# 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:** 6
**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 27, 2018, 5:27pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/did-the-page-fisa-applications-omit/818620/101 "2018-07-27T17:27:58Z")
> [@Ravenman](#): > > Did you ever acknowledge that you were completely wrong in your version of the general consensus? The group here came to the opposite conclusion. I did not. The consensus may be there was no omission. I see a material omission. I will continue to be annoyed when a news source claims no omissions. I suspect there are many others like me, on this and similar issues. I suspect this is why mainstream media ratings have fallen so much. They need to start at least addressing such issues. I think their tactic is: if we don’t want people concluding something, we won’t mention any related details. That is a failing strategy. They need to give all the details, and then provide reasoning for their side and why they think the counterargument doesn’t hold. How’s that for a thread conclusion? THE END ---
**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 27, 2018, 5:29pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/did-the-page-fisa-applications-omit/818620/102 "2018-07-27T17:29:19Z")
> [@Jim\_Peebles](#): > > I did not. The consensus may be there was no omission. I see a material omission. So, when you said that the consensus was there was an omission… you were referring to your own opinion as defining the consensus? Jesus, you really have bought into this whole Donald Trump worldview thing, haven’t you? ---
**Author:** ![Airbeck](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/airbeck/32/6574_2.png) [@Airbeck](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Airbeck)\ **Post date:** [July 27, 2018, 5:34pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/did-the-page-fisa-applications-omit/818620/103 "2018-07-27T17:34:17Z")
Yeah forget it, this guy is lost in Trumptown. By the way, the media isn’t supposed to argue for anything, they are supposed to report the facts. They are not supposed to have a “side”. That your chosen media sources have a side is a problem with them, not with the rest of the world news media. ---
**Author:** ![Buck\_Godot](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/buck_godot/32/6573_2.png) [@Buck\_Godot](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Buck_Godot)\ **Post date:** [July 27, 2018, 5:40pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/did-the-page-fisa-applications-omit/818620/104 "2018-07-27T17:40:50Z")
> [@Ravenman](#): > > 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? If the source was accurately specified as “Crooked Hillary”, as it should have been, then the any real American judge would have known to throw the whole thing automatically. > [@Jim\_Peebles](#): > > I SUSPECT the dossier is completely fabricated. I have no investigative ability though. Well then perhaps you should defer to someone who actually has some investigative ability, like, oh, I don’t know… Maybe the FBI? > [@Jim\_Peebles](#): > > The mutimillion dollar over a year long Mueller investigation hasn’t reported any confirmation. In your experience do FBI investigators regularly publicize all of the details of an on going investigation? Or do they try to keep thing under wraps so as not to tip off those they are investigating? There have been dribs and drabs released here and there most often as part of the 35 indictments (32 people and 3 companies) that Mueller has issued so far. Saying he’s found nothing is a bit of a stretch. ---
**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 27, 2018, 5:52pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/did-the-page-fisa-applications-omit/818620/105 "2018-07-27T17:52:12Z")
> [@Ravenman](#): > > So, when you said that the consensus was there was an omission… you were referring to your own opinion as defining the consensus? > > Jesus, you really have bought into this whole Donald Trump worldview thing, haven’t you? No I actually thought most people were conceding an omission. ---
**Author:** ![Kyrie\_Eleison](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/kyrie_eleison/32/7682_2.png) [@Kyrie\_Eleison](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Kyrie_Eleison)\ **Post date:** [July 27, 2018, 6:47pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/did-the-page-fisa-applications-omit/818620/106 "2018-07-27T18:47:43Z")
> [@Tom\_Tildrum](#): > > That certainly understates the FBI’s level of knowledge; I’m pretty sure that the FBI knew that the law firm had been retained by the Clinton campaign and the DNC, and it did not disclose this information to the court. Can anyone point out any evidence supporting this belief that the FBI knew the source of the ongoing funding of the dossier in October 2016, or is **Tom** ’s certainty just representative of an abundance of confidence in the FBI? The funding source was the subject of much speculation for quite awhile, and wasn’t publicly reported to be the Clinton campaign until October 2017, a full year after the Page warrant. It makes little sense to criticize the FBI for the omission of the information no one has established that they possessed, except in a “Bad FBI, know more!” kind of way. ---
**Author:** ![Left\_Hand\_of\_Dorkness](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/left_hand_of_dorkness/32/7156_2.png) [@Left\_Hand\_of\_Dorkness](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Left_Hand_of_Dorkness)\ **Post date:** [July 27, 2018, 7:06pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/did-the-page-fisa-applications-omit/818620/107 "2018-07-27T19:06:39Z")
> [@Jim\_Peebles](#): > > No I actually thought most people were conceding an omission. People have conceded that, in the most trivial sense, there was an omission: the application omitted the list of ingredients for Froot Loops. Almost nobody thinks that the omission you’re talking about–which opposition candidate funded Steele’s investigative work–is a RELEVANT omission. Since it’s stupid to talk about omissions like Froot Loops ingredients, we’re all pretty much assuming it’s RELEVANT omissions we’re talking about. That equivocation, between “omissions” and “relevant omissions”, is granting you about the only support you can gain in this thread. ---
**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 27, 2018, 7:14pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/did-the-page-fisa-applications-omit/818620/108 "2018-07-27T19:14:34Z")
> [@Kyrie\_Eleison](#): > > Can anyone point out any evidence supporting this belief that the FBI knew the source of the ongoing funding of the dossier in October 2016, or is **Tom** ’s certainty just representative of an abundance of confidence in the FBI? The funding source was the subject of much speculation for quite awhile, and wasn’t publicly reported to be the Clinton campaign until October 2017, a full year after the Page warrant. It makes little sense to criticize the FBI for the omission of the information no one has established that they possessed, except in a “Bad FBI, know more!” kind of way. The Nunes memo says: “Neither the initial application in October 2016, nor any of the renewals, disclose or reference the role of the DNC, Clinton campaign, or any party/campaign in funding Steele’s efforts, even though the political origins of the Steele dossier were then known to senior DOJ and FBI officials.” > **[Read the Full Text of the Nunes Memo](https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2018/02/read-the-full-text-of-the-nunes-memo/552191/)** > > On Friday, the House Intelligence Committee released the controversial document, which alleges surveillance abuses by the FBI. ---
**Author:** ![Kyrie\_Eleison](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/kyrie_eleison/32/7682_2.png) [@Kyrie\_Eleison](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Kyrie_Eleison)\ **Post date:** [July 27, 2018, 7:22pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/did-the-page-fisa-applications-omit/818620/109 "2018-07-27T19:22:45Z")
> [@Jim\_Peebles](#): > > The Nunes memo says: > “Neither the initial application in October 2016, nor any of the renewals, disclose or reference the role of the DNC, Clinton campaign, or any party/campaign in funding Steele’s efforts, even though the political origins of the Steele dossier were then known to senior DOJ and FBI officials.” > [The Full Text of the Nunes Memo - The Atlantic](https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2018/02/read-the-full-text-of-the-nunes-memo/552191) That’s very cleverly worded to say that they knew it was political in origin, and did not reference Clinton in the warrant. It does not, however, say that they knew that the Clinton campaign was funding it. ---
**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 27, 2018, 7:31pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/did-the-page-fisa-applications-omit/818620/110 "2018-07-27T19:31:13Z")
> [@Kyrie\_Eleison](#): > > That’s very cleverly worded to say that they knew it was political in origin, and did not reference Clinton in the warrant. It does not, however, say that they knew that the Clinton campaign was funding it. I thought someone was going to debate the wording. See this: > **[Home | Sara A. Carter](https://saraacarter.com)** > > Taking Back The Story ---
**Author:** ![nate](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/nate/32/13085_2.png) [@nate](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/nate)\ **Post date:** [July 27, 2018, 7:40pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/did-the-page-fisa-applications-omit/818620/111 "2018-07-27T19:40:02Z")
Why is this even an argument? Why does anyone automatically assume professional opposition research must be fabricated? What sense would that make? ---
**Author:** ![Airbeck](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/airbeck/32/6574_2.png) [@Airbeck](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Airbeck)\ **Post date:** [July 27, 2018, 7:41pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/did-the-page-fisa-applications-omit/818620/112 "2018-07-27T19:41:44Z")
It’s projection. It’s because that’s what their side does. For example, IRS “scandal”, Benghazi, uranium, pizza parlor human trafficking etc… ---
**Author:** ![Aspenglow](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/aspenglow/32/76_2.png) [@Aspenglow](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Aspenglow)\ **Post date:** [July 27, 2018, 7:56pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/did-the-page-fisa-applications-omit/818620/113 "2018-07-27T19:56:23Z")
> [@nate](#): > > Why is this even an argument? Why does anyone automatically assume professional opposition research must be fabricated? What sense would that make? Oh, staaaahhhp. That’s crazy talk! Mr. Steele is a well-respected spymaster in his own right. During his active career, he was the top Russian spy for M.I.6. He had worked with the FBI previously and had already established his bona fides with them – because they understood his information was _accurate_, even if offered only as raw intelligence, which he made clear it was. Incorrect information is of no use to anyone. The FBI considers Christopher Steele a colleague, respects his work, and that likely factored into why his writings carried weight within the intelligence community. Why would this British man, who [carefully built a career and reputation over many years within the global intelligence community](https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2018/03/12/christopher-steele-the-man-behind-the-trump-dossier), have some nefarious purpose to sacrifice it all for an American Democratic presidential candidate? My god. He was paid a lousy [$168,000.00 for his work for Fusion GPS](http://thehill.com/homenews/campaign/358362-fusion-gps-paid-ex-british-spy-168000-for-work-on-dossier). His good reputation is worth far more than that. I’m really sick of Trumpettes trashing the reputation of someone who frankly demonstrated greater patriotism than many of them, and who put his life in danger to warn us about what is happening. As a nation, we owe him our gratitude and an apology – not the sort of troglodyte “reasoning” being offered by the OP in this thread. ---
**Author:** ![Kyrie\_Eleison](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/kyrie_eleison/32/7682_2.png) [@Kyrie\_Eleison](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Kyrie_Eleison)\ **Post date:** [July 27, 2018, 8:01pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/did-the-page-fisa-applications-omit/818620/114 "2018-07-27T20:01:26Z")
> [@Jim\_Peebles](#): > > I thought someone was going to debate the wording. See this: > [Home | Sara A. Carter](https://saraacarter.com/ex-british-spy-knew-who-funded-dossier-fbi-told-secret-court-something-different/) That says that Steele knew who was paying him, not that the FBI did. From that article: > [@](#): > > That means that Steele would have known who was paying him by the time he met with the FBI in Italy during the summer of 2016. > > Which leads to another question, did Steele lie to the FBI or did the FBI choose not to disclose this information to the secret court? That last question makes it explicit that the author of the article is not claiming that the FBI knew the source of the funding. He offers the possibility that Steele lied to them about it. (And ignores the possibilities that Steele evaded the topic or simply declined to discuss it, but that’s neither here nor there.) ---
**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 27, 2018, 8:10pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/did-the-page-fisa-applications-omit/818620/115 "2018-07-27T20:10:58Z")
> [@Jim\_Peebles](#): > > I thought someone was going to debate the wording. See this: > [Home | Sara A. Carter](https://saraacarter.com/ex-british-spy-knew-who-funded-dossier-fbi-told-secret-court-something-different/) That was back on March, and after the latest reports, that bit about “did Steele lie to the FBI or did the FBI choose not to disclose this information to the secret court?” looks more and more like the FOX news reports that end with question marks. Those reports are usually answered in the negative even after tons of rhetorical pap from those 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 27, 2018, 8:16pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/did-the-page-fisa-applications-omit/818620/116 "2018-07-27T20:16:52Z")
> [@Kyrie\_Eleison](#): > > That says that Steele knew who was paying him, not that the FBI did. From that article: > > That last question makes it explicit that the author of the article is not claiming that the FBI knew the source of the funding. He offers the possibility that Steele lied to them about it. (And ignores the possibilities that Steele evaded the topic or simply declined to discuss it, but that’s neither here nor there.) Yeah, maybe Steele lied to the FBI. And maybe the wording of the Nunes memo was carefully crafted to give the illusion the FBI knew, without technically saying it if you parse the sentences just right. ---
**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 27, 2018, 8:54pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/did-the-page-fisa-applications-omit/818620/117 "2018-07-27T20:54:20Z")
> [@Jim\_Peebles](#): > > Yeah, maybe Steele lied to the FBI. And maybe the wording of the Nunes memo was carefully crafted to give the illusion the FBI knew, without technically saying it if you parse the sentences just right. What is clear is that you are replying once again with an opinion, not a fact. ---
**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 27, 2018, 10:43pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/did-the-page-fisa-applications-omit/818620/118 "2018-07-27T22:43:24Z")
> [@Jim\_Peebles](#): > > The Nunes memo says: > “Neither the initial application in October 2016, nor any of the renewals, disclose or reference the role of the DNC, Clinton campaign, or any party/campaign in funding Steele’s efforts, even though the political origins of the Steele dossier were then known to senior DOJ and FBI officials.” > [The Full Text of the Nunes Memo - The Atlantic](https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2018/02/read-the-full-text-of-the-nunes-memo/552191) Hang on - of all the people you’re taking entirely at their word here, you’re going to believe _Nunes_? You’ve been super fuckin’ suspicious of basically every actor in this from the FISA court to the FBI to the DNC, but Devin Nunes somehow gets taken entirely at his word? We already know the Nunes memo was, shall we say, _not entirely accurate._ From [WaPo](https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/politics/wp/2018/07/22/with-the-release-of-new-documents-devin-nunes-memo-on-carter-page-has-gotten-even-less-credible/?utm_term=.8811feb54081): Earlier this year, the political world was gripped by a stunning accusation from Rep. Devin Nunes (R-Calif.) that the government’s application for a warrant to surveil former Trump campaign adviser Carter Page was born of bias and almost entirely reliant on a dossier of information compiled on the dime of Democratic operatives. He had a memo that made that argument; eventually, and probably without much goading, President Trump was persuaded to release it publicly. […] As it turns out though, Nunes’s efforts to raise questions about the surveillance warrant, granted by the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court, were even less robust than they seemed at the time. With the release Friday of a redacted copy of both the initial warrant application targeting Page in October 2016 and the three 90-day extensions of the warrant, we can get a better sense of just how far from the mark the Nunes memo actually was. […] We can’t entirely blame Nunes, though. **In an interview with Fox News in February, he admitted that he himself hadn’t read the warrant application**. It’s an interesting read which I cannot quote in full due to the Dope’s quoting policy, but the long and short of it is that we _already know_ that the Nunes memo was, at best, _misleading_ (and, more realistically, simply partisan shitbaggery). > [@](#): > > And maybe the wording of the Nunes memo was carefully crafted to give the illusion the FBI knew, without technically saying it if you parse the sentences just right. And maybe the Nunes memo was written before Nunes actually _read_ the application. Maybe we should be cautious before making any assumption of truth from the Nunes memo. Oh wait. Not maybe. _Definitely_. ---
**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 27, 2018, 10:44pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/did-the-page-fisa-applications-omit/818620/119 "2018-07-27T22:44:53Z")
> [@Jim\_Peebles](#): > > Yeah, maybe Steele lied to the FBI. And maybe the wording of the Nunes memo was carefully crafted to give the illusion the FBI knew, without technically saying it if you parse the sentences just right. Do you generally think Devin Nunes is a reliable source of information? ---
**Author:** ![elucidator](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/8edcca/32.png) [@elucidator](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/elucidator)\ **Post date:** [July 27, 2018, 11:48pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/did-the-page-fisa-applications-omit/818620/120 "2018-07-27T23:48:27Z")
Not as reliable as the _Washington Examiner_, I daresay, but such standards are daunting! [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/did-the-page-fisa-applications-omit/818620.md?page=5) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/did-the-page-fisa-applications-omit/818620.md?page=7)