House Intelligence FISA memo released: What it says

a reply to: BlueAjah


Yep, that is the hell of it. When you expose yourself as biased/corrupt or even a liar, your credibility is shot. So is all of your work in LE, for anyone with a half-competent defense attorney.

Cases have been thrown out with far, far less evidence of a conspiracy/plot.

a reply to: BlueAjah


Well said BA

This is a very effective way to defeat those utilizing disinformation and other INFOWAR techniques.

a reply to: soberbacchus

So an anonymous source told twelve different news outlets the same thing, and they are corroborating that by leaks of some people familiar with the Democrat memo?

originally posted by: BlueAjah

originally posted by: sdcigarpig
a reply to: RadioRobert

I did read the transcript, that was released. And how Nunes, the man who directed the creation of the memo, did not read the information being used, or even want to answer any questions on such.

Hence the public hearings, where people are going to have to answer questions and not hide behind the double talk or refusing to answer questions, unless it is to take the 5th amendment.

The only thing that Nunes did not see was the actual FISA warrant information. This was because the highly classified information was released on the condition that only one person from each side could view it, in a high security room. He appointed Gowdy to review it based on his extensive background in law. Then Gowdy reported back what was seen.

The other information in the memo was based on a year of investigation, document review, and interviews, of which Nunes was absolutely involved first-hand.

The mis-info you are using is one of the invalid points being pushed by the MSM, while avoiding the facts.

What's interesting about the fact Gowdy was the chosen one is the timing of his announcement that he is going back into the justice system and not seeking his political seat again....maybe he saw something or had been planning this for a while and this whole thing was a big plan to get Gowdy access to the FISA warrant....

originally posted by: Xcathdra
a reply to: soberbacchus

Sums it up quite nicely

originally posted by: CynConcepts
a reply to: BlueAjah

If Nunes chose Gowdy to view the highly classified data, who was the chosen one for the minority party? I do not see Gowdy leaking classified info to MSM. He does appear to have a strong integrity for the law before party character.

I believe I read Schiff was that person.

Is there anyone in this saga that anyone thinks does not have an agenda? Nunes is biased, but an anonymous leak familiar with the matter leaking classified material to build a narrative is probably completely unbiased, right?

Yesterday anonymous sources and Schiff were saying McCabe never said that without the Steele dossier they wouldn't have sought the warrant. Now several GOP members are saying the testimony exists and they are willing to release it.

Let's see the raw data instead of believing any one of these clowns-- including Nunes. Why is one party so vested in stopping these documents being released if there is nothing to them? Schiff should have been excited to expose Nunes if this is nothing. "I look forward to releasing the source material showing what a partisan hack job they are trying". Instead we got hysterical screeching about methods and sources being released and how " dangerous" it was to release anything including the memo. If this is nothing, why isn't everybody rushing to transparency and showing what hacks Nunes and Gowdy are instead of trying to bury this while talking about what hacks Nunes and Gowdy are? Look at the reactions of the players involved.

That's why I think there is something big coming forward. Certainly not because I trust a Republican politician much, if any, further than I trust a Dem.

originally posted by: soberbacchus
Only Donald's golden shower episode was salacious and unverified (as in not discredited either).
No one has ever said the Dossier was Salacious and Unverified.
That was BS sold by Nunes camp (repeatedly proven to be liars)

Then what was Comey referring to when he said it? :rolleyes:

You missed the dozen other places reporting the same thing?

The CNN article was based off of what Schiff, aka Pencil Neck, told them. Then the NY times article linked in the CNN article says that the 10 page Schiff memo says what you wrote. So how do they know what is in the Schiff memo? Did Schiff leak to the NY times?

Here we go again with the circular nefarious logic, just like the FBI.

This is nothing more than a Schiff, pencil neck, leak of the democratic memo. LOL
I thought that memo was classified. He should not be leaking. Desperation. Nothing burger.

Again, the only person I know who actually read the FISA application on the Intel Committee was Gowdy.
Everybody else is just wishful thinking.

originally posted by: Vasa Croe

originally posted by: CynConcepts
a reply to: BlueAjah

If Nunes chose Gowdy to view the highly classified data, who was the chosen one for the minority party? I do not see Gowdy leaking classified info to MSM. He does appear to have a strong integrity for the law before party character.

My money is on Schiff.....he definitely leaks

When GOP Congress and the WH intentionally and directly lie to the American People in official documents with the aim of subverting a legitimate investigation, providing the factual truth to American People is not leaking.

The Memo:
"Neither the initial application in October 2016, nor any of the renewals, disclose or reference the role of the DNC, Clinton campaign, or any party/campaign in funding Steele's efforts, even though the political origins of the Steele dossier were then known to senior and FBI officials,"

What laws apply to providing false information in a congressional investigation?

Post, NYT, CNN, WSJ and others...all reporting they have spoken to officials who say the FISA court was made away the Steele Dossier was a funded by a Political Party via a law firm.

Whether it was never-trumpers GOP or DNC doesn't matter.

The MEMO LIED...NUNES LIED in an official intelligence document given to Congress and the WH.

Hillary Clinton might have a pretty hefty scandal brewing. It turns when she was an attorney working on the Watergate investigation, she was fired by her supervisor for “lying, unethical behavior.”. Jerry Zeifman, who said he is a lifelong Democrat, was a supervisor for 27-year-old Hillary Rodham on the committee.

"he was fired by her supervisor for 'lying, unethical behavior.' Jerry Zeifman, who said he is a lifelong Democrat, was a supervisor for 27-year-old Hillary Rodham on the committee."







Fired from Watergate commission by a lifelong Democrat for "lying and unethical behavior." Yet apparently some here believe she's a trustworthy saint.

Duped. So completely and totally.

originally posted by: WhatTheory

originally posted by: soberbacchus
Only Donald's golden shower episode was salacious and unverified (as in not discredited either).
No one has ever said the Dossier was Salacious and Unverified.
That was BS sold by Nunes camp (repeatedly proven to be liars)

Then what was Comey referring to when he said it? :rolleyes:

That question was answered in the post you responded to.

Only Donald's golden shower episode was salacious and unverified (as in not discredited either).

a reply to: RadioRobert

I believe you may be right. I can foresee the Dems memo being released. Dems and MSM getting in all of their talking points. This dual perception bias will force Trump to declassify the fisa warrants. The Dems will declare it is a national security risk. The GOP will state that it does no harm since everyone already knows about the warrants regarding Page.

I believe a trap is being set and baited. By releasing the warrants afterward it WILL show the average American that GOP, Dems, and MSM have all been biased in their driven agendas. It will be a wake up call that is needed due to future releases of investigations.

originally posted by: Vasa Croe

originally posted by: BlueAjah

originally posted by: sdcigarpig
a reply to: RadioRobert

I did read the transcript, that was released. And how Nunes, the man who directed the creation of the memo, did not read the information being used, or even want to answer any questions on such.

Hence the public hearings, where people are going to have to answer questions and not hide behind the double talk or refusing to answer questions, unless it is to take the 5th amendment.

The only thing that Nunes did not see was the actual FISA warrant information. This was because the highly classified information was released on the condition that only one person from each side could view it, in a high security room. He appointed Gowdy to review it based on his extensive background in law. Then Gowdy reported back what was seen.

The other information in the memo was based on a year of investigation, document review, and interviews, of which Nunes was absolutely involved first-hand.

The mis-info you are using is one of the invalid points being pushed by the MSM, while avoiding the facts.

What's interesting about the fact Gowdy was the chosen one is the timing of his announcement that he is going back into the justice system and not seeking his political seat again....maybe he saw something or had been planning this for a while and this whole thing was a big plan to get Gowdy access to the FISA warrant....

Gowdy say the underlying intelligence.
He knew the MEMO was a lie.
He is sickened by his colleagues, Nunes et al.
Announces he is leaving politics the day before the MEMO was released.

And he tweets this yesterday:
Trey Gowdy
Twitter
As I have said repeatedly, I also remain 100 percent confident in Special Counsel Robert Mueller. The contents of this memo do not - in any way - discredit his investigation.

a reply to: Xcathdra

I am going tp copy and paste what I wrote in another thread:

Regarding Carter Page: 
Much has been made of the fact that he was being watched under a FISA warrant as early as 2013. 

If there was a FISA warrant issued on him back then, what did they find? 
Apparently nothing, or they would have extended it to present day... or would have filed charges... which they didn't. 
So, fast forward to 2016. 
They tried to get another FISA warrant on Page. 
It was denied. 
Denied, when 98.9 % of all FISA warrant applications are granted. 
If anything turned up on the previous warrant... it shouldn't have been a problem getting another. 

But they had to try again, and get denied again. 

Then enter the fake dossier. 

They get the warrant.

a reply to: TheLead

The only thing mildly interesting in this nothing burger of a memo was FISA not being told it was politically funded.

That turned out to be a bald faced lie.

I give it a week before Donald starts tweeting about how Nunes is a Democrat Plant made to embarrass him.

Anybody remember the fake news/fake outrage populists jeering President Trump for the "wiretapping" claims? (which is now proven fact)

www.queerty.com...

We do. We don't forget these sorts of things, though.

originally posted by: butcherguy
a reply to: Xcathdra

I am going tp copy and paste what I wrote in another thread:

Regarding Carter Page: 
Much has been made of the fact that he was being watched under a FISA warrant as early as 2013. 

If there was a FISA warrant issued on him back then, what did they find? 

There wasn't a FISA warrant on Carter Page in 2013.

They did interview him though and he did pass documents to Russian Spies that were later convicted and are now in jail.

The rest of you post is irrelevant due to you mistake above.

originally posted by: JBurns
Anybody remember the fake news/fake outrage populists jeering President Trump for the "wiretapping" claims? (which is now proven fact)

You forgot to put quotes around the word "fact".

Trump was embarrassingly shown to be again full of BS with his wire-tapping claims.

Sad you need to revisit the topic here as the MEMO crumbles.

originally posted by: soberbacchus

originally posted by: WhatTheory

originally posted by: soberbacchus
Only Donald's golden shower episode was salacious and unverified (as in not discredited either).
No one has ever said the Dossier was Salacious and Unverified.
That was BS sold by Nunes camp (repeatedly proven to be liars)

Then what was Comey referring to when he said it? :rolleyes:

That question was answered in the post you responded to.

No it wasn't.

Plus you did not respond to the second part:

The CNN article was based off of what Schiff, aka Pencil Neck, told them. Then the NY times article linked in the CNN article says that the 10 page Schiff memo says what you wrote. So how do they know what is in the Schiff memo? Did Schiff leak to the NY times?

Here we go again with the circular nefarious logic, just like the FBI.

This is nothing more than a Schiff, pencil neck, leak of the democratic memo. LOL
I thought that memo was classified. He should not be leaking. Desperation. Nothing burger.

Again, the only person I know who actually read the FISA application on the Intel Committee was Gowdy.
Everybody else is just wishful thinking.

Looks like pencil neck has some explaining to do.
If he did leak from the democratic memo, he should be removed immediately. Unless of course he was just making sh!t up which is more likely.

Who was allowed to view the FISA application on the democratic side? If Schiff, he is in big trouble but then again, I'm confident he was just making up garbage.

originally posted by: soberbacchus

originally posted by: butcherguy
a reply to: Xcathdra

I am going tp copy and paste what I wrote in another thread:

Regarding Carter Page: 
Much has been made of the fact that he was being watched under a FISA warrant as early as 2013. 

If there was a FISA warrant issued on him back then, what did they find? 

There wasn't a FISA warrant on Carter Page in 2013.

They did interview him though and he did pass documents to Russian Spies that were later convicted and are now in jail.

The rest of you post is irrelevant due to you mistake above.

If he previously passed documents to Russian spies...
Why would the FISA court deny a warrant, when they hand them out 98+% of the time?

Is that irrelevant too?

a reply to: soberbacchus





Are you seeing the pattern here?

This isn't the first time she devolved into completely unsubstantiated and paranoid ramblings about a conspiracy against her.

Ever read the boy who cried wolf? Especially hard to believe since 1) We've seen no evidence, whatsoever and 2) The evidence we have seen indicates bias or worse in those conducting the investigation.

The entire thing was started under false pretenses. I have zero confidence in Mueller, Rosencrime or any of the other corrupt holdovers/establishment traitors. And WHEN Trump fires Rosenstein/Mueller/Sessions (or any combination thereof), I will still stand behind him boldy and with strong conviction it is the right thing.

This is the largest house of cards ever built, the single most politicized witch-hunt & judicial/intelligence abuse. This dwarfs Watergate, makes it look like a Disney film.

Yet you still claim there is no evidence. This is mass-hysteria turned into mass-denial folks, and a serious case of it at that.