Evidence suggests a massive scandal is brewing at the FBI

[The Nature Boy 7,659]

1 minute ago, JimandChristy said:

LOL, the memo was a desperate, partisan move by Republicans to discredit the Mueller Investigation. It has spectacularly backfired. 

 

http://insider.foxnews.com/2018/02/02/tom-fitton-fisa-memo-release-impact-robert-mueller-russia-investigation

 

Fitton: FISA Memo Is 'Devastating Blow' to Mueller's Russia Investigation

[The Nature Boy 7,659]

FISA Memo: Dossier Author Steele Admitted He Was 'Desperate' for Trump Not to Get Elected

 

http://insider.foxnews.com/2018/02/02/fisa-memo-christopher-steele-admitted-he-was-desperate-trump-not-get-elected

[JimandChristy 1,689]

LOL Fox News! Trump's own Propaganda Channel. This memo corroborates that the whole foundation of this Investigation was not based on the Steele dossier, it all started with Papadopoulos and Page, both Trump aids, LOL.

[Voice of Reason 10,298]

6 hours ago, JimandChristy said:

LOL, the memo was a desperate, partisan move by Republicans to discredit the Mueller Investigation. It has spectacularly backfired. 

The one thing I have learned on this forum in the past few months is that if you say A, B is probably true.  Let’s see how this plays out...

[Boiler 46,086]

judging by how CNN etc are circling the wagons seems a mega issue

 

http://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-42827167

[TBoneTX 46,113]

A must-read... and from a Democrat:

http://thehill.com/opinion/judiciary/371962-get-all-the-facts-out-on-the-fbi-justice-department

 

[TBoneTX 46,113]

And holy mackerel:

https://www.rushlimbaugh.com/daily/2018/02/02/memo-reveals-democrat-conspiracy-with-russia-to-rig-election-against-trump-overturn-results-after-he-won/

 

[Boiler 46,086]

 the editorial writers should think about how they came to support prior restraint over sunshine and open debate. Perhaps more importantly, the news pages need to stop covering a story that has brought down six senior officials as just partisan sniping and recognize that the actions of the FBI and the Justice Department in relation to both these investigations need to come out of the darkness and be fully revealed to the American public

 

This says how low the drive bys have sunk

[bcking 3,157]

7 hours ago, Boiler said:

judging by how CNN etc are circling the wagons seems a mega issue

 

http://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-42827167

I think this article is a good summary. Some comments about the 4 "key points" that the BBC identify:

 

1. The dossier played an "essential part" in the Carter Page application

- This is an opinion of the person writing the document. "Essential part" is somewhat subjective. They don't say it was the only piece of evidence, and towards the end of the document they reference the investigation of Papodopolous (sp?) so we know it wasn't. Whose opinion is it that it was essential? Nunes? I'd take that with a MASSIVE grain of salt. I'd rather hear from someone like the judge with regards to how "essential" it was

- I like their assessment that not providing the source is "at best, neglect or at worse, an anti-Trump agenda". I'd only add the caveat that the document does not establish what is TYPICAL practice in this scenario, and no one in the public likely knows. FBI investigations are dealing with very sensitive information and it may be typical for the judge not to be told significant details about a source. They don't state that it is "standard practice" to reveal information about the source, so we don't know.

 

2. The bit about Steele's biases

- Yes I'm sure Steele is biased. Again I like BBC's statement on this - Would the knowledge of those biases have actually made any difference to the judge and the request? The document does not establish that or provide any evidence. It may have made no difference. They may have had other evidence (again see my above point about who is really claiming it was "essential") that would have made the issue moot

 

3. McCabe's testimony

- I'd like to see his exact words here. They are paraphrasing. If they have the exact words, they could have (and should have) directly quoted him. Similar to the how they paraphrased Comey (incorrectly)

 

4. The bits about Papodopolous

- See what I said above. Was evidence from this investigation presented? They don't say.

 

5. Why Carter Page?

- He wasn't a big deal. Trump's group has said that. He wasn't even working for them at the time of this investigation started. If it was really some deep dark "anti-Trump" agenda, they could have gone after far bigger targets. He was already on their radar from years past.

[bcking 3,157]

https://www.cnn.com/2018/02/02/opinions/prosecutor-take-on-nunes-memo-callan-opinion/index.html

 

Good opinion piece from a former prosecutor. A few particularly key points he makes -

 

"Even assuming all the claims in the Nunes memo are true, the grounds supporting issuance and reissuance of the FISA warrants were easily met. The FISA statute, designed to deal with national security issues, permits the secret court to authorize surveillance of a US person if there is probable cause that the person is an "agent of a foreign power...knowingly engag[ing]... in clandestine intelligence activities."

 

"The Nunes memo glaringly omits any revelation of what other supporting information might have been submitted to the FISA judge, choosing instead to focus on cherry-picked alleged omissions."

 

"If there is anything shocking in the Nunes memo, it can be found in its faulty reasoning, writing and sourcing. The American public needs to know the "totality of circumstances" presented to the FISA judge in order to fairly evaluate the conduct of the DOJ and the FBI."

 

The claim of "transparency" is really a joke since the memo isn't transparent at all regarding the evidence presented to the FISA judge and whether or not the origins of the dossier would have significantly impacted the application for a warrant. 

Edited February 3, 2018 by bcking

[JimandChristy 1,689]

This memo is nothing more than a tactic to get Mueller away from the Russia Investigation. It's a desperate attempt to give the Liar in Chief any justification to have his own Saturday Night Massacre.

 

Its release was never intended for transparency, like I'm for transparency, so when will Republicans ask the Liar in Chief to release his Tax Returns? We're all for transparency aren't we not? Let's get it all out there.

Edited February 3, 2018 by JimandChristy

[Dashinka 24,786]

2 hours ago, JimandChristy said:

This memo is nothing more than a tactic to get Mueller away from the Russia Investigation. It's a desperate attempt to give the Liar in Chief any justification to have his own Saturday Night Massacre.

 

Its release was never intended for transparency, like I'm for transparency, so when will Republicans ask the Liar in Chief to release his Tax Returns? We're all for transparency aren't we not? Let's get it all out there.

I don’t think so, Mueller will milk that cow until it is dry.  Besides, the Mueller investigation has proven one thing over the past 13+ months, there is nothing there.  So sure keep going as it has been more damaging to the deep state than anyone else with the possible exception of Manafort.

Edited February 3, 2018 by Bill & Katya

[Dashinka 24,786]

6 hours ago, bcking said:

I think this article is a good summary. Some comments about the 4 "key points" that the BBC identify:

 

1. The dossier played an "essential part" in the Carter Page application

- This is an opinion of the person writing the document. "Essential part" is somewhat subjective. They don't say it was the only piece of evidence, and towards the end of the document they reference the investigation of Papodopolous (sp?) so we know it wasn't. Whose opinion is it that it was essential? Nunes? I'd take that with a MASSIVE grain of salt. I'd rather hear from someone like the judge with regards to how "essential" it was

- I like their assessment that not providing the source is "at best, neglect or at worse, an anti-Trump agenda". I'd only add the caveat that the document does not establish what is TYPICAL practice in this scenario, and no one in the public likely knows. FBI investigations are dealing with very sensitive information and it may be typical for the judge not to be told significant details about a source. They don't state that it is "standard practice" to reveal information about the source, so we don't know.

 

2. The bit about Steele's biases

- Yes I'm sure Steele is biased. Again I like BBC's statement on this - Would the knowledge of those biases have actually made any difference to the judge and the request? The document does not establish that or provide any evidence. It may have made no difference. They may have had other evidence (again see my above point about who is really claiming it was "essential") that would have made the issue moot

 

3. McCabe's testimony

- I'd like to see his exact words here. They are paraphrasing. If they have the exact words, they could have (and should have) directly quoted him. Similar to the how they paraphrased Comey (incorrectly)

 

4. The bits about Papodopolous

- See what I said above. Was evidence from this investigation presented? They don't say.

 

5. Why Carter Page?

- He wasn't a big deal. Trump's group has said that. He wasn't even working for them at the time of this investigation started. If it was really some deep dark "anti-Trump" agenda, they could have gone after far bigger targets. He was already on their radar from years past.

Per 2, one wonders how the judge would have ruled on the warrant if they knew it was a political hit piece paid for by one side?

 

Per 3, sure, let’s get the transcripts of all the interviews that weren’t public.

 

Lastly, you don’t put an “s” on words that end in “-ward”.

[JimandChristy 1,689]

56 minutes ago, Bill & Katya said:

I don’t think so, Mueller will milk that cow until it is dry.  Besides, the Mueller investigation has proven one thing over the past 13+ months, there is nothing there.  So sure keep going as it has been more damaging to the deep state than anyone else with the possible exception of Manafort.

Just like Benghazi? That went for 18 months, Watergate lasted 2 years. We've had two indictments and one guilty plea. We're no where near finished, it would be over sooner if Donnie wasn't hiding his tax returns.

[bcking 3,157]

1 hour ago, Bill & Katya said:

Per 2, one wonders how the judge would have ruled on the warrant if they knew it was a political hit piece paid for by one side?

 

Per 3, sure, let’s get the transcripts of all the interviews that weren’t public.

 

Lastly, you don’t put an “s” on words that end in “-ward”.

The memo is talking about the dossier being biased. The warrant application included more than the dossier. How much more? They conveniently don't say.

 

Which "ward" word? Towards and toward are interchangeable. Both valid prepositions.