laura: just happened to happen in the fall of 2016 and going into december 2016. the timing is very curious. didn t have anything to do with the trump situation. congressman, you were mentioned today on another network. it s like the personal invective. you don t care what the truth is. it s all about propping up trump. i saw a tweet from representative jim jordan today who said, sort of backing up the nunes memo, especially this was a product to mislead the fisa courts because they never informed the fisa courts about the bias in the dossier. it is right there in black and white. you have to assume it suggests you haven t read the documents or perhaps you don t know enough. when you don t care they say. they said candidate a, campaign b. the most convoluted way.
paid for by the clinton campaign. just come out with it straight and tell the court. they didn t do that. the third round of questioning, peter strzok, i was asking about the dossier. he confirmed, the fbi confirmed they were getting parts of the dossier from bruce ohr. bruce ohr, whose wife nellie worked for fusion. it is coming to bruce ohr, going to the fbi. was that what they used? when they took to the fisa court? this is as scary as it gets. that s why the nunes memo was right on target. byron s column lays it out on the fact that they are saying this is just wrong. if the dossier wasn t important, why did you lead with it? why didn t you go laura: i m going to ask nunes about this too, if you re going to reference it, why not go all in and reference this is from hillary clinton. she paid for it. they did say they parted ways however it is curious, if they re going to mention it, why not go with it?
government. laura: your reaction. i enjoy it. bring it on. the more they do, the more the attack, the more we know we are over the target. they cannot deny, the major point of the memo was to say the dossier was used in this application. it made up the bulk of the fisa. even with the redactions, you can see that s the case. laura: i want to ask you about that particular part. let s quote from david kris on the warrant application on the website. he said we can see the footnote disclosing steele s possible bias takes up more than a full page in the applications. there is literally no way the fisa court could have missed it. the fbi gave the court enough information to evaluate steele s credibility. and that basic point is being repeated quite often. by the left. one of the things you have to realize now with the press.
laura: and they did not say that why? i believe because that s crazy. can you imagine? do we live in a country today, i guess we do actually live in a country because this actually did happen where we can go hire private former contractors to go out and in this case, a former british agent, to go dig up dirt on your opponent, take it in the fbi and doj that you control, feed it into them so they can open up a counterintelligence investigation without any defense there, without any grand jury, and go get your communications. look, that s why they wanted to have carter page. that s why they wanted all of his electronic communications. i keep hearing the argument that it wasn t until after he was off the campaign. in the fisa application itself it says they believe he is a guy who s running this collusion effort. clearly they think he is still involved in the campaign and clearly this guy had his rights abused. laura: marco rubio made the point. let s watch.
going into december 2016. just the timing is very curious. didn t have anything to do with the trump situation. congressman, you were mentioned today on another network. and again the usual thing it s kind of like the personal invective. you don t care what the truth is. it s all about propping up trump. i saw a tweet from representative jim jordan today who said, sort of backing up the nunes memo, essentially this was a product to mislead the fisa courts because they never informed the fisa courts about the bias inherent in this dossier. and it s right there in black and white in this footnote. you have to assume they suggest you haven t read the documents or perhaps you don t know what you re talking about or you don t care what they say. they said candidate a, campaign b. nfl team 26. the most convoluted way. why not say the document was