2016 Election • Administrative State • America • American Conservatism • Big Media • Congress • Conservatives • Deep State • Democrats • Donald Trump • Elections • GOPe • Government Reform • Hillary Clinton • Identity Politics • Intelligence Community • Law and Order • Political Parties • political philosophy • Post • Progressivism • Republicans • Russia • self-government • separation of powers • statesmanship • The Constitution • The Courts • The Culture • The Left • The Media • the Presidency • The Resistance (Snicker) • Trump White House • Uncategorized

Schiff Losing the Memo Wars

[fusion_builder_container hundred_percent=”no” hundred_percent_height=”no” hundred_percent_height_scroll=”no” hundred_percent_height_center_content=”yes” equal_height_columns=”no” menu_anchor=”” hide_on_mobile=”small-visibility,medium-visibility,large-visibility” class=”” id=”” background_color=”” background_image=”” background_position=”center center” background_repeat=”no-repeat” fade=”no” background_parallax=”none” enable_mobile=”no” parallax_speed=”0.3″ video_mp4=”” video_webm=”” video_ogv=”” video_url=”” video_aspect_ratio=”16:9″ video_loop=”yes” video_mute=”yes” video_preview_image=”” border_size=”” border_color=”” border_style=”solid” margin_top=”” margin_bottom=”” padding_top=”” padding_right=”” padding_bottom=”” padding_left=””][fusion_builder_row][fusion_builder_column type=”1_1″ layout=”1_1″ spacing=”” center_content=”no” link=”” target=”_self” min_height=”” hide_on_mobile=”small-visibility,medium-visibility,large-visibility” class=”” id=”” background_color=”” background_image=”” background_position=”left top” background_repeat=”no-repeat” hover_type=”none” border_size=”0″ border_color=”” border_style=”solid” border_position=”all” padding=”” dimension_margin=”” animation_type=”” animation_direction=”left” animation_speed=”0.3″ animation_offset=”” last=”no”][fusion_text]

[/fusion_text][fusion_text]

U.S. Rep. Adam Schiff (D-Calif.) launched the third salvo in the “Great Memo Wars” over the weekend, and after overshooting his target, it’s apparent that the Democrats either didn’t know what they were doing when they released their rebuttal memo on so-called “Russian collusion,” or they were again seeking to create confusion or misdirection.

Perhaps unwittingly, however, Democrats did confirm a couple of the main facts related to use of the Fusion GPS/Steele dossier’s role in securing FISA warrants for Carter Page and the broader Russian investigation.

In sum, the Democrats admitted that Department of Justice and FBI used a piece of partisan propaganda to secure a legal warrant to spy on U.S. citizens on U.S. soil. In addition, that the DOJ and FBI obtained this warrant via a falsified application filled with lies of omission about the deeply partisan nature of the dossier’s author and funders.

Democrats argue in the Schiff memo that the dossier compiled by ex-spy Christopher Steele played only a narrow role in securing the warrant. But this claim stands at odds with the Grassley-Graham memo which states: “Then on March 17, 2017, the Chairman and Ranking Member were provided two relevant FISA applications, which requested authority to conduct surveillance of Carter Page. Both relied heavily on Mr. Steele’s dossier claims.”

Steele has admitted, under oath, that he received and included “unsolicited-and unverified-allegations” in his dossier. Yet the DOJ and FBI still used this dossier, filled with misinformation from unknown Russian sources and unverified allegations, and used it to secure a FISA warrant. It doesn’t matter if you believe the Democrats or Senators Grassley and Graham as to the extent the dossier was used: all parties agree it was used for the FISA warrant.

It’s noteworthy that despite current claims that the dossier was narrowly used, Democrats felt distinctly different about it a year ago. Schiff had it read into the Congressional Record, with CNN breathlessly reporting that there was in fact a dossier used to secure a warrant to spy on a Trump associate. These same Democrats and their allies in the mainstream media are now back-pedaling faster than an outfielder who underestimated a fly ball. They sold the American people on the unquestionable veracity of this earth-shattering dossier, but now they can’t downplay its importance enough.

While the Democrat memo is a sad attempt to distance the Democrats and the Left from the dossier, it’s notable that in its 10 pages, the memo is deafeningly silent on the issue of Deputy Director Andrew McCabe’s testimony in front of the House Intel Committee in December 2017. According to the Nunes memo, McCabe testified that “no surveillance warrant would have been sought from the FISC [Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court] without the Steele dossier information.” Democrats on the House Intel Committee have claimed in media appearances that Nunes’ claim is untrue, yet not one attempt existed in their memo to refute McCabe’s claim.

The dossier wasn’t just used once to renew applications for a FISA warrant. Instead, usage of the dossier occurred multiple times, potentially four times according to the Nunes’ memo. Consider the timeline of what took place: On October 21, 2016, the FBI applied for and received a FISA warrant to spy on Page using the dossier (how pivotal the dossier may have been in the request to the court doesn’t matter; it was used). Then fast forward to early January 2017, when James Comey testified under oath that he described the dossier to then-President-elect Trump as “salacious and unverified.” But remember that with FISA warrants there are 90-day renewals. Sometime later in January, Comey signed off on a renewal application that used, according to the Nunes memo and Grassley-Graham memo, that very same salacious and unverified dossier as part of its justification.

The Grassley-Graham memo states that the FISA applications, two of which they had in hand, relied heavily on the Steele dossier. This likely means that in the first 90 days of spying on Carter Page, there was little that was legally compelling gained from that surveillance and monitoring. There was not enough to buttress FBI and DOJ efforts for renewal of the warrant. Therefore, the dossier again became justification.

Lest we forget, in this entire process, securing a FISA warrant is supposed to be, as Andrew McCarthy of National Review has pointed out, a last, extreme measure. It does not appear that the FBI attempted to interview Carter Page at any juncture, despite having a previous relationship with him. Instead, according to the Nunes’ memo, the dossier was used in every FISA application by the DOJ and FBI; every 90 days, four times, meaning over the course of 360 days of spying on Carter Page, they were still having to use an unsubstantiated and unverified piece of partisan propaganda to justify their continued spying.

It’s important to note, Page was not necessarily the only victim here. With Page’s phones tapped and his online activities monitored, it’s quite likely that over a year’s time potentially hundreds of innocent Americans had their private conversations monitored and their privacy invaded. Anyone who contacted Page or contacted by Page ended up swept up in this investigation.

Now we got to where we’re at in this entire back and forth because someone lied to somebody along the way and likely for political purposes. Despite the claims of the Schiff memo that the Justice Department and FBI were “transparent” about where the dossier originated, the paragraph dealing with the subject reads: “An identified US Person, who indicated to Source #1 that a US-based law firm had hired the identified US person to conduct research regarding Candidate #1’s ties to Russia. . . The identified US person hired Source #1 to conduct this research. . . The FBI speculates that the identified US person was likely looking for information that could be used to discredit Candidate #1’s campaign.”

There’s a very simple term for the above words: lies of omission. Such as in never stating that the Hillary Clinton campaign and the DNC were involved in the funding of the dossier by paying a law firm to commission it.

Yet the question does remain as to where the lying began. It is safe to speculate that it occurred when the FISA application had to be signed off on by the Justice Department and FBI lawyers at the very beginning. They would have seen the supporting documents and would have known the source of the dossier. It’s important to note that these lawyers are not junior level lawyers, but senior level, and ones who deal with the FISA courts on a weekly, if not daily basis. It is potentially at that juncture that the FISA application documents were in fact falsified through lies of omission.

The entire process of the FISA courts is based on the honesty and integrity of senior lawyers and management at the Justice Department and the FBI. If federal agents and prosecutors fooled the FISA judges by lying about the source of the underlying documents (i.e., the dossier), the trust between Justice, the FBI, and the FISC courts must now be shattered. If, God forbid, the FISC judges knew who funded the dossier and still approved the FISA warrants, then we are living in a police state where fake partisan dossiers can be used as justification for spying on American citizens.

None of the scenarios are good as to what took place with the Steele dossier and the FISA warrant process. What is becoming clear, however, is that people at the Justice Department and FBI need to be investigated, prosecuted, and the guilty parties must serve jail time. At minimum, the entire FISA regime needs to be re-examined and likely reformed. If there are no serious investigations, and no serious reform, then we are imperiling the rule of law, and allowing the unelected bureaucrats in federal law enforcement to further erode the republic.

[/fusion_text][/fusion_builder_column][/fusion_builder_row][/fusion_builder_container]

134 replies
  1. hamburgertoday2017
    hamburgertoday2017 says:

    The FISC judge(s) who approved the original warrant and subsequent renewals did not have to be ‘in the know’ they simply needed to be incompetent. Critical to the failure was using Steele’s ‘good will’ with the FBI as a basis of support for the uncorroborated hearsay evidence of Steele’s informants.

    All that Steele’s ‘character’ could ever be used to support was that he faithfully transmitted the hearsay. His (now tarnished) professional credentials could not be used to corroborate the testimony of his informants. This is basic to the rules of evidence in any US court, including FISC. If FISC judges allowed Steele’s credentials to corroborate the hearsay testimony, the judges are, at the very least, incompetent.

    It’s also possible that they acted with malice, in this case in for the purpose of furthering a political agenda. This is why Representative Nunes is seeking the warrant applications from the FISC: To determine what exactly was presented to the FISC.

          • NoPasaran
            NoPasaran says:

            If all you care about is party affiliation, take a survey of the past voting habits of prisoners, rapists, and drug dealers.

            If you perceive it as some sort of identity determinism, like all racist simpletons do, then you need to realize that people are not like various breeds of dogs with predictable personality traits.

            You are an oaf.

          • Beware of Florida Man
            Beware of Florida Man says:

            HAHA!! Why hasn’t anyone ever taken or given a survey on just that? Also, groups are predictable.

    • Dave781
      Dave781 says:

      Of course the evidence was uncorroborated – that is why they needed the search warrant, so they could gather further evidence to corroborate or disprove the uncorroborated evidence. You are setting up a straw man by pretending that the FISA hearing was a trial.

      • ClassicalStrings
        ClassicalStrings says:

        That’s fallacious thinking. The FBI is supposed to verify that every word in a FISA application is true before it’s submitted.

      • RRDRRD
        RRDRRD says:

        Interesting straw man yourself, there Dave. Hamburgertoday is basing his statement on the rules for obtaining a FISA warrant, which have been widely publicized in recent weeks.

        • Dave781
          Dave781 says:

          So the FBI cannot surveil a suspected Russian spy until they prove he is a spy, and they cannot prove he is a spy until they surveil him.

          • NoPasaran
            NoPasaran says:

            Plausible probable cause is required. If not, I could just throw out there and say that you, Dave781 is a Chinese PLA agent, and get a title 1 search warrant.

            By the way, the reason they went for a title 1 search warrant is because it permits 3 “hops” of contact investigation.

            Dave knows 10 people (hop no. 1), those 10 each know 10 (hop no. 2), and those 100 people each know 10 people (hop no. 3).

            That permits them to surveil 1111 US citizens, whom they are otherwise not permitted to spy on, with ONE court order.

            If you want to tell me that you’re okay with this, just remember that you too could be on of those 1111 people. Dreaming of a Stasi state doesn’t guarantee that you can be in the priviledged class.

          • RRDRRD
            RRDRRD says:

            Well, thanks for confirming that you have absolutely NO understanding of the process.

            They cannot surveil until they have exhausted all other means of investigating him. In all cases, this would include an interview but especially in a case where the subject had actively worked with the FBI to expose Russian spy efforts. Leftists may think it is fine to give up their 4th Amendment rights but the rest of us have no interest in living in a police state.

          • Dave781
            Dave781 says:

            So we can’t surveil Russian spies unless we tell them first? Do you think that the KGB plays by the same rules?

          • RRDRRD
            RRDRRD says:

            You incredibly stupid MF – you can’t surveil US citizens without living up to clear legal standards for a warrant.

            If you think we should operate like the KGB, you apparently want to give up the whole Bill of Rights, not just the 4th Amendment.

      • Steve479
        Steve479 says:

        A Title 1 warrant, declaring that Page was, not only a Russian spy, but a double agent (he was cooperating with the FBI in 2013), so you can corroborate or disprove a fake political dossier. Nonsense.

      • getcali
        getcali says:

        “Of course the evidence was uncorroborated”
        Geez Dave, don’t be dense. Without corroboration all you have is accusations and hearsay, which are not evidence at all. You can’t get a warrant based on an accusation. There has to be some actual evidence that the accusation is, or at least probably is, true. Actual evidence. Ever heard the phrase “probable cause”?

        • Dave781
          Dave781 says:

          Hearsay IS evidence. It is not usually admissible in a criminal trial, but that doesn’t mean that it isn’t evidence. The FISA hearing was not a trial. Different rules of evidence apply.

          • getcali
            getcali says:

            Certain forms of hearsay are evidence. Unverified second and third-hand rumors sourced from unknown people in a foreign country aren’t.

          • Jonathan Smith
            Jonathan Smith says:

            If you have that, you can establish “probable cause” either at a preliminary hearing after arrest, or before a grand jury. At least, that’s how I understand the law.

      • hamburgertoday2017
        hamburgertoday2017 says:

        That’s not how warrants work in the United States of America. You need evidence (probable cause) that a crime has been committed, even in the FISC.

        I have made it very clear in my posts that I understand that FISC presentations for warrants are ex parte events. By definition, ex parte proceedings are not trials.

        Stop pretending like I said things I did not. Deal with what I actually say.

        You’re the one committing a ‘straw man’ fallacy by presenting things I did not say and then refuting them.

      • MaroonVee
        MaroonVee says:

        Are you saying, they needed a warrant to look for a crime, which btw, they never found. That’s not how it works Dave.

    • Nuke Nerd
      Nuke Nerd says:

      You really have no clue of what you’re talking about. The dossier was not the basis for the warrant and both memos agree on that point. Steele’s reputation is only tarnished with Russian Intelligence sympathizers like yourself. Everyone else can plainly see he was the only one of the principles involved that actually informed the FBI – unlike the Trump people who hid it and later lied about it. BTW – if you’re speculating the the FISC judges are incompetent then you’re also saying John Roberts is incompetent because he appoints them. #trumptard

      • Steve479
        Steve479 says:

        Heh. So Andrew McCabe lied under oath when he testified that without the dossier, the FBI could NOT have have gotten the FISA warrant.[edit 03/02/18, fixed missing negative and adding the FISA application was denied twice before the dossier was included as the supporting evidence]

        • Dannz
          Dannz says:

          McCabe did not say that. He said that without the dossier the FBI could NOT have obtained a warrant.

      • hamburgertoday2017
        hamburgertoday2017 says:

        You state as fact what is not fact. Both memos vindicate that the Steele dossier was used as evidence to support a request for the warrant. You may think that other material was used, but so far all that exists are unsubstantiated claims that other material was used. In the one case that has been presented to the public a Yahoo News article quoting Steele was used to corroborate the Steele Dossier. No other incontrovertible public evidence has come forward to suggest that the Steele Dossier was not only used to acquire the warrant but that it was the primary material that was used to secure the FISA warrant.

        If the judges are incompetent, then that will be dealt with in due time. I did not say they were incompetent. There are multiple explanations for what appears to have been a failure at the FISC. I believe this is why Nunes is seeking access to the FISC record of the warrant application: To determine what actually caused an American citizen to have a Title I FISA warrant granted with with appears to be no substantiation.

        You and those who insult and repeat talking points rather than research and present arguments want this to be about Trump. It’s not. It’s about how an Title I warrant was issued for an American citizen for what appears to be the use of the intelligence and law enforcement apparatus for partisan political purposes.

  2. John Doe
    John Doe says:

    PEOPLE ! DO NOT CLICK THE ABOVE SCAM LINK! …its Only $97 per hour! Pathetic !!! Many others offer 4 x that – your wages are VERY poor and cheap if you want good help pay for it! This is like offering dirt for mud. Don’t talk that dirt!

  3. Tanuge
    Tanuge says:

    Schiff is only “losing the memo wars” on right-wing blog sites like this one. The reason that Hillary Clinton wasn’t indicted, and that Obama isn’t being investigated, and that the FBI keeps investigating Trump isn’t because of a “deep state conspiracy.” It’s because all of the stuff you read on these sites is 100% complete bu!!$!t.

    Seriously, you don’t even need an actual writer to put this stuff tougher. An AI program probably does it: “The Left Fuming as Obama Deep State Conspiracy Reveals Hypocrisy of Democrat Establishment.” I don’t blame the blogs all that much. They’re just trying to make a buck. I blame the brainwashed morons who read this stuff and actually believe it has any connection to reality.

    “Hillary Clinton E-mails Reveal Conspiracy Among Elite Media Operatives!” Seriously, you idiots sound like 4th graders with that s^!t – seriously, like frickin 4th graders.

    • Nathan Bedford Gump
      Nathan Bedford Gump says:

      And your side is so much more intelligent, believing in the Russia -Trump collusion, global warming err climate change and humans with penises are really women.

    • HomeBrew
      HomeBrew says:

      Actually, “[t]he reason that Hillary Clinton wasn’t indicted, and that Obama isn’t being investigated…” is because President Obama communicated several times with Secretary of State Clinton using her unsecure email server and a pseudonym. All Presidential communications are born classified. Thus if Hillary Clinton were to be prosecuted for using an unapproved, unsecure email server, President Obama would have to be prosecuted as well.

    • NoPasaran
      NoPasaran says:

      This investigation is not about the mishandling of classified information.
      THAT investigation was squashed by leftists for partisan political reasons, even though IT IS GUARANTEED that all of that classified and unclassified content went right into the hands of hostile states to use and to form a profile of someone who could have become the President of the United States.

      The left’s disregard for the protection of the public from chaos and violence is morally reprehensible, especially since they have a fetish for pretending that they care about people.

    • rtcdmc
      rtcdmc says:

      The FISA application used a partisan-opposition document in front of a court to spy on American citizens.. That has been stipulated by the DOJ and FBI.

      So, if you’re okay with that, I guess you won’t mind if the Trump DOJ does the same thing in 2020.

    • Jake Swenson
      Jake Swenson says:

      Wow you are as ignorant as you are stupid.
      Turn off your television, maybe your brain will start working (probably not.)

    • jb
      jb says:

      Comey stated that illary transmitted classified info thru her illegal server. That is a criminal offense. Many are in jail for doing a lot less with classified info.

  4. dirk gently
    dirk gently says:

    The majority of the members of congress are phonies who are abject traitors to the people who voted them into office … constantly working to make the lives of the general public more difficult, for the benefit of a few donors.

    If every member of Congress were lined up against a wall, and executed for their collective war via “lawfare” against the American people, the country would be better off — because their replacements would live with the reminder that if they don’t start working FOR THE PEOPLE, that the same thing can happen to them, too.

    This includes both the Democrats AND the Republicans

        • CapitalistRoader
          CapitalistRoader says:

          ♫ If you go carrying pictures of Chairman Mao, you ain’t going to make it with anyone anyhow. ♪

      • dirk gently
        dirk gently says:

        Yeah, Stalin, Lenin, and Trotsky also betrayed the people, and instead used the power of the government only to enrich themselves and to benefit a bunch of bankers who funded their operation to hijack the Russian nation.

        Likewise, they too should have been put up against a wall.

        Do you disagree, CapitalstRoader?

        By the way, ANYBODY who uses the term “Capitalist” automatically loses the argument to a Marxist, because Marx specifically defined the term “Capitalist” as a strawman to be defeated by his (bogus) argument.

        Educate yourself, and quit doing the enemy’s job for him.

        Lastly, the Romanov dynasty wasn’t conducting a day in and day out, financial and legal war against the Russian populace the way the crooks in D.C. are doing (which is why they all abhor TRUMP, because he has promised to stop D.C’s legal and financial war against the American public, AND he is actually taking steps to do so).

        Also, he has plans to drastically reduce the number of kid’s faces who are only remembered on milk cartons, due to the satanic practices of all the Jeffrey Epstein types in the D.C. power circles. He hasn’t come out about this publicly, but arrests for this has gone up by a factor of 10 since he took office, and last December’s State of Emergency executive order was clearly aimed precisely at them

  5. grrr
    grrr says:

    There is another (albeit small) problem: nobody knows whether “info” in this so-called “document” came from russian sources or from thin air. Steele “saying so” is not very …. encouraging.

    • NoPasaran
      NoPasaran says:

      Disinformation to misdirect the country and rubbish plucked out of thin air for use as a political weapon serve the exact same purpose.

      The left are “the Russian agents” in this case whether they’re aware of it or not.

    • NoPasaran
      NoPasaran says:

      We don’t know. There may have been hints, because to get the warrant they had to shop it from one court to another until they got it.

          • rel0627
            rel0627 says:

            The court that approved surveillance of a former campaign adviser to President Trump was aware that some of the information underpinning the warrant request was paid for by a political entity, although the application did not specifically name the Democratic National Committee or the Hillary Clinton presidential campaign, according to two U.S. officials familiar with the matter.

            You sure bro?

          • getcali
            getcali says:

            The footnote says, in a round-about fashion, that a US person (ultimately Glenn Simpson) paid Steele for the info and there may be some political motivation. That’s hardly the same as “the DNC/Clinton campaign initiated the information gathering and paid for it.”

          • rel0627
            rel0627 says:

            Correct, so why didnt the fisa judge ask if it is such a big deal to all the armchair quarterbacks?

          • getcali
            getcali says:

            You will have to ask the judge. Unfortunately we don’t know who that was or what was said during the proceeding.

          • getcali
            getcali says:

            I pick neither. I judge based on all the information available. In other words, I think for myself.

          • getcali
            getcali says:

            I’m sure if your dentist told you to get some pliers and wiggle all your teeth around you’d do it. Because….authority!

          • rel0627
            rel0627 says:

            I would trust the dentist over some randoms in a back alley who rant about deep state, and alex rich, and jade helm and the sex ring at the dc pizza shop.

          • getcali
            getcali says:

            Rel, you’ve been wrong on just about every single post of yours that I’ve ever read, but you do keep it generally civil and I appreciate that.

          • rel0627
            rel0627 says:

            If you get caught cheating, and your wife paid for the private investigator does that mean you didnt actually cheat?

          • getcali
            getcali says:

            Your attempt at an analogy is fatally flawed. To be actually analogous, my wife would have had to pay an investigator who talked to somebody unknown who talked to somebody unknown who said I was probably cheating. No photos, no recordings, no emails/messages, nothing but speculation by an unknown person.

          • rel0627
            rel0627 says:

            But some of the proof has been verified already…..and the person reviewing it is you know someone of merit like a fisa judge, homey dont play.

          • getcali
            getcali says:

            Verification of minor points, such as Page being in Russia (which was widely reported at the time and hardly a secret) is irrelevant. You being in the same city as a bank that was robbed doesn’t mean you plausibly had anything to do with it. Especially when you consider that the dossier also claimed that Trump’s lawyer Michael Cohn met with Russians in Prague when he wasn’t even in Prague, a thinking person views the whole thing with a jaundiced eye.

            The reviewer can only review what he/she is given and can only question the presenters. If they lied to the judge in the proceeding, why wouldn’t the judge come to the wrong conclusion? Why do you automatically assume the judge is a straight shooter? Maybe the judge is just as anti-Trump as you are and was willing to credulously take what was given. Can you think for yourself?

  6. CreteHasHimNow
    CreteHasHimNow says:

    Schiff is a political nobody with zero charisma, gravitas, or appeal outside the liberal bubble from which he hales (California). He has relentlessly milked his role in the #StopTrump movement because it appeals to his (increasingly) irrelevant far left constituents in California, who are so far out of step with the rest of the nation they want universal healthcare, universal income, and corporations domiciled in California to give back the money they save on Trump tax cuts to California’s tax coffers. When Russiagate has been concluded in a few months and Trump exonerated, Schiff will be relegated to the political obscurity he deserves. And can I say this? The guy is so ugly he makes trump look like Rock Hudson.

      • CreteHasHimNow
        CreteHasHimNow says:

        I really do intensely dislike this guy. I just got back from a week in my (former) SF Bay Area. The people there are so insulated from how the rest of the country thinks that they are baffled that Trump has not been impeached yet. And all semi-automatic pistols and rifles banned and confiscated, “like Europe”. Baffled.

          • CreteHasHimNow
            CreteHasHimNow says:

            I was born and raised in the San Francisco Bay Area. I am a lifetime Democrat, and former Hillary Clinton supporter until I was utterly disgusted by her corruption. I retired from the practice of trial law in 2013, sold everything I owned in California, and moved to Europe, except that we spend December – May at our beach house in Cabo, Baja MX, where the winter weather is in the 70’s and sunny.
            I rooted for Trump initially to take out Ted Cruz, and then became intrigued by his willingness to say out loud what most of us are thinking, and then try to do something about it – political correctness be damned.
            The media was biased for Obama and against Hillary in 2008, but this has become political opposition, not journalism.

          • rel0627
            rel0627 says:

            Well see who gave daddy trump all those loans when the us banks wouldnt when mueller is done…..

        • jb
          jb says:

          and they suffer widespread crime including auto theft and destruction.
          And the feces and piss and drugs are everywhere on the street.

  7. wsblack
    wsblack says:

    And here lies the problem. Jeff Sessions is doing nothing and plans to do nothing. The Democrats couldn’t have a better friend right now than Jeff Sessions.

    • MaroonVee
      MaroonVee says:

      What may be happening, is only the IG has the clearance to examine the FISA court. Sessions doesn’t have that clearance. Doesn’t mean Sessions isn’t looking into this.

    • Attila
      Attila says:

      Two theories:
      Sessions is working under the radar and out of public sight on investigations into FISA abuse and Obama-administration corruption, or..
      Sessions is a RINO chair-warmer who won his retirement-prize of AG and has no intention of angering Democrats.

      I suspect the latter is the case.

    • David Ball
      David Ball says:

      I guess you can not read ! Neither can Mr. Trump.. Mr Session as per Federal Law is waiting for the DoJ’s Inspector General to issue the results of his investigation.. After that , then and only then can the Attorney General Act. as per Federal laws..

  8. Jake Swenson
    Jake Swenson says:

    America won’t be great again until the Democrats are lined up waiting their turn at the gallows.

    They are nothing short of traitors, and deserve the fate of traitors.

  9. DaveK
    DaveK says:

    [I]t’s quite likely that over a year’s time potentially hundreds of
    innocent Americans had their private conversations monitored and their
    privacy invaded.

    It’s far worse than that. Because of the way that electronic communications are now swept up and stored (perhaps for all time) by our intelligence agencies, the FISA warrant allowed Obama’s minions to go back in time to retrieve any (likely even years-old) conversations, texts, or e-mails that involved Carter Page. Anyone who ever had dealings with Carter Page was at risk for their communications being reviewed, having quotes taken out of context, and then being unmasked.

    FISA has evolved from a tool to monitor foreign agents into a tool to monitor political enemies. It needs to either be abolished or undergo major changes to assure constitutional protections for American citizens.

  10. Hulk Slogan
    Hulk Slogan says:

    Page testified under oath that the meetings the dossier alleges are not true. Those are the relevant details they used to get the FISA warrant. If they had evidence it was true, Page would be charged with lying. He has not been. So there is one issue.

    We also know that people who were under surveillance were unmasked, and some of that was leaked. The leaking is definitely a crime, but the unmasking is a little more murky. However, Samantha Powers apparently testified to congress that numerous unmasking requested in her name were not actually requested by her–so that’s definitely implying abuse.

    Ultimately, Obama’s administration was up to no good, and it’s time for people to go to jail.

  11. TooTall7
    TooTall7 says:

    This is all fine and good but ah…are we going to see some sort of criminal P-R-O-S-E-C-U-T-I-O-N for this mess or has Jeff Sessions assigned this to his office buildings janitorial service. The time to initiate a formal investigation of this was the day before yesterday at least.

  12. vidgamenerd
    vidgamenerd says:

    As A voter From Huntsville Alabama, Jeff Sessions needs to go! He has burned his bridges and was wrong for it..

  13. vidgamenerd
    vidgamenerd says:

    Jeff Sessions should have seated Rudy Giuliani as Special Prosecutor in this matter instead of using the Department of Justice’ Office of Inspector General. This matter clearly needs to investigated,and where applicable, charges filed.The OIG of the DOJ is not capable of that.Jeff needs to go!!

  14. johndeere790
    johndeere790 says:

    every body knows shifty schiff is a lying idiot and who ever is poking him has his eyes bugged out.

  15. Nuke Nerd
    Nuke Nerd says:

    I guess it doesn’t matter what the actual memo said if you just want to read big fat lies about it instead of reading it.

    Both memos agree that the “Papadopoulos information triggered the opening of an FBI counterintelligence investigation in late July 2016.” That means the FBI investigation started “more than seven weeks” before the FBI received Steele’s intelligence reporting in mid-September. So, this author’s claim that “the FBI used a piece of partisan propaganda to secure a legal warrant to spy on U.S. citizens” is utterly and completely false.

    The claim that “the FBI obtained this warrant via a falsified application filled with lies of omission about the deeply partisan nature of the dossier’s author and funders” is also completely false. The Democratic memo quotes extensively from the initial FISA application shows the court was aware that Steele’s information was paid political opposition research and likely to be used against Trump’s campaign.

    This writer (Ned Ryun) is a liar. He must be a very scummy individual.

    • HomeBrew
      HomeBrew says:

      “…the FBI investigation started “more than seven weeks” before the FBI received Steele’s intelligence…”
      “…the FBI used a piece of partisan propaganda to secure a legal warrant to spy on U.S. citizens…”

      Both these statements can be simultaneously true; the first does not disprove the second. It depends on how much time elapsed between when the FBI started their investigation and when they went to the FISA court with their application for the warrant.

      If the first statement is true, then “more than seven weeks” must have elapsed between the beginning of the investigation and the warrant application, because the FBI had Steele’s intelligence when they applied.

      • Nuke Nerd
        Nuke Nerd says:

        It’s not that both things can’t mutually exist, but the point is that if the dossier had not existed there would have been an investigation anyway. Also, complaining that the dossier was included is a very weak point because what the FBI already knew about Popadopoulos and Page outside the dossier was easily enough to obtain the warrant. So to say the FBI used the dossier “to secure the warrant” is a lie. They used evidence that Popadopoulos and Page had been in contact with the Kremlin including their phones records, emails, and in at least one case surveillance by one of our allies (Australia) that took place outside of our view. The dossier which was unconfirmed at the time (which has had large parts of it confirmed since then) was presented because it was a separate source with much of the same information.

        This writer (Ned Ryun) is a liar. He must be a very scummy individual. Does it not strike anyone here as odd that lots of things in the dossier have been confirmed to be true, but nothing in it has been proven false?

        • HomeBrew
          HomeBrew says:

          Yes, I agree — there would have been an investigation anyway. But not the surveillance (spying and wiretapping) — for those activities to be legal, the FBI needed a FISA warrant.

          As noted in the article above, Deputy Director Andrew McCabe testified (under oath) that “no surveillance warrant would have been sought from the FISC [Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court] without the Steele dossier information.”

          And they used Steele dossier every 90 days to keep renewing the warrant.

          I don’t see the lie you seem to see…

          • Nuke Nerd
            Nuke Nerd says:

            Under the law, the government can conduct surveillance on a U.S. person for 90 days and must produce “new findings” in order to gain an extension – so they did not “re-use” the dossier. They were able to renew the warrant because they kept finding new evidence. New evidence which by the way should concern every American.

            Nunes says McCabe said that, but the Democrats say he didn’t in the fact sheet that accompanied their memo (https://democrats-intelligence.house.gov/uploadedfiles/20180224_-_fact_sheet_-_release_of_democratic_memo_final.pdf). No way to tell which is lying, but more over it doesn’t matter because we now know large portions of the dossier have been corroborated and not a single claim in it has been disproved so far.

            So to say the warrant was obtained because of the dossier is a lie and both memos point that out.

          • HomeBrew
            HomeBrew says:

            “…we now know large portions of the dossier have been corroborated and not a single claim in it has been disproved so far.”

            Where does the “large portions of the dossier have been corroborated” come from?

            As for the “…not a single claim in it has been disproved so far” part, Michael Cohen, one of Trump’s personal lawyers, just filed a defamation lawsuit seeking $100 million dollars from Fusion GPS and a separate defamation suit against BuzzFeed for publishing it. The dossier has demonstrable lies about Cohen, for example that he travelled to the Czech Republic, when his passport shows no such travel.

          • Nuke Nerd
            Nuke Nerd says:

            You’re on the internet – it’s easy enough to find what’s been confirmed and I’m not working for you. He sure had the Trump Tower meeting w/ Kremlin and Don Jr. right for one. Cohen has a long history of frivolous lawsuits that get thrown out of courts so that move was expected and doesn’t show that anything in the dossier is actually false. That’s waaay off point though. The subject was this author lying. I showed why he’s lying and attempts to change the subject don’t change that his claims are anything less than lies.

          • HomeBrew
            HomeBrew says:

            Just trying to have a discussion… I didn’t change the subject, I just reponded to quotes from your post. I also know you’re not working for me but, since you made the claim that “large portions of the dossier have been corroborated”, it seemed fair to ask you where your data for that assertion came from.

          • Nuke Nerd
            Nuke Nerd says:

            Sorry I should not have jumped to a conclusion about your question.

            I have no doubt there’s things in the dossier that are wrong – we don’t know which ones yet. There’s plenty of evidence outside the dossier at this point to justify the investigation frankly. I don’t think Mueller is probably depending on the dossier at all at this point. Here’s a few of things we didn’t know from the dossier that are now shown to be true.
            1. Washington-based diplomat Mikhail Kalugin was an undercover Kremlin intelligence officer.
            2. Former Trump campaign adviser Carter Page met with representatives of Russian state-owned oil giant Rosneft.
            3. Trump maintains ties to businessmen involved in organized crime from Azerbaijan.
            4. Russians and other eastern Europeans posing as Americans on social media and thousands of Russian-linked fake accounts and bots on Facebook and Twitter were used to spread anti-Clinton stories and messages.
            5. The Kremlin targeted educated youth and swing state voters during its cyber-attacks in the 2016 campaign.

            What puzzles me is people can certainly question whether there was collusion, but the president is definitely colluding now right in front of our eyes by not imposing the sanctions he signed into law, not trying to defend us against another attack, and not even ordering the NSA to take actions to prevent the next attack (https://www.cnn.com/2018/02/27/politics/cybercom-rogers-trump-russian-cyber-threat/index.html). Leaves me wondering what happened to people coming together to stand up for our Democracy.

          • Nuke Nerd
            Nuke Nerd says:

            Under the law, the government can conduct surveillance on a U.S. person for 90 days and must produce “new findings” in order to gain an extension – so they did not “re-use” the dossier. They were able to renew the warrant because they kept finding new evidence. New evidence which by the way should concern every American.

            Nunes says McCabe said that, but the Democrats say he didn’t in the fact sheet that accompanied their memo (https://democrats-intelligence.house.gov/uploadedfiles/20180224_-_fact_sheet_-_release_of_democratic_memo_final.pdf). No way to tell which is lying, but more over it doesn’t matter because we now know large portions of the dossier have been corroborated and not a single claim in it has been disproved so far.

            So to say the warrant was obtained because of the dossier is a lie and both memos point that out.

    • HistoryMatters
      HistoryMatters says:

      The common talking point that the Steele dossier could not have been used to justify the warrant because the FBI investigation started before the Steele dossier – is demonstrably false, based on the public reporting that there was a rejected FISA warrant in June. If we assume that fact is true, here is what we know. 1) the FBI was investigation the Trump campaign at least as early as June under the premise that he was a foreign agent, but did not have sufficient cause to make that case to a FISC judge. 2) Perkins Coie then hired Fusion, who immediately hired Nellie Ohr as a Russian expert, and then Fusion hired Steele. 3) Only then, after the Steele dossier, was a second warrant requested. Here is the thing – a FISA warrant may be used to look backward – you know – to explain how you came to have all the information you collected illegally without the warrant. This is all typical of the Dem philosophy to project whatever problem your candidate has onto your opponent. Hillary was under FBI investigation – so Trump needed to be under FBI investigation. etc. etc. etc.

      • Nuke Nerd
        Nuke Nerd says:

        That is some very tortured logic and it falls apart immediately because the Papadopoulos information drove the warrant request and not the dossier and both memos agree on that point. The data the FBI had on Papadopoulos was obtained though several legal channels including foreign intelligence from our ally Australia. The investigation had already collected enough evidence for a warrant before they ever saw the dossier.

        Is there some reason you deleted your prior comments? I know they included claims that were untrue, but are you honestly that embarrassed? We were actually engaged in some fairly respectable dialog I thought. Then you deleted them and started with “HILLARY!” stuff. BTW – she is irrelevant here – she doesn’t even hold a public office. I didn’t vote for her and I never would, but assuming that’s the motivation for wanting to get to the bottom of this Russia thing just doesn’t hold water. What drives me to want to know what happened frankly is all of the lying about this from Trump himself. I thought it was a horrible idea to nominate a person that would not disclose their taxes and that concern is being confirmed as valid with every passing day.

        • HistoryMatters
          HistoryMatters says:

          Post script. Funny how we now find out that Bernie Sanders was fined for illegally coordinating with…wait for it…wait for it…”our ally Australia.” Bottom line is that the Trump campaign has done nothing illegal or out of the ordinary, even if they wanted to get freely offered dirt on Hillary. Coincidence, I’m sure, but at a minimum it demonstrates how campaigns are not always in control of who volunteers to help or what actually happens. And really? is it better in the long run to find out that the FBI is corrupt in this case, or that we have come to live in a place where is absolutely acceptable for the FBI to launch a full investigation of US citizens because of some drunken bragging by a nobody in a London bar? Anyway, here is a link to show how all of this was reported BEFORE we knew about the dossier and its origins. http://www.slate.com/blogs/future_tense/2017/01/11/did_a_federal_surveillance_court_really_reject_an_application_to_monitor.html
          I use Slate because it is liberal and not friendly to Trump, but occasionally does excellent analysis when it thinks it will advance their cause. It refutes that Papadopoulos had any hand in “starting” this investigation.

  16. rel0627
    rel0627 says:

    The bipartisan leaders of the Senate Intelligence Committee have privately concluded that the HPSCI majority leaked Mark Warner’s private text messages to Fox News.

    Nunes got got.

  17. Max Flasher
    Max Flasher says:

    “How can a place with 58,000 homeless people continue to function?”

    That’s a good question. Here’s an excerpt from this horrifyingly depressing article about L.A. that I saw on the DrudgeReport: “There’s an unavoidable, often unspoken, fear that the city around us may be in a state of irreversible decline.”

    I have an unavoidable, often spoken, fear that this whole country is in a state of irreversible decline. Can the rest of the country somehow avoid ending up like this? Considering the fact that half the country supports the wonderfully progressive Democratic Party which is responsible for this ever worsening social breakdown it does seem that our situation is pretty much hopeless. Whatever America once was it sure does not still exist now.

    http://www.latimes.com/opinion/editorials/la-ed-homelessness-impact-on-others-20180301-htmlstory.html

  18. Black Water
    Black Water says:

    It didn’t take writer Ryun very far, four paragraphs, to lay his own dissimulative lie (too clever by half) on the narrative.

    § “…Both relied heavily on Mr. Steele’s dossier claims” – is certainly true but the lie is to insinuate that the essential bits of probable cause evidence presented are (were) independently verified even before Steele released his dossier.

    He can’t fool me.

    • Craig the Czech
      Craig the Czech says:

      No. The allegations, double and triple hearsay, were not “independently verified. Steele himself doesn’t even know who most of the info came from. Stop lying.

      • HistoryMatters
        HistoryMatters says:

        It’s even worse. Steele got his information from the State Dept., who got it from Sydney Blumenthal and other Hillary cronies, who simply made it up. Everyone forgets the rest of this puzzle. Obama sought a warrant in June and was rejected. That means that whatever was in the warrant in June was insufficient to support even the low bar for a FISA warrant. it is not a coincidence that Fusion, Steele, Ohr, etc were all hired by HRC and the DNC AFTER the first warrant was denied. Every bit of the thing was written to support the fake warrant. FISA needs no crime, but does need a foreign connection – that is the key. Just like Eric Holder spied on the Associated Press by calling James Risen a foreign agent and co-conspirator – this was standard fare at the WH and FBI. Steele has been used by these people to manufacture fake warrants and “reports” for years, by having him get “hired” be a private individual and then “sharing” his reports with “friends” and the State Dept.

      • jdhunter
        jdhunter says:

        The prob cause material was known before and independent from Steele’s work. Stop lagging behind.

        • Craig the Czech
          Craig the Czech says:

          McCabe testified it was insufficient. Page had a track record of cooperation leading to convictions. This was designed to fish his past emails, communications, etc., when his was on the campaign for nakedly partisan purpose.

  19. Temp Fourthirty
    Temp Fourthirty says:

    More worried about the people who weaponized our government against their political foes than the Russian collusion fiction. The heads of the guilty should be on pikes along Pennsylvania Ave.

  20. Attila
    Attila says:

    The Schiff-head “memo” is a joke because it is a transparent exercise in evasion and obfuscation. Even the Democrat’s allies in the colluding, lying liberal shit-hole media (LLSHM) complex recognize it as a weak reed because they seldom cite or defend it. That would be because the documentation being made public does not support it, and the looming IG report will likely not support it. The LLSHM have very little credibility remaining with the public.
    For most of them, chaining themselves to the Schiff-head memo makes as much sense as tying oneself to the tiller of a sinking ship.

  21. John Brown
    John Brown says:

    Serial killer eyes Shiff & the Lying corrupt Democrats would have been better off not putting their memo out there. It basically confirms that the Republican memo was 100% correct. They would have been better off not confirming the facts w their memo & just lying about the Republican memo on their Fake News networks like MSNBC & CNN.

  22. HistoryMatters
    HistoryMatters says:

    There are two simple and easily accomplished fixes to this problem. First, AG Sessions should convene a grand jury and present evidence of criminal misconduct under 18 USC 242 and specifics of the FISAct. Next – pass legislation that permits for a private right of action and civil recovery liability for those who were impacted by reckless or intentional abuse of the FISA warrant. In fact – given what we have seen, Federal prosecutors should be stripped of their civil immunity completely when they act with such reckless disregard. When FBI directors can become millionaires writing books about their misconduct, citizens should be able to hold them accountable without waiting for their hapless cronies.

  23. Martin Tagliaferro
    Martin Tagliaferro says:

    The FISA judges were either duped or complicit …it time to find them and ask them.

  24. Puzzled
    Puzzled says:

    If, or should I say, when Trump gets control of these departments he will have these secret powers. Perhaps therein lay the concern of this author, who was a speech writer for George W Bush along with David Frum. We always must be aware of the neocon angle…

  25. Karl Baumgarten
    Karl Baumgarten says:

    Hopefully, Mr. Schiff and like acting Democrats will be charged with Accessory After The Fact charges when this is all said and done. Their conduct has been atrocious and they deserve some rest time behind bars to contemplate their navels.

Comments are closed.