Why that memo is a big deal

[The Original Tree]

Who did President Trump use Russian Propaganda on Comrade?

Comrade, Did President Trump use Russian Propaganda he paid for to apply for a FISA Warrant under False Pretenses with False Affidavits To Spy on Hillary Clinton?

Comrade did President Trump Ally with The Media and Obama Cronies in The Intelligence Community To leak classified intel on her?

Comrade did President Trump’s FBI Plot to create an Insurance Policy in case Clinton got elected?

Comrade, Did President Trump’s FBI Director threaten Hillary Clinton with Russian Propaganda to keep his job?

Comrade, did President Trump ally with The Media to promote Russian Propaganda and to challenge The Rule of Law, and The Democratic Process?

Tell us Comrade.

what is a big deal is when two branches of our government and gang up on the third branch of our government for no other reason than partisan politics then present a weak display of making their case credible.

the entire planet is laughing their ass off at the FOOLS.

Wrong. The entire world knows Trump is an abomination and, frankly, are laughing at the inability of our impotent government to rid itself of this anomalous turd.

We don't "rid" ourselves of Presidents just because some are upset that their candidate lost.

No. We "rid" ourselves of presidents who are disgusting people and are unqualified and think they are above the law. See Nixon.------ OK. Now you will say "BUT OBAMA" ------ Obama could still easily beat Trump in an election today, if he could run again.

 

[BULLDOG]

what is a big deal is when two branches of our government and gang up on the third branch of our government for no other reason than partisan politics then present a weak display of making their case credible.

the entire planet is laughing their ass off at the FOOLS.

Wrong. The entire world knows Trump is an abomination and, frankly, are laughing at the inability of our impotent government to rid itself of this anomalous turd.

It's actually this attitude that got Trump elected.
The entire world does not think he is. Israel loves him, several European countries that rely on Russian gas do right now, by waiting on the sanctions Russia passed by congress.
He is letting those European countries get legal policies in place that ensures gas production from Russia's gas pipelines.
They would freeze to death without it.

No shortage of gas right now. They can buy it somewhere else.

They have no somewhere else.

Of course there is

 

[The Original Tree]

Fucking Russian Commie Libs are stupid. What would come first in the Winter? Freezing to death or building thousands of miles of pipelines to
other countries before you freezed to death without Russian NG

And why do Russian Commie Libs Not care about Uranium One?

Policy has to have common sense. You don’t for instance stage a COUP in Egylt using Terrorists when it was stable or in Libya when they were cooperating with us, nor do you enact policies to make half of Europe Freeze to death!

WTF Commie Russian Libs?

 

[usmbguest5318]

First, it shines a light on what's been going on at the top of certain federal agencies that are supposed to be impartial but apparently are not, at least in some cases. In recent years we've had too many scandals in too many federal agencies, from Fast and Furious (ATF) to Lois Lerner (IRS) to Benghazi (State) to this latest mess (FBI/DOJ). Too many times we've seen what appears to be politics involved with activities and decisions made that were ideologically driven. And that shit has to stop, there's too many people in these United States that do not trust their own gov't and with good reason because even the appearance of impropriety cannot be tolerated and yet it happens. So this memo has opened up fierce dialogue about the situation and that's gotta be a good thing. Let's find out WTF was going on, let's see what the Dems say, what the Senate Judiciary Committee report says, and what the FBI/DOJ says in the coming days and weeks. Is they also an IG report too? Dunno, but let's see that too and then the Mueller investigation findings.

Here's the big deal in this particular case: some people aligned with the Obama Administration wanted to spy on their political opponents, that's what it boils down to. They knew that the Steele dossier was funded by the Democrats and was unverified, yet they used it anyway to justify the FISA warrant -- without telling the courts that Democrats paid for it and the intelligence community didn't create the document. They knew that Steele hated Trump and wanted to see him lose and yet didn't tell the court he was the source. Then, to get additional justification, they used news stories that journalists wrote where they just repeated information from Steele as if it were true.

Is all of that true? So what exactly was the FISA judge told? Anything less that EVERYTHING having to do with that dossier or with Mr Steele is unacceptable. Don't tell me what a judge assumes in litigation, this isn't litigation where one side has their say and then the other side has it's turn. In the FISA Court there's only the gov't presenting it's case, and IMHO it is incumbent on them to withhold NOTHING. To do so is to attempt to violate our civil rights and nobody should be allowing that, much less senior officials at the FBI or DOJ. If you can't get the warrant without telling the whole truth then you shouldn't get the warrant at all. And there is evidence that McCabe did testify that the FBI/DOJ wouldn't have even tried to get the FISA warrant without the Steele dossier. Some say that's not true but others say it's on the record, so we'll see.

This cannot be condoned, if even partly true. When the gov't goes to the FISA Court to get a warrant to
surveil anybody - you, me, anybody - our civil rights are at stake and that isn't a minor thing. I don't care whether the information in that dossier was true or not, and there's quite a bit of doubt about that since to this day at least parts of it remain unverified. To me, we can stop right there. I don't think the GOP memo was made up out of thin air, they got all that stuff from documents provided by the FBI/DOJ. The Dems say it's inaccurate and part's of it are not true. OK, show me; I got time. Maybe I'm wrong, won't be the 1st time. But the Dems are also starting out poorly if they want to convince anybody that the truth is on their side; after all, they already lied about that memo having any risks to national security in it. There's nothing there that compromises a damn thing, every intelligence agency in the world today already knows everything that was in the memo.

even the appearance of impropriety cannot be tolerated and yet it happens

Presumably, you're a Conservative and since when did the current crop of Conservatives holding sway, most especially their leader, care about appearances of impropriety?

• CDZ - Trump Transition Team Skipped Ethics Training! Really? No gov't experience and they demurred?
  
• Republicans (ways & means committee) refuse to release Trump's tax returns over Russia investigation and Republicans (ways & means committee) refuse to release Trump's tax returns over Russia investigation

They knew that the Steele dossier was funded by the Democrats...They knew that the Steele dossier was funded by the Democrats and was unverified, yet they used it anyway to justify the FISA warrant -- without telling the courts that Democrats paid for it...They knew that Steele hated Trump and wanted to see him lose and yet didn't tell the court he was the source.

The source of information has no bearing on it's germanity or accuracy.

• Logical Fallacies: Ad Hominem Attacks and the Sub-Types of Tu Quoque and Poisoning the Well

If "Danny Democrat" videotapes "Robby Republican" shooting someone, the fact that "Danny" filmed/produced the video and shares it with the FBI, the FISC, or anyone else in no way alters the fact that "Robby" shot someone and evidence of his having done so is on the tape.


As goes the Steele dossier, Michael Steele performed research that obtained various bits of information. The FBI corroborated some of those bits and didn't corroborate other bits. It stands to reason that it would be inappropriate for the FBI to have included the uncorroborated bits of information in their FISA application; however, the bits the FBI validated, to the extent they are germane to the purpose for which they sought the warrant, are perfectly acceptable for inclusion in the warrant. (See remarks following the very next quote below.)

That is why it's irrelevant who wrote or funded the dossier or why.

They knew that the Steele dossier was funded by the Democrats and was unverified, yet they used it anyway to justify the FISA warrant

• Can you identify what elements of the dossier were used to obtain the FISA warrant? I have yet to see published the FISA warrant application, so I damn sure cannot.
  
  I have seen stated that parts of the dossier have been confirmed and parts have not, but I don't know which of the two genres of dossier content were used in the FISA warrant application. Do you know?
• What information from the Steele dossier was used in the FISA warrant application? It's my understanding that only parts of it were used.
  • “Only very select components of what Steele reported about Page were included in the [FISA] application." (Source)

they used news stories that journalists wrote where they just repeated information from Steele as if it were true.

So what?

• To the extent that the information was corroborated it doesn't matter that journalists published it.
• Do you understand the point of an investigation and how they work? If law enforcement officers have all the proof needed to charge and prosecute a suspect, there'd be nothing for them to investigate. That is why when one is, say, given a speeding ticket, there's no investigation. For example, the cops already have the proof they are going to get and that they need to show credibly to the court (if the accused contests the matter) that one was speeding at the indicated rate, date and place.
  
  Not all information that comes a cop's way is as probative or as complete as is the information cops obtain to show one was speeding. Sometimes, law enforcement officers receive tips -- bits and pieces of information from various sources -- that suggest that a crime may have been committed, but that don't show soundly/cogently enough to file an indictment. In those instances, law enforcement officers must conduct an investigation.
  1. Information comes to law enforcement officers' (LEO's) attention.
  2. LE attempt to determine the plausible and probable verity of the information.
  3. If LEO's analysis of the information LEO received portends that a crime plausibly happened, LEO open an investigation to determine (1) whether a crime did happen, if so, (2) who played what role in its commission and (3) to obtain proof of what exactly happened, why, and who did it.
     
     LEO investigative techniques include a variety of means to obtain additional information about the nature, extent and timing of the events about which they have but preliminary information, "leads" if you will. Among them are warrants for surveillance, testimony, tangible material collection and analysis, etc.
  4. Upon exhausting their investigative means and methods, prosecutors evaluate the body of information obtained and determine whether collectively it shows a high likelihood that "so and so" committed "X" crime at "such and such" a time and place for "this or that" reason.
     • If prosecutors believe the body of information obtained is sufficiently probative for obtaining a conviction, they file charges.
     • If prosecutors believe the body of information obtained is not sufficiently probative for obtaining a conviction, they do not file charges.

What you're suggesting is that information obtained from journalistic publications and that LEO have validated be ineligible for inclusion among the information that investigators submit as the basis for asking a judge, in this case the FISA judge, for permission to more closely scrutinize -- by way of a wiretap as goes the FISA application pertaining to Mr. Page -- a potential suspect or possessor of additional information about the commission of a crime. Well, that's just ridiculous.

So what exactly was the FISA judge told? Anything less that EVERYTHING having to do with that dossier or with Mr Steele is unacceptable.

While you and others may not know well what constitutes (or doesn't) a logically sound argument for or against something -- be that something an idea or a course of action -- judges do. Indeed, attorneys are very well trained in the ways of logic, inductive, abductive and deductive. Accordingly, the only things they care to know about are things that are germane to the specific matter/argument brought before them at any point in time, one thing jurists don't care about is patently fallacious lines of reasoning for or against anything, and that includes arguments founded speciously, as your OP's argument is, on ad hominem (guilt by association -- or any other form of fallacious ad hominem) reasoning.

Now I don't know whether you think jurists live in sequestration from the rest of the world, but they don't. They see the news just as you do and the matter and controversy about the Steele dossier was surely among the news the FISC judge was aware of just as you and everyone else is/was. I don't know what makes you think that a judge, FBI agent or government attorney would impugn their career or credibility by accepting/submitting spurious information in a FISA warrant application. Notwithstanding their reputation, such individuals generally are not so wealthy that they live such penurious lifestyles that don't need to work, and they damn sure don't want to have to take jobs paying far less than those they have as judges, agents, and attorneys.

I don't care whether the information in that dossier was true or not

Well, if you don't care about the veracity of information submitted in a FISA warrant, with what exactly do you take exception? Oh, that's right, you don't realize that the whole of your essay rests on the fact that you think the ad hominem reasoning you shared in your OP is actually sound/cogent.

Apparently, Nunes and other Republicans, including Trump, don't care about the veracity of the information in the FISA court warrant application for authorization to increase the nature and extent of scrutiny of Page. I write that because for all the Nunes memo does say, not once does it dispute the accuracy/truthfulness of anything contained in the FISA application.

Moreover, the Nunes memo alleges that the Yahoo article was based on a leak from Steele to Yahoo. Now that may have been relevant were it not so that the information allegedly leaked by Steele to Yahoo is public domain information from a speech Page himself gave in Moscow. Did Nunes bother to share that piece of information? Hell, no! Doing so would have all but trashed his "roundabout" regarding Steele and Yahoo News.

The memo claims the Steele dossier formed “an essential part” of the FISA warrant application. Nunes bases that assertion on classified testimony given by then-deputy FBI director Andrew McCabe to the House Intelligence Committee; however, the memo does not publish McCabe’s statement in full and seems worded to avoid saying that the dossier was the reason for seeking the warrant, rather than information in it. It’s unclear whether and what of the dossier's information existed elsewhere or, as noted earlier in this post, what pieces of the dossier information used in the warrant had been otherwise corroborated.

Aside/Off Topic:

It is no crime to be ignorant of economics, which is, after all, a specialized discipline and one that most people consider to be a "dismal science." But it is totally irresponsible to have a loud and vociferous opinion on economic subjects while remaining in this state of ignorance.
-- Murray N. Rothbard​

I suspect Nunes knows damn well that Page's speech was public information, albeit to "mainstream American Republicans," folks I call the hoi polloi, little known information. That said, "little known" is not the same as "not known." While I don't expect most or many of the hoi polloi to have known about Page's speech, I do expect "everyday" people to have the decency, the integrity not opine publicly on matters about which they know little, or if they must do, then at least when doing so, qualify the nature of the quality of their opinion.

Quite simply were more hoi polloi constituents -- of any political persuasion -- to have just that much decency, they would also make clear to politicians like Nunes and others who present incomplete information to the public that they (members of the public) don't have a position on the matter because the pols have presented incomplete information.

You are not entitled to your opinion. You are entitled to your informed opinion. No one is entitled to be ignorant.
-- Harlan Ellison​

If you can't get the warrant without telling the whole truth then you shouldn't get the warrant at all.

See discussion above about the (1) investigative process, (2) the role of logic and relevance, and look at warrant applications.

The assertion investigators make when they submit a warrant application is that the FBI believe, based on the specific information they've thus far collected and provided in the application, increased scrutiny of a suspect/witness is warranted (thus why the thing is called a warrant application) and necessary for them to obtain a more complete picture of "what's going on/what went on," and they are thus soliciting the court's authorization to execute one or more specifically identified means of closer scrutiny of the person(s) named in the application.

The Dems say it's inaccurate and part's of it are not true. OK, show me; I got time. Maybe I'm wrong, won't be the 1st time.

Inaccuracy isn't, AFAIK, the nature of content objection the Dems raised; incompleteness is their content-based objection.

• Democrats, some GOP lawmakers criticize release of Nunes memo
  
• Why Were the Democrats So Worried About the Nunes Memo?

Democrats allege that Nunes memo omits material pieces of information pertaining to the process by which the FISA warrant application was obtained.

Without regard to what any Democrats say about the memo's incompleteness, it's clear to me that the memo does not identify what elements from the Steele dossier were included in the FISA application and the memo does not identify what elements in the Steele dossier were corroborated by the FBI, to say nothing of indicating and how those elements/statements were validated. Consequently, I can see that material pieces of information have been omitted from the Nunes memo. Why you can't tell that's so I cannot say; however, by your unqualified OP remarks about the Steele dossier's usage in the FISA warrant application, it's clear that you either have not noticed the omission or you don't care that those pieces of information were omitted from Nunes' memo.

after all, they already lied about that memo having any risks to national security in it.

It may well be that they were not at all wrong about the Nunes memo they read containing information that puts U.S. national security at risk. You do recall that the version of the memo that Trump received is not the version members of the House were given, don't you?

This evening the Committee Minority discovered that the classified memorandum shared by the Committee Majority with the White House is not, in fact, the same document that Members of the House of Representatives have been reviewing since January 18, 2018 and that the Committee Majority voted on Monday to release to the public, over objections from the Department of Justice and the Federal Bureau of Investigation." (Source)​

Which version did Trump declassify? I don't know. Do you? It could very well be that the WH version doesn't have national security compromising information in it.

(So often have Trump and his staff been caught lying -- and I don't mean simply having been mistaken in their understanding of something, I'm talking flat-out fabrication of details and flat-out lying about objective points of fact that even the results of a simple Google search would unequivocally refute -- frankly, I don't trust Trump and his WH team to have even released the full version of the memo that it received.)

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

The memo is just not a big deal. It contains no evidence of any of its implications (real or imagined), nor does it vindicate anyone.

No inaccuracies have been found.

It's all 100% factual.

So?