A denial based on "plausible deniability" is, by definition, an attempt to deceive. It is a lie and that is the Democrat defense against the Nunes Memo. Here is how it works:

119 share/ 1475 pageviews

Misleading as Hell Excerpt from the Wa/Post  -  

A now-declassified Republican memo alleged that the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court was duped into approving the wiretap request by a politicized FBI and Justice Department. The memo was written by House Intelligence Committee Republicans and alleged a “troubling breakdown of legal processes” flowing from the government’s wiretapping of former Trump aide Carter Page.

But its central allegation — that the government failed to disclose a source’s political bias — is baseless, the officials said.

The Justice Department made “ample disclosure of relevant, material facts” to the court that revealed “the research was being paid for by a political entity,” said one official, who spoke on the condition of anonymity because of the matter’s sensitivity.

The application for the warrant only mentions
"payment to a political party,"  conveniently leaving out all of the following details  (taken from the Nunes memo): 

1) The “dossier” compiled by Christopher Steele (Steele dossier) on behalf of the Democratic National Committee (DNC) and the Hillary Clinton campaign formed an essential part of the Carter Page FISA application. Steele was a longtime FBI source who was paid over $160,000 by the DNC and Clinton campaign, via the law firm Perkins Coie and research firm Fusion GPS, to obtain derogatory information on Donald Trump’s ties to Russia.
a) Neither the initial application in October 2016, nor any of the renewals, disclose or reference the role of the DNC, Clinton campaign, or any party/campaign in funding Steele’s efforts, even though the political origins of the Steele dossier were then known to senior DOJ and FBI officials.
b) The initial FISA application notes Steele was working for a named U.S. person, but does not name Fusion GPS and principal Glenn Simpson, who was paid by a U.S. law firm (Perkins Coie) representing the DNC (even though it was known by DOJ at the time that political actors were involved with the Steele dossier). The application does not mention Steele was ultimately working on behalf of—and paid by—the DNC and Clinton campaign, or that the FBI had separately authorized payment to Steele for the same information.

 

Again,  NONE of the above details were ever mentioned in any FICA warrant application or renewal of an existing warrant   . . . .   no mention at all.  And,  if you think that such omissions violate a threshold of some sort,  then welcome to the Patriot Nation.  Understand that the Dems NEVER camp on a lie without drafting something they can use as "plausible deniability."  That is the way they think.  They are crooks to the bone,  and the very beginnings of this Russian nonsense is proof.   

Never ever forget that Obama Care was passed into law by a President and his Party who lied about every,  single , critical fact concerning that bill.   It was all a lie and no one in that Party of liars was even embarrassed. 

 

Look,  if one of your kids acted as the Democrats do,  when asked whether she cleaned her room,  she would answer "Yes" or state," I picked up all my clothes and hung them in the closet."  Neither answer tells you she cleaned her room.  Plausible deniability works like this:  

You go into the rooms and discover it is still a mess.  You confront your kid.  "I thought you told me you cleaned your room."  The kid answers,  "But I never said I cleaned all of it."  

 

The Dems are saying,  "We told FICA that there was a political payment component to the Dossier."  That tells the court next to nothing in view of Point One of the Nunes memo   . . . . .  and any idiot can see this.