Posted on 02/02/2018 9:35:17 PM PST by bitt
A Democratic memo written to counter a Republican document released Friday claims that the government presented additional evidence that would undercut the GOP conclusion, according to The New York Times.
Democrats have claimed key information was omitted in the Republican document, which was based on classified documents that have not been released.
Republicans say in their now-public memo that the FBI did not reveal that information underlying a Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) request came from a politically motivated source.
The Democratic countermemo reportedly claims that the FBI did reveal the source of the information was politically motivated, according to two Times sources.
Officials may not have told the FISA court that the information was partially funded by Hillary Clinton's campaign and the Democratic National Committee, the Times reported.
(Excerpt) Read more at thehill.com ...
Officials may not have told the FISA court that the information was partially funded by Hillary Clinton's campaign and the Democratic National Committee......IOW, the countermemo isn't counter to anything but its own purported reason for existence.
“Democrat counter memo” also needs to be approved by the HPSCI, then if there are calls for it to be released, goes through the same procedure for declassification, sent to WH, and only president Trump can ok it to be released.
Remember Nunes’ memo WAS APPROVED by the HPSCI. ONLY AFTER the call of it being released, then Schiff (and others) started calling it a Republican memo.
The democrats didn’t’ say it was the democratic opposition, but a political adversary.... inferring the Russians. Lying by omission.
“This does not undercut the Nunes memo. Far from it. It adds the FISC judge to the jackpot,”
Additionally, this now places the Democrats also admitting that the dossier was a political opposition research document, contradicting their previous position. Maybe Trump should simply announce his appreciation for Pres O and Hillary showing the way on this “shady but legal campaign” tactic and express his excitement to implement similar strategy in 2020.
If the judge is a Rat, he will lie, also.
Isn't this like blaming a store for accepting a counterfeit $100 bill you just printed yourself?
The question right off the top of my head is “What was this political source?” Could be anything. Doesn’t have to exist, or be accurate, or be named. Plus I don’t believe they reported anything of the kind.
And birth certificates.
If the Democrats are wrong, then they are liars.
If the Democrats are right, then the FISA judge knowingly issued a wiretap to help one political party over another.
Let me guess...the Democratic memo says there is additional evidence to support the FISA warrant but they’re not at liberty to talk about it. We’re just suppose to take the FBI’s word.
IMHO The rats have always considered themselves above the law.So their actions had to suggest that they never expected Trump to win and none of this to ever see the light of day with a Hillary administration.
Problem is how many other issues are there where the Obama/Jarrett regime considered themselves above the law and did whatever they wanted.
I'm betting there is a bunch.
They are flinging scat to spin out of their trouble. It has worked before. Talk until everybody is confused, declare victory and move on.
Even better, there may be an electronic record of the hearing. Congress should subpoena it, if it exists. Per The Rules of Procedure for the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court pursuant to 50 U.S.C. § 1803(g)
Title V. Hearings, Orders, and Enforcement
Rule 17. Hearings. (a) Scheduling. The Judge to whom a matter is presented or assigned must determine whether a hearing is necessary and, if so, set the time and place of the hearing.
(b) Ex Parte. Except as the Court otherwise directs or the Rules otherwise provide, a hearing in a non-adversarial matter must be ex parte and conducted within the Court's secure facility.
(c) Appearances. Unless excused, the government official providing the factual information in an application or certification and an attorney for the applicant must attend the hearing, along with other representatives of the government, and any other party, as the Court may direct or permit.
( d) Testimony; Oath; Recording of Proceedings. A Judge may take testimony under oath and receive other evidence. The testimony may be recorded electronically or as the Judge may otherwise direct, consistent with the security measures referenced in Rule 3.
Because the memo claims the FISA warrant was tainted because the FBI allegedly hid the political motivation behind the creation of the memo.
I see there are many of us who feel the same:
1. The judge was told the information was tainted, but didn’t care.’
OR
2. The judge was not told and we are back to original memo.
Question: What judge, in his right mind, is going to say...
“Oh, yeah, I knew the info was crap.”
Interesting to watch.
Is the Steele dossier the primary reason for the Mueller investigation?
Better yet, reveal the FISA application, unredacted. At this point, I don’t trust the government to tell the truth.
But if true, then they are alleging that the FISA court accepted a politically paid-for basis as a reason to allow that political party to use the government resources to spy on the other party... and thus, once again, the FBI, FISA, and others are in major need of overhaul. Either way, the Swamp and the Dems are both in it up to their eyeballs, and apparently are admitting it now.
So now they’ve decidedto throw the Fisa judge underthe bus
It seems Steel talked to some Reporter Iskoff who worked for YAHOO. Iskoff wrote a story on Carter page based on the interview with Steel. Other sources picked up the story line. These stories were then used with the Steele Dossier. The judges were not told the ONLY source of the BS was Steele. So technically the Democrats are correct. But they omit also.
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.