House Intelligence FISA memo released: What it says

originally posted by: luthier
How many senators were talking about how this is the worst thing America has ever faced?

Could it be the worst scandal, with the furthest reaching potential social consequences given SJW Outrage Millennial America, they were talking about?

It was "their duty"...

originally posted by: FlyingFox
him being so bad and evil....it was alright to subvert the constitution.

That is the whole point of gaining power. You have a Modus Operandi for how to subvert the Constitution and a trial run to see if the people can stop them..

I think so but I was wondering? Don't you guys feel like this is what this was all about all along, them getting to do what they want by lying and no consequences for corruption and failure to operate Constitutional duties?

originally posted by: IgnoranceIsntBlisss

originally posted by: luthier
How many senators were talking about how this is the worst thing America has ever faced?

Could it be the worst scandal, with the furthest reaching potential social consequences given SJW Outrage Millennial America, they were talking about?

I don't know didn't see many senators talking about it like they were in the house.

originally posted by: luthier
a reply to: IgnoranceIsntBlisss

It's the house. They say outrageous things.

Why was the Senate against releasing it? How many senators were talking about how this is the worst thing America has ever faced?

Also Maybe it's a hail mary? Maybe the trend is so bad with republican areas flipping they are throwing up the ball.

Mayne they are afraid Trump's people can't lie together like with hope hicks and trump jr...

I really don't know anything except I don't trust Devin Nunes any more than Schiff and that is pretty bad.

The Senate complained that they didn't know what was in it... I don't know if it was shared at some point between then and when it was released.

originally posted by: Greven

originally posted by: ElectricUniverse

originally posted by: Greven

I don't know crap about the dossier's veracity and nobody here does either.

So, you first claim that "Redstate" debunked the Nuñez's memo, but now you are claiming we don't know anything about the veracity of the dossier?... How can "Redstate" debunk something you claim no one knows anything about?...

originally posted by: Greven
Also, it is irrelevant - y'all are getting distracted by this partisan memo.

As opposed to knowing that very biased people who did not want to see Trump being elected as President had been paid for by the DNC and Clinton campaign to make a report which to this day has not been verified... Or do you care to point out where and when have any of the claims about Trump colluding with Russian officials had been verified?...

originally posted by: Greven
Note the very last page - the one that says FBI counterintelligence investigation had been initiated based on Papadopoulos in July 2016 against Carter Page.

...an investigation done by none other than Pete Strzok... The same Strzok who wrote to his mistress, an FBI lawyer, about an insurance in case Trump won the Presidency...

originally posted by: Greven
Note also that the FISA warrant was renewed several times. If they hadn't found anything, the court wouldn't have renewed it once - let alone three times. This is a protection against abuse that requires renewal every 90 days.

If they had found something it would have been news a long time ago... instead FALSE claims have inundated the media being paid for by the firms contracted by the DNC and clinton campaign...

Easy - by debunking claims the memo makes that are verifiable - like Comey's testimony versus what the memo claims Comey said. These two do not match.

You and the memo neglect the fact that Republicans first sought out Fusion GPS for opposition research on Trump from October 2015 until May 2016. Democrats came calling in April 2016.

According to the memo, which is already known as guilty of twisting things to say what was not said.

Uh, you know investigations take considerable time - especially federal investigations - right? With classified material, the general public ain't gonna know.

As shown, Comey did say at least parts of the dosssier were slacious and unverified, therefore the memo did not lie.

But curious I dont remember you making the same standard on the dossier.

For example, the dossier claiums that Cohen met russians in prague, and we know that is a lie.

Therefore you do not trust any of the dossier, right?

originally posted by: dianajune
I heard there was a Democratic memo too. If this is correct, why hasn't it been released??

Becayuse much like the republican memo, it has to be voted on for congress to see it, then it has to be voted on to release to public, then the president has five days to say no.

The democrtas made up there memo well after the republicans, but it is going thorugh the same process.

Unlike the democrats, the republicans actually did vote to start the process to allow all of congress to see the dem memo.

a reply to: Grambler

I agree. There now has to be a committee, but it has to be a newly formed one, with Reps and or senators sitting on it, asking questions and there can be no not answering done. And all people need to be brought in on this, not just McCabe, but also Nunes as well.

originally posted by: sdcigarpig

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.

"Sneaking over to the White House"?... What are you talking about?... Nuñez is part of the White House staff, he doesn't need to "sneak over to the White House"... What did Nuñez lie about and then admitted to lying?

BTW, about your "Nuñez claiming to have found out about wiretapping... President Trump made a statement about Obama wiretapping him after NSA chief Admiral Mike Rogers had visited President Trump at Trump tower. Right after this President Trump and his staff moved out of Trump tower. Since this had happened right after Rogers had visited President Trump, it is highly probable that Rogers told President Trump to sweep for bugs at Trump tower. Nuñez talked about it also after Rogers visited President Trump, and after President Trump himself talked about it...

originally posted by: sdcigarpig
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.

Wrong... First of all, even though a President does elect who would lead the FBI, the President does not tell the FBI what to do, and cannot tell the FBI to stop any investigations.

Second of all, President Trump cannot declassify documents by himself. There is a process in which Congress listens to the head of the intelligent agency who is responsible for such documents, and only after Congress decides to declassify documents can President Trump decide whether to keep such documents classified, or to declassify them. There is a separation of powers for a reason. President Trump can't just be the person to decide all by himself what to do, despite a certain former President (Obama) bypassing Congress just so that his will can be done...

originally posted by: sdcigarpig
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.

You are just making an assumption without any evidence corroborating your assumption.

originally posted by: sdcigarpig
a reply to: Grambler

I agree. There now has to be a committee, but it has to be a newly formed one, with Reps and or senators sitting on it, asking questions and there can be no not answering done. And all people need to be brought in on this, not just McCabe, but also Nunes as well.

And McCain, wasn't he the RINO who helped?

a reply to: Xcathdra

Did Nunes go to the White House, when Trump first got into Office? Yes.

Did Nunes try to pass off information as just newly found? Yes.

Did Nunes lie about how this information was found? Yes.

I would say that his tampering of evidence is there already, hence why he recused himself from the entire Russia/Trump investigation.

So if the man is recused from that investigation, then why is he producing a memo about that?

originally posted by: sdcigarpig
a reply to: Grambler

I agree. There now has to be a committee, but it has to be a newly formed one, with Reps and or senators sitting on it, asking questions and there can be no not answering done. And all people need to be brought in on this, not just McCabe, but also Nunes as well.

I agree with this.

But again, our rasonable suggestion here shows how absurd the mueller investiigation into trump is.

In that investigation, it has a nrearly unlimited scope, where anyone connected to trump can be investigated for any crime.

So if we were to follow that course, then a special prosecutor should be appointed to look at all democrats and fbi agents involved, and all of their finances, past transgressions, etc should be able to be looked at for years if neccesary.

Both of us probably realize that would be absurd, but that is exactly what the investigation into trump has become.

originally posted by: sdcigarpig
a reply to: Xcathdra

Did Nunes go to the White House, when Trump first got into Office? Yes.

Did Nunes try to pass off information as just newly found? Yes.

Did Nunes lie about how this information was found? Yes.

I would say that his tampering of evidence is there already, hence why he recused himself from the entire Russia/Trump investigation.

So if the man is recused from that investigation, then why is he producing a memo about that?

i dont like devin nunes myself but theres one thing as to why he could be, cause it really has nothing to do with russia or trump. its an investigation into our very own agencies corruption to influence public opinion through criminal means

originally posted by: Grambler

originally posted by: Greven

originally posted by: ElectricUniverse

originally posted by: Greven

I don't know crap about the dossier's veracity and nobody here does either.

So, you first claim that "Redstate" debunked the Nuñez's memo, but now you are claiming we don't know anything about the veracity of the dossier?... How can "Redstate" debunk something you claim no one knows anything about?...

originally posted by: Greven
Also, it is irrelevant - y'all are getting distracted by this partisan memo.

As opposed to knowing that very biased people who did not want to see Trump being elected as President had been paid for by the DNC and Clinton campaign to make a report which to this day has not been verified... Or do you care to point out where and when have any of the claims about Trump colluding with Russian officials had been verified?...

originally posted by: Greven
Note the very last page - the one that says FBI counterintelligence investigation had been initiated based on Papadopoulos in July 2016 against Carter Page.

...an investigation done by none other than Pete Strzok... The same Strzok who wrote to his mistress, an FBI lawyer, about an insurance in case Trump won the Presidency...

originally posted by: Greven
Note also that the FISA warrant was renewed several times. If they hadn't found anything, the court wouldn't have renewed it once - let alone three times. This is a protection against abuse that requires renewal every 90 days.

If they had found something it would have been news a long time ago... instead FALSE claims have inundated the media being paid for by the firms contracted by the DNC and clinton campaign...

Easy - by debunking claims the memo makes that are verifiable - like Comey's testimony versus what the memo claims Comey said. These two do not match.

You and the memo neglect the fact that Republicans first sought out Fusion GPS for opposition research on Trump from October 2015 until May 2016. Democrats came calling in April 2016.

According to the memo, which is already known as guilty of twisting things to say what was not said.

Uh, you know investigations take considerable time - especially federal investigations - right? With classified material, the general public ain't gonna know.

As shown, Comey did say at least parts of the dosssier were slacious and unverified, therefore the memo did not lie.

But curious I dont remember you making the same standard on the dossier.

For example, the dossier claiums that Cohen met russians in prague, and we know that is a lie.

Therefore you do not trust any of the dossier, right?

Uh, as shown, the memo lied by omission. The memo tries to build the case that the whole dossier is fake, and thus FISA warrants were issued with fake claims. Comey didn't say the whole dossier was fake, though. You cannot claim the memo didn't lie when it is obviously twisting what was said, because it is quite clear. Think objectively. This is the first obvious problem with the memo.

You are equating two things as if they are on equal footing - for starters, I've not said I believe the dossier, as best I can recollect. I've never looked into really what's in it - and I'm unfamiliar with that claim you've made. Second, this is not the only thing casting doubt on the memo. There are problems with the memo that we know, rather than speculation.

I'll also note that you neglected to tackle the fact that Republicans hired Fusion GPS initially, yet this was omitted from the memo entirely. This is the second obvious problem with the memo, and what casts it strongly as a partisan effort.

These are two facts that are undeniable. Clearly, the memo is not objective; the memo is pushing a particular narrative. Be honest - do you not see this?

originally posted by: Greven

originally posted by: Grambler

originally posted by: Greven

originally posted by: ElectricUniverse

originally posted by: Greven

I don't know crap about the dossier's veracity and nobody here does either.

So, you first claim that "Redstate" debunked the Nuñez's memo, but now you are claiming we don't know anything about the veracity of the dossier?... How can "Redstate" debunk something you claim no one knows anything about?...

originally posted by: Greven
Also, it is irrelevant - y'all are getting distracted by this partisan memo.

As opposed to knowing that very biased people who did not want to see Trump being elected as President had been paid for by the DNC and Clinton campaign to make a report which to this day has not been verified... Or do you care to point out where and when have any of the claims about Trump colluding with Russian officials had been verified?...

originally posted by: Greven
Note the very last page - the one that says FBI counterintelligence investigation had been initiated based on Papadopoulos in July 2016 against Carter Page.

...an investigation done by none other than Pete Strzok... The same Strzok who wrote to his mistress, an FBI lawyer, about an insurance in case Trump won the Presidency...

originally posted by: Greven
Note also that the FISA warrant was renewed several times. If they hadn't found anything, the court wouldn't have renewed it once - let alone three times. This is a protection against abuse that requires renewal every 90 days.

If they had found something it would have been news a long time ago... instead FALSE claims have inundated the media being paid for by the firms contracted by the DNC and clinton campaign...

Easy - by debunking claims the memo makes that are verifiable - like Comey's testimony versus what the memo claims Comey said. These two do not match.

You and the memo neglect the fact that Republicans first sought out Fusion GPS for opposition research on Trump from October 2015 until May 2016. Democrats came calling in April 2016.

According to the memo, which is already known as guilty of twisting things to say what was not said.

Uh, you know investigations take considerable time - especially federal investigations - right? With classified material, the general public ain't gonna know.

As shown, Comey did say at least parts of the dosssier were slacious and unverified, therefore the memo did not lie.

But curious I dont remember you making the same standard on the dossier.

For example, the dossier claiums that Cohen met russians in prague, and we know that is a lie.

Therefore you do not trust any of the dossier, right?

Uh, as shown, the memo lied by omission. The memo tries to build the case that the whole dossier is fake, and thus FISA warrants were issued with fake claims. Comey didn't say the whole dossier was fake, though. You cannot claim the memo didn't lie when it is obviously twisting what was said, because it is quite clear. Think objectively. This is the first obvious problem with the memo.

You are equating two things as if they are on equal footing - for starters, I've not said I believe the dossier, as best I can recollect. I've never looked into really what's in it - and I'm unfamiliar with that claim you've made. Second, this is not the only thing casting doubt on the memo. There are problems with the memo that we know, rather than speculation.

I'll also note that you neglected to tackle the fact that Republicans hired Fusion GPS initially, yet this was omitted from the memo entirely. This is the second obvious problem with the memo.

[snipped]

Show me in the memo where it says the dossier is fake.

It says Comey said it was "salacious and unverified", which he did. If parts of the dossier were salacious and unverified, it is not a lie to say Comey said the dossier was salacious and unverified.

I dont care if the republican hired fusion, what does that have to do with the FBI doing wrong things with the fisa warrant?

First the hated trump too, which further proves the establishment on both sides are in cahoots.

Second, they werent a part of paying for the dossier, which is what we are discussing.

originally posted by: Greven

Easy - by debunking claims the memo makes that are verifiable - like Comey's testimony versus what the memo claims Comey said. These two do not match.

Comey did say "the parts of the memo which are salacious and unverified". What parts do you know he was talking about when he made that comment?... You are simply assuming what parts Comey was referencing to. So, no, you, nor anyone else in the forums, nor the people in that link you gave, have debunked anything... Congress not only saw the Nuñez memo, there had to be evidence which is still classified which Congress also saw.

originally posted by: Greven
You and the memo neglect the fact that Republicans first sought out Fusion GPS for opposition research on Trump from October 2015 until May 2016. Democrats came calling in April 2016.

That in itself is legal... What is illegal is to use a "political opposition research" as evidence for a FISA warrant. What is illegal is for top FBI and DOJ officials not to notify the FISA courts about who funded for such research and the bias demonstrated by the person who crafted the dossier...

originally posted by: Greven
According to the memo, which is already known as guilty of twisting things to say what was not said.

How the heck do you know that when you yourself claimed you didn't know anything about the veracity of the dossier?...

originally posted by: OccamsRazor04
a reply to: jimmyx

Assuming the memo is true, would you agree that's corruption?

no...too much information is missing which could make parts of, or the whole premise of the memo false....the problem i see now, (and this is why the agencies were so against this), is that IF the FISA court revealed the information needed, to show that the steele document wasn't ALL THE EVIDENCE presented to the FISA court in the first place, they could be breaking national security laws set up to protect ways and methods, as well as individuals that have not been mentioned by the nunez 4 page report.......going forward.....how much is this going to thwart any friendly intelligence agency from giving us a "heads up" to possible terrorist acts in the future?....and why would any individual with knowledge of an attack or of other espionage against America come forward if he knew his name would be exposed?

originally posted by: Grambler

originally posted by: Greven

originally posted by: Grambler

originally posted by: Greven

originally posted by: ElectricUniverse

originally posted by: Greven

I don't know crap about the dossier's veracity and nobody here does either.

So, you first claim that "Redstate" debunked the Nuñez's memo, but now you are claiming we don't know anything about the veracity of the dossier?... How can "Redstate" debunk something you claim no one knows anything about?...

originally posted by: Greven
Also, it is irrelevant - y'all are getting distracted by this partisan memo.

As opposed to knowing that very biased people who did not want to see Trump being elected as President had been paid for by the DNC and Clinton campaign to make a report which to this day has not been verified... Or do you care to point out where and when have any of the claims about Trump colluding with Russian officials had been verified?...

originally posted by: Greven
Note the very last page - the one that says FBI counterintelligence investigation had been initiated based on Papadopoulos in July 2016 against Carter Page.

...an investigation done by none other than Pete Strzok... The same Strzok who wrote to his mistress, an FBI lawyer, about an insurance in case Trump won the Presidency...

originally posted by: Greven
Note also that the FISA warrant was renewed several times. If they hadn't found anything, the court wouldn't have renewed it once - let alone three times. This is a protection against abuse that requires renewal every 90 days.

If they had found something it would have been news a long time ago... instead FALSE claims have inundated the media being paid for by the firms contracted by the DNC and clinton campaign...

Easy - by debunking claims the memo makes that are verifiable - like Comey's testimony versus what the memo claims Comey said. These two do not match.

You and the memo neglect the fact that Republicans first sought out Fusion GPS for opposition research on Trump from October 2015 until May 2016. Democrats came calling in April 2016.

According to the memo, which is already known as guilty of twisting things to say what was not said.

Uh, you know investigations take considerable time - especially federal investigations - right? With classified material, the general public ain't gonna know.

As shown, Comey did say at least parts of the dosssier were slacious and unverified, therefore the memo did not lie.

But curious I dont remember you making the same standard on the dossier.

For example, the dossier claiums that Cohen met russians in prague, and we know that is a lie.

Therefore you do not trust any of the dossier, right?

Uh, as shown, the memo lied by omission. The memo tries to build the case that the whole dossier is fake, and thus FISA warrants were issued with fake claims. Comey didn't say the whole dossier was fake, though. You cannot claim the memo didn't lie when it is obviously twisting what was said, because it is quite clear. Think objectively. This is the first obvious problem with the memo.

You are equating two things as if they are on equal footing - for starters, I've not said I believe the dossier, as best I can recollect. I've never looked into really what's in it - and I'm unfamiliar with that claim you've made. Second, this is not the only thing casting doubt on the memo. There are problems with the memo that we know, rather than speculation.

I'll also note that you neglected to tackle the fact that Republicans hired Fusion GPS initially, yet this was omitted from the memo entirely. This is the second obvious problem with the memo.

You are lying.

Show me in the memo where it says the dossier is fake.

It says Comey said it was "salacious and unverified", which he did. If parts of the dossier were salacious and unverified, it is not a lie to say Comey said the dossier was salacious and unverified.

I dont care if the republican hired fusion, what does that have to do with the FBI doing wrong things with the fisa warrant?

First the hated trump too, which further proves the establishment on both sides are in cahoots.

Second, they werent a part of paying for the dossier, which is what we are discussing.

You damn well better stop lying about what I'm writing.

Edit this now. I will report if you do not correct this.

originally posted by: smurfy

originally posted by: soberbacchus

James Comey
✔ @Comey

That’s it?
Dishonest and misleading memo wrecked the House intel committee,
destroyed trust with Intelligence Community,
damaged relationship with FISA court,
and inexcusably exposed classified investigation of an American citizen.
For what?
DOJ & FBI must keep doing their jobs.

originally posted by: RadioRobert
I like that he included faux outrage over violating Page's rights after using political oppo firms as justification to violate his rights! As though Carter Page is pissed that they released this info... Words are wind, Jim.

Comey's right,
The trust is gone, intel will less forthcoming for anybody to chew on.

Are you suggesting federal agencies will resist lawful oversight by Congress so tasked by the Constitution? That would certainly be a new dilemna...

Isn't that exactly what we're battling here and have been for decades? Are you encouraging that? What's your angle?