While the Carter Page FISA warrant in question doesn’t reveal the biased source, it does reveal that the source is biased.
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.
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.
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.
The distinction is discussed here:
“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?
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?
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. 
More from the former attorney at the DOJ:
Also, Nunes had not even read the unredacted application so he cannot confidently say the FBI misled the court:
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).
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.
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 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.
The irony is sickening.
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.
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.
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?
…lets not say this, because this isn’t how any of this works.
How does it work?
Furthermore, I call your attention to the doctrine of “what the fuck is Jim talking about?”