House Intelligence FISA memo released: What it says

a reply to: ElectricUniverse

No, I did not when it comes to breaking protocol. Nunes did break protocol, by sneaking over to the White House, and then claiming to have found out about wiretapping, and then lying about it and then admitted to it later on.

Now funny thing about this Trump is head of the DOJ, and the FBI. He can order it and it would be done. He can call up Sessions and Wray and say release the documents for this memo, it is now declassified and everyone can see it, and there is nothing anyone can do to stop him. He already has a person without a security clearance looking at classified information right now, what is one more stuff.

What I am saying is that all politicians will never tell you the whole truth, and many will lie to you, making grand promises that will never come to pass. Mexico is not going to pay for this wall. And a trade war is going to be pretty useless, cause Mexico has other trading partners more than willing to trade with them and where it would be far more lucrative for them.

originally posted by: Justoneman

originally posted by: face23785

originally posted by: luthier

originally posted by: face23785

originally posted by: network dude

originally posted by: CB328
Is there anything in this memo that says Trump's buddies aren't guilty?? I didn't think so.

Guilty of what? Obstructing an investigation that never should have happened?

Is that an impeachable offence?

Nevermind that Comey and other DOJ officials have testified repeatedly that the administration hasn't hampered the investigation in any way.

The trump Jr and Hope Hicks are the newest issue.

Comey never really said he wasn't being told to stand down on Flynn. He alludes that the president was making a sort of threat. Then trump steps on his own foot in tweets..

It isn't exactly clear sailing.

"I hope you can drop this, I hope you can let Flynn go" doesn't sound like a threat to me. I think you'd have a hard time convincing the Senate that it was too.

Right now 100% of the Dems will vote to not drop it. Spoiled losers are even worse than rotten winners. At least the winners DID something to WIN.. Damn...

originally posted by: sdcigarpig
a reply to: Grambler

If that is the case, then put out the warrant, let we the people see the warrant, and all of the information that goes along with such, get it out in the open and for everyone to see.


This is how it should be viewed: You are on trial. The Prosecuting Attorney, has been caught earlier with tampering with Evidence, in an attempt to show that you are guilty. Would you think that there would be justice if that man was still allowed to proceed and prosecute you?

Nunes, from the get go, has been very political, in an attempt to curry favor. He was seen to get and share documents with the White House and lied about it, only to be shown he lied. Now he is back creating a memo, and yet we are expected to accept this from the direction of a person who already been shown to be untrustworthy.

That should not be, and thus this should be taken with caution and say show us the evidence, all of it, including the Warrant, and all that went with that.

I don't disagree with any of this.

This memo could be untruthful.

I too want to see the Intel behind it.

But if the memo is true, it's damning.

If McCabe testified there would be no warrant without the dossier, it's game over.

originally posted by: Grambler

originally posted by: sdcigarpig
a reply to: Grambler

If that is the case, then put out the warrant, let we the people see the warrant, and all of the information that goes along with such, get it out in the open and for everyone to see.


This is how it should be viewed: You are on trial. The Prosecuting Attorney, has been caught earlier with tampering with Evidence, in an attempt to show that you are guilty. Would you think that there would be justice if that man was still allowed to proceed and prosecute you?

Nunes, from the get go, has been very political, in an attempt to curry favor. He was seen to get and share documents with the White House and lied about it, only to be shown he lied. Now he is back creating a memo, and yet we are expected to accept this from the direction of a person who already been shown to be untrustworthy.

That should not be, and thus this should be taken with caution and say show us the evidence, all of it, including the Warrant, and all that went with that.

I don't disagree with any of this.

This memo could be untruthful.

I too want to see the Intel behind it.

But if the memo is true, it's damning.

If McCabe testified there would be no warrant without the dossier, it's game over.

Well, we KNOW the memo is untruthful.

It claims something that is verifiable as false - that Comey testified in June 2017 that “the Steele dossier” was “salacious and unverified.”

This is not what Comey testified.

originally posted by: Gothmog
a reply to: JohnnyCanuck

And apparently the Dems have compiled a memo

Like the dossier they compiled ????
I am sure they have. And in the process of compiling more....

Good God, we have been living with the Dossier hanging, now we find it all contrived to excuse treasonous behavior and still some people can't handle it. This says we can no longer deny any of what Grambler and Xcathdra, DBCowboy and so many others have repeatedly stated about the corruption used to obtain "wiretapping" permission on a nominee for POTUS but even worse they did it after he was elected...

originally posted by: Greven

originally posted by: Grambler

originally posted by: sdcigarpig
a reply to: Grambler

If that is the case, then put out the warrant, let we the people see the warrant, and all of the information that goes along with such, get it out in the open and for everyone to see.


This is how it should be viewed: You are on trial. The Prosecuting Attorney, has been caught earlier with tampering with Evidence, in an attempt to show that you are guilty. Would you think that there would be justice if that man was still allowed to proceed and prosecute you?

Nunes, from the get go, has been very political, in an attempt to curry favor. He was seen to get and share documents with the White House and lied about it, only to be shown he lied. Now he is back creating a memo, and yet we are expected to accept this from the direction of a person who already been shown to be untrustworthy.

That should not be, and thus this should be taken with caution and say show us the evidence, all of it, including the Warrant, and all that went with that.

I don't disagree with any of this.

This memo could be untruthful.

I too want to see the Intel behind it.

But if the memo is true, it's damning.

If McCabe testified there would be no warrant without the dossier, it's game over.

Well, we KNOW the memo is untruthful.

It claims something that is verifiable as false - that Comey testified in June 2017 that “the Steele dossier” was “salacious and unverified.”

This is not what Comey testified.

Hrbdis say that the material that was about to be reported in the press was salacious and unverified.

The memo did not lie.

Comey also said in that testimony that he was not allowed to comment on the details of the dossier, but that does not discount what he said above.

originally posted by: MrPlow
What it says...I know it says that the investigations were brought about due to Russians approaching the Trump campaign, not some dossier. So there goes at least one gaping gunshot wound to your own foot. OOPS!

But keep grasping. I certainly do not trust the FBI 100% but I damn sure trust them over some elected partisan politician who will do anything to stay elected and keep his party in power so they can push through an agenda.

You're hanging your wild ass theories on some random FBI agent with a so-called agenda or bias.
Completely ignoring the fact that Strzok was ALSO instrumental in re-opening the investigation into HRC....RIGHT BEFORE THE ELECTION.

Your little "deep state" actors sure aren't deep stating correctly.

Not what Ron Paul would say, if you're going to use his caricature. Paul would want to know why BIG government is overreaching their Constitutional duty to get an 'insurance policy' in case DJT won.. CASE CLOSED....

originally posted by: Justoneman

originally posted by: MrPlow
What it says...I know it says that the investigations were brought about due to Russians approaching the Trump campaign, not some dossier. So there goes at least one gaping gunshot wound to your own foot. OOPS!

But keep grasping. I certainly do not trust the FBI 100% but I damn sure trust them over some elected partisan politician who will do anything to stay elected and keep his party in power so they can push through an agenda.

You're hanging your wild ass theories on some random FBI agent with a so-called agenda or bias.
Completely ignoring the fact that Strzok was ALSO instrumental in re-opening the investigation into HRC....RIGHT BEFORE THE ELECTION.

Your little "deep state" actors sure aren't deep stating correctly.

Not what Ron Paul would say, if you're going to use his caricature. Paul would want to know why BIG government is overreaching their Constitutional duty to get an 'insurance policy' in case DJT won.. CASE CLOSED....

Ron Paul would also say Nunes was a traitorous twit for sitting on this memo while the vote to expand fisa was happening and Nunez is a total hypocritic for voting to expand fisa.

originally posted by: the owlbear
To all of those calling this the end of the Democratic Party,
What is gained by losing a political party?

Power is centralized into ONLY the Republican Party?

How is it a good thing to have only one major political party?

Communists, the National Socialists of Germany (yeah, those guys), and quite a few other countries went the one party route...With the "death" of the Democratic Party, do we get to add Republicans to such an esteemed list?

I'm not saying justice should not be carried out, it should, and accountability is a word foreign to ALL in DC. And I wish the two big parties would split into two or three parties each with an independent presence and electorate.

Whatever happens, can we all try to be civil? Talk things out rather than going "Nyah, nyah, nyah!!! My side wins!" We all lose when this sort of thing happens.

well said, sir

originally posted by: Grambler

originally posted by: sdcigarpig
a reply to: Grambler

If that is the case, then put out the warrant, let we the people see the warrant, and all of the information that goes along with such, get it out in the open and for everyone to see.


This is how it should be viewed: You are on trial. The Prosecuting Attorney, has been caught earlier with tampering with Evidence, in an attempt to show that you are guilty. Would you think that there would be justice if that man was still allowed to proceed and prosecute you?

Nunes, from the get go, has been very political, in an attempt to curry favor. He was seen to get and share documents with the White House and lied about it, only to be shown he lied. Now he is back creating a memo, and yet we are expected to accept this from the direction of a person who already been shown to be untrustworthy.

That should not be, and thus this should be taken with caution and say show us the evidence, all of it, including the Warrant, and all that went with that.

I don't disagree with any of this.

This memo could be untruthful.

I too want to see the Intel behind it.

But if the memo is true, it's damning.

If McCabe testified there would be no warrant without the dossier, it's game over.

Here you go! Read and weep folks, we have a problem.

www.washingtonexaminer.com...

"Andrew McCabe confirmed that no FISA warrant would have been sought from the FISA Court without the Steele dossier information."

originally posted by: Grambler

originally posted by: Greven

originally posted by: Grambler

originally posted by: sdcigarpig
a reply to: Grambler

If that is the case, then put out the warrant, let we the people see the warrant, and all of the information that goes along with such, get it out in the open and for everyone to see.


This is how it should be viewed: You are on trial. The Prosecuting Attorney, has been caught earlier with tampering with Evidence, in an attempt to show that you are guilty. Would you think that there would be justice if that man was still allowed to proceed and prosecute you?

Nunes, from the get go, has been very political, in an attempt to curry favor. He was seen to get and share documents with the White House and lied about it, only to be shown he lied. Now he is back creating a memo, and yet we are expected to accept this from the direction of a person who already been shown to be untrustworthy.

That should not be, and thus this should be taken with caution and say show us the evidence, all of it, including the Warrant, and all that went with that.

I don't disagree with any of this.

This memo could be untruthful.

I too want to see the Intel behind it.

But if the memo is true, it's damning.

If McCabe testified there would be no warrant without the dossier, it's game over.

Well, we KNOW the memo is untruthful.

It claims something that is verifiable as false - that Comey testified in June 2017 that “the Steele dossier” was “salacious and unverified.”

This is not what Comey testified.

Hrbdis say that the material that was about to be reported in the press was salacious and unverified.

The memo did not lie.

Comey also said in that testimony that he was not allowed to comment on the details of the dossier, but that does not discount what he said above.

The memo very much twisted what Comey said:

BURR: In the public domain is this question of the “Steele dossier,” a document that has been around out in for over a year. I’m not sure when the FBI first took possession of it, but the media had it before you had it and we had it. At the time of your departure from the FBI, was the FBI able to confirm any criminal allegations contained in the Steele document?

COMEY: Mr. Chairman, I don’t think that’s a question I can answer in an open setting because it goes into the details of the investigation.

Couldn't answer here, specifically on the Steele dossier. Some time later in testimony...

SEN. SUSAN COLLINS: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Comey, let me begin by thanking you for your voluntary compliance with our request to appear before this committee and assist us in this very important investigation. I want first to ask you about your conversations with the president, three conversations in which you told him that he was not under investigation. The first was during your January 6th meeting, according to your testimony, in which it appears that you actually volunteered that assurance. Is that correct?

COMEY: That’s correct.

COLLINS: Did you limit that statement to counterintelligence invest — investigations, or were you talking about any FBI investigation?

COMEY: I didn’t use the term counterintelligence. I was briefing him about salacious and unverified material. It was in a context of that that he had a strong and defensive reaction about that not being true. My reading of it was it was important for me to assure him we were not person investigating him.

Do you see a Steele dossier mentioned in there? Wouldn't it be odd for him to refer to the Steele dossier when he had just declined to answer about it?

Later:

COMEY: The president called me I believe shortly before he was inaugurated as a follow-up to our conversation, private conversation on January the 6th. He just wanted to reiterate his rejection of that allegation and talk about—- he’d thought about it more. And why he thought it wasn’t true. The verified — unverified and salacious parts.

Here is an important word - "parts" - not the whole of the document.

The memo, however, alleges Comey claimed the entire thing was “salacious and unverified.”

This is false.

Ergo, the memo is twisting things if I'm being generous - and lying if I'm being fair.

originally posted by: Justoneman

originally posted by: Grambler

originally posted by: sdcigarpig
a reply to: Grambler

If that is the case, then put out the warrant, let we the people see the warrant, and all of the information that goes along with such, get it out in the open and for everyone to see.


This is how it should be viewed: You are on trial. The Prosecuting Attorney, has been caught earlier with tampering with Evidence, in an attempt to show that you are guilty. Would you think that there would be justice if that man was still allowed to proceed and prosecute you?

Nunes, from the get go, has been very political, in an attempt to curry favor. He was seen to get and share documents with the White House and lied about it, only to be shown he lied. Now he is back creating a memo, and yet we are expected to accept this from the direction of a person who already been shown to be untrustworthy.

That should not be, and thus this should be taken with caution and say show us the evidence, all of it, including the Warrant, and all that went with that.

I don't disagree with any of this.

This memo could be untruthful.

I too want to see the Intel behind it.

But if the memo is true, it's damning.

If McCabe testified there would be no warrant without the dossier, it's game over.

Here you go! Read and weep folks, we have a problem.

www.washingtonexaminer.com...

"Andrew McCabe confirmed that no FISA warrant would have been sought from the FISA Court without the Steele dossier information."

It's paraphrasing the memo not providing evidence of testimony.

originally posted by: Justoneman

originally posted by: IgnoranceIsntBlisss
a reply to: projectvxn

You know iggy, that meme is the whole story and will best sum it up 100 years from now. Reminds me a bit of the "TeaPot Dome scandal"


www.history.com...

"The scandal involved ornery oil tycoons, poker-playing politicians, illegal liquor sales, a murder-suicide, a womanizing president and a bagful of bribery cash delivered on the sly."

Snafu!

I didnt even know about that one.

Thanks!

originally posted by: luthier

originally posted by: Justoneman

originally posted by: MrPlow
What it says...I know it says that the investigations were brought about due to Russians approaching the Trump campaign, not some dossier. So there goes at least one gaping gunshot wound to your own foot. OOPS!

But keep grasping. I certainly do not trust the FBI 100% but I damn sure trust them over some elected partisan politician who will do anything to stay elected and keep his party in power so they can push through an agenda.

You're hanging your wild ass theories on some random FBI agent with a so-called agenda or bias.
Completely ignoring the fact that Strzok was ALSO instrumental in re-opening the investigation into HRC....RIGHT BEFORE THE ELECTION.

Your little "deep state" actors sure aren't deep stating correctly.

Not what Ron Paul would say, if you're going to use his caricature. Paul would want to know why BIG government is overreaching their Constitutional duty to get an 'insurance policy' in case DJT won.. CASE CLOSED....

Ron Paul would also say Nunes was a traitorous twit for sitting on this memo while the vote to expand fisa was happening and Nunez is a total hypocritic for voting to expand fisa.

Yep, I think so too. I keep saying stay neutral for a reason.

originally posted by: Justoneman

originally posted by: Gothmog
a reply to: JohnnyCanuck

And apparently the Dems have compiled a memo

Like the dossier they compiled ????
I am sure they have. And in the process of compiling more....

Good God, we have been living with the Dossier hanging, now we find it all contrived to excuse treasonous behavior and still some people can't handle it. This says we can no longer deny any of what Grambler and Xcathdra, DBCowboy and so many others have repeatedly stated about the corruption used to obtain "wiretapping" permission on a nominee for POTUS but even worse they did it after he was elected...

Yeah , I have been proclaiming the same for a long time...
And as I state on this thread :
After the memo release what next

I think this is the tip of the iceberg.

Remember several years ago when the story broke about Soros' owned voting machines being "hacked" in a bunch of foreign elections?

I think this is where things are going in relation to this memo issue.

Also, the rigged primary elections....

originally posted by: luthier

originally posted by: Justoneman

originally posted by: Grambler

originally posted by: sdcigarpig
a reply to: Grambler

If that is the case, then put out the warrant, let we the people see the warrant, and all of the information that goes along with such, get it out in the open and for everyone to see.


This is how it should be viewed: You are on trial. The Prosecuting Attorney, has been caught earlier with tampering with Evidence, in an attempt to show that you are guilty. Would you think that there would be justice if that man was still allowed to proceed and prosecute you?

Nunes, from the get go, has been very political, in an attempt to curry favor. He was seen to get and share documents with the White House and lied about it, only to be shown he lied. Now he is back creating a memo, and yet we are expected to accept this from the direction of a person who already been shown to be untrustworthy.

That should not be, and thus this should be taken with caution and say show us the evidence, all of it, including the Warrant, and all that went with that.

I don't disagree with any of this.

This memo could be untruthful.

I too want to see the Intel behind it.

But if the memo is true, it's damning.

If McCabe testified there would be no warrant without the dossier, it's game over.

Here you go! Read and weep folks, we have a problem.

www.washingtonexaminer.com...

"Andrew McCabe confirmed that no FISA warrant would have been sought from the FISA Court without the Steele dossier information."

It's paraphrasing the memo not providing evidence of testimony.

OH so paraphrasing a fact is wrong???? Not in a million years IMO.

originally posted by: MantheDevilsApe
Power is centralized into ONLY the Republican Party?

How is it a good thing to have only one major political party?

GOP no different in structure, tactics, playbooks, corruption, etc. Their politics / policies happen to not be the same degree of insane as the DNC of recent, but what the DNC deserves to be broken up for any other year the past 30 is no different.

It needs to be broken up too.

And about 3 'third party's' need to rise up giving them at least equal competition. If only the MSM wasn't lockstep in subverting our nation in ebing the root cuase of the Two Party's reigning with total 50/50 dominance (hence I call it the Two Party + MSM System).

a reply to: Justoneman

The abusers of FISA ate a problem.

The vote for more and more surveillance is a much bigger problem things like public cherades of nunes and schiff mask over.

originally posted by: FlyingFox
I think this is the tip of the iceberg.

Remember several years ago when the story broke about Soros' owned voting machines being "hacked" in a bunch of foreign elections?

I think this is where things are going in relation to this memo issue.

Also, the rigged primary elections....

Face palm moment, YEP!