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

[Darkballs]

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.

Hey look, it's more dishonest bullshit!

Nunes says that the funding was not mentioned in the application. It was. The law firms that actually paid for the work were mentioned. You are crying foul that because in addition to naming the funders, they only referred to their clients as Candidate #1.

The memo did disclose the funding, just not their other clients. And that is why the memo is dishonest.

 

[waiguoren]

Nunes calls for redactions to FISA warrant to be removed




Excellent interview. Nunes summarizes his views well.

 

[waiguoren]

Nunes says that the funding was not mentioned in the application

Incorrect. Nunes's memo stated:

Neither the initial application in October 2016, nor any of the renewals, discose or reference the role of the DNC, Clinton campaign, or any party/campaign in funding Steele's efforts, even though the political origins of the Steele dossier were then known to senior DOJ and FBI officials.

The law firms that actually paid for the work were mentioned.

The funds were funneled in the following order:

Hillary Clinton campaign for president ---> Perkins Coie (law firm) ---> Fusion GPS (opposition research firm) ---> Michael Steele

The surveillance application appears to have omitted the first (and most important) link in that chain.

 

[Darkballs]

Name one, please.

Look at all the points raised by the Nunes memo. Then don't play stupid and demand select portions should be viewed in isolation and taken literally. It has been explained to you ad nauseam exactly where the discrepancies lie. Pretending you don't see them, and asking an off topic question, doesn't make them go away.

Troll on buddy.

 

[Darkballs]

Incorrect. Nunes's memo stated:

Neither the initial application in October 2016, nor any of the renewals, discose or reference the role of the DNC, Clinton campaign, or any party/campaign in funding Steele's efforts, even though the political origins of the Steele dossier were then known to senior DOJ and FBI officials.

Jesus christ boy. He's saying the DNC and the Clinton campaign played a part in the funding. They fucking didn't. Firms that represented them did. There's your lie, in plain fucking english.

You need to be thankful that straight up lying isn't a bannable offense.

 

[waiguoren]

You are crying foul that because in addition to naming the funders, they only referred to their clients as Candidate #1.

Candidate #1 was Trump, not Clinton. Notice that the surveillance application never mentions Candidate #2 in the context of funding.

 

[Darkballs]

Candidate #1 was Trump, not Clinton. Notice that the surveillance application never mentions Candidate #2 in the context of funding.

Because Candidate 2 didn't provide the funding. Her fucking firm did.

We've been over this, and you admitted it, only to continue crying that you felt it was necessary to disclose Clinton as a client by name, as opposed to Candidate #2 (happy I got the right number dickweed?).

The bottom line, no matter how much you spin it, the assertion that the funding was not disclosed, is untrue. It was. Clinton did not fund the dossier, her fucking law firm did. That was mentioned. And the judge was free to consider any bias that implied, or to demand the identities of that firm's clients if he felt that was important (and we have no idea if he did).

But for Nunes to suggest that Clinton's name was required in order to understand who funded it, while failing to mention that her law firm was explicitly mentioned, and then redact that mention, is dishonest. There is no way to spin it any other way.

Now you clearly aren't arguing in good faith, and keep bringing up the same lies over and fucking over again.

I'm out. May the mods have mercy on your soul.

 

[waiguoren]

Look at all the points raised by the Nunes memo.

I have.

Then don't play stupid

I haven't.

Then don't....demand select portions should be viewed in isolation and taken literally.

To evaluate the veracity of a complicated document like the Nunes memo, one must isolate portions for analysis.

It has been explained to you ad nauseam exactly where the discrepancies lie.

Actually, you have not found a single discrepancy. The Nunes memo has held up well against your attacks. Now Nunes is asking for all redactions to be removed.

asking an off topic question

You alleged that everything Page said in his interview with Jake Tapper was false. I asked you for a single example and you still haven't produced it.

 

[waiguoren]

He's saying the DNC and the Clinton campaign played a part in the funding. They fucking didn't.

You are alleging that neither the DNC nor the Clinton campaign funded the dossier through the law firm and Fusion GPS?

That contradicts the opening paragraph of this New York Times article from last year:

WASHINGTON — The presidential campaign of Hillary Clinton and the Democratic National Committee paid for research that was included in a dossier made public in January that contained salacious claims about connections between Donald J. Trump, his associates and Russia.

 

[Darkballs]

You are alleging that neither the DNC nor the Clinton campaign funded the dossier through the law firm and Fusion GPS?

Nope, never said that.

You're getting blatant now.

 

[waiguoren]

Because Candidate 2 didn't provide the funding. Her fucking firm did.

Right, Clinton paid for the Steele dossier by funneling the money through a law firm. That's standard operating procedure. Nunes's point is that the FIS Court should have been informed of the ultimate source of the funds.

the assertion that the funding was not disclosed, is untrue

Nunes never asserted that in his memo, and I have not asserted it here. The funding source appears to have been concealed, which was Nunes's point in the memo.

the judge was free to consider any bias that implied, or to demand the identities of that firm's clients if he felt that was important

Correct. Yet the Court approves over 99.9% of surveillance requests (99.97% for the period from 1978 to 2013). It's a rubber stamp. All the more reason why you and I should both support a FISA reform bill.

But for Nunes to suggest that Clinton's name was required in order to understand who funded it, while failing to mention that her law firm was explicitly mentioned

Perkins Coie is a massive law firm. We're talking about 1,000 attorneys and nearly $1 billion in annual revenue. It's obviously not enough just to disclose the name of the firm.

 

[waiguoren]

But for Nunes to suggest that Clinton's name was required in order to understand who funded it, while failing to mention that her law firm was explicitly mentioned, and then redact that mention

Redact that mention? Huh?

If you mean "fail to mention" the name of the law firm, that's false. Page 2 of the Nunes memo, parts 1) and 1) (b) both mention Perkins Coie.

 

[waiguoren]

You are alleging that neither the DNC nor the Clinton campaign funded the dossier through the law firm and Fusion GPS?

Nope, never said that.

Then how am I to interpret the following?

He's saying the DNC and the Clinton campaign played a part in the funding. They fucking didn't.

You wrote that the the DNC and the Clinton campaign didn't play a part in the funding of the Steele dossier. That's demonstrably false. For example:


WASHINGTON — The presidential campaign of Hillary Clinton and the Democratic National Committee paid for research that was included in a dossier made public in January that contained salacious claims about connections between Donald J. Trump, his associates and Russia.

 

[Darkballs]

Redact that mention? Huh?

If you mean "fail to mention" the name of the law firm, that's false. Page 2 of the Nunes memo, parts 1) and 1) (b) both mention Perkins Coie.

And Nunes faults the application for not mentioning the funding, which it did. What the application didn't do, is disclose that the firm's client's name.

You wrote that the the DNC and the Clinton campaign didn't play a part in the funding of the Steele dossier. That's demonstrably false. Here is a link to a New York Times article explaining it.

And the NY times article says exactly what me and other posters have pointed out to you. That the source of the funding was named, as well as any potential bias that source may have had. What it didn't do is specify some of their clients by name.

 

[waiguoren]

What the application didn't do, is disclose that the firm's clients name.

Exactly. That is the core message of the Nunes memo: the FBI/DOJ should have disclosed the funding source of the Steele dossier, but failed to.

 

[Darkballs]

Right, Clinton paid for the Steele dossier by funneling the money through a law firm.

In other words, she paid a law firm. Funneled money? Why not smuggled money to the law firm? Snuck money to the law firm? Bribed the law firm?

Any other dishonest way we can characterize this?

 

[waiguoren]

In other words, she paid a law firm. Funneled money? Why not smuggled money to the law firm? Snuck money to the law firm? Bribed the law firm?

This is what @Limbo Pete would call "thread derailing". You're arguing over minutiae at this point.

The central point of the Nunes memo---that the FBI/DOJ failed to disclose the ultimate funding source of the Steele dossier---has stood strong against your attacks over hundreds of posts.

 

[Darkballs]

This is what @Limbo Pete would call "thread derailing". You're arguing over minutiae at this point.

The central point of the Nunes memo---that the FBI/DOJ failed to disclose the ultimate funding source of the Steele dossier---has stood strong against your attacks over hundreds of posts.

So the funding was explicitly mentioned, but the ultimate funding was not, because that's what clients are, ultimate funders?

Desperation must be sinking in.

 

[Darkballs]

Exactly. That is the core message of the Nunes memo: the FBI/DOJ should have disclosed the funding source of the Steele dossier, but failed to.

And then his core message was a lie, because the source of the funding was mentioned. Or did you mean ultimate funding?

You realize that people can go back and watch you change these definitions whemever it suits you right?

 

[waiguoren]

So the funding was explicitly mentioned, but the ultimate funding was not, because that's what clients are, ultimate funders?

Neither you nor I want to live under a system in which opposing political parties can trigger FBI surveillance of each other without notifying the Court who is funding the background research. Nunes made that point well in the interview I posted above. Check it out.