The investigation just GRU by another 12 indictments (Mueller Thread v. 18)

[Cake4Breakfast]

I agree with this, but I also never tried to construe Steele's work that way.

As for Nunes, the memo doesn't say anything like that either. I can understand that you think Nunes had political intentions in writing the memo (I'd agree), but if the facts in the memo are accurate we should be able to consider them.



Huh? The Clinton campaign had the dossier already. They paid for it.

The Clinton campaign didn't have the dossier:

For all the Republicans’ talk of a top-down Democratic plot, Steele and Simpson appear never to have told their ultimate client—the Clinton campaign’s law firm—that Steele had gone to the F.B.I. Clinton’s campaign spent much of the summer of 2016 fending off stories about the Bureau’s investigation into her e-mails, without knowing that the F.B.I. had launched a counter-intelligence investigation into the Trump team’s ties to Russia—one fuelled, in part, by the Clinton campaign’s own opposition research. As a top Clinton-campaign official told me, “If I’d known the F.B.I. was investigating Trump, I would have been shouting it from the rooftops!”

 

[HomerThompson]

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-...fort-trial-until-next-week-idUSKBN1KD1JN?il=0

 

[Cake4Breakfast]

The Nunes memo doesn't make this claim. It claims that the political nature of the funding was not disclosed, which appears to be true.



The Nunes memo also doesn't make this claim.

Yes it was disclosed in a footnote, and the memo states on page 2 section 1A "Neither the initial application in October 2016, nor any of the renewals, disclose or reference the role of the DNC, Clinton campagin, or any party/campaign in funding Steele's efforts, even though the political origins of the Steele dossier were then know to senior DOJ and FBI officials.

 

[waiguoren]

@waiguoren

I did find this about the FBI's history with Page:

On July 7, 2016, two days after Steele met in London with the F.B.I., Carter Page, a Trump foreign-policy adviser, travelled to Moscow, on a campaign-approved visit, and delivered a lecture at the prestigious New Economic School. Page’s remarks were head-turning. He criticized “Washington and other Western capitals” for “their often hypocritical focus on ideas such as democratization, inequality, corruption, and regime change.”

Page was an odd choice for Trump. In New York in 2013, two Russian intelligence operatives had attempted to recruit Page, an oil-industry consultant, although wiretaps revealed that one of the operatives had described him as an “idiot.” The F.B.I. later indicted the two Russian spies, and warned Page that the Kremlin was trying to recruit him, but he continued to pursue oil-and-gas deals in Russia. Ian Bremmer, the president of the Eurasia Group, a risk-consulting firm where Page had previously worked, said that Page had become a pro-Kremlin “wackadoodle.”

Steele didn’t know it, but U.S. authorities were independently monitoring Page. According to the recently released report by the Democratic minority on the House Intelligence Committee, the F.B.I. had interviewed Page about his contacts with Russian officials in March, 2016—the same month that Trump named him an adviser.

Right, and there's a big difference between 1) having a years-old, expired surveillance warrant on the guy + interviewing him earlier in the year and 2) making a new petition to the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court at the end of the year.

Something new probably came up, and the only thing that stands out at this point is the Steele dossier.

Also, no one seems to want to stand up for Page, presumably because he seems like a weiner. But FISC warrants are supposed to be issued for suspected agents of a foreign adversary. Bumbling Carter Page seems very unlikely to have been a Russian spy.

 

[Ophydian]

I’m going to stab my eyes out if something new and fresh and not arguing over the meaning of a word, doesn’t appear. Hate lawyers.

 

[waiguoren]

The Clinton campaign didn't have the dossier:

For all the Republicans’ talk of a top-down Democratic plot, Steele and Simpson appear never to have told their ultimate client—the Clinton campaign’s law firm—that Steele had gone to the F.B.I. Clinton’s campaign spent much of the summer of 2016 fending off stories about the Bureau’s investigation into her e-mails, without knowing that the F.B.I. had launched a counter-intelligence investigation into the Trump team’s ties to Russia—one fuelled, in part, by the Clinton campaign’s own opposition research. As a top Clinton-campaign official told me, “If I’d known the F.B.I. was investigating Trump, I would have been shouting it from the rooftops!”

Read what you posted again.

The Clinton campaign didn't know the FBI was involved.

But the Clinton campaign obviously had the contents of the dossier. They paid for it!

 

[Cake4Breakfast]

Ah yes, best to avoid a 40 post rant about indefinite articles, which i'm glad to have helped prevent.
You're welcome.

I'm just sad nobody liked my samagon and Russian bath house joke.

 

[waiguoren]

Yes it was disclosed in a footnote

The DNC's funding of the dossier was not disclosed in a footnote.

Which page?

the memo states on page 2 section 1A "Neither the initial application in October 2016, nor any of the renewals, disclose or reference the role of the DNC, Clinton campagin, or any party/campaign in funding Steele's efforts, even though the political origins of the Steele dossier were then know to senior DOJ and FBI officials.

Yes, and this appears to be true.

 

[Cake4Breakfast]

Read what you posted again.

The Clinton campaign didn't know the FBI was involved.

But the Clinton campaign obviously had the contents of the dossier. They paid for it!

Okay, you are right on this point, I remembered reading the the DNC lawyer acted as a firewall, but I went back and read that he later did brief some folks in the campaign, they knew ("broadly") about the intelligence, they just didn't know that the FBI was investigating the Trump campaign.

 

[Cake4Breakfast]

The DNC's funding of the dossier was not disclosed in a footnote.

Which page?



Yes, and this appears to be true.

Republican leaders are acknowledging that the FBI disclosed the political origins of a private dossier the bureau cited in an application to surveil former Trump campaign adviser Carter Page, undermining a controversial GOP memo released Friday and fueling Democratic demands to declassify more information about the bureau’s actions.

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

https://www.politico.com/story/2018/02/05/fbi-footnote-carter-page-warrant-390795

 

[curryjunkie]

This might be the most insecure post ever made in the history of the war room.

 

[Cake4Breakfast]

Right, and there's a big difference between 1) having a years-old, expired surveillance warrant on the guy + interviewing him earlier in the year and 2) making a new petition to the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court at the end of the year.

Something new probably came up, and the only thing that stands out at this point is the Steele dossier.

Also, no one seems to want to stand up for Page, presumably because he seems like a weiner. But FISC warrants are supposed to be issued for suspected agents of a foreign adversary. Bumbling Carter Page seems very unlikely to have been a Russian spy.

I think it's spelled out there why: " Page was an odd choice for Trump" the FBI had "warned Page that the Kremlin was trying to recruit him, but he continued to pursue oil-and-gas deals in Russia. Ian Bremmer, the president of the Eurasia Group, a risk-consulting firm where Page had previously worked, said that Page had become a pro-Kremlin “wackadoodle.” and that "the F.B.I. had interviewed Page about his contacts with Russian officials in March, 2016—the same month that Trump named him an adviser."

 

[waiguoren]

Republican leaders are acknowledging that the FBI disclosed the political origins of a private dossier the bureau cited in an application to surveil former Trump campaign adviser Carter Page, undermining a controversial GOP memo released Friday and fueling Democratic demands to declassify more information about the bureau’s actions.

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

https://www.politico.com/story/2018/02/05/fbi-footnote-carter-page-warrant-390795

Well now you're going in circles.

That Politico article is almost six months old and references the document that we got access to yesterday.

We now know for sure that the "footnote" in question does not disclose that the DNC or the Clinton campaign funded the dossier. It just says that Steele was paid to find information that would discredit Trump's campaign. So on this point, Nunes has been vindicated.

 

[waiguoren]

I think it's spelled out there why: " Page was an odd choice for Trump" the FBI had "warned Page that the Kremlin was trying to recruit him, but he continued to pursue oil-and-gas deals in Russia. Ian Bremmer, the president of the Eurasia Group, a risk-consulting firm where Page had previously worked, said that Page had become a pro-Kremlin “wackadoodle.” and that "the F.B.I. had interviewed Page about his contacts with Russian officials in March, 2016—the same month that Trump named him an adviser."

Ok, now we're moving away from the memo and into Carter Page territory. Just want to make that clear.

FBI had already surveilled Page through the FISC two years prior on suspicion of being a Russian agent. DOJ never brought charges. I guess they didn't find anything justifying a prosecution.

There is nothing illegal or even suspicious about pursuing oil and gas deals in Russia. That doesn't make someone a Russian agent. By a similar standard, some of my own business dealings make me an agent various foreign governments. Also, giving pro-Kremlin speeches does not make one a Russian agent.

 

[waiguoren]

I’m going to stab my eyes out if something new and fresh and not arguing over the meaning of a word, doesn’t appear. Hate lawyers.

I can understand getting bogged down in minutiae and wanting a big-picture view.

Basically, the past hundreds of posts have been about the veracity of the Nunes memo in light of the new release of the Carter Page surveillance applications.

My view is that the central claim of the Nunes memo---that the Steele dossier's funding source was not disclosed to the Court---is bolstered by the release. That's because of multiple footnotes of the surveillance application which don't mention the DNC or the Clinton campaign (the funding source of the Steele dossier).

 

[waiguoren]

@SBJJ

Check this out. If Page is being truthful, the FISA process is in dire need of reform. Also, check out the lunatic comments on the video.

 

[Darkballs]

[
Check this out. If Page is being truthful, the FISA process is in dire need of reform.

So no issues then.

 

[waiguoren]

So no issues then.

On which specific point do you accuse Page of being untruthful?

 

[Darkballs]

On which specific point do you accuse Page of being untruthful?

Everyone, so much as you don't pretend to take everything literally.

 

[waiguoren]

Everyone, so much as you don't pretend to take everything literally.

Name one, please.