CSNbbs

Full Version: Trump Administration
You're currently viewing a stripped down version of our content. View the full version with proper formatting.
Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70 71 72 73 74 75 76 77 78 79 80 81 82 83 84 85 86 87 88 89 90 91 92 93 94 95 96 97 98 99 100 101 102 103 104 105 106 107 108 109 110 111 112 113 114 115 116 117 118 119 120 121 122 123 124 125 126 127 128 129 130 131 132 133 134 135 136 137 138 139 140 141 142 143 144 145 146 147 148 149 150 151 152 153 154 155 156 157 158 159 160 161 162 163 164 165 166 167 168 169 170 171 172 173 174 175 176 177 178 179 180 181 182 183 184 185 186 187 188 189 190 191 192 193 194 195 196 197 198 199 200 201 202 203 204 205 206 207 208 209 210 211 212 213 214 215 216 217 218 219 220 221 222 223 224 225 226 227 228 229 230 231 232 233 234 235 236 237 238 239 240 241 242 243 244 245 246 247 248 249 250 251 252 253 254 255 256 257 258 259 260 261 262 263 264 265 266 267 268 269 270 271 272 273 274 275 276 277 278 279 280 281 282 283 284 285 286 287 288 289 290 291 292 293 294 295 296 297 298 299 300 301 302 303 304 305 306 307 308 309 310 311 312 313 314 315 316 317 318 319 320 321 322 323 324 325 326 327 328 329 330 331 332 333 334 335 336 337 338 339 340 341 342 343 344 345 346 347 348 349 350 351 352 353 354 355 356 357 358 359 360 361 362 363 364 365 366 367 368 369 370 371 372 373 374 375 376 377 378 379 380 381 382 383 384 385 386 387 388 389 390 391 392 393 394 395 396 397 398 399 400 401 402 403 404 405 406 407 408 409 410 411 412 413 414 415 416 417 418 419 420 421 422 423 424 425 426 427 428 429 430 431 432 433 434 435 436 437 438 439 440 441 442 443 444 445 446 447 448 449 450 451 452 453 454 455 456 457 458 459 460 461 462 463 464 465 466 467 468 469 470 471 472 473 474 475 476 477 478 479 480 481 482 483 484 485 486 487 488 489 490 491 492 493 494 495 496 497 498 499 500 501 502 503 504 505 506 507 508 509 510 511 512 513 514 515 516 517 518 519 520 521 522 523 524 525 526 527 528 529 530 531 532 533 534 535 536 537 538 539 540 541 542 543 544 545 546 547 548 549 550 551 552 553 554 555 556 557 558 559 560 561 562 563 564 565 566 567 568 569 570 571 572 573 574 575 576 577 578 579 580 581 582 583 584 585 586 587 588 589 590 591 592 593 594 595 596 597 598 599 600 601 602 603 604 605 606 607 608 609 610 611 612 613 614 615 616 617 618 619 620 621 622 623 624 625 626 627 628 629 630 631 632 633 634 635 636 637 638 639 640 641 642 643 644 645 646 647 648 649 650 651 652 653 654 655 656
(07-22-2018 10:47 PM)At Ease Wrote: [ -> ]Butina was only indicted when she became a flight risk.

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/us/exclus...li=BBnb7Kz

"Butina traveled to the United States in April 2015 with Alexander Torshin, then the Russian Central Bank deputy governor, and they took part in separate meetings with Fischer* and Sheets* to discuss U.S.-Russian economic relations during Democratic former President Barack Obama's administration."

* = Stanley Fischer, Fed vice chairman at the time, and Nathan Sheets, then Treasury undersecretary for international affairs
(07-23-2018 07:02 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote: [ -> ]And to your last sentence - let’s assume the entire warrant is accurate and truthful, that Page was a target of Russian clandestine activities and that he had acted on those efforts. Is there a problem with the FBI trying to gather information into that via surveillance?

Lets assume as well, that elephants are the size of mice. In that case, yes, baseball bats are very useful to hunt elephants.

I suggest next time you use a better premise given the construct of even what is unredacted.

I would have no problem into a 'surveillance regime' given that there was no issue with the warrant. The warrant screams every infirm aspect that the Nunes memo warned us about 8 months ago, and might I add to the chorus of the liberals and democrats red with rage denials.

There just keeps getting more and more weight collected on the side of active manipulation of the intelligence apparatus in order to target trump and colleagues. Toss in a pair of highly biased FBI officials (not agents, since Page was a flywheel in the policies of national security investigations, and Strzok was the the #4 official in that agency) who show a more than willingness to break rules in order to substantiate their bias, and you have real fing mess if/when your side doesnt win that election.
(07-23-2018 07:07 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote: [ -> ]
(07-22-2018 09:56 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote: [ -> ]Here’s my theory. Let’s say “the Russians” tried to interfere. But it is becoming increasingly clear that they weren’t the only ones interfering improperly. It’s just that, apparently against all odds, the guy that the latter group wanted to lose somehow won.

Who else was interfering improperly? And what did they do to actively interfere?

Not sure I’ve seen evidence of other groups actively releasing stolen documents/information, hacking into election boards, waging disinformation campaigns via social media, infiltrating the NRA to try and gain influence like the Russians did.

I havent seen evidence of other groups making false statements to FISA judges to bootstrap wide surveillance also. Funny that.
(07-23-2018 09:43 AM)tanqtonic Wrote: [ -> ]
(07-23-2018 07:07 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote: [ -> ]
(07-22-2018 09:56 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote: [ -> ]Here’s my theory. Let’s say “the Russians” tried to interfere. But it is becoming increasingly clear that they weren’t the only ones interfering improperly. It’s just that, apparently against all odds, the guy that the latter group wanted to lose somehow won.

Who else was interfering improperly? And what did they do to actively interfere?

Not sure I’ve seen evidence of other groups actively releasing stolen documents/information, hacking into election boards, waging disinformation campaigns via social media, infiltrating the NRA to try and gain influence like the Russians did.

I havent seen evidence of other groups making false statements to FISA judges to bootstrap wide surveillance also. Funny that.

Is there a false statement in the FISA app you can point to?

I've seen you allege that stating that "the FBI speculates that the identified U.S. person was likely looking for information that could be used to discredit Candidate #1's campaign" was misleading. In a legal sense, let's say that was misleading and the FBI knew that the information was being looked for to discredit Candidate #1 - is that considered a false statement?

I know when I write technical reports, we often use language like that to avoid making a definitive statement, so it doesn't seem odd to me to read a statement like that.

Especially when that statement was immediately couple with redacted text and then this:
"Notwithstanding Source #1's reason for conducting the research into Candidate #1's ties to Russia, based on Source #1's previous reporting history with the FBI, whereby Source #1 provided reliable information to the FBI, the FBI believes Source #1's reporting herein to be credible."
(07-23-2018 09:57 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote: [ -> ]the FBI believes Source #1's reporting herein to be credible."

Does "believes" mean it has been verified?
(07-23-2018 10:02 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote: [ -> ]
(07-23-2018 09:57 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote: [ -> ]the FBI believes Source #1's reporting herein to be credible."

Does "believes" mean it has been verified?

I don't know how much authentication needs to be done on a source's information.

Since this is a warrant application, is the standard of proof such that a reliable informants work can be used to grant a warrant?

The layperson here would think that it would be, and if the case was moved to trial, that further corroboration or verification would be needed to use it as evidence.
(07-23-2018 10:19 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote: [ -> ]
(07-23-2018 10:02 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote: [ -> ]
(07-23-2018 09:57 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote: [ -> ]the FBI believes Source #1's reporting herein to be credible."

Does "believes" mean it has been verified?

I don't know how much authentication needs to be done on a source's information.

Since this is a warrant application, is the standard of proof such that a reliable informants work can be used to grant a warrant?

The layperson here would think that it would be, and if the case was moved to trial, that further corroboration or verification would be needed to use it as evidence.

The impression I have gotten from our lawyers here is that the applicant needs to be able to attest that everything is factual and true.

I have been around long enough to value reliability, but once in a while formerly reliable people have let me down. One left town leaving my living room half painted.

I can rewrite your last paragraph as "innuendo is enough to investigate and if we find a witch, and want to burn her, we can look for evidence then".
(07-23-2018 10:27 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote: [ -> ]
(07-23-2018 10:19 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote: [ -> ]
(07-23-2018 10:02 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote: [ -> ]
(07-23-2018 09:57 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote: [ -> ]the FBI believes Source #1's reporting herein to be credible."

Does "believes" mean it has been verified?

I don't know how much authentication needs to be done on a source's information.

Since this is a warrant application, is the standard of proof such that a reliable informants work can be used to grant a warrant?

The layperson here would think that it would be, and if the case was moved to trial, that further corroboration or verification would be needed to use it as evidence.

The impression I have gotten from our lawyers here is that the applicant needs to be able to attest that everything is factual and true.

I have been around long enough to value reliability, but once in a while formerly reliable people have let me down. One left town leaving my living room half painted.

I can rewrite your last paragraph as "innuendo is enough to investigate and if we find a witch, and want to burn her, we can look for evidence then".

i don’t think our lawyers have weighted in on the value of a known informant and the need to verify new intelligence provided by them.

They’ve weighted on known veracity of statements (we do not know that any of the statements made/used in the warrant were not true) and the opinion of how the use of Steele was divulged (which Tanq finds very problematic).

If Steele had no connection to the DNC and had been, say, funded by a Trump official to do internal oppo research, and Steele then took the info he found to the FBI, would the FBI have viewed the intelligence he gathered differently?
Here is your 'primer' on informants for warrants, Lad. Happy reading.

https://www.nationalreview.com/2018/07/c...e-dossier/

Quote:If Steele had no connection to the DNC and had been, say, funded by a Trump official to do internal oppo research, and Steele then took the info he found to the FBI, would the FBI have viewed the intelligence he gathered differently?

It should regard it in the same exact way as outlined above. But again, 'if elephants were the size of mice' issue pops up with your premise.

Now another question is not 'what should the FBI do' but 'what would the FBI do' in that case. I cant state at all they would throw the fing rulebook out for your scenario as they did for this one.

And Lad, my issue is also one of veracity when you actually read it.
(07-23-2018 10:27 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote: [ -> ]
(07-23-2018 10:19 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote: [ -> ]
(07-23-2018 10:02 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote: [ -> ]
(07-23-2018 09:57 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote: [ -> ]the FBI believes Source #1's reporting herein to be credible."

Does "believes" mean it has been verified?

I don't know how much authentication needs to be done on a source's information.

Since this is a warrant application, is the standard of proof such that a reliable informants work can be used to grant a warrant?

The layperson here would think that it would be, and if the case was moved to trial, that further corroboration or verification would be needed to use it as evidence.

The impression I have gotten from our lawyers here is that the applicant needs to be able to attest that everything is factual and true.

I have been around long enough to value reliability, but once in a while formerly reliable people have let me down. One left town leaving my living room half painted.

I can rewrite your last paragraph as "innuendo is enough to investigate and if we find a witch, and want to burn her, we can look for evidence then".

The base responsibility is that if person X says person Y say that there will be a bank robbery performed by Z, it is improper to attest in a warrant that it has been verified by speaking with person X. The FBI, to verify, must interview person Y, and in the presentment of the information for a warrant, must present and attest to the character and fitness of person Y. If all they say is 'person X is a smashing son of gun, goes to church on Sunday, and his information that he has provided before is always on point', that does *nothing* as to the information of the bank robbery itself or getting a warrant for the supposed bank robbers Z. Comprende?

In the Steele issue, remember that Steele never interviewed the base sources either. He employed *others* to procure the ferret the information. So add another level to the hypo above.

I will leave it to you to do the proper matching of Steele and Steele's sources in the above hypo.

What the FBI did here stinks to high fing heaven. The warrant is either evidence of absolute incompetence, or evidence of manipulation. I really cant fathom other answers to this.
(07-23-2018 05:54 PM)tanqtonic Wrote: [ -> ]
(07-23-2018 10:27 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote: [ -> ]
(07-23-2018 10:19 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote: [ -> ]
(07-23-2018 10:02 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote: [ -> ]
(07-23-2018 09:57 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote: [ -> ]the FBI believes Source #1's reporting herein to be credible."

Does "believes" mean it has been verified?

I don't know how much authentication needs to be done on a source's information.

Since this is a warrant application, is the standard of proof such that a reliable informants work can be used to grant a warrant?

The layperson here would think that it would be, and if the case was moved to trial, that further corroboration or verification would be needed to use it as evidence.

The impression I have gotten from our lawyers here is that the applicant needs to be able to attest that everything is factual and true.

I have been around long enough to value reliability, but once in a while formerly reliable people have let me down. One left town leaving my living room half painted.

I can rewrite your last paragraph as "innuendo is enough to investigate and if we find a witch, and want to burn her, we can look for evidence then".

The base responsibility is that if person X says person Y say that there will be a bank robbery performed by Z, it is improper to attest in a warrant that it has been verified by speaking with person X. The FBI, to verify, must interview person Y, and in the presentment of the information for a warrant, must present and attest to the character and fitness of person Y. If all they say is 'person X is a smashing son of gun, goes to church on Sunday, and his information that he has provided before is always on point', that does *nothing* as to the information of the bank robbery itself or getting a warrant for the supposed bank robbers Z. Comprende?

In the Steele issue, remember that Steele never interviewed the base sources either. He employed *others* to procure the ferret the information. So add another level to the hypo above.

I will leave it to you to do the proper matching of Steele and Steele's sources in the above hypo.

What the FBI did here stinks to high fing heaven. The warrant is either evidence of absolute incompetence, or evidence of manipulation. I really cant fathom other answers to this.


Were not the “others”he employed Russians?

So we have employees of the DNC meeting with Russians to get dirt on a candidate.

And they have the nerve to harp on the Trump Tower meeting.
Russians ---> others ----> Steele ----> Simpson ----> FBI -----> FBI cites Steele and/or Simpson as source.

----------------------

Your point is valid as well OO, but apparently a Perkins Coie cutout followed by a cutout to an oop research firm is good enough to be pure as the driven snow.

There are agents of agents of the DNC meeting with Russians. Just remember to use enough cutouts and you are good. Especially when with one of the cutouts the DNC can hide the line item as a generalized 'legal expense'. Bit everything absolutely copacetic I am sure some will say.

Also because of the 'if I ask someone else it is *much* less dirty than responding to someone' rule that seems to be in vogue in places for defining the 'crime' of 'collusion'.
This pretty much sums up what those outside the GOP are beginning to think:



https://politics.theonion.com/gop-leader...1827640709

...and why I have retired from this thread.
I thought you said you bolted because we were all racists or racist supporters or somefink.....
(07-24-2018 08:52 AM)JustAnotherAustinOwlStill Wrote: [ -> ]This pretty much sums up what those outside the GOP are beginning to think:



https://politics.theonion.com/gop-leader...1827640709

...and why I have retired from this thread.

granted, it’s a step up from CNN......
(07-24-2018 08:52 AM)JustAnotherAustinOwlStill Wrote: [ -> ]This pretty much sums up what those outside the GOP are beginning to think:



https://politics.theonion.com/gop-leader...1827640709

...and why I have retired from this thread.

[Image: donald-trump-flag.jpg?w968h681]
(07-24-2018 11:58 AM)At Ease Wrote: [ -> ]
(07-24-2018 08:52 AM)JustAnotherAustinOwlStill Wrote: [ -> ]This pretty much sums up what those outside the GOP are beginning to think:



https://politics.theonion.com/gop-leader...1827640709

...and why I have retired from this thread.

[Image: donald-trump-flag.jpg?w968h681]


Always glad to have your nonpartisan input, AE
Quote:Senate Intelligence Committee Chairman Richard Burr told CNN Tuesday he believed there were "sound reasons" for judges to approve the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act warrant on former Trump campaign foreign policy adviser Carter Page, in yet another break between the Republican leaders of the House and Senate intelligence committees.

"I don't think I ever expressed that I thought the FISA application came up short," Burr said when asked about House Republican memo alleging FBI and Justice Department abuses of the FISA process. "There (were) sound reasons as to why judges issued the FISA."

https://www.cnn.com/2018/07/24/politics/...index.html


followed the same day by...

Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70 71 72 73 74 75 76 77 78 79 80 81 82 83 84 85 86 87 88 89 90 91 92 93 94 95 96 97 98 99 100 101 102 103 104 105 106 107 108 109 110 111 112 113 114 115 116 117 118 119 120 121 122 123 124 125 126 127 128 129 130 131 132 133 134 135 136 137 138 139 140 141 142 143 144 145 146 147 148 149 150 151 152 153 154 155 156 157 158 159 160 161 162 163 164 165 166 167 168 169 170 171 172 173 174 175 176 177 178 179 180 181 182 183 184 185 186 187 188 189 190 191 192 193 194 195 196 197 198 199 200 201 202 203 204 205 206 207 208 209 210 211 212 213 214 215 216 217 218 219 220 221 222 223 224 225 226 227 228 229 230 231 232 233 234 235 236 237 238 239 240 241 242 243 244 245 246 247 248 249 250 251 252 253 254 255 256 257 258 259 260 261 262 263 264 265 266 267 268 269 270 271 272 273 274 275 276 277 278 279 280 281 282 283 284 285 286 287 288 289 290 291 292 293 294 295 296 297 298 299 300 301 302 303 304 305 306 307 308 309 310 311 312 313 314 315 316 317 318 319 320 321 322 323 324 325 326 327 328 329 330 331 332 333 334 335 336 337 338 339 340 341 342 343 344 345 346 347 348 349 350 351 352 353 354 355 356 357 358 359 360 361 362 363 364 365 366 367 368 369 370 371 372 373 374 375 376 377 378 379 380 381 382 383 384 385 386 387 388 389 390 391 392 393 394 395 396 397 398 399 400 401 402 403 404 405 406 407 408 409 410 411 412 413 414 415 416 417 418 419 420 421 422 423 424 425 426 427 428 429 430 431 432 433 434 435 436 437 438 439 440 441 442 443 444 445 446 447 448 449 450 451 452 453 454 455 456 457 458 459 460 461 462 463 464 465 466 467 468 469 470 471 472 473 474 475 476 477 478 479 480 481 482 483 484 485 486 487 488 489 490 491 492 493 494 495 496 497 498 499 500 501 502 503 504 505 506 507 508 509 510 511 512 513 514 515 516 517 518 519 520 521 522 523 524 525 526 527 528 529 530 531 532 533 534 535 536 537 538 539 540 541 542 543 544 545 546 547 548 549 550 551 552 553 554 555 556 557 558 559 560 561 562 563 564 565 566 567 568 569 570 571 572 573 574 575 576 577 578 579 580 581 582 583 584 585 586 587 588 589 590 591 592 593 594 595 596 597 598 599 600 601 602 603 604 605 606 607 608 609 610 611 612 613 614 615 616 617 618 619 620 621 622 623 624 625 626 627 628 629 630 631 632 633 634 635 636 637 638 639 640 641 642 643 644 645 646 647 648 649 650 651 652 653 654 655 656
Reference URL's