Question about Nunes memo?


#21

Submitting false or unreliable information to a judge to get a warrant is a felony PERIOD


#22

@csbrown28

And if you had other sufficient legitimate legal evidence to present for a warrant, why would anyone deliberately perjure themselves?


#23

Curious, did you see the 40-60 pages of the FISA warrant? Do you know that the judge wasn’t told? I mean, I don’t, but do you?

You’re asking why people would purger themselves, a crime? Why would people risk their careers and commit crimes obtaining FISA warrants under false pretenses?

Is that what happened? Let’s wait till all the underlying information and context is released and then we can decide.


#24

Let’s get real, CS, tell the judge it was financed by the Hillary Clinton dba DNC and virtually none of it has been verified the judge would have chuckled and only looked at other evidence if he didn’t just throw them out of his court room. If you include the dossier in your package to get it over the finish line then you don’t tell the judge it’s full providence. This isn’t rocket science.

Easy, they didn’t think they would get caught. Prosecutors do this all the time. If they are wrong and get caught they usually just get a slap on the wrist, not a perjury indictment. Welcome to the American justice system.

Do you have any more straws to grasp at?


#25

@csbrown28

You might want to take a look at this piece, written by a fellow liberal democrat, legal expert and constitutional scholar:

http://thehill.com/opinion/judiciary/372061-outcry-over-the-nunes-memo-is-damning-for-democrats-and-fbi

Enjoy!


#26

CS won’t care. He’s intent on trying to “disprove” what everyone else KNOWS happened. The FBI used that phony dossier to obtain a FISA warrant and DIDN’T INFORM THE JUDGE as to its provenance. If they HAD informed the judge, he’d have denied their application…again…and likely charged them with perjury or contempt of court–and he STILL may do that now that the cat’s out of the bag.


#27

That’s just a lie, for 2 reasons.

  1. Everyone doesn’t know because the underlying facts that made the FISA warrant possible haven’t been released.

  2. I’ve said I don’t know exactly what happened.

Stick with the facts.


#28

“BY JONATHAN TURLEY, OPINION CONTRIBUTOR — 02/02/18 03:00 PM EST 1,046 THE VIEWS EXPRESSED BY CONTRIBUTORS ARE THEIR OWN AND NOT THE VIEW OF THE HILL”

Anyone can write an opinion piece and BTW, Turley wrote legal briefs in defense of polygamy, so the fact that his positions generally lean left doesn’t mean he’s right on all issues or that I always agree with him.

It’s late and I need to get to bed, I’ll read it in the morning.


#29

Nonsense. One of the FBI’s people declared before the Intel Committee that the FISA warrant WOULDN’T have been sought but for the existence of the Steele Dossiser. THAT’S A FACT!


#30

Just to be crystal clear, are you saying that you believe the justification for the investigation, from the beginning, was triggered by the dossier?


#31

Yes. Without the dossier, there wouldn’t have been a single FISA warrant issued to spy on members of the Trump campaign. When they tried to do it in July WITHOUT the dossier, they were turned down by the FISA court.


#32

So…you didn’t actually read the memo, huh? I mean, it’s not something I’d expect the kind of sources you get your news from to report, but, it’s in the memo…

Here are a few facts:

The FISA order on Page was issued Oct. 21, 2016. That timing proves that the Page warrant didn’t authorize any surveillance of the Trump campaign — because Page and the Trump campaign had parted ways before the warrant was issued. In fact, the Nunes memo makes it appear that the FBI was trying to avoid surveillance on the Trump campaign as the FBI had known about Page for quite some time but waited until after he parted ways with the Trump campaign before applying for a FISA warrant to surveil him.

If you believe Trump (which I don’t but you might), Page was hardly involved in the campaign at all…

“I don’t think I’ve ever spoken to him. I don’t think I’ve ever met him. And he actually said he was a very low-level member of I think a committee for a short period of time. I don’t think I ever met him. Now, it’s possible that I walked into a room and he was sitting there, but I don’t think I ever met him.”

If you’re not familiar with that quote, just Google it.

Or this one reported by The Hill:

Mr. Page is not an advisor and has made no contribution to the campaign,” the campaign’s communications director Jason Miller said in an email to The Hill. “I’ve never spoken to him, and wouldn’t recognize him if he were sitting next to me.” (emphasis mine)

Thus, it’s hard to imagine how surveillance on a person who “had an informal role” and “never met Trump” and never made contributions to the campaign could be considered spying on the campaign.

(This is what happens when Trump and everyone around him lies all the time)

Then there’s Nunes’ appearance on Fox and Friends where he admits that the FBI disclosed the political nature of the Steel dossier (though, after confronted with thius fact Nunes moves the goal-post)…

Nunes conceded that a “footnote” to that effect was included in the application while faulting the bureau for failing to provide more specifics.

Nunes said:

“A footnote saying something may be political is a far cry from letting the American people know that the Democrats and the Hillary campaign paid for dirt that the FBI then used to get a warrant on an American citizen to spy on another campaign,” Nunes said on “Fox & Friends.”

Of course, he goes on to say that a footnote on the warrant disclosing the political nature of the dossier is not the same as letting the FISA court judge and the American people know that Clinton and her campaign paid for the dossier.

The document was never intended “for the American people”, it was intended for a judge and for all we know the judge may have asked about the political nature of the dossier, we just don’t know because we haven’t seen the whole thing yet.

But here’s the smoking gun, if you will, that proves that the dossier was not the justification for the original FISA warrant on Page, and it comes from the Nunes memo itself.

See the little part there, the second sentence?

The Papadopoulos information triggered the opening of an FBI counterintelligence investigation in late July 2016 by FBI agent Pete Strzok.

Even the Nunes memo itself admits that the justification for opening the investigation on Page wasn’t, in fact, the dossier.

Now I said:

Care to change your mind or are you, somehow, going to deny these facts or change your story?


#33

WHY would the FBI/DOJ apply for a warrant to spy on Carter Page if they KNEW he wasn’t associated with the Trump campaign, USING as justification, the phony Steele Dossier which accuses TRUMP of all sorts of phony Russian contacts and doesn’t even MENTION Carter Page except to note in passing that he had close business ties to some Russians and was now a Trump “associate?” The fact is, they were hoping to get the goods on President Trump. If they were after Carter Page, why is he now walking free, never having even been formally ACCUSED of any crime?


#34

Ask Devin Nunes’ staff, they wrote it.


#35

Which doesn’t answer my question. Typical! The answer is, they wanted dirt on TRUMP…not Carter Page who they’d been watching for 5 years, and likely knew everything about him, including what time of the day he moves his bowels.


#36

The Nunes memo accuses FISA abuses. The claim was that the Steel dossier is a political hit piece used as the only/ primary justification for initiating surveillance on Carter Page. Now that I’ve proven that wrong, you are shifting the goal posts. Either there was justification for pursuing Page or there wasn’t.

As far as Trump is concerned, we’ll have to wait for Muller’s report to come out and connect the dots.


#37

What about the Nunes memo leads you to believe that the FBI/DOJ were NOT targeting the Trump Campaign (and later the Trump ADMINISTRATION) by spying on Carter Page? They USED the Steele Dossier to obtain the first FISA warrant and RE-USED it three more times to extend the warrant until July of 2017, NEVER telling the court that the dossier was, in fact, “opposition research” bought by the Hillary Clinton campaign and the DNC, even AFTER the FBI/DOJ knew it was bogus.


#38
  1. False

  2. False

The first warrant was obtained because of inflation obtained from Popodopolis. Now I’m not certain if the dossier was included in the first warrant or not, but I do know that Steel was not told who the client was he was collecting research for.

Next Steel is a well regarded former MI6 agent, not a stooge of the democratic party.

Whenever the dossier was included it included information that made it clear that the dossier was “political”. I don’t know the exact wording, but the Nunes memo admists both of these facts.

If the Trump campaign was targeted, and I’m not claiming to know that it wasn’t, the question is, did the FBI/ DOJ have probable cause?

Again, something I’m sure we’ll learn if Muller is allowed to share his findings.

If after that there was wrongdoing by the DOJ or FBI as a result of what is learned, then I fully support changes and potential punishment for those that abused the process. I just don’t think it’s possible to speculate on the motives of the FBI or DOJ without more information.


#39

In a September 2016 interview on CNN, Trump’s campaign manager, Kellyanne Conway, unequivocally denied that Page had any ongoing role whatsoever in the Trump campaign, stating: “He’s certainly not part of the campaign that I’m running. [W]e have a number of … fabulous people … as part of our national security or foreign policy team, and he’s not among them in Trump Tower. And I also will say, if he’s [communicating with Russian nationals], he’s certainly not doing it with the permission or the knowledge of the campaign. (*source CNN)

On Sept. 26, Page announced his resignation from the campaign, and his role as Trump’s unpaid, informal foreign policy adviser came to an end. Which means that by the time the FBI finally obtained a warrant to intercept his communications Oct. 21, Page was not a part of the Trump campaign, he was not authorized to speak on the campaign’s behalf and he was not engaged in campaign-related activities.

That means that if the Trump campaign was accurately describing Page’s role, there would have been no reason for the FBI to be concerned that, by conducting surveillance on Page, the bureau might accidentally collect ongoing campaign communications, as well. The campaign was clear that no such ongoing communications should exist. If Page was, in fact, communicating with Russian agents, the FBI could conduct surveillance on those communications without risk of catching any Trump campaign emails or calls, because the campaign had been clear that Page had no authority to engage in dealings with Russia on its behalf and had no knowledge of such communications occurring.

Unless everyone involved is lying.


#40

You “conveniently” forget that the DOJ/FBI applied for a FISA warrant in JULY of 2016 to spy on Page and the court DENIED their petition. Once they got their hands on the Steele dossier they submitted IT as “proof” of the need to spy on Page and the warrant WAS issued. Steele, in September of 2016, BRIEFED several “news” organizations on the content of his dossier so it’s foolish to claim that Steele “didn’t know” what he was investigating and who was the ultimate target. If you believe what you posted above, then YOU are the one who’s passing along his lies.