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: 32
169
<< 29  30  31    33  34  35 >>

log in

join
share:

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

originally posted by: introvert
a reply to: GeechQuestInfo

From what I understand, the opposition research in to Trump began with a republican source and once Trump go the nomination, the republican source stopped the research and a lawyer for the DNC/Hillary campaign picked it back up. Which eventually led to the dossier's creation.


Yes. An oppo hit piece created by a man who hated Trump, paid for by political opponents (and the FBI?), sold by the people who hired the wife of a senior Justice official concurrently, and whose verification was so weak it apparently references an online news bit leaked by the same creator as "evidence" of veracity.

It's sort of a Big deal. Not as BIG(currently) as people were perhaps hoping/fearing, but Big. Enough to warrant independent investigation. I look forward to seeing the Dem memo and what, if anything, the FBI and Justice are able to provide to give us the "context" we are missing.




posted on Feb, 2 2018 @ 02:55 PM
link   
a reply to: face23785

It is relevant in that The 2016 FISA warrant relied upon
the dossier and news stories that had been planted intentionally
by conspirators to use in the application.

The news reports were false, and Carter Page is suing Yahoo.

He will also use this FISA Memo in that suit.



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



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

originally posted by: luthier

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.


Not really but we will agree to disagree.

As for the IG report it should be done by the end of this month however I doubt we will get a full release, especially if its used for criminal pros4ecutions.



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

originally posted by: luthier

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.



So replace CNN with one of them? Same difference.



posted on Feb, 2 2018 @ 02:56 PM
link   
FUNNY NOBODY is mentioning FISA as the problem.

Looks like people don't actually care about America. They want to punish a party.


Nobody questioning the judges or the process?

Hmm



posted on Feb, 2 2018 @ 02:56 PM
link   
a reply to: JBurns


Sure, maybe they knew Trump was supportive of good relations with Russia (who wouldn't be). Trump has said all along he didn't believe sanctions were necessary, and perhaps Page was simply stating that position (Page exploiting it to his own benefit, even)


Oh don't get me wrong. I am not even suggesting that their was collusion involving Donald Trump. I've been very consistent on this point. I think I've spent at least as much as time as anyone on ATS researching/discussing most of this and I haven't seen anything that points to it. My gut instinct from the jump was that he didn't collude.


But when it comes down to it, what good does Page's word mean? He isn't the POTUS, or Trump. There is zero evidence Trump made any such statement, and there is zero evidence that any alleged crime/speculated event in the dossier even really took place.


That was what I was actually detailing. From Page's own mouth in congressional testimony, he met with the head of investor relations for Rosneft and discussed the privatization. So there is *some* evidence that a such an event may have really taken place.


Regardless, it was a campaign document (conflict #1) written by someone with stated anti-Trump biases (conflict #2) exploited by agents in the FBI who were also provably anti-Trump/pro-Clinton (conflict #3). I'm sure I'm missing other conflicts, but those three glaring ones jump out.


1. I don't know that it's a conflict. If in his research, he'd uncovered evidence of the Clinton's running a child sex ring, I'm sure that would be something that most Trump supporters would want reported to the FBI. I think it matters if the people paying for the document directed him to approach the FBI but there's no evidence of that happening. From all accounts, he reached out to the FBI on his own.

2. Everyone has biases. The question is how those biases impact the work. Nunes has clear pro-Trump bias, no? I mean, he endorsed him. He communicated with the campaign and he was part of the transition team. He also has been scrambling to provide cover for him for a year up to and including this memo. This dodgy memo comes from a person with demonstrable bias. You're not demanding that it be dismissed out of hand are you?

3. Exploited is a loaded term. Read the memo again. The agent with alleged bias (to what degree there was bias is questionable and whether it impacted decisions is unattested) is Strzok. That's all in the final paragraph. However there's nothing tying Strzok to Steele or the FISA application in any reporting I've read OR in the memo. Please correct me if I'm wrong.



posted on Feb, 2 2018 @ 02:56 PM
link   
a reply to: AboveBoard

I'll answer. If it turns out it's all lies and never happened and no one at the FBI had an agenda to hurt Trump rather than seek truth then the story should be dropped.

Now what if they did have an agenda and the memo is true?



posted on Feb, 2 2018 @ 02:57 PM
link   
Nunez on foxnews at 6pm eastern.



posted on Feb, 2 2018 @ 02:58 PM
link   

originally posted by: burntheships
a reply to: face23785

It is relevant in that The 2016 FISA warrant relied upon
the dossier and news stories that had been planted intentionally
by conspirators to use in the application.

The news reports were false, and Carter Page is suing Yahoo.

He will also use this FISA Memo in that suit.




I'm not in disagreement with any of that. What I was saying was irrelevant was that there was a prior warrant issued against Page in 2013. People trying to object to this memo keep bringing that up as justification why the 2016 warrant was needed, but it is in fact irrelevant to the 2016 warrant. They had to submit new information to get the 2016 warrant, and it appears they had to resort to using this dossier which is mostly based on Russian propaganda because they had nothing else to rely on.



posted on Feb, 2 2018 @ 02:58 PM
link   
a reply to: luthier

If the judge acted in good faith and was fed lies why would we be mad at him/her?

The judge said no twice iirc. It was not until they used lies and the dossier did the judge agree.



posted on Feb, 2 2018 @ 02:59 PM
link   

originally posted by: face23785

originally posted by: luthier

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.



So replace CNN with one of them? Same difference.


Not at all. But hey think what you want. It's irrelevant.

I am not a supporter of Democrats. Or Republicans.

Or republicrats or dempolicans.

More a libertarian who just believes spying is wrong. That the fisa process is wrong.

It's not getting fixed focusing on this memo.

It was severely abused by Obama and Bush.



posted on Feb, 2 2018 @ 02:59 PM
link   

originally posted by: luthier
FUNNY NOBODY is mentioning FISA as the problem.

Looks like people don't actually care about America. They want to punish a party.


Nobody questioning the judges or the process?

Hmm


FISA is not the problem as the law is designed for foreign nationals. The issue comes with US agencies who have access to it lying to the courts in order to obtain information on US nationals.

I am in favor of amending FISA to create very severe penalties for violating segments of the law.
edit on 2-2-2018 by Xcathdra because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 2 2018 @ 03:00 PM
link   

originally posted by: luthier
FUNNY NOBODY is mentioning FISA as the problem.

Looks like people don't actually care about America. They want to punish a party.


Nobody questioning the judges or the process?

Hmm


There are threads about the FISA process in and of itself. This thread is about a memo related to a specific warrant that it appears was obtained through improper means. Feel free to post that in one of the FISA process threads as evidence why the program needs to go away.



posted on Feb, 2 2018 @ 03:01 PM
link   

originally posted by: OccamsRazor04
a reply to: luthier

If the judge acted in good faith and was fed lies why would we be mad at him/her?

The judge said no twice iirc. It was not until they used lies and the dossier did the judge agree.


This is hardly the first time fisa has failed. It's been hundreds of times. Literally.

Besides nunes voted to expand it. He is just as bad as the things he is claiming to care about.



posted on Feb, 2 2018 @ 03:01 PM
link   

originally posted by: soberbacchus

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.


So its your claim that trump was given that 19%?

Ok then that will be easy for Mueller to prove, should only take a moment.

Strange that people have been saying they have seen no proof of anything like that.

Again, Roseneft being up for sale was PUBLIC KNOWLEDGE before the memo.



posted on Feb, 2 2018 @ 03:01 PM
link   
a reply to: Grambler

According to what was in the Simpson testimony, when the Dossier with Trump was first created, they did not go to the FBI, but discussed on what they were to do with it. They saw where there was the potentially a crime being committed, and were not sure what to do about it. And then the decision was made to give it to the FBI. How to deliver it and who to give it to. Steele, whose has contacts with the CIA and the FBI, would deliver it to them. They took it, thanked him, told him that they knew and would look into it. That was it. The FBI usually does not ask why the information is given, especially if it is freely given and can confirm what they suspect all along. They FBI does vet the person yes, but then again if it is coming from a source with a credible background in an area, that can be confirmed, should the question as to why the person was looking into it?

Which brings up another point, did the FBI know that this was in part from opposition research going on? Or would they suspect such, coming from a source that they have used before, and traded information with, as Great Britain, is an ally of the USA, with similar strategic interests and similar enemies in the world? MI6 is the British intelligence, they have collaborated with the FBI and the CIA on various operations time and time again, throughout the years.

The point being this, if you had information on a crime or possible criminal activity, would you sit on it, or get it to the authorities? And would it matter if this was part of an opposition research or not, when it comes to national security and that persons on said campaign are compromised by a foreign power?

If it matters that much, then you will not complain if say the Chinese decide next presidential election to lend a hand or any other country out there, as long as the popular candidate of the right party gets elected, would it matter?



posted on Feb, 2 2018 @ 03:02 PM
link   

originally posted by: jimmyx
sources (confidential) have said the president should release his white house visitor logs, showing all of the Russian spies and the prostitutes that visited him, and trumps tax returns should be shown that will show money laundering from Russian oligarchs......if we are throwing s**t up on the wall to see what sticks, we the American people should have the right to see these.



ROFLMAO... Ya... Cause the IRS never looked at his personal or business filings before... And most certainly would never have looked into his financials when he declared himself a candidate....

LOL oh, that's funny !



posted on Feb, 2 2018 @ 03:02 PM
link   
a reply to: luthier

If we have evidence Bush used fisa to spy on Democrats and keep them from being elected lock him up too.



posted on Feb, 2 2018 @ 03:02 PM
link   

originally posted by: face23785

originally posted by: luthier
FUNNY NOBODY is mentioning FISA as the problem.

Looks like people don't actually care about America. They want to punish a party.


Nobody questioning the judges or the process?

Hmm


There are threads about the FISA process in and of itself. This thread is about a memo related to a specific warrant that it appears was obtained through improper means. Feel free to post that in one of the FISA process threads as evidence why the program needs to go away.


Unless you are a mod I will continue to try and impress aponthe relevance of questioning the fisa process and how it will allow these claims to go unpunished.
edit on 2-2-2018 by luthier because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 2 2018 @ 03:03 PM
link   

originally posted by: luthier

originally posted by: OccamsRazor04
a reply to: luthier

If the judge acted in good faith and was fed lies why would we be mad at him/her?

The judge said no twice iirc. It was not until they used lies and the dossier did the judge agree.


This is hardly the first time fisa has failed. It's been hundreds of times. Literally.

Besides nunes voted to expand it. He is just as bad as the things he is claiming to care about.


Its like arguing the laws for purchasing alcohol and drunk driving are failures because people under the age of 21 get drunk and then drive a car.

The FISA system was abused because people lied.



new topics

top topics



 
169
<< 29  30  31    33  34  35 >>

log in

join