#ReleaseTheMemo

[Proud Tiger 4,261]

49 minutes ago, AUFAN78 said:

Oh Ben. Get your a$$ handed to you and resort to elementary tactics. No thanks. Enjoy the game. Loser. 

There is a game tonight. What sport? Who are we playing?

[AUFAN78 3,911]

2 minutes ago, Proud Tiger said:

There is a game tonight. What sport? Who are we playing?

Indeed there is and I am about to indulge. 

Romper room will just have to wait.

[AUDub 11,153]

1 hour ago, AUFAN78 said:

Oh Ben. Get your a$$ handed to you and resort to elementary tactics. No thanks. Enjoy the game. Loser. 

Weasel. 

[Proud Tiger 4,261]

50 minutes ago, AUFAN78 said:

Indeed there is and I am about to indulge. 

Romper room will just have to wait.

I'm not watching one minute of it. But hurry back. I enjoy seeing you eat Dud's lunch.

 

[AUFAN78 3,911]

41 minutes ago, AUDub said:

Weasel. 

[AUFAN78 3,911]

18 minutes ago, Proud Tiger said:

I'm not watching one minute of it. But hurry back. I enjoy seeing you eat Dud's lunch.

 

Halftime. Let's go. 

[AUDub 11,153]

1 minute ago, AUFAN78 said:

Halftime. Let's go. 

I'm actually enjoying it. Who knew the difference would be the fact that Foles is a better receiver than Brady? 

[AUDub 11,153]

20 minutes ago, Proud Tiger said:

I'm not watching one minute of it. But hurry back. I enjoy seeing you eat Dud's lunch.

 

Elderberries. 

(Somebody quote this)

[AUFAN78 3,911]

19 minutes ago, AUDub said:

I'm actually enjoying it. Who knew the difference would be the fact that Foles is a better receiver than Brady? 

Ha! Loving it. Great game thus far. 

[AUDub 11,153]

3 minutes ago, AUFAN78 said:

Ha! Loving it. Great game thus far. 

Timberlake always puts on a good show. Best Superbowl halftime show by an NBA owner ever.

[AUFAN78 3,911]

10 minutes ago, AUDub said:

Timberlake always puts on a good show.

One of the best. I think he stole one of my moves. 

Best Superbowl halftime show by an NBA owner ever.

Ya think? How grizzly of you.

 

[Auburnfan91 1,407]

6 hours ago, AUDub said:

So let’s see the minority report. Trump could also declassify the warrants at any time too.

http://thehill.com/policy/national-security/372134-officials-disclosed-sources-political-funding-in-fisa-application

From your link:

Quote

The Washington Post reported Friday that Justice Department officials made "ample disclosure of relevant, material facts" to the court that a political entity provided financial backing for the research, though they did not name Hillary Clinton's presidential campaign or the Democratic National Committee (DNC). 

If all they disclosed was that the source was political in nature, but didn't specify that it was the DNC or Clinton campaign then this still casts some clouds over the DOJ/FBI. Hilary's e-mails had been the subject of an investigation for over a year. Yet, her campaign was behind the dossier and literally helped fund it. I fail to see why the DOJ/FBI felt it not necessary to inform the FISC that Hillary's campaign was behind the dossier.  Not identifying her campaign as being behind the dossier to me reeks of politically covering for Hillary.  You can bet if the shoe were on the other foot and Trump had paid for a dossier on Clinton that the DOJ/FBI would have notified everyone in their departments and especially the FISC that Trump was behind a dossier on Hillary.  You can't honestly believe otherwise. 

All the leaks that have gone on during the investigation tells you there are a lot of folks in the DOJ/FBI that don't like Trump and have leaked things to undermine and embarrass him and his administration. Remember the Reince Priebus story of him 'pressuring ' law enforcement to call the NY Times story in February 2017 false? It was actually Andrew McCabe that initiated that meeting and it was McCabe that told Preibus the NY Times story was total BS.... Yet CNN ended up reporting that Preibus was the one 'pressuring' law enforcement to publicly rebuke the story even though that's not what happened......... McCabe was the only person in the room with Preibus when he told him that the story was BS. It's very likely that McCabe was the one that leaked their meeting to the media to make Preibus look bad.

https://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2018/02/04/reince_priebus_recalls_meeting_andrew_mccabe_at_white_house.html

Quote

I think you know the story of Andrew McCabe that walked into my office, shut my door and basically told me that the New York Times' story that was in the paper that first came out in February that said there are constant contacts between the Trump campaign and the Russians with the door closed-- looked at me and said, "I want you to know that this story right here is total BS. It's overstated and it's not true."

 

[MDM4AU 332]

Gowdy was on FTN yesterday and had some interesting comments. 

[homersapien 11,389]

22 hours ago, AUDub said:

Given that Nunes hasn’t even read the underlying documents and the guy who did - Gowdy - is distancing himself from the memo, I’m not inclined to take Nunes at his word here.

This is significant. 

Nunes is a crazy political hack.  Gowdy is a political hack, but he's not crazy.

[homersapien 11,389]

21 hours ago, AUFAN78 said:

I understand why facts bother you. It is ok. You'll be fine. Really.

Says the guy who lies simply for rhetorical effect.  

[AUDub 11,153]

15 hours ago, Auburnfan91 said:

From your link:

If all they disclosed was that the source was political in nature, but didn't specify that it was the DNC or Clinton campaign then this still casts some clouds over the DOJ/FBI. Hilary's e-mails had been the subject of an investigation for over a year. Yet, her campaign was behind the dossier and literally helped fund it. I fail to see why the DOJ/FBI felt it not necessary to inform the FISC that Hillary's campaign was behind the dossier.  Not identifying her campaign as being behind the dossier to me reeks of politically covering for Hillary.

It truly does not matter. “This came from a potentially biased source” pretty much tells the judge everything they need to know to make an informed decision. And besides, it’s not as if this was exclusive to Hillary and the Ds. Remember, the research was commissioned by a conservative R opponent of Trump's possible nomination and the Washington Free Beacon.

Even if the dossier was a major part of the request for a warrant, whether the funding source would need to be disclosed depends on whether it critically altered the case for probable cause.

Some of that would depend on whether the dossier was corroborated. If the government looked into the dossier and corroborated some of its claims, it undercuts the need to disclose the funding source.

And some of that depends on identifying just what the narrative is for why the funding source was critical to establishing probable cause. Apparently, in your mind and many others, any possible link between the dossier and the Clinton campaign damages the credibility of the dossier and the FBI. But that's not how law actually works. In the world of actual law, there needs to be a good reason for the judge to think, once informed of the claim of bias, that the informant is just totally making it up. As many cases have shown (do you need citations?), that isn't the case at all, and it isn’t necessarily the case even if the informant is investigating/feuding with/running against/etc. the suspect. What matters is whether, based on the totality of the circumstances, the information can be trusted. Judges generally aren’t idiots and I trust they can do that.

(Before we broach the subject, I’m aware the FISC is often viewed as a rubber stamp, even though that isn’t really true.)

Quote

You can bet if the shoe were on the other foot and Trump had paid for a dossier on Clinton that the DOJ/FBI would have notified everyone in their departments and especially the FISC that Trump was behind a dossier on Hillary. You can't honestly believe otherwise.

Actually, I can. Quite easily, in fact. Pretty well known that Hillary is not liked in law enforcement circles.

For one, FBI directors have all been Rs as long as I’ve been alive, and it tends to be heavily Republican. For another, they were still actively investigating Hillary right up to the election. Comey’s letter didn’t materialize out of the aether. (I vaguely recall lot of Ds were mad about that. They seem less mad now though. Funny, that.)

What matters is whether what was in your hypothetical dossier provides probable cause for a warrant. If it’s true, I don’t really care. 

[AUFAN78 3,911]

5 hours ago, MDM4AU said:

Gowdy was on FTN yesterday and had some interesting comments. 

Great interview. Thanks for posting.

[AUDub 11,153]

David French again. 

http://amp.nationalreview.com/article/456122/what-nunes-memo-says-doesnt-make-case?utm_source=PANTHEON_STRIPPED&utm_medium=PANTHEON_STRIPPED&utm_campaign=PANTHEON_STRIPPED&__twitter_impression=true

It’s a fact of human nature that our experience colors our perception. In this instance, my experience dealing with classified information and my experience making and evaluating highly contested arguments tells me to hold the outrage in response to the Nunes memo. Hold the outrage and wait for more evidence. Why? Because the memo simply doesn’t provide sufficient evidence to support its quite explosive claims.

While I hardly claim to having the most extensive military experience, I have reviewed countless summaries of classified information. Every day, in Iraq, for example, multiple times a day.

And I hardly claim to have the most extensive legal experience, but I’ve drafted, analyzed, and reviewed countless briefs, memoranda, and other written work that presumes to make an argument based on evidence.

That experience teaches me that the memo simply doesn’t make its case. Indeed, it gets less persuasive — and the material omissions more glaring — with each successive read. It might disclose the existence of troubling FBI misconduct, but the fair-minded reader has no way of knowing whether it does.

continue at the link

[AUFAN78 3,911]

5 hours ago, homersapien said:

This is significant. 

Nunes is a crazy political hack.  Gowdy is a political hack, but he's not crazy.

From where I sit, both give the appearance of trying to do the right thing. In politics, that draws backlash. 

[AUFAN78 3,911]

5 hours ago, homersapien said:

Says the guy who lies simply for rhetorical effect.  

When and where did I lie? 

[AUFAN78 3,911]

5 hours ago, AUDub said:

It truly does not matter. “This came from a potentially biased source” pretty much tells the judge everything they need to know to make an informed decision.

I'm no FISA scholar, but this statement seems wrong. I don't know if they will, but I hope the FISA court opines.

[AUFAN78 3,911]

5 minutes ago, AUDub said:

David French again. 

http://amp.nationalreview.com/article/456122/what-nunes-memo-says-doesnt-make-case?utm_source=PANTHEON_STRIPPED&utm_medium=PANTHEON_STRIPPED&utm_campaign=PANTHEON_STRIPPED&__twitter_impression=true

It’s a fact of human nature that our experience colors our perception. In this instance, my experience dealing with classified information and my experience making and evaluating highly contested arguments tells me to hold the outrage in response to the Nunes memo. Hold the outrage and wait for more evidence. Why? Because the memo simply doesn’t provide sufficient evidence to support its quite explosive claims.

While I hardly claim to having the most extensive military experience, I have reviewed countless summaries of classified information. Every day, in Iraq, for example, multiple times a day.

And I hardly claim to have the most extensive legal experience, but I’ve drafted, analyzed, and reviewed countless briefs, memoranda, and other written work that presumes to make an argument based on evidence.

That experience teaches me that the memo simply doesn’t make its case. Indeed, it gets less persuasive — and the material omissions more glaring — with each successive read. It might disclose the existence of troubling FBI misconduct, but the fair-minded reader has no way of knowing whether it does.

continue at the link

Seems fair to me.

[AUDub 11,153]

Just now, AUFAN78 said:

Seems fair to me.

A conservative voice I respect tremendously. 

[AUDub 11,153]

Vote to release the Ds minority memo passes unanimously. Goes to Trump now. 

[Auburnfan91 1,407]

6 hours ago, AUDub said:

It truly does not matter. “This came from a potentially biased source” pretty much tells the judge everything they need to know to make an informed decision. And besides, it’s not as if this was exclusive to Hillary and the Ds. Remember, the research was commissioned by a conservative R opponent of Trump's possible nomination and the Washington Free Beacon.

Yes it does, with a presidential election in the backdrop of these investigations it absolutely does matter.

There was no dossier when a Republican was funding the research with Fusion GPS. It wasn't until the Democrats and Hillary campaign began funding the research that the British spy Christopher Steele got involved. That's a very key difference in how it went from just opposition research to being turned into something that was then given to the FBI in order to help obtain a FISA warrant. You can spin that however you like but trying to conflate the two is laughable. One party's funding was much more sophisticated and used a British spy who got a lot of his 'dirt' from Russian officials. On top of that the Hillary campaign possibly broke campaign laws by not disclosing that they paid for opposition research. 

http://thehill.com/homenews/campaign/357213-clinton-dnc-connections-to-trump-dossier-funding-could-create-election-law

 

6 hours ago, AUDub said:

Even if the dossier was a major part of the request for a warrant, whether the funding source would need to be disclosed depends on whether it critically altered the case for probable cause.

Some of that would depend on whether the dossier was corroborated. If the government looked into the dossier and corroborated some of its claims, it undercuts the need to disclose the funding source.

And some of that depends on identifying just what the narrative is for why the funding source was critical to establishing probable cause. Apparently, in your mind and many others, any possible link between the dossier and the Clinton campaign damages the credibility of the dossier and the FBI. But that's not how law actually works. In the world of actual law, there needs to be a good reason for the judge to think, once informed of the claim of bias, that the informant is just totally making it up. As many cases have shown (do you need citations?), that isn't the case at all, and it isn’t necessarily the case even if the informant is investigating/feuding with/running against/etc. the suspect. What matters is whether, based on the totality of the circumstances, the information can be trusted. Judges generally aren’t idiots and I trust they can do that.

(Before we broach the subject, I’m aware the FISC is often viewed as a rubber stamp, even though that isn’t really true.)

The FBI opened a counterintelligence investigation into the Trump campaign allegedly because Papadopolous told an Australian diplomat  that Russia had 'dirt' on Hillary.  Yet instead of taking those allegations seriously and also opening an investigation into the Hillary campaign because of the 'dirt' on Hillary, instead they put all the focus on the Trump campaign and started investigating them exclusively.

You're saying that sources are not as important if the 'dirt' is credible correct? Yet from everything that's been made known, the FBI didn't pursue the 'dirt' on Hillary like they've done with Trump...... Why?........  The FBI turned around and ended up using a salacious dossier that contained mostly Russian 'dirt' on Trump that was paid for by Hillary's campaign. The FBI pounced on that 'dirt' without hesitation, even going so far as to use it to help obtain a FISA warrant.. Again, the selective pursuit on 'dirt' between two candidates in the midst of an election seems pretty biased to me. Apparently the FBI was more concerned with the 'dirt' on Trump than they were the 'dirt' on Hillary........ Why?

Even if the FISC was reasonable in approving a warrant on Carter Page, that still doesn't deflect that the FISC is indeed a rubber stamp. A majority of people that have heard of the FISC believe that they're a rubber stamp and conduct one sided cases only hearing from one side, which is a pretty accurate assessment of the process.

Even one of the FISC judges conceded in 2013  that it's hard to attribute any changes or modifications to a FISA request as a result of the court's actions.

Quote

But Walton conceded the pre-approval modifications were a result of an informal back and forth between the Justice Department and the court, so it may be hard to objectively attribute the substantial changes to the court's actions.

https://www.upi.com/FISA-Court-not-a-rubber-stamp-judge-says/32131381905000/

 

8 hours ago, AUDub said:

Actually, I can. Quite easily, in fact. Pretty well known that Hillary is not liked in law enforcement circles.

For one, FBI directors have all been Rs as long as I’ve been alive, and it tends to be heavily Republican. For another, they were still actively investigating Hillary right up to the election. Comey’s letter didn’t materialize out of the aether. (I vaguely recall lot of Ds were mad about that. They seem less mad now though. Funny, that.)

What matters is whether what was in your hypothetical dossier provides probable cause for a warrant. If it’s true, I don’t really care. 

Comey was a registered Republican at one time but he declared he was no longer a registered Republican and was an Independent during his testimony in July 2016 to the House Committee's hearing on the FBI's investigation of Hillary's e-mails.

Hillary not being liked is and has proven to be irrelevant. She has influence and backing within the government. That alone tilts the scales in her favor for getting favorable treatment, which she received in her e-mail investigation. Did you for even a second think there was a chance that Hillary would get charged with anything in the e-mail investigation? I think most people knew all along it was a slim to none chance, even if they proved she lied and did share classified information. There was a lot of leniency shown towards Hillary and her associates. Two of her lawyers received immunity. The idea that national security is a top priority for the FBI rang pretty hollow after they gave Hillary a pass for lying and in fact sending and receiving classified information. Comey even admitted that Hillary was "careless" in her handling of her e-mails and setting up a private server. But all of those facts went to wayside because Comey recommended no charges.