- Joined
- Jan 25, 2013
- Messages
- 37,092
- Reaction score
- 17,959
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Undisclosed
Perhaps.
But did they corroborate that information, then present that to the judge?
You keep acting like Steele is some kind of Democratic operative with no proof. The reality is that Steele is a very respected member of the intelligence community and would be very unlikely to jeopardize that standing by writing a bunch of unsubstantiated BS. That aside the renewals indicate that there was pertinent information coming from the surveillance.
So there was indeed some corroboration, though it was "minimal"?No.
4) According to the head of the counterintelligence division, Assistant Director Bill Priestap, corroboration of the Steele dossier was in its “infancy” at the time of the initial Page FISA application. After Steele was terminated, a source validation report conducted by an independent unit within FBI assessed Steele’s reporting as only minimally corroborated.
https://intelligence.house.gov/news/documentsingle.aspx?DocumentID=856
The House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence today made public a committee memo with information on abuses of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act. Chairman Nunes issued the following statement:
“The Committee has discovered serious violations of the public trust, and the American people have a right to know when officials in crucial institutions are abusing their authority for political purposes. Our intelligence and law enforcement agencies exist to defend the American people, not to be exploited to target one group on behalf of another. It is my hope that the Committee’s actions will shine a light on this alarming series of events so we can make reforms that allow the American people to have full faith and confidence in their governing institutions.”
And the actual Memo
https://intelligence.house.gov/uploadedfiles/memo_and_white_house_letter.pdf
I haven't read it. It just came out minutes ago.
The Committee has discovered serious violations of the public trust...
In a bunch of nothing, that above could be something, but only if it was not corroborated in some manner.
Do we know this? Did the Nunes' document specify this? Was this one of the things the Dems claim is missing?
What does it matter who paid for it? The judge is weighing the evidence.
And why did Steele dislike Trump? (not the it should matter) Could it be because his research indicated Trump was in bed with Russia?
What we have here, is a story woven by one Trump supporter, based upon second hand data (if that) only seen by one other fellow Trump supporter, and we will never see the underlying evidence the story was based upon. So essentially, a die-hard Trump supporter weaves a tale of unsupported allegations.
I think it will be interesting seeing what the Dems claim Nunes' left out or mis-characterized. Of course that will be just another unsupported narrative, only be two anti-Trumpers. After that, will we be able to say we're enlightened? I doubt it.
https://www.debatepolitics.com/gene...arrants-page-might-reveal-something-else.htmlSo there was indeed some corroboration, though it was "minimal"?
Meaning what? Two of the dozens of claims? Three? We're they the claims concerning Page?
See what I'm getting at here?
In a bunch of nothing, that above could be something, but only if it was not corroborated in some manner.
Do we know this? Did the Nunes' document specify this? Was this one of the things the Dems claim is missing?
What does it matter who paid for it? The judge is weighing the evidence.
And why did Steele dislike Trump? (not the it should matter) Could it be because his research indicated Trump was in bed with Russia?
What we have here, is a story woven by one Trump supporter, based upon second hand data (if that) only seen by one other fellow Trump supporter, and we will never see the underlying evidence the story was based upon. So essentially, a die-hard Trump supporter weaves a tale of unsupported allegations.
I think it will be interesting seeing what the Dems claim Nunes' left out or mis-characterized. Of course that will be just another unsupported narrative, only be two anti-Trumpers. After that, will we be able to say we're enlightened? I doubt it.
Notice what he says thought....
He doesn't mention procedural violations. He doesn't even suggest that national security was a concern. Of course, he words the memo in such a way as to suggest that the American people are being lied to, but when the man you're attempting to support and defend has himself told well over 2,000 lies to the American people as reported by such sources as Esquire Magazine - a non-partisan men's magazine - it'S difficult for Americans to believe the FBI lied to them when the POTUS does it damned near on a daily basis.
Tip of the iceberg situation. Why did Trump fabricate a false story about adoption then?
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Um...they had read it. They knew what was in it. The claims of national security were desperate attempts by Nancy Pelosi and company to find a legitimate reason to vote against the release of information that was already out there. The memo legitimizes everything that has been reported that was called a conspiracy theory. We now know there is no evidence of Trump/Russia collusion but there was Clinton/FBI collusion and possibly conspiracy.
Good point.
The memo is just a memo it isnt proof. It is still a conspiracy theory and propaganda put out by the Trump team. The memo and its release, the way it was done makes me even more suspicious that Trump is doing something very bad that needs to come to light.
I mean this is grandstanding on a new level. And I cant help to think; its just a ****ing memo written by a biased person. Of course Trump supporters believe that memo, myself I dont really believe it without actual evidence. Until some actual evidence is brought forward its just BS propaganda. But heres the kicker if the memo is false that will make all this a different type of evidence.
Since you're all for revealing crimes both related and unrelated to the purpose of the investigation, we can conclude you'd be perfectly okay with mueller's probe recommending an indictment for unrelated financial crimes of Trump, correct?
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
What in the world are you talking about?
What makes you think I'm all for revealing crimes both related and unrelated to the purpose of the investigation? Heck, I don't even know what sort of crimes you are referring to.
Anyway, no...I think Mueller should limit himself to the mandate of his special investigation...which is the effect Russia had on our election. Things like unrelated financial crimes are more properly the province of the regular FBI or other agencies. Now...if the regular FBI finds things the DOJ considers important or concerning, then they should convene a special investigation for that purpose.
If I'm reading this correctly, the FBI wanted so desperately for Trump to not win that they created the dossier in order to get a judge to allow surveillance on the Trump admin to try to thwart the election. Is that right?
You keep acting like Steele is some kind of Democratic operative with no proof. The reality is that Steele is a very respected member of the intelligence community and would be very unlikely to jeopardize that standing by writing a bunch of unsubstantiated BS. That aside the renewals indicate that there was pertinent information coming from the surveillance.
You cannot be asking this question and expect to be taken seriously.What in the world are you talking about?
No. The FBI had no hand in making the dossier
Reread the post I quoted. Your own words dispute you.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
And then the released a bogus memo weeks before the election that likely helped Trump win, which then amounted to absolutely nothing. Yeah, that same FBI is just making stuff up
It's comical how pathetic these people are. And law enforcement people tend to have more conservative leanings in general
Remember...this is just the beginning. Not the end.
1. Don't believe for a moment that the House Intel committee investigation is over.
2. There are three more Congressional committee investigations going.
3. There is a DOJ OIG investigation in the process of being completed.
Just based on this summary, alone, I'd say that a number of current and former DOJ and FBI employees need to be charged with political corruption by use of the FISA Court system. I also suspect those other investigations are going to reveal corroborating evidence and evidence of other, related and unrelated, crimes.
Okay. I had it in my head that the Steele guy was FBI.
If I'm reading this correctly, the FBI wanted so desperately for Trump to not win that they created the dossier in order to get a judge to allow surveillance on the Trump admin to try to thwart the election. Is that right?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?