(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.

You understand that this whole dispute is pretty much irrelevant, right. I may not agree with your opinion, but I don't want to waste time going there.

The FISA rules require that everything stated in the application must be verified and corroborated fact. If you think about it, it can't be any other way without due process problems. It's an ex parte proceeding, the target makes no appearance, has no opportunity to put on evidence, and has no opportunity to question the government. If not for the verification requirement, any US attorney could go in and get approval to wiretap anyone on totally false grounds. I would assume that you agree that is not a proper outcome.

Now, Adam Schiff has said in an interview I referenced that not all of the dossier was used, specifically that the racy parts were exclude, and that some of what was used was verified/corroborated. The means some wasn't. And that's simply not good enough.

Now if the footnote information was in fact noted, then the question of verification and corroboration should have been asked by the judge, if not addressed directly by the government. So these are the possibilities, as I see them:
1) The footnote was not sufficiently conspicuous to be noted. That is the alternative you argued against, so let's look at the others.
2) The judge noted the footnote but did not inquire further before issuing the warrant. That would be judicial misconduct.
3) The judge asked the question, or the government volunteered the information, and the government stated incorrectly that it had all been verified. That would be perjury.
4) The judge asked the question, or the government volunteered the information, and the government stated correctly that it had not all been verified, and the judge issued the warrant anyway. Again, judicial misconduct.
5) All of the information had been verified/corroborated before presentation and Adam Schiff is a liar. Of course, why would he lie when the truth was more favorable to his position?

I'm trying to identify any other options. Can you come up with any others? Of the ones I have identified, which one do you think is least problematic for the government. Adam Schiff is a liar seems least problematic to me, but while I would shed no tears if Mr. Schiff were so exposed, that just doesn't make sense to me.