Someone started another thread on this, relating to the Grassley note.

Grassley just seems to rehash the same stale points from the Nunes memo without any additional substance. It also doesn't answer any of the glaring questions that blew up the Nunes memo.

For example, the claim once again is that the FBI obtained the FISA warrant on nothing but the Steele dossier.

Yet even as we speak, there's a big flap over Trump refusing to release the Dem memo because it contains classified information.

The Steele dossier is out on the street for anyone to read. Makes no sense that it would be classified.

If there's classified material then it's obviously something OTHER than the Steele dossier. There's ANOTHER SOURCE of information, which is still classified, which the Nunes memo did not acknowledge. That blows apart the theory that the FISA warrant was all about the Steele dossier.

Missed this thread earlier. This Politico piece makes some interesting points:

Neither Grassley nor Nunes really grapple with the critical question of why, if the evidence was so thin, surveillance on Page was renewed on three separate occasions, including once during the Trump administration. Normally, after all, the FISA court would ask for evidence that the previous three months of wiretaps had produced some substantive intelligence before acceding to a renewal. But the question of whether the initial order was adequately justified is an important one, even if the surveillance did bear fruit. The Constitution demands that searches be supported by probable cause before they are carried out, not retroactively justified by the fact that evidence was found.

If the Grassley letter is accurate, it should provoke a debate, not about whether some cabal within the FBI had chosen Carter Page as the unlikely vehicle for a byzantine plot against Trump, but about whether the FISA process is rigorous enough to protect the civil liberties of all Americans, including those without high political connections. This is no longer a question of whether the FBI concealed information from the FISA court, but of whether the court looked at a relatively meager body of evidence and signed off on a wiretap anyway. That wouldn’t imply a personal conspiracy against Trump, but a deficiency in the mechanism by which thousands of targeted FISA warrants—more than 300 focused on Americans in 2016—are routinely approved. The problem, in other words, would not be that the Page application got exceptionally lax scrutiny, but rather that it didn’t.

Anonymous wrote:

If Warner is actually carrying fusions water he's delusional. It's one thing to say he thinks the intelligence Steele generated is useful regardless of the political motivation for its gathering. To claim Steele is a selfless patriot is nuts. He's not even a US citizen,but beyond that, if Steele really thought there was some kind of national security threat he would have shared this with MI 6 NOT shopped it to McCain isikoff and the rest of the media in the u.s. he's an Ex MI 6 agent, that his hook, so why didn't he go straight to MI 6 with this?
Simple answer is the dossiers bullshart and had he presented it to British intelligence could very well have been subject to espionage charges under British law.

Simple answer: he was being paid to find dirt. Enough said.
This was far beyond opposition "research". This was creating evidence.

Exactly.

Anonymous wrote:

If Warner is actually carrying fusions water he's delusional. It's one thing to say he thinks the intelligence Steele generated is useful regardless of the political motivation for its gathering. To claim Steele is a selfless patriot is nuts. He's not even a US citizen,but beyond that, if Steele really thought there was some kind of national security threat he would have shared this with MI 6 NOT shopped it to McCain isikoff and the rest of the media in the u.s. he's an Ex MI 6 agent, that his hook, so why didn't he go straight to MI 6 with this?
Simple answer is the dossiers bullshart and had he presented it to British intelligence could very well have been subject to espionage charges under British law.

Simple answer: he was being paid to find dirt. Enough said.
This was far beyond opposition "research". This was creating evidence.

The tin foil is strong with these ones.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:And what of the fact that the Page surveillance was continued (approved by judges) on 3 additional occasions after the original warrant?

So that even if the original was based 100% on the dossier (it wasn’t - Grassley memo states this), they would NOT have been able to continue to use the dossier as a basis for continuing the warrant? They were clearly able to show that it bore fruit. On 3 additional occasions.

Pretty much, this.

I've said this many times: Carter Page is a terrible hill for the GOP to die upon. The guy is a total weirdo and has already given so much information in the public realm that he was working for the Russians. Why this FISA warrant, when its so clear Page was a compromised figure?

It doesn't add up.

Carter Page is not the “hill” the GOP wishes to die on. You just can’t see that this is all about the questionable tactics by the FBI. Since the FBI largely works under the veil of secrecy, it is important that the American people have trust in their methods. When they bend or suspend the rules (as it has appeared they may have done), that is a problem.
And, I am not so convinced that they were able to demonstrate that their efforts “bore fruit.” What is evident from this memo is that they continued to use information from Steele himself on subsequent applications. And, they used the Yahoo article to substantiate their information from the dossier. And, they stated that they did not believe that information was provided to the author when in reality, it was. These people are the FBI!! Did they even ask Isikoff if Steele was their source, or did they just rely on their beliefs about it?

Read something from someone with subject matter expertise and thus isn’t just talking out of their conspiracy-infested ass.

https://www.justsecurity.org/51956/dissecting-grassley-graham-letter-criticisms-carter-page-fisa-application/

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Yeah, sure.

So, Senator Burr is “derp state” too /s (typo intentional)

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:And what of the fact that the Page surveillance was continued (approved by judges) on 3 additional occasions after the original warrant?

So that even if the original was based 100% on the dossier (it wasn’t - Grassley memo states this), they would NOT have been able to continue to use the dossier as a basis for continuing the warrant? They were clearly able to show that it bore fruit. On 3 additional occasions.

Pretty much, this.

I've said this many times: Carter Page is a terrible hill for the GOP to die upon. The guy is a total weirdo and has already given so much information in the public realm that he was working for the Russians. Why this FISA warrant, when its so clear Page was a compromised figure?

It doesn't add up.

Carter Page is not the “hill” the GOP wishes to die on. You just can’t see that this is all about the questionable tactics by the FBI. Since the FBI largely works under the veil of secrecy, it is important that the American people have trust in their methods. When they bend or suspend the rules (as it has appeared they may have done), that is a problem.
And, I am not so convinced that they were able to demonstrate that their efforts “bore fruit.” What is evident from this memo is that they continued to use information from Steele himself on subsequent applications. And, they used the Yahoo article to substantiate their information from the dossier. And, they stated that they did not believe that information was provided to the author when in reality, it was. These people are the FBI!! Did they even ask Isikoff if Steele was their source, or did they just rely on their beliefs about it?

Anonymous wrote:And what of the fact that the Page surveillance was continued (approved by judges) on 3 additional occasions after the original warrant?

So that even if the original was based 100% on the dossier (it wasn’t - Grassley memo states this), they would NOT have been able to continue to use the dossier as a basis for continuing the warrant? They were clearly able to show that it bore fruit. On 3 additional occasions.

Pretty much, this.

I've said this many times: Carter Page is a terrible hill for the GOP to die upon. The guy is a total weirdo and has already given so much information in the public realm that he was working for the Russians. Why this FISA warrant, when its so clear Page was a compromised figure?

It doesn't add up.

And what of the fact that the Page surveillance was continued (approved by judges) on 3 additional occasions after the original warrant?

So that even if the original was based 100% on the dossier (it wasn’t - Grassley memo states this), they would NOT have been able to continue to use the dossier as a basis for continuing the warrant? They were clearly able to show that it bore fruit. On 3 additional occasions.

Good summary

https://www.justsecurity.org/51956/dissecting-grassley-graham-letter-criticisms-carter-page-fisa-application/

If Warner is actually carrying fusions water he's delusional. It's one thing to say he thinks the intelligence Steele generated is useful regardless of the political motivation for its gathering. To claim Steele is a selfless patriot is nuts. He's not even a US citizen,but beyond that, if Steele really thought there was some kind of national security threat he would have shared this with MI 6 NOT shopped it to McCain isikoff and the rest of the media in the u.s. he's an Ex MI 6 agent, that his hook, so why didn't he go straight to MI 6 with this?
Simple answer is the dossiers bullshart and had he presented it to British intelligence could very well have been subject to espionage charges under British law.

Simple answer: he was being paid to find dirt. Enough said.
This was far beyond opposition "research". This was creating evidence.

Anonymous wrote:

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.

If Warner is actually carrying fusions water he's delusional. It's one thing to say he thinks the intelligence Steele generated is useful regardless of the political motivation for its gathering. To claim Steele is a selfless patriot is nuts. He's not even a US citizen,but beyond that, if Steele really thought there was some kind of national security threat he would have shared this with MI 6 NOT shopped it to McCain isikoff and the rest of the media in the u.s. he's an Ex MI 6 agent, that his hook, so why didn't he go straight to MI 6 with this?
Simple answer is the dossiers bullshart and had he presented it to British intelligence could very well have been subject to espionage charges under British law.

[quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous]

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.

[b]Sounds like not much happened between Sept 28 and October 21. [/b]

[/quote]


This is actually the big sticking point. There is software that could have scanned the email on the laptop and compared it to the main database of evidence to know if there was anything new. It could have been done in a matter of hours. Instead, the FBI sat on it and the the NY FBI Office weaponized it, shared it with Giulianai, Prince and whomever else, who leaked and then executed the "October Surprise." By the time the emails were cleared, the impact on the polls was done.

https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/the-comey-letter-probably-cost-clinton-the-election/

https://www.csmonitor.com/USA/Politics/2016/1028/Why-the-FBI-dropped-email-bombshell-on-Clinton-so-close-to-the-election


If you truly want to get to the bottom of this, then we need to understand why nothing happened for a month and then a coordinated release and attack was able to happen so close to election day.

[/quote]

I suspect we will find out more about this.
We still haven’t heard from the IG about all this mess. His report should be out within the next few months and I think we will find it enlightening.
Perhaps the NY FBI office felt that nothing was being done about it (by McCabe/Strzok/Comey), so played the role of “whistle-blower?"

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Yeah, sure.

Anonymous wrote:

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.

This is actually the big sticking point. There is software that could have scanned the email on the laptop and compared it to the main database of evidence to know if there was anything new. It could have been done in a matter of hours. Instead, the FBI sat on it and the the NY FBI Office weaponized it, shared it with Giulianai, Prince and whomever else, who leaked and then executed the "October Surprise." By the time the emails were cleared, the impact on the polls was done.

https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/the-comey-letter-probably-cost-clinton-the-election/

https://www.csmonitor.com/USA/Politics/2016/1028/Why-the-FBI-dropped-email-bombshell-on-Clinton-so-close-to-the-election


If you truly want to get to the bottom of this, then we need to understand why nothing happened for a month and then a coordinated release and attack was able to happen so close to election day.