• 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!

Nunes Statemen on Release of HPSCI Memo

Chomsky said:
Perhaps.

But did they corroborate that information, then present that to the judge?
Click to expand...

No.
4) According to the head of the counterintelligence division, Assistant Director Bill Priestap, corroboration of the Steele dossier was in its “infancy” at the time of the initial Page FISA application. After Steele was terminated, a source validation report conducted by an independent unit within FBI assessed Steele’s reporting as only minimally corroborated.​
 
iguanaman said:
You keep acting like Steele is some kind of Democratic operative with no proof. The reality is that Steele is a very respected member of the intelligence community and would be very unlikely to jeopardize that standing by writing a bunch of unsubstantiated BS. That aside the renewals indicate that there was pertinent information coming from the surveillance.
Click to expand...

Yet, in early January 2017, Director Comey briefed President-elect Trump on a summary of the Steele dossier, even though it was – according to his June 2017 testimony – “salacious and unverified.” While the FISA application relied on Steele’s past record of credible reporting on other unrelated matters, it ignored or concealed his anti-Trump financial and ideological motivations. Furthermore, Deputy Director McCabe testified before the Committee in December 2017 that no surveillance warrant would have been sought from the FISC without the Steele dossier information.​
 
bubbabgone said:
No.
4) According to the head of the counterintelligence division, Assistant Director Bill Priestap, corroboration of the Steele dossier was in its “infancy” at the time of the initial Page FISA application. After Steele was terminated, a source validation report conducted by an independent unit within FBI assessed Steele’s reporting as only minimally corroborated.​
Click to expand...
So there was indeed some corroboration, though it was "minimal"?

Meaning what? Two of the dozens of claims? Three? We're they the claims concerning Page?

See what I'm getting at here?
 
ksu_aviator said:
https://intelligence.house.gov/news/documentsingle.aspx?DocumentID=856

The House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence today made public a committee memo with information on abuses of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act. Chairman Nunes issued the following statement:

“The Committee has discovered serious violations of the public trust, and the American people have a right to know when officials in crucial institutions are abusing their authority for political purposes. Our intelligence and law enforcement agencies exist to defend the American people, not to be exploited to target one group on behalf of another. It is my hope that the Committee’s actions will shine a light on this alarming series of events so we can make reforms that allow the American people to have full faith and confidence in their governing institutions.”
And the actual Memo

https://intelligence.house.gov/uploadedfiles/memo_and_white_house_letter.pdf

I haven't read it. It just came out minutes ago.
Click to expand...

Notice what he says thought....

The Committee has discovered serious violations of the public trust...
Click to expand...

He doesn't mention procedural violations. He doesn't even suggest that national security was a concern. Of course, he words the memo in such a way as to suggest that the American people are being lied to, but when the man you're attempting to support and defend has himself told well over 2,000 lies to the American people as reported by such sources as Esquire Magazine - a non-partisan men's magazine - it'S difficult for Americans to believe the FBI lied to them when the POTUS does it damned near on a daily basis.
 
Chomsky said:
In a bunch of nothing, that above could be something, but only if it was not corroborated in some manner.

Do we know this? Did the Nunes' document specify this? Was this one of the things the Dems claim is missing?


What does it matter who paid for it? The judge is weighing the evidence.

And why did Steele dislike Trump? (not the it should matter) Could it be because his research indicated Trump was in bed with Russia?

What we have here, is a story woven by one Trump supporter, based upon second hand data (if that) only seen by one other fellow Trump supporter, and we will never see the underlying evidence the story was based upon. So essentially, a die-hard Trump supporter weaves a tale of unsupported allegations.

I think it will be interesting seeing what the Dems claim Nunes' left out or mis-characterized. Of course that will be just another unsupported narrative, only be two anti-Trumpers. After that, will we be able to say we're enlightened? I doubt it.
Click to expand...

The proof that this is nothing but biased, unsupported, partisan drivel is that instead of going to the FISA court and filing charges they do this. If they have a problem with the FISA court decision you would think they would go to them.
 
Chomsky said:
In a bunch of nothing, that above could be something, but only if it was not corroborated in some manner.
Click to expand...

It's seriously not a bunch of nothing unless you have decided that the essential protection of US citizens is of little concern to you.

Do we know this? Did the Nunes' document specify this? Was this one of the things the Dems claim is missing?
Click to expand...

COMEY corroborated this.

From his June 2017 Testimony:

"I first met then-President-Elect Trump on Friday, January 6 in a conference room at Trump Tower in New York. I was there with other Intelligence Community (IC) leaders to brief him and his new national security team on the findings of an IC assessment concerning Russian efforts to interfere in the election. At the conclusion of that briefing, I remained alone with the President Elect to brief him on some personally sensitive aspects of the information assembled during the assessment.

The IC leadership thought it important, for a variety of reasons, to alert the incoming President to the existence of this material, even though it was salacious and unverified. Among those reasons were: (1) we knew the media was about to publicly report the material and we believed the IC should not keep knowledge of the material and its imminent release from the President-Elect; and (2) to the extent there was some effort to compromise an incoming President, we could blunt any such effort with a defensive briefing."

So as of January 2017 the Steele Dossier was "salacious and unverified" ... and yet it was the centerpiece of the FISA warrants in 2016.


What does it matter who paid for it? The judge is weighing the evidence.
Click to expand...

What evidence? The FISA warrant used the Steele Dossier as the evidence and then vouched for the accuracy of the dossier by using a Yahoo News article that used Steele as their unnamed source (Steele testified to that before the committee)

And why did Steele dislike Trump? (not the it should matter) Could it be because his research indicated Trump was in bed with Russia?
Click to expand...

It actually should matter. When the FBI is using an informant who admits to such bias you should take what they provide with a grain of salt. They refused to even pass that information to FISA.

What we have here, is a story woven by one Trump supporter, based upon second hand data (if that) only seen by one other fellow Trump supporter, and we will never see the underlying evidence the story was based upon. So essentially, a die-hard Trump supporter weaves a tale of unsupported allegations.
Click to expand...

False. The HIC is not "One Trump Supporter", what we have here is a lot of Collusion junkies getting withdrawal sweats.

I think it will be interesting seeing what the Dems claim Nunes' left out or mis-characterized. Of course that will be just another unsupported narrative, only be two anti-Trumpers. After that, will we be able to say we're enlightened? I doubt it.
Click to expand...

Well, seeing as how Schiff refused to present his memo to the committee members before asking for a vote, I won't hold my breath.
 
Objective Voice said:
Notice what he says thought....



He doesn't mention procedural violations. He doesn't even suggest that national security was a concern. Of course, he words the memo in such a way as to suggest that the American people are being lied to, but when the man you're attempting to support and defend has himself told well over 2,000 lies to the American people as reported by such sources as Esquire Magazine - a non-partisan men's magazine - it'S difficult for Americans to believe the FBI lied to them when the POTUS does it damned near on a daily basis.
Click to expand...

There are other considerations here. This information may end up being used in a court of law. If the committee appears to have concluded that laws were broken, that might be cause for dismissal as the people on trial could argue they can't get a fair trial. Why jeopardize that for a blurb that almost no one is reading. Everyone is reading the memo. You won't find the blurb on any news channel.

As for your last sentence, why don't you list each lie for each day this week. I'll even let you start on Monday. Be sure to show definitive proof that each is a lie.
 
Winston said:
Tip of the iceberg situation. Why did Trump fabricate a false story about adoption then?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Click to expand...

What in the world are you talking about?
 
ksu_aviator said:
Um...they had read it. They knew what was in it. The claims of national security were desperate attempts by Nancy Pelosi and company to find a legitimate reason to vote against the release of information that was already out there. The memo legitimizes everything that has been reported that was called a conspiracy theory. We now know there is no evidence of Trump/Russia collusion but there was Clinton/FBI collusion and possibly conspiracy.
Click to expand...

The memo is just a memo it isnt proof. It is still a conspiracy theory and propaganda put out by the Trump team. The memo and its release, the way it was done makes me even more suspicious that Trump is doing something very bad that needs to come to light.

I mean this is grandstanding on a new level. And I cant help to think; its just a ****ing memo written by a biased person. Of course Trump supporters believe that memo, myself I dont really believe it without actual evidence. Until some actual evidence is brought forward its just BS propaganda. But heres the kicker if the memo is false that will make all this a different type of evidence.
 
FreedomFromAll said:
The memo is just a memo it isnt proof. It is still a conspiracy theory and propaganda put out by the Trump team. The memo and its release, the way it was done makes me even more suspicious that Trump is doing something very bad that needs to come to light.

I mean this is grandstanding on a new level. And I cant help to think; its just a ****ing memo written by a biased person. Of course Trump supporters believe that memo, myself I dont really believe it without actual evidence. Until some actual evidence is brought forward its just BS propaganda. But heres the kicker if the memo is false that will make all this a different type of evidence.
Click to expand...

lol...ok...sure.
 
Winston said:
Since you're all for revealing crimes both related and unrelated to the purpose of the investigation, we can conclude you'd be perfectly okay with mueller's probe recommending an indictment for unrelated financial crimes of Trump, correct?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Click to expand...

What makes you think I'm all for revealing crimes both related and unrelated to the purpose of the investigation? Heck, I don't even know what sort of crimes you are referring to.

Anyway, no...I think Mueller should limit himself to the mandate of his special investigation...which is the effect Russia had on our election. Things like unrelated financial crimes are more properly the province of the regular FBI or other agencies. Now...if the regular FBI finds things the DOJ considers important or concerning, then they should convene a special investigation for that purpose.
 
Tanngrisnir said:
He brings to mind Grima Wormtongue.

View attachment 67228007
Click to expand...

Well there is hope then since Grima got his eventual revenge on his master and the idea of Trump going round and round on that spiked device at the foot of Isengard has a great deal of appeal to it.

Symbolically - of course. ;)
 
ksu_aviator said:
What in the world are you talking about?
Click to expand...

Trump made up an excuse. If it was like you said, no big deal, he wouldn't have fabricated a story.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
Mycroft said:
What makes you think I'm all for revealing crimes both related and unrelated to the purpose of the investigation? Heck, I don't even know what sort of crimes you are referring to.

Anyway, no...I think Mueller should limit himself to the mandate of his special investigation...which is the effect Russia had on our election. Things like unrelated financial crimes are more properly the province of the regular FBI or other agencies. Now...if the regular FBI finds things the DOJ considers important or concerning, then they should convene a special investigation for that purpose.
Click to expand...

Reread the post I quoted. Your own words dispute you.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
Josie said:
If I'm reading this correctly, the FBI wanted so desperately for Trump to not win that they created the dossier in order to get a judge to allow surveillance on the Trump admin to try to thwart the election. Is that right?
Click to expand...

And then the released a bogus memo weeks before the election that likely helped Trump win, which then amounted to absolutely nothing. Yeah, that same FBI is just making stuff up

It's comical how pathetic these people are. And law enforcement people tend to have more conservative leanings in general
 
iguanaman said:
You keep acting like Steele is some kind of Democratic operative with no proof. The reality is that Steele is a very respected member of the intelligence community and would be very unlikely to jeopardize that standing by writing a bunch of unsubstantiated BS. That aside the renewals indicate that there was pertinent information coming from the surveillance.
Click to expand...

Not only that... but Steele is BRITISH, and has no specific allegiance to the US at all.

He’s merely making our intelligence services aware of a potential issue, something thst the entire Trump team not only didn’t do, but repeatedly lied about.
 
ksu_aviator said:
What in the world are you talking about?
Click to expand...
You cannot be asking this question and expect to be taken seriously.

Sent from Donald Trump's Twitter account using Vladimir Putin's computer.
 
Winston said:
Reread the post I quoted. Your own words dispute you.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Click to expand...

I mentioned five different investigations. They all deal with different things, but I think they will provide evidence that relate to each other. Furthermore, I made no suggestion that I think any one of those five investigations should go into unrelated directions...which is what you seem to want Mueller to do.

You referred to "the investigation". Maybe you should be clear just which investigation you are referring to.
 
Sampson Simpson said:
And then the released a bogus memo weeks before the election that likely helped Trump win, which then amounted to absolutely nothing. Yeah, that same FBI is just making stuff up

It's comical how pathetic these people are. And law enforcement people tend to have more conservative leanings in general
Click to expand...

No kidding. Mueller is a registered Republican appointed by GW Bush. Strzok supported the reopening of the Hillary investigation just 11 days before the election yet they claim they are all biased against Republicans.

https://www.axios.com/fbi-agent-peter-strzok-supported-reopening-clinton-email-investigation-0a264db1-b693-484d-950d-7c76adc3ec8b.html
 
Mycroft said:
Remember...this is just the beginning. Not the end.

1. Don't believe for a moment that the House Intel committee investigation is over.

2. There are three more Congressional committee investigations going.

3. There is a DOJ OIG investigation in the process of being completed.

Just based on this summary, alone, I'd say that a number of current and former DOJ and FBI employees need to be charged with political corruption by use of the FISA Court system. I also suspect those other investigations are going to reveal corroborating evidence and evidence of other, related and unrelated, crimes.
Click to expand...

Are u going to admit you were lying and weaseling out of answering my follow up question?

So u do accept unrelated crimes or not?



Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
Josie said:
If I'm reading this correctly, the FBI wanted so desperately for Trump to not win that they created the dossier in order to get a judge to allow surveillance on the Trump admin to try to thwart the election. Is that right?
Click to expand...

No, not even close.
An operative, (Steele) hated Trump, FBI looked at what he had and, Steele's Trump hatred aside, agreed that there was something rotten in Denmark.
If you're the FBI and you uncover something, even if it is supplied intentionally OR accidentally by a person who LOVES Trump, if something's rotten, you investigate.
And it doesn't matter, and shouldn't matter, what the person supplying you the intelligence, FEELS.
That's because FEELINGS can and do CHANGE, but the TRUTH never does.

Feelings and belief are ZERO, because to the FBI, and to all law enforcement,
JUST THE FACTS, MA'AM, is all that matters, and the FBI had reason to believe some of the facts alluded to in the memo might have legs.

So they took out warrants.
The truth will prevail, because if it doesn't, it means Trump is actually ABOVE THE LAW, and that ain't good in a democracy.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom