Release the Krak... err FISA Memo!

[fskimospy]

The attempts to rope Obama into a conspiracy against Trump / pro Hillary are funny. If a sitting president gets intelligence information that the Secretary of State's emails have been hacked and potentially contain highly classified information, and subsequently learns that the hack emanates from a foreign state, what are they supposed to do? I think staying abreast of the investigation is quite a responsible action. Now, if he attempted to influence the investigation, that would be different. I could certainly see him getting in trouble if he asked the investigators to swear loyalty to him, fired investigators for their conflicts of interest into his personal connection to the investigation, tried to protect political allies he knew were guilty of crimes, ordered firing of investigators that prompted members of his team to threaten resignation if carried out... That would be bad if Obama had done that.

What I like is that the article simultaneously tries to argue the investigation was such a huge deal that Comey must have known about it and that Obama was wrong for wanting to know about it.

For something called the 'thinker' they don't seem to be doing much thinking.

 

[MomentsofSanity]

It's amusing hearing the admin now say they will rely on the recommendations of the FBI and DOJ on releasing the Dem memo when they completely rejected their recommendations and released the GOP memo against their concerns.

 

[SMOGZINN]

I'd suspect Mueller knows quite a bit more than he's letting on. I think he's building a case based on decades of evidence and behaviors, and "colluding in the Russian attempt to influence the US election" is going be like criminal charge #52.

I agree with you, but I think Mueller needs to hurry up. I hope he realizes that he is in a literal race right now to see if he can recommend charges before the Republican propaganda machine can come up with a story compelling enough end his investigation and cover up whatever he has.

 

[sactoking]

It's amusing hearing the admin now say they will rely on the recommendations of the FBI and DOJ on releasing the Dem memo when they completely rejected their recommendations and released the GOP memo against their concerns.

It's the perfect cover. If FBI/DOJ stick to their guns and say it shouldn't be released just like the Nunez memo they can say "Not our fault!" If the FBI/DOJ authorize the rebuttal for release they can say "See, objecting to Nunez was partisan obstruction and deep state shenanigans all along!"

 

[Jhhnn]

I agree with you, but I think Mueller needs to hurry up. I hope he realizes that he is in a literal race right now to see if he can recommend charges before the Republican propaganda machine can come up with a story compelling enough end his investigation and cover up whatever he has.

I don't think that story can be written.

 

[Jhhnn]

It's the perfect cover. If FBI/DOJ stick to their guns and say it shouldn't be released just like the Nunez memo they can say "Not our fault!" If the FBI/DOJ authorize the rebuttal for release they can say "See, objecting to Nunez was partisan obstruction and deep state shenanigans all along!"

Of course. OTOH, I doubt any of it will do more than keep the Faithful in the pews. Trump is incompetent. He never should have released the Nunes memo. He'd have been better off to just wave it in the air like Joe McCarthy's list of 200 communists in the State Dept.

 

[Amused]

The Media outside the lunatic fringe's main fault is the belief in the equality of opinion in an effort to be "fair." Not all opinions are equal and should not be treated as such. That very idea is what got us to this point in the first place. Discuss the valid facts and dispel the misconceptions. Once a misconception is confirmed as contrary to known fact, stop discussing it. End of broadcast. It is the continued entertaining of wrongly held misconceptions that drives this. And unfortunately, that conflict drives ratings. So... Here we are.

 

[Jaskalas]

You are smarter than using fucking hannity as a source for anything.

At a minimum he's using half truths to bake a story. That the replies up to yours include no such delving into the facts is a partisan defense, without any attempt to address the reality of the situation. Which part of Senators Chuck Grassley and Lindsey Graham's reveal would you like to deny and/or refute first?

• We know the Clinton campaign paid Fusion GPS for the dossier.
• We know Clinton associates are accused of “feeding” info to Mr Steele.
• We know Mr Steele used Russian Government sources.
• We know the FBI (and DOJ) vouched for Mr Steele regardless of his sources, his bias, and his lying to them.
• We know the FBI (and DOJ) presented his dossier to FISA courts, thereby vouching for it as evidence, on multiple occasions.

So what do you make of that?
Oh, and PS... you are smarter than thinking "fucking hannity" is a source for anything. He's not.

 

[Amused]

The Media outside the lunatic fringe's main fault is the belief in the equality of opinion in an effort to be "fair." Not all opinions are equal and should not be treated as such. That very idea is what got us to this point in the first place. Discuss the valid facts and dispel the misconceptions. Once a misconception is confirmed as contrary to known fact, stop discussing it. End of broadcast. It is the continued entertaining of wrongly held misconceptions that drives this. And unfortunately, that conflict drives ratings. So... Here we are.

Example: A common misconception held in today's political climate is that "the Steele Dossier was the evidence used to obtain the FISA warrant on Carter Page." This is demonstrably false. And yet, the media keeps entertaining, then tearing down this misconception as though it were an equally valid opinion. It is not. It is factually incorrect and easily proved as such.

Another example: The Steele Dossier has both verified and unverified claims in it. This is confirmed in on the record FBI testimony. And yet, the validity of the Dossier is constantly held as wholly "unverified" or even "discredited." This is plainly a demonstrable misconception and should not be open for discussion.

Facts matter. If your opinion is contrary to known fact, it is a misconception and irrelevant.

 

[Jhhnn]

At a minimum he's using half truths to bake a story. That the replies up to yours include no such delving into the facts is a partisan defense, without any attempt to address the reality of the situation. Which part of Senators Chuck Grassley and Lindsey Graham's reveal would you like to deny and/or refute first?

• We know the Clinton campaign paid Fusion GPS for the dossier.
• We know Clinton associates are accused of “feeding” info to Mr Steele.
• We know Mr Steele used Russian Government sources.
• We know the FBI (and DOJ) vouched for Mr Steele regardless of his sources, his bias, and his lying to them.
• We know the FBI (and DOJ) presented his dossier to FISA courts, thereby vouching for it as evidence, on multiple occasions.

So what do you make of that?
Oh, and PS... you are smarter than thinking "fucking hannity" is a source for anything. He's not.

And yet Putin demonstrably threw in for Trump, bigly. Musta been fr the MAGA, apparently.

 

[fskimospy]

At a minimum he's using half truths to bake a story. That the replies up to yours include no such delving into the facts is a partisan defense, without any attempt to address the reality of the situation. Which part of Senators Chuck Grassley and Lindsey Graham's reveal would you like to deny and/or refute first?

• We know the Clinton campaign paid Fusion GPS for the dossier.
• We know Clinton associates are accused of “feeding” info to Mr Steele.
• We know Mr Steele used Russian Government sources.
• We know the FBI (and DOJ) vouched for Mr Steele regardless of his sources, his bias, and his lying to them.
• We know the FBI (and DOJ) presented his dossier to FISA courts, thereby vouching for it as evidence, on multiple occasions.

So what do you make of that?
Oh, and PS... you are smarter than thinking "fucking hannity" is a source for anything. He's not.

I make it to be completely normal and not interesting in any way.

1) Political opponents pay for opposition research all the time. This is not interesting or notable in any way.

2) The fact that the Clinton campaign would tell Steele about avenues for potential further opposition research is not interesting or notable in any way. Why wouldn't they do this?

3) He was compiling a dossier about the activities of the Russian government. I keep asking this question and nobody seems to be able to answer it. How the fuck would you ever hope to compile intelligence about the activities of the Russian government without using Russian government sources? Of course he used them! It's called 'being competent'.

4) The FBI would consider Steele using Russian government sources to be a plus, not a minus. You realize the FBI almost certainly uses Russian government sources on an ongoing basis, right? Also, every source the FBI uses is biased in some way. That's not interesting or special in the least. What matters is if the information they provide is credible. Clearly the FBI and the FISA court thought it was. If you have any evidence of them presenting information to the FISA court from him that they considered non-credible or should have known wasn't credible that would be interesting. (this evidence does not exist)

5) Of course they presented it to the FISA court as evidence as... it was evidence!

I'm genuinely at a loss, I don't see how anyone would look at this and say anything other than 'seems like normal operations to me'. What do you see here? Are you arguing that opposition research is invalid evidence? Are you arguing that the Clintons shouldn't have aided their investigator? That Steele should have compiled information on the Russian government without using sources in the Russian government? Help us out here.

 

[HomerJS]

At a minimum he's using half truths to bake a story. That the replies up to yours include no such delving into the facts is a partisan defense, without any attempt to address the reality of the situation. Which part of Senators Chuck Grassley and Lindsey Graham's reveal would you like to deny and/or refute first?

• We know the Clinton campaign paid Fusion GPS for the dossier.
• Data used in dossier paid by Free Beacon
• We know Clinton associates are accused of “feeding” info to Mr Steele.
• Accused without evidence?
• We know Mr Steele used Russian Government sources.
• Russians vs Russian government
• We know the FBI (and DOJ) vouched for Mr Steele regardless of his sources, his bias, and his lying to them.
• Chris Steele has a stellar reputation going back to his spy days
• We know the FBI (and DOJ) presented his dossier to FISA courts, thereby vouching for it as evidence, on multiple occasions.
• Raw intel can be used as evidence but must be corroborated along with other evidence to get a FISA warrant

So what do you make of that?
Oh, and PS... you are smarter than thinking "fucking hannity" is a source for anything. He's not.

Speaking of half truths...

Just clearing up a few things

 

[fskimospy]

Speaking of half truths...

Just clearing up a few things

And again, this dastardly set of deeds was apparently done for the purpose of wiretapping someone who wasn't a member of the Trump campaign or transition team and who Trump claims was never a part of his campaign at all.

It's pretty odd that the anti-Trump conspiracy forgot to target Trump.

 

[Amused]

A comment from a cycling buddy who is a very successful corporate lawyer here in LA:

Shaking my head with sadness when I listen to the way Fox, CNN, and MSNBC have been covering this “memo” story. This is kind of a long post, but it lays out some facts – so read on if you’re interested and move on if you’re not.

Listening to the liberal news sites, you’d think that the process for obtaining a FISA warrant is highly rigorous. But in fact, for the core pieces of information the statute only requires the court to make a finding that what the government is telling the court “is not clearly erroneous.” That’s the actual language. (Surprised? Read the statute, 50 U.S.C. 1805(a)(4), for yourself here: https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/50/1805). The last statistics I could find (2016) showed in that year the court approved over 98% of the 1750+ applications it reviewed. http://www.uscourts.gov/…/ao_foreign_int_surveillance_court… Oh so rigorous!

Listening to the conservative news sites, you’d think the FBI’s reliance on a partisan document to establish probable cause for a wiretap is somehow unlawful or out of the ordinary. The fact is, most probable cause – from drug cases to murder cases to international terrorism – is established on the basis of information provided by folks with an axe to grind (a warring gang; a jilted lover; a business competitor, etc.) and that has long been considered fair bounds. As the Supreme Court has said, a court is “simply to make a practical, common-sense decision whether, given all the circumstances set forth in the affidavit before him, including the ‘veracity’ and ‘basis of knowledge’ of persons supplying hearsay information, there is a fair probability that contraband or evidence of a crime will be found in a particular place.” http://caselaw.findlaw.com/us-supreme-court/462/213.htmlYou don’t need proof for “probable cause,” you just need a little bit of reasonable evidence. And I’ve generally gathered many people – and especially most conservatives – like that standard as long as they’re not the person the government is investigating.

The fact is, the statute was written with such a low standard and permits government secrecy largely because the government wanted to spy on (mostly Muslim-) Americans where the government sorta thinks they just might be engaged in terrorism.

So we have conservatives objecting to the fairly routine use of a statute they basically like, except that it is being used against someone on their team. And we have liberals defending the statute that they basically detest, because doing so scores political points in the moment. And our press isn’t simply turning a blind eye to this, it’s feeding it.

 

[fskimospy]

A comment from a cycling buddy who is a very successful corporate lawyer here in LA:

Shaking my head with sadness when I listen to the way Fox, CNN, and MSNBC have been covering this “memo” story. This is kind of a long post, but it lays out some facts – so read on if you’re interested and move on if you’re not.

Listening to the liberal news sites, you’d think that the process for obtaining a FISA warrant is highly rigorous. But in fact, for the core pieces of information the statute only requires the court to make a finding that what the government is telling the court “is not clearly erroneous.” That’s the actual language. (Surprised? Read the statute, 50 U.S.C. 1805(a)(4), for yourself here: https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/50/1805). The last statistics I could find (2016) showed in that year the court approved over 98% of the 1750+ applications it reviewed. http://www.uscourts.gov/…/ao_foreign_int_surveillance_court… Oh so rigorous!

Listening to the conservative news sites, you’d think the FBI’s reliance on a partisan document to establish probable cause for a wiretap is somehow unlawful or out of the ordinary. The fact is, most probable cause – from drug cases to murder cases to international terrorism – is established on the basis of information provided by folks with an axe to grind (a warring gang; a jilted lover; a business competitor, etc.) and that has long been considered fair bounds. As the Supreme Court has said, a court is “simply to make a practical, common-sense decision whether, given all the circumstances set forth in the affidavit before him, including the ‘veracity’ and ‘basis of knowledge’ of persons supplying hearsay information, there is a fair probability that contraband or evidence of a crime will be found in a particular place.” http://caselaw.findlaw.com/us-supreme-court/462/213.htmlYou don’t need proof for “probable cause,” you just need a little bit of reasonable evidence. And I’ve generally gathered many people – and especially most conservatives – like that standard as long as they’re not the person the government is investigating.

The fact is, the statute was written with such a low standard and permits government secrecy largely because the government wanted to spy on (mostly Muslim-) Americans where the government sorta thinks they just might be engaged in terrorism.

So we have conservatives objecting to the fairly routine use of a statute they basically like, except that it is being used against someone on their team. And we have liberals defending the statute that they basically detest, because doing so scores political points in the moment. And our press isn’t simply turning a blind eye to this, it’s feeding it.

I think your friend has this pretty wrong.

1) I haven't seen anyone claim the standard of evidence is particularly high for FISA warrants. Also, if your friend is using the fact that 98% are approved as evidence of the FISA court's lack of rigor he might be surprised to learn that federal wiretapping warrants on the whole have been approved at a more than 98% rate over the last decade. Unless he thinks all federal courts apply no rigor to their wiretaps this statistic of his is a big mistake. He might want to take that argument out.

2) I haven't seen anyone defending the FISA statute or honestly, many conservatives attacking the FISA statute. The argument is about whether or not the FBI acted illegally or corruptly while pursuing a wiretap under that statute. All evidence indicates they did not and that conservatives are lying about this, but that's another story.

Your friend just 'bothsides'-ed things by making up arguments that nobody's having.

 

[HomerJS]

A comment from a cycling buddy who is a very successful corporate lawyer here in LA:

Shaking my head with sadness when I listen to the way Fox, CNN, and MSNBC have been covering this “memo” story. This is kind of a long post, but it lays out some facts – so read on if you’re interested and move on if you’re not.

Listening to the liberal news sites, you’d think that the process for obtaining a FISA warrant is highly rigorous. But in fact, for the core pieces of information the statute only requires the court to make a finding that what the government is telling the court “is not clearly erroneous.” That’s the actual language. (Surprised? Read the statute, 50 U.S.C. 1805(a)(4), for yourself here: https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/50/1805). The last statistics I could find (2016) showed in that year the court approved over 98% of the 1750+ applications it reviewed. http://www.uscourts.gov/…/ao_foreign_int_surveillance_court… Oh so rigorous!

Listening to the conservative news sites, you’d think the FBI’s reliance on a partisan document to establish probable cause for a wiretap is somehow unlawful or out of the ordinary. The fact is, most probable cause – from drug cases to murder cases to international terrorism – is established on the basis of information provided by folks with an axe to grind (a warring gang; a jilted lover; a business competitor, etc.) and that has long been considered fair bounds. As the Supreme Court has said, a court is “simply to make a practical, common-sense decision whether, given all the circumstances set forth in the affidavit before him, including the ‘veracity’ and ‘basis of knowledge’ of persons supplying hearsay information, there is a fair probability that contraband or evidence of a crime will be found in a particular place.” http://caselaw.findlaw.com/us-supreme-court/462/213.htmlYou don’t need proof for “probable cause,” you just need a little bit of reasonable evidence. And I’ve generally gathered many people – and especially most conservatives – like that standard as long as they’re not the person the government is investigating.

The fact is, the statute was written with such a low standard and permits government secrecy largely because the government wanted to spy on (mostly Muslim-) Americans where the government sorta thinks they just might be engaged in terrorism.

So we have conservatives objecting to the fairly routine use of a statute they basically like, except that it is being used against someone on their team. And we have liberals defending the statute that they basically detest, because doing so scores political points in the moment. And our press isn’t simply turning a blind eye to this, it’s feeding it.

Your friend is wrong about the "both sides" argument.

So called libs were against Bush going around the FISA courts with his warrantless wiretapping.

 

[Amused]

OK. Good to know. I respect his opinion and while he's a busy guy, I think this was his impression from a few of the debates he saw in CNN, Fox and MSNBC.

But hey, if he has a limited misconception, cool. But I have kinda seen what he's talking about.

The very senators who just renewed the FISA bill are trying to tear it apart for being too liberal. (Nunes) Fox is running with this.

And I have seen some mainstream commentators talk up the standards to seem higher than they are.

Maybe that's not the bulk, but I have got the feeling he's getting from the media here.

 

[brandonbull]

And yet Putin demonstrably threw in for Trump, bigly. Musta been fr the MAGA, apparently.

I guess Putin hated the flexible red lines he got from Obama and the Dims. Also, the 80's are long gone so leave the poor Russians alone.

 

[Amused]

Ever catch someone cheating on you and instead of admitting to it, they get mad at you for snooping and catching them?

Yeah... The GOP narrative over the Russia Investigation is kinda like that.

 

[HomerJS]

I guess Putin hated the flexible red lines he got from Obama and the Dims. Also, the 80's are long gone so leave the poor Russians alone.

At least a real President won't put up with nonsense from Russia. Obama slaps them with sanctions while Trump either weakens or ignores them.

BTW - What has your Orange Dildo done to protect the United States in the upcoming election?

 

[echo4747]

Differing from the Page/Strozk texts...Former president Obama claims in this video he does not talk to FBI directors about pending investigation in this video ( about the Clinton email investigation ):
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dDA2z4I3DLE

 

[emperus]

I'm very impressed with the Republican party and at the same time very terrified about the ramifications of what we are seeing. They have gotten a good size of the population to believe a firmly Conservative FBI led by a Republican FBI director who caused the Democratic candidate to lose by recklessness in its investigation is somehow with the help of a Republican Special Prosecutor and a Republican Deputy AG out to get a Republican president. They have so far shifted the reference of what bias is, that the Democrats are cheerily supporting and not criticizing the Republican Deputy AG and Republican Special Prosecutor. And now, some people are arguing that because a political party paid an ex-spy to gather information, that information in itself is inherently wrong even if corroborated by other sources. The amount of uncritical thinking it takes to both believe that and also believe that Devin Nunes (who was on Turmp's transition team) is being totally up and up is mind boggling and scary as shit. We have entered a new age of politics and everyone should be terrified by the ramifications.

 

[Jhhnn]

I guess Putin hated the flexible red lines he got from Obama and the Dims. Also, the 80's are long gone so leave the poor Russians alone.

There is the small matter of naked military aggression in Ukraine... hacking the DNC, the State dept & God only knows who else... thousands of trolls & bots fucking with our heads during the election & even now with #releasethememo...

 

[soundforbjt]

There is the small matter of naked military aggression in Ukraine... hacking the DNC, the State dept & God only knows who else... thousands of trolls & bots fucking with our heads during the election & even now with #releasethememo...

And Tillerson basically said there’s nothing they can do to protect the midterm elections.

 

[Jhhnn]

Differing from the Page/Strozk texts...Former president Obama claims in this video he does not talk to FBI directors about pending investigation in this video ( about the Clinton email investigation ):
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dDA2z4I3DLE

So what?