Stratford57
Diamond Member
Oh, no! Let's not abuse animals!
Last edited:
Will someone please help me? I’m just not seeing the Memo dangers.
- Thread starter SavannahMann
- Start date
2aguy
Diamond Member
- Jul 19, 2014
- 113,045
- 53,542
- 2,290
The danger is like this...the cops lie, and say they have a confidential informant who says he saw you dealing drugs out of your home.....the CI is your neighbor who has a property dispute with you.....but they don't tell the judge who is telling them this and give no other proof...but the FBI guys simply want to go through you house and see what they can find.....since one of them is the neighbor who has the dispute with you......
See the problem?
task0778
Diamond Member
This is serious, more than meets the eye....as it should be
I can see how this could be a question in your mind or anyone's mind, including my own....and I had been racking my brains on what was in this memo that was TOP SECRET? Not SECRET but top secret.....? So, to quote a one time friend of mine who recently passed onward, "This goes deeper than pastry!"
I have been scouring the net and Intelligence sites and blogs, and going to all the 24/7's to see if they had any ex-intelligence agents on that could go in to as much as they could...and all of the 24/7's have their own Intelligence agents and other experts in the fields from past, lengthy gvt positions, like 25 years in Counter Intelligence kind of people.....on their payrolls now and they invite other expert guests.
Well, this morning I got a little bit more information from the experts on the different shows....
First, Top Secret, has a definitive meaning and when someone uses terms like Grave consequences, code word Grave....then it defines what means something that is of Top Secret in it....
And Top Secret, is the level where the information is so protected, because it could lead to the deaths or exposing foreign sources that we use, or a hint of a method we use to spy on our adversaries, or expose unwitting moles in our adversary's government, or one of our Foreign allies spying mechanisms that found out something about our joint adversaries and passed this on to us or in a military sense strategic plans etc etc......whatever is in there as TOP SECRET, always involves a Foreign Nation, that we are protecting their sources, or a Foreign enemy Nation that we are trying to protect ourselves from.... either way, a Foreign Nation is involved with Top Secret.
MOST really really really secret stuff still only reaches the SECRET level....
So, these experts said that with this one part of the Carter Page/Nunes memo, and the surveillance/tap on him for three months at a time, then renewal .... these calls by Donald Trump's now run Justice Department and Trump's picked FBI Director Christopher Wray going against the President and saying the word Grave Danger or Grave consequence if the memo was released means there is something in that memo, that will give information out to our enemy nation's intelligence agencies who follow us like a hawk.....in this case, Russia would be the best guess, since the whole Carter Page tap was about Russia recruiting him to be a witting or unwitting agent of a Foreign power, for them... it's what Russian Operatives do best....they are really good at it....
So these guys said, by giving some of these details and focus on Carter Page and all that, brings attention to Carter Page, and giving the exact timing out also, gives the enemy Intel Agencies ways to back track or rather follow the time Carter was being surveilled and now trace who he met, who was around to see who he met, try to figure out who he met and what was said, to know what the USA knows about what was said, and/or who could have given them any other innocuous stuff to us, but not to them, that could give away other things that we actually got from a foreign ally source....then diminishing the Foreign source for us to use as our asset.... and hurting our Foreign Ally's safety for their own Nation....
And so much more about things that never ever occurred to me, and of course they explained it in a much clearer way than me....
There was NOTHING in that memo that any foreign intelligence agency doesn't already know. NOTHING. Let me know when one of those so-called experts come up with something, ANYTHING specific in that memo that warrants the the words GRAVE DANGER or GRAVE CONSEQUENCES. Those agencies already know his movements, they know who he met and talked with, and they know what was said and not said. To say ANYTHING in that memo tipped them off to ANYTHING is bullshit.
SavannahMann
Platinum Member
- Nov 16, 2016
- 14,540
- 6,823
- 365
- Thread starter
- #64
This is serious, more than meets the eye....as it should be
I can see how this could be a question in your mind or anyone's mind, including my own....and I had been racking my brains on what was in this memo that was TOP SECRET? Not SECRET but top secret.....? So, to quote a one time friend of mine who recently passed onward, "This goes deeper than pastry!"
I have been scouring the net and Intelligence sites and blogs, and going to all the 24/7's to see if they had any ex-intelligence agents on that could go in to as much as they could...and all of the 24/7's have their own Intelligence agents and other experts in the fields from past, lengthy gvt positions, like 25 years in Counter Intelligence kind of people.....on their payrolls now and they invite other expert guests.
Well, this morning I got a little bit more information from the experts on the different shows....
First, Top Secret, has a definitive meaning and when someone uses terms like Grave consequences, code word Grave....then it defines what means something that is of Top Secret in it....
And Top Secret, is the level where the information is so protected, because it could lead to the deaths or exposing foreign sources that we use, or a hint of a method we use to spy on our adversaries, or expose unwitting moles in our adversary's government, or one of our Foreign allies spying mechanisms that found out something about our joint adversaries and passed this on to us or in a military sense strategic plans etc etc......whatever is in there as TOP SECRET, always involves a Foreign Nation, that we are protecting their sources, or a Foreign enemy Nation that we are trying to protect ourselves from.... either way, a Foreign Nation is involved with Top Secret.
MOST really really really secret stuff still only reaches the SECRET level....
So, these experts said that with this one part of the Carter Page/Nunes memo, and the surveillance/tap on him for three months at a time, then renewal .... these calls by Donald Trump's now run Justice Department and Trump's picked FBI Director Christopher Wray going against the President and saying the word Grave Danger or Grave consequence if the memo was released means there is something in that memo, that will give information out to our enemy nation's intelligence agencies who follow us like a hawk.....in this case, Russia would be the best guess, since the whole Carter Page tap was about Russia recruiting him to be a witting or unwitting agent of a Foreign power, for them... it's what Russian Operatives do best....they are really good at it....
So these guys said, by giving some of these details and focus on Carter Page and all that, brings attention to Carter Page, and giving the exact timing out also, gives the enemy Intel Agencies ways to back track or rather follow the time Carter was being surveilled and now trace who he met, who was around to see who he met, try to figure out who he met and what was said, to know what the USA knows about what was said, and/or who could have given them any other innocuous stuff to us, but not to them, that could give away other things that we actually got from a foreign ally source....then diminishing the Foreign source for us to use as our asset.... and hurting our Foreign Ally's safety for their own Nation....
And so much more about things that never ever occurred to me, and of course they explained it in a much clearer way than me....
Baloney. Seriously just utter nonsense. The idea that this memo somehow gave the farm away because it outlined the investigation into Carter Page is absolute garbage. The investigation was public about ten minutes after it started.
Opinion | Trump’s Russia adviser speaks out, calls accusations ‘complete garbage’
All of the worries you mention have been in the press for eighteen months as proof that Trump has to be impeached or something like drawn and quartered.
So that crap aside why was all this secret? Anyone not know the FISA court existed? Or that the warrants had to be renewed? That was news more than a decade ago.
It was the response when people objected to the National Security Letter bullshit. That was also all top secret. So this is just another in a long list of Federal Agencies behaving badly and calling it Top Secret.
The FBI especially has a long history of this. Not just ancient history either. In this century they were still claiming that only the FBI laboratory could perform lead matching. This test was where they matched a bullet by the chemical content to bullets in the possession of a defendant. When they finally admitted that this was not scientific they still did not tell anyone for two years. By anyone I mean the attorneys for defendants who had been convicted by this witchcraft.
Thou Shall Not Embarrass the FBI. I’ve met three FBI agents. I am always astonished that they can manage to dress themselves in the morning. If these are our best and brightest we are doomed.
Sorry it took so long!
here is a bit on the ''IN PREVIOUS FISA WARRANT CASES with link and siting the Cases in Court regarding BIASED sources and how the court ruled, there is more at the LINK for further info on it!
The Dubious Legal Claim Behind #ReleaseTheMemo
Franks generates a lot of cases on informant bias. They typically run something like this. The government will get a warrant based in part on the statements or claims of an informant. The affidavit won't give specific reasons to doubt that the informant is credible. Down the road, the warrant will be challenged on the ground that the affidavit failed to tell the judge of good reasons to think the informant was biased and unreliable. Maybe the informant was facing criminal charges and had every incentive to manufacture evidence that others were involved in crimes to strike a better deal for himself. Maybe the informant was the suspect's estranged spouse in the middle of a bitter divorce battle, and she was trying to get him arrested to help get custody of the kids. In each of the cases, the defendant claims that the warrant should be voided because the government failed to disclose the informant's bias. If the government hadn't misled the court, the argument runs, no warrant would have issued because the judge would have seen that the informant could not be trusted.
How has this argument fared? It depends on the case. Most of the time, though, it hasn't fared very well.
Part of the problem is that judges figure that of course informants are often biased. Informants usually have ulterior motives, and judges don't need to be told that. A helpful case is United States v. Strifler, 851 F.2d 1197, 1201 (9th Cir. 1988), in which the government obtained a warrant to search a house for a meth lab inside. Probable cause was based largely on a confidential informant who told the police that he had not only seen a meth lab in the house but had even helped others to try to manufacture meth there. The magistrate judge issued the warrant based on the informant's detailed tip. The search was successful and charges followed.
The defendants challenged the warrant on the ground that the affidavit had failed to mention the remarkable ulterior motives of the informant. The affidavit didn't mention that the "informant" was actually a married couple that had been in a quarrel with the defendants; that the couple was facing criminal charges themselves and had been "guaranteed by the prosecutor that they would not be prosecuted if they provided information"; and that they had been paid by the government for giving the information. The affidavit didn't mention any of that. A big deal, right?
According to the court, no. "It would have to be a very naive magistrate who would suppose that a confidential informant would drop in off the street with such detailed evidence and not have an ulterior motive," Judge Noonan wrote. "The magistrate would naturally have assumed that the informant was not a disinterested citizen." The fact that the magistrate wasn't told that the "informant" was guaranteed to go free and paid for the information didn't matter, as "the magistrate was given reason to think the informant knew a good deal about what was going on" inside the house.
In some cases, omitted information about a witnesses's bias is irrelevant because there is enough evidence of the crime so that probable cause was not really in question. Consider Smith v. Edwards, 175 F.3d 99 (2d Cir. 1999) (Sotomayor. J.), a horrible case involving alleged abuse of a child. A mother reported that her husband had sexually abused their daughter, and the judge issued the warrant for the husband's arrest. The husband was arrested but the charges were later dropped. The husband then sued the officer who obtained the warrant, claiming that the officer had obtained the warrant only because he had left out critical information in the affidavit. In particular, the affidavit did not inform the magistrate that the mother had instituted divorce proceedings against her husband, and it did not state that she had come to the police only after having tried unsuccessfully to obtain a restraining order to bar him from contacting her or her daughter. In the husband's telling, you needed to understand the wife's bias to know that she had made up the claims about him to get custody of their daughter.
The court held that the failure to disclose this information was irrelevant. The undisclosed information "was not material because there would have been probable cause to arrest" the husband even if the officer had included the omitted information. Even if the affidavit been "corrected" by including the omitted information, "nothing in the outcome of the Superior Court proceedings that would have negated probable cause."
Importantly, that doesn't mean that an informant's bias never needs to be disclosed. It just depends on facts of the case. It depends on how important the informant's information was to establish probable cause, and it depends on how much the alleged bias makes the information unreliable in context. If there are reasons to credit the informant despite the bias, based on the detail of the tip, the informant's history of providing reliable tips, or other information, then the background informantion about bias isn't particularly relevant. But if an affidavit hinged on an informant's claim and bias would have fatally undercut probable cause, then it has to be included in the affidavit.
Last edited:
task0778
Diamond Member
Sorry it took so long!
here is a bit on the ''IN PREVIOUS FISA WARRANT CASES with link and siting the Cases in Court regarding BIASED sources and how the court ruled, there is more at the LINK for further info on it!
The Dubious Legal Claim Behind #ReleaseTheMemo
Franks generates a lot of cases on informant bias. They typically run something like this. The government will get a warrant based in part on the statements or claims of an informant. The affidavit won't give specific reasons to doubt that the informant is credible. Down the road, the warrant will be challenged on the ground that the affidavit failed to tell the judge of good reasons to think the informant was biased and unreliable. Maybe the informant was facing criminal charges and had every incentive to manufacture evidence that others were involved in crimes to strike a better deal for himself. Maybe the informant was the suspect's estranged spouse in the middle of a bitter divorce battle, and she was trying to get him arrested to help get custody of the kids. In each of the cases, the defendant claims that the warrant should be voided because the government failed to disclose the informant's bias. If the government hadn't misled the court, the argument runs, no warrant would have issued because the judge would have seen that the informant could not be trusted.
How has this argument fared? It depends on the case. Most of the time, though, it hasn't fared very well.
Part of the problem is that judges figure that of course informants are often biased. Informants usually have ulterior motives, and judges don't need to be told that. A helpful case is United States v. Strifler, 851 F.2d 1197, 1201 (9th Cir. 1988), in which the government obtained a warrant to search a house for a meth lab inside. Probable cause was based largely on a confidential informant who told the police that he had not only seen a meth lab in the house but had even helped others to try to manufacture meth there. The magistrate judge issued the warrant based on the informant's detailed tip. The search was successful and charges followed.
The defendants challenged the warrant on the ground that the affidavit had failed to mention the remarkable ulterior motives of the informant. The affidavit didn't mention that the "informant" was actually a married couple that had been in a quarrel with the defendants; that the couple was facing criminal charges themselves and had been "guaranteed by the prosecutor that they would not be prosecuted if they provided information"; and that they had been paid by the government for giving the information. The affidavit didn't mention any of that. A big deal, right?
According to the court, no. "It would have to be a very naive magistrate who would suppose that a confidential informant would drop in off the street with such detailed evidence and not have an ulterior motive," Judge Noonan wrote. "The magistrate would naturally have assumed that the informant was not a disinterested citizen." The fact that the magistrate wasn't told that the "informant" was guaranteed to go free and paid for the information didn't matter, as "the magistrate was given reason to think the informant knew a good deal about what was going on" inside the house.
In some cases, omitted information about a witnesses's bias is irrelevant because there is enough evidence of the crime so that probable cause was not really in question. Consider Smith v. Edwards, 175 F.3d 99 (2d Cir. 1999) (Sotomayor. J.), a horrible case involving alleged abuse of a child. A mother reported that her husband had sexually abused their daughter, and the judge issued the warrant for the husband's arrest. The husband was arrested but the charges were later dropped. The husband then sued the officer who obtained the warrant, claiming that the officer had obtained the warrant only because he had left out critical information in the affidavit. In particular, the affidavit did not inform the magistrate that the mother had instituted divorce proceedings against her husband, and it did not state that she had come to the police only after having tried unsuccessfully to obtain a restraining order to bar him from contacting her or her daughter. In the husband's telling, you needed to understand the wife's bias to know that she had made up the claims about him to get custody of their daughter.
The court held that the failure to disclose this information was irrelevant. The undisclosed information "was not material because there would have been probable cause to arrest" the husband even if the officer had included the omitted information. Even if the affidavit been "corrected" by including the omitted information, "nothing in the outcome of the Superior Court proceedings that would have negated probable cause."
Importantly, that doesn't mean that an informant's bias never needs to be disclosed. It just depends on facts of the case. It depends on how important the informant's information was to establish probable cause, and it depends on how much the alleged bias makes the information unreliable in context. If there are reasons to credit the informant despite the bias, based on the detail of the tip, the informant's history of providing reliable tips, or other information, then the background informantion about bias isn't particularly relevant. But if an affidavit hinged on an informant's claim and bias would have fatally undercut probable cause, then it has to be included in the affidavit.
First, thanks for the information, good stuff. What I really wanted a link to was your assertion that the FISA court judge did know that the FBI/DOJ FISA request was based on opposition research. I suppose we'll find out whether that is true or not in the coming days. I'm going to rebut some of the rest of your post, and to save some space I cherry-picked it here and there. Lotta that going around I guess. You stuff is in italics:
And if the FISA application was based on Steele's unreliable research, and DOJ never told that to the FISA Court, then DOJ misled the court and the court should not have issued the warrant ---- I am not sure whether the FISA court should or should not have issued the warrant. McCabe is supposedly on record as saying they wouldn't have asked for the warrant without the Steele dossier, but that's something else we'll hopefully settle in the coming days. My issue is the the FBI/DOJ did mislead the court and THAT is a BIG problem.
--
It turns out that there is lots of litigation on whether warrant applications need to discuss the bias of informants but we're not talking about 2-sided litigation. We're talking about where there isn't anyone arguing against the gov'ts case, andit is therefore incumbent on the gov't to present the whole picture. We can talk about why that is a big deal later.
--
Down the road, the warrant will be challenged on the ground that the affidavit failed to tell the judge of good reasons to think the informant was biased and unreliable once the surveillance is done it's too late, there ain't no challenge then. An American's civil rights got violated inappropriately. I'm talking process here, therule of law and the presumption of innocence.
--
If the government hadn't misled the court, the argument runs, no warrant would have issued because the judge would have seen that the informant could not be trusted Maybe. Maybe not, but the gov't should have provided that information, it was their responsibility.
--
But if an affidavit hinged on an informant's claim and bias would have fatally undercut probable cause, then it has to be included in the affidavit My point exactly
--
Steele's research may have been included in the affidavit amidst a ton of other evidence. And if so, the Steele research itself may have been wholly irrelevant to the application OK, maybe. I'd like to know if that's true but I ain't going to assume it is. or isn't.
--
If the government looked into the Steele memorandum and corroborated some of its claims, it undercuts the need to disclose the funding source Should we trust these guys to corroborate anything in the Steele dossier? I don't, there's too much information out there to doubt the integrity of those in the gov't who were responsible for this mess.
--
What matters is whether, based on the totality of the circumstances, the information came from a credible source I have not seen the Steel dossier, maybe some of it is credible, maybe some of it is true. But that in no way alleviates those in the gov't from doing their duty in a fair, and impartial manner, which IMHO clearly many of them did not do.
--
Importantly, that doesn't mean that an informant's bias never needs to be disclosed. In a FISA court request I think it does, and should. Always and every time. That judge is going to decide if grounds exist to violate an American citizen's civil rights, and that's a big deal. Or should be.
--
I do not think the Mueller investigation should be halted, and i do not see anything yet that exonerates Trump from the charges of Russian collusion, or even obstruction of justice. To date I have seen NOTHING that indicates anything to support indictment on either charge. It is however difficult to see how justice was fairly and professionally served by some who were involved in that investigation.
Last edited:
Lumpy 1
Diamond Member
- Jun 19, 2009
- 43,859
- 18,786
- 2,330
It looks like Democrats want the facts.. yup, sure they do... 
... no problem with Nunes..
...........................
House Intelligence Committee Chairman Devin Nunes, R-Calif., said he is not opposed to releasing the transcript of FBI Deputy Director Andrew McCabe's testimony in which he allegedly said that the agency would not have pursued placing a Trump campaign adviser under surveillance without the unverified "Trump dossier" written by former British spy Christopher Steele.
“That would be a whole process that we’d have to go through,” Nunes told Fox News host Bret Baier on Friday evening after Baier asked him if the transcript would be released. “Actually, the quotes I think are pretty damning themselves.”
“I wouldn’t mind doing that, but we would have to go through a whole process to release transcripts,” he added.
The assertion about McCabe is made in a Republican memo that was compiled by the intelligence panel and released Friday. Meanwhile, Democrats have accused the memo of mischaracterizing McCabe’s testimony when he spoke with the intelligence panel in a closed session in December 2017.
Devin Nunes open to releasing transcript of Andrew McCabe testimony about FISA application
... no problem with Nunes..
...........................
House Intelligence Committee Chairman Devin Nunes, R-Calif., said he is not opposed to releasing the transcript of FBI Deputy Director Andrew McCabe's testimony in which he allegedly said that the agency would not have pursued placing a Trump campaign adviser under surveillance without the unverified "Trump dossier" written by former British spy Christopher Steele.
“That would be a whole process that we’d have to go through,” Nunes told Fox News host Bret Baier on Friday evening after Baier asked him if the transcript would be released. “Actually, the quotes I think are pretty damning themselves.”
“I wouldn’t mind doing that, but we would have to go through a whole process to release transcripts,” he added.
The assertion about McCabe is made in a Republican memo that was compiled by the intelligence panel and released Friday. Meanwhile, Democrats have accused the memo of mischaracterizing McCabe’s testimony when he spoke with the intelligence panel in a closed session in December 2017.
Devin Nunes open to releasing transcript of Andrew McCabe testimony about FISA application
What did your handlers conclude?the Nunes memo was a dud....good luck with that!instead we got piss mixed with vinegar and over flowing lies and deception!
The memo is just the beginning .. sheesh
False documents generated by the Clinton campaign were used by the Obama administration to undermine and spy on a (Trump) Presidential candidate and steal an election seems to be the probable bottom line.
If the scenario was reversed Democrats and the parasite media wouldn't care in the least...
your beloved Nunes memo, says in the last paragraph, that the Russian investigation began with Papadopolous mouthing off in a bar with an Australian diplomat back in May of 2016 that the Russians had clinton/ campaign emails as dirt on Hillary....
and not with the dossier, not by Clinton....
Beloved..... I appreciate that Nunes finally got the ball rolling and we're all being informed for a change instead of suckholing left wing parasite crapola but you're welcome to continue, no problem.
So now the direction of the left in personal attacks and twisting reality as opposed to finding out the facts... nothing new there.
Let me just get to a response to your first part....Sorry it took so long!
here is a bit on the ''IN PREVIOUS FISA WARRANT CASES with link and siting the Cases in Court regarding BIASED sources and how the court ruled, there is more at the LINK for further info on it!
The Dubious Legal Claim Behind #ReleaseTheMemo
Franks generates a lot of cases on informant bias. They typically run something like this. The government will get a warrant based in part on the statements or claims of an informant. The affidavit won't give specific reasons to doubt that the informant is credible. Down the road, the warrant will be challenged on the ground that the affidavit failed to tell the judge of good reasons to think the informant was biased and unreliable. Maybe the informant was facing criminal charges and had every incentive to manufacture evidence that others were involved in crimes to strike a better deal for himself. Maybe the informant was the suspect's estranged spouse in the middle of a bitter divorce battle, and she was trying to get him arrested to help get custody of the kids. In each of the cases, the defendant claims that the warrant should be voided because the government failed to disclose the informant's bias. If the government hadn't misled the court, the argument runs, no warrant would have issued because the judge would have seen that the informant could not be trusted.
How has this argument fared? It depends on the case. Most of the time, though, it hasn't fared very well.
Part of the problem is that judges figure that of course informants are often biased. Informants usually have ulterior motives, and judges don't need to be told that. A helpful case is United States v. Strifler, 851 F.2d 1197, 1201 (9th Cir. 1988), in which the government obtained a warrant to search a house for a meth lab inside. Probable cause was based largely on a confidential informant who told the police that he had not only seen a meth lab in the house but had even helped others to try to manufacture meth there. The magistrate judge issued the warrant based on the informant's detailed tip. The search was successful and charges followed.
The defendants challenged the warrant on the ground that the affidavit had failed to mention the remarkable ulterior motives of the informant. The affidavit didn't mention that the "informant" was actually a married couple that had been in a quarrel with the defendants; that the couple was facing criminal charges themselves and had been "guaranteed by the prosecutor that they would not be prosecuted if they provided information"; and that they had been paid by the government for giving the information. The affidavit didn't mention any of that. A big deal, right?
According to the court, no. "It would have to be a very naive magistrate who would suppose that a confidential informant would drop in off the street with such detailed evidence and not have an ulterior motive," Judge Noonan wrote. "The magistrate would naturally have assumed that the informant was not a disinterested citizen." The fact that the magistrate wasn't told that the "informant" was guaranteed to go free and paid for the information didn't matter, as "the magistrate was given reason to think the informant knew a good deal about what was going on" inside the house.
In some cases, omitted information about a witnesses's bias is irrelevant because there is enough evidence of the crime so that probable cause was not really in question. Consider Smith v. Edwards, 175 F.3d 99 (2d Cir. 1999) (Sotomayor. J.), a horrible case involving alleged abuse of a child. A mother reported that her husband had sexually abused their daughter, and the judge issued the warrant for the husband's arrest. The husband was arrested but the charges were later dropped. The husband then sued the officer who obtained the warrant, claiming that the officer had obtained the warrant only because he had left out critical information in the affidavit. In particular, the affidavit did not inform the magistrate that the mother had instituted divorce proceedings against her husband, and it did not state that she had come to the police only after having tried unsuccessfully to obtain a restraining order to bar him from contacting her or her daughter. In the husband's telling, you needed to understand the wife's bias to know that she had made up the claims about him to get custody of their daughter.
The court held that the failure to disclose this information was irrelevant. The undisclosed information "was not material because there would have been probable cause to arrest" the husband even if the officer had included the omitted information. Even if the affidavit been "corrected" by including the omitted information, "nothing in the outcome of the Superior Court proceedings that would have negated probable cause."
Importantly, that doesn't mean that an informant's bias never needs to be disclosed. It just depends on facts of the case. It depends on how important the informant's information was to establish probable cause, and it depends on how much the alleged bias makes the information unreliable in context. If there are reasons to credit the informant despite the bias, based on the detail of the tip, the informant's history of providing reliable tips, or other information, then the background informantion about bias isn't particularly relevant. But if an affidavit hinged on an informant's claim and bias would have fatally undercut probable cause, then it has to be included in the affidavit.
First, thanks for the information, good stuff. What I really wanted a link to was your assertion that the FISA court judge did know that the FBI/DOJ FISA request was based on opposition research. I suppose we'll find out whether that is true or not in the coming days. I'm going to rebut some of the rest of your post, and to save some space I cherry-picked it here and there. Lotta that going around I guess. You stuff is in italics:
And if the FISA application was based on Steele's unreliable research, and DOJ never told that to the FISA Court, then DOJ misled the court and the court should not have issued the warrant ---- I am not sure whether the FISA court should or should not have issued the warrant. McCabe is supposedly on record as saying they wouldn't have asked for the warrant without the Steele dossier, but that's something else we'll hopefully settle in the coming days. My issue is the the FBI/DOJ did mislead the court and THAT is a BIG problem.
--
It turns out that there is lots of litigation on whether warrant applications need to discuss the bias of informants but we're not talking about 2-sided litigation. We're talking about where there isn't anyone arguing against the gov'ts case, andit is therefore incumbent on the gov't to present the whole picture. We can talk about why that is a big deal later.
--
Down the road, the warrant will be challenged on the ground that the affidavit failed to tell the judge of good reasons to think the informant was biased and unreliable once the surveillance is done it's too late, there ain't no challenge then. An American's civil rights got violated inappropriately. I'm talking process here, therule of law and the presumption of innocence.
--
If the government hadn't misled the court, the argument runs, no warrant would have issued because the judge would have seen that the informant could not be trusted Maybe. Maybe not, but the gov't should have provided that information, it was their responsibility.
--
But if an affidavit hinged on an informant's claim and bias would have fatally undercut probable cause, then it has to be included in the affidavit My point exactly
--
Steele's research may have been included in the affidavit amidst a ton of other evidence. And if so, the Steele research itself may have been wholly irrelevant to the application OK, maybe. I'd like to know if that's true but I ain't going to assume it is. or isn't.
--
If the government looked into the Steele memorandum and corroborated some of its claims, it undercuts the need to disclose the funding source Should we trust these guys to corroborate anything in the Steele dossier? I don't, there's too much information out there to doubt the integrity of those in the gov't who were responsible for this mess.
--
What matters is whether, based on the totality of the circumstances, the information came from a credible source I have not seen the Steel dossier, maybe some of it is credible, maybe some of it is true. But that in no way alleviates those in the gov't from doing their duty in a fair, and impartial manner, which IMHO clearly many of them did not do.
--
Importantly, that doesn't mean that an informant's bias never needs to be disclosed. In a FISA court request I think it does, and should. Always and every time. That judge is going to decide if grounds exist to violate an American citizen's civil rights, and that's a big deal. Or should be.
--
I do not think the Mueller investigation should be halted, and i do not see anything yet that exonerates Trump from the charges of Russian collusion, or even obstruction of justice. To date I have seen NOTHING that indicates anything to support indictment on either charge. It is however difficult to see how justice was fairly and professionally served by some who were involved in that investigation.
I heard that this was going to be shown in the Democratic memo on the case, Adam Schiff, the congress critter who is the Minority chair of the House intel committee, and who actually did read and had permission to read the underlying FISA evidence and material, said that the FISA judge did know that the dossier was from paid for campaign opposition research..... he did not say wrd for word that the judge was told it was the DNC/Clinton Campaign but who else could the opposition research firm be working for if it was October 17 of 2016, in the Presidential election year.....? And from what I gathered, it did not matter...because Christopher Steele had been established as a reliable MI6 guy that they had worked with several times on other very important cases....
And as the article that I posted judge indicated, most all human intel from sources, are usually people with an "interest" or biased....and all judges are well aware of that, when they are deciding whether there is legitimate probable cause.
Lumpy 1
Diamond Member
- Jun 19, 2009
- 43,859
- 18,786
- 2,330
Let me just get to a response to your first part....Sorry it took so long!
here is a bit on the ''IN PREVIOUS FISA WARRANT CASES with link and siting the Cases in Court regarding BIASED sources and how the court ruled, there is more at the LINK for further info on it!
The Dubious Legal Claim Behind #ReleaseTheMemo
Franks generates a lot of cases on informant bias. They typically run something like this. The government will get a warrant based in part on the statements or claims of an informant. The affidavit won't give specific reasons to doubt that the informant is credible. Down the road, the warrant will be challenged on the ground that the affidavit failed to tell the judge of good reasons to think the informant was biased and unreliable. Maybe the informant was facing criminal charges and had every incentive to manufacture evidence that others were involved in crimes to strike a better deal for himself. Maybe the informant was the suspect's estranged spouse in the middle of a bitter divorce battle, and she was trying to get him arrested to help get custody of the kids. In each of the cases, the defendant claims that the warrant should be voided because the government failed to disclose the informant's bias. If the government hadn't misled the court, the argument runs, no warrant would have issued because the judge would have seen that the informant could not be trusted.
How has this argument fared? It depends on the case. Most of the time, though, it hasn't fared very well.
Part of the problem is that judges figure that of course informants are often biased. Informants usually have ulterior motives, and judges don't need to be told that. A helpful case is United States v. Strifler, 851 F.2d 1197, 1201 (9th Cir. 1988), in which the government obtained a warrant to search a house for a meth lab inside. Probable cause was based largely on a confidential informant who told the police that he had not only seen a meth lab in the house but had even helped others to try to manufacture meth there. The magistrate judge issued the warrant based on the informant's detailed tip. The search was successful and charges followed.
The defendants challenged the warrant on the ground that the affidavit had failed to mention the remarkable ulterior motives of the informant. The affidavit didn't mention that the "informant" was actually a married couple that had been in a quarrel with the defendants; that the couple was facing criminal charges themselves and had been "guaranteed by the prosecutor that they would not be prosecuted if they provided information"; and that they had been paid by the government for giving the information. The affidavit didn't mention any of that. A big deal, right?
According to the court, no. "It would have to be a very naive magistrate who would suppose that a confidential informant would drop in off the street with such detailed evidence and not have an ulterior motive," Judge Noonan wrote. "The magistrate would naturally have assumed that the informant was not a disinterested citizen." The fact that the magistrate wasn't told that the "informant" was guaranteed to go free and paid for the information didn't matter, as "the magistrate was given reason to think the informant knew a good deal about what was going on" inside the house.
In some cases, omitted information about a witnesses's bias is irrelevant because there is enough evidence of the crime so that probable cause was not really in question. Consider Smith v. Edwards, 175 F.3d 99 (2d Cir. 1999) (Sotomayor. J.), a horrible case involving alleged abuse of a child. A mother reported that her husband had sexually abused their daughter, and the judge issued the warrant for the husband's arrest. The husband was arrested but the charges were later dropped. The husband then sued the officer who obtained the warrant, claiming that the officer had obtained the warrant only because he had left out critical information in the affidavit. In particular, the affidavit did not inform the magistrate that the mother had instituted divorce proceedings against her husband, and it did not state that she had come to the police only after having tried unsuccessfully to obtain a restraining order to bar him from contacting her or her daughter. In the husband's telling, you needed to understand the wife's bias to know that she had made up the claims about him to get custody of their daughter.
The court held that the failure to disclose this information was irrelevant. The undisclosed information "was not material because there would have been probable cause to arrest" the husband even if the officer had included the omitted information. Even if the affidavit been "corrected" by including the omitted information, "nothing in the outcome of the Superior Court proceedings that would have negated probable cause."
Importantly, that doesn't mean that an informant's bias never needs to be disclosed. It just depends on facts of the case. It depends on how important the informant's information was to establish probable cause, and it depends on how much the alleged bias makes the information unreliable in context. If there are reasons to credit the informant despite the bias, based on the detail of the tip, the informant's history of providing reliable tips, or other information, then the background informantion about bias isn't particularly relevant. But if an affidavit hinged on an informant's claim and bias would have fatally undercut probable cause, then it has to be included in the affidavit.
First, thanks for the information, good stuff. What I really wanted a link to was your assertion that the FISA court judge did know that the FBI/DOJ FISA request was based on opposition research. I suppose we'll find out whether that is true or not in the coming days. I'm going to rebut some of the rest of your post, and to save some space I cherry-picked it here and there. Lotta that going around I guess. You stuff is in italics:
And if the FISA application was based on Steele's unreliable research, and DOJ never told that to the FISA Court, then DOJ misled the court and the court should not have issued the warrant ---- I am not sure whether the FISA court should or should not have issued the warrant. McCabe is supposedly on record as saying they wouldn't have asked for the warrant without the Steele dossier, but that's something else we'll hopefully settle in the coming days. My issue is the the FBI/DOJ did mislead the court and THAT is a BIG problem.
--
It turns out that there is lots of litigation on whether warrant applications need to discuss the bias of informants but we're not talking about 2-sided litigation. We're talking about where there isn't anyone arguing against the gov'ts case, andit is therefore incumbent on the gov't to present the whole picture. We can talk about why that is a big deal later.
--
Down the road, the warrant will be challenged on the ground that the affidavit failed to tell the judge of good reasons to think the informant was biased and unreliable once the surveillance is done it's too late, there ain't no challenge then. An American's civil rights got violated inappropriately. I'm talking process here, therule of law and the presumption of innocence.
--
If the government hadn't misled the court, the argument runs, no warrant would have issued because the judge would have seen that the informant could not be trusted Maybe. Maybe not, but the gov't should have provided that information, it was their responsibility.
--
But if an affidavit hinged on an informant's claim and bias would have fatally undercut probable cause, then it has to be included in the affidavit My point exactly
--
Steele's research may have been included in the affidavit amidst a ton of other evidence. And if so, the Steele research itself may have been wholly irrelevant to the application OK, maybe. I'd like to know if that's true but I ain't going to assume it is. or isn't.
--
If the government looked into the Steele memorandum and corroborated some of its claims, it undercuts the need to disclose the funding source Should we trust these guys to corroborate anything in the Steele dossier? I don't, there's too much information out there to doubt the integrity of those in the gov't who were responsible for this mess.
--
What matters is whether, based on the totality of the circumstances, the information came from a credible source I have not seen the Steel dossier, maybe some of it is credible, maybe some of it is true. But that in no way alleviates those in the gov't from doing their duty in a fair, and impartial manner, which IMHO clearly many of them did not do.
--
Importantly, that doesn't mean that an informant's bias never needs to be disclosed. In a FISA court request I think it does, and should. Always and every time. That judge is going to decide if grounds exist to violate an American citizen's civil rights, and that's a big deal. Or should be.
--
I do not think the Mueller investigation should be halted, and i do not see anything yet that exonerates Trump from the charges of Russian collusion, or even obstruction of justice. To date I have seen NOTHING that indicates anything to support indictment on either charge. It is however difficult to see how justice was fairly and professionally served by some who were involved in that investigation.
I heard that this was going to be shown in the Democratic memo on the case, Adam Schiff, the congress critter who is the Minority chair of the House intel committee, and who actually did read and had permission to read the underlying FISA evidence and material, said that the FISA judge did know that the dossier was from paid for campaign opposition research..... he did not say wrd for word that the judge was told it was the DNC/Clinton Campaign but who else could the opposition research firm be working for if it was October 17 of 2016, in the Presidential election year.....? And from what I gathered, it did not matter...because Christopher Steele had been established as a reliable MI6 guy that they had worked with several times on other very important cases....
And as the article that I posted judge indicated, most all human intel from sources, are usually people with an "interest" or biased....and all judges are well aware of that, when they are deciding whether there is legitimate probable cause.
Adam Schiff can't be trusted, he's a horrible source for truth, no integrity whatsoever.. check it out..(1:25 minutes in..)
Yup, Adam Schiff and parasite news collusion..
.
Last edited:
Let me just get to a response to your first part....Sorry it took so long!
here is a bit on the ''IN PREVIOUS FISA WARRANT CASES with link and siting the Cases in Court regarding BIASED sources and how the court ruled, there is more at the LINK for further info on it!
The Dubious Legal Claim Behind #ReleaseTheMemo
Franks generates a lot of cases on informant bias. They typically run something like this. The government will get a warrant based in part on the statements or claims of an informant. The affidavit won't give specific reasons to doubt that the informant is credible. Down the road, the warrant will be challenged on the ground that the affidavit failed to tell the judge of good reasons to think the informant was biased and unreliable. Maybe the informant was facing criminal charges and had every incentive to manufacture evidence that others were involved in crimes to strike a better deal for himself. Maybe the informant was the suspect's estranged spouse in the middle of a bitter divorce battle, and she was trying to get him arrested to help get custody of the kids. In each of the cases, the defendant claims that the warrant should be voided because the government failed to disclose the informant's bias. If the government hadn't misled the court, the argument runs, no warrant would have issued because the judge would have seen that the informant could not be trusted.
How has this argument fared? It depends on the case. Most of the time, though, it hasn't fared very well.
Part of the problem is that judges figure that of course informants are often biased. Informants usually have ulterior motives, and judges don't need to be told that. A helpful case is United States v. Strifler, 851 F.2d 1197, 1201 (9th Cir. 1988), in which the government obtained a warrant to search a house for a meth lab inside. Probable cause was based largely on a confidential informant who told the police that he had not only seen a meth lab in the house but had even helped others to try to manufacture meth there. The magistrate judge issued the warrant based on the informant's detailed tip. The search was successful and charges followed.
The defendants challenged the warrant on the ground that the affidavit had failed to mention the remarkable ulterior motives of the informant. The affidavit didn't mention that the "informant" was actually a married couple that had been in a quarrel with the defendants; that the couple was facing criminal charges themselves and had been "guaranteed by the prosecutor that they would not be prosecuted if they provided information"; and that they had been paid by the government for giving the information. The affidavit didn't mention any of that. A big deal, right?
According to the court, no. "It would have to be a very naive magistrate who would suppose that a confidential informant would drop in off the street with such detailed evidence and not have an ulterior motive," Judge Noonan wrote. "The magistrate would naturally have assumed that the informant was not a disinterested citizen." The fact that the magistrate wasn't told that the "informant" was guaranteed to go free and paid for the information didn't matter, as "the magistrate was given reason to think the informant knew a good deal about what was going on" inside the house.
In some cases, omitted information about a witnesses's bias is irrelevant because there is enough evidence of the crime so that probable cause was not really in question. Consider Smith v. Edwards, 175 F.3d 99 (2d Cir. 1999) (Sotomayor. J.), a horrible case involving alleged abuse of a child. A mother reported that her husband had sexually abused their daughter, and the judge issued the warrant for the husband's arrest. The husband was arrested but the charges were later dropped. The husband then sued the officer who obtained the warrant, claiming that the officer had obtained the warrant only because he had left out critical information in the affidavit. In particular, the affidavit did not inform the magistrate that the mother had instituted divorce proceedings against her husband, and it did not state that she had come to the police only after having tried unsuccessfully to obtain a restraining order to bar him from contacting her or her daughter. In the husband's telling, you needed to understand the wife's bias to know that she had made up the claims about him to get custody of their daughter.
The court held that the failure to disclose this information was irrelevant. The undisclosed information "was not material because there would have been probable cause to arrest" the husband even if the officer had included the omitted information. Even if the affidavit been "corrected" by including the omitted information, "nothing in the outcome of the Superior Court proceedings that would have negated probable cause."
Importantly, that doesn't mean that an informant's bias never needs to be disclosed. It just depends on facts of the case. It depends on how important the informant's information was to establish probable cause, and it depends on how much the alleged bias makes the information unreliable in context. If there are reasons to credit the informant despite the bias, based on the detail of the tip, the informant's history of providing reliable tips, or other information, then the background informantion about bias isn't particularly relevant. But if an affidavit hinged on an informant's claim and bias would have fatally undercut probable cause, then it has to be included in the affidavit.
First, thanks for the information, good stuff. What I really wanted a link to was your assertion that the FISA court judge did know that the FBI/DOJ FISA request was based on opposition research. I suppose we'll find out whether that is true or not in the coming days. I'm going to rebut some of the rest of your post, and to save some space I cherry-picked it here and there. Lotta that going around I guess. You stuff is in italics:
And if the FISA application was based on Steele's unreliable research, and DOJ never told that to the FISA Court, then DOJ misled the court and the court should not have issued the warrant ---- I am not sure whether the FISA court should or should not have issued the warrant. McCabe is supposedly on record as saying they wouldn't have asked for the warrant without the Steele dossier, but that's something else we'll hopefully settle in the coming days. My issue is the the FBI/DOJ did mislead the court and THAT is a BIG problem.
--
It turns out that there is lots of litigation on whether warrant applications need to discuss the bias of informants but we're not talking about 2-sided litigation. We're talking about where there isn't anyone arguing against the gov'ts case, andit is therefore incumbent on the gov't to present the whole picture. We can talk about why that is a big deal later.
--
Down the road, the warrant will be challenged on the ground that the affidavit failed to tell the judge of good reasons to think the informant was biased and unreliable once the surveillance is done it's too late, there ain't no challenge then. An American's civil rights got violated inappropriately. I'm talking process here, therule of law and the presumption of innocence.
--
If the government hadn't misled the court, the argument runs, no warrant would have issued because the judge would have seen that the informant could not be trusted Maybe. Maybe not, but the gov't should have provided that information, it was their responsibility.
--
But if an affidavit hinged on an informant's claim and bias would have fatally undercut probable cause, then it has to be included in the affidavit My point exactly
--
Steele's research may have been included in the affidavit amidst a ton of other evidence. And if so, the Steele research itself may have been wholly irrelevant to the application OK, maybe. I'd like to know if that's true but I ain't going to assume it is. or isn't.
--
If the government looked into the Steele memorandum and corroborated some of its claims, it undercuts the need to disclose the funding source Should we trust these guys to corroborate anything in the Steele dossier? I don't, there's too much information out there to doubt the integrity of those in the gov't who were responsible for this mess.
--
What matters is whether, based on the totality of the circumstances, the information came from a credible source I have not seen the Steel dossier, maybe some of it is credible, maybe some of it is true. But that in no way alleviates those in the gov't from doing their duty in a fair, and impartial manner, which IMHO clearly many of them did not do.
--
Importantly, that doesn't mean that an informant's bias never needs to be disclosed. In a FISA court request I think it does, and should. Always and every time. That judge is going to decide if grounds exist to violate an American citizen's civil rights, and that's a big deal. Or should be.
--
I do not think the Mueller investigation should be halted, and i do not see anything yet that exonerates Trump from the charges of Russian collusion, or even obstruction of justice. To date I have seen NOTHING that indicates anything to support indictment on either charge. It is however difficult to see how justice was fairly and professionally served by some who were involved in that investigation.
I heard that this was going to be shown in the Democratic memo on the case, Adam Schiff, the congress critter who is the Minority chair of the House intel committee, and who actually did read and had permission to read the underlying FISA evidence and material, said that the FISA judge did know that the dossier was from paid for campaign opposition research..... he did not say wrd for word that the judge was told it was the DNC/Clinton Campaign but who else could the opposition research firm be working for if it was October 17 of 2016, in the Presidential election year.....? And from what I gathered, it did not matter...because Christopher Steele had been established as a reliable MI6 guy that they had worked with several times on other very important cases....
And as the article that I posted judge indicated, most all human intel from sources, are usually people with an "interest" or biased....and all judges are well aware of that, when they are deciding whether there is legitimate probable cause.
Adam Schiff can't be trusted, he's a horrible source for truth, no integrity whatsoever.. check it out..(1:25 minutes in..)
Yup, Adam Schiff and parasite news collusion..
.View attachment 174826
don't believe a single word in your video, sorry!
And why the heck haven't these hearings been in the open, each day another witness, with full sunshine instead of Republicans agreeing that all of these people can testify behind closed doors? We should be having hearings just like WATERGATE, all open and above board....
why are the Republicans not transparent? What is being hidden and Why Why? Why? so much for them wanting to get the truth out bull crap....
Lumpy 1
Diamond Member
- Jun 19, 2009
- 43,859
- 18,786
- 2,330
Let me just get to a response to your first part....Sorry it took so long!
here is a bit on the ''IN PREVIOUS FISA WARRANT CASES with link and siting the Cases in Court regarding BIASED sources and how the court ruled, there is more at the LINK for further info on it!
The Dubious Legal Claim Behind #ReleaseTheMemo
Franks generates a lot of cases on informant bias. They typically run something like this. The government will get a warrant based in part on the statements or claims of an informant. The affidavit won't give specific reasons to doubt that the informant is credible. Down the road, the warrant will be challenged on the ground that the affidavit failed to tell the judge of good reasons to think the informant was biased and unreliable. Maybe the informant was facing criminal charges and had every incentive to manufacture evidence that others were involved in crimes to strike a better deal for himself. Maybe the informant was the suspect's estranged spouse in the middle of a bitter divorce battle, and she was trying to get him arrested to help get custody of the kids. In each of the cases, the defendant claims that the warrant should be voided because the government failed to disclose the informant's bias. If the government hadn't misled the court, the argument runs, no warrant would have issued because the judge would have seen that the informant could not be trusted.
How has this argument fared? It depends on the case. Most of the time, though, it hasn't fared very well.
Part of the problem is that judges figure that of course informants are often biased. Informants usually have ulterior motives, and judges don't need to be told that. A helpful case is United States v. Strifler, 851 F.2d 1197, 1201 (9th Cir. 1988), in which the government obtained a warrant to search a house for a meth lab inside. Probable cause was based largely on a confidential informant who told the police that he had not only seen a meth lab in the house but had even helped others to try to manufacture meth there. The magistrate judge issued the warrant based on the informant's detailed tip. The search was successful and charges followed.
The defendants challenged the warrant on the ground that the affidavit had failed to mention the remarkable ulterior motives of the informant. The affidavit didn't mention that the "informant" was actually a married couple that had been in a quarrel with the defendants; that the couple was facing criminal charges themselves and had been "guaranteed by the prosecutor that they would not be prosecuted if they provided information"; and that they had been paid by the government for giving the information. The affidavit didn't mention any of that. A big deal, right?
According to the court, no. "It would have to be a very naive magistrate who would suppose that a confidential informant would drop in off the street with such detailed evidence and not have an ulterior motive," Judge Noonan wrote. "The magistrate would naturally have assumed that the informant was not a disinterested citizen." The fact that the magistrate wasn't told that the "informant" was guaranteed to go free and paid for the information didn't matter, as "the magistrate was given reason to think the informant knew a good deal about what was going on" inside the house.
In some cases, omitted information about a witnesses's bias is irrelevant because there is enough evidence of the crime so that probable cause was not really in question. Consider Smith v. Edwards, 175 F.3d 99 (2d Cir. 1999) (Sotomayor. J.), a horrible case involving alleged abuse of a child. A mother reported that her husband had sexually abused their daughter, and the judge issued the warrant for the husband's arrest. The husband was arrested but the charges were later dropped. The husband then sued the officer who obtained the warrant, claiming that the officer had obtained the warrant only because he had left out critical information in the affidavit. In particular, the affidavit did not inform the magistrate that the mother had instituted divorce proceedings against her husband, and it did not state that she had come to the police only after having tried unsuccessfully to obtain a restraining order to bar him from contacting her or her daughter. In the husband's telling, you needed to understand the wife's bias to know that she had made up the claims about him to get custody of their daughter.
The court held that the failure to disclose this information was irrelevant. The undisclosed information "was not material because there would have been probable cause to arrest" the husband even if the officer had included the omitted information. Even if the affidavit been "corrected" by including the omitted information, "nothing in the outcome of the Superior Court proceedings that would have negated probable cause."
Importantly, that doesn't mean that an informant's bias never needs to be disclosed. It just depends on facts of the case. It depends on how important the informant's information was to establish probable cause, and it depends on how much the alleged bias makes the information unreliable in context. If there are reasons to credit the informant despite the bias, based on the detail of the tip, the informant's history of providing reliable tips, or other information, then the background informantion about bias isn't particularly relevant. But if an affidavit hinged on an informant's claim and bias would have fatally undercut probable cause, then it has to be included in the affidavit.
First, thanks for the information, good stuff. What I really wanted a link to was your assertion that the FISA court judge did know that the FBI/DOJ FISA request was based on opposition research. I suppose we'll find out whether that is true or not in the coming days. I'm going to rebut some of the rest of your post, and to save some space I cherry-picked it here and there. Lotta that going around I guess. You stuff is in italics:
And if the FISA application was based on Steele's unreliable research, and DOJ never told that to the FISA Court, then DOJ misled the court and the court should not have issued the warrant ---- I am not sure whether the FISA court should or should not have issued the warrant. McCabe is supposedly on record as saying they wouldn't have asked for the warrant without the Steele dossier, but that's something else we'll hopefully settle in the coming days. My issue is the the FBI/DOJ did mislead the court and THAT is a BIG problem.
--
It turns out that there is lots of litigation on whether warrant applications need to discuss the bias of informants but we're not talking about 2-sided litigation. We're talking about where there isn't anyone arguing against the gov'ts case, andit is therefore incumbent on the gov't to present the whole picture. We can talk about why that is a big deal later.
--
Down the road, the warrant will be challenged on the ground that the affidavit failed to tell the judge of good reasons to think the informant was biased and unreliable once the surveillance is done it's too late, there ain't no challenge then. An American's civil rights got violated inappropriately. I'm talking process here, therule of law and the presumption of innocence.
--
If the government hadn't misled the court, the argument runs, no warrant would have issued because the judge would have seen that the informant could not be trusted Maybe. Maybe not, but the gov't should have provided that information, it was their responsibility.
--
But if an affidavit hinged on an informant's claim and bias would have fatally undercut probable cause, then it has to be included in the affidavit My point exactly
--
Steele's research may have been included in the affidavit amidst a ton of other evidence. And if so, the Steele research itself may have been wholly irrelevant to the application OK, maybe. I'd like to know if that's true but I ain't going to assume it is. or isn't.
--
If the government looked into the Steele memorandum and corroborated some of its claims, it undercuts the need to disclose the funding source Should we trust these guys to corroborate anything in the Steele dossier? I don't, there's too much information out there to doubt the integrity of those in the gov't who were responsible for this mess.
--
What matters is whether, based on the totality of the circumstances, the information came from a credible source I have not seen the Steel dossier, maybe some of it is credible, maybe some of it is true. But that in no way alleviates those in the gov't from doing their duty in a fair, and impartial manner, which IMHO clearly many of them did not do.
--
Importantly, that doesn't mean that an informant's bias never needs to be disclosed. In a FISA court request I think it does, and should. Always and every time. That judge is going to decide if grounds exist to violate an American citizen's civil rights, and that's a big deal. Or should be.
--
I do not think the Mueller investigation should be halted, and i do not see anything yet that exonerates Trump from the charges of Russian collusion, or even obstruction of justice. To date I have seen NOTHING that indicates anything to support indictment on either charge. It is however difficult to see how justice was fairly and professionally served by some who were involved in that investigation.
I heard that this was going to be shown in the Democratic memo on the case, Adam Schiff, the congress critter who is the Minority chair of the House intel committee, and who actually did read and had permission to read the underlying FISA evidence and material, said that the FISA judge did know that the dossier was from paid for campaign opposition research..... he did not say wrd for word that the judge was told it was the DNC/Clinton Campaign but who else could the opposition research firm be working for if it was October 17 of 2016, in the Presidential election year.....? And from what I gathered, it did not matter...because Christopher Steele had been established as a reliable MI6 guy that they had worked with several times on other very important cases....
And as the article that I posted judge indicated, most all human intel from sources, are usually people with an "interest" or biased....and all judges are well aware of that, when they are deciding whether there is legitimate probable cause.
Adam Schiff can't be trusted, he's a horrible source for truth, no integrity whatsoever.. check it out..(1:25 minutes in..)
Yup, Adam Schiff and parasite news collusion..
.View attachment 174826
don't believe a single word in your video, sorry!
And why the heck haven't these hearings been in the open, each day another witness, with full sunshine instead of Republicans agreeing that all of these people can testify behind closed doors? We should be having hearings just like WATERGATE, all open and above board....
why are the Republicans not transparent? What is being hidden and Why Why? Why? so much for them wanting to get the truth out bull crap....
I figured you weren't allowed...
Politicians have a tendency to politically grandstand and miss the point of the hearings, is my guess. Soo... it's a waste of money already .. why encourage them...
Check this lefty schmuck out ..abusing a fine lady.. political rape in my opinion
..question/answered...
Last edited:
task0778
Diamond Member
Let me just get to a response to your first part....Sorry it took so long!
here is a bit on the ''IN PREVIOUS FISA WARRANT CASES with link and siting the Cases in Court regarding BIASED sources and how the court ruled, there is more at the LINK for further info on it!
The Dubious Legal Claim Behind #ReleaseTheMemo
Franks generates a lot of cases on informant bias. They typically run something like this. The government will get a warrant based in part on the statements or claims of an informant. The affidavit won't give specific reasons to doubt that the informant is credible. Down the road, the warrant will be challenged on the ground that the affidavit failed to tell the judge of good reasons to think the informant was biased and unreliable. Maybe the informant was facing criminal charges and had every incentive to manufacture evidence that others were involved in crimes to strike a better deal for himself. Maybe the informant was the suspect's estranged spouse in the middle of a bitter divorce battle, and she was trying to get him arrested to help get custody of the kids. In each of the cases, the defendant claims that the warrant should be voided because the government failed to disclose the informant's bias. If the government hadn't misled the court, the argument runs, no warrant would have issued because the judge would have seen that the informant could not be trusted.
How has this argument fared? It depends on the case. Most of the time, though, it hasn't fared very well.
Part of the problem is that judges figure that of course informants are often biased. Informants usually have ulterior motives, and judges don't need to be told that. A helpful case is United States v. Strifler, 851 F.2d 1197, 1201 (9th Cir. 1988), in which the government obtained a warrant to search a house for a meth lab inside. Probable cause was based largely on a confidential informant who told the police that he had not only seen a meth lab in the house but had even helped others to try to manufacture meth there. The magistrate judge issued the warrant based on the informant's detailed tip. The search was successful and charges followed.
The defendants challenged the warrant on the ground that the affidavit had failed to mention the remarkable ulterior motives of the informant. The affidavit didn't mention that the "informant" was actually a married couple that had been in a quarrel with the defendants; that the couple was facing criminal charges themselves and had been "guaranteed by the prosecutor that they would not be prosecuted if they provided information"; and that they had been paid by the government for giving the information. The affidavit didn't mention any of that. A big deal, right?
According to the court, no. "It would have to be a very naive magistrate who would suppose that a confidential informant would drop in off the street with such detailed evidence and not have an ulterior motive," Judge Noonan wrote. "The magistrate would naturally have assumed that the informant was not a disinterested citizen." The fact that the magistrate wasn't told that the "informant" was guaranteed to go free and paid for the information didn't matter, as "the magistrate was given reason to think the informant knew a good deal about what was going on" inside the house.
In some cases, omitted information about a witnesses's bias is irrelevant because there is enough evidence of the crime so that probable cause was not really in question. Consider Smith v. Edwards, 175 F.3d 99 (2d Cir. 1999) (Sotomayor. J.), a horrible case involving alleged abuse of a child. A mother reported that her husband had sexually abused their daughter, and the judge issued the warrant for the husband's arrest. The husband was arrested but the charges were later dropped. The husband then sued the officer who obtained the warrant, claiming that the officer had obtained the warrant only because he had left out critical information in the affidavit. In particular, the affidavit did not inform the magistrate that the mother had instituted divorce proceedings against her husband, and it did not state that she had come to the police only after having tried unsuccessfully to obtain a restraining order to bar him from contacting her or her daughter. In the husband's telling, you needed to understand the wife's bias to know that she had made up the claims about him to get custody of their daughter.
The court held that the failure to disclose this information was irrelevant. The undisclosed information "was not material because there would have been probable cause to arrest" the husband even if the officer had included the omitted information. Even if the affidavit been "corrected" by including the omitted information, "nothing in the outcome of the Superior Court proceedings that would have negated probable cause."
Importantly, that doesn't mean that an informant's bias never needs to be disclosed. It just depends on facts of the case. It depends on how important the informant's information was to establish probable cause, and it depends on how much the alleged bias makes the information unreliable in context. If there are reasons to credit the informant despite the bias, based on the detail of the tip, the informant's history of providing reliable tips, or other information, then the background informantion about bias isn't particularly relevant. But if an affidavit hinged on an informant's claim and bias would have fatally undercut probable cause, then it has to be included in the affidavit.
First, thanks for the information, good stuff. What I really wanted a link to was your assertion that the FISA court judge did know that the FBI/DOJ FISA request was based on opposition research. I suppose we'll find out whether that is true or not in the coming days. I'm going to rebut some of the rest of your post, and to save some space I cherry-picked it here and there. Lotta that going around I guess. You stuff is in italics:
And if the FISA application was based on Steele's unreliable research, and DOJ never told that to the FISA Court, then DOJ misled the court and the court should not have issued the warrant ---- I am not sure whether the FISA court should or should not have issued the warrant. McCabe is supposedly on record as saying they wouldn't have asked for the warrant without the Steele dossier, but that's something else we'll hopefully settle in the coming days. My issue is the the FBI/DOJ did mislead the court and THAT is a BIG problem.
--
It turns out that there is lots of litigation on whether warrant applications need to discuss the bias of informants but we're not talking about 2-sided litigation. We're talking about where there isn't anyone arguing against the gov'ts case, andit is therefore incumbent on the gov't to present the whole picture. We can talk about why that is a big deal later.
--
Down the road, the warrant will be challenged on the ground that the affidavit failed to tell the judge of good reasons to think the informant was biased and unreliable once the surveillance is done it's too late, there ain't no challenge then. An American's civil rights got violated inappropriately. I'm talking process here, therule of law and the presumption of innocence.
--
If the government hadn't misled the court, the argument runs, no warrant would have issued because the judge would have seen that the informant could not be trusted Maybe. Maybe not, but the gov't should have provided that information, it was their responsibility.
--
But if an affidavit hinged on an informant's claim and bias would have fatally undercut probable cause, then it has to be included in the affidavit My point exactly
--
Steele's research may have been included in the affidavit amidst a ton of other evidence. And if so, the Steele research itself may have been wholly irrelevant to the application OK, maybe. I'd like to know if that's true but I ain't going to assume it is. or isn't.
--
If the government looked into the Steele memorandum and corroborated some of its claims, it undercuts the need to disclose the funding source Should we trust these guys to corroborate anything in the Steele dossier? I don't, there's too much information out there to doubt the integrity of those in the gov't who were responsible for this mess.
--
What matters is whether, based on the totality of the circumstances, the information came from a credible source I have not seen the Steel dossier, maybe some of it is credible, maybe some of it is true. But that in no way alleviates those in the gov't from doing their duty in a fair, and impartial manner, which IMHO clearly many of them did not do.
--
Importantly, that doesn't mean that an informant's bias never needs to be disclosed. In a FISA court request I think it does, and should. Always and every time. That judge is going to decide if grounds exist to violate an American citizen's civil rights, and that's a big deal. Or should be.
--
I do not think the Mueller investigation should be halted, and i do not see anything yet that exonerates Trump from the charges of Russian collusion, or even obstruction of justice. To date I have seen NOTHING that indicates anything to support indictment on either charge. It is however difficult to see how justice was fairly and professionally served by some who were involved in that investigation.
I heard that this was going to be shown in the Democratic memo on the case, Adam Schiff, the congress critter who is the Minority chair of the House intel committee, and who actually did read and had permission to read the underlying FISA evidence and material, said that the FISA judge did know that the dossier was from paid for campaign opposition research..... he did not say wrd for word that the judge was told it was the DNC/Clinton Campaign but who else could the opposition research firm be working for if it was October 17 of 2016, in the Presidential election year.....? And from what I gathered, it did not matter...because Christopher Steele had been established as a reliable MI6 guy that they had worked with several times on other very important cases....
And as the article that I posted judge indicated, most all human intel from sources, are usually people with an "interest" or biased....and all judges are well aware of that, when they are deciding whether there is legitimate probable cause.
I don't trust Adam Schiff to be all that truthful, but we'll see if they release a redacted copy of the FISA request, at least the applicable part where the judge was told this stuff. Has to be in the original FISA request, not after the fact. Which quite frankly I doubt, but hopefully we'll see. I wouldn't think there'd be a problem with verifying that much at least. And if you're telling me that Steele was established as a reliable source in this matter then I'd have to question the integrity of anybody who believes that. From all accounts I've read he was definitely anti-Trump and had a serious bias against him. He wrote that dossier or had a hand in it, how could anyone say with a straight face this guy wasn't biased?
Was the judge really aware of Steele's bias? That's kind of the point here, sounds tome like the FBI/DOJ hid that from the judge, you yourself just portrayed him as an established and reliable informant, which he may have been in other cases but definitely not in this one.
Last edited:
task0778
Diamond Member
Let me just get to a response to your first part....Sorry it took so long!
here is a bit on the ''IN PREVIOUS FISA WARRANT CASES with link and siting the Cases in Court regarding BIASED sources and how the court ruled, there is more at the LINK for further info on it!
The Dubious Legal Claim Behind #ReleaseTheMemo
Franks generates a lot of cases on informant bias. They typically run something like this. The government will get a warrant based in part on the statements or claims of an informant. The affidavit won't give specific reasons to doubt that the informant is credible. Down the road, the warrant will be challenged on the ground that the affidavit failed to tell the judge of good reasons to think the informant was biased and unreliable. Maybe the informant was facing criminal charges and had every incentive to manufacture evidence that others were involved in crimes to strike a better deal for himself. Maybe the informant was the suspect's estranged spouse in the middle of a bitter divorce battle, and she was trying to get him arrested to help get custody of the kids. In each of the cases, the defendant claims that the warrant should be voided because the government failed to disclose the informant's bias. If the government hadn't misled the court, the argument runs, no warrant would have issued because the judge would have seen that the informant could not be trusted.
How has this argument fared? It depends on the case. Most of the time, though, it hasn't fared very well.
Part of the problem is that judges figure that of course informants are often biased. Informants usually have ulterior motives, and judges don't need to be told that. A helpful case is United States v. Strifler, 851 F.2d 1197, 1201 (9th Cir. 1988), in which the government obtained a warrant to search a house for a meth lab inside. Probable cause was based largely on a confidential informant who told the police that he had not only seen a meth lab in the house but had even helped others to try to manufacture meth there. The magistrate judge issued the warrant based on the informant's detailed tip. The search was successful and charges followed.
The defendants challenged the warrant on the ground that the affidavit had failed to mention the remarkable ulterior motives of the informant. The affidavit didn't mention that the "informant" was actually a married couple that had been in a quarrel with the defendants; that the couple was facing criminal charges themselves and had been "guaranteed by the prosecutor that they would not be prosecuted if they provided information"; and that they had been paid by the government for giving the information. The affidavit didn't mention any of that. A big deal, right?
According to the court, no. "It would have to be a very naive magistrate who would suppose that a confidential informant would drop in off the street with such detailed evidence and not have an ulterior motive," Judge Noonan wrote. "The magistrate would naturally have assumed that the informant was not a disinterested citizen." The fact that the magistrate wasn't told that the "informant" was guaranteed to go free and paid for the information didn't matter, as "the magistrate was given reason to think the informant knew a good deal about what was going on" inside the house.
In some cases, omitted information about a witnesses's bias is irrelevant because there is enough evidence of the crime so that probable cause was not really in question. Consider Smith v. Edwards, 175 F.3d 99 (2d Cir. 1999) (Sotomayor. J.), a horrible case involving alleged abuse of a child. A mother reported that her husband had sexually abused their daughter, and the judge issued the warrant for the husband's arrest. The husband was arrested but the charges were later dropped. The husband then sued the officer who obtained the warrant, claiming that the officer had obtained the warrant only because he had left out critical information in the affidavit. In particular, the affidavit did not inform the magistrate that the mother had instituted divorce proceedings against her husband, and it did not state that she had come to the police only after having tried unsuccessfully to obtain a restraining order to bar him from contacting her or her daughter. In the husband's telling, you needed to understand the wife's bias to know that she had made up the claims about him to get custody of their daughter.
The court held that the failure to disclose this information was irrelevant. The undisclosed information "was not material because there would have been probable cause to arrest" the husband even if the officer had included the omitted information. Even if the affidavit been "corrected" by including the omitted information, "nothing in the outcome of the Superior Court proceedings that would have negated probable cause."
Importantly, that doesn't mean that an informant's bias never needs to be disclosed. It just depends on facts of the case. It depends on how important the informant's information was to establish probable cause, and it depends on how much the alleged bias makes the information unreliable in context. If there are reasons to credit the informant despite the bias, based on the detail of the tip, the informant's history of providing reliable tips, or other information, then the background informantion about bias isn't particularly relevant. But if an affidavit hinged on an informant's claim and bias would have fatally undercut probable cause, then it has to be included in the affidavit.
First, thanks for the information, good stuff. What I really wanted a link to was your assertion that the FISA court judge did know that the FBI/DOJ FISA request was based on opposition research. I suppose we'll find out whether that is true or not in the coming days. I'm going to rebut some of the rest of your post, and to save some space I cherry-picked it here and there. Lotta that going around I guess. You stuff is in italics:
And if the FISA application was based on Steele's unreliable research, and DOJ never told that to the FISA Court, then DOJ misled the court and the court should not have issued the warrant ---- I am not sure whether the FISA court should or should not have issued the warrant. McCabe is supposedly on record as saying they wouldn't have asked for the warrant without the Steele dossier, but that's something else we'll hopefully settle in the coming days. My issue is the the FBI/DOJ did mislead the court and THAT is a BIG problem.
--
It turns out that there is lots of litigation on whether warrant applications need to discuss the bias of informants but we're not talking about 2-sided litigation. We're talking about where there isn't anyone arguing against the gov'ts case, andit is therefore incumbent on the gov't to present the whole picture. We can talk about why that is a big deal later.
--
Down the road, the warrant will be challenged on the ground that the affidavit failed to tell the judge of good reasons to think the informant was biased and unreliable once the surveillance is done it's too late, there ain't no challenge then. An American's civil rights got violated inappropriately. I'm talking process here, therule of law and the presumption of innocence.
--
If the government hadn't misled the court, the argument runs, no warrant would have issued because the judge would have seen that the informant could not be trusted Maybe. Maybe not, but the gov't should have provided that information, it was their responsibility.
--
But if an affidavit hinged on an informant's claim and bias would have fatally undercut probable cause, then it has to be included in the affidavit My point exactly
--
Steele's research may have been included in the affidavit amidst a ton of other evidence. And if so, the Steele research itself may have been wholly irrelevant to the application OK, maybe. I'd like to know if that's true but I ain't going to assume it is. or isn't.
--
If the government looked into the Steele memorandum and corroborated some of its claims, it undercuts the need to disclose the funding source Should we trust these guys to corroborate anything in the Steele dossier? I don't, there's too much information out there to doubt the integrity of those in the gov't who were responsible for this mess.
--
What matters is whether, based on the totality of the circumstances, the information came from a credible source I have not seen the Steel dossier, maybe some of it is credible, maybe some of it is true. But that in no way alleviates those in the gov't from doing their duty in a fair, and impartial manner, which IMHO clearly many of them did not do.
--
Importantly, that doesn't mean that an informant's bias never needs to be disclosed. In a FISA court request I think it does, and should. Always and every time. That judge is going to decide if grounds exist to violate an American citizen's civil rights, and that's a big deal. Or should be.
--
I do not think the Mueller investigation should be halted, and i do not see anything yet that exonerates Trump from the charges of Russian collusion, or even obstruction of justice. To date I have seen NOTHING that indicates anything to support indictment on either charge. It is however difficult to see how justice was fairly and professionally served by some who were involved in that investigation.
I heard that this was going to be shown in the Democratic memo on the case, Adam Schiff, the congress critter who is the Minority chair of the House intel committee, and who actually did read and had permission to read the underlying FISA evidence and material, said that the FISA judge did know that the dossier was from paid for campaign opposition research..... he did not say wrd for word that the judge was told it was the DNC/Clinton Campaign but who else could the opposition research firm be working for if it was October 17 of 2016, in the Presidential election year.....? And from what I gathered, it did not matter...because Christopher Steele had been established as a reliable MI6 guy that they had worked with several times on other very important cases....
And as the article that I posted judge indicated, most all human intel from sources, are usually people with an "interest" or biased....and all judges are well aware of that, when they are deciding whether there is legitimate probable cause.
Adam Schiff can't be trusted, he's a horrible source for truth, no integrity whatsoever.. check it out..(1:25 minutes in..)
Yup, Adam Schiff and parasite news collusion..
.View attachment 174826
don't believe a single word in your video, sorry!
And why the heck haven't these hearings been in the open, each day another witness, with full sunshine instead of Republicans agreeing that all of these people can testify behind closed doors? We should be having hearings just like WATERGATE, all open and above board....
why are the Republicans not transparent? What is being hidden and Why Why? Why? so much for them wanting to get the truth out bull crap....
How sure are you that is was the Repubs who wanted those hearings behind closed doors? Watergate didn't have any classified information concerning people, places, and methods that could be revealed and thus compromised.
Let me just get to a response to your first part....Sorry it took so long!
here is a bit on the ''IN PREVIOUS FISA WARRANT CASES with link and siting the Cases in Court regarding BIASED sources and how the court ruled, there is more at the LINK for further info on it!
The Dubious Legal Claim Behind #ReleaseTheMemo
Franks generates a lot of cases on informant bias. They typically run something like this. The government will get a warrant based in part on the statements or claims of an informant. The affidavit won't give specific reasons to doubt that the informant is credible. Down the road, the warrant will be challenged on the ground that the affidavit failed to tell the judge of good reasons to think the informant was biased and unreliable. Maybe the informant was facing criminal charges and had every incentive to manufacture evidence that others were involved in crimes to strike a better deal for himself. Maybe the informant was the suspect's estranged spouse in the middle of a bitter divorce battle, and she was trying to get him arrested to help get custody of the kids. In each of the cases, the defendant claims that the warrant should be voided because the government failed to disclose the informant's bias. If the government hadn't misled the court, the argument runs, no warrant would have issued because the judge would have seen that the informant could not be trusted.
How has this argument fared? It depends on the case. Most of the time, though, it hasn't fared very well.
Part of the problem is that judges figure that of course informants are often biased. Informants usually have ulterior motives, and judges don't need to be told that. A helpful case is United States v. Strifler, 851 F.2d 1197, 1201 (9th Cir. 1988), in which the government obtained a warrant to search a house for a meth lab inside. Probable cause was based largely on a confidential informant who told the police that he had not only seen a meth lab in the house but had even helped others to try to manufacture meth there. The magistrate judge issued the warrant based on the informant's detailed tip. The search was successful and charges followed.
The defendants challenged the warrant on the ground that the affidavit had failed to mention the remarkable ulterior motives of the informant. The affidavit didn't mention that the "informant" was actually a married couple that had been in a quarrel with the defendants; that the couple was facing criminal charges themselves and had been "guaranteed by the prosecutor that they would not be prosecuted if they provided information"; and that they had been paid by the government for giving the information. The affidavit didn't mention any of that. A big deal, right?
According to the court, no. "It would have to be a very naive magistrate who would suppose that a confidential informant would drop in off the street with such detailed evidence and not have an ulterior motive," Judge Noonan wrote. "The magistrate would naturally have assumed that the informant was not a disinterested citizen." The fact that the magistrate wasn't told that the "informant" was guaranteed to go free and paid for the information didn't matter, as "the magistrate was given reason to think the informant knew a good deal about what was going on" inside the house.
In some cases, omitted information about a witnesses's bias is irrelevant because there is enough evidence of the crime so that probable cause was not really in question. Consider Smith v. Edwards, 175 F.3d 99 (2d Cir. 1999) (Sotomayor. J.), a horrible case involving alleged abuse of a child. A mother reported that her husband had sexually abused their daughter, and the judge issued the warrant for the husband's arrest. The husband was arrested but the charges were later dropped. The husband then sued the officer who obtained the warrant, claiming that the officer had obtained the warrant only because he had left out critical information in the affidavit. In particular, the affidavit did not inform the magistrate that the mother had instituted divorce proceedings against her husband, and it did not state that she had come to the police only after having tried unsuccessfully to obtain a restraining order to bar him from contacting her or her daughter. In the husband's telling, you needed to understand the wife's bias to know that she had made up the claims about him to get custody of their daughter.
The court held that the failure to disclose this information was irrelevant. The undisclosed information "was not material because there would have been probable cause to arrest" the husband even if the officer had included the omitted information. Even if the affidavit been "corrected" by including the omitted information, "nothing in the outcome of the Superior Court proceedings that would have negated probable cause."
Importantly, that doesn't mean that an informant's bias never needs to be disclosed. It just depends on facts of the case. It depends on how important the informant's information was to establish probable cause, and it depends on how much the alleged bias makes the information unreliable in context. If there are reasons to credit the informant despite the bias, based on the detail of the tip, the informant's history of providing reliable tips, or other information, then the background informantion about bias isn't particularly relevant. But if an affidavit hinged on an informant's claim and bias would have fatally undercut probable cause, then it has to be included in the affidavit.
First, thanks for the information, good stuff. What I really wanted a link to was your assertion that the FISA court judge did know that the FBI/DOJ FISA request was based on opposition research. I suppose we'll find out whether that is true or not in the coming days. I'm going to rebut some of the rest of your post, and to save some space I cherry-picked it here and there. Lotta that going around I guess. You stuff is in italics:
And if the FISA application was based on Steele's unreliable research, and DOJ never told that to the FISA Court, then DOJ misled the court and the court should not have issued the warrant ---- I am not sure whether the FISA court should or should not have issued the warrant. McCabe is supposedly on record as saying they wouldn't have asked for the warrant without the Steele dossier, but that's something else we'll hopefully settle in the coming days. My issue is the the FBI/DOJ did mislead the court and THAT is a BIG problem.
--
It turns out that there is lots of litigation on whether warrant applications need to discuss the bias of informants but we're not talking about 2-sided litigation. We're talking about where there isn't anyone arguing against the gov'ts case, andit is therefore incumbent on the gov't to present the whole picture. We can talk about why that is a big deal later.
--
Down the road, the warrant will be challenged on the ground that the affidavit failed to tell the judge of good reasons to think the informant was biased and unreliable once the surveillance is done it's too late, there ain't no challenge then. An American's civil rights got violated inappropriately. I'm talking process here, therule of law and the presumption of innocence.
--
If the government hadn't misled the court, the argument runs, no warrant would have issued because the judge would have seen that the informant could not be trusted Maybe. Maybe not, but the gov't should have provided that information, it was their responsibility.
--
But if an affidavit hinged on an informant's claim and bias would have fatally undercut probable cause, then it has to be included in the affidavit My point exactly
--
Steele's research may have been included in the affidavit amidst a ton of other evidence. And if so, the Steele research itself may have been wholly irrelevant to the application OK, maybe. I'd like to know if that's true but I ain't going to assume it is. or isn't.
--
If the government looked into the Steele memorandum and corroborated some of its claims, it undercuts the need to disclose the funding source Should we trust these guys to corroborate anything in the Steele dossier? I don't, there's too much information out there to doubt the integrity of those in the gov't who were responsible for this mess.
--
What matters is whether, based on the totality of the circumstances, the information came from a credible source I have not seen the Steel dossier, maybe some of it is credible, maybe some of it is true. But that in no way alleviates those in the gov't from doing their duty in a fair, and impartial manner, which IMHO clearly many of them did not do.
--
Importantly, that doesn't mean that an informant's bias never needs to be disclosed. In a FISA court request I think it does, and should. Always and every time. That judge is going to decide if grounds exist to violate an American citizen's civil rights, and that's a big deal. Or should be.
--
I do not think the Mueller investigation should be halted, and i do not see anything yet that exonerates Trump from the charges of Russian collusion, or even obstruction of justice. To date I have seen NOTHING that indicates anything to support indictment on either charge. It is however difficult to see how justice was fairly and professionally served by some who were involved in that investigation.
I heard that this was going to be shown in the Democratic memo on the case, Adam Schiff, the congress critter who is the Minority chair of the House intel committee, and who actually did read and had permission to read the underlying FISA evidence and material, said that the FISA judge did know that the dossier was from paid for campaign opposition research..... he did not say wrd for word that the judge was told it was the DNC/Clinton Campaign but who else could the opposition research firm be working for if it was October 17 of 2016, in the Presidential election year.....? And from what I gathered, it did not matter...because Christopher Steele had been established as a reliable MI6 guy that they had worked with several times on other very important cases....
And as the article that I posted judge indicated, most all human intel from sources, are usually people with an "interest" or biased....and all judges are well aware of that, when they are deciding whether there is legitimate probable cause.
Adam Schiff can't be trusted, he's a horrible source for truth, no integrity whatsoever.. check it out..(1:25 minutes in..)
Yup, Adam Schiff and parasite news collusion..
.View attachment 174826
don't believe a single word in your video, sorry!
And why the heck haven't these hearings been in the open, each day another witness, with full sunshine instead of Republicans agreeing that all of these people can testify behind closed doors? We should be having hearings just like WATERGATE, all open and above board....
why are the Republicans not transparent? What is being hidden and Why Why? Why? so much for them wanting to get the truth out bull crap....
How sure are you that is was the Repubs who wanted those hearings behind closed doors? Watergate didn't have any classified information concerning people, places, and methods that could be revealed and thus compromised.
what is classified about carter page , Don JUNIOR, kushner's, and Steve Bannon's and Roger Stone's and Priebus's etc etc etc testimony???
task0778
Diamond Member
don't believe a single word in your video, sorry!
And why the heck haven't these hearings been in the open, each day another witness, with full sunshine instead of Republicans agreeing that all of these people can testify behind closed doors? We should be having hearings just like WATERGATE, all open and above board....
why are the Republicans not transparent? What is being hidden and Why Why? Why? so much for them wanting to get the truth out bull crap....
How sure are you that is was the Repubs who wanted those hearings behind closed doors? Watergate didn't have any classified information concerning people, places, and methods that could be revealed and thus compromised.
what is classified about carter page , Don JUNIOR, kushner's, and Steve Bannon's and Roger Stone's and Priebus's etc etc etc testimony???
Don't know, but what was classified about that memo? You are telling me it's just the Repubs? Really, the Dems didn't require McCabe's testimony to be behind closed doors? I suspect we'd already see the video of McCabe talking about that dossier and what he said about using it in the FISA warrant if it was in an open session. And Strzok, Lisa Page, and the rest of them, did they testify in an open session? You don't think the Dems did the same thing when they had the majority?
It is possible that the FBI/DOJ asked the Intel Committee to do the hearings behind closed doors so as not to reveal any sources or methods, for ANY of these people. Or it is possible that one side or the other doesn't want to limit the scope of their questions to stuff that is totally unclassified.
You ask why the Repubs are not transparent. Well who the heck has been fighting the release of the Nunes memo tooth and nail? From where I sit it is the Democrats from Clinton and Obama on down that have consistently denied transparency from day 1 of the Obama presidency. I've been wanting to know what was hidden and why for a very long time. So nobody on the Left has any standing to be talking about transparency.
Last edited:
Similar threads
New Topics
-
-
-
Closure of Al-Aqsa mosque for first time by IOF terrorists- Started by Ancient lion
- Replies: 0
-
Zone1 Beardless men could tempt other men because they resemble women- Started by Mortimer
- Replies: 1
-
