|
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 04:58 a_flayer wrote:Lol, your country is run by Jews. Show nested quote +The enjoined law, enacted last year by the Kansas legislature, requires all state contractors — as a prerequisite to receiving any paid work from the state — “to certify that they are not engaged in a boycott of Israel.” The month before the law was implemented, Esther Koontz, a Mennonite who works as a curriculum teacher for the Kansas public school system, decided that she would boycott goods made in Israel, motivated in part by a film she had seen detailing the abuse of Palestinians by the occupying Israeli government, and in part by a resolution enacted by the national Mennonite Church. The resolution acknowledged “the cry for justice of Palestinians, especially those living under oppressive military occupation for fifty years”; vowed to “oppose military occupation and seek a just peace in Israel and Palestine”; and urged “individuals and congregations to avoid the purchase of products associated with acts of violence or policies of military occupation, including items produced in [Israeli] settlements.”
A month after this law became effective, Koontz, having just completed a training program to teach new courses, was offered a position at a new Kansas school. But, as the court recounts, “the program director asked Ms. Koontz to sign a certification confirming that she was not participating in a boycott of Israel, as the Kansas Law requires.” Koontz ultimately replied that she was unable and unwilling to sign such an oath because she is, in fact, participating in a boycott of Israel. As a result, she was told that no contract could be signed with her.
In response to being denied this job due to her political views, Koontz retained the American Civil Liberties Union, which sued the commissioner of education, asking a federal court to enjoin enforcement of the law on the grounds that denying Koontz a job due to her boycotting of Israel violates her First Amendment rights. The court on Tuesday agreed and preliminarily enjoined enforcement of the law. SourceWhy did this law exist in the first place? User was temp banned for this post.
Not agreeing with what got him banned.
It's no coincidence all* of the "but the free speech!?!" people completely ignored BDS people being banned from campuses and congress trying to make boycotting Israel a federal crime.
On February 03 2018 04:47 Nebuchad wrote:
How do people find the energy to care about this, I swear
I'm guessing this is how people feel when I talk about the massive and habitual violations of poc 4th amendment rights that Danglars and xDaunt seem to find so important to this memo garbage.
|
On February 03 2018 06:53 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On February 03 2018 06:47 ReTr0[p.S] wrote: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:
[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. 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.
And Nunes does not dispute the facts of the dossier either, only the bias of the author.
And the Article TLoA posted cites case law on whether "bias" is enough to discredit a warrant application.
|
On February 03 2018 06:55 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On February 03 2018 04:58 a_flayer wrote:Lol, your country is run by Jews. The enjoined law, enacted last year by the Kansas legislature, requires all state contractors — as a prerequisite to receiving any paid work from the state — “to certify that they are not engaged in a boycott of Israel.” The month before the law was implemented, Esther Koontz, a Mennonite who works as a curriculum teacher for the Kansas public school system, decided that she would boycott goods made in Israel, motivated in part by a film she had seen detailing the abuse of Palestinians by the occupying Israeli government, and in part by a resolution enacted by the national Mennonite Church. The resolution acknowledged “the cry for justice of Palestinians, especially those living under oppressive military occupation for fifty years”; vowed to “oppose military occupation and seek a just peace in Israel and Palestine”; and urged “individuals and congregations to avoid the purchase of products associated with acts of violence or policies of military occupation, including items produced in [Israeli] settlements.”
A month after this law became effective, Koontz, having just completed a training program to teach new courses, was offered a position at a new Kansas school. But, as the court recounts, “the program director asked Ms. Koontz to sign a certification confirming that she was not participating in a boycott of Israel, as the Kansas Law requires.” Koontz ultimately replied that she was unable and unwilling to sign such an oath because she is, in fact, participating in a boycott of Israel. As a result, she was told that no contract could be signed with her.
In response to being denied this job due to her political views, Koontz retained the American Civil Liberties Union, which sued the commissioner of education, asking a federal court to enjoin enforcement of the law on the grounds that denying Koontz a job due to her boycotting of Israel violates her First Amendment rights. The court on Tuesday agreed and preliminarily enjoined enforcement of the law. SourceWhy did this law exist in the first place? User was temp banned for this post. Not agreeing with what got him banned. It's no coincidence none of the "but the free speech!?!" people completely ignored BDS people being banned from campuses and congress trying to make boycotting Israel a federal crime. Show nested quote +On February 03 2018 04:47 Nebuchad wrote:
How do people find the energy to care about this, I swear I'm guessing this is how people feel when I talk about the massive and habitual violations of poc 4th amendment rights that Danglars and xDaunt seem to find so important to this memo garbage.
It's a legitimate concern, but the tone of that post is *not* the way to bring it up.
This memo is the same as the BDS stuff which is the amusing part. We've known about this problem with FISA courts forever but suddenly *now* it's really important to some people.
|
The memo 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. There is nothing consistent or honest about any of this. You are taking dishonesty to new levels. You don't care about Carter Page's civil-liberties. You ignore everything legitimate about why someone like him would be under surveillance and are only focused on casting obscure, nonsensical doubt on a process that your own political party just re-validated.
I don't think this can get any more twisted, hypocritical, or stupid at this point. It's full Kafka
|
On February 03 2018 06:51 Leporello wrote:Show nested quote +On February 03 2018 06:45 xDaunt wrote: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:
[quote]
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?
How about some citations?
|
On February 03 2018 06:57 Leporello wrote:
The memo 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. There is nothing consistent or honest about any of this. You are taking dishonesty to new levels. You don't care about Carter Page's civil-liberties. You ignore everything legitimate about why someone like him would be under surveillance and are only focused on casting obscure, nonsensical doubt on a process that your own political party just re-validated.
I don't think this can get any more twisted, hypocritical, or stupid at this point. It's full Kafka
How about this, why don't you take a moment to consider the possibility that there's nothing dishonest about what I am saying. If you can't explain why it might not be dishonest, then I would suggest that you're not qualified to conclude that I am being dishonest.
|
On February 03 2018 06:56 Logo wrote:Show nested quote +On February 03 2018 06:55 GreenHorizons wrote:On February 03 2018 04:58 a_flayer wrote:Lol, your country is run by Jews. The enjoined law, enacted last year by the Kansas legislature, requires all state contractors — as a prerequisite to receiving any paid work from the state — “to certify that they are not engaged in a boycott of Israel.” The month before the law was implemented, Esther Koontz, a Mennonite who works as a curriculum teacher for the Kansas public school system, decided that she would boycott goods made in Israel, motivated in part by a film she had seen detailing the abuse of Palestinians by the occupying Israeli government, and in part by a resolution enacted by the national Mennonite Church. The resolution acknowledged “the cry for justice of Palestinians, especially those living under oppressive military occupation for fifty years”; vowed to “oppose military occupation and seek a just peace in Israel and Palestine”; and urged “individuals and congregations to avoid the purchase of products associated with acts of violence or policies of military occupation, including items produced in [Israeli] settlements.”
A month after this law became effective, Koontz, having just completed a training program to teach new courses, was offered a position at a new Kansas school. But, as the court recounts, “the program director asked Ms. Koontz to sign a certification confirming that she was not participating in a boycott of Israel, as the Kansas Law requires.” Koontz ultimately replied that she was unable and unwilling to sign such an oath because she is, in fact, participating in a boycott of Israel. As a result, she was told that no contract could be signed with her.
In response to being denied this job due to her political views, Koontz retained the American Civil Liberties Union, which sued the commissioner of education, asking a federal court to enjoin enforcement of the law on the grounds that denying Koontz a job due to her boycotting of Israel violates her First Amendment rights. The court on Tuesday agreed and preliminarily enjoined enforcement of the law. SourceWhy did this law exist in the first place? User was temp banned for this post. Not agreeing with what got him banned. It's no coincidence none of the "but the free speech!?!" people completely ignored BDS people being banned from campuses and congress trying to make boycotting Israel a federal crime. On February 03 2018 04:47 Nebuchad wrote:
How do people find the energy to care about this, I swear I'm guessing this is how people feel when I talk about the massive and habitual violations of poc 4th amendment rights that Danglars and xDaunt seem to find so important to this memo garbage. It's a legitimate concern, but the tone of that post is *not* the way to bring it up. This memo is the same as the BDS stuff which is the amusing part. We've known about this problem with FISA courts forever but suddenly *now* it's really important to some people.
That's the Trump presidency in a nutshell. A whole lot of stuff that's been happening for decades under both parties is trying to be laid at the feet of Trump for doing his own idiotic/brazen version of it.
With the clear hope that we presume whoever replaces him isn't perpetuating the same garbage that's allowed him to get this far (even though they most certainly will be)
The idea that if only Hillary was president (or Obama still president) the FBI would be a non-political stand up organization, free from political attacks is so absurdly ridiculous I wouldn't believe it coming from liberals if I hadn't seen them all 2016 election.
|
On February 03 2018 07:02 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On February 03 2018 06:56 Logo wrote:On February 03 2018 06:55 GreenHorizons wrote:On February 03 2018 04:58 a_flayer wrote:Lol, your country is run by Jews. The enjoined law, enacted last year by the Kansas legislature, requires all state contractors — as a prerequisite to receiving any paid work from the state — “to certify that they are not engaged in a boycott of Israel.” The month before the law was implemented, Esther Koontz, a Mennonite who works as a curriculum teacher for the Kansas public school system, decided that she would boycott goods made in Israel, motivated in part by a film she had seen detailing the abuse of Palestinians by the occupying Israeli government, and in part by a resolution enacted by the national Mennonite Church. The resolution acknowledged “the cry for justice of Palestinians, especially those living under oppressive military occupation for fifty years”; vowed to “oppose military occupation and seek a just peace in Israel and Palestine”; and urged “individuals and congregations to avoid the purchase of products associated with acts of violence or policies of military occupation, including items produced in [Israeli] settlements.”
A month after this law became effective, Koontz, having just completed a training program to teach new courses, was offered a position at a new Kansas school. But, as the court recounts, “the program director asked Ms. Koontz to sign a certification confirming that she was not participating in a boycott of Israel, as the Kansas Law requires.” Koontz ultimately replied that she was unable and unwilling to sign such an oath because she is, in fact, participating in a boycott of Israel. As a result, she was told that no contract could be signed with her.
In response to being denied this job due to her political views, Koontz retained the American Civil Liberties Union, which sued the commissioner of education, asking a federal court to enjoin enforcement of the law on the grounds that denying Koontz a job due to her boycotting of Israel violates her First Amendment rights. The court on Tuesday agreed and preliminarily enjoined enforcement of the law. SourceWhy did this law exist in the first place? User was temp banned for this post. Not agreeing with what got him banned. It's no coincidence none of the "but the free speech!?!" people completely ignored BDS people being banned from campuses and congress trying to make boycotting Israel a federal crime. On February 03 2018 04:47 Nebuchad wrote:
How do people find the energy to care about this, I swear I'm guessing this is how people feel when I talk about the massive and habitual violations of poc 4th amendment rights that Danglars and xDaunt seem to find so important to this memo garbage. It's a legitimate concern, but the tone of that post is *not* the way to bring it up. This memo is the same as the BDS stuff which is the amusing part. We've known about this problem with FISA courts forever but suddenly *now* it's really important to some people. That's the Trump presidency in a nutshell. A whole lot of stuff that's been happening for decades under both parties is trying to be laid at the feet of Trump for doing his own idiotic/brazen version of it. With the clear hope that we presume whoever replaces him isn't perpetuating the same garbage that's allowed him to get this far (even though they most certainly will be) The idea that if only Hillary was president (or Obama still president) the FBI would be a non-political stand up organization, free from political attacks is so absurdly ridiculous I wouldn't believe it coming from liberals if I hadn't seen them all 2016 election.
To piggy back on this, GH is right that this isn’t a Trump problem. Or a Hillary or Obama problem. It’s a Washington problem. Congress and the White House has become so lax in their attempts to combat bas practices, pay to play and influence trading for favors down the line that the FBI and other oversight have all become political footballs. And the truth of the matter is that the FBI and NSA are not designed to keep all of Congress in check. Congress is the only one that can do that.
Its been a slow rot too. Decades of slipping standards and pushing more and more on the executive branch or government agencies. But now we are at the breaking point where people just don’t give a shit about the rules or process anymore and everyone is shocked it is happening. But we have seen this coming for a while. There was an era when yelling “you lie” at the president in the well of congress would have been the end of a congress member’s career.
|
Man the memo is such a let-down. Interesting how it was classified but the info in it was easily guessible before it was released by everyone talking about it.
And the focus on bias in the memo....I like how bias is now equivalent to not being able to do your job. Isn't everyone biased one way or another? Do they expect every government worker to have no political opinion in personal messages? Should they not be allowed to vote? And how does this reflect on their picks like Jeff Sessions who is biased on many fronts
|
Former Chair of House Intelligence Committee Rep Mike Rogers - Republican
...MARTIN: In that vein, do you think this memo should be released?
ROGERS: I don't, for several reasons. One, you're only going to get a small part of the picture. And so what they're purportedly alleging is going to come out in the memo today is that there was some misconduct on behalf of FBI agents and some DOJ officials, lawyers at the Department of Justice, in the application for something called the FISA, which is the secret court that does counterintelligence, espionage cases, terrorism cases, where it needs to be in a classified setting.
MARTIN: Right.
ROGERS: And so that's a pretty serious charge. And I would argue - if you have some information that would lead you there, you would likely do a full investigation, taking information, boiling it down into a memo that certainly has only one perspective, and then releasing it at the angst of all of the intelligence community and the FBI I argue is probably not the best way for the public to figure out what in the heck is going on.
MARTIN: So what would you prefer? Would it satisfy your concerns if the Democratic response to this, the Democrats' memo, were released simultaneously?
ROGERS: Well, I hate to - I am not for dueling classified memos being thrown out in public. I just don't think this is a great way to conduct oversight. You know, the Intelligence Committee was the one committee that is supposed to be bipartisan. And people expect you to be bipartisan. They want you to be bipartisan. It's national security. And we would deal with the most sensitive issues in our intelligence community, and they needed that oversight, candidly. It was really an important tool to make sure they didn't get off lane, that somebody was paying attention. And I think the American people would be proud of the work that, well, at least that happened at one time in that committee.
So when you have these dueling memos, now, that's not helping the cause, either. I would go back and say if we believe that there was some misconduct then I believe that it would be worthwhile to have an investigation - we should have both Republicans and Democrats as a part of it - in a classified setting, and then issue a report when it's done so that you have a more robust picture. Remember, I'm always leery of the FBI running out and having press conferences, condemning somebody before they're convicted. And I am equally worried about the congressional body coming out. You know, you can take someone's liberty and someone's character in a minute. It's really difficult to get back. You should be extremely careful. I'm just not sure the memo's going to accomplish that...
And on public trust and trust of the FBI/NSA/CIA:
MARTIN: You mentioned earlier that - you intimated that you have concerns with the House Intel Committee. Have you - do you believe the committee has lost its credibility in this process?
ROGERS: Unfortunately, I do, you know? And it's not necessarily even the credibility from the public perspective. I know for a fact they've lost credibility, both - they don't trust Republicans and Democrats on this committee anymore to keep a secret in the intelligence community. And, you know, it’s really an odd thing. You have to earn the respect of this community during your oversight. Now, you have lots of tools. You have lots of levers that you can use as chairman of the Intelligence Committee, the HPSCI, in the House to make them comply, to get information to do those things. When you lose that credibility, it’s now you’re playing a hundred questions, you know? I won’t be dishonest, but I won’t tell you the whole truth.
|
On February 03 2018 06:59 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On February 03 2018 06:57 Leporello wrote:
The memo 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. There is nothing consistent or honest about any of this. You are taking dishonesty to new levels. You don't care about Carter Page's civil-liberties. You ignore everything legitimate about why someone like him would be under surveillance and are only focused on casting obscure, nonsensical doubt on a process that your own political party just re-validated.
I don't think this can get any more twisted, hypocritical, or stupid at this point. It's full Kafka How about this, why don't you take a moment to consider the possibility that there's nothing dishonest about what I am saying. If you can't explain why it might not be dishonest, then I would suggest that you're not qualified to conclude that I am being dishonest.
You are dishonestly pretending like Nunes's accusations get the benefit of the doubt. Nunes couldn't show whether or not the Steele Dossier was NECESSARY and/or SUFFICIENT for the granting of the FISA memo. He alleged that it might have been both, but didn't pony up the rest of the evidentiary submission or any of the documentary record. Yet you pretend like everyone else has to somehow prove that the FISA warrant was justified. No. The burden is on Nunes / Team Trump to prove that the judges that reviewed this FISA warrant were wrong. Four different judges appointed by Chief Justice John Roberts reviewed and approved warrants against Carter page over several years. They get the benefit of the doubt, not Nunes.
|
I’m curious what the legal standard for the FISA application w/r/t whether the government should disclose info favorable to the target. I don’t think that kind of thing is always cut and dry. It’s like the saying that a prosecutor could indict a ham sandwich if he wanted to.
|
On February 03 2018 06:43 Plansix wrote:Show nested quote +On February 03 2018 06:31 Doodsmack 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. 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.
Oh I agree, I think it leans much more towards "yes."
|
On February 03 2018 07:39 FueledUpAndReadyToGo wrote:
Man the memo is such a let-down. Interesting how it was classified but the info in it was easily guessible before it was released by everyone talking about it.
And the focus on bias in the memo....I like how bias is now equivalent to not being able to do your job. Isn't everyone biased one way or another? Do they expect every government worker to have no political opinion in personal messages? Should they not be allowed to vote? And how does this reflect on their picks like Jeff Sessions who is biased on many fronts
It's not just about bias. It's about reliability in light of all circumstances. The dossier is problematic for a lot of reasons, with bias just being one of them. We know from the memo that the FBI did not fully disclose everything that they knew about the dossier and its origin and reliability to the FISA court. And we also know that the FBI, at the time of the application, had barely just begun the process of verifying the dossier. This raises the question of how exactly the FBI sold the dossier to the FISA court. There's more than a whiff of impropriety here.
|
On February 03 2018 07:46 Doodsmack wrote:I’m curious what the legal standard for the FISA application w/r/t whether the government should disclose info favorable to the target. I don’t think that kind of thing is always cut and dry. It’s like the saying that a prosecutor could indict a ham sandwich if he wanted to. https://twitter.com/michaeldweiss/status/959443102489628672
The whole rubber stamping FISA warrants is sort of weird because they are really burdensome to even require. Most requests are around 100 pages or more and they can’t be use for anything domestic. The court can also modify the warrant. So they are rarely denied, but it is really easy for the judge to just grant a modified warrant for a period of time and demand more evidence down the line. And they have been around for a very long time.
With all that being said, I think they need to be updated in the year of our lord 2018. The internet made these things far more common, so its time to up date them.
|
On February 03 2018 07:46 Wulfey_LA wrote:Show nested quote +On February 03 2018 06:59 xDaunt wrote:On February 03 2018 06:57 Leporello wrote:
The memo 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. There is nothing consistent or honest about any of this. You are taking dishonesty to new levels. You don't care about Carter Page's civil-liberties. You ignore everything legitimate about why someone like him would be under surveillance and are only focused on casting obscure, nonsensical doubt on a process that your own political party just re-validated.
I don't think this can get any more twisted, hypocritical, or stupid at this point. It's full Kafka How about this, why don't you take a moment to consider the possibility that there's nothing dishonest about what I am saying. If you can't explain why it might not be dishonest, then I would suggest that you're not qualified to conclude that I am being dishonest. You are dishonestly pretending like Nunes's accusations get the benefit of the doubt. Nunes couldn't show whether or not the Steele Dossier was NECESSARY and/or SUFFICIENT for the granting of the FISA memo. He alleged that it might have been both, but didn't pony up the rest of the evidentiary submission or any of the documentary record. Yet you pretend like everyone else has to somehow prove that the FISA warrant was justified. No. The burden is on Nunes / Team Trump to prove that the judges that reviewed this FISA warrant were wrong. Four different judges appointed by Chief Justice John Roberts reviewed and approved warrants against Carter page over several years. They get the benefit of the doubt, not Nunes.
If this is your takeaway from my posting, you need to re-read the posts.
|
On February 03 2018 07:57 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On February 03 2018 07:39 FueledUpAndReadyToGo wrote:
Man the memo is such a let-down. Interesting how it was classified but the info in it was easily guessible before it was released by everyone talking about it.
And the focus on bias in the memo....I like how bias is now equivalent to not being able to do your job. Isn't everyone biased one way or another? Do they expect every government worker to have no political opinion in personal messages? Should they not be allowed to vote? And how does this reflect on their picks like Jeff Sessions who is biased on many fronts
It's not just about bias. It's about reliability in light of all circumstances. The dossier is problematic for a lot of reasons, with bias just being one of them. We know from the memo that the FBI did not fully disclose everything that they knew about the dossier and its origin and reliability to the FISA court. And we also know that the FBI, at the time of the application, had barely just begun the process of verifying the dossier. This raises the question of how exactly the FBI sold the dossier to the FISA court. There's more than a whiff of impropriety here.
Pretty sure its about bias. This wasn’t a bipartisan effort at all. You can choose to overlook that and claim the democrats are implicated in the memo, so of course they would be opposed. But then we have to deal with the issue the Nunes wrote the memo to paint that picture and undercut any criticism of this not being bipartisan. We are getting a one sided story and will never get the rest of it. Which I argue was the intent all along.
|
On February 03 2018 08:00 Plansix wrote:Show nested quote +On February 03 2018 07:57 xDaunt wrote:On February 03 2018 07:39 FueledUpAndReadyToGo wrote:
Man the memo is such a let-down. Interesting how it was classified but the info in it was easily guessible before it was released by everyone talking about it.
And the focus on bias in the memo....I like how bias is now equivalent to not being able to do your job. Isn't everyone biased one way or another? Do they expect every government worker to have no political opinion in personal messages? Should they not be allowed to vote? And how does this reflect on their picks like Jeff Sessions who is biased on many fronts
It's not just about bias. It's about reliability in light of all circumstances. The dossier is problematic for a lot of reasons, with bias just being one of them. We know from the memo that the FBI did not fully disclose everything that they knew about the dossier and its origin and reliability to the FISA court. And we also know that the FBI, at the time of the application, had barely just begun the process of verifying the dossier. This raises the question of how exactly the FBI sold the dossier to the FISA court. There's more than a whiff of impropriety here. Pretty sure its about bias. This wasn’t a bipartisan effort at all. You can choose to overlook that and claim the democrats are implicated in the memo, so of course they would be opposed. But then we have to deal with the issue the Nunes wrote the memo to paint that picture and undercut any criticism of this not being bipartisan. We are getting a one sided story and will never get the rest of it. Which I argue was the intent all along.
I interpreted his post as referring to bias as it pertains to the dossier, not the memo.
But yes, clearly the memo is biased. No one is disputing that. But the bias of the source does not necessarily mean that it is inaccurate. Like I said already, there's a very telling absence of comment from the other side on some very specific points in the memo.
|
On February 03 2018 08:04 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On February 03 2018 08:00 Plansix wrote:On February 03 2018 07:57 xDaunt wrote:On February 03 2018 07:39 FueledUpAndReadyToGo wrote:
Man the memo is such a let-down. Interesting how it was classified but the info in it was easily guessible before it was released by everyone talking about it.
And the focus on bias in the memo....I like how bias is now equivalent to not being able to do your job. Isn't everyone biased one way or another? Do they expect every government worker to have no political opinion in personal messages? Should they not be allowed to vote? And how does this reflect on their picks like Jeff Sessions who is biased on many fronts
It's not just about bias. It's about reliability in light of all circumstances. The dossier is problematic for a lot of reasons, with bias just being one of them. We know from the memo that the FBI did not fully disclose everything that they knew about the dossier and its origin and reliability to the FISA court. And we also know that the FBI, at the time of the application, had barely just begun the process of verifying the dossier. This raises the question of how exactly the FBI sold the dossier to the FISA court. There's more than a whiff of impropriety here. Pretty sure its about bias. This wasn’t a bipartisan effort at all. You can choose to overlook that and claim the democrats are implicated in the memo, so of course they would be opposed. But then we have to deal with the issue the Nunes wrote the memo to paint that picture and undercut any criticism of this not being bipartisan. We are getting a one sided story and will never get the rest of it. Which I argue was the intent all along. I interpreted his post as referring to bias as it pertains to the dossier, not the memo. But yes, clearly the memo is biased. No one is disputing that. But the bias of the source does not necessarily mean that it is inaccurate. Like I said already, there's a very telling absence of comment from the other side on some very specific points in the memo.
Only the contents of the memo are declassified. I don’t know if you are being willingly ignorant or just are not aware that this had to be approved by the president for release. They are only allowed to talk about the content of the memo and they have said it omits facts. That isn’t silence, but its clear they cannot go into further detail.
Again, Nunes set this up to assure he would have no counter to the narrative he created. That is why the democrat's memo was not sent up with the Republican memo.
|
On February 03 2018 08:09 Plansix wrote:Show nested quote +On February 03 2018 08:04 xDaunt wrote:On February 03 2018 08:00 Plansix wrote:On February 03 2018 07:57 xDaunt wrote:On February 03 2018 07:39 FueledUpAndReadyToGo wrote:
Man the memo is such a let-down. Interesting how it was classified but the info in it was easily guessible before it was released by everyone talking about it.
And the focus on bias in the memo....I like how bias is now equivalent to not being able to do your job. Isn't everyone biased one way or another? Do they expect every government worker to have no political opinion in personal messages? Should they not be allowed to vote? And how does this reflect on their picks like Jeff Sessions who is biased on many fronts
It's not just about bias. It's about reliability in light of all circumstances. The dossier is problematic for a lot of reasons, with bias just being one of them. We know from the memo that the FBI did not fully disclose everything that they knew about the dossier and its origin and reliability to the FISA court. And we also know that the FBI, at the time of the application, had barely just begun the process of verifying the dossier. This raises the question of how exactly the FBI sold the dossier to the FISA court. There's more than a whiff of impropriety here. Pretty sure its about bias. This wasn’t a bipartisan effort at all. You can choose to overlook that and claim the democrats are implicated in the memo, so of course they would be opposed. But then we have to deal with the issue the Nunes wrote the memo to paint that picture and undercut any criticism of this not being bipartisan. We are getting a one sided story and will never get the rest of it. Which I argue was the intent all along. I interpreted his post as referring to bias as it pertains to the dossier, not the memo. But yes, clearly the memo is biased. No one is disputing that. But the bias of the source does not necessarily mean that it is inaccurate. Like I said already, there's a very telling absence of comment from the other side on some very specific points in the memo. Only the contents of the memo are declassified. I don’t know if you are being willingly ignorant or just are not aware that this had to be approved by the president for release. They are only allowed to talk about the content of the memo and they have said it omits facts. That isn’t silence, but its clear they cannot go into further detail. Again, Nunes set this up to assure he would have no counter to the narrative he created.
Like I said already, there's nothing preventing a democrat from going on the record and saying that the FISA application was not dependent upon the dossier. The only thing that they can't do is specify what that other information is.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
