1. Welcome to Georgia Tech Swarm! JOIN US and be a part of the SWARM! GO JACKETS! THWg!

Here's a copy of the incriminating FISA memo that's just been released

Discussion in 'The Swarm Lounge' started by MikeJackets1967, Feb 2, 2018.

  1. bwelbo

    bwelbo Helluva Engineer

    Messages:
    15,007
    It would certainly give a lot more information for sure. But I wouldn’t hold my breath for that, because it’s likely there are all kinds of details that they’d never want to show, and not just for political reasons. I’d love to see it. But either way the Mueller investigation would continue, and either way we’d still know the FBI and DOJ stink to high heaven.
     
  2. AE 87

    AE 87 Helluva Engineer

    Messages:
    13,542
    I would also answer no to your reworded question. However, I think it's meaningless.

    You seem to think that it's okay to make up political dirt on a member of the other party and use it in a FISA warrant application to spy on an American citizen as long as it's not salacious.

    Again, in my questions, I'm not referring to what happened but to what we can agree should not happen.

    I still think that the FBI should not use a political source for seeking a warrant to spy on an American.

    If you can verify information, you can use the verification without using the political source--or being very explicit and up front about the political source if you do use it.

    Why do you disagree with me?
     
    bwelbo likes this.
  3. RonJohn

    RonJohn Helluva Engineer

    Messages:
    2,311
    The only thing I disagree with is the wording is too open. If a document of political dirt points the FBI in a direction and they find corroborating evidence, then they should use it to get a warrant. For example: A political hit piece says that Person A met with Foreign Spy B in a train station on a certain date and discussed classified information C. The FBI find out that Person A and Foreign Spy B both had train tickets at that train station on that date. The FBI find out from the CIA that SPY B made a report about classified information C the day after the train. The fact that they were in the same area, and the spy made a report probably would not be enough to get a warrant. However, if that statement from a political hit piece, which did not have access to the CIA report about SPY B reporting classified information C is submitted along with those being in the same area, and SPY B reporting the information shortly after that date, there is enough information to at least investigate Person A. The only thing about the source of the claim that would be important is whether or not the authors of the political hit piece had access to the CIA information that SPY B made a report about that particular information shortly after the meeting.

    I cannot say that no information from any political dirt piece should ever be used. I would say that if a particular statement can't be corroborated that it should not be used, whether the information comes from an ally or a political foe.
     
  4. AE 87

    AE 87 Helluva Engineer

    Messages:
    13,542
    Why are you in favor of hiding or obscuring the source of the information?

    I allowed for a situation where it might be used, saying you should be explicit and up front about the source.
     
    bwelbo likes this.
  5. RonJohn

    RonJohn Helluva Engineer

    Messages:
    2,311
    My response said absolutely nothing about hiding the source.

    Sent from my SM-G930V using Tapatalk
     
  6. RonJohn

    RonJohn Helluva Engineer

    Messages:
    2,311
    This, your original question says nothing about hiding the source. My objection to the question, I believe I explained above. It is possible that some information, even if it comes from people who are out to get a political foe is indeed true. Does not have to be the point of the document, or the entire document. It could be as simple as meetings that can be corroborated. If the FBI uses political conclusions or non corroborated statements from any document from any source, that is wrong. If they use limited statements from any source that are corroborated, then I have no issue.

    Sent from my SM-G930V using Tapatalk
     
  7. AE 87

    AE 87 Helluva Engineer

    Messages:
    13,542
    Read what you replied to.

    I had allowed the possibility of them using political dirt if they were explicit and up front about the source.

    You didn't simply agree to that but went on a rant about when it might be necessary to use such a source, as if I had not already allowed it.

    So, your response only makes sense if you disagreed with me and are in favor of them being able to hide or obscure the source.
     
  8. RonJohn

    RonJohn Helluva Engineer

    Messages:
    2,311
    Read the original question you wanted me to respond to. It says absolutely nothing about hiding the source.

    Sent from my SM-G930V using Tapatalk
     
  9. AE 87

    AE 87 Helluva Engineer

    Messages:
    13,542
    Let's try and focus and talk with each other. Going back to an earlier post to muddy any progress is not helpful.

    While I don't think the FBI should use political dirt in a FISA application, I have agreed with you that there might be situations where it is necessary. I changed my suggestion in positive response to you.

    You then gave a good example of such a case of needing to use it.

    So, let me try again to restate what I hope we can agee on about FISA applications:

    1) Unverified or non-supported political dirt should not be used.
    2) Statements from such dirt might be used if they make claims which independently fit with other verified information.
    3) Whenever such information is used, the source of the information should be explicit and up-front. The FBI should never hide nor obscure their use of political dirt.
     
    Whiskey_Clear and bwelbo like this.
  10. RonJohn

    RonJohn Helluva Engineer

    Messages:
    2,311
    I do agree with that with a clarification to number 3. The FBI should attribute the source of the information. I would say that from a "political source" is not enough attribution for the judge to understand the sourcing. I would say that from "political opposition" would be enough for the judge to understand the nature of the source. I would expect a FISA court judge to extremely thoroughly examine a FISA warrant because it is entirely possible that a defense attorney will not have an opportunity to even examine irregularities in the warrant application. I would expect them to read every single element in the application, including all asterisks and footnotes. I would expect them to ask questions about anything they don't understand. In my opinion, if they do not do that, they are not doing their job. I would say that putting a superscript next to a statement and including the source in a footnote would be acceptable. The judge is not doing his job if he does not read and understand the annotations of the document as well as a researcher writing a research paper should.
     
  11. RonJohn

    RonJohn Helluva Engineer

    Messages:
    2,311
    I wanted to make a more general post.

    The reason I had push back against your question, and the reason that I have push back against the Nunes memo is that words and wording mean things. Sales people, marketing people, and politicians are masters at saying one thing but getting people to believe they have said something different. Bill Clinton was even worse. He would say things that using common definitions of words actually did mean what people understood, but once cornered he would say that he was actually using a definition from 18th Century dictionaries or something like that.

    Your original question had some potential loopholes that you probably did not intend it to have.

    The Nunes memo implies things, but does not directly say them. I believe the Democratic rebuttal will be released soon and I believe the Ds will do the same thing. Their memo will heavily imply that the Rs are completely lying. However, if you parse the words they use it will not actually say that with any proof. I also suspect that the Ds have included information that will indeed have to be redacted for security concerns. The Ds in Congress who have not had access to the memo will then proclaim that the redactions are not for security concerns, but that Trump redacted incriminating and political statements. The FBI will not be able to respond other than it was for security because the actual redactions will be classified information.

    Which is my entire frustration with this specific debate about the warrant and even larger issues. There is a lot of political spin that die hard people on both sides are heavily arguing about, but not much concrete evidence at all. Supposition and innuendo, but no actual proof that can be easily shown and explained.
     
  12. bwelbo

    bwelbo Helluva Engineer

    Messages:
    15,007
    [
    All facts must be completely verified independently in order to be used in a FISA warrant. So the original source being a political one ultimately doesn't matter. If you can't verify any or most of the claims made, you simply can't use it.

    Second to that, I don't think putting "political opposition" is appropriate. I don't think you should ever use generic phrases. You must put people's names and functions/roles. Political opposition could be any political consultant anywhere. If the current administration, DNC, and the DNC's Presidential candidate were communicating with a DNC supporter to compile information from Russians with ties to the Kremlin and KGB, you have to put that information in there. Then explain all the data that independently verifies it all. Because one day, like right now, everything could come out and then you're all toast across the board. To have DNC supporters in the FBI and DOJ working with all these groups is third world political garbage. If anything illegal had come out of it, I would feel differently, but here we are 2 years later and nothing has still been verified. So that pretty much says it all. Remember, Trump is the President. Do we really want Trumps people coordinating with the RNC, FBI, and DOJ communicating with the Russians or Venezuelans or Cubans or Chinese to dig up dirt and then launch a long surveillance campaign?
     
  13. bwelbo

    bwelbo Helluva Engineer

    Messages:
    15,007
    It doesn't matter who is lying. I mean it does, but the point of coordination between the Obama Administration, DNC, Clinton Campaign, FBI, and DOJ with the Russians has been proven. Now we're only arguing about font size and footnotes, which is ultimately irrelevant.
     
  14. RonJohn

    RonJohn Helluva Engineer

    Messages:
    2,311
    There is spin and some facts that loosely correlate, but no concrete proof. That is the reason that I am staying out of that discussion. Violently believing Rs arguing with violently believing Ds, and they only discuss talking points while ignoring the other side. I am well over three years old and have no intention of arguing like those of that age. When it is tied up in a bow with absolutely no supposition and no quasi related facts that have to be considered, then I will start looking at those issues.
     
  15. bwelbo

    bwelbo Helluva Engineer

    Messages:
    15,007
    If you didn't know that it has been proven that Obama folks like the State Department were communicating with the DNC and Clinton Campaign to get/receive information from DNC supporter Christopher Steele, who fed/received information from Russians with connections to the Kremlin and KGB, and that DNC supporters within the FBI and DOJ were involved...then Obama folks were unmasking hundreds of times to get other citizens/Trump campaign names/info/conversations, then that's obviously the source of the problem here of why you have been incredulous all along. All those things are absolutely true.
     
  16. AE 87

    AE 87 Helluva Engineer

    Messages:
    13,542
    Yeah, it seems we may have hit on a real point of disagreement. You seem to be okay with the FBI/DOJ obscuring their sourcing under the expectation that it's okay to make the judge work harder.

    While I don't think the FBI/DOJ should be using extra-ordinary outside info like political dirt, the burden should be on them to explain the source fully and why they are using it.
     
    bwelbo likes this.
  17. RonJohn

    RonJohn Helluva Engineer

    Messages:
    2,311
    Yea, yea, yea. I have no idea about the claims here, but in the past when I have looked into detail for such things to make my own decisions, there has been only spin an innuendo. I have absolutely no interest into looking into it. US political discussions have turned into people parroting Al Franken arguing with people parroting Sean Hannity with no actual discussion. I have no interest in listening to people argue that their side is better. If I can look into facts without listening to such drivel, then I will. If I can't, then I ignore it from both sides.
     
  18. RonJohn

    RonJohn Helluva Engineer

    Messages:
    2,311
    I don't know how the footnote was used in this FISA warrant. I don't know that it was correctly tagged and attributed. So I am not making any declaratory statements about that warrant.

    In general using a superscript and a footnote is normal and accepted practice in almost any form of writing. When you read contracts, do you ignore the tagged footnotes? If so you could miss something like: You will receive your final product 150 years after your final payment. If you don't pay attention to such things then you really should start. I am fine with the FBI putting statements in the narrative of a warrant and using a declared footnote to describe any additional information about the statement.

    A FISA judge is the ONLY check on abuses of the FISA system. I don't think it is extra work for him to read the warrant and understand the warrant along with any annotations, footnotes, attachments, etc. and ask questions about anything he does not understand. If the FISA judge does not to that then there is absolutely no check on the classified ability of the executive branch from abusing the system. The judges sure as hell better be doing that.
     
    Whiskey_Clear likes this.
  19. bwelbo

    bwelbo Helluva Engineer

    Messages:
    15,007
    Try Google. Read Graham & Grassley's criminal referral. There are tons of news stories out there that are Liberal rags, like Vox and others that will state these things. Vox is actually pretty far left liberal, and they have stated 0 of the 6 main assertions in Steele's dossier have been proven true. I encourage you to read news sites from both sides. If you read something especially on a place like FoxNews, if you can't find it on an opposing view, it may not be true. But you will find stories on all these things on both sides, including liberal-slanted sites. At some point if news from both sides of the political spectrum are reporting things and you refuse to believe them, there really isn't much you'll believe no matter what I suppose.
     
  20. Whiskey_Clear

    Whiskey_Clear Banned

    Messages:
    13,638
    There could be legitimate reason to surveil Page again if prior info indicated he likely had ties to seedy Russians or Russian government officials . Because involvement in a presidential campaign could open up a new ball of wax on him.

    That’s hypothetical though and the proof of such is likely classified also.

    Here is another very likely possibility. Page, Popadopalous, and Flynn all had prior Russian ties. (You can bet your *** Hillary and company did as well btw.). If the Obama government wanted to surveil the Trump campaign, what better way than to surveil any and everyone with “Russia”, utilizingbthat as the grounds to in actuality dig up info or dirt on the true target....Trump and his campaign.

    Pretty easy way to backdoor the system to conduct otherwise illegal surveillance. And difficult to prove that is what was actually happening. Because of the “cover”.
     
    Last edited: Feb 9, 2018

Share This Page