Deranged Rhino Posted July 22, 2018 Share Posted July 22, 2018 1 minute ago, DC Tom said: I think what I find most interesting is that the FISA application as released is so heavily redacted that it tells us almost nothing we didn't already know. Which makes its release nothing more than a marketing stunt. The things we knew, have long been thrown back at us as being mere speculations because the FISA app "had more evidence". We now know those speculations were facts. That's a big step forward. The fact it dropped on a Saturday is telling as well. A lot of moderates who had been assuring us the FISC couldn't be "had" in such a way are coming out swinging (against the narrative they supported) on the Sunday shows. Others like Rubio are exposing their true loyalties. There's a lot we are learning/will learn from this even though you're correct in that most of this is not "new". At least not down here in PPP. ******************* https://mobile.twitter.com/MattMackowiak/status/1021065146066759681 This needs to happen, and they need to ask Brennan about his meeting with Hannigan. The CIA/GCHQ side of this story is crucial to understand and unpack. The Estonia tapes in particular need to be exposed. That will bring down the entire house of cards. ********** https://mobile.twitter.com/ChuckRossDC/status/1021042583231913986 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
njbuff Posted July 22, 2018 Share Posted July 22, 2018 Tony Podesta getting immunity for the same type of crimes Manafort is being isolated for should be frightening for EVERY American. 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Deranged Rhino Posted July 22, 2018 Share Posted July 22, 2018 17 minutes ago, njbuff said: Tony Podesta getting immunity for the same type of crimes Manafort is being isolated for should be frightening for EVERY American. I meant to comment on this sooner - not a good look for my mueller as a white hat theory, at all, but I also think the limitations of the immunity is an important element to keep in mind. Games on games on games right now. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
B-Man Posted July 22, 2018 Share Posted July 22, 2018 That multiple warrants could be issued against an American citizen on such shaky evidence calls into question the entire FISA process. UPDATE: More from John Hinderaker. “The application relies to an astonishing degree on anti-Trump news stories published in the Democratic Party press. Does the FBI really get surveillance warrants on the basis of partisan press accounts? Apparently so. . . . Amazingly, the FISA application relies on ‘speculation in U.S. media’ for the proposition that Russia was behind the phishing of DNC emails.” . 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tiberius Posted July 22, 2018 Share Posted July 22, 2018 1 hour ago, Deranged Rhino said: As I stated years ago, Rubio is part of the problem, not the solution. He's the swampiest of the swamp creatures. https://mobile.twitter.com/ChuckRossDC/status/1021055034128195585 If everyone that pointed out Trumps lies is bad we would be left with nothing but Trump cultists Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Doc Brown Posted July 22, 2018 Share Posted July 22, 2018 (edited) The most neutral take I could find on this. Just spin from both sides and nothing of substance. I was never a Nunes fan because he doesn't seem that intelligent to me and this seems to confirm it. Making my way through the Carter Page FISA application. First thing that jumps out: They went straight for “knowingly engages in clandestine intelligence activities”; I’d thought they might have leaned on the “aids or abets” definition of a foreign agent. “The FBI believes that the Russian Government’s efforts are being coordinated with Page and perhaps other individuals associated with Candidate #1’s campaign.” Significant amount of redacted information pertaining to Page’s pre-2016 ties to Russia & Russian intelligence. Implies they think he was recruited years ago, but impossible to assess the evidence for that. There’s a full page of discussion of Steele being hired to conduct political oppo research, and why the FBI regards his reporting as reliable anyway. Makes the Nunes claim that they tried to hoodwink the FISC about this look even more ridiculous. It’s absolutely insane Nunes tried to claim FBI hid this information from the FISC. All this immediately follows the first mention of Steele (aka “Source 1”). Several fully redacted pages in the section containing Steele dossier information. Suggests he may have provided info beyond what has been published, or that the FBI had independent sourcing supporting some of his claims. Also quite clear that, contrary to Nunes’ claims, the FBI was NOT using Michael Isikoff’s Yahoo News article as independent confirmation of Steele’s reporting, but as a source for Page’s denials he was working for Russia. Possible Steele misled FBI about whether he’d talked to press, but it looks like FBI understood the Isikoff article was based on Steele’s reporting and made this clear to the FISC, ever if they didn’t think Steele had provided it directly. Somewhat surprisingly, they redact the section where they appear to lay out what criminal statutes they think Page’s conduct would or “may” violate Main takeaway: It’s still impossible to assess the overall strength of FBI’s evidence. Long sections related to Page’s preexisting relationship with Russian intelligence, and many pages following reference to Steele’s reporting, are redacted in full. The fact that the material remains redacted implies they had *something* apart from the Steele reporting that’s currently public, but no way to know what it is or how solid it is. What this does make clear beyond any serious doubt is the brazen dishonesty of the Nunes memo. It is impossible to imagine a reasonable person reading this document and then making the claims in that memo in good faith. Assorted odds and ends: There are some pretty puzzling redactions, including what looks like a citation to the statutory definition of “minimization procedures”. Open to theories as to why that would be blacked out. Just eyeballing it, but the renewal application seems to have a substantially longer redacted section implying additional supporting evidence gained from either collection on Page or from other sources. One part of the application quotes KellyAnne Conway’s claim that if Page was involved in discussions with Russian officials, he was not doing so with the “permission or knowledge of the campaign.” A redacted passage follows. Possibly evidence for thinking this claim was untrue? Of potential interest: The renewal applications cite Page’s public denials and, specifically, his claims that he was targeted purely based on bogus information produced at the behest of the Clinton campaign. Long redacted passages follow. Two full Roman-numeral demarcated sections of the initial FISA application are redacted in full. In the renewal applications, there are three such sections, and by the final one (approved by Rosenstein) these final sections have gotten much, much longer. Whatever these sections contain, it seems safe to assume they are independent of the Steele reporting. Edited July 22, 2018 by Doc Brown Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
3rdnlng Posted July 22, 2018 Share Posted July 22, 2018 9 minutes ago, Doc Brown said: The most neutral take I could find on this. Just spin from both sides and nothing of substance. I was never a Nunes fan because he doesn't seem that intelligent to me and this seems to confirm it. Making my way through the Carter Page FISA application. First thing that jumps out: They went straight for “knowingly engages in clandestine intelligence activities”; I’d thought they might have leaned on the “aids or abets” definition of a foreign agent. “The FBI believes that the Russian Government’s efforts are being coordinated with Page and perhaps other individuals associated with Candidate #1’s campaign.” Significant amount of redacted information pertaining to Page’s pre-2016 ties to Russia & Russian intelligence. Implies they think he was recruited years ago, but impossible to assess the evidence for that. There’s a full page of discussion of Steele being hired to conduct political oppo research, and why the FBI regards his reporting as reliable anyway. Makes the Nunes claim that they tried to hoodwink the FISC about this look even more ridiculous. It’s absolutely insane Nunes tried to claim FBI hid this information from the FISC. All this immediately follows the first mention of Steele (aka “Source 1”). Several fully redacted pages in the section containing Steele dossier information. Suggests he may have provided info beyond what has been published, or that the FBI had independent sourcing supporting some of his claims. Also quite clear that, contrary to Nunes’ claims, the FBI was NOT using Michael Isikoff’s Yahoo News article as independent confirmation of Steele’s reporting, but as a source for Page’s denials he was working for Russia. Possible Steele misled FBI about whether he’d talked to press, but it looks like FBI understood the Isikoff article was based on Steele’s reporting and made this clear to the FISC, ever if they didn’t think Steele had provided it directly. Somewhat surprisingly, they redact the section where they appear to lay out what criminal statutes they think Page’s conduct would or “may” violate Main takeaway: It’s still impossible to assess the overall strength of FBI’s evidence. Long sections related to Page’s preexisting relationship with Russian intelligence, and many pages following reference to Steele’s reporting, are redacted in full. The fact that the material remains redacted implies they had *something* apart from the Steele reporting that’s currently public, but no way to know what it is or how solid it is. What this does make clear beyond any serious doubt is the brazen dishonesty of the Nunes memo. It is impossible to imagine a reasonable person reading this document and then making the claims in that memo in good faith. Assorted odds and ends: There are some pretty puzzling redactions, including what looks like a citation to the statutory definition of “minimization procedures”. Open to theories as to why that would be blacked out. Just eyeballing it, but the renewal application seems to have a substantially longer redacted section implying additional supporting evidence gained from either collection on Page or from other sources. One part of the application quotes KellyAnne Conway’s claim that if Page was involved in discussions with Russian officials, he was not doing so with the “permission or knowledge of the campaign.” A redacted passage follows. Possibly evidence for thinking this claim was untrue? Of potential interest: The renewal applications cite Page’s public denials and, specifically, his claims that he was targeted purely based on bogus information produced at the behest of the Clinton campaign. Long redacted passages follow. Two full Roman-numeral demarcated sections of the initial FISA application are redacted in full. In the renewal applications, there are three such sections, and by the final one (approved by Rosenstein) these final sections have gotten much, much longer. Whatever these sections contain, it seems safe to assume they are independent of the Steele reporting. Doc, you didn't provide a link to this nonsense. If I were you I'd delete it because it's making partisan assumptions, and is not up to your standards. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Deranged Rhino Posted July 22, 2018 Share Posted July 22, 2018 Any attempt to talk Nunes memo (which was heavily redacted) instead of the FISA application is a distraction. Imo Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Doc Brown Posted July 22, 2018 Share Posted July 22, 2018 13 minutes ago, Deranged Rhino said: Any attempt to talk Nunes memo (which was heavily redacted) instead of the FISA application is a distraction. Imo Which is why I don't understand why he released it in the first place. 26 minutes ago, 3rdnlng said: Doc, you didn't provide a link to this nonsense. If I were you I'd delete it because it's making partisan assumptions, and is not up to your standards. I usually check Ben Shapiro's twitter feed because he's the most objective "right wing pundit" I can find. He retweeted this and this guy is a libertarian. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
3rdnlng Posted July 22, 2018 Share Posted July 22, 2018 7 minutes ago, Doc Brown said: Which is why I don't understand why he released it in the first place. I usually check Ben Shapiro's twitter feed because he's the most objective "right wing pundit" I can find. He retweeted this and this guy is a libertarian. And Baskin is a conservative. Provide the link. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Doc Brown Posted July 22, 2018 Share Posted July 22, 2018 2 minutes ago, 3rdnlng said: And Baskin is a conservative. Provide the link. Already did. Here's the twitter feed for the whole thing. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tiberius Posted July 22, 2018 Share Posted July 22, 2018 (edited) 2 hours ago, Doc Brown said: Already did. Here's the twitter feed for the whole thing. Knowingly engaged in... Really makes you wonder why he has not been arrested unless he turned on them and is a double agent. Something is up, though Edited July 22, 2018 by Tiberius Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DC Tom Posted July 22, 2018 Share Posted July 22, 2018 5 hours ago, Doc Brown said: The most neutral take I could find on this. Just spin from both sides and nothing of substance. I was never a Nunes fan because he doesn't seem that intelligent to me and this seems to confirm it. Making my way through the Carter Page FISA application. First thing that jumps out: They went straight for “knowingly engages in clandestine intelligence activities”; I’d thought they might have leaned on the “aids or abets” definition of a foreign agent. “The FBI believes that the Russian Government’s efforts are being coordinated with Page and perhaps other individuals associated with Candidate #1’s campaign.” Significant amount of redacted information pertaining to Page’s pre-2016 ties to Russia & Russian intelligence. Implies they think he was recruited years ago, but impossible to assess the evidence for that. There’s a full page of discussion of Steele being hired to conduct political oppo research, and why the FBI regards his reporting as reliable anyway. Makes the Nunes claim that they tried to hoodwink the FISC about this look even more ridiculous. It’s absolutely insane Nunes tried to claim FBI hid this information from the FISC. All this immediately follows the first mention of Steele (aka “Source 1”). Several fully redacted pages in the section containing Steele dossier information. Suggests he may have provided info beyond what has been published, or that the FBI had independent sourcing supporting some of his claims. Also quite clear that, contrary to Nunes’ claims, the FBI was NOT using Michael Isikoff’s Yahoo News article as independent confirmation of Steele’s reporting, but as a source for Page’s denials he was working for Russia. Possible Steele misled FBI about whether he’d talked to press, but it looks like FBI understood the Isikoff article was based on Steele’s reporting and made this clear to the FISC, ever if they didn’t think Steele had provided it directly. Somewhat surprisingly, they redact the section where they appear to lay out what criminal statutes they think Page’s conduct would or “may” violate Main takeaway: It’s still impossible to assess the overall strength of FBI’s evidence. Long sections related to Page’s preexisting relationship with Russian intelligence, and many pages following reference to Steele’s reporting, are redacted in full. The fact that the material remains redacted implies they had *something* apart from the Steele reporting that’s currently public, but no way to know what it is or how solid it is. What this does make clear beyond any serious doubt is the brazen dishonesty of the Nunes memo. It is impossible to imagine a reasonable person reading this document and then making the claims in that memo in good faith. Assorted odds and ends: There are some pretty puzzling redactions, including what looks like a citation to the statutory definition of “minimization procedures”. Open to theories as to why that would be blacked out. Just eyeballing it, but the renewal application seems to have a substantially longer redacted section implying additional supporting evidence gained from either collection on Page or from other sources. One part of the application quotes KellyAnne Conway’s claim that if Page was involved in discussions with Russian officials, he was not doing so with the “permission or knowledge of the campaign.” A redacted passage follows. Possibly evidence for thinking this claim was untrue? Of potential interest: The renewal applications cite Page’s public denials and, specifically, his claims that he was targeted purely based on bogus information produced at the behest of the Clinton campaign. Long redacted passages follow. Two full Roman-numeral demarcated sections of the initial FISA application are redacted in full. In the renewal applications, there are three such sections, and by the final one (approved by Rosenstein) these final sections have gotten much, much longer. Whatever these sections contain, it seems safe to assume they are independent of the Steele reporting. I've read it four times. It may be the most neutral take you could find...but it's not that neutral. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Doc Brown Posted July 23, 2018 Share Posted July 23, 2018 (edited) 54 minutes ago, DC Tom said: I've read it four times. It may be the most neutral take you could find...but it's not that neutral. Welcome to 2018. I haven't seen the cable pundits in the MSM push the same narrative on a bipartisan basis (Russian hysteria and Trump collusion) since the lead up to the Iraq War in 2002. Edited July 23, 2018 by Doc Brown Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
keepthefaith Posted July 23, 2018 Share Posted July 23, 2018 3 hours ago, Tiberius said: Knowingly engaged in... Really makes you wonder why he has not been arrested unless he turned on them and is a double agent. Something is up, though You made a good point but probably aren't aware of it. The fact that Page was never charged with anything (or nothing leaked regarding his guilt) is strong evidence that either: A) The FBI was fooled over time into suspecting that he was acting as a foreign agent B) The FBI as being accused used him as a pawn in their efforts to spy on Trump campaign It's been 2 years since Page was put under surveillance. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Deranged Rhino Posted July 23, 2018 Share Posted July 23, 2018 (edited) Interesting note - not sure what to make of it. The application is stamped 3/17. That's the same day James Wolfe's indictment says he leaked classified inte to the SSCI / Watkins. That was a leak trap. And they indicted Wolfe for it. But that's also this version that was released (the 17th of March was a huge day in the timeline).... * Dan Coates hired 3/20 * Comey testified 3/20 *Warner was texting that day: https://www.scribd.com/document/371101285/TEXTS-Mark-Warner-texted-with-Russian-oligarch-lobbyist-in-effort-to-contact-Christopher-Steele# Very very very interesting detail. Edited July 23, 2018 by Deranged Rhino 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
/dev/null Posted July 23, 2018 Share Posted July 23, 2018 Trey Gowdy with probably the most logical argument on the Trump Collusion Narrative Quote I have not seen one scintilla of evidence that this president colluded, conspired, collaborated, with Russia. And neither has anyone else, or you can rest assured, Adam Schiff would have leaked it https://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2018/07/22/gowdy_if_there_was_evidence_that_president_trump_commited_any_crime_adam_schiff_would_have_leaked_it.html 3 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
4merper4mer Posted July 23, 2018 Share Posted July 23, 2018 17 hours ago, Deranged Rhino said: I meant to comment on this sooner - not a good look for my mueller as a white hat theory, at all, but I also think the limitations of the immunity is an important element to keep in mind. Games on games on games right now. With all the research you've done, it is mystifying that you could have ever thought Mueller would be a good guy. Thinking it now? With Podesta predictably being let off and all the garbage coming from this "investigation"? Come on dude. You know when I knew Mueller was a creep? When I looked at him. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Deranged Rhino Posted July 23, 2018 Share Posted July 23, 2018 44 minutes ago, 4merper4mer said: With all the research you've done, it is mystifying that you could have ever thought Mueller would be a good guy. Thinking it now? With Podesta predictably being let off and all the garbage coming from this "investigation"? Come on dude. You know when I knew Mueller was a creep? When I looked at him. It's always been a controversial opinion of mine - but one I've been constantly reassessing. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Buffalo_Gal Posted July 23, 2018 Share Posted July 23, 2018 This is an interesting twitter thread about the leaking, and how they caught James Wolfe (supposition, but reasonable supposition). Makes me wonder who else was caught up in these traps (Schiff has been less verbose the last few months). 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts