BREAKING NEWS: Memo finally released!!!!!!!!

Tranquilzers in Equines said:
The FBI began investigating Russian election interference, including possible connections to the Trump campaign, in late July 2016. The Steele dossier had not yet been written.
Click to expand...

Really?

The Trump–Russia dossier, also known as the Steele dossier, is a private intelligence dossier of 17 memos that were consecutively written from June to December 2016 by former MI6 intelligence officer Christopher Steele. Steele delivered his report as a series of two- or three-page memos, starting in June 2016 and continuing through December.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trump–Russia_dossier

Doesn't June precede late July on your calendar?
 
Stretch said:
FBI read it and stated they found no inaccuracies in the Nunez memo.
Click to expand...


FBI statement, Wednesday, Jan 31:

“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.”
 
Jarod said:
That is different. AND only opinion!
Click to expand...

Yep.

"The memo's assertion that the Yahoo article was key seems dubious, too. The argument is that the FBI used circular logic to make its case for a warrant. According to the memo, the agency presented the dossier as evidence against Page, then presented the Yahoo article as additional evidence — even though the dossier and the article were based on the same source, Steele. The accusation is that the FBI used Steele to corroborate Steele.

In reality, the article made was not “derived” from Steele. Isikoff, citing “multiple sources,” reported that U.S. intelligence officials had briefed senior members of Congress on Page's activities in Russia. Isikoff cited a “congressional source familiar with the briefings” to report that “some of those briefed were 'taken aback' when they learned about Page's contacts in Moscow, viewing them as a possible back channel to the Russians that could undercut U.S. foreign policy.”

Isikoff also quoted a “U.S. official who served in Russia at the time” when Page, a few years earlier, first attracted attention for being “a brazen apologist for anything Moscow did.”
Steele does not match the descriptions of these sources. He does match the description of a “well-placed Western intelligence source” cited in the last two paragraphs of the article, whose claims about meetings involving Page also appeared in the dossier.

It is wrong to say that this “Western intelligence source,” presumably Steele, formed the foundation of an article in which at least three other sources featured more prominently."

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news...-news-report-is-wrong/?utm_term=.2b126abf4035
 
Guest said:
Really?

The Trump–Russia dossier, also known as the Steele dossier, is a private intelligence dossier of 17 memos that were consecutively written from June to December 2016 by former MI6 intelligence officer Christopher Steele. Steele delivered his report as a series of two- or three-page memos, starting in June 2016 and continuing through December.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trump–Russia_dossier

Doesn't June precede late July on your calendar?
Click to expand...


You think the FBI started their Russia investigation based on the first installment of the Steele dossier?

Could be, lol. More likely it was being informed of the Papadopoulos link by the Australians. The FBI investigation started in the same month, July 2016. Btw this was the investigation "signed off" by the notorious Strzok.
 
Last edited:
christiefan915 said:
Yep. "The memo's assertion that the Yahoo article was key seems dubious, too. The argument is that the FBI used circular logic to make its case for a warrant. According to the memo, the agency presented the dossier as evidence against Page, then presented the Yahoo article as additional evidence — even though the dossier and the article were based on the same source, Steele. The accusation is that the FBI used Steele to corroborate Steele. In reality, the article made was not “derived” from Steele. Isikoff, citing “multiple sources,” reported that U.S. intelligence officials had briefed senior members of Congress on Page's activities in Russia. Isikoff cited a “congressional source familiar with the briefings” to report that “some of those briefed were 'taken aback' when they learned about Page's contacts in Moscow, viewing them as a possible back channel to the Russians that could undercut U.S. foreign policy.” Isikoff also quoted a “U.S. official who served in Russia at the time” when Page, a few years earlier, first attracted attention for being “a brazen apologist for anything Moscow did.” Steele does not match the descriptions of these sources. He does match the description of a “well-placed Western intelligence source” cited in the last two paragraphs of the article, whose claims about meetings involving Page also appeared in the dossier. It is wrong to say that this “Western intelligence source,” presumably Steele, formed the foundation of an article in which at least three other sources featured more prominently."
Click to expand...

I'm sure that many who are faced with the release of information with potentially criminal implications might wish to suppress that information, or failing that, attempt to discredit it through their allies in the media.

How anyone could believe that the FBI is above such activities after the past year is beyond me. But then, I'm not a DEMOCRAT.
 
Tranquillizers in Equines said:
FBI statement, Wednesday, Jan 31: “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.”
Click to expand...

Sounds like they were circling the wagons to me. What "material omissions of fact that fundamentally impact the memo’s accuracy?"
 
tsuke said:
Andrew McCabe confirmed that no FISA warrant would have been sought from the FISA Court without the Steele dossier information.

-- i think this is the most important thing.
Click to expand...

What say you to this?

"The memo, released on Friday against FBI objections and with Trump’s approval, makes a particular claim against McCabe. In its attempt to claim that ex-British spy Christopher Steele’s salacious dossier played a central role in the surveillance of Trump aides—a claim the memo’s own admissions undermine—the memo claims that McCabe told the House intelligence committee that Steele was a pillar of information for a surveillance warrant application.

“Deputy Director McCabe testified before the Committee in December 2017 that no surveillance warrant would have been sought from the FISC without the Steele dossier information,” the memo claims, referring to the secret Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court.

Asked if that was a true representation, a source familiar with McCabe’s testimony responded: “100% not.”

A senior Democratic House intelligence committee official agreed.

“The Majority purposefully mischaracterizes both what is actually contained in the FISA applications and the testimony of former FBI Deputy McCabe before our committee in December 2017—the Minority’s memo lays out the full facts,” the official said.

https://www.thedailybeast.com/sourc...d-steele-dossier-for-carter-page-fisa-warrant
 
Tranquilizers in Equines said:
Half of you folks are saying it was a "coup", but you don't know that either. It's just wishful thinking.
Click to expand...

What has that to do with me?

It could very well have been a soft coup attempt, as far as anyone knows.

Using a FISA warrant to justify spying on domestic political opponents isn't OK, BTW. Particularly if the applicants failed to disclose to the Court the nature of their probable cause because they knew such a disclosure would result in denial
 
Guest said:
I'm sure that many who are faced with the release of information with potentially criminal implications might wish to suppress that information, or failing that, attempt to discredit it through their allies in the media.

How anyone could believe that the FBI is above such activities after the past year is beyond me. But then, I'm not a DEMOCRAT.
Click to expand...

How could anybody believe that the entire Justice Dept. is corrupt and that there's some secret cabal of traitors trying to bring down trump?

I can't explain that lunacy because I'm not a REPUBLICAN.
 
christiefan915 said:
If this is the smoking gun why won't the repubs allow the release of the minority memo? Couldn't hurt, right?
Click to expand...

Same reason the DEMOCRATS didn't want the majority memo released.

BTW, the minority memo was authorized for release to the full House membership. Didn't you know that?

I'm surprised it hasn't been leaked.
 
Guest said:
Sounds like they were circling the wagons to me. What "material omissions of fact that fundamentally impact the memo’s accuracy?"
Click to expand...


It's an interesting question what Wray will do now the memo is out. He or his proxies may elaborate on the "material omissions of fact that fundamentally impact the memo’s accuracy?"

Btw, was Wray in on the "coup"?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top