Did you even read the document?
This says it was known:
What is available. Did you?
In regards to the judges: if they were not told something which is relevant, their decision does not indicate what they thought of the relevance.
What I have seen is that they were aware of the opposition, but that is a moot point because nowadays they do know who it was for sure, and AFAIK they did not complain of something being amiss. And, AFAIK the FBI relied less on the dossier on every request made after the original FISA regarding subsequent extensions for that FISA.
No, it does not, the writer has to rely on a supposition in the end. The cite you pushed twice had to go for “would” as in possible, not certain.
And BTW it should be noted here that Sara Carter, your source there, is also a contributor to FOX news. I’m not surprised at all for that omission.
Hey! This is Sara Carter, we’re talking about, here! What, you’re gonna say you never heard of Sara Carter!? The Sara Carter! Not like she’s just some blogger.
It’s as if you are arguing the political leanings of a source should factor in to your analysis of the evidence they present.
At least one person in the thread is doing this.
Christopher Steele is of what party, again?
PAID by the Clinton campaign to come up with stuff against Trump, see the article I linked to.
I am analyzing evidence, not presenting evidence.
So, you’re aware of some evidence that Steele did something other than collect and report information?
Me too, and you spectacularly missed that indeed I did use the system you are using, if the political leanings are supposed to be used to dismiss dossiers, then it applies also to posts on a message board.
And more so when the sources a poster is using are almost entirely coming from a single partisan source like [del]Pravda[/del] Fox news. 
There is also Nunes, saying the FBI knew. He is probably privy to classified info that others are not privy to. Luckily I had another source, so I wouldn’t have to debate his wording and credibility. And at any rate, my debate opposition needs to pick one of two claims: 1. It is obvious from the footnote who the funder was. Or 2. The FBI didn’t know who the funder was. It started out as 1. Now it is 2. I think if\when this plays out among the actual players, it will be 1. So this branch of the debate is kind of a waste of time.It is fun though.
That is a possibility I think a judge would keep in mind when weighing evidence for a warrant. Knowing the funder would affect the weight (at least if I were the judge).
You keep referring to the Clinton campaign as the source. That is factually untrue. Christopher Steele was the source.
So riddle me this: Steele finds out all the stuff about Trump, he reports it back through Fusion GPS. Steele then gets so alarmed about Trump that he goes to the FBI to warn them of his counterintelligence concerns.
But Steele doesn’t tell Fusion GPS, Perkins Coie, or the Clinton campaign that he’s gone to the FBI. If Steele were out to get Trump, why wouldn’t he tip off the campaign that the FBI was starting a counterintelligence investigation into Trump’s campaign?
Meh, now you do want to rely on Nunes, the one whom you want to ignore the evidence that showed how off base he was? That figures…
Since the rest was moot, as pointed before, that is indeed a waste of time, but not as you think.
One thing to remember is that the political bias we are talking about is coming from the supporters of Trump, and those indeed are Nunez and Fox news, face it, you are relying on poisoned wells of information.
Oh, for fucks’ sake.
https://vault.fbi.gov/d1-release/d1-release/at_download/file
It’s really frustrating in a debate where your opponent starts out with a legal claim, has it proven wring and then shifts into a non-legal framework without admitting their legal claim was in error.