Posted on 02/04/2018 7:27:43 AM PST by markomalley
It's been 20+ years since I had access to classified documents, but the ones that I used had an (s) or (ts) marking for each paragraph that was secret or top secret in addition to the markings on the top and bottom of the page. Also, they were always numbered "1 of 268", "2 of 268"..."268 of 268". This memo has only the TOP SECRET marking at the top and bottom (which was crossed out via declassification) and no paragraph markings and no page counts.
I don't see any reason why this thing should ever have been Top Secret except to protect the guilty maybe.
Also, remember that Mrs. Bill Clinton always made sure to say that she didn't pass along emails marked "Classified". That's true, because documents are marked "Secret" or "Top Secret" (like this memo), and NOT marked "Classified".
I think it is because they never figured Trump would win. And when that happened, they then cobbled together anything and everything to create the Russian collusion narrative to get Trump impeached. It was the only avenue available that would allow the Deep State to continue its corrupt, anti-American citizen activities.
For example, if you use your I-phone to take a picture in a museum of a mockup of a nuclear submarine’s interior, and then claim that you were really inside one when you took the picture, is that a crime?
= = =
Probably could get charged. Something like Counter-espionage on the Fed level. It would depend on the politics of the situation, not any real leakage of information. The outcome of the trial would be political.
PS Don’t point a fake gun at a cop.
“This theory of Adam Schiff is only possibly viable if you believe using the Dossier in a FISA court was legit in the first place.”
Yes it is an attempt by Schiff to deflect by saying if this then the whole memo is wrong. If true it doesn’t change the fact that the spying was done. It would only indicate that the judge had poor judgment or was in on it.
“...or Shift is LYING again.”
Given his history that would be infinitely more likely.
They would had to be in on it, it doesn’t pass the rules of evidence.
Needs to have his security clearances pulled. Stat.
I’m not so sure. He’s dirty, somehow, we just haven’t got proof and when it comes out I think his own party will be leading the charge to get rid of this dirty little shiff. Just like with Franken.
Will be interesting how long it takes for his sexcapades to surface more widely and in more detail.
This youtube has some interesting details on DEM corruption and free speech trashing etc.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UayL0c2Stfc
We have an admin (OBummer) reverse engineering a "crime" to protect themselves.
You misspelled "today", typing "yet" instead.
LOL.
He is a democrat and thus protected from the laws concerning classified information.
And now we have the echo chamber dem media claiming it has been reported that memo is false. Based solely on Shiffhead saying it is so.
There should be no protection for these rats and their conspiracy to abuse and usurp power from WTP.
“The Majority suggests that the FBI failed to alert the court as to Mr. Steele’s potential political motivations or the political motivations of those who hired him, but this is not accurate.”
The FBI may have told the court later and sometime after getting the FISA warrant, but FBI knew the Steele dossier was BS at the time they submitted the evidence to get permission to spy on Page and the Trump campaign.
Schiff just admitted that Russian dossier was BS. He can’t deny Steele’s political motivations.
Let’s also not forget that Comey never notified congressional Intel oversight committee on the investigation until some time in Feb 2017, but he was in frequent contact with WH all along during investigation. Obvious procedural violation. I wonder if Comey was talking to Schiff w/o Nunes being made aware.
I don’t think they’ve written their memo yet.
The court certainly wasn’t aware of the political motivations. The warrant application cites that the source of the dossier was from a “private citizen”. No where does that cite that the citizen paid by the DNC for the work.
"The initial FISA application notes Steele was working for a named U.S. person, but does not name Fusion GPS and principal Glenn Simpson, who was paid by a U.S. law from (Perkins Coie) representing the DNC (even though it was known by DOJ at the time that political actor~ were involved with the Steele dossier). The application does not mention Steele was ultimately working on behalf of-and paid by-the DNC and Clinton campaign, or that the FBI had separately authorized payment to Steele for the same information."
Just who is this "named US person"? Nobody in the media seems terribly interested in this highly relevant fact, and this despite Schiff's blather highlighting the issue.
Here's a guess: His name is either Harry Reid or John McCain, or both.
Exposing the evil Schiff’s blatant lies, hyperbole, and hypocrisy (first he accused Nunes of releasing classified, then he himself released similar) is good. But to accuse him because of what he accuses, it assumes you agree that Nunes was in violation too.
Neither one was in violation of releasing sources or methods. The article even says they likely pulled from unclass portion-marked paragraphs.
In theory, someone could claim Steele was a classified source, but that seems laughable.
Schiff is a (probably compromised) rube and mouthpiece. But he’s not the legal target (yet).
Carter Page had not been under continuous investigation since 2013. At that time, Mr. Page became aware that he was being recruited by Russian agents. He did not hide the fact, but rather he went to the FBI and cooperated in a sting operation that resulted in the exposure of the agents.
The relevant thing about Page is that he was a KNOWN entity to the FBI, and thus he made a convenient stooge for the FBI conspirators, since they knew from his dealings with them that they use these facts to lend credence to their false narrative. They knew they could use Page to get to Trump and other senior campaign members. The object of the Page surveillance was not Page, but Trump.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.