Grassley's Oversight Investigation into the political corruption of the FBI and DOJ

[koriwhat]

Pavlov why the sudden no comment on these texts after happily discussing the Strzok texts yesterday?

because pav is a tool and only wants to troll.

[Chris]

[TSA]

You forgot muh Nunes.

Jesus.

Those were the two texts you quoted. You are really having trouble explaining how I am bashing Wray so why don’t you just give a specific example that supports your claim.

[Chris]

Word is Obama has already lawyered up

[koriwhat]

Those were the two texts you quoted. You are really having trouble explaining how I am bashing Wray so why don’t you just give a specific example that supports your claim.

he can't because he's a ing chump. lol

[Chris]

[Chris]

Panic mode - release the bots!

[monosylab1k]

Word is Obama has already lawyered up

[koriwhat]

how life since coming out? you were a tough G back in the day until you were exposed for catfishing this whole forum with a photo of some mexican sancho of yours.

[Reck]

I personally think the Obama Justice Department was politically corrupt going back at least to fast and furious.

I can also understand why blue team doesnt want to admit it.

Rod Rosenstein and Christopher Wray being in the blue team.

[monosylab1k]

how life since coming out? you were a tough G back in the day until you were exposed for catfishing this whole forum with a photo of some mexican sancho of yours.

wrong mav krew member, and it’s good to know he’s still trolling you years later.

[DMX7]

Even Trump's lawyers have lawyers.

[TSA]

[Reck]

Nunes with det self owned.

[TSA]

Nunes with det self owned.

You people are ing clueless. All the amendments Nunes added to the 702 reauthorization specifically stopped the surveillance of American citizens. You are having a rough night, if the memo is released tomorrow it only gets worse for you. Log off, regroup, and get some sleep. You’ve got a long and brutal day of semen shielding ahead of you.

[Reck]

You people are ing clueless. All the amendments Nunes added to the 702 reauthorization specifically stopped the surveillance of American citizens. You are having a rough night, if the memo is released tomorrow it only gets worse for you. Log off, regroup, and get some sleep. You’ve got a long and brutal day of semen shielding ahead of you.

He did? Funny because the only thing that happened was they voted to extend the 702 for an additional 6 years. Nothing was ammended. It was merely a re-authorization of the bill.

You're just a re .

[TSA]

He did? Funny because the only thing that happened was they voted to extend the 702 for an additional 6 years. Nothing was ammended. It was merely a re-authorization of the bill.

You're just a re .

You couldn’t shove your foot any farther in your mouth if you tried you stupid

https://intelligence.house.gov/uploa..._bill_text.pdf

[TSA]

Memo Reading for Nonpartisans

Ignore the spin. When the do ent goes public, here’s what to look for.

The White House looks set to release the House Intelligence Committee memo on 2016 government surveillance abuses, which means the attacks on the do ent by Democrats, the Federal Bureau of Investigation and the media are going to get wilder. To help navigate through the spin, here’s a handy guide for what to look for, and what to ignore:

• Rationale. Did the FBI have cause to open a full-blown counterintelligence probe into an active presidential campaign? That’s a breathtakingly consequential and unprecedented action and surely could not be justified without much more than an overheard drunken conversation or an unsourced dossier. What hard evidence did the FBI have?

• Tools and evidence. Government possesses few counterintelligence tools more powerful or frightening than the ability to spy on American citizens. If the FBI obtained permission from the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court to monitor Trump aide Carter Page based on information from the Christopher Steele dossier, that in itself is a monumental scandal. It means the FBI used a do ent commissioned by one presidential campaign as a justification to spy on another. Ignore any arguments that the dossier was not a “basis” for the warrant or only used “in part.” If the FBI had to use it in its application, it means it didn’t have enough other evidence to justify surveillance.

Look to see what else the FBI presented to the court as a justification for monitoring, and whether it was manufactured. Mr. Steele and his client, Fusion GPS, ginned up breathless news stories about the dossier’s unverified accusations in September 2016 in order to influence the election. The FBI sometimes presents news articles to the court, but primarily for corroboration of other facts. If the FBI used the conspiracy stories Mr. Steele was spinning as actual justification—evidence—to the court, that’s out of bounds.

• Omissions and misdirection. What else did the FBI tell the court? One would presume the bureau did its due diligence and knew Mr. Steele ultimately worked for the Hillary Clinton campaign and the Democratic National Committee. The FISA court puts considerable emphasis on the credibility of sources. Did the FBI inform the court of the Clinton connection? Or did it lean on the claim that the Fusion project was originally funded by Republicans? Such a claim might diminish the partisan stench. But it would also be a falsehood, since the dossier portion of the project was purely funded by Clinton allies. And if the FBI didn’t bother to ask who hired Mr. Steele or Fusion, that’s a scandal all its own.

Also, look to see whether the FBI informed the court that Mr. Steele was blabbing to the press. When he first approached the bureau in July, he hadn’t yet briefed the media. But by September he and Fusion were publicly spinning the dossier for their Democratic client, and the FBI would have known who was generating the stories. Did the FBI continue to attest something that clearly was no longer true?

• Duration of surveillance. The FBI may argue it had good cause to look into Mr. Page. But if months of wiretaps didn’t turn up anything (and surely we’d have heard if they did), the FBI also had a duty to cease such a liberty-busting intrusion. Ask how long this probe went on and whether it was justified, or if the FBI was simply giving itself an open-ended license to spy on a campaign.

Expect Trump critics to renew their effort to turn Mr. Page into a Manchurian aide, seizing on his every action or word while ignoring the small role he played in the campaign, not to mention his obvious oddness. This will be designed to make people forget that for all the focus on Mr. Page, he was and remains a private citizen, who apparently was subject to months of government monitoring based on what may prove nothing more than the gossip of a rival campaign.

• Team Obama. Somewhat lost in this narrative is what role if any the broader Obama administration might have played with regard to the dossier. What actions were taken by former CIA Director John Brennan, or former Director of National Intelligence James Clapper ? Also don’t forget Bruce Ohr, the Justice Department official whose wife worked for Fusion GPS, and who himself met with Fusion cofounder Glenn Simpson. Or the Justice Department officials who approved court filings. If there was surveillance abuse, accountability shouldn’t stop with the FBI.

Mostly, ignore what is certain to be a nonstop shriek that this memo is out of context, that it omits facts or cherry-picks data or makes unfair allegations. You know, sort of like what Democrats and the media did this past year in their “Russia investigation.” The difference here is that the memo only needs to provide a few facts for the country to understand if there was FISA abuse.

The rest is noise.

https://www.wsj.com/amp/articles/mem...mpression=true

[TSA]

He did? Funny because the only thing that happened was they voted to extend the 702 for an additional 6 years. Nothing was ammended. It was merely a re-authorization of the bill.

You're just a re .

[Chris]

Reck

[Pavlov]

Trump's Deputy AG that Trump appointed is going to have a terrible day?

lol

[Pavlov]

Memo Reading for Nonpartisans

Ignore the spin. When the do ent goes public, here’s what to look for.

The White House looks set to release the House Intelligence Committee memo on 2016 government surveillance abuses, which means the attacks on the do ent by Democrats, the Federal Bureau of Investigation and the media are going to get wilder. To help navigate through the spin, here’s a handy guide for what to look for, and what to ignore:

• Rationale. Did the FBI have cause to open a full-blown counterintelligence probe into an active presidential campaign? That’s a breathtakingly consequential and unprecedented action and surely could not be justified without much more than an overheard drunken conversation or an unsourced dossier. What hard evidence did the FBI have?

• Tools and evidence. Government possesses few counterintelligence tools more powerful or frightening than the ability to spy on American citizens. If the FBI obtained permission from the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court to monitor Trump aide Carter Page based on information from the Christopher Steele dossier, that in itself is a monumental scandal. It means the FBI used a do ent commissioned by one presidential campaign as a justification to spy on another. Ignore any arguments that the dossier was not a “basis” for the warrant or only used “in part.” If the FBI had to use it in its application, it means it didn’t have enough other evidence to justify surveillance.

Look to see what else the FBI presented to the court as a justification for monitoring, and whether it was manufactured. Mr. Steele and his client, Fusion GPS, ginned up breathless news stories about the dossier’s unverified accusations in September 2016 in order to influence the election. The FBI sometimes presents news articles to the court, but primarily for corroboration of other facts. If the FBI used the conspiracy stories Mr. Steele was spinning as actual justification—evidence—to the court, that’s out of bounds.

• Omissions and misdirection. What else did the FBI tell the court? One would presume the bureau did its due diligence and knew Mr. Steele ultimately worked for the Hillary Clinton campaign and the Democratic National Committee. The FISA court puts considerable emphasis on the credibility of sources. Did the FBI inform the court of the Clinton connection? Or did it lean on the claim that the Fusion project was originally funded by Republicans? Such a claim might diminish the partisan stench. But it would also be a falsehood, since the dossier portion of the project was purely funded by Clinton allies. And if the FBI didn’t bother to ask who hired Mr. Steele or Fusion, that’s a scandal all its own.

Also, look to see whether the FBI informed the court that Mr. Steele was blabbing to the press. When he first approached the bureau in July, he hadn’t yet briefed the media. But by September he and Fusion were publicly spinning the dossier for their Democratic client, and the FBI would have known who was generating the stories. Did the FBI continue to attest something that clearly was no longer true?

• Duration of surveillance. The FBI may argue it had good cause to look into Mr. Page. But if months of wiretaps didn’t turn up anything (and surely we’d have heard if they did), the FBI also had a duty to cease such a liberty-busting intrusion. Ask how long this probe went on and whether it was justified, or if the FBI was simply giving itself an open-ended license to spy on a campaign.

Expect Trump critics to renew their effort to turn Mr. Page into a Manchurian aide, seizing on his every action or word while ignoring the small role he played in the campaign, not to mention his obvious oddness. This will be designed to make people forget that for all the focus on Mr. Page, he was and remains a private citizen, who apparently was subject to months of government monitoring based on what may prove nothing more than the gossip of a rival campaign.

• Team Obama. Somewhat lost in this narrative is what role if any the broader Obama administration might have played with regard to the dossier. What actions were taken by former CIA Director John Brennan, or former Director of National Intelligence James Clapper ? Also don’t forget Bruce Ohr, the Justice Department official whose wife worked for Fusion GPS, and who himself met with Fusion cofounder Glenn Simpson. Or the Justice Department officials who approved court filings. If there was surveillance abuse, accountability shouldn’t stop with the FBI.

Mostly, ignore what is certain to be a nonstop shriek that this memo is out of context, that it omits facts or cherry-picks data or makes unfair allegations. You know, sort of like what Democrats and the media did this past year in their “Russia investigation.” The difference here is that the memo only needs to provide a few facts for the country to understand if there was FISA abuse.

The rest is noise.

https://www.wsj.com/amp/articles/mem...mpression=true

The Journal has been spinning this from the beginning and is hugely partisan.

[Pavlov]

Those were the two texts you quoted. You are really having trouble explaining how I am bashing Wray so why don’t you just give a specific example that supports your claim.

Sorry, you need to review all your tweet posts and see what you've been doing.

You won't do it.

[Reck]

You couldn’t shove your foot any farther in your mouth if you tried you stupid

https://intelligence.house.gov/uploa..._bill_text.pdf

Skip to 1:55 since I know you're a lazy got.



Or since I know you like to read quotes:

Devin Nunes: "As threats to Americans home and abroad increase by the day, now is not the timing to be weakening our national security"

Why are you going full re posting a link to the bill that they passed which had no real ammendments added other than continuing the program as it was?

All the amendments Nunes added to the 702 reauthorization specifically stopped the surveillance of American citizens.

Devin Nunes: "As threats to Americans home and abroad increase by the day, now is not the timing to be weakening our national security"

Nunes stopped it alright. By not doing a thing to the bill and just passing it.

[Reck]

All the amendments Nunes added to the 702 reauthorization specifically stopped the surveillance of American citizens.

But wait...get a load of how much winning Nunes did.

But Chairman Devin Nunes threw a monkey wrench into the process, by initially pushing to include in the bill an unrelated a provision on so-called unmasking, the process that intelligence agencies use to reveal the names of U.S. persons who may be involved in crimes like spying.

Nunes was ultimately forced to strip the provision, which was far from the only hurdle the Section 702 reauthorization had to clear.

Yet the committee lost time throughout that period, in part because of Nunes’ insistence on including the unmasking provision. Republicans on the panel, sources said, went along, but mostly to humor the chairman.

They think of Nunes as an annoying child. Can you say cuck?

The House will introduce a legislation to preserve Section 702 on Tuesday—just 10 days before its deadline.

Can you tell me what the definition of preserve is, TSA?

We continue..

Nunes conceded his bill was dead. A stopgap measure in the Continuing Resolution punted Section 702 reconsideration to Jan. 19.

Now, absent the unmasking provision, the House Intelligence Committee may still get its way.

https://www.thedailybeast.com/devin-...eillance-power

Can you tell me what happened next, TSA?