Memo is out

[PaulS]

I believe Carter page was under investigation for like 3 years because he was thought to be a Russian agent.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[spence]

Originally Posted by PaulS

I believe Carter page was under investigation for like 3 years because he was thought to be a Russian agent.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Or a stooge...funny how he fit right in with the Trump org.

[Jim in CT]

http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2018/...ommission.html
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Yes it’s Fox News, but written by notedmliberal Alan dershowitz.

[PaulS]

I'm about to walk out of the house so I only scanned it but isn't that's something the committee could have looked into instead of having the Republicans for the first time in history release their own partisan memo?
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[spence]

Originally Posted by PaulS

I'm about to walk out of the house so I only scanned it but isn't that's something the committee could have looked into instead of having the Republicans for the first time in history release their own partisan memo?
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

No, the only way for our non-partisan agencies to police themselves is to create partisan stunts intended to subvert the function of our democracy.

[scottw]

Originally Posted by spence

No, the only way for our non-partisan agencies to police themselves is to create partisan stunts intended to subvert the function of our democracy.

do you have the flu or something?...you sound as though you are battling a very high fever

[JohnR]

Interesting memo today, unsure if it is enough IMO to re-chart the investigation.

Curious if the unauthorized 702 "about query" violations that were stopped by Adm. Mike Rogers were related to the FISA court actions based on the Steele Dossier?? THAT would be interesting.

Originally Posted by Pete F.

And if you believe in a multi party system that should really scare you.

This is so funny - not you Pete - but the Democrats have finally run out of their own money - maybe they feel they have a right to the RNC's now

Originally Posted by PaulS

You and I certainly disagree on some things.

Paul - I agree with you on this one. Now the Russian Spy Anna Whatshernameoff - she was hot...

[spence]

Here's one for Jim.

http://www.businessinsider.com/devin...aign=buffer-bi

[wdmso]

Making America great again.. divide and conquer

this is all slight of hand ..by the time the country wakes up it will be to late

even Obama.never attacked the CIA FBI or the DOJ like this POTUS and his minions. .. Some here would of had a melt down ... justifiably....if he had .. now they try to rationilze Trump behavior,, I find it hard to understand

Seems the Dow was influenced by the memo as well

[scottw]

so if the Bush Justice Department and FBI had used a "dossier" which had been paid for by the Romney campaign and presented to a FISA court to obtain a warrant authorizing surveillance of an Obama campaign adviser prior to the 2008 election never divulging to the court that the "dossier" was a product of paid political opposition research from an author who had stated to a senior Justice Department official that he was “desperate” to prevent Obama from being elected president.



that would not have been a problem for the left...right?

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by scottw

so if the Bush Justice Department and FBI had used a "dossier" which had been paid for by the Romney campaign and presented to a FISA court to obtain a warrant authorizing surveillance of an Obama campaign adviser prior to the 2008 election never divulging to the court that the "dossier" was a product of paid political opposition research from an author who had stated to a senior Justice Department official that he was “desperate” to prevent Obama from being elected president.



that would not have been a problem for the left...right?

I’d also like to know what’s in there that’s a threat to national security, which the left went berserk over. Were the nuke launch codes in the memo and I missed it?

And in your hypothetical, you’d also need to include that deputy attorney general had a wife who ran for the senate and took huge money from the Koch brothers, and an FBI assistant director whose wife worked at Fusion GPS, the company that put together the dossier.

Nope, nothing to see, move along.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[wdmso]

Originally Posted by scottw

so if the Bush Justice Department and FBI had used a "dossier" which had been paid for by the Romney campaign and presented to a FISA court to obtain a warrant authorizing surveillance of an Obama campaign adviser prior to the 2008 election never divulging to the court that the "dossier" was a product of paid political opposition research from an author who had stated to a senior Justice Department official that he was “desperate” to prevent Obama from being elected president.



that would not have been a problem for the left...right?

your example is as much a fantasy as the Nunes Memo . using innuendo , conjecture and conspiracy theories and presented as Fact

Only the American right has had a consistent, large, and organized faction based on paranoid conspiracism for six decades.

interesting read https://slate.com/news-and-politics/...-to-today.html

[spence]

Well I guess it's over. Trump just claimed the Memo completely vindicates him in the Russia investigations.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[Got Stripers]

You would have to be a moron or completely drunk on Trump cool aid, to not see this for what it is. It’s just one of what is now a truly astounding number of moves to discredit anyone associated with either the initial Russia investigation or now the Meuller investigation. Ironically the more of these moves Trump makes, the more he helps Meuller build a case of obstruction of justice.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[scottw]

I bet the FISA folks are a bit angry that they were mislead...repeatedly

[PaulS]

I think Scott was asking a fair question. Would the Democrats complain about the investigation if there was a Democratic president. Of course they would. But I think this goes far beyond what the Democrats would do. The Republicans are claiming there's a deep state and that the highest levels of the justice department and the FBI are basically crooked. It's my understanding with Watergate that both parties were critical of Nixon. With the Clinton investigations I'm sure the Democrats put up a defense of him. But again I don't think they claimed there's a deep state and certainly did not put out a bipartisan memo that the FBI basically said is full of BS. The Republicans seem to have a propensity to believe anything they hear. Pizzagate Scott rich, Etc.maybe it Hhas something to do with Info wars, Breitbart and veritas. when those entities put out their stories and they proved to be made up they just come out with another story a few weeks later and people believe them.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[detbuch]

Originally Posted by wdmso

your example is as much a fantasy as the Nunes Memo . using innuendo , conjecture and conspiracy theories and presented as Fact.

Nothing in the memo, as far as I know, has been revealed to be untrue. A series of "facts" are presented in the memo. Any pertinent facts that have been left out can easily be stated. So far, the only innuendo is that the facts in the memo can be misleading because of some supposed omissions.

[PaulS]

This memo is just an attempt to promote the idea that the investigation was started as a result of a corrupted and partisian process. if you could prove that you can prove the entire investigation is biased. It has failed to do that. The page warrant is only one small part of a much larger investigation. It confirmed the contacts between Papadopoulos and the Russians and that was the reason for the opening of the investigation.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[spence]

Originally Posted by scottw

I bet the FISA folks are a bit angry that they were mislead...repeatedly

I've seen nothing to indicate any FISA folks were misled.

[detbuch]

McCabe stated under oath that without the Steele "dossier" there would not have been a FISA warrant to wire tap Page. There was a previous attempt to get a warrant on Page which was (which rarely happens) denied. The unverified dossier was the key element needed to get the warrant. Any information gathered via use of the warrant would be fruit of the poisoned tree and therefore inadmissible.

And if that is somehow in dispute, it still does not absolve the FBI from presenting the "dossier" to a FISA judge without revealing that it was not verified and was paid for by an opposition party or candidate. The knowing use of such a faulty document to get a warrant is, undeniably, a corruption of the process.

As far as Papadopoulos goes, he was guilty of lying to the FBI, not of seeking dirt on Hillary (which would not have been enough "evidence" to get a FISA warrant to spy on Papadopoulos, and certainly not enough to do so on Page).

[spence]

Originally Posted by detbuch

McCabe stated under oath that without the Steele "dossier" there would not have been a FISA warrant to wire tap Page. There was a previous attempt to get a warrant on Page which was (which rarely happens) denied. The unverified dossier was the key element needed to get the warrant. Any information gathered via use of the warrant would be fruit of the poisoned tree and therefore inadmissible.

The Democrats in the same hearing have stated in writing that McCabe's remark is mis-characterized in the memo.

And if that is somehow in dispute, it still does not absolve the FBI from presenting the "dossier" to a FISA judge without revealing that it was not verified and was paid for by an opposition party or candidate. The knowing use of such a faulty document to get a warrant is, undeniably, a corruption of the process.

My understanding is that the use of the dossier was presented as political in nature in the FISA request. Remember both Republicans and Democrats contributed to it's creation.

As far as Papadopoulos goes, he was guilty of lying to the FBI, not of seeking dirt on Hillary (which would not have been enough "evidence" to get a FISA warrant to spy on Papadopoulos, and certainly not enough to do so on Page).

Page was already under a FISA warrant which had been renewed THREE times for a list of concerns all having nothing to do with the Dossier and everything about his potentially illegal dealings with Russians.

[detbuch]

Originally Posted by spence

The Democrats in the same hearing have stated in writing that McCabe's remark is mis-characterized in the memo.

Did the Democrats elaborate further what they meant by mischaracterized? If not, their statement would be, as WDMSO would say, innuendo.

My understanding is that the use of the dossier was presented as political in nature in the FISA request. Remember both Republicans and Democrats contributed to it's creation.

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.

Page was already under a FISA warrant which had been renewed THREE times for a list of concerns all having nothing to do with the Dossier and everything about his potentially illegal dealings with Russians.

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?

[spence]

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.

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.

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.

[scottw]

Spence is butchering the timeline and distorting facts...I feel mislead reading his memos

[detbuch]

Originally Posted by spence

They certainly did in their response to the memo which is classified.

Well, until we know what the Dems meant by mischaracterized, their statement is of no use. And since the memo was declassified, why would responses to it be classified? And if those in-committee responses are still somehow classified, explanations given outside of the official committee briefs need not be classified. Democrats whether from the committee or not, can give personal opinions about how the memo mischaracterizes.

I believe the FISA standard is just that it has to be reasonable not that is has to be verified.

"Reasonable" is too vague and subjective to be used as a standard to allow intrusion of 4th Amendment rights. The standard is much higher than merely being reasonable: "Known as Woods procedures after Michael J. Woods, the FBI Special Agent attorney who developed this layer of approval, DOJ verifies the accuracy of every fact stated in the application. If anything looks unsubstantiated, the application is sent back to the FBI to provide additional evidentiary support – this game of bureaucratic chutes and ladders continues until DOJ is satisfied that the facts in the FISA application can both be corroborated and meet the legal standards for the court."

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.

That's just evasive gibberish. The "dossier" is not a verified document.

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.

Again, I don't know of which warrant you are referring to. There was an application for a warrant to surveil Page, just prior to the one under discussion, that was not allowed. Which, according to your statement, should have been allowed if the previous warrants (if they existed) were producing valuable information or bringing new information. When the "dossier" was submitted as evidence on the next try, the warrant was granted.

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.

Conjecturing motivation which seems sketchy to begin with could well be considered as mischaracterization. Did he on his own volition, out of some idealistic compulsion, go about digging up dirt? We can't know that, nor is it relevant to the accuracy of the "dossier." We do know that he was paid a great deal of money to do it.

[spence]

Originally Posted by scottw

Spence is butchering the timeline and distorting facts...I feel mislead reading his memos

Be specific or be gone.

[detbuch]

Originally Posted by spence

Be specific or be gone.

If you read my post just before this one by you, you will note a concern about your FISA warrants on Page timeline. You keep stating that there were FISA warrants on Page before the "dossier" granted one. I didn't find a record of any. But if there were, they apparently were not fruitful enough to continue being granted since the FISA application, submitted shortly before the "dossier" one, was not allowed. Were there actually previous warrants, or are you confusing the current one with some supposed previous ones?

[spence]

Originally Posted by detbuch

Well, until we know what the Dems meant by mischaracterized, their statement is of no use. And since the memo was declassified, why would responses to it be classified? And if those in-committee responses are still somehow classified, explanations given outside of the official committee briefs need not be classified. Democrats whether from the committee or not, can give personal opinions about how the memo mischaracterizes.

I think the fact that they've stated it, documented it and asked the Republicans to make it public says quite a lot.

"Reasonable" is too vague and subjective to be used as a standard to allow intrusion of 4th Amendment rights. The standard is much higher than merely being reasonable: "Known as Woods procedures after Michael J. Woods, the FBI Special Agent attorney who developed this layer of approval, DOJ verifies the accuracy of every fact stated in the application. If anything looks unsubstantiated, the application is sent back to the FBI to provide additional evidentiary support – this game of bureaucratic chutes and ladders continues until DOJ is satisfied that the facts in the FISA application can both be corroborated and meet the legal standards for the court."

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.

That's just evasive gibberish. The "dossier" is not a verified document.

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

Again, I don't know of which warrant you are referring to. There was an application for a warrant to surveil Page, just prior to the one under discussion, that was not allowed. Which, according to your statement, should have been allowed if the previous warrants (if they existed) were producing valuable information or bringing new information. When the "dossier" was submitted as evidence on the next try, the warrant was granted.

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

Conjecturing motivation which seems sketchy to begin with could well be considered as mischaracterization. Did he on his own volition, out of some idealistic compulsion, go about digging up dirt? We can't know that, nor is it relevant to the accuracy of the "dossier." We do know that he was paid a great deal of money to do it.

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.

[spence]

Actually it looks like the WP, NYT and WSJ are all reporting the political nature of the dossier was fully disclosed in the FISA application.

[detbuch]

Originally Posted by spence

I think the fact that they've stated it, documented it and asked the Republicans to make it public says quite a lot.

????????????????

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.

????????????????

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

????????????????

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

???????????????

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.

???????????????????