• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

FBI lacked corroboration for Page wiretap; discredited dossier writer Steele ID’d as Yahoo source

You mean besides the reports from several allied security organizations that members of the Trump campaign were in "constant contact" with Russian espionage agents? The British were the first to monitor these conversations. You seem to think this was all an FBI operation, nothing is further from the truth.


https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2017/apr/13/british-spies-first-to-spot-trump-team-links-russia

Then you are saying Comey told a bald faced lie when he told the President and the Congressional judiciary committees in both the House and the Senate that President Trump and his campaign were not under investigation? The innuendo in these 'anonymous source' stories have been blown up so many times now that you would think a publication like "The Guardian" would be embarassed to perpetuate them. Or at least wouldn't contribute to such embarassingly abysmal journalism even eleven months ago when that article was printed.
 
Do you love Donald Trump? You must, since you claim I "hate" him. By the way, I can't hate someone I don't know. I didn't hate Obama either, and during the years I posted here criticizing Obama I don't ever recall you saying "You just hate Obama!".

I'll let the words from a blog post I wrote in January 2016, speak for themselves:

https://www.debatepolitics.com/blogs/grim17/1223-new-low-american-people-seems-inevitable.html

You take every criticism of him personally.

What are you talking about? I have not been offended by criticisms of Trump.

This issue for me has nothing to do with Trump and the Russia investigation at all, and as I have already said several times over the last week, I hope when it's all said an done, it doesn't negatively effect the investigation. I want to see it come to a proper conclusion.

You sound very butt hurt because I don't love Trump, like you do.

No need to misrepresent my views because you don't like my assessment of you.


There was no abuse of power. Page had been under surveillance for quite some time. I won't join you in the paranoid FBI bashing Trump devotee land. Better get used to that.

1. After reading both memos, watching various interviews and seeing other information concerning this issue, it's clear that there was a major abuse of power.
2. There's no need to resort to phony labels in order to insult me. Just make your case.

By the way, I'm sure you opposed the Patriot Act for years. I know I did. I'm going to guess you didn't, until poor Carter Page came along.

I support the FISA court provision in the patriot act , but I do not support the abuse of it... which is exactly what seems to have taken place here.

.
 
Then you are saying Comey told a bald faced lie when he told the President and the Congressional judiciary committees in both the House and the Senate that President Trump and his campaign were not under investigation? The innuendo in these 'anonymous source' stories have been blown up so many times now that you would think a publication like "The Guardian" would be embarassed to perpetuate them. Or at least wouldn't contribute to such embarassingly abysmal journalism.

I don't recall Comey saying anything other than Trump, individually, was not under investigation. I'd love to see any quote attributed to Comey that extended the statement broadly to the many people in his campaign, but I don't think one will be forthcoming.
 
I'll let the words from a blog post I wrote in January 2016, speak for themselves:

https://www.debatepolitics.com/blogs/grim17/1223-new-low-american-people-seems-inevitable.html



What are you talking about? I have not been offended by criticisms of Trump.

This issue for me has nothing to do with Trump and the Russia investigation at all, and as I have already said several times over the last week, I hope when it's all said an done, it doesn't negatively effect the investigation. I want to see it come to a proper conclusion.



No need to misrepresent my views because you don't like my assessment of you.




1. After reading both memos, watching various interviews and seeing other information concerning this issue, it's clear that there was a major abuse of power.
2. There's no need to resort to phony labels in order to insult me. Just make your case.



I support the FISA court provision in the patriot act , but I do not support the abuse of it... which is exactly what seems to have taken place here.

.

You are offended by the criticism of Trump, which is why you lowered yourself to the "You just hate Trump" crap.

Remind me of all the posts you made to me criticizing Obama where you said "Oh you just hate Obama". Because I don't remember you making a single one of them to me. Not one. But you sure enjoyed the posts I made criticizing Obama.

There was no abuse here.

You love Trump. You hated Obama. If we're going to attribute feelings to strangers on the internet, I'll do it too. Isn't it fun to make stupid posts? Like you did?
 
Then you are saying Comey told a bald faced lie when he told the President and the Congressional judiciary committees in both the House and the Senate that President Trump and his campaign were not under investigation? The innuendo in these 'anonymous source' stories have been blown up so many times now that you would think a publication like "The Guardian" would be embarassed to perpetuate them. Or at least wouldn't contribute to such embarassingly abysmal journalism even eleven months ago when that article was printed.

Can you please link something to Comey saying that the Trump campaign was not under investigation? Because I don't remember him saying that. i remember him testifying about Trump himself, not his campaign.
 
You are offended by the criticism of Trump, which is why you lowered yourself to the "You just hate Trump" crap.

Remind me of all the posts you made to me criticizing Obama where you said "Oh you just hate Obama". Because I don't remember you making a single one of them to me. Not one. But you sure enjoyed the posts I made criticizing Obama.

Would it make you feel better if I retract the word "hate" and replace it with "vehemently oppose"?

Done.. I officially retract the word "hate" when describing your feelings toward the current president.



There was no abuse here.

There most certainly was based on all the available information, including quotes from government officials and from the FISA application itself.

You love Trump. You hated Obama. If we're going to attribute feelings to strangers on the internet, I'll do it too. Isn't it fun to make stupid posts? Like you did?

Unfortunately for you, my blog post from 2016 says something entirely different.

You have used one word I wrote to describe your apparent feelings toward Donald Trump, to disregard everything else I posted.... posted at your request I might add.

I have now retracted that word, so care to start over?

.
 
Thanks, so Obama was using British intelligence to spy on Trump before he could get a warrant....Good to know how you accept that.

Nice try! No, the British and others were monitoring Russians. When Americans are in contact with them, their calls get swept up. Flynn learned this the hard way. What's always amazed me is Flynn being stupid enough to make statements on calls he had to know and the Russians knew were being routinely monitored by NSA/FBI or whoever, then lie about what he said, or others lying on his behalf.
 
Would it make you feel better if I retract the word "hate" and replace it with "vehemently oppose"?

Done.. I officially retract the word "hate" when describing your feelings toward the current president.





There most certainly was based on all the available information, including quotes from government officials and from the FISA application itself.



You have used one word I wrote to describe your apparent feelings toward Donald Trump, to disregard everything else I posted.... posted at your request I might add.

I have now retracted that word, so care to start over?

.

I do oppose Trump. I also opposed Obama. What does that have to do with me saying there was no abuse here?

Page was already under surveillance. You know it, and Nunes knows it. I won't buy into Nunes' partisan hackery. It's un-American.
 
You would think that anyone with even minimal capacity for skepticism would find it hard to believe the FBI would rely on a news article as evidence of an underlying claim, much less a court accepting a news article as such evidence and then being swayed by it.
 
Then you are saying Comey told a bald faced lie when he told the President and the Congressional judiciary committees in both the House and the Senate that President Trump and his campaign were not under investigation? The innuendo in these 'anonymous source' stories have been blown up so many times now that you would think a publication like "The Guardian" would be embarassed to perpetuate them. Or at least wouldn't contribute to such embarassingly abysmal journalism even eleven months ago when that article was printed.

Since we now know that a FBI investigation of the Trump campaign was started in the the summer of 2016 I'm not sure what you are talking about. I suspect Comey was following the FBI rule not to comment on ongoing investigation. Are you denying that we were informed of these "constant contacts" between Russian agents and Trump campaign officials by our own security agencies who verified the info in the article I posted? Do you really think the whole thing is a giant conspiracy between our allies and the CIA and the FBI. Talk about embarrassing.....
 
The GOP needs to rethink their position on Russia. 120 mil appropriated to fight russian meddling in 2018. So far zero has been spent. Republicans are weak on Russia.
 
I do oppose Trump. I also opposed Obama. What does that have to do with me saying there was no abuse here?

Page was already under surveillance. You know it, and Nunes knows it. I won't buy into Nunes' partisan hackery. It's un-American.

I'm sorry, but the original FISA application that's at the center of this issue, was not a renewal. That is a fact. That application was submitted to get a warrant to begin spying on Carter Page, not to continue doing so.

It's clear that the evidence provided in that application was centered around that unverified, political research dossier that was funded by the DNC and Hillary Clinton campaign. A dossier that the FBI misrepresented and omitted key facts about, in order to mislead the court into approving that warrant request. A warrant that then FBI director Andrew McCabe testified under oath, would have never been sought without the Steele dossier.

That is clearly an abuse of power and violation of the 4th amendment by the FBI and DOJ.

.
 
I'm sorry, but the original FISA application that's at the center of this issue, was not a renewal. That is a fact. That application was submitted to get a warrant to begin spying on Carter Page, not to continue doing so.

It's clear that the evidence provided in that application was centered around that unverified, political research dossier that was funded by the DNC and Hillary Clinton campaign. A dossier that the FBI misrepresented and omitted key facts about, in order to mislead the court into approving that warrant request. A warrant that then FBI director Andrew McCabe testified under oath, would have never been sought without the Steele dossier.

That is clearly an abuse of power and violation of the 4th amendment by the FBI and DOJ.

.

Can you provide this supposed statement from McCabe to support your claim?
 
The GOP needs to rethink their position on Russia. 120 mil appropriated to fight russian meddling in 2018. So far zero has been spent. Republicans are weak on Russia.

Because their leader is compromised by Putin. We have a Manchurian candidate in the Whitehouse and we cannot deal with Russian aggression until he is gone. This is all due to the failure of the GOP as a party.
 
I'm sorry, but the original FISA application that's at the center of this issue, was not a renewal. That is a fact. That application was submitted to get a warrant to begin spying on Carter Page, not to continue doing so.

It's clear that the evidence provided in that application was centered around that unverified, political research dossier that was funded by the DNC and Hillary Clinton campaign. A dossier that the FBI misrepresented and omitted key facts about, in order to mislead the court into approving that warrant request. A warrant that then FBI director Andrew McCabe testified under oath, would have never been sought without the Steele dossier.

That is clearly an abuse of power and violation of the 4th amendment by the FBI and DOJ.

.

He was being surveilled already. That is a fact.

Ah, good job mentioning "Hillary". I wasn't talking about her.

Sounds like you're really against the FBI. No wonder you're a Trump follower. He's managed to turn formally rational people against the FBI. Another reason I'm not a Trump devotee. I can't be suckered by him and Nunes.
 
I'm sorry, but the original FISA application that's at the center of this issue, was not a renewal. That is a fact. That application was submitted to get a warrant to begin spying on Carter Page, not to continue doing so.

The FBI had been watching Page since 2013 when he was meeting with Russian spies in New York City.
 
He was being surveilled already. That is a fact.

Ah, good job mentioning "Hillary". I wasn't talking about her.

Sounds like you're really against the FBI. No wonder you're a Trump follower. He's managed to turn formally rational people against the FBI. Another reason I'm not a Trump devotee. I can't be suckered by him and Nunes.

Everything I said is factual. That was not a FISA renewal, it was an application to begin spying. Whether he had been spied on previously is irrelivant.

The thing you can not escape, is the fact that Andrew McCabe said under oath that without that dossier, they wouldn't have applied for the warrant in the first place... so you can cite other things until the cows come home, but the bottom line is, no dossier, no warrant.

.
 
I find it interesting that a Trump fan, earlier in this thread, posted a quote from a Washington Post article, as supporting their view that Isikoff's YahooNews piece was little more than a duplication of the points made in the Steele dossier. Why is that 'interesting'? Here's the bit quoted previously
The memo, crafted by aides to Rep. Devin Nunes (R-Calif.), contains another criticism that was not reported in advance. The document faults the FBI for allegedly basing its warrant application to surveil Carter Page under the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act on a news report, too.

“The Carter Page FISA application also cited extensively a September 23, 2016, Yahoo News article by Michael Isikoff, which focuses on Page's July 2016 trip to Moscow,” the memo says. “This article does not corroborate the Steele dossier because it is derived from information leaked by Steele himself to Yahoo News.”

Sounds bad for Rep. Schiff and the FBI and the judges on the FISC who approved four warrants doesn't it?

Or, maybe due to the following paragraphs, one might take a different view.
The memo's description of a supposedly key news report is wrong

The memo's assertion that the Yahoo article was key seems dubious, too. The argument is that the FBI used circular logic to make its case for a warrant. According to the memo, the agency presented the dossier as evidence against Page, then presented the Yahoo article as additional evidence — even though the dossier and the article were based on the same source, Steele. The accusation is that the FBI used Steele to corroborate Steele.

In reality, the article made was not “derived” from Steele. Isikoff, citing “multiple sources,” reported that U.S. intelligence officials had briefed senior members of Congress on Page's activities in Russia. Isikoff cited a “congressional source familiar with the briefings” to report that “some of those briefed were 'taken aback' when they learned about Page's contacts in Moscow, viewing them as a possible back channel to the Russians that could undercut U.S. foreign policy.”

Isikoff quoted an unnamed “senior U.S. law enforcement official,” who confirmed that Page's Russian contacts were “on our radar screen” and “being looked at.”

Isikoff also quoted a “U.S. official who served in Russia at the time” when Page, a few years earlier, first attracted attention for being “a brazen apologist for anything Moscow did.”

Steele does not match the descriptions of these sources. He does match the description of a “well-placed Western intelligence source” cited in the last two paragraphs of the article, whose claims about meetings involving Page also appeared in the dossier.

It is wrong to say that this “Western intelligence source,” presumably Steele, formed the foundation of an article in which at least three other sources featured more prominently.
 
The FBI had been watching Page since 2013 when he was meeting with Russian spies in New York City.

That is irrelevant.

If that fact, along with everything else they had were enough to secure a warrant without using the dossier, then why did they include the dossier, misrepresent it, and omit key facts about it, in order to get the courts approval?

It all goes back to Andrew McCabe saying under oath that without the dossier, no warrant would have been sought.

.
 
Everything I said is factual. That was not a FISA renewal, it was an application to begin spying. Whether he had been spied on previously is irrelivant.

The thing you can not escape, is the fact that Andrew McCabe said under oath that without that dossier, they wouldn't have applied for the warrant in the first place... so you can cite other things until the cows come home, but the bottom line is, no dossier, no warrant.

.

The fact you and others cannot escape is that the Republican-supplied "quote" from McCabe has been called false by Democratic reps who listened to his testimony. For some reason, Nunes has refused to supply the transcript of the testimony.

Nunes Memo Misquotes McCabe's Statement About Steele Dossier/FISA Warrant
 
Everything I said is factual. That was not a FISA renewal, it was an application to begin spying. Whether he had been spied on previously is irrelivant.

The thing you can not escape, is the fact that Andrew McCabe said under oath that without that dossier, they wouldn't have applied for the warrant in the first place... so you can cite other things until the cows come home, but the bottom line is, no dossier, no warrant.

.

Everything you said you got from Devin Nunes. Unless you're the FISA judge, you don't know the facts.

Yes, he was spied on before that. In other words, no, it was not to "begin" spying. You don't begin something you're already doing.

Can you post something so I can hear McCabe saying under oath that they wouldn't have applied for the warrant without the dossier for myself? Besides the Nunes memo, of course.
 
I'm sorry, but the original FISA application that's at the center of this issue, was not a renewal. That is a fact. That application was submitted to get a warrant to begin spying on Carter Page, not to continue doing so.

It's clear that the evidence provided in that application was centered around that unverified, political research dossier that was funded by the DNC and Hillary Clinton campaign. A dossier that the FBI misrepresented and omitted key facts about, in order to mislead the court into approving that warrant request. A warrant that then FBI director Andrew McCabe testified under oath, would have never been sought without the Steele dossier.

That is clearly an abuse of power and violation of the 4th amendment by the FBI and DOJ.

Without rehashing any of our prior discussion, what you allege is serious, which is why it's such a travesty IMO that the claims you're relying on were made in such a partisan fashion, led by Nunes who no one should trust as an honest broker here. If you didn't know that already, what he did with the Sen. Warren texts should be enough to convince you. There was no point to that leak except to trash Sen. Warren (D), the co-chair of the Senate intelligence committee.

And IMO such serious allegations that get to the core credibility of the FBI and DoJ and FISC should be above partisanship and he owed a duty to the country to get parties other than the GOP majority on the HPSCI on board. But he didn't. He in fact affirmatively PROHIBITED the DoJ and FBI - these are Trump agencies now- from vetting the core allegations, or to address the HPSCI or the House about their concerns. Both entities in fact issued what I thought were extraordinary statements condemning the release of the memo given that they were headed by Trump appointees. And he denied the Senate the opportunity to even read his memo before it was voted out to the public. How much worse could he have screwed up the process if his goal was to guarantee most of the country didn't believe him?

So he trashed the process, trashed his credibility for me and MANY others, and now IMO to believe him at face value is just naive, bordering on moronic.

It's a shame, really, and what really disappoints me is how Ryan has reacted - which is he's been largely invisible as Nunes did this to a committee that is supposed to be non-partisan, and engaged in the deadly serious task of overseeing our intelligence agencies. Now half the country at least views Nunes and his committee properly IMO as a partisan arm of the Trump inner circle and the IC would be idiots if they believe they can trust Nunes' committee with their secrets going forward, which they are not. So we also know he's trashed the core ability of the HPSCI to be an effective oversight on the IC.
 
The FBI had been watching Page since 2013 when he was meeting with Russian spies in New York City.

So you mean you can't begin something in 2016 that you already started in 2013? I don't think you've caught up with the way it works in Trump Nation.
 
Back
Top Bottom