Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

This is such a strange post. The Page FISA warrant didn't use salacious information. You're just throwing facts out in a jumble.

How do you know this? If it included the dossier--and, I don't think anyone says it didn't--Comey said that it was salacious.

As for Feinstein's response that another pp posted, she claims no one has refuted the "facts" in the dossier. That's not how any of this works. Certainly, intelligence does not work like that.

I don't think you know what "salacious" means. Get a dictionary.

DP. It is incumbent on those applying for a FISA warrant to provide verified and accurate information to the court. Seems as if this was not done in this case.
This really needs to be investigated. I wonder how frequently unverified information is presented to the court. Is this an anomaly, or is this routine?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote: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.

The Grassley memo says it formed the bulk of the application. Carter Page isn't a saint. But it is troubling that an uncorroborated campaign-funded document made up of hearsay from various foreign sources whose reliability and motives are unknown formed "the bulk" of an application to spy on a US citizen.

Exactly. But Libs don't give a sh*t. Nothing new there.

Steele had already worked with the FBI and had a good reputation. That means that the FBI did not assume that he would make up facts depending upon who is paying him.

So, they took the information on “face value” and didn’t check the veracity of the information they received? That is a problem.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote: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.

The Grassley memo says it formed the bulk of the application. Carter Page isn't a saint. But it is troubling that an uncorroborated campaign-funded document made up of hearsay from various foreign sources whose reliability and motives are unknown formed "the bulk" of an application to spy on a US citizen.

Exactly. But Libs don't give a sh*t. Nothing new there.

Steele had already worked with the FBI and had a good reputation. That means that the FBI did not assume that he would make up facts depending upon who is paying him.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

This is such a strange post. The Page FISA warrant didn't use salacious information. You're just throwing facts out in a jumble.

How do you know this? If it included the dossier--and, I don't think anyone says it didn't--Comey said that it was salacious.

As for Feinstein's response that another pp posted, she claims no one has refuted the "facts" in the dossier. That's not how any of this works. Certainly, intelligence does not work like that.

I don't think you know what "salacious" means. Get a dictionary.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote: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.

The Grassley memo says it formed the bulk of the application. Carter Page isn't a saint. But it is troubling that an uncorroborated campaign-funded document made up of hearsay from various foreign sources whose reliability and motives are unknown formed "the bulk" of an application to spy on a US citizen.

Exactly. But Libs don't give a sh*t. Nothing new there.

Anonymous wrote:

This is such a strange post. The Page FISA warrant didn't use salacious information. You're just throwing facts out in a jumble.

How do you know this? If it included the dossier--and, I don't think anyone says it didn't--Comey said that it was salacious.

As for Feinstein's response that another pp posted, she claims no one has refuted the "facts" in the dossier. That's not how any of this works. Certainly, intelligence does not work like that.

Anonymous wrote:

This is such a strange post. The Page FISA warrant didn't use salacious information. You're just throwing facts out in a jumble.

How do you know this? If it included the dossier--and, I don't think anyone says it didn't--Comey said that it was salacious.

As for Feinstein's response that another pp posted, she claims no one has refuted the "facts" in the dossier. That's not how any of this works. Certainly, intelligence does not work like that.

This is such a strange post. The Page FISA warrant didn't use salacious information. You're just throwing facts out in a jumble.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote: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.

The Grassley memo says it formed the bulk of the application. Carter Page isn't a saint. But it is troubling that an uncorroborated campaign-funded document made up of hearsay from various foreign sources whose reliability and motives are unknown formed "the bulk" of an application to spy on a US citizen.

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...

It states at the top of page 2 of the memo that the chairman was provided copies of the FISA documents.

Anonymous wrote: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.

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.

+1000

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.

Anonymous wrote:

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.