(07-31-2018 07:34 PM)JOwl Wrote:  

(07-31-2018 01:43 AM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(07-30-2018 06:05 PM)JOwl Wrote:  

(07-30-2018 02:41 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(07-29-2018 01:55 PM)JOwl Wrote:  So, I'm interested. In light of the actual text of the of the FISA application, is there anyone here who cares to defend then Nunes memo?

The memo states its purpose to be to "[provide] Members an update on significant facts relating to the Committee's ongoing investigation". (emph mine)

The FBI was very concerned about the memo, saying "we have grave concerns about material omissions of fact that fundamentally impact the memo’s accuracy".

The FBI's concerns were borne out completely. Specifically, in the section where the memo purports to inform members about the application's discussion of the political origins of the dossier, it spends two paragraphs describing things the application did not mention -- the DNC, Clinton, the DNC again, Clinton again, etc. But it wholly omits all of the application's actual discussion of the political origins of the dossier. Specifically, the application says "the FBI speculates that the identified US person was likely looking for information that could be used to discredit Candidate #1's campaign", but the memo makes no mention of this.

There is no universe in which an update on the significant facts of the FISA application's discussion of the political origins of the dossier would fail to mention that the application says that it was likely created for the purpose of discrediting Trump's campaign. Yet that's just what Nunes did. And he intended his memo to be published in a vacuum -- as the only discussion available of the application's contents. I can't see how any would see Nunes's memo as anything other than a deliberate attempt to mislead its audience through omission. But I'm sure someone here sees it differently.

This is the first time aside from an Enron defense that I have heard that anyone claim that one sentence tucked into a footnote fits anywhere near 'full disclosure of a material and cogent fact', especially when that one footnote sentence doesnt even refer to the Parties or Individuals as anything more than an the aforesaid indirect references. Kudos to you JOwl.... (I guess...)

The footnote took up over a full page. The nature of the information was perfectly suited to a footnote. I have no doubt the judges read it and understood it just as well as I did.

How many FISA applications have you read? I've read parts of one, and this obscuration of parties and individuals seemed standard procedure.

You seem upset about the size of the text used to convey this information in the FISA application... can't you spare even a bit of that dismay for the _complete_ and _intentionally misleading_ omission of same information in the Nunes memo?

But I see that while you responded to my question, you proffered no defense of the memo. So perhaps there is a hint that you are bit troubled by it.

Zero FISA warrants. Plenty of plain jane ones. Hiding that **** in a footnote in the the normal style would be somewhat horseshit, the judge, if/when the application came out would be livid, the ADA would lose their job, might be fined, might have bar problems.

With all due respect, the 'charging parties' minimized the **** out of what should have been highlighted in the warrant, to be blunt. But that seems to escape that eagle eye of yours.

How many warrant have you had experience with JOwl? Since you are opining so loftfully here --- or is this Vox speaking for you?

By the way, perhaps you should compare the 14 paragraphs of Nunes with the warrant as well. The Nunes memo was pretty much dead to rights.

Seriously? You're going with "Hiding that **** in a footnote in the the normal style would be somewhat horseshit, the judge, if/when the application came out would be livid, the ADA would lose their job, might be fined, might have bar problems." ?

The application with this page-plus footnote was reviewed four times, each time by a different FISA judge. Four Republican FISA judges. Four Republican FISA judges, each of whom _approved_ the application.

So given that history, excuse me while I laugh at your suggestion that including that information in a footnote is misconduct that would make a FISA judge so livid as to cost the applicant his job, etc. I have zero warrant experience, which appears to be exactly the same amount of relevant experience as you.

Whatever, sparky. Glad to know your friends at Vox are on that religiously. Good that they have that 'no experience with warrants' person like you in their corner to beat that drum for them.

If you are so thick as to not to understand when you have 'a thing' that is relied upon in the manner that the Steele memo is relied upon, and when the action is an ex parte action, you dont fing hide **** nor do you pack it in the corner. Especially as to provenance.

You want to do that? -- go for it sparkles.

And yes, was on the opposite side of 'warrant issues' at a much earlier stage in my career. So, as far as I am concerned you can FOAD for your blind characterization.

Tells me how much to add to your 'brings relevance to' score, to be honest.....

Quote:And yes, I've read the Nunes memo. All 14 paragraphs. You and I both know that it is misleading by omission, for reasons I've detailed numerous times above. But you refuse to admit it.

Yes. You keep beating that drum rather incessantly. And no, the Nunes memo ism pretty the fk spot on. The one thing that is 'anywhere' near misleading is the characterization of the background of the Memo.

But, to be honest, I find the warrant to be just as misleading by obscuring to a massive extent that very same issue. They went out of their way to bury that massively salient fact as much as possible yet still be able to dance to the tune 'it was disclosed (maybe)'.

Is *that* how you *really* want the fing FBI and intelligence community to play with those salient facts if it were *your* life they were going massively intrude in? Seriously? I find that action to be grotesque, *especially* when dealing with an ex parte proceeding.

Funny that you whine so much about 'misleading by omission' when the warrant application pretty much plays the 'misleading by hiding the fk out the provenance.' Richly hypocritical for you I'd say.

The rest of the 16 paragraphs are pretty much dead accurate. But I am sure they are not for you.