Join In On The Action "Register Here" To View The Forums

Already a Member Login Here

Board index Forum Index
User avatar
Emissary
 
Posts: 1512
Joined: 15 Oct 2002, 9:34 pm

Post 02 Feb 2018, 1:35 pm

I have to say that I no longer hold the FBI in any kind of esteem. Now, more thank ever before, I am very much open to the fact that they really just aren't that good at what they are paid to do.

Between Comey's fumbles and this week's memo, God only knows what really goes on with this agency.
User avatar
Adjutant
 
Posts: 3047
Joined: 17 May 2013, 3:32 pm

Post 02 Feb 2018, 1:54 pm

I am sure Putin would be happy to hear you say that.
User avatar
Ambassador
 
Posts: 21061
Joined: 15 Jun 2002, 6:53 am

Post 02 Feb 2018, 2:05 pm

dag hammarsjkold wrote:I have to say that I no longer hold the FBI in any kind of esteem. Now, more thank ever before, I am very much open to the fact that they really just aren't that good at what they are paid to do.

Between Comey's fumbles and this week's memo, God only knows what really goes on with this agency.


I'm not that down on the FBI. I think this is a limited problem.

Furthermore, I think there are plenty of questions left to be answered. I think we should get a better look into the FISA process. Once we do, freeman3 and I might end up on the same side--that of liberty.
User avatar
Ambassador
 
Posts: 21061
Joined: 15 Jun 2002, 6:53 am

Post 02 Feb 2018, 2:07 pm

freeman3 wrote:I am sure Putin would be happy to hear you say that.


No, I think he's happy about the hyper-partisanship that diminishes our capacity to examine things dispassionately. Officers of the court and investigators MUST examine evidence in that manner. That is the only part of the FBI "scandal" that bothers me. The partisans should have recused themselves. That was their responsibility. They probably should be fired for that.
User avatar
Ambassador
 
Posts: 21061
Joined: 15 Jun 2002, 6:53 am

Post 02 Feb 2018, 2:21 pm

Truth from Trey Gowdy:

"It is important for the American public to know if the dossier was paid for by another candidate, used in court pleadings, vetted before it was used, vetted after it was used, and whether all relevant facts were shared with the tribunal approving of the FISA application."
User avatar
Adjutant
 
Posts: 3047
Joined: 17 May 2013, 3:32 pm

Post 02 Feb 2018, 10:17 pm

Read the memo:

(1) Hillary Connection?

(a) Memo claims DNC/Hillary not mentioned
(b) Dems say filing says dossier politically motivated. What's the real difference here to a FISA court? They were informed that dossier potentially politically biased.

(2) Steele biased?

(a) Memo: Steele talking to media and anti-Trump statement made him not credible.
(b) Steele was past credible source, not clear that FBI was aware of media contacts, and anti-Trump statements was one statement made to DOJ lawyer Ohr and it's not clear how involved he was in FISA app anyway.

(3) Ohr Biased

(a) Memo: Ohr's wife worked for Fusion GPS and she gave opposition research to him. Filing did not mention.
(b) What does it matter if Ohr not involved in FISA app?

(4) Isikoff Article

(a) Isikoff article cited in filing as a corrobative source for dossier but it shouldn't have been because Steele was source for article
(b) A newspaper article not likely to impress judges, therefore not likely that FBI used it for corroboration. If it was...not likely to convince judges.

FISA court told that dossier was politically motivated. So the judges would have skeptical of it. Even if Steele talking to media was known...not sure that really affects the accuracy of the information he already developed.Not clear that FBI knew about it. One statement made to a justice department reveals anti-Trump bias? And at the end of the day FISA court already told that dossier was politically motivated, so Steele's alleged bias would have been similar info. What does Ohr have to do with anything here? And even if the newspaper article was presented as corroboration of the Steele dossier...it likely it would have received little consideration from the court on that basis.

So what this means...is that is very likely the court only considered the Steele dossier in conjunction with other sources which the memo does not talk about. And even if the FISA application contained everything the memo wanted it to...the warrant would have almost certainly been granted based on the dossier and the other sources. FISA applications are almost never denied.

Zilch. Zero. Zippo. ...zzzz...zzzz...zzzz

This is a memo part of an attack on our Democratic institutions. Trump is throwing our democratic institutions under the bus to save his own skin. If you are wondering why Democrats can't stand him...that's the reason. Our institutions--the press, the judiciary, the FBI, the CIA, etc--help define what America is. Trump is attacking...us.

I just saw that the Economist has demoted the US from being a fully fiunctioning democracy. Why? Because of eroding trust in our institutions. Who is responsible for that? Well, Trump is certainly a major contributor.
User avatar
Ambassador
 
Posts: 15952
Joined: 15 Apr 2004, 6:29 am

Post 03 Feb 2018, 4:43 am

Doctor Fate wrote:Truth from Trey Gowdy:

"It is important for the American public to know if the dossier was paid for by another candidate, used in court pleadings, vetted before it was used, vetted after it was used, and whether all relevant facts were shared with the tribunal approving of the FISA application."
indeed. Isn't it established that the funding came from anti-Trump Republicans at first. And that Steeple didn't know who had paid for it, just to do a report in Trump?

If only the release of the Nunes Memo had been allowed to be accompanied by more information. Why would the rebuttal have been blocked?
User avatar
Ambassador
 
Posts: 15952
Joined: 15 Apr 2004, 6:29 am

Post 03 Feb 2018, 4:46 am

Doctor Fate wrote:
dag hammarsjkold wrote:I have to say that I no longer hold the FBI in any kind of esteem. Now, more thank ever before, I am very much open to the fact that they really just aren't that good at what they are paid to do.

Between Comey's fumbles and this week's memo, God only knows what really goes on with this agency.


I'm not that down on the FBI. I think this is a limited problem.

Furthermore, I think there are plenty of questions left to be answered. I think we should get a better look into the FISA process. Once we do, freeman3 and I might end up on the same side--that of liberty.
about 99% of FISA warrant applications are approved. Maybe this is typical. Page had been involved in earlier warrants, and I would expect renewal / revival would take less evidence than a new subject.

Of course, if the US wants to protect itself from foreign agency who are trying to infiltrate, how can it do so without monitoring those suspected foreign agents and their contacts in the USA?
User avatar
Ambassador
 
Posts: 21061
Joined: 15 Jun 2002, 6:53 am

Post 03 Feb 2018, 9:37 am

freeman3 wrote:Read the memo:

(1) Hillary Connection?

(a) Memo claims DNC/Hillary not mentioned
(b) Dems say filing says dossier politically motivated. What's the real difference here to a FISA court? They were informed that dossier potentially politically biased.

(2) Steele biased?

(a) Memo: Steele talking to media and anti-Trump statement made him not credible.
(b) Steele was past credible source, not clear that FBI was aware of media contacts, and anti-Trump statements was one statement made to DOJ lawyer Ohr and it's not clear how involved he was in FISA app anyway.

(3) Ohr Biased

(a) Memo: Ohr's wife worked for Fusion GPS and she gave opposition research to him. Filing did not mention.
(b) What does it matter if Ohr not involved in FISA app?

(4) Isikoff Article

(a) Isikoff article cited in filing as a corrobative source for dossier but it shouldn't have been because Steele was source for article
(b) A newspaper article not likely to impress judges, therefore not likely that FBI used it for corroboration. If it was...not likely to convince judges.

FISA court told that dossier was politically motivated. So the judges would have skeptical of it. Even if Steele talking to media was known...not sure that really affects the accuracy of the information he already developed.Not clear that FBI knew about it. One statement made to a justice department reveals anti-Trump bias? And at the end of the day FISA court already told that dossier was politically motivated, so Steele's alleged bias would have been similar info. What does Ohr have to do with anything here? And even if the newspaper article was presented as corroboration of the Steele dossier...it likely it would have received little consideration from the court on that basis.

So what this means...is that is very likely the court only considered the Steele dossier in conjunction with other sources which the memo does not talk about. And even if the FISA application contained everything the memo wanted it to...the warrant would have almost certainly been granted based on the dossier and the other sources. FISA applications are almost never denied.

Zilch. Zero. Zippo. ...zzzz...zzzz...zzzz

This is a memo part of an attack on our Democratic institutions. Trump is throwing our democratic institutions under the bus to save his own skin. If you are wondering why Democrats can't stand him...that's the reason. Our institutions--the press, the judiciary, the FBI, the CIA, etc--help define what America is. Trump is attacking...us.

I just saw that the Economist has demoted the US from being a fully fiunctioning democracy. Why? Because of eroding trust in our institutions. Who is responsible for that? Well, Trump is certainly a major contributor.


Funny. It's a nothing-burger, allegedly, right?

Yet, Democrats, including the Great Nancy Pelosi, have been saying it threatens national security. Really?

Which is it--"nothing" or "national security threat?"

And, your analysis is straight DNC talking points. I could get the same out of Schiff.

Prof. Turley:

My greatest concern is what is not in the [memo]: classified information “jeopardizing national security.” Leaders like Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) declared that the committee had moved beyond “dangerous irresponsibility and disregard for our national security” and “disregarded the warnings of the Justice Department and the FBI.”

Now we can read the memo. There is a sharp and alarming disconnect between the descriptions of Pelosi and the House Intelligence Committee’s Ranking Minority Member Adam Schiff (D-Calif.) and the actual document. It clearly does not contain information that would reveal sources or methods.

The memo reaffirms concerns over the lower standards that apply to FISA applications as well as the misuse of classification authority. Most of this memo references what was already known about the use of the dossier. What was added was testimonial evidence and details to the publicly known information. Yet, the FBI vehemently objected to the release of the memo as threatening “grave” consequences to national security…

The FBI opposition to declassification of this memo should be a focus of both Congress and the public. The memo is clearly designed to avoid revealing classified information. For civil libertarians, this is a rare opportunity to show how classified rules are misused for strategic purposes by these agencies. The same concern can be directed toward members who read this memo and represented to the public that the release would clearly damage national security.


https://hotair.com/archives/2018/02/02/ ... rity-memo/
User avatar
Ambassador
 
Posts: 21061
Joined: 15 Jun 2002, 6:53 am

Post 03 Feb 2018, 9:43 am

danivon wrote:
Doctor Fate wrote:Truth from Trey Gowdy:

"It is important for the American public to know if the dossier was paid for by another candidate, used in court pleadings, vetted before it was used, vetted after it was used, and whether all relevant facts were shared with the tribunal approving of the FISA application."
indeed. Isn't it established that the funding came from anti-Trump Republicans at first. And that Steeple didn't know who had paid for it, just to do a report in Trump?


Anti-Trump Republicans were involved in developing oppo research on Trump. However, they bailed, Fusion GPS came in, then Steele was hired and the dossier compiled.

https://www.mediaite.com/columnists/jou ... y-did-not/

If only the release of the Nunes Memo had been allowed to be accompanied by more information. Why would the rebuttal have been blocked?


The "rebuttal" has to go through the same vetting process. I suspect it will come out--or the Democrats will leak it, as they are wont to do.

And, we do not know what was/was not revealed to the FISA court. However, it is dubious that the fact that the dossier was not verified and that it was Clinton/DNC financed was presented. If it was, the FISA court needs to be sacked.

Btw, still waiting on "collusion" evidence.
User avatar
Ambassador
 
Posts: 21061
Joined: 15 Jun 2002, 6:53 am

Post 03 Feb 2018, 9:46 am

danivon wrote:
Doctor Fate wrote:
dag hammarsjkold wrote:I have to say that I no longer hold the FBI in any kind of esteem. Now, more thank ever before, I am very much open to the fact that they really just aren't that good at what they are paid to do.

Between Comey's fumbles and this week's memo, God only knows what really goes on with this agency.


I'm not that down on the FBI. I think this is a limited problem.

Furthermore, I think there are plenty of questions left to be answered. I think we should get a better look into the FISA process. Once we do, freeman3 and I might end up on the same side--that of liberty.
about 99% of FISA warrant applications are approved. Maybe this is typical. Page had been involved in earlier warrants, and I would expect renewal / revival would take less evidence than a new subject.

Of course, if the US wants to protect itself from foreign agency who are trying to infiltrate, how can it do so without monitoring those suspected foreign agents and their contacts in the USA?


What were Carter Page's crimes?

Here's the ultimate question: as a political campaign does not have the resources of the Federal government, shouldn't the FBI make a candidate aware if he/she is hiring someone under Federal surveillance? Unless, of course, the objective is to spy on the candidate as well?

I think there is a lot yet to uncover and I say "Bring it."
User avatar
Ambassador
 
Posts: 21061
Joined: 15 Jun 2002, 6:53 am

Post 03 Feb 2018, 9:59 am

Watch the video at the bottom. Even if you find Carlson offensive, you cannot deny the emptiness of the Democratic position that it "jeopardizes national security." From Pelosi to Schiff to Swalwell, they are all hyperventilating and not employing facts--because they have none. http://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/2 ... or-gag.php
User avatar
Ambassador
 
Posts: 15952
Joined: 15 Apr 2004, 6:29 am

Post 03 Feb 2018, 3:34 pm

Doctor Fate wrote:
danivon wrote:
Doctor Fate wrote:
dag hammarsjkold wrote:I have to say that I no longer hold the FBI in any kind of esteem. Now, more thank ever before, I am very much open to the fact that they really just aren't that good at what they are paid to do.

Between Comey's fumbles and this week's memo, God only knows what really goes on with this agency.


I'm not that down on the FBI. I think this is a limited problem.

Furthermore, I think there are plenty of questions left to be answered. I think we should get a better look into the FISA process. Once we do, freeman3 and I might end up on the same side--that of liberty.
about 99% of FISA warrant applications are approved. Maybe this is typical. Page had been involved in earlier warrants, and I would expect renewal / revival would take less evidence than a new subject.

Of course, if the US wants to protect itself from foreign agency who are trying to infiltrate, how can it do so without monitoring those suspected foreign agents and their contacts in the USA?


What were Carter Page's crimes?

Here's the ultimate question: as a political campaign does not have the resources of the Federal government, shouldn't the FBI make a candidate aware if he/she is hiring someone under Federal surveillance? Unless, of course, the objective is to spy on the candidate as well?
Sorry, are you saying that the FBI should tip off associates of someone they are surveilling?

And by October he had apparently left the campaign, so when that warrant was approved he wasn't being hired. He was already fired.

I think there is a lot yet to uncover and I say "Bring it."
Indeed. Let's see just what the Russians had on Trump. Let's see what was actually said by the Trump campaign to Russians. Let's see who lied over the 18 months when they denied there were connections. If there is nothing, it'll all be well, right?

Some Republicans are wisely distancing themselves from Trump.
User avatar
Statesman
 
Posts: 10979
Joined: 15 Aug 2000, 8:59 am

Post 03 Feb 2018, 4:10 pm

The FISA warrant on Page that Nunes wrote his Memo about was the 4th warrant that they applied for to surveillance Page.
Four different judges had to hear what they submitted and all granted warrants.
Since a FISA warrant is only good for 90 days, the agency had to apply and show progress made in the 90 days previous, which they also had to do the the instance that Nunes is complaining about...
Thee were plenty of other sources other than Steele anyway. Which is admitted in Nunes memo.

Nunes is an idiot. Anyone who takes this seriously, isn't reading ...
So probabiy what 2/3 of America?
User avatar
Ambassador
 
Posts: 21061
Joined: 15 Jun 2002, 6:53 am

Post 03 Feb 2018, 4:48 pm

danivon wrote:Indeed. Let's see just what the Russians had on Trump. Let's see what was actually said by the Trump campaign to Russians. Let's see who lied over the 18 months when they denied there were connections. If there is nothing, it'll all be well, right?

Some Republicans are wisely distancing themselves from Trump.


With all the leaks in our government, what is the evidence? Anything?

*chirp*

"Some Democrats are wisely distancing themselves from Clinton."

We know she colluded with Russians. It began with the fake reset. It continued when she hired Fusion/GPS to pay an agent to doctor up a dossier.

Bring Comey back before Congress. Let him explain what is/isn't true in the dossier and how he knows that. Put it on TV.

Ask me if I would flinch.

Either Trump is innocent or he's not. I win either way.

FISA is the issue.