This was the actual wording from the application (as taken from the Schiff memo):
indicated to Source #1 that a U.S.-based law firm had hired the identified U.S. Person to conduct research regarding Candidate #1’s [i.e., Trump’s] ties to Russia. (The identified U.S. Person and Source #1 have a longstanding business relationship.) The identified U.S. Person hired Source #1 to conduct this research. The identified U.S. Person never advised Source #1 as to the motivation behind the research into Candidate #1’s ties to Russia. The FBI speculates that the identified U.S. Person was likely looking for information that could be used to discredit Candidate #1’s campaign.Now lot's of things could be ascertained from that statement. But the belief that the U.S. Based law firm was hired by the DNC and the Clinton campaign is not one you would come to without the benefit of hindsight. Certainly if the FBI knew that Steele was hired by the DNC and Clinton campaign, there would not require any "speculation" as to the likely motivation behind the hiring. I mean seriously; if our crack pot investigative team could not conclusively determine the reason why the DNC and Clinton campaign would hire Richard Steele to come up with dirt on Donald Trump, then they should all be fired for incompetence.
Let's also not forget that many Democrats disputed the Nune's claim that the warrant referred only to a Person and a Law firm, rather than a political entity. Many Democrats suggested flat out that the FICA warrant stated it was a political entity that hired Steele. This was obviously not the case in any tangible sense, and there isn't any reasonable interpretation that would force a Judge to read the term person as meaning a Political Party or Political Candidate.
The more I research the Schiff memo, the more it actually seems to confirm the Nune's memo, rather than dispute it.
41 comments:
LOL at the "pastor's" breathless spam. Brit Hume addresses him:
Brit HumeVerified account @brithume
No it didn’t. It declined to grant expedited review of that ruling, preferring to wait until the matter has made its way through courts of appeal. This, obviously, was not a ruling on the merits of the case.
smh and ROFLMFAO !!!
Again, more FAKE NEWS from little pastor jimmy
He lives in an echo chamber and then judges others.
And preaches.
What a fucking asshole
Really? Four deputies cringed behind their cars listening to 15 children and 2 adults being murdered.
They fail to do their sworn duty and you say any investigation into the responsibly of the sheriff is a "political witch hunt"?
Go to hell Dennis." CS
The Cowards of Broward Sheriff Dept are Lead by a Democrat Sheriff.
The more I research the Schiff memo, the more it actually seems to confirm the Nune's memo, rather than dispute it.
Kind of a masterpiece of agreeing with the GOP memo while appearing to give the liberal media some red meat to chew on.
Menstral the cramp thinks like CH states....
The more I research the Schiff memo,
Neither of you would t know actual research if it hit you in the gonads......yeah sure...
DOJ disclosed thatthe person hiring Steele had political motivations to discredit Trump. Insisting that this is "misleading" is splitting hairs, and more detail would be that dreaded "unmasking" that you wanted to hang Lynch for.
The contradictions are stark: Nune accused the DOJ of misleading the FISA court about the political motivation of the Steele report. In reality, the FISA court was fully informed. One is a partisan attack, the other (Schiff) laid out the facts.
No reply from the Host
In reality, the FISA court was fully informed. One is a partisan attack, the other (Schiff) laid out the facts.
we do not know that the FISA court was fully informed beyond schiff telling us they were. what schiff did acknowledge was that the court relied very heavily on the unverified and unvetted dossier. was the court misled? yeah, logic would dictate that they were to some degree. misled about who paid for it, and misled about who exactly compiled it.
wp, the thrust of schiff's memo was that he verified what nunes had already reported.
DOJ disclosed that the person hiring Steele had political motivations to discredit Trump
And in your thought pattern, that is the same thing as telling the Judge that the people hiring Steele were the DNC and the Clinton camp?
more detail would be that dreaded "unmasking" that you wanted to hang Lynch for.
- Except one is actually illegal (unmasking Americans caught up in surveillance).
- While the other is standard practice (revealing a source on a FICA application).
Got any other Josh Marshall style TPMs for us today, WP?
we do not know that the FISA court was fully informed beyond schiff telling us they were.
Actually my post provided the wording. You don't need to take anyone's word on it.
indicated to Source #1 that a U.S.-based law firm had hired the identified U.S. Person to conduct research regarding Candidate #1’s [i.e., Trump’s] ties to Russia. (The identified U.S. Person and Source #1 have a longstanding business relationship.) The identified U.S. Person hired Source #1 to conduct this research. The identified U.S. Person never advised Source #1 as to the motivation behind the research into Candidate #1’s ties to Russia. The FBI speculates that the identified U.S. Person was likely looking for information that could be used to discredit Candidate #1’s campaign.
Seriously... any who believes this statement constitutes "fully informed" is suffering from a serious intellectual breakdown.
While it IS a secret court and I don't think I've ever seen an actual application for a FISA warrant, my understanding from those who have is that standard practice is to NOT name Americans in the applications.
So I would strongly dispute that it would be "standard practice" for the individuals to be named. Might I ask, where did you come by that opinion?
No, it says all that's really needed about the "identified U.S. Person".
I really can't see how you, or Nunes et al, can make any sort of case that this wasn't full information about the political motivations. Barring a criminal involvement (which hasn't been suggested) what possible difference could it make to the application whether "identified U.S. Person" worked for Clinton or one of the Republicans, or some lobby group? It just strikes me as intellectually dishonest to draw such a distinction.
While it IS a secret court and I don't think I've ever seen an actual application for a FISA warrant, my understanding from those who have is that standard practice is to NOT name Americans in the applications.
They didn't have any problem identifying "candidate 1"
Why did they seem to have a problem identifying "candidate 2"
what possible difference could it make to the application whether "identified U.S. Person" worked for Clinton or one of the Republicans, or some lobby group?
If it didn't make any difference...
Why did they leave out the fact that the person was paid by "candidate 2" and a "political Party".
What's intellectually dishonest WP, is to suggest that you can leave out very important information and still claim to be transparent.
The original rebuttal provided by Schiff and other Democrats (prior to this memo) was that the wording of the application made it easily decipherable who paid Steele. They claimed that the nune's memo citing a lack of naming the DNC and Clinton was actually dishonest, because the application make it so unmistakable that any Judge would deduced who was responsible for payment.
Suddenly, the argument is that it's transparent because they suggested that the incentive "may" have been politically motivated. They couldn't even be honest about the fact that they understood it 100$ to be completely politically motivated.
Not to mention, that the DOJ worked for the President of the Party who paid for the information as opposition research. This all ties together, with the unmasking requests, subsequent illegal leaks to the Press, etc, etc. If the former Administration not been quite obviously bending the rules (and the laws) to help the favored candidate win an election, then perhaps you could rule out that this was a nefarious act.
But they did break rules, laws, etc... you know it. I know it. It's not logical to simply give them the benefit of the doubt when it came to getting a Trump campaign member under FICA surveillance, where they would have access not only to what he was doing, but to what he "had been" doing as well.
"What's intellectually dishonest WP, is to suggest that you can leave out very important information and still claim to be transparent. "
Why is it "very important information"? You still haven't explained why it makes any difference at all, let alone why you think it's "very important".
To answer your question, they left out the identification because it's SOP on FISA warrants, and not important at all.
WP...
I shouldn't have to "explain" to you that's always legally important whether a source or witness is paid and who specifically paid them.
Every expert witness at any trial is going to be asked who paid them, among many other things that go to their credibility. Any informant who comes into play at any trial will ultimately have to provide for the court whether or not they received any benefit for their information or testimony. Whether it be a reduced sentence or payment, it's going to come out. All of that goes to credibility. All of that can be parsed to a matter of degrees...
I promise you this...if I was sitting on a jury and a expert witness was asked who paid for their testimony, and they gave me the seven degrees of separation argument about how they were paid by someone who was associated with a law firm, who was associated with a "person" or "people" who "may" have motivation to do this, that, or the other thing... that person's credibly would take a serious hit. I would call bullshit on that answer and take everything else they stated with a grain of salt.
Now on the flip side, you seem to believe (without any actual evidence that it's true) that the FBI was somehow "required" to keep it secret who actually paid Richard Steele. You apparently believe that it was perfectly acceptable to identify Candidate 1 - but that it would have been legally suspect to identify Candidate 2.
I might ask where you believe that your knowledge of the FICA courts appear to be so much better than most every legal expert associated with this.
To many people who are familiar with the FICA courts (including many lawmakers who are the ones who created the laws that brought about the FICA courts)... the FBI could have simply stated that the information that they were bringing before a court was paid opposition research funded by Clinton (or candidate 2 if you prefer) and the DNC (or political Party of candidate 2 if names are not to be used). That would have been honest and transparent.
So bottom line... I reject your argument (because there is no evidence that its' true) that the FBI was somehow legally bound to not provide the source of payment to Richard Steele.
I certainly reject any argument that the explanation of payment that they did provide was anything other than a blatant attempt to hide the truth.
I certainly reject any argument that it doesn't make any difference, because to the degree that this was all about the FBI "vouching" for the credibility of Richard Steele when none of his research was verified... they seemed to go to great lengths to not provide full disclosure.
Perhaps you could answer why (absent a legal requirement that you have not established) the FBI just didn't tell the truth, and declare that the information they were using was opposition research paid for by Candidate 2 and the political Party of candidate 2?
Of course, I think we both know the honest answer to that question.
Actually you SHOULD have to explain why "always legally important whether a source or witness is paid and who specifically paid them". When it WAS explained that the source was paid, why do you believe that "specifically who" is "legally important" to the warrant application? You most definitely should cite the legal doctrine, should it exist. You definitely should cite some precedent, where a charge was thrown out for the "defect" of a warrant not supplying "specifically who" hired a consultant.
I've heard you rant and "reject", but I've yet to see any solid, objective citations from you. I haven't even seen an explanation for your opinion yet, and yes you SHOULD have to explain that. Please, list any of those " most every legal expert" who you think disagrees with me, so maybe I'll at least see SOMEONE try to justify it. I've already supplied you with one legal expert, her name and background, who most definitely disagrees with you. So put up or shut up.
Are you perhaps conflating the standards of evidence necessary for a warrant as opposed to an indictment, or trial? I could probably understand your position if you're dumping it all in the same bucket. A defense attorney is of course going to be asking those questions in discovery, and he'll be entitled to the answers. He'll want to impeach the witness, discredit whoever hired him. But this is a warrant, not a trial, and the information given was (obviously) sufficient. There are about a dozen judges deciding whether it is sufficient. YOU place your legal opinion over theirs', not I. Without even seeing the application, YOU claim that all of these judges couldn't realize that political purposes, to discredit Trump and his campaign, means some political entity. It's blindingly obvious to any objective observer - your problem, really, is that you wanted to see names and hopefully dirt on an opposition party to be used later. But nothing about the warrant was really about them, and that is precisely why American citizens are NOT named in those warrants unless knowing their identities are central to understanding the evidence.
The problem isn't that the DOJ is hiding something, because they didn't. The problem is that it's a court with secret proceedings and there IS NO defense attorney nor anyone else advocating for the citizens. Absent someone advocating for Page, Trump's associates and so on, it's left up to the judges themselves. Whatever issue you see here is a fundamental flaw with the court, not the DOJ and not their warrant application.
When it WAS explained that the source was paid, why do you believe that "specifically who" is "legally important" to the warrant application?
because it speaks to motive, intent, and bias. keep in mind that the genesis of this whole russia nonsense is that it was a story cooked up by team clinton, specifically jennifer palmieri and robby mook, to explain away losing an election that was all but fixed for them to win. to any clear eyed individual this whole thing was complete bullshit from day one.
and all mueller has accomplished so far is a couple of guilty pleas coerced by the prospect of financial ruin for the accused.
who paid for the dossier and why has EVERYTHING to do with why this investigation was launched to begin with, and we know for certain that WITHOUT the dossier there is no FISA warrant application. split all the legal and semantic hairs you want, but there's never been a legitimate reason for the launch or the continuance of this investigation.
clinton was a sore loser with an outsized influence to not accept her defeat, plain and simple.
WP...
I answered your question as it was posed. I provided you with exactly why "I" felt it was important. I also provided why someone being paid is important in any legal proceeding. The fundamental logic of why I believe that it is important... does not change because it was a FICA court.
My logic does not change simply because there is nobody there to defend the target of the wiretap. The fact that there isn't anyone there to defend the target is why we trust that the FBI is as transparent and honest as possible. We shouldn't use the lack of due process (in this case) to actually "justify" a lack of transparency in an application. That's 180 degrees back-ass-wards.
Of course, now it would appear that the goalposts are moving from asking me why it is "important" to asking me to prove that this sort of disclosure is legally required.
As far as other legal experts... you should read Andrew McCarthy, Scott Johnson (Powerline) who are both legal experts and have written extensively on this. You might actually want to read the Nune's memo itself, as that was written with the help of people like Trey Gowdy (who is not only a former prosecutor, but someone who would understand the laws of the FICA courts much better than either of us).
But ultimately... you didn't answer MY question.
In retrospect, if it didn't matter (as you claim)... then they subjected the FBI and the entire FICA court system to calls of bias, dishonesty, and even corruption for no reason (as certainly they could have named Candidate 2 as they named Candidate 1)?
Why did the FBI consciously decide to leave out the fact that Steele was paid by the DNC and Hillary Clinton?
Why did the FBI consciously decide to leave out the fact that Steele was paid by the DNC and Hillary Clinton?
it's gotta be to obscure their blatant bias and corruption.
Your question "Perhaps you could answer why (absent a legal requirement that you have not established) the FBI just didn't tell the truth,"
is answered by the plain fact that they DID tell the truth. I was letting that pass.
I had a look at an Andrew McCarthy article as you suggested, A Foreign Power’s Recruitment Effort Is Not a Basis for a FISA Court Warrant, and he doesn't offer any legal reasoning why the DOJ must provide the name of the campaign which hired Steele.
He does baldly state "The FBI and Justice Department failed to disclose that these allegations were generated by an opposition-research project commissioned by the Hillary Clinton" but, like you, he presents it without elaboration, as "nuff said". Probably because he realizes that there IS NO legal requirement to specify "precisely who" hired him.
Maybe that's just one article, and there are others where he cites legal reasoning about that objection. You seem to think there is, so again put up or shut up. I looked, didn't find it, so simply dropping the name is insufficient. Show where he has actually said that, instead of the airy claim.
"The fact that there isn't anyone there to defend the target is why we trust that the FBI is as transparent and honest as possible"
I don't get how you could possibly trust the FBI to be transparent. Perhaps it's like your legal reasoning, which you say is an opinion which you don't feel necessary to support legally or logically but even presuming that to be true, how could you possibly try to impute that notion to everyone? When nothing in the history of the FBI, ever, demonstrates an reliance on transparency?
because it speaks to motive, intent, and bias. keep in mind that the genesis of this whole russia nonsense is that it was a story cooked up by team clinton
Two things about that RRB.
Team Clinton was not the subject of investigation nor the warrant. Team Clinton was not involved in the investigation. Their motive, intent and bias is irrelevant to the warrant.
Secondly, the investigation or major aspects of it were started prior to the Trump candidacy, so it was not in fact a story cooked up to discredit Trump. People, even Republicans, need to accept the fact that these are actual "bad guys", allegedly engaged in serious criminal behaviors, who unfortunately became involved with Trump's campaign. You don't want to accept that because it shows poor judgement on Trump's part, at the very least - I get that, but a fact's a fact. Whatever arises in the aftermath, it's Trump who owns it, not the Clinton's.
Their motive, intent and bias is irrelevant to the warrant.
Oh I don't know. I would think it would have some relevance to judging the reliability and probity of the information.
I had considered that also CS. For that to be true, the motive would have to be transitive from the person hiring the researcher to the researcher himself. In other words, the information comes from "Source #1" and its reliability is contingent on "Source #1". "The identified U.S. Person" may have a bias and underhanded motives, but that does not apply to "Source #1" unless the "US Person" instructed him to that effect.
Yet the application says in no uncertain terms that this was NOT communicated to "Source #1", and I think this point is exactly why that was included. If Source 1 had himself been staff of the Clinton campaign, I'd probably agree that his motivations and bias would have some relevance. But he wasn't; his motivations (and biases, if any) differed from that of the contracting group. He is independent of them in that regard. So it IS irrelevant to the warrant.
WP - McCarthy has written multiple articles on the subject.
https://www.nationalreview.com/2018/02/schiff-memo-russia-investigation-harms-democrats-more-than-helps-them/
Read what he has to say (under the assumption that there is a legal obligation for a prosecutor in this case to tell the "whole story about potential bias, rather than a skewed version.")
Obviously, as a prosecutor himself, he might be better legally versed in the requirements and ethical standards of how a prosecutor deals with things like requesting warrants, subpoenas, etc... than you or I. I understand that you believe you are the smartest person in the world on the subject, but that might not be true.
____
btw...
I asked you why the FBI didn't tell the Judge that the Steele dossier was bought and paid for by the DNC and Hillary Clinton campaign.
A question you still refuse to answer...
As long as you refuse to provide an actual answer, we can all assume that you really don't have a very good one.
https://www.nationalreview.com/2018/02/schiff-memo-russia-investigation-harms-democrats-more-than-helps-them/
Read what he has to say
After reading it, I can say that there was no legal reasoning at all that the FBI needed to out the actual names. Literally nothing. He went straight from what I thought was rather informative discussion to "They ooze consciousness of guilt." and "mental gymnastics to avoid disclosing something" as the rationale that "transparance (sic) demands disclosing". Which is a dead giveaway that there is no legal justification for his complaint.
"I asked you why the FBI didn't tell the Judge that the Steele dossier was bought and paid for by the DNC and Hillary Clinton campaign"
I have answered you several times - the fact that you disagree doesn't actually erase my answers. The DOJ did not include that information because standard operating procedure is to avoid unnecessary names in those warrant applications, and because the inclusion of them would have no material effect on the application.
WP... this isn't a "legal" question, but more of an ethical question. Just because there isn't a law specific to something, doesn't mean there cannot be a nefarious action.
And seriously, if you don't see the mental gymnastics that McCarthy is talking about, then you are deep in a state of cognitive dissonance. More to the point, I simply don't believe you actually believe the argument that there is no difference between a Judge knowing that the source was contracted by a political Party and political opponent versus what that judge was actually told. That view, quite frankly, is silly.
Again, McCarthy is a prosecutor who understands both the statutes (and he quotes a couple of them he felt were broken) and the ethical expectations of the DOJ and a Judge.
I get the distinct impression that you see a FICA warrant application sort of like an indictment. Where a prosecutor is allowed to only bring forward information that helps show probable cause, while not being responsible for offering any exculpatory evidence...
But as pointed out by McCarthy, the DOJ protocol as well as the expectations of the Judge is that Law enforcement is providing "all" of the information that might be relevant... whether that information helps or hinders the case for a warrant being issued. Because there is no "defense" side to rebut, and because American 4th amendment protections, the idea is that we "trust" our law enforcement to be open, transparent, and honest when it comes to this sort of thing.
As suggested by McCarthy (and others) the fact that they offered a fairly dishonest case for why Steele should be considered a trusted source (such as implying that he was a neutral FBI information who was unaware of who was paying him - when he likely knew)... without providing information that they had (such as offering the fact that he told FBI agent Ohr that he was desperate to keep Trump from becoming President - or that he was severed from the FBI for lying to them) that would have suggested otherwise.
Your response at this point... is nothing other than obstinance.
Then what was this about "I shouldn't have to "explain" to you that's always legally important whether a source or witness is paid and who specifically paid them. " if you don't think it's a legal question?
And then going through that whole rigmarole about expert witnesses at trials?
So OK, you don't think it's a legal question any more but you still think it would have been the "right" thing to do. Because McCarthy wanted you to be outraged, but doesn't offer any logical reason either? OK I get that. Wrong, but I get it.
"I get the distinct impression that you see a FICA warrant application sort of like an indictment. " - still wrong. It doesn't rise to the level of an indictment, not anywhere near the same standards for evidence. It's not a trial CH, and neither is it an indictment. It was an application for a warrant.
Personally I think it's kind of amusing watching the partisans try to make an issue of it. "Mental gymnastics" and oozing consciousness of guilt, instead of posing any real argument, and seemingly expecting anyone except other partisans to take that seriously.
As suggested by McCarthy (and others) the fact that they offered a fairly dishonest case for why Steele should be considered a trusted source
Did you read your own linked article? It presented Steele as himself trustworthy and attacked his sources!
WP... this isn't a "legal" question, but more of an ethical question. Just because there isn't a law specific to something, doesn't mean there cannot be a nefarious action.
indeed. in this case it's a basic lie of omission.
Team Clinton was not the subject of investigation nor the warrant. Team Clinton was not involved in the investigation. Their motive, intent and bias is irrelevant to the warrant.
you're missing the point. without the concocted russia story by team clinton, there's no basis for the investigation to begin with.
clinton influence, and the deep desire for a hillary victory by most everyone charged with investigating this matter are what's responsible for where we are today. and where we are today is that you have one guy - manafort - with the financial resources to fight the charges, and everyone else folding like a cheap lawn chair to avoid financial ruin.
the latest pile of nonsense cooked up by trump's accusers is that he was privy to the emails that were phished out of podesta's g-mail account.
sometimes i can see the point of throwing so much shit at the wall to see what sticks, but this is getting ridiculous.
If the entire intelligence community is "team Clinton" (because they worked for Obama I guess), and "concocted" means investigated and documented as fact, in that case I can see what you mean.
People are agreeing to plea deals because they will lose in court and they're going for the best deal they can get.
WP - you continue to play semantics...
You know that in a legal environment (such as any witness or source) that whether that witness or source is paid or otherwise provided a benefit for their testimony or information... is "important".
So it can be important in a "legal matter" without requiring there to be an actual "law in place" to prove that it is important.
In other words, there is no "law" that states that any payment to a witness MUST be disclosed... but the lack of law doesn't make the idea of disclosure of this any less important.
In a nutshell, you are simply refusing to address the issue at hand. Thinking yourself clever (as you generally do when you are losing a debate) by getting around things with semantics.
The issue at hand is that neither of us can show that there is a law that states the FBI has to include the source of payment or any law that states that they cannot.
So at the end of the day it becomes a choice of the DOJ/FBI.
They either choose to disclose that this person is paid by the DNC and the Clinton campaign or they choose to not disclose it.
They chose not to disclose it.
Guess what... your opinion on this is irrelevant. Whether this is right or wrong is not matter that you have veto power over. Something like this requires that the DOJ/FBI instill trust into EVERYBODY. Both conservatives and liberals.
They failed.
A great deal of people believe that they were being patently dishonest in order to garner a warrant to gain access to the information (past and present) to a member of the Trump campaign.
They didn't have to do it the way they did. You have not provide any sort of reasoning that would convince anyone that they did the right thing. Your argument that it "doesn't matter" really isn't an argument.
Because it is ON YOU to convince everyone who is upset by it... that there was a VERY GOOD and NECESSARY reason for them to withhold the information. You are not even attempting to do so.
btw...
The main thing I believe people forget is that nobody expected that Trump would ever win the election, so it would be very doubtful that anyone ever expected that this behavior would reach the light of day.
This was never done with any thought that it would have to ever be explained. More than anything else, that is why this is important.
How many other times has the DOJ/FBI used the FICA courts in a dishonest manner to garner warrants against Americans who they had no business tracking?
Anonymous wphamilton said...
If the entire intelligence community is "team Clinton" (because they worked for Obama I guess), and "concocted" means investigated and documented as fact, in that case I can see what you mean.
wp, it's widely known that the DC metro area went for clinton something like 98% to 2% to say that BHO embeds were heavily invested in a clinton victory is an understatement. and as CH points out below, these shenanigans were never supposed to see the light of day. the fight was fixed and she STILL lost.
People are agreeing to plea deals because they will lose in court and they're going for the best deal they can get.
bullshit. people are agreeing to plea deals because they can't afford a multi-million dollar exoneration. and at least one of the pleas is so shaking that mike flynn is revisiting it and may withdraw it.
if you're thinking clearly and viewing this whole situation objectively you must come to the conclusion that it's been bullshit from day one, and there's no there there.
i mean, mueller has been reduced to investigating a campaign wise crack about the russians releasing hillary's emails.
this is the theatre of the absurd.
"They didn't have to do it the way they did." - They normally do do it that was. Why should they make an exception for Trump?
"Your argument that it "doesn't matter" really isn't an argument." - It is the definitive argument. Since it doesn't matter, your complaint is really just a hope that it will slow the investigation.
"Because it is ON YOU to convince everyone who is upset by it... " Oh lord no, I already said that partisan Trump apologists will never NOT be upset by it. Those same objections were refuted long before that memo came out, and Trump partisans couldn't accept it then; they aren't going to accept facts now. I don't have to convince anybody - most people, objective people, already know that the complaint is horseshit. Keep harping on it, I don't care. Meuller laughed it off. Judges have laughed it off. Prosecutors and people who've actually been in that court laughed it off. The more Trump's proxies try to press that, the sillier he'll look, so it's all good.
Wow!!
The application named "candidate 1" - but you claim it would be some sort of exception to name "candidate 2" ???
The legal expert I provided you with a link to was a Federal Prosecutor. But all prosecutors "laugh it off" ???
Riddle me this... if it's such a joke that nobody takes seriously, why is it being investigated by an Inspector General? Apparently some people take it pretty seriously.
The identity of "Candidate 2" is essential to understanding the evidence. The identity of "Candidate 1" is not essential to understanding the evidence.
Prosecutors laugh it off. "All" prosecutors was not alleged.
The link you provided, by McCarthy, didn't even make an argument in this question. "They ooze consciousness of guilt" is not an argument LOL, and that's literally all he had to say about it.
I don't see what your problem is, unless you're just abandoning logic to favor your opinion.
The Inspector General is not investigating this question.
The identity of "Candidate 2" is essential to understanding the evidence. The identity of "Candidate 1" is not essential to understanding the evidence.
Most legal experts believe (and common sense dictates) that who paid for the dossier was essential to understanding the evidence.
So you have to be consistent here, WP... The application and your argument are both driven almost entirely by the hypocrisy that the judge only needed to know what was the prosecutors "wanted" the court to know.
The link you provided, by McCarthy, didn't even make an argument in this question. "They ooze consciousness of guilt" is not an argument
That's all you understood of it, huh?
Well there is at least some consistency here... A new strategy of makin g arguments driven by leaving out information that otherwise doesn't suit your conclusion.
That's all you understood of it, huh?
So show me, cut and paste anything from that article that argues that it was necessary or even unethical other than "oozes consciousness of guild" or just a reference to "transparency". If you can.
I think it's you who failed to understand much of the article. You've yet to bring a single fact from it. Just emotional opinions.
Most legal experts believe (and common sense dictates) that who paid for the dossier was essential to understanding the evidence.
There you go again, claiming absent and unknown experts, claiming "most" of them agree with you. Very few, if any, agree with you. In fact, you've yet to cite a single one, or any precedent or decision for that matter. Your source McCarthy certainly didn't make that argument.
In contrast, I've given you a true expert's opinion, the Yale lecturer who was previously a prosecutor for the FBI. She disagrees with you. Again, I say put up or shut up. Quote even one.
WP,
Jonathan Turley, Andrew McCarthy, Scott Johnson,and many others have all written in detail (many of them more than once). Trey Gowdey wrote parts of the memo himself. Many of these are former Federal Prosecutors (including Gowdey - who as a member of Congress helped pass the FICA laws). Turley is a well respected legal scholar has argued many prominent cases in Federal Court.
The problem with your argument is that you are attempting to affirm that something was done in a manner that allows both the legal community and American public to trust the process. Making a semantic legal argument that what they did was not "against the law" actually does more to "harm" that belief than help it.
You can only win that argument by proving that the FBI/DOJ acted in a fashion that is deemed responsible and trustworthy by the vast majority of legal experts. So far your strategy seems to be to tell us all why you know that the legal critics are wrong. So far you have provided nothing in specific from anyone, other than suggesting a Yale lecturer agrees with you.
Using the term "laughing them off" and things like that are not serious arguments. In fact, that sort of argument is a classic logical fallacy.
At the end of the day, our 2018 legal system puts a lot of emphasis on mens rea to make determinations about whether or not people skirted the law. There seems to be no "good reason" and there is no "legal reason" why the FBI/DOJ did not at least identify Candidate 2 in their application. Absent of either a good or legal reason... many people are left to believe that those actions were deceptive and nefarious.
Telling the truth demands telling the whole truth. Lying by omission is still lying. They didn't tell the whole truth. They lied by omission.
That is simply a fact that you cannot argue away.
Post a Comment