That they were both Trump oponents does not impeach the application. AFAIK, to impeach evidence one needs to show that there was dishonesty or false statements, in this case from the evidence presented by the parties. That they looked at Trump funny is not a good reason to dismiss it.
And the evidence now shows that Nunes and many Republicans just look more dishonest than they they were before.
(He previously served as assistant attorney general for national security, associate deputy attorney general, trial attorney at the Department of Justice, general counsel at Intellectual Ventures, and deputy general counsel and chief ethics and compliance officer at Time Warner. He is the author or co-author of several works on national security, including the treatise National Security Investigations and Prosecutions, and has taught at Georgetown University and the University of Washington.)
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”. And, when I hear/read the mainstream media deny there were any omissions, it further drives me to alternative media sources. I suspect there are many others like me, and the mainstream media, if it wants to reverse its declining viewership, should, I think, start to admit things like this omission. My guess is they will continue to be “all in” on assuming their viewers are useful idiots though.
What difference does that make? Do you think there could be no warrant issued unless Trump himself paid for the dossier?
None of these parties are the source of the information.
This whole bias approach is nonsense. If claims like that were accepted by the courts then any presidential candidate would be free to commit any crime they want because anyone who presents evidence against them would be considered biased and no evidence would be acceptable. No reason has been given to reject the contents of the dossier based on it’s content. Which is nothing but raw intelligence data.
While it is technically true that there is no specific mention of the DNC, Clinton campaign, etc., this is not a nefarious or uncommon thing. FISA warrant applications customarily use generic identifiers. It is usual practice. Don’t fall for the implication that this is somehow shady. It’s not.
The FISA application and its renewals are 412 pages long. The Steele dossier is only a part of this application and not offered as proof of anything, any more than what some snitch alleges he heard is offered as proof. (See Bricker hypothetical above.)
The dossier was offered as a partial basis of probable cause to dig further, along with other information. That’s what warrants are for. Is there a basis to surveille this individual to learn if these assertions are actually true? Four judges, all Republicans (a point that should be immaterial), repeatedly said, “Yes. Keep digging.” This is exactly how law enforcement works, every single day.
I don’t disagree with that. But the judge would not have seen any reason to dismiss the application simply based on who funded it. So even if included it still doesn’t provide any reason to deny the warrant. it’s absence is harmless error.
Another possibly misleading point is the description of Steele as a source, when in fact he’s an informant. He had no independent knowledge of anything in the dossier; the people providing him with information were the sources. The redacted portions of the application do not appear to show the court being provided with any way of assessing the credibility of those individuals.
Inarguably, they didn’t do that. And the argument that the court is not interested in whether or not the information being presented is credible, or that motivation is irrelevant to credibility, seems difficult to support. Why would there be a warrant process at all if the truth of the evidence presented didn’t matter?
I don’t know that to be true, but I admit there may be some FISA-specific rules in play which I’m unaware of.
The seminal authority on this matter is Franks v. Delaware, a 1978 Supreme Court case. Jerome Franks was convicted in Delaware of rape, kidnaping, and burglary. The victim had described her assailant as armed wth a knife and wearing a white thermal undershirt, black pants with a silver or gold buckle, a brown leather three-quarter-length coat, and a dark knit cap.
Police submitted an affidavit in support of the warrant claiming that, amongst other evidence against Franks, police had personally interviewed two people at Franks’ place of employment, and they both said that Franks was known to wear a white knit thermal undershirt and a brown leather jacket, and one also confirmed that Franks “often wears a dark green knit hat.” The police search of Franks’ apartment found a white thermal undershirt, a knit hat, dark pants, and a leather jacket, and, on petitioner’s kitchen table, a single-blade knife, all of which were introduced in evidence at trial.
On appeal, he alleged that the warrant secured to search his room was defective; he claimed that the warrant affiant never actually spoke to the co-workers and the claim that they said Franks normally wears those types of clothes was included in bad faith.
The Supreme Court of Delaware said, in effect, “Tough luck. The police had a warrant. You can’t challenge it.” But the US Supreme Court reversed, holding that when there’s a challenge to a warrant, the rules that I laid out above apply:
In regards to “raw intelligence”, it seems more like “cooked intelligence” in light of:
“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.”
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.
Well, IMHO when quoting someone, it is better to quote people that do have a background in the field being discussed. After all, it is better to have an educated opinion rather than an ignorant one.
The problem with that is that you do think that alternative media sources and FOX, that do have an ax to grind, are not working to mislead their viewers and readers.
Clinton was not a source, unless you’re misunderstanding what the word “source” means. It’s perfectly clear that “Source #1’s” efforts were funded by political opponents. Again, what value does it add if Clinton’s name were specifically attached? If Steele did his work for Rubio during the primaries, you think the judge would have approved the warrant; but if Steele did his work for Clinton during the general, he would not?
Are you asserting that the FBI in October 2016 had obtained evidence from Fusion GPS, the DNC, or the Clinton campaign as to the motivations for the opposition research? If the FBI didn’t have evidence (emails, interviews, etc) then “speculates” is a perfectly cromulent word for the situation.
There’s multiple references to Page being interviewed by the FBI. See pages 12 and 13, for example.
The application seeks foreign intelligence information related to Page. In the unredacted portions, there’s quite a few assertions of his connections to important Russians that isn’t related to the dossier. Are you saying that after reading this document, you find it unreasonable to conclude that Page had substantive interactions with Russians that would result in any foreign intelligence on what Russia was up to? And that a judge appointed by George Bush (and who had rulings that would have gutted the Affordable Care Act, BTW) was somehow duped into carrying out a Democratic plot?
It looks like there was a quote within a quote, so the part I wanted to respond to is omitted. In regards to name masking being SOP, I don’t think that is true in regards to informing the judge of sources against someone else. This is a secret court to begin with. So why would you do that? Prove me wrong. I would guess: If they know a source’s identity, they can go ahead and disclose it to the judge in the secret FISA proceedings. In particular, the Clinton funding of the dossier. If I am wrong, point me to the reference that they were prohibited from naming Clinton.
Look on page 16. It literally says that Source #1 “tasked his sub-sources to collect the requisite information.” This takes care of your first two sentences, because there is nothing misleading about the FBI saying the thing that you accuse them of not saying.
Second, how do you know that redacted portions “do not appear to show the court” something? You have some kind of x-ray vision there, pal?
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?