Especially when there were so many red flags for the last 18 months. People didn't want to for partisan reasons alone.
Russia Collusion Scandal (aka A Leftist fantasy)
- Thread starter Runnin
- Start date
Especially when there were so many red flags for the last 18 months. People didn't want to for partisan reasons alone.
Julio3000
<B>A Chip Off the Old Rock</B>
I suspect that a transcript McCabe's testimony to HPSCI would be about the most illuminating thing that we could see, short of the underlying FISA application. Other members of the committee have already challenge the characterization of his testimony here.
Release it all. The people are the ones with the power. We should know what's happening with our 'trusted' intelligence agency.
Julio3000
<B>A Chip Off the Old Rock</B>
Agtee.
bravesnumberone
Well-known member
Fun little facts for Devin Trump to ignore.
Seth Abramson
Verified account
@SethAbramson
16/ It says FISA warrant applications must meet the "highest standard" of proof in the justice system. Uh, no. The "highest standard" in the justice system is "proof beyond a reasonable doubt," which is nowhere *close* to the legal standard required to secure a search warrant.
The legal standard for securing a warrant is the *lowest* standard of proof in the law—"probable cause." (Consider: *indictments* require probable cause, which is why they say "the average grand jury would indict a ham sandwich.")
FISA warrants are granted in 99%+ of cases.
18/ As @AshaRangappa_ notes, the specific FISA standard is "probable cause that the target is an 'agent of a foreign power' who's 'knowingly engaging in clandestine intelligence activities.'" Remember: the FBI already found that—as to Page—in a 2013 probe.
19/ In '13, the FBI suspected Page of being a Russian spy—18 months before Trump announced his presidential run—because Page was meeting with a known Russian intelligence agent who was ultimately convicted of trying to recruit Americans. Page admitted he was a recruitment target.
20/ So given that FISA warrants require the lowest standard of proof in the law, and FISA warrants are granted in 99%+ of cases, the idea that the FBI would have needed Steele at *all* to meet that standard and get that warrant as to Page is—to some degree—*literally* laughable.
21/ The memo then makes *another* error of law on its first page: saying the law requires "all relevant and material facts" to be shown to a warrant-granting court. But that's not true. Many cases confirm that law enforcement can and does leave out key facts without repercussion.
Full disclosure: This guy is a liberal who hates Trump. He's also using facts.
Seth Abramson
Verified account
@SethAbramson
16/ It says FISA warrant applications must meet the "highest standard" of proof in the justice system. Uh, no. The "highest standard" in the justice system is "proof beyond a reasonable doubt," which is nowhere *close* to the legal standard required to secure a search warrant.
The legal standard for securing a warrant is the *lowest* standard of proof in the law—"probable cause." (Consider: *indictments* require probable cause, which is why they say "the average grand jury would indict a ham sandwich.")
FISA warrants are granted in 99%+ of cases.
18/ As @AshaRangappa_ notes, the specific FISA standard is "probable cause that the target is an 'agent of a foreign power' who's 'knowingly engaging in clandestine intelligence activities.'" Remember: the FBI already found that—as to Page—in a 2013 probe.
19/ In '13, the FBI suspected Page of being a Russian spy—18 months before Trump announced his presidential run—because Page was meeting with a known Russian intelligence agent who was ultimately convicted of trying to recruit Americans. Page admitted he was a recruitment target.
20/ So given that FISA warrants require the lowest standard of proof in the law, and FISA warrants are granted in 99%+ of cases, the idea that the FBI would have needed Steele at *all* to meet that standard and get that warrant as to Page is—to some degree—*literally* laughable.
21/ The memo then makes *another* error of law on its first page: saying the law requires "all relevant and material facts" to be shown to a warrant-granting court. But that's not true. Many cases confirm that law enforcement can and does leave out key facts without repercussion.
Full disclosure: This guy is a liberal who hates Trump. He's also using facts.
Julio3000
<B>A Chip Off the Old Rock</B>
Your contention has been that the entire investigation had its genesis in the dossier. We can definitively say that's not the case now, right?
Julio3000
<B>A Chip Off the Old Rock</B>
I wonder why there isn't more of a clamor to do that.
goldfly
<B>if my thought dreams could be seen</B>
The fake transparency of releasing a GOP memo and it proves the opposite of what they were saying.
It says in the one sided memo Papadopoulos is what triggered the investigation.
This garbage is what idiots were screaming to release to attack American interests and institutions?
It says in the one sided memo Papadopoulos is what triggered the investigation.
This garbage is what idiots were screaming to release to attack American interests and institutions?
bravesnumberone
Well-known member
And yet they're still trying to find "inferences" that aren't there. It says what it says.
Even John Kelly reportedly told Trump the document was not as big of a deal as all these frauds made it out to be.
I think we need (are owed, really) more information. For the sake of argument, let's extricate the Page case and all of the surveillance accrued against him. Does this materially alter the fundamental underpinnings of the cointel probe? No. Does it cast a disconcerting light on the intelligence community and their methodologies? Yes. Even if the FISC surveillance on Page provided significant portions of the backdrop used to implicate Papadopoulos, I'm not entirely sure that we can unremember what we've learned, despite whatever legal questions related to its origin are mounted.
No...it has been that the FISA warrant was obtained with source material from Russian agents. And now we know that it's true.
With what information? Isn't that what's in debate right now?
bravesnumberone
Well-known member
Which means they don't require the highest burden of proof as Devin Trump says.
Julio3000
<B>A Chip Off the Old Rock</B>
I don't disagree with your larger point. It's well-stated and I agree. But I think the Page/Papadopoulos question is backwards.
I don't think we're talking about information from the Page scrutiny underpinning the Papadopoulos case, but the other way around. Information from the Papadopoulos case would have underpinned the case for scrutiny of Page.
This.
And as loathe as people are to admit it, this type of action is tantamount to "draining the swamp". Challenging institutions and their processes. It's an epinephrine injection to the base.
The initial request does (or should).