Nunes: There Was NO OFFICIAL INTELLIGENCE USED to Start DOJ Spying on Trump[W:895]

[JasperL]

Re: Nunes: There Was NO OFFICIAL INTELLIGENCE USED to Start DOJ Spying on Trump

Not a retreat.

I asked more than once for information. The member declined. I quit asking.

Maybe you didn't read #606 or perhaps it was an edit that doesn't show up as such. The last line is:

"ps - I was mistaken about the FISA warrant on him" (PapaD)

 

[Athanasius68]

Re: Nunes: There Was NO OFFICIAL INTELLIGENCE USED to Start DOJ Spying on Trump

Let us list the requests for information that you have declined to respond to

1) What is official intelligence?

2) How does it differ from unofficial intelligence?

3) Which investigation is Nunes talking about?

4) Which investigation has targeted Trump?

5) What problem has Nunes identified?

6) What was "simply stunning" --as you claimed in your op-- about what Nunes said?

ps - I answered your question in post 606

1. Probably something that has been vetted.
2. Probably something that was not vetted.
3. Sounds like the entire Trump colluded with Russia to steal the 2016 election.
4. None.
5. Probably that the Obama Admin went all out using the intelligence services of the USA to investigate its political opponents.
6. Probably #5.

 

[Unitedwestand13]

Re: Nunes: There Was NO OFFICIAL INTELLIGENCE USED to Start DOJ Spying on Trump

1. Probably something that has been vetted.
2. Probably something that was not vetted.
3. Sounds like the entire Trump colluded with Russia to steal the 2016 election.
4. None.
5. Probably that the Obama Admin went all out using the intelligence services of the USA to investigate its political opponents.
6. Probably #5.

Vetted by whom? The fbi and or cia.

 

[sangha]

Re: Nunes: There Was NO OFFICIAL INTELLIGENCE USED to Start DOJ Spying on Trump

1. Probably something that has been vetted.
2. Probably something that was not vetted.
3. Sounds like the entire Trump colluded with Russia to steal the 2016 election.
4. None.
5. Probably that the Obama Admin went all out using the intelligence services of the USA to investigate its political opponents.
6. Probably #5.

1) Probably? That means you do not know what it means either
2) Probably? That means you do not know what it means either
3) There is "the entire Trump colluded with Russia to steal the 2016 election" investigation. You are lying
4) Correct
5) But, but, but.... Nunes says they used NO OFFICIAL INTELLIGENCE !! Get your story straight!
6) Nunes did not say that. Try to fail less hard

 

[sangha]

Re: Nunes: There Was NO OFFICIAL INTELLIGENCE USED to Start DOJ Spying on Trump

Vetted by whom? The fbi and or cia.

He does not know. He just made it up. Just like Nunes did

That is why he has to use the word probably

Because he does not know, and when rightwingers do not know something, they lie and make it up

 

[Unitedwestand13]

Re: Nunes: There Was NO OFFICIAL INTELLIGENCE USED to Start DOJ Spying on Trump

He does not know. He just made it up. Just like Nunes did

That is why he has to use the word probably

Because he does not know, and when rightwingers do not know something, they lie and make it up

I have a crazy theory: Nunes pulled this latest stunt in part to help him fundraiser for his re-election campaign. He is scared by the thought of losing his seat.

 

[Atomic Kid]

Re: Nunes: There Was NO OFFICIAL INTELLIGENCE USED to Start DOJ Spying on Trump

"answered all the judges's (sp) questions"??

Now you think it was the judge's responsibility to ask who paid for the dossier? Well hell, you probably think the FBI should just say they want a warrant and not say anything unless the judge asks them a question, right?

LOL!!

Of course it is a judge's responsibility to ask questions. What else do you think their job is? Let me tell you you're living in some kind of fantasy world if you think they're aren't going to ask questions. According to agents who have appeared before FISC judges that questioning can often go on for an hour or more. The judges ask all kinds of questions of them. Where and how did you get this and that, what the significance,what is the interest of the US government, how does it relate, and so on and so forth. That's why the process for preparing these FISA warrant applications are so rigorous. Because you better be damn sure that you have crossed all your T's and dotted all your i's and that you are know the material contained within inside and out before you even set foot in that courtroom. If you go in unprepared you're going to regret it. Because these judges don't take kindly to having their time wasted. One FBI agent did so one time and it had lasting implications that perhaps may even have contributed to 9/11.

Another point is that the identity, character or the motivation of the source is immaterial to granting of a warrant. Judges are very well aware that sources often have bias or ulterior motives for providing information to authorities. Information often comes from very shady characters. It comes from from mobsters, gang members, drug dealers, foreign spies, etc. Instances of Joe Citizen coming in to freely volunteer information out of a pure sense of civic duty free of any personal interest is very likely rarer than you would think. The chief determining factor in granting a warrant is whether or the applicant can reasonably substantiate that the information represents true inside information and that the informant was in a position to obtain that inside information.

 

[Mycroft]

Re: Nunes: There Was NO OFFICIAL INTELLIGENCE USED to Start DOJ Spying on Trump

Since when is the basis for such warrants unclassified information?

When that information is deemed not classified...as it was by the Trump administration.

 

[Mycroft]

Re: Nunes: There Was NO OFFICIAL INTELLIGENCE USED to Start DOJ Spying on Trump

ps - I answered your question in post 606

LOL!!

You edited your post...and, instead of letting me know or admitting it when I kept asking, you played your games.

Yeah...I was correct to dismiss you.

Bye.

 

[JasperL]

Re: Nunes: There Was NO OFFICIAL INTELLIGENCE USED to Start DOJ Spying on Trump

When that information is deemed not classified...as it was by the Trump administration.

OK, whatever, I'll quit beating that dead horse. How about the rest of my comment (actually you've ignored major parts of several comments...) you deleted and failed to address? You started the thread, so I was hoping you had some answers about the basis for the entire thread. I'll repeat it for your convenience - it's the part directly on topic to your OP.

"We're off topic anyway, but the OP was typical Nunes nonsense to start with - a perfect example of why I don't trust the guy. I haven't read every post, but can you explain to me what the difference is between "intelligence" and the apparently made up phrase, "official intelligence" and why we would have expected to see a reference to "official intelligence" in the documents?

Thanks."

 

[Mycroft]

Re: Nunes: There Was NO OFFICIAL INTELLIGENCE USED to Start DOJ Spying on Trump

Of course it is a judge's responsibility to ask questions. What else do you think their job is? Let me tell you you're living in some kind of fantasy world if you think they're aren't going to ask questions. According to agents who have appeared before FISC judges that questioning can often go on for an hour or more. The judges ask all kinds of questions of them. Where and how did you get this and that, what the significance,what is the interest of the US government, how does it relate, and so on and so forth. That's why the process for preparing these FISA warrant applications are so rigorous. Because you better be damn sure that you have crossed all your T's and dotted all your i's and that you are know the material contained within inside and out before you even set foot in that courtroom. If you go in unprepared you're going to regret it. Because these judges don't take kindly to having their time wasted. One FBI agent did so one time and it had lasting implications that perhaps may even have contributed to 9/11.

Another point is that the identity, character or the motivation of the source is immaterial to granting of a warrant. Judges are very well aware that sources often have bias or ulterior motives for providing information to authorities. Information often comes from very shady characters. It comes from from mobsters, gang members, drug dealers, foreign spies, etc. Instances of Joe Citizen coming in to freely volunteer information out of a pure sense of civic duty free of any personal interest is very likely rarer than you would think. The chief determining factor in granting a warrant is whether or the applicant can reasonably substantiate that the information represents true inside information and that the informant was in a position to obtain that inside information.

I don't think you know anything about how warrant requests work.

Never mind.

 

[Mycroft]

Re: Nunes: There Was NO OFFICIAL INTELLIGENCE USED to Start DOJ Spying on Trump

OK, whatever, I'll quit beating that dead horse. How about the rest of my comment (actually you've ignored major parts of several comments...) you deleted and failed to address? You started the thread, so I was hoping you had some answers about the basis for the entire thread. I'll repeat it for your convenience - it's the part directly on topic to your OP.

"We're off topic anyway, but the OP was typical Nunes nonsense to start with - a perfect example of why I don't trust the guy. I haven't read every post, but can you explain to me what the difference is between "intelligence" and the apparently made up phrase, "official intelligence" and why we would have expected to see a reference to "official intelligence" in the documents?

Thanks."

I see no point in going on and on about irrelevancies.

But hey...you can if you want to.

 

[JasperL]

Re: Nunes: There Was NO OFFICIAL INTELLIGENCE USED to Start DOJ Spying on Trump

I see no point in going on and on about irrelevancies.

But hey...you can if you want to.

OK, let's go back to your OP, where YOU said this, quoting you:

"This morning, Rep. Nunes was interviewed by Maria Bartiromo of Fox News. He made a statement about what was found in the electronic communications document he was finally able to get from the FBI that is simply stunning."

The distinction between "intelligence" and "official intelligence" is I think the "stunning" information and that he didn't find any "official intelligence" in the documents. If not what did he say that was simply stunning? If it wasn't the lack of "official" intelligence, what was it? If we should have seen "official intelligence" in the document, what does that term mean, and why was it "simply stunning" this "official intelligence" was not in the document?

Would a diplomat passing along a conversation he had with a drunk PapaD be considered "official intelligence?" And what was the whole thing about "five eyes" Nunes was talking about referring to? Why would Australia's intelligence services be involved in passing along through "five eyes" channels information gathered by a diplomat in a bar based on a conversation with a drunk PapaD?

tl/dr - what information did Nunes reveal that was simply stunning and why did you characterize it as such? It is your OP!

 

[JasperL]

Re: Nunes: There Was NO OFFICIAL INTELLIGENCE USED to Start DOJ Spying on Trump

I don't think you know anything about how warrant requests work.

Never mind.

It appears you don't. The warrant request first goes through FISC clerks, who determine what was missing from the application or what they feel the judge would need to issue the warrant, and they get that info before it ever sees the FISC judge. After that the FISC judge reviews the application, and then presides over a hearing about the application he's reviewed ahead of time. So there are at least THREE opportunities for the FISC to get clarification on the point - who paid for the dossier, and what was its purpose.

It's obvious to anyone with 8th grade reading comprehension that the project was opposition research to "discredit [Trump's] campaign" but if the FISC needed clarification about that obvious point, and if the person writing the ultimate checks (DNC versus some 501(c)(4)) mattered to the FISC, they could demand clarification. We don't know what was said during the hearing, and so don't know whether or not the FISC judge asked for or got the clarification you demand here. If they didn't (and we don't know this one way or the other), you have to assume the FISC judge is stupid, or that the clarification didn't have any bearing on the warrant.

I can't imagine why it matters who wrote the actual checks. Either Steele's research was credible or it wasn't - that's the only question the court would care about. And the FISC was clearly put on notice that his work was opposition research, as opposed to someone just funding a massive research project for fun and games or whatever the alternative purpose would be for a private non-governmental entity engaging in this project.

 

[sangha]

Re: Nunes: There Was NO OFFICIAL INTELLIGENCE USED to Start DOJ Spying on Trump

OK, let's go back to your OP, where YOU said this, quoting you:

"This morning, Rep. Nunes was interviewed by Maria Bartiromo of Fox News. He made a statement about what was found in the electronic communications document he was finally able to get from the FBI that is simply stunning."

The distinction between "intelligence" and "official intelligence" is I think the "stunning" information and that he didn't find any "official intelligence" in the documents. If not what did he say that was simply stunning? If it wasn't the lack of "official" intelligence, what was it? If we should have seen "official intelligence" in the document, what does that term mean, and why was it "simply stunning" this "official intelligence" was not in the document?

Would a diplomat passing along a conversation he had with a drunk PapaD be considered "official intelligence?" And what was the whole thing about "five eyes" Nunes was talking about referring to? Why would Australia's intelligence services be involved in passing along through "five eyes" channels information gathered by a diplomat in a bar based on a conversation with a drunk PapaD?

tl/dr - what information did Nunes reveal that was simply stunning and why did you characterize it as such? It is your OP!

MyCroft refuses to say what was simply stunning

 

[Atomic Kid]

Re: Nunes: There Was NO OFFICIAL INTELLIGENCE USED to Start DOJ Spying on Trump

Your lacking of any semblence of common sense and or objectivity doesing make me or anyone else a " lying hack "

If Papadopoulos was such a integral amd seminal figure, why did the FBI obtain 4 FISA warrants on CARTER PAGE instead of Papadopoulos ?

Why rely on the dossier at all ?

Why wasn't Papadoplous included in the EC's final JAR report ? There's zero mention of of him ? Why wasn't he part of the Intel that Clapper, Brennan and Comey used to brief Congress ?

Why hadnt Clapper heard of him ? Why did the FBI wait until January to interview him ?

It's very simple. The FBI caught Papadopulos in a lie and the threat of prosecution convinced him that it was in his better interest to cooperate. Papadopulos was not a well known figure. The Australian diplomat who conversed with him at that pub in England didn't really know who he was and dismissed him as some young campaign blowhard wannabe trying to impress people with own imaginary importance. Until Wikileaks did the dump of the DNC emails months afterwards and then they realized it wasn't all BS. Clapper wouldn't necessarily been aware of Papadopulos because this was FBI counterintelligence operation.

Also commonsense dictates that you don't interview the target of investigation until near the end point of it. So that way you have all the facts and information in front of you to be able to compare it to the answers given. The investigation of Papadopulos opened on July 25 2016. The FBI made 'first contact' with him, I believe, on January 26, 2017. Which I believe was also the same day that Comey had his intimate little dinner with Trump at which Trump had asked Comey for his loyalty. Interesting coincidence, huh? Makes you wonder if Trump had been tipped off about the Papadopulos/FBI interview.

Another thing is that while there are many questions that Comey cannot answer quite yet. One that he could answer was if the FISA warrant taken out on Carter Page relied upon the dossier and he clearly and categorically answered that it did not.

 

[Atomic Kid]

Re: Nunes: There Was NO OFFICIAL INTELLIGENCE USED to Start DOJ Spying on Trump

I don't think you know anything about how warrant requests work.

Never mind.

You could have just stopped at "I don't think" and that would about cover it.

 

[JasperL]

Re: Nunes: There Was NO OFFICIAL INTELLIGENCE USED to Start DOJ Spying on Trump

MyCroft refuses to say what was simply stunning

So the conclusion is, I think, that the Nunes interview was nothing but Nunes spouting "irrelevancies," and the author of the OP agrees with that conclusion. If there's another conclusion I can't see it from here.... eace

 

[sangha]

Re: Nunes: There Was NO OFFICIAL INTELLIGENCE USED to Start DOJ Spying on Trump

So the conclusion is, I think, that the Nunes interview was nothing but Nunes spouting "irrelevancies," and the author of the OP agrees with that conclusion. If there's another conclusion I can't see it from here.... eace

Correct

It is just another rightwing Nothingburger

even the rightwingers are too embarrassed to say there was any wrongdoing. Or in this case, anything stunning

 

[Atomic Kid]

Re: Nunes: There Was NO OFFICIAL INTELLIGENCE USED to Start DOJ Spying on Trump

Huh ? Sure there is. In 2016, the Obama NSA self reported ( under reported) to wide spread FISC violations and abuse going all the way back to 2011

This included illegal upstream searches and unmaskings of US citizens. The ACLU called it one of the worst documented violations of the 4rth ammendment.

Here's the FISC opinion on it....
https://www.scribd.com/document/349261099/2016-Cert-FISC-Memo-Opin-Order-Apr-2017-4

Its hilarious when Libs call Trump a authoritarian. Obama took this Nation closer to a banana republic than any other President.

V. CONCLUSION
For the foregoing reasons, the Court finds that: (1) the 2016 Certifications, as amended by
the 2017 Amendments, as well as the certifications in the Prior 702 Dockets as amended by those
documents, contain all the required statutory elements; (2) the targeting and minimization
procedures to be implemented regarding acquisitions conducted pursuant to the 2016
Certifications, as amended by the 2017 Amendments, comply with 50 U.S.C. §1881a(d)-(e) and
are consistent with the requirements of the Fourth Amendment; and (3) the minimization
procedures to be implemented regarding information acquired under prior Section 702
certifications comply with 50 U.S.C. §1881a(d)-(e) and are consistent with the requirements of
the Fourth Amendment. Orders approving the amended certifications and use of the
accompanying procedures are being entered contemporaneously herewith.

The conclusion of that document doesn't appear to be as quite as ominous you're making it out to be.

 

[OpportunityCost]

Re: Nunes: There Was NO OFFICIAL INTELLIGENCE USED to Start DOJ Spying on Trump

It's very simple. The FBI caught Papadopulos in a lie and the threat of prosecution convinced him that it was in his better interest to cooperate. Papadopulos was not a well known figure. The Australian diplomat who conversed with him at that pub in England didn't really know who he was and dismissed him as some young campaign blowhard wannabe trying to impress people with own imaginary importance. Until Wikileaks did the dump of the DNC emails months afterwards and then they realized it wasn't all BS. Clapper wouldn't necessarily been aware of Papadopulos because this was FBI counterintelligence operation.

Also commonsense dictates that you don't interview the target of investigation until near the end point of it. So that way you have all the facts and information in front of you to be able to compare it to the answers given. The investigation of Papadopulos opened on July 25 2016. The FBI made 'first contact' with him, I believe, on January 26, 2017. Which I believe was also the same day that Comey had his intimate little dinner with Trump at which Trump had asked Comey for his loyalty. Interesting coincidence, huh? Makes you wonder if Trump had been tipped off about the Papadopulos/FBI interview.

Another thing is that while there are many questions that Comey cannot answer quite yet. One that he could answer was if the FISA warrant taken out on Carter Page relied upon the dossier and he clearly and categorically answered that it did not.

The same Australian diplomat that guaranteed 4 years of grants for $25M/year to the Clinton Health Initiative, Alex Downer?

 

[Unitedwestand13]

Re: Nunes: There Was NO OFFICIAL INTELLIGENCE USED to Start DOJ Spying on Trump

The same Australian diplomat that guaranteed 4 years of grants for $25M/year to the Clinton Health Initiative, Alex Downer?

He donated to a clinton charity. That is not the same as being officially part of Clinton’s inner circle

 

[sangha]

Re: Nunes: There Was NO OFFICIAL INTELLIGENCE USED to Start DOJ Spying on Trump

He donated to a clinton charity. That is not the same as being officially part of Clinton’s inner circle

No, he did not. He did not donate. Australia donated

 

[Mycroft]

Re: Nunes: There Was NO OFFICIAL INTELLIGENCE USED to Start DOJ Spying on Trump

OK, let's go back to your OP, where YOU said this, quoting you:

"This morning, Rep. Nunes was interviewed by Maria Bartiromo of Fox News. He made a statement about what was found in the electronic communications document he was finally able to get from the FBI that is simply stunning."

The distinction between "intelligence" and "official intelligence" is I think the "stunning" information and that he didn't find any "official intelligence" in the documents. If not what did he say that was simply stunning? If it wasn't the lack of "official" intelligence, what was it? If we should have seen "official intelligence" in the document, what does that term mean, and why was it "simply stunning" this "official intelligence" was not in the document?

Would a diplomat passing along a conversation he had with a drunk PapaD be considered "official intelligence?" And what was the whole thing about "five eyes" Nunes was talking about referring to? Why would Australia's intelligence services be involved in passing along through "five eyes" channels information gathered by a diplomat in a bar based on a conversation with a drunk PapaD?

tl/dr - what information did Nunes reveal that was simply stunning and why did you characterize it as such? It is your OP!

Oh for christ's sake!

Dude...this thread has over 600 posts and MUCH of it was nitpicking on "what does 'official intelligence' mean".

Don't bother me. Just read the fricken thread.

 

[Atomic Kid]

Re: Nunes: There Was NO OFFICIAL INTELLIGENCE USED to Start DOJ Spying on Trump

The same Australian diplomat that guaranteed 4 years of grants for $25M/year to the Clinton Health Initiative, Alex Downer?

Alexander Downer is no stranger to taking controversial political positions and he is very much a conservative. But politics has nothing to do with alerting an ally and friend of a possible crime having been committed against it that could clearly concern the national security of the US. Because that is what friends and allies do for one another. Which is the type of relationships that Mr Trump should take more care in fostering.