Сделаем Америку снова великой! Trump - Russia megathread

[CAA Flagship]

Obviously, the memo's voracity is in dispute. We all know the the Democrats claim it is misleading. And we all know the FBI and Justice Department say it's misleading. Yes, I know there are those of you who immediately dismiss that. I saw somebody say something interesting tonight. They said they think the FISA judges themselves will make a determination on whether or not there was an issue with the way the FBI and Justice Department handled things. If so that will pretty much tell us whether this thing is credible or not.

With regard to the FISA application, it comes down to whether any unverified information from the dossier was included. And it might be that it was just a small part of the justification, but it seems that at some point in the 4 applications (original and 3 renewals) that it was known that the dossier was mostly crap.
It's possible that the renewals did not include the dossier info when the original did. But that is still some shitty work.

[kalm]

How often do FISA requests get denied? I seem to remember discussions from the Patriot Act that it wasn’t very often.

Did this request rely solely upon the Steele Dossier? Are the judges blundering idiots who will stamp anything that comes before them?

[JohnStOnge]

Obviously, the memo's voracity is in dispute. We all know the the Democrats claim it is misleading. And we all know the FBI and Justice Department say it's misleading. Yes, I know there are those of you who immediately dismiss that. I saw somebody say something interesting tonight. They said they think the FISA judges themselves will make a determination on whether or not there was an issue with the way the FBI and Justice Department handled things. If so that will pretty much tell us whether this thing is credible or not.

With regard to the FISA application, it comes down to whether any unverified information from the dossier was included. And it might be that it was just a small part of the justification, but it seems that at some point in the 4 applications (original and 3 renewals) that it was known that the dossier was mostly crap.
It's possible that the renewals did not include the dossier info when the original did. But that is still some shitty work.

I don't think it's known that the dossier is mostly crap. I keep hearing partisans saying stuff like that but I haven't seen any independent indication that such is the case. What I've gathered is that it is raw intelligence that needs to be investigated. Some might be correct and some might be incorrect.

I also had to shake my head while listening to a couple of Republican Congressmen defend the memo earlier this evening. Like they were making a big deal out of the fact that officials told the judge that there was a political context and that people who were opposed to Trump politically were involved in the dossier instead of explicitly saying "Hillary Clinton." Seriously? I actually saw them say that. Do they not think a judge would have some idea as to who was opposing Trump politically?

[JohnStOnge]

How often do FISA requests get denied? I seem to remember discussions from the Patriot Act that it wasn’t very often.

Did this request rely solely upon the Steele Dossier? Are the judges blundering idiots who will stamp anything that comes before them?

Honestly I think this may backfire on Republicans. This is so obviously a corrupt political hit job that it's hard to miss. Yes, committed partisans on the Republican side will lick it up. Yes committed partisans on the Democrat side would reject it even if it were credible. But I think the people who are in that squishy middle will see this for what it obviously is.

[kalm]

Obviously, the memo's voracity is in dispute. We all know the the Democrats claim it is misleading. And we all know the FBI and Justice Department say it's misleading. Yes, I know there are those of you who immediately dismiss that. I saw somebody say something interesting tonight. They said they think the FISA judges themselves will make a determination on whether or not there was an issue with the way the FBI and Justice Department handled things. If so that will pretty much tell us whether this thing is credible or not.

With regard to the FISA application, it comes down to whether any unverified information from the dossier was included. And it might be that it was just a small part of the justification, but it seems that at some point in the 4 applications (original and 3 renewals) that it was known that the dossier was mostly crap.
It's possible that the renewals did not include the dossier info when the original did. But that is still some shitty work.

Those are good points but at what point is it up to the judges to question the crap in front of them?

[JohnStOnge]

With regard to the FISA application, it comes down to whether any unverified information from the dossier was included. And it might be that it was just a small part of the justification, but it seems that at some point in the 4 applications (original and 3 renewals) that it was known that the dossier was mostly crap.
It's possible that the renewals did not include the dossier info when the original did. But that is still some shitty work.

Those are good points but at what point is it up to the judges to question the crap in front of them?

Again: I don't think it's been established that the dossier is mostly crap. I think it's been established that some of the things in it are incorrect. But I don't think it's been established as mostly crap.

Besides, even if it were to be "mostly crap," that doesn't mean there there isn't anything in it that is true and would raise concern.

[Baldy]

How often do FISA requests get denied? I seem to remember discussions from the Patriot Act that it wasn’t very often.

Did this request rely solely upon the Steele Dossier? Are the judges blundering idiots who will stamp anything that comes before them?

Honestly I think this may backfire on Republicans.

Of course you do.

[CAA Flagship]

With regard to the FISA application, it comes down to whether any unverified information from the dossier was included. And it might be that it was just a small part of the justification, but it seems that at some point in the 4 applications (original and 3 renewals) that it was known that the dossier was mostly crap.
It's possible that the renewals did not include the dossier info when the original did. But that is still some shitty work.

I don't think it's known that the dossier is mostly crap. I keep hearing partisans saying stuff like that but I haven't seen any independent indication that such is the case. What I've gathered is that it is raw intelligence that needs to be investigated. Some might be correct and some might be incorrect.

I also had to shake my head while listening to a couple of Republican Congressmen defend the memo earlier this evening. Like they were making a big deal out of the fact that officials told the judge that there was a political context and that people who were opposed to Trump politically were involved in the dossier instead of explicitly saying "Hillary Clinton." Seriously? I actually saw them say that. Do they not think a judge would have some idea as to who was opposing Trump politically?

OK. There is no evidence of "mostly", but certain parts were considered “salacious and unverified” by Comey.
https://www.redstate.com/patterico/2018 ... nverified/

But the question is what was in the application and was it verified. And the assertion that McCabe testified that the dossier was the main part of the application is just BS without proof that he said it and proof of the application contents. None of that is public at this point.

[CAA Flagship]

With regard to the FISA application, it comes down to whether any unverified information from the dossier was included. And it might be that it was just a small part of the justification, but it seems that at some point in the 4 applications (original and 3 renewals) that it was known that the dossier was mostly crap.
It's possible that the renewals did not include the dossier info when the original did. But that is still some shitty work.

Those are good points but at what point is it up to the judges to question the crap in front of them?

It's a system of trust that the FBI/DOJ is providing accurate information. Not sure how the judges can do anything else. I'm laughing at the people defending the "FBI and DOJ" as if no person within those organizations can make mistakes, cut corners, or flat out lie. I'm not saying they did anything wrong here, but they are human like everyone else. It's possible they screwed up with the application process.

[BDKJMU]

How often do FISA requests get denied? I seem to remember discussions from the Patriot Act that it wasn’t very often.

Did this request rely solely upon the Steele Dossier? Are the judges blundering idiots who will stamp anything that comes before them?

It doesn't matter if only part of the evidence they used for the warrant came from the Steele dossier. McCabe testified before the Intel Committee that a FISA warrant would not have been sought without the dossier. That is beyond dispute.

[kalm]

So Carter a page was under investigation long before the Steele dossier and appears to have been an unwitting “idiot”...who ended up on the Trump campaign...



https://mobile.nytimes.com/2017/04/04/u ... EYAQ%3D%3D

[CAA Flagship]

How often do FISA requests get denied? I seem to remember discussions from the Patriot Act that it wasn’t very often.

Did this request rely solely upon the Steele Dossier? Are the judges blundering idiots who will stamp anything that comes before them?

It doesn't matter if only part of the evidence they used for the warrant came from the Steele dossier. McCabe testified before the Intel Committee that a FISA warrant would not have been sought without the dossier. That is beyond dispute.

That claim is still muddy. The Dems are saying he didn't say that. But it doesn't matter what he said. Just because he says something doesn't make it correct. He could be wrong. The application will provide the truth.

[CAA Flagship]

So Carter a page was under investigation long before the Steele dossier and appears to have been an unwitting “idiot”...who ended up on the Trump campaign...



https://mobile.nytimes.com/2017/04/04/u ... EYAQ%3D%3D

Yeah, I was wondering about that. I guess even Presidential candidates are not privy to information about who is being investigated.

[SeattleGriz]

#Obamagate Spy Scandal

[JohnStOnge]

But the question is what was in the application and was it verified. And the assertion that McCabe testified that the dossier was the main part of the application is just BS without proof that he said it and proof of the application contents. None of that is public at this point.

Yes that hits upon a problem with this whole thing. It's a memo reaching conclusions based upon information that is classified so that nobody can see it in order to evaluate the voracity of the conclusions. In the case of the McCabe testimony the Democrats who are on the committee and heard him testify says that what the memo says about it isn't true. They're saying that he did NOT say that a warrant would not have been sought without the dossier. So here we are.

This is what we have as I understand it: The chairman of a committee who was on the Trump transition team and who is supposed to be avoiding involvement with anything to do with the Russia investigation spearheaded generation of a memo alleging that the FBI and Justice Department acted improperly in obtaining a FISA warrant so surveil someone who was associated at some point with the Trump campaign because of concern over that person being a foreign agent for Russia. Trey Gowdy was the Republican who viewed the underlying classified materials but the memo was written by Republican Congressional staff.

The FBI publicly stated that there are "...material omissions of fact that fundamentally impact the memo’s accuracy." The Democrat who reviewed the classified material says it is misleading. And since the underlying materials as well as key testimony are classified nobody can review them to reach their own conclusion.

So here we are. But I think at the very least it's not reasonable to assume the memo accurately describes the situation. The direct partisan association with the Trump campaign is pretty obvious.

[CAA Flagship]

So here we are. But I think at the very least it's not reasonable to assume the memo accurately describes the situation.

100% accuracy? I strongly doubt it. But I'll bet it leans pretty far in the direction of unlawful practices, with the root cause of all this being Hillary Clinton. That bitch fucks up everything she touches.

[kalm]

Interesting...

The timing of the FISA request (Oct ‘16), the Strzok texts, and when Page was first under investigation don’t jive.

Another nothing burger....

https://www.washingtonpost.com/amphtml/ ... nd-a-sham/

[CAA Flagship]

Interesting...

The timing of the FISA request (Oct ‘16), the Strzok texts, and when Page was first under investigation don’t jive.

Another nothing burger....

https://www.washingtonpost.com/amphtml/ ... nd-a-sham/

Well, we have now established where the left rough is. The truth is somewhere in the fairway. Your honors, kalmy. Aim for the short grass.

[kalm]

Interesting...

The timing of the FISA request (Oct ‘16), the Strzok texts, and when Page was first under investigation don’t jive.

Another nothing burger....

https://www.washingtonpost.com/amphtml/ ... nd-a-sham/

Well, we have now established where the left rough is. The truth is somewhere in the fairway. Your honors, kalmy. Aim for the short grass.

So the FBI, DOJ, and Clinton campaign decided to launch their assault on the election in October of 2016, which is verified by an FBI's text messages from late July of 2016?

Mkay....

[CAA Flagship]

Well, we have now established where the left rough is. The truth is somewhere in the fairway. Your honors, kalmy. Aim for the short grass.

So the FBI, DOJ, and Clinton campaign decided to launch their assault on the election in October of 2016, which is verified by an FBI's text messages from late July of 2016?

Mkay....

Are you confusing the words "investigation" and "surveillance"?

[kalm]

So the FBI, DOJ, and Clinton campaign decided to launch their assault on the election in October of 2016, which is verified by an FBI's text messages from late July of 2016?

Mkay....

Are you confusing the words "investigation" and "surveillance"?

I can see you didn't read the article and aren't following this very closely.

[CAA Flagship]

Are you confusing the words "investigation" and "surveillance"?

I can see you didn't read the article and aren't following this very closely.

Help a brotha out. What exactly doesn't jive?

[HI54UNI]

How often do FISA requests get denied? I seem to remember discussions from the Patriot Act that it wasn’t very often.

Did this request rely solely upon the Steele Dossier? Are the judges blundering idiots who will stamp anything that comes before them?

Take this article for what it is worth since Gateway Pundit likes to sensationalize but my guess is the info about FISA applications is probably accurate since they are claiming it came from ABC News.

We also reported that according to ABC News in March 2017:

More than a thousand applications for electronic surveillance, all signed by the attorney general, are submitted each year, and the vast majority are approved. From 2009 to 2015, for example, more than 10,700 applications for electronic surveillance were submitted, and only one was denied in its entirety, according to annual reports sent to Congress. Another one was denied in part, and 17 were withdrawn by the government.

The more interesting claim is that the only one denied was the first attempt to wiretap Trump.

http://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2018/02 ... owing-lie/

[kalm]

I can see you didn't read the article and aren't following this very closely.

Help a brotha out. What exactly doesn't jive?

Good heavens you're lazy.....

This is apparently supposed to show that the investigation was opened by a biased FBI agent. But it actually shows that the FBI investigation predated the supposed misuse of the Steele dossier, and it shows that the cause of the investigation was information provided by Papadopoulos, which is what the New York Times reported. Remember, this Times report was widely mocked by Trump allies. Yet the memo actually lends that story more credence and, in the process, undercuts the whole alt-narrative that the genesis of the probe was illegitimate.

Some conservatives reached the same conclusion:


If the origins of the investigation actually supported the Nunes narrative, you’d think his memo would have hinted at it. But it did not.

It might get even worse from here, as Schiff’s response would also probably fill in details on the genesis of the probe that Nunes’s memo only hinted at, making the memo’s glaring omission on this point look even sillier. By the way, even if you think that this memo did reveal some troubling conduct on the part of Strzok, he was reassigned by Mueller, which the memo actually concedes in an effort to create the aura of scandal.

Up until now, Republicans have been touting this memo as the blockbuster that will bring the entire Russia investigation crashing down. One Trump ally described it as “worse than Watergate.” Trump had reportedly told friends, as CNN reported, that the memo “would make it easier for him to argue the Russia investigations are prejudiced against him.” Sean Hannity said the revelations in the memo “makes Watergate like stealing a Snickers bar from a drugstore”; he told his viewers it constitutes “the biggest political scandal in American history.”

When you step back from the memo’s details, the whole affair looks even more ridiculous. That’s because this entire “scandal” centers only on the surveillance of Page.


But what does Page have to do with the rest of the Trump/Russia story and the investigation into it? Does Page have anything to do with Paul Manafort’s alleged money laundering? Does he have anything to do with Russia’s contacts with Papadopoulos? Does he have anything to do with Russia’s hacking into Democratic email systems to aid the Trump campaign? Does he have anything to do with Michael Flynn’s contacts with the Russian ambassador, about which he lied to the FBI? Does he have anything to do with Donald Trump Jr., Jared Kushner and Manafort’s meeting with a group of Kremlin-connected Russians to obtain dirt on Hillary Clinton? Does he have anything to do with President Trump’s firing FBI Director James B. Comey, which Trump himself admitted was done for the purpose of hindering the Russia investigation? Does he have anything to do with all the other ways Trump may have obstructed justice?

[CAA Flagship]

My only focus on this is the FISA application. There are way too many other moving parts to which the only "evidence" is from bias reporting. I don't give a rat's ass about Strzok, Nunes, Papa-alphabetsoup, or anything else. All I know is that in order to file for a FISA warrant, somebody would have had to do some investigative work first in order to fill out the application. And that information should be as accurate as possible. I just want to know what was on the application and if it was accurate.