Can someone break down this whole Nunes Memo thing?

[YamatoTwinkie]

@Buck_Godot

So that without the dossier they wouldn’t have sought the FISC since they didn’t have confirmation, but that the FISC wasn’t based primarily on the dossier.

As mentioned previously, Page was on the FBI’s radar already for 2013 contacts with Russian intelligence.

The memo also confirms that the FISA warrant was extended* three *times, and each time required “a separate finding of probable cause.” Which points to the fact that, regardless of Steele’s supposed bias, maybe some of the stuff in the Steele memo was true after all.

It also confirms that Papadopolous was under investigation by the FBI prior to Page.

[RickJay]

@Fotheringay-Phipps

Your post here is ludicrous. (In general, your posts on Trump-related matters seem unhinged, IMHO.)

My posts on Trump and essentially all matters are intelligent and reasoned.

In this case, suggestions that there might have been a politically motivated aspect to the investigation rest partially on the fact that one key agent was extremely hostile to Trump, and that a senior FBI agent’s spouse received substantial financial support from Clinton allies (he eventually recused himself, but only after the WSJ exposed this), and he was suspected by other FBI agents of dragging his feet on Clinton investigations. But also on the fact that one other senior DOJ official had a spouse who worked for Fusion/GPS and was presumably involved in the dossier (she was a Russia expert).

How many of those people are named Robert Mueller? A specific number, please.

[iiandyiiii]

At least one inaccuracy:

A Significant Inaccuracy in #TheMemo Calls Its Credibility Into Question

Nunes claims that James Comey testified in June 2017 that “the Steele dossier” was “salacious and unverified.” The claim is not that a particular portion of the dossier is salacious and unverified. The claim is that Comey testified that the dossier (“it”) is salacious and unverified. That’s what Nunes says in the memo excerpt above.

And it’s not true. That’s not James Comey’s testimony.

<snip>

Later in his testimony, Comey referred to certain material as “salacious and unverified” — but he later implied that there were parts of the dossier that were verified and parts that were not. Here is the testimony where Comey used the term “salacious and unverified”:

SEN. SUSAN COLLINS: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Comey, let me begin by thanking you for your voluntary compliance with our request to appear before this committee and assist us in this very important investigation. I want first to ask you about your conversations with the president, three conversations in which you told him that he was not under investigation. The first was during your January 6th meeting, according to your testimony, in which it appears that you actually volunteered that assurance. Is that correct?

COMEY: That’s correct.

COLLINS: Did you limit that statement to counterintelligence invest — investigations, or were you talking about any FBI investigation?

COMEY: I didn’t use the term counterintelligence. I was briefing him about salacious and unverified material. It was in a context of that that he had a strong and defensive reaction about that not being true. My reading of it was it was important for me to assure him we were not person investigating him. 

Note well: Comey doesn’t say the entire dossier is “salacious and unverified.” He says he briefed the President about “salacious and unverified material.”

[SingleMalt]

As I understand it, the elements of the Steele dossier fall into one of three buckets: Verified, Unverified, and Disproved, and so far, that last bucket remains empty.

Here’s a Newsweek rundown from last month.

[Rick_Kitchen]

@Fotheringay-Phipps

It seems that Schiff is denying outright that the nature of the dossier was not disclosed in the application.

You’re conflating the Mueller investigation and the memo about the FBI/DOJ. Gowdy is making this distinction.

Senator Ron Wyden disagrees with you.
“This laughable hack job of a memo was a whole lot of nothing, hyped up to undermine the Mueller investigation.”

[Snarky_Kong]

@Slash1972

Sure. But damaging to an investigation is very different than causing exceptionally grave damage to the national security of the United States.

Depends on the investigation.

Blown counter-intelligence investigation? Damn right it’s grave.

[nate]

@HurricaneDitka

I know it doesn’t matter to anyone but me and maybe you, but I’d appreciate a straightforward answer to my straightforward question nonetheless. What’s your best guess about the veracity of the dossier? If your too embarrassed / ashamed to answer publicly you could even PM me your answer.

According to the memo, the investigation started months before the dossier was included in evidence to request a warrant. If you’ve read the dossier, you’d be rightly concerned if the document was the only piece evidence the court needed to issue a warrant.

But do you really think the FBI and the court are that incompetent? Or do you think the FBI is stacked full of left-wing investigators and supervisors and the FISA court is also full of anti-trumpers and they worked together to issue wiretapping warrants so they could spy on the Trump campaign? And then, in thier grand plan, keep the investigation secret and wait until after the election to leak the dossier?

The dossier consists of several reports, some have been corroborated by unclassified evidence and some have not. That’s all we know. The author doesn’t even believe it’s 100% accurate, they are reports from sources without hard evidence. I would hope the FBI used this as a tool in the investigation, but to claim that the dossier is what the entire investigation relies on is flat out false.

[Fotheringay-Phipps]

@RickJay

My posts on Trump and essentially all matters are intelligent and reasoned.
How many of those people are named Robert Mueller? A specific number, please.

Apparently not “intelligent and reasoned” enough to distinguish between the FBI/DOJ investigation and the later Mueller one. IOW, not very.

[HurricaneDitka]

@SingleMalt

As I understand it, the elements of the Steele dossier fall into one of three buckets: Verified, Unverified, and Disproved, and so far, that last bucket remains empty.

Here’s a Newsweek rundown from last month.

Your Newsweek cite doesn’t appear to have those three buckets. They seem to divide things up into “Verified” and “Not proven”.

[Snarky_Kong]

@iiandyiiii

At least one inaccuracy:

A Significant Inaccuracy in #TheMemo Calls Its Credibility Into Question – RedState

You can call it a lie. The chairman of the House intelligence committee with the approval of the Speaker and the President is lying to the American public in order to derail the investigation into Russian meddling.

[sciurophobic]

Rosenstein just needs to tell Trump that the Page investigation has nothing to do with the Russia investigation since Page wasn’t part of the Trump campaign (as several campaign spokespersons have stated) and so his claims that he was could unfairly link his independent activities to Trump. And so therefore Rosenstein could argue his action is proof of his loyalty to Trump.

[HurricaneDitka]

@Ravenman

… So what’s your opinion on the veracity or credibility of the dossier?

Overall, I’d rate it low, but I don’t claim to have chapter and verse to cite on every point.

[k9bfriender]

@HurricaneDitka

Your Newsweek cite doesn’t appear to have those three buckets. They seem to divide things up into “Verified” and “Not proven”.

That’s because the third bucket is empty.

[Sage_Rat]

@HurricaneDitka

I might just be too tired this morning. Let’s start with a simple one. Could you explain to me what is vastly misleading about your middle paragraph?

Imagine that you knew nothing about WWII, except the Nazis and that one sentence.

As phrased, saying that Japan got the US involved in the war, allowing for the defeat of the Nazis, is implying that the Japanese were a force for good, that they did something (lobbying? diplomacy?) that convinced the US to enter the war. It also implies that they did this in the aim of fighting the Nazis and so presumably did other things to help that struggle.

Obviously, none of that is true. The Japanese didn’t “convince the US to fight the Nazis”. They were the ally of the Nazis who attacked us, in the hopes that we’d leave the both of them alone.

From the way that Nunes describes McCabe’s testimony, it would be just as fair to assume that McCabe was describing Steele in the same way that one might describe Audie Murphy: “If it weren’t for Audie Murphy, we never would have won the war.”

By way of context, we’re prepped to believe that Steele is bad and that McCabe is speaking in literal terms. You could just as easily assume that McCabe was speaking of Steele as a hero and speaking in hyperbole. It would also be just as reasonable to read him as saying that Steele’s information was the last straw of a 100 straws that broke the camel’s back. It was the cherry on top that made them decide it was time to investigate the matter more deeply.

[HurricaneDitka]

@k9bfriender

That’s because the third bucket is empty.

So is the fourth bucket of “true”.

I guess we could play this game where we continue to make up imaginary buckets that are empty, but I hope my response above illustrates just how silly that is.

[Ravenman]

@HurricaneDitka

Overall, I’d rate it low, but I don’t claim to have chapter and verse to cite on every point.

How do you have a basis to evaluate it?

[HurricaneDitka]

@Ravenman

How do you have a basis to evaluate it?

James Comey called parts of it “salacious and unverified”. Newsweek pointed out several portions that were “Not proven”. According to nate “The author doesn’t even believe it’s 100% accurate”.

[Aspenglow]

@D_Anconia

And precisely how do you know this? The Court’s proceedings are secret. Its rulings, and the judges’ reasoning behind the rulings, are not publically released.

Working with judges for 20+ years gave me pretty good insight into how they view and execute their work.

There are 11 FISA Court judges. They are assigned by Justice John Roberts from SCOTUS. They are judges who are well respected among their peers.

I’m not going to prove a negative to you. If you have evidence that any FISA Court judge doesn’t understand his duties and obligations under the rule of law, by all means present it.

[Aspenglow]

@HurricaneDitka

So is the fourth bucket of “true”.

I guess we could play this game where we continue to make up imaginary buckets that are empty, but I hope my response above illustrates just how silly that is.

It just means you lack understanding. There are only 3 buckets, and there can’t be any more than 3 buckets.

True
Unverified
Untrue

To date, everything falls into the first two buckets only. My understanding based on comments made by various officials is that about a third of the dossier has been proved true to date.

What other bucket would you add?

[k9bfriender]

@HurricaneDitka

So is the fourth bucket of “true”.

I guess we could play this game where we continue to make up imaginary buckets that are empty, but I hope my response above illustrates just how silly that is.

No, not at all.

There are three things that theice piece of info can be.

They can be verified. They can be unverified. They can be disproven.

That is three buckets.

There are many things in the first bucket, the “verified”, or if you prefer, “true”, bucket.

There are some things in the second bucket, the unverified. These are allegations that have not been disproven, but not proven.

Then there is the third bucket. That is the piece of info that have been proven to be false. That bucket is empty.

Your response above does not in any way shape or form show that anything that I have said is silly, and I am playing no games. I answered your question as directly and completely as possible. You specifically asked about the fact that the piece only talked about the two buckets, wondering where the third was. I responded factually and usefully that that third bucket was not brought up because there is nothing in it.

I did not make up any buckets. You did. I am not playing a game.