OIG fisa abuse report confirms high level plants and spies inserted into Trump campaign

Neither was Hillary Clinton.

originally posted by: dashen
a reply to: Scepticaldem

MI6 is definitely not hiring the best and brightest these days

But according to dems, asking Ukraine to investigate Hunter Biden is infinitely worse than infiltrating a presidential candidate’s campaign via FISA warrants obtained by lying to federal judges. Their hypocrisy knows no bounds and I think most voters see that now.

Hey......
This is NOT the Mud Pit!!!

Terms And Conditions Of Use


All rules for polite political debate will be enforced.
Reaffirming Our Desire For Productive Political Debate (REVISED)
No Political Trolling.....either in words or images. Please read new thread.

You are responsible for your own posts.....those who ignore that responsibility will face mod actions.


and, as always:

Do NOT reply to this post!!

a reply to: fringeofthefringe

Your response is haphazard and misrepresents my post. No matter.

I've copied the quote FROM THE IG REPORT multiple times that shows that the "Steele Dossier" was not the primary point of reference for the investigation to begin nor of the FISA warrants. Of course, that's just the facts.

originally posted by: dashen
a reply to: Gryphon66

The fact is that you clearly didn't read the report because it says in plain English which I assume that you understand that the Steele dossier was the main predicating evidence to support the fisa request

I did read parts of the report. I doubt you or anyone else read every word. If you did, I'm sorry about your life.

However, I have quoted FROM the report, while you and others have merely parroted your chosen narrative.

As far as proving a point with evidence, guess which is stronger.

Here is the quote from your post, That the “Steele Dossier” was the only basis for beginning the investigation or obtaining FISA warrants.

My reply just pointed out it was never said to be the only, it was the central, without the “Steele Dossier” there was no FISA.

ONLY is the wrong word to use and it significantly alters the conversation/points made regarding the use of the “Steele Dossier” in the FISA warrant procurement process.
Wouldn't you agree?

Kinda of like claiming "illegal surveillance" as opposed to spying.
Little, slight of hand tactics.

I made no proclamation in replying to your post, I just made a slight correction to the word choice, a necessary correction.

originally posted by: Gryphon66
a reply to: fringeofthefringe

Your response is haphazard and misrepresents my post. No matter.

I've copied the quote FROM THE IG REPORT multiple times that shows that the "Steele Dossier" was not the primary point of reference for the investigation to begin nor of the FISA warrants. Of course, that's just the facts.

a reply to: fringeofthefringe

BS. Claims have been made for two years and have been made here that the "Steele Dossier" was the basis for the investigation and the FISA warrants.

The same claims have been made IN THIS THREAD.

I'm not going to bicker with you, or play semantic games. I've quoted the report and that proves my claims.

I agree Gryphon, let's not bicker, moving on.
thanks and have a great day.

originally posted by: Gryphon66
a reply to: fringeofthefringe

BS. Claims have been made for two years and have been made here that the "Steele Dossier" was the basis for the investigation and the FISA warrants.

The same claims have been made IN THIS THREAD.

I'm not going to bicker with you, or play semantic games. I've quoted the report and that proves my claims.

originally posted by: Gryphon66
a reply to: fringeofthefringe

BS. Claims have been made for two years and have been made here that the "Steele Dossier" was the basis for the investigation and the FISA warrants.

The same claims have been made IN THIS THREAD.

I'm not going to bicker with you, or play semantic games. I've quoted the report and that proves my claims.

You have not quoted anything. You gave your summary of what you say the report says.

This is how you quote something:

"However, in September 2016, immediately after the Crossfire Hurricane
team received reporting from Christopher Steele concerning Page's alleged recent
activities with Russian officials, FBI attorneys advised the Department that the
team was ready to move forward with a request to obtain FISA authority to surveil
Page. FBI and Department officials told us the Steele reporting "pushed [the FISA
proposal] over the line" in terms of establishing probable cause, and we concluded
that the Steele reporting played a central and essential role in the decision to seek
a FISA order. FBI leadership supported relying on Steele's reporting to seek a FISA
order targeting Page after being advised of, and giving consideration to, concerns
expressed by a Department attorney that Steele may have been hired by someone
associated with a rival candidate or campaign" - Page 3

oig.justice.gov...

a reply to: Gryphon66

I've copied the quote FROM THE IG REPORT multiple times that shows that the "Steele Dossier" was not the primary point of reference for the investigation to begin nor of the FISA warrants. Of course, that's just the facts.

That isn't what Horowitz said.

a reply to: neo96

Do you understand the distinction between Steele, his source, and the meaning of the word "primary"?

It doesn't seem so.

a reply to: Gryphon66

how do you expect me to talk to you when you refuse to even read what the hell youre talking about.

like seriously

seriously

Role of Steele Election Reporting in the First Application
In support of the fourth element in the FISA
application-Carter Page's alleged coordination with the
Russian government on 2016 U.S. presidential election
activities-the application relied ent irely on the following
information from Steele Reports 80, 94, 95, and 102:
• Compromising information about Hil lary Clinton
had been compiled for many years, was
controlled by the Kremlin, and had been fed by
the Kremlin to the Trump campaign for an
extended period of time (Report 80);
• During a July 2016 trip to Moscow, Page met
secretly with Igor Sechin, Chairman of Russian
energy conglomerate Rosneft and close associate
of Putin, to discuss future cooperation and the
lifting of Ukraine-related sanctions against
Russia; and with Igor Divyekin, a highly-placed
Russian official, to discuss sharing with the
Trump campaign derogatory information about
Clinton (Report 94);
• Page was an intermediary between Russia and
the Trump campaign's then manager (Manafort)
in a "well-developed conspiracy" of cooperation,
which led to Russia's disclosure of hacked DNC
emails to Wikileaks in exchange for the Trump
campaign's agreement to sideline Russian
intervention in Ukraine as a campaign issue
(Report 95); and
• Russia released the DNC emails to Wikileaks in
an attempt to swing voters to Trump, an
objective conceived and promoted by Page and
others (Report 102).
We determined that the FBI's decision to rely
upon Steele's election reporting to help establish
probable cause that Page was an agent of Russia was a
judgment reached initially by the case agents on the

a reply to: BrennanHuff22

Actually, not only are you blatantly misleading ... that's not how you quote something here ... this is:

As we describe in Chapter Three, the FBI opened Crossfire Hurricane on July 31, 2016, just days after its receipt of information from a Friendly Foreign Government (FFG) reporting that, in May 2016, during a meeting with the FFG, then Trump campaign foreign policy advisor George Papadopoulos "suggested the Trump team had received some kind of suggestion from Russia that it could assist this process with the anonymous release of information during the campaign
that would be damaging to Mrs. Clinton (and President Obama)." (Page ii)

and

These officials, though, did not become aware of Steele's election reporting until weeks later and we therefore determined that Steele's reports played no role in the Crossfire Hurricane opening. (Page ii)

and

On October 21, 2016, NSD submitted the Carter Page FISA application to the FISC, asserting that there was probable cause to believe that Page was an agent of the Russian government.
The application relied on, among other things:
• The information provided by the FFG about its interaction with Papadopoulos;
• Information from the FBI's previously opened counterintelligence investigation relating to Page arising from his contacts with Russian intelligence officers;
• Information from Steele's reports that pertained specifically to Carter
Page; and
• Information from a meeting between Page and an FBI CHS that was consensually monitored by Crossfire Hurricane investigators. (Page 5)

and

justice.gov

THAT is how you cite your references.

I'll be glad to help with any questions.

a reply to: dashen

See previous post.

Here you go again:

On October 21, 2016, NSD submitted the Carter Page FISA application to the FISC, asserting that there was probable cause to believe that Page was an agent of the Russian government.

The application relied on, among other things:
• The information provided by the FFG about its interaction with Papadopoulos;
• Information from the FBI's previously opened counterintelligence investigation relating to Page arising from his contacts with Russian intelligence officers;
• Information from Steele's reports that pertained specifically to Carter
Page; and
• Information from a meeting between Page and an FBI CHS that was consensually monitored by Crossfire Hurricane investigators. (Page 5)

Source (again)

a reply to: Gryphon66

ok.

1.so they used their first, fail investigation as predicating evidence to open a new one.
2. they knew the steele dossier was pure crap because of bulletpoint 1.
3.they used a spy to spy on paige and used a "subtle phrase" as probable cause.

the steele dossier was the whole case

originally posted by: Gryphon66
a reply to: BrennanHuff22

Actually, not only are you blatantly misleading ... that's not how you quote something here ... this is:

As we describe in Chapter Three, the FBI opened Crossfire Hurricane on July 31, 2016, just days after its receipt of information from a Friendly Foreign Government (FFG) reporting that, in May 2016, during a meeting with the FFG, then Trump campaign foreign policy advisor George Papadopoulos "suggested the Trump team had received some kind of suggestion from Russia that it could assist this process with the anonymous release of information during the campaign
that would be damaging to Mrs. Clinton (and President Obama)." (Page ii)

and

These officials, though, did not become aware of Steele's election reporting until weeks later and we therefore determined that Steele's reports played no role in the Crossfire Hurricane opening. (Page ii)

and

On October 21, 2016, NSD submitted the Carter Page FISA application to the FISC, asserting that there was probable cause to believe that Page was an agent of the Russian government.
The application relied on, among other things:
• The information provided by the FFG about its interaction with Papadopoulos;
• Information from the FBI's previously opened counterintelligence investigation relating to Page arising from his contacts with Russian intelligence officers;
• Information from Steele's reports that pertained specifically to Carter
Page; and
• Information from a meeting between Page and an FBI CHS that was consensually monitored by Crossfire Hurricane investigators. (Page 5)

and

justice.gov

THAT is how you cite your references.

I'll be glad to help with any questions.

I am being misleading?

You said you quoted the report, you didnt.

NOW you have! Good Job!

My apologies for formatting my citation the incorrect way!(I would like to know how to it the correct way if there is somewhere to see the steps)

Anyway, you said that the dossier was NOT the basis for the Page FISA and I quoted Horowitz saying it was essential during his opening statement yesterday.

Here is the definition of essential: absolutely necessary; extremely important.

So how am I being misleading?

a reply to: BrennanHuff22

You know how to quote a source properly now? Excellent this hadn't been a total waste.

Quote from the IG report ... Link provided above.

You seem to want to bicker, not interested. Make an argument and back it up.

a reply to: dashen

... And now you're talking about your opinion not the facts as quoted in the report.

That's nice. You're mistaken in the face of the evidence.

a reply to: Gryphon66

thats literally what all that doublespeak means

originally posted by: Gryphon66
a reply to: BrennanHuff22

You know how to quote a source properly now? Excellent this hadn't been a total waste.

Quote from the IG report ... Link provided above.

You seem to want to bicker, not interested. Make an argument and back it up.

Did you even read my reply?

I said I do not know how to do the fancy looking formatting that you did, not that I didnt know how to cite something properly - I asked for your help, or anyones with the formatting issue.

I quoted from the IG himself...LINK & STATEMENT provided above.

Did you read where he said the dossier was essential to getting the FISA on Page?

Remember you said that the dossier wasn't used as a point of reference for the FISA?


THAT IS MY ARGUMENT.