- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
re: House Intelligence Committee releases DEM rebuttal to FISA memo
Posted on 2/24/18 at 3:43 pm to IllegalPete
Posted on 2/24/18 at 3:43 pm to IllegalPete
It looks like their entire case is:
The fisa application did not rely on the dossier.
Because the FBI investigation began several months earlier when Papadapalas made his bar boast.
Yet the initial fisa application was denied.
And only when they included the dossier in the application was it approved.
But the dossier only made up a tiny bit of the application.
Because Papadapalas boasted in a bar to an Aussie that Russians had dirt on Hillary.
The fisa application did not rely on the dossier.
Because the FBI investigation began several months earlier when Papadapalas made his bar boast.
Yet the initial fisa application was denied.
And only when they included the dossier in the application was it approved.
But the dossier only made up a tiny bit of the application.
Because Papadapalas boasted in a bar to an Aussie that Russians had dirt on Hillary.
3
Posted on 2/24/18 at 3:44 pm to AUstar
quote:
They are arguing that they told the court but they replaced Hillary and DNC with "US Person" status.
You would think that Hillary paying for Russian dirt on Trump would be important for the court to know
Posted on 2/24/18 at 3:44 pm to Bunyan
Heavily redacted.
Posted on 2/24/18 at 3:44 pm to AUstar
quote:
Reading it now. One interesting thing is that they claim the DOJ kept Hillary's name "masked" in the FISA application because she wasn't the target of the investigation. They did this while explaining who was paying Steele.
In other words, they said it was political, but blacked out Hillary and the DNC's names to "protect their privacy."
By law they’d have to mask Americans who aren’t the subject of the investigation. It wasn’t by choice to protect privacy.
Posted on 2/24/18 at 3:46 pm to IllegalPete
This memo isn't good for Democrats AT ALL
Posted on 2/24/18 at 3:47 pm to VOLhalla
Even so, that aspect seems to have been awfully vaguely worded. And couldn't they have also referred to the DNC since that is not an individual's name?
This post was edited on 2/24/18 at 3:48 pm
Posted on 2/24/18 at 3:48 pm to Rebel
quote:
Anyone had a chance to read it?
Reading now. So far, it’s mostly “nuh uh!” to the Nunes memo.
Posted on 2/24/18 at 3:48 pm to HubbaBubba
Who Cares 
Posted on 2/24/18 at 3:49 pm to VOLhalla
quote:
By law they’d have to mask Americans who aren’t the subject of the investigation. It wasn’t by choice to protect privacy.
DNC is not a person
Posted on 2/24/18 at 3:50 pm to Mulat
This is pretty much where I’m at.
Waiting on the real information from Mueller and the IG.
Waiting on the real information from Mueller and the IG.
Posted on 2/24/18 at 3:53 pm to VOLhalla
quote:
By law they’d have to mask Americans who aren’t the subject of the investigation. It wasn’t by choice to protect privacy.
Nice deflection. The only reason they left her name off is because there is no fricking way on earth the judge would have granted the warrant based on evidence supplied by the front runner of the presidential campaign against her opponent. Even without naming the Trump campaign, the target and the motivation would have been crystal clear
Posted on 2/24/18 at 3:58 pm to AUstar
quote:
They are arguing that they told the court but they replaced Hillary and DNC with "US Person" status. Why? Because they didn't think it was appropriate to "unmask" them.
Opposition research, political or otherwise, is legal evidence under statute....why are you acting like it matters if it said Hillary or not? Is it not rather obvious? If it said "funded by Hillary and the DNC", does it in anyway, under the law, diminish the evidence presented if it is verified by other sources? The dossier was just a small piece of the case laid out to FISC, whatever the relevant section of the dossier was, they had to have had it corroborated in another piece of evidence. That's how the law works.
Aren't you guys the ones who were bitching a couple of months ago about illegal unmasking? In fact, wasn't it Devin Nunes who made up the Susan Rice unmasking conspiracy? That argument no longer applies?
Posted on 2/24/18 at 3:58 pm to Kriegschwein
They are redacting shite that is already public. For example on Page 2 they talk about Papa and it's clear what they are omitting. They are omitting Alexander Downer's name (who is a close Clinton friend). He is the guy Papa talked to in the bar. They also blacked out what Papa said the Russians had.
Posted on 2/24/18 at 3:58 pm to IllegalPete
that because its readily apparent Trump, Trumpkins, Nunez (a Trump surrogate) are deathly allergic to facts.
Posted on 2/24/18 at 3:58 pm to IllegalPete
quote:
looks like their entire case is:
The fisa application did not rely on the dossier.
Because the FBI investigation began several months earlier when Papadapalas made his bar boast.
Yet the initial fisa application was denied.
And only when they included the dossier in the application was it approved.
But the dossier only made up a tiny bit of the application.
Because Papadapalas boasted in a bar to an Aussie that Russians had dirt on Hillary.
Which now doesn't hold water now that we know that Millian and Paps were working together. Millian was also working with Steele on the dossier.
Posted on 2/24/18 at 4:00 pm to Bunyan
quote:
You would think that Hillary paying for Russian dirt on Trump would be important for the court to know
Christ, man...step out of the bubble.
Posted on 2/24/18 at 4:00 pm to mmmmmbeeer
quote:
Opposition research, political or otherwise, is legal evidence under statute
I must have missed the part where using the power of the federal govt, including the FBI and various intell gathering agencies were perfectly acceptable means of gathering oppo research against and a political opponent.
Posted on 2/24/18 at 4:01 pm to AUstar
quote:That's kind of curious, because, you would think the house Republicans on that committee would have removed the redactions.
They are redacting shite that is already public. For example on Page 2 they talk about Papa and it's clear what they are omitting. They are omitting Alexander Downer's name (who is a close Clinton friend). He is the guy Papa talked to in the bar. They also blacked out what Papa said the Russians had.
Posted on 2/24/18 at 4:02 pm to Cruiserhog
When Schiff can provide some let me know.
Posted on 2/24/18 at 4:03 pm to HubbaBubba
Kathryn Herridge is breaking it down on fox now.
Big omission from Schiff memo, McCabe testimony in December that the fisa warrant would have never been issued without the dossier.
Remember when they were saying that was a big deal? McCabe supposedly never said it.
They forgot to mention that in the new memo.
Hmm.
Big omission from Schiff memo, McCabe testimony in December that the fisa warrant would have never been issued without the dossier.
Remember when they were saying that was a big deal? McCabe supposedly never said it.
They forgot to mention that in the new memo.
Hmm.
Page 2 of 4
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News