• 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!

Trump declines to approve release of Dem counter-memo

Athanasius68 said:
The Graham/Grassley memo says much the same thing-- the dossier was the "substantial" source of the FISA warrant request. The other sources cited apparently was the Isikoff article-- which was based on info from Steele.

Release the warrant.
Click to expand...

Fine with me. Maybe it will shut Hannity up. That would be worth lots of revealed secrets, for the national interest.
 
MateoMtnClimber said:
I'm not sure what the misunderstanding is. You think that a high level of issued warrants equals a bogus court. I find that to be a lapse in logic. To be clear, the approval rate, in the absence of any other information or evidence, does not show that the FISC is a rubber stamp court. Perhaps the better question would be, why do you want to discredit the FISC, if you do?
Click to expand...

yes, i think when a court is approving 99.9996% of warrant applications, it's basically a rubber stamp. this tosses out the argument that the cherry picked "memo" discredits Mueller's investigation. the FISA court would have approved surveillance of Carter Page for basically any reason, as it approves almost every application for a warrant.
 
MateoMtnClimber said:
What I don't understand is why they just don't get off their knees and do their jobs. They obviously are terrified of the president's influence in November and then presumably, in 2020.
Click to expand...

Because the right wing of the party - the know nothing tea party faction and the right libertarian faction - are thought to be very powerful in the primary season and it is what the incumbents fear the most. The main thing the vast vast majority of politicians wants more than anything is to be re-elected at all costs. And if the cost this time is to defecate upon their checks and balances responsibilities - they will eagerly do so.
 
Lerxst said:
On the subject of the FISA warrant issuance stats, understanding that 80-99$% is thought to be pretty high, let me offer this anecdotal info.

As a detective I never failed to have a search warrant issued by a judge. Ever. I spent the better part of my career in detectives and applied for around 100-125 search warrant applications. That doesn't mean I didn't get some kicked back by the prosecutor or judge, or that every warrant made it through our internal review process. That happened. Probably about 1 out of 5 weren't approved to the next step, which is the prosecutors review. Additionally maybe 1 out of 5 got kicked back for more additional information. Ultimately though I had a 100% record for search warrants that made it to the judges desk. That might sound abnormally high, but it's really not. I just did very good work and didn't seek warrants without very good supporting information. I mean we had a good review process. As a detective I had to get my Sergeant or Lieutenant's approval before I ever called the prosecuting attorney. As the Lieutenant I reviewed every search warrant application before approving further in the process. Not as many review steps as the Woods Procedures require, but I never had a warrant outright refused by a judge, and I never had evidence suppressed.

It is very possible that the high issuance rate for FISA warrants is because you have good agents submitting good FISA warrant applications. I imagine it will take an IG investigation to determine if the FISC is actually a rubber stamp warrant mill, which is possible, or if the cops are simply doing their job. which is also possible. What would be interesting to know is how many FISA warrants were initiated but never made it to the judge. If 35K were issued, but another 15K never made it through the review process, then the conversation changes.
Click to expand...

Here are the stats from 2016 after they changed counts to include pulled applications and to identify applications modified.

http://www.uscourts.gov/sites/defau...eillance_court_annual_report_2016_final_0.pdf

Summary of Findings
The FISC disclosed that it received 1,752 applications in 2016. After consideration by the court, 1,378 orders were granted, 339 orders were modified, 26 orders were denied in part, and 9 applications were denied in full.
Click to expand...

Those don't look like data from a rubber stamp warrant mill to me, and everything I've read by lawyers or FBI dealing with the FISC indicate that such a characterization of the process is completely misleading and inaccurate.
 
Fletch said:
Its impossible to take democrats seriously. They claimed that Trump releasing the Nunes memo would reveal sources and methods and destroy civilization as we know it when they knew no such classified information existed in the Nunes memo. Now along comes the democrat memo that does actually contain classified info and the dems blast trump for not releasing it.
Click to expand...

Goodness, at the very least revealing the exact dates when surveillance started and stopped on Carter Page is something I'd think even right wingers would recognize as highly classified information. And if the memo contained no classified information, then the whole 'send it to the WH for approval' was just a charade.
 
Helix said:
12 warrants have been rejected out of 35 thousand. it's a rubber stamp court. the cherry picked memo does nothing to invalidate Mueller's investigation.
Click to expand...

I'll just leave this here so people can see the actual data for 2016 and make up their own minds:

http://www.uscourts.gov/sites/defau...eillance_court_annual_report_2016_final_0.pdf

Summary of Findings
The FISC disclosed that it received 1,752 applications in 2016. After consideration by the court, 1,378 orders were granted, 339 orders were modified, 26 orders were denied in part, and 9 applications were denied in full.
Click to expand...
 
Absentglare said:
It sounds like the organizational bodies that request such warrants could simply do a very good job of staying well within the letter of the law.

Without concrete examples of abuse, for which the case of Carter Page would be absolutely hysterical, there's no way to evaluate whether the process is abused or not.
Click to expand...

Or someone is grossly misrepresenting the data to make a point - also possible. From 2016:

http://www.uscourts.gov/sites/defau...eillance_court_annual_report_2016_final_0.pdf

The FISC disclosed that it received 1,752 applications in 2016. After consideration by the court, 1,378 orders were granted, 339 orders were modified, 26 orders were denied in part, and 9 applications were denied in full.
Click to expand...

FWIW, I'm posting it a few times because the court's record keeps getting misrepresented despite me correcting that person and showing him/her the actual data.
 
MateoMtnClimber said:
It certainly was underwhelming both in terms of content as well as style. I'm sure whatever intern actually wrote it received a passing grade in sophomore composition, but Nunes might want to offer a little more thought in the future to "the largest political scandal since Watergate".
Click to expand...

Yeah, the question for whoever wrote that was 'incompetent or deliberately misleading' because it sure as hell almost connected quite a few dots, asked readers to do it, but didn't actually make the connections itself. Basic stuff. Was the relevant part of the dossier used in the warrant request corroborated? Who the hell knows from the memo?
 
MateoMtnClimber said:
Right. Well, I am highly dubious of a professional point that you developed with no information at all except a three-page memo drafted in Devin Nunes's offices.
Click to expand...

I've been through it with that person, but the memo actually says only two things:

1) The Yahoo article was part of the application
2) That article does not corroborate the parts of the dossier cited in the application.

What it doesn't actually say is the Yahoo article was included TO corroborate the dossier. So incompetently written like a 9th grader, or deliberately deceptive? I think we'll find out with the Schiff memo. Incompetence is always a good option with Nunes, so who knows.
 
Jack Hays said:
Of course if the memo is inaccurate then the question does not arise. However, no one on either side has claimed the Yahoo News article was not cited as corroboration of the Steele dossier, and both Steele himself and the Yahoo author acknowledge Steele was a significant source of the article.
Click to expand...

That's not true. From the official minority response to the memo:

https://democrats-intelligence.house.gov/news/documentsingle.aspx?DocumentID=350

“The Majority suggests that the FBI failed to alert the court as to Mr. Steele’s potential political motivations or the political motivations of those who hired him, but this is not accurate. The GOP memo also claims that a Yahoo News article was used to corroborate Steele, but this is not at all why the article was referenced.
Click to expand...
 
Helix said:
so your argument is that the wikipedia page is incorrect? if so, perhaps you should edit it.
Click to expand...

No, I'm pointing out official data from the court that disputes your "rubber stamp" claim. I could not possibly care less what the wiki page says. I know you disagree, but you keep citing data you now know are misleading. A court that modifies or rejects in whole or in part 1 of 5 applications that have at that point survived an extensive review at FBI simply is not operating as a rubber stamp.
 
Last edited:
Jack Hays said:
Unless there was something besides the Yahoo News article, the answer is no.
Click to expand...

The Nunes memo does not tell us that. Can you link to your evidence for this assertion?
 
JasperL said:
No, I'm pointing out official data from the court that disputes your "rubber stamp" claim. I could not possibly care less what the wiki page says. I know you disagree, but you keep citing data you now know are misleading. A court that modifies or rejects in whole or in part 1 of 5 applications that have at that point survived an extensive review at FBI simply is not operating as a rubber stamp.
Click to expand...

it doesn't really matter if you care or not. if the figures are inaccurate, you can edit them.
 
Helix said:
it doesn't really matter if you care or not. if the figures are inaccurate, you can edit them.
Click to expand...

Cool story, bro.

From the "rubber stamp" court:

The FISC disclosed that it received 1,752 applications in 2016. After consideration by the court,
1,378 orders were granted,
339 orders were modified,
26 orders were denied in part, and
9 applications were denied in full.
Click to expand...
 
Previously it has been claimed the FBI relied on the dossier because Steele was deemed a reliable source, much is made of his lengthy tenure as a British spy in Moscow and extensive contacts developed there.
In applying for a warrant, the government must establish the reliability of the informants who witnessed the alleged facts claimed to support a probable-cause finding. Steele was not one of those witnesses. He is not the source of the facts. He is the purveyor of the sources (anonymous Russians), much of whose alleged information is based on hearsay, sometimes multiple steps removed from direct knowledge. Steele has not been in Russia since his cover as a British spy was blown nearly 20 years ago. He has sources, who have sources, who have sources . . . and so on. None of his information is better than third-hand; most of it is more attenuated than that.

The only reliability that counts is the reliability of the factual informants, not of the investigator who purports to channel the informants. The judge wants to know why the court should believe the specific factual claims: Was the informant truly in a position to witness what is alleged, and if so, does the informant have a track record of providing verified information? The track record of the investigator who locates the sources is beside the point. A judge would need to know whether Steele’s sources were reliable, not whether Steele himself was reliable.
Grassley Graham Memo Affirms Nunes Memo on FISA & Steele Dossier | National Review
Click to expand...
 
For those who contend the "classified" information in the Democrats rebuttal memo surely contains evidence corroborating the dossier:
The application [for FISA surveillance warrants against Page] appears to contain no additional information corroborating the dossier allegations against Mr. Page, although it does cite to a news article that appears to be sourced to Mr. Steele’s dossier as well. Will the FISA memo turn into Obama's Watergate? | TheHill
Click to expand...
 
JasperL said:
Fine with me. Maybe it will shut Hannity up. That would be worth lots of revealed secrets, for the national interest.
Click to expand...

Unfortunately those who sought out criminal findings via counter-intelligence ways are responsible for that state of affairs.
 
JasperL said:
The Nunes memo does not tell us that. Can you link to your evidence for this assertion?
Click to expand...

Which is why I used the word "unless." If the Yahoo News article is a primary pillar of claimed corroboration then it fails.
 
haymarket said:
The FBI did NOT want the Nunes memo released either. But Trump rejected that advice and released it anyway.

To further what he thought was good for his own political position, he hypocritically accepted the FBI advice on the Schiff memo.
Click to expand...

What a goofy statement! The democrats screamed bloody murder that the republican memo was going to be released and claimed knowing otherwise that it contained classified information that would harm national security. Now attempting to release their own version that includes classified info that would harm national security, they are screaming bloody murder over Trump blocking it. They had expected him to redact portions of their memo and release it giving them the opportunity to claim he redacted for political purposes. Instead he blocked it and in effect told them....you can submit it again without the harmful national security info.
 
Helix said:
12 warrants have been rejected out of 35 thousand. it's a rubber stamp court. the cherry picked memo does nothing to invalidate Mueller's investigation.
Click to expand...

Sure it does. It shows that the Obama White House, the Hillary Clinton campaign, the politically appointed leadership of the FBI, the CIA, with the help of Chris Steele a former British spy and Fusion GPS all conspired and colluded with shady Russian characters to pull a fast one on the FISA Court with a phony uncollaborated dossier in order to get a FISA warrant to spy on the Trump campaign. Even McCable admits that without that dossier, the warrant would never have been issued.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom