Posted on 12/09/2019 9:21:30 AM PST by bitt
So, the equivalent of the dreaded Sternly Worded Letter?
I dont think anyone will, they just did some bad bad bad things bader that anyone even thought, bad things bad bad things thats all.
I am starting to think the same thing and they can have it all before I go there. I am losing faith in Trump...
Roger Whittiker used to sing this lovely song: Durham Town
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mA-jxl4ZGrM
Its a town all the Dems all want to leave. No chance.
APPALLED, I tell you!
/sarc
Yep.
Cosplay Q
On Page 186, it talks about the FBI identifying and interviewing the primary sub-source for the Steele dossier. (Christopher Steele had a primary sub-source, and this person had other people reporting to him and that formed the basis of the dossier.)
What did the FBI find in January of 2017? That once they identified the sub-source and actually interviewed the sub-source the sub-source says the primary sub-source told that FBI that he/she had not seen Steele's report until that it became public that month and that he/she made statements indicating that Steele misstated or exaggerated the primary sub-source statements in multiple sections of the reporting. The primary sub-source told the FBI that basically this was rumor and speculation, hearay/bar-talk,and he never believed that Steele would use the information provided in any official document. That should have been a red light for the Department of Justice and the FBI.
Ladies and Gentlemen in January, 2015 and thereafter, the primary sub-source of the Steele dossier is telling the FBI and the Department of Justice that the Russian dossier is not reliable. That is was never meant to be used as an official document, it's all hearsay, rumor/bar-talk and he specifically talks about the episode involving President Trump and sexual activity inside of Russia and says that was all rumor and speculation, word-of-mouth and hearsay. So, what should have happened? Once the FBI and Department of Justice was told by the primary sub-source that the document was not reliable, they had a duty, in my [Senator Graham's] view to report to the FISA court exculpatory information. Not only did they not tell the court that the sub-source trashed out their document, this what they told the court, on page 190.
Carter Page's renewal applications (#2 and 3) advised the court that following the January interview with the primary sub-source, the FBI found the Russian-based sub-source to be truthful and cooperative. That's a lie! The sub-source said exactly the opposite! So not only did they continue to get a warrant against Mr. Page after being told by the primary source of the document that it's all garbage/hearsay/bar-talk/not reliable, they got two more warrants using that document and they described to the court the interview in January, found that the Russian-based sub-source to be truthful and cooperative.
I don't know who told the court that; I don't know who was in the meeting in January, February, but I want to find out who these people are and they need to be held accountable, because what they did from that point on, this whole endeavor became a criminal conspiracy to defraud the court, to trample on the rights of an American citizen, Mr. Carter Page and continue an operation against the President of the United States that I think is unwarranted. I cannot stress enough that all of us rely upon those with the powers to follow us, surveil us, and to check on us, to be honest and truthful. Nobody has mentioned a word about this yet, that on page 186 to 190 in the Horowitz report, it describes in great detail how the FBI found out that the sub-source of the Steele dossier disavowed it and they used it two more times to get warrants. They never told the court, and they actually lied to the court about the interview.
If that doesn't bother you, you hate Trump way too much. That should bother every American and it gets worse.
In June of 2017, one of the lawyers in the FBI, who's supposed to review warrants (Clinesmith) is told by the CIA that Carter Page is a source. What does he tell the FISA court? That he is NOT a source. He took the information supplied to him by the FBI and doctored a email so the court would not be aware of the fact that Carter Page was a source for the CIA. Why is that important?
In building a case against Carter Page they used the dossier. They tried to get a warrant in August and they couldn't. Somebody thought of the great idea of beginning to use the dossier to get a warrant, and it apparently worked. But here's the problem: Three people named in the dossier as having talked to Carter Page, believed to be foreign agents. Carter Page, while being wired, unknown to him, said, "I don't know these two people." And to this day, there's no proof that he met the two people he denies meeting and that was one of the reasons they classified him as a foreign agent. The third contact was with a person known to be a foreign agent and he told the CIA about the contact because he was their source. Why is it important that they lied to the court? If the court had known that he had a reason to be talking to this person, it would have been completely different. That's why Mr. Clinesmith lied, because if that fact ever got confirmed, it would change the entire predicate they set up to the court, as to whether or not Carter Page was a foreign agent. You cannot surveil somebody unless you have proof they are a foreign agent.
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.