(12-31-2018 02:40 PM)Marc Mensa Wrote:  

(12-31-2018 02:35 PM)UofMstateU Wrote:  

(12-31-2018 02:30 PM)Marc Mensa Wrote:  

(12-31-2018 02:27 PM)UofMstateU Wrote:  

(12-31-2018 01:31 PM)Marc Mensa Wrote:  and you're still pretending the FBI based their justification for a FISA warrant solely on the Steele dossier, which they clearly did not.

I'll trust the process. It's proven to be far steadier than our unstable leader.

McCabe testified that were it not for the dossier, no fisa warrant would have been sought. The FBI did not refute or disagree with this assessment.

The democratic memo did not dispute this either.

Untrue...

https://www.google.com/amp/s/amp.cnn.com...index.html

What McCabe said under oath matters, not what he tells CNN.

Read the republican memo. It lays it out. The FBI did not disagree with the memo when given a chance to dispute it. The democrats did not rebut it in their own memo, even though carp-face (Swalwell) made a big stink about prior to their memo being written. Funny how the democrats were screaming about this like vape-boy, yet when they write their own memo, they dont touch it.

#sad

What exactly did McCabe say under oath?

If you dont know, then that explains why you are so easily duped by FakeNews.

Read the republican memo. It will open your eyes.

(12-31-2018 02:30 PM)Marc Mensa Wrote:  

(12-31-2018 02:27 PM)UofMstateU Wrote:  

(12-31-2018 01:31 PM)Marc Mensa Wrote:  

(12-31-2018 01:12 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(12-31-2018 12:11 PM)Marc Mensa Wrote:  yet much of it has been corroborated. the "fake" dossier is providing far more truth than anyone connected to to DJT is to his defense.
https://www.lawfareblog.com/steele-dossi...rospective

Which is irrelevant under the law. The law prescribes a simple test. Was it 100% verified at the time it was placed before the FISA court as evidence? Yes or no.
Most of it was verified is not good enough. All of it was subsequently verified is not good enough.
The FISA court is an ex parte proceeding. That means that everything introduced as evidence has to be uncontroverted and incontrovertible fact. That means that, based one every factual representation I have seen, the FISA warrants were issued improperly, and any resulting evidence is fruit of the poisoned tree.
I've offered my fix before--amend the FISA procedure to include an ad litem to represent the interests of the target. Without that, the danger remains that something unproved can be introduced as evidence.

and you're still pretending the FBI based their justification for a FISA warrant solely on the Steele dossier, which they clearly did not.
I'll trust the process. It's proven to be far steadier than our unstable leader.

McCabe testified that were it not for the dossier, no fisa warrant would have been sought. The FBI did not refute or disagree with this assessment.
The democratic memo did not dispute this either.

Untrue...
https://www.google.com/amp/s/amp.cnn.com...index.html

From your link: "We started the investigations without the dossier. We were proceeding with the investigations before we ever received that information," McCabe told CNN as part of a wide-ranging interview. "Was the dossier material important to the package? Of course, it was. As was every fact included in that package. Was it the majority of what was in the package? Absolutely not."

On that basis, the FISA filing was defective and the warrant(s) was/were issued improperly. Being a little bit unverified is like being a little bit pregnant. You are or you aren't. It's defective or it isn't.

(12-31-2018 02:41 PM)Machiavelli Wrote:  

(12-31-2018 02:30 PM)Marc Mensa Wrote:  

(12-31-2018 02:27 PM)UofMstateU Wrote:  

(12-31-2018 01:31 PM)Marc Mensa Wrote:  

(12-31-2018 01:12 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  Which is irrelevant under the law. The law prescribes a simple test. Was it 100% verified at the time it was placed before the FISA court as evidence? Yes or no.

Most of it was verified is not good enough. All of it was subsequently verified is not good enough.

The FISA court is an ex parte proceeding. That means that everything introduced as evidence has to be uncontroverted and incontrovertible fact. That means that, based one every factual representation I have seen, the FISA warrants were issued improperly, and any resulting evidence is fruit of the poisoned tree.

I've offered my fix before--amend the FISA procedure to include an ad litem to represent the interests of the target. Without that, the danger remains that something unproved can be introduced as evidence.

and you're still pretending the FBI based their justification for a FISA warrant solely on the Steele dossier, which they clearly did not.

I'll trust the process. It's proven to be far steadier than our unstable leader.

McCabe testified that were it not for the dossier, no fisa warrant would have been sought. The FBI did not refute or disagree with this assessment.

The democratic memo did not dispute this either.

Untrue...

https://www.google.com/amp/s/amp.cnn.com...index.html

This!!!!!!

All the right has is lies. Lies upon lies.

Yep, they require the guy to testify in a closed door hearing so they can control the message coming out of the hearings.

Thankfully, that nonsense is coming to an end in the next few days. History will not be kind to Devin Nunes... or Paul Ryan.

(12-31-2018 02:51 PM)Marc Mensa Wrote:  

(12-31-2018 02:41 PM)Machiavelli Wrote:  

(12-31-2018 02:30 PM)Marc Mensa Wrote:  

(12-31-2018 02:27 PM)UofMstateU Wrote:  

(12-31-2018 01:31 PM)Marc Mensa Wrote:  and you're still pretending the FBI based their justification for a FISA warrant solely on the Steele dossier, which they clearly did not.

I'll trust the process. It's proven to be far steadier than our unstable leader.

McCabe testified that were it not for the dossier, no fisa warrant would have been sought. The FBI did not refute or disagree with this assessment.

The democratic memo did not dispute this either.

Untrue...

https://www.google.com/amp/s/amp.cnn.com...index.html

This!!!!!!

All the right has is lies. Lies upon lies.

Yep, they require the guy to testify in a closed door hearing so they can control the message coming out of the hearings.

Thankfully, that nonsense is coming to an end in the next few days. History will not be kind to Devin Nunes... or Paul Ryan.

Getting duped again by FakeNews. The Fisa process is CLASSIFIED. It had to be a closed meeting.

(12-31-2018 03:03 PM)UofMstateU Wrote:  

(12-31-2018 02:51 PM)Marc Mensa Wrote:  

(12-31-2018 02:41 PM)Machiavelli Wrote:  

(12-31-2018 02:30 PM)Marc Mensa Wrote:  

(12-31-2018 02:27 PM)UofMstateU Wrote:  McCabe testified that were it not for the dossier, no fisa warrant would have been sought. The FBI did not refute or disagree with this assessment.

The democratic memo did not dispute this either.

Untrue...

https://www.google.com/amp/s/amp.cnn.com...index.html

This!!!!!!

All the right has is lies. Lies upon lies.

Yep, they require the guy to testify in a closed door hearing so they can control the message coming out of the hearings.

Thankfully, that nonsense is coming to an end in the next few days. History will not be kind to Devin Nunes... or Paul Ryan.

Getting duped again by FakeNews. The Fisa process is CLASSIFIED. It had to be a closed meeting.

Yet, they were so concerned about protecting a classified process that they released a memo, selectively leaking the politically advantageous classified parts of the testimony and later released the FISA application, again with advantageous redactions.

(12-31-2018 01:47 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(12-31-2018 01:31 PM)Marc Mensa Wrote:  

(12-31-2018 01:12 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(12-31-2018 12:11 PM)Marc Mensa Wrote:  

(12-31-2018 07:02 AM)gdunn Wrote:  Why do you insist it’s not fake when it’s not verifiable

yet much of it has been corroborated. the "fake" dossier is providing far more truth than anyone connected to to DJT is to his defense.
https://www.lawfareblog.com/steele-dossi...rospective

Which is irrelevant under the law. The law prescribes a simple test. Was it 100% verified at the time it was placed before the FISA court as evidence? Yes or no.
Most of it was verified is not good enough. All of it was subsequently verified is not good enough.
The FISA court is an ex parte proceeding. That means that everything introduced as evidence has to be uncontroverted and incontrovertible fact. That means that, based one every factual representation I have seen, the FISA warrants were issued improperly, and any resulting evidence is fruit of the poisoned tree.
I've offered my fix before--amend the FISA procedure to include an ad litem to represent the interests of the target. Without that, the danger remains that something unproved can be introduced as evidence.

and you're still pretending the FBI based their justification for a FISA warrant solely on the Steele dossier, which they clearly did not.

No, I am not. It's also legally irrelevant whether the FBI relied solely or just a teeny tiny bit. Maybe that matters in the court of public opinion, where the left seems to be wanting to have this adjudicated. But not under the law. If it was not completely verified, then it should not have been used at all.

Do you agree with this recital of facts? The FBI included portions of the Steele dossier, most of which have been verified, as a part of their filing with the FISA court, but did not rely solely, or even primarily, upon it. I'm fine with it, are you? If not, restate it to tell me what you see as factually correct.

On that basis, the FISA warrant(s) was/were improperly issued, and any resulting evidence is fruit from the poisoned tree. I'm not sure what, if any, evidenced came out as a result of the warrant(s), and therefore I am not sure of any legal significance, except that in that court of public opinion, if this ends up losing like a politically-motivated witch hunt, I think it will help Trump more than hurt him.

Quote:I'll trust the process. It's proven to be far steadier than our unstable leader.

I don't. Period.

(12-31-2018 02:50 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(12-31-2018 02:30 PM)Marc Mensa Wrote:  

(12-31-2018 02:27 PM)UofMstateU Wrote:  

(12-31-2018 01:31 PM)Marc Mensa Wrote:  

(12-31-2018 01:12 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  Which is irrelevant under the law. The law prescribes a simple test. Was it 100% verified at the time it was placed before the FISA court as evidence? Yes or no.
Most of it was verified is not good enough. All of it was subsequently verified is not good enough.
The FISA court is an ex parte proceeding. That means that everything introduced as evidence has to be uncontroverted and incontrovertible fact. That means that, based one every factual representation I have seen, the FISA warrants were issued improperly, and any resulting evidence is fruit of the poisoned tree.
I've offered my fix before--amend the FISA procedure to include an ad litem to represent the interests of the target. Without that, the danger remains that something unproved can be introduced as evidence.

and you're still pretending the FBI based their justification for a FISA warrant solely on the Steele dossier, which they clearly did not.
I'll trust the process. It's proven to be far steadier than our unstable leader.

McCabe testified that were it not for the dossier, no fisa warrant would have been sought. The FBI did not refute or disagree with this assessment.
The democratic memo did not dispute this either.

Untrue...
https://www.google.com/amp/s/amp.cnn.com...index.html

From your link: "We started the investigations without the dossier. We were proceeding with the investigations before we ever received that information," McCabe told CNN as part of a wide-ranging interview. "Was the dossier material important to the package? Of course, it was. As was every fact included in that package. Was it the majority of what was in the package? Absolutely not."

On that basis, the FISA filing was defective and the warrant(s) was/were issued improperly. Being a little bit unverified is like being a little bit pregnant. You are or you aren't. It's defective or it isn't.

Mensa?

(12-31-2018 03:40 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(12-31-2018 01:47 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(12-31-2018 01:31 PM)Marc Mensa Wrote:  

(12-31-2018 01:12 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(12-31-2018 12:11 PM)Marc Mensa Wrote:  yet much of it has been corroborated. the "fake" dossier is providing far more truth than anyone connected to to DJT is to his defense.
https://www.lawfareblog.com/steele-dossi...rospective

Which is irrelevant under the law. The law prescribes a simple test. Was it 100% verified at the time it was placed before the FISA court as evidence? Yes or no.
Most of it was verified is not good enough. All of it was subsequently verified is not good enough.
The FISA court is an ex parte proceeding. That means that everything introduced as evidence has to be uncontroverted and incontrovertible fact. That means that, based one every factual representation I have seen, the FISA warrants were issued improperly, and any resulting evidence is fruit of the poisoned tree.
I've offered my fix before--amend the FISA procedure to include an ad litem to represent the interests of the target. Without that, the danger remains that something unproved can be introduced as evidence.

and you're still pretending the FBI based their justification for a FISA warrant solely on the Steele dossier, which they clearly did not.

No, I am not. It's also legally irrelevant whether the FBI relied solely or just a teeny tiny bit. Maybe that matters in the court of public opinion, where the left seems to be wanting to have this adjudicated. But not under the law. If it was not completely verified, then it should not have been used at all.

Do you agree with this recital of facts? The FBI included portions of the Steele dossier, most of which have been verified, as a part of their filing with the FISA court, but did not rely solely, or even primarily, upon it. I'm fine with it, are you? If not, restate it to tell me what you see as factually correct.

On that basis, the FISA warrant(s) was/were improperly issued, and any resulting evidence is fruit from the poisoned tree. I'm not sure what, if any, evidenced came out as a result of the warrant(s), and therefore I am not sure of any legal significance, except that in that court of public opinion, if this ends up losing like a politically-motivated witch hunt, I think it will help Trump more than hurt him.

Quote:I'll trust the process. It's proven to be far steadier than our unstable leader.

I don't. Period.

(12-31-2018 02:50 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(12-31-2018 02:30 PM)Marc Mensa Wrote:  

(12-31-2018 02:27 PM)UofMstateU Wrote:  

(12-31-2018 01:31 PM)Marc Mensa Wrote:  and you're still pretending the FBI based their justification for a FISA warrant solely on the Steele dossier, which they clearly did not.
I'll trust the process. It's proven to be far steadier than our unstable leader.

McCabe testified that were it not for the dossier, no fisa warrant would have been sought. The FBI did not refute or disagree with this assessment.
The democratic memo did not dispute this either.

Untrue...
https://www.google.com/amp/s/amp.cnn.com...index.html

From your link: "We started the investigations without the dossier. We were proceeding with the investigations before we ever received that information," McCabe told CNN as part of a wide-ranging interview. "Was the dossier material important to the package? Of course, it was. As was every fact included in that package. Was it the majority of what was in the package? Absolutely not."

On that basis, the FISA filing was defective and the warrant(s) was/were issued improperly. Being a little bit unverified is like being a little bit pregnant. You are or you aren't. It's defective or it isn't.

Mensa?

The idea of complete verification is nothing more than a canard. Who is going to verify an American asset working for a hostile power? The Russians? If that were the case, no warrant would ever be granted in an espionage case. They relied upon a reliable asset and noted as much in the application. That information, combined with what was already known about Page provided the basis for the approval of the warrant. The Justice Department... the Judge ... the FBI...all agreed.

(12-31-2018 04:23 PM)Marc Mensa Wrote:  

(12-31-2018 03:40 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(12-31-2018 01:47 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(12-31-2018 01:31 PM)Marc Mensa Wrote:  

(12-31-2018 01:12 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  Which is irrelevant under the law. The law prescribes a simple test. Was it 100% verified at the time it was placed before the FISA court as evidence? Yes or no.
Most of it was verified is not good enough. All of it was subsequently verified is not good enough.
The FISA court is an ex parte proceeding. That means that everything introduced as evidence has to be uncontroverted and incontrovertible fact. That means that, based one every factual representation I have seen, the FISA warrants were issued improperly, and any resulting evidence is fruit of the poisoned tree.
I've offered my fix before--amend the FISA procedure to include an ad litem to represent the interests of the target. Without that, the danger remains that something unproved can be introduced as evidence.

and you're still pretending the FBI based their justification for a FISA warrant solely on the Steele dossier, which they clearly did not.

No, I am not. It's also legally irrelevant whether the FBI relied solely or just a teeny tiny bit. Maybe that matters in the court of public opinion, where the left seems to be wanting to have this adjudicated. But not under the law. If it was not completely verified, then it should not have been used at all.

Do you agree with this recital of facts? The FBI included portions of the Steele dossier, most of which have been verified, as a part of their filing with the FISA court, but did not rely solely, or even primarily, upon it. I'm fine with it, are you? If not, restate it to tell me what you see as factually correct.

On that basis, the FISA warrant(s) was/were improperly issued, and any resulting evidence is fruit from the poisoned tree. I'm not sure what, if any, evidenced came out as a result of the warrant(s), and therefore I am not sure of any legal significance, except that in that court of public opinion, if this ends up losing like a politically-motivated witch hunt, I think it will help Trump more than hurt him.

Quote:I'll trust the process. It's proven to be far steadier than our unstable leader.

I don't. Period.

(12-31-2018 02:50 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(12-31-2018 02:30 PM)Marc Mensa Wrote:  

(12-31-2018 02:27 PM)UofMstateU Wrote:  McCabe testified that were it not for the dossier, no fisa warrant would have been sought. The FBI did not refute or disagree with this assessment.
The democratic memo did not dispute this either.

Untrue...
https://www.google.com/amp/s/amp.cnn.com...index.html

From your link: "We started the investigations without the dossier. We were proceeding with the investigations before we ever received that information," McCabe told CNN as part of a wide-ranging interview. "Was the dossier material important to the package? Of course, it was. As was every fact included in that package. Was it the majority of what was in the package? Absolutely not."

On that basis, the FISA filing was defective and the warrant(s) was/were issued improperly. Being a little bit unverified is like being a little bit pregnant. You are or you aren't. It's defective or it isn't.

Mensa?

The idea of complete verification is nothing more than a canard. Who is going to verify an American asset working for a hostile power?

Your error is that you continue to tell us how hard it is to verify something, when the law states it must be verified prior to being used for the fisa process.

And thats your problem. You will be chasing your tail until you realize thats the issue.

(12-31-2018 04:23 PM)Marc Mensa Wrote:  

(12-31-2018 03:40 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(12-31-2018 01:47 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(12-31-2018 01:31 PM)Marc Mensa Wrote:  

(12-31-2018 01:12 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  Which is irrelevant under the law. The law prescribes a simple test. Was it 100% verified at the time it was placed before the FISA court as evidence? Yes or no.
Most of it was verified is not good enough. All of it was subsequently verified is not good enough.
The FISA court is an ex parte proceeding. That means that everything introduced as evidence has to be uncontroverted and incontrovertible fact. That means that, based one every factual representation I have seen, the FISA warrants were issued improperly, and any resulting evidence is fruit of the poisoned tree.
I've offered my fix before--amend the FISA procedure to include an ad litem to represent the interests of the target. Without that, the danger remains that something unproved can be introduced as evidence.

and you're still pretending the FBI based their justification for a FISA warrant solely on the Steele dossier, which they clearly did not.

No, I am not. It's also legally irrelevant whether the FBI relied solely or just a teeny tiny bit. Maybe that matters in the court of public opinion, where the left seems to be wanting to have this adjudicated. But not under the law. If it was not completely verified, then it should not have been used at all.

Do you agree with this recital of facts? The FBI included portions of the Steele dossier, most of which have been verified, as a part of their filing with the FISA court, but did not rely solely, or even primarily, upon it. I'm fine with it, are you? If not, restate it to tell me what you see as factually correct.

On that basis, the FISA warrant(s) was/were improperly issued, and any resulting evidence is fruit from the poisoned tree. I'm not sure what, if any, evidenced came out as a result of the warrant(s), and therefore I am not sure of any legal significance, except that in that court of public opinion, if this ends up losing like a politically-motivated witch hunt, I think it will help Trump more than hurt him.

Quote:I'll trust the process. It's proven to be far steadier than our unstable leader.

I don't. Period.

(12-31-2018 02:50 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(12-31-2018 02:30 PM)Marc Mensa Wrote:  

(12-31-2018 02:27 PM)UofMstateU Wrote:  McCabe testified that were it not for the dossier, no fisa warrant would have been sought. The FBI did not refute or disagree with this assessment.
The democratic memo did not dispute this either.

Untrue...
https://www.google.com/amp/s/amp.cnn.com...index.html

From your link: "We started the investigations without the dossier. We were proceeding with the investigations before we ever received that information," McCabe told CNN as part of a wide-ranging interview. "Was the dossier material important to the package? Of course, it was. As was every fact included in that package. Was it the majority of what was in the package? Absolutely not."

On that basis, the FISA filing was defective and the warrant(s) was/were issued improperly. Being a little bit unverified is like being a little bit pregnant. You are or you aren't. It's defective or it isn't.

Mensa?

The idea of complete verification is nothing more than a canard. Who is going to verify an American asset working for a hostile power? The Russians? If that were the case, no warrant would ever be granted in an espionage case. They relied upon a reliable asset and noted as much in the application. That information, combined with what was already known about Page provided the basis for the approval of the warrant. The Justice Department... the Judge ... the FBI...all agreed.

Again, irrelevant. If you are going to introduce evidence into an ex parte proceeding, it has to be devoid of any possible factual controversy. If the dossier is not fully verified, then submit the application omitting the dossier. That wasn’t done. Why not? Obvious reason: somebody decided that they didn’t have enough evidence without it.

Much has been made of the judge agreeing. But that misstates the role of the judge. The judge is not a fact finder. It is not the job of the judge to inquire regarding the factual accuracy of the evidence. That is the responsibility of the jury in a trial or of the moving party in an ex parte proceeding.

Here’s why I say an ad litem would be an improvement. Say the moving party tries to introduce the package including the dossier. The ad litem takes the person offering the dossier as evidence on cross and questions what has been done to verify it. If the proponent tells the truth, it becomes known that the dossier is unverified, and the rest of the package comes in without the dossier, and the judge makes a decision based on the reduced evidence. Maybe the warrant issues, maybe not. If the proponent lies, the warrant issues but if the lie is later discovered then any evidence flowing from the warrant is excluded and the proponent gets to defend a perjury prosecution.

(12-31-2018 03:03 PM)UofMstateU Wrote:  

(12-31-2018 02:51 PM)Marc Mensa Wrote:  

(12-31-2018 02:41 PM)Machiavelli Wrote:  

(12-31-2018 02:30 PM)Marc Mensa Wrote:  

(12-31-2018 02:27 PM)UofMstateU Wrote:  McCabe testified that were it not for the dossier, no fisa warrant would have been sought. The FBI did not refute or disagree with this assessment.

The democratic memo did not dispute this either.

Untrue...

https://www.google.com/amp/s/amp.cnn.com...index.html

This!!!!!!

All the right has is lies. Lies upon lies.

Yep, they require the guy to testify in a closed door hearing so they can control the message coming out of the hearings.

Thankfully, that nonsense is coming to an end in the next few days. History will not be kind to Devin Nunes... or Paul Ryan.

Getting duped again by FakeNews. The Fisa process is CLASSIFIED. It had to be a closed meeting.

No ones getting duped. At this point it’s just pure stupidity bolstered by ignorance.

The left has all their eggs in this basket. When Mueller finds NOTHING but inuendo and smears with the end game being as was stated in one of the idiot lincs posted earlier “for some reason Trump didn’t take advantage of what the Russians offered”!!!!! The real chit show begins. The left at that point should be ashamed of themselves but they have no shame. They hate America.

Mach bashes the Washington Times and Mensa posts a blog that states most hasn’t been verified. I guess we need to consult other blogs and Jesters twitter for the truth.

The truth is Always colored with shades and that’s why we find ourselves in the straits we are. You have a Fraudster huckster in Chief that has mastered and conned people for decades owning the space. A cult of personality.

(01-01-2019 10:26 AM)Machiavelli Wrote:  The truth is Always colored with shades and that’s why we find ourselves in the straits we are. You have a Fraudster huckster in Chief that has mastered and conned people for decades owning the space. A cult of personality.

Mach, let's assume everything you allege is true. Why is he worse than any of the democrats?

He's a sleazy individual. No doubt about that. Given a choice between a sleazy individual and Kamala Harris or Fauxcohontas Warren or Bernie or Corey Booker, I prefer the sleazy individual. Not enough to vote for him, because I don't like sleazy individuals. But I'm sure as hell not voting for any of his likely opponents.

Kamala Harris will be beaten like a dog.

Sent from my SM-G955U using Tapatalk