House Intelligence Committee releases Dem rebuttal to GOP FISA memo

[haymarket]

Trump is President, you lost get over it!!

There is nothing to "get over" as I willingly admit Trump holds the office.

 

[Conservative]

"Compassion".
Is it 'compassionate' to destroy a man's life over sexual innuendo?
Is it 'compassionate' to throw your lot in with a bunch of organised thugs like ANTIFA or BLM?
Is it 'compassionate' to turn a blind eye to Europe while its in crisis?
Is it 'compassionate' to support globalization, when its obvious the nation you make your home in, is financing the efforts at your expense?
Is it 'compassionate' to obfuscate the fact that Islam is not compatible with our culture or society?
If it is... then I have to ask...'Compassionate for whom?'

There is no such thing as liberal compassion for it is all about power and control. Their rhetoric is designed to make people feel like they care when the reality is they only care about keeping people dependent and enacting a socialist agenda seeking that liberal utopia that previous liberals were never able to achieve. It is pure arrogance on their part and total disdain for the American electorate

 

[Conservative]

There is nothing to "get over" as I willingly admit Trump holds the office.

Good, then let's move on with the Trump agenda and stop trying to indict him based upon your fantasy belief

 

[Conservative]

Patience is a virtue. Show some. Mueller is doing the investigation and it is not finished. Just show some patience and I am sure you will get all the things you fear in good time.

Over a year and you still hold to the belief that propaganda cost Hillary the election not her incompetence. How about telling us what Hillary did to refute the propaganda? Did she even visit some of the states normally Democratic or did she have that liberal arrogance and take them for granted? Seems that all you want to do is blame rhetoric for her incompetence and poorly run campaign. Liberal arrogance cost her the election not Russia.

 

[bluesmoke]

The FBI used the Yahoo News article to corroborate the Steele dossier in the mistaken belief Steele had not talked to Yahoo News. He had. Steele cannot corroborate Steele, hence false confirmation.

The following is an excerpt from the link given further below:

"This is probably the most important thing, there were three renewals of this FISA application, and that goes far beyond what was in the original application," said Isikoff. "The FBI would have had to have gotten fruitful intelligence that it could then go back to the court and say here is the basis for continuing this FISA."

https://www.newsmax.com/politics/nunes-memo-isikoff-yahoo-news/2018/02/03/id/841266/

To find fault with a “false confirmation” as being “unprofessional” when same had no bearing on the continued renewals of the FISA warrant, you might as well find the same fault with typos.

Also, in the linked article:

“Until the full picture is revealed, he said, it's hard to know what impact his story would have had in the FISA application on Page.”

BTW, do you think the FISA renewals should have been thrown out because of what you say? I mean, where’s the relevance? I get what you say about “unprofessional.” However, from what I’ve heard, that could apply to many FISA applications that were taken apart as much as this one and would still have been approved. I just don’t see the relevance in the face of all other information in the application supporting approval of the warrant, which we may never know. I don’t know that we’ve ever found out as much as the Republican memo revealed on any FISA application in the past. My guess is much greater “unprofessional” content has gone through on prior applications.

 

[Athanasius68]

Once again you are making it up as you go along.

Sent from my SM-G900V using Tapatalk

That's false.
The law doesn't bar foreign nationals, it bars foreign agents.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Foreign_agent


Steele was a freelance contractor, who happens to be a British citizen. So your point is refuted.

You can read Mueller's fine work here in charging Trump's brothers-in-arms:
https://www.politico.com/story/2018...er-indictment-on-russian-election-case-415670

"Bars agents of any foreign entity". Doesn't say foreign nationals, so you lose.

Steele worked directly WITH the FBI and DOJ, the two organizations which would oversee such conduct, so they both knew about it, and approved of his efforts as legal and legitimate.

So here is another hurdle that needs to be proved-- that the Russian lawyer was acting as an agent of the Russian government.

 

[Athanasius68]

Once again you are making it up as you go along.

Sent from my SM-G900V using Tapatalk

The following is an excerpt from the link given further below:

"This is probably the most important thing, there were three renewals of this FISA application, and that goes far beyond what was in the original application," said Isikoff. "The FBI would have had to have gotten fruitful intelligence that it could then go back to the court and say here is the basis for continuing this FISA."

https://www.newsmax.com/politics/nunes-memo-isikoff-yahoo-news/2018/02/03/id/841266/

To find fault with a “false confirmation” as being “unprofessional” when same had no bearing on the continued renewals of the FISA warrant, you might as well find the same fault with typos.

Also, in the linked article:

“Until the full picture is revealed, he said, it's hard to know what impact his story would have had in the FISA application on Page.”

BTW, do you think the FISA renewals should have been thrown out because of what you say? I mean, where’s the relevance? I get what you say about “unprofessional.” However, from what I’ve heard, that could apply to many FISA applications that were taken apart as much as this one and would still have been approved. I just don’t see the relevance in the face of all other information in the application supporting approval of the warrant, which we may never know. I don’t know that we’ve ever found out as much as the Republican memo revealed on any FISA application in the past. My guess is much greater “unprofessional” content has gone through on prior applications.

And yet the FBI went running back to the FISA court when they reviewed the dossier. Isikoff is speculating that there must be something else because... well we all know the answer to that.

 

[Khayembii Communique]

So here is another hurdle that needs to be proved-- that the Russian lawyer was acting as an agent of the Russian government.

It likely won't come out until Manafort starts singing, if he does. What's more interesting about that meeting, though, isn't the lawyer, but the other Russian present - Rinat Akhmetshin. Akhmetshin is a former Soviet counterintelligence agent, has close ties to the Kremlin, and openly lobbies for pro-Putin causes. Chuck Grassley even accused him of having ties to Russian intelligence. Dana Rohrbacher (the man Gates met with - and lied to Mueller about, claiming he hadn't) said that he "would certainly not rule [him being a spy] out." Rohrbacher, the most pro-Russian congressperson in the government, secretly met with Akhmetshin in April 2017 in a hotel in Germany.

 

[haymarket]

Good, then let's move on with the Trump agenda and stop trying to indict him based upon your fantasy belief

I simply bring up facts that are bothersome to Trumpkins


1- Trump invited Russia to help him in his campaign.
2- the Russians did help Trump in his campaign.
3- Top Trump officials colluded with the Russians in this effort to help Trump win with Russian help.
4- doing so was illegal and a violation of the law.

 

[Conservative]

I simply bring up facts that are bothersome to Trumpkins


1- Trump invited Russia to help him in his campaign.
2- the Russians did help Trump in his campaign.
3- Top Trump officials colluded with the Russians in this effort to help Trump win with Russian help.
4- doing so was illegal and a violation of the law.

None of what you posted violates any law as there is nothing to prevent a candidate from seeking help. The question is what did Obama and Hillary do with regards to the propaganda? Liberal arrogance alone is no longer going to win elections

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G930A using Tapatalk

 

[haymarket]

Over a year and you still hold to the belief that propaganda cost Hillary the election not her incompetence. How about telling us what Hillary did to refute the propaganda? Did she even visit some of the states normally Democratic or did she have that liberal arrogance and take them for granted? Seems that all you want to do is blame rhetoric for her incompetence and poorly run campaign. Liberal arrogance cost her the election not Russia.

I have never ever claimed Clinton was perfect or that she was free from mistakes. But if you believe that has been my position, simply provide the quotes from me saying so.

 

[haymarket]

None of what you posted violates any law as there is nothing to prevent a candidate from seeking help. The question is what did Obama and Hillary do with regards to the propaganda? Liberal arrogance alone is no longer going to win elections

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G930A using Tapatalk

Here is the law that was violated by the Trump campaign and Russians.


52 U.S. Code § 30121 - Contributions and donations by foreign nationals
US Code
Notes
prev | next
(a) ProhibitionIt shall be unlawful for—
(1) a foreign national, directly or indirectly, to make—
(A) a contribution or donation of money or other thing of value, or to make an express or implied promise to make a contribution or donation, in connection with a Federal, State, or local election;
(B) a contribution or donation to a committee of a political party; or
(C) an expenditure, independent expenditure, or disbursement for an electioneering communication (within the meaning of section 30104(f)(3) of this title); or
(2) a person to solicit, accept, or receive a contribution or donation described in subparagraph (A) or (B) of paragraph (1) from a foreign national.
(b) “Foreign national” definedAs used in this section, the term “foreign national” means—
(1) a foreign principal, as such term is defined by section 611(b) of title 22, except that the term “foreign national” shall not include any individual who is a citizen of the United States; or
(2) an individual who is not a citizen of the United States or a national of the United States (as defined in section 1101(a)(22) of title 8) and who is not lawfully admitted for permanent residence, as defined by section 1101(a)(20) of title 8.
(Pub. L. 92–225, title III, § 319, formerly § 324, as added Pub. L. 94–283, title I, § 112(2), May 11, 1976, 90 Stat. 493; renumbered § 319, Pub. L. 96–187, title I, § 105(5), Jan. 8, 1980, 93 Stat. 1354; amended Pub. L. 107–155, title III, §§ 303, 317, Mar. 27, 2002, 116 Stat. 96, 109.)

 

[OpportunityCost]

Newp. Why be so dishonest?

Irrelevant. Yet again you have no idea what you're talking about.

We're done here. Go ahead and take the last word.

Look, maybe you think you can claim you have never claimed the current administration was guilty and that's that but we both know you are lying on that count.

If the law is applied equally, Steele meddled in the election. He is not a US citizen. I will let others make their own judgments but to say I have no idea is just denial on your part.

You were done the moment you started.

 

[OpportunityCost]

So present the information that the Russians assisted Clinton and helped her as they did Trump.

https://www.huffingtonpost.com/entr...examples-election_us_59fa16d1e4b01b474047d7a5

 

[OpportunityCost]

The "its a joke" is a dishonest ruse used by Trumpkins to excuse all manner of Trump gaffes. And you used it. I provided the list for you so you can it in context for the dishonest shame it really is and how often Trump apologists employ it.

That instance wasn't a gaffe and if you would look at it objectively you could see it was made in humor. The list is a bull**** straw man because you cant make a real argument.

 

[OpportunityCost]

So attempted treason is OK, just successful treason is not? If it's your guy, I'm sure a little treason can be overlooked right?

Collusion has been proven, the criminality or the ability to make a case, not yet anyway.

Lets assume for a moment that they had what they claimed---campaign finance violations on the Clinton campaign. If the Trump campaign took that evidence to the FEC and law enforcement bodies and the media, would it be collusion to report a crime?

 

[OpportunityCost]

That's false.
The law doesn't bar foreign nationals, it bars foreign agents.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Foreign_agent


Steele was a freelance contractor, who happens to be a British citizen. So your point is refuted.

You can read Mueller's fine work here in charging Trump's brothers-in-arms:
https://www.politico.com/story/2018...er-indictment-on-russian-election-case-415670

"Bars agents of any foreign entity". Doesn't say foreign nationals, so you lose.

Steele worked directly WITH the FBI and DOJ, the two organizations which would oversee such conduct, so they both knew about it, and approved of his efforts as legal and legitimate.

And what does it say about collusion with Russians?

 

[Khayembii Communique]

Look, maybe you think you can claim you have never claimed the current administration was guilty and that's that but we both know you are lying on that count.

If the law is applied equally, Steele meddled in the election. He is not a US citizen. I will let others make their own judgments but to say I have no idea is just denial on your part.

You were done the moment you started.

Steele didn't meddle in the election. He provided intelligence to FusionGPS. That's perfectly legal. FusionGPS didn't break the law because they're a consulting firm. Those who hired FusionGPS didn't break the law because they weren't working with foreign agents.

 

[markjs]

Lets assume for a moment that they had what they claimed---campaign finance violations on the Clinton campaign. If the Trump campaign took that evidence to the FEC and law enforcement bodies and the media, would it be collusion to report a crime?

Yes, and every one of the bastards should be prosecuted. They didn't have it, or, it's yet to come out in a current investigation through one of the hell bent get Hillary at any cost, politically motivated investigations. IDGAF if the investigation is partisan, if a makeable case of a crime presents it should be prosecuted.

 

[Conservative]

I have never ever claimed Clinton was perfect or that she was free from mistakes. But if you believe that has been my position, simply provide the quotes from me saying so.

If that isn't the case why the 24/7 posting on trying to indict Trump over something you believe was a crime. Propaganda isn't a crime regardless of who does it and obviously "your" President and "your" candidate didn't do anything to overcome the rhetoric yet you still hold to the belief that Russians colluded with Trump to do what, turn the election to Trump when all Clinton or Obama had to do was campaign against the rhetoric but they didn't. Liberal arrogance on full display

 

[Conservative]

Here is the law that was violated by the Trump campaign and Russians.


52 U.S. Code § 30121 - Contributions and donations by foreign nationals
US Code
Notes
prev | next
(a) ProhibitionIt shall be unlawful for—
(1) a foreign national, directly or indirectly, to make—
(A) a contribution or donation of money or other thing of value, or to make an express or implied promise to make a contribution or donation, in connection with a Federal, State, or local election;
(B) a contribution or donation to a committee of a political party; or
(C) an expenditure, independent expenditure, or disbursement for an electioneering communication (within the meaning of section 30104(f)(3) of this title); or
(2) a person to solicit, accept, or receive a contribution or donation described in subparagraph (A) or (B) of paragraph (1) from a foreign national.
(b) “Foreign national” definedAs used in this section, the term “foreign national” means—
(1) a foreign principal, as such term is defined by section 611(b) of title 22, except that the term “foreign national” shall not include any individual who is a citizen of the United States; or
(2) an individual who is not a citizen of the United States or a national of the United States (as defined in section 1101(a)(22) of title 8) and who is not lawfully admitted for permanent residence, as defined by section 1101(a)(20) of title 8.
(Pub. L. 92–225, title III, § 319, formerly § 324, as added Pub. L. 94–283, title I, § 112(2), May 11, 1976, 90 Stat. 493; renumbered § 319, Pub. L. 96–187, title I, § 105(5), Jan. 8, 1980, 93 Stat. 1354; amended Pub. L. 107–155, title III, §§ 303, 317, Mar. 27, 2002, 116 Stat. 96, 109.)

So what contributions were given to the Trump campaign that weren't given to Clinton? Seems like a double standard here as you believe a meeting with Russia violated some law when you have no idea what that meeting was even about. Your belief that we live in a bubble with no global internet is staggering just like your belief is that liberal arrogance should continue to win elections. There was no fraud, there was no quid pro quo and you have zero case against Trump. Too bad you don't have the same passion to investigate Hillary and her illegal actions

 

[Athanasius68]

Once again you are making it up as you go along.

Sent from my SM-G900V using Tapatalk

Steele didn't meddle in the election. He provided intelligence to FusionGPS. That's perfectly legal. FusionGPS didn't break the law because they're a consulting firm. Those who hired FusionGPS didn't break the law because they weren't working with foreign agents.

Says who?
Why are we assuming the anti-Trump info from the Russian government is legit as far as its sourcing is concerned?

 

[bubbabgone]

sorry - you lost me along that convoluted path.

The reality is the the Trump campaign top officials accepted a meeting with Russians for the purpose of getting dirt on Clinton and help from Russia in the Trump election effort. And that is illegal to do so.

A is Fusion
B is Russia
C is Junior

B->A
B->C
B->A

That's too convoluted a path?

 

[Tanngrisnir]

Steele didn't meddle in the election. He provided intelligence to FusionGPS. That's perfectly legal. FusionGPS didn't break the law because they're a consulting firm. Those who hired FusionGPS didn't break the law because they weren't working with foreign agents.

Some people simply cannot be reached by facts, the actual record or reason. It's just not in them.

Sad, really, that they choose the most absurd hills to die on, but what can you do?

 

[OpportunityCost]

Yes, and every one of the bastards should be prosecuted. They didn't have it, or, it's yet to come out in a current investigation through one of the hell bent get Hillary at any cost, politically motivated investigations. IDGAF if the investigation is partisan, if a makeable case of a crime presents it should be prosecuted.

It would be ignoring a crime. Turning over evidence would be the legal thing to do.