(08-03-2018 09:52 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote: [ -> ]Owl#s has a much more compelling argument about whether or not the information was vetted ahead of time, and I've seen people on both sides of the aisle argue about whether or not each claim used needed to be independently verified. I would lean towards there needing to be some sort of verification, but since so much language is redacted, it's hard to get up in arms about the potential possibility that some of the information provided by Steele was not independently verified because we don't have the full picture.
All I have to go on is Adam Schiff's repeated statement in a CNN interview that "some of it was corroborated" where he is clearly referring to the parts of the memo that were actually used. That means some wasn't, the question that Alisyn Camerota conveniently forgot to ask. The relevant statements are around 2:10 to 2:30 here:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FnljarwHx-8
Either Schiff lied to Camerota (not misspoke, he said it twice and was very clear both times, play the video) or we know some of it was not verified at the time it was included in the FISA warrant application.
And remember, this is an ex parte proceeding. That means the rules are stricter. "Most of it is okay," is not good enough, because there is nobody to challenge the parts that might not be okay. Every single part has to be perfect, by the numbers, or it's no good.
This prompts, at least to me, the obvious question, "Why use some unverified information in an ex parte proceeding?"
(08-03-2018 09:52 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote: [ -> ] (08-03-2018 09:33 AM)tanqtonic Wrote: [ -> ] (08-02-2018 04:33 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote: [ -> ]The idea that the information about Steele was "hidden" in the FISA app is laughable. There is literally an ENTIRE page (16 of 412) that is the continuation of the footnote that starts 1/3 of the way down the previous page (15 of 412). If the FBI was trying hard to bury that information, they sure did a bad job going into a lengthy discussion about who Steele was and where is funding came from. Also, a good half of that footnote is redacted, making it hard to know other information about Steele, his sources, the veracity of the information, etc. was provided.
There's no way this footnote, which was provide near the beginning of the document and at a length that makes it impossible to miss, was missed. Plus, as you see throughout the application, footnotes are used extensively to provide background on the case at hand.
And the provenance that this was 'paid for opposition research' is limited to one sentence. And that sentence doesnt even bother to note the parties by name.
Yeah, one sentence in a 'footnote', where the 'footnote' truly cannot be 'missed' (since it is a fing page long', and the sentence doesnt even botgher to directly name the actors.)
Real fing awesome job of being being honest there, Lad.
And no offense, if you bury that pertinent disclosure to a court that deep in a civil matter (pertinent to the fact that it is a 'contra' ruling or the like) -- yeah, the other side has every basis to ask for sanctions. And that is for the lesser threshold of a contested matter.
When you bury that type of information so fing deep in a ex parte matter (i.e. uncontested), yes, it is fing grotesque Lad.
But please keep dancing that 'Resistance jig' on that pinhead Lad like there is no issue.
Considering the ramifications of this procedure is literally the stripping of civil rights, and dealing with 'all levels' of everyday communication that are amazingly sancrosanct, I guess it is fine to hide 'info bad for you' deep in the bowels of page long footnotes and never directly identifying the people. Nice paradigm you buy into there Lad.
Is it so fing bad to simply ask for the standard of 'since this is literally the *most* fing intrusive a surveillance can be, is it really too fing hard to show the issues that cut against your application directly and obviously'? I guess that is a standard that you dont buy into. Bummer. I would have thought the lefties on this board would actually like **** that tends to protect civil liberties to the largest extent. Guess Im wrong on that account, again.
The applicants could have said in one sentence in the main body: The target of the investigation has been part of the Trump campaign, and this information came to light as a result of the Clinton campaign's 'paid for' opposition research, and all references to Steele are such paid-for products.
See? Direct, on point, and full disclosure. One fing sentence. Seems to be a minimal request, but apparently you prefer the contortionistic and far less visible means of implying that, but without directly doing so. Got it.
If the judge has any fing questions as to the depth of the material, he can certainly fing ask. And if the judge gets the question asked, or doesnt ask, the statement is plain as fing day. Too much to ask here?
To the bold, my understanding is that the FISA court goes to great lengths not to name any American by name. Notice how Trump was never named, even though he was not the target of the application and it was obvious who Candidate #1 was? So your hypothetical about naming names wouldn't fly because they don't do that.
And I am being honest Tanq, but go ahead, besmirch me all you want if it makes you feel better. I'm not dancing on any pinhead - actually reading through the FISA app, it makes it clear that footnotes that provide background on information used in the app is normal and par for the course. So no pinhead or dancing needed.
You're the one dancing on the pinhead and trying to suggest that the information you deem so awful was hidden. If you have two eyeballs and a 7th grade reading comprehension, it's incredibly obvious that the information was not hidden as you keep suggesting it was. An no amount of repetition of that line will make it true - the info wasn't hidden - it was produced and explained in a way that was clear, concise, and could not be missed.
Owl#s has a much more compelling argument about whether or not the information was vetted ahead of time, and I've seen people on both sides of the aisle argue about whether or not each claim used needed to be independently verified. I would lean towards there needing to be some sort of verification, but since so much language is redacted, it's hard to get up in arms about the potential possibility that some of the information provided by Steele was not independently verified because we don't have the full picture.
Lad, "two eyeballs and a 7th grade education" isnt the fing legal standard.
Im not the one trying to say very relevant information is to be had --- buried in a page long footnote.
At the very least it was an utter horseshit move. And one that smacks amazingly of internal bias to make sure the information was not presented with the full candor that it should have.
But please, keep moving forward and making up your own willy fing nilly legal rules and standards that you are so adept at continuously doing.
(08-03-2018 02:30 PM)tanqtonic Wrote: [ -> ] (08-03-2018 09:52 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote: [ -> ] (08-03-2018 09:33 AM)tanqtonic Wrote: [ -> ] (08-02-2018 04:33 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote: [ -> ]The idea that the information about Steele was "hidden" in the FISA app is laughable. There is literally an ENTIRE page (16 of 412) that is the continuation of the footnote that starts 1/3 of the way down the previous page (15 of 412). If the FBI was trying hard to bury that information, they sure did a bad job going into a lengthy discussion about who Steele was and where is funding came from. Also, a good half of that footnote is redacted, making it hard to know other information about Steele, his sources, the veracity of the information, etc. was provided.
There's no way this footnote, which was provide near the beginning of the document and at a length that makes it impossible to miss, was missed. Plus, as you see throughout the application, footnotes are used extensively to provide background on the case at hand.
And the provenance that this was 'paid for opposition research' is limited to one sentence. And that sentence doesnt even bother to note the parties by name.
Yeah, one sentence in a 'footnote', where the 'footnote' truly cannot be 'missed' (since it is a fing page long', and the sentence doesnt even botgher to directly name the actors.)
Real fing awesome job of being being honest there, Lad.
And no offense, if you bury that pertinent disclosure to a court that deep in a civil matter (pertinent to the fact that it is a 'contra' ruling or the like) -- yeah, the other side has every basis to ask for sanctions. And that is for the lesser threshold of a contested matter.
When you bury that type of information so fing deep in a ex parte matter (i.e. uncontested), yes, it is fing grotesque Lad.
But please keep dancing that 'Resistance jig' on that pinhead Lad like there is no issue.
Considering the ramifications of this procedure is literally the stripping of civil rights, and dealing with 'all levels' of everyday communication that are amazingly sancrosanct, I guess it is fine to hide 'info bad for you' deep in the bowels of page long footnotes and never directly identifying the people. Nice paradigm you buy into there Lad.
Is it so fing bad to simply ask for the standard of 'since this is literally the *most* fing intrusive a surveillance can be, is it really too fing hard to show the issues that cut against your application directly and obviously'? I guess that is a standard that you dont buy into. Bummer. I would have thought the lefties on this board would actually like **** that tends to protect civil liberties to the largest extent. Guess Im wrong on that account, again.
The applicants could have said in one sentence in the main body: The target of the investigation has been part of the Trump campaign, and this information came to light as a result of the Clinton campaign's 'paid for' opposition research, and all references to Steele are such paid-for products.
See? Direct, on point, and full disclosure. One fing sentence. Seems to be a minimal request, but apparently you prefer the contortionistic and far less visible means of implying that, but without directly doing so. Got it.
If the judge has any fing questions as to the depth of the material, he can certainly fing ask. And if the judge gets the question asked, or doesnt ask, the statement is plain as fing day. Too much to ask here?
To the bold, my understanding is that the FISA court goes to great lengths not to name any American by name. Notice how Trump was never named, even though he was not the target of the application and it was obvious who Candidate #1 was? So your hypothetical about naming names wouldn't fly because they don't do that.
And I am being honest Tanq, but go ahead, besmirch me all you want if it makes you feel better. I'm not dancing on any pinhead - actually reading through the FISA app, it makes it clear that footnotes that provide background on information used in the app is normal and par for the course. So no pinhead or dancing needed.
You're the one dancing on the pinhead and trying to suggest that the information you deem so awful was hidden. If you have two eyeballs and a 7th grade reading comprehension, it's incredibly obvious that the information was not hidden as you keep suggesting it was. An no amount of repetition of that line will make it true - the info wasn't hidden - it was produced and explained in a way that was clear, concise, and could not be missed.
Owl#s has a much more compelling argument about whether or not the information was vetted ahead of time, and I've seen people on both sides of the aisle argue about whether or not each claim used needed to be independently verified. I would lean towards there needing to be some sort of verification, but since so much language is redacted, it's hard to get up in arms about the potential possibility that some of the information provided by Steele was not independently verified because we don't have the full picture.
Lad, "two eyeballs and a 7th grade education" isnt the fing legal standard.
Im not the one trying to say very relevant information is to be had --- buried in a page long footnote.
At the very least it was an utter horseshit move. And one that smacks amazingly of internal bias to make sure the information was not presented with the full candor that it should have.
But please, keep moving forward and making up your own willy fing nilly legal rules and standards that you are so adept at continuously doing.
You're certainly entitled to the opinion that the information was "hidden" or that it was a "horseshit move" to put the explanation in a footnote, but that also is not a fing legal standard. Can you provide me the legal statute that says putting relevant information in a footnote is a "horseshit move"?
Tanq, I'm giving my opinion on what I read and providing background as to why I have said opinion. I'm sorry that you seem to adept at confusing that with me making up my own legal rules and standards, but it's not my fault that you can't seem to separate the two. I never suggested that having two eyeballs and a 7th grade education was a legal standard - it was pointedly clear that I was suggesting that the information was not hidden.
If you want to play that game, as I asked above, what legal standard indicates that the information was hidden by being in a footnote?
(08-03-2018 03:15 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote: [ -> ] (08-03-2018 02:30 PM)tanqtonic Wrote: [ -> ] (08-03-2018 09:52 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote: [ -> ] (08-03-2018 09:33 AM)tanqtonic Wrote: [ -> ] (08-02-2018 04:33 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote: [ -> ]The idea that the information about Steele was "hidden" in the FISA app is laughable. There is literally an ENTIRE page (16 of 412) that is the continuation of the footnote that starts 1/3 of the way down the previous page (15 of 412). If the FBI was trying hard to bury that information, they sure did a bad job going into a lengthy discussion about who Steele was and where is funding came from. Also, a good half of that footnote is redacted, making it hard to know other information about Steele, his sources, the veracity of the information, etc. was provided.
There's no way this footnote, which was provide near the beginning of the document and at a length that makes it impossible to miss, was missed. Plus, as you see throughout the application, footnotes are used extensively to provide background on the case at hand.
And the provenance that this was 'paid for opposition research' is limited to one sentence. And that sentence doesnt even bother to note the parties by name.
Yeah, one sentence in a 'footnote', where the 'footnote' truly cannot be 'missed' (since it is a fing page long', and the sentence doesnt even botgher to directly name the actors.)
Real fing awesome job of being being honest there, Lad.
And no offense, if you bury that pertinent disclosure to a court that deep in a civil matter (pertinent to the fact that it is a 'contra' ruling or the like) -- yeah, the other side has every basis to ask for sanctions. And that is for the lesser threshold of a contested matter.
When you bury that type of information so fing deep in a ex parte matter (i.e. uncontested), yes, it is fing grotesque Lad.
But please keep dancing that 'Resistance jig' on that pinhead Lad like there is no issue.
Considering the ramifications of this procedure is literally the stripping of civil rights, and dealing with 'all levels' of everyday communication that are amazingly sancrosanct, I guess it is fine to hide 'info bad for you' deep in the bowels of page long footnotes and never directly identifying the people. Nice paradigm you buy into there Lad.
Is it so fing bad to simply ask for the standard of 'since this is literally the *most* fing intrusive a surveillance can be, is it really too fing hard to show the issues that cut against your application directly and obviously'? I guess that is a standard that you dont buy into. Bummer. I would have thought the lefties on this board would actually like **** that tends to protect civil liberties to the largest extent. Guess Im wrong on that account, again.
The applicants could have said in one sentence in the main body: The target of the investigation has been part of the Trump campaign, and this information came to light as a result of the Clinton campaign's 'paid for' opposition research, and all references to Steele are such paid-for products.
See? Direct, on point, and full disclosure. One fing sentence. Seems to be a minimal request, but apparently you prefer the contortionistic and far less visible means of implying that, but without directly doing so. Got it.
If the judge has any fing questions as to the depth of the material, he can certainly fing ask. And if the judge gets the question asked, or doesnt ask, the statement is plain as fing day. Too much to ask here?
To the bold, my understanding is that the FISA court goes to great lengths not to name any American by name. Notice how Trump was never named, even though he was not the target of the application and it was obvious who Candidate #1 was? So your hypothetical about naming names wouldn't fly because they don't do that.
And I am being honest Tanq, but go ahead, besmirch me all you want if it makes you feel better. I'm not dancing on any pinhead - actually reading through the FISA app, it makes it clear that footnotes that provide background on information used in the app is normal and par for the course. So no pinhead or dancing needed.
You're the one dancing on the pinhead and trying to suggest that the information you deem so awful was hidden. If you have two eyeballs and a 7th grade reading comprehension, it's incredibly obvious that the information was not hidden as you keep suggesting it was. An no amount of repetition of that line will make it true - the info wasn't hidden - it was produced and explained in a way that was clear, concise, and could not be missed.
Owl#s has a much more compelling argument about whether or not the information was vetted ahead of time, and I've seen people on both sides of the aisle argue about whether or not each claim used needed to be independently verified. I would lean towards there needing to be some sort of verification, but since so much language is redacted, it's hard to get up in arms about the potential possibility that some of the information provided by Steele was not independently verified because we don't have the full picture.
Lad, "two eyeballs and a 7th grade education" isnt the fing legal standard.
Im not the one trying to say very relevant information is to be had --- buried in a page long footnote.
At the very least it was an utter horseshit move. And one that smacks amazingly of internal bias to make sure the information was not presented with the full candor that it should have.
But please, keep moving forward and making up your own willy fing nilly legal rules and standards that you are so adept at continuously doing.
You're certainly entitled to the opinion that the information was "hidden" or that it was a "horseshit move" to put the explanation in a footnote, but that also is not a fing legal standard. Can you provide me the legal statute that says putting relevant information in a footnote is a "horseshit move"?
Tanq, I'm giving my opinion on what I read and providing background as to why I have said opinion. I'm sorry that you seem to adept at confusing that with me making up my own legal rules and standards, but it's not my fault that you can't seem to separate the two. I never suggested that having two eyeballs and a 7th grade education was a legal standard - it was pointedly clear that I was suggesting that the information was not hidden.
If you want to play that game, as I asked above, what legal standard indicates that the information was hidden by being in a footnote?
without taking a side in your spat, I just want to remind you that hiding stuff in the fine print is an old, old way of putting something over on somebody.
Big print, headlines, bolding - that's how you tell somebody the caveats if you want them told.
JUST MY HUMBLE OPINION.
next time you sign a contract, read the fine print.
(08-03-2018 03:15 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote: [ -> ] (08-03-2018 02:30 PM)tanqtonic Wrote: [ -> ] (08-03-2018 09:52 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote: [ -> ] (08-03-2018 09:33 AM)tanqtonic Wrote: [ -> ] (08-02-2018 04:33 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote: [ -> ]The idea that the information about Steele was "hidden" in the FISA app is laughable. There is literally an ENTIRE page (16 of 412) that is the continuation of the footnote that starts 1/3 of the way down the previous page (15 of 412). If the FBI was trying hard to bury that information, they sure did a bad job going into a lengthy discussion about who Steele was and where is funding came from. Also, a good half of that footnote is redacted, making it hard to know other information about Steele, his sources, the veracity of the information, etc. was provided.
There's no way this footnote, which was provide near the beginning of the document and at a length that makes it impossible to miss, was missed. Plus, as you see throughout the application, footnotes are used extensively to provide background on the case at hand.
And the provenance that this was 'paid for opposition research' is limited to one sentence. And that sentence doesnt even bother to note the parties by name.
Yeah, one sentence in a 'footnote', where the 'footnote' truly cannot be 'missed' (since it is a fing page long', and the sentence doesnt even botgher to directly name the actors.)
Real fing awesome job of being being honest there, Lad.
And no offense, if you bury that pertinent disclosure to a court that deep in a civil matter (pertinent to the fact that it is a 'contra' ruling or the like) -- yeah, the other side has every basis to ask for sanctions. And that is for the lesser threshold of a contested matter.
When you bury that type of information so fing deep in a ex parte matter (i.e. uncontested), yes, it is fing grotesque Lad.
But please keep dancing that 'Resistance jig' on that pinhead Lad like there is no issue.
Considering the ramifications of this procedure is literally the stripping of civil rights, and dealing with 'all levels' of everyday communication that are amazingly sancrosanct, I guess it is fine to hide 'info bad for you' deep in the bowels of page long footnotes and never directly identifying the people. Nice paradigm you buy into there Lad.
Is it so fing bad to simply ask for the standard of 'since this is literally the *most* fing intrusive a surveillance can be, is it really too fing hard to show the issues that cut against your application directly and obviously'? I guess that is a standard that you dont buy into. Bummer. I would have thought the lefties on this board would actually like **** that tends to protect civil liberties to the largest extent. Guess Im wrong on that account, again.
The applicants could have said in one sentence in the main body: The target of the investigation has been part of the Trump campaign, and this information came to light as a result of the Clinton campaign's 'paid for' opposition research, and all references to Steele are such paid-for products.
See? Direct, on point, and full disclosure. One fing sentence. Seems to be a minimal request, but apparently you prefer the contortionistic and far less visible means of implying that, but without directly doing so. Got it.
If the judge has any fing questions as to the depth of the material, he can certainly fing ask. And if the judge gets the question asked, or doesnt ask, the statement is plain as fing day. Too much to ask here?
To the bold, my understanding is that the FISA court goes to great lengths not to name any American by name. Notice how Trump was never named, even though he was not the target of the application and it was obvious who Candidate #1 was? So your hypothetical about naming names wouldn't fly because they don't do that.
And I am being honest Tanq, but go ahead, besmirch me all you want if it makes you feel better. I'm not dancing on any pinhead - actually reading through the FISA app, it makes it clear that footnotes that provide background on information used in the app is normal and par for the course. So no pinhead or dancing needed.
You're the one dancing on the pinhead and trying to suggest that the information you deem so awful was hidden. If you have two eyeballs and a 7th grade reading comprehension, it's incredibly obvious that the information was not hidden as you keep suggesting it was. An no amount of repetition of that line will make it true - the info wasn't hidden - it was produced and explained in a way that was clear, concise, and could not be missed.
Owl#s has a much more compelling argument about whether or not the information was vetted ahead of time, and I've seen people on both sides of the aisle argue about whether or not each claim used needed to be independently verified. I would lean towards there needing to be some sort of verification, but since so much language is redacted, it's hard to get up in arms about the potential possibility that some of the information provided by Steele was not independently verified because we don't have the full picture.
Lad, "two eyeballs and a 7th grade education" isnt the fing legal standard.
Im not the one trying to say very relevant information is to be had --- buried in a page long footnote.
At the very least it was an utter horseshit move. And one that smacks amazingly of internal bias to make sure the information was not presented with the full candor that it should have.
But please, keep moving forward and making up your own willy fing nilly legal rules and standards that you are so adept at continuously doing.
You're certainly entitled to the opinion that the information was "hidden" or that it was a "horseshit move" to put the explanation in a footnote, but that also is not a fing legal standard. Can you provide me the legal statute that says putting relevant information in a footnote is a "horseshit move"?
Tanq, I'm giving my opinion on what I read and providing background as to why I have said opinion. I'm sorry that you seem to adept at confusing that with me making up my own legal rules and standards, but it's not my fault that you can't seem to separate the two. I never suggested that having two eyeballs and a 7th grade education was a legal standard - it was pointedly clear that I was suggesting that the information was not hidden.
If you want to play that game, as I asked above, what legal standard indicates that the information was hidden by being in a footnote?
without taking a side in your spat, I just want to remind you that hiding stuff in the fine print is an old, old way of putting something over on somebody.
Big print, headlines, bolding - that's how you tell somebody the caveats if you want them told.
JUST MY HUMBLE OPINION.
next time you sign a contract, read the fine print.
(08-03-2018 03:24 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote: [ -> ] (08-03-2018 03:15 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote: [ -> ] (08-03-2018 02:30 PM)tanqtonic Wrote: [ -> ] (08-03-2018 09:52 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote: [ -> ] (08-03-2018 09:33 AM)tanqtonic Wrote: [ -> ]And the provenance that this was 'paid for opposition research' is limited to one sentence. And that sentence doesnt even bother to note the parties by name.
Yeah, one sentence in a 'footnote', where the 'footnote' truly cannot be 'missed' (since it is a fing page long', and the sentence doesnt even botgher to directly name the actors.)
Real fing awesome job of being being honest there, Lad.
And no offense, if you bury that pertinent disclosure to a court that deep in a civil matter (pertinent to the fact that it is a 'contra' ruling or the like) -- yeah, the other side has every basis to ask for sanctions. And that is for the lesser threshold of a contested matter.
When you bury that type of information so fing deep in a ex parte matter (i.e. uncontested), yes, it is fing grotesque Lad.
But please keep dancing that 'Resistance jig' on that pinhead Lad like there is no issue.
Considering the ramifications of this procedure is literally the stripping of civil rights, and dealing with 'all levels' of everyday communication that are amazingly sancrosanct, I guess it is fine to hide 'info bad for you' deep in the bowels of page long footnotes and never directly identifying the people. Nice paradigm you buy into there Lad.
Is it so fing bad to simply ask for the standard of 'since this is literally the *most* fing intrusive a surveillance can be, is it really too fing hard to show the issues that cut against your application directly and obviously'? I guess that is a standard that you dont buy into. Bummer. I would have thought the lefties on this board would actually like **** that tends to protect civil liberties to the largest extent. Guess Im wrong on that account, again.
The applicants could have said in one sentence in the main body: The target of the investigation has been part of the Trump campaign, and this information came to light as a result of the Clinton campaign's 'paid for' opposition research, and all references to Steele are such paid-for products.
See? Direct, on point, and full disclosure. One fing sentence. Seems to be a minimal request, but apparently you prefer the contortionistic and far less visible means of implying that, but without directly doing so. Got it.
If the judge has any fing questions as to the depth of the material, he can certainly fing ask. And if the judge gets the question asked, or doesnt ask, the statement is plain as fing day. Too much to ask here?
To the bold, my understanding is that the FISA court goes to great lengths not to name any American by name. Notice how Trump was never named, even though he was not the target of the application and it was obvious who Candidate #1 was? So your hypothetical about naming names wouldn't fly because they don't do that.
And I am being honest Tanq, but go ahead, besmirch me all you want if it makes you feel better. I'm not dancing on any pinhead - actually reading through the FISA app, it makes it clear that footnotes that provide background on information used in the app is normal and par for the course. So no pinhead or dancing needed.
You're the one dancing on the pinhead and trying to suggest that the information you deem so awful was hidden. If you have two eyeballs and a 7th grade reading comprehension, it's incredibly obvious that the information was not hidden as you keep suggesting it was. An no amount of repetition of that line will make it true - the info wasn't hidden - it was produced and explained in a way that was clear, concise, and could not be missed.
Owl#s has a much more compelling argument about whether or not the information was vetted ahead of time, and I've seen people on both sides of the aisle argue about whether or not each claim used needed to be independently verified. I would lean towards there needing to be some sort of verification, but since so much language is redacted, it's hard to get up in arms about the potential possibility that some of the information provided by Steele was not independently verified because we don't have the full picture.
Lad, "two eyeballs and a 7th grade education" isnt the fing legal standard.
Im not the one trying to say very relevant information is to be had --- buried in a page long footnote.
At the very least it was an utter horseshit move. And one that smacks amazingly of internal bias to make sure the information was not presented with the full candor that it should have.
But please, keep moving forward and making up your own willy fing nilly legal rules and standards that you are so adept at continuously doing.
You're certainly entitled to the opinion that the information was "hidden" or that it was a "horseshit move" to put the explanation in a footnote, but that also is not a fing legal standard. Can you provide me the legal statute that says putting relevant information in a footnote is a "horseshit move"?
Tanq, I'm giving my opinion on what I read and providing background as to why I have said opinion. I'm sorry that you seem to adept at confusing that with me making up my own legal rules and standards, but it's not my fault that you can't seem to separate the two. I never suggested that having two eyeballs and a 7th grade education was a legal standard - it was pointedly clear that I was suggesting that the information was not hidden.
If you want to play that game, as I asked above, what legal standard indicates that the information was hidden by being in a footnote?
without taking a side in your spat, I just want to remind you that hiding stuff in the fine print is an old, old way of putting something over on somebody.
Big print, headlines, bolding - that's how you tell somebody the caveats if you want them told.
JUST MY HUMBLE OPINION.
next time you sign a contract, read the fine print.
Have you actually looked at the FISA app?
Calling it "fine print" would be VERY misleading. First of all, it wasn't fine print. Second of all, it was an in-line footnote and was not placed at, say, the back of the document. The foot note started on the bottom 1/3 of the page it was referenced on, and then continued through the very next page and took up the entire page.
If this had been a typical footnote, or been treated like an Appendix, I could buy the argument. But because the information was so hard to miss when reading the document, I don't.
But I guess if you want to call this instance fine print, its your prerogative.
(08-03-2018 03:30 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote: [ -> ] (08-03-2018 03:24 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote: [ -> ] (08-03-2018 03:15 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote: [ -> ] (08-03-2018 02:30 PM)tanqtonic Wrote: [ -> ] (08-03-2018 09:52 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote: [ -> ]To the bold, my understanding is that the FISA court goes to great lengths not to name any American by name. Notice how Trump was never named, even though he was not the target of the application and it was obvious who Candidate #1 was? So your hypothetical about naming names wouldn't fly because they don't do that.
And I am being honest Tanq, but go ahead, besmirch me all you want if it makes you feel better. I'm not dancing on any pinhead - actually reading through the FISA app, it makes it clear that footnotes that provide background on information used in the app is normal and par for the course. So no pinhead or dancing needed.
You're the one dancing on the pinhead and trying to suggest that the information you deem so awful was hidden. If you have two eyeballs and a 7th grade reading comprehension, it's incredibly obvious that the information was not hidden as you keep suggesting it was. An no amount of repetition of that line will make it true - the info wasn't hidden - it was produced and explained in a way that was clear, concise, and could not be missed.
Owl#s has a much more compelling argument about whether or not the information was vetted ahead of time, and I've seen people on both sides of the aisle argue about whether or not each claim used needed to be independently verified. I would lean towards there needing to be some sort of verification, but since so much language is redacted, it's hard to get up in arms about the potential possibility that some of the information provided by Steele was not independently verified because we don't have the full picture.
Lad, "two eyeballs and a 7th grade education" isnt the fing legal standard.
Im not the one trying to say very relevant information is to be had --- buried in a page long footnote.
At the very least it was an utter horseshit move. And one that smacks amazingly of internal bias to make sure the information was not presented with the full candor that it should have.
But please, keep moving forward and making up your own willy fing nilly legal rules and standards that you are so adept at continuously doing.
You're certainly entitled to the opinion that the information was "hidden" or that it was a "horseshit move" to put the explanation in a footnote, but that also is not a fing legal standard. Can you provide me the legal statute that says putting relevant information in a footnote is a "horseshit move"?
Tanq, I'm giving my opinion on what I read and providing background as to why I have said opinion. I'm sorry that you seem to adept at confusing that with me making up my own legal rules and standards, but it's not my fault that you can't seem to separate the two. I never suggested that having two eyeballs and a 7th grade education was a legal standard - it was pointedly clear that I was suggesting that the information was not hidden.
If you want to play that game, as I asked above, what legal standard indicates that the information was hidden by being in a footnote?
without taking a side in your spat, I just want to remind you that hiding stuff in the fine print is an old, old way of putting something over on somebody.
Big print, headlines, bolding - that's how you tell somebody the caveats if you want them told.
JUST MY HUMBLE OPINION.
next time you sign a contract, read the fine print.
Have you actually looked at the FISA app?
Calling it "fine print" would be VERY misleading. First of all, it wasn't fine print. Second of all, it was an in-line footnote and was not placed at, say, the back of the document. The foot note started on the bottom 1/3 of the page it was referenced on, and then continued through the very next page and took up the entire page.
If this had been a typical footnote, or been treated like an Appendix, I could buy the argument. But because the information was so hard to miss when reading the document, I don't.
But I guess if you want to call this instance fine print, its your prerogative.
If the Dems can call a bad joke 15 years ago a confession, this is fine print.
(08-03-2018 03:30 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote: [ -> ] (08-03-2018 03:24 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote: [ -> ] (08-03-2018 03:15 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote: [ -> ] (08-03-2018 02:30 PM)tanqtonic Wrote: [ -> ] (08-03-2018 09:52 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote: [ -> ]To the bold, my understanding is that the FISA court goes to great lengths not to name any American by name. Notice how Trump was never named, even though he was not the target of the application and it was obvious who Candidate #1 was? So your hypothetical about naming names wouldn't fly because they don't do that.
And I am being honest Tanq, but go ahead, besmirch me all you want if it makes you feel better. I'm not dancing on any pinhead - actually reading through the FISA app, it makes it clear that footnotes that provide background on information used in the app is normal and par for the course. So no pinhead or dancing needed.
You're the one dancing on the pinhead and trying to suggest that the information you deem so awful was hidden. If you have two eyeballs and a 7th grade reading comprehension, it's incredibly obvious that the information was not hidden as you keep suggesting it was. An no amount of repetition of that line will make it true - the info wasn't hidden - it was produced and explained in a way that was clear, concise, and could not be missed.
Owl#s has a much more compelling argument about whether or not the information was vetted ahead of time, and I've seen people on both sides of the aisle argue about whether or not each claim used needed to be independently verified. I would lean towards there needing to be some sort of verification, but since so much language is redacted, it's hard to get up in arms about the potential possibility that some of the information provided by Steele was not independently verified because we don't have the full picture.
Lad, "two eyeballs and a 7th grade education" isnt the fing legal standard.
Im not the one trying to say very relevant information is to be had --- buried in a page long footnote.
At the very least it was an utter horseshit move. And one that smacks amazingly of internal bias to make sure the information was not presented with the full candor that it should have.
But please, keep moving forward and making up your own willy fing nilly legal rules and standards that you are so adept at continuously doing.
You're certainly entitled to the opinion that the information was "hidden" or that it was a "horseshit move" to put the explanation in a footnote, but that also is not a fing legal standard. Can you provide me the legal statute that says putting relevant information in a footnote is a "horseshit move"?
Tanq, I'm giving my opinion on what I read and providing background as to why I have said opinion. I'm sorry that you seem to adept at confusing that with me making up my own legal rules and standards, but it's not my fault that you can't seem to separate the two. I never suggested that having two eyeballs and a 7th grade education was a legal standard - it was pointedly clear that I was suggesting that the information was not hidden.
If you want to play that game, as I asked above, what legal standard indicates that the information was hidden by being in a footnote?
without taking a side in your spat, I just want to remind you that hiding stuff in the fine print is an old, old way of putting something over on somebody.
Big print, headlines, bolding - that's how you tell somebody the caveats if you want them told.
JUST MY HUMBLE OPINION.
next time you sign a contract, read the fine print.
Have you actually looked at the FISA app?
Calling it "fine print" would be VERY misleading. First of all, it wasn't fine print. Second of all, it was an in-line footnote and was not placed at, say, the back of the document. The foot note started on the bottom 1/3 of the page it was referenced on, and then continued through the very next page and took up the entire page.
If this had been a typical footnote, or been treated like an Appendix, I could buy the argument. But because the information was so hard to miss when reading the document, I don't.
But I guess if you want to call this instance fine print, its your prerogative.
If the Dems can call a bad joke 15 years ago a confession, this is fine print.
(08-03-2018 03:33 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote: [ -> ] (08-03-2018 03:30 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote: [ -> ] (08-03-2018 03:24 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote: [ -> ] (08-03-2018 03:15 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote: [ -> ] (08-03-2018 02:30 PM)tanqtonic Wrote: [ -> ]Lad, "two eyeballs and a 7th grade education" isnt the fing legal standard.
Im not the one trying to say very relevant information is to be had --- buried in a page long footnote.
At the very least it was an utter horseshit move. And one that smacks amazingly of internal bias to make sure the information was not presented with the full candor that it should have.
But please, keep moving forward and making up your own willy fing nilly legal rules and standards that you are so adept at continuously doing.
You're certainly entitled to the opinion that the information was "hidden" or that it was a "horseshit move" to put the explanation in a footnote, but that also is not a fing legal standard. Can you provide me the legal statute that says putting relevant information in a footnote is a "horseshit move"?
Tanq, I'm giving my opinion on what I read and providing background as to why I have said opinion. I'm sorry that you seem to adept at confusing that with me making up my own legal rules and standards, but it's not my fault that you can't seem to separate the two. I never suggested that having two eyeballs and a 7th grade education was a legal standard - it was pointedly clear that I was suggesting that the information was not hidden.
If you want to play that game, as I asked above, what legal standard indicates that the information was hidden by being in a footnote?
without taking a side in your spat, I just want to remind you that hiding stuff in the fine print is an old, old way of putting something over on somebody.
Big print, headlines, bolding - that's how you tell somebody the caveats if you want them told.
JUST MY HUMBLE OPINION.
next time you sign a contract, read the fine print.
Have you actually looked at the FISA app?
Calling it "fine print" would be VERY misleading. First of all, it wasn't fine print. Second of all, it was an in-line footnote and was not placed at, say, the back of the document. The foot note started on the bottom 1/3 of the page it was referenced on, and then continued through the very next page and took up the entire page.
If this had been a typical footnote, or been treated like an Appendix, I could buy the argument. But because the information was so hard to miss when reading the document, I don't.
But I guess if you want to call this instance fine print, its your prerogative.
If the Dems can call a bad joke 15 years ago a confession, this is fine print.
Not sure what you're referencing here.
And have you looked at the FISA app itself?
Quote:And remember, this is an ex parte proceeding. That means the rules are stricter. "Most of it is okay," is not good enough, because there is nobody to challenge the parts that might not be okay. Every single part has to be perfect, by the numbers, or it's no good.
This prompts, at least to me, the obvious question, "Why use some unverified information in an ex parte proceeding?"
Exactamundo. But that doesnt seem to be appreciated by some here.
(08-03-2018 04:00 PM)tanqtonic Wrote: [ -> ]Quote:And remember, this is an ex parte proceeding. That means the rules are stricter. "Most of it is okay," is not good enough, because there is nobody to challenge the parts that might not be okay. Every single part has to be perfect, by the numbers, or it's no good.
This prompts, at least to me, the obvious question, "Why use some unverified information in an ex parte proceeding?"
Exactamundo. But that doesnt seem to be appreciated by some here.
I've seen disagreement at the level of verification that needs to be done on evidence presented in the FISA app (regardless of it being an ex parte proceeding). It took me forever to find the article I'd read, probably because it's from the Daily Caller (
http://dailycaller.com/2018/03/04/fbi-dossier-verified/)
Quote:But national security experts and former FBI officials say that verification of each and every fact mentioned in FISA applications is not necessarily required.
“Evidence presented to the court does not have to be rigorously proved or corroborated. But it does have to be plausible and credible — not just rumor or hearsay,” Steven Aftergood, the director of the Project on Government Secrecy for the Federation of American Scientists, told The Daily Caller News Foundation.
The FBI can cite information that the bureau has not fully verified or corroborated as long as the source for the information is made clear and an assessment of the reliability of the information is included in the application...
So if FBI guidelines explicitly state that facts laid out in FISA applications must be verified, how could the bureau still rely on Steele’s unverified claims in order to obtain the warrant to snoop on Page?
One former FBI special agent says that the relevant fact that had to be verified was that Steele was a source of the information, not that his allegations were fully accurate.
“If you are including source reporting, you must accurately state that it is source reporting and characterize what the source said,” Asha Rangappa, the former agent, said in a recent Twitter exchange with TheDCNF.
“You would typically have a separate source file against which it would be checked. The ‘fact’ is that it is information reported by a source,” she said.
I'd forgotten when I read that article, that there was also a quote by Grassley and Graham who said there was "no additional information corroborating the dossier allegations against Mr. Page," which means that it's almost certainly correct that Schiff meant that some verified and some unverified aspects of the dossier were used as a part of the application.
I have to believe that a competent ad litem could and would have challenged the reliability of the dossier excerpts contained in the application, and that off all I know about the procedure, a competent judge would have sustained that challenge. Without external corroboration or verification, the dossier contents are little better than hearsay. Where things would have gone from there is anybody's guess. Would the government have refiled without including the dossier contents? Could they have redacted all the non-verified parts and had another go? Would they have dropped the application until they were able to verify more of the information? I don't know, but I have this funny feeling that due process was not observed in this case. Hell, I went to Russia and China last year, and I even shared a cab with a Russian official. I hope to God that didn't subject me to this sort of proceeding.
My bottom line: If this procedure as I understand it complied with the letter and spirit of the FISA rules, then the FISA court process is an even bigger trampling of due process rights than I had previously imagined.
(08-03-2018 05:36 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote: [ -> ]My bottom line: If this procedure as I understand it complied with the letter and spirit of the FISA rules, then the FISA court process is an even bigger trampling of due process rights than I had previously imagined.
This is where I can begin to agree with you. I think arguing about this one example muddies the water because many people aren’t really arguing about FISA, but their opinion on the validity of spying on someone connected to the Trump campaign.
In my mind, you would think that this application process would be fairly rigorous and that the judges would ask the hard questions and, at a minimum, question the evidence. But is that enough? As you have said, should there be some sort of representation for the accused?
And if all evidence doesn’t need to be verified, is there a threshold where X% needs to be? The Page application is full of other verified evidence, so did the government at some point feel there was enough evidence that they could use the unverified evidence from a known source? Without the verified evidence, would they have used any of Steele’s work?
(08-03-2018 06:36 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote: [ -> ] (08-03-2018 05:36 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote: [ -> ]My bottom line: If this procedure as I understand it complied with the letter and spirit of the FISA rules, then the FISA court process is an even bigger trampling of due process rights than I had previously imagined.
This is where I can begin to agree with you. I think arguing about this one example muddies the water because many people aren’t really arguing about FISA, but their opinion on the validity of spying on someone connected to the Trump campaign.
In my mind, you would think that this application process would be fairly rigorous and that the judges would ask the hard questions and, at a minimum, question the evidence. But is that enough? As you have said, should there be some sort of representation for the accused?
And if all evidence doesn’t need to be verified, is there a threshold where X% needs to be? The Page application is full of other verified evidence, so did the government at some point feel there was enough evidence that they could use the unverified evidence from a known source? Without the verified evidence, would they have used any of Steele’s work?
I never liked the FISA court and this is why. Funny that in the early days of the patRIOT act, I got hammered by the right wing and called a commie. Now it's the left wingers who are defending it. I think Adam Schiff is a prime example. He authored a bill several years ago providing a number of protections for the target, and I believe it included the ad litem provision. Last week that same bill was reintroduced by a republican, and I read that Schiff announced that he would vote against it. Voting against his own bill because the shoe is on the other foot strikes me as the ultimate in hypocrisy.
And contrary to your comment, I think the arguments, at least the ones I've seen and heard, have all been about the FISA process and not just about the validity of spying on any one individual. And suppose there was some sort of requirement that say, 75% had to be verified. I could ask for a warrant on John Doe, who lives at 4545 Main Street and works for the City of Houston and is a member of al-Qaeda. I've given four facts, name, address, employer, and member of al-Qaeda. Three of them are correct. That's 75%. See how easy it is to subvert the protections?
Getting my daily dose of broccoli, watching the all anti Trump, all the time Network, AKA CNN
How anybody can fail to see the bias is beyond me, unless, of course, they share and welcome the bias. Definitely not a news network. Not a mention of the unemployment rate. Just a propaganda arm.
(08-03-2018 05:36 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote: [ -> ]My bottom line: If this procedure as I understand it complied with the letter and spirit of the FISA rules, then the FISA court process is an even bigger trampling of due process rights than I had previously imagined.
Exactly. *If* this particular example is any indication of the robustness, then what has been created is nothing more than the biggest fing loophole I think I have ever imagined. The 'law' is more loophole than law, to be precise.
And not just an issue with due process; the extant of the FISA warrant goes way beyond what I have ever heard of any court granting.
From what I have read the FISA warrant has none of the 'issues' and 'boundaries' that a normal warrant for electronic surveillance would *ever* have attached to it.
And, for whatever Lad believes/says, in the civil side I know for a fing fact that just the issue with the 'footnote' would land someone in seriously hot water for the horseshit nature of how it was plopped in there. And that is with a contested pleading -- as Owl#s states and reaffirms that ex parte proceedings have even higher standards simply because there is no one to oppose the motion.
Couple the slipshod manner of the issues presented in the warrant with the pretty much unparalleled power of the Feds intelligence infrastructure to peel away pretty much anything and everything done communications wise, this is disturbing that essentially you are handing the keys to the Ring of Mordor with essentially no 'front door' protection to speak of.
Throw in the bias issues of Page and Strzok who drive the process you have an really bad recipe for powerful stuff to happen.
But I forgot, the court is fing perfect, the DOJ did nothing wrong, the warrant is picture perfect, and Strzok has no bias whatsoever. Everything is peachy keen then.....
(08-03-2018 08:05 PM)ausowl Wrote: [ -> ] (08-03-2018 07:36 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote: [ -> ]Getting my daily dose of broccoli, watching the all anti Trump, all the time Network, AKA CNN
How anybody can fail to see the bias is beyond me, unless, of course, they share and welcome the bias. Definitely not a news network. Not a mention of the unemployment rate. Just a propaganda arm.
CNN Money 8.3.18
Is this the same version of CNN that Anderson Cooper appears on? Or is it a separate channel?
That (the Cooper channel) is the one that is all Trump, all the time.
Fox also has a business channel, but announcements of things like the unemployment rare and Fed actions are part of the NEWS channel also. Maybe CNN does that too. I can’t say for sure. since I don’t devote 100% of my war going to them. But every time, every single time Iturn on CNN they are discussing Trump. Not the unemployment figures, not a cave diving rescue in Thailand, nothing but Trump. Yesterday it was Axelrod and Panetta talking BP with the softballs Anderson was tossing them. Harping on the “secret” meeting with Putin. If you want to have a secret meeting, does it make sense to publicize it like that?
Anyway, I try to split most of my Tv news times between Fox and CNN, and when you do that, the CNN ias becomes easily apparent. In the way they couch questions, in the topics they choose to avoid, in the opinions presented as facts, it is clear
Continuing good economic news is bad political news for the Dems. They need pain and misery to drive voters to them.