House Intel votes to release FISA memo...

[Sparko]

Depends on how long they can tolerate cognitive dissonance, which for liberals can be a surprisingly long time.

Thjat's because JimL and Tassy lack the 'cognitive' part altogether.

[One Bad Pig]

It's too long to summarize, but Forbes has an excellent article detailing the timeline of this whole scandal going all the way back to the FBI's potentially illegal but definitely deliberate mishandling of the Hillary email investigation and ending with the FBI lying to the courts in order to get warrants to spy on the Trump campaign. It's well worth reading.

https://www.forbes.com/sites/thomasd.../#339bace87f34

Interesting. Comey's first attempt to get a warrant from the FISA court failed (which almost never happens); wasn't until the second attempt, when the dossier was proffered, that he succeeded.

[Cow Poke]

Two months before the presidential election, Lisa Page wrote to fellow FBI official Peter Strzok that she was working on a memo for then-FBI director James Comey because Obama 'wants to know everything we're doing.'

Obama had said five months earlier during a Fox News Channel interview that he could 'guarantee' he wouldn't interfere with that investigation.

'I do not talk to the attorney general about pending investigations. I do not talk to FBI directors about pending investigations. We have a strict line,' he said on April 10, 2016.

'I guarantee it. I guarantee that there is no political influence in any investigation conducted by the Justice Department or the FBI, not just in this case but in any case. Full stop. Period,' he said.'

source

Kinda like "you can keep your doctor, period"

[rogue06]

Interesting. Comey's first attempt to get a warrant from the FISA court failed (which almost never happens); wasn't until the second attempt, when the dossier was proffered, that he succeeded.

Requests for a warrant from a FISA court are approved 99.97% of the time.

[Sparko]

Two months before the presidential election, Lisa Page wrote to fellow FBI official Peter Strzok that she was working on a memo for then-FBI director James Comey because Obama 'wants to know everything we're doing.'

Obama had said five months earlier during a Fox News Channel interview that he could 'guarantee' he wouldn't interfere with that investigation.

'I do not talk to the attorney general about pending investigations. I do not talk to FBI directors about pending investigations. We have a strict line,' he said on April 10, 2016.

'I guarantee it. I guarantee that there is no political influence in any investigation conducted by the Justice Department or the FBI, not just in this case but in any case. Full stop. Period,' he said.'

source

Kinda like "you can keep your doctor, period"

You should post that in Shunya's Trump is a liar thread.

[Mountain Man]

Interesting. Comey's first attempt to get a warrant from the FISA court failed (which almost never happens); wasn't until the second attempt, when the dossier was proffered, that he succeeded.

It has been known for a while that the first application failed. We just didn't know until recently how critical Steele's dossier was to pushing it through the second time.

[One Bad Pig]

It has been known for a while that the first application failed. We just didn't know until recently how critical Steele's dossier was to pushing it through the second time.

We haven't seen the applications, so we don't know what other info might have been included. We have one person saying that the dossier is what did the trick, but they aren't on the FISA court.

[carpedm9587]

We haven't seen the applications, so we don't know what other info might have been included. We have one person saying that the dossier is what did the trick, but they aren't on the FISA court.

Finally - a voice of reason...!

[One Bad Pig]

Finally - a voice of reason...!

I am discussing this with a coworker (lawyer) who's liberal (from London), who's being fairly reasonable in this mess. I can at least get a fairly accurate summation of the legal aspect of all this. That the sources were biased isn't really material from a legal standpoint, though assessed credibility is.

[carpedm9587]

I am discussing this with a coworker (lawyer) who's liberal (from London), who's being fairly reasonable in this mess. I can at least get a fairly accurate summation of the legal aspect of all this. That the sources were biased isn't really material from a legal standpoint, though assessed credibility is.

I'm a bit of a pessimist. I found the memo from Nunes to be largely political and to have cherry picked data and structured it to look at bad as possible, obscuring the gaping holes and assumptions. I expect the "rebuttal" (with two Ts ) memo from the Democrats to be essentially the same, from the other political pole.

I find myself seriously wanting to be in office (Congress), but my location in Vermont makes that unlikely. We have three congressional positions, and the incumbents are VERY popular here. This state is so blue that Smurfs come here to die. Somehow, I don't think I have much of a shot at President. This country is not yet ready to elect an atheist to THAT office.

[Mountain Man]

I am discussing this with a coworker (lawyer) who's liberal (from London), who's being fairly reasonable in this mess. I can at least get a fairly accurate summation of the legal aspect of all this. That the sources were biased isn't really material from a legal standpoint, though assessed credibility is.

Isn't that for the judge to decide? The fact that the FBI deliberately hid some things from the court and lied about other things is certainly legally questionable.

[Mountain Man]

Finally - a voice of reason...! someone I agree with..!

[Mountain Man]

Source: Fake News Flashback: CNN Declared Trump �Bonkers� for Saying Clinton, Dems Behind Dossier

[I]
In the months since that tweet, everything Trump suggested has been proven correct.

http://www.breitbart.com/big-journal...ehind-dossier/

© Copyright Original Source

[One Bad Pig]

Isn't that for the judge to decide? The fact that the FBI deliberately hid some things from the court and lied about other things is certainly legally questionable.

It's well established law that biased sources, even if the bias is not revealed, do not invalidate a warrant. What did they lie about?

[Mountain Man]

It's well established law that biased sources, even if the bias is not revealed, do not invalidate a warrant. What did they lie about?

Strange, the Forbes article I posted earlier appears to be offline. At any rate, that article mentioned how Steele leaked information to the press, and then the FBI deceptively presented that leaked information to the court as independent corroboration of the memo. At no point did the FBI admit that the information was unverified, and that they were banking entirely on Steele's reputation. In that case, Steele's extreme bias against Trump would seem to be extremely relevant. But again, isn't that for the judge to decide? What business did the FBI have concealing anything from the court?