|
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 05 2018 04:20 Danglars wrote:Show nested quote +On February 05 2018 03:07 Doodsmack wrote:On February 05 2018 00:44 Danglars wrote:On February 04 2018 09:22 ChristianS wrote:Incidentally, regarding the claim that Democrats aren't disputing the memo's central claims: https://www.cnn.com/2018/02/03/politics/memo-dossier-christopher-steele-carter-page/index.htmlThe memo alleges that ex-British intelligence officer Christopher Steele, who authored an opposition research dossier on Trump that was used to obtain a FISA warrant on former Trump campaign adviser Carter Page, harbored anti-Trump financial and ideological motivations, including that the dossier was funded in part by Hillary Clinton's campaign and the Democratic National Committee. The memo claims those motivations were not included in the FISA application even though senior Justice Department officials knew about Steele's alleged anti-Trump bias.
Schiff disputed that assertion as "not accurate," saying the court was aware that there was a "likely political motivation" behind the Steele dossier. The California Democrat also said it is normal in FISA applications not to name individuals who may be sources of information. Care to revise your analysis, Danglars or xDaunt? It’s said that ChristianS’s name was withheld from the warrant application for his ex-girlfriend, but that judges were advised there were personal motivations behind the dossier. Same thing? Sounds like a crisis of American civil liberties, especially if we were talking about a guy who's been tracked by the FBI for 3 years for his interactions with Russian intelligence. An African American man is being tracked for drug offenses. Therefore, justice officials are justified in withholding material evidence from the judge to obtain a search warrant. The fourth amendment is going the way of the first and tenth among Democrats. Sad, really.
Yes because the difference between "political" and "DNC" marks the constitutional threshold. It's a huge issue.
|
On February 05 2018 04:29 Adreme wrote:Show nested quote +On February 05 2018 04:11 Danglars wrote:On February 05 2018 03:39 WolfintheSheep wrote:On February 05 2018 00:44 Danglars wrote:On February 04 2018 09:22 ChristianS wrote:Incidentally, regarding the claim that Democrats aren't disputing the memo's central claims: https://www.cnn.com/2018/02/03/politics/memo-dossier-christopher-steele-carter-page/index.htmlThe memo alleges that ex-British intelligence officer Christopher Steele, who authored an opposition research dossier on Trump that was used to obtain a FISA warrant on former Trump campaign adviser Carter Page, harbored anti-Trump financial and ideological motivations, including that the dossier was funded in part by Hillary Clinton's campaign and the Democratic National Committee. The memo claims those motivations were not included in the FISA application even though senior Justice Department officials knew about Steele's alleged anti-Trump bias.
Schiff disputed that assertion as "not accurate," saying the court was aware that there was a "likely political motivation" behind the Steele dossier. The California Democrat also said it is normal in FISA applications not to name individuals who may be sources of information. Care to revise your analysis, Danglars or xDaunt? It’s said that ChristianS’s name was withheld from the warrant application for his ex-girlfriend, but that judges were advised there were personal motivations behind the dossier. Same thing? Please stop pretending you understand law. Or even bother to read up on law. Then stop claiming “Clinton/DNC” is the same as “political” to the extent where saying the first wasn’t mentioned is a lie. It’s downright simple if you take your mind off partisanship ends ... if that’s possible in the Trump era. But why though when they really are the same thing? I get you WANT this to be big because well you are a fanboy in the strongest sense of the word of all these Republican, you seem to view them more as a team to cheer for and find reasons to defend then an actual topic worth talking about but over here in reality I have to ask why are they not the same and how is it not accurate? Is it more specific? Yes. Was the judge unaware of the fact that the dossier was paid for by people who wanted to essentially have opposition research? No. If for some reason the judge had felt he wanted more information as to the political entity involved or that it was somehow relevant I am sure he would have asked. It was as though the information was hidden from him and he had no reason to ask the judge knew it was paid for by political people and either did not think it relevant to ask who or did and did not care. Either way your entire premise changes NOTHING but because they are your "team" you are desperate for it to be something more than it is.
Fanboys want this to justify the end to the Mueller probe. Thinking I’m a fanboy is another proof you can’t see straight in this developing scandal.
|
Hey xDaunt, care to step in and tell your buddy Danglars what it takes to get warrants invalidated? He seems to think it's easy.
|
On February 05 2018 06:10 Danglars wrote:Show nested quote +On February 05 2018 04:29 Adreme wrote:On February 05 2018 04:11 Danglars wrote:On February 05 2018 03:39 WolfintheSheep wrote:On February 05 2018 00:44 Danglars wrote:On February 04 2018 09:22 ChristianS wrote:Incidentally, regarding the claim that Democrats aren't disputing the memo's central claims: https://www.cnn.com/2018/02/03/politics/memo-dossier-christopher-steele-carter-page/index.htmlThe memo alleges that ex-British intelligence officer Christopher Steele, who authored an opposition research dossier on Trump that was used to obtain a FISA warrant on former Trump campaign adviser Carter Page, harbored anti-Trump financial and ideological motivations, including that the dossier was funded in part by Hillary Clinton's campaign and the Democratic National Committee. The memo claims those motivations were not included in the FISA application even though senior Justice Department officials knew about Steele's alleged anti-Trump bias.
Schiff disputed that assertion as "not accurate," saying the court was aware that there was a "likely political motivation" behind the Steele dossier. The California Democrat also said it is normal in FISA applications not to name individuals who may be sources of information. Care to revise your analysis, Danglars or xDaunt? It’s said that ChristianS’s name was withheld from the warrant application for his ex-girlfriend, but that judges were advised there were personal motivations behind the dossier. Same thing? Please stop pretending you understand law. Or even bother to read up on law. Then stop claiming “Clinton/DNC” is the same as “political” to the extent where saying the first wasn’t mentioned is a lie. It’s downright simple if you take your mind off partisanship ends ... if that’s possible in the Trump era. But why though when they really are the same thing? I get you WANT this to be big because well you are a fanboy in the strongest sense of the word of all these Republican, you seem to view them more as a team to cheer for and find reasons to defend then an actual topic worth talking about but over here in reality I have to ask why are they not the same and how is it not accurate? Is it more specific? Yes. Was the judge unaware of the fact that the dossier was paid for by people who wanted to essentially have opposition research? No. If for some reason the judge had felt he wanted more information as to the political entity involved or that it was somehow relevant I am sure he would have asked. It was as though the information was hidden from him and he had no reason to ask the judge knew it was paid for by political people and either did not think it relevant to ask who or did and did not care. Either way your entire premise changes NOTHING but because they are your "team" you are desperate for it to be something more than it is. Fanboys want this to justify the end to the Mueller probe. Thinking I’m a fanboy is another proof you can’t see straight in this developing scandal.
This alone is why why I think you are a fanboy. Its literally everything you do. Its your ability watch a video where something is clearly happening but because you do not want it to you will pretend its not. You have a team and a goal and that means more than the truth. The truth is a guy with zero credibility put out a memo where the parts that we can actually see (such as Comey's testimony) are being blatantly lied about. When the guy who has a history of lying is already lying about the parts we know why should he have any credibility on the parts we do not?
If the "scandal" is that it is way too easy to get FISA warrants than maybe we can talk about that but if the "scandal" is that there was some impropriety in getting this warrant than the "scandal" will quickly die. This memo did not exonerate Trump, it didnt even exonerate the people who the memo was written about. Actually reading the memo and not just the bullet points makes it even clearer that he is trying very hard to say x and imply y but not say y so that when y is found out by the public to be completely untrue he can be like "I never actually said y I only x and x is technically true as long as only assume those exact words are what I mean and not make any logical assumptions based on those"
The example with political motivation, while you do not like it, is a great example of it because he tries to imply they knew NOTHING about who commissioned the dossier and that it was being buried when in reality the judge knew there was a potential conflict but as we far we know either did not inquire further or did and did not find it relevant. In both cases he logically figured that any potential conflict of interest did not matter due to the nature of the accusations necessitating follow up.
|
On February 05 2018 06:11 WolfintheSheep wrote:
Hey xDaunt, care to step in and tell your buddy Danglars what it takes to get warrants invalidated? He seems to think it's easy.
“Easy” is a relative term when it comes to striking warrants. It depends upon the facts. Based upon what I’ve seen so far, I do not expect the FISA warrant to be invalidated.
|
On February 05 2018 04:34 WolfintheSheep wrote:Show nested quote +On February 05 2018 04:11 Danglars wrote:On February 05 2018 03:39 WolfintheSheep wrote:On February 05 2018 00:44 Danglars wrote:On February 04 2018 09:22 ChristianS wrote:Incidentally, regarding the claim that Democrats aren't disputing the memo's central claims: https://www.cnn.com/2018/02/03/politics/memo-dossier-christopher-steele-carter-page/index.htmlThe memo alleges that ex-British intelligence officer Christopher Steele, who authored an opposition research dossier on Trump that was used to obtain a FISA warrant on former Trump campaign adviser Carter Page, harbored anti-Trump financial and ideological motivations, including that the dossier was funded in part by Hillary Clinton's campaign and the Democratic National Committee. The memo claims those motivations were not included in the FISA application even though senior Justice Department officials knew about Steele's alleged anti-Trump bias.
Schiff disputed that assertion as "not accurate," saying the court was aware that there was a "likely political motivation" behind the Steele dossier. The California Democrat also said it is normal in FISA applications not to name individuals who may be sources of information. Care to revise your analysis, Danglars or xDaunt? It’s said that ChristianS’s name was withheld from the warrant application for his ex-girlfriend, but that judges were advised there were personal motivations behind the dossier. Same thing? Please stop pretending you understand law. Or even bother to read up on law. Then stop claiming “Clinton/DNC” is the same as “political” to the extent where saying the first wasn’t mentioned is a lie. It’s downright simple if you take your mind off partisanship ends ... if that’s possible in the Trump era. As I said on the very first day this memo came out: bias does not invalidate evidence. Getting the FISA warrant thrown out is going to take a lot more than "the FBI didn't say Clinton/DNC paid for the research". Both in court when/if Carter Page is charged, and especially while investigations are still ongoing. And if you actually cared about any kind of legal processes other than repeating whatever partisan hacks you follow, you would know this.
You think I want the FISA warrant thrown out? Sheesh, stop projecting your own insecurities on the right onto me. This makes me seriously concerned about you. I'm interested in reforms to the FBI process where they can't mislead or omit key details in their applications to judges that might prejudice them against granting it based on slim evidence. Maybe they're already granting too many against citizens and would've granted it even with better information about Steele's credibility and the Clinton/DNC connection. Who cares? They didn't fulfill their own honest duty.
And one last time, if they mentioned a "political connection," does that mean Nunes lied in the MEMO when he said "Neither the initial application in October 2016, nor any of the renewals, disclose or reference the role of the DNC, Clinton campaign, or any party/campaign in funding Steele's efforts?" We're getting very far away from ChristianS's post.
|
the fbi didn't mislead or omit key details; therefore you're calling for reforms for something that isn't happening (at least not in the case you're talking about).
|
Oh, I'm sorry. I didn't realize your 4th amendment concerns were because some details in a several hundred page FISA application didn't meet your non-legal standards. You're not contesting the FISA warrant at all, because it is completely totally valid and did not violate 4th amendment rights, but we're all partisan hacks for not exercising the same finger wagging that you feel is required.
If there is a concern for actually falsified FISA applications, I should hope Nunes is doing his job as Committee chair to identify and deal with those as is within his purview. Preferably instead of leading a media gong-show over a FISA warrant that no one wants thrown out.
|
I've posted stuff from this author before and recently, for good reason. I'm not sure how to exerpt it since it is on the longer side for posts and pretty much all of it is important. How about a teaser?
Representative Nadler is a shrewd lawyer but he has spent his life in legislatures rather than courtrooms.
Representative Jerrold Nadler of New York, the senior Democrat on the House Intelligence Committee, has written a six-page response to the FISA-abuse memo published Friday by the committee’s Republican staffers under the direction of Chairman Devin Nunes (R., Calif.).
I won’t get sidetracked by the fact that Nadler’s “Dear Democratic Colleague” letter has been “exclusively obtained” by NBC News — i.e., that it was leaked to the media, whereas the so-called Nunes memo was provided to committee Democrats before publication so they could seek changes. The Nunes memo had to be subjected to a rules-based process because of classified-information issues. The Nadler memo does not seem to contain classified information; it just responds to what the Republicans have produced, which is now public record.
I don’t agree with Jerry Nadler’s politics, but he is an able lawyer. What surprises me about his retort is how weak it is. He posits four points, the last two of which are strictly political red meat. Of the other two, one provides an inaccurate explanation of the probable-cause standard in the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA); the other is an ill-conceived argument about Christopher Steele’s credibility. The latter provides a welcome opportunity to confront a wayward theory — which I’ll call “vicarious credibility” — that has been vigorously argued by apologists for the FBI and Justice Department’s handling of the Steele dossier. Let’s take the easy stuff first — Nadler’s last two contentions.
Here are the four things he addresses:
A.The Nunes Memo and Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein
B. The Nunes Memo and the Mueller Investigation
C. The ‘Vicarious Credibility’ Theory
D. The Nunes Memo and FISA Law
National Review
|
On February 05 2018 06:38 Adreme wrote:Show nested quote +On February 05 2018 06:10 Danglars wrote:On February 05 2018 04:29 Adreme wrote:On February 05 2018 04:11 Danglars wrote:On February 05 2018 03:39 WolfintheSheep wrote:On February 05 2018 00:44 Danglars wrote:On February 04 2018 09:22 ChristianS wrote:Incidentally, regarding the claim that Democrats aren't disputing the memo's central claims: https://www.cnn.com/2018/02/03/politics/memo-dossier-christopher-steele-carter-page/index.htmlThe memo alleges that ex-British intelligence officer Christopher Steele, who authored an opposition research dossier on Trump that was used to obtain a FISA warrant on former Trump campaign adviser Carter Page, harbored anti-Trump financial and ideological motivations, including that the dossier was funded in part by Hillary Clinton's campaign and the Democratic National Committee. The memo claims those motivations were not included in the FISA application even though senior Justice Department officials knew about Steele's alleged anti-Trump bias.
Schiff disputed that assertion as "not accurate," saying the court was aware that there was a "likely political motivation" behind the Steele dossier. The California Democrat also said it is normal in FISA applications not to name individuals who may be sources of information. Care to revise your analysis, Danglars or xDaunt? It’s said that ChristianS’s name was withheld from the warrant application for his ex-girlfriend, but that judges were advised there were personal motivations behind the dossier. Same thing? Please stop pretending you understand law. Or even bother to read up on law. Then stop claiming “Clinton/DNC” is the same as “political” to the extent where saying the first wasn’t mentioned is a lie. It’s downright simple if you take your mind off partisanship ends ... if that’s possible in the Trump era. But why though when they really are the same thing? I get you WANT this to be big because well you are a fanboy in the strongest sense of the word of all these Republican, you seem to view them more as a team to cheer for and find reasons to defend then an actual topic worth talking about but over here in reality I have to ask why are they not the same and how is it not accurate? Is it more specific? Yes. Was the judge unaware of the fact that the dossier was paid for by people who wanted to essentially have opposition research? No. If for some reason the judge had felt he wanted more information as to the political entity involved or that it was somehow relevant I am sure he would have asked. It was as though the information was hidden from him and he had no reason to ask the judge knew it was paid for by political people and either did not think it relevant to ask who or did and did not care. Either way your entire premise changes NOTHING but because they are your "team" you are desperate for it to be something more than it is. Fanboys want this to justify the end to the Mueller probe. Thinking I’m a fanboy is another proof you can’t see straight in this developing scandal. This alone is why why I think you are a fanboy. Its literally everything you do. Its your ability watch a video where something is clearly happening but because you do not want it to you will pretend its not. You have a team and a goal and that means more than the truth. The truth is a guy with zero credibility put out a memo where the parts that we can actually see (such as Comey's testimony) are being blatantly lied about. When the guy who has a history of lying is already lying about the parts we know why should he have any credibility on the parts we do not? If the "scandal" is that it is way too easy to get FISA warrants than maybe we can talk about that but if the "scandal" is that there was some impropriety in getting this warrant than the "scandal" will quickly die. This memo did not exonerate Trump, it didnt even exonerate the people who the memo was written about. Actually reading the memo and not just the bullet points makes it even clearer that he is trying very hard to say x and imply y but not say y so that when y is found out by the public to be completely untrue he can be like "I never actually said y I only x and x is technically true as long as only assume those exact words are what I mean and not make any logical assumptions based on those" The example with political motivation, while you do not like it, is a great example of it because he tries to imply they knew NOTHING about who commissioned the dossier and that it was being buried when in reality the judge knew there was a potential conflict but as we far we know either did not inquire further or did and did not find it relevant. In both cases he logically figured that any potential conflict of interest did not matter due to the nature of the accusations necessitating follow up.
I never said it exonerated Trump. We know enough about what Nunes said was hidden from the FISA application to want the release of it, and anything else Democrats want to say is wrong with the memo. Period. This includes whether or not McCabe said that without the dossier, there would be no FISA application. There are transcripts of his testimony.
Nunes took a credibility hit when he implied that Comey said the whole thing was salacious and unverified. He said parts were. Hell, also parts were a matter of public record (which some abuse to call the whole thing 'substantially verified'), and parts were absolutely false because of the public record (as Steele could have found out if he wanted to proof his own work. Either rushed, unconcerned about accuracy, or just clumsy). The greater whole of the memo should inspire anyone to want to confirm the accuracy/inaccuracy of just what the FBI put in the FISA warrant accusation. It raises so many questions (and I've already mentioned so much of it even the bullshitter Schiff won't contest).
Then in the wake of it, so many liberals are uninterested in the facts, but more concerned with (1) hating on "political" oversight (2) gleefully ready for a war between the FBI and Trump administration and House oversight (3) doubling down on elitist sentiment towards government. See my previous posts for examples.
+ Show Spoiler +
Also, Trey Gowdy.
|
On February 05 2018 07:28 Danglars wrote:Show nested quote +On February 05 2018 04:34 WolfintheSheep wrote:On February 05 2018 04:11 Danglars wrote:On February 05 2018 03:39 WolfintheSheep wrote:On February 05 2018 00:44 Danglars wrote:On February 04 2018 09:22 ChristianS wrote:Incidentally, regarding the claim that Democrats aren't disputing the memo's central claims: https://www.cnn.com/2018/02/03/politics/memo-dossier-christopher-steele-carter-page/index.htmlThe memo alleges that ex-British intelligence officer Christopher Steele, who authored an opposition research dossier on Trump that was used to obtain a FISA warrant on former Trump campaign adviser Carter Page, harbored anti-Trump financial and ideological motivations, including that the dossier was funded in part by Hillary Clinton's campaign and the Democratic National Committee. The memo claims those motivations were not included in the FISA application even though senior Justice Department officials knew about Steele's alleged anti-Trump bias.
Schiff disputed that assertion as "not accurate," saying the court was aware that there was a "likely political motivation" behind the Steele dossier. The California Democrat also said it is normal in FISA applications not to name individuals who may be sources of information. Care to revise your analysis, Danglars or xDaunt? It’s said that ChristianS’s name was withheld from the warrant application for his ex-girlfriend, but that judges were advised there were personal motivations behind the dossier. Same thing? Please stop pretending you understand law. Or even bother to read up on law. Then stop claiming “Clinton/DNC” is the same as “political” to the extent where saying the first wasn’t mentioned is a lie. It’s downright simple if you take your mind off partisanship ends ... if that’s possible in the Trump era. As I said on the very first day this memo came out: bias does not invalidate evidence. Getting the FISA warrant thrown out is going to take a lot more than "the FBI didn't say Clinton/DNC paid for the research". Both in court when/if Carter Page is charged, and especially while investigations are still ongoing. And if you actually cared about any kind of legal processes other than repeating whatever partisan hacks you follow, you would know this. You think I want the FISA warrant thrown out? Sheesh, stop projecting your own insecurities on the right onto me. This makes me seriously concerned about you. I'm interested in reforms to the FBI process where they can't mislead or omit key details in their applications to judges that might prejudice them against granting it based on slim evidence. Maybe they're already granting too many against citizens and would've granted it even with better information about Steele's credibility and the Clinton/DNC connection. Who cares? They didn't fulfill their own honest duty. And one last time, if they mentioned a "political connection," does that mean Nunes lied in the MEMO when he said "Neither the initial application in October 2016, nor any of the renewals, disclose or reference the role of the DNC, Clinton campaign, or any party/campaign in funding Steele's efforts?" We're getting very far away from ChristianS's post.
For the 1000's time. You can omit information to completely change the context.
Nunes said "The application did not disclose the role of the DNC or Clinton Campaign". Which is probably true.
others are coming out with "The application disclosed it had a political connection". Which may also be true.
Both these statements can be truth at the same time. Note how focusing in on a specific thing lets you omit the general statement and allows Nunes to imply nothing was mentioned at all.
If you don't care about the warrant and just about citizen rights this is a horrible hill to die on. Page was in the eyes of the FBI since 2013. He admitted the parts of the dossier and you have no clue what other information was provided to justify the warrant.
|
On February 05 2018 07:42 WolfintheSheep wrote:
Oh, I'm sorry. I didn't realize your 4th amendment concerns were because some details in a several hundred page FISA application didn't meet your non-legal standards. You're not contesting the FISA warrant at all, because it is completely totally valid and did not violate 4th amendment rights, but we're all partisan hacks for not exercising the same finger wagging that you feel is required.
If there is a concern for actually falsified FISA applications, I should hope Nunes is doing his job as Committee chair to identify and deal with those as is within his purview. Preferably instead of leading a media gong-show over a FISA warrant that no one wants thrown out.
Some of us consider the partisan origin and credibility issues with Steele to be more than just "some details in a several hundred page FISA application." How about arguing for its release to prove these were just details? That would be a refreshing display of something other than Trump-hysteria and hyperpartisanship.
|
On February 05 2018 08:01 Danglars wrote:Show nested quote +On February 05 2018 07:42 WolfintheSheep wrote:
Oh, I'm sorry. I didn't realize your 4th amendment concerns were because some details in a several hundred page FISA application didn't meet your non-legal standards. You're not contesting the FISA warrant at all, because it is completely totally valid and did not violate 4th amendment rights, but we're all partisan hacks for not exercising the same finger wagging that you feel is required.
If there is a concern for actually falsified FISA applications, I should hope Nunes is doing his job as Committee chair to identify and deal with those as is within his purview. Preferably instead of leading a media gong-show over a FISA warrant that no one wants thrown out. Some of us consider the partisan origin and credibility issues with Steele to be more than just "some details in a several hundred page FISA application." How about arguing for its release to prove these were just details? That would be a refreshing display of something other than Trump-hysteria and hyperpartisanship.
What about the partisan origin and credibility issues of the Nunes Memo?
|
On February 05 2018 08:01 Danglars wrote:Show nested quote +On February 05 2018 07:42 WolfintheSheep wrote:
Oh, I'm sorry. I didn't realize your 4th amendment concerns were because some details in a several hundred page FISA application didn't meet your non-legal standards. You're not contesting the FISA warrant at all, because it is completely totally valid and did not violate 4th amendment rights, but we're all partisan hacks for not exercising the same finger wagging that you feel is required.
If there is a concern for actually falsified FISA applications, I should hope Nunes is doing his job as Committee chair to identify and deal with those as is within his purview. Preferably instead of leading a media gong-show over a FISA warrant that no one wants thrown out. Some of us consider the partisan origin and credibility issues with Steele to be more than just "some details in a several hundred page FISA application." How about arguing for its release to prove these were just details? That would be a refreshing display of something other than Trump-hysteria and hyperpartisanship.
Sure, what is the normal timeline for declassification of documents to protect sources of information? After that has expired I'm all for releasing it.
I feel no need to compromise any ongoing investigation over a witch hunt.
You want it to be addressed earlier? Then do it through the proper (classified) channels and await the result of an official investigation.
The mob does not decide what is or is not lawful.
|
On February 05 2018 07:51 Introvert wrote:I've posted stuff from this author before and recently, for good reason. I'm not sure how to exerpt it since it is on the longer side for posts and pretty much all of it is important. How about a teaser? Show nested quote +Representative Nadler is a shrewd lawyer but he has spent his life in legislatures rather than courtrooms.
Representative Jerrold Nadler of New York, the senior Democrat on the House Intelligence Committee, has written a six-page response to the FISA-abuse memo published Friday by the committee’s Republican staffers under the direction of Chairman Devin Nunes (R., Calif.).
I won’t get sidetracked by the fact that Nadler’s “Dear Democratic Colleague” letter has been “exclusively obtained” by NBC News — i.e., that it was leaked to the media, whereas the so-called Nunes memo was provided to committee Democrats before publication so they could seek changes. The Nunes memo had to be subjected to a rules-based process because of classified-information issues. The Nadler memo does not seem to contain classified information; it just responds to what the Republicans have produced, which is now public record.
I don’t agree with Jerry Nadler’s politics, but he is an able lawyer. What surprises me about his retort is how weak it is. He posits four points, the last two of which are strictly political red meat. Of the other two, one provides an inaccurate explanation of the probable-cause standard in the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA); the other is an ill-conceived argument about Christopher Steele’s credibility. The latter provides a welcome opportunity to confront a wayward theory — which I’ll call “vicarious credibility” — that has been vigorously argued by apologists for the FBI and Justice Department’s handling of the Steele dossier. Let’s take the easy stuff first — Nadler’s last two contentions. Here are the four things he addresses: Show nested quote +A.The Nunes Memo and Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein
B. The Nunes Memo and the Mueller Investigation
C. The ‘Vicarious Credibility’ Theory
D. The Nunes Memo and FISA Law National Review
In response to these points:
A) Party bickering, not relevant to the FISA application itself.
B) Ditto to A.
C) McCarthy's the one that has it backwards. For the first part, the evidence provided in a warrant application (even a FISA warrant) does not have the same standards as evidence in a trial. Credibility of an investigator with anonymous sources may be less relevant than credibility of direct sources, but that does not make it irrelevant. The rest of it ignores that the FISA application was approved, so whatever his point about the burden of proof being on the FBI is the exact opposite. They've already reached their required level of proof, so now the burden is on whomever is contesting the FISA warrant to show that enough protocol or process was broken that it invalidates the initial application.
D) Ditto to C. McCarthy, like everyone else, is nitpicking at select details that he has been privy to. The FBI achieved their required burden of proof, the burden is now on someone else to challenge the evidence and to see if the FISA application was faulty. And those details will likely not be released for public viewing any time ever, which is why the challenge needs to go through the legal channels available.
Furthermore, a lot of this is stemming from the assertion that the Steele Dossier is suspect. This only matters if, when the FISA application was submitted, it was known that it was false or likely false, and that invalidation of that evidence is enough to make the entire application invalid.
|
On February 05 2018 08:01 Danglars wrote:Show nested quote +On February 05 2018 07:42 WolfintheSheep wrote:
Oh, I'm sorry. I didn't realize your 4th amendment concerns were because some details in a several hundred page FISA application didn't meet your non-legal standards. You're not contesting the FISA warrant at all, because it is completely totally valid and did not violate 4th amendment rights, but we're all partisan hacks for not exercising the same finger wagging that you feel is required.
If there is a concern for actually falsified FISA applications, I should hope Nunes is doing his job as Committee chair to identify and deal with those as is within his purview. Preferably instead of leading a media gong-show over a FISA warrant that no one wants thrown out. Some of us consider the partisan origin and credibility issues with Steele to be more than just "some details in a several hundred page FISA application." How about arguing for its release to prove these were just details? That would be a refreshing display of something other than Trump-hysteria and hyperpartisanship.
Sure, you want a bipartisan answer? I'll give you the one both of your parties have been delivering: the memo should not have been released.
Cool with that?
|
On February 05 2018 08:24 WolfintheSheep wrote:Show nested quote +On February 05 2018 07:51 Introvert wrote:I've posted stuff from this author before and recently, for good reason. I'm not sure how to exerpt it since it is on the longer side for posts and pretty much all of it is important. How about a teaser? Representative Nadler is a shrewd lawyer but he has spent his life in legislatures rather than courtrooms.
Representative Jerrold Nadler of New York, the senior Democrat on the House Intelligence Committee, has written a six-page response to the FISA-abuse memo published Friday by the committee’s Republican staffers under the direction of Chairman Devin Nunes (R., Calif.).
I won’t get sidetracked by the fact that Nadler’s “Dear Democratic Colleague” letter has been “exclusively obtained” by NBC News — i.e., that it was leaked to the media, whereas the so-called Nunes memo was provided to committee Democrats before publication so they could seek changes. The Nunes memo had to be subjected to a rules-based process because of classified-information issues. The Nadler memo does not seem to contain classified information; it just responds to what the Republicans have produced, which is now public record.
I don’t agree with Jerry Nadler’s politics, but he is an able lawyer. What surprises me about his retort is how weak it is. He posits four points, the last two of which are strictly political red meat. Of the other two, one provides an inaccurate explanation of the probable-cause standard in the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA); the other is an ill-conceived argument about Christopher Steele’s credibility. The latter provides a welcome opportunity to confront a wayward theory — which I’ll call “vicarious credibility” — that has been vigorously argued by apologists for the FBI and Justice Department’s handling of the Steele dossier. Let’s take the easy stuff first — Nadler’s last two contentions. Here are the four things he addresses: A.The Nunes Memo and Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein
B. The Nunes Memo and the Mueller Investigation
C. The ‘Vicarious Credibility’ Theory
D. The Nunes Memo and FISA Law National Review In response to these points: A) Party bickering, not relevant to the FISA application itself. B) Ditto to A. C) McCarthy's the one that has it backwards. For the first part, the evidence provided in a warrant application (even a FISA warrant) does not have the same standards as evidence in a trial. Credibility of an investigator with anonymous sources may be less relevant than credibility of direct sources, but that does not make it irrelevant. The rest of it ignores that the FISA application was approved, so whatever his point about the burden of proof being on the FBI is the exact opposite. They've already reached their required level of proof, so now the burden is on whomever is contesting the FISA warrant to show that enough protocol or process was broken that it invalidates the initial application. D) Ditto to C. McCarthy, like everyone else, is nitpicking at select details that he has been privy to. The FBI achieved their required burden of proof, the burden is now on someone else to challenge the evidence and to see if the FISA application was faulty. And those details will likely not be released for public viewing any time ever, which is why the challenge needs to go through the legal channels available. Furthermore, a lot of this is stemming from the assertion that the Steele Dossier is suspect. This only matters if, when the FISA application was submitted, it was known that it was false or likely false, and that invalidation of that evidence is enough to make the entire application invalid.
I think you are so hung up on going after Danglars you didn't really read it. For instance he acknowledges that points A and B are about politics, I'm not sure why you said that like it was some sort of response. Also somehow you end up putting words in his mouth and didn't even make it to the end.
+ Show Spoiler +Third and finally, Nadler offers more vicarious-credibility theory: We should believe there was probable cause in the FISA warrant application because “the Department of Justice thought so,” and “a federal judge agreed.” This tautological proposition is even more risible than the claim that Steele’s professional credibility and expertise are a substitute for corroborated factual assertions by reliable informants. The Justice Department’s job is to establish probable cause, and the court’s task is to find probable cause based on a sufficient factual showing. These burdens are not satisfied by the happenstance that a prosecutor handed an application to a judge, who then signed a warrant. If they were, we’d be living in a very different kind of country — one that would defy Jerry Nadler’s history of civil-liberties activism.
Also that bring up that it was approved is meaningless. I mean your statements about "burden of proof" completely miss the point. He's talking about the burden on the FBI for the application and somehow you spin that around into the burden being on "someone else" to show that the application is faulty which is precisely what is being argued about.
We are only arguing from what we know, I'm not sure that counts as "nit-picking."
if you are going to post like an ass at least read it carefully first.
EDIT: remember, he is specifically responding to the Nadler memo that was leaked and is making the rounds. All his points are in response to what is asserted there.
|
On February 05 2018 08:01 Danglars wrote:Show nested quote +On February 05 2018 07:42 WolfintheSheep wrote:
Oh, I'm sorry. I didn't realize your 4th amendment concerns were because some details in a several hundred page FISA application didn't meet your non-legal standards. You're not contesting the FISA warrant at all, because it is completely totally valid and did not violate 4th amendment rights, but we're all partisan hacks for not exercising the same finger wagging that you feel is required.
If there is a concern for actually falsified FISA applications, I should hope Nunes is doing his job as Committee chair to identify and deal with those as is within his purview. Preferably instead of leading a media gong-show over a FISA warrant that no one wants thrown out. Some of us consider the partisan origin and credibility issues with Steele to be more than just "some details in a several hundred page FISA application." How about arguing for its release to prove these were just details? That would be a refreshing display of something other than Trump-hysteria and hyperpartisanship.
The judges knew about the partisan origin, just not which party, and if they thought it was important they would've asked. You've been told this before but chose to ignore it. Secondly what credibility issues with the steel dosier? So far we know none of it to be untrue and know a good deal of it to be true especially when pertaining to the person in question. You literally are lying and arguing in bad faith, unless you want us to believe that you really are this dumb?
|
does the nadler memo matter since the nunes memo is already known to be trash?
|
On February 05 2018 08:46 Introvert wrote:Show nested quote +On February 05 2018 08:24 WolfintheSheep wrote:On February 05 2018 07:51 Introvert wrote:I've posted stuff from this author before and recently, for good reason. I'm not sure how to exerpt it since it is on the longer side for posts and pretty much all of it is important. How about a teaser? Representative Nadler is a shrewd lawyer but he has spent his life in legislatures rather than courtrooms.
Representative Jerrold Nadler of New York, the senior Democrat on the House Intelligence Committee, has written a six-page response to the FISA-abuse memo published Friday by the committee’s Republican staffers under the direction of Chairman Devin Nunes (R., Calif.).
I won’t get sidetracked by the fact that Nadler’s “Dear Democratic Colleague” letter has been “exclusively obtained” by NBC News — i.e., that it was leaked to the media, whereas the so-called Nunes memo was provided to committee Democrats before publication so they could seek changes. The Nunes memo had to be subjected to a rules-based process because of classified-information issues. The Nadler memo does not seem to contain classified information; it just responds to what the Republicans have produced, which is now public record.
I don’t agree with Jerry Nadler’s politics, but he is an able lawyer. What surprises me about his retort is how weak it is. He posits four points, the last two of which are strictly political red meat. Of the other two, one provides an inaccurate explanation of the probable-cause standard in the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA); the other is an ill-conceived argument about Christopher Steele’s credibility. The latter provides a welcome opportunity to confront a wayward theory — which I’ll call “vicarious credibility” — that has been vigorously argued by apologists for the FBI and Justice Department’s handling of the Steele dossier. Let’s take the easy stuff first — Nadler’s last two contentions. Here are the four things he addresses: A.The Nunes Memo and Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein
B. The Nunes Memo and the Mueller Investigation
C. The ‘Vicarious Credibility’ Theory
D. The Nunes Memo and FISA Law National Review In response to these points: A) Party bickering, not relevant to the FISA application itself. B) Ditto to A. C) McCarthy's the one that has it backwards. For the first part, the evidence provided in a warrant application (even a FISA warrant) does not have the same standards as evidence in a trial. Credibility of an investigator with anonymous sources may be less relevant than credibility of direct sources, but that does not make it irrelevant. The rest of it ignores that the FISA application was approved, so whatever his point about the burden of proof being on the FBI is the exact opposite. They've already reached their required level of proof, so now the burden is on whomever is contesting the FISA warrant to show that enough protocol or process was broken that it invalidates the initial application. D) Ditto to C. McCarthy, like everyone else, is nitpicking at select details that he has been privy to. The FBI achieved their required burden of proof, the burden is now on someone else to challenge the evidence and to see if the FISA application was faulty. And those details will likely not be released for public viewing any time ever, which is why the challenge needs to go through the legal channels available. Furthermore, a lot of this is stemming from the assertion that the Steele Dossier is suspect. This only matters if, when the FISA application was submitted, it was known that it was false or likely false, and that invalidation of that evidence is enough to make the entire application invalid. I think you are so hung up on going after Danglars you didn't really read it. For instance he acknowledges that points A and B are about politics, I'm not sure why you said that like it was some sort of response. Also somehow you end up putting words in his mouth and didn't even make it to the end. + Show Spoiler +Third and finally, Nadler offers more vicarious-credibility theory: We should believe there was probable cause in the FISA warrant application because “the Department of Justice thought so,” and “a federal judge agreed.” This tautological proposition is even more risible than the claim that Steele’s professional credibility and expertise are a substitute for corroborated factual assertions by reliable informants. The Justice Department’s job is to establish probable cause, and the court’s task is to find probable cause based on a sufficient factual showing. These burdens are not satisfied by the happenstance that a prosecutor handed an application to a judge, who then signed a warrant. If they were, we’d be living in a very different kind of country — one that would defy Jerry Nadler’s history of civil-liberties activism. Also that bring up that it was approved is meaningless. I mean your statements about "burden of proof" completely miss the point. He's talking about the burden on the FBI for the application and somehow you spin that around into the burden being on "someone else" to show that the application is faulty which is precisely what is being argued about.We are only arguing from what we know, I'm not sure that counts as "nit-picking." if you are going to post like an ass at least read it carefully first.
Nadler's message is that Nunes' memo does not discredit the investigation, the FISA warrant or the approval process (or any of the parties involved in that process).
McCarthy is trying to contest that with minimal information and a lot of reaching. And that's where the burden of proof comes in. McCarthy is trying to say that it's still somehow on the FBI's shoulder to obtain that - which is false. They achieved their standards for proof, received the FISA warrant, and the surveillance moved ahead. That proof is no longer the FBI concern until someone challenges that warrant on legal grounds.
Whether we like it or not, the legal system does actually revolve around trusting the processes and people following those processes. Which means:
We should believe there was probable cause in the FISA warrant application because “the Department of Justice thought so,” and “a federal judge agreed.”
Until shown otherwise.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
