February 5, 2018

"The New York Times is asking the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court to unseal secret documents related to the wiretapping of Carter Page..."

Great!
Normally, even the existence of such material is a closely guarded secret.... But President Trump lowered the shield of secrecy surrounding such materials on Friday by declassifying the Republican memo about Mr. Page, after finding that the public interest in disclosing its contents outweighed any need to protect the information. Because Mr. Trump did so, the Times argues, there is no longer a justification “for the Page warrant orders and application materials to be withheld in their entirety,” and “disclosure would serve the public interest.”
This is basically what I was saying I wanted in "How to resolve the discrepancy of opinion over the Nunes memo" (February 3):
So, it seems, the question is whether it was significantly deceptive to give the FISA court enough information to make it possible for the court to infer that the information came from people who were biased against Trump but to withhold the known and specific information that it was paid for by the Democratic National Committee or the Hillary Clinton presidential campaign....

[E]xactly how was this general information phrased? The unnamed official in the WaPo article says there was "ample disclosure" — but how much disclosure was there?... I want to know exactly what the language was and how deceptive it may have been....
AND: Andrew McCarthy (at National Review) develops another angle: The question isn't so much whether Christopher Steele was trustworthy (given who paid him) but whether his sources were corroborated. It's not enough for the FBI and the Justice Department to trust the sources because Steele is trustworthy. Steele is another investigator, not the source of the information.
From everything we have heard thus far, the FBI did not corroborate Steele’s informants. Their inflammatory allegations about Trump are acknowledged to be “salacious and unverified.” According to the Nunes memo, FBI corroboration efforts were only in their “infancy” at the time the first warrant was sought, and they never yielded anything but “minimal” verification (which may be a charitable way of putting it)....

To justify a finding of probable cause, the government must satisfy the court as to the credibility of the informant who, it is claimed, witnessed the factual transactions described in the warrant. There is no vicarious credibility: The informant’s reliability cannot be shored up by the impeccable credentials of the investigative agent. The agent is not the witness; the informant is.

310 comments:

1 – 200 of 310   Newer›   Newest»
MikeR said...

I don't think the NYT got the memo: National security absolutely requires that the public never find out what was in those FISA applications. We don't want them thinking that this seems to be an awfully thin justification for wiretapping a presidential campaign, with the impetus coming from the other party.
Oh! - I meant, something about our spies and Afghanistan, that's why. Top Secret.

great Unknown said...

If the NYT wants those documents then a) they have leaked info that the documents are beneficial to the Democrats or b) they are stupid.

I vote b.

Anonymous said...

I agree with Ann that this situation, like war, is too important to be left to the generals. The best way for the American people to reach the right conclusion is to lay all of this material before them. So far I have seen little that had "national security" implications even at its source. How many secrets can the application to the court really hold? It certainly is not the product of some mole in the Kremlin who would thus be exposed. The odds are very high that the process surrounding the application and its renewal are pretty much as described and extrapolated so far. Some bad actors may get appropriately muddied; but who will that hurt other than the bad actors?

Static Ping said...

It's rather amazing for the New York Times to pretend that they are actually journalists.

Bill, Republic of Texas said...

I was told that releasing the Nunes Memo would damage national security. Now the memo is out we know that claim was bullshit. It was classified to protect specific beaurocrats from embarrassment.

Yet now they pretend the same for the affidavit.

#ReleaseTheAffidavit!

Inga said...

Yes! Let’s see the supporting documents. Couldn’t Trump declassify them this very day?

Paul Zrimsek said...

It's a good thing Trump gave the NYT the go-ahead to care about what's in the documents, because there's no way they would have dared ask for their release otherwise. The NYT is all about protecting national security information.

Inga said...

“It's rather amazing for the New York Times to pretend that they are actually journalists.”

As opposed to Breitbart....right.

Chuck said...

Straight, honest questions for Atlhouse:

Aare you presuming that the Steele "dossier" was in any way a "sole" basis for any warrant application? Do you not think that there were other bases? (Maybe not! I don't know.)

If there were other bases, do you want all of that to be revealed? Like, the whole warrant application and every attached exhibit and every imaginable supporting document.

The thing with me is, I don't mind A-N-Y of the this, as part of an investigation. And FBI investigation, a DoJ investigation, a Congressional investigation, even an investigation of the FBI and/or DoJ...

And personally, my curiosity and interest is just like Althouse's.

But what I don't get, is making all of this public right now. True; Congress has "oversight" responsibility. So, investigate. Figure it all out. Then release a report.

But what does the "making it public" part have to do with the "investigate" part? I listen to Nunes and his colleagues and they are making eminently valid points, if they were political strategists. And they are making no sense, as investigators.

Unknown said...

The Steele dossier was only added to the FISA warrant application later. Is that not so. In the fantasy world of these conspiracy-mongers, the steele document was the entire basis of the Fisa Warrant. AND they would have you believe that such warrant applications must be based on ironclad evidence with no taint of anything. But such warrant applications are routinely based on bad-actors turning on each other. The warrant process is not a "beyond a reasonable doubt" matter.

If the issue is that the FISA courts are acing wrongfully, why do Republicans overwhelmingly support the law that establishes them. They just renewed it last year. This is a kangaroo committee of a kangaroo legislature with the help of the kangaroo in chief. HA.

Bill, Republic of Texas said...

Sharyl Attikinson reported today on the "
Woods Procedure"


There are strict rules requiring that each and every fact presented in an FBI request to electronically spy on a U.S. citizen be extreme-vetted for accuracy -- and presented to the court only if verified.


exiledonmainstreet said...

"The best way for the American people to reach the right conclusion is to lay all of this material before them"

I agree. Transparency!

Mike Sylwester said...

During 2016 and 2017, Trump-hating journalists repeatedly received and published information about FISA proceedings in relation to Donald Trump, his associates, and Russia.

The leakers must have been officials in the Department of Justice or in the Federal Bureau of Investigation. The former FBI Director was a notorious leaker.

The leakers' intention was to suggest to the public that Where there is smoke, there is fire. The existence of FISA proceedings was supposed to prove that the FBI was investigating criminal conspiracy between 1) Trump and his associates and 2) Russia. The existence of the FBI investigation was supposed to prove that Trump and his associates were guilty.

Where there is smoke, there is fire.

Some of the leaks named Carter Page specifically.

I hope that Carter Page eventually receives millions of dollars in compensation from the DOJ/FBI.

Page was treated as a spy and was smeared publicly as a spy not because he really was a spy, but rather because some DOJ/FBI officials wanted to cause political problems for Donald Trump.

Bill, Republic of Texas said...

There may be more to the warrant request but McCabe already testified there was not enough without the dossier.

Inga said...

There may be more to the warrant request but McCabe already testified there was not enough without the dossier.”

We don’t know that for sure either. Release the transcripts of McCabe’s testimony, so we can read for ourselves what he said.

Mike Sylwester said...

Years ago, Carter Page became the subject of a FISA warrant under Title VII, because the Russian Intelligence service was contacting him and trying to recruit him to become an agent.

DOJ/FBI will release and leak lots of information justifying that Title VII warrant.

What happened on October 21, 2016, however, was that his FISA status was elevated from Title VII to Title I, which meant that he henceforth was judged to have become an agent of the Russian Intelligence service. That elevation of Page's FISA status from merely Title VII up to Title I was based on the dossier provided by Fusion GPS.

It's likely that DOJ/FBI officials told Fusion GPS that they wanted the dossier to include some plausible stuff, supposedly from inside Russian Intelligence, saying that Page had become an agent. Those DOJ/FBI officials needed some such stuff in order to elevate Page's FISA status so that they could fish through all Page's communications with any US persons in the past, present and future.

holdfast said...

Per the Nunes memo, it was the sworn testimony of former FBI Deputy Director Andrew McCabe that the Steele Dirty Dossier may not have been the only evidence presented to the FISA Court, but that it was key and without it they would not have have obtained the warrant on Page.

If McCabe or any of the Dems who were present for that testimony dispute that claim re McCabe's statement, they should absolutely step forward and air that dispute.

If the Dems agree that McCabe gave that testimony, but they think he was lying or in error, then they should make that case - and impeach McCabe's credibility along the way.

If the Dems let Nunes claim on this matter stand, then I am going to assume it's true and proceed accordingly.

rcocean said...

Look, this crap has been going on since Nov 2016!

Enough is enough. Lets get it all out in the open. Now.

We had Comey, the Democrats, and MSM insinuating and oft times explicitly stated the FBI was investigating Trump for "colluding with Russia". We didn't learn until May/June 2017, that Comey had told Trump 3 times that Trump was NOT a target.

Now, since June 2017 we've had Mueller and his clown circus and non-stop MSM Reports that he's just "one step away from indicting Kushner, Trump, Sessions, whoever"

We had D's and the FBI/DoJ screaming like Banshees that the Nunes memo would "harm national Security" - and now it out. And there NOTHING that has anything to do with NS.

Get everything out in the open. No more fucking secrets. No more insinuations, leaks, and anon sources.

Bay Area Guy said...

McCarthy: The question isn't so much whether Christopher Steele was trustworthy (given who paid him) but whether his sources were corroborated.

Yes, the latter is more important, but his trustworthiness is important too. This British sleazebag was terminated by the FBI, because he leaked all his 2nd-hand Russian bullshit to eager left-wing, media puppets like David Corn at Mother Jones -- one week before the November 2016 election.



Kyzernick said...

Part of the justification for the FISA warrant were news stories by Isikoff and others. However, the data that those news stories were based on all came from the author of the Dossier, Steele himself - who planted some if not all of the information, and gave it to the media to publish. Most outlets refused, some ran with parts of it. Isikoff himself expressed alarm that his article was used in conjunction with the Steele dossier as justification for the warrant and the extensions, because he knew his info had come from Steele and was identical to info in the dossier.

It would be like a cop writing up a report about a house he suspected of drug smuggling, feeding that info to a local reporter, who then publishes a short story about it. Then the cop gives the judge his report, and the newspaper story, and calls them 2 distinct sources. They're not.

Inga said...

Per the Nunes memo, it was the sworn testimony of former FBI Deputy Director Andrew McCabe that the Steele Dirty Dossier may not have been the only evidence presented to the FISA Court, but that it was key and without it they would not have have obtained the warrant on Page.

And therein lies the rub.

rcocean said...

Trump should tell Rosenstein to give Mueller a drop dead date. He should also give him a new mission statement that specifically states what Crime he's supposed to be investigating.

If Mueller disagrees, he can go public - give us all as status report - and make his case to Congress.

exiledonmainstreet said...

"If McCabe or any of the Dems who were present for that testimony dispute that claim re McCabe's statement, they should absolutely step forward and air that dispute"

And nobody has.

Andrew McCarthy has a very well-reasoned takedown of the Nadler response, which he rightly calls very weak tea:

http://www.nationalreview.com/article/456093/jerrold-nadler-memo-rebuttal-weak-unpersuasive

Kathryn51 said...

Another tidbit in this web: we know that Michael Isikoff's article was used as part of the application. And the narrative was that Isikoff's article was based on the information he received from Steele.

Over the weekend, Isikoff stated that after meeting with Steele, a "senior intelligence official" also corroborated that the FBI was investigating Page.

So. . . . not only was Steele "circulating" - THE FBI was also doing a circular confirmation. Isikoff implies that he wouldn't have written the article without corroboration of the "senior intelligence official".

I want to know identify of that senior intelligence official (probably Ohr).

Kyzernick said...

Exactly BAG - one item nobody seems to bring up is that the FBI fired Steele over his leaks to the press.

Steele abused whatever credibility he had in order to generate a false dossier (with some information that was undoubtedly obtained by nefarious collusion with Obama's DOJ - for example, info that could only have been learned through government surveillance), and peddled it as factual opposition research, at which point it was then peddled to the FISA court as hard evidence and justification for even more spying on Trump and his team.

This whole thing is a dirty fishing expedition gone way too far, which the bad actors involved rationalized because the end result was to deny Trump the presidency. And since none of them could fathom he might actually win, they all figured this would be swept under the rug starting November 9th.

Ooooooops.

Bay Area Guy said...

And for shits and giggles, do y'all remember when Sen Harry Reid (D-NV) wrote to then-Director Comey, accusing him of breaking the law?

“Your actions in recent months have demonstrated a disturbing double standard for the treatment of sensitive information, with what appears to be a clear intent to aid one political party over another,” Reid wrote. “I am writing to inform you that my office has determined that these actions may violate the Hatch Act, which bars FBI officials from using their official authority to influence an election. Through your partisan actions, you may have broken the law.”

Funny how the Left can change its view on a dime, no?

holdfast said...

Here's something to think about - The Nunes memo, which is helpful to Republicans (even if only a little), and hurts the Dems/FBI/Deep State) was seen by over 400 House members, plus staff, plus the FBI, plus the DOJ, plus the White House - and it NEVER leaked.

The Nadler attempted rebuttal memo, which is supposed to be helpful to the Dems/Deep State/FBI, has so far had a much narrower distribution list, has already leaked to NBC News. It's just so surprising that anything which the Dems think might benefit them is quickly leaked and loyally monkey-scribed by the MSM. While GOP-friendly materials are actually held in confidence as they are required to be.

holdfast said...

@Inga - There's no "rub" - I deliberately wrote my comment to be as objective as possible on the point, because Nunes' assertion is hanging out there, ripe for Nadler or McCabe or someone else to refute - and yet not a peep?

Now it may very well be that McCabe was out over his skies on this one - in which case the FBI brass can step in to correct, but of course to do that they have to trash McCabe's credibility.

Huh, I guess the FBI aren't the only ones who can run perjury traps!

Inga said...

“If McCabe or any of the Dems who were present for that testimony dispute that claim re McCabe's statement, they should absolutely step forward and air that dispute.”

That’s exactly what they’re doing. They’re voting on releasing the Democratic Memo today in the HIC. If Republicans vote to block it, that should tell you something. Then even if the Republicans vote to release it, what will Trump do? Will he declassify it as he did Nunes’ Memo? I seriously doubt it.

In other news today, Trump called Democrats who didn’t clap during the SOTU “treasonous and unAmerican”. The oath of loyalty goes to the Constitution, not the President.

FullMoon said...

Are you kidding? NYT already knows what is in it and believe it will damage Trump.DUH.

Drago said...

Inga: "And therein lies the rub."
LOL

Experienced prosecutors Gowdy and Ratcliffe of Texas have both seen the underlying documents and attest to the accuracy of the memo.

Further, the same stone-wallung lefties are fighting tooth and nail to keep this information from being released.

The same lefties that told us it was an insane conspiracy theory to believe Hillary paid for the hoax dossier.

LOL

dreams said...

And this.

"Jarrett claimed that a source told him that Rosenstein threatened House Intelligence Comittee members in January if they did not stop their investigation.

Then, on Saturday, Jarrett tweeted out that a second source had confirmed to him that Rosenstein went after Chairman Devin Nunes and other committee members."

“A 2nd source has now confirmed to me that, in a meeting on January 10, Deputy A-G Rosenstein used the power of his office to threaten to subpoena the calls & texts of the Intel Committee to get it to stop it’s investigation of DOJ and FBI,” he tweeted. “Likely an Abuse of Power & Obstruction.”

https://conservativetribune.com/2-sources-ag-rosenstein/?utm_source=facebook&utm_medium=lynx&utm_campaign=can&utm_content=2018-02-05

Inga said...

“Experienced prosecutors Gowdy and Ratcliffe of Texas have both seen the underlying documents and attest to the accuracy of the memo.”

"There is a Russia investigation without a dossier. To the extent the memo deals with the dossier and the FISA process, the dossier has nothing to do with the meeting at Trump Tower. The dossier has nothing to do with an email sent by Cambridge Analytica. 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."

Trey Gowdy

Tim in Vermont said...

Imagine if the New York Times kept an open mind and followed the leads “without fear or favor.” But they only see fit to do what helps Democrats these days.

Sebastian said...

"whether his sources were corroborated." More than that: whether his sources were corroboratable. My guess: no.

But then, as I have asked in other threads, what was the reasoning of the FISA court/judge? If any uncorroboratable Russian info played any role in any approval of any application, and was knowingly accepted by a judge, that in itself is a scandal.

Of course, as others have noted repeatedly, the last FISA application simply used Page to get to Trump, at the very end of the campaign--to try and get dirt that would stop him at the finish line--and then into the transition and after he took office, to undermine the new administration as much as possible, aided and abetted by O and his minions, the rampant unmasking, etc.

But the problem is they came up empty. The Russian "hacking" of the DNC could not be pinned on Trump. Page was a peripheral pawn. Etc. Hence the Deep Staters needed Mueller to go on a fishing expedition, to Get Trump somehow.

Jay Vogt said...

See, this is another yucky derivative of the apparently sloppy contstruct (FISA courts) and less-than-disciplined application for warrants.

Sympathetic as I am to to the "met it all out" movement, and as useful as it would be to find out who is lying. We're coming to the point where to get what we want we'll have to do what we shouldn't.

If Carter Page is guilty, a release of this information now (even though it might come out in proceedings) might damage the construction of the case. If he's not guilty, than in order to assuage the the NYT (as well as others), we'll be releasing what should have been private conversations of a US citizen. Doesn't that creep anybody out?

Maybe he's just lacking about some new business idea, or gossiping about one of his friends. Maybe he's having an affair or telling a racist joke. None of which is any of our business.

Tim in Vermont said...

Keep hope alive Inga! Maybe cherry picking quotes, stripping them of context and putting the most partisan spin on them possible will become more convincing to people as time goes by!

Inga said...

“Maybe cherry picking quotes, stripping them of context and putting the most partisan spin on them possible will become more convincing to people as time goes by!”

Just like the Nunes Memo!

AllenS said...

Please, do not forget about Mueller and Comey in the Anthrax scare --

Comey and Mueller badly bungled the biggest case they ever handled. They botched the investigation of the 2001 anthrax letter attacks that took five lives and infected 17 other people, shut down the U.S. Capitol and Washington’s mail system, solidified the Bush administration’s antipathy for Iraq, and eventually, when the facts finally came out, made the FBI look feckless, incompetent, and easily manipulated by outside political pressure.

This, too, was an enormously complex case. But here are some facts: Despite the jihadist slogans accompanying the mailed anthrax, it had nothing to do with Saddam Hussein or any foreign element; the FBI ignored a 2002 tip from a scientific colleague of the actual anthrax killer, who turned out to be a Fort Detrick scientist named Bruce Edwards Ivins; the reason is that they had quickly obsessed on an innocent man named Steven Hatfill; the bureau was bullied into focusing on the government scientist by Democratic Sen. Patrick Leahy (whose office, along with that of Senate Majority Leader Tom Daschle, was targeted by an anthrax-laced letter) and was duped into focusing on Hatfill by two sources – a conspiracy-minded college professor with a political agenda who’d never met Hatfill and by Nicholas Kristof, who put his conspiracy theories in the paper while mocking the FBI for not arresting Hatfill.

In truth, Hatfill was an implausible suspect from the outset. He was a virologist who never handled anthrax, which is a bacterium. (Ivins, by contrast, shared ownership of anthrax patents, was diagnosed as having paranoid personality disorder, and had a habit of stalking and threatening people with anonymous letters – including the woman who provided the long-ignored tip to the FBI). So what evidence did the FBI have against Hatfill? There was none, so the agency did a Hail Mary, importing two bloodhounds from California whose handlers claimed could sniff the scent of the killer on the anthrax-tainted letters. These dogs were shown to Hatfill, who promptly petted them. When the dogs responded favorably, their handlers told the FBI that they’d “alerted” on Hatfill and that he must be the killer.


These two fuckers aren't worth spit.

Tim in Vermont said...

If he's not guilty, than in order to assuage the the NYT (as well as others), we'll be releasing what should have been private conversations of a US citizen. Doesn't that creep anybody out?

Oh they ran him over with the get Trump bus a long time ago. Any concern for due process for Carter Page just proves you are a Putin stooge! As Bart Simpson said “The ironing is delicious!”

Jay Vogt said...

"Let in all out movement"

"yakking about some new business . . . "

Damn auto correct.

Tim in Vermont said...

Just years apart in the 1990s, they both gave up their top-tier private law firm jobs to return to the trenches of prosecuting criminals — Mueller as a junior prosecutor in Washington, DC, and Comey in Richmond, Virginia,” Washingtonian reports. “Both men were rising stars mentored and guided by Eric Holder in the 1990s during Holder’s time in the Justice Department under the Clinton administration.”. - Washington Post

These Republican mentees of Eric Holder can be trusted to play it fair, just like the boss who showed them how the game is played.

Unknown said...

Inga appears to have a reading comprehension problem:

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.



Tim in Vermont said...

Just like the Nunes Memo!

Sorry, but your purblind sensibility doesn’t really define reality. But keep on convincing people of the vapidity of your arguments.

Matthew Sablan said...

Given Steele won't say who his sources are, I'm curious how the verification process proceeded.

Bad Lieutenant said...

e Ann Althouse has been writing every day since January 14, 2004.

February 5, 2018
"The New York Times is asking the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court to unseal secret documents related to the wiretapping of Carter Page..."
Great!

The one thing we know, axiomatically, is that NYT thinks disclosure will harm PDJT, directly or indirectly. Assume further that they have the stuff through leaks and are ready for feeding time. Thin gruel though it may be, if not poison to them.

What, then, could it be?

Tim in Vermont said...

My bet is Steele's source is Sidney Blumenthal, former employee of and then contractor to the Clinton Foundation.

William said...

The only "national security implications" are the fact that the DOJ/FBI have CORRUPT people in positions of high authority. And those agencies and those corrupt employees want to hide that fact from the people who pay their salaries.

Quod erat demonstrandum

Tim in Vermont said...

This is just the kind of swampy slime that Sidney lives for.

Tim in Vermont said...

The only “national security implications" are the fact that the DOJ/FBI have CORRUPT

Don’t you know that it’s criminal to tell people that the FBI corrupt? It’s a state secret.

Bad Lieutenant said...

the actual anthrax killer, who turned out to be a Fort Detrick scientist named Bruce Edwards Ivins;


Is that absolutely certain? I've recently heard talk about a third man...

Francisco D said...

Great!

Let's release as much info as possible.

Let's also have the intelligence community take an open minded view about what should and should not be classified.

A lot of stuff gets classified because politicians at every level of government want to hide their actions, not because of national defense.

Sunshine is the best disinfectant.

Inga and I are on the same page here, but expecting different results.

Jay Vogt said...

It's not "Sunshine", it's a colonoscopy.

OldManRick said...

From all the noise that's going on about the Steele memo I see five possibilities.

1. The FBI had enough independent info to get a warrant without the Steele memo but added it to add weight to the case. That doesn't fly because why add something that will be a problem when you have an iron clad case.

2. The FBI needed to Steele Dossier to make their case, couldn't verify it, and had to hide the all problems with it or they wouldn't get a warrant. This seems to be the position of the Nunes Memo. If this is the case, the FBI lied to the court by full omission.

3. The FBI needed to Steele Dossier to make their case, couldn't verify it, and had to minimize problems with it by some weasel words or they wouldn't get a warrant. This seems to be the position of the Democrats, that the FBI say some things that required heavy reading between the line. If this is the case, the FBI lied to the court by partial omission and obfuscation.

4. The FBI was able to verify the Steele Dossier by independent means (not the leaked press reports) but used the dossier rather than the FBI data. Then, there is no reason to use the dossier, use what the FBI developed on their own, so this is a fantasy. It is also a version of number 1.

5. The FBI told the FISA court everything but the FISA court said okay anyway. If this is the case, then any sack of bullshit can be used to spy on an American - especially a reporter or an opposition candidate. We should shut down all FISA courts immediately.

With these options, I am left with the fact that the FBI lied by omission or obfuscation or FISA is a joke. Please provide an option that shows otherwise if you want to disagree.

James K said...

This is the NYT's version of Brady's Hail Mary. At this point it looks so bleak for them they have nothing to lose.

Matthew Sablan said...

The Nadler memo claims republicans paid Steele and various other known false statements. Voting to release it as is would be stupid.

AllenS said...

Yes, Lieutenant, and Ivins (not sure of the name) committed suicide shortly after. So, that ended that.

Now, everyone needs to know that after Hatfill was exonerated by the DOJ and an award of over $5 million was awarded to him, because Mueller and Comey ruined his life, neither Mueller and Comey admitted they made any mistake and often cited their reasons were the two bloodhounds.

What a sorry state of affairs, when those two were allowed to continue their careers.

Inga said...

“ At this point it looks so bleak for them they have nothing to lose.”

It looks bleak, but not for Democrats. It still surprises me to hear you folks are still so deluded about the Trump presidency and the chances of him sliding away from the Mueller/Russia investigation Scott free.

Tim in Vermont said...

It’s amazing the trust that some posters here put in the same media outlets that convinced them that they could throw away their Wisconsin vote on a third party and still expect a Hillary victory with 95% certainty.

Matthew Sablan said...

Does the Nadler memo still cite to a case where the challenger has the burden of proving something is wrong in was warrant request... Despite FISA courts not having a challenger?

rhhardin said...

It looks like protective skepticism to me. "I will show how objective I am by remaining skeptical so I don't have to conclude anything I don't want to conclude."

Matthew Sablan said...

Come on. Of course Trump's going free. Obama illegally communicated with Clinton on her secret server and wiretapped Congress and nothing happened to him. Trump has done nothing close to that that has been proven.

rhhardin said...

Baysean odds say the obvious conclusion is the correct one.

Drago said...

LOL

Inga keeps confusing Gowdy's comments on the Mueller investigation (which the Nunes memo did not address or relate to in any way) with Gowdy's comments on the validity of the Nunes Memo (which deals ONLY with FISA court abuses) which Gowdy has vouched for completely since he, Gowdy, did indeed review all underlying documents.

At this point you have to consider the possibility that Inga is too dumb to understand the difference.

Tim in Vermont said...

It doesn’t matter to them, Mathew, look at Inga. As long as it is typed on paper by a Democrat, it’s true!

Of course they have studiously ignored their marked slide in the polls since the early days of fevered hatred for Trump, because those polls aren’t helpful in removing Trump from office.

Matthew Sablan said...

Obama illegally fired an IG and slandered him. Nothing happened except the investigation ended. Firing Comey is nothing compared to that.

Barry Dauphin said...

I've read that Carter Page drew "investigative scrutiny" (or other such language) since 2013. But investigative scrutiny is not the same thing as a FISA warrant. When was the 1st FISA application on him submitted and was the Steele dossier used then? If Page has been investigated since 2013, why no charges yet? Why didn't they have enough on him without the Steele dossier (seems like 2013-2016 gave folks plenty of time to find stuff to put into a FISA warrant without the Steele dossier).

Tim in Vermont said...

Inga keeps confusing ...

You could have stopped there. I wouldn’t be surprised if dementia were at play.

Fabi said...

Drago -- did you notice who made their first substantive comment on the Russian ordeal today? It must be really bad for the Democrats.

Drago said...

Inga: "It still surprises me to hear you folks are still so deluded about the Trump presidency and the chances of him sliding away from the Mueller/Russia investigation Scott free."

LOL

At least Inga is no longer lying about wanting to wait for the investigation to be completed to make her determination.

That's alot of honesty from Inga when you consider the fake lefty sexual assault concerns have long fallen by the wayside as well.

That didn't take long, did it?

Meanwhile, all those Midwest voters certainly seem pretty doggone happy with what Trump is doing and standing up for them while Inga's dem pals are going to demand all those voters give their raises and bonuses back.

I'm going to go out on a limb and suggest that won't go over too well.

BTW, speaking of both FISA court abuses, which are now obvious which is why the Deep Staters are fightting so hard against releasing, and the Mueller investigation, where did the Flynn Sentencing urgency go?

LOL

Probably the same place the never-happened indictment of Page for make-believe crimes went.

Francisco D said...

I just finished watching "The Five" and decided that Inga is our white female version of Juan Williams, but with a little less likability.

Juan's kids are conservatives, as I have heard.

Matthew Sablan said...

Like. Don't get me wrong. Trump is an asshole. But we've not been given any reason to think he's a Putin puppet save wanting to end the Russian sanctions. That's... Not much to go on. There's more evidence of the Rezko deal than this.

Tim in Vermont said...

A Monmouth University Poll released Wednesday showed that Trump’s approval rating had jumped 10 points compared to last month, while the Democratic advantage on the generic ballot had shrunk to 2 percentage points.

A nationwide Monmouth survey in December showed Democrats with a 15-point advantage on the generic ballot.
- The Hill

You guys keep doing what you are doing and we will keep doing what we are doing.

Drago said...

Tim in Vermont: "Of course they have studiously ignored their marked slide in the polls since the early days of fevered hatred for Trump, because those polls aren’t helpful in removing Trump from office."

The dems lost over a thousand seats nationally at all levels and the Inga's called that winning!

Inga said...

“Republicans concede key FBI 'footnote' in Carter Page warrant. Devin Nunes said Monday the FBI had disclosed political backing for a Trump-Russia dossier in October 2016, but a controversial GOP memo released last week did not mention it.”

LOL.

StephenFearby said...

A few days ago WAPO published an opinion piece by Julian Sanchez, a senior fellow at the Cato Institute.

The headline was: Nunes’s memo is a stunt. But surveillance does need more scrutiny.

"...The overarching narrative that the Nunes memo apparently seeks to build — a story of rabid partisans within the Obama administration cooking up a bogus Russia investigation to use as a weapon against Trump — is almost certainly nonsense.

Nonsense its's not. But Sanchez helpfully calls our attention to a strange problem with FISA court applications in 2016 that he can't explain:

"...Moreover, whether it has anything to do with the headline-grabbing Russia investigation, something odd is clearly afoot with the FISA court. From its inception in 1979 through 2002, the court never turned down a single wiretap application — a sign, intelligence agencies assured us, of the rigorous approval process before reaching the court, rather than the willingness of its judges to act as rubber stamps. The steep spike in FISA applications after 9/11 did finally result in a few the court saw fit to reject or modify.

Until 2015, the highest number of rejections in a single year was five. In 2016, there were 34 — or twice as many as the court had turned down in its entire history before then. The court also saw fit to “modify” a striking 310 applications before approving surveillance. The previous record, set in 2004, was 94. Nor is this unusual burst of resistance a side effect of an unusual number of applications: The number submitted in 2016 — 1,457 — is a bit below the average for the period following 2001.

For some reason, there has been a dramatic increase in the number of applications judges have found deficient in some way. This should be concerning, because however diligent they may be, FISA court judges are ultimately dependent on the facts and analysis they’re presented by the government being reliable: The court has no ability to gather its own intelligence."

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/posteverything/wp/2018/02/01/nuness-memo-is-a-stunt-but-surveillance-does-need-more-scrutiny/

As Church Lady might say, what is so special about 2016? Could it be that Satan incarnate was running for president?

Drago said...

Francisco D: "I just finished watching "The Five" and decided that Inga is our white female version of Juan Williams,..."

That is really unfair to Juan Williams.

Juan knows that he is simply lying to cover for the dems.

Inga actually believes Schiff-ty/Nadler/Pelosi et al.

BTW, is today a day where Pelosi remembers who the President is, or is today one of "those days" where she has forgotten again?

What a perfect leader for the dems. She'll be railing against Goldwater before the week is out!

Tim in Vermont said...

2 point advantage for Democrats in the generic ballot points to Republican pick-ups.

Matthew Sablan said...

Uh... I thought the memo says that political backing was mentioned. But the problem was the who was hidden, and since at the time everyone thought Republican people paid for it the court would be misled.

320Busdriver said...

What value was there in spying on Page, as opposed to someone closer to the campaign, if not only to establish and leak that Trumps "campaign" is under suspicion of "colluding" with Russia?

Tim in Vermont said...

Inga actually believes Schiff-ty/Nadler/Pelosi et al.

The reason people still respond to her is that in our hearts, we don’t really believe she is as stupid as the stuff she writes would indicate.

Inga said...

The HIC voted unanimously to release the Democratic Memo! Now it goes to the White House.

Darrell said...

My guess is that Carter Page was an FBI plant into the Trump campaign. They managed to get him a seat at a Trump foreign-policy advisory committee meeting that took place in March 2016. That committee met one time only and dozens of other people sat on the committee. Page never met Trump and never advised him about anything. Donald F. McGhan II, the Counsel for the Donald J. Trump for President, Inc., sent Page a cease and desist letter after being informed that Page was identifying himself as a Trump advisor to the Press and others. Page was caught on FBI surveillance during 2013 meeting with Victor Podobnyy, a Russian “Junior Attache” to the UN in NY. U.S. intelligence had Podobnyy under human and electronic surveillance as a suspected Russian SVR intelligence operative, and the FBI had recorded a conversation in March of between Podoobnyy and a second Russian agent discussing his attempt to recruit Page as an asset. Following the meeting, Carter Page was interviewed by federal agents in June, 2013 and that he became a cooperating witness in the federal investigation and resulting 2015 prosecution. Page's association with Russia in those events gave the FBI a premise to submit to the FISA court when he became associated with the Trump campaign by sitting in on that one meeting. Thus, the Steele memo wasn't the only evidence that was used to obtain the warrant to spy on Trump. I'm also pretty sure they omitted the part where he had become an FBI informant. Page was apparently sufficiently trusted by the FBI that he was allowed to travel to Russia several times before and after the Bureau busted the Podobnny cell in September 2014.

Matthew Sablan said...

The memo just says the DNC Clinton connection wasn't mentioned. Not that the fact it was political wasn't mentioned.

Drago said...

Inga: "“Republicans concede key FBI 'footnote' in Carter Page warrant. Devin Nunes said Monday the FBI had disclosed political backing for a Trump-Russia dossier in October 2016, but a controversial GOP memo released last week did not mention it."

Double LOL

The "key" footnote mentions neither Hillary, the DNC, or the oppo research firms. It's merely a footnote that says the author is not a fan of Trump.

This is the last lie fallback position before the release of the actual warrant is the revealed.

So yes, you heard that right, the "key" footnote contains zero key information about where the hoax dossier got funded for its lies!

Triple LOL!

Tim in Vermont said...

She doesn’t care Mathew. She said once as “Unknown” that “she wasn’t here to discuss, just to disrupt and mock” (I paraphrase)

Well, given her limited power of mockery, disruption is all she has. She certainly can’t respond to questions about the talking points she breathlessly cuts and pastes here. That would imply that she had considered the arguments carefully. Ha ha ha ha ha!

Inga said...

Drago really believes Nunes, lol!

#SadClownDrago

Francisco D said...

Drago said: "Juan knows that he is simply lying to cover for the gems."

I have always suspected/hoped that was the case. He is sort of a hired performer.

Matthew Sablan said...

I hope Republicans got Nadler to change his factual inaccuracies before approving it.

Tim in Vermont said...

The HIC voted unanimously to release the Democratic Memo! Now it goes to the White House.

Three days ago, the Republicans had blocked it from ever seeing the light of day! But for our friends on the left, three days ago was when Gilgamesh was still eating grass and cavorting with the animals.

Drago said...

Inga: "The HIC voted unanimously to release the Democratic Memo! Now it goes to the White House."

Duh.

That is what you were told would happen (since that is the actual formal process for releasing this information) when you falsely claimed (based on Schiff-ty's lies) the republicans wouldn't vote yes.

Congratulations for catching up.

Not to worry, all the nadler info has already leaked anyway.

What. A. Surprise.

Inga said...

Timmy,

News flash, I’m here to express my opinion. If you don’t like it, too damn bad. Don’t be such a petty little bitch.

Matthew Sablan said...

Page being an FBI informant could be the national security angle, especially if the warrant is just to protect his cover.

Tim in Vermont said...

Don’t be such a petty little bitch.

Yes, another one of Aristotle’s favored logical gambits!

Drago said...

Inga: "Drago really believes Nunes, lol"

I believe the entire republican membership of the HPSCI.

In particular, Trey Gowdy who viewed all the underlying documents and said the Memo is perfectly accurate.

You know, the guy you quoted earlier in the thread!

LOL

Inga has already forgotten she quoted the guy who was the key player in creation of the memo!

In Inga's defense, that was, like, 30 minutes ago and history begun anew at least 3 times since then.

Original Mike said...

Inga: "The HIC voted unanimously to release the Democratic Memo! Now it goes to the White House."

The charge that the Republicans were blocking its release was always a steaming pile of horse shit.

Inga said...

If the Republicans would’ve voted no, they’d look pretty damn bad, they knew that. They get no credit for doing what they were forced to.

Inga said...

They voted no, last time it was voted on.

langford peel said...

Don't try and silence Inga. She is perfectly within her rights to spout nonsense and misinformation.

After all one of her children is an Admiral in the "Old Navy."

I think she is in charge of t-shirts.

She has unassailable moral authority.

Tim in Vermont said...

The charge that the Republicans were blocking its release was always a steaming pile of horse shit.

The Inga bot has no idea what you are talking about.

I am becoming more and more convinced that she is a Russian bot fiendishly designed to increase support for Trump and that we should be most circumspect in drawing any conclusions about the actual arguments the Democrats are making by reading her. The problem is that that they are all saying the same thing!

Drago said...

I wonder why all those super agent FBI and DOJ personnel have been fired, demoted, reassigned?

It's like Nunes and the republicans are on to something!

I'm still waiting for Inga to apologize for calling republicans liars for saying Hillary and the DNC paid for the memo......LOL.

You know, the most important fact that the FBI "forgot" to include in their "key footnote"!

You know, forgetting ALL the most important stuff to include in your "key footnote", sort of makes it a "lie by omission" footnote.

Which is exactly what it was.

It's even worse for the FBI in that case, because they had ALL the relevant information and decided, consciously, to continue to hide the most important aspects of the opposition research aspects of the dossier.

LOL

Just perfect.

Matthew Sablan said...

How does the FBI leave out they paid Steele? That seems... Important for judging the value of a statement. Imagine not being able to impeach expert witnesses based on their financial motivations.

Inga said...

Calm down Drago, you’ll give yourself a hernia.

David said...

So if Trump declassifies this stuff, the NYT will praise him for doing so, right?

langford peel said...

The Republicans only voted to have the Democratic memo go through the same hoop that the Republican memo went through.

Of course the Democrats want an affirmative action report where you don't have to meet the same requirements because.....reasons.

Matthew Sablan said...

Inga: Last time they voted, a memo hadn't been shown to them. And since at the time it was the Schiff memo not the Nadler memo, this one may not have even existed.

Tim in Vermont said...

They voted no, last time it was voted on

Of course everybody knows that they voted to subject it to the same review process insisted on for the Nunes memo. This kind of transparent nonsense must be meant to be seen by everybody. It looks like she may be a false flag Trump bot!

320Busdriver said...

Darrell

Thanks for the backround. Seems entirely plausible given the evidence uncovered thus far. They could not have expected to obtain much from him, unless he had success in infiltrating the campaign. Will have to research the 2015 case on him. I am hoping to find what leaks we were subjected to just prior to the election. Have not seen a list of those anywhere, but it probably exists.

Matthew Sablan said...

Frankly I think they tried to force a vote on an unseen memo so they could draft whatever they wanted then when Trump refused, leak it and say Republicans already agreed. Voting no the first time forced them to draft the memo.

Anonymous said...

@Inga Here's some info on the Grassley memo. More wild and "unsubstantiated" claims from Senate Republicans this time. Grassley has referred this info (and more, I presume) to the DOJ seeking a criminal investigation of Steele. If it proceeds as it should the Clinton campaign may find itself in even more hot water.

Your response , I am sure, will be that you need more info. I hope that it will be forthcoming.

Drago said...

Inga: "They voted no, last time it was voted on"

LOL

What a moron.

The dem memo could not have been shared with the entire house without a positive vote by the republicans, which they gave, unanimously.

The only "no" vote was on the first night when the dems demanded the republicans vote to release the memo to the entire house but hadn't allowed the republicans on the committee to even see it before the vote!!

LOL

And do you know why the dems pulled that little manuever?

So they could walk out and say that the republicans had voted against their memo (which is exactly what Schiff-ty did), but Schiff-ty "forgot" to mention that the dems had not let the republicans even see the memo!!

Of course, the very next day, their work on fooling the dumb Inga's being completed, the dems DID share the memo with the republicans on the committee and the republicans voted unanimously to release it to the full house.

Which is how we got to todays vote.

There have been only 2 real votes on the dems memo, and the republicans voted yes unanimously BOTH times.

Tim in Vermont said...

You know what would be cool? If an intelligent Democrat who is convinced by the whole Russian collusion argument would come over here and point out all of the flaws in our arguments for us. It’s almost as if such an intelligent Democrat doesn’t exist. If we go to their sites, we are banned within an hour. It weakens their arguments when they are all developed in hot houses where the heat all comes from partisan fever.

Matthew Sablan said...

Now we have a much weaker Nadler memo that needed to be at least marginally truthful, since Republicans didn't bless off on the memo sight unseen.

Tim in Vermont said...

Drago, you are talking about several hours ago! Democrats are like ducks, they wake up to a brand new world every day and all the stuff that happened yesterday and earlier, may as well be what the Australian Aborigines call “the dream time.”

320Busdriver said...

I saw some Rep who claimed to have read the D memo and he said it will require excessive redactions. So who's undermining national security now?

langford peel said...

'The reason people still respond to her is that in our hearts, we don’t really believe she is as stupid as the stuff she writes would indicate.'

I am afraid that is not quite accurate. The commenters here are much more like the children at the beginning of "The Wild Bunch" who were enjoying torturing a scorpion.

We are just mean, nasty children. Own it.

Drago said...

Inga is busy scrambling in the lefty fever swamps trying to come up with PROOF!! PROOF!! that the republicans voted no in a dastardly fashion against the dem memo.

LOL

So, once again, on something so easy to verify and already made public: Is Inga really that dumb?

FullMoon said...

After all one of her children is an Admiral in the "Old Navy."

"Senior Sailor of the Year"

Matthew Sablan said...

The two biggest red flags are Trump's wanting to get rid of sanctions on Russia and Papa and Flynn. And those are so weak I don't think anyone would hang their hats on them. The weaker position still is allegations of Russia bank rolling Trump. But given how many people have access to those records, they'd have leaked if they had a smoking gun.

320Busdriver said...

I also want to see the "other"Nunes memo on the Dept of State. Nothing to see there
I'm sure

Matthew Sablan said...

If the Rep read the same Nadler memo that leaked, I can't think of any reactions needed.

Tim in Vermont said...

One funny thing about Inga is that she doesn’t get that we are having fun kicking her around “intellectually” of course. Why does she think we enjoy arguing with her and ARM so much, for example? It’s very validating of our point of view. It’s so validating in fact that I am beginning to wonder if it isn’t “too easy.”

Drago said...

320Busdriver: "I saw some Rep who claimed to have read the D memo and he said it will require excessive redactions. So who's undermining national security now?"

That is the second ploy by the dems to sow confusion.

Just like Inga's and Schiff-ty's lie about the votes on the memo, the dems have set up a scenario where they purposely included classified info that they know the FBI/DOJ will not want released.

So how do you think this will play out?

The "executive branch" will get the dem memo with all the extra classified stuff thrown in.

The FBI/DOJ says we can't have that stuff getting out it has to be redacted. They will require the redactions before it goes to Trump for sign off.....


So, you can already see it can't you?....

If Trump goes AGAINST the advice of the FBI/DOJ and allows the dem memo to released without redaction Trump is a lunatic and exposing our national secrets!!

If Trump goes ALONG WITH the advice of the FBI/DOJ and requires the redactions then Trump is a lunatic who is hiding the information which proves Nunes lied!!

And the media will go along with it either way.

Which is why, at some point, all the underlying docs have to come out to cut off all the dem/media/establishment/deepstate shenanigans.

Of course, even with the NYT calling for the release of the warrants, what do you think they will all say when Trump does that?

LOL

Yep, Trump is a lunatic endangering our national security.

Might as well get it over with.

Michael K said...

Donald Jr is going to have his revenge even better than he anticipated.

langford peel said...

Well it is an intellectual form of giving out wedgies and swirlies.

Unfortunately we are nostalgic for those days and we are reliving it with these poor saps.

Glory Days.

Matthew Sablan said...

The possibility is Nadler leaked a memo sanitized of secret stuff. Then what the Rep said could be true.

Tim in Vermont said...

As I recall, Flynn was going to testify that Trump tried to conduct foreign policy as PRESIDENT FUCKING ELECT!

We have Obama traveling the world telling people to ignore Trump because he will be gone in three years. What a fucking asshole! Undermining the duly elected president! But we know by the way Obama reacted to losing Congress, you know, not compromising, but boasting about his “pen and phone” that Obama never really believed in elections.

Eisenhower should have been frog marched off to prison! I just read an account of a party where Churchill ignored Truman, the sitting POTUS, sent him off to bed, so that he could have face time with Ike.

Inga said...

“One funny thing about Inga is that she doesn’t get that we are having fun kicking her around “intellectually” of course. Why does she think we enjoy arguing with her and ARM so much, for example? It’s very validating of our point of view. It’s so validating in fact that I am beginning to wonder if it isn’t “too easy.””

False bravado and self delusion on your part would be a more accurate description. You validate your preconceived notions from the voices in your head.

Tim in Vermont said...

Right now this is bigger than covering asses at the FBI an DoJ.

Matthew Sablan said...

Trump should reject the memo. "Seeing as the democrats leaked this document prior to the required legal review, our time is best spent elsewhere. If the leaker turns themselves in we will reconsiderreviewing."

Original Mike said...

Inga: “They voted no, last time it was voted on.”

And everybody here knows why. We all stay informed on current events. Why do you peddle your crap here?

Drago said...

Of course, the most important thing that would come out of Trump declassifying the FISA warrants is all the lefties, including the ones calling for declassifying the warrants, would then claim Trump is obstructing justice.

Basically, this is the dem strategy.

To turn every constitutional action and decision (and even THOUGHTS ALONE!) taken by Trump into an impeachable offense.

This is the logical extension of what the dems started doing with Reagan in the '80's where the left first started, in a big way, to criminalize policy differences.

D.E. Cloutier said...

Re: "Secret documents"

The U.S. federal government has too many secrets.

Meanwhile, Pantex has a website: "The Pantex Plant, located northeast of Amarillo, Texas, is the nation’s primary facility for the final assembly, dismantlement and maintenance of nuclear weapons."

Link:
http://www.pantex.com/

Drago said...

To Inga's credit, she clearly recognizes now that she was lying about the memo vote thing so she has moved on.

Tim in Vermont said...

False bravado and self delusion on your part would be a more accurate description. You validate your preconceived notions from the voices in your head.

It’s #SAD that projection is all you have.

Char Char Binks said...

I heard on NPR today, 1A, I believe, that the Steele dossier was originally commissioned by Trump's Republican opponents during the campaign for the nomination.

Matthew Sablan said...

Of course. The Nadler memo makes the same error about funding.

Tim in Vermont said...

You could prove that you are the smart one though, when asked questions, you could reply with logical and factual answers! You know, you could point out the web sites of which you strongly implied that you were aware where I got my “inoculation” riff, for example.

Since you won’t, the strong inference is that you can’t.

Bay Area Guy said...

The Big Picture Scorecard:

July 2016: Comey says Russia counter-intelligence investigation begins.

1. 7.5.16: Comey exonerates Hillary. Trashes her as "extremely careless"

2. 7.10.16: Seth Rich of DNC is murdered

3. 7.18.16: RNC Convention

4. 7.22.16: DNC e-mails are published by Wikileaks

5. 7.25.16: DNC Convention

6. 8.15.16: Strzok Text re INSURANCE POLICY

7. 10.7.16: Hillary's campaign (Podesta) e-mails are published by Wikileaks

8. 10.21.16: FISA Warrant approved by Court to wiretap Carter Page

9. 10.26.16: Trump's famous Access Hollywood Video (from 2005).

10. 10.28.16: Comey reopens Hillary E-mail case based on Weiner's Laptop

11. 11.7.16: Comey closes Hillary E-mail case (again).

12. 11.8.16: Trump elected

Drago said...

Char Char Binks: "I heard on NPR today, 1A, I believe, that the Steele dossier was originally commissioned by Trump's Republican opponents during the campaign for the nomination"

Katy Tur and some other lefty talking heads are still pushing that lie.

They know how bad it looks now that we know that Hillary, the DNC and the FBI (!) have been exposed as the ONLY funders of the hoax dossier.

They know that if the dummies like Inga will buy the incredibly obvious fake memo vote lies then they will easily remain fooled on the funding.

Curious George said...

"Drago said...
To Inga's credit, she clearly recognizes now that she was lying about the memo vote thing so she has moved on."

Credit? No. In addition to being a dullard, she lacks any intellectual honesty. She'll just move on to her next stupid lying argument. Didn't you notice she completely avoided the John Doe Walker posts a month or so ago. This too will end poorly for her.

langford peel said...

Trump has to declassify it all.

It is the only way to get to the truth

I would also ask that he appoint a special prosecutor and call for a select committee of the combined House and Senate to investigate the intelligence community. Chaired by Rand Paul. Revisit the Church Committee.

The original Church Committee reveal the connection between the Mob and the Kennedys. Two mobsters were murdered as a direct result of the committee. Sam Momo Giancana was murdered the day before he was supposed to testify. He was one of the top three mobsters of the Outfit in Chi-town. Jimmy the Weasel was put in an oil drum and thrown out to sea when it came out that he had testified secretly.

If there is a new commission I bet we will see a bunch more of these type events. Hell someone might be murdered in a robbery gone bad where they forget to take their money, credit cards, watch or computer.

It can be a confusing time when you trying to cover up for the Deep State.

Kathryn51 said...

Tim in Vermont said:
One funny thing about Inga is that she doesn’t get that we are having fun kicking her around “intellectually” of course. Why does she think we enjoy arguing with her and ARM so much, for example? It’s very validating of our point of view. It’s so validating in fact that I am beginning to wonder if it isn’t “too easy.”

Okay, I get that's it fun for you and a handful of others, but not that fun for those of us who try to read a thought-provoking post by Althouse (and hopefully some helpful or insightful comments) only to see the same personal attacks day after day. But carry on.

Francisco D said...

Char Char,

Catch up to current news.


Re: Inga

We know that Juan Williams is paid by FNC. Who pays Inga to shill for the left?

Only a seriously crazed partisan could believe the bullshit she spouts.

Think about it.

langford peel said...

Now now Kathy "Lord of the Flies" was always a very popular book.

You are just getting a very entertaining remake every day.

Enjoy.

Tim in Vermont said...

But even by Trump standards, this morning's tweet is somewhat remarkable. He is suggesting that a dossier prepared by a former member of British intelligence has not only been totally discredited (it hasn't -- more on that in a minute) but that it might have been funded by some combination of Russia, the Democratic Party and, wait for it, the FBI!

.....

The point here is that it is deeply irresponsible for a president of the United States to even flirt with this sort of conspiracy talk. You can love Donald Trump and still believe that the idea that the Russians, the Democrats and the FBI co-funded a dossier designed to discredit Trump’s 2016 campaign is totally bonkers.. - CNN October last year.

https://www.cnn.com/2017/10/19/politics/donald-trump-conspiracy-dossier/index.html

This is some seriously funny shit.

Murph said...

"If Carter Page was working as an UCE (FBI undercover employee), responsible for the bust of a high level Russian agent in 2013 -and remained a UCE- throughout the court case UP TO May of 2016, how is it possible that on October 21st 2016 Carter Page is put under a FISA Title 1 surveillance warrant as an alleged Russian agent?"

https://theconservativetreehouse.com/2018/02/05/in-march-2016-carter-page-was-an-fbi-employee-in-october-2016-fbi-told-fisa-court-hes-a-spy/#more-145498

Char Char Binks said...

"The warrant process is not a "beyond a reasonable doubt" matter."

Who said it was? The process is a "probable cause" matter, not a "We'll snoop around till we find something interesting" matter.

Pancho D

I'm not vouching for NPR. I'm just reporting what they, or a guest on one of their shows, said this afternoon.

Tim in Vermont said...

Okay, I get that's it fun for you and a handful of others, but not that fun for those of us who try to read a thought-provoking post by Althouse (and hopefully some helpful or insightful comments) only to see the same personal attacks day after day. But carry on.

You have a point. It’s probably too much fun for me and it is sort of self-indulgent, but she keeps making such easily refutable statements! I guess I should leave the refutations as an exercise for the reader.

Inga said...

So many many many delusional people here. I suppose one would have to be the type of person that engages in self delusion to vote for Trump and then continue to support him. I’ll be one of the happiest commenters here when this is all said and done. I’ll enjoy telling you “I told you so”. I’ll continue to comment here because I have the right to express my opinion, the same right you have. If you want to make Althouse an echo chamber, perhaps you should shoot her an email.

I worry about how you folks will be able to cope.

Tim in Vermont said...

It is a trap. It leads to making the threads unreadable. That’s what they want. I will stop.

Matthew Sablan said...

Russia didn't pay for the dossier. But Steele may have paid Russian sources.

Inga said...

Tim,
Has it occurred to you that YOU might be contributing to making the threads unreadable? You seem to internalize my comments on any given subject and take it as some weird personal affront. Why don’t you mind your own business and make your own comments without causing an uproar?

Kathryn51 said...

Tim in Vermont said...
It is a trap. It leads to making the threads unreadable. That’s what they want. I will stop.

Don't stop entirely. And I understand the temptation - many times I begin to write a comment countering some nonsense from Inga or Toothless and then I realize what I'm doing.


Francisco D said...

Inga: "So many many many delusional people here."

LOL!

Look in the mirror. It would be kind of me to say that you are obsessed with wishful thinking. It may be much worse.


Char Char,

If you cannot remember my name (racist!) how can I expect you to remember what you heard on the completely unbiased government radio known as NPR.

Matthew Sablan said...

But. Yes. How date Trump theorize about a vast left wing conspiracy theory.

Kathryn51 said...

Murph - re: your post from CTH, I understand that Carter Page will be on Laura Ingraham tonight. I thought he usually appeared on MSNBC and Laura isn't my favorite, but I plan to watch tonight.

Inga said...

“Look in the mirror.”

You first. I’m sure than when you’re doing your “psychological” work in the nursing home, they have a mirror that you could look into and study yourself.

Inga said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Ralph L said...

I'd like to know the extent of the surveillance of Page, namely the names of his contacts and the dates (not his dates).

Matthew Sablan said...

I want to know how extensive their surveillance of him was related to Trump properties and devices etc.

Char Char Binks said...

Recuerdo tu nombre, Paco.

Inga said...

“Don't stop entirely. And I understand the temptation - many times I begin to write a comment countering some nonsense from Inga or Toothless and then I realize what I'm doing.”

I’m also here to counter the nonsense you folks generate and there is such a plethora of it, it keeps me very busy. I feel it’s a public service

Drago said...

Murph: "how is it possible that on October 21st 2016 Carter Page is put under a FISA Title 1 surveillance warrant as an alleged Russian agent?""

His name showed up as some extended staffer on the Trump campaign.

Bingo!

Drago said...

Inga, did you do some research and find out that Schiff-ty pulled a fast one on you on the memo vote, or were you too afraid to look?

LOL

Darrell said...

I feel it’s a public service

"Try sticking your head in an oven" was this blog's number 1 commenter response on the secret mental telepathy channel. It would serve the public better.

Drago said...

Matthew Sablan: "I want to know how extensive their surveillance of him was related to Trump properties and devices etc"

A Title I FISA warrant allows the FBI to look at ANYONE who even comes into contact with Carter Page in any capacity anywhere. Further, the FBI can look at EVERYTHING on every device, location, property, business, acquaintance for AS FAR BACK as the FBI has intercepted data.

That means that every single aspect of Trump's entire adult life, in addition to his parents, his children, his siblings his aunts, uncles, neices, nephews and ALL THEIR private information for as far back as the FBI wants to go is open for review.

Worst of all, the dems/lefty/LLR/deep state/intelligence services/law enforcement agencies constructed an actual "OP" to frame him for a non-existent crime (collusion) that never happened.

Trump is easily, by orders of magnitude, the most heavily vetted sitting President in our nations history...and here he still is...fighting.

Astonishing.

320Busdriver said...

Murph

Appreciate the cth link. It all makes sense. Wtf. How long can these fools deny the truth?

Drago said...

Inga, its okay to admit that Schiff-ty pulled a fast one on you.

It was never reported on any network you were likely to watch nor publication you were likely to read.

But you might want to give some deeper thought as to what kind of a maneuver that was that Schiff-ty pulled and why it was that you fell for it so quickly and uncritically.

Murph said...

Kathryn51, I don't have a TV, but will try to catch that later on video. Thx for pointer.

PS: I try not to rely solely on CTH, but Sundance seems to have a knack for sussing out information and connecting dots.

(I'd love to know his/her background.)

Matthew Sablan said...

I still can't get over they paid Steele for his golden showers scoop. All political spending by the FBI should require better oversight than it is getting.

Francisco D said...

Char Char: "Recuerdo tu nombre, Paco."

Pancho es el nombre de Francisco.

My name is taken from Francisco (Cisco) a character in "Atlas Shrugged."

Dickin'Bimbos@Home said...

Nunes has been bullied and threatened by corrupt democrats (but i repeat myself) for over a year now.
The corrupt left sure are scared of daylight.

Darrell said...

That means that every single aspect of Trump's entire adult life

Which the FBI and NSA promptly shared with Fusion GPS and Crowdstrike, private companies,who most likely shared them with every Lefty entity like others had done with information about conservatives/Republicans. Examples? Lois Lerner and the IRS data and the Ohio Democrats back in 2008/2012. Note that since Trump was still running his businesses worldwide before the election, the warrant draws in information about all of his employees worldwide, too. All their data. Perhaps that's why the DNC has been hiding their assets recently, declaring themselves poor as a church mouse. Lawsuits can do that.

chuck said...

A suspicious mind might wonder if this was the intent in releasing the memo.

Drago said...

Matthew Sablan: "I still can't get over they paid Steele for his golden showers scoop."

Well, Steele needed to pay off the Putin Pals who gave him that risible nonsensical BS.

Putin's pals probably couldn't believe their luck that such a long-time Corrupt-tress like Hillary and her many many henchmen and hench-chicks in the govt and press were willing to construct an East German-like frame-up job on a political opponent while spying on everybody under the sun.

Murph said...

I thought everyone knew Francisco.

Francisco d'Anconia's 'Money Speech' from Atlas Shrugged, by Ayn Rand

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u-T0ey0IKDA

Matthew Sablan said...

Also. Steele is apparently being charged with lying to the FBI. This is the guy they hung their hat on?

Joshua Barker said...

Just remember, FBI deputy director Andrew McCabe, the second highest ranking FBI official, said “First we fuck Flynn and then we fuck Trump”... And Nellie Ohr was also CIA...

This was a deep-state op from the start and an attempted silent coup...

Josephbleau said...

Murph said...
"If Carter Page was working as an UCE (FBI undercover employee), responsible for the bust of a high level Russian agent in 2013 -and remained a UCE- throughout the court case UP TO May of 2016, how is it possible that on October 21st 2016 Carter Page is put under a FISA Title 1 surveillance warrant as an alleged Russian agent?"

Obviously, the FBI takes their own agent, calls him a spy, gets a title I warrant on him ( with no intent to charge him of course,) and has him volunteer as an unpaid guy for the Trump campaign. Then everyone on the whole campaign staff can be "legally" spied on at will, and with the relaxation of unmasking by B. Obama's late EO, the juicy gossip can be leaked to the MSM for selective publication to assist HILLARY!.

Joshua Barker said...

Blogger Unknown said...
The Steele dossier was only added to the FISA warrant application later...

-------

The Steel Dossier was created and used because they had previously tried and FAILED to get a Title I FISA warrant... From what I understand, Page had previously been under Title VII surveillance, but upgrading him to Title I allowed the government to gain access to ANYONE he had ever had contact with... Which means that WITHOUT the fabricated dossier, the government would never have had any ability to spy on Trump, who was the ultimate target...

Tim in Vermont said...

Which the FBI and NSA promptly shared with Fusion GPS and Crowdstrike

Do you have a link?

Matthew Sablan said...

Why was the State department using Steele as a middleman to the FBI, per York?

JML said...

"I am becoming more and more convinced that she is a Russian bot fiendishly designed to increase support for Trump and that we should be most circumspect in drawing any conclusions about the actual arguments the Democrats are making by reading her. The problem is that that they are all saying the same thing! "

Well, maybe that explains the Google Analytics Ann has been trying to figure out the past few days...

Matthew Sablan said...

So the FBI paid Steele to gather information from the Department of State and Hillary Clinton's campaign? Amateur hour.

Drago said...

Matthew Sablan: "Also. Steele is apparently being charged with lying to the FBI."

I'll need a link for that because I think that you may be referring to the Criminal Referral from Grassley/Graham that points to the obvious lies Steele told the FBI.

Remember way back when, perhaps hours, when lying to the FBI was supposed to be a bad thing?

Likelihood of this FBI/DOJ crew to charge Steele with lying?

Zero.

Why?

Well, don't you thing Mr. Steele might have some very interesting things to say about certain members of our Upright and Morally Unassailable and Saint-like FBI and DOJ hillary pals?

Best not to take that chance.

Nope. Just like Sandy Berger literally, LITERALLY, stuffing classified materials into his pants and attempting to steal led him to be charged with......just about nothing.

Clintons.

Not that the dems need the Clintons around to act like East Germans, but it does seem to help.

Drago said...

Matthew Sablan: "So the FBI paid Steele to gather information from the Department of State and Hillary Clinton's campaign?"

In the FBI's defense, they got a really "good rate" to act as the mechanism to spy on domestic political opponents and run an OP to overthrow a duly elected President.

Joshua Barker said...

Per the Nunes memo, it was the sworn testimony of former FBI Deputy Director Andrew McCabe that the Steele Dirty Dossier may not have been the only evidence presented to the FISA Court, but that it was key and without it they would not have have obtained the warrant on Page.

And therein lies the rub.

---------------------

Inga, the memo was reviewed and validated by the FBI prior to it's release... The FBI did not have any issue or contention with that statement... Do you honestly think they would have let that slide if it wasn't true?

Matthew Sablan said...

Oh. I read it as an actual charge. You're right. Just the referral nothing will come of.

Luke Lea said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Matthew Sablan said...

Did State feed Steele information then validate it for the FBI?

KK Kraska said...

What a dream world lawyers spin around us. Laws are cobwebs for the powerful and iron chains for everyone else, and courts, constitutions, and the rest are just plain irrelevant. The deep state's angry reaction to even the momentary lapse of their cover is telling. We don't have rule of law any more. Maybe we never did. Trump's election, the Brexit vote, and continuing mass immigration, to name but a few major issues, show that time and time again even when the people have expressed their opinion by lawful democratic means the deep state will still turn it aside. For all practical purpose America has been in a WRoL condition for some time now. People will get bored again and all go back to their bread and circuses, super bowls, and Kardashians, and then to sleep. Just watch.

traditionalguy said...

The tip toeing through the tulips continues. FISA Judges give out FISA Warrants, on FISA Applications,etc.. But that is a diversion from clear evidence that Obama and his FBI and DOJ were running a police state that was wire tapping whom ever, where ever, when ever. But now they need a plausable cover story. Their rigged election got counter rigged by Admr. Rogers.

Tim in Vermont said...

If I had to guess, this whole thing has the stink of one of Sidney “Let’s invade Libya and take all the credit” Blumenthal’s disastrous triple bank shots.

FullMoon said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Joshua Barker said...

Fiat justitia ruat caelum

Luke Lea said...

Khesan 802 said: "How many secrets can the application to the court really hold? It certainly is not the product of some mole in the Kremlin who would thus be exposed. "

At some point—and I'm not saying we are there yet necessarily— even if some mole in the Kremlin would be expose the full FISA application should still be released (though hopefully with enough warning that the mole could escape). Ditto for our other intelligence capabilities. The possibility of corruption of the kind alleged within our law enforcement and intelligence agencies is even more important than all but the direst "national security" considerations, since we are talking about what makes our republic most worth preserving in the first place. I hate it when people in authority or in one party or the other make an idol of national security as if that trumps everything. Ann I'm sure can say this much better than I can. I wish she would.

Darrell said...

Which the FBI and NSA promptly shared with Fusion GPS and Crowdstrike

https://theconservativetreehouse.com/2018/01/11/the-doj-and-fbi-worked-with-fusion-gps-on-operation-trump/

and

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aa95jLxZfc4

April 2017 99-page FISA court opinion that “describes systematic and on-going violations of the law [by the FBI and their contractors using unauthorized disclosures of raw intelligence on Americans]. This is stunning stuff.” DiGenova thinks Fusion GPS and Crowdstrike, the DNC’s private security firm, were among the redacted contractors of the FBI.

Francisco D said...

Me llamo es Francisco Domingo Carlos Andres Sebastian d'Anconia.

"Atlas Shrugged" was written as a warning, not as a guidance manual for the Obama/Clinton Crime Family administration. They have certainly got the political correctness and crony capitalism down pat.

How could Ayn Rand have foreseen these developments in the 1950"s.

She's not a genius. She was just paying attention.

Night Owl said...

The NYT saying it's time to reveal everything indicates that they've accepted the inevitable, that the corruption of the FBI and DOJ during the Obama administration is going to come out whether they like it or not. Just like on election night, eventually the NYTimes had to admit Trump was going to win. They can only deny the obvious for so long.

You gotta admire the balls of a media that has been happy to print leaked classified info in an attempt to smear Trump, to now blame Trump for "lowering the shield of secrecy" in regards to the Carter Page FISA warrant. It was FBI informant Steele leaking to journalist Michael Isikoff that tipped everyone off about Carter Page being under surveillance.

The internet has been talking about FISA warrants for about a year, after piecing together information that had been leaked by the media. The dinosaur media, like the NYTimes, has been slow-walking the discovery of Obama admin corruption for years, and it's now being forced to catch up to everyone else.

«Oldest ‹Older   1 – 200 of 310   Newer› Newest»