• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Key figure that Mueller report linked to Russia was a State Department intel source

Cordelier said:
Okay... I've read the whole document now - it seems as though it involves FISC's approval of new targeting and minimalization procedures on the part of various agencies (most noticeably, the NSA). Here's a summary of the document you linked me to:

Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court Approves New Targeting and Minimization Procedures: A Summary - Lawfare
While it's mildly interesting, I fail to see it's relevance to our present discussion.
Click to expand...

Why did the "FISA targeting and minimization procedures" require amending?
Did the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court (FISC) find problems which required "new and amended targeting and minimization procedures" that they had to approve?

"During an October 26, 2016 hearing, the court reprimanded the government for an institutional “lack of candor,” emphasizing that the behavior presented a “serious Fourth Amendment issue.” "
"However, in 2011, FISC found these minimization procedures to be deficient, prompting the government to include a “sequestration regime for more problematic categories of MCTs,” and limit retention of U.S. person information to a two-year period. Most importantly, NSA analysts were prohibited from using “known U.S.-person identifiers” to search through upstream collection results."
"The FISC granted an extension until April 28 to allow the government to respond to the court’s questions, again registering its concern about the extent of non-compliance with “important safeguards for interests protected by the Fourth Amendment.” "
​
Those are from your own link. Do you typically not click your own links either? Or is there some other reason you find FISA abuse only mildly interesting?

And you wonder why I don't typically click the links people put up. ...
Click to expand...

No.
I call attention to that habit ... I note how that habit affect's your perspective ... but I don't wonder why you maintain that habit.
 
bubbabgone said:
We're talking about FISA abuses. I said "While there hasn't been one that stinks as bad prior to this case, it's not the first time the FISC (Judge Collyer) had to bitch-slap bad actors in intel. "
Click to expand...

I would say that this was needed, and that she's, quite rightfully, not happy with having a fraud committed on her by them.
 
OpportunityCost said:
A DoJ employee has nothing to do with court findings validating their reports? That's their entire job description.
Click to expand...

It's OK that all you can do is squawk about his findings not being true and are compelled to bray about irrelevancies like court findings.

Your magical thinking isn't getting you very far.
 
bubbabgone said:
Think it's a sign of things to come?
Click to expand...

Maybe. If the nation is lucky.

If not, and the nation is unlucky, the same bureaucratic malfeasance is only going to occur again, and perhaps more severely and with even worse impact.
 
bubbabgone said:
We're talking about FISA abuses. I said "While there hasn't been one that stinks as bad prior to this case, it's not the first time the FISC (Judge Collyer) had to bitch-slap bad actors in intel. "
Click to expand...

You're clapping with one hand, though.... you haven't demonstrated where Judge Collyer "bitch-slapped" the FBI over Carter Page. I get that there is always going to be a certain amount of tension between a Judge and law enforcement where it comes to demonstrating probable cause... that's just built into the system - they're not always going to see eye-to-eye. That's par for the course - all part of doing the business they both do. But don't try to blow that up into something it isn't.
 
bubbabgone said:
Why did the "FISA targeting and minimization procedures" require amending?
Did the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court (FISC) find problems which required "new and amended targeting and minimization procedures" that they had to approve?

"During an October 26, 2016 hearing, the court reprimanded the government for an institutional “lack of candor,” emphasizing that the behavior presented a “serious Fourth Amendment issue.” "
"However, in 2011, FISC found these minimization procedures to be deficient, prompting the government to include a “sequestration regime for more problematic categories of MCTs,” and limit retention of U.S. person information to a two-year period. Most importantly, NSA analysts were prohibited from using “known U.S.-person identifiers” to search through upstream collection results."
"The FISC granted an extension until April 28 to allow the government to respond to the court’s questions, again registering its concern about the extent of non-compliance with “important safeguards for interests protected by the Fourth Amendment.” "
​
Those are from your own link. Do you typically not click your own links either? Or is there some other reason you find FISA abuse only mildly interesting?



No.
I call attention to that habit ... I note how that habit affect's your perspective ... but I don't wonder why you maintain that habit.
Click to expand...

I saw a reference to the October 26, 2016 thing and it struck my interest for a second or two.... but when I looked into it, I found it pertained to an upstream Internet collection operation run by the NSA (see Page 19 of the April, 2017 document you linked me to). I don't see any relevance to the Carter Page case.

Look at it this way... FISC received 1,485 warrant requests in 2016... that's 123 a month, or about 4 a day. I don't know the exact day that the Page warrant was approved - just that it was in October of 2016 - but I've got to figure the odds of it being related to the October 26 incident are about 1 in 123. Even if it turns out that the Page warrant was issued on the exact same day as this incident - October 26 - that's still only a 1 in 4 chance that it had anything to do with Page.
 
Cordelier said:
You're clapping with one hand, though.... you haven't demonstrated where Judge Collyer "bitch-slapped" the FBI over Carter Page. I get that there is always going to be a certain amount of tension between a Judge and law enforcement where it comes to demonstrating probable cause... that's just built into the system - they're not always going to see eye-to-eye. That's par for the course - all part of doing the business they both do. But don't try to blow that up into something it isn't.
Click to expand...

I didn't say it was over Carter Page.
 
Cordelier said:
I saw a reference to the October 26, 2016 thing and it struck my interest for a second or two.... but when I looked into it, I found it pertained to an upstream Internet collection operation run by the NSA (see Page 19 of the April, 2017 document you linked me to). I don't see any relevance to the Carter Page case.

Look at it this way... FISC received 1,485 warrant requests in 2016... that's 123 a month, or about 4 a day. I don't know the exact day that the Page warrant was approved - just that it was in October of 2016 - but I've got to figure the odds of it being related to the October 26 incident are about 1 in 123. Even if it turns out that the Page warrant was issued on the exact same day as this incident - October 26 - that's still only a 1 in 4 chance that it had anything to do with Page.
Click to expand...

I didn't say what you posted and I posted was about the Carter Page warrant.
But the current FISA abuse investigation is about the Carter Page warrant as well as other irregularities.
 
bubbabgone said:
I didn't say it was over Carter Page.
Click to expand...

You said the Carter Page incident wasn't the first time Judge Collyer had to "bitch slap" the Administration's FISA requests.... well, when the hell did Judge Collyer "bitch slap" the Administration over Carter Page??
 
Tanngrisnir said:
It's OK that all you can do is squawk about his findings not being true and are compelled to bray about irrelevancies like court findings.

Your magical thinking isn't getting you very far.
Click to expand...

You don't seem to understand how fact finding works in our judicial system.
 
Cordelier said:
You said the Carter Page incident wasn't the first time Judge Collyer had to "bitch slap" the Administration's FISA requests.... well, when the hell did Judge Collyer "bitch slap" the Administration over Carter Page??
Click to expand...

You're confused.
I said "While there hasn't been one that stinks as bad prior to this case, it's not the first time the FISC (Judge Collyer) had to bitch-slap bad actors in intel."
Not "administration", not "over Carter Page", and I said the FISC delivered the bitch slap. The bitch slap at that time happened to have been delivered by Collyer, that's why the parenthesis.
You made an erroneous connection of the bitch slap to the Carter Page warrant for your own reasons.

The bitch slap over the Carter Page warrant will come after the Horowitz, Durham, and Barr investigations.
Probably Horowitz will get done much sooner because he wasn't able to charge anyone or interrogate anyone who isn't currently in the DOJ.
Durham and Barr will deliver the coup de grace to the perps.
You must be looking forward to that.
 
bubbabgone said:
You're confused.
I said "While there hasn't been one that stinks as bad prior to this case, it's not the first time the FISC (Judge Collyer) had to bitch-slap bad actors in intel."
Not "administration", not "over Carter Page", and I said the FISC delivered the bitch slap. The bitch slap at that time happened to have been delivered by Collyer, that's why the parenthesis.
You made an erroneous connection of the bitch slap to the Carter Page warrant for your own reasons.

The bitch slap over the Carter Page warrant will come after the Horowitz, Durham, and Barr investigations.
Probably Horowitz will get done much sooner because he wasn't able to charge anyone or interrogate anyone who isn't currently in the DOJ.
Durham and Barr will deliver the coup de grace to the perps.
You must be looking forward to that.
Click to expand...

Okay... Thanks for clarifying - you can understand my confusion. Using "it's not" implies a far different meaning than using "it wouldn't".

bubbabgone said:
While there hasn't been one that stinks as bad prior to this case, it's not the first time the FISC (Judge Collyer) had to bitch-slap bad actors in intel.
Click to expand...

Truth be told, what I'm looking forward to is reminding you of this conversation when some of these reports do start coming out. I don't deny that Steele might have been hired by the Clinton campaign to do research on Trump's connections to Russia.... and that compromises the objectivity of his dossier to some degree. But he wasn't hired as a novelist. He was hired because he's good at his job.... From everything I've learned about the man, his ability and reliability was highly respected by his old bosses in British intelligence, his prior clients, and the US intelligence community in general. I think he found things that spooked him so much he felt he needed to get the word out... not only to Trump's political opponents, but also to the US authorities - and eventually the media as well.

Let's not forget that Carter Page was on the FBI's radar long before he joined the Trump campaign. It's not like the Steele Dossier would have been the first they've ever heard of him. But if it gave them some independent confirmation of things they already knew, then I don't see why it should have been ignored. It was at least as credible as the anonymous letter that initiated the investigation in the Gates case - and the police back then had no way of assessing the reliability of the sender. At least with Steele - even with his shortcomings - they did have a handle on his reliability.
 
Cordelier said:
Okay... Thanks for clarifying - you can understand my confusion. Using "it's not" implies a far different meaning than using "it wouldn't".
Click to expand...



Truth be told, what I'm looking forward to is reminding you of this conversation when some of these reports do start coming out.
Click to expand...

Not if I remind you first.
I don't deny that Steele might have been hired by the Clinton campaign to do research on Trump's connections to Russia.... and that compromises the objectivity of his dossier to some degree. But he wasn't hired as a novelist. He was hired because he's good at his job.... From everything I've learned about the man, his ability and reliability was highly respected by his old bosses in British intelligence, his prior clients, and the US intelligence community in general. I think he found things that spooked him so much he felt he needed to get the word out... not only to Trump's political opponents, but also to the US authorities - and eventually the media as well.
Click to expand...
Steele hated Trump ... that compromised his objectivity too.

'Novelist". Good word choice. " he wasn't hired as a novelist". No he wasn't but what he delivered was a fiction that nobody bothered to verify. The FISC deals in non-fiction. Steele's novel had no business being used as evidence.
IT WAS NEVER VERIFIED. Even Mueller said so.

Let's not forget that Carter Page was on the FBI's radar long before he joined the Trump campaign. It's not like the Steele Dossier would have been the first they've ever heard of him. But if it gave them some independent confirmation of things they already knew, then I don't see why it should have been ignored. It was at least as credible as the anonymous letter that initiated the investigation in the Gates case - and the police back then had no way of assessing the reliability of the sender. At least with Steele - even with his shortcomings - they did have a handle on his reliability.
Click to expand...

Yeah, and what came of it for Page? Nothing. No charges despite being called "an agent of a foreign power".
Page was used as the excuse for various intel personnel to get themselves approved to spy on the Trump campaign, transition, and Administration - all after Page had left the campaign.

We seem to be going in circles now.
Let's wait for the reports, shall we?
 
bubbabgone said:
Not if I remind you first.

Steele hated Trump ... that compromised his objectivity too.

'Novelist". Good word choice. " he wasn't hired as a novelist". No he wasn't but what he delivered was a fiction that nobody bothered to verify. The FISC deals in non-fiction. Steele's novel had no business being used as evidence.
IT WAS NEVER VERIFIED. Even Mueller said so.



Yeah, and what came of it for Page? Nothing. No charges despite being called "an agent of a foreign power".
Page was used as the excuse for various intel personnel to get themselves approved to spy on the Trump campaign, transition, and Administration - all after Page had left the campaign.

We seem to be going in circles now.
Let's wait for the reports, shall we?
Click to expand...

You're right - we are going in circles.

As for the Steele Dossier... I've never read it because I know I can't confirm the sources and methods. The same reason I've never read Wikileaks going back to the Bush Administration. Is it 100% fact? It's pretty doubtful..... no piece of intelligence ever is. Like the tip given by any informer, you have to take it for what it's worth. If I were with the FBI on this case, and I had to assess it, my starting point would be to compare it with what I've been receiving from other sources, and if a pattern starts to emerge, follow it up. I think the problem we're having as the general public trying to absorb all of this information, is that we don't have access to many of those "other sources"... and so unless you see the Steele Dossier in it's proper context - 15% or so of a much wider case for probable cause - then it's not going to make a whole lot of sense putting as much weight on it as has been suggested.

Add all of that to fact that most people aren't actually aware how low the standard for meeting probable cause has been whittled away since the 1980's, and the picture starts becoming even more clouded.
 
Cordelier said:
You're right - we are going in circles.

As for the Steele Dossier... I've never read it because I know I can't confirm the sources and methods. The same reason I've never read Wikileaks going back to the Bush Administration. Is it 100% fact? It's pretty doubtful..... no piece of intelligence ever is. Like the tip given by any informer, you have to take it for what it's worth. If I were with the FBI on this case, and I had to assess it, my starting point would be to compare it with what I've been receiving from other sources, and if a pattern starts to emerge, follow it up. I think the problem we're having as the general public trying to absorb all of this information, is that we don't have access to many of those "other sources"... and so unless you see the Steele Dossier in it's proper context - 15% or so of a much wider case for probable cause - then it's not going to make a whole lot of sense putting as much weight on it as has been suggested.

Add all of that to fact that most people aren't actually aware how low the standard for meeting probable cause has been whittled away since the 1980's, and the picture starts becoming even more clouded.
Click to expand...

Circles.
 
OpportunityCost said:
You don't seem to understand how fact finding works in our judicial system.
Click to expand...

It's OK that all you can do is squawk about his findings not being true and are compelled to bray about irrelevancies like court findings.

Your magical thinking isn't getting you very far.
 
Tanngrisnir said:
It's OK that all you can do is squawk about his findings not being true and are compelled to bray about irrelevancies like court findings.

Your magical thinking isn't getting you very far.
Click to expand...

Unless and until proven by a legal authority and adjudicated, it isn't a fact. Its why we have a court system, to establish innocence or guilt, not have some bureaucrat with an axe to grind **** up over 200 years of legal precedent with the unfathomable depth of accusation of "because I said so".

Magical thinking? I,m not using logic that I grew out of before I reached age 10, you are.
 
OpportunityCost said:
Unless and until proven by a legal authority and adjudicated, it isn't a fact. Its why we have a court system, to establish innocence or guilt, not have some bureaucrat with an axe to grind **** up over 200 years of legal precedent with the unfathomable depth of accusation of "because I said so".

Magical thinking? I,m not using logic that I grew out of before I reached age 10, you are.
Click to expand...

Fun to watch you run from even the most basic of English words. They are facts, unless a lifelong conservative republican lied about what's in his report. Please try and demonstrate what's in the report isn't factual.

And logic? You wouldn't know logic if it were spitting in your face.

Which it's doing, every time you try and reference it.

More fun!
 
Tanngrisnir said:
Fun to watch you run from even the most basic of English words. They are facts, unless a lifelong conservative republican lied about what's in his report. Please try and demonstrate what's in the report isn't factual.

And logic? You wouldn't know logic if it were spitting in your face.

Which it's doing, every time you try and reference it.

More fun!
Click to expand...

and you are back to spinning guilty until proven innocent

More and more it seems like you don't understand the difference between investigation and proven under a court of law.
 
OpportunityCost said:
and you are back to spinning guilty until proven innocent

More and more it seems like you don't understand the difference between investigation and proven under a court of law.
Click to expand...

Newp. I've never made any claims about guilt or innocence. To assert that I have is to lie.

Which is what you do, so it's really not a big surprise.

Facts don't have to wait for any adjudication, no matter how much that drives you into fits of impotent rage.
 
Tanngrisnir said:
Newp. I've never made any claims about guilt or innocence. To assert that I have is to lie.

Which is what you do, so it's really not a big surprise.

Facts don't have to wait for any adjudication, no matter how much that drives you into fits of impotent rage.
Click to expand...

See, this is why you shouldn't be discussing this with me. You don't even understand that Mueller's findings made assertions of guilt and innocence and you think you can simply sidestep all of that and just state its all fact. It doesn't work like that as portions of it are rooted in legal theory.

To state you find it to be fact you are declaring guilt or innocence, but you are to stuck in your tribalism to understand that.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom