House Intelligence FISA memo released: What it says

originally posted by: Grambler

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.

It flies in the face of reason that any FISA would rely on just that document alone...I have heard that the warrant was very lengthy, 50 pages of it, and even the memo mentions that George Papadopoulos was part of text in it, and that was Australia's input of intel back to the US intel, and that goes waay back to 2015, and has been reported on long ago now. All the foreign intel agencies contributions must surely be there too in relevant parts...and there was plenty of it, and that goes back a long way too. The dossier is only pretty much a confirmation of intel already given to the US, and besides the memo also references that Steele was a longtime...decade or more source for the FBI anyway....a huge faux pas by Nunes.

All this stupid thing is about, and it is stupid, is a back door into Trump attempts to get rid of Mueller, which IMO is even more impossible now, and I think it has made the whole government exponentially more polarised. Nunes has even said he didn't see the classified details himself, he sent someone else into the room to study it!!
Now, as it happens, jackie Speier who was there, says that the words, no warrant without the dossier, are not the actual words used, but we'll find out about that anyway...unless Trump does a big turnaround of course.

originally posted by: ElectricUniverse

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?...

Comey said, again - from the transcript:

I was briefing him about salacious and unverified material.

What "material" is... well, that's anyone's guess. Was it the Steele dossier? Was it something else? WHO KNOWS?

Allegedly using 'political opposition research' as some vital component of a FISA warrant. There's very little substance to back that up - only a clearly partisan memo. One which has been shown to have been lying.

What? The memo claims Comey said something that he did not. That's verifiable. It's right there in the public testimony. I ain't talking about the dossier content, but what the memo says Comey said about (maybe?) the dossier.

originally posted by: Greven

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

You claimed they lied by omission... First of all you can only lie by omission if you hide that evidence. Comey's testimony is not hidden, it is in the public record. We don't know what parts Comey was mentioning were salacious and unverified. The only parts which so far have been verified were the trips to Moscow by Page and by Trump and Melania. That's all as far as i know which has been verified...

You want to stop another member from posting his thoughts when you yourself are making a claim that "they lied by omission", when you have no evidence of such a thing. You yourself admitted you don't know anything about the dossier, so how do you know what parts Comey was referencing to?

originally posted by: ElectricUniverse

originally posted by: Greven

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

You claimed they lied by omission... First of all you can only lie by omission if you hide that evidence. Comey's testimony is not hidden, it is in the public record. We don't know what parts Comey was mentioning were salacious and unverified. The only parts which so far have been verified were the trips to Moscow by Page and by Trump and Melania. That's all as far as i know which has been verified...

You want to stop another member from posting his thoughts when you yourself are making a claim that "they lied by omission", when you have no evidence of such a thing. You yourself admitted you don't know anything about the dossier, so how do you know what parts Comey was referencing to?

That member is saying I am lying by twisting what I am saying:

originally posted by: Grambler
You are lying.

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

This is what I wrote:

originally posted by: Greven
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.)

I did not write that the memo said the dossier was fake.

His bull# claim about me lying is based on mischaracterizing what I have written, and it is well beyond civil discussion to first lie about what I wrote, then claim I am lying based on that lie.

Why the hell are you even butting in on this?

originally posted by: Greven

What "material" is... well, that's anyone's guess. Was it the Steele dossier? Was it something else? WHO KNOWS?

Comey was testifying ABOUT THE STEELE DOSSIER when he made that comment... Wow, you sure make false claims without knowing one thing about those claims you keep making...

originally posted by: Greven

Allegedly using 'political opposition research' as some vital component of a FISA warrant. There's very little substance to back that up - only a clearly partisan memo.

There is no "allegedly"... The dossier was used to get the FISA warrant.

originally posted by: Greven
One which has been shown to have been lying.

There you go again...How do you know they were lying when you yourself have stated you don't know anything at all about the dossier?... You are making false claims when you yourself admit not to know anything about it, yet you claim this is evidence of lying?...

originally posted by: Greven
What? The memo claims Comey said something that he did not. That's verifiable. It's right there in the public testimony. I ain't talking about the dossier content, but what the memo says Comey said about (maybe?) the dossier.

Comey did say parts of the dossier were salacious and unverified... You are assuming you know what it is, despite you yourself claiming not to know anything at all about it.

The fact that you even claim that we don't know if Comey was talking about the dossier shows you are completely ignorant of the subject and you are making false claims without any evidence to back said false claims...

That Comey video of him at Congress, the early one where question after question he refused to answer one way or another, would be so fitting right now.

originally posted by: ElectricUniverse

originally posted by: Greven

What "material" is... well, that's anyone's guess. Was it the Steele dossier? Was it something else? WHO KNOWS?

Comey was testifying ABOUT THE STEELE DOSSIER... Wow, you sure make false claims without knowing one thing about those claims you keep making...

originally posted by: Greven

Allegedly using 'political opposition research' as some vital component of a FISA warrant. There's very little substance to back that up - only a clearly partisan memo.

There is no "allegedly"... The dossier was used to get the FISA warrant.

originally posted by: Greven
One which has been shown to have been lying.

There you go again...How do you know they were lying when you yourself have stated you don't know anything at all about the dossier?... You are making false claims when you yourself admit not to know anything about it, yet you claim this is evidence of lying?...

originally posted by: Greven
What? The memo claims Comey said something that he did not. That's verifiable. It's right there in the public testimony. I ain't talking about the dossier content, but what the memo says Comey said about (maybe?) the dossier.

Comey did say parts of the dossier were salacious and unverified... You are assuming you know what it is, despite you yourself claiming not to know anything at all about it.

The fact that you even claim that we don't know if Comey was talking about the dossier shows you are completely ignorant of the subject and you are making false claims without any evidence to back said false claims...

Strange, I gave you the transcript which was not just about the Steele dossier, but about Russia's interference in the 2016 elections - of which, the Steele dossier is a portion. Yet, you seem to think that testimony was purely about the Steele dossier. It was not.

Again, the memo says Comey said the Steele dossier was "salacious and unverified" in the testimony I have linked. You can go look in it yourself. Don't take my word for it, but stop arguing that the memo doesn't mischaracterize what he said. His response to questions about the Steele dossier was, recall, no response due to an investigation. He mentioned some material that was "salacious and unverified" but did not identify what that material was. Curiously, the transcript doesn't say "The verified - salacious and unverified parts" but "The verified — unverified parts" - so the transcript is wrong on this particular sentence.

a reply to: Grambler

The reality here, is that it would not matter who was the Special prosecutor, investigating President, for he is naturally going to be hated. Mueller has been following his mandate to the letter and not going over it. It is the grey area of the law, that people are upset, but he is not over stepping his bounds, and if he is, then it goes back to the assistant ag, and the AG.

If the Assistant AG and the AG are not pulling him back, then he is not overstepping his bounds at this time frame. He has to report to those 2, who then reports to the President. But they can't just interfere cause it is politically inconvenient.

The real pain of it is, is that Trump needed this investigation from day one, there were too many allegations against him that had surfaced, and it was going to be political from day one. Now if Congress would have showed some restraint and kept it a low profile, not commenting on it, would it be such the controversy as it is now? Personally I would have preferred that this be totally non political, and that a reasonable time limit be set, and a full report given to a joint session in Congress, after it was all done, where the congress could look at the evidence, and then make a decision based on what all was discovered. And to keep the White House out of it, only to give the Special Prosecutor their full support.

That is how it should work, that way it not only allows for this process to go forth fully, but also shows that not even a sitting President is above the law, and that the congress accepts and backs that very idea.

a reply to: Justoneman

And McCain. What I want to also know, is who gave the dossier to the press in the first part. It did not come from Steele, and it was given to either McCain or the FBI. So who leaked it in the first place?

originally posted by: smurfy

originally posted by: Grambler

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.

It flies in the face of reason that any FISA would rely on just that document alone...I have heard that the warrant was very lengthy, 50 pages of it, and even the memo mentions that George Papadopoulos was part of text in it, and that was Australia's input of intel back to the US intel, and that goes waay back to 2015, and has been reported on long ago now. All the foreign intel agencies contributions must surely be there too in relevant parts...and there was plenty of it, and that goes back a long way too. The dossier is only pretty much a confirmation of intel already given to the US, and besides the memo also references that Steele was a longtime...decade or more source for the FBI anyway....a huge faux pas by Nunes.

All this stupid thing is about, and it is stupid, is a back door into Trump attempts to get rid of Mueller, which IMO is even more impossible now, and I think it has made the whole government exponentially more polarised. Nunes has even said he didn't see the classified details himself, he sent someone else into the room to study it!!
Now, as it happens, jackie Speier who was there, says that the words, no warrant without the dossier, are not the actual words used, but we'll find out about that anyway...unless Trump does a big turnaround of course.

Again I say this.

First, if Mcabe did testify that the warrant would not have been gotten without the dossier, then it doesnt matter what other evidence there was.

Second, the first attempt at getting a warrant on page presumably also had like 60 pages, and was denied. So if the dossier was used to put it over the top in any way, then it is outrageous.

The dossier was not confirmation of intel that was already had. Where else has it been claimed trump likes pee hookers? Were alse has it been claimed Cohen went to prague? Where else has it been claimed that page was offered to give trump 19% of roseneft if he lifted sanctions?

It doesnt matter what other info there was; if the FBI knowingly used a dossier that was paid for by hillarys team, that they knew was largely unverified to spy on trump, and if on top of that they did not tell the court it was paid oppo research, it is outrageous.

a reply to: Grambler

More importantly it proves how anti-American Obama is and paves the way for something very serious. This fundamentally proves Obama has sought to undermine the rule of law within the US. If it can be proven Obama was aware the Steel Dossier was false prior to it going to the FISA courts this proves Obama was complicit in attempting to usurp the sovereign powers of the US.

Barrack Hussein Obama can legitimately have charges of treason brought against him.

originally posted by: sdcigarpig
a reply to: Grambler

The reality here, is that it would not matter who was the Special prosecutor, investigating President, for he is naturally going to be hated. Mueller has been following his mandate to the letter and not going over it. It is the grey area of the law, that people are upset, but he is not over stepping his bounds, and if he is, then it goes back to the assistant ag, and the AG.

If the Assistant AG and the AG are not pulling him back, then he is not overstepping his bounds at this time frame. He has to report to those 2, who then reports to the President. But they can't just interfere cause it is politically inconvenient.

The real pain of it is, is that Trump needed this investigation from day one, there were too many allegations against him that had surfaced, and it was going to be political from day one. Now if Congress would have showed some restraint and kept it a low profile, not commenting on it, would it be such the controversy as it is now? Personally I would have preferred that this be totally non political, and that a reasonable time limit be set, and a full report given to a joint session in Congress, after it was all done, where the congress could look at the evidence, and then make a decision based on what all was discovered. And to keep the White House out of it, only to give the Special Prosecutor their full support.

That is how it should work, that way it not only allows for this process to go forth fully, but also shows that not even a sitting President is above the law, and that the congress accepts and backs that very idea.

But there were WAY more allegations about hillary, and yet no special prosecutor into her.

Again, the entire idea of the special prosecutor was a bad one, because as we can see, the investigation has morphed into proving trup russia collusion, to now looking at crimes of people from years ago, looking at fincncial crimes, and looking into obstruction of justice.

So if this is legitimate, the the FBI and DOJ, and the dems that paid for the dossier should be given the same treatment.

Lest get a special prosecutor to look if they were imporoper in the invetsigation of trump, but allow that prosecutor to look at crimes of any naturre from years past too.

a reply to: Greven

You claimed they lied by omission... Lying by omission can only occur if Comey's testimony wasn't public. BTW, you do forget the fact that Comey was the head of the FBI, and the FBI, alongside the DOJ, decided not to tell the FISA courts about the conflict of interest because the dossier was paid for by the political opponents of President Trump. The FBI did not tell the FISA courts about the collusion between the DNC/Clinton campaign and the FBI officials, and the bias that Steele had against Trump, or the fact that even though Ohr documented Steele's bias, the high officials of the FBI, McCabe and Comey, decided not to tell the FISA courts... That is lying by omission.

Is this mind control at its best??

With all the facts I have seen from the beginning, I fully believe this was a combined effort to put Hilary in office and keep trump out. It makes no sense how anyone could see the facts and not think otherwise. How in the hell can half the country ignore everything, and think trump is any day from impeachment??

The left is either brainwashed or I am.

a reply to: Outlier13

Obama had to know because the DOJ was working for him and DOJ officials knew about it, so Obama also knew about it. Since the DOJ used the same source used by the FBI Obama had to be informed about what the FBI was doing. What's more, Obama was known to pass legislation without the approval of Congress which proves Obama was more than willing to misuse his power and didn't care about the law. Not to mention that if Hillary had won and if she had become the POTUS Obama's legacy would have been secured. There is no way that Obama wouldn't have known about this, or that he was not part of this collusion and corruption.