• 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

I look forward to the day that Grandma Hillary no longer occupies space in the head of Trump and his entire fan nation. That woman controls their minds.

I'll bet Hillary knew in 2013 that Page was going to work briefly for the guy who would ultimately beat her in the Presidential election 3 years later so she cajoled the FBI into the beginning of their surveillance of Page and she knew Manafort would sign on as his campaign manager so she got her Russkie friends to start some dirty dealings with him and then over tea with Queen Elizabeth she convinced her to have Christopher Steele write this dossier, taking stories from Penthouse forum, and she gave Trump's donations that he had made to her through the years to James Comey with the promise that he'd torpedo her campaign in 2016 by once again bringing up her emails and all while she tracked down some kid with a funny Greek name to carry Trump's coffee 3 years later and get drunk with some Australian diplomat who was sick of hanging out in the Pedophile House of Pizza watching Seth Rich deliver pies to Andrew McCabe, and sitting down with his wife convincing her to run for office so she could act as the stand in for Michelle Obama's official FLOTUS portrait.

Greetings, tres borrachos. :2wave:

The first Star Wars movies came out in 1977. Who'd a thunk we might actually be re-living them 40 years later, with fairly accurate copies of both the bad and the good characters in the originals? Amazing! :shock: :lamo :lamo
 
Greetings, tres borrachos. :2wave:

The first Star Wars movies came out in 1977. Who'd a thunk we might actually be re-living them 40 years later, with fairly accurate copies of both the bad and the good characters in the originals? Amazing! :shock: :lamo :lamo

I saw that when it came out, but I was only 15 and didn't appreciate it. I watched it again recently and realized how much I love that movie - and Harrison Ford was very easy on the eyes, too! At 15 I didn't care about that either.:lol:
 
You don't know what the truth is either. You seem to keep forgetting that. You know what Nunes said, and nothing more. None of us do.

I make my decisions based on evaluating the words and actions of both sides.


By the way, why are you only concerned about this particular FISA warrant. The other dozens of thousands granted haven't seen to concern you. Have you been screaming about FISA warrants for years, or just since Carter Page was surveiled for the third year in a row?

I've never heard of, or seen evidence that the government was abusing the FISA courts until now... That's why I'm concerned. There was suppose to be strict oversight, but just as everything else the government tries to do, it falls short.

I have supported the creation of the FISA court, but I sure as hell don't support it's abuse.

Why did the Republicans just re-up the existing processes if there is so much of this "abuse". By the way, the word "abuse" is overused. The Democrats loved to drop it constantly talking about how banks "abuse" borrowers who are too stupid to read their loan agreements. I'm waiting until we hear it's abuse to not give your kid Cheerios at this pace.

So much abuse? What other cases have you heard of where the FBI and DOJ have deceived the FISA court by omitting key information and misrepresenting evidence in order to get a warrant to spy on someone, violating the 4th amendment of the constitution?

BTW, if you are interested, I'm watching a live interview with Trey Gowdy about this issue on Special Report. They have now called for a special council to investigate this matter, and what he has to say about it is interesting.

Here's the live YouTube link:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ws7cvJTqOIg

Just scroll it back a few minutes to the beginning of the interview.

.
 
I make my decisions based on evaluating the words and actions of both sides.




I've never heard of, or seen evidence that the government was abusing the FISA courts until now... That's why I'm concerned. There was suppose to be strict oversight, but just as everything else the government tries to do, it falls short.

I have supported the creation of the FISA court, but I sure as hell don't support it's abuse.



So much abuse? What other cases have you heard of where the FBI and DOJ have deceived the FISA court by omitting key information and misrepresenting evidence in order to get a warrant to spy on someone, violating the 4th amendment of the constitution?

BTW, if you are interested, I'm watching a live interview with Trey Gowdy about this issue on Special Report. They have now called for a special council to investigate this matter, and what he has to say about it is interesting.

Here's the live YouTube link:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ws7cvJTqOIg

Just scroll it back a few minutes to the beginning of the interview.

.

Omitting key evidence? It was the third FISA warrant they had on him. Third.

There was nothing omitted. This wasn't a warrant on some random private citizen, or a political warrant. It was a re-up of a warrant they already had.

This wasn't abuse. They were already watching him. He wasn't involved with any candidate.

I know what Gowdy called for. He's also the one who, much to his chagrin, dragged on Benghazi for too long. To no avail.

They should do away with FISA altogether if this is so concerning. I really don't care. Just like I said about the Patriot Act to all the liberals who screamed about it. I had nothing to hide. If the government wants to spy on my foreign connections, let them. I don't care about Carter Page. If they were surveiling him since 2013, they had good reason. There are far more important things to worry about than Carter Page.

I won't attack the FBI. It's disgusting. And I said the same thing to Liberals who attacked all police because of a few yahoos that shot black men. The FBI isn't corrupt, and Devin Nunes and his partisan crap won't make me become a hypocrite.
 
Well, speaking of obedient rants, I backed up mine with a plethora of sources.

Not only did you throw in a lot of straw man detraction and nonsequitur, what little of your post did address the topic is supported with zero, nada, zilch. Is that what your masters teach you to do?

oh Al, nobody questioned your ability to find editorials from conservative "sewers". My post was really about why would you continue to believe those sewers? Now Al, can you please explain what in my post is "straw man detraction and nonsequitur"? Its a claim you made so asking you to explain is perfectly acceptable at a debate forum. Now just to be clear, I didn't ask you to repeat your claim. I asked you to explain it.
 
I make my decisions based on evaluating the words and actions of both sides.

mmm, which side told you "Obama was born in Kenya" or his BC a forgery" or "death panels" or the vile and disgusting "stand down" lies? Which side went to the WH to get "intel" then went back to the WH and claimed to have "intel" to back up a Trump lie? So grim, it appears your decisions are based on exactly what your conservative masters tell you to think.

I've never heard of, or seen evidence that the government was abusing the FISA courts until now... That's why I'm concerned. There was suppose to be strict oversight, but just as everything else the government tries to do, it falls short.

Yes grim, your conservative masters never made that claim until now. Oddly you think it proves abuse instead of assuming the same liars who told you "Obama was born in Kenya" or his BC a forgery" or "death panels" or the vile and disgusting "stand down" lies are just lying again.
 
Omitting key evidence? It was the third FISA warrant they had on him. Third.

There was nothing omitted.

Read what I wrote again please.... I said they omitted key information... Information about the Steele dossier that was critical to fairly evaluate it's credibility.


This wasn't a warrant on some random private citizen, or a political warrant. It was a re-up of a warrant they already had.

That is 100% false. It's for that reason that nobody in the congress or the senate has made that argument.

The warrant 2 years prior to this one, was a based on another issue. Each warrant that is applied for is based on very specific and separate circumstances.

This wasn't abuse. They were already watching him. He wasn't involved with any candidate.

1. In my opinion, and the opinion on a whole lot of folks, it was abuse.
2. They were not monitoring the communications Carter Page (aka spying on him) when the FBI received the Steele dossier in June 2016, or when they applied for the warrant in October.
3. He didn't have to be a current member of the campaign. The warrant allows the FBI and DOJ to obtain all his prior electronic communications going back as far as they like.

I know what Gowdy called for. He's also the one who, much to his chagrin, dragged on Benghazi for too long. To no avail.

Irrelevant.

They should do away with FISA altogether if this is so concerning. I really don't care. Just like I said about the Patriot Act to all the liberals who screamed about it. I had nothing to hide. If the government wants to spy on my foreign connections, let them.

I'd much rather see it fixed, but if that can't be done, then I agree they should scrap it.

I don't care about Carter Page. If they were surveiling him since 2013, they had good reason.

He wasn't under surveillance since 2013.... Those warrants are only valid for 90 days.

There are far more important things to worry about than Carter Page.

I don't give a rat's ass about Carter Page... Personally, I think he's a weasel, but my personal opinion of him is irrelevant. This is about the FBI and DOJ abusing their power to spy on an American citizen and thumbing their noses at the Constitution... I'm sorry, but the ends do not justify the means, and if they can do that to Page, they can do it to anyone.

I won't attack the FBI. It's disgusting. And I said the same thing to Liberals who attacked all police because of a few yahoos that shot black men. The FBI isn't corrupt, and Devin Nunes and his partisan crap won't make me become a hypocrite.

This issue isn't an attack on the rank and file investigators at the FBI, it's focused on top officials who make the decisions... some of which, are very suspect and possibly involve political corruption on a large scale.

You may not be interested in this level of abuse, but I certainly am.

.
 
Like American public schools, Internet search engines and the media, for examples? Those manipulation industries?

There is plenty of manipulation of the American public being attempted by good ole' American entities. We need less. And whose gets to make the suggestions that this or that material is an attempt to manipulate? Laughable suggestions. Let people decide for themselves. If you don't like how they voted, etc., tough. You don't know any better nor are you anymore intelligent or educated. Public American education jades a person's ability to critically think, anyway.

So no actual debate on the subject.

There is no ten billion dollar industry engaging in this activity.

Bless your heart!
 
Some of the scariest stuff I've read in the past couple of years is the growing ability of data firms to mine our digital footprint and very effectively KNOW a great deal about who we are and what moves us, then to individually target us online for what amounts to propaganda - either for political reasons, or to sell us stuff.

So they can look at my Twitter and Facebook page (not much on the latter for me) and identify me as a "liberal" and they know what car I drive and my address, and who I follow and tweets I've liked or retweeted, and they develop a profile of what motivates me and tailor a political message to me, that might look very different than my next door neighbors, who are a black family headed by a former NFL lineman with 4 kids, or the family on the other side which is a Jewish couple, no kids, highly educated.

Scares me tbh. We all think we're immune to that stuff, and all of us are kidding ourselves IMO.

Its not your grandpa's propaganda anymore.
 
Yeah, and notice the ill fated attempt to insert the Shearer dossier as the real official corroboration of the Steele dossier until it was learned that the Shearer dossier was based on "intelligence" provided by Sidney Blumenthal...

All roads lead back to Hillary.

It's been looking like that.
 
I'm not claiming anything. I'm stating the fact that 1) he never alleged the article was used to corroborate the dossier, and 2) when Schiff alleged it was used for a different purpose, Nunes didn't challenge Schiff's account although he did challenge 14 OTHER "charges" in Schiff's memo.

It's not an opinion - I'm telling you what the words say - how literate people should read them. And yes, I obviously believe Nunes is a big enough hack to do that. Seems obvious it's right in his wheelhouse of partisan antics to dishonestly imply something he knows he cannot state outright. He did the same thing with the DNC stuff. Instead of asserting the FBI knew the DNC was the client, he used word like the FBI knew "political actors" were involved. Why not just make a direct assertion of fact - FBI knew in October 2016 that the DNC was the client and failed to disclose this fact to the FISC?

Incompetence? A staff with 9th grade writing skills? Or deliberately deceptive?

The entirety of Nunes' words in all of Nunes' sentences quoted say the Yahoo article was used in the the FBI warrant application to help corroborate the use of the dossier. Others, literate people who you dismissed, who read things like those for a living in order to understand and report on them agree on what they mean.
It was necessary to do that because the dossier is what got them the warrant.
You're hopelessly infected with Schiffluenza.
 
What would be political about the FISA application on Carter Page? Was it political in 2013 when they got the first one?

Around 2013 the Government was being called out for abuse of surveillance.
Remember? Clapper? Not wittingly?

As for Page & the FBI in 2013, Page was cooperating with the FBI in their Russian investigation back then. The FBI warned him that the Russians were attempting to recruit him.

Be serious. We're talking about the 4 warrants that started in October 2016. They are looking very political.
 
Trump is so screwed, his choices so he gets to pay for them, getting closer and closer to that day.
 
Trump is so screwed, his choices so he gets to pay for them, getting closer and closer to that day.

Naw it's a nothingburger witch hunt. Ya gotta know Soros must be behind this.

We should be searching for the "real bad guys" obviously any malfeasance of the Trump administration is the sole responsibility of the evil arch villians Obama and Clinton, fighting against freedom and helping the terrorists win in every dark corner, along with the deep state!

:2rofll:
 
"Two pieces of evidence that have come together prove anti-Trump dossier writer Christopher Steele was the key source for a Yahoo News story that the FBI cited to support its wiretap application.
Identifying the source of that September 2016 article on Trump campaign volunteer Carter Page has taken on added importance in recent weeks."

https://www.washingtontimes.com/new...ignal&utm_campaign=pushnotify&utm_medium=push

The Nunes memo said the Yahoo article didn't really corroborate the dossier for the FISA warrant because Yahoo got it from Steele.
Some here apparently wanted that to mean the Yahoo article wasn't used as corroboration for the FISA warrant.
Schiff's memo moved to obfuscate the matter.
"Mr. Schiff, the House intelligence committee’s top Democrat, said Republicans failed to “cite evidence that Steele disclosed to Yahoo details included in the FISA warrant, since the British Court filings to which they refer do not address what Steele may have said to Yahoo.” "​

This article straightens it out.

Yes yes, others here already knew this but some things need repeating.
Especially since the House Intel committee has requested an IG investigation into FISA abuse for this reason.

The FBI had warrants on Carter Page long before Steele gave them the dossier....

"...In 2013, Russian intelligence operatives attempted to recruit Page, and one described him as enthusiastic about business opportunities in Russia but an "idiot".[2][20] News accounts in 2017 indicated that because of these ties to Russia, Page had been the subject of a warrant pursuant to the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) in 2014, at least two years earlier than was indicated in the stories concerning his role in the 2016 Presidential campaign of Donald Trump.[21][22]..."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carter_Page
 
Please do share with me my "political agenda". I'm more of a Republican than President Trump is. Unlike him, I didn't become one 5 minutes before I decided I wanted to be President.

I know it isn't convenient to remember, but Page had warrants on him that predated this one. There was no abuse of power. No matter how much Trump and Devin Nunes have tried to convince you otherwise.

In order to get a FISA warrant on an American citizen, there needs to be probable cause that a crime was committed. The warrant also needs to be renewed every three months.
Where are the charges against Page from the previous warrants? They never happened. The Schiff memo did not offer up anything as a justification for the new warrants. So all we are left with is the dossier. Which is the product of a political campaign and which wee unverified from m unknown sources second and third hand.
 
Hmmm....I don't see that....Not with what we see coming to light....

Your case is almost as compelling as this guy, you sound not quite, but nearly as sane and reasonable....

...The more I repeat it, the truer it becomes....

....Proof just gets in the way knowing the truth.....

Just keep sucking down the kook aid, yer gonna need it!
 
What did Andrew McCabe testify to Congress that for the dossier they wouldn't have even tried to get the warrant then?

Now, you can say that we don't know that is what he said, but members of the committee have said that he did, so I would say that on whole that was at least the gist of his testimony....The fact that democrats are fighting so hard about this point only cements the opinion that liberal forces within the FBI, DoJ, and Obama administration were scrambling to cover their asses for already spying on the Trump campaign up until he won, and then it was an "oh ****!" moment that he won, and would find out.

It's true, we don't know what McCabe testified in private to congress...and neither do you. But what we do know is that the Nunes memo undermines it's own claim.....

"...Nunes’ memo claims it calls into question the “legitimacy and legality of certain [Justice Department] and FBI interactions with the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court.” It centers overwhelmingly on ex-British spy Christopher Steele’s famous dossier, which has often aroused Trump’s ire and which Nunes has extensively sought to discredit.

Yet it at the same time concedes that the FBI’s investigation into the Trump circle began not with the dossier but with a Trump campaign aide who has since pleaded guilty to cooperate with Mueller: George Papadopolous...."

https://www.thedailybeast.com/trump...epartment-with-release-of-nunes-memo?ref=home


Here's the actual words from the Nunes memo...

"....The Page FISA application also mentions information regarding fellow Trump campaign advisor George Papadopoulos, but there is no evidence of any cooperation or conspiracy between Page and Papadopoulos. The Papadopoulos information triggered the opening of an FBI counterintelligence investigation in late July 2016 by FBI agent Pete Strzok...."

https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2018/02/nunes-news/552227/
 
Although that is precisely what it suggests and everyone is claiming except you.

It's weird. "Everyone" is claiming it but you can't quote anyone with knowledge making the, you know, claim.

The claim is still BS, as you've been shown a dozen times.

LOL. Funny that the GOP response didn't 'show' it to you or me or anyone else. Their response was:


I've never seen anyone so desperate to avoid the truth, that they would pull this kind of stunt in order to avoid discussing the facts.

Well, you're making me laugh, so that's a good thing. I've done nothing but discuss the facts, cited the memos, the source documents, quoted extensively from them, the words said.....
 
The entirety of Nunes' words in all of Nunes' sentences quoted say the Yahoo article was used in the the FBI warrant application to help corroborate the use of the dossier. Others, literate people who you dismissed, who read things like those for a living in order to understand and report on them agree on what they mean.

That's wrong, actually. I've spent a good part of my career working hand in hand with lawyers, which means reading laws, contracts, wills, trusts, etc. First of all, competent writers assert critical facts in clear language. It's not a hard skill, and anyone who makes it through law school has learned how to do it. And anyone who reads documents for any part of their living would NEVER assume an implied fact is an actual fact. If something critical is implied versus asserted, there are two options: 1) Opposing counsel is incompetent, or, far more likely in my experience, 2) hopes you are.

So what you expect me to accept as a fact is whoever wrote that memo, and whoever reviewed it, are incompetent and incapable of asserting key facts. My belief it that's not the case, and the writer(s) are hoping we are incompetent, gullible, fools.

It was necessary to do that because the dossier is what got them the warrant.
You're hopelessly infected with Schiffluenza.

I'm infected with an insistence on relying on facts, what WAS written, not what was implied and makes the best story for the GOP. Call me crazy, but I wouldn't trust Nunes for the right day of the week.
 
It's true, we don't know what McCabe testified in private to congress...and neither do you.

The democrats didn't refute what republicans said McCabe had testified to in their memo, and that right there should tell you something.

Of course Schiff is now saying he was taken out of context, but isn't it interesting he doesn't say how he was taken out of context, or explain what McCabe said in it's proper context? Since Schiff has access to those transcripts and is telling the truth, then why isn't he telling us what McCabe said, and why isn't he either presenting those transcripts, or demanding that they be released?

But what we do know is that the Nunes memo undermines it's own claim.....

"...Nunes’ memo claims it calls into question the “legitimacy and legality of certain [Justice Department] and FBI interactions with the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court.” It centers overwhelmingly on ex-British spy Christopher Steele’s famous dossier, which has often aroused Trump’s ire and which Nunes has extensively sought to discredit.

Yet it at the same time concedes that the FBI’s investigation into the Trump circle began not with the dossier but with a Trump campaign aide who has since pleaded guilty to cooperate with Mueller: George Papadopolous...."

https://www.thedailybeast.com/trump...epartment-with-release-of-nunes-memo?ref=home

Here's the actual words from the Nunes memo...

"....The Page FISA application also mentions information regarding fellow Trump campaign advisor George Papadopoulos, but there is no evidence of any cooperation or conspiracy between Page and Papadopoulos. The Papadopoulos information triggered the opening of an FBI counterintelligence investigation in late July 2016 by FBI agent Pete Strzok...."

https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2018/02/nunes-news/552227/

What does that have to do with this issue?

This is about the FBI and DOJ presenting an unverified, political opposition research dossier to the court, and withholding key facts about that dossier, misleading the court about what they knew about that dossier, and deceiving the FISA judge to get a warrant to spy on an American citizen.

Papadopolous and when the Russia investigation began is totally irrelevant.
 
The democrats didn't refute what republicans said McCabe had testified to in their memo, and that right there should tell you something.

Of course Schiff is now saying he was taken out of context, but isn't it interesting he doesn't say how he was taken out of context, or explain what McCabe said in it's proper context? Since Schiff has access to those transcripts and is telling the truth, then why isn't he telling us what McCabe said, and why isn't he either presenting those transcripts, or demanding that they be released?



What does that have to do with this issue?

This is about the FBI and DOJ presenting an unverified, political opposition research dossier to the court, and withholding key facts about that dossier, misleading the court about what they knew about that dossier, and deceiving the FISA judge to get a warrant to spy on an American citizen.

Papadopolous and when the Russia investigation began is totally irrelevant.

As an aside, Strozk's animus displayed in his private emails discredits his credibility in opening an investigation and in using it to leverage surveillance into the Trump campaign.
 
It's weird. "Everyone" is claiming it but you can't quote anyone with knowledge making the, you know, claim.

Then answer this... Why did Schiff directly address that allegation in the democratic memo, if it didn't exist and was never made?

I think it's your civic duty to call the congressman and every other democrat who keeps responding to that, and inform them that the claim was never made and they need to stop responding to it ASAP.


LOL. Funny that the GOP response didn't 'show' it to you or me or anyone else.

Irrelevant... Nobody in congress needs to respond to it, because it isn't secret or classified, so anyone with an internet browser can easily determine for themselves (those who seek the truth that is) that the claim by Schiff was bogus.

Here's a little common sense test for you....

Which of the following constitutes probable cause evidence that a person has committed a crime?

a) a person publicly denying allegations that he engaged in criminal conduct.
b) a person admitting publicly that the allegations of criminal conduct he was accused of are true.

If you answer includes "a", then you have failed common sense 101 and will have to repeat the course next semester.


.
 
As an aside, Strozk's animus displayed in his private emails discredits his credibility in opening an investigation and in using it to leverage surveillance into the Trump campaign.

I can't get the deniers around here to acknowledge the simple, common sense truths on this issue, so I wasn't about to introduce anything that required any level of honest thought or dialog.

I mean come on... I've been debating someone for 2 days who can't even acknowledge what the FBI and DOJ are accused of in the republican memo.... LMAO

.
 
Then answer this... Why did Schiff directly address that allegation in the democratic memo, if it didn't exist and was never made?

You quoted me, ignored the comment, then moved the goal posts. I'm sick of that game.

I think it's your civic duty to call the congressman and every other democrat who keeps responding to that, and inform them that the claim was never made and they need to stop responding to it ASAP.

I responded to this point in detail, which you ignored, and are now repeating the question. Asked and answered.

Irrelevant... Nobody in congress needs to respond to it, because it isn't secret or classified, so anyone with an internet browser can easily determine for themselves (those who seek the truth that is) that the claim by Schiff was bogus.

I've addressed this point many times, which you ignore, then proceed to repeat the same point, so I'll decline to repeat myself for the 11th time.

Here's a little common sense test for you....

I'd take your test, but I'm disappointed you've decided to argue in bad faith and that's not fun to engage at this point.
 
Back
Top Bottom