[spence]

Originally Posted by detbuch

McCarthy: Schiff makes much of the fact that the four FISA warrants (the original authorization and three renewals, at 90-day intervals) were signed by four different FISA-court judges — all apparently appointed to the federal district courts by Republican presidents. This hardly commends the validity of the warrants . . . the issue here is failure to disclose information to the court. If a judge was not made aware of material facts, the judge’s authorization of a warrant does not validate the derelict application.

It's clear now that SOME of the information used in the FISA application was from Steele which was made clear to the Federal judge. If the judge isn't satisfied with the justification for the warrant they don't have to approve it. McCarthy is en effect calling these Federal judges incompetent. Considering he's only seen what's been declassified that's laughable.

McCarthy: "If you know it’s necessary to disclose that “identified U.S. person” Simpson was being paid by “a U.S.-based law firm” (Perkins-Coie), then it is at least equally necessary to disclose that, in turn, the law firm was being paid by its clients: the Clinton campaign and the DNC. To tell half the story is patently misleading."

McCarthy has a clever use of quotes here to mislead his reader, yourself. The FISA requests don't name Simpson or Perkins-Coie because that is the protocol to not name US persons or entities unless they are the subject of the surveillance. By co-mingling the quotes from the warrant with what we know today McCarthy is trying to establish a quid pro quo that would be improper.

McCarthy: Schiff comically highlights this DOJ assertion as if it were his home run, when it is in fact damning: “The FBI speculates that the identified U.S. Person was likely looking for information that could be used to discredit Candidate #1’s campaign.” This is the vague reference that Democrats and Trump critics laughably say was adequate disclosure of the dossier’s political motivation. But why would the FBI “speculate” that a political motive was “likely” involved when, in reality, the FBI well knew that a very specific political motive was precisely involved?

At the time of the FISA request Simpson had not testified about the full nature of their research nor had the FBI led any formal investigation into Steele's potential bias. To hang all this on the word "likely" is comical.

There was no reason for supposition here. If the FBI had transparently disclosed that the dossier was a product of the Clinton campaign — oh, sorry, didn’t mean to unmask; if the FBI had transparently disclosed that the dossier was a product of “Candidate #2’s” campaign — then the court would have been informed about the apodictic certainty that the people behind the dossier were trying to discredit the campaign of Candidate #2’s opponent. It is disingenuous to tell a judge that something is “likely” when, in fact, it is beyond any doubt.

How far did that Nunes "unmasking" stunt go before it was discredited as well?

McCarthy is just presenting one straw man after another. The FBI, the Federal Judiciary, the Clinton campaign...they're all in it together!