Congress Criminal Referral Clinton, Comey, McCabe, Lynch, Strzok, and Page to DOJ

[Mick]

AK picture thread - Page 97

 

[SpaceCoastVol]

You don't NEED all those BOD. I will throw myself on a grenade and take a couple off your hands.

 

[BigOrangeD]

AK picture thread - Page 97

Yep.

 

[BigOrangeD]

Foreign actors' accessed Hillary Clinton emails, documents show

'Foreign actors' accessed Hillary Clinton emails, documents show | Fox News

“Foreign actors” obtained access to some of former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton’s emails -- including at least one email classified as “secret” -- according to a new memo from two GOP-led House committees and an internal FBI email.

Fox News obtained the memo prepared by the House Judiciary and Oversight committees, which lays out key interim findings ahead of next week’s hearing with Justice Department Inspector General Michael Horowitz. The IG, separately, is expected to release his highly anticipated report on the Clinton email case later Thursday.

The House committees, which conducted a joint probe into decisions made by the DOJ in 2016 and 2017, addressed a range of issues in their memo including Clinton's email security.

...

Relatedly, Fox News has obtained a May 2016 email from FBI investigator Peter Strzok -- who also is criticized in the House memo for his anti-Trump texts with colleague Lisa Page. The email says that "we know foreign actors obtained access" to some Clinton emails, including at least one "secret" message "via compromises of the private email accounts" of Clinton staffers.

...

 

[NorthDallas40]

Well thought out reply? Did he answer the question of Has anything in the Dossier been proven false? Didn't even come close to addressing that question. All he did was spew sh!t. Well thought out sh!t is more like it.

We’ve sparred over this point before. That’s not how it works. The burden is on the FBI to show validation of the report before it can be used as evidence for a FISA warrant. Without that it’s just opinion and speculation.

Any you always come back with “but it hasn’t been disapproved!” And that isn’t how it works. That’s the answer we’ve given you multiple times. You just refuse to acknowledge it.

 

[Orange_Crush]

Well thought out reply? Did he answer the question of Has anything in the Dossier been proven false? Didn't even come close to addressing that question. All he did was spew sh!t. Well thought out sh!t is more like it.

He showed the ignorance of the question. The standard for use as evidence for a warrant is "has been proven true", not "hasn't been proven false".

That is a true and very important part of the argument, which you swiped aside with reference to nut-filled diarrhea.

It was a sad and pitiable reply unless your goal was to lose any credibility whatsoever in any future discussion.

 

[Mick]

He showed the ignorance of the question. The standard for use as evidence for a warrant is "has been proven true", not "hasn't been proven false".

That is a true and very important part of the argument, which you swiped aside with reference to nut-filled diarrhea.

It was a sad and pitiable reply unless your goal was to lose any credibility whatsoever in any future discussion.

What has been proven true? Since you want to play that way. Get with your cohorts and you can put your brains together and come to the conclusion that there are things that have been verified as true.

 

[Orange_Crush]

What has been proven true? Since you want to play that way. Get with your cohorts and you can put your brains together and come to the conclusion that there are things that have been verified as true.

I'm not sure you're comprehending the point. This is a very bad look for you.

 

[Mick]

I'm not sure you're comprehending the point. This is a very bad look for you.

The dossier claimed Page held secret meetings in Moscow with Igor Sechin, a Putin ally who is the head of Rosneft.

Page vehemently denied that he met with Sechin. But in November, the House Intelligence Committee released a transcript of Page’s congressional testimony revealing he had in fact met with other Rosneft officials, including Sechin's subordinate Andrey Baranov, during a trip to Moscow in 2016.

According to the dossier, Rosneft officials used their meeting with Page to push for the U.S. to lift sanctions on Russia for its support of armed separatist groups in eastern Ukraine. It is now known that the Trump administration sought to water down a proposed Republican Party commitment to send “lethal weapons” to Ukraine’s army to fight off the Russian-backed separatists.

The Trump administration later showed little enthusiasm for implementing or renewing sanctions against Russia. In response, Congress eventually passed a law limiting Trump's ability to lift sanctions, which the president reluctantly signed after issuing a statement condemning it.

Verified: Former Trump campaign adviser Carter Page met with representatives of Russian state-owned oil giant Rosneft.

 

[Mick]

I'm not sure you're comprehending the point. This is a very bad look for you.

You know this is exactly why you get lumped in with the loons. Not a good look for you to constantly make the jacka$$ remarks.

Another thing: You never will have any credibility with your petty comments and ignorance.

Yet another thing the Dossier was not the only thing used to get the fisa warrants on page as he claimed.

 

[Orange_Crush]

You know this is exactly why you get lumped in with the loons. Not a good look for you to constantly make the jacka$$ remarks.

Another thing: You never will have any credibility with your petty comments and ignorance.

Yet another thing the Dossier was not used to get the fisa warrants on page as he claimed.

You sure are a sensitive guy. I merely said that that you missed the point and that it was a very bad look for you. And it was and is.

I pointed out that the criteria for getting a warrant is proof as opposed to not disproven. That's true. Your reply was:

"if you want to play that game..."

Huh? I'm not playing *any* game. I'm stating criteria. And it's not about what I want. I'm stating FICA/legal criteria.

Then you made some strange statement about me and some group... Not sure what you actually said.

The point is that the dossier was unproven, yet the people who asked for the warrant vouched for it.

That's it. That's the point. Anything else you say about this is either severely missed point or a hand waving exercise little better than body function and nut-fill replies.

Further... If merely stating that you missed a point, and it doesn't look good on you is "jackass" replies in your book, then I invite you to lump me in with whatever you so choose.

It's meaningless at that point.

Buck up and grow some skin if you think that's insulting. Either that, or move on to the recruiting forum. Politics ain't for you. Because that wasn't an insult. It was measured and restrained.

 

[Mick]

You sure are a sensitive guy. I merely said that that you missed the point and that it was a very bad look for you. And it was and is.

I pointed out that the criteria for getting a warrant is proof as opposed to not disproven. That's true. Your reply was:

"if you want to play that game..."

Huh? I'm not playing *any* game. I'm stating criteria. And it's not about what I want. I'm stating FICA/legal criteria.

Then you made some strange statement about me and some group... Not sure what you actually said.

The point is that the dossier was unproven, yet the people who asked for the warrant vouched for it.

That's it. That's the point. Anything else you say about this is either severely missed point or a hand waving exercise little better than body function and nut-fill replies.

Further... If merely stating that you missed a point, and it doesn't look good on you is "jackass" replies in your book, then I invite you to lump me in with whatever you so choose.

It's meaningless at that point.

Buck up and grow some skin if you think that's insulting. Either that, or move on to the recruiting forum. Politics ain't for you. Because that wasn't an insult. It was measured and restrained.

When the dossier was used as the key piece of evidence to get a judge's signature on a FISA warrant it was supposed to have already been verified by the agents applying for the warrant.

This is the quote that you are vehemently defending and it is utter BS. I called it out for being BS and you are defending it. That is what it is. Steele going directly to the FBI and telling them what he has heard. It wasn't and never will be "evidence" and it was never characterized as evidence. If it was evidence or had been verified they would not need the FISA warrant now would they? It was something the the DOJ needed to investigate and they used the tool available to them to investigate the claim and that was the FISA warrant. There is nothing illegal or fishy about that.

How he characterized it is BS and and shows complete ignorance of the purpose of getting a FISA warrant. They don't get a warrant because someone committed a crime, they get it to verify or reject information gathered by our and other intelligence sources.

If you don't understand that then it's on you.

 

[Orange_Crush]

This is the quote that you are vehemently defending and it is utter BS. I called it out for being BS and you are defending it. That is what it is. Steele going directly to the FBI and telling them what he has heard. It wasn't and never will be "evidence" and it was never characterized as evidence. If it was evidence or had been verified they would not need the FISA warrant now would they? It was something the the DOJ needed to investigate and they used the tool available to them to investigate the claim and that was the FISA warrant. There is nothing illegal or fishy about that.

How he characterized it is BS and and shows complete ignorance of the purpose of getting a FISA warrant. They don't get a warrant because someone committed a crime, they get it to verify or reject information gathered by our and other intelligence sources.

If you don't understand that then it's on you.

That's not what you did, and we both know it.

You defended the dossier by asking if it had been disproven. People corrected you on that logic. You replied about nut-filled diarrhea.

Then you got overly sensitive when I said you missed the point and it didn't look good on you, as if I'd just called your dog a mutt and your mother a whore.

I'll repeat, at the expense of another hyper-sensitive rebuke. You haven't come out of this conversation looking very good at all.

 

[Mick]

That's not what you did, and we both know it.

You defended the dossier by asking if it had been disproven. People corrected you on that logic. You replied about nut-filled diarrhea.

Then you got overly sensitive when I said you missed the point and it didn't look good on you, as if I'd just called your dog a mutt and your mother a whore.

I'll repeat, at the expense of another hyper-sensitive rebuke. You haven't come out of this conversation looking very good at all.

I said the Fisa abuse was proven false and since bham made a compelling argument that it was still under investigation, I changed it "I misspoke" and It was my opinion that it was based on the actions of the gang of 8 that looked at the evidence. Yes I was man enough to do that. Then AJ comes in with his BS post stating that the dossier had to be proven before they can get the FISA warrant that you defended when it was called out as BS. Fact Fisa is used to gather, verify, or reject information. It didn't have to be proven, just has to jive with other information to establish cause.

Time for you to grow a pair and man up that his narrative was BS. Don't continue looking like a fool defending his ignorant BS.

You fell deftly quiet when I started to play your game and asked what was proven from the Dossier. For One Pages meeting in russia was proven.

 

[Orange_Crush]

I said the Fisa abuse was proven false and since bham made a compelling argument that it was still under investigation, I changed it "I misspoke" and It was my opinion that it was based on the actions of the gang of 8 that looked at the evidence. Yes I was man enough to do that. Then AJ comes in with his BS post stating that the dossier had to be proven before they can get the FISA warrant that you defended when it was called out as BS. Fact Fisa is used to gather, verify, or reject information. It didn't have to be proven, just has to jive with other information to establish cause.

Time for you to grow a pair and man up that his narrative was BS. Don't continue looking like a fool defending his ignorant BS.

You fell deftly quiet when I started to play your game and asked what was proven from the Dossier. For One Pages meeting in russia was proven.

The FISA application then travels to the Justice Department where attorneys from the National Security Division comb through the application to verify all the assertions made in it. Known as “Woods procedures” after Michael J. Woods, the FBI Special Agent attorney who developed this layer of approval, DOJ verifies the accuracy of every fact stated in the application. If anything looks unsubstantiated, the application is sent back to the FBI to provide additional evidentiary support – this game of bureaucratic chutes and ladders continues until DOJ is satisfied that the facts in the FISA application can both be corroborated and meet the legal standards for the court. After getting sign-off from a senior DOJ official (finally!), a lawyer from DOJ takes the FISA application before the FISC, comprised of eleven federal district judges who sit on the court on a rotating basis. The FISC reviews the application in secret, and decides whether to approve the warrant.

Do you know what that means? That means that the evidence used to get a warrant has to be substantiated... i.e. proven. "Well, it wasn't *dis* proven..." isn't the standard. It's double-bad when they sign off on it as substantiated when it's not. And it's triple-bad when they don't disclose that the dossier was funded by Trump's campaign foes.

ETA: Did you notice that? Every fact in the evidence has to be vetted as true. Every fact. Like Trump paying hookers to piss on Obama mattresses. Every fact has to be vetted as true and the requester has to swear that they've vetted them as true.

And again, despite what you posted , "Well, your honor, nobody's proved that Trump *didn't* have hookers piss on Obama mattresses in Russia, so you have no right to refuse this..." isn't anywhere in the statutes.

The case still wouldn’t be FISA bound. FISA warrant investigations can’t be opened “solely on the basis of First Amendment activities,” so mere fraternization, even with sketchy people, wouldn’t be enough.

Do you know what that means? Even if it was proven that a guy was hanging out with sketchy people, it isn't enough.

You were wrong. Own it.

 

[ajvol01]

What has been proven true? Since you want to play that way. Get with your cohorts and you can put your brains together and come to the conclusion that there are things that have been verified as true.

1) FISA warrant application approved: TRUE

2) 3 FISA warrant extensions approved: TRUE

3) Spying on Americans (Carter Page + 2 hops) via above FISA warrant: TRUE

4) Rod Rosenstein and Sally Yates signed approval for FISA warrant application extension: TRUE

 

[NorthDallas40]

1) FISA warrant application approved: TRUE

2) 3 FISA warrant extensions approved: TRUE

3) Spying on Americans (Carter Page + 2 hops) via above FISA warrant: TRUE

4) Rod Rosenstein and Sally Yates signed approval for FISA warrant application extension: TRUE

Basis for granting FISA warrant: ??????

 

[Mick]

Do you know what that means? That means that the evidence used to get a warrant has to be substantiated... i.e. proven. "Well, it wasn't *dis* proven..." isn't the standard. It's double-bad when they sign off on it as substantiated when it's not. And it's triple-bad when they don't disclose that the dossier was funded by Trump's campaign foes.

ETA: Did you notice that? Every fact in the evidence has to be vetted as true. Every fact. Like Trump paying hookers to piss on Obama mattresses. Every fact has to be vetted as true and the requester has to swear that they've vetted them as true.

And again, despite what you posted , "Well, your honor, nobody's proved that Trump *didn't* have hookers piss on Obama mattresses in Russia, so you have no right to refuse this..." isn't anywhere in the statutes.



Do you know what that means? Even if it was proven that a guy was hanging out with sketchy people, it isn't enough.

You were wrong. Own it.

cooroborate - confirm or give support to (a statement, theory, or finding)

Fess up. They couldn't have gotten it by the Dossier alone. There had to be 2 or more sources saying the same thing.

You're more rectum than man.

 

[Orange_Crush]

Basis for granting FISA warrant: ??????

What's interesting is that no one is wiling to release the first page of the investigation, as in "what initiated" it. There have been ever-changing stories about what kicked it off, like all sorts of things that were thrown against the wall through the press, but slid off and hit the floor.

 

[Orange_Crush]

cooroborate - confirm or give support to (a statement, theory, or finding)

Fess up. They couldn't have gotten it by the Dossier alone. There had to be 2 or more sources saying the same thing.

You're more rectum than man.

"Had to be..." eh?

"Supposed to be", sure.

You circle back around and admit that you sounded really stupid with your "it hasn't been *dis* proven" legal standard of FISA evidence?

And as far as the name calling, that says more about you than me. Knock yourself out, Mick. It just shows how deep a paper cut like...

"You missed the point..."

and

"This isn't a good look for you..."

went.

I'm a bit surprised such benign conversation set you off like this. I learned something about you today.

 

[Mick]

Has there been anything in the steele dossier proven false?

Here's the thing Mick.

When the dossier was used as the key piece of evidence to get a judge's signature on a FISA warrant it was supposed to have already been verified by the agents applying for the warrant.

The judge doesn't investigate the evidence - the agents swear the evidence is verified and true.

The dossier was used as evidence for the initial warrant and 3 extensions.

Comey testified the dossier was salacious and unverified in 2017.

Illegal spying on political opponents isn't justifiable. Illegal spying on Americans isn't ok.

Why are the democrats ignoring the facts?

That was your response of choice to his well thought out reply?

Well thought out reply? Did he answer the question of Has anything in the Dossier been proven false? Didn't even come close to addressing that question. All he did was spew sh!t. Well thought out sh!t is more like it.

He showed the ignorance of the question. The standard for use as evidence for a warrant is "has been proven true", not "hasn't been proven false".

That is a true and very important part of the argument, which you swiped aside with reference to nut-filled diarrhea.

It was a sad and pitiable reply unless your goal was to lose any credibility whatsoever in any future discussion.

What has been proven true? Since you want to play that way. Get with your cohorts and you can put your brains together and come to the conclusion that there are things that have been verified as true.

I'm not sure you're comprehending the point. This is a very bad look for you.

There you go. You seem to want to use the "fisa abuse "dis"proven" that was resolved with bham to the question about what has been "dis"proven about the Dossier question AJ was responding to. Now you can either admit that you are confused or FO. I've wasted enough time.

 

[Orange_Crush]

Obstruction: firing Comey is just a small part of it. The draft of the cause, Trump asking him to let the flynn thing go, saying he was fired for the russia thing, the dictation of the Jr. statement about the the Trump tower meeting. There is more there than you want to acknowledge.

Has there been anything in the steele dossier proven false?

Collusion: Trump tower meeting you know the players, and the purpose. The attempt is evident from Russia the bait was taken by the campaign manager, son, and son-in-law. This campaign had more russian liked contacts than Gorbachev.

here is your post, Mick. And why ask what's been proven? The entire point was that your answer to the point that the dossier has been unable to be confirmed by asking whether it's been disproved. That's ignorant. It's not how the FISA worked. When a reasoned reply pointed that out, you answered with a response about nuts and diarrhea. That's when i just commented on an incredibly lame reply.

Other than you getting your feelings hurt... I mean really, apparently... More hurt than reasonably imaginable actually...when i said that you'd missed the point and it was a bad look... Other than that, that's what this was about.

So keep cursing and showing your rear. Like I said, it says more about you than anyone else, no?

 

[ajvol01]

Basis for granting FISA warrant: ??????

Unknown. The DOJ is stonewalling the release of the FISA application.

Alleged by republicans that the Steele dossier was the bulk of the evidence used in the application and 3 extensions.

 

[Mick]

Here's the thing Mick.

When the dossier was used as the key piece of evidence to get a judge's signature on a FISA warrant it was supposed to have already been verified by the agents applying for the warrant.

The judge doesn't investigate the evidence - the agents swear the evidence is verified and true.

The dossier was used as evidence for the initial warrant and 3 extensions.

Comey testified the dossier was salacious and unverified in 2017.

Illegal spying on political opponents isn't justifiable. Illegal spying on Americans isn't ok.

Why are the democrats ignoring the facts?

He showed the ignorance of the question. The standard for use as evidence for a warrant is "has been proven true", not "hasn't been proven false".

That is not a point he even remotely tried to make. Just you

That is a true and very important part of the argument, which you swiped aside with reference to nut-filled diarrhea.

It was a sad and pitiable reply unless your goal was to lose any credibility whatsoever in any future discussion.

This is where you became an a$$

What has been proven true? Since you want to play that way. Get with your cohorts and you can put your brains together and come to the conclusion that there are things that have been verified as true.

After that you spewed as much BS as anyone Because you just wanted to argue and make underhanded remarks. Like I said you are more rectum than man if you cannot admit that you were making a fools arguement to begin with. This is your MO. Too bad I beat you to the corroboration definition since you also like to argue the definition of words. Corroborate does not mean proven.

 

[luthervol]

That is not a point he even remotely tried to make. Just you

That is a true and very important part of the argument, which you swiped aside with reference to nut-filled diarrhea.



This is where you became an a$$



After that you spewed as much BS as anyone Because you just wanted to argue and make underhanded remarks. Like I said you are more rectum than man if you cannot admit that you were making a fools arguement to begin with. This is your MO. Too bad I beat you to the corroboration definition since you also like to argue the definition of words. Corroborate does not mean proven.

OC will continue straining at a gnat while swallowing the camel. Do yourself a favor and move on and let OC have his gnat.