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.

 

Nunes: Fine, the FBI Didn’t Lie, But Its Font Was Too Small

page: 4
29
<< 1  2  3    5 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Feb, 6 2018 @ 09:05 AM
link   
a reply to: Sillyolme




Everything they publish is proven to be a lie.

That is quite a statement.
You and reality are on different planets today?




posted on Feb, 6 2018 @ 09:07 AM
link   
a reply to: shooterbrody

They don't need the dossier is the point being made.
Also the dossier is still a valid part of this investigation but it's existence or not has no bearing on the approval of the warrant nor on Mueller s investigation .



posted on Feb, 6 2018 @ 09:09 AM
link   
a reply to: shooterbrody

Yeah. The planet where gateway pundit is not considered a valid source.
Oops that's earth.
Seems the one on another planet is you darlin.



posted on Feb, 6 2018 @ 09:10 AM
link   
a reply to: Southern Guardian
Rubbish.

The point being made was that the fbi did not disclose that hillarys team and the dnc paid for the dossier.

Having a footnote saying it may have came from a political source in no where comes near tellig the court it was paid for by trumps opponent.

But I assume that you will want to parse word for word, and say that this was a lie.

Read the memo; not that it says the FBI didnt disclose it came from Hillarys team, the DNC, or a political party or candidate.

How is a footnote saying it had a political source meet anyone of those criteria outlined?

Therefore everyone saying nunes lied (it wasnt just his memo, gowdy and others workied on it.) is in fact themselves lying.



posted on Feb, 6 2018 @ 09:12 AM
link   

originally posted by: Grambler

The point being made was that the fbi did not disclose that hillarys team and the dnc paid for the dossier.



and BINGO was his Name 🎻




posted on Feb, 6 2018 @ 09:14 AM
link   
a reply to: Sillyolme




“As far as we can tell, Papadopoulos never even knew who Trump was — never even met with the president,” Nunes said.

Your source
Your quote, interesting you dont mention that part of the quote


As to the dossier
www.washingtonpost.com... e8-b48c-b07fea957bd5_story.html?utm_term=.84772cb80614



And the memo said McCabe told the committee in December that “no surveillance warrant would have been sought from the [Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court] without the Steele dossier information.”


The truth will get out
it always does



posted on Feb, 6 2018 @ 09:17 AM
link   
a reply to: theantediluvian

The fact that page had left the teaam is irrelevant.

Firstly, they allegedly tried and failed to get a warrant on page earlier in the summer while he was still with the campaign.

Secondly, thos warrant would allow them access to all of the documents Page had from his time with the campaign, and allow them to record all conversations he may have with them going forward.

You know this.

It would be the equvilant of getting a fisa warrant on Eric Holder now, and getting all of his documents when he was AG, and saying well this isnt anything to do with Obama, because he no longer works for Obama.

As far as intent of the FBI, here we go again.

We dont look at this in a vacuum.

First, you admited that the FBI investigation into hillary was so botched it needs relooked into.

We know there were texts from prominent FBI agents praising hillary, decrying trump, and discussing having an insurance policy against him.

I am shocked that you are ok with the FBI using an unverified piece of oppo research paid for by one campaign against their opponent, sourced from the Kremlin, compiled by a guy who said he desperately wanted to keep trump out of office, without telling the fisa court it was paid for by those people, to spy on a person who was in the campaign of the opponent.

I am sure you will be happy to defend trump if he starts paying a foreign spy to get dirt on democrats, and then has his fbi get warrants to spy on the dnc, or former dnc members.



posted on Feb, 6 2018 @ 09:21 AM
link   

originally posted by: theantediluvian
a reply to: Southern Guardian

Also this:

"that the FBI then used to get a warrant on an American citizen to spy on another campaign"

This is an extremely serious charge with two parts. It doesn't appear to be true, it's certainly not remotely substantiated by his own memo and the fact that he would even say it demonstrates a lot about Nunes and his motivations.

1. As the memo reveals, the FISA warrant was applied for and obtained on October 21, 2016. Carter Page resigned from the campaign a month earlier and the campaign was doing everything possible to distance itself from Carter Page.

There's no suggestion that any Trump campaign-related *anything* was subject to surveillance. For instance, as Corey Lewandowsky said last year:


“There is no reconciliation necessary,” Lewandowski replied. “To the best of my recollection, I don’t know Carter Page. To the best of my knowledge, Carter Page never had a DonaldTrump.com email address, had no formal role in the campaign that I’m aware of, was never compensated by the campaign.”


2. Absolutely no evidence has been presented that the FBI obtained a FISA warrant on Carter Page for the purpose of "spying on" the Trump campaign.

The narrative, based on interpretations of cherry picked text messages from among thousands, is that Strzok exhibited bias of such a serious nature that he would do absolute anything to "stop Trump."

That's why the last paragraph of the Nunes memo is a summation of Fox News talking points about them. However, not only doesn't Nunes make a case for that alleged bias translating to malfeasance in Strzok's work relating to the FBI's counterintelligence investigation, he fails to even connect Strzok to either Steele or the FISA warrant application.

That's it. There's nothing to this. There's no evidence that the campaign was actually spied on. There's no evidence that any campaign-related communications were obtained through surveillance of Carter Page. There's no evidence that anything obtained from the surveillance of Carter Page was used in any improper way much less against the Trump campaign during the election.

Carter Page would have made a really bad target if the motivation had been to "spy on the campaign."

On the other hand, Carter Page was a legitimate target in a legitimate counterintelligence investigation into an actual assault on the American democratic process.



???

So the whole Carter Page thing isn't at all related to the Trump Collusion (its still a Collusion, right?) Investigation?
This is the Same Carter Page who was working for the FBI in 2013 to catch a Russian spy, right?

So if the Carter Page investigation has nothing to do with the Trump one, why is your side so seemingly nervous about all of this.

Sounds like no big deal to hear it from you.

There's nothing to this. There's no evidence that the campaign was actually spied on.



Yeah just that curious meeting with the head of the NSA with Trump, going against the wishes of his superiors. Immediately after that the Trump Transition Team stops meeting at Trump Tower and heads to NJ.

What's your explanation of that?



posted on Feb, 6 2018 @ 09:24 AM
link   
a reply to: theantediluvian

Again, you act like of the dossier wasnt directly copied and pasted, then there was no problem using the info from it to get a warrant. This is absurd.

If the FBI got this intel and was able to verify it themselves, why even include any parts of the dossier? Instead, they were paying Steele to get more info (until tehy could no longer ignore him blabbing to the media) and were apparently using Yahoo news articles that steele was the source for to back up the dossier that steele himself wrote.

You keep saying so what if parts were salacious, it was just a small part. It matters because the entire piece of evidence, who paid for it, who sourced it, etc, should all be taken into account when decideng rather or not to use the claims in it to spy on an american. particularly one involved with the campaign for presidency.

If i testify I saw someone shot, and then also said that I saw the shooter turn into a lion that paid hookers to pee on him, my tetsimony would be thrown out in a herat beat. But not steele, he is a respectable guy (who wrote pee stories and had to be let go by the FBI for breaking rules).



posted on Feb, 6 2018 @ 09:24 AM
link   
a reply to: shooterbrody

The photo was labeled as such by the trump campaign. And yes he should have been pulling together a national security team at that point and had in fact been asked about it.
That was when he announced both Page and Papadopolis as top foreign advisors.
This is supposedly your candidate and yet you know so little about his campaign or his organization. What exactly does that mean?
edit on 262018 by Sillyolme because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 6 2018 @ 09:25 AM
link   
a reply to: Southern Guardian

They did not disclose that the dossier was procured by the opposing candidate and the opposing political party, not even in a footnote. That drastically alters the political motivations.

“The court that approved surveillance of a former campaign adviser to President Trump was aware that some of the information underpinning the warrant request was paid for by a political entity, although the application did not specifically name the Democratic National Committee or the Hillary Clinton presidential campaign, according to two U.S. officials familiar with the matter.”

Justice Dept. told court of source’s political influence in request to wiretap ex-Trump campaign aide, officials say

Since you’re taking the side of the secret police on this issue, here’s a better article for you:

FBI Warns Republican Memo Could Undermine Faith In Massive, Unaccountable Government Secret Agencies


edit on 6-2-2018 by LesMisanthrope because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 6 2018 @ 09:31 AM
link   

originally posted by: Sillyolme
a reply to: shooterbrody

The photo was labels as such by the trump campaign. And yes he should have been pulling together a national security team at that point and had in fact been asked about it.
That was when he announced both page and Papadopolis as top foreign advisors.
This is supposedly your candidate and yet you know so little about his campaign or his organization. What exactly does that mean?

AHAHAHAHAHAHA
AHAHAHAHAHAHA

What a joke
there is a picture of a meeting, that means two of those people in the meeting are intimately aquanted
lol
the photo proves they were in the same room at the same time
putting together a national security team is VASTLY different that what was claimed
a poster claimed it was a "national security meeting" IT WAS NOT

that is no different than you ignoring the nunes quote you sourced but now choose to ignore
"As far as we can tell" does not suit your narrative, I fully understand why you wish to distance yourself from it



posted on Feb, 6 2018 @ 09:41 AM
link   
a reply to: shooterbrody

"As far as we can tell" that #ing photo has been around since March two years ago.
So "as far as we can tell" Nunes is as big a liar as his boss who is peddling so fast to get out of Mueller s reach right now he's liable to have a heart attack.
edit on 262018 by Sillyolme because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 6 2018 @ 09:43 AM
link   
a reply to: Sillyolme

"As far as we can tell" nunes was not lying.......
edit on 6/2/2018 by shooterbrody because: lyingliarsandommitters



posted on Feb, 6 2018 @ 09:45 AM
link   
a reply to: shooterbrody

Are you intentionally nit picking because you're out of facts?



posted on Feb, 6 2018 @ 09:46 AM
link   
a reply to: xuenchen

But they did.



posted on Feb, 6 2018 @ 09:50 AM
link   
a reply to: shooterbrody

It was a lie. The two year old photo that I've personally known about since last November proves it. But Nunes had never seen it? No I'm not buying that. If you are see me later about a bridge.



posted on Feb, 6 2018 @ 09:56 AM
link   

originally posted by: Sillyolme
a reply to: shooterbrody

Are you intentionally nit picking because you're out of facts?


Now referencing a quote from someone is nit picking? Especially when YOU are using that quote to call them a liar?

nit·pick·ing
ˈnitˌpikiNG/Submit
informal
adjective
adjective: nit-picking
1.
looking for small or unimportant errors or faults, especially in order to criticize unnecessarily.

again here is YOUR quote from YOUR source
now using your qoute is nit picking that is priceless
you are on a different planet today


“As far as we can tell, Papadopoulos never even knew who Trump was — never even met with the president,” Nunes said.



posted on Feb, 6 2018 @ 09:57 AM
link   
a reply to: shooterbrody

There are maybe five people at the table and trump announced him as his foreign advisor. I'm done arguing with you. Your disingenuous at best and a straight up liar at worse.
Have a good day.



posted on Feb, 6 2018 @ 10:13 AM
link   

originally posted by: Sillyolme
a reply to: shooterbrody

There are maybe five people at the table and trump announced him as his foreign advisor. I'm done arguing with you. Your disingenuous at best and a straight up liar at worse.
Have a good day.

As far as we can tell you cant count.(there are 13)
As far as we can tell you are the disingenuous one as you fail to quote nunes full statement.(I understand why,it is your nature....she is not under investigation)
As far as we can tell you and reality are completely separate entities with no interaction.



new topics

top topics



 
29
<< 1  2  3    5 >>

log in

join