|
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 06:53 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.
When someone cites case law, that is just their opinion. But somehow Nunes allegations get the benefit of the doubt. The concerns you are raising are Nunes's allegations. This is you giving Nunes's evidence free allegations the benefit of the doubt over 4 FISA court judges. EDIT: also, that "we don't know all the facts" is exactly why burden shifting is your favorite and most dishonest tactic here. Nunes made sure we didn't know all the facts. His memo does not include any record of what was actually submitted before the FISA court. We don't even know if the Steele Dossier actually went before the court. All we get are allegations of bias and you are ready to say that we need to give these allegations the benefit of the doubt until everyone else can prove the FISA judges weren't duped.
|
So xDaunt believes that bias in the memo does not impact the quality of the memo but he believes 1 fbi agent sending his gf a text about not liking trump means the whole fbi is biased and unable to do their job?
|
On February 03 2018 08:11 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On February 03 2018 08:09 Plansix wrote: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.
You are not an expert in this area of law, do not even pretend to be. There is no way you can know what they can and cannot confirm. Both the FBI and Democrats have said the memo omits facts and do not go further.
But this memo is written to cause the argument we are having right now. People see exactly what they want in it. They see the lack of specifics from teh democrats as an admission of guilt. Nunes has pulled a well crafted political maneuver here which does under cut the credibility of the FBI with people who doubted they were trying to remain apolitical. I look forward to future releases of classified information for political gain from our congress members. That will, in no way, undercut public trust with both congress and law enforcement.
|
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.
I mean I'd understand and agree if the speaking point is 'the FISA system is not reliable/robust/trustworthy enough and requires changes. Perhaps they did a shitty job in giving enough information. Perhaps the judges don't care much. I don't know.
But Carter page is no simple green grocer selling kale who got spied on. So I imagine they had more than enough reason to trail him. But maybe they didn't and mistakes were made. Still doesn't mean there's a FBI conspiracy against Trump or that the Mueller case is suddenly obsolete. Manafort and Flynn are not magically saints now. DonaldJr still had that meeting. Trump still hasn't implemented russian sanctions. The conclusions coming out of this from republican side just make very little sense to me.
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. You were correct
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.
But isn't this also true for the Steele dossier then? Why does the memo specifically call out Steele didn't like Trump? It doesn't matter, his information is either true/verifiable or false./unverifiable. It doesn't matter if he likes Trump or rubber duckies or flowers.
|
On February 03 2018 08:13 hunts wrote:
So xDaunt believes that bias in the memo does not impact the quality of the memo but he believes 1 fbi agent sending his gf a text about not liking trump means the whole fbi is biased and unable to do their job?
Looks pretty clear from the memo that the FBI's bias may have affected their ability to do their job. When someone makes a showing that the memo is wrong, I'll be happy to adjust my commentary.
|
On February 03 2018 08:21 Plansix wrote:Show nested quote +On February 03 2018 08:11 xDaunt wrote:On February 03 2018 08:09 Plansix wrote: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. You are not an expert in this area of law, do not even pretend to be. There is no way you can know what they can and cannot confirm. Both the FBI and Democrats have said the memo omits facts and do not go further. But this memo is written to cause the argument we are having right now. People see exactly what they want in it. They see the lack of specifics from teh democrats as an admission of guilt. Nunes has pulled a well crafted political maneuver here which does under cut the credibility of the FBI with people who doubted they were trying to remain apolitical. I look forward to future releases of classified information for political gain from our congress members. That will, in no way, undercut public trust with both congress and law enforcement.
I don't have to be an expert in this area of law. I understand generally how confidentiality and privilege work, and I have seen plenty of comments from Schiff and others that are functionally indistinguishable from how confidentiality and privilege would apply to what I am proposing that the democrats would say in rebuttal to the memo if the allegations in the memo were untrue. I just don't think that they will be coming, even when the Schiff version of the memo is released.
|
On February 03 2018 08:38 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On February 03 2018 08:13 hunts wrote:
So xDaunt believes that bias in the memo does not impact the quality of the memo but he believes 1 fbi agent sending his gf a text about not liking trump means the whole fbi is biased and unable to do their job? Looks pretty clear from the memo that the FBI's bias may have affected their ability to do their job. When someone makes a showing that the memo is wrong, I'll be happy to adjust my commentary.
But the memo gives limited unformaton and the informatom is selected by the writer who you agreed is biased. Therefore you should be questioning how accurate the picture that information painto is, but you don't seem to be.
|
On February 03 2018 08:38 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On February 03 2018 08:13 hunts wrote:
So xDaunt believes that bias in the memo does not impact the quality of the memo but he believes 1 fbi agent sending his gf a text about not liking trump means the whole fbi is biased and unable to do their job? Looks pretty clear from the memo that the FBI's bias may have affected their ability to do their job. When someone makes a showing that the memo is wrong, I'll be happy to adjust my commentary.
"Affected their ability to do their job" in any way that effects the legitimacy of the FISA application?
|
On February 03 2018 08:35 FueledUpAndReadyToGo 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. I mean I'd understand and agree if the speaking point is 'the FISA system is not reliable/robust/trustworthy enough and requires changes. Perhaps they did a shitty job in giving enough information. Perhaps the judges don't care much. I don't know. But Carter page is no simple green grocer selling kale who got spied on. So I imagine they had more than enough reason to trail him. But maybe they didn't and mistakes were made. Still doesn't mean there's a FBI conspiracy against Trump or that the Mueller case is suddenly obsolete. Manafort and Flynn are not magically saints now. DonaldJr still had that meeting. Trump still hasn't implemented russian sanctions. The conclusions coming out of this from republican side just make very little sense to me.
Be careful, you're close to conflating a few different issues here. Whether Manafort/Flynn/Trump/Page did something illegal is different from whether the FBI unlawfully secured the FISA warrant. I made it very clear from the getgo that I was only commenting on the latter issue: the propriety of the FBI's actions. I'm pretty sure about all of the liberal posters who think I am being "dishonest" fail to appreciate this distinction.
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. You were correct Show nested quote +
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.
But isn't this also true for the Steele dossier then? Why does the memo specifically call out Steele didn't like Trump? It doesn't matter, his information is either true/verifiable or false./unverifiable. It doesn't matter if he likes Trump or rubber duckies or flowers.
I haven't conclusively said that the dossier is inaccurate. Who knows, Trump may have in fact gotten whores to piss all over the place. The issue isn't really whether the dossier is accurate. The issues are 1) whether the dossier is reliable, and 2) what the FBI told (or failed to tell) the FISA court regarding the reliability of the dossier. If we take the memo at face value, the FBI potentially misrepresented the dossier to the FISA court to fraudulently secure the FISA warrant.
|
I feel this is a good summation of this whole situation.
|
|
|
|
|
Read the follow up tweets, and I think this is a good thing:
That last one is doubling down and clarifying an ambiguity earlier. Some people said that the phrase "Steele dossier information" was maybe hiding something. This is pretty clear. Meanwhile, he is right that Gowdy was the best person, as his tweets were even posted here approvingly, twice.
+ Show Spoiler +
Edit: and for those of you who really care....
+ Show Spoiler +
|
The memo is so unclear about if the dossier was used for the initial FISA warrant or one of the three renewals. The first request was in October 2016. But carter page has been on the FBI/NSAs radar since 2013.
|
Note that Gowdy does not say that he is confident in Comey and the current FBI leadership. That is telling.
|
Yes, that is the goal. Undermine the FBI/Justice Department leadership and give Trump cause to remove them. Then the new deputy AG can control special counsels investigation.
|
Why do we even discuss the memo? Obviously the whole purpose of it is to make smoke and mirrors to distract from what is being uncovered in the investigation, and undermining the FBI as an instutuion for the benefit of the Trump administration.
Unfortunately it is working... even though it is all a bunch of hyper-biased hot air contentwise.
|
On February 03 2018 09:48 xDaunt wrote:
Note that Gowdy does not say that he is confident in Comey and the current FBI leadership. That is telling.
because Mueller wasn’t director for thirteen years and his most recent tweet isn’t a full throated endorsement of his work?
or you just don’t consider him current? where is he ever critical of Comey? or do you expect him to blindly comment on someone fired half a year ago?
|
So that was the explosion that our zealots here could barely contain themselves for?
Quite sad, really. It's like having a huge boomstick and it fizzles a little. Nothing in regards to this memo can be taken at facevalue (not that there's much explosive in there in the first place). It's a bad faith precursor to justify/pretext something yet to come.
Had a good chuckle when our zealots went trippy over Steeles alleged bias, but are totally fine with Nunes' bias, because obviously that doesn't take anything away from the memo. Or were arguing about "a conflict of interest", because that suddenly matters now in the US. Or how it's telling that one dude doesn't call the other out by name, but somehow not that the entire memo was released while actively suppressing the other sides view/points. That's not telling, that's.. well what's that? I find that very telling if something tries to force a narrative down my throat without giving me at least the option to see both sides. In my world that's at the very least a strong indicator that the narrative is entirely bullshit and would be pretty easily dismantled.
|
Yeah. It is sort of ignores the fact that there is no way they would have used just the dossier without supporting evidence and independent confirmation.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
