- The dossier
- Yahoo News article based on the dossier
- The George Papadopoulos case
- Page's history
- A general itemization of Russian meddling
So of these five pieces of information, the memo addresses the first three, doesn't discuss the fourth, and I would think that everyone sort of assumed the fifth. Certainly the memo spends the most time dissecting the dossier. The memo also points out that the Yahoo news article appears to have been taken entirely from the dossier and was at least in part sourced by Christopher Steele himself. Lastly, the memo confirms that the application mentions the Papadopoulos case, but points out that the application makes no attempt to even tie Carter Page to Papadopoulos.
So the portion that was left out of the memo was the fact that the FBI had previously sought and received a warrant to put Carter Page (and several others) under surveillance back in 2013 when they believed that there were Russian agents recruiting Americans. The problem is that the FBI ultimately concluded that Carter Page was not foreign agent, had not become a foreign agent, and that case ended without any actions being taken against Carter Page.
While some may argue that this was an important piece of information, others might argue that the bar should be higher putting someone under surveillance a second time (when nothing was found the first time). I suppose much of this depends on how you view the fourth amendment. Does anyone "really" believe it's a good idea to allow law enforcement to garner warrants against people "simply" because they were granted them in the past? An innocent person could be constantly put under surveillance, have intrusive searches and seizures, and every time law enforcement comes up empty, they could just give it some time, and then use that previous warrant as due cause to garner another?
Seems like dubious logic to me.
Granted, I believe that the memo probably should have included this piece of information, even if it was not a main argument for requesting the warrant. Doing so would have made the memo more comprehensive and put a damper on the claims that the memo was tainted by material omissions. But the omission really doesn't make the rest of the memo either misleading or dishonest.
171 comments:
But there’s a difference between being a “factor” and an important factor. The formal opening of an investigation is just a ministerial step. There is no indication in the memo that the FBI and Justice Department took energetic investigative measures, such as seeking FISA warrants to monitor Papadopoulos.
Indeed, the statement of the offense submitted to the court when Papadopoulos pled guilty in the Mueller investigation (to a single count of lying to the FBI) indicates that the FBI did not even interview Papadopoulos until January 27, 2017 — a week after Trump was sworn in as president and seven months after Strzok opened the investigation.
Read more at: http://www.nationalreview.com/article/456079/republican-house-releases-fisa-memo-confirms-steele-dossier-suspicions
President Trump claimed that the Nunes memo “totally vindicates” him.
Rep. Trey Gowdy, whom Ch and others here so admire, said,
"I actually don’t think it is has any impact on the Russia probe.”
— Rep. Trey Gowdy (R-SC), in a CBS News interview, rejecting Trump's claim.
Ex-CIA Director Says Nunes Has Abused His Authority
Former CIA Director John Brennan accused Rep. Devin Nunes (R-CA), the chairman of the House Intelligence Committee, of selectively releasing information to accuse law enforcement officials of improperly obtaining a warrant to monitor the communications of a former Trump campaign adviser, the Washington Post reports.
Said Brennan: “It’s just appalling and clearly underscores how partisan Mr. Nunes has been. He has abused the chairmanship of the Intelligence Committee.”
What portions of the Steel dossier WERE verified and used in the warrant application? What other information was important, which may beyond the speculative "from all sources" mentioned in the blog post? What were the connections between Page and other actors in the campaign, that aren't mentioned in "the memo?" What WAS said about the origin of the dossier, that isn't mentioned in "the memo"
There are many questions here, and for each question there may be an omission of fact from "the memo".
Aside from the partisan hype, I am sure that "the memo" is a disappointment to those hoping for an investigation-killer. I didn't see anything there that hadn't already been said by the partisan elements of the committee, and from the build-up I had expected much more. The claims that links to the Clinton campaign were not explicitly disclosed, nor who Steele worked for directly, these are pretty weak objections compared to the almost hysterical characterizations of "lie" and "hiding information." Far from stopping the investigation, this memo will likely have little or no impact at all on it.
Perhaps it will motivate some senators to shut that unconstitutional court down eventually, but even that is a long shot. More likely, IMO, the politicians will take steps to ensure that the court is only used against entities they are opposed to, without any reduction in its powers or secrecy, while placing roadblocks in its use against their own political interests. Which, you'll note, is exactly how they're talking now.
WP...
The answers to those questions could come rather easily. All you have to do is declassify the underlying information. Many on the GOP side of the intelligence committee have called for just that. Universally this idea has been rejected by the Democrats.
I think the difference here, WP... is that I am pretty cynical of the FBI at this point, mainly because of how hard they have attempted to hide this information from congress... along with the long standing implication that the Steele dossier was never a trigger. That falsehood has been exposed at the very least.
We also can conclude without too much trouble that between Comey's testimony, Strzok's texts on the subject, and just common sense, that the FBI did not have any real evidence to back up the dossier. As Strzok stated in a text... there is no there there.
You apparently have much more blind faith in them, must believe that they have something up their sleeve, or otherwise do not want to know what is going on behind closed doors.
Personally I agree that this memo has very little to do with the current Special Counsel, other than it calls into question why there is a Special Counsel to begin with. But you cannot go back and change history, and there is no political way to fire Mueller at this point. I don't believe that anyone believed that Mueller would be fired because of this memo. But Trump fans will see it as vindication that the justification is flimsy (and they would be right).
The more reasonable question (and this may have to wait until the IG report comes out) is what happens with Rosenstein. He's the guy who might be under fire, and if he forced to step aside... then there is little doubt that Trump replaces him with someone more willing to keep a tight rope on Mueller.
Schumer to Trump: Release Democratic memo -- 11:12AM est
Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.) on Sunday pushed President Donald Trump to approve the release of a House Democratic memo designed as a counterweight to the GOP document released Friday accusing the FBI of misconduct.
The White House, after allowing the release of the GOP memo with no redactions, said in a statement that it would consider the Democrats' request for public viewing of their arguments "consistent with applicable standards, including the need to protect intelligence sources and methods." Schumer urged Trump to make that decision "as soon as possible."
"I believe it is a matter of fundamental fairness that the American people be allowed to see both sides of the argument and make their own judgments," Schumer said in a Sunday letter to the president.
Keeping the Democratic memo under wraps, Schumer added, "will confirm the American people’s worst fears that the release" of the document written by House Intelligence Committee Republicans "was only intended to undermine Special Counsel Robert Mueller’s investigation" into Trump allies' role in Russian election meddling.
The GOP memo argues that the FBI allowed anti-Trump bias to infect its probe of former Trump campaign adviser Carter Page, citing law enforcement officials' use of an unverified dossier financed by Democrats in their request to monitor Page.
The Republicans' memo also confirms, however, that the investigation into Russian connections to Trump's campaign did not begin based on that dossier, as pro-Trump critics have alleged. The GOP document further reveals that the initial court order used to monitor Page was requested after he formally left the Trump campaign.
House Republicans have said they anticipate the release of the Democrats' document, which attempts to undercut the GOP's memo as a pro-Trump political ploy, in the coming days after the full House has had time to approve it.
Durbin: Firing Mueller or Rosenstein over Nunes memo 'could precipitate a constitutional crisis'
3 hrs ago
The No. 2 Democrat in the Senate says Republicans may be setting the stage for a "constitutional crisis" if they use the Nunes memo to end the special counsel's Russia investigation.
"To say that that's the end of the investigation, that this is all that Donald Trump needs to fire (Deputy Attorney General Rod) Rosenstein or to fire (special counsel Robert) Mueller, I'll just tell you, this could precipitate a constitutional crisis," Sen. Dick Durbin, D-Illinois, said on CNN's "State of the Union" on Sunday.
The four-page memo alleges FBI abuses of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, accusing the agency of improperly using information paid for in part by Hillary Clinton's campaign to obtain a FISA warrant for Trump campaign foreign policy adviser Carter Page.
"If House Republicans believe that they've set the stage for this President to end this investigation, they are basically saying that in America, one man is above the law, and that's not a fact," Durbin added.
James Boswell of Normal, Illinois is a pedophile.
James Boswell of Normal, Illinois is a pedophile.
"... mainly because of how hard they have attempted to hide this information from congress... "
What information was hidden from Congress? Certainly nothing in that memo, since it contains nothing that members of Congress haven't already said publicly.
"along with the long standing implication that the Steele dossier was never a trigger. That falsehood has been exposed at the very least."
That (dossier was "a trigger") has not been established, nor has any related falsehood been exposed by the memo. The memo claims that it was "important" to the warrant application. Not "the" trigger, not "the basis". The memo fails to establish what else was important, or what actually was "the trigger".
Even taking everything in the memo at face value, one still concludes that the Steele dossier was probably not the main evidence presented, and to the extent that it WAS used, the disputed and unverified portions were obviously not part of it.
Confirmation bias is rampant among Trump partisans regarding this memo, but they will be vastly disappointed that dispassionate opinion will basically shrug it off as another partisan gimmick. The process will go on.
Prez Obama knew, he had to, given that he was the singular smartest President eva'. And Hillary , even smarter, more qualified then even Obama, she Knew, and paid for the pee wee dossier. AG Lynch knew as Did FBI Director J. Edgar Comey.
Release it all let we the people read it. Let us see what the Obama A Team did. Love to read the taped transcripting of the Hillary/Strok inyerview, especially the Miranda Warning.
Hillary Funded Steele Dossier. What parts are true WP?
You are shredding CH.
Good work
Again, what I find most amusing is that there is no law that requires a warrant to have all the facts and disclose all the sources.. Our law expert from Minnesota seems to know every thing about a classifies document and can pass judgement on those whose job it is to that. The amount of naive comments he makes concerning the content and conclusions are nothing but repeat of the talking points he has bought into....He calls himself a skeptic, I call it denial of reality and listening to the liar in chief and his constant drone of the FBI is a tool of democrats.....How funny that is!!!!!
The Super Bowl is in Minneapolis. I wonder if CH is following the order of the President and isn't watching tv.
I wonder if he's at the game?
Neo-Nazi Poised to Grab GOP Nomination In Illinois
“Arthur Jones (R) — an outspoken Holocaust denier, activist anti-Semite and white supremacist — is poised to become the Republican nominee for an Illinois congressional seat representing parts of Chicago and nearby suburbs,” the Chicago Sun Times reports.
Said Jones: “Well first of all, I’m running for Congress not the chancellor of Germany. All right. To me the Holocaust is what I said it is: It’s an international extortion racket.”
Jones is the only one on the Republican ballot for the March 20 primary.
________________
James:
Will the GOP close ranks behind this holocaust denier, white supremacist, and activist anti-Semite?
Why not? They've closed rank around white supremacist racist Trump.
WHAT A FLIPPED OUT MESS THIS IS
Republican lawmakers distance themselves from Trump on memo
The Washington Post
3 hrs ago
Just read this entire Wash Po article.
Hey, Ch Truth and Wp Hamlton,
Tell what you think of what Trey Gowdey is now saying.
Is he being "disloyal" to Trump, or loyal to reason and the truth?
Please comment.
Over/under on how many Philly wives have a black eye tonight?
E
A
G
L
E
S
!!!
Eagles won, Rogers perfect.
Lol I knew that you would say that!
What a game!!!
I think that it was the best Super Bowl game in history. I have seen all but 1 and 2.
Thanks Roger, you're perfect at losing.
Tell what you think of what Trey Gowdey is now saying.
Regarding the investigation, Gowdy is agreeing with me of course. "There is a Russia investigation without a dossier," Gowdy said.
He also said that it does not vindicate Trump. It would be foolish for Gowdy, and other Republicans in the Committee, to say otherwise because it would be an obvious attempt to derail the investigation and these politicians aren't ready to fall on the sword for Trump yet.
Gowdy also said that 'the Steele dossier was not "the exclusive information" the FISA court used for the Page warrant', again agreeing with me (and contradicting Coldheart). Recall that, as I wrote above, this is one of the several material omissions of fact in the memo - Trump partisans are claiming that the warrant "was based on" and "relies on" the dossier exclusively, but even Gowdy admits that it was not.
Naturally he's still trying to use his memo as a political attack against the FBI and the Mueller investigation but clearly he's unable to do so directly, the way partisans (such as in this blog) are presenting it.
Gowdy also said that 'the Steele dossier was not "the exclusive information" the FISA court used for the Page warrant', again agreeing with me (and contradicting Coldheart).
I don't think CH, Republicans, or anybody else ever said it was the "the exclusive information". That is a deliberate moving of the goal post.
What is true was that it was the primary justification for the warrant and without it there would be no warrant.
You're basically hanging your hat on window dressing hoping no one would notice.
Because if the goal is to stop the Trump agenda that battle has been lost.
Judge Rudolph Contreras was responsible for issuing the FISA Warrant to wiretap former Trump Campaign Foreign Policy Adviser .
A Obama Appointee.
Go figure.
James Boswell of Normal, Illinois is a pedophile.
James Boswell of Normal, Illinois is a pedophile.
James Boswell of Normal, Illinois is a pedophile.
James Boswell of Normal, Illinois is a pedophile.
James Boswell of Normal, Illinois is a pedophile.
James Boswell of Normal, Illinois is a pedophile.
James Boswell of Normal, Illinois is a pedophile.
James Boswell of Normal, Illinois is a pedophile.
James Boswell of Normal, Illinois is a pedophile.
James Boswell of Normal, Illinois is a pedophile.
Hey, Ch,
Wp commented intelligently on what Try Gowdey is now saying.
Where is your comment?
*Trey
*Whoops. Make that Trey Gowdy.
James said...
Hey, Ch,
Where is your comment?
And admit he is wrong....Menstral cramps admitting ,6% growth was wrong would happen before CH would....
Breaking down Rep. Gowdy’s response to President Trump
In his interview taped Saturday for Sunday on Face the Nation, Rep. Trey Gowdy, R-South Carolina, responded to President Trump's claim that the controversial release of a memo, alleging the FBI and Department of Justice abused their authority to spy on the Trump campaign, "totally vindicated" the president of wrongdoing in the Russia probe.
The memo was released over strong objections from the intelligence community which argued the memo contained inaccuracies and would have a chilling effect on intelligence sharing and cooperation. Democrats also objected, expressing concern Republicans were using the memo to undermine special counsel Robert Mueller's investigation and that the memo took facts out of context.
Gowdy told Margaret Brennan, CBS News White House and Senior Foreign Affairs Correspondent, "even without a dossier" that the memo was critical of, "there's going to be a Russia probe."
A portion of Gowdy's response is annotated below:
======GOWDY: "Not to me, it doesn't -- and I was pretty integrally involved in the drafting of it…"
"Drafting of it it" refers to the four-page memo prepared by Gowdy, Republican staffers, and House Intelligence Committee Chairman Rep. Devin Nunes, R-California. The memo alleges the FBI and DOJ abused the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) process to spy on Carter Page, a former Trump campaign foreign policy adviser.
=====GOWDY: "...There is a Russia investigation without a dossier…"
"Dossier" refers to a report compiled by former British spy Christopher Steele, on behalf of the Democrats and Hillary Clinton's campaign, which claims Russia has amassed compromising information about Trump.
=====GOWDY: "...So to the extent the memo deals with the dossier and the FISA process…"
"FISA process" refers to secret proceedings in which the government asks a judge for permission to spy on Americans. Judges grant permission if they feel the government has shown probable cause that the Americans subject to the surveillance are agents for a foreign country. Among the memo's central claims is that the FBI and Department of Justice did not sufficiently disclose that the dossier they relied on for part of their proving of probable cause was funded by Democrats.
====GOWDY: "...the dossier has nothing to do with the meeting at Trump Tower…"
In June 2016, Trump's son-in-law Jared Kushner attended a meeting with other senior campaign aides and Russian lawyer Natalia Veselnitskaya. Kushner initially claimed the meeting was about a Russian adoption program. But, he later admitted that they agreed to the meeting because Kushner thought Veselnitskaya had damaging information about Donald Trump's Democratic opponent, Hillary Clinton.
=====GOWDY: "...The dossier has nothing to do with an email sent by Cambridge Analytica…"
Julian Assange, editor of Wikileaks, said Wikileaks was approached by data firm Cambridge Analytica in 2016 about potentially working together about the release of Hillary Clinton's deleted emails. Cambridge Analytica's CEO Alexander Nix, the Wall Street Journal first reported, was emailed by Trump donor Rebekah Mercer asking if they might be able to better organize the release of Hillary Clinton emails by Wikileaks.
=====GOWDY: "...The dossier really has nothing to do with George Papadopoulos' meeting in Great Britain…"
George Papadopoulos, a former Trump campaign aide, pled guilty in October 2017 to lying to FBI agents about his conversations with "foreign nationals" who Papadopoulos thought were connected to senior Russian officials. Papadopoulos, the New York Times first reported, told an Australian diplomat in a London bar that Russia had damaging information about rival Hillary Clinton. This interaction was reportedly a factor in the beginning of the FBI's investigation into Russian election meddling and the Trump campaign that led to his October guilty plea.
=====GOWDY: "...It also doesn't have anything to do with obstruction of justice…"
President Trump's lawyers, the Wall Street Journal first reported, have met several times with special counsel Robert Mueller to outline arguments why the president's firing of former FBI Director James Comey is not obstruction of justice. Mr. Trump reportedly met with then-Director Comey to ask him to drop his investigation into Michael Flynn, former National Security Advisor to the president.
=====GOWDY: "...So there's going to be a Russia probe, even without a dossier."
"I am on record as saying I support Bob Mueller one hundred percent," Gowdy said Sunday on Face the Nation, later adding "You need an investigation into the Trump Tower and the Cambridge Analytica email, separate and apart from the dossier. So those are not connected issues to me. They may be for other Republicans, but they're not for me. I say investigate everything Russia did, but admit that this was a really sloppy process…"
Hey, Ch, Trey Gowdy said
"...The dossier really has nothing to do with George Papadopoulos' meeting in Great Britain ...It also doesn't have anything to do with obstruction of justice…..So there's going to be a Russia probe, even without a dossier."
He also said, "I am on record as saying I support Bob Mueller one hundred percent...I say investigate everything Russia did..."
What do you think of that, Ch?
Coal remains deader than KD's scrawny white ass.....
“We have ended the war on American energy,” President Trump boasted in his State of the Union address, “and we have ended the war on beautiful, clean coal. We are now, very proudly, an exporter of energy to the world.”
Those two sentences were about all Mr. Trump devoted to his energy policy in his message. Brief as they were, they encapsulated nearly everything that is shallow, dishonest and just plain wrong with that policy, as well as his approach to environmental issues generally.
Here’s what’s deceptive: There has been no war on energy. American oil, gas and renewables like wind and solar flourished under President Obama. Coal was the exception, but Mr. Obama was not its enemy; the market was. “Beautiful, clean coal,” meanwhile, remains a mirage, at least for now; the affordable technology isn’t there. And the United States has always exported energy. In recent years — the Obama years — the amount of energy the country has sent abroad has begun to catch up with the energy it brings in.
Mr. Trump’s false narrative on coal is particularly cruel, since it offers empty promises to Appalachian coal miners who are suffering grievous job losses and myriad health and economic ills. It’s true that the last two Democratic presidents — Bill Clinton and Mr. Obama — cracked down on power plant emissions like soot and mercury with rules that imposed real costs on producers; and Mr. Obama’s Clean Power Plan, aimed at cutting the carbon emissions that fuel global warming, would have pressured the industry more.
But these regulations did not kill coal-fired plants, and rolling them back, as Mr. Trump is doing, will not stop the unforgiving forces of the market, chiefly the switch to cheaper natural gas, and renewables’ increasing competitiveness. These are the forces that have been largely responsible for the decline in mining jobs and the closing, or conversion to natural gas, of hundreds of coal-fired plants.
SEE SAMPLE MANAGE EMAIL PREFERENCES PRIVACY POLICY OPT OUT OR CONTACT US ANYTIME
What miners need are real programs to help transition them to new jobs, not promises of “beautiful, clean coal.”
Off with his head!
...er... Sir, that's not how we do things in a democracy. And in spite of you, this still is a democracy.
James Boswell of Normal, Illinois is a pedophile.
James Boswell of Normal, Illinois is a pedophile.
James Boswell of Normal, Illinois is a pedophile.
James Boswell of Normal, Illinois is a pedophile.
James Boswell of Normal, Illinois is a pedophile.
James Boswell of Normal, Illinois is a pedophile.
James Boswell of Normal, Illinois is a pedophile.
James Boswell of Normal, Illinois is a pedophile.
James Boswell of Normal, Illinois is a pedophile.
James Boswell of Normal, Illinois is a pedophile.
James Boswell of Normal, Illinois is a pedophile.
James Boswell of Normal, Illinois is a pedophile.
James Boswell of Normal, Illinois is a pedophile.
James Boswell of Normal, Illinois is a pedophile.
James Boswell of Normal, Illinois is a pedophile.
James Boswell of Normal, Illinois is a pedophile.
James Boswell of Normal, Illinois is a pedophile.
James Boswell of Normal, Illinois is a pedophile.
James Boswell of Normal, Illinois is a pedophile.
James Boswell of Normal, Illinois is a pedophile.
James Boswell of Normal, Illinois is a pedophile.
James Boswell of Normal, Illinois is a pedophile.
James Boswell of Normal, Illinois is a pedophile.
James Boswell of Normal, Illinois is a pedophile.
James Boswell of Normal, Illinois is a pedophile.
James Boswell of Normal, Illinois is a pedophile.
James Boswell of Normal, Illinois is a pedophile.
James Boswell of Normal, Illinois is a pedophile.
James Boswell of Normal, Illinois is a pedophile.
James Boswell of Normal, Illinois is a pedophile.
James Boswell of Normal, Illinois is a pedophile.
James Boswell of Normal, Illinois is a pedophile.
James Boswell of Normal, Illinois is a pedophile.
James Boswell of Normal, Illinois is a pedophile.
James Boswell of Normal, Illinois is a pedophile.
James Boswell of Normal, Illinois is a pedophile.
James Boswell of Normal, Illinois is a pedophile.
James Boswell of Normal, Illinois is a pedophile.
James Boswell of Normal, Illinois is a pedophile.
James Boswell of Normal, Illinois is a pedophile.
Is there an echo in here?
James Boswell of Normal, Illinois is a pedophile.
James Boswell of Normal, Illinois is a pedophile.
James Boswell of Normal, Illinois is a pedophile.
James Boswell of Normal, Illinois is a pedophile.
James Boswell of Normal, Illinois is a pedophile.
James Boswell of Normal, Illinois is a pedophile.
James Boswell of Normal, Illinois is a pedophile.
James Boswell of Normal, Illinois is a pedophile.
James Boswell of Normal, Illinois is a pedophile.
James Boswell of Normal, Illinois is a pedophile.
James Boswell of Normal, Illinois is a pedophile.
James Boswell of Normal, Illinois is a pedophile.
James Boswell of Normal, Illinois is a pedophile.
James Boswell of Normal, Illinois is a pedophile.
James Boswell of Normal, Illinois is a pedophile.
James Boswell of Normal, Illinois is a pedophile.
James Boswell of Normal, Illinois is a pedophile.
James Boswell of Normal, Illinois is a pedophile.
James Boswell of Normal, Illinois is a pedophile.
James Boswell of Normal, Illinois is a pedophile.
No one cares . The memo is a bust.
James Boswell of Normal, Illinois is a pedophile.
James Boswell of Normal, Illinois is a pedophile.
James Boswell of Normal, Illinois is a pedophile.
James Boswell of Normal, Illinois is a pedophile.
James Boswell of Normal, Illinois is a pedophile.
James Boswell of Normal, Illinois is a pedophile.
James Boswell of Normal, Illinois is a pedophile.
James Boswell of Normal, Illinois is a pedophile.
James Boswell of Normal, Illinois is a pedophile.
James Boswell of Normal, Illinois is a pedophile.
James Boswell of Normal, Illinois is a pedophile.
James Boswell of Normal, Illinois is a pedophile.
James Boswell of Normal, Illinois is a pedophile.
James Boswell of Normal, Illinois is a pedophile.
James Boswell of Normal, Illinois is a pedophile.
James Boswell of Normal, Illinois is a pedophile.
James Boswell of Normal, Illinois is a pedophile.
James Boswell of Normal, Illinois is a pedophile.
James Boswell of Normal, Illinois is a pedophile.
James Boswell of Normal, Illinois is a pedophile.
Let them eat French fries.
In a now-deleted tweet, which has nonetheless already become notorious, Paul Ryan tried to hype the benefits of his massive corporate tax cut by celebrating the example of a worker who’s getting $1.50 more per week. That’s roughly the price of a small French fries at McDonald’s.
Should we keep giving Ryan grief over that tweet? Yes, we should – and not just because it shows how out of touch he is. By highlighting the tiny tax cut some workers will get as if that were the point and main result of a bill that blows up the deficit by more than $1 trillion, he helps illustrate the bait-and-switch at the core of the whole G.O.P. agenda.
For tax cuts aren’t free. Sooner or later, the federal government has to pay its way. Even if you don’t think the budget deficit is currently a big problem, except under very special circumstances anything that reduces revenue will eventually have to be offset by later tax increases or spending cuts.
And those special circumstances – basically a depressed economy that needs a fiscal boost – don’t apply now, with the U.S. close to full employment.
So Ryan is patting himself on the back for giving a schoolteacher some French fries. What’s he planning to take away?
Well, we know the answer: Republicans constantly use the alleged dangers of budget deficits to argue for sharp cuts in social programs. You might have thought they’d lay off that rhetoric for a while after passing an unfunded $1.5 trillion tax cut, but in fact they barely paused; even at the height of the tax “reform” debate, people like Orrin Hatch declared that we can’t “spend billions and billions and trillions of trillions of dollars to help people who won’t help themselves.” Right now they’re dragging their feet on funding for community health centers, complaining about the cost.
So here’s how the bait and switch goes: pass a huge tax cut that overwhelmingly benefits the rich, but gives ordinary workers a few crumbs — or actually a bag of fries now and then. Then point to the big deficits created by that tax cut as a reason social programs essential to many ordinary families must be slashed. Lather, rinse, repeat.
It’s such an obvious scam that you might think either that its perpetrators would get embarrassed or that the public would get wise. But the first won’t happen. The second – well, we’ll see in November.
PhD in economics and Pulitzer prize-winning economist Paul Krugman .
CH the cubicle economic genius hates Krugman.
massive corporate tax cut by celebrating the example of a worker who’s getting $1.50 more per week
Just think, menstral cramps claimed a 200 buck increase in his paycheck???? Wonder who to believe......LOLOL
The GOP memo proves the ‘deep state’ is real
Before it saw the memo, the Times’ editorial page called it proof of “The Republican Plot Against the FBI.” A Washington Post columnist warned President Trump he would be making a historic mistake in releasing it.
“Presidents don’t win fights with the FBI,” Eugene Robinson wrote, seemingly endorsing the blackmailing habits of the disgraced J. Edgar Hoover.
Oddly, the campaign by those papers coincided with the celebration of their roles in releasing the Pentagon Papers nearly 50 years ago, as heroically depicted in the movie “The Post.”
Then, those papers took great risks in standing up for the First Amendment in the face of government threats and financial pressures. Now, those same papers take the side of butt-covering secrecy and demonize those who demand transparency.
Those organizations are betraying their legacies and their duties as journalists. They share with corrupt officials a hatred of Donald Trump and believe that ending his presidency justifies any and all means.
Their motives are as partisan as that of the Democrats who fought tooth and nail to scuttle the memo.
Talk about being on the wrong side of history.
MARGARET BRENNAN: You surprised Washington with announcing your retirement -- that you're not going to run for Congress. Why did you decide to leave?
REP. GOWDY: You know, I'm just-- I-- I enjoy the justice system more. I enjoy being fair. I enjoy the pursuit of fairness as a virtue and I'm just more comfortable in that system. My wife hates it when I say this, but I-- I was a pretty good prosecutor, I think. But I've been a pretty lousy politician. So I've done it for seven years. I'm really grateful for the opportunity to do it, but it's time for me to -- whatever time I've got left -- I want to spend it in the justice system because that's where my heart is, and that's where my interests--
MARGARET BRENNAN: Why do you say you are a lousy politician?
REP. GOWDY: I just-- I-- I see multiple sides of a single issue. And the fact that someone disagrees with me, does not make me challenge their love of the country. It doesn't make me believe that they're corrupt. I've got a lot of friends on the other side of the aisle. We disagree on this issue, but-- but I don't question their love for the country and I don't-- I-- I just-- I don't think the end justifies the means. I think the manner in which we get places matters, and in politics too often winning is the only thing that matters. And look, every hero I have has lost. Every one of them. So losing is not the worst thing in the world. Not knowing what you believe and not caring enough about it to fight for it? That's the worst thing in the world.
Commonsense said...
The GOP memo proves the ‘deep state’ is real
So says Rupert Murdoch....BWAAAAAAAAAAA!!!!!! Memo is a bigger bust than you getting 200 more a paycheck from tax reduction and the economy grew at .6% in busch's last months.....LOLOLOLOLOLOL
Prosecutors say witness testimony, audio and video evidence, plus bullet trajectory analysis yielded one conclusion: FBI agent W. Joseph Astarita lied about firing two shots at the truck of refuge occupation spokesman Robert "LaVoy" Finicum in 2016 after he swerved into a snowbank.
The information is detailed in a 32-page government response to Astarita's motion to dismiss the federal indictment against him. He's pleaded not guilty to three counts of making false statements and two counts of obstruction of justice. Astarita's lawyer claimed the indictment was based on "junk science.''
The government response also reveals that Oregon State Police SWAT troopers at the scene, ordinarily required to wear body cameras, didn't that day at the request of the FBI. The FBI did obtain video from FBI surveillance planes flying above the scene.
State police detectives also normally record interviews of officers who might be involved in a shooting, but they didn't that night when questioning the FBI Hostage Rescue Team members, again at the FBI's request. A follow-up interview with the hostage team members also came with unusual conditions, prosecutors note.
Astarita fired after Finicum's truck swerved into a snowbank at a roadblock and then stepped out of his pickup, investigators said. Astarita's first rifle shot missed Finicum's truck entirely and the second entered Finicum's truck from the roof, "sending sparks into the cabin and blowing out the left rear passenger window next to Ryan Bundy,'' according to federal prosecutors. Finicum wasn't struck.
http://www.oregonlive.com/oregon-standoff/2018/02/fbi_told_oregon_state_police_n.html#incart_river_home
CH has become ultra-partisan since the election of 2016. He claims that people like me are angry about the results of the election is why we don't like Trump.
I have made it clear that I believe that he's incompetent and dangerous. The fact that he lied about the crowd size, and his inability to tell the truth is just one sample of the reasons why I oppose him.
His attacks on the FBI and the intelligence agencies across the board and the law enforcement agencies are the actions of a dictatorship. We could be looking at Constitutional crisis, not for legitimate reasons, but more importantly is that he's not mentally stable and as President posses a threat to the United States as we have been blessed with for 240 years.
And CH will support Trump no matter what he says or does.
wp summed it up .
Naturally he's still trying to use his memo as a political attack against the FBI and the Mueller investigation but clearly he's unable to do so directly, the way partisans (such as in this blog) are presenting it.
Commonsense said...
The GOP memo proves the ‘deep state’ is real
Trey Gowdy said...
I don't think there's a bigger supporter of the FBI in Congress than me and those of us who work with them in a previous life. I have tremendous respect for the bureau. There are 30,000 employees. Let's assume that there are five that engaged in conduct that we have questions about --
MARGARET BRENNAN: Five? Individuals?
REP. GOWDY: -- that leaves a lot. That leaves a lot that are doing exactly what we want them to do.
MARGARET BRENNAN: Are these five individuals named in the memo that you helped publish?
REP. GOWDY: I think two of them would be. People can quibble about Andy McCabe. I spent, I guess, close to 15 hours with Andy McCabe in two different interview sections. I found him to be a professional witness even though I disagree with some of the decisions he made. And I think we've got to get to some point in life where you can disagree with the decision-making process that someone engaged in, WITHOUT BELIEVING THAT THEY ARE CORRUPT OR SOMEHOW PART OF THE "DEEP STATE," WHATEVER THAT MEANS."
Roger AmickFebruary 5, 2018 at 6:57 AM
CH has become ultra-partisan since the election of 2016. He claims that people like me are angry about the results of the election is why we don't like Trump.
I have made it clear that I believe that he's incompetent and dangerous. The fact that he lied about the crowd size, and his inability to tell the truth is just one sample of the reasons why I oppose him.
His attacks on the FBI and the intelligence agencies across the board and the law enforcement agencies are the actions of a dictatorship. We could be looking at Constitutional crisis, not for legitimate reasons, but more importantly is that he's not mentally stable and as President posses a threat to the United States as we have been blessed with for 240 years.
And CH will support Trump no matter what he says or does.
wp summed it up .
Naturally he's still trying to use his memo as a political attack against the FBI and the Mueller investigation but clearly he's unable to do so directly, the way partisans (such as in this blog) are presenting it.
Rat the whole idiot posted another false equivalency....the desperation smells like methyl mercaptan.,,,,,,
: FBI agent W. Joseph Astarita lied about firing two shots at the truck of refuge occupation spokesman Robert "LaVoy" Finicum in 201
Yeah, that means mueller and wray are corrupt.....idot...
Regarding the investigation, Gowdy is agreeing with me of course. "There is a Russia investigation without a dossier," Gowdy said.
there is. just not much of an investigation.
other than the dossier you have a drunk running his mouth at a london pub to an australian. oh, and the drunk was not interviewed by mueller until after inauguration day.
Gowdy also said that 'the Steele dossier was not "the exclusive information" the FISA court used for the Page warrant'
correct. not exclusive. only the lynchpin of the FISA warrant. mccabe testified under oath that without the dossier, there is no FISA warrant application.
i can already see where you're going with this latest gtroll of yours, wp. this is going to be semantic hair splitting at the nano level. have fun with that.
Trey Gowdy: FBI concealed Clinton role in Steele dossier
The House’s top investigator on Sunday said the FBI failed to notify a surveillance court that it was relying on material backed by the Democratic National Committee and the Hillary Clinton campaign when it asked to snoop on a former adviser to the Trump campaign.
Rep. Trey Gowdy, South Carolina Republican, also said judges wouldn’t have authorized and repeatedly renewed a warrant to spy on the former campaign aide, Carter Page, if it hadn’t been for the material in that very dossier, compiled by former British spy Christopher Steele.
“They could have easily said it was the DNC and Hillary Clinton. That would have been really easy,” Mr. Gowdy told CBS’s “Face the Nation.” “It took longer to explain it the way they did than if they just came right out and said, ‘Hillary Clinton for America and DNC paid for it.’ But they didn’t do that.”
Mr. Gowdy was involved in drafting a bombshell memo that details the FBI’s decision to use the Clinton-backed material to try to spy on Mr. Page in October 2016. It also explores the role of top FBI and Justice Department officials in seeking and renewing those snooping powers.
The fact that he lied about the crowd size
really alky? crowd size.
you're still hung up on this?
LOL.
btw, good call on the super bowl. your streak of wrong political and sports predictions is unbroken.
crowd size.
LOL.
When you've got nothing to say, post something like that at 7:05 AM.
He clings to false equivalent beliefs in desperation . The memo is a total failure.
The Super Bowl victory by the Philadelphia Eagles is the headline on most of the Fake News pillars of a democracy.
Crowd size wasn't much .
It got much worse.
President Trump
First 10 months
Jan. 21, 2017.“I wasn't a fan of Iraq. I didn't want to go into Iraq.” (He was for an invasion before he was against it.)
Jan. 21, 2017.“A reporter for Time magazine — and I have been on their cover 14 or 15 times. I think we have the all-time record in the history of Time magazine.” (Trump was on the cover 11 times and Nixon appeared 55 times.)
Jan. 23, 2017.“Between 3 million and 5 million illegal votes caused me to lose the popular vote.” (There's no evidence of illegal voting.)
Jan. 25, 2017.“Now, the audience was the biggest ever. But this crowd was massive. Look how far back it goes. This crowd was massive.” (Official aerial photos show Obama's 2009 inauguration was much more heavily attended.)
Jan. 25, 2017.“Take a look at the Pew reports (which show voter fraud.)” (The report never mentioned voter fraud.)
Jan. 25, 2017.“You had millions of people that now aren't insured anymore.” (The real number is less than 1 million, according to the Urban Institute.)
Jan. 25, 2017.“So, look, when President Obama was there two weeks ago making a speech, very nice speech. Two people were shot and killed during his speech. You can't have that.” (There were no gun homicide victims in Chicago that day.)
Jan. 26, 2017.“We've taken in tens of thousands of people. We know nothing about them. They can say they vet them. They didn't vet them. They have no papers. How can you vet somebody when you don't know anything about them and you have no papers? How do you vet them? You can't.” (Vetting lasts up to two years.)
Jan. 26, 2017.“I cut off hundreds of millions of dollars off one particular plane, hundreds of millions of dollars in a short period of time. It wasn't like I spent, like, weeks, hours, less than hours, and many, many hundreds of millions of dollars. And the plane's going to be better.” (Most of the cuts were already planned.)
Jan. 28, 2017.“The coverage about me in the @nytimes and the @washingtonpost has been so false and angry that the Times actually apologized to its dwindling subscribers and readers.” (It never apologized.)
Jan. 29, 2017.“The Cuban-Americans, I got 84 percent of that vote.” (There is no support for this.)
Jan. 30, 2017.“Only 109 people out of 325,000 were detained and held for questioning. Big problems at airports were caused by Delta computer outage.” (At least 746 people were detained and processed, and the Delta outage happened two days later.)
Feb. 3, 2017.“Professional anarchists, thugs and paid protesters are proving the point of the millions of people who voted to MAKE AMERICA GREAT AGAIN!” (There is no evidence of paid protesters.)
Feb. 6, 2017.“It's gotten to a point where it is not even being reported. And in many cases, the very, very dishonest press doesn't want to report it.” (Terrorism has been reported on, often in detail.)
Feb. 6, 2017.“And the previous administration allowed it to happen because we shouldn't have been in Iraq, but we shouldn't have gotten out the way we got out. It created a vacuum, ISIS was formed.” (The group’s origins date to 2004.)
Feb. 7, 2017.“And yet the murder rate in our country is the highest it’s been in 47 years, right? Did you know that? Forty-seven years.” (It was higher in the 1980s and '90s.)
Feb. 9, 2017.“Chris Cuomo, in his interview with Sen. Blumenthal, never asked him about his long-term lie about his brave ‘service’ in Vietnam. FAKE NEWS!” (It was part of Cuomo's first question.)
Feb. 9, 2017.“Sen. Richard Blumenthal...now misrepresents what Judge Gorsuch told him?” (The Gorsuch comments were later corroborated.)
Feb. 10, 2017.“I don’t know about it. I haven’t seen it. What report is that?” (Trump knew about Flynn's actions for weeks.)
Feb. 12, 2017.“Just leaving Florida. Big crowds of enthusiastic supporters lining the road that the FAKE NEWS media refuses to mention. Very dishonest!” (The media did cover it.)
It is really amusing that Trump will go down as the lyingest President in US history.
His attacks on the FBI and the intelligence agencies across the board and the law enforcement agencies are the actions of a dictatorship.
really, drama queen?
so, according to you, the president insisting that the FBI live up to it's motto - fidelity, bravery, integrity - is somehow a threat to our democracy and indicative of a looming constitutional crises. actually you have it exactly backwards. you must be psychologically projecting again. allowing a lawless FBI to run wild, in effect acting like the east german stasi, they get to use nefarious and highly illegal means to spy on american citizens. all in an attempt to facilitate what can only be called a coup attempt.
sunlight is the best disinfectant, alky. and right now the FBI is rotten to it's core. trump should be looking at was to disband it. we have plenty of fed level law enforcement to fill the void - US Marshall's ATF, DEA, etc. this would be a perfect opportunity to drain the federal law enforcement septic tank and start anew.
face it. you LIKE having an FBI that is this corrupt. you rejoice in how 0linsky weaponized the IRS, DOJ, FBI, BLM and who knows how many others to persecute his and your political enemies. you actually get off on this shit.
menstral the cramp clings to his mistaken hope that this means something.....
Trey Gowdy: FBI concealed Clinton role in Steele dossier
They disclosed everything required by law including it was opposition research.....You lost you 200 buck a paycheck liar.....
The Super Bowl victory by the Philadelphia Eagles is the headline on most of the Fake News pillars of a democracy.
_________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
what you call "pillars of democracy" the rest of us call democrats with a byline.
if they were truly pillars of democracy they would've demanded the memo instead of squealing like stuck pigs about it.
pillars of democracy. LOL. good one alky.
alky Five years seven months and eleven days, one day at a time
Mr shoot them, men,women and children as a warningto others.
Who would you believe?
You mean "You wish the memo was a total failure."
Unfortunately for us that's not true. It shows an out of control and unaccountable FBI abusing the FISA courts design to protect us against terrorist activity to perform domestic political spying.
It shows that certain members of the FBI leadership decided to subvert the will of and American voter by trying to falsely paint one campaign as treasonist agents of a foreign power.
It shows the leadership of the FBI has a gross disregard for the US Constitution treating it as a minor inconvenience. Especially the 4th amendment.
And it shows a news media who has abandoned their traditional role as government watchdog and is actively engaging in conspiracies to cover up unconstitutional, improper, and likely illegal actions of the government.
both james and this pedophile shit is beyond ridiculous
BUT GOWDY actually saw the FISA warrant and said it didn't do what Commie said it does...
Who to believe ????
BTW this memo is just the beginning. There is more to come.
"Commonsense said...
BTW this memo is just the beginning. There is more to come"
Looks like Trump is giving the Democrats enough rope to hang themselves, and they are. They sure are going all-in on the FISA actions, FBI leadership, DOJ leadership, Hillary and yes Obama being on the up and up.
And then we will have a mid-term election.
More popcorn PLEAZE !!!
Yes, there is more to come. The Dems will be answering with a memo/momos of their own.
Welcome to the United States of Trump!
You are safe here because the TBI and TIA keep you safe against enemies both foreign and domestic! Please note that the internet is not available in the United States. The Fake News has been replaced with Trump York Times.
Enjoy your visit to the non olinsky country. Leave your phones, and all computer devices with the Trump Air security border police.
James said...
Yes, there is more to come. The Dems will be answering with a memo/momos of their own.
__________________________
Bring it on !!!!!!
ROFLMFAO !!!
Welcome to the United States of Trump!
You are safe here because the TBI and TIA keep you safe against enemies both foreign and domestic! Please note that the internet is not available in the United States. The Fake News has been replaced with Trump York Times.
Enjoy your visit to the non olinsky country. Leave your phones, and all computer devices with the Trump Air security border police.
Ccowardly king obama said...
both james and this pedophile shit is beyond ridiculous
_______________
James:
It has now become clear that it is "Loretta" who is posting the pedophile absurdities. And yes, ridiculous "sh*t" is exactly what it is.
You can certainly tell when Roger knows he's lost an argument.
He goes into irrelevant drama-queen mode.
and the james shit is your ridiculous political_lire spamming
Blogger Commonsense said...
You can certainly tell when Roger knows he's lost an argument.
He goes into irrelevant drama-queen mode.
LOL. indeed he does. you beat me to it.
The U.S. government will borrow $1 trillion more this year than in did last year, because Trump is a tremendous businessman who will run our country as well as he did his real estate and brand empire. He is morally and actually bankrupting us.
Yes, there is more to come. The Dems will be answering with a memo/momos of their own.
Judging from the initial leaks you're in for a disappointment James.
Sarcasm escapes the truthers .
"The U.S. government will borrow $1 trillion more this year "
What was the average yearly borrowing under Obama? hint it wasn't less'
Though I agree we need to address this. And that involves a lot of sacred cows.
It's a total failure because of outside of your hate filled little world, the fantastic football game yesterday, matters.
WP:
Gowdy also said that 'the Steele dossier was not "the exclusive information" the FISA court used for the Page warrant', again agreeing with me (and contradicting Coldheart). Recall that, as I wrote above, this is one of the several material omissions of fact in the memo - Trump partisans are claiming that the warrant "was based on" and "relies on" the dossier exclusively, but even Gowdy admits that it was not.
What did Gowdy "actually say":
How about the whole quote:
MARGARET BRENNAN: .... So, when you're talking about this Steele memo, you are not saying that it was the sole piece of evidence used to justify these four authorizations of the surveillance warrant. Are you?
REP. GOWDY: No. It was not the exclusive information relied upon by-- by the FISA court.
MARGARET BRENNAN: Would it have been authorized were it not for that dossier?
REP. GOWDY: No. It would not have been.
So Gowdy absolutely agrees we me... that the court would not have provided the warrant without the dossier.
Again, there is a difference between the dossier being the "only" bit of information... versus being the piece that would have triggered the warrant.
My post stated flat out that there five different aspects to the application... so either WP didn't read my post, or once again he is attempting to make a clever semantic argument (rather than logical argument).
Trey Gowdy flat out states that without the dossier, there would have been no warrant. That is 100% his quote... and it's 180 degrees from what WP and others are arguing.
Making that argument (that the dossier was not important) is fine. But using Trey Gowdy as your source of agreement when he is 180% in disagreement with your argument is reckless. Using a portion of the quote, while leaving out his specific answer to the issue in question... is dishonest.
But hey, you confused Roger and James into believing you. I guess that's the point, huh?
Secondly, neither my post or my comment is reflecting on the Mueller probe, other than to say that the memo really doesn't affect it. This is consistent with what Trey Gowdy says again.
WP... is attempting to confuse my argument about the FICA warrant as being an overall argument into the probe in general.
As a matter of "semantics" I would say that I agree "if" Gowdy is saying that an FBI investigation would have happened (even without the dossier) but I would disagree that Special Counsel would have been appointed (even without the dossier) if that is what Gowdy is claiming (he doesn't really distinguish).
I would argue that without the dossier, without the dossier being leaked, without the dossier being reported on for so long as genuine information... I don't believe you would have any sort of call or momentum to appoint a special counsel. The rest of it just doesn't add up to four investigation, special counsel, and upwards of two years.
Federal Debt, Deficits and Spending
Debt – The U.S. government’s debt owed to the public has more than doubled. It is now more than $13.6 trillion, an increase of 116 percent since Obama first took office.
And the debt also has grown dramatically even when measured as a percentage of the growing economy, from 52 percent of gross domestic product at the end of fiscal year 2009 to just under 74 percent at the end of fiscal 2015, according to the most recent estimate by the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office.
Spending – Federal spending, however, has increased much less. Total federal outlays in the fiscal year that ended Sept. 30 last year totaled just under $3.69 trillion, according to final U.S. Treasury figures. That’s just 4.8 percent above the total outlays for fiscal 2009, which was well underway when Obama took office.
To be sure, Obama was responsible for some of the FY 2009 spending, but as we’ve shown in detail elsewhere, his early spending initiatives added — at most — $203 billion to the fiscal year 2009 spending levels that were set before he took office. Even attributing that extra FY 2009 spending to Obama brings the total increase in outlays since he took office to 11.3 percent over the level he inherited.
Massive federal deficits continue: The final figure for FY 2015 was $438.9 billion. That was about $44.5 billion less than the shortfall in fiscal year 2014, but CBO projects that without further spending cuts or revenue increases, deficits will soon be growing larger again, and will top $1 trillion in FY 2025.
Total debt, counting money the government owes to itself, currently stands at nearly $18.9 trillion, up nearly 78 percent under Obama.
to further clarify both what I am saying... and at least part of what Gowdy is saying.
The Russian meddling investigation certainly would have happened regardless. That is the main thing here (and sometimes people forget that it should be the major push of law enforcement at this time).
We should be investigation what we have pretty high confidence to be factual (Russian meddling) rather than investigating what we have no evidence of (Trump/Russia conspiracy).
That's not to say that you shouldn't look into Papadopoulos or the Trump tower meeting or whatever. But those are separate issues from what sort of interference the Russians were involved with. Certainly it doesn't take four investigations and two years to get to the bottom of a drunken conversation, or a lobbyist misleading the Trump campaign about why she wanted to meet with them.
Certainly those singular events do not logically follow into conversations General Flynn had during the transition, or what Paul Manafort was doing in Ukraine in 2012.
Blogger Roger Amick said...
Federal Debt, Deficits and Spending
__________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
a republican occupies the white house, and as sure as the sun rising in the east, suddenly, debt and deficits matter again.
LOL.
Total debt, counting money the government owes to itself, currently stands at nearly $18.9 trillion, up nearly 78 percent under Obama.
oops. how'd you let that slip in there?
As a matter of "semantics" I would say that I agree "if" Gowdy is saying that an FBI investigation would have happened (even without the dossier) but I would disagree that Special Counsel would have been appointed (even without the dossier) if that is what Gowdy is claiming (he doesn't really distinguish).
You do a long (song and dance) in your attempt to claim the investigation would not have been initiated without the dossier. The investigation was commissioned to look into the Russian intervention into the election in July of 2016. Well before the dossier entered into the investigation .
(I would argue that without the dossier, without the dossier being leaked, without the dossier being reported on for so long as genuine information... I don't believe you would have any sort of call or momentum to appoint a special counsel. The rest of it just doesn't add up to four investigation, special counsel, and upwards of two years.)
The investigation was commissioned to look into the Russian intervention into the election in July of 2016. Well before the dossier entered into the investigation .
Nope . Just the truth .
Shit stain rat the hole conveniently forgets 2 unfunded wars and the busch recession
stands at nearly $18.9 trillion, up nearly 78 percent under Obama.
Yep, the congress who controls the budget had nothing to do with the spending like drunken sailors. Plus it is the same group that okayed another trillion or so added to the debt....brilliant policy if you ask me......
As a matter of "semantics" I would say that I agree "if" Gowdy is saying that an FBI investigation would have happened (even without the dossier) but I would disagree that Special Counsel would have been appointed (even without the dossier) if that is what Gowdy is claiming (he doesn't really distinguish).
what's unclear to me is without the dossier, what would there be to investigate and how would they even conduct the investigation, or for that matter even get it off the ground?
other than the dossier itself, we have a drunk running his mouth at a london pub. oh, and we have general kelly snagged for not being able to remember a recorded phone call, and we have manafort under indictment for a crime completely unrelated to trump or his campaign.
if i'm mueller i'm feeling like a real fucking idiot right about now. saddled with finding something where nothing exists. yes, we clearly have government interference in the 2016 election. except it was OUR government. not the russians or anyone else.
Your argument that the dossier exposed a violation of the civil rights of a man who bragged about his Russian involvement.
------
There was a time when former Trump campaign adviser Carter Page didn’t try to hide his ties to Russia. Time reports that Page “bragged” about being an adviser to the Kremlin in a 2013 letter that at the very least suggests there were plenty of reasons for law enforcement officials to suspect he could have ties with the Russian government.
“Over the past half year, I have had the privilege to serve as an informal advisor to the staff of the Kremlin in preparation for their Presidency of the G-20 Summit next month, where energy issues will be a prominent point on the agenda,” Page reportedly says in the letter, according to Time. Page wrote those words as part of a dispute with an academic press over edits to a manuscript that he had submitted for publication. Slate
hat would there be to investigate and how would they even conduct the investigation, or for that matter even get it off the ground?
once again, obsessing on the dossier as the only evidence that got things going is just another example of you being a dumb fuck with shit for brains.....
The investigation was commissioned to look into the Russian intervention into the election in July of 2016. Well before the dossier entered into the investigation
that's nice. you continue to cling to this without explaining the relevance.
give it a shot and explain.
use YOUR words. you've already exceeded your copy/paste limit today.
Excuse my proper English in response to your drunken tirade.
The investigation was commissioned to look into the Russian intervention into the election in July of 2016. Well before the dossier entered into the investigation.
A c/p of my own words.
Roger AmickFebruary 5, 2018 at 6:57 AM
CH has become ultra-partisan since the election of 2016. He claims that people like me are angry about the results of the election is why we don't like Trump.
I have made it clear that I believe that he's incompetent and dangerous. The fact that he lied about the crowd size, and his inability to tell the truth is just one sample of the reasons why I oppose him.
His attacks on the FBI and the intelligence agencies across the board and the law enforcement agencies are the actions of a dictatorship. We could be looking at Constitutional crisis, not for legitimate reasons, but more importantly is that he's not mentally stable and as President posses a threat to the United States as we have been blessed with for 240 years.
And CH will support Trump no matter what he says or does.
wp summed it up .
Naturally he's still trying to use his memo as a political attack against the FBI and the Mueller investigation but clearly he's unable to do so directly, the way partisans (such as in this blog) are presenting it.
Blogger Roger Amick said...
Your argument that the dossier exposed a violation of the civil rights of a man who bragged about his Russian involvement.
and beyond energy related issues, you continue to fail to describe how page was working with russian leaders vis a vis the election.
that's the evidence we need, alky. and it ain't there.
The emperor is getting rather naked as the rats begin to leave the sinking trump....
On Sunday, several Republicans on the Intelligence Committee distanced themselves from Mr. Trump’s statements. Representative Trey Gowdy, Republican of South Carolina, who advised the Republican committee staff members who drafted the memo, said that he saw no substantive connection.
“I actually don’t think it has any impact on the Russia probe,” he said on CBS’s “Face the Nation.” He added, “There is a Russia investigation without a dossier.”
Representative Brad Wenstrup, an Ohio Republican who also sits on the intelligence panel, echoed those remarks on CNN’s “State of the Union.”
“In my opinion, what we’re dealing with is a situation within our FISA court and how we process within our government agencies,” he said. “And I don’t think it really has anything to do with that,” he added, referring to the broader Russia inquiry.
The people familiar with the Democratic document say that it reveals that while the F.B.I. did not name the Democratic National Committee and Mrs. Clinton’s campaign as having funded the Steele research, the bureau disclosed to the court that the information it had received from him was politically motivated. That, the Democratic memo says, gave the judge in the case the information he needed to make a decision about its usefulness.
The memo is also said to argue that Republicans distorted the testimony by Mr. McCabe, the F.B.I. official, and left out reams of other evidence included by the F.B.I. to support the bureau’s suspicions that Mr. Page was acting as an agent of Russia. Mr. McCabe in fact presented the material as part of a constellation of compelling evidence that raised serious suspicions about Mr. Page, a former Moscow-based banker who had been on the F.B.I.’s radar for years, according to those familiar with the memo.
Democrats have publicly called for the Republican-controlled committee to release a transcript of the interview with Mr. McCabe.
Peter Baker contributed reporting from West Palm Beach, Fla.
Get politics and Washington news updates via Facebook, Twitter and the Morning Briefing newsletter.
A version of this article appears in print on February 5, 2018, on Page A1 of the New York edition with the headline: Democrats Press Case to Release Rebuttal of G.O.P. Russia Memo. Order Reprints| Today's Paper|Subscribe
Site Information Navigation
© 2018 The New York Times Company HomeSearchAccessibility concerns? Email us at accessibility@nytimes.com. We would love to hear from you.Contact UsWork With UsAdvertiseYour Ad ChoicesPrivacyTerms of ServiceTerms of SaleSite Information Navigation
Site MapHelpSite FeedbackSubscriptions Go to the previous story Go to the next story
The FBI always has information we do not know about. But given that Page has not been accused of a crime, and that the DOJ and FBI would have to have alleged some potential criminal activity to justify a FISA warrant targeting the former U.S. naval intelligence officer, it certainly seems likely that the Steele dossier was the source of this allegation.
In conclusion, while there is a dearth of evidence to date that the Trump campaign colluded in Russia’s cyberespionage attack on the 2016 election, there is abundant evidence that the Obama administration colluded with the Clinton campaign to use the Steele dossier as a vehicle for court-authorized monitoring of the Trump campaign — and to fuel a pre-election media narrative that U.S. intelligence agencies believed Trump was scheming with Russia to lift sanctions if he were elected president. Congress should continue pressing for answers, and President Trump should order the Justice Department and FBI to cooperate rather than — what’s the word? — resist.
— Andrew C. McCarthy is a senior fellow at the National Review Institute and a contributing editor of National Review.
Read more at: http://www.nationalreview.com/article/454909/trump-russia-steele-dossier-fbis-insurance-policy-clinton-campaign
The relevance is pretty obvious except for the English language 3rd grade student.
You claimed that the investigation into the Russian intervention into the election was a result of the dossier, and your belief that career FBI professionals were not motivated by the evidence of the Russian intervention into the election, but because they are part of a giant conspiracy to destroy Trump. Yes, they are angry about the results of the election, that they will frame the President with objection of justice and collusion with the Russians.
Deep State!!!
Naturally he's still trying to use his memo as a political attack against the FBI and the Mueller investigation but clearly he's unable to do so directly, the way partisans (such as in this blog) are presenting it.
fuckstick,
no one is using the memo to politically attack anyone. what we are using is the FISA warrant itself - a warrant granted based upon a dossier that was unvetted and unverified.
a dossier so full of shit, that the idiots leaked the dossier to yahoo news and then used the yahoo news story as verification the dossier was authentic:
Interestingly, on September 23, 2016, Yahoo’s Michael Isikoff reported on leaks he had received that the U.S. government was conducting an intelligence investigation to determine whether Carter Page, as a Trump adviser, had opened up a private communications channel with such “senior Russian officials” as Igor Sechin and Igor Diveykin to discuss lifting economic sanctions if Trump became president.
It is now known that Isikoff’s main source for the story was Fusion’s Glenn Simpson. Isikoff’s report is rife with allegations found in the dossier, although the dossier is not referred to as such; it is described as “intelligence reports” that “U.S. officials” were actively investigating — i.e., Steele’s reports were described in a way that would lead readers to assume they were official U.S. intelligence reports. But there clearly was official American government involvement: Isikoff’s story asserts that U.S. officials were briefing members of Congress about these allegations that Page was meeting with Kremlin officials on Trump’s behalf. The story elaborated that “questions about Page come amid mounting concerns within the U.S. intelligence community about Russian cyberattacks on the Democratic National Committee.” Those would be the cyberattacks alleged — in the dossier on which Congress was being briefed — to be the result of a Trump-Russia conspiracy in which Page was complicit.
Isikoff obviously checked with his government sources to verify what Simpson had told him about the ongoing investigation that was based on these “intelligence reports.” His story recounts that “a senior U.S. law enforcement official” confirmed that Page’s alleged contacts with Russian officials were “on our radar screen. . . . It’s being looked at.”
Read more at: http://www.nationalreview.com/article/454909/trump-russia-steele-dossier-fbis-insurance-policy-clinton-campaign
But given that Page has not been accused of a crime
SO FUCKING WHAT!!!!!! You don't have to be accused of a crime to be investigated!!!!! Again, you have just proved your ability to be a partisan hack!!!!
The investigation was commissioned to look into the Russian intervention into the election in July of 2016. Well before the dossier entered into the investigation.
The dossier was written and distributed as series of memos starting in June of 2016. At that time Steele also contacted British Intelligence and the FBI about his work.
To say that the investigation was started well before the dossier entered the picture is a bit if an overstatement.
The FBI was aware of the dossier's existence at the time they started the investigation and it could very well been one of the initiating factors.
Rat the fuckstick opined incorrectly that
a warrant granted based upon a dossier that was unvetted and unverified.
You have no insight or knowledge to the whole warrant application but speak like CH as an expert of stupidity....The application is classified and remains behind the firewall in spite of you thinking otherwise..
há evidências abundantes de que a administração de Obama entrou em colisão com a campanha de Clinton para usar o dossiê de Steele como um veÃculo para o monitoramento autorizado pela corte da campanha de Trump - e para alimentar uma narrativa de mÃdia pré-eleitoral que as agências de inteligência dos EUA acreditavam que Trump estava planejando com a Rússia para levantar sanções se ele fosse eleito presidente.
Just for fun. It's Portuguese. Not beanerish.
it could very well been one of the initiating factors.
And you could still believe in the tooth fairy.....LOLOLOL
You claimed that the investigation into the Russian intervention into the election was a result of the dossier
_________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
no alky,
what we claim is what mccabe testified to -
there would have been no FISA warrant without the dossier.
we acknowledge that the investigation began before that. and we mock the fact that a professional law enforcement agency like the FBI would launch an investigation based upon the braggadocio of a drunken idiot in a london pub to an australian diplomat.
and btw, lil drunkard popadop wasn't questioned by the fucking bureau of idiots until AFTER trump's inauguration (CROWD SIZE, CROWD SIZE, CROWD SIZE!!!11!).
now why was that?
You have no insight or knowledge to the whole warrant application but speak like CH as an expert of stupidity....
______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
comey admitted to trump directly that the dossier was unvetted and unverified when he presented it to trump at the white house.
so there's my insight and knowledge.
oh look. the alky can use google translate. he's a big boy now!
too bad it was still a copy/paste.
LOL.
SO FUCKING WHAT!!!!!! You don't have to be accused of a crime to be investigated!!!!!
_________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
uh, yeah actually you do, dumbass.
Amendment IV
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.
0linsky's FBI violated the 4th amendment in a BIGLY way regarding carter page. i hope he can find a way to sue the living shit out of them.
The assumption King, aka CH, just got swept away.
"there is abundant evidence that the Obama administration colluded with the Clinton campaign to use the Steele dossier as a vehicle for court-authorized monitoring of the Trump campaign — and to fuel a pre-election media narrative that U.S. intelligence agencies believed Trump was scheming with Russia to lift sanctions"
The problem is the same one that destroyed this.
The timeline remains because that even if some bits and pieces of the dossier were flying around, there is no solid evidence to support the claims that dossier and hatred of Trump initiated the investigation into the Russian intervention into the election of 2016.
Unless you really believe the Deep State theory . Secret Society on steroids .
Yawn
Blogger Roger Amick said...
Yawn
wow. now there's a scathing retort from the alky.
let me guess... your yawn was induced by the 4th amendment.
The investigation was commissioned to look into the Russian intervention into the election in July of 2016. Well before the dossier entered into the investigation
Again Roger... you keep repeating this fabrication. The Dossier was written in several parts, and turned over between June of 2016 and December of 2016 to Fusion GPS, and "ironically" turned over to the FBI in July of 2016.
According to Steele, he soon found "troubling information indicating connections between Trump and the Russian government. He said that, according to his sources, "there was an established exchange of information between the Trump campaign and the Kremlin of mutual benefit." He described the finding as "an extraordinary situation" and concluded it was "sufficiently serious" for him to share it with the FBI, which he did in July 2016.[29]
Here is the link from Wikipedia, complete with their sources.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trump-Russia_dossier
The timeline remains because that even if some bits and pieces of the dossier were flying around, there is no solid evidence to support the claims that dossier and hatred of Trump initiated the investigation into the Russian intervention into the election of 2016.
________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
alky, i think you've beaten that strawman right into fucking dust.
you keep repeating a point -
"there is no solid evidence to support the claims that dossier and hatred of Trump initiated the investigation into the Russian intervention into the election of 2016."
- that NO ONE is alleging.
let me repeat myself:
we acknowledge that the investigation began before that. and we mock the fact that a professional law enforcement agency like the FBI would launch an investigation based upon the braggadocio of a drunken idiot in a london pub to an australian diplomat.
capisce, idiot?
no wonder you've become completely reliant on copy/paste's. when you try to formulate an original thought you unleash a bucket of stupid onto this blog.
Clearly, the Left is still beyond upset Hillary lost.
A defeat on the world stage of this magnitude is lasting longer then I thought it would.
Rat...
The problem is that Papadopoulos meeting took place in May...
First portions of the Steele dossier came to the FBI in June...
The FBI supposedly started the investigation in June, not May.
So giving the FBI at least marginal credit for not being a complete bunch of nincompoops, I find it hard to believe that they would have started a counter intelligence investigation over third hand drunken information. It seems much more likely that the put the two pieces of crap together to make a slightly larger piece of crap and went from there.
Recall that media reports (from leaks) "originally" reported that information from a well known FBI informant (Christopher Steele) prompted the investigation.
It was only later (after the Steel dossier was found to be opposition research) that the NYT, WaPo, and others decided that it was the Papadopoulos story that started it.
Does anyone "really" believe that the FBI would open an investigation like that over a third hand account of a drunken conversation? Especially given that they didn't actually interview Papadopoulos till Jan of 2017 - seven months after the investigation? Wouldn't it seem somewhat important to talk to the main source of your investigation before proceeding?
Mean while back in the real world of Main Street:
"ISM Non-Mfg Index
Released On 2/5/2018 10:00:00 AM For Jan, 2018
Prior Prior Revised Consensus Consensus Range Actual
Composite Index - Level 55.9 56.0 56.2 55.2 to 57.2 59.9
Highlights
ISM non-manufacturing sample is reporting some of the very best conditions in the 20-year history of this series. The composite index rose nearly 4 points in January to 59.9 which is well beyond Econoday's high estimate. New orders are arguably more important than any composite result and the reading, at 62.7, is back at last year's peak. And employment is a special standout, up more than 5 points to a very rare plus 60 score of 61.6 which is by the far the best of the post-2008 expansion. Had this reading come out before Friday's employment report, expectations would have risen for last week's January results which in fact did prove strong."
Erasing the Lost Years.
Does anyone "really" believe that the FBI would open an investigation like that over a third hand account of a drunken conversation?
_________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
you know, the cynic in me actually could believe that. the FBI is a fucking dumpster fire of epic proportions. look closely at their history - something the left won't do - because it's one corrupt embarrassment after another.
so yeah, knowing what we know of the FBI and their endless fountain of corruption and idiocy, sure... a drunken conversation could easily be the catalyst when you're dealing with partisans with a gun, a badge, an immense amount of power, and a serious political axe to grind.
Polosi a fine Democrat leader and part of the "Crumbs Crowd" hate these workers.
"100,000 Best Buy employees getting bonuses as a result of President Trump’s tax cuts ..."
I didn't quote Gowdy's response to "Would it (warrant) have been authorized were it not for that dossier?" because it's not very relevant. It's one of many of Gowdy's proclamations about the investigation, that he doesn't attempt to factually support.
He admits that the memo has no impact on the investigation, that there were other (unspecified) elements to the the FISA warrant, and he speculates about how the FISA judge weighed those elements. Who really cares that Gowdy indirectly attacks the investigation, while he directly admits that the memo does not impact it? You should know political BS when you hear it.
If anything, it illustrates the truth of my opinion that Gowdy (and the other partisan committee members) cannot afford to directly attack the FBI and Mueller but must resort to political imprecations instead. It's pretty hypocritical, but about par for the course with this group.
rrb there's nothing semantic about it. Either the FBI presented a body of evidence for the warrant, or they only relied on the Steel dossier. The Steel dossier either contained relevant, plausible information or it did not. No definitions, no two ways about it.
YOUR guys want to rely on semantics. I'm ignoring them, which is what's driving CH crazy.
, I find it hard to believe that they would have started a counter intelligence investigation over third hand drunken information.
So do I. The logical conclusion is that the FBI has other intelligence that, due to its sensitive or classified status, you are not aware of.
It is illogical to assume, as you do here, that because one bit of evidence is too dubious to use that two bits of dubious information is used instead.
rrb there's nothing semantic about it. Either the FBI presented a body of evidence for the warrant, or they only relied on the Steel dossier.
____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
except it's not all or nothing. the dossier could've been a sizeable component of their "evidence" while not being the only evidence.
take it up with mccabe, not me. he's the one who testified that without the dossier their warrant application crumbles.
YOUR guys want to rely on semantics
no, it's quite the opposite, actually. i want all of the evidence to see the light of day. democrats are the ones splitting semantic hairs to rebut the nunes memo. i say let it ALL out, and let's see just what we're dealing with here.
i would suspect that at the very least it's highly embarrassing to the obama admin., and at worst it's seriously criminal.
so let's find out.
It was a lightly held opinion before Wray lied about the national security being compromised if the house memo was release.
Now it's firm. Release it all. There no national security damage. Just well-deserved embarrassment to the principles.
I didn't quote Gowdy's response to "Would it (warrant) have been authorized were it not for that dossier?" because it's not very relevant. It's one of many of Gowdy's proclamations about the investigation, that he doesn't attempt to factually support.
So... to be clear.
You are arguing that quoting Gowdy's conclusion about the dossier and the warrant, is not relevant to whether he agrees with your conclusion or my conclusion about the dossier and the warrant?
Because we all agree on on one point:
My post specifically points out that the warrant application had multiple factors.
You offer that the application had multiple factors.
Gowdy states that the application had multiple factors.
But you claim to disagree as to importance of the dossier.
I suggest that without the dossier, that the warrant wouldn't have been granted.
Gowdy suggests the exact same thing.
Perhaps you should clarify how your opinion actually differs, and explain to us how Gowdy confirms it?
The logical conclusion is that the FBI has other intelligence that, due to its sensitive or classified status, you are not aware of.
I suppose you could take that leap of faith...
It runs counter to pretty much everything we know, but hey... whatever blows your hair back.
Menstral the court jester posted
before Wray lied about the national security being compromised if the house memo was release.
You have nothing but opinion as the basis of that comment... If you think Wray lied, it is time for you to leave the country you hate and start your own.....dayum you are one sick idiot...As to faith.....if CH has such low regard to classified data and its safekeeping, maybe you should swear your allegiance to Putin, since that is who you and cramps are defending....Dayum, can't see the forest through the trees.......
CH again shows his biased idiocy with....
But you claim to disagree as to importance of the dossier.
You and everyone else speculating about the steel paper, have no idea how much it weighed on the application. To say otherwise is complete bullshit like the rest of your crappy position...
when 'the onion' starts writing articles more accurate than the WaPo or ny times, we should begin to admit we have a problem:
WASHINGTON—Stressing that such an action would be highly reckless, FBI Director Christopher Wray warned Thursday that releasing the “Nunes Memo” could potentially undermine faith in the massive, unaccountable government secret agencies of the United States. “Making this memo public will almost certainly impede our ability to conduct clandestine activities operating outside any legal or judicial system on an international scale,” said Wray, noting that it was essential that mutual trust exist between the American people and the vast, mysterious cabal given free rein to use any tactics necessary to conduct surveillance on U.S. citizens or subvert religious and political groups. “If we take away the people’s faith in this shadowy monolith exempt from any consequences, all that’s left is an extensive network of rogue, unelected intelligence officers carrying out extrajudicial missions for a variety of subjective, and occasionally personal, reasons.” At press time, Wray confirmed the massive, unaccountable government secret agencies were unaware of any wrongdoing for violating constitutional rights.
https://politics.theonion.com/fbi-warns-republican-memo-could-undermine-faith-in-mass-1822639681?utm_content=Main&utm_campaign=SF&utm_source=Twitter&utm_medium=SocialMarketing
You have nothing but opinion as the basis of that comment..
Wray reviewed the Memo before it was released.
Wray said releasing the memo would endanger national security.
The memo was released, there was nothing in the memo that actually endangered national security.
Therefore, Wray lied.
It's not just an opinion. It's a logical conclusion based on facts.
Another asshole trump sycophant showing us all what trump is all about....DUMBASS !!!!!!!!! GW is a hoax per the head of the EPA....that works for people like cramps and kd.....
Steve Milloy, a former Fox News columnist and coal executive who served on President Donald Trump’s Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) transition team, wants you to know that Joe McCarthy and Richard Nixon got a bum rap.
But then Milloy, a well known climate science denier and former tobacco lobbyist, thinks air pollution and cigarette smoking have gotten a bum rap, too, and that Pope Francis is a commie (“the Red Pope“).
This story began Thursday when former FBI director James Comey defended on Twitter the FBI’s pushback against the infamous Nunes memo, which tried a!!!!
Wray reviewed the Memo before it was released.
And your opinion is duly noted as being stupid......You have no clue at what may be classified info in that memo.....nice try, intellect is not your strong suit....LOL
jerry "golden corral" nadler published a rebuttal to the nunes memo:
http://msnbcmedia.msn.com/i/TODAY/z_Creative/inline-headers/FINAL%20DRAFT%20--%20Dear%20Colleague%20on%20Nunes%20Memo.pdf
andrew mccarthy absolutely destroys it and him:
http://www.nationalreview.com/article/456093/jerrold-nadler-memo-rebuttal-weak-unpersuasive
Commensa: "Therefore, Wray lied."
BoyOboy. Typical Commensa-Think.
If Wray examined the memo and genuinely believed that releasing it would endanger national security, he was not lying to say so, even if releasing it later proved to be less of a danger than he thought.
On the other hand, there are those who are firmly convinced that the way this whole matter has been handled, largely by Trump, has already endangered national security by raising doubts about one of our most trusted government institutions.
You and everyone else speculating about the steel(sic) paper, have no idea how much it weighed on the application.
Since Gowdy actually read the application he has a pretty good idea how much the Steele dossier weighed into it.
And Gowdy said it was the primary, top of the list, justification for the warrant.
You are arguing that quoting Gowdy's conclusion about the dossier and the warrant, is not relevant to whether he agrees with your conclusion or my conclusion about the dossier and the warrant?
No, I'm arguing that there are two different statements having different characteristics
1. About the memo directly, and the impact of its contents. Gowdy agrees with everything I've been telling you.
2. About the FISA warrant, Gowdy expresses an opinion which is NOT included (nor supported) in the memo.
From the second, you derive implications which directly contradict the first. Surely you can see that this was his intention, and therefore is typical political BS?
jerry "golden corral" nadler published a rebuttal to the nunes memo:
Yeah, it didn't actually rebut any information in the GOP memo.
All it was was a series of irrelevant red herrings.
You and everyone else speculating about the steel paper, have no idea how much it weighed on the application.
_____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
except for mccabe's sworn testimony, that is.
mccabe was explicit - no steele dossier, no FISA warrant application.
geezus d0pie. when you double down on stupid you go all in.
2. About the FISA warrant, Gowdy expresses an opinion which is NOT included (nor supported) in the memo.
you DO realize that gowdy co-authored the memo, right?
I suppose you could take that leap of faith...
Is it not more logical to assume that a warrant is obtained using actionable intelligence, than it is to assume that only dubious intelligence was used?
Particularly when you accept that the dubious intelligence was insufficient for the FBI in the first place? I mean, you could believe in that illogical sequence, but I posit that THAT is the true "leap of faith".
Fatty you forgot your source of the c/p
https://thinkprogress.org/trump-epa-adviser-defends-joe-mccarthy-1cbe9df65aaa/
stinkprogress
LMAO
t's a logical conclusion based on facts.
BWAAAAAAPAAAAAA! Sure menstral....just like GW is a hoax .....LOLOLOL Maybe you can provide the workup how you are getting a 10k tax reduction of how you calculated the .6% busch growth....I'm sure you will be forthright with the data....LOLOLOL
you DO realize that gowdy co-authored the memo, right?
My writing must be slipping because that is an essential point.
The memo does not allege that the warrant would not have been approved without the dossier. McCabe did not in fact testify to that effect, according to the memo. So why does Gowdy state this opinion in public, which would be rather important if true, but leave it out of the memo? I'd think that the answer is obvious.
About the FISA warrant, Gowdy expresses an opinion which is NOT included (nor supported) in the memo.
Gowdy not only had a hand in writing the memo... but he has seen the entire application, and has personal experience as a prosecutor. I see no reason to doubt his opinion.
With all due respect, WP. You haven't seen the underlying information that Gowdy has seen, and you don't have the legal expertise that Gowdy has. I have every reason to doubt your opinion.
Lastly... I am not disagreeing with the assessment that this memo has little to do with the Mueller S.C. probe. So I am not sure why you keep bringing this up as if we have some sort of disagreement. It's not.
I have only offered that as a matter of political optics, that the contents of this memo will provide ammunition for the argument that the Special Counsel was appointed on dubious grounds. While you might argue that the premise is wrong, you certainly cannot argue that the information in that memo does not help make that point... especially for those predisposed to believe it.
Lastly... and possibly most importantly...
Gowdy has maintained (after seeing much of the same information that the FBI would have being on the intelligence committee) that he has seen no evidence of collusion. His ongoing support of the Mueller investigation is the firm belief (correct or misguided) that Mueller is investigating within the scope in question (focusing on Russian involvement). There are many who might disagree with him on that. But he is a former prosecutor, so I would think that he want's to believe that one of his (former) peers is doing the right things in the right ways.
If Wray examined the memo and genuinely believed that releasing it would endanger national security, he was not lying to say so, even if releasing it later proved to be less of a danger than he thought.
If you actually believed that nonsense, then you're a hopelessly stupid sycophant.
Wray is a career professional and he could certain tell the differences on whether a memo actually endangers national security and oppose to being an embarrassment to the people and agency involved.
There's no way around to conclusion that Wray lied to protect his agency from embarrassment.
Fatty you forgot your source of the c/p
So fucking what, asshole????? Does it change the quote???? Not that you give a shit, I got it from the Weather Underground.....not that it matters.....FU....
The memo does not allege that the warrant would not have been approved without the dossier. McCabe did not in fact testify to that effect, according to the memo
The memo states:
Furthermore, Deputy Director McCabe testified before the Committee in December 2017 that no surveillance warrant would have been sought from the FISC without the Steele dossier information.
The memo itself offered no personal conclusions from the authors. Gowdy stating what he stated about the dossier being the key piece of evidence is in no way inconsistent with the memo.
If you actually believed that nonsense,
And if you believe he is a liar....you should leave the country.....
There's no way around to conclusion that Wray lied to protect his agency from embarrassment.
Sure cramps, the personally picked by trump FBI director is lying.....I guess his oath is just a speed bump for idiots like you....
Dennis, insults never win over fact based argument.
The memo itself offered no personal conclusions from the authors
You are not that dumb, CH...The whole memo was an opinion piece based on cherry picked data!!!!!!!!!! To say otherwise is pure guano....
menstral the cramp again opines...
Dennis, insults never win over fact based argument.
Call someone who gives a shit....I certainly don't since facts don't mean anything to idiots like you....
Drip, drip, drip.
Clinton associates fed information to Trump dossier author Steele, memo says
Clinton associates were "feeding" allegations to former British spy Christopher Steele at the same time he was compiling the controversial anti-Trump dossier paid for by the Democratic National Committee and Clinton campaign, according to an unclassified memo from senior Senate Republicans who recently made a criminal referral.
Those Republicans, Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Chuck Grassley, R-Iowa, and Sen. Lindsey Graham, R-S.C., had asked the Justice Department in January to investigate Steele based on evidence they say suggests he lied to the FBI about his contacts with the media (a violation of 18 USC 1001) -- or the FBI misrepresented Steele’s statements.
The lawmakers are now asking the FBI for an emergency review of their criminal referral so it can be made public, with limited redactions.
No anonymous sources, everybody on the record.
You don't understand the difference between "why FBI sought" and "why FISC grants", CH? RRB, do you file that under "semantic difference"?
"Furthermore, Deputy Director McCabe testified before the Committee in December 2017 that no surveillance warrant would have been sought from the FISC without the Steele dossier information."
You don't understand the difference between "why FBI sought" and "why FISC grants", CH?
Wow. I think the general consensus (as in everyone but apparently you) believes that the reason why the FBI would not have sought a FICA warrant without the dossier is because the warrant would not have been granted without it.
I think that you're projecting onto "the general consensus".
The FBI seeks a warrant when they believe that information could be obtained that could help them investigate a crime. A FISA warrant is granted or denied depending on probable cause, subject to certain restrictions. Two very different reasons from different entities, having different mandates.
McCabe may or may not have said that warrant could have been obtained without the Steele dossier. His testimony is secret, so we don't know, but we do know that (according to the memo), the FBI would not SEEK the warrant without having had the information contained in the dossier. I doubt very much that there is a "general consensus", let alone "as in everyone", that these are the same things.
I think the general consensus (as in everyone but apparently you) believes that the reason why the FBI would not have sought a FICA warrant without the dossier is because the warrant would not have been granted without it.
___________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
bingo.
McCabe may or may not have said that warrant could have been obtained without the Steele dossier. His testimony is secret, so we don't know, but we do know that (according to the memo), the FBI would not SEEK the warrant without having had the information contained in the dossier
_________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
that's what we call a distinction without a difference, wp. and mccabe did say it. that part of his testimony has been made public.
Referral of Christopher Steele for Potential Violation of 18 U.S. C. § 1001
"It is troubling enough that the Clinton Campaign funded Mr. Steele's work, but that these Clinton associates were contemporaneously feeding Mr. Steele allegations raises additional concerns about his credibility."
heavily redacted but...
https://www.judiciary.senate.gov/imo/media/doc/2018-02-02%20CEG%20LG%20to%20DOJ%20FBI%20(Unclassified%20Steele%20Referral).pdf
Anonymous wphamilton said...
I think that you're projecting onto "the general consensus".
It's the general consensus here is logical and rational whereas your position is irrational and stubborn.
Why on Earth would any reasonable person believe that the only reason the FBI would refrain from asking for a warrant is if they don't expect it to be granted? Take your blinders off and look at it reasonably.
Why wouldn't the FBI see information in the dossier that corroborates existing information, inducing them to seek further with a wiretap? Why wouldn't information in the dossier point the FBI into inquiries which turned up other information? When something looks relevant and suspicious, the FBI wants to look further. When that further investigation turns up enough evidence, they ask for warrants.
You folks act as if that is an outlandish idea, but the reality is, that's exactly what agents have told us, and that's exactly how they operate. In either or both of these cases, the request for a warrant might never arise without the impetus of the dossier. As McCabe allegedly testified. Of course that does NOT mean that the FISA warrant would not have been issued without it. Two different things folks. The FBI requests because they WANT a warrant. The Court approves if they CAN legally do so.
The FBI may or may not WANT and request a warrant that they think would be granted. They may or may not WANT and request a warrant that they think will NOT be granted. The Court may or may not grant a warrant regardless of what the FBI wants. The FBI not requesting a warrant therefore does NOT prove that the Court would not grant one.
You folks keep talking about "reason" and "logic", so someone present a logical argument beyond repeating your conclusion and claiming that "everyone" agrees with you.
that part of his testimony has been made public.
No it hasn't been, rrb. "The Memo" did not quote any portion of McCabe's testimony, which should be triggering your BS radar. It is still classified, and the authors of "the memo" are still resisting calls to make it public.
Do you want this President Impeached?
This Guy is the face of Anti-trump insanity.
"Schiff saying, “Apparently the Russians are very big fans of our Second Amendment. They don’t particularly want a Second Amendment of their own, but they’re really glad that we have one. The Russians would be thrilled if we were doing nothing but killing each other every day, and sadly we are.”
Anonymous wphamilton said...
Why on Earth would any reasonable person believe that the only reason the FBI would refrain from asking for a warrant is if they don't expect it to be granted?
________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
because 99.97% of all FISA warrant requests ARE granted. if your petition is part of the .03% that won't be granted, and you know it, then it's a spectacular waste of time, and you run the risk of looking like a complete idiot for submitting it in the first place.
No it hasn't been, rrb. "The Memo" did not quote any portion of McCabe's testimony, which should be triggering your BS radar. It is still classified, and the authors of "the memo" are still resisting calls to make it public.
then it was leaked because it's out there. and fwiw, the authors of the memo are poised to release additional memo's if they're able to get them approved.
this is far from over, wp. and it's looking like ground zero for all of the worst offenses is the BHO white house.
because 99.97% of all FISA warrant requests ARE granted. if your petition is part of the .03% that won't be granted, and you know it,
Think about what you're saying here ... if every application is virtually certain to be granted, then even omitting the Steele report the FBI was virtually certain to get their warrant. Therefore McCabe's alleged quote wasn't referring to the FISA warrant at all.
Think about what you're saying here ... if every application is virtually certain to be granted
_____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
no, not that even one was virtually certain to be granted, but that 99.97% WERE granted. every application stands on its own merits, and trey gowdy did tell us that mccabe was sure his application would not be granted were it not for the fossier.
Post a Comment