House Intel committee votes to release Nunes memo - CNNPolitics

I also want to present a hypothetical question- If in counter-intelligence gathering for an election, the Republicans found evidence of wrongdoing from a Democrat(s) in research they funded, and that was presented to the FBI and there was reason to believe this was credible (say, like for example, the source for this was a source the FBI had used before), would you argue that the FBI should not investigate into that at all because it was funded by a partisan source?

Because that seems to be the argument here and I'm trying to wrap my head around it.

Also trying to wrap my head around that apparently the FBI is enemy to Republicans now or something but thats a different story

 

not 'just'

 

The 'facts' are the FBI said the dossier was the basis for spying, their words

The 'facts' are the FBI said the dossier was 'salacious and unverified', their words

You can be wishful and say 'ohhh but they spied on Page before, ohhhh we don't know what else they knew about the dossier'

But whatever they surveyed on Carter Page before, and whatever else they knew about the dossier.. it's not substantial. Thats you being wishful as a liberal, and as an American that doesn't want to believe a political campaign and the DOJ/FBI abused their powers.

And you know it's wishful thinking by exactly what the FBI said. 1. w/o dossier we don't get the warrants to spy and 2. The dossier is salacious and unverified.

 

Nobody is disparaging the entire DoJ or FBI. Just some really awful and cirminal human beings at the top.

 

It isn't me discrediting the memo, it is the unbiased FBI that is doing that. They are run by lifelong Republicans. They have behaved professionally despite having the leader of the free world fire the leader of the FBI because he was investigating Russian interference in the election.

 

But we know the accuracy of the memo is not reliable since parts were omitted so much so that it is now inaccurate. They may have said that but later issued a correction which was omitted. You also haven't explained why the dossier isn't suitable as part of the reason for the issuing of a FISA warrant.

 

I know, me too, though it wasn't quite last week. It was only a couple of days ago that the FBI saw it and realized it wasn't accurate. So silly that folks are buying into this discredited memo.

 

we dont know that at all

 

Maybe you don't, but most of us do. Once the FBI spilled the beans that the memo wasn't accurate everyone who was paying attention knew it.

 

they didn't spill those beans. This is also the same FBI who told me this was a national security risk.

Notice the FBI and Schiff aren;t claiming what aspects are wrong? where are they? the memo is out.

 

This is what a nothing burger tastes like, folks. I honestly thought there would be more to it than this at least, if there really were abuses of the system like Nunes is claiming then the Republicans are doing a god awful job of bringing them to light.

 

Well I can't help you with your inability to understand or failure to come to grips with the fact that the FBI said "we have grave concerns about material omissions of fact that fundamentally impact the memo’s accuracy."

That means it isn't inaccurate. I'm sorry you are unable or unwilling to understand that.

You have no idea that it isn't a security risk to release the memo.

If you want to question their reliability feel free. But if we look at who has been more truthful, and professional this far into the investigation, the Trump white house and their allies will lose bigly.

 

If this is true, then it should be the focus of the Republicans ire as it seems like the only piece of somewhat damning information at all in the memo.

 

The facts are that there were facts left out of the memo which makes what is there inaccurate.

Talking about a dossier being salacious and unverified doesn't mean anything especially if you understand what a dossier actually is.

 

I'm at a loss of words how you can question that I haven't explained why the dossier isn't suitable for a warrant. I say that, because I'm basically repeating myself at this point.

I'll do it again though, for your sake.

By the FBI's words, the dossier is 'salacious and unverified'-- along with all the bias towards the dossier portrayed in the memo. My question to you, just as a means to verify you read that, how CAN the dossier possibly be suitable as something to use for a FISA warrant?

 

The Dossier may be suitable because... Parts of it have been verified. A dossier is never meant to present its finding as verified truth. It is merely a collection of rumors gathered by intelligence. Rumors by nature are sometimes true and sometimes not true. That is a given when you are dealing with mere rumor. That is true not only of this dossier but any dossier.

Since this memo has omitted so much that we know it paints an inaccurate picture, it is entirely possible that the FBI testified exactly what information in the Dossier was actually verified to have been true and that is what got them the warrant. I have no idea. None of us do. The only thing we do know is that the memo paints an inaccurate picture.

 

Because you keep repeating that, this is an article from, of all places, Redstate going into a little more context about the exact use of those words. I suggest giving it a read
https://www.redstate.com/patterico/...naccuracy-thememo-calls-credibility-question/

 

Also want to throw out- There had been FISA warrants on Page before. To reopen/renew a FISA warrant on him, they need new info to justify that. The dossier included new info. Just because it wouldn't have been reopened without the dossier doesn't mean that the judge that granted the warrant did not take into account that there had been past FISA warrants on Page unrelated to the dossier. It also doesn't mean that parts of the dossier besides that hadn't been corroborated, I'd guess they almost certainly were if a judge approved this multiple times (unless you want to argue the judge is part of the conspiracy or something)

Which is very likely what was being talked about when the FBI and others said this memo leaves out context and details. I'm not even sure how anyone can take this thing as gospel (and thats not to mention that we have reason to question Nunes' credibility and partisanship). There's likely much more to this. Seeing so many people here take this memo like gospel as if it includes every detail and context when we have credible reason to believe it does not (hell and even proof it does not since it takes that Comey quote out of context completely and that is public record) is something

 

You are referring to McCabe saying that in an interview with the House Intel Committee, according to this memo, McCabe said "the FISA warrant doesn't happen without the Dossier" I believe.

First of all- We need to see the transcript of that interview for context. As the memo also points out, the investigation had already started from Papadapolous and the drunken night with the Australians. We need to see the lead up to the FISA application being filled out to understand completely.

Secondly- The Dossier refers to a Prostitute piss tape on Trump's bed. "Salacious" is technically a correct term for Comey to use about the Dossier because of some of the claims.

That being said-

Its important to note that this Memo does nothing to discredit the dossier's raw intelligence. And actually is even points to parts of it being verified later on. The whole basis of the Trump cult wanting the Russia investigation shut down (in a Constitutional Crisis fashion... mind you) is that the Dossier started the investigation into Trump and Russia and because the Trump Cult thinks the Dossier is fake, the investigation needs to be shut down.

However... the memo does nothing to disprove the Dossier's claims. If there is any legitimacy to the Dossier, every single American should all agree that its worth starting an investigation over.

That being said... IT WASN'T the only thing that started the investigation AS THIS MEMO STATES.

You are talking to a liberal here. The same liberals that remember WMD reports leading up to the Iraq War. Don't F-ing lecture me about abuses by the FBI.

I'll tell you what I think and what I know of Carter Page being survey'ed, but you have no clue about what I think about 702, and the apparatus of the FBI and the CIA spying on Americans. So stop that nonsense please.

Again... this all comes back to the FISA judge in the end who approved the warrant. I've been arguing with people like Tellv for months about this topic. The whole basis of the FoxNews/InfoWars argument on the Obama Wiretapping/Dossier planted conspiracy theory is based on the Judge being in the tank as a Democrat, and approving a warrant without any basis.

The whole theory resides on what we don't know about what is in the application that made the judge say that there is enough information here to prove something is there that not only needs to be surveyed, but APPROVED 3 MORE TIMES after being showed progress.

I've given up on Wishful Thinking a long time ago. I wished that the facts would ultimately prove that everyone is overreacting, and its just normal boring government as usual, and us Liberals can just campaign on normal every day stuff.

My worst fear of this whole nonsense unfortunately has come true.... that fear being that facts no longer matter, and we are about to head into a very very dark place as a country. Not because of Trump... but because of the people that gave up on facts a long time ago and CHOOSE to live in a fantasy world.

 

We know that some information in the Dossier was backed up by Intel from Australia and other places. One source may not be enough to get a warrant, but corroboration from other sources which might include the Steele Dossier would be enough. So it makes sense to say that the warrant wouldn't have been available without the Steele Dossier.

That doesn't mean everything in the Dossier is true. It doesn't mean that other information and evidence wasn't already present.

The memo which we know paints an inaccurate picture because of information it leaves out really ends up telling us almost nothing.