# Did the Page FISA applications omit? **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [July 26, 2018, 3:00pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/did-the-page-fisa-applications-omit/818620 "2018-07-26T15:00:41Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 11
**Author:** ![GIGObuster](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/gigobuster/32/421_2.png) [@GIGObuster](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/GIGObuster)\ **Post date:** [July 29, 2018, 4:10pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/did-the-page-fisa-applications-omit/818620/201 "2018-07-29T16:10:21Z")
Speaking of “guessing at their opinions” we already did notice that **Jim Peebles** fell for what a FOX reporter told him what to think about this. Nevermind that there is plenty of evidence, not only for partisanship in favor of Trump, but there is also evidence at misleading points by FOX and others when one looks at the Carter article Jim Peebles points at: “This bit of explosive information was revealed in an expose on Steele by The New Yorker’s Jane Mayer but the implications for the FBI are profound.” Is Jane Mayer a bad source too?" One can see how he was misled by that FOX contributor: > **[Christopher Steele, the Man Behind the Trump Dossier](https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2018/03/12/christopher-steele-the-man-behind-the-trump-dossier)** > > How the ex-spy tried to warn the world about Trump’s ties to Russia. > [@](#): > > Republican claims to the contrary, Steele’s interest in Trump did not spring from his work for the Clinton campaign. He ran across Trump’s name almost as soon as he went into private business, many years before the 2016 election. Two of his earliest cases at Orbis involved investigating international crime rings whose leaders, coincidentally, were based in New York’s Trump Tower. > > Steele’s first client after leaving M.I.6 was England’s Football Association, which hoped to host the World Cup in 2018, but suspected dirty dealings by the governing body, fifa. England lost out in its bid to Russia, and Steele determined that the Kremlin had rigged the process with bribes. According to Ken Bensinger’s “Red Card,” an upcoming book about the scandal, “one of Steele’s best sources” informed him that the Deputy Prime Minister, Igor Sechin—now the C.E.O. of the Russian state-controlled oil giant Rosneft—is suspected of having travelled to Qatar “to swap World Cup votes.” No, indeed Jane Mayer is not a bad source, what took place was that Jane Mayer was cherrypicked by FOX’s Carter, and as I have seen many propagandists out there do, expected that **Jim Peebles** and others would not check is it was indeed an expose of Steele. That was an expose all right, but mostly of Trump and the Republicans. Jane Mayer clearly reports that overall Steele has been railroaded unfairly by the Trump and the Republicans. What Carter, the FOX contributor did, was to grossly cherry pick to tell their readers what she only wanted to report to them. Carter’s piece ends then as a misleading article. BTW one has to notice that **Jim Peebles** needs to read more carefully, Carter said first that what the New Yorker did was an expose, only to right away “clarify” that it was “_an expose titled_” article at the New Yorker" :smack: Yep, as in “just my opinion that it was an expose of Steele”, but reading it does show that the expose is directed to the Republicans and Trump. So, we will see if Jim Peebles still thinks that Jane Mayer is a good source. 😃 Others should know by now why I do describe FOX and many of its contributors as poisoners of information. ---
**Author:** ![Ravenman](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/ravenman/32/2929_2.png) [@Ravenman](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ravenman)\ **Post date:** [July 29, 2018, 4:54pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/did-the-page-fisa-applications-omit/818620/202 "2018-07-29T16:54:13Z")
> [@Jim\_Peebles](#): > > If they had evidence Trump collided with Russia he would have been out of office and probably imprisoned by now. That isn’t true. There is very strong evidence that Carter Page was being used by the Russians, and many Trump supporters like yourself are in total denial. Such strong denial that you can’t even regard him as a patsy: no, you must regard him as innocent and framed. > [@](#): > > Your three points about Putin\Russia are guesses at their opinions. You seem blissfully unaware of the difference between a fact and an opinion. May I ask what field of work you are in, in which such distinctions are irrelevant? ---
**Author:** ![Budget\_Player\_Cadet](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/budget_player_cadet/32/205_2.png) [@Budget\_Player\_Cadet](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Budget_Player_Cadet)\ **Post date:** [July 29, 2018, 5:59pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/did-the-page-fisa-applications-omit/818620/203 "2018-07-29T17:59:23Z")
> [@Jim\_Peebles](#): > > After reading about Uranium One, I would have guessed they favored Clinton. You need better sources. Seriously, this is just getting ridiculous. What’s next, wanna re-litigate Benghazi? Wanna bring up how the Pope endorsed Donald Trump? Start talking about how tap water turns frogs gay? Tell me where you got off here, I’m trying to see whether the barrel has a bottom. ---
**Author:** ![Jim\_Peebles](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/5f9b8f/32.png) [@Jim\_Peebles](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Jim_Peebles)\ **Post date:** [July 29, 2018, 5:59pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/did-the-page-fisa-applications-omit/818620/204 "2018-07-29T17:59:38Z")
> [@Ravenman](#): > > I’m completely perplexed by the lack of connection of many Trump supporters with the most basic elements of reality. > > 1. We know that our intelligence agencies assessed that Russia favored Trump in the election. > 2. We know that Putin has a deep animosity for Clinton after he blamed her personally in public remarks after the 2011 anti-corruption/anti-Putin demonstrations. > 3. We know that Putin literally said he favored Trump because Trump wanted better relations between the two countries. > > And yet, we have millions of people like **Jim** who just deny all of that, even though one need not go into any speculation about the depth of corruption from Trump associates like Manafort, Page, Stone, etc. Explain how 1, 2, or 3 above are not about Putin/Russia’s OPINIONS. So I looked at the John Oliver article: “The investigation also isn’t actually about collusion, rather it’s about whether a person or the campaign conspired with the Russian government to infiltrate the 2016 election. The Trump allies maintain there is “zero evidence” to confirm anything. The reality, however, is that no one has any idea what has been found under the secret grand jury. In many cases, Mueller’s office has managed to keep things secret for months, until public court documents are filed and reported.” Explain the difference between collusion and conspiracy. I think they are close enough to synonyms for the difference to be moot. The first sentence contradicts itself, unless there is some crucial difference between the 2 words that escapes me: “isn’t actually about COLLUSION, rather it’s about whether a person or the campaign CONSPIRED” WHAT??? Yeah, Mueller might have some evidence in his back pocket that he just can’t show us yet. I don’t believe it though. Oh, and I rarely watch FOX news. I think it is too mainstream, and barely moving a little from the establishment propaganda. ---
**Author:** ![GIGObuster](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/gigobuster/32/421_2.png) [@GIGObuster](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/GIGObuster)\ **Post date:** [July 29, 2018, 6:20pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/did-the-page-fisa-applications-omit/818620/205 "2018-07-29T18:20:53Z")
> [@Jim\_Peebles](#): > > Oh, and I rarely watch FOX news. I think it is too mainstream, and barely moving a little from the establishment propaganda. Not sure what you are claiming here, even you report that, the fact is that you **did** rely mostly on FOX news sources and contributors. So, besides declaring that the ones making what FOX is “are establishment propaganda”… you also think that Jane Mayer from the New Yorker is a good source, then that is the end of the thread; because she did expose Trump and the Republicans asinine treatment of Steele. ---
**Author:** ![Jim\_Peebles](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/5f9b8f/32.png) [@Jim\_Peebles](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Jim_Peebles)\ **Post date:** [July 29, 2018, 7:04pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/did-the-page-fisa-applications-omit/818620/206 "2018-07-29T19:04:48Z")
> [@GIGObuster](#): > > Not sure what you are claiming here, even you report that, the fact is that you **did** rely mostly on FOX news sources and contributors. > > So, besides declaring that the ones making what FOX is “are establishment propaganda”… you also think that Jane Mayer from the New Yorker is a good source, then that is the end of the thread; because she did expose Trump and the Republicans asinine treatment of Steele. No, in one particular subargument I referenced Nunes and “a FOX source”. That’s 50 percent of the sources for one particular point. And the FOX source actually was based on a non-FOX source. So really that particular point was relying in the end on no FOX sources. In regards to the root source behind the FOX source, if Jane Mayer presented some evidence which helps Trump, and somewhere else was anti-Trump, then that points to her being a BALANCED source. So really what you point to is she may be a good source to use in a debate. ---
**Author:** ![GIGObuster](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/gigobuster/32/421_2.png) [@GIGObuster](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/GIGObuster)\ **Post date:** [July 29, 2018, 7:12pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/did-the-page-fisa-applications-omit/818620/207 "2018-07-29T19:12:02Z")
> [@Jim\_Peebles](#): > > No, in one particular subargument I referenced Nunes and “a FOX source”. That’s 50 percent of the sources for one particular point. And by your own calculation, when sources are not being accurate, then those sources should have been dropped, but so much for that. > [@Jim\_Peebles](#): > > And the FOX source actually was based on a non-FOX source. So really that particular point was relying in the end on no FOX sources. Again, nowhere do I see you dropping those sources and agreeing with what Jane Mayer reports overall, you are only cherry picking to get a predestined outcome. > [@Jim\_Peebles](#): > > In regards to the root source behind the FOX source, if Jane Mayer presented some evidence which helps Trump, and somewhere else was anti-Trump, then that points to her being a BALANCED source. So really what you point to is she may be a good source to use in a debate. And again, thread over then. Trump and the Republicans really are off base by attempting to declare Steele as a non-reliable source when Jane Mayer reports that Steele is one of the good guys. > [@Jane Mayer](#): > > Orbis often performs anti-corruption investigations for clients attempting internal reviews, and helps hedge funds and other financial companies perform due diligence or obtain strategic information. One Orbis client who agreed to talk to me, a Western businessman with interests in Russia and Ukraine, described Steele to me as “very efficient, very professional, and very credible.” He said that his company had successfully cross-checked Steele’s research with other people, adding, “I don’t know anyone who’s been critical of his work. His reports are very good. It’s an absolute no-brainer that he’s just a political target. They’re trying to shoot the messenger.” And again: Sarah Carter from FOX does appear as a vulgar cherry picker that managed to confuse people like you. About who was being exposed in the article by Jane Mayer. ---
**Author:** ![Ravenman](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/ravenman/32/2929_2.png) [@Ravenman](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ravenman)\ **Post date:** [July 29, 2018, 7:23pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/did-the-page-fisa-applications-omit/818620/208 "2018-07-29T19:23:20Z")
> [@Jim\_Peebles](#): > > Oh, and I rarely watch FOX news. I think it is too mainstream, and barely moving a little from the establishment propaganda. What are your trusted news sources? ---
**Author:** ![Jim\_Peebles](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/5f9b8f/32.png) [@Jim\_Peebles](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Jim_Peebles)\ **Post date:** [July 29, 2018, 7:33pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/did-the-page-fisa-applications-omit/818620/209 "2018-07-29T19:33:14Z")
> [@GIGObuster](#): > > And by your own calculation, when sources are not being accurate, then those sources should have been dropped, but so much for that. > Again, nowhere do I see you dropping those sources and agreeing with what Jane Mayer reports overall, you are only cherry picking to get a predestined outcome. > And again, thread over then. Trump and the Republicans really are off base by attempting to declare Steele as a non-reliable source when Jane Mayer reports that Steele is one of the good guys. > And again: Sarah Carter from FOX does appear as a vulgar cherry picker that managed to confuse people like you. About who was being exposed in the article by Jane Mayer. How is what Carter pointed out cherry picking a fact? One branch of this debate (and I think a losing one) says “The FBI didn’t know”. The Nunes memo said they did know. If you want to doubt Nunes, then Carter was observing another reported fact which would point to it. Yeah, it is one fact. But a fact is a fact, and the notion of cherry picking is irrelevant. Go agead and go with “The FBI didn’t know”. Then you can’t later argue the alternative, first argument in this debate, which was: “anyone reading the footnote would know”. So if we get a third source you can’t quibble with later which says “The FBI knew”, then I win the debate. ---
**Author:** ![GIGObuster](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/gigobuster/32/421_2.png) [@GIGObuster](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/GIGObuster)\ **Post date:** [July 29, 2018, 7:47pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/did-the-page-fisa-applications-omit/818620/210 "2018-07-29T19:47:16Z")
> [@Jim\_Peebles](#): > > How is what Carter pointed out cherry picking a fact? One branch of this debate (and I think a losing one) says “The FBI didn’t know”. The Nunes memo said they did know. If you want to doubt Nunes, then Carter was observing another reported fact which would point to it. Yeah, it is one fact. But a fact is a fact, and the notion of cherry picking is irrelevant. Go agead and go with “The FBI didn’t know”. Then you can’t later argue the alternative, first argument in this debate, which was: “anyone reading the footnote would know”. So if we get a third source you can’t quibble with later which says “The FBI knew”, then I win the debate. Piffle. You already lost, I told you several times already that the FISA courts got several extensions. On every single one of those extensions the courts would have complained to the FBI but AFAIK they never reported that something was a miss. By the latest extension, they would be aware now about how Clinton was involved. By the reaction reported by those courts (granting the extensions), the conclusion is once again: you are making a lot of a moot point. As a second lesson: It is clear that you do consider sources like Jane Mayer as good, so deal with how she was misrepresented by the likes of FOX’s Carter. ---
**Author:** ![Jim\_Peebles](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/5f9b8f/32.png) [@Jim\_Peebles](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Jim_Peebles)\ **Post date:** [July 29, 2018, 8:14pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/did-the-page-fisa-applications-omit/818620/211 "2018-07-29T20:14:16Z")
> [@GIGObuster](#): > > Piffle. > > You already lost, I told you several times already that the FISA courts got several extensions. On every single one of those extensions the courts would have complained to the FBI but AFAIK they never reported that something was a miss. By the latest extension, they would be aware now about how Clinton was involved. By the reaction reported by those courts (granting the extensions), the conclusion is once again: you are making a lot of a moot point. > > As a second lesson: It is clear that you do consider sources like Jane Mayer as good, so deal with how she was misrepresented by the likes of FOX’s Carter. The Carter Page wikipedia article says: “The initial 90-day warrant was subsequently renewed more than once.[30]The New York Times reported on May 18, 2018 that the surveillance warrant expired around October 2017.[31]” And this October 24 2017 NYT article: > **[Clinton Campaign and Democratic Party Helped Pay for Russia Trump Dossier...](https://www.nytimes.com/2017/10/24/us/politics/clinton-dnc-russia-dossier.html)** > > A lawyer for Hillary Clinton and the Democratic National Committee funded research that was included in memos linking the Trump campaign and Russia. Says: “A spokesperson for a law firm said on Tuesday that it had hired Washington-based researchers last year to gather damaging information about Mr. Trump on numerous subjects — including possible ties to Russia — on behalf of the Clinton campaign and the D.N.C.” And appears to be one of the first stories to break the news. So I don’t see any evidence Clinton funding of the Dossier was public knowledge at the time of any of the Page FISA filings. ---
**Author:** ![Ravenman](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/ravenman/32/2929_2.png) [@Ravenman](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ravenman)\ **Post date:** [July 29, 2018, 8:33pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/did-the-page-fisa-applications-omit/818620/212 "2018-07-29T20:33:47Z")
You need to figure out in your own mind if Clinton’s funding of Steele was sooooper seekrit or something that everyone knew that the FBI omitted. ---
**Author:** ![Budget\_Player\_Cadet](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/budget_player_cadet/32/205_2.png) [@Budget\_Player\_Cadet](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Budget_Player_Cadet)\ **Post date:** [July 29, 2018, 8:57pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/did-the-page-fisa-applications-omit/818620/213 "2018-07-29T20:57:46Z")
Wait, I’m confused. Are we denying that Russia attempted to hack the election to throw it to Trump, or have we not reached that level of hell yet? ---
**Author:** ![GIGObuster](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/gigobuster/32/421_2.png) [@GIGObuster](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/GIGObuster)\ **Post date:** [July 29, 2018, 8:58pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/did-the-page-fisa-applications-omit/818620/214 "2018-07-29T20:58:18Z")
> [@Jim\_Peebles](#): > > The Carter Page wikipedia article says: > “The initial 90-day warrant was subsequently renewed more than once.[30]The New York Times reported on May 18, 2018 that the surveillance warrant expired around October 2017.[31]” > > And this October 24 2017 NYT article: > [https://www.nytimes.com/2017/10/24/us/politics/clinton-dnc-russia-dossier.html](https://www.nytimes.com/2017/10/24/us/politics/clinton-dnc-russia-dossier.html) > Says: > “A spokesperson for a law firm said on Tuesday that it had hired Washington-based researchers last year to gather damaging information about Mr. Trump on numerous subjects — including possible ties to Russia — on behalf of the Clinton campaign and the D.N.C.” > And appears to be one of the first stories to break the news. > > So I don’t see any evidence Clinton funding of the Dossier was public knowledge at the time of any of the Page FISA filings. Missing the point, if it was so important the judges already do know now who were the funders. Not a complaint has been reported from the judiciary. And again, back then the courts did not miss anything because they did not need to see what you are demanding. And then, as I pointed before, others looking at what Jane Mayer reported is not to conclude that Steele or the FBI hid something. But that as I pointed people like Fox’s Carter misrpresented what Jane Mayer did report, here is what NPR reported after looking at what Mayer reported: > **[Journalist Charts The 'Bizarre Twists And Turns' Of The Trump-Russia Dossier](https://www.npr.org/2018/03/06/591130207/journalist-charts-the-bizarre-twists-and-turns-of-the-trump-russia-dossier)** > > New Yorker writer Jane Mayer explains how the infamous Russian dossier on Donald Trump was compiled — and why so little was done about its findings during the presidential campaign. > [@](#): > > NPR has not detailed the contents of the dossier because it remains unverified, but journalist Jane Mayer has written a cover story about its origins for The New Yorker. **Although Trump and his allies have sought to portray the 35-page dossier as Democratic-funded propaganda, the work that led to its creation initially started with Republicans themselves.** > > A GOP financier approached the private intelligence firm Fusion GPS to begin work researching Trump, but then discontinued that support. Later, after it was clear that Trump would be the Republican nominee, a law firm connected to the Clinton campaign began funding the work. Mayer says that Steele never knew precisely for whom he was ultimately working. > > “The argument being made by the Republicans these days in Congress is that it was a huge conspiracy of the Clinton campaign with Christopher Steele,” Mayer says. “But, in fact, if you really go back and look at the facts, Christopher Steele didn’t know for months that he was working for the Clinton campaign — and the Clinton campaign never learned that Christopher Steele was on their payroll until it was in the press.” > > But the application shows that the F.B.I. acknowledged to the court that it believed that the person who hired Mr. Steele was looking for information to discredit Mr. Trump’s campaign, later emphasizing that regardless of Mr. Steele’s reason for conducting research into Mr. Trump’s ties to Russia, it believed his reporting about Mr. Page was credible. > > **The application also shows that the Justice Department’s general practice in surveillance applications was not to specifically name Americans or American organizations. For example, it referred to Mr. Trump not by name but as “Candidate #1,” despite noting in renewal applications that this person had since become president.** > > Mr. Trump and some of his supporters nevertheless claimed vindication. In another tweet on Sunday, the president quoted a Fox News commentator, Andrew McCarthy, as saying: “I said this could never happen. This is so bad that they should be looking at the judges who signed off on this stuff, not just the people who gave it. It is so bad it screams out at you.” > > **The materials revealed that the judges who signed off on the wiretapping of Mr. Page were all appointed by Republican presidents. David Kris, an expert on the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act who served in the Bush and Obama administrations, dismissed the notion that those judges had been misled.** > > **“Now we can see that the footnote disclosing Steele’s possible bias takes up more than a full page in the applications, so there is literally no way the FISA Court could have missed it,” he wrote on the blog Lawfare. “The F.B.I. gave the court enough information to evaluate Steele’s credibility.”** ---
**Author:** ![Jim\_Peebles](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/5f9b8f/32.png) [@Jim\_Peebles](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Jim_Peebles)\ **Post date:** [July 30, 2018, 12:34am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/did-the-page-fisa-applications-omit/818620/215 "2018-07-30T00:34:00Z")
> [@GIGObuster](#): > > Missing the point, if it was so important the judges already do know now who were the funders. Not a complaint has been reported from the judiciary. And again, back then the courts did not miss anything because they did not need to see what you are demanding. > > And then, as I pointed before, others looking at what Jane Mayer reported is not to conclude that Steele or the FBI hid something. But that as I pointed people like Fox’s Carter misrpresented what Jane Mayer did report, here is what NPR reported after looking at what Mayer reported: > > [Journalist Charts The 'Bizarre Twists And Turns' Of The Trump-Russia Dossier : NPR](https://www.npr.org/2018/03/06/591130207/journalist-charts-the-bizarre-twists-and-turns-of-the-trump-russia-dossier) I’m not sure if the NPR quotes within the quote above will show up. But if the first section you bolded is saying what I think it is, it is wrong: > **[Correction: Trump-Russia Probe story](https://apnews.com/article/63c883156e314b68b86209d3b63890f5)** > > WASHINGTON (AP) — In a story Feb. 2 about a Republican memo on the Russia investigation, The Associated Press erroneously reported that a former British spy's work on an opposition research project was initially funded by the conservative Washington... “In a story Feb. 2 about a Republican memo on the Russia investigation, The Associated Press erroneously reported that a former British spy’s work on an opposition research project was initially funded by the conservative Washington Free Beacon. Though the former spy, Christopher Steele, was hired by a firm that was initially funded by the Washington Free Beacon, he did not begin work on the project until after Democratic groups had begun funding it.” The other bolded sections consist of stuff like I responded to from posters arguing “anybody reading the footnote would know”. Keep in mind this is from NPR, a partially publicly funded organization that got rid of public comments to its website articles during the runup to the 2016 election: > **[Mailbag: Saying Goodbye To Comments](https://www.npr.org/sections/publiceditor/2016/08/24/491099942/mailbag-saying-goodbye-to-comments)** > > Users responded to NPR's recent decision to shut down comments. ---
**Author:** ![Ravenman](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/ravenman/32/2929_2.png) [@Ravenman](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ravenman)\ **Post date:** [July 30, 2018, 1:00am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/did-the-page-fisa-applications-omit/818620/216 "2018-07-30T01:00:11Z")
Come on, stop quoting all these mainstream news sources. Lay it on us, dude! Give us your truth from the alternative media sources that are sticking it to the Deep State, man! ---
**Author:** ![GIGObuster](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/gigobuster/32/421_2.png) [@GIGObuster](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/GIGObuster)\ **Post date:** [July 30, 2018, 1:24am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/did-the-page-fisa-applications-omit/818620/217 "2018-07-30T01:24:40Z")
> [@Jim\_Peebles](#): > > I’m not sure if the NPR quotes within the quote above will show up. But if the first section you bolded is saying what I think it is, it is wrong: > [Correction: Trump-Russia Probe story | AP News](https://www.apnews.com/63c883156e314b68b86209d3b63890f5) > “In a story Feb. 2 about a Republican memo on the Russia investigation, The Associated Press erroneously reported that a former British spy’s work on an opposition research project was initially funded by the conservative Washington Free Beacon. Though the former spy, Christopher Steele, was hired by a firm that was initially funded by the Washington Free Beacon, he did not begin work on the project until after Democratic groups had begun funding it.” > The other bolded sections consist of stuff like I responded to from posters arguing “anybody reading the footnote would know”. Keep in mind this is from NPR, a partially publicly funded organization that got rid of public comments to its website articles during the runup to the 2016 election: > [Mailbag: Saying Goodbye To Comments : NPR Public Editor : NPR](https://www.npr.org/sections/ombudsman/2016/08/24/491099942/mailbag-saying-goodbye-to-comments) Not sure what that bit does to counter all the rest, but as even Wikipedia notices while acknowledging what AP reported: > **[Steele dossier](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trump%E2%80%93Russia_dossier)** > > The Steele dossier, also known as the Trump–Russia dossier, is a controversial political opposition research report compiled by Christopher Steele that was published without permission as an unfinished 35-page compilation of "unverified, and potentially unverifiable"\[a\] raw intelligence reports—"not established facts, but a starting point for further investigation". It was written from June to December 2016 and contains allegations of misconduct, conspiracy, and cooperation between D > [@](#): > > The opposition research conducted by Fusion GPS on Donald Trump was completed in two phases with separate funders. The first research phase, from October 2015 to May 2016, was funded by The Washington Free Beacon. The second phase, from June 2016 to December 2016, was funded by the DNC and the Clinton campaign, unrelated to the Washington Free Beacon request. The second phase produced the dossier.[22][23] In essence, while the free Beacon did not contribute to the second phase, that there was a first phase conducted by Fusion GPS was the case. As for the very silly counter to dismiss NPR, you are missing the point again, the point was that that NPR article was cited to show that others do say that what that FOX contributor reported was a very gross cherry pick and that in the end you just can not explain why what Jane Mayer reported is not being taken seriously by you after you told us that she was not a bad source. Again, Jane Mayer told us that: > **[Christopher Steele, the Man Behind the Trump Dossier](https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2018/03/12/christopher-steele-the-man-behind-the-trump-dossier)** > > How the ex-spy tried to warn the world about Trump’s ties to Russia. > [@](#): > > It’s too early to make a final judgment about how much of Steele’s dossier will be proved wrong, but a number of Steele’s major claims have been backed up by subsequent disclosures. His allegation that the Kremlin favored Trump in 2016 and was offering his campaign dirt on Hillary has been borne out. So has his claim that the Kremlin and WikiLeaks were working together to release the D.N.C.’s e-mails. Key elements of Steele’s memos on Carter Page have held up, too, including the claim that Page had secret meetings in Moscow with Rosneft and Kremlin officials. Steele may have named the wrong oil-company official, but, according to recent congressional disclosures, he was correct that a top Rosneft executive talked to Page about a payoff. According to the Democrats’ report, when Page was asked if a Rosneft executive had offered him a “potential sale of a significant percentage of Rosneft,” Page said, “He may have briefly mentioned it.” > > And, just as the Kremlin allegedly feared, damaging financial details have surfaced about Manafort’s dealings with Ukraine officials. Further, his suggestion that Trump had “agreed to sideline Russian intervention in Ukraine as a campaign issue” seems to have been confirmed by the pro-Russia changes that Trump associates made to the Republican platform. Special Counsel Mueller’s various indictments of Manafort have also strengthened aspects of the dossier. > > Indeed, it’s getting harder every day to claim that Steele was simply spreading lies, now that three former Trump campaign officials—Flynn, Papadopoulos, and Rick Gates, who served as deputy campaign chairman—have all pleaded guilty to criminal charges, and appear to be coöperating with the investigation. And, of course, Mueller has indicted thirteen Russian nationals for waging the kind of digital warfare that Steele had warned about. So, now that you know what she reported, do you still think that she is a good source and that maybe you should learn about what she actually did report? ---
**Author:** ![Jim\_Peebles](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/5f9b8f/32.png) [@Jim\_Peebles](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Jim_Peebles)\ **Post date:** [July 30, 2018, 2:50pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/did-the-page-fisa-applications-omit/818620/218 "2018-07-30T14:50:21Z")
> [@GIGObuster](#): > > Not sure what that bit does to counter all the rest, but as even Wikipedia notices while acknowledging what AP reported: > > [Steele dossier - Wikipedia](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trump%E2%80%93Russia_dossier) > In essence, while the free Beacon did not contribute to the second phase, that there was a first phase conducted by Fusion GPS was the case. > > As for the very silly counter to dismiss NPR, you are missing the point again, the point was that that NPR article was cited to show that others do say that what that FOX contributor reported was a very gross cherry pick and that in the end you just can not explain why what Jane Mayer reported is not being taken seriously by you after you told us that she was not a bad source. > > Again, Jane Mayer told us that: > > [Christopher Steele, the Man Behind the Trump Dossier | The New Yorker](https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2018/03/12/christopher-steele-the-man-behind-the-trump-dossier) > So, now that you know what she reported, do you still think that she is a good source and that maybe you should learn about what she actually did report? The notion of cherry picking is not applicable. This is saying according to this source Steele knew who was funding and when he knew it, which impacts how certain we are the FBI knew it (the other source is the Nunes memo). All of the other stuff you are pointing to and writing about is irrelevant to that. You are actually reverse cherry picking. ---
**Author:** ![Ravenman](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/ravenman/32/2929_2.png) [@Ravenman](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ravenman)\ **Post date:** [July 30, 2018, 4:12pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/did-the-page-fisa-applications-omit/818620/219 "2018-07-30T16:12:58Z")
Of course you are cherry picking. You quote NPR stories when it comes to a narrow, technical, and basically irrelevant point about when Steele may have known about DNC funding of his investigation, and reject NPR when it comes to the overwhelming evidence of connections between the Trump campaign and Russia’s interest in tilting the election. ---
**Author:** ![GIGObuster](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/gigobuster/32/421_2.png) [@GIGObuster](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/GIGObuster)\ **Post date:** [July 30, 2018, 4:45pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/did-the-page-fisa-applications-omit/818620/220 "2018-07-30T16:45:12Z")
> [@Jim\_Peebles](#): > > The notion of cherry picking is not applicable. Sure it was, the impression Carter leaves is that Steele was the target of an “Expose” in a negative way, when in reality Jane Mayer made an expose of Trump and the ones that claim that Steele should not be trusted. > [@Jim\_Peebles](#): > > This is saying according to this source Steele knew who was funding and when he knew it, which impacts how certain we are the FBI knew it (the other source is the Nunes memo). As pointed many, many times before, Fox’s Carter goes for the question mark style of reporting; **that can be answered both in the positive or the negative** IOW, just innuendo in the end. In reality there is no evidence on what she cherry picked, only her opinion. > [@Jim\_Peebles](#): > > All of the other stuff you are pointing to and writing about is irrelevant to that. You are actually reverse cherry picking. What you say there [is not even wrong](https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Not_even_wrong), besides showing that what she did was misleading, the reverse of cherry picking is… showing the whole context. As in showing readers that a writer that you declared to be a good source did actually tell us, not what a contributor of FOX does by misleading her readers about who was Mayer exposing in her article. The FOX contributor was only doing a wonderful job at using weasel words to tell her readers a different conclusion. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/did-the-page-fisa-applications-omit/818620.md?page=10) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/did-the-page-fisa-applications-omit/818620.md?page=12)