|
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 09:00 zlefin wrote:
does the nadler memo matter since the nunes memo is already known to be trash?
The Nadler memo is supposedly one of the ways we "know" the Nunes memo is trash, so yes.
|
On February 05 2018 09:02 WolfintheSheep wrote:Show nested quote +On February 05 2018 08:46 Introvert wrote: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: Show nested quote +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.
Which is exactly what the country is arguing about. Good Heavens.
|
On February 05 2018 09:02 Introvert wrote:Show nested quote +On February 05 2018 09:00 zlefin wrote:
does the nadler memo matter since the nunes memo is already known to be trash?
The Nadler memo is supposedly one of the ways we "know" the Nunes memo is trash, so yes.
when was the nadler memo released?
cuz we knew the nunes memo was trash when it was released. I thought this nadler memo was more recent than that. and I don't recall any discussion of a nadler memo at the time, and hence it being involved in the demonstration of the nunes memo being trash.
if we already knew the nunes memo was trash, then someone brinsg up more arguments in favor of that, it doesn't matter whether their arguments are good or not, cuz the issue was already proven.
|
On February 05 2018 09:06 Introvert wrote:Show nested quote +On February 05 2018 09:02 WolfintheSheep wrote:On February 05 2018 08:46 Introvert wrote: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. Which is exactly what the country is arguing about. Good Heavens.
The country is pretty stupid then.
This is why there's appeals courts. This is why evidence gets challenged in courts. This is why there are oversight committees. Because if there are missteps, then there are processes and channels to deal with them. But the key point for all of those is that the burden of proof is shifted.
|
On February 05 2018 09:13 WolfintheSheep wrote:Show nested quote +On February 05 2018 09:06 Introvert wrote:On February 05 2018 09:02 WolfintheSheep wrote:On February 05 2018 08:46 Introvert wrote: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. Which is exactly what the country is arguing about. Good Heavens. The country is pretty stupid then. This is why there's appeals courts. This is why evidence gets challenged in courts. This is why there are oversight committees. Because if there are missteps, then there are processes and channels to deal with them. But the key point for all of those is that the burden of proof is shifted.
So far all we have is the result of an oversight committee. I'm going to go ahead and believe you simply aren't getting the point here. To get the warrant the BoP is on the FBI. What is now being contested and discussed is if the FBI overstated or otherwise mislead the court on this matter. When put this way it is easy to see why your strange turnaround of "the burden is now on others to show it was improperly handled" is, so far from being a rebuttal, actually the entire case is dispute. We are all working from what we know, McCarthy included, and so the assumption that "it was granted, therefore all is above-board" is hardly the end of it, and it's baffling that this is so hard to see.
EDIT:
Also found this, which sort of speaks to something you said earlier. The author is being careful.
+ Show Spoiler +
|
On February 05 2018 09:26 Introvert wrote:Show nested quote +On February 05 2018 09:13 WolfintheSheep wrote:On February 05 2018 09:06 Introvert wrote:On February 05 2018 09:02 WolfintheSheep wrote:On February 05 2018 08:46 Introvert wrote: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. Which is exactly what the country is arguing about. Good Heavens. The country is pretty stupid then. This is why there's appeals courts. This is why evidence gets challenged in courts. This is why there are oversight committees. Because if there are missteps, then there are processes and channels to deal with them. But the key point for all of those is that the burden of proof is shifted. So far all we have is the result of an oversight committee. I'm going to go ahead and believe you simply aren't getting the point here. To get the warrant the BoP is on the FBI. What is now being contested and discussed is if the FBI overstated or otherwise mislead the court on this matter. When put this way it is easy to see why your strange turnaround of "the burden is now on others to show it was improperly handled" is, so far from being a rebuttal, actually the entire case is dispute. We are all working from what we know, McCarthy included, and so the assumption that "it was granted, therefore all is above-board" is hardly the end of it, and it's baffling that this is so hard to see.
What you don't seem to get is that warrants can be invalidated. If the FBI overstated or mislead the court in a manner that shows the entire FISA application to be faulty, then evidence gathered through it can be deemed inadmissible (and possibly other consequences that I haven't looked into).
But, the burden of proof is on other parties to challenge the FISA application and show that it was faulty. If those accusations are substantial enough to be brought up in the relevant venues, then the FBI has to prove that either the accusations are wrong or that there is still enough substance to the warrant application that it's still valid.
I don't see what's so hard for you to understand. The FBI has/had a valid warrant in 2016. Has that been legally challenged yet?
|
On February 05 2018 09:33 WolfintheSheep wrote:Show nested quote +On February 05 2018 09:26 Introvert wrote:On February 05 2018 09:13 WolfintheSheep wrote:On February 05 2018 09:06 Introvert wrote:On February 05 2018 09:02 WolfintheSheep wrote:On February 05 2018 08:46 Introvert wrote: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. Which is exactly what the country is arguing about. Good Heavens. The country is pretty stupid then. This is why there's appeals courts. This is why evidence gets challenged in courts. This is why there are oversight committees. Because if there are missteps, then there are processes and channels to deal with them. But the key point for all of those is that the burden of proof is shifted. So far all we have is the result of an oversight committee. I'm going to go ahead and believe you simply aren't getting the point here. To get the warrant the BoP is on the FBI. What is now being contested and discussed is if the FBI overstated or otherwise mislead the court on this matter. When put this way it is easy to see why your strange turnaround of "the burden is now on others to show it was improperly handled" is, so far from being a rebuttal, actually the entire case is dispute. We are all working from what we know, McCarthy included, and so the assumption that "it was granted, therefore all is above-board" is hardly the end of it, and it's baffling that this is so hard to see. What you don't seem to get is that warrants can be invalidated. If the FBI overstated or mislead the court in a manner that shows the entire FISA application to be faulty, then evidence gathered through it can be deemed inadmissible (and possibly other consequences that I haven't looked into). But, the burden of proof is on other parties to challenge the FISA application and show that it was faulty. If those accusations are substantial enough to be brought up in the relevant venues, then the FBI has to prove that either the accusations are wrong or that there is still enough substance to the warrant application that it's still valid. I don't see what's so hard for you to understand. The FBI has/had a valid warrant in 2016. Has that been legally challenged yet?
See edit.
But quite clearly what is going on here is part of the process. It's not like Page had any lawyers to challenge anything.
And I'll repeat again that I don't know for sure one way or another, but saying "it was granted and no one has challenged it in court yet" is a horrendous argument in light of the question being asked.
edit: there are situations in which that could be relevant, but certainly not here.
|
On February 05 2018 09:45 Introvert wrote:Show nested quote +On February 05 2018 09:33 WolfintheSheep wrote:On February 05 2018 09:26 Introvert wrote:On February 05 2018 09:13 WolfintheSheep wrote:On February 05 2018 09:06 Introvert wrote:On February 05 2018 09:02 WolfintheSheep wrote:On February 05 2018 08:46 Introvert wrote: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. Which is exactly what the country is arguing about. Good Heavens. The country is pretty stupid then. This is why there's appeals courts. This is why evidence gets challenged in courts. This is why there are oversight committees. Because if there are missteps, then there are processes and channels to deal with them. But the key point for all of those is that the burden of proof is shifted. So far all we have is the result of an oversight committee. I'm going to go ahead and believe you simply aren't getting the point here. To get the warrant the BoP is on the FBI. What is now being contested and discussed is if the FBI overstated or otherwise mislead the court on this matter. When put this way it is easy to see why your strange turnaround of "the burden is now on others to show it was improperly handled" is, so far from being a rebuttal, actually the entire case is dispute. We are all working from what we know, McCarthy included, and so the assumption that "it was granted, therefore all is above-board" is hardly the end of it, and it's baffling that this is so hard to see. What you don't seem to get is that warrants can be invalidated. If the FBI overstated or mislead the court in a manner that shows the entire FISA application to be faulty, then evidence gathered through it can be deemed inadmissible (and possibly other consequences that I haven't looked into). But, the burden of proof is on other parties to challenge the FISA application and show that it was faulty. If those accusations are substantial enough to be brought up in the relevant venues, then the FBI has to prove that either the accusations are wrong or that there is still enough substance to the warrant application that it's still valid. I don't see what's so hard for you to understand. The FBI has/had a valid warrant in 2016. Has that been legally challenged yet? See edit. But quite clearly what is going on here is part of the process. It's not like Page had any lawyers to challenge anything. And I'll repeat again that I don't know for sure one way or another, but saying "it was granted and no one has challenged it in court yet" is a horrendous argument in light of the question being asked.
It's basically the only relevant argument when it comes to burden of proof, which means that McCarthy's argument is largely wrong. Unless someone can provide significant arguments against the FISA application, yeah, you basically do have to take the approval and the decisions of the judges and DOJ at face value. And the FBI doesn't have to prove anything to anyone to maintain the evidence from that warrant.
Sure, in the public eye you can raise as much of a stink as you want. But none of those parties have to care in any official sense.
|
On February 05 2018 09:54 WolfintheSheep wrote:Show nested quote +On February 05 2018 09:45 Introvert wrote:On February 05 2018 09:33 WolfintheSheep wrote:On February 05 2018 09:26 Introvert wrote:On February 05 2018 09:13 WolfintheSheep wrote:On February 05 2018 09:06 Introvert wrote:On February 05 2018 09:02 WolfintheSheep wrote:On February 05 2018 08:46 Introvert wrote: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? [quote] Here are the four things he addresses: [quote] 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. Which is exactly what the country is arguing about. Good Heavens. The country is pretty stupid then. This is why there's appeals courts. This is why evidence gets challenged in courts. This is why there are oversight committees. Because if there are missteps, then there are processes and channels to deal with them. But the key point for all of those is that the burden of proof is shifted. So far all we have is the result of an oversight committee. I'm going to go ahead and believe you simply aren't getting the point here. To get the warrant the BoP is on the FBI. What is now being contested and discussed is if the FBI overstated or otherwise mislead the court on this matter. When put this way it is easy to see why your strange turnaround of "the burden is now on others to show it was improperly handled" is, so far from being a rebuttal, actually the entire case is dispute. We are all working from what we know, McCarthy included, and so the assumption that "it was granted, therefore all is above-board" is hardly the end of it, and it's baffling that this is so hard to see. What you don't seem to get is that warrants can be invalidated. If the FBI overstated or mislead the court in a manner that shows the entire FISA application to be faulty, then evidence gathered through it can be deemed inadmissible (and possibly other consequences that I haven't looked into). But, the burden of proof is on other parties to challenge the FISA application and show that it was faulty. If those accusations are substantial enough to be brought up in the relevant venues, then the FBI has to prove that either the accusations are wrong or that there is still enough substance to the warrant application that it's still valid. I don't see what's so hard for you to understand. The FBI has/had a valid warrant in 2016. Has that been legally challenged yet? See edit. But quite clearly what is going on here is part of the process. It's not like Page had any lawyers to challenge anything. And I'll repeat again that I don't know for sure one way or another, but saying "it was granted and no one has challenged it in court yet" is a horrendous argument in light of the question being asked. It's basically the only relevant argument when it comes to burden of proof, which means that McCarthy's argument is largely wrong. Unless someone can provide significant arguments against the FISA application, yeah, you basically do have to take the approval and the decisions of the judges and DOJ at face value. And the FBI doesn't have to prove anything to anyone to maintain the evidence from that warrant. Sure, in the public eye you can raise as much of a stink as you want. But none of those parties have to care in any official sense.
You still don't know what he's arguing, that much is clearly true.
|
None of this should really be public discussion, to be honest. This is what government is for. If Nunes has a problem with the FISA process, he didn't mention it 2 weeks ago when he authored and passed FISA legislation.
To argue the merits of one warrant, in the public, that has been approved by FISA courts since 2013, based on a guy that calls himself an "advisor to the Kremlin", because in addition to everything else, they used a dossier written by an MI6 executive, is absurd and disgusting. They know it, we know it. It's just a propaganda campaign at this point by people who clearly don't give a shit about America's interests.
|
This is propaganda aimed at intelligence-gathering as a whole. There are already numerous accounts, from top to bottom, that say this will have ramifications to national security.
And it's only logical. Agents and judges won't want to risk their careers on surveillance for people who might one day be a political figure, because it's clear politicians, at least in the GOP, will throw you under the bus if it implicates them. Every DoJ Republican that has gotten in their way of shutting down the investigation has been accused of being a "biased liberal". ex. Comey. Next it's Rosenstein and Mueller.
|
On February 05 2018 10:00 Leporello wrote:
None of this should really be public discussion, to be honest. This is what government is for. If Nunes has a problem with the FISA process, he didn't mention it 2 weeks ago when he authored and passed FISA legislation.
To argue the merits of one warrant, in the public, that has been approved by FISA courts since 2013, based on a guy that calls himself an "advisor to the Kremlin", because in addition to everything else, they used a dossier written by an MI6 executive, is absurd and disgusting. They know it, we know it. It's just a propaganda campaign at this point by people who clearly don't give a shit about America's interests.
I know I said a while ago I was going to ignore you, but I'll clear up a few things.
1. The section 702 that was in dispute a few weeks ago doesn't have anything to do with this (the memo said so, and I think that's prob an edit that was requested and made).
2. As far as I know, he wasn't under surveillance "since 2013." He was under surveillance twice, and one of those times was in 2013, and a separate time in 2016-2017.
3. Steele wasn't acting as an agent of MI6.
Just FYI for the thread.
edit: also, the "threat to national security" seems to be a lot of hot air, which should at least give us pause when evaluating if the FBI isn't trying to cover its own rear and makes me doubt them more than i would otherwise.
|
having heard no response on the matter; i'm going to stick with my memory that the nadler memo was after the determination of the nunes memo being trash (and/or was not involved in the determination), and therefore the nadler memo's quality is irrelevant (was gonna say moot, but no entirely sure that fits as I think more).
|
Do you know Trump nixed the sanctions against Russia this week, de facto? OR, did you read that in that unannounced Oval Office meeting Trump had with Kislyak and Lavrov, he gave more Israeli intelligence than was previously reported? Trump's campaign chairman, under indictments, starts trial in about 2 months.
Like, you're more interested in pointing fingers at Republican FISA judges and FBI agents, pretending like you have any clue what you're talking about, than your country's safety. Carter Page is obviously very, very worthy of spying on. I'm sorry, but we're past the point where I can see you as someone who is actually arguing for your country's interest. Please. You're defending the civil liberties of a Carter Page because you think...? What? It's going to prevent abuses of government? That's what you want people to believe you're doing here?
You want to argue about political motives of FBI agents and FISA judges. Think about that. Who are you? You, internet guy, have suddenly, in your non-biased wisdom and overview of government institutions, have decided that these FISA judges, appointed by Republican AGs, are... biased.
The DoJ says you're wrong. And you don't think this effects national-security? Well, spasibo, comrade. That's very reassuring to the next poor agent that has to investigate the Putin-loving campaign advisor to the Putin-loving candidate you vote to be President.
I, personally, have zero qualms about the government spying on someone who calls themselves an "advisor to the Kremlin". I would never question the warrant, and demand classified information, because someone who calls themselves "an advisor to the Kremlin" turns out to be under surveillance. This isn't even partisan-hackery at this point. It's anti-American. Not that George W. Bush, don't protest my war, "anti-American". You're actively denigrating people who by all appearances, were doing a tough job, investigating shitty people, for no reason other than Fox News told you to.
|
Expect Dodge to major damage control tomorrow.
While also bringing the BLM much needed fuel and support.
|
Was there not a single black person in any of the focus groups that Dodge tested that commercial with?
|
Dodge, you complete morons LOL
|
Looks like people just tried to find a reason to be offended? Doesn’t look like a commercial done in bad taste unless you’re literally looking to frame any use of MLK as offensive. Stupid sure, but who cares?
|
On February 05 2018 12:01 LegalLord wrote:
Looks like people just tried to find a reason to be offended? Doesn’t look like a commercial done in bad taste unless you’re literally looking to frame any use of MLK as offensive. Stupid sure, but who cares?
There's just some things that it's not appropriate to commercialize. I'm pretty sure it would have generated a similar reaction if it was a commercial using a recording of the Dalai Llama or a Pope.
|
Why do you care if people care about how MLKs words are used? Do you really want someone to explain it to you so you can understand or do you want to just dismiss it cause you don’t think it matter?
These are the questions we must ask ourselves when people seem upset about something we don’t really care about.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
