(02-24-2018 05:50 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(02-24-2018 04:46 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  Lad, I'd like you to compare the following:

Quote:Also, I do not believe it has been proven that the Steele dossier played a pivotal role in any FISA requests. Lots of speculation being masqueraded as fact right there.

and

Quote:the FBI disclosed the political origins of a private dossier the bureau cited in an application to surveil former Trump campaign adviser Carter Page

Seems on one hand you denied the use the Steele Enquirer in the FISA proceedings (along with any other mention of the use Steele as sheer speculation), but then cite its actual use in the application to surveil the Trump campaign.

Btw, are you dismissing the House Report and the Grassley Report out of hand and in toto the way you are the National Review article?

I denied the PIVOTAL role, not the use of it at all. My understanding of the matter was it was a support document, but not the primary evidence for the FISA warrant.

I intentionally used an adjective there because your focus on its role seemed to indicate that you felt it was the most important (most pivotal) part of the FISA warrant application.

That is not what the Grassley/Graham report noted. But since you disagree with at least one point of it, I would surmise this is sufficient for you to lablel it as 'garbage' and dismiss it in toto, as you seemingly have prior?

Btw, the Democratic memo released yesterday makes a smashing job of rebutting items not even presented. Kind of fun to read the laundry list.....

One of them being the point that you use to dismiss the NR article as 'garbage'.

I can't extract the specific text. But here is a link to the Scribd response and the discussion of disclosure. See specifically the bottom of page three.

https://www.scribd.com/document/37231145...d-Response

So, if the 'disclosure' of the political genesis of the item that served as the bulk of the FISA application was limited to a convoluted footnote, and that footnote only uses the word 'speculates' on the 'likely' motivation of GPS, the National Review article (the 'garbage' as you put it) doesnt seem so out of line as you portray it, wouldnt you agree?

Or is the Nunes response 'garbage' and lying about the sole place in the application where the subject was discussed being limited to a 'convoluted' verbiage relegated to a 'footnote'?