• 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!

Jerrold Nadler Leaked response about Nunes Memo

jdog21

jdog21

DP Veteran
Joined
Apr 12, 2017
Messages
3,677
Reaction score
785
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
You can read it here and the response by Andrew McCarthy
Jerrold Nadler's Memo Rebuttal: Weak & Unpersuasive | National Review
Representative Jerrold Nadler of New York, the senior Democrat on the House Intelligence Committee, has written a six-page response to the FISA-abuse memo published Friday
Click to expand...
Steele is not the source of the information. For purposes of the warrant application, he is the purveyor of information from other sources.
Click to expand...
the FBI did not corroborate Steele’s informants
Click to expand...
the government must satisfy the court as to the credibility of the informant
Click to expand...

I think Andrew's critic to Jerrolds response was pretty good.

Read and discuss
 
Right wing rag with a hit piece. Yawn.
 
I find the actual response, which was longer than Nunes' memo, persuasive.

It undercut Republican claims that the Steele dossier was sole piece of evidence the court was presented.
It underscored that the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court found probable cause to believe that Carter Page —a member of the Trump campaign’s foreign policy team -- was an agent of the Russian government.
It pointed out where the Nunes memo was misleading and the claims contrary to existing law.

This quote I love:
Through several acts of willful omission, the Nunes memo alleges the FISA application is tainted because Christopher Steele “was a longtime FBI source who was paid over $160,000 by the DNC and the Clinton campaign . . . to obtain derogatory information on Donald Trump’s ties to Russia.” The Nunes memo would have us believe the Russia investigation was a Democratic plot from the outset. That is simply ridiculous.
Click to expand...
and this:
The Nunes memo shows that House Republicans are now part and parcel to an organized effort to obstruct the Special Counsel’s investigation
Click to expand...
.
 
MTAtech said:
I
It undercut Republican claims that the Steele dossier was sole piece of evidence the court was presented.
Click to expand...
The only thing I've ever heard republicans say was that the steel dossier was the key piece, not the sole piece for the FISA app. I question then, why you don't see a difference, and that, if they didn't NEED the dossier to approve the FISA app, then why use it? The fact that we KNOW that it was used undercuts the entire FISA process.
It underscored that the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court found probable cause to believe that Carter Page —a member of the Trump campaign’s foreign policy team -- was an agent of the Russian government.
Click to expand...
there were 4 continuing applications that were based on the dossier. While they started surveilling him before the campaign, why then would they use the dossier to continue with monitoring? because the FISA has to be reapproved every 90 days, there is doubt then that they were getting any information at all.
It pointed out where the Nunes memo was misleading and the claims contrary to existing law.
Click to expand...
Well, thats the point of the memo. The FBI is doing this contrary to law.
 
What is "oppo" research but when distilled down, a plot to take down one's opposition?
 
DarkWizard12 said:
The only thing I've ever heard republicans say was that the steel dossier was the key piece, not the sole piece for the FISA app. I question then, why you don't see a difference, and that, if they didn't NEED the dossier to approve the FISA app, then why use it? The fact that we KNOW that it was used undercuts the entire FISA process.

there were 4 continuing applications that were based on the dossier. While they started surveilling him before the campaign, why then would they use the dossier to continue with monitoring? because the FISA has to be reapproved every 90 days, there is doubt then that they were getting any information at all.

Well, thats the point of the memo. The FBI is doing this contrary to law.
Click to expand...
When a FISA application goes forth for renewal, it must be demonstrated that usable information (progress) was made. Thus, the fact that they got multiple renewals, that undercuts your doubt that info wasn't being obtained.
 
jmotivator said:
The funniest part is that after screaming that the Nunes memo would cause grave harm to national security, the Democrats went and leaked a response without going through channels. :roll:
Click to expand...
Nunes already compromised. The Nadler memo didn't compromise anything that wasn't already compromised.
 
Acadia said:
What is "oppo" research but when distilled down, a plot to take down one's opposition?
Click to expand...

Opposition research isn't just about finding dirt as much as it is about learning who your opponent is. Maybe to the Russian loving Trump campaign oppo research was about finding dirt, but not to everyone else.
 
I. The FISA court found probable cause to believe that Carter Page is an agent of a foreign power. Nothing in the Nunes memo rules out the possibility that considerable evidence beyond the Steele dossier helped the court reach that conclusion.
Click to expand...

This argument is patently absurd. The author of this memo is also a member of the HIC, and was made privy to the same information that the Republicans were, and he is using weasel words like "possibility"? Does he not know?


II. Christopher Steele is a recognized expert on Russia and organized crime.
Click to expand...

That does not grant anyone a green light straight from rough draft to FISA warrant application. Steele himself has stated that the contents of the dossier were not corroborated.

So, essentially, Steele asked for salacious dirt on Trump from his contacts in Russia, and then created a TMZ-esque hit piece .... the practical upshot of that is that Russian propaganda ended up in a FISA warrant to justify spying on political opponents.

III. The Nunes memo provides no credible basis whatsoever for removing Rod Rosenstein as Deputy Attorney General.
Click to expand...

This is a Straw Man. The Nunes never states that Rosenstein should be removed. If anything, this absurd straw man falls into the "the lady doth protest too much" category.

Officer: "Sir, we have video of you and an undisclosed accomplice robbing the bank. Who is it?"

Suspect: "Officer, you got the wrong guy! And anyway, my cousin Franky had nothing to do with it."


IV. The Nunes memo shows that House Republicans are now part and parcel to an organized effort to obstruct the Special Counsel’s investigation.
Click to expand...

Another absurd argument. IF the investigation into Carter page resulted in Russian propaganda filtering in to US FISA courts as evidence then there is every reason to criticize the investigation. That information ended up in the FISA warrant either as purposeful lies or absurdly gross negligence. Either way, the FBI and DOJ are not above the law or above criticism.

Carter Page was known to the United States government for his involvement with the Russian government long before he joined the Trump campaign. Court documents show that Russian intelligence operatives attempted to recruit Page in 2013. One spy thought that Page was “an idiot” who wants to “rise up” and “earn lots of money.”
Click to expand...

Shameless ad hominem. If Page has been under investigation since 2013, and was only charged with lying to investigators in 2017, this hurts the Dem collusion narrative more than it helps the investigation.
 
Last edited:
MTAtech said:
Nunes already compromised. The Nadler memo didn't compromise anything that wasn't already compromised.
Click to expand...

LOL!!! What did Nunes "compromise"? Please give me a list.
 
MTAtech said:
I find the actual response, which was longer than Nunes' memo, persuasive.

It undercut Republican claims that the Steele dossier was sole piece of evidence the court was presented.
Click to expand...

Strawman. No one has stated that the Steele dossier was the sole piece of evidence the court was presented. They are only saying it was integral to it.

It underscored that the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court found probable cause to believe that Carter Page —a member of the Trump campaign’s foreign policy team -- was an agent of the Russian government. It pointed out where the Nunes memo was misleading and the claims contrary to existing law.
Click to expand...

The FISC found probably cause based on faulty documentation. They don't do the research themselves. There was nothing misleading about the memo, unless you count constructing strawmen as misleading. Trey Gowdy is on the record as saying the warrant would not have been granted without the dossier.

This quote I love:

and this:
.
[/FONT]
Click to expand...

The first quote is a strawman. The second is slanted based on bias. I could just as easily say that "The Nunes memorandum shows that House Republicans are now part and parcel to an organized effort to bring to light abuses of the judicial and justice system by high-level political activists in the Justice Department."
 
Fishking said:
Strawman. No one has stated that the Steele dossier was the sole piece of evidence the court was presented. They are only saying it was integral to it.
Click to expand...

One of the more interesting parts of the timeline is that there was a FISA application in July 2017 that the FISA court denied, and then the FISA court approved an application in October.

If, as the apologists for the investigation are quick to point out, the dossier wasn't introduced until the October FISA application (ignore for a minute how long that dossier would have to circulate within DOJ and FBI before showing up in a FISA warrant application), then it just supports McCabe's testimony as it appears in the Nunes memo. THe FBI had a warrant denied when they were applying to spy on Page and Papadopolous... and then in October they reapplied for Page only, and used the Steele dossier as the thrust of their argument. Therefore, without the dossier there was no warrant.

The FISC found probably cause based on faulty documentation. They don't do the research themselves. There was nothing misleading about the memo, unless you count constructing strawmen as misleading. Trey Gowdy is on the record as saying the warrant would not have been granted without the dossier.
Click to expand...

Correct. FISA operates on a more strict basis than regular courts warrants. Due to the higher bar set for gathering such information, the FISA rejects warrant application wherein the applicant provides justification that is unfounded. The fact that the warrant application had Steele dossier information at all simply shows how weak the rest of the evidence must have been that it was padded with dossier crap, and that crap was corroborated with Yahoo News articles.

The first quote is a strawman. The second is slanted based on bias. I could just as easily say that "The Nunes memorandum shows that House Republicans are now part and parcel to an organized effort to bring to light abuses of the judicial and justice system by high-level political activists in the Justice Department."
Click to expand...

Yep.
 
jmotivator said:
The funniest part is that after screaming that the Nunes memo would cause grave harm to national security, the Democrats went and leaked a response without going through channels. :roll:
Click to expand...

Nah. The only funny thing is that after screaming that THIS WAS ONE HUNDRED TIME MORE SERIOUS THAN WATERGATE, the wet fart that was the Nunes memo blew up in Republican faces.
 
jmotivator said:
One of the more interesting parts of the timeline is that there was a FISA application in July 2017 that the FISA court denied, and then the FISA court approved an application in October.

If, as the apologists for the investigation are quick to point out, the dossier wasn't introduced until the October FISA application (ignore for a minute how long that dossier would have to circulate within DOJ and FBI before showing up in a FISA warrant application), then it just supports McCabe's testimony as it appears in the Nunes memo. THe FBI had a warrant denied when they were applying to spy on Page and Papadopolous... and then in October they reapplied for Page only, and used the Steele dossier as the thrust of their argument. Therefore, without the dossier there was no warrant.



Correct. FISA operates on a more strict basis than regular courts warrants. Due to the higher bar set for gathering such information, the FISA rejects warrant application wherein the applicant provides justification that is unfounded. The fact that the warrant application had Steele dossier information at all simply shows how weak the rest of the evidence must have been that it was padded with dossier crap, and that crap was corroborated with Yahoo News articles.



Yep.
Click to expand...

The relevant legal standard for evaluating the FISA application is laid out in Franks v. Delaware. “[T]here is, of course, a presumption of validity with respect to the affidavit supporting the search warrant.” 438 U.S. 154, 171.
 
Praxas said:
Opposition research isn't just about finding dirt as much as it is about learning who your opponent is. Maybe to the Russian loving Trump campaign oppo research was about finding dirt, but not to everyone else.
Click to expand...

THe intentional stupidity from hacks is really ridiculous. Just because someone funds research, doesn't meant the research is bogus. YOu still have people who's credibility and business relies on them being accurate. so its the ultimate stupid deflection.
 
MTAtech said:
The relevant legal standard for evaluating the FISA application is laid out in Franks v. Delaware. “[T]here is, of course, a presumption of validity with respect to the affidavit supporting the search warrant.” 438 U.S. 154, 171.
Click to expand...

Franks v. Delaware doesn't draw the conclusion you seem to think it draws. Franks v. Delaware held that a warrant that was approved using known questionable evidence violates the 4th Amendment.

So if we use the Franks v. Delaware standard, the inclusion of unsubstantiated Steele Dossier excerpts and unchecked Yahoo News citations is a violation of Carter Page's civil rights as set out by the 4th Amendment.

Your quote from the decision is meant to hold the court harmless for approving of a bad warrant as the court must assume that he applicant is operating in good faith, not the prosecutors who file the erroneous warrants.

What that means is that by the Franks v. Delaware standard, nothing gathered under the authorization granted by the Carter Page warrant would be admissible in court even if they found anything. But, moreover, the fact that the warrant application violates the 4th Amendment means that the FBI investigation was not administered legally, thereby erasing the possibility of a successful perjury charge... so, as I keep saying, Page and Flynn should rescind their guilty please and sue to clear their names IF they have already been issued punishment.
 
Last edited:
Tanngrisnir said:
Nah. The only funny thing is that after screaming that THIS WAS ONE HUNDRED TIME MORE SERIOUS THAN WATERGATE, the wet fart that was the Nunes memo blew up in Republican faces.
Click to expand...

The FBI violating a person's 4th Amendment protections is a "wet fart" when you don't like the person being investigated. This doesn't help create an image of a principled NeverTrumper. :roll:
 
jmotivator said:
The FBI violating a person's 4th Amendment protections is a "wet fart" when you don't like the person being investigated. This doesn't help create an image of a principled NeverTrumper. :roll:
Click to expand...

Except, of course, that they haven't done that, nor can you demonstrate that they did.

Please try harder.
 
Tanngrisnir said:
Except, of course, that they haven't done that, nor can you demonstrate that they did.

Please try harder.
Click to expand...

Of course we can. Steele has stated that the dossier was never verified, and Comey stated in his June 2017 testimony that the Steele dossier was unverified, and yet that unverified information made its way in to a FISA warrant. As your comrade MTATech accidentally helped point out, the Supreme Court ruled in 1978 that a warrant that is presented to the court with false or misleading evidence, intentionally or through negligence, violated the suspects 4th Amendment protections.
 
jmotivator said:
Of course we can. Steele has stated that the dossier was never verified, and Comey stated in his June 2017 testimony that the Steele dossier was unverified, and yet that unverified information made its way in to a FISA warrant. As your comrade MTATech accidentally helped point out, the Supreme Court ruled in 1978 that a warrant that is presented to the court with false or misleading evidence, intentionally or through negligence, violated the suspects 4th Amendment protections.
Click to expand...

So what? Apparently the contents of the dossier squared with information the FBI already had, making it relevant to their investigation.

And you still cannot demonstrate that there was false or misleading evidence in the dossier.

This seems to be really hard for you.
 
Tanngrisnir said:
So what? Apparently the contents of the dossier squared with information the FBI already had, making it relevant to their investigation.
Click to expand...

No, the information squared with articles presented from Yahoo News and Mother Jones... but they only squared because Yahoo News and Mother Jones used Steele as their source.

And you still cannot demonstrate that there was false or misleading evidence in the dossier.
Click to expand...

The dossier is unsubstantiated. Comey and Steele have both admitted as such. This alone is enough to void the warrant.
 
MTAtech said:
When a FISA application goes forth for renewal, it must be demonstrated that usable information (progress) was made. Thus, the fact that they got multiple renewals, that undercuts your doubt that info wasn't being obtained.
Click to expand...

That's assuming the information they used for the multiple renewals was accurate and true.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom