Dems set Trump trap? Source says FISA rebuttal memo loaded with sensitive details

[apdst]

Ok- Tell me what the repercussions are?- what the blowback will be?

The repercussion could be jail time for a few people.

Strzok, Page, Ohr and McCabe were all punished. None of them are innocent victims. What we aren't sure of at this point, is just how far they went and how many laws they broke.

 

[apdst]

Whatsa matter? Just couldn't stay on topic?

Truth hurt?

 

[JMR]

Trump has three choices ... each with downsides;

1. Refuse to release the memo. >The political downside is obvious.

2. Release the memo with no redactions. >Releasing sensitive and classified intelligence-gathering information.

3. Redact and release. >There is no way to know for certain if the redacted material(s) are of a political or intelligence nature.

It was stated today that the democratic memo was sent to the FBI for their perusal and redaction of highly sensitive and classified material...before it gets to Trump. So anything redacted after that will be because the White House doesn't like what it says.

Schiff told reporters that Democrats had already provided copies of their memo to the FBI and Justice Department for review, a step he noted Republicans refused to take. He said he wants to ensure that any redactions to the memo are made by professional at those agencise rather than by the White House "for political purposes."

https://www.politico.com/story/2018/02/05/house-panel-backs-release-of-democratic-memo-on-fbi-392255

 

[JANFU]

The repercussion could be jail time for a few people.

Strzok, Page, Ohr and McCabe were all punished. None of them are innocent victims. What we aren't sure of at this point, is just how far they went and how many laws they broke.

And what are they guilty of

 

[Slyfox696]

Or he could just declassify it all.

I guess that would depend on if there are any Russians in the room.

 

[JMR]

since even the republican memo was edited by the FBI and changed i am not sure what sort of stink he would raise.

I do not believe the republican memo was edited by the FBI before release to Trump. Please provide a source for that info. Thanks.

 

[ludin]

I do not believe the republican memo was edited by the FBI before release to Trump. Please provide a source for that info. Thanks.

go read a actual news source instead of the liberal blog crap you evidently read.
It was in the news for days that there were edits made to the memo from the fbi before it was released.

 

[lurchadams]

Dems set Trump trap? Source says FISA rebuttal memo loaded with sensitive details | Fox News



So predictable.

Schiff intentionally fills the Dem memo with items that he knows must be redacted so he can later claim the GOP made changes to his memo "for political reasons."

They should call his bluff. Just release it with redactions, let Schiff raise a stink, then release it again in its original form. Let the people see his corrupt tactics out in the open.

If the Dems were intentionally trying to set a trap then why did all the Republicans on the committee unanimously vote to release the Dem's memo?

 

[The Mark]

But Obama's DOJ and FBI did not put country over party politics.

The problem with making that determination in these sort of cases, is that the definition of what "country over party politics (or the reverse)" means is just as malleable as political positions themselves.

And is modified as needed to allow proper bashing of the opponents.

 

[MTAtech]

It benefitted them MASSIVELY among independents and his base. There was a mountain of damning information in there; otherwise, the Democrats who saw it wouldn't have been screaming about its release. This post-release strategy of the Dems is only being bought by the way far left, like this zoo of a message board.

And next comes the memo on the State Department (Hillary). It's only just begun.

Well, not [FONT=&quot]according to a[/FONT] Quinnipiac poll re[FONT=&quot]leased[/FONT] today.

• 56 - 37 percent that Trump is attempting to derail the Russian investigation;
• 49 - 42 percent that Republicans in Congress are trying to derail the Russian probe;
• 54 - 39 percent that the investigation is legitimate rather than a witch hunt.

[...] The FBI is not biased against Trump, voters say 55 - 33 percent.


"Special Counsel Robert Mueller is not out to get President Donald Trump, American voters say, but they do feel the president is out to get Mueller," said Tim Malloy, assistant director of the Quinnipiac University Poll. "And almost half of voters think Republicans in Congress are trying to obstruct the Russian investigation.

Voters already believe Trump is trying to obstruct justice by a 53-41 percent margin, including 56 percent of independent voters.

 

[JMR]

go read a actual news source instead of the liberal blog crap you evidently read.
It was in the news for days that there were edits made to the memo from the fbi before it was released.

Yes, I read a variety of news sources, thank you for the tip. Politico is rated left of center with HIGH factual reporting by Media Bias Fact Check. I will not comment on what you read, because you haven't linked any source.

The Republican memo was given to the White House, and then the FBI. So my statement stands.

I hope you can understand the difference, as Trump will now receive a memo already redacted by the FBI. Any further edits will need to be explained.

 

[Fenton]

The lie with charge 1(a) in the memo did a lot for the credibility of the Nunes memo, and Nunes, and the GOP members of the HPSCI who voted to release that memo.

Wait, so the FBI did tell the FISC court that the dossier was funded by the Hillary campaign and the DNC ?

You sure ?

 

[The Mark]

Wait, so the FBI did tell the FISC court that the dossier was funded by the Hillary campaign and the DNC ?

You sure ?

That is my understanding.


Edit: FISA court knew Steele dossier was politically motivated, debunking Nunes memo - Business Insider
Is one example of that info.

But The Washington Post reported late Friday night that the court that approved the warrant was aware at the time that the dossier's production was politically motivated.

One official with knowledge of the matter told The Post that the DOJ made "ample disclosure of relevant, material facts" to the FISC which revealed "the research was being paid for by a political entity."

"No thinking person who read any of these applications would come to any other conclusion" other than that the dossier's production was carried out "at the behest of people with a partisan aim and that it was being done in opposition to Trump," they added.

Edit2: Another take: https://theintercept.com/2018/02/02/nunes-memo-fisa-trump-russia/

 

[Winston]

Well, not [FONT="]according to a[/FONT][/COLOR] [URL="https://poll.qu.edu/national/release-detail?ReleaseID=2517"]Quinnipiac poll[/URL] re[FONT="]leased[/FONT][/COLOR] today.


Voters already believe Trump is trying to obstruct justice by a [U][URL="https://www.dailykos.com/stories/2018/2/6/1739228/-Majority-of-Americans-say-Trump-has-tried-to-derail-or-obstruct-the-Russia-probe"]53-41 percent margin[/URL][/U], including 56 percent of independent voters.

Conservatives only believe polls that tell them what they want to hear. So, unless you take an exit poll at CPAC, don't bother.

 

[Linc]

Conservatives only believe polls that tell them what they want to hear. So, unless you take an exit poll at CPAC, don't bother.

Every time trump opens his mouth it's a perjury trap.

He's on record admitting lying to a grand jury in 2007 ...

 

[upsideguy]

Dems set Trump trap? Source says FISA rebuttal memo loaded with sensitive details | Fox News



So predictable.

Schiff intentionally fills the Dem memo with items that he knows must be redacted so he can later claim the GOP made changes to his memo "for political reasons."

They should call his bluff. Just release it with redactions, let Schiff raise a stink, then release it again in its original form. Let the people see his corrupt tactics out in the open.

Like last Friday's set of corrupt tactics?

 

[Linc]

That is my understanding.


Edit: FISA court knew Steele dossier was politically motivated, debunking Nunes memo - Business Insider
Is one example of that info.


Edit2: Another take: https://theintercept.com/2018/02/02/nunes-memo-fisa-trump-russia/

They want links until you supply them.
Then they attack your links.
damn yer links :lamo

 

[Fenton]

That is my understanding.


Edit: FISA court knew Steele dossier was politically motivated, debunking Nunes memo - Business Insider
Is one example of that info.


Edit2: Another take: https://theintercept.com/2018/02/02/nunes-memo-fisa-trump-russia/

Again, the DOJ and FBI didn't tell FISC that Hillary Clintons campaign and the DNC paid for the dossier

Alluding to possible political motivations of the source ( Christopher Steele ) is not the same as telling the Court the opposition candidate funded that dossier.

This idea that the Obama FBI ( who knew they were submitting unverified allegations paid for by the Clinton camp to gain a FISA warrant to spy on the oppposition candidate ) were acting in good in faith in their FISA application is absurd.

 

[upsideguy]

go read a actual news source instead of the liberal blog crap you evidently read.
It was in the news for days that there were edits made to the memo from the fbi before it was released.

Cite please....

 

[Fishking]

The GOP and Trump put themselves in this situation by releasing the first memo, which didn't benefit them much if at all. Foresight and strategy go a long way in national politics......

The first memo should have made more of an impact but apparently people don't care if civil liberties are violated so long as it's being done in favor of their team.

 

[The Mark]

Again, the DOJ and FBI didn't tell FISC that Hillary Clintons campaign and the DNC paid for the dossier

Alluding to possible political motivations of the source ( Christopher Steele ) is not the same as telling the Court the opposition candidate funded that dossier.

This idea that the Obama FBI ( who knew they were submitting unverified allegations paid for by the Clinton camp to gain a FISA warrant to spy on the oppposition candidate ) were acting in good in faith in their FISA application is absurd.

You're gonna need some special shampoo for all those split hairs.


Edit: I will agree that the article I linked does not say with 100% surety that the FBI flatly stated to the FISC "the Clinton campaign paid for this info we're presenting to you", but the FISC WAS fully aware that it was politically motivated, and thus had to be more closely examined due to the potential bias.

Edit 2: Here's the Washington Post article that the Business Insider article references, and a quote from it:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/worl...sa-10pm:homepage/story&utm_term=.7341e804ed41

If the FISA application to surveil Page referred to funding by political opponents “or included similar references that revealed a motivation against then-
candidate Trump, even if they did not name the DNC . . . then the FISA applications would be fine,” said David Kris, a FISA expert who led the Justice Department’s National Security Division from 2009 to 2011.

Further, even if we accept that the dossier was/is suspect in it's motivations, that article from The Intercept that I linked in my previous post mentions that the FBI was not only using it to ask for the warrant, and came back with new info indicating progress each time they asked for renewal of the warrant.

 

[MTAtech]

Again, the DOJ and FBI didn't tell FISC that Hillary Clintons campaign and the DNC paid for the dossier

Alluding to possible political motivations of the source ( Christopher Steele ) is not the same as telling the Court the opposition candidate funded that dossier.

This idea that the Obama FBI ( who knew they were submitting unverified allegations paid for by the Clinton camp to gain a FISA warrant to spy on the oppposition candidate ) were acting in good in faith in their FISA application is absurd.

First, it doesn't matter. Anybody looking at the body of evidence collected on Page would find that there is sufficient evidence to approve a warrant.
Second, "motivations" aren't a reason to exclude evidence to obtain a warrant. Most evidence in warrant matters have motivations. There is no requirement that the source be disinterested.
Third, Steele worked for Fusion GPS, not the Clinton campaign nor the DNC. He had no knowledge of who the client was. Moreover, it wouldn't matter if he did. Sources with evident need not be impartial. We've gone over this endlessly.

 

[Khayembii Communique]

Can someone please explain to me how this was a trap when the Republican reps on the HPSCI read the memo and authorized its release?

 

[The Mark]

Can someone please explain to me how this was a trap when the Republican reps on the HPSCI read the memo and authorized its release?

Possible they didn't see the trap until it was too late, assuming there is one.

Bit of a stretch, IMO.

 

[Slyfox696]

The first memo should have made more of an impact but apparently people don't care if civil liberties are violated so long as it's being done in favor of their team.

Or maybe, just maybe, people saw the first memo as the political stunt it was?