>>>That is correct - I do not know either -- however I know the standard practice and guidelines that a judge uses to approve such warrants - and the assumption that 4 different judges approved said warrant 4 different times based solely upon one dossier is preposterous. And if you take a look at the timeline here -- the 1st warrant came out before the dossier - so it's not even possible that this was a factor, let alone a controlling factor.
>
>Except that McCabe, who signed one of the applications, said on oath that without the pee pee dossier, they could not have gotten a FISA warrant.
>
>Your degree of personal absolute certainty does not trump that.
>
>My pick is that the only reason Schiff has not leaked his memo, is because as soon as he does, a special counsel will be appointed. My question for you, is why wouldn't Schiff want a special counsel. If there's no beef, why did Schiff go to court to try to stop Congress learning who funded the pee pee dossier? And why aren't Vox and the others full of talking points about special counsel?
>
>>>Good point - but note that they voted to release one memo and not the other. That is about as partisan as you can get and an antic of the guilty.
>
>Both sides did that. According to Nunes, Schiff tried his hardest to stop the committee finding out most of this stuff, but now he has a memo more than twice as large he's desperate to have released.
>
>>>And I'm saying that is pointless. It's Trump's attempt to attack the DOJ -- now he wants to claim that those 4 judges must be secretly plotting against him and violating their oath, not doing their job, and ignoring the law.
>
>First, I've not seen Trump advocating a special counsel. I am not Trump. Second, nobody is accusing the judges. You claim to have read the memo: a handful of bad actors is accused. It's a ludicrous lie to claim it's against the whole DOJ or the unnamed judges.
>
>>>This is the same guy who said a judge couldn't hear a case or rule fairly because he was of Mexican heritage. At some stage you have to simply accept it. You want to have a special counsel investigate 4 judges - then when that does not go right next step will be to attack the special counsel and demand an investigation into that special counsel -- the cycle goes on and on. My question to you is why do you want to investigate the 4 judges???
>
>As always, the angry accusations need to make sense. So answer this: if the judges were part of the conspiracy, HRC's pee pee dossier would not be needed. The judge would simply cooperate. Need for the pee pee dossier seems to be a vote of confidence in the judges who might not have granted the warrant without it.
>
>The "cycle" I see is flurries of distraction and confusion away from a very straight-forward issue that cuts to the heart of US democracy. Was the DOJ/FBI weaponized or not. IMHO the US MSM currently is failing in its duty as a pillar of democracy, to pursue that question to a conclusion, instead laying smokescreens and taking partisan positions.

Ok I'm confused. If someone has a problem with the FISA warrants being approved - then now does this not involve the judges who issued the warrants? The memo is a pile of b.s. -- you know that right? The warrants are usually 50 or 60 pages each and this memo is just 4 pages...so needless to say out of 200 to 240 pages a tiny few things were picked to put in the memo And again I point to the fact that the first FISA warrant was issued prior to the dossier and that this is all the more shown to be totally dishonest by the holding back of the minority rebuttal memo. Furthermore none of this disputes any of the findings of what was discovered as a result of the warrants anyway does it?