(03-19-2018 08:26 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(03-19-2018 07:24 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  I guess my issue is that it isn’t clear where a conflict of interest is no longer present when there’s an n-th degree of separation. It’s very clear that if n=0, that there would be a conflict of interest. But as you start expanding n, so many variables go into the equation that I don’t think it’s crystal clear, for a number of reasons.

I don't think you are understanding the points that tanq made more eloquently than I.

No, it is very clear when a conflict of interest is no longer present. Never.

It doesn't have to be crystal clear. Muddy is a problem.

And my opinion, with which you apparently disagree, is that this situation is Exhibit A for the question of why.

Quote:And one comment, hasn’t it been borne out that it’s unclear how “rooted” the ex-Trump aide surveillance was in the dossier? We know it was included, but since the application hasn’t been released, and both sides disagree about how significant it should role was, isn’t saying the FISA app was rooted in it a bit misleading?

Applying the same principle, it doesn't matter. It's like being a little bit pregnant. If it was included, that violates the FISA rules.

Now I'm willing to bet that law enforcement cuts corners on the FISA rules all the time. There's nothing in the setup to prevent it. That's one reason why I have supported having an ad litem to represent the valid legal interests of the target. By the way, someone else who has supported that in the past is named Adam Schiff.

No, I am understanding the point tanq made - notice how I didn't comment on anything to do with the timing in that comment?

I broached a different subject, one that I think is germane. The n-th degree of separation matters. Are you saying that, had the PAC been run by the sister of a woman whose co-worker worked on the election campaign of McAuliffe, that McCabe would have had to recuse himself?

And then the closeness of the relationship matters as well. What if the PAC wasn't run by McAuliffe, but was instead run by a former aide to him? Would that have been a close enough connection to make the waters muddy?

Or is there not really a rule to follow? That it is a subjective matter where you can't really subscribe a hard rule?

And this is a first - I have not heard that using the dossier violated a FISA rule. Can you explain?