Democrats Are “Covering Up the Biggest Scandal in Modern Political History”

[jimnyc]

And make no mistake, this is and will be the biggest political scandal ever, IMO. If even 25% of the things out there about the Dems scandals of the past 2 years, then it's the biggest. And I believe a helluva lot more than that is true.

---

Former Secret Service Agent: Democrats Are “Covering Up the Biggest Scandal in Modern Political History”

Former US Secret Service Agent Dan Bongino joined FOX and Friends Weekend on Saturday to discuss the growing political scandal breaking in

Pete Hegseth: “Trust the department, not the president. Here to react Dan Bongino former NYPD officer, former Secret Service agent and host of the Dan Bongino show which can you find on anywhere where podcasts are available. Dan, thank you for joining us this morning. So your reaction to how Democrats are reacting to the White House decision to say, hey, let’s make sure we are not releasing anything to compromise national security in this memo.”

Dan Bongino: “Pete, the Democrats have forfeited all credibility on this case. They haven’t told the truth from day one. Pete, here’s what even more tragically amusing about the Democrats. They step — they lie so much they step on their own story. They told us before the release of the Nunes Republican memo oh my gosh sources and methods, it’s going to jeopardize national security. Nobody should see this. Cover it up. Sweep it under the rug. Then the memo came out oh this is a big nothing burger. This is a total dud. Nothing to see here, folks. Move along. They have not told the truth from day one on this. They have forfeited all their credibility. This is important. They are covering up what I believe to be the biggest scandal in modern political history. That is the being on of the trump team by the Obama Administration with no evidence to do so.”

http://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2018/02/former-secret-service-democrats-covering-biggest-scandal-modern-political-history-video/

[pete311]

I've watch Bongino on Fox News. He's a total sensationalist. Would be better on Info Wars. He talks in hyperbole. Just look at his quote. Lots of big claims. Where are the details? The truth is in the details but these talking heads don't have any.

[High_Plains_Drifter]

I've watch Bongino on Fox News. He's a total sensationalist. Would be better on Info Wars. He talks in hyperbole. Just look at his quote. Lots of big claims. Where are the details? The truth is in the details but these talking heads don't have any.https://image.ibb.co/ctuumm/head_up_ass.jpg

[pete311]

https://image.ibb.co/ctuumm/head_up_ass.jpg

Great self portrait drifter!

[High_Plains_Drifter]

Great self portrait drifter!
You probably save a ton giving yourself all those self colonoscopies.

Your denial of existing facts is epic, and oh so predictable. You're just a typical, garden variety, generic leftist. Individualism is something that does NOT exist among you people. You are all lock step, group think, clones.

[pete311]

You probably save a ton giving yourself all those self colonoscopies.

Your denial of existing facts is epic, and oh so predictable. You're just a typical, garden variety, generic leftist. Individualism is something that does NOT exist among you people. You are all lock step, group think, clones.

I listen to facts, not sensational biased talking heads speaking in pure hyperbole.

[High_Plains_Drifter]

I listen to facts, not sensational biased talking heads speaking in pure hyperbole.
You're a liar.

[pete311]

You're a liar.

good one

[Elessar]

I listen to facts, not sensational biased talking heads speaking in pure hyperbole.

Facts? You rarely offer 'Facts'. Only your narrow-visioned opinions and conspiracy theories.

"Facts"? You offer none.

[High_Plains_Drifter]

Facts? You rarely offer 'Facts'. Only your narrow-visioned opinions and conspiracy theories.

"Facts"? You offer none.
I didn't think it was even worth my time to point out little Pete's irony. It's like he's posting from another planet... oh so typical of nut job democraps, they LIE, OBSTRUCT, DEFLECT, INSULT, and more or less just talk like they're insane.

[jimnyc]

I've watch Bongino on Fox News. He's a total sensationalist. Would be better on Info Wars. He talks in hyperbole. Just look at his quote. Lots of big claims. Where are the details? The truth is in the details but these talking heads don't have any.

Once again you concentrate on a writer or the link, and then claim no facts. The amount of facts - from Hillary's server/emails, to uranium one, to bogus Russia claims, FBI&DOJ lies and inside work to get warrants, Lynch, Clinton, McCabe, Comey, Stzrok & so many more. And you stick your fingers in your ears, whine about a writer or link & ignore facts for so dang long. I would make a list of crimes and names and scandals - but you would either ignore it or declare it non-proof or claim things as not news as you like to do.

Unless it's a (R) of course.

How about this. I'll make a HUGE HUGE HUGE list, with incidents and perhaps crimes, individuals, scandals, links and more. I will lay my case down that there are many guilty on the left, enough to make this the biggest political scandal ever. Hell, we can do the one on one debate area, or I can just do a one long post and you can refute everything I post.

I'll put up $100 to ANYONE on the board to hold. I'll let Kathianne decide who "wins", as we know she ain't leaning towards helping Trump, and she's about as honest as they come. She decides who puts up a better case and FACTS, that you say are lacking, non-stop. If YOU lose, you give me $10.

We on?

[jimnyc]

Here's one as a freebie and for fun. :) And now, he gives the info to the FBI, and the Dems have it, Kerry and McCain have it - they all learn it's false - and all run with it in various ways - all with Trump getting defeated being the common denominator.

---

How the Criminal Referral on Christopher Steele Corroborates the Nunes FISA Memo

A criminal referral on Christopher Steele by Sens. Chuck Grassley (R-IA) and Lindsey Graham (R-SC), sent on Jan. 4 to the Justice Department and the FBI, is now declassified -- and it helps corroborate the claims in the Nunes FISA memo.

Grassley and Graham want Steele investigated for providing “false information” to the FBI, which would be a violation of 18 U.S.C. §1001 -- the same statute that former National Security Adviser Michael Flynn was charged under. But they also want DOJ and the FBI to investigate whether the representations the FBI made to the secret Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) court to obtain a warrant that started the surveillance of the Trump transition team “were in error.”

That is a polite way of saying that the FBI may have misled the court -- a very serious charge.

The Nunes memo said that the Steele dossier -- the opposition research prepared by former British intelligence agent Christopher Steele and paid for by the Clinton campaign and the DNC through Fusion GPS -- was an “essential” part of the FISA application. This has been disputed by Democrats on the House Intelligence Committee, led by Adam Schiff.

But the Grassley-Graham criminal referral says that the Senate Judiciary Committee’s review of the FISA application also shows the “bulk of the application consists of allegations” that were disclosed to the FBI by Mr. Steele and “are also outlined in the Steele dossier.” The application “appears to contain no additional information corroborating the dossier allegations.”

This is an important point, since the dossier was, according to James Comey, “salacious” and “unverified.” In other words, the FBI did not check the veracity of its claims.

According to the referral, when James Comey was asked why the “FBI relied on the dossier in the FISA applications absent meaningful corroboration -- and in light of the highly political motives surrounding its creation,” Comey said the FBI was relying on Steele because of his “past work” for the FBI.

The problem, according to Grassley and Graham, is that while the FBI told the FISA court that the dossier had been compiled by a law firm, it failed to tell the court that the “ultimate clients” who paid for it were the Clinton campaign and the DNC.

The bottom line, according to the referral:

[The] FBI relied on admittedly uncorroborated information, funded by and obtained for Secretary Clinton’s presidential campaign, in order to conduct surveillance of an associate of the opposing presidential candidate. It did so based on Mr. Steele’s personal credibility and presumably having faith in his process of obtaining the information.

Yet, they write:

[T]here is substantial evidence suggesting that Mr. Steele materially misled the FBI about a key aspect of his dossier efforts, one of which bears on his credibility.
What was the material misrepresentation? We don’t know -- the next paragraph in the criminal referral is blacked out.

According to the referral, in its original application, the FBI tried to support the claims made in the dossier by citing an article by Michael Isikoff published at Yahoo News that contained much of the same information that Steele had supposedly “discovered.” The FBI said it did not believe that Steele was the source for the information in Isikoff’s article, even though the Senate Committee said “public reports, court filings,” and other information indicate that Steele was the source and also provided dossier information to “numerous media organizations.”

Although the FBI eventually suspended its relationship with Steele because of his “unauthorized disclosure of information to the press,” it continued to rely on his supposed “credibility” even after that suspension when filing renewal applications with the FISA court. In other words, the FBI continued to rely on his credibility in trying to convince the FISA court to give it another surveillance warrant even though it knew Steele had lied to the FBI when he had told the Bureau he had “not shared his information with the press.”

The Senate Committee reviewed sworn statements made by Steele in a libel suit brought against him in England. Contrary to what he told the FBI, Steele admitted he “gave off the record briefings to” journalists about the dossier “in late summer/autumn 2016.” That included the New York Times, the Washington Post, Yahoo News, the New Yorker, and CNN in September -- before the first FISA application in October.

After this was first “publicly reported in the U.S. media in April 2017,” did the FBI, in FISA warrant renewals filed after that, disclose in writing to the FISA court that Steele had lied about his media contacts?

No, it didn’t.

The FBI also failed to tell the FISA court about the information it received from a Justice Department official, Bruce Ohr, about how “desperate” Steele was to see that Trump was not elected:

None of the information provided by Mr. Ohr in his interviews with the FBI was included in the FISA renewal applications, despite its relevance to whether Mr. Steele had lied to the FBI about his contacts with the media as well as its broader relevance to his credibility and his stated political motive.

Rest - https://pjmedia.com/trending/criminal-referral-christopher-steele-corroborates-nunes-fisa-memo/

[aboutime]

http://icansayit.com/1apages/dayofrecon.jpg


THESE ARE THE TALKING HEADS PETEY DIDN'T WANT TO IDENTIFY.

[aboutime]

I listen to facts, not sensational biased talking heads speaking in pure hyperbole.



Of course you do petey. You listen to, and obey the FACTS created by the Liars you love and admire so much. You and the Dems only recognize facts...YOU CREATE, and WE call YOUR LIES.

[Elessar]

We on?

Do it. I dare you!

He will cave in, turn tail and disappear.

Pete would not know a pure confirmed FACT if it
bit him in his liberal ass.

Inventing stuff is not FACT, Pete. Time to grow up and try wearing
big boy pants instead of pull-ups.

[LongTermGuy]

Great self portrait drifter!


ahh pete always fighting.....:laugh:

https://i.pinimg.com/736x/67/c6/56/67c65648a8dffb2ed674f63ea918c25b--you-do-it-you-are.jpg

[jimnyc]

Ok, I guess not, I should have known better.

[High_Plains_Drifter]

Ok, I guess not, I should have known better. @jimnyc (http://www.debatepolicy.com/member.php?u=1) Democrats are shysters. I guess we all know that by now.

Look at the leftist here. What do they do? Do they EVER, DISPUTE, with FACTS, ANYTHING that has been shown to them that goes AGAINST their agenda?

No, period.

The leftist here just pop in long enough to drop some little moronic one liner and then SPLIT, and lay in wait for the next time they drop another TURD on the board and then RUN.

I think they KNOW they're WRONG. They KNOW they're trying to defend the indefensible. They do it because it's ALL THEY HAVE. They have no high ground, they have no conscience, they have no morals or scruples when it comes to protecting their fascist party, they just BLINDLY regurgitate their FAKE talking points in hopes that SOMEONE will swallow it.

Their problem is the American people have woke up to their GARBAGE and VILE, CAUSTIC ATTACKS and LIES. They're PISSED OFF. They've been exposed as the SHRILL, MILITANT, OFFENSIVE and even VIOLENT fascists that they are and they don't like it. They got SOOOO USED TO being able to SHOUT people down and SHUT THEM UP during the kenyan years that now, they're just frustrated that it isn't working anymore.

Little Pete, Gab, Del... they have nothing but talking smack left.