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: 47
169
<< 44  45  46    48  49  50 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Feb, 2 2018 @ 08:50 PM
link   

originally posted by: ElectricUniverse
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.

By 'fact' here you mean this memo we are talking about which claims things.

Is the memo right in part? Could be. Is it wrong in part? Definitely - because it mischaracterizes what Comey testified.




posted on Feb, 2 2018 @ 08:53 PM
link   
a reply to: Greven

[snipped]




The entire thrust of the memo is to discredit the FISA warrant based on the Steele dossier. If the dossier were true then, how would that work, exactly?


I think the memo is more to discredit all involved including the FISA warrant.

If this were any other American, we would all be up in arms. However, since it's Trump, some seem to make exceptions.

edit on 2.3.2018 by Kandinsky because: Snipped ill-mannered comment



posted on Feb, 2 2018 @ 08:56 PM
link   
 


off-topic post removed to prevent thread-drift


 



posted on Feb, 2 2018 @ 09:00 PM
link   

originally posted by: Greven

originally posted by: Arnie123

originally posted by: Greven

originally posted by: Grambler

originally posted by: Greven

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.


You said " The memo tries to build the case that the whole dossier is fake,"

Show me where it said this.

But man, you really rattled me threatening to report me.

By all means go ahead.


I don't give a crap if you are rattled or not. You are libeling me.

You accused me of lying based on mischaracterizing what I wrote. That was the impetus for my response.

Who cares, you can't go around threatening to report users because your opinions are challenged.

If you get called out for lying, say your piece and walk off, 'nuff said.

So far, these users have been at it from the start, yous gonna waltz in an have it yo way, huh?

I've been keeping up, however, being on the road all day prevented me from actually getting a chance at participating.

Shame my first dive is having to deal with you, but thats my fault.

Oh good, more cheerleaders.

I ain't going to let someone slide by while accusing me of lying after making up what I wrote.


Again, you said this.

" The memo tries to build the case that the whole dossier is fake,"

The memo does not do this in any way.

It is trying to show the dossier was written and paid for by bias people, and that it was unverified and salacious when the warrant was applied for, and that the dossier was a big part if not most important part of that warrant.

But no where in the memo does it even suggest the whole dossier is fake.

For example, the dossier says that Page went to russia. So you are claiming that the memo is saying that is fake. Of course that is not the case, and the writers of the memo would admit that this part of the dossier is true. Therefore, they are not making the claim in this memo that the whole dossier is fake.

So for you to claim that is an outright lie.

For you to then threaten people for pointing this out is laughable.

But please, show me in the memo where it says or implies the whole dossier is fake, and I will happily admit I am wrong.


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



posted on Feb, 2 2018 @ 09:00 PM
link   

originally posted by: IgnoranceIsntBlisss
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.
just heard on Hannity that Rod Roseinstien threatened to subpeoana the intel committe .. THREATS!!!! and retaliation???

ETA

He said he was tired of them....

Well I guess we all are..... They have been dragging their feet, avoiding destiny...
edit on 2-2-2018 by Justoneman because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 2 2018 @ 09:01 PM
link   
a reply to: ElectricUniverse

No I am correct, the FBI is part of the Department of Justice, that is under the auspices of the Executive branch of the government, thus the President can order an investigation to be stopped. The President is head of the DOJ. Really the President can not declassify any document? Then why does the President have a man with no Security clearance looking at classified information? Any if he can't, then why did Trump share classified information with a foreign visitor to the White house?

Experts agreed that the president, as commander-in-chief, is ultimately responsible for classification and declassification. When someone lower in the chain of command handles classification and declassification duties -- which is usually how it’s done -- it’s because they have been delegated to do so by the president directly, or by an appointee chosen by the president.

The majority ruling in the 1988 Supreme Court case Department of Navy vs. Egan -- which addressed the legal recourse of a Navy employee who had been denied a security clearance -- addresses this line of authority.

"The President, after all, is the ‘Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy of the United States’" according to Article II of the Constitution, the court’s majority wrote. "His authority to classify and control access to information bearing on national security ... flows primarily from this constitutional investment of power in the President, and exists quite apart from any explicit congressional grant."

So yes the president can declassify any information he wants, it is within his right at President, under the Constitution.


March 21 2017 Nunes makes a call, then changes cars and goes to the White House. Then on March 22, Nunes holds a press conference in the capitol building on the incidental collection of Trump and associates, as well as their unmasking, identified by names in intelligence reports. He also went to brief Trump over at the White house and holds another press conference. Saying that it was found, when in fact he was over there prior and was sharing information with Trump’s team. This is when the first claim of wiretapping of Trump Tower came out, with no evidence to back it up. After Nunes gets back, he is confronted by the committee that he heads, that they want to see the documents that he says that they had. He never produced them. On March 23, the story starts to unravel, as Nunes is not sure about the prior statement, and is not sure. And Nunes stated that he had a rational about informing the president as he was taking a lot of heat in the media. On March 24, he cancels an open intelligence hearing, with James Clappers, John Brenna and Sally Yates. And still no intelligence reports still have been given to the committee. On March 27th, Nunes spokesman stated he met with his source at the White House, to have a secure location to view information, as classified materials cannot be transported from one building to another. The Classification rules, prevent that. That seems unlikely, given that someone with access to that level of confidential documents would in most cases be cleared to take them from one location to another. And Congress has rooms specifically set up for that. And on March 28th, Nunes starts the blame of the Democrats, rather than accept that they do sit on the committee and are having to play by the rules, and it was Nunes that was canceled open panels without any explanation. By April 6, this grew up to be a bit of a scandal on the part of Nunes and he steps down from the Russia Investigation, recusing himself from it, but leaves himself open to return.



posted on Feb, 2 2018 @ 09:02 PM
link   

originally posted by: Grambler

originally posted by: Greven
Oh good, more cheerleaders.

I ain't going to let someone slide by while accusing me of lying after making up what I wrote.


Again, you said this.

" The memo tries to build the case that the whole dossier is fake,"

The memo does not do this in any way.

It is trying to show the dossier was written and paid for by bias people, and that it was unverified and salacious when the warrant was applied for, and that the dossier was a big part if not most important part of that warrant.

But no where in the memo does it even suggest the whole dossier is fake.

For example, the dossier says that Page went to russia. So you are claiming that the memo is saying that is fake.

That is nowhere in the memo, and for you to claim that somehow the memo is saying this is an outright lie.

For you to then threaten people for pointing this out is laughable.

But please, show me in the memo where it says or implies the whole dossier is fake, and I will happily admit I am wrong.


I will repeat, since it seems you have missed things.

*SNIP* The entire thrust of the memo is to discredit the FISA warrant based on the Steele dossier. If the dossier were true then, how would that work, exactly?


After Steele was terminated, a source validation report conducted by an independent unit within the FBI assesed Steele's reporting as only minimally corroborated. Yet, in early January 2017, Directory Comey briefed President-elect Trump on a summary of the Steele dossier, even though it was - according to his June 2017 testimony - "salacious and unverified." While the FISA application relied on Steele's past record of credible reporting on other unrelated matters, it ignored or concealed his anti-Trump financial and ideological motivations. Furthermore, Deputy Director McCabe testified before the Committee in December 2017 that no surveillance warrant would have been sought from the FISC without the Steele dossier information.

1) Claim dossier is minimally corroborated.
2) Claim Comey said it was "salacious and unverified."
3) Claim the FISA application ignored or concealed Steele's anti-Trump financial & ideological motivations.
4) Claim the FISA warrant was only sought with the Steele dossier information.

What the hell do you think that says, if it doesn't say what I wrote?

Also, what is up with the whole 'threat' thing? I don't have a #ing gun. I'm said I would contact the mods if you did not correct your post. The one that mischaracterized what I wrote.
edit on 21Fri, 02 Feb 2018 21:06:05 -0600America/ChicagovAmerica/Chicago2 by Greven because: (no reason given)

edit on 2/3/2018 by maria_stardust because: Removed a bit of unnecessary smack talk



posted on Feb, 2 2018 @ 09:03 PM
link   

originally posted by: tobyOne
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.


I sense you are not!



posted on Feb, 2 2018 @ 09:05 PM
link   
a reply to: Greven


[snipped]




Sure, but you see how it is politically-slanted. Fusion GPS was initially hired by Republicans for more than half a year, yet that goes unmentioned.


Perhaps, however that doesn't detract from implications of the information provided. Moreover, it's been long speculated on.

Do you understand that opposition research is not illegal nor frowned upon? However, enlisting the help of former foreign agents whom then go to other rival foreign entities to acquire information could be frowned upon, perhaps even illegal depending on usage.

Oh, and here is the clincher! Tell the media that the opponent is the one who is actually a Russian agent!

Good times.

edit on 2.3.2018 by Kandinsky because: Snipped ill-mannered comment



posted on Feb, 2 2018 @ 09:08 PM
link   

originally posted by: Greven

By 'fact' here you mean this memo we are talking about which claims things.

Is the memo right in part? Could be. Is it wrong in part? Definitely - because it mischaracterizes what Comey testified.


The memo doesn't just claim things... In case you don't know this, Congress read more than just this memo. They have read evidence which is still classified which would either verify, or deny the memo. Since Congress decided to declassify the memo, it's obvious the evidence they saw corroborates what the memo says.

Here is what is funny, and ironic... First democrats were daring Nuñez to release the memo, which would have been illegal for him to do so... Then when Congress approved the declassification of the memo, the democrats started claiming that releasing the memo to the public would affect our national security... Because now Congress might even try to declassify the evidence that corroborates the memo. These tactics by democrats are funny but very telling.



posted on Feb, 2 2018 @ 09:10 PM
link   

originally posted by: JinMI
a reply to: Greven




Threat? It's cause and effect. Lying about what I wrote, and then calling me a liar I am not going to ignore. Either remove the libel, or I report it. I offered the chance to remove it instead of just going straight to the report, because I had generally decent interactions with this member prior. I don't know why y'all are talking about this still or assuming motivations.


Yea, you should probably report him. Please, publish the mods response. Maybe even make a thread on it, sounds salacious!
Or perhaps stop whinging.




Sure, but you see how it is politically-slanted. Fusion GPS was initially hired by Republicans for more than half a year, yet that goes unmentioned.


Perhaps, however that doesn't detract from implications of the information provided. Moreover, it's been long speculated on.

Do you understand that opposition research is not illegal nor frowned upon? However, enlisting the help of former foreign agents whom then go to other rival foreign entities to acquire information could be frowned upon, perhaps even illegal depending on usage.

Oh, and here is the clincher! Tell the media that the opponent is the one who is actually a Russian agent!

Good times.

I've explained my reasons. You're continuing it well beyond a simple one-line response.

You are aware that Steele was hired by Fusion GPS, who was hired by Republicans initially, yes?
You are aware that Flynn had to retroactively register as foreign agent, yes? Manafort? I mean, you're not digging a good hole here.



posted on Feb, 2 2018 @ 09:12 PM
link   
Biggest nothing burger ever. Nothing new, references a late October warrant that was never released or used politically, concerning Carter Page, who has plead guilty ...

I am sure all you here dying to "get to the bottom of what the department is up to" are anxious to get the Democratic memo released, correct?? The one not written by the White House?

For all of you who only watch Fox, every other media outlet is laughing at you now. They just played Hannity's bloviating capillary popping opening, and the panel just burst out laughing together.

That's all you got?

Pathetic.



posted on Feb, 2 2018 @ 09:12 PM
link   
a reply to: Greven




You are aware that Steele was hired by Fusion GPS, who was hired by Republicans initially, yes?


Yes, it's very well known. Unless you're not actually reading what I wrote.




You are aware that Flynn had to retroactively register as foreign agent, yes? Manafort? I mean, you're not digging a good hole here.


Also well known. What hole? You've failed to make a point.



posted on Feb, 2 2018 @ 09:12 PM
link   

originally posted by: ElectricUniverse

originally posted by: Greven

By 'fact' here you mean this memo we are talking about which claims things.

Is the memo right in part? Could be. Is it wrong in part? Definitely - because it mischaracterizes what Comey testified.


The memo doesn't just claim things... In case you don't know this, Congress read more than just this memo. They have read evidence which is still classified which would either verify, or deny the memo. Since Congress decided to declassify the memo, it's obvious the evidence they saw corroborates what the memo says.

Here is what is funny, and ironic... First democrats were daring Nuñez to release the memo, which would have been illegal for him to do so... Then when Congress approved the declassification of the memo, the democrats started claiming that releasing the memo to the public would affect our national security... Because now Congress might even try to declassify the evidence that corroborates the memo. These tactics by democrats are funny but very telling.


Well, it's quite obviously mischaracterizing one of its talking points. Everyone can see that, no matter how much people want to spin.

Yeah, um, Democrats said the memo was partisan. It is clearly so. It gives me reason to believe them, even though I'm a Republican.



posted on Feb, 2 2018 @ 09:16 PM
link   

originally posted by: JinMI
a reply to: Greven




You are aware that Steele was hired by Fusion GPS, who was hired by Republicans initially, yes?


Yes, it's very well known. Unless you're not actually reading what I wrote.




You are aware that Flynn had to retroactively register as foreign agent, yes? Manafort? I mean, you're not digging a good hole here.


Also well known. What hole? You've failed to make a point.

Simple - the only ones who are thus far facing charges for nefarious actions are... Trump folks.

Recall:

originally posted by: JinMI
a reply to: Greven
However, enlisting the help of former foreign agents whom then go to other rival foreign entities to acquire information could be frowned upon, perhaps even illegal depending on usage

I mean, there's only one set of folks that this so far applies to... that would be former Trump associates.



posted on Feb, 2 2018 @ 09:19 PM
link   
a reply to: Scrubdog

You mean the same "leftwing media" which the leaked emails prove were colluding with the DNC and Clinton campaign to favor Hillary to the point that they gave Hillary all the questions they would ask her, so she would get ready to answer? Not only that, but these same leaked emails also prove that the Clinton campaign told left-wing journalists what questions to ask, and how to ask those questions to other candidates... Are those the "other media sources" you claim are laughing now?...

Not to mention, are you talking about the same "left-wing media" which claim President Trump is a tyrant, but these are the same "left-wing media" who have been working with Soros in proclaiming that demonetizing, and boycotting (and even making illegal), in other words suppressing conservative sources in the name of "to combat fake news" is for the good of the nation?

It's obvious neither you, nor your beloved "left-wing media" have looked in the mirror to find who are the true "tyrants"...


edit on 2-2-2018 by ElectricUniverse because: add and correct comment.



posted on Feb, 2 2018 @ 09:21 PM
link   
a reply to: Greven

Worry not Greven... Now that the DNC/Clinton puppy dogs (Comey and McCabe) are gone, new investigations will sort out who the "truly nefarious folks" are...



posted on Feb, 2 2018 @ 09:21 PM
link   

originally posted by: ElectricUniverse
a reply to: Greven

So, please do tell us what parts have been verified?... As far as I know there was only ONE THING, ok maybe two, that could be verified about the dossier...and that was that Page had made a trip to Russia, and that Trump and Melania made a trip to Moscow and stayed in the same suite as Obama and Michele had stayed in when they themselves had made a trip to Moscow... THAT'S IT... Nothing else has been verified as far as I know...

But go ahead and keep trying to make claims which are completely wrong...




If they were using the Dossier to help reup the FISA warrent on Page, the Page parts would be all that they need verified at that time.



posted on Feb, 2 2018 @ 09:24 PM
link   

originally posted by: ElectricUniverse

originally posted by: Greven

By 'fact' here you mean this memo we are talking about which claims things.

Is the memo right in part? Could be. Is it wrong in part? Definitely - because it mischaracterizes what Comey testified.


The memo doesn't just claim things... In case you don't know this, Congress read more than just this memo. They have read evidence which is still classified which would either verify, or deny the memo. Since Congress decided to declassify the memo, it's obvious the evidence they saw corroborates what the memo says.

Here is what is funny, and ironic... First democrats were daring Nuñez to release the memo, which would have been illegal for him to do so... Then when Congress approved the declassification of the memo, the democrats started claiming that releasing the memo to the public would affect our national security... Because now Congress might even try to declassify the evidence that corroborates the memo. These tactics by democrats are funny but very telling.



No, Democrats were not daring Nunes to release the memo. Nice try.

Democrats are not the only ones claiming release of the memo impacts national security, the Trump Justice Department and Trump pick to head the FBI says it was extraordinarily reckless and damagng to national security.

The Democrats would like to release the material that would buttress what is in the Republican White House memo (Nunes didn't write it), Trump won't declassify them Democratic one.

Your inability to follow even the most basic facts isn't funny, very telling, and all too predictable.

You are all party over country, every time. That's why you'll do anything to help Trump.

BTW: None of this impacts Mueller, none.

And: The WaPo is reporting that the FISA report was well aware of the political leanings of both Steele and his role, it is a 60 page form. The judge was well aware.

You guys have no story at all, never did. Course, this is just nunes being nunes, carrying water for the WH



posted on Feb, 2 2018 @ 09:24 PM
link   

originally posted by: Pyle



If they were using the Dossier to help reup the FISA warrent on Page, the Page parts would be all that they need verified at that time.


Not really because the dossier was used to spy on other Trump officials, on Trump himself and to spy on the Trump corporation. We are only seeing the top of the iceberg.



new topics

top topics



 
169
<< 44  45  46    48  49  50 >>

log in

join