President Trump is expected to declassify, as early as this week, documents covering the U.S. government's surveillance of Trump campaign adviser Carter Page and the investigative activities of senior Justice Department lawyer Bruce Ohr, according to allies of the president.
The big picture: Republicans on the House Intelligence and Judiciary committees believe the declassification will permanently taint the Trump-Russia investigation by showing the investigation was illegitimate to begin with. Trump has been hammering the same theme for months.
Show less
They allege that Bruce Ohr played an improper intermediary role between the Justice Department, British spy Christopher Steele and Fusion GPS — the opposition research firm that produced the Trump-Russia dossier, funded by Democrats. (Ohr's wife, Nellie, worked for Fusion GPS on Russia-related matters during the presidential election — a fact that Ohr did not disclose on federal forms.)
And they further allege that the Obama administration improperly spied on Carter Page — all to take down Trump.
House Freedom Caucus chairman Mark Meadows, who is close to Trump, told Axios earlier today: "After two years of investigations and accusations from both sides of the aisle about what documents indicate, it is past time for documents to be declassified and let the American people decide for themselves if DoJ and FBI acted properly."
The bottom line: President Trump has been hyping, and congressional Republicans have been calling for, the declassification of these documents. It's now put up or shut up time. We should find out very soon whether these documents are as explosive as advertised.
he is pointing at the current DOJ, which is his DOJ.
trump is clearly talking about the obama holdovers who will be going to jail.
mccabe is already under investigation and rosenstein is next.
I doubt those two were bright enough to do all this on their own, so once the connection is made to obama's admin? that is when the fun really begins.
weaponizing govt to go after a political opponent and duly elected president?
they call that treason. (btw - no statute of limitations)
the resistance should have gotten an insurance policy for their insurance policy... LOL
the list is almost complete.
FEDERAL BUREAU OF "INFESTIGATION" James Comey, Director – FIRED Andrew McCabe, Deputy Director - FIRED Jim Rybicki, Chief of Staff and Senior Counselor – FIRED James Baker, General Counsel – FIRED Bill Priestap, Director of Counterintelligence (Strzok’s boss) – Cooperating witness [power removed] Peter Strzok, Deputy Assistant Director of Counterintelligence – FIRED Lisa Page, Office of General Counsel – FIRED/FORCED Mike Kortan, Assistant Director for Public Affairs – FIRED Josh Campbell, Special Assistant to Comey – FIRED
weaponizing govt to go after a political opponent and duly elected president?
Isn't that EXACTLY what Trump is doing every time he tweets that Sessions should be investigating Clinton, and Holder, and Lynch. and Comey, and Rice and, and, and?
they call that treason.
They may but the law doesn't. Before you throw those kind of accusations around, it would behoove you to at least READ the Constitution.
Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort.
Trump isn't 'the United States', no matter HOW deep his delusion that he is...
Isn't that EXACTLY what Trump is doing every time he tweets that Sessions should be investigating Clinton, and Holder, and Lynch. and Comey, and Rice and, and, and?
prosecuting criminals is perfectly legal... try again
btw, there is a reason kavenaugh was asked about military law during confirmation hearings
and after midterms your going to start hearing the word "treason" more often
Really? What were the charges? When was the hearing? What did the court rule?
Democrats were famous for whining about that kind of stuff!
Yes, Democrats 'whined' about troops coming home in body bags because Bush sent them to avenge the attack on his daddy without giving them the supplies they needed. Families from BOTH sides of the aisle were scraping money together to send their kids body armor that Bush failed to supply it for them.
Ya, people 'whined' about 'that kind of stuff' Tex. Sheesh.
"Mr Peepers" Rosenstein will assuredly be gone before long, followed out the door by the addled and senile Sessions. Then the new AG and FBI directors can start looking for the real criminals.
So it looks like you're not buying Trump's claim to be 'getting the best people'...
Looking to be new investigations coming after the midterms.
Yeah, sure will be. You won't like it though.
Think you saw Republican resignations before the mid-terms?
Nunez amd cronies will resign to escape prosecution just like Palin did. And when the shit piles high with tje smell of that "I" word your political Jesus will resign too.
FEDERAL BUREAU OF "INFESTIGATION" James Comey, Director – FIRED - For Trump's fear of the Russia investigation - Obstruction of justice. Andrew McCabe, Deputy Director - FIRED - For not firing Rosenstein who refused to fire Mueller, again for Trump's fear of the Russia investigation - Obstruction of justice. Jim Rybicki, Chief of Staff and Senior Counselor – FIRED - Hired in 2001, who was President then??? James Baker, General Counsel – FIRED - For what reason????? Again related to Trump's Russia investigation. Bill Priestap, Director of Counterintelligence (Strzok’s boss) – Cooperating witness [power removed] - Fired because of Nune's debunked memo. Again related to Russia investigation. Peter Strzok, Deputy Assistant Director of Counterintelligence – FIRED - Fired against recommendations for personal use of company cell phone. Lisa Page, Office of General Counsel – FIRED/FORCED - Was not employed by FBI for him to fire. Mike Kortan, Assistant Director for Public Affairs – FIRED - NO, retired. Josh Campbell, Special Assistant to Comey – FIRED - NO, resigned.
.
Don't you find it interesting that everyone (with 1 exception) that Trump has actually fired, on your list, was fired because of the Russia investigation?
In 2013, IRS official Lois Lerner revealed that conservative groups seeking tax-exempt status had been getting extra scrutiny, based on words such as "tea party" or "patriots" in their names.
For conservatives, she confirmed their darkest suspicions. In the Tea Party heyday years of 2009 and 2010, hundreds of groups affiliated with the party had sought tax-exempt status as 501(c)(4) "social welfare" organizations. IRS demands for documents left many of them in bureaucratic limbo for a year or more.
Now, in the third audit of how the tax-exempt application process went off the rails, the Treasury Department's inspector general overseeing the IRS has found the agency targeted not just conservatives but also scores of groups with words like "progressive" in their names.
The Treasury inspector general for tax administration, or TIGTA, did the report at the request of a bipartisan group of senators.
"The far right has been beating a drum for years now that there was a partisan attack on them," said Sen. Ron Wyden, D-Ore., one of the requestors. He said the new report shows "that's just not true."
But the TIGTA audit didn't absolve the IRS. Wyden said the overall picture was "equal opportunity mismanagement and equal opportunity bedlam."
Conservative lawyer Cleta Mitchell, who represents eight groups that were given the extra scrutiny, said the process took far too long. In one case, she said, "the IRS wanted every communication that this organization had made about Obamacare," as the Affordable Care Act is commonly called.
Mitchell said that even if progressive groups did get targeted, "they didn't get subjected to the kinds of follow-up the Tea Party groups did. I don't care how anybody wants to spin it. They just didn't."
The "apology" to conservative groups was part of a consent agreement through the courts.
Kind of like when Trump agreed to
In 1975, Trump ultimately came to a far-reaching agreement with the DOJ in which he and the company did not admit guilt but agreed not to discriminate and to take steps to open its housing stock to more nonwhites. The company agreed to submit a weekly list of vacancies to the Urban League, which would produce qualified applicants for a portion of all vacancies.
But it didn't end there. In 1978, the government filed a motion for supplemental relief, charging that the Trump company had not complied with the 1975 agreement. The government alleged that the Trump company "discriminated against blacks in the terms and conditions of rental, made statements indicating discrimination based on race and told blacks that apartments were not available for inspection and rental when, in fact, they are," the Times reported. Trump again denied the charges.
It's not clear what happened with the government's request for further action (and compensation for victims), but in 1983, a fair-housing activist cited statistics that two Trump Village developments had white majorities of at least 95 percent.
At the very least, the case is something for reporters to ask about next time Trump touts his "great relationship with the blacks."
Before you start crying that it was different, in both cases the accused party agreed to change their behavior as part of an agreement (settlement) adjudicated by a court.
Weren't you one of the ones saying that Trump was innocent of discrimination against blacks? He agreed to use a list of potential tenants provided to him from a black activist group to comply with the court agreement he entered. He wasn't "innocent". He was forced to make the agreement the same way the IRS was forced to apologize, to put it behind them. If he was "innocent" then the IRS was "innocent".
Sorry to break it to you, but the IRS apologized long before the settlement.
I believe that apology was made before it came out that they were also targeting liberal groups.
What they were trying to do was identify groups that were inappropriately applying for a tax exempt status. Both conservative and liberal groups were flagged in that way. The Obama administration did not handle that issue well from a public relations standpoint , but I don't think it was a crusade against conservative groups. They had a bad procedure that was being applied to both sides of the political spectrum.
Of course the apologies, now, then and during Lerners testimonies, have EVERYTHING to do with the damned case
or they (Lerner, Holder, IRS, et al ) would never have apologized at all.
To imply they are separate issues is just humorous.
From your own (incomplete) Fox News link October 26,2017
In a proposed Consent Order filed with the Court yesterday, the IRS has apologized for its treatment of our clients -- 36 Tea Party and other conservative organizations from 20 states that applied for 501(c)(3) and (c)(4) tax-exempt status with the IRS between 2009 and 2012 -- during the tax-exempt determinations process. Crucially, following years of denial by the IRS and blame-shifting by IRS officials, the agency now expressly admits that its treatment of our clients was wrong. /2017/10/26/ jay-sekulow-victory-irs-admits-tea-party-other-conservative-groups-were-targets-during-obama-era.html
And if the progressive groups took them to court they would "apologize" to the progressive groups as well. It seems rather obvious that the "apology" was related to a court devised consent agreement.
I have no interest in a long drawn out "debate" with people who cherry pick their points.
The IRS wanted to scrutinize groups that were applying for a tax exempt status to make sure they actually qualified and were not political advocacy groups. In the course of doing that they scrutinized some groups based on a faulty criteria. Most of the faultily scrutinized groups were conservative, but some of them were liberal or neutral (about a third of the total). What we don't know is what was the percentage of all the groups that made this sort of application that were conservative and what percentage were liberal. If many more conservative groups were applying (which is a logical speculation considering this was the hey day of the Tea Party movement), then the fact that more conservative groups were scrutinized would not be unusual. It would be expected according to the percentages.
The IRS apologized , it appears, before it came out that they were also targeting liberal groups for extra scrutiny. If it had been revealed at the time that there were also liberal groups involved, I dont think you would have seen an apology only to conservative groups.
The later apology in 2017 is obviously related to the court settlement.
One, please address that remark to whomever mentioned whatever it is your referred to about left leaning groups targetted by the IRS - it certainly wasn't me.
The second thing , I think you can figure out on your own, please..
on your list, was fired because of the Russia investigation?
they fabricated evidence and weaponized the doj and fbi to take down a president, not only should they have been fired but they will be facing charges.
"crossfire hurricane? try "backfire hurricane or as we say in this country - treason.
that deep state everyone says does not exist is now in seriously deep shit.
the only question now is how far up will the dominoes fall?
Gonna love hearing the qualified answers when this doesn't follow your fantasy.
actually... it was early 2017 when I first said the fbi and doj fabricated evidence. time has only proven me right.
but I cheated... using govt to go after political opponents is straight out of the communist playbook. anyone who has studied history knew what was going to happen. progressives do not have any "new" ideas. (it has all been done before)
Is there or is there not a Justice Department Policy on investigations during elections? What was the complaint about Comey re-opening the Clinton investigation when he did?
"Two years ago, Jane Chong dove deep into the supposed 60-day rule in a Lawfare post on FBI Director James Comey’s October 2016 letter on new developments in the Clinton investigation. As she wrote then, there is no formal rule barring Justice Department action in the days immediately before an election. Rather, the “rule” is more of a soft norm based on what former Attorney General Eric Holder himself described as “long-standing Justice Department policies and tradition.” In a guidance Holder issued in 2012, the attorney general wrote that, “Law enforcement officers and prosecutors may never select the timing of investigative steps or criminal charges for the purpose of affecting any election, or for the purpose of giving an advantage or disadvantage to any candidate or political party”—which, Chong noted, leaves a wide loophole for actions taken near an election without the purpose of affecting that election. In 2016, Attorney General Loretta Lynch issued a similar memorandum with the same language, as the inspector general report lays out."
The bottom line:President Trump has been hyping, and congressional Republicans have been calling for, the declassification of these documents. It's now put up or shut up time. We should find out very soon whether these documents are as explosive as advertised.
As long as we don't get some politically motivated redactions like Nunes and his fellow stooges on the House Intel Committee tried to pass off as valid (and were later shown to be bogus when the unexpurgated documents came out) this should turn out to be yet another rake that Scumbag and his tea-toadies deliberately step on in the desperate hope of trying to smear people who are actually trying to protect this country. This FISA thing with regard to Page is more likely to keep reinforcing the legitimacy of why the FBI was so interested in him. And the attempt to smear Fusion GPS also blew up in these douchebags' faces. I can hardly wait for another round of that.
S E E D E D C O N T E N T
Article is LOCKED by author/seeder
The President really had no choice, the DOJ was stalling, hoping that democrats will flip the House and the investigation would end.
You do realize that Trump is the head of the DOJ, don't you? When he claims malfeasance of the DOJ he is pointing at himself.
No, he is pointing at the current DOJ, which is his DOJ. Question for you, who is the immediate supervisor of the DOJ?
Don't YOU remember how Bush was given responsibility for sending our troops to war in unarmored Humvees?
No? Me neither...
trump is clearly talking about the obama holdovers who will be going to jail.
mccabe is already under investigation and rosenstein is next.
I doubt those two were bright enough to do all this on their own, so once the connection is made to obama's admin? that is when the fun really begins.
weaponizing govt to go after a political opponent and duly elected president?
they call that treason. (btw - no statute of limitations)
the resistance should have gotten an insurance policy for their insurance policy... LOL
the list is almost complete.
FEDERAL BUREAU OF "INFESTIGATION"
James Comey, Director – FIRED
Andrew McCabe, Deputy Director - FIRED
Jim Rybicki, Chief of Staff and Senior Counselor – FIRED
James Baker, General Counsel – FIRED
Bill Priestap, Director of Counterintelligence (Strzok’s boss) – Cooperating witness [power removed]
Peter Strzok, Deputy Assistant Director of Counterintelligence – FIRED
Lisa Page, Office of General Counsel – FIRED/FORCED
Mike Kortan, Assistant Director for Public Affairs – FIRED
Josh Campbell, Special Assistant to Comey – FIRED
next up? rosenstein
Isn't that EXACTLY what Trump is doing every time he tweets that Sessions should be investigating Clinton, and Holder, and Lynch. and Comey, and Rice and, and, and?
They may but the law doesn't. Before you throw those kind of accusations around, it would behoove you to at least READ the Constitution.
Trump isn't 'the United States', no matter HOW deep his delusion that he is...
prosecuting criminals is perfectly legal... try again
btw, there is a reason kavenaugh was asked about military law during confirmation hearings
and after midterms your going to start hearing the word "treason" more often
Prosecuting WHO for WHAT crimes?
Oh do tell...
Be careful what you ask for, you may get it...
Until he comes across the paragraphs that show it was all by the book and he'll be damaged by the release.
Then the rubes will be fed that the docs won't be relrased due to national security....
Really? What were the charges? When was the hearing? What did the court rule?
Yes, Democrats 'whined' about troops coming home in body bags because Bush sent them to avenge the attack on his daddy without giving them the supplies they needed. Families from BOTH sides of the aisle were scraping money together to send their kids body armor that Bush failed to supply it for them.
Ya, people 'whined' about 'that kind of stuff' Tex. Sheesh.
So it looks like you're not buying Trump's claim to be 'getting the best people'...
Bruce Ohr joined the DoJ as a US Atty for the SDNY in 1991. Look up who would have hired him (hint: it wasn't Obama).
I quoted you post and replied appropriately.
No answers.
Typical.
What will you do if this backfires and it's Right wingers on the chopping block?
Remember Nunez did that shit and got caight manipulating the facts. He lost the leadership of the committee for thst.
Suddenly you folks went quiet.
Yeah, sure will be. You won't like it though.
Think you saw Republican resignations before the mid-terms?
Nunez amd cronies will resign to escape prosecution just like Palin did. And when the shit piles high with tje smell of that "I" word your political Jesus will resign too.
FEDERAL BUREAU OF "INFESTIGATION"
James Comey, Director – FIRED - For Trump's fear of the Russia investigation - Obstruction of justice.
Andrew McCabe, Deputy Director - FIRED - For not firing Rosenstein who refused to fire Mueller, again for Trump's fear of the Russia investigation - Obstruction of justice.
Jim Rybicki, Chief of Staff and Senior Counselor – FIRED - Hired in 2001, who was President then???
James Baker, General Counsel – FIRED - For what reason????? Again related to Trump's Russia investigation.
Bill Priestap, Director of Counterintelligence (Strzok’s boss) – Cooperating witness [power removed] - Fired because of Nune's debunked memo. Again related to Russia investigation.
Peter Strzok, Deputy Assistant Director of Counterintelligence – FIRED - Fired against recommendations for personal use of company cell phone.
Lisa Page, Office of General Counsel – FIRED/FORCED - Was not employed by FBI for him to fire.
Mike Kortan, Assistant Director for Public Affairs – FIRED - NO, retired.
Josh Campbell, Special Assistant to Comey – FIRED - NO, resigned.
.
Don't you find it interesting that everyone (with 1 exception) that Trump has actually fired, on your list, was fired because of the Russia investigation?
So when you say that someone should be 'given responsibility' you mean WHAT?
Impeached?
Extra homework?
WHAT?
In short, you've got NOTHING. Got ya.
I'd rather stick with what I've been rightly presuming all along, that you bailed...
Gee Tex that hurts. I invested a couple of days getting you to see the light on the IRS thingy. You've yet to explain even one thing to me...
Tweeting vs actual spying? No not even close:
With the exceptions of JFK and Barak Obama the DOJ has maintained a tradition of independence.
In 2013, IRS official Lois Lerner revealed that conservative groups seeking tax-exempt status had been getting extra scrutiny, based on words such as "tea party" or "patriots" in their names.
For conservatives, she confirmed their darkest suspicions. In the Tea Party heyday years of 2009 and 2010, hundreds of groups affiliated with the party had sought tax-exempt status as 501(c)(4) "social welfare" organizations. IRS demands for documents left many of them in bureaucratic limbo for a year or more.
Now, in the third audit of how the tax-exempt application process went off the rails, the Treasury Department's inspector general overseeing the IRS has found the agency targeted not just conservatives but also scores of groups with words like "progressive" in their names.
IT'S ALL POLITICS
Lost IRS Emails Spark Republican Ire
The Treasury inspector general for tax administration, or TIGTA, did the report at the request of a bipartisan group of senators.
"The far right has been beating a drum for years now that there was a partisan attack on them," said Sen. Ron Wyden, D-Ore., one of the requestors. He said the new report shows "that's just not true."
But the TIGTA audit didn't absolve the IRS. Wyden said the overall picture was "equal opportunity mismanagement and equal opportunity bedlam."
Conservative lawyer Cleta Mitchell, who represents eight groups that were given the extra scrutiny, said the process took far too long. In one case, she said, "the IRS wanted every communication that this organization had made about Obamacare," as the Affordable Care Act is commonly called.
Mitchell said that even if progressive groups did get targeted, "they didn't get subjected to the kinds of follow-up the Tea Party groups did. I don't care how anybody wants to spin it. They just didn't."
The "apology" to conservative groups was part of a consent agreement through the courts.
Kind of like when Trump agreed to
Before you start crying that it was different, in both cases the accused party agreed to change their behavior as part of an agreement (settlement) adjudicated by a court.
Weren't you one of the ones saying that Trump was innocent of discrimination against blacks? He agreed to use a list of potential tenants provided to him from a black activist group to comply with the court agreement he entered. He wasn't "innocent". He was forced to make the agreement the same way the IRS was forced to apologize, to put it behind them. If he was "innocent" then the IRS was "innocent".
I believe that apology was made before it came out that they were also targeting liberal groups.
What they were trying to do was identify groups that were inappropriately applying for a tax exempt status. Both conservative and liberal groups were flagged in that way. The Obama administration did not handle that issue well from a public relations standpoint , but I don't think it was a crusade against conservative groups. They had a bad procedure that was being applied to both sides of the political spectrum.
The case started in 2013.
Of course the apologies, now, then and during Lerners testimonies, have EVERYTHING to do with the damned case
or they (Lerner, Holder, IRS, et al ) would never have apologized at all.
To imply they are separate issues is just humorous.
From your own (incomplete) Fox News link October 26,2017
And if the progressive groups took them to court they would "apologize" to the progressive groups as well. It seems rather obvious that the "apology" was related to a court devised consent agreement.
I have no interest in a long drawn out "debate" with people who cherry pick their points.
The IRS wanted to scrutinize groups that were applying for a tax exempt status to make sure they actually qualified and were not political advocacy groups. In the course of doing that they scrutinized some groups based on a faulty criteria. Most of the faultily scrutinized groups were conservative, but some of them were liberal or neutral (about a third of the total). What we don't know is what was the percentage of all the groups that made this sort of application that were conservative and what percentage were liberal. If many more conservative groups were applying (which is a logical speculation considering this was the hey day of the Tea Party movement), then the fact that more conservative groups were scrutinized would not be unusual. It would be expected according to the percentages.
The IRS apologized , it appears, before it came out that they were also targeting liberal groups for extra scrutiny. If it had been revealed at the time that there were also liberal groups involved, I dont think you would have seen an apology only to conservative groups.
The later apology in 2017 is obviously related to the court settlement.
Now I am done with this old story.
Of course.
Thanks for finally providing at least some semblance of accurate evidence
( again without a complete link)
Do you think that Jay Sekelow et al., just sat down and wrote that court filing on May 29, 2013 and had it filed with the court?
Or did he talk about since, say, 2011 on the news any chance he could? (Primarily to prevent Obama's reelection)
At one point he insisted that an apology was all the conservative groups he represented actually wanted.
The IRS provided that May 10,2013, but it wasn't enough now was it? Nor in 2016 or 2017.
two things
One, please address that remark to whomever mentioned whatever it is your referred to about left leaning groups targetted by the IRS - it certainly wasn't me.
The second thing , I think you can figure out on your own, please..
So why did she take the 5th? What was she trying to hide?
Pffftt.
I don't doubt that you are right, it would require cogency.
Bullshit. You insisted that the IRS ONLY targeted conservative groups. I linked documented proof that you were wrong.
Yet it took you almost 2 days to find the pertinent information in that document even after I QUOTED it. Then you bailed...
Is that you Hillary? /s
You mad?
That's NOT what you said B4. It was all about conservatives...
BTW, you're all about posting the truth so practice what you preach.
You really need to make up your mind. Do I bore you or crack you up? I'm pretty sure those are mutually exclusive.
Is that a non denial, denial. Feel free to tell the truth.
Which started under Bush.
they fabricated evidence and weaponized the doj and fbi to take down a president, not only should they have been fired but they will be facing charges.
"crossfire hurricane? try "backfire hurricane or as we say in this country - treason.
that deep state everyone says does not exist is now in seriously deep shit.
the only question now is how far up will the dominoes fall?
got popcorn? enjoy the show
Gonna love hearing the qualified answers when this doesn't follow your fantasy.
They didn't exist until Bush started the illegal war.
Then when he tried to run the country instead of actually liberating it we got terrorists
No different than Reagan's "Freedom Fighters" figured out Reagan tried to own Afghanistan like the Russians did.
That was the birth of AlQueda.
Fair to say the right is what brought terrorism to American shores
The precedent, tactic, and planning were long before that.
actually... it was early 2017 when I first said the fbi and doj fabricated evidence. time has only proven me right.
but I cheated... using govt to go after political opponents is straight out of the communist playbook. anyone who has studied history knew what was going to happen. progressives do not have any "new" ideas. (it has all been done before)
today's left is so predictable it is almost funny
Trump to Sessions, stop investigating Republicans and just investigate my political opponents.
Trump blasts Sessions over indictments of two of his earliest congressional supporters
Is there or is there not a Justice Department Policy on investigations during elections?
What was the complaint about Comey re-opening the Clinton investigation when he did?
"Two years ago, Jane Chong dove deep into the supposed 60-day rule in a Lawfare post on FBI Director James Comey’s October 2016 letter on new developments in the Clinton investigation. As she wrote then, there is no formal rule barring Justice Department action in the days immediately before an election. Rather, the “rule” is more of a soft norm based on what former Attorney General Eric Holder himself described as “long-standing Justice Department policies and tradition.” In a guidance Holder issued in 2012, the attorney general wrote that, “Law enforcement officers and prosecutors may never select the timing of investigative steps or criminal charges for the purpose of affecting any election, or for the purpose of giving an advantage or disadvantage to any candidate or political party”—which, Chong noted, leaves a wide loophole for actions taken near an election without the purpose of affecting that election. In 2016, Attorney General Loretta Lynch issued a similar memorandum with the same language, as the inspector general report lays out."
And let's make sure we get ALL the documents.
As long as we don't get some politically motivated redactions like Nunes and his fellow stooges on the House Intel Committee tried to pass off as valid (and were later shown to be bogus when the unexpurgated documents came out) this should turn out to be yet another rake that Scumbag and his tea-toadies deliberately step on in the desperate hope of trying to smear people who are actually trying to protect this country. This FISA thing with regard to Page is more likely to keep reinforcing the legitimacy of why the FBI was so interested in him. And the attempt to smear Fusion GPS also blew up in these douchebags' faces. I can hardly wait for another round of that.