FBI fires Peter Strzok over anti-Trump texts

You want this to be true, therefore you believe it is. You don't like the FACT that what the FBI redacted they did for security reasons. The 2 people that have seen the un-redacted versions were Nunes and Schiff. Nunes claimed the dossier was used, and when Schiff said it was used "narrowly", as everyone always said they did, Nunes was very silent.

But your going to believe what you want to believe, no matter what evidence/facts are put before you

Carter page was under FISA warrants as early as 2014. So please stop with the BS. He was under surveillance LONG before he joined the Trump camp. The FBI publicly admitted that they were questioning him as early as 2013 when he worked for Merryl Lynch in Russia. They investigated him because he wrote a letter claiming to be "an informal advisor to staff at the Kremlin".

Well ****, YOU said it had a leading role. What were we thinking doubting you ?????

Please show that the Dossier was the leading piece of evidence. Show that it was used as a whole, and that it wasn't used very narrowly. Because without that proof, your entire defense goes to ****. That it wasn't used as corroboration for other evidence ? Go ahead, Ill wait.

Carter Paige had been under surveillance since 2013, and then again in 2014, and as showed 2 more times in 2016

https://www.justsecurity.org/46786/timeline-carter-pages-contacts-russia/

They all said the Dossier as a whole was not verified. Certain parts were, and that has been well documented. The big one was the CArter Page meeting with Russian officials in June of 2106 (psst, thats AFTER he was part of the Trump Campaing...)

 

And that may be true. All evidence needs corroboration. The very narrow use gave corroboration.

The irony is that when they were seeking the warrant, Carter Page was denying when he went to Russia he meet with officials from Kremlin, yet thats when the Dossier claims he did.....and page later admitted it. The Dossier confirmed what the other evidence said

 

"unverified and salacious"

James Comey

 

Which, of course, doesn’t change the fact that Paige was under surveillance well before the dossier.

Moreover, why would law enforcement ignore a dossier like that? Shouldn’t they inform themselves before concluding that it’s “not credible”?

 

A lot of it was unverified. Some of it was.

The overall point is that the right is making the claim that the dossier was used in whole to get the warrant. And that in its entirety it was all false. When in reality some of the accusations in the dossier have been proven true. So for the rights defense that the FBI lied to FISC, requires that 1, their is proof that the entirety of the dossie was used 2. That none of it was true. Neither of which they can prove.

 

And also, importantly, none of it has been debunked. None.....

 

What part of "verified" to obtain a warrant did you miss? And why did the FBI fire Steele and Fusion GPS do an end around through Bruce Ohr?

 

Blithering horseshit. They have been busted redacting to avoid embarrassment and for no other reason.

Oh bullshit.

It did. The FBI had no probably cause for a FISA warrant outside of the unverified Dossier, which they lied to the court and claimed was verified.

McCabe testified that without the Dossier, there would be no FISA warrants. There is nothing else that even remotely meets the probable cause standard for a FISA warrant against a US citizen other than the unverified lies in the Clinton Paid For Dossier.

So what? Do you know what is required in order to obtain a FISA warrant on a US Citizen? Do you think simply meeting with Russian officials means the US government can spy on a US citizen?

 

Wow, you refuted my entire post with opinion.......ok....have a nice day

 

It wasn't narrow, it was used on all four pages. And both you and Schiff make a very huge mistake: The 'officials' the Dossier claims Page met, and the ones Page actually met, were two different people. That is, the dossier didn't confirm anything. The dossier claimed a deal on Rosneft, a deal that went to China after originally going to Qatar, none of which involving Carter Page.

Hence, there was never corroboration or anything of the sort. Partial 'truths' do not count in a court of law.

 

Bogus corroboration is still bogus.

 

Except against the person making Partial 'truths'.

 

I would like these dossier defenders to try, when they ever get into a court case to submit partially false evidence in court after affirming to speak 'the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth'. At minimum, they would be held in contempt of court. At worst, they may have perjured themselves.

Partial truths are simply not permitted in the court room, period. It is an omission or a lie when you do.

 

And where did you get all of this information ?

 

Really ? Carter Page never met the with any government officials when he went to Russia ?

 

From the various news articles. Hell, the whole Rosneft deal? Before that was on the dossier, it appears to have garnered mainstream twitter attention before we knew anything about collusion(which brings to mind Simpson's statements that almost everything he does is open sourced.)

Hell, that statement by Simpson to the Senate Intel Committee invalidates the dossier. Since we cannot confirm it comes from a reliable, private source, it's easily possible to speculate it came from Simpson's open sources, where well, you've seen our era of "sources close to the case" only to find: PSYCHE, not true but who cares you clicked my article lol.

The rosneft deal itself is highlighted on the dossier and just by googling Rosneft/Qatar, you'll see that little event. Nothing to do with Trump, Page or 2016 I'm afraid.

The document was and is a forgery, and the biggest forgery wasn't Cohen to Prague, it was the Page/Rosneft conspiracy theory.

A forgery was submitted to a federal judge in the FISA court. Prosecutions SHOULD be proceeding. James Comey committed as much fraud as Manafort. There's no difference from hiding taxes to signing something as true that you testify to Congress is later false.(Suffice to say the same for the other agents who also fraudulently signed.)

 

But parts of the Dossier were validated by the “Page meeting with Russian officials” claim. Page claimed at the time it was a lie, but it turns out it was true. And add to that that Schiff said it was used narrowly, then doesnt that lend credence to what actually happened.

I am not, nor never have claimed the dossier true cover to cover. But there were accusations in it that did get validated as facts. So I’m not sure how we can throw the whole document out as “a lie”, when parts of it have been validated?

 

But he didn't meet the same officials named in the dossier. That's the distinction. And Schiff's definition of narrowly, is not my definition. Narrowly is not using it on all four applications. That's extensively. The dossier was used extensively, Page didn't meet the same officials he was purported to have met for the deal that he never made.

It. was. fraudulent. It was certainly fraudulent on the level of the "whole truth" which obviously wasn't told. The agents who signed and acted like it was the truth, pulled a Paul Manafort.

If you and I, in an unrelated court case were to purport a false statement or testimony, we would risk either Contempt or Perjury charges. It's too late for Contempt since the Courts failed to catch the deceit. But the agents who signed are liable to perjury charges.

When and if the DOJ ever bothers.(In a separate, unrelated issue of an FBI agent being criminally liable, the DOJ chose not to charge.)

We live in a Banana Republic justice system. It's clear to me, and clear to others. If you're connected and you're rich, 8/10, you've got a deal. But for the little man, he's toast. This isn't just(or mostly) about Trump. It's trying to convince me and others that the justice system isn't that bleak. Well, it is.

 

As long as the economy's good no one cares. It worked for Bill Clinton......it will work fro Trump. The left will need to take it's lumps like a man.

 

So now you admit that the dossier was correct ?

You justify any action by “as long as the economy is good” ?

This country is in the mess its in because people like you cant defend your own positions, and then claim “as long as the economy is good”. Pathetic

 

Like when Bill Clinton met with Loretta Lynch, they were talking about grand kids and muffin recipes.

 

WTF are you talking about ?

Carter Page met with a foreign government and lied about it. Someone ALREADY under surveillance for his dealing with that very foreign government, and you think its nothing ?

Then I will ask a simple question: if him meeting with the russian government was so innocuous, why lie about the meeting then ?

You keep invoking “BILL CLINTON”, when the question was Carter Page. Let’s stay on topic. You want to talk about Bill Clintons dumb ass moves, start another thread

 

Even if he did meet with any Russians, I'm sure they talked about Grandkids and muffin recipes. It's the tripe you expected people to believe about Clinton meeting with Lynch before the election while she was still under investigation. The similarities are stunning.

 

So now its “even if he did..” ?

Their is no reason to meet with the russians than to negotiate, or discuss what can/will be done when he is president, and THAT is illegal.

The Clintons thing was REALLY bad optics. But you have to remember, Bill as no power over anyone enymore, so what was his power play there ?

 

If they talked I'm sure they talked about Grandkids and muffin recipes. It's what the left wants us to believe about Bill Clinton meeting with the AG Loretta Lynch while Hillary was under investigation. The sword has 2 edges and cuts in both directions.