(07-22-2018 12:55 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(07-22-2018 11:48 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  Color me shocked that Obama officials signed off on a warrant while Obama was still in office. Who did you expect to sign off on it, Sessions??? What a weird strike against the FISA application that still needed to be approved, and was reapproved multiple times...

The question is not who but how.

Quote:

Quote:I’ve read through a bit of the application and it seems like they used Steele’s info, which they disclosed and called a credible source due to his previous work with the FBI, and other lines of evidence. The FBI appears to have been certain that Putin and Russia were trying to stir up trouble and Page looked like a conduit they were trying to use. Why is it surprising that a warrant was then granted? I’m with Rubio who says that it doesn’t seem like the FBI did anything wrong in requesting this warrant.

I heard an interview on CNN with Adam Schiff several months ago in which he said that they did not use all of the dossier to support the warrant request, only parts that specifically excluded the racy sexual stuff, and the "most of" what was used had been verified. If that is correct, then the warrant was not properly requested.

(07-22-2018 03:10 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(07-22-2018 02:43 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(07-22-2018 01:53 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(07-22-2018 11:48 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  Also, there is still no hard evidence the Strozk let his feelings for Trump influence his work, so I don’t find that a compelling issue

and the hard evidence for Trump-Russian collusion is.....?

Its all the smoke there. Of course. None of which amazingly emanates from the Steele dossier. Cmon, put your thinking cap on. Its obvious.

Yeah, I knew, I just wanted to hear Lad tell me the standard is different for Trump than it is for Strzok.

i think we have more hard evidence on Strzok. Unless Muelller has emails between Trump and Putin.

(07-22-2018 03:20 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(07-22-2018 03:10 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(07-22-2018 02:43 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(07-22-2018 01:53 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(07-22-2018 11:48 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  Also, there is still no hard evidence the Strozk let his feelings for Trump influence his work, so I don’t find that a compelling issue

and the hard evidence for Trump-Russian collusion is.....?

Its all the smoke there. Of course. None of which amazingly emanates from the Steele dossier. Cmon, put your thinking cap on. Its obvious.

Yeah, I knew, I just wanted to hear Lad tell me the standard is different for Trump than it is for Strzok.

i think we have more hard evidence on Strzok. Unless Muelller has emails between Trump and Putin.

You havent been reading his steadfast denials in the last 12 hours, I take it?

(07-22-2018 01:53 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(07-22-2018 11:48 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  Also, there is still no hard evidence the Strozk let his feelings for Trump influence his work, so I don’t find that a compelling issue

and the hard evidence for Trump-Russian collusion is.....?

(07-22-2018 03:14 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(07-22-2018 12:55 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(07-22-2018 11:48 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  Color me shocked that Obama officials signed off on a warrant while Obama was still in office. Who did you expect to sign off on it, Sessions??? What a weird strike against the FISA application that still needed to be approved, and was reapproved multiple times...

The question is not who but how.

Yep.

Quote:

Quote:I’ve read through a bit of the application and it seems like they used Steele’s info, which they disclosed and called a credible source due to his previous work with the FBI, and other lines of evidence. The FBI appears to have been certain that Putin and Russia were trying to stir up trouble and Page looked like a conduit they were trying to use. Why is it surprising that a warrant was then granted? I’m with Rubio who says that it doesn’t seem like the FBI did anything wrong in requesting this warrant.

I heard an interview on CNN with Adam Schiff several months ago in which he said that they did not use all of the dossier to support the warrant request, only parts that specifically excluded the racy sexual stuff, and the "most of" what was used had been verified. If that is correct, then the warrant was not properly requested.

I dont think Lad is tuned in that the verification in the warrant is the verification that everything in the warrant is known to the signatory as first hand knowledge. Big problem for simply wrapping the dossier in a cover letter and dropping it off in the FISA court inbox.

Further, I dont think Lad is especially attuned to the very big problem of hearsay, and double hearsay in the warrant. It is pretty fing obvious.

Again further, Lad doesnt seem to especially attuned to the misdirection and misleading assertions regarding the provenance in the verified warrant. Actually these statements are far more likely untruths, since the FBI knew precisely where the dossier originated from, and downplayed the stinking crap out of it with words like 'probably' and 'most likely'. But then again the libs pretty much pooh poohed this notion when it was addressed with the release of the Nunes memo (which, given the warrant here, seems precisely on point in most respects when reading it against the actual text.)

And, Lad doesnt seem especially disturbed that one of the major foundations of the warrant was the memo, and the warrant also cites new stories for confirmation. Unfortunately those are the same news stories that Brennan pimped out to anyone who would write about them, ostensibly then used as circular confirmation of the memo in the released warrant.

Or doesnt want to be tuned in to or disturbed. Dont know which.

(07-22-2018 04:08 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  The redactions themselves tell a story.

How much credibility would you put into a redacted version of the Trump/Putin meeting?

Also as a lay person, I have to wonder why the submitting agent's name was redacted.

As for the multiple renewals, I think the judge was misled multiple times. If you lie to your insurance company about the mold in your house and they renew it several times, does that mean there is no mold?

(07-22-2018 04:15 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(07-22-2018 04:08 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  The redactions themselves tell a story.

How much credibility would you put into a redacted version of the Trump/Putin meeting?

Also as a lay person, I have to wonder why the submitting agent's name was redacted.

As for the multiple renewals, I think the judge was misled multiple times. If you lie to your insurance company about the mold in your house and they renew it several times, does that mean there is no mold?

Did I miss what the lies were?

And regarding the meeting - you’re right, if a transcript was redacted I would not be able to confidently state what was said. And so, if the transcript was reviewed by an impartial third party (say a judge) and they said that the agreements reached during the meeting were valid, I would probably have to rely on that third party’s judgement because they viewed the entire transcript...

I would also guess that the submitting agent’s name was redacted for the same reason the other items were - it is sensitive in nature.

To me, the redactions make this warrant too hard to judge, and therefore I’ll rely on those impartial judges and that they are well trained at sniffing out bull**** and not just rubber stamping everything that comes across their desk. I believe there was even a first warrant app that was denied, which provides evidence that they don’t just rubber stamp apps.

(07-22-2018 05:27 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(07-22-2018 04:15 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(07-22-2018 04:08 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  The redactions themselves tell a story.

How much credibility would you put into a redacted version of the Trump/Putin meeting?

Also as a lay person, I have to wonder why the submitting agent's name was redacted.

As for the multiple renewals, I think the judge was misled multiple times. If you lie to your insurance company about the mold in your house and they renew it several times, does that mean there is no mold?

Did I miss what the lies were?

And regarding the meeting - you’re right, if a transcript was redacted I would not be able to confidently state what was said. And so, if the transcript was reviewed by an impartial third party (say a judge) and they said that the agreements reached during the meeting were valid, I would probably have to rely on that third party’s judgement because they viewed the entire transcript...

I would also guess that the submitting agent’s name was redacted for the same reason the other items were - it is sensitive in nature.

To me, the redactions make this warrant too hard to judge, and therefore I’ll rely on those impartial judges and that they are well trained at sniffing out bull**** and not just rubber stamping everything that comes across their desk. I believe there was even a first warrant app that was denied, which provides evidence that they don’t just rubber stamp apps.

An impartial judge who is lied to and manipulated can easily do the wrong thing. He also is relying on the impartiality and professionalism of those submitting the warrant. When he issues renewals, he does not start afresh but assumes the original warrant was OK.

Lots of innocent men in prison relied on impartial judges and juries. So often their appeals are denied by impartial judges. I guess this all makes them guilty.

I guess the submitting agent's name is very sensitive - Strzok.

Didn't Strzok and Page discuss a friend who was nominated for this court?

https://www.nationalreview.com/2018/03/peter-strzok-lisa-page-meeting-michael-flynn-judge/

"The text messages demonstrating the couple’s efforts to meet with Contreras were initially concealed from Congress as DOJ officials redacted the information..."

“Have to come up with some other work people cover for action,” Strzok added.

Wave it away, Lad. The odor remains.

I am relying more on on the fact that the dossier was sought after and paid for by enemies of Trump, and then presented with window dressing by enemies of Trump.

(07-22-2018 05:44 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  Can you fill me in on the lies that you’ve read in the FISA app? I’m not clued into that apparently. If there is information used in the FISA app that has proven to be false, and was known to be false st the time, that changes things and is a big issue. As you said, a judge is assuming that the applicants are being forthright.

(07-22-2018 03:50 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(07-22-2018 03:14 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(07-22-2018 12:55 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(07-22-2018 11:48 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  Color me shocked that Obama officials signed off on a warrant while Obama was still in office. Who did you expect to sign off on it, Sessions??? What a weird strike against the FISA application that still needed to be approved, and was reapproved multiple times...

The question is not who but how.

Yep.

Quote:

Quote:I’ve read through a bit of the application and it seems like they used Steele’s info, which they disclosed and called a credible source due to his previous work with the FBI, and other lines of evidence. The FBI appears to have been certain that Putin and Russia were trying to stir up trouble and Page looked like a conduit they were trying to use. Why is it surprising that a warrant was then granted? I’m with Rubio who says that it doesn’t seem like the FBI did anything wrong in requesting this warrant.

I heard an interview on CNN with Adam Schiff several months ago in which he said that they did not use all of the dossier to support the warrant request, only parts that specifically excluded the racy sexual stuff, and the "most of" what was used had been verified. If that is correct, then the warrant was not properly requested.

I dont think Lad is tuned in that the verification in the warrant is the verification that everything in the warrant is known to the signatory as first hand knowledge. Big problem for simply wrapping the dossier in a cover letter and dropping it off in the FISA court inbox.

Further, I dont think Lad is especially attuned to the very big problem of hearsay, and double hearsay in the warrant. It is pretty fing obvious.

Again further, Lad doesnt seem to especially attuned to the misdirection and misleading assertions regarding the provenance in the verified warrant. Actually these statements are far more likely untruths, since the FBI knew precisely where the dossier originated from, and downplayed the stinking crap out of it with words like 'probably' and 'most likely'. But then again the libs pretty much pooh poohed this notion when it was addressed with the release of the Nunes memo (which, given the warrant here, seems precisely on point in most respects when reading it against the actual text.)

And, Lad doesnt seem especially disturbed that one of the major foundations of the warrant was the memo, and the warrant also cites new stories for confirmation. Unfortunately those are the same news stories that Brennan pimped out to anyone who would write about them, ostensibly then used as circular confirmation of the memo in the released warrant.

Or doesnt want to be tuned in to or disturbed. Dont know which.

I’m not especially disturbed that a credible FBI informant’s intelligence (remember, Steele had a history of providing credible intel to the FBI) was used as evidence in the FISA warrant.

And I’ve said this multiple times before, that a lot of my opinion of not thinking this is an issue, is that judges who seem to have no reason to grant a warrant without probably cause, felt it was appropriate to not only grant the original warrant, but then renew it three or four times. As a layman in legal issues, it’s hard for me to get to up in arms when it appears like people who are much more experienced and knowledgeable in granting FISA warrants deemed it appropriate multiple times.

And while you are also well versed in law, you have not seen the unredacted version of the app, which means you don’t have a full picture of the application, right? You’re reaching your conclusions based off of your reading of a heavily redacted warrant request, right?

(07-22-2018 05:44 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(07-22-2018 05:27 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(07-22-2018 04:15 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(07-22-2018 04:08 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  The redactions themselves tell a story.

How much credibility would you put into a redacted version of the Trump/Putin meeting?

Also as a lay person, I have to wonder why the submitting agent's name was redacted.

As for the multiple renewals, I think the judge was misled multiple times. If you lie to your insurance company about the mold in your house and they renew it several times, does that mean there is no mold?

Did I miss what the lies were?

And regarding the meeting - you’re right, if a transcript was redacted I would not be able to confidently state what was said. And so, if the transcript was reviewed by an impartial third party (say a judge) and they said that the agreements reached during the meeting were valid, I would probably have to rely on that third party’s judgement because they viewed the entire transcript...

I would also guess that the submitting agent’s name was redacted for the same reason the other items were - it is sensitive in nature.

To me, the redactions make this warrant too hard to judge, and therefore I’ll rely on those impartial judges and that they are well trained at sniffing out bull**** and not just rubber stamping everything that comes across their desk. I believe there was even a first warrant app that was denied, which provides evidence that they don’t just rubber stamp apps.

An impartial judge who is lied to and manipulated can easily do the wrong thing. He also is relying on the impartiality and professionalism of those submitting the warrant. When he issues renewals, he does not start afresh but assumes the original warrant was OK.

Lots of innocent men in prison relied on impartial judges and juries. So often their appeals are denied by impartial judges. I guess this all makes them guilty.

I guess the submitting agent's name is very sensitive - Strzok.

Didn't Strzok and Page discuss a friend who was nominated for this court?

https://www.nationalreview.com/2018/03/peter-strzok-lisa-page-meeting-michael-flynn-judge/

"The text messages demonstrating the couple’s efforts to meet with Contreras were initially concealed from Congress as DOJ officials redacted the information..."

“Have to come up with some other work people cover for action,” Strzok added.

Wave it away, Lad. The odor remains.

I am relying more on on the fact that the dossier was sought after and paid for by enemies of Trump, and then presented with window dressing by enemies of Trump.

Can you fill me in on the lies that you’ve read in the FISA app? I’m not clued into that apparently. If there is information used in the FISA app that has proven to be false, and was known to be false st the time, that changes things and is a big issue. As you said, a judge is assuming that the applicants are being forthright.

(07-22-2018 06:10 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(07-22-2018 05:44 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  Can you fill me in on the lies that you’ve read in the FISA app? I’m not clued into that apparently. If there is information used in the FISA app that has proven to be false, and was known to be false st the time, that changes things and is a big issue. As you said, a judge is assuming that the applicants are being forthright.

As I understand it, the question whether anything has subsequently been proved false is irrelevant. The FISA court proceeding is an ex party proceeding. The intended target is not represented. So there is no party to challenge any evidence or submit contrary evidence. That means that all evidence produced by the moving party has to be absolutely true, at least beyond reasonable doubt, at the time it is presented to the court. Anything that is subsequently been proved true, and obviously anything that is subsequently proved false, is inadmissible, and a warrant supported by any such evidence is void, and any fruit of the poisoned tree is poisoned.

(07-22-2018 05:44 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(07-22-2018 05:27 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(07-22-2018 04:15 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(07-22-2018 04:08 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  The redactions themselves tell a story.

How much credibility would you put into a redacted version of the Trump/Putin meeting?

Also as a lay person, I have to wonder why the submitting agent's name was redacted.

As for the multiple renewals, I think the judge was misled multiple times. If you lie to your insurance company about the mold in your house and they renew it several times, does that mean there is no mold?

Did I miss what the lies were?

And regarding the meeting - you’re right, if a transcript was redacted I would not be able to confidently state what was said. And so, if the transcript was reviewed by an impartial third party (say a judge) and they said that the agreements reached during the meeting were valid, I would probably have to rely on that third party’s judgement because they viewed the entire transcript...

I would also guess that the submitting agent’s name was redacted for the same reason the other items were - it is sensitive in nature.

To me, the redactions make this warrant too hard to judge, and therefore I’ll rely on those impartial judges and that they are well trained at sniffing out bull**** and not just rubber stamping everything that comes across their desk. I believe there was even a first warrant app that was denied, which provides evidence that they don’t just rubber stamp apps.

An impartial judge who is lied to and manipulated can easily do the wrong thing. He also is relying on the impartiality and professionalism of those submitting the warrant. When he issues renewals, he does not start afresh but assumes the original warrant was OK.

Lots of innocent men in prison relied on impartial judges and juries. So often their appeals are denied by impartial judges. I guess this all makes them guilty.

I guess the submitting agent's name is very sensitive - Strzok.

Didn't Strzok and Page discuss a friend who was nominated for this court?

https://www.nationalreview.com/2018/03/peter-strzok-lisa-page-meeting-michael-flynn-judge/

"The text messages demonstrating the couple’s efforts to meet with Contreras were initially concealed from Congress as DOJ officials redacted the information..."

“Have to come up with some other work people cover for action,” Strzok added.

Wave it away, Lad. The odor remains.

I am relying more on on the fact that the dossier was sought after and paid for by enemies of Trump, and then presented with window dressing by enemies of Trump.

Can you fill me in on the lies that you’ve read in the FISA app? I’m not clued into that apparently. If there is information used in the FISA app that has proven to be false, and was known to be false st the time, that changes things and is a big issue. As you said, a judge is assuming that the applicants are being forthright.

(07-22-2018 05:27 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  Didn't Strzok and Page discuss a friend who was nominated for this court?

https://www.nationalreview.com/2018/03/peter-strzok-lisa-page-meeting-michael-flynn-judge/

"The text messages demonstrating the couple’s efforts to meet with Contreras were initially concealed from Congress as DOJ officials redacted the information..."

“Have to come up with some other work people cover for action,” Strzok added.

Wave it away, Lad. The odor remains.

(07-22-2018 06:10 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(07-22-2018 05:44 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  Can you fill me in on the lies that you’ve read in the FISA app? I’m not clued into that apparently. If there is information used in the FISA app that has proven to be false, and was known to be false st the time, that changes things and is a big issue. As you said, a judge is assuming that the applicants are being forthright.

As I understand it, the question whether anything has subsequently been proved false is irrelevant. The FISA court proceeding is an ex party proceeding. The intended target is not represented. So there is no party to challenge any evidence or submit contrary evidence. That means that all evidence produced by the moving party has to be absolutely true, at least beyond reasonable doubt, at the time it is presented to the court. Anything that is subsequently been proved true, and obviously anything that is subsequently proved false, is inadmissible, and a warrant supported by any such evidence is void, and any fruit of the poisoned tree is poisoned.

(07-22-2018 06:16 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(07-22-2018 05:44 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(07-22-2018 05:27 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(07-22-2018 04:15 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(07-22-2018 04:08 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  The redactions themselves tell a story.

How much credibility would you put into a redacted version of the Trump/Putin meeting?

Also as a lay person, I have to wonder why the submitting agent's name was redacted.

As for the multiple renewals, I think the judge was misled multiple times. If you lie to your insurance company about the mold in your house and they renew it several times, does that mean there is no mold?

Did I miss what the lies were?

And regarding the meeting - you’re right, if a transcript was redacted I would not be able to confidently state what was said. And so, if the transcript was reviewed by an impartial third party (say a judge) and they said that the agreements reached during the meeting were valid, I would probably have to rely on that third party’s judgement because they viewed the entire transcript...

I would also guess that the submitting agent’s name was redacted for the same reason the other items were - it is sensitive in nature.

To me, the redactions make this warrant too hard to judge, and therefore I’ll rely on those impartial judges and that they are well trained at sniffing out bull**** and not just rubber stamping everything that comes across their desk. I believe there was even a first warrant app that was denied, which provides evidence that they don’t just rubber stamp apps.

An impartial judge who is lied to and manipulated can easily do the wrong thing. He also is relying on the impartiality and professionalism of those submitting the warrant. When he issues renewals, he does not start afresh but assumes the original warrant was OK.

Lots of innocent men in prison relied on impartial judges and juries. So often their appeals are denied by impartial judges. I guess this all makes them guilty.

I guess the submitting agent's name is very sensitive - Strzok.

Didn't Strzok and Page discuss a friend who was nominated for this court?

https://www.nationalreview.com/2018/03/peter-strzok-lisa-page-meeting-michael-flynn-judge/

"The text messages demonstrating the couple’s efforts to meet with Contreras were initially concealed from Congress as DOJ officials redacted the information..."

“Have to come up with some other work people cover for action,” Strzok added.

Wave it away, Lad. The odor remains.

I am relying more on on the fact that the dossier was sought after and paid for by enemies of Trump, and then presented with window dressing by enemies of Trump.

Can you fill me in on the lies that you’ve read in the FISA app? I’m not clued into that apparently. If there is information used in the FISA app that has proven to be false, and was known to be false st the time, that changes things and is a big issue. As you said, a judge is assuming that the applicants are being forthright.

Are there any lies in the dossier? If you have Biblical faith in its inerrancy, I guess we are done.

So, a suspect dossier supported by suspect news articles, all from enemies of the target, is pretty good foundation, eh?

Unredact everything. Present why the FISA warrant was sought. Present who sought it. Be transparent.