House Intelligence FISA memo released: What it says

There are bombshells in The Memo.

One: The FBI Terminated Steele, citing he had violated a cardinal rule
and was deemed "less than reliable".

So not only was the dossier nothing but Russian tabloid,
Steele himself was tossed aside as garbage.

intelligence.house.gov...

originally posted by: introvert

originally posted by: CrawlingChaos
a reply to: theantediluvian

No, Comey's statement was that the dossier was salacious and unverified.

He didn't state "parts"...

And you ignored the most important part, the fact he stated the dossier as a whole was unverified.

He did not say the dossier was unverified as a whole. In the comment he made, he was speaking about "material" he was briefing Trump about. He did not say he briefed him on the entirety of the dossier. The "material" he was discussing with Trump was salacious and unverified.

Wrong. In his Senate hearing, Comey told the senate committee that the document REMAINED unverified in his testimony during June 2017.

If it wasn't verified in June 2017, it certainly wasn't verified in Sept 2016 when it was used for a warrant.

originally posted by: theantediluvian

originally posted by: CrawlingChaos
a reply to: theantediluvian

No, Comey's statement was that the dossier was salacious and unverified.

He didn't state "parts"...

And you ignored the most important part, the fact he stated the dossier as a whole was unverified.

I know that you probably believe that. It's only been said 20k times in the last week. Hell, it's right in the memo. Gotta give it to the GOP — they sure have their messaging down.

However, it's not what was said. Have you actually referenced the quote? (transcript)

COMEY: I didn't use the term counterintelligence. I was briefing him about salacious and unverified material. It was in a context of that that he had a strong and defensive reaction about that not being true. My reading of it was it was important for me to assure him we were not person investigating him. So the context then was actually narrower, focused on what I just talked to him about. It was very important because it was, first, true, and second, I was worried very much about being in kind of a J. Edgar Hoover-type situation. I didn't want him thinking I was briefing him on this to sort of hang it over him in some way. I was briefing him on it because, because we had been told by the media it was about to launch. We didn't want to be keeping that from him. He needed to know this was being said. I was very keen not to leave him with an impression that the bureau was trying to do something to him. So that's the context in which I said, sir, we're not personally investigating you.

He never refers to the dossier as "salacious and unverified" — he says he was briefing him about salacious and unverified material to which he a strong personal reaction about it being untrue. He's clearly referencing material about Trump, which would include the pee pee tape thing, which is the only part of the dossier that could be described as "salacious." If you know what the word "salacious" means, you know that nothing else in the dossier could be described that way.

And what part of the dossier would Trump have a "strong and defensive reaction about that not being true" to? He has no way of knowing personally if most of the dossier is true or not. He does however know if he had hookers pee on his bed in a Moscow hotel room.

Another context clue is the reference to Hoover who of course is known for keeping secret files with dirt on peoples' sexual proclivities and misadventures.

Where does he say which part of the dossier is verified?

originally posted by: luthier

originally posted by: face23785

originally posted by: luthier
FUNNY NOBODY is mentioning FISA as the problem.

Looks like people don't actually care about America. They want to punish a party.


Nobody questioning the judges or the process?

Hmm

There are threads about the FISA process in and of itself. This thread is about a memo related to a specific warrant that it appears was obtained through improper means. Feel free to post that in one of the FISA process threads as evidence why the program needs to go away.

Unless you are a mod I will continue to try and impress aponthe relevance of questioning the fisa process and how it will allow these claims to go unpunished.

If you insist upon bringing up the overall FISA program, I will say that anyone concerned about that program should be doubly concerned about it being abused and want to see those who abused it brought to justice. If they're not, it would set a very dangerous precedent that yeah, go ahead and use this program for political purposes and you'll get away with it.

originally posted by: luthier
FUNNY NOBODY is mentioning FISA as the problem.

Looks like people don't actually care about America. They want to punish a party.


Nobody questioning the judges or the process?

Hmm

No a lot of us were bitching about this, but we were just "Coo-coo conspiracy nuts " because Obama would never abuse this authority... And before Obama, we were "coo-coo conspiracy nuts" because Bush would never abuse his authority...

originally posted by: RadioRobert

originally posted by: luthier
FUNNY NOBODY is mentioning FISA as the problem.

Looks like people don't actually care about America. They want to punish a party.


Nobody questioning the judges or the process?

Hmm

You really don't think this will lead to an outcry over FISA abuse? Why do you think everyone was against release? Everybody is caught up in the specific example because it is politically loaded, but you can bet your bottom dollar there will be a reckoning with the FISA process when all this is eventually brought to light. What a prime example that even a politician might stop to think about. How hard will it be for an administration to surveil Congress (again, eh?) and apply pressure to people to come around? They might not care about you, but they probably care about being used and abused personally. Will the FISA debate go anywhere? That probably depends on how much noise people make and who is in office.

I don't bet on it. Because they just passed an expansion while holding this info. They forgit Obama was already questioned by people who give a crap in 2012 how abusive he was misusing surveillance, or that ashcroft was a snake when it comes to fisa.


What people seem to care most about is proving the other side wrong. Not getting to get her to fix the problem.

Although the Senate judiciary seems to be working together.

originally posted by: CrawlingChaos

originally posted by: introvert

originally posted by: CrawlingChaos
a reply to: theantediluvian

No, Comey's statement was that the dossier was salacious and unverified.

He didn't state "parts"...

And you ignored the most important part, the fact he stated the dossier as a whole was unverified.

He did not say the dossier was unverified as a whole. In the comment he made, he was speaking about "material" he was briefing Trump about. He did not say he briefed him on the entirety of the dossier. The "material" he was discussing with Trump was salacious and unverified.

Wrong. In his Senate hearing, Comey told the senate committee that the document REMAINED unverified in his testimony during June 2017.

If it wasn't verified in June 2017, it certainly wasn't verified in Sept 2016 when it was used for a warrant.

And more importantly, they knew that when they approved the application and presented it to the FISC.

originally posted by: CrawlingChaos

originally posted by: jimmyx
sources (confidential) have said the president should release his white house visitor logs, showing all of the Russian spies and the prostitutes that visited him, and trumps tax returns should be shown that will show money laundering from Russian oligarchs......if we are throwing s**t up on the wall to see what sticks, we the American people should have the right to see these.

ROFLMAO... Ya... Cause the IRS never looked at his personal or business filings before... And most certainly would never have looked into his financials when he declared himself a candidate....

LOL oh, that's funny !

He was a rich, prominent birther. Can't we expect the weaponized IRS already looked with a fine tooth comb?

originally posted by: face23785

originally posted by: luthier

originally posted by: face23785

originally posted by: luthier
FUNNY NOBODY is mentioning FISA as the problem.

Looks like people don't actually care about America. They want to punish a party.


Nobody questioning the judges or the process?

Hmm

There are threads about the FISA process in and of itself. This thread is about a memo related to a specific warrant that it appears was obtained through improper means. Feel free to post that in one of the FISA process threads as evidence why the program needs to go away.

Unless you are a mod I will continue to try and impress aponthe relevance of questioning the fisa process and how it will allow these claims to go unpunished.

If you insist upon bringing up the overall FISA program, I will say that anyone concerned about that program should be doubly concerned about it being abused and want to see those who abused it brought to justice. If they're not, it would set a very dangerous precedent that yeah, go ahead and use this program for political purposes and you'll get away with it.

I do which is why I support the bipartisan effort in the Senate judiciary as well as the IG. Not some political or stunt that slows their work down.

originally posted by: CrawlingChaos

originally posted by: luthier
FUNNY NOBODY is mentioning FISA as the problem.

Looks like people don't actually care about America. They want to punish a party.


Nobody questioning the judges or the process?

Hmm

No a lot of us were bitching about this, but we were just "Coo-coo conspiracy nuts " because Obama would never abuse this authority... And before Obama, we were "coo-coo conspiracy nuts" because Bush would never abuse his authority...

Thank you. And it goes all the way back to Bill Clinton and Echelon, back when we were total complete off the charts nutters for talking about it.

originally posted by: AboveBoard

originally posted by: knowledgehunter0986

originally posted by: AboveBoard
What if the memo narrative is a lie?

What if you are being manipulated into believing malfeasance on the part of the FBI and DOJ when there is none?

Please give me an honest answer to this.

I could ask you the same question from the other side.

What if it isn't, and everything else you thought to be true was a lie?

Sure. Answer mine first.

What if the memo is a lie?

That's a hard question for me to answer because all evidence leads me to believe it is accurate. Even before the memo was released, I was 99% convinced that these things were already happening. Confirmation bias? Possibly, but most of us that already saw this, seen it because it was so glaringly obvious--not because we wanted to see it. That's the difference. And quite frankly, it takes a lot of conjecture, projection, bias and emotion to consistently deny what is right in front of your face.


So, what if it is true?

a reply to: bigfatfurrytexan

The memo, only gives one side of it, and written at the direction of Nunes. Nunes, has broken rules and protocol, back when Trump first got into the White House, by visiting and sharing information there with the White House, then lying about it, only to get caught, and having to recuse himself from the investigation into the Russian/Trump.

Now the question is how much did the White House have a hand in writing this memo? And how accurate is this memo, as we have not seen any of the back ground information, we have no seen any evidence what so ever. Where is the evidence, show us the warrant, show more than a memo that was written at the direction of a Republican rep who recused himself from the investigation, and then has a memo that is within this investigation.

Until the evidence is seen, it is a point of view.

And if the FISA courts are that bad, then why do the Republicans still allow for it to continue on? The Republicans have held the majority in congress, could have easily repealed or removed the laws that created the FISA courts in the first place.

Sources of information comes in all shapes and from all backgrounds. As much as people would like them to be librarians and nuns, they are not. Many of the information and sources come from others, who may or may not be upstanding citizens, or have ulterior motives.

originally posted by: luthier

originally posted by: face23785

originally posted by: luthier

originally posted by: face23785

originally posted by: luthier
FUNNY NOBODY is mentioning FISA as the problem.

Looks like people don't actually care about America. They want to punish a party.


Nobody questioning the judges or the process?

Hmm

There are threads about the FISA process in and of itself. This thread is about a memo related to a specific warrant that it appears was obtained through improper means. Feel free to post that in one of the FISA process threads as evidence why the program needs to go away.

Unless you are a mod I will continue to try and impress aponthe relevance of questioning the fisa process and how it will allow these claims to go unpunished.

If you insist upon bringing up the overall FISA program, I will say that anyone concerned about that program should be doubly concerned about it being abused and want to see those who abused it brought to justice. If they're not, it would set a very dangerous precedent that yeah, go ahead and use this program for political purposes and you'll get away with it.

I do which is why I support the bipartisan effort in the Senate judiciary as well as the IG. Not some political or stunt that slows their work down.

Fair enough.

a reply to: sdcigarpig

No Nunes did not and was cleared after a 10 month long ethics investigation.

The memo was written by the intel committee and not solely Nunes.

The FBI/DOJ lied to the FISA court. Judges in any court have to rely on the fact lawyers and law enforcement are officers of the court and wont lie when it comes to submitting legal paperwork before it.

Violations are severe when it comes to the case in question and it usually ends not only any investigation / prosecution but the careers of the people who lied (Giglio violations).

They had to submit new information to get the 2016 warrant, and it appears they had to resort to using this dossier which is mostly based on Russian propaganda because they had nothing else to rely on.

Ok, I'm not picking on you specifically but this has been stated repeatedly in this thread (by others also) and I have to say;

I would caution against coming to this conclusion prematurely. Yes, from this memo it would appear that they relied almost exclusively on the dossier but, what if this is the exact point that the dems have taken issue with that has led to them stating that certain vital information has been left out of the memo.

I would suggest waiting, at least, for the 'counter memo' from the dems (and preferably until all relevant info is released) before definitively stating this as fact.

I'm not saying that it doesn't look extremely bad at this point but it may not be the whole story.

Furthermore, it may be the case that the other information cannot be released without seriously compromising security (i.e. the other supporting evidence is classified for good reason).

I'm not convinced there's been no wrongdoing here but I'm just saying that it's not a good idea to take this memo at face value and declare it a done deal.




ETA: If I understand correctly also, the FISA warrant was granted following the dossier revelations but was then subsequently renewed every 90 days, contingent upon the FBI producing FURTHER evidence beyond what was in the dossier? If that is correct then it would suggest that there is more to this than just the dossier.

I may have misunderstood that last part though so, apologies if there is any confusion on my part.

a reply to: Wayfarer

If the various intelligence agents knew, did they inform Trump? If Trump knew did he want to get rid of the person or did he choose to ignore the warnings?

originally posted by: Xcathdra
a reply to: smurfy

There is no such crime as collusion in the federal body of law (criminal).

Collusion is illegal in the United States, Canada and most of the EU due to antitrust laws.

"United States antitrust law is a collection of federal and state government laws that regulates the conduct and organization of business corporations, generally to promote fair competition for the benefit of consumers. (The concept is called competition law in other English-speaking countries. The main statutes are the Sherman Act of 1890, the Clayton Act of 1914 and the Federal Trade Commission Act of 1914. These Acts, first, restrict the formation of cartels and prohibit other collusive practices regarded as being in restraint of trade. Second, they restrict the mergers and acquisitions of organizations that could substantially lessen competition. Third, they prohibit the creation of a monopoly and the abuse of monopoly power."

en.wikipedia.org...

I dare say you might squeeze in other types of power broking in too, especially if not in the country's best interests.

originally posted by: soberbacchus

James Comey
✔ @Comey

That’s it?
Dishonest and misleading memo wrecked the House intel committee,
destroyed trust with Intelligence Community,
damaged relationship with FISA court,
and inexcusably exposed classified investigation of an American citizen.
For what?
DOJ & FBI must keep doing their jobs.

I like that he included faux outrage over violating Page's rights after using political oppo firms as justification to violate his rights! As though Carter Page is pissed that they released this info... Words are wind, Jim.

a reply to: smurfy

Yeah there is no such crime as collusion if the federal body of law (criminal).

Cornell - Federal Law

Take all the time you need however there is no collusion law in criminal codes.

originally posted by: CrawlingChaos

originally posted by: introvert

originally posted by: CrawlingChaos
a reply to: theantediluvian

No, Comey's statement was that the dossier was salacious and unverified.

He didn't state "parts"...

And you ignored the most important part, the fact he stated the dossier as a whole was unverified.

He did not say the dossier was unverified as a whole. In the comment he made, he was speaking about "material" he was briefing Trump about. He did not say he briefed him on the entirety of the dossier. The "material" he was discussing with Trump was salacious and unverified.

Wrong. In his Senate hearing, Comey told the senate committee that the document REMAINED unverified in his testimony during June 2017.

If it wasn't verified in June 2017, it certainly wasn't verified in Sept 2016 when it was used for a warrant.

You lie or are confused.

Repeatedly he says he can not discuss what was verified in an open session.

At the time of your departure from the FBI, was the FBI able to confirm any criminal allegations contained in the steel 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

Transcript Comey Testimony