FISA Abuse Memo, prediction thread (update post 120 maybe)

Russia was meddling in the election and Obama wanted to be kept informed about it??? You can bet that won't happen in this administration.

That certainly isn't the point. He probably lied about having any communication about surveillance on the Trump campaign because he knows the FISA warrant was obtained without proper evidence.
 
That certainly isn't the point. He probably lied about having any communication about surveillance on the Trump campaign because he knows the FISA warrant was obtained without proper evidence.
The Page warrant? You think Obama gave a shit about the Page warrant?
 
We don't know what the context was about the Obama text. We need more than that to assume he was in on this shit

I want to believe he wasn't.

Why do these 2 FBI agents still have jobs?
 
The Page warrant? You think Obama gave a shit about the Page warrant?

I guess time will tell what evidence exists that Obama knew about surveillance on the Trump campaign, but the text messages that contradict his public statements don't help his cause.
 
Last edited:
Thanks, I caught that earlier today. I'll need to watch out for an independent verification before I believe them.
Wow, this is rich. So THIS is the subject you are going to wait to believe huh?
 
Russia was meddling in the election and Obama wanted to be kept informed about it??? You can bet that won't happen in this administration.

Obama was informed about it. You know what he did? Told Putin to "cut it out".

Man, so much concern over a terrorist attack on democracy, that threatened Americans' way of life. Then again, before Hillary lost, Obama was probably laughing at the idea that some facebook ads were anything to take too seriously.
 
Last edited:
Russia was meddling in the election and Obama wanted to be kept informed about it??? You can bet that won't happen in this administration.
If that is the case what did he do to try and stop it ? It's more about Hillary's investigation and being informed
 
I guess time will tell what evidence exists that Obama knew about surveillance on the Trump administration, but the text messages that contradict his public statements don't help his cause.
Which public statements were contradicted by that text?

Who the hell knows what he knew, and this whole thing about the dnc and Hillary stinks. If he is guilty of any wrongdoing in that regard, fuck him too. But there is zero context to work with here.

Obama was informed about it. You know what he did? Told Putin to "knock it off".

Man, so much concern over a terrorist attack on democracy, that threatened Americans' way of life. Then again, before Hillary lost, Obama was probably laughing at the idea that some facebook ads were anything to take too seriously.
Maybe he should've ordered a giant parade.

If that is the case what did he do to try and stop it ? It's more about Hillary's investigation and being informed
I'm not sure what else the president could do without more information from the investigation, which is presumably why he told them to keep him informed.
 
Which public statements were contradicted by that text?

It would be in the video that was posted by both myself and @JSnake .

"I do not talk to the attorney general about pending investigations. I do not talk to the FBI about pending investigations. I guarantee it. I guarantee their is no political influence in any investigation conducted by the Justice Department or the FBI, not just in this case but in all cases." - Barrack Obama
 
Last edited:
It would be in the video that was posted by both myself and @JSnake .

"I do not talk to the attorney general about pending investigations. I do not talk to the FBI about pending investigations. I guarantee it. I guarantee their is no political influence in any investigation conducted by the Justice Department or the FBI, not just in this case but in all cases." - Barrack Obama
Ok fair enough, that looks like a lie to me, without knowing anything else about that interview. Seems to be about political influence over hilldawgs email investigation?

I just assume most presidents would rightfully be in the loop on any foreign interference with our elections, though. And that isn’t related to internal politics.
 
I guess time will tell what evidence exists that Obama knew about surveillance on the Trump administration, but the text messages that contradict his public statements don't help his cause.

It wasn't surveillance of the Trump administration. It was a warrant application for Page before he had any relationship with trump (regardless, insert a :he hires the best people line here).

Use your head. The president was sending out personal texts to FBI agents because he wanted to "know everything" about a guy unattached to the trump campaign. Because he knew that eventually he would be attached to trump (how) and this would be his downfall. So he wanted to fbi to keep him informed about a warrant application that included a fuckton of evidence to substantiate probable cause, but also in passing referenced a memo that republicans commissioned and paid for only to have democrats also later pay for a copy of. All of which somehow...fuck, I don't even know what the argument here is anymore.

You guys are biting a right wing news clips that are one, obviously false; and two, even if true, don't even amount to legal wrongdoing. I really want one forever trumper to sit down and explain, in at least half-assed detail, what they think the Nunes memo alleges and how that would invalidate said warrant. None of you cucks have even tried.
 
It wasn't surveillance of the Trump administration. It was a warrant application for Page before he had any relationship with trump (regardless, insert a :he hires the best people line here).

Use your head. The president was sending out personal texts to FBI agents because he wanted to "know everything" about a guy unattached to the trump campaign. Because he knew that eventually he would be attached to trump (how) and this would be his downfall. So he wanted to fbi to keep him informed about a warrant application that included a fuckton of evidence to substantiate probable cause, but also in passing referenced a memo that republicans commissioned and paid for only to have democrats also later pay for a copy of. All of which somehow...fuck, I don't even know what the argument here is anymore.

You guys are biting a right wing news clips that are one, obviously false; and two, even if true, don't even amount to legal wrongdoing. I really want one forever trumper to sit down and explain, in at least half-assed detail, what they think the Nunes memo alleges and how that would invalidate said warrant. None of you cucks have even tried.

I am highly skeptical that what the dossier alleged was corroborated. I am highly skeptical that there was a "fuckton" of evidence used to obtain the FISA warrant. I believe it is at best gross incompetence, and at worst an intentional 4th amendment violation that lead to surveillance of the Trump campaign (a political opponent of the sitting President at the time). I believe we will continue to get more information as time goes on.

 
Last edited:
I am highly skeptical that what the dossier alleged was corroborated. I am highly skeptical that there was a "fuckton" of evidence used to obtain the FISA warrant. I believe it is at best gross incompetence, and at worst an intentional 4th amendment violation that lead to surveillance of the Trump campaign (a political opponent of the sitting President at the time). I believe we will continue to get more information as time goes on.

[

So what do you suppose was in the other 400 pages of the warrant application besides additional material to establish probable cause? Every person who's read the memo speaks to it's length and additional evidence. Let me say that again, because you drumphers keep denying it: EVERY SINGLE MEMBER OF THE HOUSE INTELLIGENCE COMMITTEE THAT HAS READ THE WARRANT APPLICATION MENTIONS THAT IT CONTAINS A SHITON OF MORE EVIDENCE THAN THE STEELE DOSSIER.

Repeat that line in your head, and punch yourself in the dick every time you are about to make something similar to the above post.

And that additional info isn't corroborating the dossier. The additional info establishes probable cause (unless you think the judge that granted the warrant, or was incompetent).

Christ. I've worked as a prosecutor. I've drafted warrant requests before. You present to the judge whatever you have to make your case. If one piece of evidence is found to be lacking, the judge correctly ignores it. He doesn't toss the whole application in the bin. He just ignores the one thing he finds lacking and moves on and evaluates the rest on its own merits. So it doesn't matter if the devil himself commissioned bin laden to draft the worlds most biased memo and included it in the application. If the rest of the concluded material gave rise to probable cause, then the warrant should have been issued. Now so far, everyone who's read the memo says there was more to it. Nunes, who admitted that he never read the application, vaguely writes about the dossier. Somehow, you're compelled by the later. Surely it can't be for partisan reasons.
 
So what do you suppose was in the other 400 pages of the warrant application besides additional material to establish probable cause? Every person who's read the memo speaks to it's length and additional evidence. Let me say that again, because you drumphers keep denying it: EVERY SINGLE MEMBER OF THE HOUSE INTELLIGENCE COMMITTEE THAT HAS READ THE WARRANT APPLICATION MENTIONS THAT IT CONTAINS A SHITON OF MORE EVIDENCE THAN THE STEELE DOSSIER.

Repeat that line in your head, and punch yourself in the dick every time you are about to make something similar to the above post.

And that additional info isn't corroborating the dossier. The additional info establishes probable cause (unless you think the judge that granted the warrant, or was incompetent).

Christ. I've worked as a prosecutor. I've drafted warrant requests before. You present to the judge whatever you have to make your case. If one piece of evidence is found to be lacking, the judge correctly ignores it. He doesn't toss the whole application in the bin. He just ignores the one thing he finds lacking and moves on and evaluates the rest on its own merits. So it doesn't matter if the devil himself commissioned bin laden to draft the worlds most biased memo and included it in the application. If the rest of the concluded material gave rise to probable cause, then the warrant should have been issued. Now so far, everyone who's read the memo says there was more to it. Nunes, who admitted that he never read the application, vaguely writes about the dossier. Somehow, you're compelled by the later. Surely it can't be for partisan reasons.
Doubling up on that, even if all the remaining evidence was "only" corroborating the dossier, as opposed to independently establishing probable cause, that would cure defects arising from reliability problems for the purpose of probable cause. Either way its a losing argument. You have to argue that there was nothing else in the application.
 
So what do you suppose was in the other 400 pages of the warrant application besides additional material to establish probable cause? Every person who's read the memo speaks to it's length and additional evidence. Let me say that again, because you drumphers keep denying it: EVERY SINGLE MEMBER OF THE HOUSE INTELLIGENCE COMMITTEE THAT HAS READ THE WARRANT APPLICATION MENTIONS THAT IT CONTAINS A SHITON OF MORE EVIDENCE THAN THE STEELE DOSSIER.

Gowdy does not at all seem to be alleging this in the interview I posted above. Neither has Nunes. Please post a video of any Republican on the house committee claiming that there was "extensive evidence" to justify granting a FISA warrant to surveil the Trump campaign.

Repeat that line in your head, and punch yourself in the dick every time you are about to make something similar to the above post.

And that additional info isn't corroborating the dossier. The additional info establishes probable cause (unless you think the judge that granted the warrant, or was incompetent).

Christ. I've worked as a prosecutor. I've drafted warrant requests before. You present to the judge whatever you have to make your case. If one piece of evidence is found to be lacking, the judge correctly ignores it. He doesn't toss the whole application in the bin. He just ignores the one thing he finds lacking and moves on and evaluates the rest on its own merits. So it doesn't matter if the devil himself commissioned bin laden to draft the worlds most biased memo and included it in the application. If the rest of the concluded material gave rise to probable cause, then the warrant should have been issued. Now so far, everyone who's read the memo says there was more to it. Nunes, who admitted that he never read the application, vaguely writes about the dossier. Somehow, you're compelled by the later. Surely it can't be for partisan reasons.

You are a regular bullshitter, and you have ignored Gowdy's statements. Gowdy once worked as a prosecutor too, and I am willing to bet his credentials and experience exceed your own. To obtain a FISA warrant, officials had to be able to testify under oath that the claims made in the dossier (and any other "evidence" they had) were factual as far as they knew.

You are painting your own reality for your own partisan reasons.
 
Last edited:
I am highly skeptical that what the dossier alleged was corroborated. I am highly skeptical that there was a "fuckton" of evidence used to obtain the FISA warrant. I believe it is at best gross incompetence, and at worst an intentional 4th amendment violation that lead to surveillance of the Trump campaign (a political opponent of the sitting President at the time). I believe we will continue to get more information as time goes on.
It was a neat trick for the FBI to spy on the Trump campaign via an advisor who left the Trump campaign before they obtained the warrant.
 
There's a big reason I like chatting with waigouren over these hacks. I frequently disagree with him, but he's knowledgeable enough that if someone makes a questionable claim, he can point to it as such.

If you do it with these hacks, they'll only question something if it obviously challenges their preferred conclusions, so it'll slip by and they'll even work it into their narrative, changing those facts so it fits.
 
Last edited:
Back
Top