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

[Parrish]

Plainly stated. Never has someone under surveillance under FISA been exposed, by the House, no less, until Nunes and the WH did so. Even the WH lawyer issued a disclaimer to the "memo."

 

[GDViking]

God Bless Fox News.

There is no such thing as god and there is no such thing as "fox news"..
Both are as about as real as the easter bunny or sasquatch.

 

[Athanasius68]

If Mueller simply asks, "Did you try to fire me?"

If trump lies and says no... then its a pretty clear case of perjury.
If trump is honest says yes... then its a pretty clear case of obstruction.

Hence why trump's lawyers won't let him go under oath if they can help it.

Why?
Trump is head of the Executive Dept.
Mueller works in the Executive Dept.
Trump is thus Mueller's supervisor.

Trump asked about Mueller being fired. He was told 'no.' Mueller wasnt fired.
No obstruction.

 

[GDViking]

Why?
Trump is head of the Executive Dept.
Mueller works in the Executive Dept.
Trump is thus Mueller's supervisor.

Trump asked about Mueller being fired. He was told 'no.' Mueller wasnt fired.
No obstruction.

Truly you have a dizzying intellect....

 

[Parrish]

Just proof that 45's lawyers knows he's a liar.

 

[The Mark]

Just proof that 45's lawyers knows he's a liar.

At this point all but the most deluded know he's at least an accidental liar - as in, he forgets what is the truth but keeps talking anyways.

 

[Slyfox696]

Can you cite any evidence the FBI knew at that time exactly who paid the law firm that hired Steele? Just curious, but as I said I don't think it matters.

As to your last comment, you've got that 180 degrees wrong. The renewals were required to show the surveillance was yielding the expected intelligence. You also had several sets of people, including Trump appointees signing those renewals, and from what I've read four judges signing the original warrant and three renewals. So a series of people at DoJ, FBI, including Trump appointees agreed the warrant was proper, and four different judges reviewed the evidence.

It's hard to get something entirely wrong, but you managed it! Congrats!

It really does make a person wonder just how much some people get paid to post, doesn't it?

 

[JasperL]

In other words, you are applauding Trump being in this corner, out of purely partisan politics.

I'm not going to cry about Trump being put in a bind, because the memo, and his releasing it, was out of purely partisan politics. The men TRUMP APPOINTED to FBI and DoJ (Sessions didn't write the DoJ objection, but his former close aid did, so Sessions had to have signed off on the memo) both objected to the memo's release in very strong terms, and Trump ignored them. I hope he's in a bind, and that this reckless stunt by Trump and Nunes is politically devastating to Trump and the GOP that facilitated it.

 

[Checkerboard Strangler]

No way the Democrats would even consider setting a Trump trap. Impossible. Trump is a genius, the most intelligent president ever, and waaaaay too smart to fall into any trap.

According to Trump, we should not trust the FBI, the Justice Dept., the intelligence community, the press or even the lower courts. If you cannot admit that this smells like encroaching fascism, you're either a fascist or too ignorant to understand what fascism is and why it is incompatible with democracy.

 

[JasperL]

Lol ! The Dunez memo was very easy to understand and written in English too

How could anyone could come up with a " differing theory " on its meaning is ?

LOL, it was either incredibly poorly written, or was intended to be unclear so that people not paying attention could draw a number of conclusions without the memo actually asserting the conclusions they wanted people to make. I won't quote it, but the first charges about the funding are a good example. Nunes makes two claims.

1) The FBI didn't tell the court that the DNC and Hillary paid for the dossier.
2) That the FBI knew at the time that the "political origins" of the memo and that it involved "political actors."

So did the FBI know that the DNC paid for the dossier? The memo doesn't say. Did the FBI notify the court of what they knew about the funding at that time, and that its origins were political? It's unclear. We now know the FBI did tell the court that the dossier had political origins, but if you read the memo without paying attention, it's easy to assume that the FBI hid everything about the nature of the funding.

Another example - the memo includes several quotes about the verification status of the dossier as a whole (with an egregious misquote of Comey) but never actually asserts that the parts of the dossier relied on by FBI for the warrant were unverified when the warrant was submitted. So were the key elements of Steele's work included in the warrant request verified or not? You can't read the memo and figure it out.

So they set up a version of the old question - incompetently written and edited or deliberately misleading?

 

[Hawkeye10]

According to Trump, we should not trust the FBI, the Justice Dept., the intelligence community, the press or even the lower courts. If you cannot admit that this smells like encroaching fascism, you're either a fascist or too ignorant to understand what fascism is and why it is incompatible with democracy.

We should not trust the FBI based upon their poor crime lab performance on its own.

https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2015/04/csi-is-a-lie/390897/


OOPS!

 

[JasperL]

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.

What did the first memo reveal that we didn't already know? And the memo didn't allege anyone's civil liberties were violated, and you can't conclude it from that memo. We don't know what was in the warrant package beyond what the memo cited, which isn't all of the package. We also know the warrant was renewed three times, which indicates the initial warrant was getting the expected results, and it was signed/renewed by four different judges (all appointed to FISC by Roberts) and twice renewed by TRUMP APPOINTEES.

So the evidence the warrant or the renewals was just a witch hunt doesn't survive any factual scrutiny at all. Could be true, but the memo doesn't tell us enough to conclude that, and the later renewals provide evidence that in fact no one's civil liberties were violated.

You're a supposed "libertarian" so maybe your problem is with the process as a whole and not this case, but if so you should indicate that.

As a side note, Nunes is a lying hack who didn't personally review the intelligence on which his memo is based, and so that tarnishes the conclusions of the memo for a lot of us. As far as I'm concerned, with Nunes heading up the effort we might as well be reading a Breitbart article. Might be true, but I'm not going to trust their reporting on it.

 

[Linc]

LOL, it was either incredibly poorly written, or was intended to be unclear so that people not paying attention could draw a number of conclusions without the memo actually asserting the conclusions they wanted people to make. I won't quote it, but the first charges about the funding are a good example. Nunes makes two claims.

1) The FBI didn't tell the court that the DNC and Hillary paid for the dossier.
2) That the FBI knew at the time that the "political origins" of the memo and that it involved "political actors."

So did the FBI know that the DNC paid for the dossier? The memo doesn't say. Did the FBI notify the court of what they knew about the funding at that time, and that its origins were political? It's unclear. We now know the FBI did tell the court that the dossier had political origins, but if you read the memo without paying attention, it's easy to assume that the FBI hid everything about the nature of the funding.

Another example - the memo includes several quotes about the verification status of the dossier as a whole (with an egregious misquote of Comey) but never actually asserts that the parts of the dossier relied on by FBI for the warrant were unverified when the warrant was submitted. So were the key elements of Steele's work included in the warrant request verified or not? You can't read the memo and figure it out.

So they set up a version of the old question - incompetently written and edited or deliberately misleading?

First, the conservative British government is rallying behind their MI-6 agent.
Irreparable harm has been done to our world-wide intelligence gathering, as IT is MRSA--Making Russia Strong Again.

trickie dickie could have used nunes and ryan with this silent senate.
The huge myth out of Watergate is that GOPs were somehow noble in telling that particular IT to go.

GOPs suffered a string of special election losses in 1974 reminiscent of what's starting to happen now.
A DEM won in a Missouri state special last night in a district IT won by 28%.
That's what I'm keenly watching ...

[video]https://www.google.com/search?q=wind+of+change&rlz=1C1CAFA_enUS630US644&oq=wind+of+&aqs=chrome.0.0l2j69i60j69i57j69i61j0.8627j0j7&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8[/video]

 

[JasperL]

Only if they are ignorant of the processes that are involved and have also ignored all the information that has come out dating back to pre-election times, like the soft-peddling of the Clinton investigation and purposefully changing of a word from "negligent" to "careless" by a rabid anti-Trumper, which was then shown in texts, which involved talking about "insurance plans", which involved people who are married to a lady that was working for Fusion GPS, who was hired by the Dems and the Hillary campaign, which created a hit-piece of a "dossier", which was then used to spy on people.

^----all documented facts.

Yeah...you're right. This is nothing but a political stunt. Nothing to see here folks.

What does any of that have to do with the Carter Page warrant request and the trampling of his civil rights? Zero from what I can tell. :roll:

 

[JasperL]

Have you been given an example where one was run through for political reasons, which intentionally dishonest supporting documentation?

You're asserting those as facts, but they are not actually in the evidence anywhere. Identify your support for "intentionally dishonest supporting documentation" for example. It's not in the memo!

 

[Linc]

What does any of that have to do with the Carter Page warrant request and the trampling of his civil rights? Zero from what I can tell. :roll:

I can hardly wait for GOPs to run on defending a confirmed liar and traitor, carter page.
Toss in nunes, IT, ryan, and mcfilibuster and the 'wind of change' is a blowin' ...

 

[JasperL]

No one said that's all that was used. Just that it wouldn't have been approved without it and, in fact, it was previously rejected by the FISC. The real statement from you shouldn't have been "alone wasn't used" but should say, "shouldn't have been used at all".

Can you cite your legal arguments for the bolded claim? It's going to be tough, not having seen the warrant request and how the information was used and all..... Impossible is my guess.

 

[Linc]

We should not trust the FBI based upon their poor crime lab performance on its own.

https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2015/04/csi-is-a-lie/390897/


OOPS!

putin trusts and respects our FBI.
That's why putin and his bots are trying to undermine the very fabric of the USA, with the help of IT.
IT = incomprehensible trump.
IT is MRSA--Making Russia Strong Again ...

 

[JasperL]

I can hardly wait for GOPs to run on defending a confirmed liar and traitor, carter page.
Toss in nunes, IT, ryan, and mcfilibuster and the 'wind of change' is a blowin' ...

Appears to be - I saw the same result you did in MO, where a district won by Trump by 28% flipped to a democrat. 32% swing. :applaud

 

[Linc]

Appears to be - I saw the same result you did in MO, where a district won by Trump by 28% flipped to a democrat. 32% swing. :applaud

DEMs closed the gap in one of the losses versus IT's win by 39%.
That's how bad HRC did in MO, costing Kander a Senate seat against Blount.

DEMs didn't run any candidate in those 4 specials up tonight in 2016; tonight they contested all 4.
You've got to get closer in 2018 in some of these tough districts, then win in 2020 for redistricting ...

 

[Chomsky]

When a guy is so screwed-up he can't go to a legal interview, because he's not smart enough to be able to not lie, it would seem most anything can be a trap.

 

[PLizzy]

When a guy is so screwed-up he can't go to a legal interview, because he's not smart enough to be able to not lie, it would seem most anything can be a trap.

Everybody that supports Trump knows that he's a sloppy pathological liar, they just pretend like they can't see it themselves.

The line of questioning I think will be much more broad than expected, and I think any/all of the following questions could be raised during the interview.

1)Did Trump know about Michael Flynn lying to the FBI?
2)Did Trump know about Flynn being an agent of Turkey?
3)Did Trump ask Comey and Rosenstein for loyalty in the investigation?
4)Did Trump ask Mike Rogers and Dan Coats to persuade Comey to end the FBI Russia investigation?
5)Did Trump know about the meetings his campaign staff had with Russian nationals?
6)Did Trump attempt to fire Robert Mueller?
7)Why did Trump request the DOJ open new investigations into Clinton for political purposes?
8)Did Trump ask Andrew McCabe about his voting history?
9)Was Trump aware of Paul Manafort and Rick Gates legal issues during the campaign?
10)Did Trump help draft his sons false statements concerning the Trump Tower meeting with the Russian lawyer?
11)Was Trump aware of Carter Page and Paul Manafort being Russian agents?

And there's probably a few other's I forgot, but my goodness, does anyone really believe Trump can be honest in any/all of his responses to those questions? Fat chance, and his lawyers know it. Mueller's interview is a landmine for Trump, one which he is not smart enough to navigate without perjuring himself.

Now, just as there was a fight for Nixon's tapes, there is about to be a very nasty battle for Trump big fat mouth.:lamo

 

[trouble13]

Yes, and there were five releases of Sharknado. They didn't get any better. The first Sharknado was far more exciting and a better use of time than the Nunes Memo I.

Sharknado changed my life.

Sent from my SM-T800 using Tapatalk

 

[Oborosen]

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.

Seeing as the whole wikileaks release and the email scandal in total. Didn't even cause the Dems to break their stride.

Their best case scenario to catch either the Dems or Hillary, is if they commit blatant murder and even that is something that I am not 100% sure of.

 

[tres borrachos]

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.

Huh? How did the memo benefit them massively? It didn't do anything for Independents, who are smart enough to see it was a flop, and you people in his base are going to adore him no matter what.