US Politics Thread 2016-2020

[vienna]

The House Intelligence Committee has released the DEM response to the Nunes memo that made a number of allegations regarding the FISA Court and the investigation into Russian influence on US electoral and political processes. The document is heavily redacted, by request of Trump, but still contains a lot of relevant background information about how the FISA warrants were obtained...

This is a link to the Hose Committee's posting of the DEM response:

http://docs.house.gov/meetings/ig/ig...0205-sd002.pdf


The contrast between the Nunes memo and the DEM response should be noted:

1) The original FISA Court filing for the warrant was over 50 pages; the Nunes memo is only four pages and the DEM response is 10 pages in length; somehow, it is difficult to imagine distilling down over 50 pages of a complex document such as a court filing, much less, a FISA Court filing, down to only four pages and retaining any semblance of substance;

2) The Nunes memo is just a blanket statement of allegations with no corroboration or attribution to its statements; The DEM response is annotated with cites for the points and allegations countering Nunes, altogether a more considered and fleshed out document;

3) The Nunes memo was rushed out with the intent to avoid scrutiny and, even more importantly, was issued with out proper vetting and without prior authorization by the DOJ or other relevant agencies as detailed in the DEM response:

...

Background

On January 18, 2018, the Committee Majority, during an unrelated business, meeting, forced a surprise vote to release to the full House a profoundly misleading memorandum alleging serious abuses by the FBI and DOJ. Majority staff drafted the document in secret on behalf of Chairman Devin Nunes (and reportedly with guidance and input from Rep. Trey Gowdy), and then rushed a party-line vote without prior notice.

This was by design. The overwhelming majority of Committee members never received DOJ authorization to access the underlying classified information, and therefore could not judge the veracity of Chairman Nunes' claims. Due to the sensitive sources and methods, DOJ provided access only to the Committee's Chair and Ranking Member (or respective designees), and limited staff, to facilitate the Committee's investigation into Russia's covert campaign to influence the 2016 U.S. elections. As DOJ has confirmed publicly, it did not authorize the broader release of this information within Congress or to the public, and Chairman Nunes refused to allow DOJ and the FBI to review his document until he permitted the FBI Director to see it for the first time in HPSCI's secure spaces late on Sunday, January 28 - 10 days after disclosure to the House.

...

Nunes' memo reads like a high-schooler's rushed, last-minute-before-class assignment, while the DEM response is more like a researched and defended term paper; with Nunes, you don't really know where he has gotten his facts or if he's just pulling out of some orifice; with the DEM response, they tell you where their info and data is derived and provide cites for the reader to use as verification and to establish context. The haphazard and slapdash Nunes memo and it provenance may be a major reason Nunes is being marginalized by the House GOP leadership and others in his party...

A further item of interest and note; the Nunes memo was issued after a vote along party lines with the DEM Committee members dissenting; the DEM response was issued after a unanimous vote by all Committee members from both parties, a vote that was taken on the original document, before the Trump-requested redactions...

Now, with the ability to see and contrast the two documents, the need for Nunes to engage in the furtive, rushed 'birthing' of his screed is rather apparent...












<O>

[vienna]

"The time has come," the Walrus said,
"To talk of many things:
Of shoes--and ships--and sealing-wax--
Of cabbages--and kings--
... "

- Lewis Carroll, Through The Looking Glass

...and to talk of gator and swamps...

An interesting piece in The Atlantic:


Trump’s Real Scandal Is Hiding in Plain Sight --

https://www.theatlantic.com/politics...otomac/554240/


Trump: Make The Swamp Greater, Again...











<O>

[Platapus]

https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/don...school-n851266

Trump says he would have run into Florida school without a weapon

President Donald Trump said Monday that he would have charged into a Florida school during the shooting there earlier this month even if he were unarmed.
"I really believe I’d run in there even if I didn’t have a weapon," Trump told governors meeting at the White House to discuss school safety.

So President Bone Spurs would have charged into that school and engaged the shooter in manly hand to AR-15 combat.


Well, he can talk tough...

[vienna]

^ Not Fake news...

...just a shamelessly Fake President...














<O>

[u crank]

Since the release of the Democrat/Schiff memo there have been lots of opinions expressed in the media both pro and con. Of the articles that rebuke it, this is the best one I have seen so far. Andrew McCarthy writing in a National Review article intitled 'The Schiff Memo Harms Democrats More Than It Helps Them' sheds light on some of the memos talking points.

https://www.nationalreview.com/2018/...an-helps-them/

McCarthy talks about the heavy reliance on Steele Dossier, the concealing of the Dossier’s Clinton-campaign origins and the use of a media report to ‘corroborate’ Steele, among other things.

Some nice light reading.

[Rockstar]

̶1̶3̶ , 14

[vienna]

..and here's are a couple of articles that shoot some holes in McCarthy's view:


Democratic memo: Here are 6 key points in Schiff's rebuttal --

https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/...ent/370388002/


Top Democrat offers a simple explanation that undercuts Republicans' central argument that the FBI acted illegally --

http://www.businessinsider.com/why-f...xplains-2018-2


The main snake-oil argument the Trump minions are trying to foist on the voters is the FISA only saw and used the Steele "dossier" as the sole basis of the Page warrant: this is patently and deceptive claim. The actual FISA filing for the original warrant is over 50 pages in length (closer to 60 pages or more with emendations on renewal) and obviously contains much more than just the Steele memos. Add to that the simple fact any competent judge would require some sort of substantiation, amplification, and validation of any aspect of a warrant filing; you just don't go in with a single document, say its true/factual and have a judge just just issue a warrant without his asking pertinent questions. The fact the warrant has been issued and reviewed several times, and by a different judge each time, means it has been subjected to multiple scrutiny and questions. And, taking note of the length of the FISA filing, note the actual underlying documents are not included in the filing papers, but are a separate component, much as a lawsuit filing does not include all the specific evidence to be presented, but doe refer to them; in the process of the consideration of whether or not to issue a warrant, the judge may, and very often will require production of underling documents or evidence, as needed to support the warrant request.

Another point is there is no actual law requiring a prosecutor to fully disclose the provenance of underlying evidence or documentation; most prosecutors will do so as a matter of course, if only to avoid possibly damaging questions later in the process or at trial. In the case of the Page warrant, it was requested some months after the FBI had already initiated its own investigation(s) into Page and his dealings; Trump's minions and apologists are trying to turn this part of the case into a sort of 'chicken or egg first' argument when it is obvious from the documentation there is no question at all on this point. Then there is the testimony from the head of Fusion/GPS (the security firm which compiled the memos and were originally hired by GOP interests to gather information on Trump), before a Congressional committee that he was informed by the FBI the agency already had substantially the same intel regarding Page's (and others) activities from sources the FBI had already developed and, very notably, from someone inside the Trump camp. There was no "single source" or dominant source for the warrant, plain and simple...

The question of how the FBI got its source intel is also brought up again and again by the Trump camp as some sort of shady deal, with all manner of sub rosa activity rife with payoffs and deals kept away from the FISA judges' notice, that the judges were not told about any animus the informants may have had against Page or other persons in the Trump camp, Trump included. Well, here's a news flash: all criminal judges know any intel or evidence secured through confidential informants (CI) usually carries with it some form of animus on the part of the informant and/or was secured by some sort of arrangement of payment or plea bargain. It is rare to have a non-involved informant who acts altruistically and/or without some sort of 'compensation' if you are a criminal judge and a DA, AG, or other prosecutorial entity comes before you seeking a warrant, you know the intel from CIs is not without price of some self-interest; that is why judges will ask the prosecutor(s) about the reliability of the source(s). If a judge gets a drug case against, say, a dealer, the judge pretty much knows the CI-derived intel is either from a user or rival dealer the defendant burned, a person connected to someone affected by the defendants actions, a CI looking for a payday, or someone looking for a plea deal/reduction of sentence. Judges know this and the prosecutors know the judges know; a prosecutor who tries to slip a shoddy warrant request past a skeptical judge will always come out on the losing end...

The judges on the FISA Court are not novice or naive jurists. They are appointed by the Chief Justice of The Supreme Curt of the US and are vetted for qualifications to hear matters of extreme sensitivity and national security implications; this link gives facts related to Federal judges and security clearances and the handling of classified cases in Federal Claims Courts - the same basic process holds in FISA courts, only stricter:


https://www.uscfc.uscourts.gov/sites...nformation.pdf


Lastly, the Trump minions and Trump's GOP diehards are trying to sell the idea there is a DEM conspiracy in the FBI and the courts against Trump; the really big problem with that claim and argument is all the FISA court judges who have handled Trump-related matters are registered GOP appointees to the Federal Court by past GOP Presidents and have been, in turn, appointed by the Chief Justice, SCOTUS, who is also a registered GOP member and was appointed by a GOP President, GW Bush; additionally Acting FBI Director is a registered Republican, as is SC Mueller, and there are many others involved who are GOP members. Wow, those DEMs must be really, really powerful to have turned so many GOP to the 'dark side'...










<O>

[u crank]

Originally Posted by vienna

Lastly, the Trump minions and Trump's GOP diehards are trying to sell the idea there is a DEM conspiracy in the FBI and the courts against Trump; the really big problem with that claim and argument is all the FISA court judges who have handled Trump-related matters are registered GOP appointees to the Federal Court by past GOP Presidents and have been, in turn, appointed by the Chief Justice, SCOTUS, who is also a registered GOP member and was appointed by a GOP President, GW Bush; additionally Acting FBI Director is a registered Republican, as is SC Mueller, and there are many others involved who are GOP members. Wow, hose DEMs must be really, really powerful to have turned so many GOP to the 'dark side'...

Are you suggesting that all of those people you refer to might be ardent supporters of Donald Trump? Might not have made an effort to subvert his election and presidency. The list of never Trumpers in the GOP is quite extensive. The GOP President, GW Bush that you mention is on record for criticizing Trump. Just because some one is a registered Republican says nothing about their motives or intentions. Sen. John McCain to name just one is an obvious example of a GOP member who had a hand in the Trump Dossier being used against Trump.

[vienna]

No, I'm not saying that just because they are in the GOP they are Trump supporters and defenders; I'm certain there are a great many intelligent, independent, considered, sensible, and rational persons in the GOP membership. I was merely pointing out that one of the many spurious defenses and claims made by Trump minions and defenders is there is some sort of DEM orchestrated plot against Trump via the FBI, various other DOJ entities, and the courts, all without a single shred of substantial evidence. It seems like only yesterday the GOP was deriding and ridiculing the notion of a vast right-wing conspiracy against the Clintons, remember?:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vast_r...ing_conspiracy

Both notions are fully idiotic and now such a notion has become a sad, weak defense for the Trump camp to use; talk about clutching at straws...

As far as McCain, a person for whom I have a deep respect, his only active hand in the dossier occurred when a copy of the memos was given to him and, after reviewing it, he deemed it a matter for the FBI to investigate; he really hasn't championed the memos actively, he just did what any responsible person, particularly a member of Congress would do when presented information about situations possibly detrimental to national security; basically, McCain called the cops...

See, you have it right there: an intelligent, independent, considered, sensible, and rational person in the GOP...

Too bad there are so very damn few such GOP members in the Trump camp, including Trump himself...












<O>

[u crank]

Originally Posted by vienna

The main snake-oil argument the Trump minions are trying to foist on the voters is the FISA only saw and used the Steele "dossier" as the sole basis of the Page warrant: this is patently and deceptive claim.

https://www.nationalreview.com/2018/...e-interviewed/

...the Schiff memo leaves no doubt that the key allegation supporting issuance of the warrant is the Steele dossier’s claim that, while on a well-publicized trip to Moscow in July 2016, Page met with two top Putin regime operatives, Igor Sechin and Igor Divyekin. Page credibly denies the meetings; former British spy Christoper Steele’s claim that they happened is based on unidentified hearsay sources that he concedes he never confirmed; and all indications are that the FBI never corroborated them.

Furthermore, according to a memo published by two senior Senate Judiciary Committee members — Chairman Charles Grassley (R., Iowa) and Senator Lindsey Graham (R., S.C.) — then-director Comey conceded that the Bureau did not corroborate Steele’s sources and relied on the fact that Steele had given the FBI reliable information in the past.

Then there is this.

The fact that a foreign power is trying to recruit an American to become an agent for that foreign power is not a sufficient basis to issue a surveillance warrant against the American under FISA. It would, of course, be sufficient to issue a warrant against the foreign spies who are making the recruitment efforts, but it is not enough for a warrant against the American citizen who is the target of the recruitment effort.

To get a surveillance warrant under FISA (i.e., the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act of 1978, as codified at Title 50, U.S. Code, Sections 1801 et seq.), the FBI and the Justice Department must establish probable cause that the person to be monitored under the warrant is acting as an active, purposeful agent of a foreign power — not that the foreign power hopes to turn him into such an agent.

To date, after dueling memos from Democrats and Republicans on the House Intelligence Committee, plus the Grassley-Graham memo from the Senate Judiciary Committee, we have only one allegation regarding Page that approaches the statutorily required showing that he was acting as an agent of a foreign power: the Steele dossier’s claim that Page met separately with Sechin and Divyekin, and discussed with them, respectively, a corrupt quid pro quo to end sanctions against Russia, and the possibility that the Kremlin would provide the Trump campaign with damaging information (“kompromat”) against Hillary Clinton (along with a warning that Trump should be careful dealing with Russia because the Kremlin had kompromat on him, too).

Consider these two facts. First, there is no public indication that Page has ever been unwilling to speak to federal investigators or has ever lied to them in the many times he has been interviewed — unlike, say, Christopher Steele, who was terminated as an informant for violating his agreement about press contacts and for apparently lying to the FBI about speaking to the media. Second, the FBI and Justice Department quite understandably wanted to know whether Page had met with Sechin and Divyekin but were unable to verify Steele’s hearsay claim that he had.

And so the big question..

When Steele brought the FBI his unverified allegations that Page had met with Sechin and Divyekin, why didn’t the FBI call Page in for an interview rather than subject him to FISA surveillance?

I think the answer to that might be that interviewing Page would 1. end all suspicions that he was an active agent of a foreign power and 2. not allow the surveillance on him that would also start an accidental surveillance of the Trump campaign.

This looks like another in a long list of missteps by the FBI/DOJ. How many more are there?

[vienna]

Again, an op-ed piece is not definitive proof; it is opinion, not full fact, it is not solid evidence, and, as with all op-ed pieces, it is certain to be skewed towards persuasion. He raises some interesting points, but fails in one important fact: the Steele memos dealt with a broad number of concerns (and, yes, I do find the more salacious elements highly doubtful, but not fully sufficient to impugn the whole) beyond merely Page; 50+ pages of supporting documents submitted in support of the initial warrant does indicate there was far more to the case against Page than just a couple of meetings; remember, also, warrant fillings don't contain all the material collected in a particular case, just enough to convince, on evidence, a judge to issue a warrant; the reason for this is so as not to tip off subjects of the warrant to the full extent of any evidence against them prior to completion of an investigation...

Regarding Page, the couple of meetings is a bit of an understatement; in the linked WaPo article from Jan 31 2018, details are given regarding a rather extensive history pf Page's interactions with known Russian intelligence actors:


What we know about the warrant to surveil Carter Page --

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/...=.32e080dd6ac1


It seems Page had a lot more than a casual connection with Russian interests...

Here's on very important fact to keep in mind when considering the Page warrant discussion: no one really, actually knows the literal content of the warrant nor the full nature and extent of the underlying support documentation. The warrant is a highly classified document and outside a very small circle of investigators and the FISA court, no one else has seen it; any person who claims to know exactly what is in the warrant is either in violation themselves of all kinds of National Security laws or outright lying. All that exists is speculation based on past knowledge of similar warrants made public, or, in the cases of the tin-foil crowd, fanciful speculation. Until the warrant is made public through use in prosecuting future cases or by declassification, you and I and, importantly, the pundits of all political stripes are merely expressing opinions. In the case of the 'meat' of the Page warrant, there are no facts...

Originally Posted by u crank

...

I think the answer to that might be that interviewing Page would 1. end all suspicions that he was an active agent of a foreign power and 2. not allow the surveillance on him that would also start an accidental surveillance of the Trump campaign.

...

Originally Posted by u crank

...

And so the big question..

...

I think the answer to that might be that interviewing Page would 1. end all suspicions that he was an active agent of a foreign power and 2. not allow the surveillance on him that would also start an accidental surveillance of the Trump campaign.

...

I think the answer to that might be that interviewing Page would:

1. Possibly tip the FBI/DOJ's hand on the full nature of their investigation to other possible co-defendants in the investigation; Paul Manafort's lawsuit contending the SC exceeded the scope of his legally allowed mandate (he didn't) has been noted as a tactic by Manafort to get a better look at what case Mueller fully has against him; an interesting part of this tactic would be if Manafort were successful in getting the SC to reveal more of the case against Manafort, a beneficiary of such information would be some of the other pending defendants/POIs, and, by extension, relevant members of the Trump administration (Kushner, Trump Jr, etc.); btw, Manafort's chances of winning his challenge has been estimated as very slim to none... and,

2.

not allow the surveillance on him that would also start an accidental surveillance of the Trump campaign.

Actually, there were and still are more than enough avenues for supporting surveillance of a goodly number of known Trump-campaign associates to make Page not an instigator of such action, but just another branch of the tree:

How important is Carter Page to the Russia investigation? --

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/...=.57e714ad9c79


It should be noted, also, the GOP and Trump camps seem to be manically focused on Page to the exclusion of virtually all other factors in the investigation. There is a sense Page's situation has become a sort of combination 'straw man'/'stalking horse' for the GOP/Trump, a means of trying to distract from the whole by trying to turn focus on a small part and a means of trying to draw out more intel on just what the SC/DOJ have on the Trump associates. When you look at the whole of the scandal, Page may just be a footnote...


Carter Page, the star of the Nunes memo, explained --

https://www.vox.com/policy-and-polit...mo-carter-page

8) How important is Carter Page to Robert Mueller’s investigation?

For all we know, he isn’t important to it at all.

The Washington Post reported that in March 2017, FBI agents interviewed Page for a total of about 10 hours over five separate meetings, and asked him about claims made in the Steele dossier.

But there’s no indication that this led anywhere, and it happened before Mueller was appointed to lead the investigation in May.

Mueller has held his cards remarkably close to the vest all along. But he’s indicted two former Trump aides already — Paul Manafort and Rick Gates. And he’s gotten two others — George Papadopoulos and Michael Flynn — to become cooperating witnesses as part of plea deals. None of the charges that have been brought appear to relate in any way to Page, or (so far as we know) to information learned from the surveillance of Page.

So it’s entirely possible that investigators eventually concluded Page did nothing wrong and moved on to focus their probe elsewhere. Or not.

Originally Posted by u crank

This looks like another in a long list of missteps by the FBI/DOJ. How many more are there?

Care to share that long list, so far? The SC/FBI so far has produced 19 indictments in the investigation and has gotten 5 guilty pleas and full cooperation agreements from the guilty pleas (note; 13 of the 19 indictments are against Russian individuals or entities and it is very unlikely Putin will allow the defendants to stand trial). Out of 6 indictments, SC/DOJ has a 'batting average' of .833, pretty damn good by any measure. If there were so vastly many 'missteps' as you maintain, why are the results for the SC so strong?...

A point I'd like to make about the whole Russia-Trump campaign scandal: the minions defending the Trump campaign and administration keep maintaining the investigations are a politically motivated 'witch hunt'. I don't know about anyone else, but if I were an national security investigator, I'd be very interested in the unusual confluence of so many Russia-involved individuals concentrated into a specific organization: Manafort, Flynn, Papadopoulos, Gates, Kushner, Page, and more, all with connections to Russian interests 'just happen' to have come together in the same organizations at the same time by coincidence? Maybe so. But to anyone tasked with securing the interests of the US, such a 'coincidence' would certainly raise an eyebrow...

A goodly number of people don't believe in coincidence and a goodly number of them also believe everything happens for a reason...











<O>

[vienna]

The hammer finally came down today when WH Chief Of Staff Gen. Kelly followed through on his intent to reclassify Jared Kusner and several other of the WH staff to lower security clearances:


Kushner loses access to top-secret intelligence --

https://www.politico.com/story/2018/...wngrade-427178


The following report published today gives a very strong possible reason why Kushner had his clearance degraded:


Kushner’s overseas contacts raise concerns as foreign officials seek leverage --

https://www.washingtonpost.com/world...=.56d594238a58













<O>

[u crank]

Originally Posted by vienna

Again, an op-ed piece is not definitive proof; it is opinion, not full fact, it is not solid evidence, and, as with all op-ed pieces, it is certain to be skewed towards persuasion.

That's the second time you've said that about one of McCarthy's columns. Of course he has an opinion. That's his job. McCarthy is a former Assistant United States Attorney who seems to have some understanding of the law and does a pretty good job of backing up his opinions with relevant facts and references to the law in all of his 'opinion pieces'. I like him.

The Steele memos dealt with a broad number of concerns (and, yes, I do find the more salacious elements highly doubtful, but not fully sufficient to impugn the whole) beyond merely Page; 50+ pages of supporting documents submitted in support of the initial warrant does indicate there was far more to the case against Page than just a couple of meetings

Well there is the problem. If these 50+ pages are so relevant to the case for a warrant, why the dossier? Why was this dossier, written by a guy with an obvious bias who was hired by a guy with an obvious bias and financed by the DNC and the Clinton campaign not dropped in the nearest waste container when all this other material was available. I think the answer is fairly obvious. Former FBI Deputy Director Andrew McCabe testified before The House Judiciary and Oversight committee in December 2017 that no surveillance warrant would have been sought from the FISC without the Steele dossier information.

The Democrats' memo fully admits that DOJ officials used the discredited dossier in their application to the FISA court to obtain the Carter Page warrant. They just say that it wasn't central to that application. But of the four items the memo says the FBI used to demonstrate the need for the wiretap, only one would have been justification for the court's actually doing so — Page's "suspicious activities" in Russia in 2016 — a claim found only in the dossier.

What's more, the memo states that it was only in subsequent applications to renew the FISA warrant that the FBI "corroborated Steele's reporting" — it doesn't say how — which means the initial application relied on uncorroborated claims in the dossier.

Nor does the memo try to refute another point in the Republican memo: that former FBI deputy director Andrew McCabe testified that a FISA warrant would never had been issued without the dossier. Democrats said that wasn't true when Republicans quoted McCabe, but their memo ignores the matter entirely.

https://www.investors.com/politics/e...rebuttal-memo/

And on it goes. I think there have already been rebuttals of the rebuttal. Hey I'm for finding out all we can find out. And apparently we may get some answers some day.

Attorney General Jeff Sessions said Tuesday that the Justice Department's inspector general is looking into a House Republican memo's claim that prosecutors and FBI agents misled a federal judge when applying for warrants to surveil a Trump campaign adviser with ties to Moscow.

https://www.politico.com/story/2018/...essions-428387

I like this guys take on it.

I'm hopeful that Robert Mueller's eventual conclusions will address not only any crimes that may have been committed by Russians -- or by members of the Trump administration and campaign -- but any overreach or abuses undertaken by the Justice Department in the early stages of the probe he inherited.

https://townhall.com/tipsheet/guyben...nunes-n2454415

I also have a question for you Vienna. Of course you are under no obligation to answer and I understand fully why you might not want to but here goes. I believe you live in the L.A. area. Are you in the 28th congressional district? Just curious.

[vienna]

Originally Posted by u crank

That's the second time you've said that about one of McCarthy's columns. Of course he has an opinion. That's his job. McCarthy is a former Assistant United States Attorney who seems to have some understanding of the law and does a pretty good job of backing up his opinions with relevant facts and references to the law in all of his 'opinion pieces'. I like him.

I do read The National Review (one of the few current Conservative publications that has any actual brainpower behind it) and I have liked a lot of what McCarthy has written, even if, in some cases, I may not fully agree with all his points; I respect his viewpoint and his intelligence. But the facts remain: an op-ed piece is an opinion piece and not necessarily absolute fact; additionally, as stated before, McCarthy is operating on information he or any of us can glean from what is being reported: the actual facts may very well be significantly different than what he purports in his opinion piece. Until the final indictments/pleas/trials/convictions (or acquittals) are in, anything is in play. The number of people who have any actual knowledge of the process thus far is extremely small and even his experience/knowledge in law does not make him any more immune to misinterpretation than anyone else...

Originally Posted by u crank

Well there is the problem. If these 50+ pages are so relevant to the case for a warrant, why the dossier? Why was this dossier, written by a guy with an obvious bias who was hired by a guy with an obvious bias and financed by the DNC and the Clinton campaign not dropped in the nearest waste container when all this other material was available. I think the answer is fairly obvious. Former FBI Deputy Director Andrew McCabe testified before The House Judiciary and Oversight committee in December 2017 that no surveillance warrant would have been sought from the FISC without the Steele dossier information.


https://www.investors.com/politics/e...rebuttal-memo/

And on it goes. I think there have already been rebuttals of the rebuttal. Hey I'm for finding out all we can find out. And apparently we may get some answers some day.

Funny thing about those McCabe quotes flying around: there is no actual documentation he actually made those exact statement(s) nor the context in which they were made. This is because McCabe's relevant testimony is still classified and has not been released, so we don't really know the real facts, just what the House GOP and the persons trying desperately to derail any actual attempt to get at the truth have said are the "facts". Until the transcript(s) sees light of day, again we are in the dark; so, basically, the Trump-defenders are demanding the citizens of the US accept their version without any actual proof what they are saying is actually the truth...

As for the dossier, again, it is (was) not the whole of the warrant application, unless, of course, you choose to believe unsubstantiated claims and innuendo spouted by persons who have never actually seen the warrant, and, remember, the warrant is highly classified, so anyone who has seen it and comments on it is in violation of Federal national security laws, you know, like Devin Nunes, who has seen his approval ratings in his own district plummet (he may not survive the mid-terms)...

Also, as stated before, all judges with experience in hearing criminal proceedings, including warrant applications, are fully aware intel obtained from informants carries with it a very, very strong certainty of animus towards the subject of the warrant application; it is really a far-fetched stretch of credulity to believe an experienced. competent judge would not ask questions about the provenance of the intel if he had any doubts; what the 'it was all based on the dossier' camp wants us to believe is:

1) a competent, professional prosecutor would actually go before a competent, professional and experienced judge and seek a warrant solely based on a single flimsy (by the accounts of the 'fake dossier' camp) document, without other documentation or corroboration;

2) a competent, professional, and experienced judge would not, being presented with a single, flimsy document would not actually ask the prosecutor "What else have you got?", a question which is pretty much SOP in warrant applications;

3) that any Federal judge appointed to a high profile, highly sensitive, and national security-related bench like the FISA Court could be by any stretch of the imagination so incompetent as to be neglectful of his responsibilities

I would also point out, again, there is an appeal mechanism in the structure of the FISA Court to provide a means to challenge warrants; the fact that none of the person's involved has made even any attempt to avail themselves of the appeal process speaks to a high possibility they do not believe they would be able to prevail. I guess its easier to have a 'trial' in the public of half-truths, innuendo, slanted opinion, and political hysterics rather than actually making the effort to settle the matter(s) properly and officially; I also guess its easier than facing a high possibility of failure...

I also agree with you: I'm for finding out all we can find out. And apparently we may get some answers some day. But that can only happen through actually looking for the truth, not just ignoring serious concerns. And, if there are situations related to misconduct by anyone involved, I have high confidence Mueller, given his reputation as a determined and tenacious investigator and prosecutor would not turn a blind eye...

Originally Posted by u crank

I also have a question for you Vienna. Of course you are under no obligation to answer and I understand fully why you might not want to but here goes. I believe you live in the L.A. area. Are you in the 28th congressional district? Just curious.

I don't really understand why you would think I would shy away from answering your question. Are you engaging in your own brand of 'innuedo defense'?

I do happen to be in the 28th Congressional District, represented by Adam Schiff, who has been the Representative for about the last 6 years (for those outside the US, House terms are two years in length). The 28th District is huge and includes all sorts of cities and communities, not just portions of the City of Los Angeles, proper; in fact, until several years ago, prior to redistricting, my residence was part of another, entirely different district; I didn't move into the 28th -- it moved into me...

So, I'm guessing you are now going to try to make some sort of connection between the happenstance Schiff represents my district and my views on the Trump/Russia scandals. Well, that really would be rather weak, sad and pathetic. I am, as often stated, an Independent, and do not, like so many, blindly follow a party or party line. I am more than willing to admit I did vote for Schiff in the last (2016) Congressional election, something I did because the GOP candidate was so wildly unacceptable; in fact, Schiff got 78% of the vote in the district, a whopping big number. But, you know, I would just as easily have voted for a GOP candidate, if the CA-GOP would field candidates other than the whack jobs they usually field here in CA. I have, in the past, voted for GOP candidates, as I have for DEM and Independent candidates. I voted based on researched qualifications...

So, go ahead. Take your shot at trying to make an ominous connection. If nothing else, it could be highly amusing...











<O>

[vienna]

Came across this and thought this thread needed a good laugh:


Fox News contributor mocked over claim Navy SEALs couldn’t breach Trump wall prototype --

http://thehill.com/homenews/media/37...couldnt-breach














<O>