# 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:** 3
**Author:** ![YamatoTwinkie](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/y/cc9497/32.png) [@YamatoTwinkie](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/YamatoTwinkie)\ **Post date:** [July 26, 2018, 8:38pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/did-the-page-fisa-applications-omit/818620/41 "2018-07-26T20:38:45Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > No. > > My hypo has a warrant that on its face appears to show damaging information and does not reveal the biased source, which is what the critique of the FISA warrant alleges. While the Carter Page FISA warrant in question doesn’t reveal the biased source, _it does_ reveal that the source is biased. ---
**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 26, 2018, 8:43pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/did-the-page-fisa-applications-omit/818620/42 "2018-07-26T20:43:01Z")
> [@Whack-a-Mole](#): > > How can the judge decide this? > > I could be wrong but I assume the court accepts the FBI’s warrant application at face value and that the FBI, by asking for the warrant, feels the evidence provided to them has sufficient credibility to ask for the warrant so they can gather more concrete evidence. > > If you think about it the police/FBI are dealing with criminals and lowlifes all the time and they use their claims in requests for warrants. Is the judge, knowing only that the source in a given application is (say) a drug dealer, to deny that application because the judge “feels” drug dealers are unreliable? In terms of drug dealers as informants: I think the judges are supposed to weigh the credibility of the sources, and “drug dealer” would be a negative in the absense of other context. The impression I have is the warrant applicant is supposed to present all known relevant info, so in practice the judge would have context. But IANAL, so someone feel free to swoop in with the textbook analysis of what we are discussing. ---
**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 26, 2018, 8:45pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/did-the-page-fisa-applications-omit/818620/43 "2018-07-26T20:45:39Z")
> [@YamatoTwinkie](#): > > While the Carter Page FISA warrant in question doesn’t reveal the biased source, _it does_ reveal that the source is biased. Show me where it reveals the Clinton funding of the dossier. Or at least something like “there was funding from candidate X for the dossier”. ---
**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 26, 2018, 8:49pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/did-the-page-fisa-applications-omit/818620/44 "2018-07-26T20:49:45Z")
> [@Jim\_Peebles](#): > > Show me where it reveals the Clinton funding of the dossier. Or at least something like “there was funding from candidate X for the dossier”. It’s clear that the funding of the dossier was from a political opponent – it says so in black and white. Show we why it matters what political opponent it is. ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [July 26, 2018, 8:58pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/did-the-page-fisa-applications-omit/818620/45 "2018-07-26T20:58:33Z")
> [@Jim\_Peebles](#): > > In terms of drug dealers as informants: I think the judges are supposed to weigh the credibility of the sources, and “drug dealer” would be a negative in the absense of other context. The impression I have is the warrant applicant is supposed to present all known relevant info, so in practice the judge would have context. But IANAL, so someone feel free to swoop in with the textbook analysis of what we are discussing. I did. I explained the case law in detail. You seem to be carefully not commenting on it. I admit I am not the biggest fan of the President. But I have spent pages here dissecting attacks on him that are legally specious. The FISA warrant does not appear to be. ---
**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 26, 2018, 9:01pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/did-the-page-fisa-applications-omit/818620/46 "2018-07-26T21:01:51Z")
> [@Ravenman](#): > > It’s clear that the funding of the dossier was from a political opponent – it says so in black and white. Show we why it matters what political opponent it is. The distinction is discussed here: > **[FISA warrant application supports Nunes memo - Washington Examiner](https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/news/1254245/fisa-warrant-application-supports-nunes-memo/)** > > The weekend release of a highly-redacted version of the FBI's application for a Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act warrant to wiretap onetime Trump foreign policy adviser Carter Page has renewed the argument over the Nunes memo — the brief report... “For the most part, names were not used in the application, but Donald Trump was referred to as “Candidate #1,” Hillary Clinton was referred to as “Candidate #2,” and the Republican Party was referred to as “Political Party #1.” Thus, the FISA application could easily have explained that the dossier research was paid for by “Candidate #2” and “Political Party #2,” meaning the Democrats. And yet the FBI chose to describe the situation this way, in a footnote: …” ---
**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 26, 2018, 9:07pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/did-the-page-fisa-applications-omit/818620/47 "2018-07-26T21:07:45Z")
> [@Jim\_Peebles](#): > > The distinction is discussed here: > > [https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/news/fisa-warrant-application-supports-nunes-memo](https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/news/fisa-warrant-application-supports-nunes-memo) > > “For the most part, names were not used in the application, but Donald Trump was referred to as “Candidate #1,” Hillary Clinton was referred to as “Candidate #2,” and the Republican Party was referred to as “Political Party #1.” Thus, the FISA application could easily have explained that the dossier research was paid for by “Candidate #2” and “Political Party #2,” meaning the Democrats. And yet the FBI chose to describe the situation this way, in a footnote: …” That is unresponsive to what I’m asking. What does it matter if it was Rubio, Jeb Bush, Lyndon LaRouche, Hillary Clinton, or Jill Stein paying for Steele’s services? Are some of Trump’s political opponents more credible than others? And does Steele’s reserach become more credible if different campaigns were paying for it? I conclude that there is no difference between which political opponent paid for the investigation. You, apparently, think that Clinton paying for it is sooooooooo much worse, which makes no sense. ETA: You failed to disclose in your post that the source for your analysis wrote the book: The Vast Left Wing Conspiracy: The Untold Story of How Democratic Operatives, Eccentric Billionaires, Liberal Activists, and Assorted Celebrities Tried to Bring Down a President—and Why They’ll Try Even Harder Next Time" in 2005. Is your post more or less misleading than the FISA application? ---
**Author:** ![Whack-a-Mole](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/whack-a-mole/32/141_2.png) [@Whack-a-Mole](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Whack-a-Mole)\ **Post date:** [July 26, 2018, 9:07pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/did-the-page-fisa-applications-omit/818620/48 "2018-07-26T21:07:55Z")
> [@Jim\_Peebles](#): > > The distinction is discussed here: > > [https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/news/fisa-warrant-application-supports-nunes-memo](https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/news/fisa-warrant-application-supports-nunes-memo) > > “For the most part, names were not used in the application, but Donald Trump was referred to as “Candidate #1,” Hillary Clinton was referred to as “Candidate #2,” and the Republican Party was referred to as “Political Party #1.” Thus, the FISA application could easily have explained that the dossier research was paid for by “Candidate #2” and “Political Party #2,” meaning the Democrats. And yet the FBI chose to describe the situation this way, in a footnote: …” Is it your contention that if the FISA court had seen actual names instead of “Political Party #2” in the application that they would have denied the warrant? If so then why? ---
**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 26, 2018, 9:10pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/did-the-page-fisa-applications-omit/818620/49 "2018-07-26T21:10:34Z")
> [@Jim\_Peebles](#): > > The distinction is discussed here: > > [https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/news/fisa-warrant-application-supports-nunes-memo](https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/news/fisa-warrant-application-supports-nunes-memo) > > “For the most part, names were not used in the application, but Donald Trump was referred to as “Candidate #1,” Hillary Clinton was referred to as “Candidate #2,” and the Republican Party was referred to as “Political Party #1.” Thus, the FISA application could easily have explained that the dossier research was paid for by “Candidate #2” and “Political Party #2,” meaning the Democrats. And yet the FBI chose to describe the situation this way, in a footnote: …” That BTW comes from Byron York, who is the chief **political** correspondent for the Washington Examiner, a Fox News contributor. As others have pointed, what York and others ponder about is mostly uneducated opinions. … And now you know why, **Tom Tildrum**. 🙂 ---
**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 26, 2018, 9:18pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/did-the-page-fisa-applications-omit/818620/50 "2018-07-26T21:18:37Z")
More from the former attorney at the DOJ: [https://www.lawfareblog.com/irony-nunes-memo](https://www.lawfareblog.com/irony-nunes-memo) > [@](#): > > 1. The Nunes memo’s fundamental claim was that the FBI misled the court about Christopher Steele, the former British agent who was a source of information in the FISA applications on Carter Page. It accused the Bureau of failing to “disclose or reference the role of the [Democratic National Committee], Clinton campaign, or any party/campaign in funding” Steele’s research. The government, it argued, portrayed Steele as unbiased, when in fact “the political origins of the Steele dossier were then known to senior DOJ and FBI officials.” This was strong stuff, certainly troubling if true. > > Today we know that it was not true. Almost four weeks ago, based on my experience with the FISA program and those who administer it, I expressed confidence that the government “provided the court with enough information to meaningfully assess Steele’s credibility.” It took a while, but with the benefit of the minority memo—even in redacted form—this has now been confirmed. In other words, Nunes’s claim that the FBI misled the court was itself misleading. ---
**Author:** ![Whack-a-Mole](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/whack-a-mole/32/141_2.png) [@Whack-a-Mole](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Whack-a-Mole)\ **Post date:** [July 26, 2018, 9:31pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/did-the-page-fisa-applications-omit/818620/51 "2018-07-26T21:31:24Z")
> [@GIGObuster](#): > > More from the former attorney at the DOJ: > > [The Irony of the Nunes Memo | Lawfare](https://www.lawfareblog.com/irony-nunes-memo) > > > [@](#): > > > > It took a while, but with the benefit of the minority memo—even in redacted form—this has now been confirmed. In other words, Nunes’s claim that the FBI misled the court was itself misleading. Also, Nunes had not even read the unredacted application so he cannot confidently say the FBI misled the court: > [@](#): > > **Nunes still hasn’t read unredacted FISA documents he requested: DOJ** > > The head of the House Intelligence Committee still has not reviewed the largely unredacted application the FBI used to obtain a surveillance warrant on former Trump campaign aide Carter Page during the 2016 election, Justice Department (DOJ) officials said Wednesday. > > SOURCE: [http://thehill.com/policy/national-security/398857-doj-officials-say-nunes-still-hasnt-read-mostly-unredacted-fisa](http://thehill.com/policy/national-security/398857-doj-officials-say-nunes-still-hasnt-read-mostly-unredacted-fisa) ---
**Author:** ![TriPolar](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/tripolar/32/3008_2.png) [@TriPolar](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/TriPolar)\ **Post date:** [July 26, 2018, 9:37pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/did-the-page-fisa-applications-omit/818620/52 "2018-07-26T21:37:41Z")
> [@Jim\_Peebles](#): > > In regards to “raw intelligence”, it seems more like “cooked intelligence” in light of: > [Read: Nunes memo full text - Vox](https://www.vox.com/2018/2/2/16957588/nunes-memo-released-full-text-read-pdf-declassified) > > “The Carter Page FISA application also cited extensively a September 23, 2016, Yahoo News article by Michael Isikoff, which focuses on Page’s July 2016 trip to Moscow. This article does not corroborate the Steele dossier because it is derived from information leaked by Steele himself to Yahoo News. The Page FISA application incorrectly assesses that Steele did not directly provide information to Yahoo News.” How does that show that the intelligence was"cooked"? ---
**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 26, 2018, 10:16pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/did-the-page-fisa-applications-omit/818620/53 "2018-07-26T22:16:15Z")
> [@TriPolar](#): > > How does that show that the intelligence was"cooked"? If it was raw intelligence, it would not include citation to a news article based on its own leak. The footnote did not specify exactly what was known about the dossier’s source, even with pseudonyms. More info could have been given to the judge, and might have changed the decision. (Or do you dispute that?) Someone come in with the textbook description of the warrant process, please. Is it: tell only the truth, but pick and choose your facts so the judge doesn’t decide against you? Or is it tell the judge every relevant thing you know, pro and con? If it is the former, I will admit nothing unusual happened here. If it is the latter, I see a material omission (the whole point of this thread). ---
**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 26, 2018, 10:20pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/did-the-page-fisa-applications-omit/818620/54 "2018-07-26T22:20:18Z")
> [@Jim\_Peebles](#): > > I don’t have any hopes the application will be “impeached”. The omission does, however bolster my beliefs in a “deep state out to get Trump”. As others have pointed out, this sort of language is standard operating procedure. You have yet to explain why you think this omission is damning or why saying “Clinton paid for this” changes anything over “An opponent of Trump paid for this”. It _really_ doesn’t matter. > [@](#): > > And, when I hear/read the mainstream media deny there were any omissions, it further drives me to alternative media sources. Look, I’m sorry, but this is just _silly_. It’s an omission that doesn’t matter in any way, shape, or form. You can list literally any number of things the dossier doesn’t contain (for example, the dossier makes absolutely no mention of the length of Carter Page’s penis), but if you can’t make a reasonable case that those things belonged in the dossier - which you are failing to do here - then they aren’t _omissions_ in any meaningful sense. Meanwhile, I have to wonder - what [lies](https://www.mediamatters.org/blog/2018/07/23/fox-friends-lying-about-fisa-application-surveillance-carter-page/220751) from the “alternative media” (having the same context here as in “alternative medicine” or “alternative facts”) have you not examined with anywhere near the same fine-toothed comb? It’s not that we don’t know a thing or two about the so-called “alternative media”. They aren’t exactly new kids on the block. Rather, we know their reputation. They get the facts wrong disturbingly often, and whenever they do, there’s a clear ideological bias to the way they get their facts wrong - it’s always to help a certain political party. > [@](#): > > My guess is they will continue to be “all in” on assuming their viewers are useful idiots though. The irony is sickening. ---
**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 26, 2018, 10:28pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/did-the-page-fisa-applications-omit/818620/55 "2018-07-26T22:28:41Z")
> [@Jim\_Peebles](#): > > The footnote did not specify exactly what was known about the dossier’s source, even with pseudonyms. More info could have been given to the judge, and might have changed the decision. (Or do you dispute that?) No, given the fact that the dossier was only 400 pages long, and didn’t take up, say, approximately 80 meters of shelf space, the fact that “more info could have been given to the judge” is downright indisputable. Because you can _always_ give more information to the judge. As said, there’s nothing in there about the size of Carter Page’s dick. Similarly, I’m very upset that the warrant for my arrest doesn’t contain notes about the money I give to charity or the _entire_ 20-year backstory between me and my father given that my father is a source. This is incredibly silly. > [@](#): > > Someone come in with the textbook description of the warrant process, please. Is it: tell only the truth, but pick and choose your facts so the judge doesn’t decide against you? Or is it tell the judge every relevant thing you know, pro and con? If it is the former, I will admit nothing unusual happened here. If it is the latter, I see a material omission (the whole point of this thread). The material thing about the Steele dossier’s possible bias is that it was opposition research. Any further details about who ordered it is irrelevant to the case or the reliability of the dossier. It makes no difference. Once you know it’s opposition research, knowing whether it came from Clinton, Rubio, or Stein doesn’t matter. If it does matter, _please explain why_. ---
**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 26, 2018, 10:56pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/did-the-page-fisa-applications-omit/818620/56 "2018-07-26T22:56:13Z")
From the footnote: “The FBI speculates that the identified U.S. person was likely looking for information that could be used to discredit Candidate #1’s campaign.” So let’s say the judge has some informal equation in mind. If it comes out positive approve the warrant, if not deny. Absent the footnote the judge is at a +1.0. Adding in the footnote with “SPECULATES a US person” knocks it down to. +0.2: would still approve. “KNOWS it is opposing candidate X” knocks it down to -0.3: would deny. ---
**Author:** ![Chisquirrel](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/6bbea6/32.png) [@Chisquirrel](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Chisquirrel)\ **Post date:** [July 26, 2018, 11:00pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/did-the-page-fisa-applications-omit/818620/57 "2018-07-26T23:00:54Z")
> [@Jim\_Peebles](#): > > From the footnote: > “The FBI speculates that the identified U.S. person was likely looking for information that could be used to discredit Candidate #1’s campaign.” > So let’s say the judge has some informal equation in mind. If it comes out positive approve the warrant, if not deny. Absent the footnote the judge is at a +1.0. Adding in the footnote with “SPECULATES a US person” knocks it down to. +0.2: would still approve. “KNOWS it is opposing candidate X” knocks it down to -0.3: would deny. I may have a strong dislike for bricker, but you do realize you’re arguing law with a lawyer, while asking for a lawyer to correct you, right? ---
**Author:** ![Banquet\_Bear](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/banquet_bear/32/373_2.png) [@Banquet\_Bear](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Banquet_Bear)\ **Post date:** [July 26, 2018, 11:04pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/did-the-page-fisa-applications-omit/818620/58 "2018-07-26T23:04:42Z")
> [@Jim\_Peebles](#): > > So let’s say the judge has some informal equation in mind. …lets not say this, because this isn’t how any of this works. ---
**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 26, 2018, 11:15pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/did-the-page-fisa-applications-omit/818620/59 "2018-07-26T23:15:59Z")
> [@Banquet\_Bear](#): > > …lets not say this, because this isn’t how any of this works. How does it work? ---
**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 26, 2018, 11:19pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/did-the-page-fisa-applications-omit/818620/60 "2018-07-26T23:19:16Z")
> [@Banquet\_Bear](#): > > …lets not say this, because this isn’t how any of this works. Furthermore, I call your attention to the doctrine of “what the fuck is **Jim** talking about?” [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/did-the-page-fisa-applications-omit/818620.md?page=2) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/did-the-page-fisa-applications-omit/818620.md?page=4)