Former NSA Director Is Cooperating With Probe of Trump-Russia Investigation

are the FLynn prosecutors getting nervous? Originally Posted by dilbert firestorm

They know they have nothing more than they had on Papadopolous and he got 14 days. We may never know why Flynn decided to be less than truthful to the FBI and to VP Pence over something that was perfectly legal for him to do but he did and to acknowledge he did with some degree of punishment is appropriate in the legal sense but I have said before and will say again, if there was no crime, lying about what you said should warrant nothing more than a verbal reprimand unless as the FBI said in the P case but apparently didn't make the case, that P's less than truthfulness hindered a more serious crime. This did not happen to my knowledge in the Flynn case. I'll be surprised if he gets more than a month.

Less than truthful? LOLLINGs!

Less than truthful? LOLLINGs! Originally Posted by HoeHummer

snick

snick Originally Posted by winn dixie

the fucks is that?

I think you thoughts Santa brought you a milky way but it was a big nutty turd winnsy.

the fucks is that?

I think you thoughts Santa brought you a milky way but it was a big nutty turd winnsy. Originally Posted by HoeHummer

I prefer twix. But We all know what you prefer, 3 musketeers!
Cause you love swordsman

bahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha aa

The nune memo is a joke. Although it shows trumpys don't look for information that counters early/incorrect/mischaracterizations, many of the "facts" were easily disproved by the rebuttal from the dems.


Read the Democratic rebuttal to the Nunes memo, annotated
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/...emo-annotated/


To:All Members of the House of Representatives
FROM:HPSCI Minority
DATE:January 29, 20l 8
RE: Correcting the Record The Russia Investigations
The Majority's move to release to the House of Representatives its allegations against the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) and the Department of Justice is a transparent effort to undermine those agencies, the Special Counsel, and Congress' investigations. It also risks public exposure of sensitive sources and methods for no legitimate purpose.
FBI and DOJ officials did not abuse the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) process, omit material information, or subvert this vital tool to spy on the Trump campaign.
In fact, DOJ and the FBI would have been remiss in their duty to protect the country had they not sought a FISA warrant and repeated renewals to conduct temporary surveillance of Carter Page, someone the FBI assessed to be an agent of the Russian government. DOJ met the rigor, transparency, and evidentiary basis needed to meet probable cause requirement, by demonstrating:
contemporaneous evidence of Russia's election interference;
• concerning Russian links and outreach to Trump campaign officials;
• Page's history with Russian intelligence; and
• REDACTEDPage's suspicious activities in 2016, including in Moscow.
The Committee's Minority has therefore prepared this memorandum to correct the record:
• Christopher Steele's raw intelligence reporting did not inform the decision to initiate its counterintelligence investigation in late July 2016. In fact, the FBI's closely-held investigative team only received Steele's reporting in mid-September more than seven weeks later. The FBI and, subsequently, the Special Counsel's investigation into links between the Russian government and Trump campaign associates has been based on troubling law enforcement and intelligence information unrelated to the "dossier."
• DOJ's October 21, 2016 FISA application and three subsequent renewals carefully outlined for the Court a multi-pronged rationale for surveilling Page, who, at the time of the first application, was no longer with the Trump campaign.DOJ detailed Page's past relationships with Russian spies and interaction with Russian officials during the 2016 campaign reacted. DOJ cited multiple sources to support the case for surveilling Page but made only narrow use of information from Steele's sources about Page's specific activities in 2016, chiefly his suspected July 2016 meetings in Moscow with Russian officials. REDACTED. In fact, the FBI interviewed Page in March 2016 about his contact with Russian intelligence, the very month candidate Donald Trump named him a foreign policy adviser. As DOJ informed the Court in subsequent renewals, REDACTED, Steele's reporting about Page's Moscow meeting redacted. DOJ's applications did not otherwise rely on Steele's reporting, including any "salacious" allegations about Trump, and the FBI never paid Steele for this reporting. While explaining why the FBI viewed Steele's reporting and sources as reliable and credible, DOJ also disclosed:
• Steele's prior relationship with the FBI
• the fact of and reason for his termination as a source; and
• the assessed political motivation of those who hired him.
• The Committee Majority's memorandum, which draws selectively on highly sensitive classified information, includes other distortions and misrepresentations that are contradicted by the underlying classified documents, which the vast majority of Members of the Committee and the House have not had the opportunity to review— and which Chairman Nunes chose not to read himself.
Background
On January 18, 20l8, the Committee Majority, during an unrelated business meeting, forced a surprise vote to release to the full House a profoundly misleading memorandum alleging serious abuses by the FBI and DOJ. Majority staff drafted the document in secret on behalf of Chairman Devin Nunes (and reportedly with guidance and input fromRep. Trey Gowdy), and then rushed a party-line vote without prior notice.
This was by design. The overwhelming majority of Committee Members never received DOJ authorization to access the underlying classified information, and therefore could not judge the veracity of Chairman Nunes' claims. Due to sensitive sources and methods, DOJ provided access only to the Committee's Chair and Ranking Member (or respective designees), and limited staff, to facilitate the Committee's investigation into Russia's covert campaign to influence the 2016 US. elections. As DOJ has confirmed publicly, it did not authorize the broader release of this information within Congress or to the public, and Chairman Nunes refused to allow and the FBI to review his document until he permitted the FBI Director to see it for the first time in secure spaces late on Sunday, January 28— 10 days after disclosure to the House.
FBI's Counterintelligence Investigation
In its October 2016 FISA application and subsequent renewals, DOJ accurately informed the Court that the FBI initiated its counterintelligence investigation on July 31, 2016, after receiving information REDACTED. George Papadopoulos revealed REDACTED that individuals linked to Russia, who took interest in Papadopoulos as a Trump campaign foreign policy adviser, informed him in late April 2016 that Russia REDACTED.Papadopoulos's disclosure, moreover, occurred against the backdrop of Russia's aggressive covert campaign to influence our elections, which the FBI was already monitoring. We would later learn in Papadopoulos'splea that the information the Russians could assist by anonymously releasing were thousands of Hillary Clinton's emails.
DOJ told the Court the truth. Its representation was consistent with the underlying investigative record, which current and former senior officials later corroborated in extensive Committee testimony. Christopher Steele's reporting, which he began to share with an FBI agent through the end of October 2016, played no role in launching the counterintelligence investigation into Russian interference and links to the Trump campaign. 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: REDACTED, and former campaign foreign policy adviser carter Page.
As Committee testimony bears out, the FBI would have continued its investigation, including against REDACTED individuals, even if it had never received information from Steele, never applied for a FISA warrant against Page, or if the FISC had rejected the application.
DOJ's FISA Application and Renewals
The initial warrant application and subsequent renewals received independent scrutiny and approval by four different federal judges, three two of whom were appointed by President George W. Bush[ONE BY GEORGE H.W BUSH]and one by President Ronald Reagan. DOJ first applied to the FISC on October 21, 2016, for a warrant to permit the FBI to initiate electronic surveillance and physical search of Page for 90 days, consistent with FISA requirements. The Court approved three renewals — in early January 2017, early April 2017, and late June 2017— which authorized the FBI to maintain surveillance on Page until late September 2017. Senior DOJ and FBI officials appointed by the Obama and Trump Administrations, including acting Attorney General Dana Boente and Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein, certified the applications with the Court.
FISA was not used to spy on Trump or his campaign. As the Trump campaign and Page have acknowledged, Page ended his formal affiliation with the campaign months before DOJ applied for a warrant. DOJ, moreover, submitted the initial application less than three weeks before the election, even though the investigation had been ongoing since the end of July 2016.
DOJ's warrant request was based on compelling evidence and probable cause to believe Page was knowingly assisting clandestine Russian intelligence activities in the U.S.:
Page's Connections to Russian Government and Intelligence Officials: The FBI had an independent basis for investigating Page's motivations and actions during the campaign, transition, and following the inauguration. As DOJ described in detail to the Court, Page had an extensive record as REDACTED prior to joining the Trump campaign. He resided in Moscow from 2004-2007 and pursued business deals with Russia's state-owned energy company Gazprom— REDACTED.
As early as REDACTED, a Russian intelligence officer REDACTED targeted Page for recruitment. Page showed REDACTED.
Page remained on the radar of Russian intelligence and the FBI. In 2013, prosecutors indicted three other Russian spies, two of whom targeted Page for recruitment. The FBI also interviewed Page multiple times about his Russian intelligence contacts, including in March 2016. The concern about and knowledge of Page's activities therefore long predate the receipt of Steele's information.
• Page's Suspicious Activity During the 2016 Campaign: The FISA applications also detail Page's suspicious activity after joining the Trump campaign in March 2016. REDACTED. Page traveled to Moscow in July 2016, during which he gave a university commencement address an honor usually reserved for well-known luminaries.
• It is in this specific sub-section of the applications that DOJ refers to Steele'sreporting on Page and his alleged coordination with Russian officials. Steele's information about Page was consistent with the assessment of Russian intelligence efforts to recruit him and his connections to Russian persons of interest.
• In particular, Steele's sources reported that Page met separately while in Russia with Igor Sechin, a close associate of Vladimir Putin and executive chairman of Rosneft, Russia's state-owned oil company, and Igor Divyekin, a senior Kremlin official. Sechin allegedly discussed the prospect of future U.S.-Russia energy cooperation and "an associated move to lift Ukraine-related western sanctions against Russia." Divyekin allegedly disclosed to Page that the Kremlin possessed compromising information on Clinton ("kompromat") and noted "the possibility of its being released to Candidate No. 1's campaign." [Note: Candidate No. 1 refers to candidate Trump.] This closely tracks what other Russian contacts were informing another Trump foreign policy adviser, George Papadopoulos.
• In subsequent FISA renewals, DOJ provided additional information obtained through multiple independent sources that corroborated Steele's reporting.
• REDACTED
• REDACTED
• Page's REDACTED in Moscow with REDACTED senior Russian officials REDACTED as well as meetings with Russian officials REDACTED.
This information contradicts Page's November 2, 2017 testimony to the Committee, in which he initially denied any such meetings and then was forced to admit speaking with Dvorkovich and meeting with Rosneft's Sechin-tied investor relations chief. Andrey Baranov.
• The Court-approved surveillance of Page allowed FBI to collect valuable intelligence. The FISA renewals demonstrate that the FBI collected important investigative information and leads by conducting Court-approved surveillance. For instance, REDACTED. DOJ also documented evidence that page REDACTED, anticipated REDACTED and repeatedly contacted REDACTED in an effort to present himself as REDACTED. Page's efforts to REDACTEDalso contradict his sworn testimony to our Committee.
DOJ's Transparency about Christopher Steele
Far from "omitting" material facts about Steele, as the Majority claims, DOJ repeatedly informed the Court about Steele's background, credibility, and potential bias.DOJ explained in detail Steele's prior relationship with and compensation from the FBI; his credibility, reporting history, and source network; the fact of and reason for his termination as a source in late October 2016; and the likely political motivations of those who hired Steele.
• DOJ was transparent with Court about Steele's sourcing: The Committee Majority, which had earlier accused Obama Administration officials of improper "unmasking," faults DOJ for not revealing the names of specific U.S. persons and entities in the FISA application and subsequent renewals. In fact, DOJ appropriately upheld its longstanding practice of protecting U.S. citizen information by purposefully not "unmasking" US. person and entity names, unless they were themselves the subject of a counterintelligence investigation. DOJ instead used generic identifiers that provided the Court with more than sufficient information to understand the political context of Steele's research. In an extensive explanation to the Court, DOJ discloses that Steele:
"was approached by an identified U.S. Person, who indicated to Source #1 [Steele] that aU.S.-based law-firm had hired the identified U.S. Person to conduct research regarding candidate #1's ties to Russia. (The identified U.S. Person and Source #1 have a long-standing business relationship.) The identified U.S. person hired Source #1 to conduct this research. The identified U.S. Person never advised Source #1 as to the motivation behind the research into Candidate #1's ties to Russia. The FBI speculates that the identified U.S. Person was likely looking for information that could be used to discredit Candidate No. 1's campaign."
Contrary to the Majority's assertion that DOJ fails to mention that Steele's research was commissioned by "political actors" to "obtain derogatory information on Donald Trump's ties to Russia, "DOJ in fact informed the Court accurately that Steele was hired by politically-motivated U.S. persons and entities and that his research appeared intended for use "to discredit" Trump's campaign.
• DOJ explained the reasonable basis for finding Steele credible: The applications correctly described Steele asREDACTED.The applications also reviewed Steele's multi-year history of credible reporting on Russia and other matters, including information DOJ used in criminal proceedings. Senior FBI and DOJ officials have repeatedly affirmed to the Committee the reliability and credibility of Steele's reporting, an assessment also reflected in the underlying source documents. The FBI has undertaken a rigorous process to vet allegations from Steele's reporting, including with regard to Page.
• The FBI properly notified the FISC after it terminated Steele as a source for making unauthorized disclosures to the media. The Majority cites no evidence that the FBI, prior to its initial October 21, 2016, application, actually knew or should have known of any allegedly inappropriate media contacts by Steele. Nor do they cite evidence that Steele disclosed toYahoo!details included in the FISA warrant, since the British Court filings to
which they refer do not address what Steele may have said toYahoo!.
DOJ informed the Court in its renewals that the FBI acted to terminate Steele after learning from him (after DOJ filed the first warrant application) that he had discussed his work with a media outlet in late October.The January 2018 renewal further explained to the Court that Steele told the FBI that he made his unauthorized media disclosure because of his frustration at Director Comey's public announcement shortly before the election that the FBI reopened its investigation into candidate Clinton's email use.
• DOJ never paid Steele for the "dossier": The Majority asserts that the FBI had "separately authorized payment" to Steele for his research on Trump but neglects to mention that payment was cancelled and never made. As the records and Committee testimony confirms, although the FBI initially considered compensation REDACTED,Steele ultimately never received payment from the FBIfor any "dossier"-related information. DOJ accurately informed the Court that Steele had been an FBI confidential human source since REDACTED, for which he was "compensated REDACTED by the FBI"— payment for previously-shared information of value unrelated to the Russia investigation.
Additional Omissions Errors and Distortions in the Majority's Memorandum
• DOJ appropriately provided the Court with a comprehensive explanation of Russia's election interference, including evidence that Russia courted another Trump campaign adviser, Papadopoulos, and that Russian agents previewed their hack and dissemination of stolen emails. In claiming that there is "no evidence of any cooperation or conspiracy between Page and Papadopoulos," the Majority misstates the reason why DOJ specifically explained Russia's courting of Papadopoulos. Papadopoulos's interaction with Russian agents, coupled with real-time evidence of Russian election interference, provided the Court with a broader context in which to evaluate Russia's clandestine activities and Page's history and alleged contact with Russian officials. Moreover, since only Page REDACTED, no evidence of a separate conspiracy between him and Papadopoulos was required.DOJ would have been negligent in omitting vital information about Papadopoulos and Russia's concerted efforts.
• In its Court filings, DOJ made proper use of news coverage. The Majority falsely claims that the FISA materials "relied heavily" on a September 23, 2016Yahoo!News article by Michael Isikoff and that this article "does not corroborate the Steele Dossier because it is derived from information leaked by Steele himself." In fact,DOJ referenced lsikoff's article, alongside another article the Majority fails to mention, not to provide separate corroboration for Steele's reporting, but instead to inform the Court of Page's public denial of his suspected meetings in Moscow, which Page also echoed in a September 25, 2016 letter to FBI Director Comey.
• The Majority's reference to Bruce Ohr is misleading. The Majority mischaracterizes Bruce Ohr's role, overstates the significance of his interactions with Steele, and misleads about the timeframe of Ohr's communication with the FBI. In late November 2016, Ohr informed the FBI of his prior professional relationship with Steele and information that Steele shared with him(including Steele's concern about Trump being compromised by Russia). He also described his wife's contract work with Fusion GPS, the firm that hired Steele separately. This occurred weeks after the election and more than a month after the Court approved the initial FISA application. The Majority describes Bruce Ohr as a senior DOJ official who "worked closely with the Deputy Attorney General, Yates and later Rosenstein," in order to imply that Ohr was somehow involved in the process, but there is no indication this is the case. Bruce Ohr is a well-respected career professional whose portfolio is drugs and organized crime, not counterintelligence. There is no evidence that he would have known about the Page FISA applications and their contents. The Majority's assertions, moreover, are irrelevant in determining the veracity of Steele's reporting. By the time Ohr debriefs with the FBI, it had already terminated Steele as a source and was independently corroborating Steele's reporting about Page's activities. Bruce Ohr took the initiative to inform the FBI of what he knew, and the Majority does him a grave disservice by suggesting he is part of some malign conspiracy.
• Finally, Peter Strzok and Lisa Page's text messages are irrelevant to the FISA application. The Majority gratuitously includes reference to Strzok and Page at the end of their memorandum, in an effort to imply that political bias infected the FBl's investigation and FISA applications. In fact, neither Strzok nor Page served as affiants on the applications, which were the product of extensive and senior DOJ and FBI review. In demonizing both career professionals, the Majority accuses them of "orchestrating leaks to the media" — a serious charge; omits inconvenient text messages, in which they critiqued a wide range of other officials and candidates from both parties; does not disclose that FBI Deputy Director McCabe testified to the Committee that he had no idea what Page and Strzokwere referring to in their "insurance policy" texts; and ignores Strzok's acknowledged role in preparing a public declaration, by then Director Comey, about former Secretary Clinton's "extreme carelessness" in handling classified information, which greatly damaged Clinton's public reputation in the days just prior to the presidential election.

What lies?
Some proof to back your claims would be nice for a change.
Plus what facts did the Rogers article contain?
The article said, "Rogers, who retired in May 2018, did not respond to requests for comment.”
You have no information about what the Durham investigation contains about anything pertaining to Rogers' cooperation.

Now it would seem like we need an investigation of the head of the FISA court. She knew or should have known from the time of the Nunes memo that the court was lied to and did nothing. Now this sounds like the court had information from Rodgers and did nothing. Originally Posted by HedonistForever

I guess I can understand why a trumpy wouldn't consider a felony conviction to be "going down the tubes". I'd rather the douche-bag brigade call me a fool than be a felon. Just another sign of a lack of morals held by trumpys.


He probably won't be exonerated because Durham's report won't be in before sentencing but I doubt he will get even 6 months. P got 14 days for lying to the FBI.
If you read the article you'll see why he won't be exonerated. Because he is guilty and he admitted it.

Yeah, if a couple of weeks or months is your idea of "going down the tubes". In the end, Flynn lied about things he said which were not crimes just like P did.
"Which were not crimes"? The lying charge was the least of all charges they had. What charges could they have filed? I don't know. Ask them.
I told you my idea of going down the tubes. Like the amount of sentence time compares to the fact he is now a convicted felon.
Your opinion means less to me by the post.


Only a stupid person thinks the length of his sentence is the defining factor of his actions or that he will be exonerated.

Since being a felon doesn't appear to mean anything to you, how many felonies does your sheet have?

Only in the minds of fools will Flynn being "going down the tubes". Members of the FBI will do more time than General Flynn. Originally Posted by HedonistForever

So what's it going to be?
Pull more meaningless "points" that prove.....what?
Throw more bullshit like the "nune memo" or the Rogers article or maybe the high point of your argument will be the definition of a key point like "going down the tubes"?
Give me a fucking break.

The nune memo is a joke. Although it shows trumpys don't look for information that counters early/incorrect/mischaracterizations, many of the "facts" were easily disproved by the rebuttal from the dems.


Read the Democratic rebuttal to the Nunes memo, annotated
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/...emo-annotated/


To:All Members of the House of Representatives
FROM:HPSCI Minority
DATE:January 29, 20l 8
RE: Correcting the Record The Russia Investigations
The Majority's move to release to the House of Representatives its allegations against the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) and the Department of Justice is a transparent effort to undermine those agencies, the Special Counsel, and Congress' investigations. It also risks public exposure of sensitive sources and methods for no legitimate purpose.
FBI and DOJ officials did not abuse the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) process, omit material information, or subvert this vital tool to spy on the Trump campaign.
In fact, DOJ and the FBI would have been remiss in their duty to protect the country had they not sought a FISA warrant and repeated renewals to conduct temporary surveillance of Carter Page, someone the FBI assessed to be an agent of the Russian government. DOJ met the rigor, transparency, and evidentiary basis needed to meet probable cause requirement, by demonstrating:
contemporaneous evidence of Russia's election interference;
• concerning Russian links and outreach to Trump campaign officials;
• Page's history with Russian intelligence; and
• REDACTEDPage's suspicious activities in 2016, including in Moscow.
The Committee's Minority has therefore prepared this memorandum to correct the record:
• Christopher Steele's raw intelligence reporting did not inform the decision to initiate its counterintelligence investigation in late July 2016. In fact, the FBI's closely-held investigative team only received Steele's reporting in mid-September more than seven weeks later. The FBI and, subsequently, the Special Counsel's investigation into links between the Russian government and Trump campaign associates has been based on troubling law enforcement and intelligence information unrelated to the "dossier."
• DOJ's October 21, 2016 FISA application and three subsequent renewals carefully outlined for the Court a multi-pronged rationale for surveilling Page, who, at the time of the first application, was no longer with the Trump campaign.DOJ detailed Page's past relationships with Russian spies and interaction with Russian officials during the 2016 campaign reacted. DOJ cited multiple sources to support the case for surveilling Page but made only narrow use of information from Steele's sources about Page's specific activities in 2016, chiefly his suspected July 2016 meetings in Moscow with Russian officials. REDACTED. In fact, the FBI interviewed Page in March 2016 about his contact with Russian intelligence, the very month candidate Donald Trump named him a foreign policy adviser. As DOJ informed the Court in subsequent renewals, REDACTED, Steele's reporting about Page's Moscow meeting redacted. DOJ's applications did not otherwise rely on Steele's reporting, including any "salacious" allegations about Trump, and the FBI never paid Steele for this reporting. While explaining why the FBI viewed Steele's reporting and sources as reliable and credible, DOJ also disclosed:
• Steele's prior relationship with the FBI
• the fact of and reason for his termination as a source; and
• the assessed political motivation of those who hired him.
• The Committee Majority's memorandum, which draws selectively on highly sensitive classified information, includes other distortions and misrepresentations that are contradicted by the underlying classified documents, which the vast majority of Members of the Committee and the House have not had the opportunity to review— and which Chairman Nunes chose not to read himself.
Background
On January 18, 20l8, the Committee Majority, during an unrelated business meeting, forced a surprise vote to release to the full House a profoundly misleading memorandum alleging serious abuses by the FBI and DOJ. Majority staff drafted the document in secret on behalf of Chairman Devin Nunes (and reportedly with guidance and input fromRep. Trey Gowdy), and then rushed a party-line vote without prior notice.
This was by design. The overwhelming majority of Committee Members never received DOJ authorization to access the underlying classified information, and therefore could not judge the veracity of Chairman Nunes' claims. Due to sensitive sources and methods, DOJ provided access only to the Committee's Chair and Ranking Member (or respective designees), and limited staff, to facilitate the Committee's investigation into Russia's covert campaign to influence the 2016 US. elections. As DOJ has confirmed publicly, it did not authorize the broader release of this information within Congress or to the public, and Chairman Nunes refused to allow and the FBI to review his document until he permitted the FBI Director to see it for the first time in secure spaces late on Sunday, January 28— 10 days after disclosure to the House.
FBI's Counterintelligence Investigation
In its October 2016 FISA application and subsequent renewals, DOJ accurately informed the Court that the FBI initiated its counterintelligence investigation on July 31, 2016, after receiving information REDACTED. George Papadopoulos revealed REDACTED that individuals linked to Russia, who took interest in Papadopoulos as a Trump campaign foreign policy adviser, informed him in late April 2016 that Russia REDACTED.Papadopoulos's disclosure, moreover, occurred against the backdrop of Russia's aggressive covert campaign to influence our elections, which the FBI was already monitoring. We would later learn in Papadopoulos'splea that the information the Russians could assist by anonymously releasing were thousands of Hillary Clinton's emails.
DOJ told the Court the truth. Its representation was consistent with the underlying investigative record, which current and former senior officials later corroborated in extensive Committee testimony. Christopher Steele's reporting, which he began to share with an FBI agent through the end of October 2016, played no role in launching the counterintelligence investigation into Russian interference and links to the Trump campaign. 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: REDACTED, and former campaign foreign policy adviser carter Page.
As Committee testimony bears out, the FBI would have continued its investigation, including against REDACTED individuals, even if it had never received information from Steele, never applied for a FISA warrant against Page, or if the FISC had rejected the application.
DOJ's FISA Application and Renewals
The initial warrant application and subsequent renewals received independent scrutiny and approval by four different federal judges, three two of whom were appointed by President George W. Bush[ONE BY GEORGE H.W BUSH]and one by President Ronald Reagan. DOJ first applied to the FISC on October 21, 2016, for a warrant to permit the FBI to initiate electronic surveillance and physical search of Page for 90 days, consistent with FISA requirements. The Court approved three renewals — in early January 2017, early April 2017, and late June 2017— which authorized the FBI to maintain surveillance on Page until late September 2017. Senior DOJ and FBI officials appointed by the Obama and Trump Administrations, including acting Attorney General Dana Boente and Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein, certified the applications with the Court.
FISA was not used to spy on Trump or his campaign. As the Trump campaign and Page have acknowledged, Page ended his formal affiliation with the campaign months before DOJ applied for a warrant. DOJ, moreover, submitted the initial application less than three weeks before the election, even though the investigation had been ongoing since the end of July 2016.
DOJ's warrant request was based on compelling evidence and probable cause to believe Page was knowingly assisting clandestine Russian intelligence activities in the U.S.:
Page's Connections to Russian Government and Intelligence Officials: The FBI had an independent basis for investigating Page's motivations and actions during the campaign, transition, and following the inauguration. As DOJ described in detail to the Court, Page had an extensive record as REDACTED prior to joining the Trump campaign. He resided in Moscow from 2004-2007 and pursued business deals with Russia's state-owned energy company Gazprom— REDACTED.
As early as REDACTED, a Russian intelligence officer REDACTED targeted Page for recruitment. Page showed REDACTED.
Page remained on the radar of Russian intelligence and the FBI. In 2013, prosecutors indicted three other Russian spies, two of whom targeted Page for recruitment. The FBI also interviewed Page multiple times about his Russian intelligence contacts, including in March 2016. The concern about and knowledge of Page's activities therefore long predate the receipt of Steele's information.
• Page's Suspicious Activity During the 2016 Campaign: The FISA applications also detail Page's suspicious activity after joining the Trump campaign in March 2016. REDACTED. Page traveled to Moscow in July 2016, during which he gave a university commencement address an honor usually reserved for well-known luminaries.
• It is in this specific sub-section of the applications that DOJ refers to Steele'sreporting on Page and his alleged coordination with Russian officials. Steele's information about Page was consistent with the assessment of Russian intelligence efforts to recruit him and his connections to Russian persons of interest.
• In particular, Steele's sources reported that Page met separately while in Russia with Igor Sechin, a close associate of Vladimir Putin and executive chairman of Rosneft, Russia's state-owned oil company, and Igor Divyekin, a senior Kremlin official. Sechin allegedly discussed the prospect of future U.S.-Russia energy cooperation and "an associated move to lift Ukraine-related western sanctions against Russia." Divyekin allegedly disclosed to Page that the Kremlin possessed compromising information on Clinton ("kompromat") and noted "the possibility of its being released to Candidate No. 1's campaign." [Note: Candidate No. 1 refers to candidate Trump.] This closely tracks what other Russian contacts were informing another Trump foreign policy adviser, George Papadopoulos.
• In subsequent FISA renewals, DOJ provided additional information obtained through multiple independent sources that corroborated Steele's reporting.
• REDACTED
• REDACTED
• Page's REDACTED in Moscow with REDACTED senior Russian officials REDACTED as well as meetings with Russian officials REDACTED.
This information contradicts Page's November 2, 2017 testimony to the Committee, in which he initially denied any such meetings and then was forced to admit speaking with Dvorkovich and meeting with Rosneft's Sechin-tied investor relations chief. Andrey Baranov.
• The Court-approved surveillance of Page allowed FBI to collect valuable intelligence. The FISA renewals demonstrate that the FBI collected important investigative information and leads by conducting Court-approved surveillance. For instance, REDACTED. DOJ also documented evidence that page REDACTED, anticipated REDACTED and repeatedly contacted REDACTED in an effort to present himself as REDACTED. Page's efforts to REDACTEDalso contradict his sworn testimony to our Committee.
DOJ's Transparency about Christopher Steele
Far from "omitting" material facts about Steele, as the Majority claims, DOJ repeatedly informed the Court about Steele's background, credibility, and potential bias.DOJ explained in detail Steele's prior relationship with and compensation from the FBI; his credibility, reporting history, and source network; the fact of and reason for his termination as a source in late October 2016; and the likely political motivations of those who hired Steele.
• DOJ was transparent with Court about Steele's sourcing: The Committee Majority, which had earlier accused Obama Administration officials of improper "unmasking," faults DOJ for not revealing the names of specific U.S. persons and entities in the FISA application and subsequent renewals. In fact, DOJ appropriately upheld its longstanding practice of protecting U.S. citizen information by purposefully not "unmasking" US. person and entity names, unless they were themselves the subject of a counterintelligence investigation. DOJ instead used generic identifiers that provided the Court with more than sufficient information to understand the political context of Steele's research. In an extensive explanation to the Court, DOJ discloses that Steele:
"was approached by an identified U.S. Person, who indicated to Source #1 [Steele] that aU.S.-based law-firm had hired the identified U.S. Person to conduct research regarding candidate #1's ties to Russia. (The identified U.S. Person and Source #1 have a long-standing business relationship.) The identified U.S. person hired Source #1 to conduct this research. The identified U.S. Person never advised Source #1 as to the motivation behind the research into Candidate #1's ties to Russia. The FBI speculates that the identified U.S. Person was likely looking for information that could be used to discredit Candidate No. 1's campaign."
Contrary to the Majority's assertion that DOJ fails to mention that Steele's research was commissioned by "political actors" to "obtain derogatory information on Donald Trump's ties to Russia, "DOJ in fact informed the Court accurately that Steele was hired by politically-motivated U.S. persons and entities and that his research appeared intended for use "to discredit" Trump's campaign.
• DOJ explained the reasonable basis for finding Steele credible: The applications correctly described Steele asREDACTED.The applications also reviewed Steele's multi-year history of credible reporting on Russia and other matters, including information DOJ used in criminal proceedings. Senior FBI and DOJ officials have repeatedly affirmed to the Committee the reliability and credibility of Steele's reporting, an assessment also reflected in the underlying source documents. The FBI has undertaken a rigorous process to vet allegations from Steele's reporting, including with regard to Page.
• The FBI properly notified the FISC after it terminated Steele as a source for making unauthorized disclosures to the media. The Majority cites no evidence that the FBI, prior to its initial October 21, 2016, application, actually knew or should have known of any allegedly inappropriate media contacts by Steele. Nor do they cite evidence that Steele disclosed toYahoo!details included in the FISA warrant, since the British Court filings to
which they refer do not address what Steele may have said toYahoo!.
DOJ informed the Court in its renewals that the FBI acted to terminate Steele after learning from him (after DOJ filed the first warrant application) that he had discussed his work with a media outlet in late October.The January 2018 renewal further explained to the Court that Steele told the FBI that he made his unauthorized media disclosure because of his frustration at Director Comey's public announcement shortly before the election that the FBI reopened its investigation into candidate Clinton's email use.
• DOJ never paid Steele for the "dossier": The Majority asserts that the FBI had "separately authorized payment" to Steele for his research on Trump but neglects to mention that payment was cancelled and never made. As the records and Committee testimony confirms, although the FBI initially considered compensation REDACTED,Steele ultimately never received payment from the FBIfor any "dossier"-related information. DOJ accurately informed the Court that Steele had been an FBI confidential human source since REDACTED, for which he was "compensated REDACTED by the FBI"— payment for previously-shared information of value unrelated to the Russia investigation.
Additional Omissions Errors and Distortions in the Majority's Memorandum
• DOJ appropriately provided the Court with a comprehensive explanation of Russia's election interference, including evidence that Russia courted another Trump campaign adviser, Papadopoulos, and that Russian agents previewed their hack and dissemination of stolen emails. In claiming that there is "no evidence of any cooperation or conspiracy between Page and Papadopoulos," the Majority misstates the reason why DOJ specifically explained Russia's courting of Papadopoulos. Papadopoulos's interaction with Russian agents, coupled with real-time evidence of Russian election interference, provided the Court with a broader context in which to evaluate Russia's clandestine activities and Page's history and alleged contact with Russian officials. Moreover, since only Page REDACTED, no evidence of a separate conspiracy between him and Papadopoulos was required.DOJ would have been negligent in omitting vital information about Papadopoulos and Russia's concerted efforts.
• In its Court filings, DOJ made proper use of news coverage. The Majority falsely claims that the FISA materials "relied heavily" on a September 23, 2016Yahoo!News article by Michael Isikoff and that this article "does not corroborate the Steele Dossier because it is derived from information leaked by Steele himself." In fact,DOJ referenced lsikoff's article, alongside another article the Majority fails to mention, not to provide separate corroboration for Steele's reporting, but instead to inform the Court of Page's public denial of his suspected meetings in Moscow, which Page also echoed in a September 25, 2016 letter to FBI Director Comey.
• The Majority's reference to Bruce Ohr is misleading. The Majority mischaracterizes Bruce Ohr's role, overstates the significance of his interactions with Steele, and misleads about the timeframe of Ohr's communication with the FBI. In late November 2016, Ohr informed the FBI of his prior professional relationship with Steele and information that Steele shared with him(including Steele's concern about Trump being compromised by Russia). He also described his wife's contract work with Fusion GPS, the firm that hired Steele separately. This occurred weeks after the election and more than a month after the Court approved the initial FISA application. The Majority describes Bruce Ohr as a senior DOJ official who "worked closely with the Deputy Attorney General, Yates and later Rosenstein," in order to imply that Ohr was somehow involved in the process, but there is no indication this is the case. Bruce Ohr is a well-respected career professional whose portfolio is drugs and organized crime, not counterintelligence. There is no evidence that he would have known about the Page FISA applications and their contents. The Majority's assertions, moreover, are irrelevant in determining the veracity of Steele's reporting. By the time Ohr debriefs with the FBI, it had already terminated Steele as a source and was independently corroborating Steele's reporting about Page's activities. Bruce Ohr took the initiative to inform the FBI of what he knew, and the Majority does him a grave disservice by suggesting he is part of some malign conspiracy.
• Finally, Peter Strzok and Lisa Page's text messages are irrelevant to the FISA application. The Majority gratuitously includes reference to Strzok and Page at the end of their memorandum, in an effort to imply that political bias infected the FBl's investigation and FISA applications. In fact, neither Strzok nor Page served as affiants on the applications, which were the product of extensive and senior DOJ and FBI review. In demonizing both career professionals, the Majority accuses them of "orchestrating leaks to the media" — a serious charge; omits inconvenient text messages, in which they critiqued a wide range of other officials and candidates from both parties; does not disclose that FBI Deputy Director McCabe testified to the Committee that he had no idea what Page and Strzokwere referring to in their "insurance policy" texts; and ignores Strzok's acknowledged role in preparing a public declaration, by then Director Comey, about former Secretary Clinton's "extreme carelessness" in handling classified information, which greatly damaged Clinton's public reputation in the days just prior to the presidential election.

What lies?
Some proof to back your claims would be nice for a change.
Plus what facts did the Rogers article contain?
The article said, "Rogers, who retired in May 2018, did not respond to requests for comment.”
You have no information about what the Durham investigation contains about anything pertaining to Rogers' cooperation.


I guess I can understand why a trumpy wouldn't consider a felony conviction to be "going down the tubes". I'd rather the douche-bag brigade call me a fool than be a felon. Just another sign of a lack of morals held by trumpys.


He probably won't be exonerated because Durham's report won't be in before sentencing but I doubt he will get even 6 months. P got 14 days for lying to the FBI.
If you read the article you'll see why he won't be exonerated. Because he is guilty and he admitted it.

Yeah, if a couple of weeks or months is your idea of "going down the tubes". In the end, Flynn lied about things he said which were not crimes just like P did.
"Which were not crimes"? The lying charge was the least of all charges they had. What charges could they have filed? I don't know. Ask them.
I told you my idea of going down the tubes. Like the amount of sentence time compares to the fact he is now a convicted felon.
Your opinion means less to me by the post.


Only a stupid person thinks the length of his sentence is the defining factor of his actions or that he will be exonerated.

Since being a felon doesn't appear to mean anything to you, how many felonies does your sheet have?



So what's it going to be?
Pull more meaningless "points" that prove.....what?
Throw more bullshit like the "nune memo" or the Rogers article or maybe the high point of your argument will be the definition of a key point like "going down the tubes"?
Give me a fucking break. Originally Posted by Munchmasterman

You're brain dead citing a lib-retard WaPo article that's nearly two years old, like a cat in a dirty litter box, all you are doing is turning up old turds trying to cover the recent shit you're trying to hide.

Intelligent people know that that story line was bogus from the get-go, and assuredly so after the Horowitz report.

Horowitz ratifies the oft-denounced “Nunes memo.”

Dim-retards are not going to want to hear this, since conventional wisdom says former House Intelligence chief Devin Nunes is a conspiratorial evildoer, but the Horowitz report ratifies the major claims of the infamous “Nunes memo.”

As noted, Horowitz establishes that the Steele report was crucial to the FISA process, even using the same language Nunes used (“essential”). He also confirms the Nunes assertion that the FBI double-dipped in citing both Steele and a September 23, 2016 Yahoo! news story using Steele as an unnamed source. Horowitz listed the idea that Steele did not directly provide information to the press as one of seven significant “inaccuracies or omissions” in the first FISA application.

Horowitz also verifies the claim that Steele was “closed for cause” for talking to the media, i.e. officially cut off as a confidential human source to the FBI. He shows that Steele continued to talk to Justice Official Bruce Ohr before and after Steele’s formal relationship with the FBI ended. His report confirms that the Steele information had not been corroborated when the FISA application was submitted, another key Nunes point.

There was gnashing of teeth when Nunes first released his memo in January, 2018. The press universally crapped on his letter, with a Washington Post piece calling it a “joke” and a “sham.” House Speaker Nancy Pelosi slammed Nunes for the release of a “bogus” document, while New York Senator Chuck Schumer said the memo was intended to “sow conspiracy theories and attack the integrity of federal law enforcement.” Many called for his removal as Committee chair.

The Horowitz report says all of that caterwauling was off-base. It also undercuts many of the assertions made in a ballyhooed response letter by Nunes counterpart Adam Schitty, who described the FBI’s “reasonable basis” for deeming Steele credible. The report is especially hostile to Schitty’s claim that the FBI “provided additional information obtained through multiple independent sources that corroborated Steele’s reporting.”

(Rolling Stone)

Hanity is opinion. He has been proven wrong time after time.
You even included an example.
See number 2 below.
1. You mean the Hannity that said Mueller would find no conspiracy when Schiff, CNN and MSNBC spent years saying Mueller would?

How could anyone know before the investigation was complete what the results would be? It was a guess.
It's not like this is a senate investigation.


2. You mean the Hannity that said the Nunes memo on FISA abuse was the truth when Pelosi and Schiff, CNN and MSNBC told you it was all lies? That Hannity?

Yes, the same cocksucking douche-bag.

It's a lie to say they claimed the "nune memo" was all lies. It had many inaccurate statements. I just posted an article that details them. The statements come from DOJ, FBI, and some other sources.
I'm pretty sure you'll claim they are lies and you won't offer up any links from reliable sources. We're used to that.

The difference between 1 and 2 is you and hannity and your ilk continue, even in the face of evidence to the contrary, to ignore the truth of this matter. The issues found by the IG merited no reversals.

And here you are quite possibly making a fool of yourself since no sentencing has been handed down yet. You apparently have no problem making a fool of yourself. Originally Posted by HedonistForever

Hanity is opinion. He has been proven wrong time after time.
You even included an example.
See number 2 below.
1. You mean the Hannity that said Mueller would find no conspiracy when Schiff, CNN and MSNBC spent years saying Mueller would?

How could anyone know before the investigation was complete what the results would be? It was a guess.
It's not like this is a senate investigation.


2. You mean the Hannity that said the Nunes memo on FISA abuse was the truth when Pelosi and Schiff, CNN and MSNBC told you it was all lies? That Hannity?

Yes, the same cocksucking douche-bag.

It's a lie to say they claimed the "nune memo" was all lies. It had many inaccurate statements. I just posted an article that details them. The statements come from DOJ, FBI, and some other sources.
I'm pretty sure you'll claim they are lies and you won't offer up any links from reliable sources. We're used to that.

The difference between 1 and 2 is you and hannity and your ilk continue, even in the face of evidence to the contrary, to ignore the truth of this matter. The issues found by the IG merited no reversals. Originally Posted by Munchmasterman

You're a moron hiding from the fact that Madcow, Schitty, Waters, Pelosi, hildebeest, Comey, Clapper, McCabe, etc., etc., etc., lied to the "#Grubered" hildebeest minions who regurgitated that BS for three years ... and you're still spitting it out like Linda Blair in the Exorcist!

He has been proven wrong time after time.
. Originally Posted by Munchmasterman

there is a psychological phenomena whereby a subject accepts as false things that are wholly or mostly true because the truth doesn't fit with their belief system

I think you have fallen prey to that phenomena

for Hannity has been proved correct at, if not every, then at almost every, turn throughout the 3 year long Russia conspiracy hoax

NGIT-+1

I prefer twix. But We all know what you prefer, 3 musketeers!
Cause you love swordsman

bahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha aa Originally Posted by winn dixie

Your mum liked my sores man, Winnsy. She kept crying like a hairless cats as I parried and thrusted my meaty blade in and out of her mitt. And two days later my man was still sore.

Give your balls a tug, twix eater!

It's a lie to say they claimed the "nune memo" was all lies.


https://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2018/01/29/nancy_pelosi_gop_is_lying_to_t he_american_people.html


It had many inaccurate statements. I just posted an article that details them. The statements come from DOJ, FBI, and some other sources.


Which the IG report debunked

I'm pretty sure you'll claim they are lies and you won't offer up any links from reliable sources. We're used to that.


https://www.cnn.com/2019/12/17/politics/fisa-court-slams-fbi-conduct/index.html

FISA court slams FBI conduct in Carter Page surveillance warrant applications



The typically ultra-close-lipped Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court slammed the FBI for mistakes it made in the Carter Page surveillance warrants and ordered the agency to detail how it will improve its warrant applications in light of the errors, uncovered recently by the Justice Department's inspector general.


https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/justice-department/secret-fisa-court-issues-highly-unusual-rebuke-fbi-mistakes-n1103451



Secret FISA court issues highly unusual public rebuke of FBI for mistakes

The criticism comes after a report by the DOJ inspector general that found "so many basic and fundamental errors."



The difference between 1 and 2 is you and hannity and your ilk continue, even in the face of evidence to the contrary, to ignore the truth of this matter. The issues found by the IG merited no reversals. Originally Posted by Munchmasterman

Your ignorance is truly astounding. The head of the FISA court has given the FBI till Jan 10th to "fix" all the problems they had in the FISA application process.

Duplicate post