No, but we need to protect the source. 
The Wookie Defense.
Here is a very thorough discussion of the question: is it permissible to obtain a search warrant without informing the judge of a possible bias in the evidence that provides the basis of probable cause? The answer provided in the article is basically: I am shocked – shocked! – that witnesses may have ulterior motives in providing testimony against someone they think is bad!!!
The article points out that judges aren’t, as a rule, stupid. And it takes an extraordinary case to have a warrant thrown out on the basis of the government not providing enough context to the evidence. If a FISC judge had known that the Steele dossier was in part paid for by Democrats, would the judge have rejected the warrant? According to the article, “When federal judges have faced similar claims in litigation, they have mostly rejected them out of hand.”
So it seems like the Nunes memo isn’t just a lie, according to the FBI statement, it is also ignorant of the law.
ISTM that you’re missing the mark here.
That article is about the legal issue of whether information obtained via a warrant obtained on the basis of this type of omission would be tossed out in the trial. That’s not at issue here. What’s at issue is whether the FBI obtained a warrant under false pretexts, possibly due to political bias. Regardless of whether the warrant would or would not stand up in court, or whether anyone broke the law, it’s a concern in its own right.
But the definition of “false pretext” is a legal issue, not a “my feelings are hurt because the President I support is under criminal investigation” issue.
So if you’re conceding that the warrant to wiretap Carter Page is legal, what’s the problem that needs to be addressed here? That investigations are unseemly unless only Republican FBI agents investigate Republican suspected agents of foreign powers using evidence received from Republicans?
What’s wrong with the way I wrote it?
Again: What’s at issue is whether the FBI obtained a warrant under false pretexts, possibly due to political bias.
You don’t think that’s a concern (if in fact this happened)? I find that hard to believe.
Look through the article I linked to. In each case, the defense claimed that the government obtained a warrant on false pretexts. In each of those cases but a quite extreme one, the judges said, “GTFO.”
The concern trolls that comprise the Republican caucus of the House of Representatives are alarmed because a memo that uses cherry-picked evidence raises a question of the FBI applying for warrants in a perfectly legal manner?
No, I’m not concerned about this issue. At all. Because I have still yet to see anyone but Trump supporters explain why there’s any issue here that should be taken seriously, other than a purely partisan witch hunt against law enforcement personnel doing their job.
ETA: One question. Are you conceding that the warrants on Page are legal?
OK, I’m done repeating myself about this.
I have no idea. I’m not a lawyer and not familiar with laws on warrants anyway. What I am saying is that whether or not the warrants on Page were legally valid is not a major concern.
Potential abuse of police powers for political purposes is something else.
What is the appropriate level of concern for potential abuse of legislative and/or executive powers for political purposes, in your opinion?
Hard to quantify a “level of concern”.
Please define how the powers were abused… be consice here.
He can’t possibly know - the memo hasn’t been released. However the fact that it hasn’t been released means there’s no reason to think that babies weren’t murdered in the process or gathering the intel.
I’m not seeing anything in the reporting of this that makes me think there were any false pretexts. Are you saying that it would be a false pretext if the information presented to the FISA judge did not mention that some of the intel they got was commissioned by the Democrats?
If so, I’m not seeing it.
A Republican is under criminal investigation. Bias!!!
First question has to be “Is the judge of Mexican ethnic origin?”. If so, Trumpic legal interpretation clearly defines that as being biased against him. However, if said judge was not aware of the connection between Carter Page and Trump, his or her inherent bias against Trump may not be relevant. Certainly not dispositive, we can all shirley agree on that.
Man, this memo has been hyped to the point that it can’t not disappoint.
The problem with the Intel was it was not vetted. It was preliminary, potentially useless or otherwise un-official (highly classified) information. The sense I got was that some significant portion of it turned out to be completely fabricated. It should not have been used by anybody for anything at that point in time.
Sheeeesh. Where do you guys get your fake news? :smack:
…can we have a cite for where you got your “sense?”
It’s his “spider sense”.
What would you be calling a false pretext in this case? That they didn’t have any other evidence to support the accusation?
As has been pointed out before, and as Nunes voted, FISA don’t work like that. If you could get a FISA warrant on the official Republican candidate’s campaign for the President of the USA out of an American judge with a gossip list including statements that the Republican candidate likes to watch women pee and that he’s taking a multi-billion cutback from an enemy state, then ain’t nobody in the House nor Senate Intelligence Committees, nor the Justice Committees to vote to renew.
Any judge stupid enough to okay that, and think that that choice isn’t going to come under scrutiny and end him up in someplace cold and dark for several years, is never going to be trusted by anyone to be anywhere near national security, let alone on the secret FISA court.