(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'.
I thought you said you bolted because we were all racists or racist supporters or somefink.....
followed the same day by...