# 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:** 7
**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 28, 2018, 2:10pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/did-the-page-fisa-applications-omit/818620/121 "2018-07-28T14:10:07Z")
What about my most recent article link about Steele? Then you can forget Nunes. ---
**Author:** ![Snowboarder\_Bo](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/snowboarder_bo/32/229_2.png) [@Snowboarder\_Bo](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Snowboarder_Bo)\ **Post date:** [July 28, 2018, 2:14pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/did-the-page-fisa-applications-omit/818620/122 "2018-07-28T14:14:52Z")
> [@Jim\_Peebles](#): > > What about my most recent article link about Steele? Then you can forget Nunes. That’s it? “Whatabout…?” Why should we “whatabout” your thing if you won’t “whatabout” anyone else’s? ---
**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 28, 2018, 2:20pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/did-the-page-fisa-applications-omit/818620/123 "2018-07-28T14:20:37Z")
> [@Jim\_Peebles](#): > > What about my most recent article link about Steele? Then you can forget Nunes. So if you don’t want to talk about Nunes’ credibility, I take it that you are conceding that he’s a crank. ---
**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 28, 2018, 2:24pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/did-the-page-fisa-applications-omit/818620/124 "2018-07-28T14:24:58Z")
> [@Ravenman](#): > > So if you don’t want to talk about Nunes’ credibility, I take it that you are conceding that he’s a crank. No I am not conceding that. ---
**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 28, 2018, 2:28pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/did-the-page-fisa-applications-omit/818620/125 "2018-07-28T14:28:25Z")
> [@Snowboarder\_Bo](#): > > That’s it? “Whatabout…?” Why should we “whatabout” your thing if you won’t “whatabout” anyone else’s? Someone asked for sources that the FBI knew. I provided the Nunes memo, and then when there was quibbling on that, the article about Steele. ---
**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 28, 2018, 2:30pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/did-the-page-fisa-applications-omit/818620/126 "2018-07-28T14:30:29Z")
> [@Jim\_Peebles](#): > > No I am not conceding that. So you believe that Obama tapped Trump Tower to spy on the campaign, maybe pass some secrets on to Hillary? ---
**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 28, 2018, 2:37pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/did-the-page-fisa-applications-omit/818620/127 "2018-07-28T14:37:02Z")
> [@Ravenman](#): > > So you believe that Obama tapped Trump Tower to spy on the campaign, maybe pass some secrets on to Hillary? What does that have to do with this debate? ---
**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 28, 2018, 2:42pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/did-the-page-fisa-applications-omit/818620/128 "2018-07-28T14:42:56Z")
> [@Jim\_Peebles](#): > > What does that have to do with this debate? Nunes has made all sorts of allegations about the Obama Administration doing things that, in Trump’s words, are worse than Watergate. Nunez contends that Carter Page is innocent and a warrant was cooked up on poor pretexts, likely to harass Trump. Of course, everyone who isn’t in Trump’s camp disagrees, but that’s neither here nor there. But Nunes has claimed that court-authorized surveillance - which could have been related to this warrant - was in fact an effort to spy on the Trump campaign. (This crazy allegation got Nunes removed from the Russia probe when he was told about this surveillance by White House staffers, then ran to the White House to let them know of the “spying,” which backfired immensely when even Paul Ryan had to acknowledge that Nunes was full of shit.) So, it is relevant. You believe that Obama spied on the Trump campaign to give Hillary an edge? ---
**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 28, 2018, 3:07pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/did-the-page-fisa-applications-omit/818620/129 "2018-07-28T15:07:47Z")
> [@Ravenman](#): > > Nunes has made all sorts of allegations about the Obama Administration doing things that, in Trump’s words, are worse than Watergate. Nunez contends that Carter Page is innocent and a warrant was cooked up on poor pretexts, likely to harass Trump. Of course, everyone who isn’t in Trump’s camp disagrees, but that’s neither here nor there. > > But Nunes has claimed that court-authorized surveillance - which could have been related to this warrant - was in fact an effort to spy on the Trump campaign. (This crazy allegation got Nunes removed from the Russia probe when he was told about this surveillance by White House staffers, then ran to the White House to let them know of the “spying,” which backfired immensely when even Paul Ryan had to acknowledge that Nunes was full of shit.) > > So, it is relevant. You believe that Obama spied on the Trump campaign to give Hillary an edge? This is a debate about whether or not there was an omission in the Page FISA applications. Someone is saying: maybe they didn’t know it. The Nune’s memo said it. Someone started debating the wording, and now it has turned into a debate about Nune’s credibility, and now somehow Obama and Trump Tower. That is a derailment. So look at the Steele article instead. Also note: one can’t simultaneously argue that anyone reading the footnote would know it was Candidate X, and at the same time argue the FBI didn’t know it was Candidate X. ---
**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 28, 2018, 4:01pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/did-the-page-fisa-applications-omit/818620/130 "2018-07-28T16:01:27Z")
> [@Jim\_Peebles](#): > > This is a debate about whether or not there was an omission in the Page FISA applications. Someone is saying: maybe they didn’t know it. The Nune’s memo said it. Someone started debating the wording, and now it has turned into a debate about Nune’s credibility, and now somehow Obama and Trump Tower. That is a derailment. So look at the Steele article instead. Also note: one can’t simultaneously argue that anyone reading the footnote would know it was Candidate X, and at the same time argue the FBI didn’t know it was Candidate X. So in a debate about what Nunes said in his memo, you don’t want to discuss Nunes’ history of lies? As the Church Lady used to say, “How convieeeeenient!” ---
**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 28, 2018, 4:44pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/did-the-page-fisa-applications-omit/818620/131 "2018-07-28T16:44:34Z")
> [@Jim\_Peebles](#): > > This is a debate about whether or not there was an omission in the Page FISA applications. Someone is saying: maybe they didn’t know it. The Nune’s memo said it. Someone started debating the wording, and now it has turned into a debate about Nune’s credibility, and now somehow Obama and Trump Tower. That is a derailment. I think the reason we went into the issue of Nunes’s memo is because your standards for evidence seem to go all over the place depending on who it is providing the evidence. Or more specifically, which political party their claims boosts. Unlike the Steele dossier, the Nunes memo has been shown to be dishonest. ---
**Author:** ![Ann\_Hedonia](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/ann_hedonia/32/319_2.png) [@Ann\_Hedonia](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ann_Hedonia)\ **Post date:** [July 28, 2018, 4:57pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/did-the-page-fisa-applications-omit/818620/132 "2018-07-28T16:57:34Z")
It all comes down to the fact that the Fox News faction doesn’t consider the Russian election interference to be a serious crime. I promise you that if it had been a Democratic candidate, if the staffer in question had ties to the Middle East and the FBI knew that ISIS had attempted to recruit him 3 years previously, and if the alleged plot involved bombing polling places, no one would think the FBI should ignore evidence because it came from a possibly biased informant. But the right is attempting to paint this crime as an “everybody does it, why are they picking on us” thing. But it’s not. ---
**Author:** ![nachtmusick](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/n/ac91a4/32.png) [@nachtmusick](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/nachtmusick)\ **Post date:** [July 28, 2018, 5:24pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/did-the-page-fisa-applications-omit/818620/133 "2018-07-28T17:24:52Z")
> [@Jim\_Peebles](#): > > Also note: one can’t simultaneously argue that anyone reading the footnote would know it was Candidate X, and at the same time argue the FBI didn’t know it was Candidate X. There’s a difference between knowing and proving. In order to prove something, you have to submit evidence and sources. The FBI has good reason to only put as much of their evidence into the FISA application as is necessary to secure the warrant. If they can get the warrant without entering all of their information and sources into the public record, than it is just sound practice to do so. There is, after all, always the possibility that partisan congresspeople will subsequently demand the release of the application and reveal all that information to potential targets of the investigation. ---
**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 28, 2018, 5:40pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/did-the-page-fisa-applications-omit/818620/134 "2018-07-28T17:40:20Z")
> [@nachtmusick](#): > > There’s a difference between knowing and proving. In order to prove something, you have to submit evidence and sources. The FBI has good reason to only put as much of their evidence into the FISA application as is necessary to secure the warrant. If they can get the warrant without entering all of their information and sources into the public record, than it is just sound practice to do so. There is, after all, always the possibility that partisan congresspeople will subsequently demand the release of the application and reveal all that information to potential targets of the investigation. Do they have to disclose something about their evidence which might cause the judge to give it less weight? ---
**Author:** ![nachtmusick](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/n/ac91a4/32.png) [@nachtmusick](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/nachtmusick)\ **Post date:** [July 28, 2018, 6:04pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/did-the-page-fisa-applications-omit/818620/135 "2018-07-28T18:04:14Z")
> [@Jim\_Peebles](#): > > Do they have to disclose something about their evidence which might cause the judge to give it less weight? I would assume so, but that’s getting into legal matters I know little about. I assume that the standards of evidence for securing a warrant aren’t the same as for proving guilt, but that’s as much as I could say. ---
**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 28, 2018, 6:06pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/did-the-page-fisa-applications-omit/818620/136 "2018-07-28T18:06:48Z")
> [@Jim\_Peebles](#): > > Do they have to disclose something about their evidence which might cause the judge to give it less weight? Would it have mattered whether the opposition research was funded by Cruz, Rubio, Stein, Sanders, or another presidential contender other than Clinton? In my opinion, no. The indication that the dossier was opposition research gives any normal person the idea of possible bias. ---
**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 28, 2018, 6:17pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/did-the-page-fisa-applications-omit/818620/137 "2018-07-28T18:17:12Z")
> [@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. There’s a difference between “know” and “speculate” about it being opposition research in weighing the evidence (at least I would weigh them differently). See my quote above. ---
**Author:** ![nachtmusick](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/n/ac91a4/32.png) [@nachtmusick](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/nachtmusick)\ **Post date:** [July 28, 2018, 6:31pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/did-the-page-fisa-applications-omit/818620/138 "2018-07-28T18:31:23Z")
> [@Jim\_Peebles](#): > > There’s a difference between “know” and “speculate” about it being opposition research in weighing the evidence (at least I would weigh them differently). See my quote above. I don’t see how the FBI can do more than speculate about what use the research might eventually be put to, or what people’s actual intentions were. As far as I know, it turned out that the research was never actually used in the campaign. ---
**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 28, 2018, 6:45pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/did-the-page-fisa-applications-omit/818620/139 "2018-07-28T18:45:11Z")
> [@nachtmusick](#): > > I don’t see how the FBI can do more than speculate about what use the research might eventually be put to, or what people’s actual intentions were. As far as I know, it turned out that the research was never actually used in the campaign. Then they should have said “We know it is Candidate X funding it, we speculate candidate X is going to do this with it”. Throwing the speculate in front understates the level of certainty that it is an opposing candidate doing the funding. ---
**Author:** ![nachtmusick](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/n/ac91a4/32.png) [@nachtmusick](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/nachtmusick)\ **Post date:** [July 28, 2018, 7:00pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/did-the-page-fisa-applications-omit/818620/140 "2018-07-28T19:00:39Z")
> [@Jim\_Peebles](#): > > Then they should have said “We know it is Candidate X funding it, we speculate candidate X is going to do this with it”. Throwing the speculate in front understates the level of certainty that it is an opposing candidate doing the funding. Only if one assumes that they knew the identity of the funding candidate with certainty, and that that information was materially relevant. Clearly you think the information was known and relevant, but the list of those who apparently don’t includes me, many other posters here who have made their cases already, the FBI and their lawyers, and four separate Republican FISA court justices. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/did-the-page-fisa-applications-omit/818620.md?page=6) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/did-the-page-fisa-applications-omit/818620.md?page=8)