Thread: Memo is out
View Single Post
Old 02-03-2018, 08:10 PM   #69
detbuch
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Posts: 7,688
Quote:
Originally Posted by spence View Post
I think the fact that they've stated it, documented it and asked the Republicans to make it public says quite a lot.

You have this squishy writing quality of "seeming" or appearing to be saying something, but is infused with a peculiar verbal fog that obscures what, if anything, you are actually saying.


Reasonable here is in context of the FBI's process...which doesn't require information to be proven. The standard is very high which is why to your point above FISA requests are rarely denied.

More of the high quality squish. The "context of the FBI's process"! Yes... the context of process! "Reasonable" somehow is a chameleon word that changes meaning in different contexts. A less sophisticated writer might just avoid using words which are too complex contextually, and rather would just go straight to the actual FBI standard (which requires verification and substantiation of evidence). On the other hand, I suppose, if submitting unverified evidence for a FISA warrant can be done through some context of process, which is not specified or listed in the manual, rather than the actual process, then a warrant can theoretically, in a Machiavellian agreement, be issued on squishier grounds, such as evidence only need be "reasonable."

BTW, Comey had directly told Trump that the dossier was "salacious and unverified." But, of course, in your "context of the FBI's process," it would be unreasonable to require the dossier to be verified in order to use it as evidence for a FISA warrant.


It's a collection of items some verified and some not. That doesn't invalidate the entire collection.

More indefinite squish. "Some verified"--what was verified? There were various media articles used as corroboration which reported similar things as were in the dossier, but the problem is that those articles were based on information from Steele or from his dossier--a form of circular journalism which merely repeats itself rather than corroborating anything. Steele was removed as an FBI informant because of his contact with media outlets which would obviously taint any so-called corroboration.

And yes, submitting the unverified portions of the "dossier" would be a corruption of the process even if there was something in it that was verified. It would make the whole "evidence" suspect, especially if it was known, as it was, that the "dossier" was discredited.


I think some of the Dossier was included in the last extension which was signed off on by Trump appointees.

The "dossier" was the key factor in all the extensions. And if these extensions are what you referred to as warrants on Page during the three years before the "dossier" inspired FISA warrant, that would obviously be impossible since the "dossier" didn't exist then. As I've said, if such warrants had existed and they produced useful data, then they could have been continuously reinstated. There would not have been a need for an entirely new warrant. If those warrants existed, they obviously didn't reap any useful information.

I have no idea how much Steele was paid. His employer was paid a decent amount although I'd assume if you want good quality research it doesn't come cheap.
The adage says "you get what you pay for." If you ask for high quality dirt, you should be prepared to pay high quality fees. Steele was paid by Fusion, by Clinton campaign, and by the FBI. I think one of those sources, maybe the Clinton campaign, paid him $160,000.

None of the points made in the memo have been claimed to be false. The spin is that without other information, what's in the memo, truthful as it is, can be "misleading." What is stated in the memo is pretty straightforward. It would take a lot of information to make the FBI's actions listed in the memo lawful. We await the further information which will make the memo a "nothingburger."

A lot has been said in this thread and in the spinning media and political pundits about the supposed damage the release of the memo was supposed to inflict on national security and on the integrity of our institutions. I haven't seen anything in the memo as released that endangers national security. And the integrity of the FBI, if it can be damaged by some rogues, was already severely damaged by Comey when he presented a solid case for prosecution of HRC but didn't recommend prosecution to the Attorney General, who had broadcasted ahead of his decision that she would abide by his recommendation. And the abuse the Dems heaped on Comey before and after the election surely would cause no less damage to the integrity of the FBI than would this memo. And, it is not the integrity of the FBI that is in question. It is the integrity of those who manipulated the "process" in an attempt to achieve their ends.
detbuch is offline