TrumpPutingate III: the beginning of the end

[Vol0725]

The argument I've read from Schiff and other Dems is that Nunes has "cherry picked" his information in the "memo" and this makes it "misleading". Based on his obvious partisanship, that's probably safe to assume.

It's more "secret society" bs.

Of course they are gonna say that. It's about partisanship to Schiff & Crew, not truth.

The F.B.I. had 2 officials review, there were no inaccuracies.

 

[hog88]

Schiff is partisan. However, Nunes has never separated himself as a Trump surrogate. He was a member of the Trump transition team and has a transparent agenda.

And Schiff hasn't separated himself from being a DNC surrogate. What's the difference?

 

[Vol0725]

Is it me, or do dems and libs 'spin-hysterically' the facts and evidence provided whenever it goes against their narrative?

Now hey, the repubs aren't innocent either...but dem/libs go a bit 'out there' with spins; its' kinda crazy

 

[BowlBrother85]

It's highly likely,Fusion GPS and Crowdstrike, the DNC’s private security firm, were among the redacted contractors of the FBI.

Read this:

Five Things Everyone Is Ignoring About The Ru | The Daily Caller

The court’s decision (link below) reveals that the upper echelon of the FBI (such as James Comey, Andrew McCabe, Peter Strzok and others( deliberately gave unlimited and unsupervised access to the most private raw FISA data to a private contractor. (Can you say Fusion GPS and CrowdStrike?)

https://www.dni.gov/files/documents/icotr/51117/2016_Cert_FISC_Memo_Opin_Order_Apr_2017.pdf

Now, lotta homework here...which mainstream media doesnt cover.

How do we know there was really a problem in the FBI and the DOJ? Read the unclassified decision (above link) of the special super-secret FISA Court — especially beginning at page 83. The FISA Court oversees our spy agencies and the massive data collection operations of our federal government. It operates in utmost secrecy — too much secrecy.

The unclassified FISA court decision reveals major violations by the FBI. The FBI gave private contractors illegal access to the all of the raw data collected by the NSA. The Court noted “an institutional ‘lack of candor’ on NSA’s part and emphasized that ‘this is a very serious Fourth Amendment issue.’”

Apparently, the saga for the court began on March 9, 2016, when “DOJ oversight personnel conducting a minimization review of the FBI’s *** [redacted] learned that the FBI had disclosed raw FISA information, including but not limited to Section 702-acquired information.

Reading between the redactions, that disclosure involved an entity “largely staffed by private contractors.”

On top of that, “certain *** [redacted] contractors had access to raw FISA information on FBI storage systems. ***[redacted] the ***[redacted] contractors had access to raw FISA information that went well beyond what was necessary to respond to the FBI’s requests.”

According to the Court, the “FBI discontinued the above-described access to raw FISA information as of April 18, 2016.”

The court continued, noting “Restrictions were not in place with regard to the *** [redacted] contractors; their access was not limited to raw information for which the FBI sought assistance and access continued even after they had completed their work in response to an FBI request.

The court catalogues a separate violation by the FBI, but most of it is redacted. Footnote 68 of the Court’s decision includes the statement that “the government acknowledges that those disclosures were improper for other reasons.”

It gets worse. The court wrote in Footnote 69 that “improper access granted to the * * *[redacted] contractors . . . * * *[redacted] . . . seems to have been the result of deliberate decision-making. * * *[redacted] access to FBI systems was the subject of an interagency memorandum of understanding (presumably prepared or reviewed by FBI lawyers), no notice of this practice was given to the FISC until 2016.”

NSA Director Admiral Michal S. Rogers, whom James Clapper and others sought to have fired, deserves credit for reporting these problems to the FISA court and for stopping the use of the certain queries which facilitated the abuses of the intelligence systems.

tldr... CrowdStrike is a reputable firm. They were retained to investigate the Sony hack and among other recognitions were named to MIT Technology Review's 50 Most Innovative Companies, 2013.

 

[Vol0725]

tldr... CrowdStrike is a reputable firm. They were retained to investigate the Sony hack and among other recognitions were named to MIT Technology Review's 50 Most Innovative Companies, 2013.

Didn't say they 'aren't qualified'.

 

[lawgator1]

Of course they are gonna say that. It's about partisanship to Schiff & Crew, not truth.

The F.B.I. had 2 officials review, there were no inaccuracies.

No.

No, no, no, no, no.

No.

Wray and one other viewed it over the weekend and asked to take it back so the people who know what happened could review it. Nunes said no.

It is very misleading to say those two found no inaccuracies because they don't know what is and is not accurate. They asked to have it seen by people who would and that was denied.

Your reiteration of the misleading Fox talking point is noted.

 

[hog88]

tldr... CrowdStrike is a reputable firm. They were retained to investigate the Sony hack and among other recognitions were named to MIT Technology Review's 50 Most Innovative Companies, 2013.

So they are above any corruption?

 

[hog88]

No.

No, no, no, no, no.

No.

Wray and one other viewed it over the weekend and asked to take it back so the people who know what happened could review it. Nunes said no.

It is very misleading to say those two found no inaccuracies because they don't know what is and is not accurate. They asked to have it seen by people who would and that was denied.

Your reiteration of the misleading Fox talking point is noted.

So the director of the FBI dosen't know what is accurate or not but firing Comey obstructed the FBI investigation?

 

[Vol0725]

No.

No, no, no, no, no.

No.

Wray and one other viewed it over the weekend and asked to take it back so the people who know what happened could review it. Nunes said no.

It is very misleading to say those two found no inaccuracies because they don't know what is and is not accurate. They asked to have it seen by people who would and that was denied.

Your reiteration of the misleading Fox talking point is noted.

Not saying you are lying, I'm tired of researching.

Evidence?

 

[Orange_Crush]

So they are above any corruption?

It was their software that wiped the server.

 

[BowlBrother85]

And Schiff hasn't separated himself from being a DNC surrogate. What's the difference?

Nunes heads the House Intelligence Committee's investigation and has never shown any interest in investigating the hack or any potential collusion between the Russian and the Trump campaign... Only in providing political cover for Trump. He also misrepresented the source of his information last March.

 

[hog88]

Nunes heads the House Intelligence Committee's investigation and has never shown any interest in investigating the hack or any potential collusion between the Russian and the Trump campaign... Only in providing political cover for Trump. He also misrepresented the source of his information last March.

Evidence of these claims?

 

[SpaceCoastVol]

I think you might be missing the point. Any perceived slight, no matter how minor or insignificant, is not tolerated.

it was a joke lizardboy.

 

[SpaceCoastVol]

I'm a white upper middle class suburban heterosexual male. I'm golden.

now if you were just a Cleveland Indians fan, you would be unstoppable.

 

[Vol0725]

Per @MajorCBS: Two administration sources say the Nunes memo is being reviewed today by representatives from DOJ, FBI, NSA, and ODNI. President Trump has not seen the memo.

According to admin sources @realDonaldTrump has NOT seen #GOPMemo - review of House Intel GOP document jointly overseen by NSC/WH Counsel office - DOJ, NSA, FBI, DNI involved. Recommendation skedded for Weds p.m. Full release not certain; other options being weighed.

 

[lawgator1]

So the director of the FBI dosen't know what is accurate or not but firing Comey obstructed the FBI investigation?

Correct n both counts.

 

[BowlBrother85]

Evidence of these claims?

That farce of a press conference. He was taking information to the White House which the White House had given him. Whatever pretense he had of being objective... it ended right there.

 

[lawgator1]

Per @MajorCBS: Two administration sources say the Nunes memo is being reviewed today by representatives from DOJ, FBI, NSA, and ODNI. President Trump has not seen the memo.

According to admin sources @realDonaldTrump has NOT seen #GOPMemo - review of House Intel GOP document jointly overseen by NSC/WH Counsel office - DOJ, NSA, FBI, DNI involved. Recommendation skedded for Weds p.m. Full release not certain; other options being weighed.

Oh sure.

He's completely open minded about it.

Please.

 

[hog88]

Correct n both counts.

:lolabove:

 

[Mick]

Evidence of these claims?

You will have to wait to read the memo. It will show what they are investigating.

 

[Vol0725]

Oh sure.

He's completely open minded about it.

Please.

Why u always be bein'?

 

[Vol0725]

You will have to wait to read the memo. It will show what they are investigating.

My bet, it will be an eye-opener, but 'underwhelming' when it comes to a high-suspense drama.

 

[hog88]

You will have to wait to read the memo. It will show what they are investigating.

I can't wait.

 

[ajvol01]

tldr... CrowdStrike is a reputable firm. They were retained to investigate the Sony hack and among other recognitions were named to MIT Technology Review's 50 Most Innovative Companies, 2013.

Depends on motives. Eric Schmidt was involved with DNC and CrowdStrike.

Wonder what he wanted to find.

 

[Mick]

I can't wait.

I'm interested in what questions will arise after one sifts through the innuendos and accusations.