A Great Interview with a Former US Attorney Concerning Corruption in the FBI

[asaratis]

It will less than 12 minutes of your time to view and listen to this.

 

[Jackson]

But, can the lovers claim that they were not absolutely sure the facts in the dossier were bogus?

Comey: "Is that it?" Very telling.

Excellent interview.

 

[usmbguest5318]

It will less than 12 minutes of your time to view and listen to this.

Dear, God! People here won't take ten minutes to read a ~2000 word post, and you want them to take two minutes more to watch a video.

 

[Jackson]

It will less than 12 minutes of your time to view and listen to this.

Dear, God! People here won't take ten minutes to read a ~2000 word post, and you want them to take two minutes more to watch a video.

It's worth it. Great insight to the make up and protocols of the FISA court. Necessary to be informed on what is really at issue here.

 

[BuckToothMoron]

This is the type of incident that should be fully exposed, but it will take a lot of time, not to mention a lot of persistence and courage by those who carry it out. Sadly, I’m not sure if it will ever occur.

 

[Old Rocks]

What is at issue here is that people like O'Reilly and the GOP are doing Putin's work for him. Discredit the FBI and our Intel agencies. Create a situation where those agencies are busy defending themselves against baseless charges rather than protecting our nation. Then cripple the USA in any way possible, such as shutting the government down repeatedly on a false premise. From the very top. Yes, I think that there is a case of Treason here. At the very top.

 

[Old Rocks]

This is the type of incident that should be fully exposed, but it will take a lot of time, not to mention a lot of persistence and courage by those who carry it out. Sadly, I’m not sure if it will ever occur.

Oh, I think it is going to come out.

MAGA

Mueller Ain't Going Away!

 

[BuckToothMoron]

This is the type of incident that should be fully exposed, but it will take a lot of time, not to mention a lot of persistence and courage by those who carry it out. Sadly, I’m not sure if it will ever occur.

Oh, I think it is going to come out.

MAGA

Mueller Ain't Going Away!

If there is truth in what the guy interviewed says, Mueller will either find it, or become part of the problem.

 

[Jackson]

What is at issue here is that people like O'Reilly and the GOP are doing Putin's work for him. Discredit the FBI and our Intel agencies. Create a situation where those agencies are busy defending themselves against baseless charges rather than protecting our nation. Then cripple the USA in any way possible, such as shutting the government down repeatedly on a false premise. From the very top. Yes, I think that there is a case of Treason here. At the very top.

Are you telling me that, if proven thast the those in the intelligence agencies knowingly dispersed biased and very possibly invalid information, that is fine? Are you fine with Comey coming out with his decision on not applying the ACTUAL law on Hillary was acceptable? He gave the very definition of the law and said, "She didn't mean it....before he even interviewed her! But that is okay.

 

[Old Rocks]

I am telling you that when we have a person that lies every time he opens his Goddamned mouth, then says there was no collusion with the Russians, I have every reason to regard that as another lie. Especially when he fill the top advisor posts with his son, son-in-law, and daughter. And two of those repeatedly lied on their security forms concerning meeting with Russian agents. As opposed to an agency with a good reputation for veracity.

 

[usmbguest5318]

I don't know why it's so difficult for folks to comprehend that, absent the actual FISA warrant application, it is impossible to know what role the Steele dossier played in obtaining the warrant the FISC renewed three times.

• Consider McCabe's averrance to Congress [1] that without the Steele dossier, the FBI would not have been able to obtain the FISA warrant.
  
  That statement can be true in either of the following situations, but they are not the only situations in which it can be true:
  • If the Steele dossier was, at the time the FBI received it, the only source militating circumstantially for a given line of general inquiry, that the FBI pursued that path of inquiry prior to applying for a FISA warrant would make the dossier have been a critical element in the process of obtaining a FISA warrant because absent the dossier, the FBI were not considering conducting inquiries of some or all of activities/individuals noted in the dossier.
  • If unverified and verified content in the dossier were the crux of the argument that authorization for a FISA warrant is deserved.
• Consider the phrase we keep hearing/seeing in one guise or another: "...using the Steele dossier in the FISA application..."
  
  Unqualified attestations [2] about "the dossier" necessarily imply that it was the entirety or the overwhelming majority of the document's content that investigators submitted as being indicative of the FISC's condign benediction of the FBI's surveillance request. The fact of the matter is that as few as one of the dossier's attestations need have been included in the FISA warrant application, and that whatever one(s) were included had been vindicated.

The thing that far too many partisans fail to acknowledge is that, of the premises in the argument the FBI submitted to the FISC when it, on four distinct occasions from four different judges, obtained FISA warrants, we don't know what is/was the measure of materiality the Steele played in the premises/argument. Because we don't know, and we all know damn well we don't know, it's entirely irresponsible to say one way or the other what role the dossier played from that "injected" premise march down whatever "yellow brick road" most captures our attention.


Note:

1. It is worth noting that McCabe's testimony to the House Intel. Cmte. has yet to be released. Thus what precisely he did and didn't say remains known only to a small number of observers, and, quite frankly, many of those observers aren't among the most perspicacious listeners/readers, nor are they among the most representationally faithful raconteurs of information that comes their way.
2. While I cannot say who or how many folks ignore the relevance of qualifiers, both those that in statements are extant and those that are not, none of those who are careful readers and listeners.

 

[usmbguest5318]

It will less than 12 minutes of your time to view and listen to this.

Off-Topic:

Did the two of them coordinate their wardrobes before producing the video?​

 

[Jackson]

I am telling you that when we have a person that lies every time he opens his Goddamned mouth, then says there was no collusion with the Russians, I have every reason to regard that as another lie. Especially when he fill the top advisor posts with his son, son-in-law, and daughter. And two of those repeatedly lied on their security forms concerning meeting with Russian agents. As opposed to an agency with a good reputation for veracity.

When you can reply with actual facts of wrong doings, let me know.

 

[usmbguest5318]

It will less than 12 minutes of your time to view and listen to this.

Dear, God! People here won't take ten minutes to read a ~2000 word post, and you want them to take two minutes more to watch a video.

It's worth it. Great insight to the make up and protocols of the FISA court. Necessary to be informed on what is really at issue here.

It's worth it.

Off-Topic:

It's worth it to partisans who revel in speculation about what may have happened, what may have been said, who may have done what and why, etc. The fact of the matter is that unknown to the general public remain the FISA application, the FISC judges' (all four who separately issued the four warrants (one original warrant and three extensions) lines of thinking in granting their approbation, and what elements of the dossier were pivotal to the FBI's argument for obtaining the warrant and the judges' decisions/remarks/questions thereunto.​

Aside:

In the video, the bearded guy mentioned that because it's the FISC and the underlying impetus for all surveillance requests coming to the FISC is that a question of the nature and extent to which national security is at risk, lower be the bar for what constitutes sufficient cause to approve warrants to "get to the bottom" of whether there was/is indeed a risk to national security. While the guy may indeed be right in some respects, it seems to me odd that he be right.

Whereas a handful of specific parties suffer injury issuing from the commission of a non-national-security-related crime, the whole nation and, potentially, the nation's allies and citizens thereof are at risk of being in jeopardy as a result of criminal acts that compromise national security. Accordingly, I, for one, would be willing to forbear more aggressive, invasive and rapidly implemented means and modes of investigating and determining as best one can the existence of and nature and extent of any such potential.

While I don't like the notion of, say, a murder, rape or theft remaining unsolved, I like less the notion that risks to U.S. national security remain indeterminate to any extent that they need not be. I am of that mind because even were it, say, my child who was murdered or raped, I know all the same that risks to national security are "bigger than that," so to speak. Call me unduly patriotic, but I maintain that the fates of some 320M+ people is worth more than is the satisfaction I may gain from seeing caught and punished a specific abuser of my kin and kind, or even myself for that matter. Sorry, but I'm not willing to be that small or harbor petty notions otherwise.​

 

[asaratis]

What is at issue here is that people like O'Reilly and the GOP are doing Putin's work for him. Discredit the FBI and our Intel agencies. Create a situation where those agencies are busy defending themselves against baseless charges rather than protecting our nation. Then cripple the USA in any way possible, such as shutting the government down repeatedly on a false premise. From the very top. Yes, I think that there is a case of Treason here. At the very top.

What you and the Fake News Media continue to press is that Trump is attempting to discredit the entire FBI. He has issues with a few at the top only. He has expressed admiration and respect for the vast majority of FBI employees. He spoke to them at their headquarters and said that "we've got your back".

Sensible people have accepted this. Useful idiots never will do so.

 

[usmbguest5318]

Listen to what O'Reilly's guest says at ~7:45. In response to his remark about there being a higher standard, I have only to say that no such standard is extant. In the era of the FISC's conception, at least some experts feared that such a categorically ex parte structure for the FISC would raise serious Article III concerns. Thus, then-Professor (and future Judge) Laurence Silberman testified that “[a]lthough it is true that judges have traditionally issued search warrants ex parte, they have done so as part of a criminal investigative process which...for the most part, leads to a trial, a traditional adversary proceeding.” FISA surveillance, in contrast, was designed principally (if not primarily) to facilitate foreign intelligence investigations, not criminal prosecutions. Indeed, that very orientation away from ordinary law enforcement helped to allay what otherwise might have been serious Fourth Amendment (and prudent) objections to FISA’s lower probable cause standard.

• The Case for a FISA 'Special Advocate'
  Applications in the non-FISA context require probable cause to believe that the suspect committed a crime. FISA, in contrast, requires probable cause to believe that the target of the surveillance is, or is an agent of, a “foreign power.” The relaxed probable cause standard in the FISA context has been challenged as not satisfying the Fourth Amendment’s Warrant Clause. But that argument was rejected by numerous courts prior to September 11 2001, at least largely because of the “primary purpose” doctrine -- which required the government to certify that the primary purpose of a FISA warrant was foreign intelligence surveillance and not ordinary law enforcement.
• Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, Hearings on H.R. 5794, H.R. 9745, H.R. 7308 and H.R. 5632 Before the Subcomm. on Legislation of the House Permanent Select Comm. on Intelligence
  • Part 1A
  • Part 1B [You gotta love the government....they created parts A & C because part B was redacted from the original document]
  • Part 1C