Quote:
Originally Posted by detbuch
Did the Democrats elaborate further what they meant by mischaracterized? If not, their statement would be, as WDMSO would say, innuendo.
|
They certainly did in their response to the memo which is classified.
Quote:
|
My understanding is that the FISA court assumes that evidence is verified. That the court would not consider unverified information as evidence--so would not have granted this warrant if it had known it was not verified. And the Republicans (McCain) who contributed to its creation were trying to stop Trump from being the nominee. Certainly, the Democrats were an opposition party. The motivation, in either case, was anti-Trump. And the McCain original contribution which ended well before the dossier became "evidence" for a warrant does not diminish the Clinton campaign motivation.
|
I believe the FISA standard is just that it has to be reasonable not that is has to be verified. Steele is a known reputable source and of lot of the Dossier has proven to have merit. But it also certainly sounds like there were many pieces of evidence used to justify the warrant according to those who have read it.
Quote:
|
I am not aware of a FISA warrant on Page surveillance before the one issued with the dossier being used as evidence. I've heard of one that was dismissed before the dossier was used. And if there was already a FISA warrant to surveil Page, why would the FBI have to apply for a new one.
|
He already was under surveillance and the warrant had been renewed three times I believe. For that to occur they would have to have shown the previous warrants were producing valuable information and/or bring new evidence.
I'm not sure how long they last but I do know a FISA warrant is time bound.
Another factor to consider is how all this came about. Steele was concerned there was a real crime going on and contacted the FBI himself.