Nunes Memo to be Released

[3rdnlng]

14 minutes ago, Bob in Mich said:

Jimmy Kimmel is keeping track of Trump's lies

 

Pants of Fire : The Road to 2000 Lies

 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qQruDaf7bKs

 

or this one  https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/fact-checker/wp/2018/01/10/president-trump-has-made-more-than-2000-false-or-misleading-claims-over-355-days/?utm_term=.c63d3da21f42

 

 

Ah, the Jimmy Kimmel News Network. That video was fraught with horseshit, but the one thing that stood out was the "lie" about him being wiretapped. Not quite so much of a lie anymore, eh? Posts like the above are why you are viewed so poorly here and Tom calls you an idiot. Now do you understand?

[Deranged Rhino]

[Tiberius]

5 minutes ago, Deranged Rhino said:

Repeating Trump's lies? 

[Cinga]

I'm compressed.... Jimmy Kimmel and the WaPo factcheck are really good lists for whom? Certainly not the truth brigade... Comeon Tibs, you must be keeping one on your own with all these accusations you make.

Edited February 12, 2018 by Cinga

[Tiberius]

1 minute ago, Cinga said:

I'm compressed.... Jimmy Kimmel and the WaPo factcheck are really good lists for whom? Certainly not the truth brigade... Comeon Tibs, you must be keeping one on your own with all these accusations you make.

You don't think he has said major, and obvious and easily provable lies? That would say a lot about you. 

 

And no, I don't need any sources to remember them. 

[Cugalabanza]

33 minutes ago, 3rdnlng said:

...the "lie" about him being wiretapped. Not quite so much of a lie anymore, eh?

 

What is the evidence that Trump was in fact "wiretapped?"  I know the assumption is that he was, due to the FISA warrant obtained to surveil Page.  But it's still conjecture at this point, no?  Just like there is no concrete evidence of Russian collusion.  These are both smoke/fire suppositions.

 

Unless I've missed something.  What is your evidence that Trump was in fact spied on?

[Tiberius]

2 minutes ago, Cugalabanza said:

 

What is the evidence that Trump was in fact "wiretapped?"  I know the assumption is that he was, due to the FISA warrant obtained to surveil Page.  But it's still conjecture at this point, no?  Just like there is no concrete evidence of Russian collusion.  These are both smoke/fire suppositions.

 

Unless I've missed something.  What is your evidence that Trump was in fact spied on?

There is concrete evidence Trump colluded with the Russians, there isn't evidence--public evidence-- that it was a criminal act yet. The meeting at Trump Towers to share dirt on Hillary in exchange for sanctions relief was collusion. That's just an undeniable fact. Was it a crime? 

[Cinga]

3 minutes ago, Cugalabanza said:

 

What is the evidence that Trump was in fact "wiretapped?"  I know the assumption is that he was, due to the FISA warrant obtained to surveil Page.  But it's still conjecture at this point, no?  Just like there is no concrete evidence of Russian collusion.  These are both smoke/fire suppositions.

 

Unless I've missed something.  What is your evidence that Trump was in fact spied on?

we know that Trump Tower was based on the Flynn phone call that got him in trouble.

[3rdnlng]

15 minutes ago, Cinga said:

I'm compressed.... Jimmy Kimmel and the WaPo factcheck are really good lists for whom? Certainly not the truth brigade... Comeon Tibs, you must be keeping one on your own with all these accusations you make.

Like smaller?

[Deranged Rhino]

Just now, Cugalabanza said:

 

What is the evidence that Trump was in fact "wiretapped?"  I know the assumption is that he was, due to the FISA warrant obtained to surveil Page.  But it's still conjecture at this point, no?  Just like there is no concrete evidence of Russian collusion.  These are both smoke/fire suppositions.

 

Unless I've missed something.  What is your evidence that Trump was in fact spied on?

 

It's proven they had a Title 1 FISA on Page. That gives them "three hops" with anyone he ever had contact with or may have had contact with. 

 

That means with this FISA on Page they could, without a warrant, collect and read everything that anyone Page ever spoke to has... plus anyone THOSE people have ever talked to... PLUS a third hop of everyone THOSE people have ever talked to. If Page had say 40 contacts - and all his contacts had 40 contacts, that means they could legally monitor over the 2.5 million people - without a warrant.

 

Title 1 FISAs are the most invasive form of surveillance possible. The bar to get one on an American citizen requires them to prove the target is not only an active foreign spy, but a foreign spy who is actively committing crimes.  

 

Yet, Page to this day is a free man. He's never been arrested, indicted, or charged for anything criminal or espionage related. 

 

We also know for a fact that Page was no longer on the campaign in October 16 when the first FISA was approved, and he was definitely not on Team Trump the next three times it was renewed.

 

So why were they bothering to renew a Title I on Page, going through incredible efforts just to get that warrant approved including paying for, then obscuring the source of the information used to get that warrant in the first place?

 

Because they didn't care about Page. He wasn't the target. It the "three hops" they wanted. That gave them the ability to legally wiretap everyone on Team Trump. We know they could do this because Page had communication with Bannon. That gave them Bannon and then everyone he spoke to... and we know he spoke to Trump and everyone on the team.

 

That's what this is all about. They cheated to get a warrant they shouldn't have had in order to surveil political opposition. 

 

It's proven they had the ability to have Trump under surveillance through the Page FISA. And when you look at how the warrant on Page was attained, covered up, and lied about for months it sure does seem suspicious. Then throw in the fact we already know 44 illegally abused this same system to spy on opponents of the Iran deal... I say you could make an iron clad argument in court using just this open source evidence (let alone what IG Horowitz has) to prove, beyond a shadow of reasonable doubt, this happened. 

 

I posted this before, it lays out how "three hops" work:

 

[Cinga]

1 minute ago, 3rdnlng said:

Like smaller?

yeah, I used it on purpose considering.... :-)

[Koko78]

3 minutes ago, Deranged Rhino said:

 

It's proven they had a Title 1 FISA on Page. That gives them "three hops" with anyone he ever had contact with or may have had contact with. 

 

That means with this FISA on Page they could, without a warrant, collect and read everything that anyone Page ever spoke to has... plus anyone THOSE people have ever talked to... PLUS a third hop of everyone THOSE people have ever talked to. If Page had say 40 contacts - and all his contacts had 40 contacts, that means they could legally monitor over the 2.5 million people - without a warrant.

 

Title 1 FISAs are the most invasive form of surveillance possible. The bar to get one on an American citizen requires them to prove the target is not only an active foreign spy, but a foreign spy who is actively committing crimes.  

 

Yet, Page to this day is a free man. He's never been arrested, indicted, or charged for anything criminal or espionage related. 

 

We also know for a fact that Page was no longer on the campaign in October 16 when the first FISA was approved, and he was definitely not on Team Trump the next three times it was renewed.

 

So why were they bothering to renew a Title I on Page, going through incredible efforts just to get that warrant approved including paying for, then obscuring the source of the information used to get that warrant in the first place?

 

Because they didn't care about Page. He wasn't the target. It the "three hops" they wanted. That gave them the ability to legally wiretap everyone on Team Trump. We know they could do this because Page had communication with Bannon. That gave them Bannon and then everyone he spoke to... and we know he spoke to Trump and everyone on the team.

 

That's what this is all about. They cheated to get a warrant they shouldn't have had in order to surveil political opposition. 

 

It's proven they had the ability to have Trump under surveillance through the Page FISA. And when you look at how the warrant on Page was attained, covered up, and lied about for months it sure does seem suspicious. Then throw in the fact we already know 44 illegally abused this same system to spy on opponents of the Iran deal... I say you could make an iron clad argument in court using just this open source evidence (let alone what IG Horowitz has) to prove, beyond a shadow of reasonable doubt, this happened. 

 

I posted this before, it lays out how "three hops" work:

 

 

C'mon man, you know that the lefties around here want indisputable proof, backed by a signed affidavit from God (notarized by Jesus Christ), before they'll even begin to find new ways to dismiss anything that doesn't fit the approved talking points.

[3rdnlng]

6 minutes ago, Cinga said:

yeah, I used it on purpose considering.... :-)

Good recovery! Now I understand. You had to actually shrink your brain to be able to communicate with gator.

[Cugalabanza]

8 minutes ago, Deranged Rhino said:

 

It's proven they had a Title 1 FISA on Page. That gives them "three hops" with anyone he ever had contact with or may have had contact with. 

 

That means with this FISA on Page they could, without a warrant, collect and read everything that anyone Page ever spoke to has... plus anyone THOSE people have ever talked to... PLUS a third hop of everyone THOSE people have ever talked to. If Page had say 40 contacts - and all his contacts had 40 contacts, that means they could legally monitor over the 2.5 million people - without a warrant.

 

Title 1 FISAs are the most invasive form of surveillance possible. The bar to get one on an American citizen requires them to prove the target is not only an active foreign spy, but a foreign spy who is actively committing crimes.  

 

Yet, Page to this day is a free man. He's never been arrested, indicted, or charged for anything criminal or espionage related. 

 

We also know for a fact that Page was no longer on the campaign in October 16 when the first FISA was approved, and he was definitely not on Team Trump the next three times it was renewed.

 

So why were they bothering to renew a Title I on Page, going through incredible efforts just to get that warrant approved including paying for, then obscuring the source of the information used to get that warrant in the first place?

 

Because they didn't care about Page. He wasn't the target. It the "three hops" they wanted. That gave them the ability to legally wiretap everyone on Team Trump. We know they could do this because Page had communication with Bannon. That gave them Bannon and then everyone he spoke to... and we know he spoke to Trump and everyone on the team.

 

That's what this is all about. They cheated to get a warrant they shouldn't have had in order to surveil political opposition. 

 

It's proven they had the ability to have Trump under surveillance through the Page FISA. And when you look at how the warrant on Page was attained, covered up, and lied about for months it sure does seem suspicious. Then throw in the fact we already know 44 illegally abused this same system to spy on opponents of the Iran deal... I say you could make an iron clad argument in court using just this open source evidence (let alone what IG Horowitz has) to prove, beyond a shadow of reasonable doubt, this happened. 

 

I posted this before, it lays out how "three hops" work:

 

 

I understand all this about the warrant & FISA and the hops.  But is there any concrete evidence that Trump was bugged?  I think the answer to the question remains (for now) NO.  Of course, that may very well change, but it's still in the status of supposition as of right now.

6 minutes ago, Koko78 said:

 

C'mon man, you know that the lefties around here want indisputable proof, backed by a signed affidavit from God (notarized by Jesus Christ), before they'll even begin to find new ways to dismiss anything that doesn't fit the approved talking points.

 

Well, the right is fond of saying "show me the concrete proof" on the subject of Russian collusion.  And they're right to say that.  This is the same thing.  Supposition vs. proof.

 

I think we have to wait for some things to come to light.

[Deranged Rhino]

Just now, Cugalabanza said:

 

I understand all this about the warrant & FISA and the hops.  But is there any concrete evidence that Trump was bugged?  I think the answer to the question remains (for now) NO.  Of course, that may very well change, but it's still in the status of supposition as of right now.

 

I disagree. We have concrete evidence they had the legal cover and opportunity to bug Trump.  

 

That's motive and opportunity. 

We also have concrete evidence they lied about how they got this opportunity (or that they even had it) for over a year. 

 

We also have concrete evidence the FBI (lead by Strzok) was "investigating" Trump Russian collusion since July 16... so if they had this FISA on Page, it would be a dereliction of that investigation NOT to bug Trump at that point, would it not?

[Cugalabanza]

2 minutes ago, Deranged Rhino said:

 

I disagree. We have concrete evidence they had the legal cover and opportunity to bug Trump.  

 

That's motive and opportunity. 

We also have concrete evidence they lied about how they got this opportunity (or that they even had it) for over a year. 

 

We also have concrete evidence the FBI (lead by Strzok) was "investigating" Trump Russian collusion since July 16... so if they had this FISA on Page, it would be a dereliction of that investigation NOT to bug Trump at that point, would it not?

 

I suppose.

 

I know it's a technical point and probably a picky one.  But likelihood is not the same thing as proof.  You're probably right that it will turn out Trump was being spied on.  But we'll have to wait to know that for sure and to know the extent.

 

By the way, I'm with you about the state of surveillance in this country and I hate what it means for liberties.  Maybe I'm just being a pain in the ass, but I'm not comfortable calling what we've heard so far "proof."

[TakeYouToTasker]

1 minute ago, Cugalabanza said:

 

I suppose.

 

I know it's a technical point and probably a picky one.  But likelihood is not the same thing as proof.  You're probably right that it will turn out Trump was being spied on.  But we'll have to wait to know that for sure and to know the extent.

 

By the way, I'm with you about the state of surveillance in this country and I hate what it means for liberties.  Maybe I'm just being a pain in the ass, but I'm not comfortable calling what we've heard so far "proof."

I think that's a fair and valid point of view.

[Deranged Rhino]

Just now, Cugalabanza said:

 

I suppose.

 

I know it's a technical point and probably a picky one.  But likelihood is not the same thing as proof.  You're probably right that it will turn out Trump was being spied on.  But we'll have to wait to know that for sure and to know the extent.

 

By the way, I'm with you about the state of surveillance in this country and I hate what it means for liberties.  Maybe I'm just being a pain in the ass, but I'm not comfortable calling what we've heard so far "proof."

 

 

Agreed it's not proof.

 

It's evidence though. And there's enough evidence - circumstantial and otherwise - that can be put together to paint a pretty compelling picture. 

 

[DC Tom]

6 minutes ago, Deranged Rhino said:

 

I disagree. We have concrete evidence they had the legal cover and opportunity to bug Trump.  

 

That's motive and opportunity. 

We also have concrete evidence they lied about how they got this opportunity (or that they even had it) for over a year. 

 

We also have concrete evidence the FBI (lead by Strzok) was "investigating" Trump Russian collusion since July 16... so if they had this FISA on Page, it would be a dereliction of that investigation NOT to bug Trump at that point, would it not?

 

Motive and opportunity are two of the things that have to be demonstrate to prove someone committed an act.  They do not prove the act itself took place.

 

It's the same bull **** argument gatorman gives: Trump had motive and opportunity to conspire with the Russians, so the conspiracy took place.  No...FIRST you have to demonstrate the act, THEN you apply motive and opportunity.  Not the other way around.

[Deranged Rhino]

Just now, DC Tom said:

 

Motive and opportunity are two of the things that have to be demonstrate to prove someone committed an act.  They do not prove the act itself took place.

 

It's the same bull **** argument gatorman gives: Trump had motive and opportunity to conspire with the Russians, so the conspiracy took place.  No...FIRST you have to demonstrate the act, THEN you apply motive and opportunity.  Not the other way around.

 

The act is the FISA warrant on Page and all the hoops they jumped through to hide the origin of the "evidence" they used to secure said warrant. 

 

The warrant gives them the opportunity to spy on Trump. 

 

The narcissism and competitiveness of American politics in general gives the motive after they have the opportunity secured. 

 

The defense being floated now is asking us to assume that even though they went out of their way to get a FISA warrant on a man no longer attached to the campaign, 44 and HRC's campaign resisted using that FISA to spy on their opponent.