A Leaked Democratic Response to Nunes Memo (But Not “the Memo”)

[HomerThompson]

Lol at former liberals straight out defending a police state

 

[Fawlty]

Lol at former liberals straight out defending a police state

*wide powers of investigation as they relate to actions concurrent with nefarious foreign state influence.

Yep.

 

[SBJJ]

*wide powers of investigation as they relate to actions concurrent with nefarious foreign state influence.

Yep.

Tapping a dude for 5 years and getting nothing.

We now know the rules! Trump campaign can feed lies to a third party. Third Party can take the lies to FBI. FBI can get a warrant without divulging that the info came from Trump campaign.

Cool

 

[SBJJ]

Slow down. You asked why they didn't arrest him. I explained that you keep him under surveillance, instead of arresting him, to find other bad actors. None of that changes the behavior that warranted the initial surveillance or the ongoing surveillance.

Might find someone else do wrongdoing is not good enough to re up surveillance

 

[panamaican]

Might find someone else do wrongdoing is not good enough to re up surveillance

Once they're under surveillance, if they keep doing wrongdoing then that's the probably cause to re up surveillance.

Let me use a simple example. You find a low level drug dealer dealing drugs. You get probably cause to tap his phone based on his drug dealing. While you tap his phone you learn about other drug dealers. It's good information and you learn about more criminals. Well, your wiretap runs out and you have to stop. But if the guy is still dealing drugs then you have probable cause to continue tapping his phone. If he has stopped dealing drugs, you no longer have probable cause to keep tapping his phone.

But you don't arrest him because as long as he's engaged in the type of criminal behavior that warrants the surveillance, you have probable cause to continue the surveillance and you continue to learn about his criminal connections. With the goal that you let this low level criminal continue his criminal behavior until you can roll up the whole criminal enterprise. Arresting him as soon as you find him dealing drugs might mean losing out on valuable information. Once he stops his criminal activity, you can arrest him then.

 

[HomerThompson]

Once they're under surveillance, if they keep doing wrongdoing then that's the probably cause to re up surveillance.

Let me use a simple example. You find a low level drug dealer dealing drugs. You get probably cause to tap his phone based on his drug dealing. While you tap his phone you learn about other drug dealers. It's good information and you learn about more criminals. Well, your wiretap runs out and you have to stop. But if the guy is still dealing drugs then you have probable cause to continue tapping his phone. If he has stopped dealing drugs, you no longer have probable cause to keep tapping his phone.

But you don't arrest him because as long as he's engaged in the type of criminal behavior that warrants the surveillance, you have probable cause to continue the surveillance and you continue to learn about his criminal connections. With the goal that you let this low level criminal continue his criminal behavior until you can roll up the whole criminal enterprise. Arresting him as soon as you find him dealing drugs might mean losing out on valuable information. Once he stops his criminal activity, you can arrest him then.

It's like he never even watched Season 1 of The Wire. Baffling.

 

[SBJJ]

Once they're under surveillance, if they keep doing wrongdoing then that's the probably cause to re up surveillance.

Let me use a simple example. You find a low level drug dealer dealing drugs. You get probably cause to tap his phone based on his drug dealing. While you tap his phone you learn about other drug dealers. It's good information and you learn about more criminals. Well, your wiretap runs out and you have to stop. But if the guy is still dealing drugs then you have probable cause to continue tapping his phone. If he has stopped dealing drugs, you no longer have probable cause to keep tapping his phone.

But you don't arrest him because as long as he's engaged in the type of criminal behavior that warrants the surveillance, you have probable cause to continue the surveillance and you continue to learn about his criminal connections. With the goal that you let this low level criminal continue his criminal behavior until you can roll up the whole criminal enterprise. Arresting him as soon as you find him dealing drugs might mean losing out on valuable information. Once he stops his criminal activity, you can arrest him then.

So your theory is Page has been doing all this wrongdoing but the Feds have ignored it for 5 years in order to catch the Kingpin?

And none of this leaked out?

So at what point is the FBI ever overstepping? If it comes out Page never broke a law would you then admit the FBI was wrong? If it comes out the Dossier was the primary source for the warrant would that be bad

I guess my point is. To some in here is there ANYTHING the FBI could do you would find wrong

 

[SBJJ]

Also. Gowdy saw the FISA request. And seems to want it released. I highly doubt there is evidence leading up the channel and he's ok with it being released

 

[HomerThompson]

So your theory is Page has been doing all this wrongdoing but the Feds have ignored it for 5 years in order to catch the Kingpin?

The initial FISA warrant was applied for, and granted, in 2016.

 

[panamaican]

So your theory is Page has been doing all this wrongdoing but the Feds have ignored it for 5 years in order to catch the Kingpin?

And none of this leaked out?

So at what point is the FBI ever overstepping? If it comes out Page never broke a law would you then admit the FBI was wrong? If it comes out the Dossier was the primary source for the warrant would that be bad

I guess my point is. To some in here is there ANYTHING the FBI could do you would find wrong

Of course none of it leaked out. The FISA court has been around since the 1970's. How often do you hear about any of it? The whole point of the court is to not put their business into the public space.

You don't understand probable cause if you think the validity of a warrant is based on if someone actually broke a law. A warrant is based on probable cause (reasonable grounds to investigate), not proof of actual criminal action. That part still has to be proven in court before a judge and jury.

For example - if the FBI lied in their warrant application that would be wrong because it's sworn document. If the judge made a grievous error in granting the warrant, that would be wrong but it wouldn't be the FBI's wrong, it would be the judge's.

Moving to the dossier - the dossier has to be proven false and the FBI has to have good reason to believe it is false before it's use in the warrant application is problematic. It's like a police officer saying that some kid is a drug dealer and wants a warrant to search his house. Well, the officer has to present evidence for why he believes the kid is dealing. The officer doesn't have to be right as to whether or not the kid is dealing or be certain that there are drugs in the house. He just has to have enough evidence to justify digging deeper, the search of the house. If the search turns up nothing, it doesn't mean the officer was wrong to seek the warrant. It just means that he was wrong about drugs in the house. 2 different things.

So if the FBI thought the dossier was bullshit but still included it, that's a bad thing. But if the FBI thought some important parts of it were true and justified looking deeper, there's nothing wrong with that.

This is why the GOP leak was such a stupid thing to do because there are people who have no idea how probable cause, warrants, criminal investigations work weighing in on whether or not the FBI did something wrong.

 

[Dolomite]

"Sidney Blumenthal ?!", She nearly shrieked.

And he was all like, "You're gettin' real warm there. Really warm. Uh-huh. Yeah."

 

[TheComebackKid]

Of course none of it leaked out. The FISA court has been around since the 1970's. How often do you hear about any of it? The whole point of the court is to not put their business into the public space.

You don't understand probable cause if you think the validity of a warrant is based on if someone actually broke a law. A warrant is based on probable cause (reasonable grounds to investigate), not proof of actual criminal action. That part still has to be proven in court before a judge and jury.

For example - if the FBI lied in their warrant application that would be wrong because it's sworn document. If the judge made a grievous error in granting the warrant, that would be wrong but it wouldn't be the FBI's wrong, it would be the judge's.

Moving to the dossier - the dossier has to be proven false and the FBI has to have good reason to believe it is false before it's use in the warrant application is problematic. It's like a police officer saying that some kid is a drug dealer and wants a warrant to search his house. Well, the officer has to present evidence for why he believes the kid is dealing. The officer doesn't have to be right as to whether or not the kid is dealing or be certain that there are drugs in the house. He just has to have enough evidence to justify digging deeper, the search of the house. If the search turns up nothing, it doesn't mean the officer was wrong to seek the warrant. It just means that he was wrong about drugs in the house. 2 different things.

So if the FBI thought the dossier was bullshit but still included it, that's a bad thing. But if the FBI thought some important parts of it were true and justified looking deeper, there's nothing wrong with that.

This is why the GOP leak was such a stupid thing to do because there are people who have no idea how probable cause, warrants, criminal investigations work weighing in on whether or not the FBI did something wrong.

This is politics. All this memo has to do is convince half the country that Trump was being set up and it will discredit the Mueller investigation and any charges it brings. It will also give Trump the political cover to go ahead and fire people if he wants. The memo seems to have worked.

 

[panamaican]

This is politics. All this memo has to do is convince half the country that Trump was being set up and it will discredit the Mueller investigation and any charges it brings. It will also give Trump the political cover to go ahead and fire people if he wants. The memo seems to have worked.

Correct, it's politics. Undermining our investigative agency by convincing people who don't know anything about the subject that something bad must have happened. Who cares about the importance of belief in your institutions when it comes to government stability if you can win transitory political points. Bunch of fucktards who can't think beyond the next headline.

 

[EZShrimpn]

Correct, it's politics. Undermining our investigative agency by convincing people who don't know anything about the subject that something bad must have happened. Who cares about the importance of belief in your institutions when it comes to government stability if you can win transitory political points. Bunch of fucktards who can't think beyond the next headline.

Yeah the stability of government is really what you're concerned about when you are playing with fire by attempting to undo the votes of tens of millions of people on the basis of vague innuendo and abuse of governmental authority while basically telling them "Do somethin about it then."

Also lol at the idea of undermining our giant ass surveillance state. I think the Onion covered that one pretty well.

 

[TheComebackKid]

Correct, it's politics. Undermining our investigative agency by convincing people who don't know anything about the subject that something bad must have happened. Who cares about the importance of belief in your institutions when it comes to government stability if you can win transitory political points. Bunch of fucktards who can't think beyond the next headline.

Well its pretty clear something bad happened. But something being pretty clear and being able to be proven in a courtroom are two different things. But...good thing this is politics and not a courtroom. The public can now see what has clearly happened and have justifiably lost belief in the heads of our institutions who are scheming to take down a sitting president. Acceptance is the first step to recovery.

 

[lfd0311]

So, you are ditching the whole "Trump supporter" straw man and falling back to another fox hole?

This is next level retardation right here. Creating a strawman by claiming that I created a strawman. Were you shooting for shitposting bonus points or something? I didn't create a strawman, Skippy, I asked you a direct question, you in turn created a strawman to dodge it. Nice try though.

I will go back to my original response to your McCabe non-sequitur "you are like a drunk that walked into a conversation and makes a fool of himself. Homeboy was talking about Democrats being slimy, so what the fuck are you on about with McCabe?"

And I will go back to my original response to that, his wife ran for office as a Democrat, and being a Republican automatically makes him a Trump Supporter right? You can attempt to play bullshit word games all day, it won't change the fact that you're dodging direct questions like it's your job.

Actually, okay Lenny, sure McCabe could have been "working against Trump on behalf of Clinton," and Ted Cruz's dad may have helped assassinate JFK, the problem is there is no evidence for either of those things. Not to mention that his wife was running for office in 2015, and the Russia investigation didn't start until 2016.

What was that you said about creating strawmen? That's.... That's bad in your book, right?

Given your penchant for FBI is out to get Trump conspiracy theories

Yet another Strawman in just this post!! You're on a roll dude. Being a hypocrite must just be your deal.

 

[panamaican]

Yeah the stability of government is really what you're concerned about when you are playing with fire by attempting to undo the votes of tens of millions of people on the basis of vague innuendo and abuse of governmental authority while basically telling them "Do somethin about it then."

Also lol at the idea of undermining our giant ass surveillance state. I think the Onion covered that one pretty well.

Yes, the stability of government is what you're concerned about when you have actionable evidence that a foreign power exercised significant influence in your elections (that's not a partisan opinion, 99% of Congress believe it to be true based on their knowledge of the facts).

Determining whether or not a political candidate or political campaign was knowingly complicit in that foreign power's activities is probably the most important thing you can do. If you can't ensure the sanctity of your elections, the other stuff doesn't matter.

 

[Cake4Breakfast]

This is next level retardation right here. Creating a strawman by claiming that I created a strawman. Were you shooting for shitposting bonus points or something? I didn't create a strawman, Skippy, I asked you a direct question, you in turn created a strawman to dodge it. Nice try though.



And I will go back to my original response to that, his wife ran for office as a Democrat, and being a Republican automatically makes him a Trump Supporter right? You can attempt to play bullshit word games all day, it won't change the fact that you're dodging direct questions like it's your job.


What was that you said about creating strawmen? That's.... That's bad in your book, right?



Yet another Strawman in just this post!! You're on a roll dude. Being a hypocrite must just be your deal.

LOL, Lenny, I quoted YOUR straw man, just because I quote your straw man doesn't make it my straw man (and it is painfully clear from your subsequent posts that you don't know what a straw man is. We can start a gofundme for you to take some junior college courses so you can stop embarrassing yourself on Sherdog, as we know you are not capable of doing internet research on your own). Furthermore, by going back to your "original response," you use the same fucking straw man again.<Lmaoo><45>

And no, I didn't dodge your non sequitur of a question Lenny, I answered it (just because you can't grasp something so simple doesn't make it a "word game") when I said that it is possible that he was corrupt, but that there is no evidence to support your accusations, and that beyond that, the time line doesn't match up. You really shouldn't be drinking this heavily before noon Lenny, you should be putting that retard strength to some use.

 

[EZShrimpn]

Yes, the stability of government is what you're concerned about when you have actionable evidence that a foreign power exercised significant influence in your elections (that's not a partisan opinion, 99% of Congress believe it to be true based on their knowledge of the facts).

Determining whether or not a political candidate or political campaign was knowingly complicit in that foreign power's activities is probably the most important thing you can do. If you can't ensure the sanctity of your elections, the other stuff doesn't matter.

So you're saying we need Voter I.D.

 

[panamaican]

So you're saying we need Voter I.D.

That's a left field change of topic. Nothing we're learning about foreign power interference has anything to do with voter I.D. What we've been learning about is strategic voter manipulation via information leaks and social media campaigns designed to play upon stereotypes and pitting Americans against Americans by undermining trust in each other.

Your reference to voter ID just demonstrates how effective they have been. The current voter ID argument is predicated upon the assumption that other Americans are cheating and lying (even though there's almost zero evidence of that occurring). It's essentially based on convincing some Americans to stop trusting other Americans.

It's unfortunate that you've succumbed to such manipulation and no longer trust your fellow America.