Sho Nuff 719 Posted February 25, 2018 here you go Left omg Trump is getting impeached Right you are a bunch of idiots, there is nothing here Except the left in here has not stated that. You are lying. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Filthy Fernadez 2,696 Posted February 25, 2018 Sho got tired of me breaking up his narratives and blocked me yet again. Someone quote my post about Steele meeting with FBI (per Newsweek article). 1 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
SaintsInDome2006 128 Posted February 25, 2018 Incorrect. Steele was hired in June 2016 by Fusion GPS who had hired Nellie Ohr back in Spring of 2016. He contacted the FBI with stuff in June of 2016. Bruce Ohr (Nellie's husband) was acting as a go between of sorts so at the very least the DOJ knew of Steele's research. Not to mention Hillary's pals Sid Bleumenthal and others were feeding Steele garbage to include in the numerous memos that would eventually compile into the Dossier. From Newsweek's article: http://www.newsweek.com/fusion-gps-testimony-steele-pee-tape-dossier-russia-776223 Read the article: >>In mid-to-late September 2016, Steele told Simpson that the FBI had asked him to provide more information, Simpson testified.<< That ties in exactly with the Schiff memo. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Filthy Fernadez 2,696 Posted February 25, 2018 Read the article: >>In mid-to-late September 2016, Steele told Simpson that the FBI had asked him to provide more information, Simpson testified.<< That ties in exactly with the Schiff memo. Sho said Steele's reporting did not reach the investigators until mid Sept. The Newsweek article (and other accounts) state Steele was in contact with the FBI PRIOR to them launching the Russia investigation. PRIOR..........meaning BEFORE July 2016. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
SaintsInDome2006 128 Posted February 25, 2018 Sho said Steele's reporting did not reach the investigators until mid Sept. The Newsweek article (and other accounts) state Steele was in contact with the FBI PRIOR to them launching the Russia investigation. PRIOR..........meaning BEFORE July 2016. It says The counterintelligence team handling the investigation. Totally different thing. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
RaiderHaters Revenge 3,599 Posted February 25, 2018 Except the left in here has not stated that. You are lying. I have read about none of it, but this is the narrative in general. Somehow Hillary is president Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
SaintsInDome2006 128 Posted February 25, 2018 >>In mid-to-late September 2016, Steele told Simpson that the FBI had asked him to provide more information, Simpson testified. My understanding was that they believed Chris at this point that they believed Chriss information might be credible because they had other intelligence that indicated the same thing and one of those pieces of intelligence was a human source from inside the Trump organization, Simpson testified.<< - Newsweek. It's almost as though they worked to verify the information before bringing it inside the investigation. 1 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Filthy Fernadez 2,696 Posted February 25, 2018 It says The counterintelligence team handling the investigation. Totally different thing. The premise you're operating on is that the investigation the FBI launched was legit. Steele met with the FBI in June/July of 2016 period. You think someone sat on that sh!t for 8 weeks? Really man? How do you explain all the Fusion GPS/DOJ (Ohrs) contact in APRIL 2016 right before Steele was hired? The rebuttal to the Schifforbrain's memo: https://intelligence.house.gov/uploadedfiles/democrat_memo_charge_and_response.pdf Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
SaintsInDome2006 128 Posted February 25, 2018 You think someone sat on that sh!t for 8 weeks? No, they worked to verify it. Look at your own article. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Sho Nuff 719 Posted February 25, 2018 I have read about none of it, but this is the narrative in general. Somehow Hillary is president Again...nobody is saying this either. Why post blatant falsehoods? Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Filthy Fernadez 2,696 Posted February 25, 2018 You think someone sat on that sh!t for 8 weeks? No, they worked to verify it. Look at your own article. Sure they did. FYI I used liberal Newsweek to show even they admit Steele worked with FBI prior to the investigation starting. https://youtu.be/A8Y3Ygu2tF8 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
RaiderHaters Revenge 3,599 Posted February 25, 2018 Again...nobody is saying this either. Why post blatant falsehoods? trust me, when it comes down to it, if Trump were to get impeached due to collusion or something, you better bet there would be lawsuits and riots to overturn the election Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
SaintsInDome2006 128 Posted February 25, 2018 Sure they did. FYI I used liberal Newsweek to show even they admit Steele worked with FBI prior to the investigation starting. https://youtu.be/A8Y3Ygu2tF8 Well if you're going to use it then use it, don't cherry pick. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Filthy Fernadez 2,696 Posted February 25, 2018 For Saints; read this through and through. Watch the related videos there. Read up on the 702 abuses that the FBI/DOJ were using until Admiral Rogers shut them down. They then had to pivot to FISA to continue the spying...........EARLY 2016 the plan is formed. https://theconservativetreehouse.com/2018/01/11/the-doj-and-fbi-worked-with-fusion-gps-on-operation-trump/ If you can't see the Schiff memo for what it actually is i.e. trying to legitimize illegal spying on American citizens for political gains to ensure Hillary won, then again, we are done. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Sho Nuff 719 Posted February 25, 2018 trust me, when it comes down to it, if Trump were to get impeached due to collusion or something, you better bet there would be lawsuits and riots to overturn the election So...basically you admit thats not a cliffs notes version of this thread or what anyone is actually saying. Got it. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
12th Man 884 Posted February 25, 2018 Except the left in here has not stated that. You are lying. It was her turn!!!!! Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Filthy Fernadez 2,696 Posted February 25, 2018 The Why The How The Who Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Filthy Fernadez 2,696 Posted February 25, 2018 Remember that response from the FBI regarding the Gowdy/Nunes Memo? January 31st, 2018, […] “With regard to the House Intelligence Committee’s memorandum, the FBI was provided a limited opportunity to review this memo the day before the committee voted to release it. As expressed during our initial review, we have grave concerns about material omissions of fact that fundamentally impact the memo’s accuracy.” Turns out that response was written by none other than FBI Asst. Director Michael Kortan, the head of the FBI Public Affairs Office. He was referred to in the Strzok/Page texts (Mike) and FBI Director Christopher Wray fired him the following week after writing the FBI's response to the release of the Gowdy/Nunes memo. The clown show continues. What does that bring the body count up to? 15 or so? Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Strike 3,982 Posted February 25, 2018 Sho dumb is SOOOOO DUMB Saints is pathetically partisan Worms is just plain old stupid. I've never seen someone so unbelievably stupid on a message board. I mean, he got tossed out of Alaska because of how bad an attorney he was. How bad do you have to be at a profession to get tossed out of Alaska? 1 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
drobeski 3,061 Posted February 25, 2018 Seems as though this Manafort stuff is for the most part pre trump. Wasn't he associated with the podesta group during the times of his criminal activity? Interesting, podesta should be next ? We'll find out if Mueller is truly a non partisan hack that's for sure. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
TimmySmith 2,782 Posted February 25, 2018 From the Schiff memo In fact, Steele's reporting did not reach the counterintelligence team investigating Russia at FBI headquarters until mid-September 2016, more than seven weeks after the opened its investigation, because the probe's existence was so closely held within the FBI. By then, the FBI had already opened sub-inquiries into [redacted] individuals linked to the Trump campaign: [long redaction] and former campaign foreign policy adviser Carter Page Even using your timeline. FISA warrant for Page was obtained in late October. A month after the FBI had the dossier. It's all based on the Dossier bud. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
SaintsInDome2006 128 Posted February 25, 2018 .Saints is pathetically partisan You may have a point because I will actually stand up for the traditional Republican Party and conservatism, while many here are intent or defending one man. - Just as an example what Nunes has done is open up the Fisa process for demands from terrorists and spies, and many journalists, that Fisa applications which have always been classified and not open for review now should be because the White House and now both parties have argued for and accomplished the actual release of those files. So what does the White House, any White House, say now when some terrorist or spy claims he was illegally surveilled? Or if a journalist seeks to Foia a Fisa application of a terrorism case? - So in my point the conservative stance here is to argue the Nunes memo was inappropriate. And IMO the traditional Republican Party never would have endangered our national security in this way. But for Donald Trump, hell yeah today they will drop all that for him, for one man. 1 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
TimmySmith 2,782 Posted February 25, 2018 You may have a point because I will actually stand up for the traditional Republican Party and conservatism, while many here are intent or defending one man. - Just as an example what Nunes has done is open up the Fisa process for demands from terrorists and spies, and many journalists, that Fisa applications which have always been classified and not open for review now should be because the White House and now both parties have argued for and accomplished the actual release of those files. So what does the White House, any White House, say now when some terrorist or spy claims he was illegally surveilled? Or if a journalist seeks to Foia a Fisa application of a terrorism case? - So in my point the conservative stance here is to argue the Nunes memo was inappropriate. And IMO the traditional Republican Party never would have endangered our national security in this way. But for Donald Trump, hell yeah today they will drop all that for him, for one man. 1 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
SaintsInDome2006 128 Posted February 25, 2018 For Saints; read this through and through. Watch the related videos there. Read up on the 702 abuses that the FBI/DOJ were using until Admiral Rogers shut them down. They then had to pivot to FISA to continue the spying...........EARLY 2016 the plan is formed. https://theconservativetreehouse.com/2018/01/11/the-doj-and-fbi-worked-with-fusion-gps-on-operation-trump/ If you can't see the Schiff memo for what it actually is i.e. trying to legitimize illegal spying on American citizens for political gains to ensure Hillary won... In October 2016, immediately after the DOJ lawyers formatted the FBI information (Steele Dossier etc.) for a valid FISA application, the head of the NSD, Asst. Attorney General John P Carlin, left his job. His exit came as the NSD and Admiral Rogers informed the FISC that frequent unauthorized FISA-702 searches had been conducted. Read Here. The FISA court declassified their opinion of the DOJ and FBI conduct, in May of 2017, and that’s the way the public discovered the 2016 admissions by the DOJ, FBI and ultimately the compliance department of the NSA. From the linked CTH article: A newly released court order from the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court (FISA) found the Obama NSA routinely violated American privacy protections as his administration and officials scoured through overseas intercepts and targeted U.S. citizens. You and I have no disagreement on this piece of FISC history. But I want to point something out to you: DIRNSA Rogers did not "shut it down" all on his own. He was ordered to by the FISC, the court that issues Fisa orders. This is the same court that issued the Carter Page order and then also renewed it IIRC 3-4 more times. And I know that you follow reporting, so if you believe any part of the Schiff memo accept that they are saying that the FISC judges who issued and reissued the orders were not Judge Contreras, but a combination of Reagan, GHW Bush and GW Bush judges. And I'm not making that point because they're Republican appointees, I'm making that point because one of them may have been the chief judge Rosemary Collyer, who is herself a GW Bush appointee. You can go to any source left, right or Saturn and you will see Rosemary Collyer is the chief judge of FISC. And I'll say you may be right. Let's say you are. Just like what happened with DIRNSA Rogers an offended party who was affected by the "Bad" Carter Page Fisa order would go to Judge Collyer and request that the Fisa process be reevaluated and that order be overturned. That's the way it works. So - ok, let's say you're right - when is someone going to do this? 1 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
drobeski 3,061 Posted February 25, 2018 You may have a point because I will actually stand up for the traditional Republican Party and conservatism, while many here are intent or defending one man. - Just as an example what Nunes has done is open up the Fisa process for demands from terrorists and spies, and many journalists, that Fisa applications which have always been classified and not open for review now should be because the White House and now both parties have argued for and accomplished the actual release of those files. So what does the White House, any White House, say now when some terrorist or spy claims he was illegally surveilled? Or if a journalist seeks to Foia a Fisa application of a terrorism case? - So in my point the conservative stance here is to argue the Nunes memo was inappropriate. And IMO the traditional Republican Party never would have endangered our national security in this way. But for Donald Trump, hell yeah today they will drop all that for him, for one man. So you feel the justification for fisa warrants should never be questioned under any circumstances. No oversight at all. Got it. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
SaintsInDome2006 128 Posted February 25, 2018 So you feel the justification for fisa warrants should never be questioned under any circumstances. No oversight at all. Got it. As I just pointed out there is a way to do that - the NSA was forced to reevaluate its procedures by the FISC itself in 2016-2017, so there is clearly oversight. But do I think people subject to FISA should be able to crack open classified investigation files? No, I don't. But it's been done in this one instance for one man. My real point is that I'm taking the conservative position here. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
drobeski 3,061 Posted February 25, 2018 As I just pointed out there is a way to do that - the NSA was forced to reevaluate its procedures by the FISC itself in 2016-2017, so there is clearly oversight. But do I think people subject to FISA should be able to crack open classified investigation files? No, I don't. But it's been done in this one instance for one man. what one man ? Trump hasn't been mentioned in any of them. You mean Page, the FBI informant who helped the FBI being charges against a Russian? Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
SaintsInDome2006 128 Posted February 25, 2018 what one man ? Trump hasn't been mentioned in any of them. You mean Page, the FBI informant who helped the FBI being charges against a Russian? Oh please, this is done for Trump. The entire point is not to defend Page but to protect Trump. And again I'm taking the conservative position here, because the next persons who seeks to crack open Fisa applications will be terrorists and spies, not Trump's former foreign policy advisor. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
drobeski 3,061 Posted February 25, 2018 Oh please, this is done for Trump. The entire point is not to defend Page but to protect Trump. And again I'm taking the conservative position here, because the next persons who seeks to crack open Fisa applications will be terrorists and spies, not Trump's former foreign policy advisor. oh please the entire point of the Fisa was a politically motivated effort to take down trump, not to go after page or protect us from terrorists. I'm with America on this one, not any political party. The courts, the FBI, the intelligence and state departments should never be weaponized against ANY political opponent, Republican or Democrat. Something you're clearly ok with. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
TimmySmith 2,782 Posted February 25, 2018 Oh please, this is done for Trump. The entire point is not to defend Page but to protect Trump. And again I'm taking the conservative position here, because the next persons who seeks to crack open Fisa applications will be terrorists and spies, not Trump's former foreign policy advisor. Defend Page from what? Protect Trump from what? Neither are or will be under indictment. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
SaintsInDome2006 128 Posted February 25, 2018 oh please the entire point of the Fisa was a politically motivated effort to take down trump, not to go after page or protect us from terrorists. I'm with America on this one, not any political party. The courts, the FBI, the intelligence and state departments should never be weaponized against ANY political opponent, Republican or Democrat. Something you're clearly ok with. We seem to be in agreement that this is all about Trump. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
SaintsInDome2006 128 Posted February 25, 2018 Defend Page from what? Protect Trump from what? Neither are or will be under indictment. No one is defending Page, that's my point. The guy is a toad. The point is: Fisa order on Page -> illegal wiretapp on Trump Tower -> illegal investigation -> Fire Mueller. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
drobeski 3,061 Posted February 25, 2018 We seem to be in agreement that this is all about Trump. yes we disagree where one is ok with using the fisa soley to attack a political opponent and the other is not. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Sho Nuff 719 Posted February 25, 2018 Even using your timeline. FISA warrant for Page was obtained in late October. A month after the FBI had the dossier. It's all based on the Dossier bud. This again ignores all known facts. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Sho Nuff 719 Posted February 25, 2018 Sho dumb is SOOOOO DUMB Saints is pathetically partisan Worms is just plain old stupid. I've never seen someone so unbelievably stupid on a message board. I mean, he got tossed out of Alaska because of how bad an attorney he was. How bad do you have to be at a profession to get tossed out of Alaska? Quality ignore...and adult conversation. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Sho Nuff 719 Posted February 25, 2018 oh please the entire point of the Fisa was a politically motivated effort to take down trump, not to go after page or protect us from terrorists. I'm with America on this one, not any political party. The courts, the FBI, the intelligence and state departments should never be weaponized against ANY political opponent, Republican or Democrat. Something you're clearly ok with. Bullshit Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
TimmySmith 2,782 Posted February 25, 2018 This again ignores all known facts.So the timeline is wrong? It's your timeline. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Sho Nuff 719 Posted February 25, 2018 yes we disagree where one is ok with using the fisa to soley to attack a political opponent and the other is not.Youre not even understanding what he is saying. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Sho Nuff 719 Posted February 25, 2018 So the timeline is wrong? It's your timeline. Claiming its all based on the dossier is wrong. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
drobeski 3,061 Posted February 25, 2018 Bullshitnope, fact Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
