|
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 06:31 Gorsameth wrote:Show nested quote +On February 03 2018 06:30 xDaunt wrote: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?
Yep.
|
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.
First of all, what on earth are you talking about with "anonymous Democrats?" The Democrats who rebutted the narrative that "The Dossier was the sole source for all the illegal spying" are anything but anonymous. Most prominently there is Mark Warner and Adam Schiff. There are a bunch of others in Congress who have spoken out about it too like Ted Lieu.
Secondly, the title of the article that I supposedly cannot read is literally The Dubious Legal Claim Behind #ReleaseTheMemo.
Dubious. Dubious.
DUBIOUS
Here is an excerpt from the article which proves that either you haven't read it or you don't know how to read.
In #ReleaseTheMemo circles, any possible link between the Steele dossier and the Clinton campaign is like an atomic bomb. It completely annihilates any possible credibility the Steele dossier may have, leaving the exposed words of the dossier behind like the haunting shadows of the Hiroshima blast.
But that's not how actual law works. In the world of actual law, there needs to be a good reason for the judge to think, once informed of the claim of bias, that the informant was just totally making it up. As United States v. Strifler shows, that isn't necessarily the case even if the government paid the informant to talk and guaranteed that they would get out of jail if they did. Nor is it necessarily the case just because the informant is in personal feud with the suspect. What matters is whether, based on the totality of the circumstances, the information came from a credible source.
That's a problem for #ReleaseTheMemo, I think. To my knowledge, Steele was not some random person motivated by an ongoing personal feud against Trump or Carter Page. To my knowledge, he was not a drug dealer facing criminal charges who was promised freedom if he could come up with something for the government's FISA application. Instead, Steele was a former MI6 intelligence officer and Russia expert. He was hired to do opposition research because of his professional reputation, expertise and contacts. And his work was apparently taken pretty seriously by United States intelligence agencies. Of course, that doesn't mean that what's in the dossier is true. Maybe the key allegations are totally wrong. But if you're trying to argue that Steele's funding sources ruin the credibility of his research, his professional training and background make that an uphill battle.
See "that's not how actual law works"; "if you're trying to argue that Steele's funding sources ruin the credibility of his research, his professional training and background make that an uphill battle"; "there needs to be a good reason for the judge to think, once informed of the claim of bias, that the informant was just totally making it up."
It literally says the exact opposite of what you claimed.
What kind of law do you practice, anyways?
|
On February 03 2018 06:30 Doodsmack wrote:Show nested quote +On February 03 2018 06:21 xDaunt wrote: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:
[quote]
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.
Nunes and the House Republicans from the intel committee signed off on the memo. By doing so, they have adopted its findings as their own. That's going on the record and very different from "anonymous sources" saying shit to the media, which is completely unaccountable. And it's not like we don't have an ample record of "anonymous sources" being full of shit. Here's the big tell: where are all of the democrats on the intel committee, like Schiff? Why haven't any of them publicly said that the contents of the memo are false and that the FISA warrant was granted on more information than just the dossier? Seems like an easy layup to me presuming that Nunes is full of shit as you all believe.
|
On February 03 2018 06:31 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On February 03 2018 06:31 Gorsameth wrote:On February 03 2018 06:30 xDaunt wrote: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? Yep.
You want a special counsel to investigate an active investigation? Do you read what your writing here?
And what the F does this memo have to do with that? None of this matter for Mueller's investigation.
|
On February 03 2018 06:35 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On February 03 2018 06:30 Doodsmack wrote:On February 03 2018 06:21 xDaunt wrote: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:
[quote]
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. Nunes and the House Republicans from the intel committee signed off on the memo. By doing so, they have adopted its findings as their own. That's going on the record and very different from "anonymous sources" saying shit to the media, which is completely unaccountable. And it's not like we don't have an ample record of "anonymous sources" being full of shit. Here's the big tell: where are all of the democrats on the intel committee, like Schiff? Why haven't any of them publicly said that the contents of the memo are false and that the FISA warrant was granted on more information than just the dossier? Seems like an easy layup to me presuming that Nunes is full of shit as you all believe.
They released their own memo that was shot down by republicans... it's almost like you don't read anything people post
|
On February 03 2018 06:36 Gorsameth wrote:Show nested quote +On February 03 2018 06:31 xDaunt wrote:On February 03 2018 06:31 Gorsameth wrote:On February 03 2018 06:30 xDaunt wrote: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? Yep. You want a special counsel to investigate an active investigation? Do you read what your writing here? And what the F does this memo have to do with that? None of this matter for Mueller's investigation.
I can't help you understand anything if you don't get that the FISA warrant is an integral part of the Mueller investigation.
|
Why do Republicans care if the FBI wants to partially-use a partially-politically-funded dossier written by an MI6 exec with extensive expertise on the subject? Like, what do they think it even proves, when the thing the dossier purports turns out to true or worth investigating?
It might surprise xDaunt, but FBI and law-enforcement agencies gleen information from private and journalistic investigations all the time. It's actually perfectly okay. And in this case, the investigator has a lot more credibility than you obviously would like to appreciate.
But, again, for the 100th time, it doesn't matter. Carter Page's warrant was obviously warranted, because the connections Carter Page has are real regardless of where the FBI found out about them, and they were spying on him years before the dossier was even written. Evidence is not rhetorical. No one has been indicted because Christopher Steele wrote dirty stories about them.
It's mind-numbing how ridiculous this is. This memo is now being portrayed as a "FISA critique". It was written by Devin Nunes. Two weeks ago, a FISA bill was written and passed that expands its use. That bill was authored and advocated for, by Devin Nunes. This is a schizophrenic mess. There is nothing consistent or honest about this.
What you've done, and are continuing to do, is rhetorically piss on federal law-enforcement servicemen for political-points. And what's worse, you're failing. This whole shamelessness thing, it's just gotta get old.
|
On February 03 2018 06:37 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On February 03 2018 06:36 Gorsameth wrote:On February 03 2018 06:31 xDaunt wrote:On February 03 2018 06:31 Gorsameth wrote:On February 03 2018 06:30 xDaunt wrote: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:
[quote]
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? Yep. You want a special counsel to investigate an active investigation? Do you read what your writing here? And what the F does this memo have to do with that? None of this matter for Mueller's investigation. I can't help you understand anything if you don't get that the FISA warrant is an integral part of the Mueller investigation.
The courts approves something like 99.97% of all FISA applications, how would they ever not get the warrant?
|
On February 03 2018 06:37 IyMoon wrote:Show nested quote +On February 03 2018 06:35 xDaunt wrote:On February 03 2018 06:30 Doodsmack wrote:On February 03 2018 06:21 xDaunt wrote: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:
[quote]
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. Nunes and the House Republicans from the intel committee signed off on the memo. By doing so, they have adopted its findings as their own. That's going on the record and very different from "anonymous sources" saying shit to the media, which is completely unaccountable. And it's not like we don't have an ample record of "anonymous sources" being full of shit. Here's the big tell: where are all of the democrats on the intel committee, like Schiff? Why haven't any of them publicly said that the contents of the memo are false and that the FISA warrant was granted on more information than just the dossier? Seems like an easy layup to me presuming that Nunes is full of shit as you all believe. They released their own memo that was shot down by republicans... it's almost like you don't read anything people post
They also can't legally publicly say what other materials the memo was based on, if any without going through the same process Nunes did.
|
On February 03 2018 06:37 IyMoon wrote:Show nested quote +On February 03 2018 06:35 xDaunt wrote:On February 03 2018 06:30 Doodsmack wrote:On February 03 2018 06:21 xDaunt wrote: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:
[quote]
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. Nunes and the House Republicans from the intel committee signed off on the memo. By doing so, they have adopted its findings as their own. That's going on the record and very different from "anonymous sources" saying shit to the media, which is completely unaccountable. And it's not like we don't have an ample record of "anonymous sources" being full of shit. Here's the big tell: where are all of the democrats on the intel committee, like Schiff? Why haven't any of them publicly said that the contents of the memo are false and that the FISA warrant was granted on more information than just the dossier? Seems like an easy layup to me presuming that Nunes is full of shit as you all believe. They released their own memo that was shot down by republicans... it's almost like you don't read anything people post
The democrat memo has nothing to do with what I'm talking about. I'm sure it will be released in due time. My point is that, regardless of what's going on with the democrat memo, Schiff has had no problem running his mouth off regarding what's wrong with the GOP memo. I've merely noticed what he has not said -- notably that the claim the FISA warrant was gained on the basis of the dossier is false. Don't you think the democrats would have said something by now if Nunes was lying on this point?
|
On February 03 2018 06:41 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On February 03 2018 06:37 IyMoon wrote:On February 03 2018 06:35 xDaunt wrote:On February 03 2018 06:30 Doodsmack wrote:On February 03 2018 06:21 xDaunt wrote: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:
[quote]
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. Nunes and the House Republicans from the intel committee signed off on the memo. By doing so, they have adopted its findings as their own. That's going on the record and very different from "anonymous sources" saying shit to the media, which is completely unaccountable. And it's not like we don't have an ample record of "anonymous sources" being full of shit. Here's the big tell: where are all of the democrats on the intel committee, like Schiff? Why haven't any of them publicly said that the contents of the memo are false and that the FISA warrant was granted on more information than just the dossier? Seems like an easy layup to me presuming that Nunes is full of shit as you all believe. They released their own memo that was shot down by republicans... it's almost like you don't read anything people post The democrat memo has nothing to do with what I'm talking about. I'm sure it will be released in due time. My point is that, regardless of what's going on with the democrat memo, Schiff has had no problem running his mouth off regarding what's wrong with the GOP memo. I've merely noticed what he has not said -- notably that the claim the FISA warrant was gained on the basis of the dossier is false. Don't you think the democrats would have said something by now if Nunes was lying on this point?
No, because it would be against the law for them to do so. Well, Schiff can't; maybe a Senator could.
Do you think Schiff can declassify the sum of the FISA materials on his own? Because saying what else is in there, or if there was anything else, is divulging classified information.
|
On February 03 2018 06:31 Doodsmack wrote:Show nested quote +On February 03 2018 06:30 xDaunt wrote: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.”
That isn’t a “no”. Also with all the leaks coming out about requests for what team Rosenstein is on and the direction of the investigation, it seems clear that some people in the White House are worried about it. Hell, Graham said that firing Rosenstein was a bad idea and didn’t seem like he was confident Trump wouldn’t try it.
|
On February 03 2018 06:31 TheLordofAwesome 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. First of all, what on earth are you talking about with "anonymous Democrats?" The Democrats who rebutted the narrative that "The Dossier was the sole source for all the illegal spying" are anything but anonymous. Most prominently there is Mark Warner and Adam Schiff. There are a bunch of others in Congress who have spoken out about it too like Ted Lieu. Secondly, the title of the article that I supposedly cannot read is literally The Dubious Legal Claim Behind #ReleaseTheMemo. Dubious. Dubious. DUBIOUSHere is an excerpt from the article which proves that either you haven't read it or you don't know how to read. Show nested quote +
In #ReleaseTheMemo circles, any possible link between the Steele dossier and the Clinton campaign is like an atomic bomb. It completely annihilates any possible credibility the Steele dossier may have, leaving the exposed words of the dossier behind like the haunting shadows of the Hiroshima blast.
But that's not how actual law works. In the world of actual law, there needs to be a good reason for the judge to think, once informed of the claim of bias, that the informant was just totally making it up. As United States v. Strifler shows, that isn't necessarily the case even if the government paid the informant to talk and guaranteed that they would get out of jail if they did. Nor is it necessarily the case just because the informant is in personal feud with the suspect. What matters is whether, based on the totality of the circumstances, the information came from a credible source.
That's a problem for #ReleaseTheMemo, I think. To my knowledge, Steele was not some random person motivated by an ongoing personal feud against Trump or Carter Page. To my knowledge, he was not a drug dealer facing criminal charges who was promised freedom if he could come up with something for the government's FISA application. Instead, Steele was a former MI6 intelligence officer and Russia expert. He was hired to do opposition research because of his professional reputation, expertise and contacts. And his work was apparently taken pretty seriously by United States intelligence agencies. Of course, that doesn't mean that what's in the dossier is true. Maybe the key allegations are totally wrong. But if you're trying to argue that Steele's funding sources ruin the credibility of his research, his professional training and background make that an uphill battle.
See "that's not how actual law works"; "if you're trying to argue that Steele's funding sources ruin the credibility of his research, his professional training and background make that an uphill battle"; "there needs to be a good reason for the judge to think, once informed of the claim of bias, that the informant was just totally making it up." It literally says the exact opposite of what you claimed. What kind of law do you practice, anyways?
xDaunt, if you could respond to this post of mine, I would appreciate it.
|
On February 03 2018 06:42 TheTenthDoc wrote:Show nested quote +On February 03 2018 06:41 xDaunt wrote:On February 03 2018 06:37 IyMoon wrote:On February 03 2018 06:35 xDaunt wrote:On February 03 2018 06:30 Doodsmack wrote:On February 03 2018 06:21 xDaunt wrote: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:
[quote]
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. Nunes and the House Republicans from the intel committee signed off on the memo. By doing so, they have adopted its findings as their own. That's going on the record and very different from "anonymous sources" saying shit to the media, which is completely unaccountable. And it's not like we don't have an ample record of "anonymous sources" being full of shit. Here's the big tell: where are all of the democrats on the intel committee, like Schiff? Why haven't any of them publicly said that the contents of the memo are false and that the FISA warrant was granted on more information than just the dossier? Seems like an easy layup to me presuming that Nunes is full of shit as you all believe. They released their own memo that was shot down by republicans... it's almost like you don't read anything people post The democrat memo has nothing to do with what I'm talking about. I'm sure it will be released in due time. My point is that, regardless of what's going on with the democrat memo, Schiff has had no problem running his mouth off regarding what's wrong with the GOP memo. I've merely noticed what he has not said -- notably that the claim the FISA warrant was gained on the basis of the dossier is false. Don't you think the democrats would have said something by now if Nunes was lying on this point? No, because it would be against the law for them to do so. Well, Schiff can't; maybe a Senator could. Do you think Schiff can declassify the sum of the FISA materials on his own?
Have you not been paying attention to what Schiff has said about the memo already? He has made all sorts of comments about its contents. I highly doubt that he'd be violating any law by saying that the FISA warrant was granted on more information than the dossier. What would get him in trouble would be talking about what that additional information is.
|
On February 03 2018 06:41 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On February 03 2018 06:37 IyMoon wrote:On February 03 2018 06:35 xDaunt wrote:On February 03 2018 06:30 Doodsmack wrote:On February 03 2018 06:21 xDaunt wrote: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:
[quote]
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. Nunes and the House Republicans from the intel committee signed off on the memo. By doing so, they have adopted its findings as their own. That's going on the record and very different from "anonymous sources" saying shit to the media, which is completely unaccountable. And it's not like we don't have an ample record of "anonymous sources" being full of shit. Here's the big tell: where are all of the democrats on the intel committee, like Schiff? Why haven't any of them publicly said that the contents of the memo are false and that the FISA warrant was granted on more information than just the dossier? Seems like an easy layup to me presuming that Nunes is full of shit as you all believe. They released their own memo that was shot down by republicans... it's almost like you don't read anything people post The democrat memo has nothing to do with what I'm talking about. I'm sure it will be released in due time. My point is that, regardless of what's going on with the democrat memo, Schiff has had no problem running his mouth off regarding what's wrong with the GOP memo. I've merely noticed what he has not said -- notably that the claim the FISA warrant was gained on the basis of the dossier is false. Don't you think the democrats would have said something by now if Nunes was lying on this point?
It is standard practice for these memos to be released together if the committee conflicts on a subject. The Republicans voted to suppress the memo so they could have theirs out there without a rebuttal. Let’s not assume these people are stupid, they knew what they were doing. They also know the FBI and Justice can’t respond. They get to dominate the news cycle until Nunes finally decides to vote on the Democrats memo.
|
On February 03 2018 06:45 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On February 03 2018 06:42 TheTenthDoc wrote:On February 03 2018 06:41 xDaunt wrote:On February 03 2018 06:37 IyMoon wrote:On February 03 2018 06:35 xDaunt wrote:On February 03 2018 06:30 Doodsmack wrote:On February 03 2018 06:21 xDaunt wrote:On February 03 2018 06:20 Doodsmack wrote:On February 03 2018 06:16 xDaunt wrote:On February 03 2018 06:00 TheLordofAwesome wrote:[quote] @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. Nunes and the House Republicans from the intel committee signed off on the memo. By doing so, they have adopted its findings as their own. That's going on the record and very different from "anonymous sources" saying shit to the media, which is completely unaccountable. And it's not like we don't have an ample record of "anonymous sources" being full of shit. Here's the big tell: where are all of the democrats on the intel committee, like Schiff? Why haven't any of them publicly said that the contents of the memo are false and that the FISA warrant was granted on more information than just the dossier? Seems like an easy layup to me presuming that Nunes is full of shit as you all believe. They released their own memo that was shot down by republicans... it's almost like you don't read anything people post The democrat memo has nothing to do with what I'm talking about. I'm sure it will be released in due time. My point is that, regardless of what's going on with the democrat memo, Schiff has had no problem running his mouth off regarding what's wrong with the GOP memo. I've merely noticed what he has not said -- notably that the claim the FISA warrant was gained on the basis of the dossier is false. Don't you think the democrats would have said something by now if Nunes was lying on this point? No, because it would be against the law for them to do so. Well, Schiff can't; maybe a Senator could. Do you think Schiff can declassify the sum of the FISA materials on his own? Have you not been paying attention to what Schiff has said about the memo already? He has made all sorts of comments about its contents. I highly doubt that he'd be violating any law by saying that the FISA warrant was granted on more information than the dossier. What would get him in trouble would be talking about what that additional information is.
Point me to a *single* thing Schiff has said that does not include information already publicly available. At least from what I've seen he stuck to claims it was misleading and omitted evidence...which is conspicuously NOT meaningful new information that is not publicly known.
Unless you're talking about the material alterations? But that was also procedural and omitted specifics.
In his statement here, he even says that there specifics are all laid out in the Democrat memo and sticks to vague citations!
|
On February 03 2018 06:31 TheLordofAwesome 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. First of all, what on earth are you talking about with "anonymous Democrats?" The Democrats who rebutted the narrative that "The Dossier was the sole source for all the illegal spying" are anything but anonymous. Most prominently there is Mark Warner and Adam Schiff. There are a bunch of others in Congress who have spoken out about it too like Ted Lieu. Secondly, the title of the article that I supposedly cannot read is literally The Dubious Legal Claim Behind #ReleaseTheMemo. Dubious. Dubious. DUBIOUSHere is an excerpt from the article which proves that either you haven't read it or you don't know how to read. Show nested quote +
In #ReleaseTheMemo circles, any possible link between the Steele dossier and the Clinton campaign is like an atomic bomb. It completely annihilates any possible credibility the Steele dossier may have, leaving the exposed words of the dossier behind like the haunting shadows of the Hiroshima blast.
But that's not how actual law works. In the world of actual law, there needs to be a good reason for the judge to think, once informed of the claim of bias, that the informant was just totally making it up. As United States v. Strifler shows, that isn't necessarily the case even if the government paid the informant to talk and guaranteed that they would get out of jail if they did. Nor is it necessarily the case just because the informant is in personal feud with the suspect. What matters is whether, based on the totality of the circumstances, the information came from a credible source.
That's a problem for #ReleaseTheMemo, I think. To my knowledge, Steele was not some random person motivated by an ongoing personal feud against Trump or Carter Page. To my knowledge, he was not a drug dealer facing criminal charges who was promised freedom if he could come up with something for the government's FISA application. Instead, Steele was a former MI6 intelligence officer and Russia expert. He was hired to do opposition research because of his professional reputation, expertise and contacts. And his work was apparently taken pretty seriously by United States intelligence agencies. Of course, that doesn't mean that what's in the dossier is true. Maybe the key allegations are totally wrong. But if you're trying to argue that Steele's funding sources ruin the credibility of his research, his professional training and background make that an uphill battle.
See "that's not how actual law works"; "if you're trying to argue that Steele's funding sources ruin the credibility of his research, his professional training and background make that an uphill battle"; "there needs to be a good reason for the judge to think, once informed of the claim of bias, that the informant was just totally making it up." It literally says the exact opposite of what you claimed. What kind of law do you practice, anyways?
Don't bother arguing with xDaunt, as soon as he is cornered he'll completely ignore you and move to answering other people.
|
On February 03 2018 06:45 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On February 03 2018 06:42 TheTenthDoc wrote:On February 03 2018 06:41 xDaunt wrote:On February 03 2018 06:37 IyMoon wrote:On February 03 2018 06:35 xDaunt wrote:On February 03 2018 06:30 Doodsmack wrote:On February 03 2018 06:21 xDaunt wrote:On February 03 2018 06:20 Doodsmack wrote:On February 03 2018 06:16 xDaunt wrote:On February 03 2018 06:00 TheLordofAwesome wrote:[quote] @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. Nunes and the House Republicans from the intel committee signed off on the memo. By doing so, they have adopted its findings as their own. That's going on the record and very different from "anonymous sources" saying shit to the media, which is completely unaccountable. And it's not like we don't have an ample record of "anonymous sources" being full of shit. Here's the big tell: where are all of the democrats on the intel committee, like Schiff? Why haven't any of them publicly said that the contents of the memo are false and that the FISA warrant was granted on more information than just the dossier? Seems like an easy layup to me presuming that Nunes is full of shit as you all believe. They released their own memo that was shot down by republicans... it's almost like you don't read anything people post The democrat memo has nothing to do with what I'm talking about. I'm sure it will be released in due time. My point is that, regardless of what's going on with the democrat memo, Schiff has had no problem running his mouth off regarding what's wrong with the GOP memo. I've merely noticed what he has not said -- notably that the claim the FISA warrant was gained on the basis of the dossier is false. Don't you think the democrats would have said something by now if Nunes was lying on this point? No, because it would be against the law for them to do so. Well, Schiff can't; maybe a Senator could. Do you think Schiff can declassify the sum of the FISA materials on his own? Have you not been paying attention to what Schiff has said about the memo already? He has made all sorts of comments about its contents. I highly doubt that he'd be violating any law by saying that the FISA warrant was granted on more information than the dossier. What would get him in trouble would be talking about what that additional information is.
That is likely a legal gray area they are not willing to dive into. This law that was used to declassify the information has never been used on an active case or FISA warrant. Most law makers and reporters didn’t know it existed. I doubt there is a single guideline to what they can and cannot say because this isn’t supposed to happen.
|
On February 03 2018 06:45 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On February 03 2018 06:42 TheTenthDoc wrote:On February 03 2018 06:41 xDaunt wrote:On February 03 2018 06:37 IyMoon wrote:On February 03 2018 06:35 xDaunt wrote:On February 03 2018 06:30 Doodsmack wrote:On February 03 2018 06:21 xDaunt wrote:On February 03 2018 06:20 Doodsmack wrote:On February 03 2018 06:16 xDaunt wrote:On February 03 2018 06:00 TheLordofAwesome wrote:[quote] @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. Nunes and the House Republicans from the intel committee signed off on the memo. By doing so, they have adopted its findings as their own. That's going on the record and very different from "anonymous sources" saying shit to the media, which is completely unaccountable. And it's not like we don't have an ample record of "anonymous sources" being full of shit. Here's the big tell: where are all of the democrats on the intel committee, like Schiff? Why haven't any of them publicly said that the contents of the memo are false and that the FISA warrant was granted on more information than just the dossier? Seems like an easy layup to me presuming that Nunes is full of shit as you all believe. They released their own memo that was shot down by republicans... it's almost like you don't read anything people post The democrat memo has nothing to do with what I'm talking about. I'm sure it will be released in due time. My point is that, regardless of what's going on with the democrat memo, Schiff has had no problem running his mouth off regarding what's wrong with the GOP memo. I've merely noticed what he has not said -- notably that the claim the FISA warrant was gained on the basis of the dossier is false. Don't you think the democrats would have said something by now if Nunes was lying on this point? No, because it would be against the law for them to do so. Well, Schiff can't; maybe a Senator could. Do you think Schiff can declassify the sum of the FISA materials on his own? Have you not been paying attention to what Schiff has said about the memo already? He has made all sorts of comments about its contents. I highly doubt that he'd be violating any law by saying that the FISA warrant was granted on more information than the dossier. What would get him in trouble would be talking about what that additional information is.
He already did say the FISA warrant was based on more than the dossier which is excruciatingly obvious to anyone who can read at this point. He was being spied on since 2013. I'm happy to repeat that as many times as you need.
2013.
2013.
His warrant was renewed, for what I am sure is a large variety of reasons. What makes you entitled to those reasons?
If you're asking for what was used, and you want the warrant, I think the honest answer at this point is: no. What fucking reason do you think you have for demanding classified information? Is Carter Page your family-member or something? No, you just want to reveal classified information, and accuse the FBI of vague conspiracy because of fucking Trump.
This is sick. You're a lawyer? Are you kidding?
|
On February 03 2018 06:47 ReTr0[p.S] wrote:Show nested quote +On February 03 2018 06:31 TheLordofAwesome 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. First of all, what on earth are you talking about with "anonymous Democrats?" The Democrats who rebutted the narrative that "The Dossier was the sole source for all the illegal spying" are anything but anonymous. Most prominently there is Mark Warner and Adam Schiff. There are a bunch of others in Congress who have spoken out about it too like Ted Lieu. Secondly, the title of the article that I supposedly cannot read is literally The Dubious Legal Claim Behind #ReleaseTheMemo. Dubious. Dubious. DUBIOUSHere is an excerpt from the article which proves that either you haven't read it or you don't know how to read.
In #ReleaseTheMemo circles, any possible link between the Steele dossier and the Clinton campaign is like an atomic bomb. It completely annihilates any possible credibility the Steele dossier may have, leaving the exposed words of the dossier behind like the haunting shadows of the Hiroshima blast.
But that's not how actual law works. In the world of actual law, there needs to be a good reason for the judge to think, once informed of the claim of bias, that the informant was just totally making it up. As United States v. Strifler shows, that isn't necessarily the case even if the government paid the informant to talk and guaranteed that they would get out of jail if they did. Nor is it necessarily the case just because the informant is in personal feud with the suspect. What matters is whether, based on the totality of the circumstances, the information came from a credible source.
That's a problem for #ReleaseTheMemo, I think. To my knowledge, Steele was not some random person motivated by an ongoing personal feud against Trump or Carter Page. To my knowledge, he was not a drug dealer facing criminal charges who was promised freedom if he could come up with something for the government's FISA application. Instead, Steele was a former MI6 intelligence officer and Russia expert. He was hired to do opposition research because of his professional reputation, expertise and contacts. And his work was apparently taken pretty seriously by United States intelligence agencies. Of course, that doesn't mean that what's in the dossier is true. Maybe the key allegations are totally wrong. But if you're trying to argue that Steele's funding sources ruin the credibility of his research, his professional training and background make that an uphill battle.
See "that's not how actual law works"; "if you're trying to argue that Steele's funding sources ruin the credibility of his research, his professional training and background make that an uphill battle"; "there needs to be a good reason for the judge to think, once informed of the claim of bias, that the informant was just totally making it up." It literally says the exact opposite of what you claimed. What kind of law do you practice, anyways? Don't bother arguing with xDaunt, as soon as he is cornered he'll completely ignore you and move to answering other people.
I'm not going to bother arguing with TheLordofAwesome because he doesn't understand what he's reading. The legal framework is the legal framework. The author cites the framework and then makes an argument for why the author thinks that the FISA warrant is not defective based upon what he knows factually. That's the author's opinion. And the limitation of that opinion must be recognized: namely that the author doesn't know all of the applicable facts surrounding the dossier (nor do we). Given this limitation, only an imbecile would conclude that the author's opinion is necessarily dispositive on the point of whether Danglars and I have raised concerns regarding the legitimacy of the FISA warrant.
I'll let you decide which camp you want to be in now that you have been properly educated on the matter.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
