503 error. Hmm.

Alternate link:

https://www.scribd.com/document/370598711/House-Intelligence-Committee-Report-On-FISA-Abuses#from_embed

Unavailable

https://www.scribd.com/document/370598711/House-Intelligence-Committee-Report-On-FISA-Abuses

Did you read it? Perhaps you missed the end where Strozk and Lisa Page were discussing an "insurance" policy against Trumps election with McCabe?

I think OP is joking because the link wouldn’t load for him.

But yeah, the insurance policy texts in “Andy’s” office....I’m really not sure what harmless explanation could be offered for that at this point, but I’m willing to listen fellow redditors who disagree.

have you read the whole text

Yeah. I’m not sure what you mean by this reply though. Are you trying to say the text in and of itself is a harmless text, or that there was already no harmless explanation?

'insurance policy' doesnt sound so nefarious when you read it in context. I guess thats why when fbi attackers bring it up they only mention 2 words from the text

Perhaps you missed the end where Strozk and Lisa Page were discussing an "insurance" policy against Trumps election with McCabe?

I’ll break down my thinking.

“Andy” is almost certainly McCabe. If you disagree please provide a believable alternative, no media source has provided one, but who knows?

McCabe had knowledge of the dossier.

Strzok and Page were definitively anti-Trump.

“In the event he wins”: The dossier was only released after Trump won.

They we’re discussing an insurance policy IF he wins. Well he won and out comes a dossier that has served as the catalyst for a 15 month investigation and 12 months of spying on Carter Page.

A dossier Comey described as “salacious and unverified” in sworn public testimony.

I don’t know how you look at the text on it’s own and see that it proves itself harmless in and of itself.

It’s nefarious on its own and taken in context with other information I have a “high level of confidence” the dossier was the insurance policy.

I mean really, being skeptical of the memo is completely reasonable, but trying to say that text doesn’t look very suspicious just makes no sense to me.

My understanding is that "insurance policy" refers to securing a private job in the event there is an administration change since most people in political positions will leave.

Doesn't really line up with "can't take that risk" though.

However, "insurance policy" is being used as a metaphor in this case, its not what they exactly referred to.

Well it’s definitely a metaphor.

I mean the text has not aged well. It looked really bad initially and it’s looking worse now.

I'm not sure how, to me it's becoming more and more harmless. It's not referencing anything but giving a metaphor to describe risk, but not the action itself.

The "path" they describe may have nothing to do with an insurance policy type action.

Our viewpoints on this are just diametrically opposed.

Your right it’s a policy you reserve for risk of an event occurring(him winning)

He won...so you execute the insurance policy.

If the “can’t take that risk” part wasn’t in there I could say it’s explainable.

But the text makes me highly skeptical they were just playing around.

But I am saying there is no policy, its a metaphor. Its like a policy, which means it isn't one.

The risk he is referring to is the assumption that Trump can't win. So they can't just follow this "path" based on that assumption.

So the policy is a metaphor for what then? The path is the policy?

They were describing something and calling it “like an insurance policy”.

The “cant take that risk” communicates they clearly thought it was a significant action they weren’t taking lightly.

What are you insinuating the “insurance policy” is referring to?

There is more to the metaphor than "insurance policy". It's talking about why you would do that when you are under 40.

The metaphor is the "why" not the "what".

The risk is specifically "that Trump won't win the election" when suggesting that "path".

"It's like taking an insurance policy out before your are 40". Unlikely that you'll need it, but people die before they are 40.

He is expressing doubt that Hillary is just going to win. He says they shouldn't do something under that assumption. It's a bad idea to follow that "path".

Dying before your 40 is an unlikely event.

There is absolutely no chance he viewed the “unlikely event” being a “Hillary victory”.

Trump was even surprised on election night. Polls had Hillary as a virtual lock.

The “unlikely event” is absolutely a Trump victory.

So he’s referring to something or some action that would be required in the event Trump won.

I really don’t understand the disconnect we seem to have here.

There is absolutely no chance he viewed the “unlikely event” being a “Hillary victory”.

I meant the opposite, I was quoting the text.

The "Its" in the metaphor refers to the path. So put it like this:

The risk of assuming Hillary will win is like taking an insurance policy out in your 40s.

That’s a reasonable enough stance to take.

I don’t disagree with you. I’m really just glad that names/entities aren’t redacted.

This provides a trail for journalists/officials to start pressing for, on the record, verifiable answers to these claims.

Either McCabe said what he said or he didn’t. There’s a record of his testimony. Either Steele fed the story to Yahoo and it’s circular confirmation, or it’s not. Again, there’s a record of that.

The claims are out in the open, so it should be completely possible to either corroborate or disprove individual allegations item by item.

I fully agree, let’s see Schiff’s memo, and then let’s call for the underlying documents.

For better or worse, I think this is just the beginning.

Exactly.

I won’t lie to you I’m skeptical of Trump Russia Collusion and as hard as I try I’m sure it influences my first take on things.

And I’m only skeptical because extraordinary claims necessitate extraordinary evidence and there’s just too much anonymous, skewed, reporting for me to conclude that Trump actively colluded with Russia. I honestly don’t even know if proponents could agree what that means. Like if you got 1,000 people in a room and had them silently write their definition of what collusion would mean, they could all be different.

Russia can have influenced our election and not colluded with trump to do so.

I won’t be shocked if the memo is exaggerated, I would be surprised if claims are blatantly false as they had the balls to link the claims to actual names for which verifying documentation should exist.

So I get the defensiveness from people over a partisan memo, but I just don’t see how we would ever end up with the source docs without this memo starting an uproar. In that sense, I’m definitively pro memo.

If we never get the source docs then both Nunes and Schiff can go to hell in my opinion.

Agreed 100%. Let’s get all the non redacted info we can get.

The Democrats absolutely deserve to provide contradictory logic/assertions and then hopefully that culminates in “Show me the money(docs)!”

If the republicans follow this up with corroboration that is redacted I’ll call bullshit. Same as if the Dems make claims, but redact the names/entities that could verify/refute said claims.

That’s why if nothing else I’m glad the memo the public received had no redactions. Now any subsequent related releases better be non redacted or everyone will just call bullshit, and rightfully so.

Read it. Lines up, what we were told is true. Let the happenings commence

...and what would those happenings be, exactly?

Hopefully actually seeing people go down for this.

Who knows, but the fact that Carter Page was surveilled for an entire year and he has not been indicted is not a promising detail for adherents of the “Trump Russia Collusion” proponents.

He was quite literally the smoking gun of collusion and he’s not indicted after 12 months of surveillance and 15 months of investigation. That doesn’t jive with “Mueller’s closing in on Trump”.

do they need to indict him early in the process?

No, they don’t. But you can’t argue that 4 indictments, 2 on process crimes, and 2 on money laundering in 2014 are being used to zero in on Trump because they’ve turned states witness and then have the actual smoking gun of Trump Russia collusion be walking around A-ok.

They’d be trying to exert pressure on Page by way of a plea deal.

So, maybe Page is the ultimate target and not Trump. I don’t find that likely given Page was a campaign member for a limited time, but sure, it’s possible.

But if Page could be used to get to Trump they’d be doing that already. There were media reports that Mueller is slated to interview Trump in the near future. So, either they don’t have enough on Page to use him against Trump, or Page is the ultimate target and not Trump.

you have no idea what they are doing.

I never said I’m certain of any of this. I’m looking at it logically.

Page was on tv with Chris Matthews as of October 2017, which means as of October 2017 he was absolutely not under an indictment.

If he’s not under indictment, which there’s no evidence that he is, then he’s not being used to flip on Trump, which is what everyone is so certain is happening with Manafort, Flynn, etc.

if i was mueller, id love to act as agents for all these guys in the admin, booking them as much TV time as possible. the more they talk the better.

I think it’s more that they can reveal information that could skew the investigation with reference to other individuals who could be tipped off on certain info.

Sure they could verbally hang themselves, but I think the general thinking is there’s a higher probability it impedes rather than helps the investigation.

Just read the memo.. Basically this memo makes all the links we here at /r/conspiracy have already made. At least now it's laid out in a manner normies can digest.

No redactions either, everyone should at least be in agreement that that’s good.

Also, curious as to just how anything in the memo “could compromise methods and sources and represents a threat to national security”. So that deflection is conclusively and objectively a bullshit attempt to prevent release.

Looks like the ball is rolling. We need more non-redacted documents to corroborate this memo now otherwise it will continue to lack the credibility it needs if accountability is to be had.

So now it’s a race to see which can be fully corroborated first, the memo or the dossier.

What a time to be alive.

Ok so even if you believe they pulled a big switch up, which I can understand, the actual claims in the memo are linked to persons and entities that aren’t redacted.

Since they’re not redacted, there’s a blatant trail to follow to obtain either verifying or contradictory information.

In other words, if it’s bullshit it’s provable, McCabe’s testimony exists, he either said what is claimed or didn’t. It’s verifiable as true or false.

That’s my point.

Making claims but redacting names/entities would’ve been a joke.

My point is, the cards are on the table, names are in the open.

Let’s see a non redacted Schiff memo and then god willing, a non redacted (or at most minimally redacted) source material.

The task of verification can begin. I just think it’s a good thing.

Ok that’s fair. If you look at it from that angle I 100% agree with you. There could definitely have been fuckery.

I personally don’t think they made material changes mostly because if they did I don’t think it’d be hard for Schiff to prove and if they’re caught red handed they completely eradicate the potential for this memo to have any impact. It’s mostly just a risk/reward ratio wouldn’t make sense to me, but politicians are pretty ridiculous so who knows?

I should’ve stated “highly likely, in my opinion” rather than “conclusively.

I hadn’t considered that angle so thanks for pointing it out.

You too man, I enjoyed the discussion. It’s hard not to get worked up based on existing viewpoints sometimes, but we should all at least try.

I’m gonna need a TLDR

It's four pages long.

FFS it's 4 pages. No offence but your comment is disgraceful.

maybe he wants a ELI5 instead of a TL:DR

ya, but what is this. what is going on. why is this memo important. this is what you are dealing with. my stupidity and inability. in mass.

Sheesh chill I was kidding

sorry dude, there was so much nonsense flying around at the time of the release. Even if you were joking, it's just increasing the noise to signal ratio.

It’s up on Politico in full. Just finished reading it. Gonna read it a couple more times, but if this is all bullshit as has been claimed, it really shouldn’t be hard to disprove.

McCabe apparently offered testimony that the initial FISA warrant wouldn’t have been approved without the Steele Dossier. That testimony should be easy enough to disclose if it exists. That section of testimony just got declassified by this memo, so assuming it exists, there’s no reason that excerpt can’t be released and published. Would love to see the full testimony, but that excerpt is needed at the very least.

If true, well, I guess we know why McCabe stepped down one day after Wray saw the memo.

I can't wait to see how the teevee tries to discredit the memo, if they acknowledge it at all.

'insurance policy' doesnt sound so nefarious when you read it in context. I guess thats why when fbi attackers bring it up they only mention 2 words from the text

Perhaps you missed the end where Strozk and Lisa Page were discussing an "insurance" policy against Trumps election with McCabe?