Tamper Tantrum (Mueller Thread v. 17)

[Darkballs]

The statement is NOT from the organization. It's just another untrue post of yours

I said that it was the reported statements of Fusion GPS, and they are. You've posted an article about how a conservative outlet claimed to be the first request for the dossier, not that they were the first people to commission Steele for work that would later make up the dossier.

And again, this is all irrelevant because the entire history of the parties funding Steele's research was not required to include it on a warrant application. You keep ignoring that and circling around to "who paid for it first," when, like your talk of entrapment, it has no legal significance.

 

[SBJJ]

I said that it was the reported statement of Fusion GPS, and they are. You've posted an article about how a conservative outlet claimed to be the first request for the dossier, not that they were the first people to commission Steele for work that would later make up the dossier.

And again, this is all irrelevant because the entire history of the parties funding Steele's research was not required to include it on a warrant application. You keep ignoring that and circling around to "who paid for it first," when, like your talk of entrapment, it has no legal significance.

Dude. Good god. U did not even read the AP retraction story. At this point u will argue anything.

Wait. Now you are saying material information about the Dossier did not need to be disclosed in the FISA applications?

This is really what u are saying

 

[SBJJ]

The statements directly from the organization that commissioned Steele, say otherwise.

Source? The Vanity Fair article you posted does not say this.

The Vanity Fair article cites an anonymous friend of Glenn Simpson, not Fusion GPS itself:

In September 2015, as the Republican primary campaign was heating up, he was hired to compile an opposition-research dossier on Donald Trump. Who wrote the check? Simpson, always secretive, won’t reveal his client’s identity. However, according to a friend who had spoken with Simpson at the time, the funding came from a “Never Trump” Republican and not directly from the campaign war chests of any of Trump’s primary opponents.

It's a direct quote from the article. A direct quote. It literally says the same thing I am saying.

Ok Dark. Stop misleading/lying

Your Vanity Fair article does NOT support what u posted

Well anyone is welcome to search my source and see whether or not the quoted part of my text is a direct quote from the article.

The statement is NOT from the organization. It's just another untrue post of yours

I said that it was the reported statements of Fusion GPS, and they are. You've posted an article about how a conservative outlet claimed to be the first request for the dossier, not that they were the first people to commission Steele for work that would later make up the dossier.

And again, this is all irrelevant because the entire history of the parties funding Steele's research was not required to include it on a warrant application. You keep ignoring that and circling around to "who paid for it first," when, like your talk of entrapment, it has no legal significance.

Just unbelievable

I swear you don't even realize what u are posting

 

[Darkballs]

Dude. Good god. U did not even read the AP retraction story. At this point u will argue anything.

Boy, at this point just let people read the sources and make up their mind about what they say.

Wait. Now you are saying material information about the Dossier did not need to be disclosed in the FISA applications?

This is really what u are saying

No. That is categorically not what I'm saying, and this is about the 20th time you've misrepresented my position. I have never said that the whole history of who commissioned Steele, or paid for copies of his work, was material information. That is expressly the opposite of my claim.


I clearly said that the entire history of the people paying for copies of the Steele dossier, or commissioning Steele for work, was adequately represented on the warrant requirement. Meaning, they didn't have to include your entire right wing circle jerk about who paid for it and when.

If you're not going to speak to the topic and consistently misrepresent me, stop wasting my time and quoting me.

 

[SBJJ]

Boy, at this point just let people read the sources and make up their mind about what they say.



No. That is categorically not what I'm saying, and this is about the 20th time you've misrepresented my position. I have never said that the whole history of who commissioned Steele, or paid for copies of his work, was material information. That is expressly the opposite of my claim.


I clearly said that the entire history of the people paying for copies of the Steele dossier, or commissioning Steele for work, was adequately represented on the warrant requirement. Meaning, they didn't have to include your entire right wing circle jerk about who paid for it and when.

If you're not going to speak to the topic and consistently misrepresent me, stop wasting my time and quoting me.

Source for the people's that paid for copies of the Dossier

Cool. So your position is that who actually paid for the product used to get a FISA warrant is not material to the court

Sorry if u think me quoting your posts misrepresents u. They are your posts

 

[Darkballs]

Source for the people's that paid for copies of the Dossier

Your own source is about other people paying for a copy of the dossier.

Cool. So your position is that who actually paid for the product used to get a FISA warrant is not material to the court

Yes

 

[SBJJ]

Your own source is about other people paying for a copy of the dossier.



Yes

What? Then who else paid for a copy of the Dossier? Just post it

 

[Darkballs]

What? Then who else paid for a copy of the Dossier? Just post it

Your own source does. Right here:
https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/po...ired-firm-later-linked-steele-dossier-n815256
In addition to whether or not the Washington Free Beacon was the first to pay for a copy of the dossier, the rest of the article is in regards to who else paid, and who else may have paid for copies of the dossier.

But it's not like this article is the end all be all of those allegations. It has been alleged in numerous articles that many different people reached out for a copy of the dossier. Everyone from Hilary, the Clinton Foundation, the DNC, the RNC, and other Republican candidates during the primary.

As to who paid for it first, we don't know. We have statements from a third party that claim that Simpson (founder of GPS) said some anonymous deep pocket republican was the first. Then we have your source where the Washington Free Beacon claims they were not.

I don't really care who you believe, and neither of us is going to know for certain until Simpson himself goes on record. But again, this doesn't matter, because it wasn't required on the warrant application.

 

[waiguoren]

I clearly said that the entire history of the people paying for copies of the Steele dossier, or commissioning Steele for work, was adequately represented on the warrant requirement

How do you know this? Have you seen the FISC warrant application? I believe it's not been released publicly.

 

[ShadowRun]

SBJJ putting in some work here. Comey should write another book

 

[Darkballs]

How do you know this? Have you seen the FISC warrant application? I believe it's not been released publicly.

Well I trust the words of the Senate Intelligence Committee, who have read the thing. I don't trust the word of David Nunes, who admitted to not reading it. It would also be beyond common sense for a prosecutor with Mueller's experience to request a warrant with nothing but the contents of the dossier. And no one has made the claim that the Steele dossier was the only thing in the warrant. There has just been the vague accusation that since the Steele dossier may have been paid for by a Democratic agency first, the warrant must be invalid. I have never heard of a warrant being invalidated for such a reason and would welcome any case law showing otherwise.

 

[waiguoren]

I clearly said that the entire history of the people paying for copies of the Steele dossier, or commissioning Steele for work, was adequately represented on the warrant requirement.

How do you know this? Have you seen the FISC warrant application? I believe it's not been released publicly.

Well I trust the words of the Senate Intelligence Committee, who have read the thing.

Given the political stakes, can you understand why some people might not be satisfied with politicians' characterization of the warrant application?

It would also be beyond common sense for a prosecutor with Mueller's experience to request a warrant with nothing but a dossier.

Mueller was not involved in the surveillance of Carter Page. The FISC approved a warrant to surveil Page in October 2016. Mueller was not appointed as special counsel until May 2017.

 

[Joe]

hey look trump is connected to another israeli intel group. This one was at another meeting at trump tower. Its hilarious how much projecting trump does.

 

[Joe]

Another day another trump lie

 

[Darkballs]

Given the political stakes, can you understand why some people might not be satisfied with politicians' characterization of the warrant application?

I think most of motivated by partisanship, but if people are genuinely concerned, well I still think that fear is misplaced. And they still have to contend on a notion that a federal judge approved it.

Mueller was not involved in the surveillance of Carter Page. The FISC approved a warrant to surveil Page in October 2016. Mueller was not appointed as special counsel until May 2017.

The argument still stands that including only the contents of the Steele dossier in the warrant application would be a monumentally stupid move not made by anyone other than the greenest of attorneys.

 

[Strychnine]

Speaking of the Steele dossier...

"Former Director of National Intelligence James Clapper said more of the so-called Steele dossier's claims are proving to be true.
In an interview with Salon, Clapper said the dossier, part of which lays out alleged ties between the Trump campaign and Russia, has been corroborated by subsequent U.S. investigations.

"Well, some of what was in the dossier ... first of all, I need to make an important point here. We did not use the dossier as a source for the intelligence community assessment, that's point one," Clapper said.

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/poli...proving-to-be-true/ar-AAxQvGz?ocid=spartanntp

The pee tape is real IMHO.

 

[waiguoren]

I clearly said that the entire history of the people paying for copies of the Steele dossier, or commissioning Steele for work, was adequately represented on the warrant requirement.

How do you know this? Have you seen the FISC warrant application? I believe it's not been released publicly.

Well I trust the words of the Senate Intelligence Committee, who have read the thing.

Given the political stakes, can you understand why some people might not be satisfied with politicians' characterization of the warrant application?

if people are genuinely concerned, well I still think that fear is misplaced. And they still have to contend on a notion that a federal judge approved it.

The fact that a FISC judge approved a warrant tells us nothing. From its creation in 1979 to April 2017, the FISC approved 99.95% of all warrant applications. Source

The truth is that neither you nor I know if the warrant application was satifactory. To make that determination, we first need the warrant application to be declassified.

It would also be beyond common sense for a prosecutor with Mueller's experience to request a warrant with nothing but the contents of the dossier.

Mueller was not involved in the surveillance of Carter Page. The FISC approved a warrant to surveil Page in October 2016. Mueller was not appointed as special counsel until May 2017.

The argument still stands that including only the contents of the Steele dossier in the warrant application would be a monumentally stupid move not made by anyone other than the greenest of attorneys.

Who has alleged that the warrant application "included only the contents of the Steele dossier"?

 

[Darkballs]

Who has alleged that the warrant application "included only the contents of the Steele dossier"?

Well that certainly seems to be the gist of Nunes's argument. Otherwise wise why would we stress over the inclusion of the Steele dossier in the warrant application if there was anything else? The only way the dossier's inclusion means anything would be that if without it, the judge would not have found probable cause, a very low bar for a prosecutor to reach.

So you ask yourself, what other information, if any, did the judge base his decision on? The Senate Intelligence committee has mentioned plenty of additional information, and as I mentioned before, it would be highly unlikely for a prosecutor to not have included much more.

On the other side we have Nunes, who when asked point blank whether or not the 400 page warrant application contained anything else in addition to the Steele dossier, replied that he hadn't read it.

That, to me, is a very weak case for arguing against the validity of the warrant.

 

[waiguoren]

It would also be beyond common sense for a prosecutor with Mueller's experience to request a warrant with nothing but the contents of the dossier.

Mueller was not involved in the surveillance of Carter Page. The FISC approved a warrant to surveil Page in October 2016. Mueller was not appointed as special counsel until May 2017.

The argument still stands that including only the contents of the Steele dossier in the warrant application would be a monumentally stupid move not made by anyone other than the greenest of attorneys.

Who has alleged that the warrant application "included only the contents of the Steele dossier"?

Well that certainly seems to be the gist of Nunes's argument. Otherwise wise why would we stress over the inclusion of the Steele dossier in the warrant application if there was anything else?

That is not the "gist of Nunes's argument."

The gist of Nunes's argument is:
1) the Steele dossier formed an "essential part" of the FISC application to surveil Carter Page
2) the FBI/DOJ acted improperly by failing to disclose on the FISC warrant application that Hillary Clinton and the DNC funded the Steele dossier

As evidence for 1), Nunes cites Andrew McCabe's still-classified testimony before the House Intelligence Committee:

Furthermore, Deputy Director McCabe testified before the Committee in December 2017 that no surveillance warrant would have been sought from the FISC without the Steele dossier information.

For reference, Nunes's full memo is here.

 

[waiguoren]

The only way the dossier's inclusion means anything would be that if without it, the judge would not have found probable cause, a very low bar for a prosecutor to reach.

So you ask yourself, what other information, if any, did the judge base his decision on? The Senate Intelligence committee has mentioned plenty of additional information, and as I mentioned before, it would be highly unlikely for a prosecutor to not have included much more.

On the other side we have Nunes, who when asked point blank whether or not the 400 page warrant application contained anything else in addition to the Steele dossier, replied that he hadn't read it.

That, to me, is a very weak case for arguing against the validity of the warrant.

I see that you added all this to your original response.

There is not much to respond to, as your statements are almost entirely speculative.

The Senate Intelligence committee has mentioned plenty of additional information

What are you referring to here? I'm guessing you meant the Democrats in the House Intelligence Committee, not the Senate.