NUNES: FBI FAILED TO INCLUDE ‘EXCULPATORY’ EVIDENCE IN CARTER PAGE FISAS

House Intelligence Committee Chairman Devin Nunes claimed Monday that the FBI and Justice Department failed to include exculpatory evidence in surveillance warrant applications against former Trump campaign adviser Carter Page.
...

Nunes also told Hannity that the committee is interested in learning more about Justice Department official Bruce Ohr’s role in the Trump-Russia investigation.

Ohr, the former associate deputy attorney general, met with Steele before and after the 2016 presidential election. The post-election meetings were held after the FBI ended its relationship with Steele because of the former British spy’s contacts with the media.

As Nunes noted, though the FBI severed ties with Steele, Ohr provided information from his 12 meetings with Steele back to the FBI. Ohr’s wife, Nellie Ohr, also worked during the campaign for Fusion GPS, the opposition research firm that hired Steele in June 2016.

“Bruce Ohr is going to become more and more important in this investigation, and I think people should pay close attention to it,” Nunes told Hannity.

The news about Ohr is very old.  Its been out for over a year now.  And been downplayed in this thread repeatedly.

Yeah, but still no good reasons for a second special counsel to investigate the investigators ...  Uh huh ...

 kcar wrote: 

 Steely_D wrote: 

QAnon! It was Pence all along! Or even...this: 

 VV wrote: 
Or is he so complex, so ahead of you that you just don't understand how he's taking down the Deep State and making everything OK for the little guy?

 

 VV wrote: 

"Happy encounters"...sounds like code for a massage parlor service...

 steeler wrote: 
What does that make Clinton then?
 
Wait... I think I found it:

St Raphael is the patron saint for happy encounters...

 VV wrote: 
Now, now, Trump is God's imperfect messenger.  

 

CNN highlights Pence columns arguing Clinton lies about affair made him unfit to be president

Hypocrisy at it's finest!

 islander wrote: 
Ha, likely so.

 steeler wrote: 
The smoke is just getting started. 

 VV wrote: 
Thanks.

I did not grasp it at first! 

The smoke has now cleared.   

 kurtster wrote: 
Really?  So, if Mueller is replaced your concerns about the FISA warrants/dossier, the FBI agents who exchanged anti-Trump emails, the Michael Cohen investigation in the SDNY, the squeezing of Manafort, Gates, Flynn, etc ,, the complaints about Rosenstein, the Comey decisions regarding the prosecution of Hillary, the meeting between Bill and the AG on the airport tarmac, the "missing" DNC server, will all be rendered moot in your mind once Mueller is gone? Mueller himself is the problem? 

If so, I renew my earlier comments about Mueller's reputation for integrity. Perhaps, as you say, it all was a facade.

EDIT:  Ah, I see VV's post below shows that I misinterpreted what you meant.  You want a special counsel to investigate the special counsel.  Well, that certainly will speed things up . . .   

 

       

 kurtster wrote: 
So you want a 2nd special counsel convened to review and rubber stamp (not the findings of the first counsel) but that Muller's investigation was conducted "sufficiently"? 
 
Since it seems rather unlikely that this will happen, it looks like the smoke has finally cleared and you have answered Steeler's question with the response being that you will likely not accept any of Mueller's findings.
 

 steeler wrote: 
Well another special counsel as has been requested by many members of Congress would satisfy my concerns.  I see enough justification for it as I have already mentioned.

 kurtster wrote: 
Ok,, the topic is the integrity of the investigation.  I will repeat the questionsI asked in my previous post:

" There are just too many questions circling the investigators themselves." That is just one of your statements here today. Yet I am to believe your claim that you have not pre-judged the investigation before the issuance of its findings? How would any of your numerous questions regarding the integrity of the investigation be resolved before the findings are issued so that you could accept those findings? 

 kurtster wrote: 
Where does this assertion come from? Where was this prior litigation?  If this is true, shouldn't it have been a red flag for Trump when he made Manafort the chairman of his campaign?

Here is the indictment itself, direct from the source: https://www.justice.gov/file/1007271/download  It does include crimes from 2006, but I see no indication that they were previously litigated. It also includes crimes in 2017. If you need a specific reference, go to page 17 and you'll find 
  

Trump’s rally rhetoric is going to get somebody killed

 steeler wrote: 
We already know that Trump is facing peril regarding his honesty.  The whole investigation centers around Trump and his honesty / actions.  That is what is being questioned in the first place.  So why bring that back up when the current topic, or the one I'm trying to talk about is the integrity of the prosecution.  That Trump is on trial does not preclude questioning the integrity of the investigators.  But you seem to act as if the investigators are above reproach and their integrity must not be questioned.  I disagree and have stated the basis for my concerns..  Everybody needs to be scrutinized.    That is my point which you refuse to see or allow.

Manafort is no sweetheart.  Your question about is prosecuting Manafort unfair to Trump is ludicrous.  What on earth do you mean ?  

Manafort is a sleazy political operative who got thrown overboard by Trump as soon as questions surrounding his involvement in Ukrainian politics came to light.  My understanding is that most, not all, but most of what he is facing trial over was already litigated 10 years ago.  Now is round two.  I'm not saying he is innocent of his current charges, just questioning the motives surrounding his current prosecution.  I do have confidence in the presiding judge and that this will be a fair trial.  Do you believe the same ?

Trump is the president the Founding Fathers feared