The Robert Mueller Investigation

[Captainant 28,633]

1 hour ago, washparkhorn said:

Yes - it shows the length some will go to abuse civil liberties. Not a partisan issue. 

 

1 hour ago, washparkhorn said:

If they can do it to this President, they can do it to anyone - including the next Democratic President. 

Just to stop and refute these points real quick - the basis that anastasia and anastasis washparkhorn are claiming that this is FISA abuse is that it was politically motivated. At least that's the read I'm getting since they keep claiming that their defense isn't partisan - BUT - it could totally happen to the next dem president (wink wink). 

Here are excerpts of every single finding on political bias in the Executive Summary from the IG report:

Page III. On Opening the Main Investigation.

Quote

We concluded that Priestap's exercise of discretion in opening the investigation was in compliance with Department and FBI policies, and we did not find documentary or testimonial evidence that political bias or improper motivation influenced his decision.

Page IV. On Opening Four Individual Investigations of Page, Manafort, Papadapoulous and Flynn.

Quote

We did not find documentary or testimonial evidence that political bias or improper motivation influenced the decisions to open the four individual investigations.

Page VI. On FISA of Carter Page

Quote

We did not find documentary or testimonial evidence that political bias or improper motivation influenced the FBI's decision to seek FISA authority on Carter Page.

Page XVII. On Usage of Confidential Human Sources and Undercover Employees.

Quote

Finally, we also found no documentary or testimonial evidence that political bias or improper motivations influenced the FBI's decision to use CHSs or UCEs to interact with Trump campaign officials in the Crossfire Hurricane investigation.

And a Bonus on Page II. On Steele Dossier playing no role whatever in the Predication of the Investigation (shoutout to ya boi anastasia for this one)

Quote

These officials, though, did not become aware of Steele's election reporting until weeks later and we therefore determined that Steele's reports played no role in the Crossfire Hurricane opening.

Emphatic rejection, on every single point, of the Barr/Trump conspiracy that the Russia investigation - or any aspect thereof - was politically biased or motivated.

[Anastasis 23,730]

7 minutes ago, JimmyJames said:

You obviously don’t understand the standard of probable cause to obtain a warrant so why bother? I don’t argue with brick walls.  You are completely ignorant and wrong on this subject and so my posts are designed to inform the other readers of that fact. You are not my audience here. Merely the muse. Answer the questions I ask you or not. You never, ever, do and so I don’t care.  

Ok. I’ll mark you a “yes”, absent the Steele material the probable cause standard for the fisa application was met. 

Edited December 11, 2019 by Anastasis

[JimmyJames 12,271]

Repeated once again. Of course no substantive response to this. Just followed the troll playbook and ignore.

Here is the report’s conclusion. Everything else, including a certain posters fantasies, is bullshit.:

“The decision to open the Crossfire Hurricane investigation was made by the FBI's then Counterintelligence Division (CD) Assistant Director (AD), E.W. "Bill" Priestap, and reflected a consensus reached after multiple days of discussions and meetings among senior FBI officials. We concluded that AD Priestap's exercise of discretion in opening the investigation was in compliance with Department and FBI policies, and we did not find documentary or testimonial evidence that political bias or improper motivation influenced his decision. While the information in the FBI's possession at the time was limited, in light of the low threshold established by Department and FBI predication policy, we found that Crossfire Hurricane was opened for an authorized investigative purpose and with sufficient factual predication.”

 

Keep on ignoring that. 

[JimmyJames 12,271]

2 minutes ago, Anastasis said:

Ok. I’ll mark you a “yes”, absent the Steele material the probable cause standard for the fisa application was met. 

You do whatever you’re big enough to do. 

[Anastasis 23,730]

That section quoted has nothing to do with the probable cause basis of the fisa application. The distinction has been pointed out to you previously. 
 

But keep deflecting. 

[washparkhorn 9,974]

3 minutes ago, Captainant said:

 

Just to stop and refute these points real quick - the basis that anastasia and anastasis washparkhorn are claiming that this is FISA abuse is that it was politically motivated. At least that's the read I'm getting since they keep claiming that their defense isn't partisan - BUT - it could totally happen to the next dem president (wink wink). 

 

Full stop. Strawman argument. Idoicy in the lexicon of the days before this Captainasshat. 

Political motivation or not is irrelevant. They lied to a court by omission. A court with extreme powers given to it under the assumption the FBI and Justice would never shade the truth. That is the corrupt misconduct. 

Whether they hated Trump or not is irrelevant to the their actions. 

My worry about this comes from backing a candidate in 2020 who will be at odds with the neoliberal establishment that pervades both parties. If he is elected or becomes the nominee, TPTB will fight him tooth and nail. 

Stop with the straw man arguments. 

[Anastasis 23,730]

7 minutes ago, Captainant said:

And a Bonus on Page II. On Steele Dossier playing no role whatever in the Predication of the Investigation (shoutout to ya boi anastasia for this one)

Do you also contend that the Steele dossier played no role whatsoever in meeting the probable cause threshold in the fisa application? Or will you concede that the Steele material was in fact essential to obtaining the FISA approval?
 

I will concede to you that the Steele material was not used to establish the predicate for initiating the CH investigation according to the OIG findings. Based on the OIG findings that threshold is low, and was sufficiently established by the FFG material. 

[JimmyJames 12,271]

4 minutes ago, Anastasis said:

That section quoted has nothing to do with the probable cause basis of the fisa application. The distinction has been pointed out to you previously. 
 

But keep deflecting. 

So an investigation was opened with sufficient factual predication but without probable cause. Ok. You are approaching trump level doublespeak. Congrats.

[Anastasis 23,730]

Just now, JimmyJames said:

So an investigation was opened with sufficient factual predication but without probable cause. Ok. You are approaching trump level doublespeak. Congrats.

And I am the one who lacks understanding of the different issues at play here. JFC. Will somebody else please explain the distinction between the case opening predication and the probable cause used to obtain the FISA warrant to Jimmy. Brisket, wildcat, anyone? Please. Sincerely help him out. 

[JimmyJames 12,271]

2 minutes ago, Anastasis said:

And I am the one who lacks understanding of the different issues at play here. JFC. Will somebody else please explain the distinction between the case opening predication and the probable cause used to obtain the FISA warrant to Jimmy. Brisket, wildcat, anyone? Please. Sincerely help him out. 

Yes you are the only one who lacks understanding, since you have no idea what probable cause actually means. I made the mistake of arguing with a brick wall. My bad. 

[Anastasis 23,730]

47 minutes ago, Anastasis said:

So has anybody changed their prior stated opinions on this thread regarding the veracity of the Steele dossier or the probable cause basis for the FISA application based on the OIG report?

Ok. So we got jimmy1 and jimmy2, anyone else maybe care to chime in?

[JimmyJames 12,271]

29 minutes ago, Hugo Stiglitz said:

FISA ABUSE!!!!!  

Look. The trolls got to point to something. Obomba and killery abused the FISA warrant system by investigating well known saint carter Paige which obviously excuses every trump criminal act that happened after that abuse.

Lets not lose focus here people on the very important issues.

[Anastasis 23,730]

On 12/10/2019 at 6:22 PM, Anastasis said:

Hi Hugo. Have you reassessed your prior view that Steele is the hero in this whole mess?

 

[Captainant 28,633]

1 hour ago, Anastasis said:

Do you also contend that the Steele dossier played no role whatsoever in meeting the probable cause threshold in the fisa application? Or will you concede that the Steele material was in fact essential to obtaining the FISA approval?
 

I will concede to you that the Steele material was not used to establish the predicate for initiating the CH investigation according to the OIG findings. Based on the OIG findings that threshold is low, and was sufficiently established by the FFG material. 

Per the OIG report, the Steele dossier was essential to obtaining FISA approval - but so was Steele's "background and its assessment of his reliability". Now, I can certainly agree that the system needs more checks and balances and oversight, however Steele's established history, credibility, and existing status as a confidential human source were equally essential to obtaining FISA approval. It's not like the FBI just found any bit of nonsense off of 4chan or 8badmofo's posting history and treated it as gospel. 

The thing you're talking around is the credibility of the Steele dossier itself, which itself had many key portions supported by Page's own testimony. I agree that there needs to be more oversight in the process - but you don't really think that an already trusted and credible source claiming that someone who was already peripherally caught in surveilling a russian spy and who was described as "flying to Moscow more often than I do" by said russian spy in his own criminal complaint DOESN'T warrant investigation? Especially when said person traveling to Moscow more often than a russian spy suddenly appears in the campaign and foreign policy team of a rising political candidate, who at that point had literally PUBLICLY REQUESTED THAT RUSSIA FUCK WITH OUR ELECTION PROCESS??

Is the FISA system wildly under-regulated, overly-permissive to surveillance, and a pox upon our collective right to privacy? Fucking yup.

Is Carter fucking Page really the set of facts that you think best makes the case for strictly scrutinizing the FISA system?

Edited December 12, 2019 by Captainant

[washparkhorn 9,974]

2 minutes ago, Captainant said:

Is Carter fucking Page really the set of facts that you think best makes the case for strictly scrutinizing the FISA system?

Yes - since we have little to no access to FISA records in other cases; he is unpopular (despite being an FBI/CIA asset); and the potential for political abuse of the system requires a bright line. 

[Anastasis 23,730]

12 minutes ago, Captainant said:

Per the OIG report, the Steele dossier was essential to obtaining FISA approval - but so was Steele's "background and its assessment of his reliability".

The report also found this his credibility and reliability, and the value of his prior work, was overstated by the FBI. 
 

12 minutes ago, Captainant said:

Is Carter fucking Page really the set of facts that you think best makes the case for strictly scrutinizing the FISA system?

You play the cards you are dealt. The Page application is the deepest public dive into any fIsa application. And one that the fbi knew would be heavily scrutinized, and supposedly took extreme measures to prepare for that scrutiny. There were at least 17 fuck ups called out. The steele material was essential to establishing the probable cause. The Steele material was garbage. There is a whole chapter on it.

If we find such mis/malfeasance in this case, consider the fact that there is a whole corpus of surveillance applications that have received no such scrutiny. Apparently they soon will. We should all be able to agree that this is good, and long overdue. 
 

Also, I do sincerely appreciate your willingness to adjust prior positions based on the OIG reporting. 

Edited December 12, 2019 by Anastasis

[David Dennison 19,583]

3 minutes ago, washparkhorn said:

Yes - since we have little to no access to FISA records in other cases; he is unpopular (despite being an FBI/CIA asset); and the potential for political abuse of the system requires a bright line. 

That's why we have a FISA court.

[JimmyJames 12,271]

FEEESAAAHHBUUUSUH!!!

WHITHER CARTEEER PAAAGUH!!!!!

[Anastasis 23,730]

1 minute ago, David Dennison said:

That's why we have a FISA court.

Which as an ex parte proceeding under extremely secretive cloak, shielded from scrutiny, requires that the FBI exercise diligence, transparency and even handed ness. 

[washparkhorn 9,974]

3 minutes ago, David Dennison said:

That's why we have a FISA court.

That does not make a whip of sense. We have a secretive FISA Court so we don't need any oversight into filings with that court? What does that mean?

 

[Captainant 28,633]

8 minutes ago, washparkhorn said:

Yes - since we have little to no access to FISA records in other cases; he is unpopular (despite being an FBI/CIA asset); and the potential for political abuse of the system requires a bright line. 

Political abuse of the system like unilaterally withholding congressionally apportioned military aid and conditioning it's release on the announcement of political investigations?

[washparkhorn 9,974]

Answer the question. What did you mean when you said - That's why we have a FISA court.  Explain.

[Brisketexan 107,111]

That's why we have a FISA court.

It’s ok. Anastasia and washpark aren’t concerned about the entirely extra-judicial process that is now the law of the land (if there’s no enforcement against it, it’s de facto legal). They’re worried about the “rules,” utterly missing the point that right now, THERE AREN’T ANY.

It would be funny, if thinking like that wasn’t part of what is killing us.

[Hugo Stiglitz 23,367]

I think it’s great the Republicans have spent three years screaming about the Dossier while Trump’s people keep getting hauled off to prison for shit completely unrelated to the Dossier. 

[washparkhorn 9,974]

Thanks Brisket. Explain what he means for a simple mind like mine.  I will wait for your answer.

 

[Anastasis 23,730]

2 minutes ago, Hugo Stiglitz said:

I think it’s great the Republicans have spent three years screaming about the Dossier while Trump’s people keep getting hauled off to prison for shit completely unrelated to the Dossier. 

You posted about the dossier more than any other poster here. Probably myself a close second. Taking up opposite sides. Care to weigh in on the finding wrt the veracity of the dossier based on the OIG report?

[Anastasis 23,730]

3 minutes ago, washparkhorn said:

Thanks Brisket. Explain what he means for a simple mind like mine.  I will wait for your answer.

 

Don’t you see. You are really the problem with this country. 

[washparkhorn 9,974]

Of course I am. 

For Brisket and the rest of those who think the FISA abuse is no big deal - Here is a Brennan Center report issued before Trump on the FISA Court. We have a problem.

The Foreign Intelligence Surveillance (FISA) Court is no longer serving its constitutional function of providing a check on the executive branch’s ability to obtain Americans’ private communications. Dramatic shifts in technology and law have changed the role of the FISA Court since its creation in 1978 — from reviewing government applications to collect communications in specific cases, to issuing blanket approvals of sweeping data collection programs affecting millions of Americans.

Under today’s foreign intelligence surveillance system, the government’s ability to collect information about ordinary Americans’ lives has increased exponentially while judicial oversight has been reduced to near-nothingness. This report concludes that the role of today's FISA Court no longer comports with constitutional requirements, including the strictures of Article III and the Fourth Amendment. The report lays out several steps Congress should take to help restore the FISA Court’s legitimacy.

The Brennan Center report makes an enormous contribution to our understanding of that mission creep. It explains clearly the history and development of FISA from its enactment following the Church Committee’s exposure of uncontrolled domestic spying by the FBI, through the Patriot Act amendments in the turbulent wake of the 9/11 attacks, to its present form. It explains, with a simplicity and clarity accessible to the layman but supported by a level of detail and citation of authority that will satisfy students of the subject, why in its present form FISA is disturbing to civil libertarians and to constitutional scholars. And it distills its argument into plain, powerful recommendations for FISA’s amendment.

It is time, and past time, for Congress to give serious attention to the FISA problems that are so clearly documented here, and to act. The Brennan Center’s recommendations are not the only ones that have been put forth, but they are not doctrinaire, my-way-or-the-highway demands. They invite discussion, debate, and even (Heaven forfend) compromise. They need to be carefully considered.

https://www.brennancenter.org/our-work/research-reports/what-went-wrong-fisa-court

I guess the Brennan Center is the problem too. You are right brisket - the country is lost, but the culprit may be the face in the mirror.

[Hugo Stiglitz 23,367]

12 minutes ago, Anastasis said:

You posted about the dossier more than any other poster here. Probably myself a close second. Taking up opposite sides. Care to weigh in on the finding wrt the veracity of the dossier based on the OIG report?

I don’t give a shit what the OIG report said about the Dossier.  Lots of the Dossier checked out, other parts didn’t and in the grand scheme of things, the Dossier was such a tiny piece of the much larger investigation.  

What is your point?   

[FondrenRoad 4,378]

2 minutes ago, Hugo Stiglitz said:

I don’t give a shit what the OIG report said about the Dossier.  Lots of the Dossier checked out, other parts didn’t and in the grand scheme of things, the Dossier was such a tiny piece of the much larger investigation.  

What is your point?   

There is a typo on page 3 of the dossier. Therefore Trump is innocent of all possible wrongdoing forever. 

Edited December 12, 2019 by FondrenRoad

[Anastasis 23,730]

Just now, FondrenRoad said:

There is a typo on page 3 of the dossier. Therefore Trump is innocent of all possible wrongdoing. 

You didn’t read the relevant chapter either, huh?

[washparkhorn 9,974]

1 minute ago, Anastasis said:

You didn’t read the relevant chapter either, huh?

"Know Nothings" are alive and well in America and running both major parties. 

[Anastasis 23,730]

3 minutes ago, Hugo Stiglitz said:

I don’t give a shit what the OIG report said about the Dossier.  Lots of the Dossier checked out, other parts didn’t and in the grand scheme of things, the Dossier was such a tiny piece of the much larger investigation.  

What is your point?   

Well come back to this in more detail later, but the dossier played a pivotal role. It breathed renewed life into an investigation that had largely stalled out with the consensual surveillance conducted by the undercover agents. 

[Anastasis 23,730]

1 minute ago, washparkhorn said:

"Know Nothings" are alive and well in America and running both major parties. 

Tell me about it. 
 

7 minutes ago, Hugo Stiglitz said:

I don’t give a shit what the OIG report said about the Dossier.

 

[JimmyJames 12,271]

REEELEEESE DER MEMOOOO!!!!

[Anastasis 23,730]

Totallynormalbrains really showing out.

[ndawg 1,242]

11 minutes ago, washparkhorn said:

"Know Nothings" are alive and well in America and running both major parties. 

Do you understand what it means to contextualize information?

[washparkhorn 9,974]

They have become what they hate. They support Trump's refusal to reform FISA.

The weirdest thing is the Trump DOJ argued in court the program the FBI abused cannot be modified without harming the security of the nation. Yep, the administration that claims the "Deep State" is out to get it showed up in court to argue the Deep State should not have its power curtailed.

https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20191008/17514543157/fisa-court-finds-fbi-is-still-violating-fourth-amendment-with-abuse-nsa-collections.shtml

 

[washparkhorn 9,974]

Just now, ndawg said:

Do you understand what it means to contextualize information?

No tell me. Why would anyone side with Trump in his refusal to support reform of the FISA process?

[Brisketexan 107,111]

Of course I am. 
For Brisket and the rest of those who think the FISA abuse is no big deal - Here is a Brennan Center report issued before Trump on the FISA Court. We have a problem.

The Foreign Intelligence Surveillance (FISA) Court is no longer serving its constitutional function of providing a check on the executive branch’s ability to obtain Americans’ private communications. Dramatic shifts in technology and law have changed the role of the FISA Court since its creation in 1978 — from reviewing government applications to collect communications in specific cases, to issuing blanket approvals of sweeping data collection programs affecting millions of Americans.

Under today’s foreign intelligence surveillance system, the government’s ability to collect information about ordinary Americans’ lives has increased exponentially while judicial oversight has been reduced to near-nothingness. This report concludes that the role of today's FISA Court no longer comports with constitutional requirements, including the strictures of Article III and the Fourth Amendment. The report lays out several steps Congress should take to help restore the FISA Court’s legitimacy.

The Brennan Center report makes an enormous contribution to our understanding of that mission creep. It explains clearly the history and development of FISA from its enactment following the Church Committee’s exposure of uncontrolled domestic spying by the FBI, through the Patriot Act amendments in the turbulent wake of the 9/11 attacks, to its present form. It explains, with a simplicity and clarity accessible to the layman but supported by a level of detail and citation of authority that will satisfy students of the subject, why in its present form FISA is disturbing to civil libertarians and to constitutional scholars. And it distills its argument into plain, powerful recommendations for FISA’s amendment.

It is time, and past time, for Congress to give serious attention to the FISA problems that are so clearly documented here, and to act. The Brennan Center’s recommendations are not the only ones that have been put forth, but they are not doctrinaire, my-way-or-the-highway demands. They invite discussion, debate, and even (Heaven forfend) compromise. They need to be carefully considered.

https://www.brennancenter.org/our-work/research-reports/what-went-wrong-fisa-court
I guess the Brennan Center is the problem too. You are right brisket - the country is lost, but the culprit may be the face in the mirror.

Did I say FISA abuse is no big deal? Please, quote where I said that. It matters. The rules (will, hopefully someday again) matter.

But they won’t matter at all if rules no longer exist or apply. So, the concepts of priority and triage come to mind. First...let’s focus on actually HAVING the rule of law. Then, let’s focus on what those rules are and how they should work. I LOVED when those discussions were relevant. I’d like to get back there again.

But you, and the idiots at the Brennan Center, and anyone else focused on FISA, are arguing about fucking Queensberry rules when the fucking fight involves chairs, knives, and guns. When there are no rules, arguing about one of the inapplicable rules is stupid.

You really don’t realize the peril the republic is in. Your concerns will be a footnote to history. They’re irrelevant, and losing any shot at relevance with each passing day. We’re arguing philosophy, when reality is clubbing is over the head. Join the fight happening in reality. We can get back to philosophy someday...I hope.

[Anastasis 23,730]

Hey @Brisketexan can you help jimmy2 with the distinction between the predicate for the investigation and the probable cause for the FISA warrant before he stroke out?

[jimmyjazz 47,407]

2 hours ago, Anastasis said:

Ok. So we got jimmy1 and jimmy2, anyone else maybe care to chime in?

I noticed you never responded to my post.  Funny how that works.  Do you agree that many of were saying the report wasn't vetted and that it wasn't required to proceed, based on quotes by informed officials?  Horowitz corroborates.

Edited December 12, 2019 by jimmyjazz

[JimmyJames 12,271]

1 minute ago, Anastasis said:

Hey @Brisketexan can you help jimmy2 with the distinction between the predicate for the investigation and the probable cause for the FISA warrant before he stroke out?

REEEEED DA TRANSCRIIPtSSS!!!!

[Anastasis 23,730]

Just now, jimmyjazz said:

I noticed you never responded to my post.  Funny how that's work.

Sorry which post?

[jimmyjazz 47,407]

Just now, Anastasis said:

Sorry which post?

Sorry, I assume I'm either jimmy1 or jimmy2, maybe I'm jimmy3 and unaware.  I'll repeat my edited post:

I noticed you never responded to my post.  Funny how that works.  Do you agree that many of were saying the report wasn't vetted and that it wasn't required to proceed, based on quotes by informed officials?  Horowitz corroborates.

 

[David Dennison 19,583]

56 minutes ago, Anastasis said:

Which as an ex parte proceeding under extremely secretive cloak, shielded from scrutiny, requires that the FBI exercise diligence, transparency and even handed ness. 

Lobby your representative and senators. That's what the law calls for.

[JimmyJames 12,271]

1 minute ago, jimmyjazz said:

Sorry, I assume I'm either jimmy1 or jimmy2, maybe I'm jimmy3 and unaware.  I'll repeat my edited post:

I noticed you never responded to my post.  Funny how that works.  Do you agree that many of were saying the report wasn't vetted and that it wasn't required to proceed, based on quotes by informed officials?  Horowitz corroborates.

 

Apparently I’m jimmy2. Not sure about you. 

[Anastasis 23,730]

ETA For clarity jimmy1 is jimmyjazz  

You are jimmy1. I had considered jimmyDS1, but thought I would tone it down. 
 

before I respond I was giving other posters a chance to weigh in. I’d rather deal with it as a batch. Lots of posters had lots to say regarding the veracity of the Steele dossier and the probable cause. Simmer down. You’ll get served in due time. 

Edited December 12, 2019 by Anastasis

[David Dennison 19,583]

1 minute ago, Anastasis said:

You are jimmy1. I had considered jimmyDS1, but thought I would tone it down. 
 

before I respond I was giving other posters a chance to weigh in. I’d rather deal with it as a batch. Lots of posters had lots to say regarding the veracity of the Steele dossier and the probable cause. Simmer down. You’ll get served in due time. 

It's almost like you don't understand that the judge can always deny the request.

Weird.

[Anastasis 23,730]

Just now, David Dennison said:

It's almost like you don't understand that the judge can always deny the request.

Weird.

Did you read the report?