FBI spreed sheet puts a stake through Steele dossier.

Anyone with half a brain?

Oh, I get it.

You mean trump supporters "know".

Farther down in the posts you said, "Claiming the Steele Dossier didn't start the investigation is bullshit, because the FISC told the FBI that it didn't have grounds for an investigation until Comey used the Steele Dossier as false evidence to justify an investigation."


At best this is one more of your opinions (based on what? Only having half a brain?) you pretend is a fact. Originally Posted by Munchmasterman

It's trivially obvious that FISC told Comey he didn't have substantive grounds to obtain a FISA warrant to conduct an investigation.

regarding the McCabe transcript over what he said or didn't say, why do you need republicans to release the transcript? aren't Dems in control of the committee??? why can't they do it.

We'll just leave it at you claiming something without proof because you say so.
A normal occurance

It's trivially obvious that FISC told Comey he didn't have substantive grounds to obtain a FISA warrant to conduct an investigation.
Originally Posted by I B Hankering

We'll just leave it at you claiming something without proof because you say so.
A normal occurance Originally Posted by Munchmasterman

The reality is you are too incompetent to do a web search for yourself, because the "proof" is out there.

The first request, which, sources say, named Trump, was denied back in June, but the second was drawn more narrowly [and supplemented with the Steel dossier] and was granted in October ...

In June, when the first FISA warrant was denied

(Heat Street)

In June, the Odumbo Justice Department submitted an application that apparently “named” Trump in addition to some of his associates. As I have stressed, it is unclear whether “named” in this context indicates that Trump himself was cited as a person the Justice Department was alleging was a Russian agent whom it wanted to surveil . . . President Trump’s tweets on Saturday claimed that “President Odumbo . . . tapp[ed] my phones[,]” which makes it more likely that Trump was targeted for surveillance, rather than merely mentioned in the application.

In any event, the FISA court reportedly turned down the Odumbo Justice Department’s request, which is notable: The FISA court is notoriously solicitous of government requests to conduct national-security surveillance ...

(National Review)

I reject your conclusions.You can't show anything that backs you up.

As far as #2 goes. the article I posted quoted Gowdy's tweets.

And you've been proven wrong by factcheck and politifact many, many times. I understand why you make unfounded claims in your quest to make the world as you see it. Still waiting on examples to prove your point. Examples like I provide.

What I don't understand is why you won't even try to show or prove your bullshit about the fact check sites. If they're wrong as often as you say, it should be easy.

It looks like you're wrong about that.

Personally, I like it you can't provide info to back the positions you find yourself in. Ones you're trying to prove me wrong on.

Snick

First, you can take Factcheck and shove it where the sun don't shine, because everyone knows they are a lib-retard outlet that distorts the facts to fit their agenda.

Second, Gowdy actually read the documents, unlike you and the mediocre, drooling idiots at Factcheck, etc., etc., etc., you're quoting and citing.

Third, to date, Gowdy and Nunes have been a whole lot more truthful than Comey, McCabe, Strzok, Brennan, etc., after all, Mueller shot down numerous of their collective lies when he found no collusion.

There would have been no investigation without the FISA warrants, there would have been no FISA warrant without the Steele dossier. FISC told Comey he didn't have shit to justify a warrant before he attached the Steele dossier. Ergo, Comey didn't have shit for an investigation. Originally Posted by I B Hankering

I reject your conclusions.You can't show anything that backs you up.

As far as #2 goes. the article I posted quoted Gowdy's tweets.

And you've been proven wrong by factcheck and politifact many, many times. I understand why you make unfounded claims in your quest to make the world as you see it. Still waiting on examples to prove your point. Examples like I provide.

What I don't understand is why you won't even try to show or prove your bullshit about the fact check sites. If they're wrong as often as you say, it should be easy.

It looks like you're wrong about that.

Personally, I like it you can't provide info to back the positions you find yourself in. Ones you're trying to prove me wrong on.

Snick

Originally Posted by Munchmasterman

You don't have the authority to reject shit. Factual information was provided as any educated and intelligent person can see. Those who wish to remain willfully ignorant, well that's on them.

The FISC shot down Odumbo, et al, first request for a FISA warrant because they didn't have jack shit to convince a judge that their so-called investigation was legitimate ... so they dressed it up with the hildebeest bought and paid for, Russian disinformation sourced, Steel dossier to get their warrant.

Time and time again it's been demonstrated that Politifact and Factcheck are lib-retard propaganda organs in hildbeest's camp.

In light of the legal standard that applies, it is inconceivable that the FISA warrant would have issued in the absence of this uncorroborated hearsay allegation — which is exactly what FBI deputy director Andrew McCabe stated in December 2017 House Intelligence Committee testimony (a Nunes memo assertion (at p.3, para.4) that the Schiff memo does not attempt to rebut), and exactly what is reported in the Grassley-Graham memo (at p.2: “The bulk of the application consists of allegations against Page that were disclosed to the FBI by Mr. Steele and are also outlined in the Steele dossier”).

(Investors)