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.

 

Dems set Trump trap? -Source says FISA rebuttal memo loaded with sensitive details

page: 4
31
<< 1  2  3    5 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Feb, 6 2018 @ 08:07 PM
link   
a reply to: proximo

No it wasn’t... TRUMPS fbi and TRUMPS doj both came out and said it was misleading..


Philip defranco’s you tube channel worked a compilation of gop lawmakers saying as much into yesterday’s show..

Trey Gowdy is the one I remember..

McCray a trump appointee said the same..


If Nunes never read the memo , THEN HOW DOES HE KNOW WHAT EVIDENCE WAS USED TO OBTAIN THE FISA???


He doesn’t..

It was ALWAYS a scam.. and an obvious one..

You have Nunes who has already been removed from 2 Intelligence positions for getting caught lying for trump..

Then he puts out a protrump memo based only on Nunes credibility..


You noticed the memo didn’t even begin to end the fbi investigation.. right??

Which is exactly what it was claimed would happen..



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




posted on Feb, 6 2018 @ 08:07 PM
link   
a reply to: JoshuaCox




The Dem memo almost certainly sites other evidence besides the Steele Dossier that led to the fisa warrant. 



They almost certainly had other evidence because they tried twice to get a judge to bite without the dossier and were rejected.
The legal questions are: A) did they by omission or assertion misrepresent information concerning the dossier that the judge would wish to know?
If, yes:
B) is the other evidence sufficient to establish probable cause in its absence?


We can't know that without the warrant application. That's why I think we should release everything and have it sorted. If I were Trump I'd ask Page for permission (he doesn't need it) and release the warrant application along with the Dem memo. If there are representations in either memo, let them reap what they sowed.



posted on Feb, 6 2018 @ 08:09 PM
link   
a reply to: xuenchen

You give the House Democrats way too much credit. They can't even keep up with their changing story let alone set a trap.



posted on Feb, 6 2018 @ 08:10 PM
link   

originally posted by: JoshuaCox

originally posted by: DanDanDat
The new memo should be released as is. The more the alphabets loses the more the rest of us win. It really doesn't matter what happens to Trump, Obama or Hilary; they are meer humans taking advantage of the system. It's the system that needs to be delt with.



This is why I find all the “ hillary is evil “ stuff is ridiculous and even dangerous...


Hillary Clinton is not uniquely corrupt in a good system..

She is par for the course in a corrupt system..


That’s the reason trump won, but he has no intention to fix it.


Well he will fix the tax rate he has to pay... but he won’t do the work required to fix anything that matters to regular joes..



I think the reason Trump won is that people, whether consciously or subconsciously, knew that the system would be more likly to be thrown into a state of chaos with Trump as president. A Hilary presidency would have been 4 more years of the same.

If things do finally turn out for the better after all of this; history will have to thank Trump for making it happen.
edit on 6-2-2018 by DanDanDat because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 6 2018 @ 08:10 PM
link   
a reply to: JoshuaCox

No

🥁



posted on Feb, 6 2018 @ 08:18 PM
link   
a reply to: RadioRobert

ACCORDING TO THE TOTALLY UNCREDIBLE NUNES MEMO..

A guy who never even saw the fisa warrant..


Do you see me running around quoting Schiff as if his words are the gospel??

Of course not, he is biased....


Obviously so is Nunes which is why no one took this memo seriously 2 seconds after it was released..


In fact I wonder if it wasn’t a trap as the OP said..


Once trump released the Nunes memo. They have to allow the Dems a rebuttal memo.. which allows more information that embarrasses trump to be declassified..

Nunes puts out his lying.. which no one takes seriously..

Then the Dems release one showing the American people classified evidence against trump..

It’s kinda brilliant.



posted on Feb, 6 2018 @ 08:18 PM
link   
a reply to: xuenchen

There you go with those rock solid rebuttals your famous for lmao.



posted on Feb, 6 2018 @ 08:20 PM
link   
a reply to: DanDanDat

I agree completely..

But though trump is likely to burn it all down. Is he who you want rebuilding it in their image??
edit on 6-2-2018 by JoshuaCox because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 6 2018 @ 08:24 PM
link   
a reply to: JoshuaCox

I didn't say either one was lying or telling the truth. I presented the relevant legal questions. I did not give an answer to either because I haven't seen the warrant application. I suspect both R and D memos mention the things they want to mention and gloss over the bits they don't. That's why I put in the word "either". I even italicized it for you (that's fancy leaning font for emphasis. Maybe English isn't your first language given your posting history).



posted on Feb, 6 2018 @ 08:30 PM
link   

originally posted by: JoshuaCox
a reply to: DanDanDat

I agree completely..

But though trump is likely to burn it all down. Is he who you want rebuilding it???


You take the good, you take the bad, you take them both and there you have the facts of life ...



posted on Feb, 6 2018 @ 08:39 PM
link   
a reply to: RadioRobert

My bad I think I started writing half way through reading your post..


A fairly fequent error if I’m being honest lol..



I agree with you except for the first stage..


FIRST we have to establish that the FBI usually sites it’s source and the sources background when tbey apply for a warrant..


It is only omission if it is the common practice to include that information.. if it is not..

Then obviously it isn’t omission..


I would be VERY suprised if it is common place.. if it was, wouldn’t the fisa court have asked why it was omitted before agreeing to the warrant??



It’s only omission if the vast majority of applications site their source.. I bet they do not.



posted on Feb, 6 2018 @ 08:39 PM
link   
a reply to: DanDanDat

Only if your cool with America remade in Trumps image lol..



posted on Feb, 6 2018 @ 08:45 PM
link   
a reply to: RadioRobert

Trump could release the warrant whenever he wanted and we know trump doesn’t give one flying flip about making waves..


So why isn’t he??

There is really only one reason that makes sense..

He knows he is lying about the dossier being the only evidence and knows that the other evidence being released would be embarrassing..

Hypothetically, if releasing the warrant proves the entire investigation is fruit of the poisonous tree....

Trump could end the whole investigation..


That is how we can tell he is lying..



posted on Feb, 6 2018 @ 09:07 PM
link   

originally posted by: JoshuaCox
a reply to: proximo

No it wasn’t... TRUMPS fbi and TRUMPS doj both came out and said it was misleading..


Philip defranco’s you tube channel worked a compilation of gop lawmakers saying as much into yesterday’s show..

Trey Gowdy is the one I remember..

McCray a trump appointee said the same..


If Nunes never read the memo , THEN HOW DOES HE KNOW WHAT EVIDENCE WAS USED TO OBTAIN THE FISA???


He doesn’t..

It was ALWAYS a scam.. and an obvious one..

You have Nunes who has already been removed from 2 Intelligence positions for getting caught lying for trump..

Then he puts out a protrump memo based only on Nunes credibility..

You noticed the memo didn’t even begin to end the fbi investigation.. right??

Which is exactly what it was claimed would happen..



Good grief you are thick.

The fbi said the facts in the memo were accurate, but it was misleading because there was not enough context.

They are trying to cover their butt. This memo makes them look really bad. WRAY did not want it released because it makes the fbi look bad, and he is a career fbi guy.

But go ahead give me any hypothetical thing that could have been left out that would make the use of a clinton paid for unverified document as primary evidence for a fisa warrant proper. Then they renewed it three times, knowing it was paid for, and unverified and still never told the court. Make some missing info up that makes that ok, I dare you.

Look I already told you Gowdy read the fisa warrant and Gowdy wrote that part of the memo. You need to work on your reading comprehension.

Let’s assume you are right Nunes lied for trump,
Schiff has been caught blatantly lying about the memo twice in the last week. Therefore according to you I should dismiss everything he ever says as lies, even if the fbi verifies it is accurate.



posted on Feb, 6 2018 @ 09:08 PM
link   
Democrats looking more stupid than ever now.

So we have a FISA order BEFORE the election based (partly?) on das Dossier.

They never vetted & verified das Dossier and got the warrant anyway with a "top heavy" article from Yahoo.

But yet the Democrats never released das Dossier to discredit Trump BEFORE the election !!!

How dumb could anybody be ?

Clinton just could have won the election by a hair !!

😆👈👉😆




posted on Feb, 6 2018 @ 09:34 PM
link   
a reply to: xuenchen

Breaking!


This evening, White House Chief of Staff virtually labeled the Democrat-Schiff Memo as GOOFY.


“This is a different memo than the first one, it’s lengthier, well it’s different, so not leaning towards it,” Kelly said. “It will be done in a responsible way. But again, where the first one was very clean relative to sources and methods, my initial cut is this one is a lot less clean. But at the end of it all, it’ll be guys like Rod Rosenstein, Chris Wray from FBI, certainly the national security attorneys at the White House giving the President a recommendation on that.”

More at: www.marklevinshow.com...

Considering it's author, and the hastiness by which it was thrown together, it's no-wonder the Dim's memo is screwed up.



posted on Feb, 6 2018 @ 09:34 PM
link   
a reply to: JoshuaCox



FIRST we have to establish that the FBI usually sites it’s source and the sources background when tbey apply for a warrant.. 


It is only omission if it is the common practice to include that information.. if it is not.. 

Then obviously it isn’t omission.. 




Actually, we just need to know the law and it's application to the warrant process. It's legal question A) above. The standard is called "reckless disregard", and it can happen by omission (suppresses information that a "reasonable person" would think "the judge would wish to know" -- like the origin of the information from an anti-Trump investigator paid for by the Clinton's) or by assertion (when "viewing all the evidence, the affiant must have entertained serious doubts as to the truth of his statements OR had obvious reasons to doubt the accuracy of what he reported"). It is already decided by case law. So under most cases, they might not need to cite the witnesses background, but it the person alleging you molested a child also happens to be involved in a custody dispute with you, then that's information that a " reasonable person" might assume that "the judge would wish to know" before signing off on your search or arrest warrant. See how the question is not "do they usually cite the source"? It is does the information they knew about the source make them entertain doubts about its veracity or is that background on the source something "the judge would wish to know".

To answer the question of whether reckless disregard took place in the warrant process, we'd have to see the actual warrant application. IF the affiant acted with reckless disregard, then we have to answer question B) does the rest of the evidence constitute probable cause even in the absence of the dossier? If it does, then it doesn't matter. The warrant is still valid.

But saying weaselly things like "there was other evidence" doesn't really mean much to those questions. You'd only trot out that after the answer to A was affirmative. You'd have to admit they acted recklessly to make it relevant, and you haven't shown the other evidence constituted PC. So if they've ceded A, then they better hope they have PC with the other evidence.



posted on Feb, 7 2018 @ 12:30 AM
link   

originally posted by: mkultra11
a reply to: elementalgrove

The Republican memo did not have any classified material to react because it was carefully written. The democrats memo probably will because they have no problems with leaking classified information. They are the ones playing games with national security. They hyperventilate over the first memo, and release their own? Sounds like a cya attempt to me.


Or the DEM memo will have to have use classified info because that is the only way to refute the GOP memo. It was written that way on purpose.



posted on Feb, 7 2018 @ 12:38 AM
link   
a reply to: RadioRobert

If the fbi doesn’t really ever site their source.. then omission isn’t a thing.. period..

We have to compare for the average.. not decide that trump deserves a higher bar of evidence than anyone else would..

If IT IS extremely commonplace for the fbi to site their source. Then I agree it does look bad. I seriously doubt they normally do.. it seems to me that spooks protect their sources like reporters. So I bet they almost NEVER site sources.



Also The dossier Not paid for by the democrats..


It was paid for by a anti-trump conservative super pac. The democrats picked up the tab afterward..

It is still a biased anti-trump source, but ..

A) anti-trump does not equal lying..

B) it just blows the “obama fbi was just picking on him trump “ narrative right up with even more evidence against that being the fbi announcement of reopening the hillary investigation 2 weeks before the election..


So if the FBI is not picking on him, then that means they have legit evidence of collusion..


SPEAKING OF WHICH!!

This proves the collusion narrative imho..

It is literally Trump Jr 100% spelling out the collusion theory, even spelling out “Russian government “ multiple times..


Good morning Emin just called and asked me to contact you with something very interesting. The Crown prosecutor of Russia met with his father Aras this morning and in their meeting offered to provide the Trump campaign with some official documents and information that would incriminate Hillary and her dealings with Russia and would be very useful to your father. This is obviously very high level and sensitive information but is part of Russia and its government's support for Mr. Trump - helped along by Aras and Emin. What do you think is the best way to handle this information and would you be able to speak to Emin about it directly? I can also send this info to your father via Rhona, but it is ultra sensitive so wanted to send to you first. Best Rob Goldstone



How anyone can read that and think “it’s all bs , they are out to get trump!” I have no idea..

Hell that is enough for an investigation solo imho..

To your final point..

Trump has constantly lied and as he got caught moved the bar..

The Jr. email scandal above is a great example..

First the collusion narrative was totally fake..

Then they don’t even know any russians..

Then they didn’t meet with any Russians

Then they didn’t meet with any Russian agents..

Then they didn’t meet with any Russian agents about hillary..

Then they didn’t get any info on hollary but went to a meeting with Russian agents to try..,


With this latest one..

First the dossier was ONLY based on the fisa..

Then the dossier was mainly based on the fisa..

Now the dossier was one of the main evidence and they didn’t tell them it came from someone who hillary had paid .. after the dossier was created at the behest of conservative super pacs..


AS YOU SAID, we need the real fisa warrant. Trump has full authority to release it and will not.. that means it doesn’t say what his narrative wants it to.

If releasing the warrant proves the investigation is useless (fruit of poisoned tree) then trump releases it.. period.

The fact he isn’t imho proves he is lying ..

edit on 7-2-2018 by JoshuaCox because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 7 2018 @ 12:43 AM
link   
a reply to: proximo

Yea they used words that are subjective like “mainly the only evidence for the fisa” what does mainly mean exactly??

It doesn’t mean anything..


Also I bet the FBI doesn’t normally site sources in fisa warrants.. if they do not. Then the fact the gop is saying they “omitted info” is technically true but blows trump narrative right up..


I do not sure Schiff as a reliable source lmao..

Your the one siting Nunes as a credible source.. that’s the difference..

I don’t expect Schiff to tell the truth, but for some reason you believe a known liar..



new topics

top topics



 
31
<< 1  2  3    5 >>

log in

join