Grassley/Graham memo

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Is the info in the Steele dossier wrong simply because it was compiled by Trump foes?

Ot is anything produced by Trump foes disregarded even if it's true?

We really don’t know the veracity of the information. The main point here is that the FBI presented this to the FISA court without knowing the veracity of the information because, as Comey indicated, because Steele had provided solid information in the past. And, Comey himself referred to this dossier as “salacious and unverified.”

And what would you say about dirt on Hillary given to the Trump campaign by the Russians, if the Trump campaign had handed it over to the FBI?

By the way, the dossier IS salacious, because TRUMP'S BEHAVIOR is salacious. Duh.

And most of it has been verified now. So that argument holds no water.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Is the info in the Steele dossier wrong simply because it was compiled by Trump foes?

Ot is anything produced by Trump foes disregarded even if it's true?

It hasn't been proven true. And it's worse than that, and you know it. Comey allowed information provided by the Hillary campaign, which he himself acknowledged as "salacious" to be used to obtain a FISA warrant against Trump.

It does make me wonder who was pulling the strings. He obviously was instructed to let Hillary slide in conjunction with her gross mishandling of classified information and the related obstruction of justice as she tried to hide evidence, so who was pushing him? We already know that Lynch told him to call it a "matter" and attempted a clandestine meeting with Bill a couple of days before Hillary's "interview'," but does the path stop there?

The Clintons are the dirtiest people in politics, bar NONE. Democrats don't have a leg to stand on when they criticize Trump for dishonest and corruption.

Yes it has.

Do you know the definition of salacious? It doesn't mean "untrue."

If you're describing salacious behavior, what word would you use to describe it?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Is the info in the Steele dossier wrong simply because it was compiled by Trump foes?

Ot is anything produced by Trump foes disregarded even if it's true?

It hasn't been proven true. And it's worse than that, and you know it. Comey allowed information provided by the Hillary campaign, which he himself acknowledged as "salacious" to be used to obtain a FISA warrant against Trump.

It does make me wonder who was pulling the strings. He obviously was instructed to let Hillary slide in conjunction with her gross mishandling of classified information and the related obstruction of justice as she tried to hide evidence, so who was pushing him? We already know that Lynch told him to call it a "matter" and attempted a clandestine meeting with Bill a couple of days before Hillary's "interview'," but does the path stop there?

The Clintons are the dirtiest people in politics, bar NONE. Democrats don't have a leg to stand on when they criticize Trump for dishonest and corruption.

The FISA warrant was for Page, was it not? Page was on his way out of the Trump campaign (or already gone?) by the time the warrant was approved (October), was he not?

Don't bother PP with facts. The Nunes' memo is a whole 3 pages long, that's much too long to actually read. PP doesn't seem to know the definition of "salacious," either.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Is the info in the Steele dossier wrong simply because it was compiled by Trump foes?

Ot is anything produced by Trump foes disregarded even if it's true?

It hasn't been proven true. And it's worse than that, and you know it. Comey allowed information provided by the Hillary campaign, which he himself acknowledged as "salacious" to be used to obtain a FISA warrant against Trump.

It does make me wonder who was pulling the strings. He obviously was instructed to let Hillary slide in conjunction with her gross mishandling of classified information and the related obstruction of justice as she tried to hide evidence, so who was pushing him? We already know that Lynch told him to call it a "matter" and attempted a clandestine meeting with Bill a couple of days before Hillary's "interview'," but does the path stop there?

The Clintons are the dirtiest people in politics, bar NONE. Democrats don't have a leg to stand on when they criticize Trump for dishonest and corruption.

The FISA warrant was for Page, was it not? Page was on his way out of the Trump campaign (or already gone?) by the time the warrant was approved (October), was he not?

Except, as it turns out, Page didn’t sever his relationship with the campaign/Transition Team. This is the one reason why Team Trump is sh*tting their pants.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Is the info in the Steele dossier wrong simply because it was compiled by Trump foes?

Ot is anything produced by Trump foes disregarded even if it's true?

It hasn't been proven true. And it's worse than that, and you know it. Comey allowed information provided by the Hillary campaign, which he himself acknowledged as "salacious" to be used to obtain a FISA warrant against Trump.

It does make me wonder who was pulling the strings. He obviously was instructed to let Hillary slide in conjunction with her gross mishandling of classified information and the related obstruction of justice as she tried to hide evidence, so who was pushing him? We already know that Lynch told him to call it a "matter" and attempted a clandestine meeting with Bill a couple of days before Hillary's "interview'," but does the path stop there?

The Clintons are the dirtiest people in politics, bar NONE. Democrats don't have a leg to stand on when they criticize Trump for dishonest and corruption.

The FISA warrant was for Page, was it not? Page was on his way out of the Trump campaign (or already gone?) by the time the warrant was approved (October), was he not?

Does it have footnotes? /s

Don't bother PP with facts. The Nunes' memo is a whole 3 pages long, that's much too long to actually read. PP doesn't seem to know the definition of "salacious," either.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Shoot the messenger. Ignore the base crime of espionage and treason.

Yep! The GOP is just terrible.

Ignore the facts. Continue with conspiracy theory.

No. Trump sucks. He has been laundering money before. He promotes sexual assault. He is a bigot. He is an alt-right sympathizer. The GOP are all ok with this. These are all FACTS. But you go on supporting the monster, he panders to the stupid.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Shoot the messenger. Ignore the base crime of espionage and treason.

Yep! The GOP is just terrible.

Ignore the facts. Continue with conspiracy theory.

No. Trump sucks. He has been laundering money before. He promotes sexual assault. He is a bigot. He is an alt-right sympathizer. The GOP are all ok with this. These are all FACTS. But you go on supporting the monster, he panders to the stupid.

We get it. You hate him. That does not make what you said “facts.”
And, I find it pretty outrageous that you are not concerned about malfeasance on the part of our nation’s premiere law enforcement agency.

[Anonymous]

What is unclear to me is whether there are additional documents related to the FISA warrant(s) and application that Grassley & Graham have not seen. Is there a level of clearance of such information they would not have been privy to/allowed to see in their role?

And if they saw all the docs and think things were intentionally left out that should not have been, what is their theory or argument for why the judges approved the warrant?

Also where do Warner and Burr stand, CC'd on this memo and who have seen the intelligence? Do/Did they have access to the FISA documents themselves?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Is the info in the Steele dossier wrong simply because it was compiled by Trump foes?

Ot is anything produced by Trump foes disregarded even if it's true?

We really don’t know the veracity of the information. The main point here is that the FBI presented this to the FISA court without knowing the veracity of the information because, as Comey indicated, because Steele had provided solid information in the past. And, Comey himself referred to this dossier as “salacious and unverified.”

And what would you say about dirt on Hillary given to the Trump campaign by the Russians, if the Trump campaign had handed it over to the FBI?

By the way, the dossier IS salacious, because TRUMP'S BEHAVIOR is salacious. Duh.

And most of it has been verified now. So that argument holds no water.

Oh, reallllly? Do tell.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This memo seems to be making the exact same flawed arguments that the Nunes memo made, that a.) the dossier was central evidence in getting the FISA warrant and b.) the source and how it was developed wasn't disclosed to the FISA court.

Both of those are already debunked.

Did Grassley and Graham actually read the FISA warrant and associated documentation? Turned out Nunes didn't...

Yes. Grassley read the FISA warrant. And, the fact that the information presented to FISC was primarily information provided by Steele has not been debunked.

Still pretty disturbing that the FBI, in its zeal to continue assisting Hillary to a win, knowingly provided unvetted information her campaign developed (via Steele) to the FISA court in order to spy on her opponent. (And failed to tell the FISA court that the unvetted info originated with Hillary's campaign.)

Cool narrative. The FISA court approved the warrant on October 21, just two weeks before the election, while Strzok was pushing McCabe to reopen the email investigation based on the Weiner laptop. Trumpniks suck.

There is NO EVIDENCE that Strzok pushed McCabe to do this at all.
In fact, the evidence is that the emails were discovered and not disclosed to Congress for a full month after discovery.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:What is unclear to me is whether there are additional documents related to the FISA warrant(s) and application that Grassley & Graham have not seen. Is there a level of clearance of such information they would not have been privy to/allowed to see in their role?

And if they saw all the docs and think things were intentionally left out that should not have been, what is their theory or argument for why the judges approved the warrant?

Also where do Warner and Burr stand, CC'd on this memo and who have seen the intelligence? Do/Did they have access to the FISA documents themselves?

The top of page 3 of the memo says that the Chairman, ranking member, and subcommittee chairman Graham were allowed to view the four FISA applications.
Seems as if they viewed the entire application and they stated in the memo that it relied almost exclusively on information obtained by Steele.

They don’t theorize as to why the judges approved the warrant. Although, they do indicate that the court was mislead in terms of the background of the dossier and the fact that Steele misled the FBI, and despite the fact that the FBI suspended its relationship with Steele, they continued to present him as “credible” to the FISA court.

What do Warner and Burr think? No idea.

And, look at the top of page 3 regarding what the information said about the source of the funding. This memo states, once again, that they did not disclose Clinton campaign and DNC as the “ultimate clients.” Part of this statement is redacted.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This memo seems to be making the exact same flawed arguments that the Nunes memo made, that a.) the dossier was central evidence in getting the FISA warrant and b.) the source and how it was developed wasn't disclosed to the FISA court.

Both of those are already debunked.

Did Grassley and Graham actually read the FISA warrant and associated documentation? Turned out Nunes didn't...

Yes. Grassley read the FISA warrant. And, the fact that the information presented to FISC was primarily information provided by Steele has not been debunked.

Still pretty disturbing that the FBI, in its zeal to continue assisting Hillary to a win, knowingly provided unvetted information her campaign developed (via Steele) to the FISA court in order to spy on her opponent. (And failed to tell the FISA court that the unvetted info originated with Hillary's campaign.)

Cool narrative. The FISA court approved the warrant on October 21, just two weeks before the election, while Strzok was pushing McCabe to reopen the email investigation based on the Weiner laptop. Trumpniks suck.

Plus, the message also included the fact that the FBI was contacted by

There is NO EVIDENCE that Strzok pushed McCabe to do this at all.
In fact, the evidence is that the emails were discovered and not disclosed to Congress for a full month after discovery.

Text quote: On Sept. 28, 2016, Strzok wrote to Page, "Got called up to Andy's [McCabe] earlier.. hundreds of thousands of emails turned over by Weiner's atty to sdny [Southern District of New York], includes a ton of material from spouse [Huma Abedin]. Sending team up tomorrow to review... this will never end."

PLEASE note that this means many others knew about it:


On October 21, 2016, Strzok wrote to Page, “Also, work-wise, [redacted] called b/c
[Deputy Assistant Attorney General George] Toscas now aware NY has hrc-huma
emails via weiner invest. Told him we knew. Wanted to know our thoughts on
getting it. George wanted to ensure info got to Andy. I told Bill.”80 This text
message raises additional questions about the timing of the FBI and the Justice
Department’s awareness of the new emails.

Sounds like not much happened between Sept 28 and October 21.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
Still pretty disturbing that the FBI, in its zeal to continue assisting Hillary to a win, knowingly provided unvetted information her campaign developed (via Steele) to the FISA court in order to spy on her opponent. (And failed to tell the FISA court that the unvetted info originated with Hillary's campaign.)

Uh, it was the NY FBI office that forced the issue on the emails that turned out to be less than nothing, coordinated with Giuliani, Erik Prince and others to spread disinformation that changed the poll numbers in the week before the election. If the Steel Dossier was a ploy to ensure Hillary would win, then it failed miserably, no?

How can you say the issue with emails was less than nothing? After all that's come out about the FBI''s efforts to get her off clean? (The fact that the NY office did the right thing just shows that most in the FBI do the right thing.)

Just reverse it. Would you say it's "less than nothing" if the FBI discovered that Trump had a secret server, and that he quickly wiped 30,000 emails off it upon its discovery? And then, in an effort to make sure his communications were never revealed, destroyed the server itself, after the server was subpoenaed by Congress? You'd be screaming for impeachment.

BTW, there is more than one conservative posting here. I say this because liberals here tend to think they're addressing the same person all the time.

Right. But you forget hrc came of age as a young attorney for the Watergate committee. The lesson she apparently learned is that Nixon's big mistake was his failure to destroy the tapes. She wasn't going to make the same mistake that Nixon did. I guess she thought she would beat trump and that the destruction of the emails would never have to be addressed.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Shoot the messenger. Ignore the base crime of espionage and treason.

Yep! The GOP is just terrible.

Ignore the facts. Continue with conspiracy theory.

No. Trump sucks. He has been laundering money before. He promotes sexual assault. He is a bigot. He is an alt-right sympathizer. The GOP are all ok with this. These are all FACTS. But you go on supporting the monster, he panders to the stupid.

This is the same logic that Nixon and his minions used to justify their criminal behavior against their political opponents too.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:What is unclear to me is whether there are additional documents related to the FISA warrant(s) and application that Grassley & Graham have not seen. Is there a level of clearance of such information they would not have been privy to/allowed to see in their role?

And if they saw all the docs and think things were intentionally left out that should not have been, what is their theory or argument for why the judges approved the warrant?

Also where do Warner and Burr stand, CC'd on this memo and who have seen the intelligence? Do/Did they have access to the FISA documents themselves?

Warner and Burr have been pretty consistent that 1) none of these memos should be happening and 2) Neither Steel nor the dossier were anything but patriotic acts to help save the US.