It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

House Intelligence FISA memo released: What it says

page: 31
169
<< 28  29  30    32  33  34 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Feb, 2 2018 @ 02:47 PM
link   

originally posted by: RadioRobert

originally posted by: face23785

originally posted by: burntheships

originally posted by: Wayfarer

Yeah, that must have been it, which would also explain how the original FISA warrant was signed years before Steele's portion of the document was included.......


Which demonstrates the failure of any agency to act in a timely manner,
The FBI had all of this information years ago, way before Trump was on the scene.

The only explanation is the Special Counsel is The Insurance Policy
that was tossed out in Andrew McCabes office.

Time will prove this, wait and see.


It's also irrelevant. That warrant was issued in 2013, Page was investigated, and nothing was done. That warrant expired. Then in 2016 they asked for a new warrant based primarily on this dossier. Even bringing up the 2013 warrant is irrelevant, it's misdirection. That's like using the fact that someone was convicted of theft 5 years ago to get a judge to sign off on a search warrant for that person's apartment in a new case, without any other evidence.

Worse. It's like using a three year old investigation that turned up nothing actionable even after being granted a FISA warrant. Why is the court going to give you another go without something substantial that is new.


Because over 99 percent of fisa warrants are granted because it's an extremely flawed system.
edit on 2-2-2018 by luthier because: (no reason given)




posted on Feb, 2 2018 @ 02:47 PM
link   

originally posted by: GeechQuestInfo

originally posted by: neo96
a reply to: introvert




I don't think it's the Trump haters that just got played by the GOP memo release.


Sure didn't.

Because it was ALL laid out here.

Pre memo.

en.wikipedia.org...



So, according to your source (Wikipedia), "In October 2015, during the Republican primary campaign, The Washington Free Beacon, a conservative website primarily funded by Republican donor Paul Singer, hired the American research firm Fusion GPS to conduct opposition research on Trump and other Republican presidential candidates.[1] For months, Fusion GPS gathered information about Trump, focusing on his business and entertainment activities. When Trump became the presumptive nominee on May 3, 2016, The Free Beacon stopped funding research on him"

So it was a conservative website, funded by a Republican donor, that initiated the gathering of this information?

I thought it was Killary who started this Dossier nonsense.


Obviously it was Killary who was actually pulling the puppet strings of the Washington Free Beacon...



posted on Feb, 2 2018 @ 02:48 PM
link   

originally posted by: Xcathdra
a reply to: luthier

Then you need to reread the memo since it lays out several legal violations.

Of the Constitutional variety.



posted on Feb, 2 2018 @ 02:48 PM
link   
a reply to: TREESNAKE1111

Yes lying to illegally obtain a fisa warrant, so ho hum.



posted on Feb, 2 2018 @ 02:48 PM
link   

originally posted by: Grambler

originally posted by: soberbacchus

originally posted by: Grambler

originally posted by: soberbacchus
a reply to: Grambler

You are smart enough to know the truth.

Which kind of makes trying to share facts a moot point.

The Dossier was pretty damn spot on with Page, the execs he met with, the time and place, the exact topics discussed (Sanctions and Rosneft Deal).

You said all it proved was that he went to Russia.

As for this memo.

You guys can rally behind it, but it really is a nothing burger.

Trump can try and use it to have a Saturday Night Massacre...and I can of hope he does.

What is coming is not great for Trump or Supporters in my opinion.



The dossier was wrong about page more than it was right.

It was right that page went to russia, which was public knowledge.

It was wrong about who he met with, and the majority of what they discussed.



Nope.

It was right about what they discussed. Sanctions and Rosneft deal.
It was right that he met with Rosneft Exec (just got CEO vs. VP wrong)
Whether they actually discussed a trade he would not say.

Hopefully you are at least honest with yourself.

Still believe all it got right was Carter Page was in Russia?



The dossier said page discussed removing sanctions in exchange for 19% of roseneft with sechin; that is wrong.




Thanks for the reminder.

You want to see another coincidence that came to pass that was in the Dossier?

How Russia sold its oil jewel: without saying who bought it

MOSCOW/LONDON/MILAN (Reuters) - More than a month after Russia announced one of its biggest privatizations since the 1990s, selling a 19.5 percent stake in its giant oil company Rosneft, it still isn’t possible to determine from public records the full identities of those who bought it.

www.reuters.com...

But you can say that the Dossier is BS because it predicted 19%, not 19.5%...right?

We still don't know the people that 19.5% stake was divvied up to.



posted on Feb, 2 2018 @ 02:49 PM
link   
a reply to: Wayfarer

Why would that be? The fact nothing illegal happened at that stage suggests Hillary wasn't involved yet.



posted on Feb, 2 2018 @ 02:50 PM
link   
a reply to: soberbacchus

So now you can show me it was GIVEN and not sold and it went to Trump. I'll wait.



posted on Feb, 2 2018 @ 02:50 PM
link   
a reply to: GeechQuestInfo

Sure the wasn't the Washington Freebeacon that hired FusionGPS/Steele and retain Perkins Coie.

And Everything at wiki is sourced from somewhere else hence the foot notes.

This is the part they IGNORE like the black death.



The dossier was produced as part of opposition research during the 2016 U.S. presidential election. After Trump emerged as the probable Republican nominee, attorney Marc Elias of the Perkins Coie law firm retained American research firm Fusion GPS to conduct opposition research about Trump on behalf of the Democratic National Committee and Clinton presidential campaign. Fusion GPS later contracted Steele to compile the dossier.[14] Following Trump's election as president, Steele continued working on the report, with funding from Democrats ceasing and financing finally coming directly from Glenn R. Simpson of Fusion GPS.[15]

edit on 2-2-2018 by neo96 because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 2 2018 @ 02:50 PM
link   

originally posted by: luthier
a reply to: Xcathdra

It does not really. Can you show me maybe I missed them.


Perpetrating a fraud on the court in order to obtain a warrant.
Deprivation of rights while acting under color of law (criminal and civil).
Attempting to conceal evidence of a crime.
Conspiracy
Obstruction
Collaborating with a foreign national to intentionally interfere in a federal election.
Sedition
Treason
etc
edit on 2-2-2018 by Xcathdra because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 2 2018 @ 02:50 PM
link   

originally posted by: CrawlingChaos
a reply to: theantediluvian

No, Comey's statement was that the dossier was salacious and unverified.

He didn't state "parts"...

And you ignored the most important part, the fact he stated the dossier as a whole was unverified.




He did not say the dossier was unverified as a whole. In the comment he made, he was speaking about "material" he was briefing Trump about. He did not say he briefed him on the entirety of the dossier. The "material" he was discussing with Trump was salacious and unverified.
edit on 2-2-2018 by introvert because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 2 2018 @ 02:50 PM
link   

originally posted by: AboveBoard
What if the memo narrative is a lie?

What if you are being manipulated into believing malfeasance on the part of the FBI and DOJ when there is none?

Please give me an honest answer to this.


I could ask you the same question from the other side.

What if it isn't, and everything else you thought to be true was a lie?



posted on Feb, 2 2018 @ 02:50 PM
link   

originally posted by: face23785

originally posted by: Xcathdra
a reply to: luthier

Then you need to reread the memo since it lays out several legal violations.


What makes you think he read it in the first place? CNN's synopsis is probably good enough for him, who needs to actually be informed?


Really.

My go to places are wsj, the national review, Ben shapiro, napalitano, and the hill.

But hey you are right if you don't believe one set of liars the default is to believe the other set of liars.

Rand Paul, Tulsi Gabbard, and Justin Amash would be the three people I partially trust.



posted on Feb, 2 2018 @ 02:52 PM
link   

originally posted by: knowledgehunter0986

originally posted by: AboveBoard
What if the memo narrative is a lie?

What if you are being manipulated into believing malfeasance on the part of the FBI and DOJ when there is none?

Please give me an honest answer to this.


I could ask you the same question from the other side.

What if it isn't, and everything else you thought to be true was a lie?


Sure. Answer mine first.



posted on Feb, 2 2018 @ 02:52 PM
link   

originally posted by: muse7
So this was the much hyped memo? Lol I’m glad no one outside the Hannity, Alex Jones, Fox News alternative reality is taking this memo seriously. lmao

Be assured they are taking it VERY seriously...

The MSM isn't about to spread what they KNOW to be true, that isn't their job just like the sig quote says...

Their job is to cause you to believe a lie and they have been VERY successful at it.

Like I said to someone else earlier, WHY do you believe what the MSM is telling you when they have been exposed as absolute blatant liars?



Right click & 'view image' to zoom...


A diagram making its rounds on the web outrageously claims media outlets such as NPR, ABC and the Washington Post are non-biased news sources, while sites like Infowars and Breitbart are labeled “garbage.”

In response, we’ve created our own news chart depicting how most leftist mainstream media sites promote tyranny, while the conservative “garbage” sites on the previous map actually promote liberty and freedom.

Alternate Reality: Viral Propaganda Chart Demonizes Independent Media



edit on 2.2.2018 by Murgatroid because: Felt like it...



posted on Feb, 2 2018 @ 02:52 PM
link   
a reply to: introvert

So what part did he say was verified?



posted on Feb, 2 2018 @ 02:53 PM
link   

originally posted by: Xcathdra

originally posted by: luthier
a reply to: Xcathdra

It does not really. Can you show me maybe I missed them.


Perpetrating a fraud on the court in order to obtain a warrant.
Deprivation of rights while acting under color of law (criminal and civil).
Attempting to conceal evidence of a crime.
Conspiracy
etc


Those claims were softly alluded to at best. This memo is nearly useless without the supporting information.

If it was the IG I would believe it. But not partisan children like Nunes or Schiff for that matter.

It also says carter page fisa was post campaign.
edit on 2-2-2018 by luthier because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 2 2018 @ 02:53 PM
link   

originally posted by: AboveBoard
What if the memo narrative is a lie?

What if you are being manipulated into believing malfeasance on the part of the FBI and DOJ when there is none?

Please give me an honest answer to this.


That's why someone needs to ask McCabe whether he really told the committee whether "there would have been no warrant without the dossier" as the memo purports. His full testimony is still classified, but that part of it was effectively declassified in this memo, so he can legally answer questions about that particular thing. If the Republicans are lying about what he said, I'd expect a statement from him ASAP.



posted on Feb, 2 2018 @ 02:53 PM
link   

originally posted by: underwerks

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.



You completely misunderstood what you were reading ; In regard to emergency Attorney General powers and how/when applied and the after requirements to prove why it was required.



posted on Feb, 2 2018 @ 02:54 PM
link   
a reply to: Murgatroid

The media either wont cover this or will cover it with spin for the sole purpose of trying to protect themselves from liability since they knowingly assisted in the criminal acts listed.



posted on Feb, 2 2018 @ 02:55 PM
link   

originally posted by: luthier

originally posted by: RadioRobert

originally posted by: face23785

originally posted by: burntheships

originally posted by: Wayfarer

Yeah, that must have been it, which would also explain how the original FISA warrant was signed years before Steele's portion of the document was included.......


Which demonstrates the failure of any agency to act in a timely manner,
The FBI had all of this information years ago, way before Trump was on the scene.

The only explanation is the Special Counsel is The Insurance Policy
that was tossed out in Andrew McCabes office.

Time will prove this, wait and see.


It's also irrelevant. That warrant was issued in 2013, Page was investigated, and nothing was done. That warrant expired. Then in 2016 they asked for a new warrant based primarily on this dossier. Even bringing up the 2013 warrant is irrelevant, it's misdirection. That's like using the fact that someone was convicted of theft 5 years ago to get a judge to sign off on a search warrant for that person's apartment in a new case, without any other evidence.

Worse. It's like using a three year old investigation that turned up nothing actionable even after being granted a FISA warrant. Why is the court going to give you another go without something substantial that is new.


Because over 99 percent of fisa warrants are granted because it's an extremely flawed system.


The rate at which they are granted doesn't by itself demonstrate that the process is flawed. That could simply mean that they don't submit applications unless they're damn sure they've got enough evidence to get them.

I'm not defending or knocking FISA one way or the other, just observing the success rate of applications in itself doesn't indicate it's bad.




top topics



 
169
<< 28  29  30    32  33  34 >>

log in

join