Edit: Article was already posted here. Late to the party

WestAustinAg said:

---

Rockdoc said:

---

Ed Henry on Fox just said the memo may not be what it's been hyped up to be according to some members.

---

R's are legitimately worried that the media hype around the memo will make it impossible to live up to its billing. They are quietly trying to lower expectations. Always best expectations. Never let them beat you.

---

I doubt that. Just another made up disinformation meme from our America-hatin' media.

Axios satire

If the FISA warrant ain't legit, you must acquit...

Two photos in the tweet click to enlarge. Comey's sworn testimony.

drcrinum said:

---

Two photos in the tweet click to enlarge. Comey's sworn testimony.

---

So I guess a FISA warrant isn't evidence? What a dumbass...

drcrinum said:

---

Two photos in the tweet click to enlarge. Comey's sworn testimony.

---

Weasels.

Atkinson's blog also has a story that Wray lied under oath to Congress late last year that there have been no abuses of 702. That may explain his actions of the last couple of days. He may know more than we have assumed.

When Barry said a US Election can't be hacked, of course that before Hillary was toast

So isn't that a direct lie by Comey to Schiff? They did have wiretaps in Trump Tower.

No! Duh! Don't you know?!!!!

They didn't tap his office! It was the neighboring office because some Russians were calling and they picked up Trumps communications....inadvertently.

But that's not what they asked!

4stringAg said:

---

So isn't that a direct lie by Comey to Schiff? They did have wiretaps in Trump Tower.

---

It's not a lie if they both knew the truth.

4stringAg said:

---

So isn't that a direct lie by Comey to Schiff? They did have wiretaps in Trump Tower.

---

Comey would argue semantics. But we need to see the memo and maybe other things to determine who specifically was tapped. We know Flynn was. We also know Trump was tapped early in his presidency.

Rockdoc said:

---

Ed Henry on Fox just said the memo may not be what it's been hyped up to be according to some members.

---

He may have said that earlier, but they had another report by him where he sourced two GOP representatives who said the memo has four explosive revelations in it that are damning for individuals at the FBI. Said the idea that it won't live up to the hype is garbage.

Also reported that Comey is likely one of those named in the memo and that's why him and his supporters are pushing back on it (referenced his tweet today).

AG 2000' said:

---

Rockdoc said:

---

Ed Henry on Fox just said the memo may not be what it's been hyped up to be according to some members.

---

He may have said that earlier, but they had another report by him where he sourced two GOP representatives who said the memo has four explosive revelations in it that are damning for individuals at the FBI. Said the idea that it won't live up to the hype is garbage.

---

He just now said there are 4, very specific violations of the FISA rules in the memo...

RoscoePColtrane said:

---

drcrinum said:

---

Two photos in the tweet click to enlarge. Comey's sworn testimony.

---

---

Thats the NSA guy (Rogers?) next to him right? Surprised we didn't see any kind of tell on his reaction to that line of questioning.

Thanks for posting those videos!

https://threadreaderapp.com/thread/959253731748470784.html

Short thread from a 'real journalist'.

scoop12 said:

---

RoscoePColtrane said:

---

drcrinum said:

---

Two photos in the tweet click to enlarge. Comey's sworn testimony.

---

---

Thats the NSA guy (Rogers?) next to him right? Surprised we didn't see any kind of tell on his reaction to that line of questioning.

---

By tell, you mean that Rogers had to lie at that point right? Didn't this hearing occur in March? The timeline for Rogers shutting down access was 2016? So he already knew everything was being abused at the time of this interview correct? Why lie? Or is my timeline of his understanding and actions incorrect? Somewhere in this thread is listed the timeline of Rogers actions supporting his role as the true patriot, but based on this is that wrong?

PS: if the memo illustrates that this testimony and the questioning was completely false, I hope they show this video side by side with the supporting evidence to the contrary. 20/20 style. you know how investigative journalists used to blow the lid off of people caught lying with facts!

PSS: I hate Schiff

RoscoePColtrane said:

---

---

Collins drawing out the FBIs stance that they can withhold certain FISA warrants / information from congress is key to countermanding those opposed to the release of the memo. Great find.

Question about Mike Rogers.

Read what this tweet says and what it replies to. It's from 2017.

It suggests Rogers gave support to the hacking claim because of crowdstrike. That must have pissed him off. Anyone remember this?

reb, said:

---

Question about Mike Rogers.

Read what this tweet says and what it replies to. It's from 2017.

It suggests Rogers gave support to the hacking claim because of crowdstrike. That must have pissed him off. Anyone remember this?

---

Anyone with the slightest knowledge of Cyber Security could read that report and tell it wasn't worth the paper is was printed on. It was written to pacify the vast amount of clueless. And the mere fact that it was reportedly written by members of the IC that had never had possession of the server in question. Report was based on what CrowdStrike wanted to tell them.

The mere fact that a 5AM jackboot raid on Manafort's residence to seize computers and other media was done, but when it came to Hillary they sat around and asked nicely for her computers and didn't get her server until it had been completely wiped was the biggest farce of them all. That question was never asked of ANY of the FBI involved.

We don't have access to the report though, I thought.

reb, said:

---

We don't have access to the report though, I thought.

---

https://www.dni.gov/files/documents/ICA_2017_01.pdf

The first page tells you all you need to know.

Quote:

---

Scope and Sourcing
Information available as of 29 December 2016 was used in the preparation of this product.

Scope
This report includes an analytic assessment drafted and coordinated among The Central Intelligence
Agency (CIA), The Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI), and The National Security Agency (NSA), which
draws on intelligence information collected and disseminated by those three agencies. It covers the
motivation and scope of Moscow's intentions regarding US elections and Moscow's use of cyber tools
and media campaigns to influence US public opinion. The assessment focuses on activities aimed at the
2016 US presidential election and draws on our understanding of previous Russian influence operations.
When we use the term "we" it refers to an assessment by all three agencies.

This report is a declassified version of a highly classified assessment. This document's conclusions are
identical to the highly classified assessment, but this document does not include the full supporting
information, including specific intelligence on key elements of the influence campaign. Given the
redactions, we made minor edits purely for readability and flow.
We did not make an assessment of the impact that Russian activities had on the outcome of the 2016
election. The US Intelligence Community is charged with monitoring and assessing the intentions,
capabilities, and actions of foreign actors; it does not analyze US political processes or US public opinion.

New information continues to emerge, providing increased insight into Russian activities.

Sourcing

Many of the key judgments in this assessment rely on a body of reporting from multiple sources that are
consistent with our understanding of Russian behavior. Insights into Russian effortsincluding specific
cyber operationsand Russian views of key US players derive from multiple corroborating sources.
Some of our judgments about Kremlin preferences and intent are drawn from the behavior of Kremlinloyal political figures, state media, and pro-Kremlin social media actors, all of whom the Kremlin either
directly uses to convey messages or who are answerable to the Kremlin. The Russian leadership invests
significant resources in both foreign and domestic propaganda and places a premium on transmitting
what it views as consistent, self-reinforcing narratives regarding its desires and redlines, whether on
Ukraine, Syria, or relations with the United States.

---

RoscoePColtrane said:

---

reb, said:

---

We don't have access to the report though, I thought.

---

https://www.dni.gov/files/documents/ICA_2017_01.pdf

---

Thank you!

Quote:

---

This report is a declassified version of a highly classified assessment. This document's conclusions are
identical to the highly classified assessment, but this document does not include the full supporting
information, including specific intelligence on key elements of the influence campaign. Given the
redactions, we made minor edits purely for readability and flow.

---

That sounds a lot like "omissions of fact" to me. Foul!

G Martin 87 said:

---

Quote:

---

This report is a declassified version of a highly classified assessment. This document's conclusions are
identical to the highly classified assessment, but this document does not include the full supporting
information, including specific intelligence on key elements of the influence campaign. Given the
redactions, we made minor edits purely for readability and flow.

---

That sounds a lot like "omissions of fact" to me. Foul!

---

Or an excuse that they really have no facts because they never examined the servers

RoscoePColtrane said:

---

G Martin 87 said:

---

Quote:

---

This report is a declassified version of a highly classified assessment. This document's conclusions are
identical to the highly classified assessment, but this document does not include the full supporting
information, including specific intelligence on key elements of the influence campaign. Given the
redactions, we made minor edits purely for readability and flow.

---

That sounds a lot like "omissions of fact" to me. Foul!

---

Or an excuse that they really have no facts because they never examined the servers

---

DNC servers being hacked by the Russians.... honestly it could be true but it's un-verified as far as I'm concerned. DNC didn't want their dirty secrets seen by law enforcement so they have their politically weaponized firms give info to law enforcement. Corrupted FBI then gives them a pass. This is a pass that no other organization would receive due to the threat to national security.

Im fairly certain that if a Russian plot of this magnitude were taking place where they leaked stuff to Wikileaks in a normal investigation the FBI would show up to the DNCs door before the DNC knew what was going on. If it was a private company that had their emails all over Wikileaks the FBI would come examine their system to make sure it is secure.

You see, if the Russians did breach the DNC, this DNC server thing not being examined by law enforcement is a MASSIVE National Security risk because the government would never have verified that the system had been made secure after the breach!!!! In a non-corrupted investigation, the government would not accept some 3rd party report. They would be knocking on the door.

bmks270 said:

---

RoscoePColtrane said:

---

G Martin 87 said:

---

Quote:

---

This report is a declassified version of a highly classified assessment. This document's conclusions are
identical to the highly classified assessment, but this document does not include the full supporting
information, including specific intelligence on key elements of the influence campaign. Given the
redactions, we made minor edits purely for readability and flow.

---

That sounds a lot like "omissions of fact" to me. Foul!

---

Or an excuse that they really have no facts because they never examined the servers

---

DNC servers being hacked by the Russians.... honestly it could be true but it's un-verified as far as I'm concerned. DNC didn't want their dirty secrets seen by law enforcement so they have their politically weaponized firms give info to law enforcement. Corrupted FBI then gives them a pass. This is a pass that no other organization would receive due to the threat to national security.

Im fairly certain that if a Russian plot of this magnitude were taking place where they leaked stuff to Wikileaks in a normal investigation the FBI would show up to the DNCs door before the DNC knew what was going on. If it was a private company that had their emails all over Wikileaks the FBI would come examine their system to make sure it is secure.

You see, if the Russians did breach the DNC, this DNC server thing not being examined by law enforcement is a MASSIVE National Security risk because the government would never have verified that the system had been made secure after the breach!!!! In a non-corrupted investigation, the government would not accept some 3rd party report. They would be knocking on the door.

---

The DNC, the DNCC, and the Democratic congress had a Paki from Pakistan who was accessing all three servers from Islamabad over the internet. WHen this Paki tried to flee the country and was busted at the airport, the house he was living in that he rented to a Naval Officer on his way out of town, when the NO went to clean out the garage to move in found pised of hard drives and PC equipment. The DNC, the DNCC and 75% of the Democratic congress, because of the DNC leader were being maintained by a family with direct ties to the Muslim Brotherhood. 1000's dot gov accounts.

LOL Russia was the least of their worries