillance on mosques?Quote:
Originally Posted by Lewkowski
Translation: I'm a fucking moron.Quote:
Originally Posted by Lewkowski
Quote:
Originally Posted by Enoch the Red
Note: the above does not apply to white men who have become compromised by the intelligence apparatus of a hostile foreign country.Quote:
Originally Posted by Lewkowski
With appropriate red flags sure. Not every mosque that would be untenable from a manpower situation even if we wanted to.Quote:
Originally Posted by Enoch the Red
See above for examples of what Lewk sees as "red flags" and be amazed at the differences in standards between brown Americans and white Kremlin assets.
"Makes public pro jihad statements"Quote:
Originally Posted by Aimless
That's a pretty big fucking red flag.
"Meets with Russian intelligence officers"Quote:
Originally Posted by Lewkowski
That's a pretty big fucking red flag.
Indeed, but slightly less red than actively collaborating with Russian intelligence officers for several years and lobbying on behalf of Russia while trying to hide that fact from authorities, in violation of several laws.Quote:
Originally Posted by Lewkowski
Wait so charges are coming for Carter Page? Oh yeah, I didn't think so.Quote:
Originally Posted by Aimless
I wonder how many Muslim's who were subjected to FBI surveillance were never charged.
From what I've seen (and I admit it's not much) it still seems like the Steele memo was a primary justification of the initial search. What's totally unclear is whether they found anything, and what that was.
"a"Quote:
Originally Posted by Dreadnaught
"Whether" is not unclear at all, it is extremely strongly implied by the multiple reauthorizations and the ballooning redacted text.Quote:
What's totally unclear is whether they found anything, and what that was.