|
Read the rules in the OP before posting, please.In order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a re-read to refresh your memory! The vast majority of you are contributing in a healthy way, keep it up! NOTE: When providing a source, explain why you feel it is relevant and what purpose it adds to the discussion if it's not obvious. Also take note that unsubstantiated tweets/posts meant only to rekindle old arguments can result in a mod action. |
On February 03 2018 05:53 xDaunt wrote:Alerting Americans to potential 4th Amendment abuses in the FISA courts doesn't serve American interests? Christ, McCain won't be gone fast enough.
Attempting to turn the FBI into a political football to defend the president isn’t in our best interest either. Neither is undermining active investigations by ignoring the proper venue for the alleged abuse and just releasing information to the public without proper context.
But hey, Trump needed a reason to file the deputy AG and Nunes delivered like a good puppy.
|
On February 03 2018 05:50 TheTenthDoc wrote:Show nested quote +On February 03 2018 05:37 Introvert wrote:On February 03 2018 05:31 TheTenthDoc wrote:On February 03 2018 05:27 Introvert wrote:On February 03 2018 05:16 Doodsmack wrote:
It's interesting to me the degree to which this was hyped up by prominent Republicans. I mean, they were all but saying it's the end of the universe. The contents of the memo obviously don't bear that out, but their media strategy is interesting to me. Presumably their media strategy was to preemptively convince their base of what they were saying. It's a general hedge against anything that comes out of the Mueller investigation, at least that's my theory. One thing that's for sure is that their hyperbole and the heat they're putting on law enforcement, harms the work of the FBI. Very unpatriotic. People everywhere were overreaching. Where is the great national security threat? I want the dem memo, more people to be questioned under oath, and for Democrats to rediscover their love of adversarial oversight. There seem to be about 3 people who thinks this affects Mueller at all. I mean, wasn't the memo modified in several clarifying details with one substantive change made at the FBI's request? That's what Nunes' spokesman said, anyway. It's quite likely that neutered the natsec issues and concerns the FBI had (I would also argue that at this point confirming the investigation started with Papa is kind of an issue for the investigation's integrity). The bigger concern is whether this affects Rosenstein here, anyway. So we now believe Nunes about the edits? Good! Of course the FBI wanting all names redacted sounds like a CYA move which is why I still believe nothing at face value. The DAG will be fine and Comey will make an ass of himself, as has been the case for months for both of them. I'm so confused, we all knew Nunes edited the memo that was sent to Trump. That was never contested. The question was whether to believe Nunes about which parts were edited, how relevant they were, and whether it was appropriate to do so after having the committee approve a specific version for release. Personally I would say if it was edited to remove natsec concerns and clarify things it was materially different as Schiff said, but what do I know.
You're smarter than this and come around to it at the end.
I wasn't contesting that it was edited. It seems likely to me, but not confirmed, that they used these concerns as an excuse. Even now that hack Eric Holder said how bad it was. No one can find it.
Also if the edits were for security than surely Schiff would applaud the edits.
|
On February 03 2018 05:42 TheLordofAwesome wrote:Show nested quote +On February 03 2018 05:37 Introvert wrote:On February 03 2018 05:31 TheTenthDoc wrote:On February 03 2018 05:27 Introvert wrote:On February 03 2018 05:16 Doodsmack wrote:
It's interesting to me the degree to which this was hyped up by prominent Republicans. I mean, they were all but saying it's the end of the universe. The contents of the memo obviously don't bear that out, but their media strategy is interesting to me. Presumably their media strategy was to preemptively convince their base of what they were saying. It's a general hedge against anything that comes out of the Mueller investigation, at least that's my theory. One thing that's for sure is that their hyperbole and the heat they're putting on law enforcement, harms the work of the FBI. Very unpatriotic. People everywhere were overreaching. Where is the great national security threat? I want the dem memo, more people to be questioned under oath, and for Democrats to rediscover their love of adversarial oversight. There seem to be about 3 people who thinks this affects Mueller at all. I mean, wasn't the memo modified in several clarifying details with one substantive change made at the FBI's request? That's what Nunes' spokesman said, anyway. It's quite likely that neutered the natsec issues and concerns the FBI had (I would also argue that at this point confirming the investigation started with Papa is kind of an issue for the investigation's integrity). The bigger concern is whether this affects Rosenstein here, anyway. So we now believe Nunez about the edits? Good! Of course the FBI wanting all names redacted sounds like a CYA move which is why I still believe nothing at face value. The DAG will be fine and Comey will make an ass of himself, as has been the case for months for both of them. The entire point of the memo is to give Trump an excuse to fire Rosenstein. Why does Trump want to fire his own appointee? Because Rosenstein appointed and continues to protect Mueller. Trump wants the investigation ended no matter the cost. Why is he so desperate? Nobody really knows. The GOP will continue to support Trump in everything until they see electoral consequences for their actions. The 2018 midterms will be extremely important in that regard, as they will provide the first real judgement of Trump's presidency.
Memo doesn’t even mention Rosenstein. Where in hell are you getting this specific conspiracy theory?
|
On February 03 2018 05:39 Danglars wrote:Show nested quote +On February 03 2018 05:04 WolfintheSheep wrote:On February 03 2018 04:54 Danglars wrote:On February 03 2018 04:47 WolfintheSheep wrote:On February 03 2018 04:39 Danglars wrote:On February 03 2018 04:16 WolfintheSheep wrote:
Wait wait wait...
So, if I'm reading the House Intelligence Committee report correctly, their problem is that the Dossier was omitted from the FISA renewal application? As in the application that provides probable cause to justify a continuation of surveillance?
So basically a judge received probable cause that did not rely on the Dossier, approved the FISA renewal, and Nunes doesn't like that they didn't present the evidence that he wants to discredita? It said almost the exact opposite. It’s only four pages long. Yeah, misread the first couple lines. The bullet point starts with "material and relevant information was omitted", and the first point says "The dossier compiled by Christopher Steele". So the entire complaint is that the FISA application doesn't say that sources of evidence could be biased. Which, um, duh? They didn’t say multiple grounds they had (at the time) to doubt the information in the dossier. The FBI instead brought up at least one false means of corrobation and concealed conflicts of interest and credibility gaps. According to the memo. xDaunts already said three different ways why that matters, so I suggest you read him. They were presenting probable cause to continue investigating, not giving evidence to prove guilt. (Of course, if this was court, it still wouldn't be the job of the investigators/prosecutors to provide the doubt) They withheld material facts from the judge that is the last line of defense in this process for fourth amendment protections of American citizens. Maybe you’d understand if some enemy of yours had paid to smear your reputation, and the FBI didn’t let on to a judge the person who had reason to do you harm. But again, maybe not.
@Danglars
@xDaunt
First of all, the Steele dossier was only one part of the evidence presented for probable cause for the FISA warrant. Steele's research was certainly included with a bunch of other evidence in the warrant application. The fact that Nunes, who has demonstrated no regard for the importance of classification, did not disclose what that other evidence was should tell you everything you need to know about its reliability. In other words, do you believe for one second that had Nunes would have declined to release any other evidence in the application that could be construed as tainted in any way?
But let's look at just the dossier for the moment. Even then, everything you have said today on the matter of bias in an informant being illegal or tainting or invalidating a warrant application is completely and utterly false. See the article here.
|
On February 03 2018 05:57 Danglars wrote:Show nested quote +On February 03 2018 05:42 TheLordofAwesome wrote:On February 03 2018 05:37 Introvert wrote:On February 03 2018 05:31 TheTenthDoc wrote:On February 03 2018 05:27 Introvert wrote:On February 03 2018 05:16 Doodsmack wrote:
It's interesting to me the degree to which this was hyped up by prominent Republicans. I mean, they were all but saying it's the end of the universe. The contents of the memo obviously don't bear that out, but their media strategy is interesting to me. Presumably their media strategy was to preemptively convince their base of what they were saying. It's a general hedge against anything that comes out of the Mueller investigation, at least that's my theory. One thing that's for sure is that their hyperbole and the heat they're putting on law enforcement, harms the work of the FBI. Very unpatriotic. People everywhere were overreaching. Where is the great national security threat? I want the dem memo, more people to be questioned under oath, and for Democrats to rediscover their love of adversarial oversight. There seem to be about 3 people who thinks this affects Mueller at all. I mean, wasn't the memo modified in several clarifying details with one substantive change made at the FBI's request? That's what Nunes' spokesman said, anyway. It's quite likely that neutered the natsec issues and concerns the FBI had (I would also argue that at this point confirming the investigation started with Papa is kind of an issue for the investigation's integrity). The bigger concern is whether this affects Rosenstein here, anyway. So we now believe Nunez about the edits? Good! Of course the FBI wanting all names redacted sounds like a CYA move which is why I still believe nothing at face value. The DAG will be fine and Comey will make an ass of himself, as has been the case for months for both of them. The entire point of the memo is to give Trump an excuse to fire Rosenstein. Why does Trump want to fire his own appointee? Because Rosenstein appointed and continues to protect Mueller. Trump wants the investigation ended no matter the cost. Why is he so desperate? Nobody really knows. The GOP will continue to support Trump in everything until they see electoral consequences for their actions. The 2018 midterms will be extremely important in that regard, as they will provide the first real judgement of Trump's presidency. Memo doesn’t even mention Rosenstein. Where in hell are you getting this specific conspiracy theory?
Yes it does... he approved one of the FISA renewals. Trump was asked about if he would use this to fire Rosenstein today and he said "you figure that one out." Not very reassuring.
|
On February 03 2018 05:57 Danglars wrote:Show nested quote +On February 03 2018 05:42 TheLordofAwesome wrote:On February 03 2018 05:37 Introvert wrote:On February 03 2018 05:31 TheTenthDoc wrote:On February 03 2018 05:27 Introvert wrote:On February 03 2018 05:16 Doodsmack wrote:
It's interesting to me the degree to which this was hyped up by prominent Republicans. I mean, they were all but saying it's the end of the universe. The contents of the memo obviously don't bear that out, but their media strategy is interesting to me. Presumably their media strategy was to preemptively convince their base of what they were saying. It's a general hedge against anything that comes out of the Mueller investigation, at least that's my theory. One thing that's for sure is that their hyperbole and the heat they're putting on law enforcement, harms the work of the FBI. Very unpatriotic. People everywhere were overreaching. Where is the great national security threat? I want the dem memo, more people to be questioned under oath, and for Democrats to rediscover their love of adversarial oversight. There seem to be about 3 people who thinks this affects Mueller at all. I mean, wasn't the memo modified in several clarifying details with one substantive change made at the FBI's request? That's what Nunes' spokesman said, anyway. It's quite likely that neutered the natsec issues and concerns the FBI had (I would also argue that at this point confirming the investigation started with Papa is kind of an issue for the investigation's integrity). The bigger concern is whether this affects Rosenstein here, anyway. So we now believe Nunez about the edits? Good! Of course the FBI wanting all names redacted sounds like a CYA move which is why I still believe nothing at face value. The DAG will be fine and Comey will make an ass of himself, as has been the case for months for both of them. The entire point of the memo is to give Trump an excuse to fire Rosenstein. Why does Trump want to fire his own appointee? Because Rosenstein appointed and continues to protect Mueller. Trump wants the investigation ended no matter the cost. Why is he so desperate? Nobody really knows. The GOP will continue to support Trump in everything until they see electoral consequences for their actions. The 2018 midterms will be extremely important in that regard, as they will provide the first real judgement of Trump's presidency. Memo doesn’t even mention Rosenstein. Where in hell are you getting this specific conspiracy theory?
Yes, it does mention him. "Then-DAG Sally Yates, then-Acting DAG Dana Boente, and DAG Rod Rosenstein each signed one or more FISA applications on behalf of DOJ."
Trump was asked today about his confidence in Rosenstein after the release of the memo. He responded "You figure it out." I think it's pretty obvious what he means by that.
|
On February 03 2018 05:57 Introvert wrote:Show nested quote +On February 03 2018 05:50 TheTenthDoc wrote:On February 03 2018 05:37 Introvert wrote:On February 03 2018 05:31 TheTenthDoc wrote:On February 03 2018 05:27 Introvert wrote:On February 03 2018 05:16 Doodsmack wrote:
It's interesting to me the degree to which this was hyped up by prominent Republicans. I mean, they were all but saying it's the end of the universe. The contents of the memo obviously don't bear that out, but their media strategy is interesting to me. Presumably their media strategy was to preemptively convince their base of what they were saying. It's a general hedge against anything that comes out of the Mueller investigation, at least that's my theory. One thing that's for sure is that their hyperbole and the heat they're putting on law enforcement, harms the work of the FBI. Very unpatriotic. People everywhere were overreaching. Where is the great national security threat? I want the dem memo, more people to be questioned under oath, and for Democrats to rediscover their love of adversarial oversight. There seem to be about 3 people who thinks this affects Mueller at all. I mean, wasn't the memo modified in several clarifying details with one substantive change made at the FBI's request? That's what Nunes' spokesman said, anyway. It's quite likely that neutered the natsec issues and concerns the FBI had (I would also argue that at this point confirming the investigation started with Papa is kind of an issue for the investigation's integrity). The bigger concern is whether this affects Rosenstein here, anyway. So we now believe Nunes about the edits? Good! Of course the FBI wanting all names redacted sounds like a CYA move which is why I still believe nothing at face value. The DAG will be fine and Comey will make an ass of himself, as has been the case for months for both of them. I'm so confused, we all knew Nunes edited the memo that was sent to Trump. That was never contested. The question was whether to believe Nunes about which parts were edited, how relevant they were, and whether it was appropriate to do so after having the committee approve a specific version for release. Personally I would say if it was edited to remove natsec concerns and clarify things it was materially different as Schiff said, but what do I know. You're smarter than this and come around to it at the end. I wasn't contesting that it was edited. It seems likely to me, but not confirmed, that they used these concerns as an excuse. Even now that hack Eric Holder said how bad it was. No one can find it. Also if the edits were for security than surely Schiff would applaud the edits.
I'd guess his applause would depend on what the "clarifying" edits were and whether they outweighed whatever was changed at FBI's request (and whether Schiff believed the omissions at the FBI's request made the memo more misleading, rather than less). Without seeing both versions of the memo it's unknowable and whatever else comes out of this I don't think we'll ever see those side by side. So both sides get to puff indefinitely.
On February 03 2018 06:04 TheLordofAwesome wrote:Show nested quote +On February 03 2018 05:57 Danglars wrote:On February 03 2018 05:42 TheLordofAwesome wrote:On February 03 2018 05:37 Introvert wrote:On February 03 2018 05:31 TheTenthDoc wrote:On February 03 2018 05:27 Introvert wrote:On February 03 2018 05:16 Doodsmack wrote:
It's interesting to me the degree to which this was hyped up by prominent Republicans. I mean, they were all but saying it's the end of the universe. The contents of the memo obviously don't bear that out, but their media strategy is interesting to me. Presumably their media strategy was to preemptively convince their base of what they were saying. It's a general hedge against anything that comes out of the Mueller investigation, at least that's my theory. One thing that's for sure is that their hyperbole and the heat they're putting on law enforcement, harms the work of the FBI. Very unpatriotic. People everywhere were overreaching. Where is the great national security threat? I want the dem memo, more people to be questioned under oath, and for Democrats to rediscover their love of adversarial oversight. There seem to be about 3 people who thinks this affects Mueller at all. I mean, wasn't the memo modified in several clarifying details with one substantive change made at the FBI's request? That's what Nunes' spokesman said, anyway. It's quite likely that neutered the natsec issues and concerns the FBI had (I would also argue that at this point confirming the investigation started with Papa is kind of an issue for the investigation's integrity). The bigger concern is whether this affects Rosenstein here, anyway. So we now believe Nunez about the edits? Good! Of course the FBI wanting all names redacted sounds like a CYA move which is why I still believe nothing at face value. The DAG will be fine and Comey will make an ass of himself, as has been the case for months for both of them. The entire point of the memo is to give Trump an excuse to fire Rosenstein. Why does Trump want to fire his own appointee? Because Rosenstein appointed and continues to protect Mueller. Trump wants the investigation ended no matter the cost. Why is he so desperate? Nobody really knows. The GOP will continue to support Trump in everything until they see electoral consequences for their actions. The 2018 midterms will be extremely important in that regard, as they will provide the first real judgement of Trump's presidency. Memo doesn’t even mention Rosenstein. Where in hell are you getting this specific conspiracy theory? Yes, it does mention him. "Then-DAG Sally Yates, then-Acting DAG Dana Boente, and DAG Rod Rosenstein each signed one or more FISA applications on behalf of DOJ." Trump was asked today about his confidence in Rosenstein after the release of the memo. He responded "You figure it out." I think it's pretty obvious what he means by that.
To be fair that isn't standard Trump speak for "We're firing him." When that's his plan, he says he has full confidence in them.
|
With all the reports coming out about Trump asking Rosenstein about which team he was on and the direction of the investigation, I’m surprised anyone missed that the memo was a pretense to file him. That has been speculated since people figured out what the memo was about.
|
On February 03 2018 06:07 Plansix wrote:
With all the reports coming out about Trump asking Rosenstein about which team he was on and the direction of the investigation, I’m surprised anyone missed that the memo was a pretense to file him. That has been speculated since people figured out what the memo was about.
On February 03 2018 05:57 Danglars wrote:Show nested quote +On February 03 2018 05:42 TheLordofAwesome wrote:
The entire point of the memo is to give Trump an excuse to fire Rosenstein. Why does Trump want to fire his own appointee? Because Rosenstein appointed and continues to protect Mueller. Trump wants the investigation ended no matter the cost. Why is he so desperate? Nobody really knows.
The GOP will continue to support Trump in everything until they see electoral consequences for their actions. The 2018 midterms will be extremely important in that regard, as they will provide the first real judgement of Trump's presidency. Memo doesn’t even mention Rosenstein. Where in hell are you getting this specific conspiracy theory?
|
On February 03 2018 05:53 xDaunt wrote:Alerting Americans to potential 4th Amendment abuses in the FISA courts doesn't serve American interests? Christ, McCain won't be gone fast enough.
That is quite the glossed over description of what happened.
|
On February 03 2018 06:09 TheLordofAwesome wrote:Show nested quote +On February 03 2018 06:07 Plansix wrote:
With all the reports coming out about Trump asking Rosenstein about which team he was on and the direction of the investigation, I’m surprised anyone missed that the memo was a pretense to file him. That has been speculated since people figured out what the memo was about. Show nested quote +On February 03 2018 05:57 Danglars wrote:On February 03 2018 05:42 TheLordofAwesome wrote:
The entire point of the memo is to give Trump an excuse to fire Rosenstein. Why does Trump want to fire his own appointee? Because Rosenstein appointed and continues to protect Mueller. Trump wants the investigation ended no matter the cost. Why is he so desperate? Nobody really knows.
The GOP will continue to support Trump in everything until they see electoral consequences for their actions. The 2018 midterms will be extremely important in that regard, as they will provide the first real judgement of Trump's presidency. Memo doesn’t even mention Rosenstein. Where in hell are you getting this specific conspiracy theory?
To put it another way, I can’t tell if people truly not aware or simply have a selective memory about what they want to remember at this time. I like to give people the benefit of the doubt, but it does seem very unlikely.
|
On February 03 2018 06:00 TheLordofAwesome wrote:Show nested quote +On February 03 2018 05:39 Danglars wrote:On February 03 2018 05:04 WolfintheSheep wrote:On February 03 2018 04:54 Danglars wrote:On February 03 2018 04:47 WolfintheSheep wrote:On February 03 2018 04:39 Danglars wrote:On February 03 2018 04:16 WolfintheSheep wrote:
Wait wait wait...
So, if I'm reading the House Intelligence Committee report correctly, their problem is that the Dossier was omitted from the FISA renewal application? As in the application that provides probable cause to justify a continuation of surveillance?
So basically a judge received probable cause that did not rely on the Dossier, approved the FISA renewal, and Nunes doesn't like that they didn't present the evidence that he wants to discredita? It said almost the exact opposite. It’s only four pages long. Yeah, misread the first couple lines. The bullet point starts with "material and relevant information was omitted", and the first point says "The dossier compiled by Christopher Steele". So the entire complaint is that the FISA application doesn't say that sources of evidence could be biased. Which, um, duh? They didn’t say multiple grounds they had (at the time) to doubt the information in the dossier. The FBI instead brought up at least one false means of corrobation and concealed conflicts of interest and credibility gaps. According to the memo. xDaunts already said three different ways why that matters, so I suggest you read him. They were presenting probable cause to continue investigating, not giving evidence to prove guilt. (Of course, if this was court, it still wouldn't be the job of the investigators/prosecutors to provide the doubt) They withheld material facts from the judge that is the last line of defense in this process for fourth amendment protections of American citizens. Maybe you’d understand if some enemy of yours had paid to smear your reputation, and the FBI didn’t let on to a judge the person who had reason to do you harm. But again, maybe not. @Danglars @xDaunt First of all, the Steele dossier was only one part of the evidence presented for probable cause for the FISA warrant. Steele's research was certainly included with a bunch of other evidence in the warrant application. The fact that Nunes, who has demonstrated no regard for the importance of classification, did not disclose what that other evidence was should tell you everything you need to know about its reliability. In other words, do you believe for one second that had Nunes would have declined to release any other evidence in the application that could be construed as tainted in any way? But let's look at just the dossier for the moment. Even then, everything you have said today on the matter of bias in an informant being illegal or tainting or invalidating a warrant application is completely and utterly false. See the article here.
Try again, dude. First, we don't know what else is in the FISA application. The main thrust of the memo is that the application was based pretty much solely upon the dossier. No one has rebutted that point yet other than "anonymous democrats." Second, you clearly have no idea what you're reading if you think that that lawfareblog article disproves what we've been saying. It does quite the opposite, actually. It lays out precisely the framework for why the origins and reliability of the dossier matter.
|
On February 03 2018 06:07 Plansix wrote:
With all the reports coming out about Trump asking Rosenstein about which team he was on and the direction of the investigation, I’m surprised anyone missed that the memo was a pretense to file him. That has been speculated since people figured out what the memo was about.
Nunes also was on the trump transition, and in that last episode went to the White House grounds to see documents shared with him by Flynn’s 30 year old aide so that he could then go tell Trump, so that Trump might have some vague support for his “wire tapped” tweet. McMaster cleared those involved in the unmasking of any wrongdoing, and promptly fired Flynn’s 30 year old goon.
That is to say, Nunes lacks credibility.
|
On February 03 2018 05:54 Danglars wrote:Show nested quote +On February 03 2018 05:40 WolfintheSheep wrote:On February 03 2018 05:39 Danglars wrote:On February 03 2018 05:04 WolfintheSheep wrote:On February 03 2018 04:54 Danglars wrote:On February 03 2018 04:47 WolfintheSheep wrote:On February 03 2018 04:39 Danglars wrote:On February 03 2018 04:16 WolfintheSheep wrote:
Wait wait wait...
So, if I'm reading the House Intelligence Committee report correctly, their problem is that the Dossier was omitted from the FISA renewal application? As in the application that provides probable cause to justify a continuation of surveillance?
So basically a judge received probable cause that did not rely on the Dossier, approved the FISA renewal, and Nunes doesn't like that they didn't present the evidence that he wants to discredita? It said almost the exact opposite. It’s only four pages long. Yeah, misread the first couple lines. The bullet point starts with "material and relevant information was omitted", and the first point says "The dossier compiled by Christopher Steele". So the entire complaint is that the FISA application doesn't say that sources of evidence could be biased. Which, um, duh? They didn’t say multiple grounds they had (at the time) to doubt the information in the dossier. The FBI instead brought up at least one false means of corrobation and concealed conflicts of interest and credibility gaps. According to the memo. xDaunts already said three different ways why that matters, so I suggest you read him. They were presenting probable cause to continue investigating, not giving evidence to prove guilt. (Of course, if this was court, it still wouldn't be the job of the investigators/prosecutors to provide the doubt) They withheld material facts from the judge that is the last line of defense in this process for fourth amendment protections of American citizens. Maybe you’d understand if some enemy of yours had paid to smear your reputation, and the FBI didn’t let on to a judge the person who had reason to do you harm. But again, maybe not. Remind me, Danglars. Does "he's biased" invalidate evidence that is presented before a court? Edit: Also, would like to point out that you said "smear". Which is odd, because Nunes specifically does not contest any actual evidence provided in the FISA application. He only attacks the source of some of the evidence. No. But the court must evaluate what level of trust to give evidence presented to justify domestic surveillance. Probable cause must not rely on deceiving the court to conflicts of interest, reliability, and false corroborating evidence. And in my example, withholding the funding source is withholding the possible motivations of Steele. And he absolutely contests the evidence of the Yahoo news article (Steele corroborating Steele is not the “actual evidence” it was made out to be in the application.
Non-corroborating evidence = Smear. Gotcha.
Steele is a Private Investigator. Private, as in paid, and Investigator, as in information gathering and not fiction writing. There is no "conflict of interest" in his job, investigating for 3rd party interest is his job. And the reliability of his information is based on his abilities and the evaluation of his history, not whoever is currently signing his paycheck.
|
On February 03 2018 06:16 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On February 03 2018 06:00 TheLordofAwesome wrote:On February 03 2018 05:39 Danglars wrote:On February 03 2018 05:04 WolfintheSheep wrote:On February 03 2018 04:54 Danglars wrote:On February 03 2018 04:47 WolfintheSheep wrote:On February 03 2018 04:39 Danglars wrote:On February 03 2018 04:16 WolfintheSheep wrote:
Wait wait wait...
So, if I'm reading the House Intelligence Committee report correctly, their problem is that the Dossier was omitted from the FISA renewal application? As in the application that provides probable cause to justify a continuation of surveillance?
So basically a judge received probable cause that did not rely on the Dossier, approved the FISA renewal, and Nunes doesn't like that they didn't present the evidence that he wants to discredita? It said almost the exact opposite. It’s only four pages long. Yeah, misread the first couple lines. The bullet point starts with "material and relevant information was omitted", and the first point says "The dossier compiled by Christopher Steele". So the entire complaint is that the FISA application doesn't say that sources of evidence could be biased. Which, um, duh? They didn’t say multiple grounds they had (at the time) to doubt the information in the dossier. The FBI instead brought up at least one false means of corrobation and concealed conflicts of interest and credibility gaps. According to the memo. xDaunts already said three different ways why that matters, so I suggest you read him. They were presenting probable cause to continue investigating, not giving evidence to prove guilt. (Of course, if this was court, it still wouldn't be the job of the investigators/prosecutors to provide the doubt) They withheld material facts from the judge that is the last line of defense in this process for fourth amendment protections of American citizens. Maybe you’d understand if some enemy of yours had paid to smear your reputation, and the FBI didn’t let on to a judge the person who had reason to do you harm. But again, maybe not. @Danglars @xDaunt First of all, the Steele dossier was only one part of the evidence presented for probable cause for the FISA warrant. Steele's research was certainly included with a bunch of other evidence in the warrant application. The fact that Nunes, who has demonstrated no regard for the importance of classification, did not disclose what that other evidence was should tell you everything you need to know about its reliability. In other words, do you believe for one second that had Nunes would have declined to release any other evidence in the application that could be construed as tainted in any way? But let's look at just the dossier for the moment. Even then, everything you have said today on the matter of bias in an informant being illegal or tainting or invalidating a warrant application is completely and utterly false. See the article here. Try again, dude. First, we don't know what else is in the FISA application. The main thrust of the memo is that the application was based pretty much solely upon the dossier. No one has rebutted that point yet other than "anonymous democrats." Second, you clearly have no idea what you're reading if you think that that lawfareblog article disproves what we've been saying. It does quite the opposite, actually. It lays out precisely the framework for why the origins and reliability of the dossier matter.
The intelligence community has said the Steele dossier was not the “central” piece of evidence, Wray (Trumps appointee) has all but implied the same.
|
On February 03 2018 06:20 Doodsmack wrote:Show nested quote +On February 03 2018 06:16 xDaunt wrote:On February 03 2018 06:00 TheLordofAwesome wrote:On February 03 2018 05:39 Danglars wrote:On February 03 2018 05:04 WolfintheSheep wrote:On February 03 2018 04:54 Danglars wrote:On February 03 2018 04:47 WolfintheSheep wrote:On February 03 2018 04:39 Danglars wrote:On February 03 2018 04:16 WolfintheSheep wrote:
Wait wait wait...
So, if I'm reading the House Intelligence Committee report correctly, their problem is that the Dossier was omitted from the FISA renewal application? As in the application that provides probable cause to justify a continuation of surveillance?
So basically a judge received probable cause that did not rely on the Dossier, approved the FISA renewal, and Nunes doesn't like that they didn't present the evidence that he wants to discredita? It said almost the exact opposite. It’s only four pages long. Yeah, misread the first couple lines. The bullet point starts with "material and relevant information was omitted", and the first point says "The dossier compiled by Christopher Steele". So the entire complaint is that the FISA application doesn't say that sources of evidence could be biased. Which, um, duh? They didn’t say multiple grounds they had (at the time) to doubt the information in the dossier. The FBI instead brought up at least one false means of corrobation and concealed conflicts of interest and credibility gaps. According to the memo. xDaunts already said three different ways why that matters, so I suggest you read him. They were presenting probable cause to continue investigating, not giving evidence to prove guilt. (Of course, if this was court, it still wouldn't be the job of the investigators/prosecutors to provide the doubt) They withheld material facts from the judge that is the last line of defense in this process for fourth amendment protections of American citizens. Maybe you’d understand if some enemy of yours had paid to smear your reputation, and the FBI didn’t let on to a judge the person who had reason to do you harm. But again, maybe not. @Danglars @xDaunt First of all, the Steele dossier was only one part of the evidence presented for probable cause for the FISA warrant. Steele's research was certainly included with a bunch of other evidence in the warrant application. The fact that Nunes, who has demonstrated no regard for the importance of classification, did not disclose what that other evidence was should tell you everything you need to know about its reliability. In other words, do you believe for one second that had Nunes would have declined to release any other evidence in the application that could be construed as tainted in any way? But let's look at just the dossier for the moment. Even then, everything you have said today on the matter of bias in an informant being illegal or tainting or invalidating a warrant application is completely and utterly false. See the article here. Try again, dude. First, we don't know what else is in the FISA application. The main thrust of the memo is that the application was based pretty much solely upon the dossier. No one has rebutted that point yet other than "anonymous democrats." Second, you clearly have no idea what you're reading if you think that that lawfareblog article disproves what we've been saying. It does quite the opposite, actually. It lays out precisely the framework for why the origins and reliability of the dossier matter. The intelligence community has said the Steele dossier was not the “central” piece of evidence, Wray (Trumps appointee) has all but implied the same.
Who has gone on the record and said this explicitly?
|
On February 03 2018 05:57 Danglars wrote:Show nested quote +On February 03 2018 05:42 TheLordofAwesome wrote:On February 03 2018 05:37 Introvert wrote:On February 03 2018 05:31 TheTenthDoc wrote:On February 03 2018 05:27 Introvert wrote:On February 03 2018 05:16 Doodsmack wrote:
It's interesting to me the degree to which this was hyped up by prominent Republicans. I mean, they were all but saying it's the end of the universe. The contents of the memo obviously don't bear that out, but their media strategy is interesting to me. Presumably their media strategy was to preemptively convince their base of what they were saying. It's a general hedge against anything that comes out of the Mueller investigation, at least that's my theory. One thing that's for sure is that their hyperbole and the heat they're putting on law enforcement, harms the work of the FBI. Very unpatriotic. People everywhere were overreaching. Where is the great national security threat? I want the dem memo, more people to be questioned under oath, and for Democrats to rediscover their love of adversarial oversight. There seem to be about 3 people who thinks this affects Mueller at all. I mean, wasn't the memo modified in several clarifying details with one substantive change made at the FBI's request? That's what Nunes' spokesman said, anyway. It's quite likely that neutered the natsec issues and concerns the FBI had (I would also argue that at this point confirming the investigation started with Papa is kind of an issue for the investigation's integrity). The bigger concern is whether this affects Rosenstein here, anyway. So we now believe Nunez about the edits? Good! Of course the FBI wanting all names redacted sounds like a CYA move which is why I still believe nothing at face value. The DAG will be fine and Comey will make an ass of himself, as has been the case for months for both of them. The entire point of the memo is to give Trump an excuse to fire Rosenstein. Why does Trump want to fire his own appointee? Because Rosenstein appointed and continues to protect Mueller. Trump wants the investigation ended no matter the cost. Why is he so desperate? Nobody really knows. The GOP will continue to support Trump in everything until they see electoral consequences for their actions. The 2018 midterms will be extremely important in that regard, as they will provide the first real judgement of Trump's presidency. Memo doesn’t even mention Rosenstein. Where in hell are you getting this specific conspiracy theory?
All of this speculation regarding Trump firing Rosenstein is nothing more than Democrat wishful thinking. That's not the point of releasing the memo. The point is to justify the appointment of a second special counsel.
|
On February 03 2018 06:21 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On February 03 2018 06:20 Doodsmack wrote:On February 03 2018 06:16 xDaunt wrote:On February 03 2018 06:00 TheLordofAwesome wrote:On February 03 2018 05:39 Danglars wrote:On February 03 2018 05:04 WolfintheSheep wrote:On February 03 2018 04:54 Danglars wrote:On February 03 2018 04:47 WolfintheSheep wrote:On February 03 2018 04:39 Danglars wrote:On February 03 2018 04:16 WolfintheSheep wrote:
Wait wait wait...
So, if I'm reading the House Intelligence Committee report correctly, their problem is that the Dossier was omitted from the FISA renewal application? As in the application that provides probable cause to justify a continuation of surveillance?
So basically a judge received probable cause that did not rely on the Dossier, approved the FISA renewal, and Nunes doesn't like that they didn't present the evidence that he wants to discredita? It said almost the exact opposite. It’s only four pages long. Yeah, misread the first couple lines. The bullet point starts with "material and relevant information was omitted", and the first point says "The dossier compiled by Christopher Steele". So the entire complaint is that the FISA application doesn't say that sources of evidence could be biased. Which, um, duh? They didn’t say multiple grounds they had (at the time) to doubt the information in the dossier. The FBI instead brought up at least one false means of corrobation and concealed conflicts of interest and credibility gaps. According to the memo. xDaunts already said three different ways why that matters, so I suggest you read him. They were presenting probable cause to continue investigating, not giving evidence to prove guilt. (Of course, if this was court, it still wouldn't be the job of the investigators/prosecutors to provide the doubt) They withheld material facts from the judge that is the last line of defense in this process for fourth amendment protections of American citizens. Maybe you’d understand if some enemy of yours had paid to smear your reputation, and the FBI didn’t let on to a judge the person who had reason to do you harm. But again, maybe not. @Danglars @xDaunt First of all, the Steele dossier was only one part of the evidence presented for probable cause for the FISA warrant. Steele's research was certainly included with a bunch of other evidence in the warrant application. The fact that Nunes, who has demonstrated no regard for the importance of classification, did not disclose what that other evidence was should tell you everything you need to know about its reliability. In other words, do you believe for one second that had Nunes would have declined to release any other evidence in the application that could be construed as tainted in any way? But let's look at just the dossier for the moment. Even then, everything you have said today on the matter of bias in an informant being illegal or tainting or invalidating a warrant application is completely and utterly false. See the article here. Try again, dude. First, we don't know what else is in the FISA application. The main thrust of the memo is that the application was based pretty much solely upon the dossier. No one has rebutted that point yet other than "anonymous democrats." Second, you clearly have no idea what you're reading if you think that that lawfareblog article disproves what we've been saying. It does quite the opposite, actually. It lays out precisely the framework for why the origins and reliability of the dossier matter. The intelligence community has said the Steele dossier was not the “central” piece of evidence, Wray (Trumps appointee) has all but implied the same. Who has gone on the record and said this explicitly?
Doesn’t really matter if they’re on the record, they’re at least as credible as the (unnamed) memo authors, who said “central” not “sole”, and who are presumptively biased. By the way the fact that the memo, by implication from the word “central,” left out other evidence included in the FISA application, is not good for the memos credibility.
|
On February 03 2018 06:30 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On February 03 2018 05:57 Danglars wrote:On February 03 2018 05:42 TheLordofAwesome wrote:On February 03 2018 05:37 Introvert wrote:On February 03 2018 05:31 TheTenthDoc wrote:On February 03 2018 05:27 Introvert wrote:On February 03 2018 05:16 Doodsmack wrote:
It's interesting to me the degree to which this was hyped up by prominent Republicans. I mean, they were all but saying it's the end of the universe. The contents of the memo obviously don't bear that out, but their media strategy is interesting to me. Presumably their media strategy was to preemptively convince their base of what they were saying. It's a general hedge against anything that comes out of the Mueller investigation, at least that's my theory. One thing that's for sure is that their hyperbole and the heat they're putting on law enforcement, harms the work of the FBI. Very unpatriotic. People everywhere were overreaching. Where is the great national security threat? I want the dem memo, more people to be questioned under oath, and for Democrats to rediscover their love of adversarial oversight. There seem to be about 3 people who thinks this affects Mueller at all. I mean, wasn't the memo modified in several clarifying details with one substantive change made at the FBI's request? That's what Nunes' spokesman said, anyway. It's quite likely that neutered the natsec issues and concerns the FBI had (I would also argue that at this point confirming the investigation started with Papa is kind of an issue for the investigation's integrity). The bigger concern is whether this affects Rosenstein here, anyway. So we now believe Nunez about the edits? Good! Of course the FBI wanting all names redacted sounds like a CYA move which is why I still believe nothing at face value. The DAG will be fine and Comey will make an ass of himself, as has been the case for months for both of them. The entire point of the memo is to give Trump an excuse to fire Rosenstein. Why does Trump want to fire his own appointee? Because Rosenstein appointed and continues to protect Mueller. Trump wants the investigation ended no matter the cost. Why is he so desperate? Nobody really knows. The GOP will continue to support Trump in everything until they see electoral consequences for their actions. The 2018 midterms will be extremely important in that regard, as they will provide the first real judgement of Trump's presidency. Memo doesn’t even mention Rosenstein. Where in hell are you getting this specific conspiracy theory? All of this speculation regarding Trump firing Rosenstein is nothing more than Democrat wishful thinking. That's not the point of releasing the memo. The point is to justify the appointment of a second special counsel.
To do what? Investigate the investigation?
|
On February 03 2018 06:30 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On February 03 2018 05:57 Danglars wrote:On February 03 2018 05:42 TheLordofAwesome wrote:On February 03 2018 05:37 Introvert wrote:On February 03 2018 05:31 TheTenthDoc wrote:On February 03 2018 05:27 Introvert wrote:On February 03 2018 05:16 Doodsmack wrote:
It's interesting to me the degree to which this was hyped up by prominent Republicans. I mean, they were all but saying it's the end of the universe. The contents of the memo obviously don't bear that out, but their media strategy is interesting to me. Presumably their media strategy was to preemptively convince their base of what they were saying. It's a general hedge against anything that comes out of the Mueller investigation, at least that's my theory. One thing that's for sure is that their hyperbole and the heat they're putting on law enforcement, harms the work of the FBI. Very unpatriotic. People everywhere were overreaching. Where is the great national security threat? I want the dem memo, more people to be questioned under oath, and for Democrats to rediscover their love of adversarial oversight. There seem to be about 3 people who thinks this affects Mueller at all. I mean, wasn't the memo modified in several clarifying details with one substantive change made at the FBI's request? That's what Nunes' spokesman said, anyway. It's quite likely that neutered the natsec issues and concerns the FBI had (I would also argue that at this point confirming the investigation started with Papa is kind of an issue for the investigation's integrity). The bigger concern is whether this affects Rosenstein here, anyway. So we now believe Nunez about the edits? Good! Of course the FBI wanting all names redacted sounds like a CYA move which is why I still believe nothing at face value. The DAG will be fine and Comey will make an ass of himself, as has been the case for months for both of them. The entire point of the memo is to give Trump an excuse to fire Rosenstein. Why does Trump want to fire his own appointee? Because Rosenstein appointed and continues to protect Mueller. Trump wants the investigation ended no matter the cost. Why is he so desperate? Nobody really knows. The GOP will continue to support Trump in everything until they see electoral consequences for their actions. The 2018 midterms will be extremely important in that regard, as they will provide the first real judgement of Trump's presidency. Memo doesn’t even mention Rosenstein. Where in hell are you getting this specific conspiracy theory? All of this speculation regarding Trump firing Rosenstein is nothing more than Democrat wishful thinking. That's not the point of releasing the memo. The point is to justify the appointment of a second special counsel.
A reporter asked trump if he’ll fire Rosenstein and he said “you figure that out.”
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
