>>>Except that since it's ONLY 4 pages it's obviously left out a huge amount of information, and what's in there was not only cherry picked, but also what went to the president to release was also not even what was voted on because "material changes" were made to it before he got it. And what about that the dossier came AFTER the first FISA warrant? It could not of been used because it did ot exist yet lol.
>
>You're just throwing any piece of mud you can find, relevant or not, in the hope that something sticks.
>
>You can't "cherry pick" whether the FBI/DOJ knowingly used HRC's Russian hoax pee pee document to trick a FISA court judge.

As I keep pointing out -- they did not use the pee pee document because it did not exist when the FISA warrant was first issued - you can't use something that does not exist.

>They either did or didn't. Arguing over whether they *needed* to use it, is like a thief who stole $100 arguing that he could have paid all his bills without the theft, so it shouldn't matter.... while others argue that it was actually Trump who stole the $100.

The pee pee document did not exist when the first FISA warrant was issued - so there is no argument if it was needed - obviously it was not BECAUSE IT DID NOT EXIST YET>

>/edit/
>
>That didn't take long. Yesterday the chairman of the House Homeland Security Committee said
>
>I believe that the entire FISA application, including the affidavit attached, taking out methods and sources, should be released to the American people, so we have a full context of what was the basis for the application from an evidence standpoint. I believe Americans, be it Democrat or Republican have a right to see that.

So the Chairman of the House Homeland Security Committee now thinks it's a good idea to release top secret classified material. mmm ok if he things that's a good idea.

>He also said in relation to the Strzok bias scandal:
>
>I do believe the Inspector General is looking into a couple of these FBI agent’s political motivations in relation to some of these politically charged investigations. When I was at the Justice Department in the public integrity section, we prided ourselves on not being partisan. Nobody knew what your political affiliation was and that was for a reason. We were not supposed to bring our politics into that office because it undermines the integrity of the institution and the credibility. And that should not have happened in this case. The IG is looking at this particular investigation, but I would respectfully request and recommend that the IG also expand his investigation into this FISA warrant application to determine whether it was valid or not.

Anytime the FBI is investigating a politician it's going to be called a politically motivated - always has been and always will be..

>The trouble for Rosenstein is the conflict of being investigator and witness- since he signed one of the applications. Special counsel!

Yeah this is a lame run-around-the-bush type of thing. Surely you see that this is all a ploy so Trump can fire Rosenstein so he can appoint another stooge who he will then tell to fire Muller and disband the Russia probe (which would be another example of obstruction - that thing you keep omitting from my posts when you respond). None of these antics worked for Nixon and they won't work here either -- it's just an attempt at a slow-motion version of the Saturday night massacre lol lol ...and we know how all that ended.