American Public "Will Be Shocked" At Redacted Portions Of Carter Page FISA App: Nunes
House Intel Committee Chair Devin Nunes said on Sunday that the American public will be "shocked" when the redacted portions of Carter Page's FISA warrant application are revealed, reports the Daily Caller.
"We are quite confident that once the American people see these 20 pages, at least for those that will get real reporting on this issue, they will be shocked by what's in that FISA application," Nunes told Fox News' Maria Bartiromo - implying that the public may one day see an unredated (or less redacted) copy.
.@DevinNunes: "There's a stall game going on at DOJ and FBI - they're trying to stall as much they can hoping and betting that Republicans would lose the House in the fall." #SundayFutures @MariaBartiromo pic.twitter.com/KWFCp5qoZ1
— Fox News (@FoxNews) July 29, 2018
After being compelled by a Freedom of Information Act lawsuit, the DOJ released a heavily redacted portion of the FBI's FISA warrant application and several renewals for Carter Page, of which more than 20 pages are unable to be viewed. In a June 14 letter, Nunes and opther Republicans on the House Intel Committee asked President Trump to declassify 21 pages from the release.
"What's left that's redacted, the American people really do need to know what's underneath there," said Nunes on Sunday.
He also insisted on Sunday that "the Left and the media" do not want additional portions of the FISAs to be made public.
"They don't want that unredacted. They don't want transparency for the American people," he said.
Nunes said that he believes that the president's lawyers are reviewing the June 14 letter to see if the 20 pages can be made public. -Daily Caller
Meanwhile, the portions which were able to be read from the 412-page release revealed that the FBI relied heavily on the unverified "Steele" dossier, which relied on information from high level Kremlin officials as part of its claims.
If foreign collusion upsets you, then
Steele's actual collusion w/ Russians (funded by Hillary) should bother you more than the unproven collusion Steele merely alleges against Trump. That it doesn't suggests the anti-Trump collusion hysteria is insincere. https://t.co/J5f2YTBL4T
— Sean Davis (@seanmdav) July 29, 2018
To date, there is only one foreigner who without a doubt colluded with Russians to tilt the 2016 election: Christopher Steele, a foreign spy who worked on Hillary's behalf and lied to the FBI about the full extent of his election meddling during the campaign.
If a foreign spy using Kremlin sources to seed fake stories in the press and bogus investigative leads to the FBI on a campaign's behalf (and then lying about it to federal authorities) doesn't bother you, then you don't actually care about foreign election interference.
In other Nunes News: Twitter is in the crosshairs
Following widespread reports that Twitter is censoring conservative users with the use of "shadowbans," Nunes said that he and other lawmakers were exploring legal action against the social media giant.
"We were getting caught up in some type of trap to where people couldn't see our Twitter feed," said Nunes on Fox's Sunday Morning Futures, adding: "I don't know what Twitter is up to. It sure looks to me like they are censoring people and they ought to stop it, and we're looking at any legal remedies we can go through."
Nunes' comments came after several media reports and social media posts noting the phenomenon, capped off by a report by the liberal outlet VICE confirming the claims (albeit they only focused on the "dropdown search" issue and not the "Quality Filter" shadowbans) we reported earlier in the month.
In a bizarre response, Twitter issued a strange explanation to "set the record straight," where they explicitly state that they do not engage in the practice - except then they describe how they do exactly that.
"People are asking us if we shadow ban. We do not. But let's start with, "what is shadow banning?"
The best definition we found is this: deliberately making someone's content undiscoverable to everyone except the person who posted it, unbeknownst to the original poster." -Twitter
Then, Twitter reiterates they don't shadow ban - with the caveat in parentheses that you may need to go directly to the timeline of some users in order to see their tweets. (tee hee!)
"We do not shadow ban. You are always able to see the tweets from accounts you follow (although you may have to do more work to find them, like go directly to their profile). And we certainly don't shadow ban based on political viewpoints or ideology." -Twitter
In other words, Twitter says they don't shadow ban - it's just that tweets from people you follow may never appear unless you click directly into their timeline.
Between documented user reports and a January undercover video from Project Veritas in which then-current and former Twitter employees admit to shadowbanning conservatives, Nunes may have plenty of ammunition.