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: 61
169
<< 58  59  60    62  63  64 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Feb, 4 2018 @ 12:58 PM
link   

originally posted by: soberbacchus
a reply to: Sillyolme

Right.

I keep posting it, but people believe what they want to believe.

From the same testimony where Comey said certain parts were salacious and unverified.




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.


www.redstate.com...




The issue is that Comey admitted there was parts of the dossier that were slacious and unverified.

The threshold for using this document as the impetus for spying on an ameircan should be very high, particularly because it was to spy on a Presidential candidates team member, and the info was from that canidates opponent.

So comey admitting there were parts that were salacious and unverified is damning, because it admits the document wasnt fully vetted.




posted on Feb, 4 2018 @ 01:02 PM
link   

originally posted by: CynConcepts
a reply to: soberbacchus

Of course the Investigation into the 2016 Election will continue. The dossier is meaningless and a distraction. Their focus is not solely on Trump. Their focus is on the many other paths that they are discovering. I am personally in support of Mueller's investigation for I believe in the end, it will be useful in draining the swamp across all parties!




posted on Feb, 4 2018 @ 01:04 PM
link   

originally posted by: Grambler

originally posted by: soberbacchus
a reply to: Sillyolme

Right.

I keep posting it, but people believe what they want to believe.

From the same testimony where Comey said certain parts were salacious and unverified.




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.


www.redstate.com...




So comey admitting there were parts that were salacious and unverified is damning, because it admits the document wasnt fully vetted.


No. The standard is not to verify the entirety of the intelligence originating from a source before taking any of it credibly, the standard is to verify the relevant portions (Carter Page).



posted on Feb, 4 2018 @ 01:06 PM
link   

originally posted by: BlueAjah
a reply to: soberbacchus

Of course they should investigate Russian meddling. But it has nothing to do with Trump.



That is cart before the horse.

The investigation into Russian Meddling will determine if it had anything to do with Trump or his campaign.

That is 101 in logic, investigations and reality.

You don't eliminate suspects before investigating.



posted on Feb, 4 2018 @ 01:09 PM
link   
a reply to: diggindirt




A complete clean-up will take time because it will take time to find suitable (baggage-free) replacements. I believe the phrase used was "people of impeccable character

Suitable baggage free loyal replacements.
And impeccable people like Carter Page and George Papadopolis, and Paul Manafort and Roger Stone and Michael Flynn? All the best criminals money can't buy.



posted on Feb, 4 2018 @ 01:10 PM
link   

originally posted by: Grambler

The issue is that Comey admitted there was parts of the dossier that were slacious and unverified.

The threshold for using this document as the impetus for spying on an ameircan should be very high, particularly because it was to spy on a Presidential candidates team member, and the info was from that canidates opponent.

So comey admitting there were parts that were salacious and unverified is damning, because it admits the document wasnt fully vetted.


?? I thought the original document mentioned that parts of the information came from sources that seemed reliable but that could not be verified. Such as the hooker story.



posted on Feb, 4 2018 @ 01:12 PM
link   
a reply to: diggindirt

The warrant covered Carter Page only and it was issued after he left the campaign. If you believe trumps people anyway...



posted on Feb, 4 2018 @ 01:16 PM
link   

originally posted by: Grambler

originally posted by: soberbacchus
a reply to: Sillyolme

Right.

I keep posting it, but people believe what they want to believe.

From the same testimony where Comey said certain parts were salacious and unverified.




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.


www.redstate.com...




The issue is that Comey admitted there was parts of the dossier that were slacious and unverified.

The threshold for using this document as the impetus for spying on an ameircan should be very high, particularly because it was to spy on a Presidential candidates team member, and the info was from that canidates opponent.

So comey admitting there were parts that were salacious and unverified is damning, because it admits the document wasnt fully vetted.



Of course "Parts" like there is a Russia and a person named such and such exists. The main parts though are unverified. That is the point in this.

Comey prepared this statement "The IC leadership thought it important, for a variety of reasons, to alert the incoming President to the existence of this material, even though it was salacious and unverified"

"THIS MATERIAL" is obviously referring to the accusations against the President. Those are unverified. What strikes me, and what I think poses a major problem for Comey, is that he pushed back against the President, when the President asked for an investigation into the origins of the Dossier etc. Comey never told President Trump who funded the Dossier. Even though, he knew wh0 funded it. He never was open before the Congress on this, which I believe is misleading. The Dems tried to block the Republicans from finding out, and then it turned out it was the DNC and Clinton.
edit on 4-2-2018 by talisman because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 4 2018 @ 01:17 PM
link   
Bottom line, Comey played a game of deciet and misdirection as did the Dems
edit on 4-2-2018 by talisman because: (no reason given)

edit on 4-2-2018 by talisman because: correcting a thought



posted on Feb, 4 2018 @ 01:26 PM
link   
Btw, when Rosenstein took Mueller for his interview at the job of running the FBI,
Trump turned him down. The day after Mueller was made Special Prosecutor by Rosenstein.



posted on Feb, 4 2018 @ 01:30 PM
link   

originally posted by: soberbacchus

originally posted by: Grambler

originally posted by: soberbacchus
a reply to: Sillyolme

Right.

I keep posting it, but people believe what they want to believe.

From the same testimony where Comey said certain parts were salacious and unverified.




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.


www.redstate.com...




So comey admitting there were parts that were salacious and unverified is damning, because it admits the document wasnt fully vetted.


No. The standard is not to verify the entirety of the intelligence originating from a source before taking any of it credibly, the standard is to verify the relevant portions (Carter Page).


Incorrect.

Why would the FBI use a dossier that they knew came from the opponent of the people they were trying to spy on, that they knew that was mostly unverified, and that had parts that they knew were false, if they had verified other info about Page.

They would have skipped out on the dossier entirely, and instead used the info they had that was verified.

The allegations in the memo, if they are true, show that instead the fbi had to rely on the dossier, and an article sourced by the creator of the steele dossier to corroborate it. Not only that, it seems that they did not tell the court that the dossier was paid for by hillarys team.

Why add the extra step of the controversial dossier if they had other sources that showed what page did?



posted on Feb, 4 2018 @ 01:34 PM
link   

originally posted by: Byrd

originally posted by: Grambler

The issue is that Comey admitted there was parts of the dossier that were slacious and unverified.

The threshold for using this document as the impetus for spying on an ameircan should be very high, particularly because it was to spy on a Presidential candidates team member, and the info was from that canidates opponent.

So comey admitting there were parts that were salacious and unverified is damning, because it admits the document wasnt fully vetted.


?? I thought the original document mentioned that parts of the information came from sources that seemed reliable but that could not be verified. Such as the hooker story.


Thats true. All the more reason that the dossier should not have been used to get a warrant to spy on someone who was in trumps team.

The standard of spying on americans, particularly a campaign for president, particularly when the evidence is paid for by that candidates opponents, should be extremly high.

So when the dossier itself admits that parts of it cant be verified, it should probably not be used for that spying.



posted on Feb, 4 2018 @ 01:58 PM
link   

originally posted by: Grambler

originally posted by: soberbacchus

originally posted by: Grambler

originally posted by: soberbacchus
a reply to: Sillyolme

Right.

I keep posting it, but people believe what they want to believe.

From the same testimony where Comey said certain parts were salacious and unverified.




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.


www.redstate.com...




So comey admitting there were parts that were salacious and unverified is damning, because it admits the document wasnt fully vetted.


No. The standard is not to verify the entirety of the intelligence originating from a source before taking any of it credibly, the standard is to verify the relevant portions (Carter Page).


Incorrect.

Why would the FBI use a dossier that they knew came from the opponent of the people they were trying to spy on,


It does not matter where it came from. It only matters if the relevant intelligence is verified or unverified.
It also came from a credible former MI6 agent.



that they knew that was mostly unverified,


They did not know that then and you do not know that now.


and that had parts that they knew were false,

Spelling errors.


if they had verified other info about Page.

They would have skipped out on the dossier entirely, and instead used the info they had that was verified.



In making a case they need to demonstrate why they chose to verify information. Not just evidence "Y", but evidence "X" verified by "Y" and verified again by "Z".



The allegations in the memo, if they are true, show that instead the fbi had to rely on the dossier,


The Dossier led them someplace that they verified.



Not only that, it seems that they did not tell the court that the dossier was paid for by hillarys team.



The reporting (not disputed by any GOP now) is that they told the court that the Dossier originated as Political Opposition Research, funded by an attorney and paid for by a political party.

The memo lied about this fact.





Why add the extra step of the controversial dossier if they had other sources that showed what page did?



FISA court applications are "as thick as your wrist".

They need to explain the impetus for their verification of the intel, not just the end conclusions and verification.



posted on Feb, 4 2018 @ 01:59 PM
link   

originally posted by: Grambler

originally posted by: soberbacchus
a reply to: Sillyolme

Right.

I keep posting it, but people believe what they want to believe.

From the same testimony where Comey said certain parts were salacious and unverified.




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.


www.redstate.com...




The issue is that Comey admitted there was parts of the dossier that were slacious and unverified.

The threshold for using this document as the impetus for spying on an ameircan should be very high, particularly because it was to spy on a Presidential candidates team member, and the info was from that canidates opponent.

So comey admitting there were parts that were salacious and unverified is damning, because it admits the document wasnt fully vetted.


At the time they used it in the FISA application, it may not have been vetted at all.


According to the head of the counterintelligence division, Assistant Director Bill Priestap, corroboration of the Steele dossier was in its “infancy” at the time of the initial Page FISA application.


If that's true, that's a big, big problem. And I'm sure there's a classified transcript of his testimony that could be released to prove that.



posted on Feb, 4 2018 @ 02:07 PM
link   
a reply to: soberbacchus

Hard ot take you seriously when you are trying to say the inveiried parts of the dossier were just spelling errors.

Unbelievable.

You have no proof that any parts of the dossier of relevance were verified.

Comey admitted that parts were in fact salacious and unverified.

No one has claimed that the fbi told the court hillarys team paid for the dossier, or the man that crafted it admitted he wanted to do anything possible to keep trump out of office.

You are wrong about not needing to have verified evidence.

Here is a thread showing why.

www.abovetopsecret.com...

We know that the memo at least says Preistep thought it was minimally verified. Comey admitted parts were salacious and unveiried.

Other people like Brennan said publicly well after the fisa warrant that they had seen no evidence of trump or his team colluding with russia to steal the election.



posted on Feb, 4 2018 @ 02:24 PM
link   
a reply to: Grambler

The President has within his power and authority to declassify the evidence. And could in all theory declassify the FISA warrant or warrants that would either support the memo and the claims or not.

And this is no different than say the Benghazi hearings, where the claim of Hillary could have done something when that attack went down.

What I am saying is that the cat is out of the bag, and time to prove the claim that there was abuse of authority. That could be slander on the part of the Federal government.

Yes you are correct this is very bad for Trump. If he does not release this information, then it will be endless debate and fighting, along political lines about if the President is lying or not. If he does release it, then it would be one of 2 things, either it will show that there are those that were apart of his campaign that were compromised and acting for a foreign power, or it will show the Democrats really are making much ado about nothing. It would answer many questions that we all should be asking.

This warrant, the last one that had Carter Page under, how many other pieces of evidence are there that would up and support the actual warrant being in place?

But beyond that, maybe this needed to happen, because this is one court, the FISA court that perhaps needs oversite. It is done in secret, and ironically, the other small details that should be noted, is that it was a Republican Judge that has appointed all of the Judges on the FISA court.



posted on Feb, 4 2018 @ 02:29 PM
link   
a reply to: sdcigarpig

If there was so much evidence against Carter Page, then why is he still walking around?

Benghazi is not over. That could be one of the issues that Congress is still investigating. They said the State Department is next. If the FBI and DOJ corrupted the Russia and Hillary email investigation, the Benghazi investigation was also suspect. There was overwhelming evidence that Hillary was culpable in that situation, yet somehow she was let off the hook, same as with the email investigation.



posted on Feb, 4 2018 @ 02:32 PM
link   
a reply to: sdcigarpig

I agree with just about everything you say here, algthough I am not worried about slandering the government. They work for us, and we should be allowed to discuss potential abuses by them.

Trump is in a difficult position as to release the intel or not.

The best case scenarios would be the intel committee or fbi voting to release the info; that way it is non seen as being unilaterally released by Trump.

Bit that probably wont happen. There have been republicans saying they would support the release of that intel, but the dems havent said that (which again, odd that the dems seem to be for less transparency).

However, I will beleive the republicans when I see it; until then its just lip service.

Yes the fisa courts are a problem, and shame on congress for reauthorizing it.

The page warrant may be the impetus for changing this system, or at least showing abuses in the open.

edit on 4-2-2018 by Grambler because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 4 2018 @ 02:34 PM
link   
a reply to: Xcathdra

If the information that is classified within the Congress, then yes they can declassify it. However, if said information did not originate within the Legislative branch of the government, then no the Intelligence committee can not declassify that information without the permission of the branch that did such, in this case usually either the head of a department or the Executive branch, namely the President.



posted on Feb, 4 2018 @ 02:35 PM
link   

originally posted by: Grambler
a reply to: soberbacchus

Hard ot take you seriously when you are trying to say the inveiried parts of the dossier were just spelling errors.

Unbelievable.


Impossible to take you seriously when you are dishonest.

I did not say the unverified parts of the dossier were spelling errors.

I said:
GRAMBLER: "and that had parts that they knew were false,"

were spelling errors.

* Do you know the difference between "Unverified" and "False"

Why would you misrepresent what I said?

How am I to take YOU seriously when you are dishonest with what I said?




top topics



 
169
<< 58  59  60    62  63  64 >>

log in

join