House Intelligence FISA memo released: What it says

originally posted by: burntheships
a reply to: scraedtosleep

Comey was fired.

McCabe is on Terminal Leave and under a DOJ investigation.

Hows that so far?

Bruce Ohr, named, demoted twice, too. Strozk from senior counter-intel on this investigation to HR. Everyone that touched this has been being shuffled into the background.

originally posted by: underwerks

originally posted by: butcherguy
a reply to: underwerks

How is that outrageous? You get put under surveillance because of rumors most times, and that's how they collect evidence. That's how investigations work, down to your local PD.

No.
That isn't how the FISA court works.
Rumors don't cut it.

Actually, all that's required is for a judge to sign off on it..

Each application for one of these surveillance warrants (called a FISA warrant) is made before an individual judge of the court. The court may allow third parties to submit briefs as amici curiae. When the U.S. Attorney General determines that an emergency exists, the Attorney General may authorize the emergency employment of electronic surveillance before obtaining the necessary authorization from the FISC, if the Attorney General or their designee notifies a judge of the court at the time of authorization and applies for a warrant as soon as practicable but not more than seven days after authorization of such surveillance, as required by 50 U.S.C. § 1805.

Link

Whether rumor is good enough is up to the judge in question, and the case presented to him.

Yup. Been a problem for decades. Ashcroft was severely abusive. You would think people would catch on the FISA program at least needs severe oversight and changes.

originally posted by: theantediluvian
Democrats from the committee are disputing the characterization of McCabe's testimony (as it were) in the memo and are now pushing for the committee to release the transcript of McCabe's testimony. I thought it was interesting that it was paraphrased.

Notice that some parts use extremely short quotes which are at least in some cases (e.g. "salacious and unverified"), easily proven misleading. (of course we can't tell if the same tactic was used elsewhere) We don't even get that for the alleged McCabe statement.

For once we agree - I would like all the supporting information released in full.
As it stands, the accusations in this memo represent a truly horrendous picture of how the US govt operates. More detail must be provided.

originally posted by: projectvxn
a reply to: underwerks

How is that outrageous? You get put under surveillance because of rumors most times, and that's how they collect evidence against you. That's how investigations work, down to your local PD.

Rumors?

You have a pretty weird threshold of what constitutes probable cause for an investigation of this magnitude.

Says a lot really, that you believe RUMORS are enough to sick the intelligence community on your political opponents.

Wanna talk about being a Putin protege, this behavior basically spells it out.

I'm not saying it's right, just that that's how they operate. And shouldn't be a surprise to anyone.

Outrageous? Sure. Normal? Yep.

I have a feeling a lot of people here haven't been under investigation before.

a reply to: theantediluvian

There must be plenty of dirt on McCabe, he is under a DOJ
investigation right?

Must be guilty, right?

The liberal reactions, especially high levels and in media are nearly more important and revealing than the contents of the memo or evidence it's based on.

a reply to: underwerks

en.m.wikipedia.org...

They tend to provide additional information, essentially court witnesses who fill multiple roles. Nowhere in that description does it mention rumors as a basis to sign off on warrants, but actionable intelligence. Judges have to look at the intelligence and determine whether a warrant is justified for further discovery.

Words mean things. To say a "Rumor" is needed for warrants issued would be REALLY bad for the American people.

originally posted by: Grambler
a reply to: soberbacchus

Please show me where Page admitted meeting sechin.

I see that he denied in it testimony.

One of those was Igor Sechin, the CEO of the Rosneft oil company, which is majority owned by the Russian government. According to the dossier, Sechin and Page had a secret meeting on Moscow on either July 7 or July 8, at which Sechin offered Trump associates a large stake in his company and Page said Trump would lift US sanctions on Rosneft if elected.

Page contemptuously denied all of this, straightforwardly asserting that he’s never met Sechin in a way that sounded more or less believable.

But then, under questioning, Page admitted that during that trip, he met with one of Sechin’s subordinates — Andrey Baranov, the head of investor relations at Rosneft, with whom he had a preexisting relationship.

www.vox.com...

I will await your proof that this article is false and Page testified he did meet sechin.

Right...Page met with Sechin's VP of Investments and discussed both the Rosneft Deal and US Sanctions.

He did not meet with Sechin (As far as we know) directly.

Steele himself has said he thinks the intelligence he gathered is 70-80% accurate.

As it stands YOU falsely claimed:

So far, we know things such as Page was in russia is true, which was public knowledge.

Thats about it regarding page.

The Dossier said Page, while in Moscow met with Sechin (Inaccurate, he met with Sechin's #2 and head of investments)
to discuss trading stakes in the Oil Giant Rosneft in trade for Trump to lift US Sanctions.

Page has since admitted under oath:
While in Moscow he met with Sechin's #2 and discussed the Rosneft Deal and US Sanctions, but did not elaborate.

The Dossier was pretty damn accurate with the exception that Carrter Page met with the VP instead of Pres. of Rosneft.
And it was right about discussion topics. Sanctions, Trump, Rosneft deal.
Whether a trade was proposed we still don't know.

Has anyone read the odd stuff QAnon is sharing on twitter regarding Adam Schiff and the helicopter crash of the two hotel execs from the Standard Hotel??

originally posted by: RadioRobert

originally posted by: burntheships
a reply to: scraedtosleep

Comey was fired.

McCabe is on Terminal Leave and under a DOJ investigation.

Hows that so far?

Bruce Ohr, named, demoted twice, too. Strozk from senior counter-intel on this investigation to HR. Everyone that touched this has been being shuffled into the background.

Except for Rosenstein - and it is he who holds sway over the Special Counsel and how far it can reach.

originally posted by: Willtell
This is just what we knew it would be

A defense of Trump by his defenders distorting reality

Like cutting up puzzle pieces to make them fit where they don’t belong.

Trump and everything he does is a LIE!

Trump and everything he touches is a LIE

Trump and everyone surrounding him is a LIAR

Distorting reality??? really?

The hell are you smoking??

originally posted by: RadioRobert

Bruce Ohr, named, demoted twice, too. Strozk from senior counter-intel on this investigation to HR. Everyone that touched this has been being shuffled into the background.

Yes, Bruce Ohr lost both of his "executive jobs".

dailycaller.com...

originally posted by: Abysha
a reply to: Xcathdra

I just want to make sure I'm absorbing this all correctly since things have been happening at a pace that is difficult to keep up with and I don't even know what I'm looking at sometimes, lol.

1 - The memo is basically a GOP op-ed? What makes this more legit than say the DNC version of this that hasn't been released?

2 - The document this memo is opining over is not released and we have no idea how to confirm it beyond this memo?

3 - Even the memo states that the Steele thing wasn't the only corroborating factor for the warrant. Am I reading that right?

4 - Is this release just a preemptive cushion to assuage the impact of future findings by the FBI since their reputation in the eyes of some is essentially "fake news"?


In any case, this is a mess. I'm hoping this last year has at least accomplished one thing: making third-party folk (like the Green Party and the Libertarian Party) legitimately viable options in 2020.

To your point 3: The dossier and Steele's Yahoo news interview seem to be the two things that were used for the FISA. The DOJ used regurgitated parts of the Dossier as cited by others without any proof, as things that corroborated the Dossier but that was a lie as as well. There seems to be no other info other than Steele's dossier that was used as per Mcabes own testimony.

originally posted by: Abysha
I just want to make sure I'm absorbing this all correctly since things have been happening at a pace that is difficult to keep up with and I don't even know what I'm looking at sometimes, lol.

Its cool no worries.

originally posted by: Abysha
1 - The memo is basically a GOP op-ed? What makes this more legit than say the DNC version of this that hasn't been released?

It was drafted by the intelligence committee. Nothing in the memo is disputed. Democrats argue its out of context. The intel committee unanimously voted to approve the Democratic memo for release to the full house. They have to go through the exact same process Republicans did. Democrats apparently dont like that.

originally posted by: Abysha
2 - The document this memo is opining over is not released and we have no idea how to confirm it beyond this memo?

The dossier was released. It was published by Buzzfeed. It has NOT been corroborated and several people now have stated that under oath to the congressional committees investigating this mess. The memo released today revealed the FBI/DOJ knew it was not verified / corroborated.

originally posted by: Abysha
3 - Even the memo states that the Steele thing wasn't the only corroborating factor for the warrant. Am I reading that right?

Partially. Steele and Fusiongps shopped the dossier around to media outlets to report on it. The media reports were then used as "corroboration / credibility" to the dossier itself (called circular reporting). With that said the first 2 times they tried to obtain a FISA warrant they were denied by the court. The 3rd time used the dossier and the warrant was granted. I maintain there was nothing else supporting the dossier. Others think the info from the first 2 times supported the dossier to the extent of granting the warrant.

originally posted by: Abysha
4 - Is this release just a preemptive cushion to assuage the impact of future findings by the FBI since their reputation in the eyes of some is essentially "fake news"?

That all depends on how you see the information thus far. Personally I think the whole trump russia collusion narrative is bs and is done by democrats who were butt hurt that Clinton lost.

originally posted by: Abysha
In any case, this is a mess. I'm hoping this last year has at least accomplished one thing: making third-party folk (like the Green Party and the Libertarian Party) legitimately viable options in 2020.

Agreed.

The only date that matters confirms that all of this happened AFTER Page left the campaign.

Boy Trump really checkmates the Democrats on that one...... /sarcasm

Dollars to doughnuts Trump wasn't even bothered to read the memo.

Lol.

originally posted by: Grambler



Saying it was in its infancy does not prove that more was confirmed later, it shows the most important thing; that at the time it was used for the fisa warrant, they had not yet done enough research to prove its accuracy.

Getting the warrant to spy on trumps team, and then doing work to confirm it later is not a legitimate excuse.



AMEN GRAMBLER!

The problem here is that Carter Page was already under surveillance since 2013, when his actions and who he was dealing with came to the attention of the FBI. So while they may have referenced the Dossier, the initial reason for him being watched is still valid. So once every 90 days the FBI had to go and renew the warrant to continue to watch him.

Spying takes time, as it does to catch such a spy. It takes months and months, before they have enough evidence to bring to a court of law, it is not an overnight thing, move in, as the rights of the person has to be observed. And it was very apparent that the Russians had an active interest in Carter Page, and were slowly compromising him into giving them more and more information.

So while on the surface, it appears bad, however, we do not see the full evidence or hear from the other side, it is in short a one sided argument. The other aspect is disturbing, and we should give pause to think about.

It is not illegal to do opposition research, it is quite the norm, every political person does such. What if in the course of that investigation, one discovers something that shows a crime has been broken, should they not give that to the law enforcement? Should one remain quiet about such? Or should one hand it over to the proper authorities?

And if Nunes was out of the investigation, recusing himself from the Russian investigation, then why did he do this? How much was the White House involved in this, and why will they not release the memo from the other side, to show the opposing point of view.

Nunes did work with the White House, he was caught going to the White House and sharing information, breaching the walls between the 2 branches of Government, so how bias would this be?

Personally I think that there needs to be an independent investigation, that is bipartisan and where it is separate from the White House and where Congress can not interfere, to get to the truth.

originally posted by: theantediluvian
a reply to: Grambler

I know because Comey admitted months later the dossier was salacious and unverified.

No. He referred to specific parts of the dossier as salacious. For something to be "salacious" it has to concern something sexual. (by definition). There's only one part of the dossier that could be remotely described as "salacious" and that's the pee pee tape thing which has nothing to do with Carter Page.

This inclusion is deliberately misleading and is in fact, a popular right-wing talking point that is not accurate.

Again, as I showed you last time you brought this up, you are wrong.

The IC leadership thought it important, for a variety of reasons, to alert the incoming President to the existence of this material, even though it was salacious and unverified. Among those reasons were: (1) we knew the media was about to publicly report the material and we believed the IC should not keep knowledge of the material and its imminent release from the President-Elect; and (2) to the extent there was some effort to compromise an incoming President, we could blunt any such effort with a defensive briefing.

www.cnn.com...

And we still don't know what from the Carter Page part of the dossier was used or how it was used.

We know that it says McCabe said without the dossier there would have been no warrant.

Are you ok with a oppo dossier paid for by someones political opponent being used to spy on there opponent when the conbfirmation of that dossier is it its infancy? I sure am not.

We've had reporting that there was a denied warrant app. The memo doesn't mention it. You're implying that the dossier made the difference based the next point:

I believe those reports have been confirmed.

Are you denying that there was a first warrant on page denied?

It doesn't actually say that. What it says is this:

"McCabe testified before the Committee in December 2017 that no surveillance warrant would have been sought from the FISC without the Steele dossier information."

Yep. No warrant without the dosssier. How am I misreading that?

As I pointed out in my other post, Carter Page didn't actually work for the Trump campaign at that point. He resigned a month earlier.

As I showed in the previous post, that doesnt matter. It still allowed them to find out anything he knew about the campaign and here any conversations he had about it or with cmapaign members.

originally posted by: Hewhowaits
a reply to: scraedtosleep

The memo won't prove Obama is a criminal. Common sense can prove Obama is a criminal.

If you or I sent 1.3 billion dollars cash to Iran, we'd be in gitmo.

This is another thing that needs to be investigated. No payment to Iran had been authorized. And the timing, immediately before Obama left office, is suspicious as hell. Has an explanation ever been offered as to why he did this?

originally posted by: sdcigarpig
The problem here is that Carter Page was already under surveillance since 2013, when his actions and who he was dealing with came to the attention of the FBI. So while they may have referenced the Dossier, the initial reason for him being watched is still valid. So once every 90 days the FBI had to go and renew the warrant to continue to watch him.

Spying takes time, as it does to catch such a spy. It takes months and months, before they have enough evidence to bring to a court of law, it is not an overnight thing, move in, as the rights of the person has to be observed. And it was very apparent that the Russians had an active interest in Carter Page, and were slowly compromising him into giving them more and more information.

So while on the surface, it appears bad, however, we do not see the full evidence or hear from the other side, it is in short a one sided argument. The other aspect is disturbing, and we should give pause to think about.

It is not illegal to do opposition research, it is quite the norm, every political person does such. What if in the course of that investigation, one discovers something that shows a crime has been broken, should they not give that to the law enforcement? Should one remain quiet about such? Or should one hand it over to the proper authorities?

And if Nunes was out of the investigation, recusing himself from the Russian investigation, then why did he do this? How much was the White House involved in this, and why will they not release the memo from the other side, to show the opposing point of view.

Nunes did work with the White House, he was caught going to the White House and sharing information, breaching the walls between the 2 branches of Government, so how bias would this be?

Personally I think that there needs to be an independent investigation, that is bipartisan and where it is separate from the White House and where Congress can not interfere, to get to the truth.

I think the knuckleheads are saying that just because they were looking into Page back in 2013 they secretly knew Trump would eventually run for president, eventually hire Page to work for him, and therefore it was all biased in a completely non-temporal manner.