Political Forums  

Go Back   Defending The Truth Political Forum > Political Forum > Current Events

Current Events Current Events Forum - Latest political news and events


Thanks Tree41Thanks
Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Display Modes
Old May 13th, 2018, 01:55 PM   #41
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2015
Location: Lehigh Valley Pa.,USA
Posts: 8,165
Quote:
Originally Posted by LongWinded View Post
Links?

http://r.search.yahoo.com/_ylt=AwrBT...SrhduJ0EwEgNI-


Why It’s A Big Problem If The FISA Court Relied On Steele’s Hearsay To Grant A Surveillance Order

The Trump dossier allegations came from unnamed Russian sources -- not Christopher Steele or other known informants. That's a big problem.
Margot Cleveland
By Margot Cleveland
February 14, 2018

The release of Republican Sens. Chuck Grassley and Lindsey Graham’s criminal referral of Christopher Steele to the FBI has amplified concerns the Obama administration abused the FISA process to obtain permission to spy on Trump campaign associate Carter Page. The letter confirmed and expounded on allegations of the abuse in the memo released by the House Intelligence Committee, and has been well covered, even if the major media tried to downplay its contents.

Andrew McCarthy, former assistant U.S. attorney, laid out the details of the potential abuses in a devastating weekend column for National Review that is a must-read. One important thread meriting further coverage remains, though, because it destroys the Democrats’ continued efforts to downplay both the memo and the criminal referral.

McCarthy pointed out in his column that the government must establish “the reliability of the informants” of the information they present to the FISA court as grounds for a warrant. While the government built a case around Steele’s reliability (who compiled the dossier on President Trump), ultimately he was not the source of the facts — those were anonymous Russians.

“As I outlined at greater length last week (here, in section C), in applying for a warrant, the government must establish the reliability of the informants who witnessed the alleged facts claimed to support a probable-cause finding,” McCarthy wrote. “Steele was not one of those witnesses. He is not the source of the facts. He is the purveyor of the sources — anonymous Russians, much of whose alleged information is based on hearsay, sometimes multiple steps removed from direct knowledge.”

If the FISA court did rely on Steele’s credibility in granting the warrant to spy on Page, and didn’t require the FBI to speak to the credibility of Steele’s unnamed Russian sources, effectively allowing hearsay as part of their case, that’s problematic. Here’s why.

To obtain a FISA court order for electronic surveillance for a United States citizen, FISA requires the federal government to establish that there is probable cause to believe the target is “an agent of a foreign power” who is engaged in “activities involve or may involve a violation of the criminal statutes of the United States.” The Grassley-Graham memo stressed that the FISA applications “relied heavily on Mr. Steele’s dossier claims,” and “the bulk of the application consists of allegations against Page that were disclosed to the FBI by Mr. Steele and are also outlined in the Steele dossier.”

The dossier’s allegations against Page came from the unnamed Russian sources — not Steele or other known informants. We know that because BuzzFeed published the Steele dossier in full.
McCarthy has hammered this point for the last week, and it’s been largely ignored. One critic of the Republican memo did respond, though. University of Southern California law professor Orin Kerr addressed McCarthy’s argument on Twitter.

Andrew says it is ‘truly outrageous’ ‘that critics of the Nunes memo ‘don’t — or won’t’ see the true problem with the Page affidavit: Anything Steele said was hearsay based on his sources [and] we don’t know Steele’s sources. Here’s why I think that criticism is misplaced. On one hand, Andrew is surely right that double hearsay can weaken the evidentiary value of an informant’s report. If informant A didn’t actually see a drug buy, but just heard from B that it happened, A’s report on what B told him is much weaker than if A saw it himself. That point goes to how much cause Steele provided, not whether there was ‘abuse’ of the FISA law.

But there are two big problems with trying to invoke that point here. The first is that it only goes to the relative weight of relying on Steele’s report. I think we all agree that Steele’s report would have a stronger basis if Steele was actually in the room with Vladimir Putin & discussed Trump with Putin. … Second, the fact that the Steele dossier relied on double hearsay is obvious from the nature of the report and already factored in by anyone trying to assess its credibility. What makes Steele credible, to the extent he is, is a particular understanding of the strength and reliability of his intel sources. The fact that they are unknown to us doesn’t mean they can’t be credible. See Illinois v. Gates, overturning Spinelli v. US’s informant test.

Kerr’s argument was weak before the release of the Grassley-Graham memo, but is now even more so in light of the Steele criminal referral, because we now know that the FISA application relied heavily on Steele’s credibility and apparently did not provide additional information corroborating the allegations. This makes the “Illinois v. Gates” argument Kerr is making here fatal.

In Gates, the Supreme Court held that whether an informant’s tip establishes probable cause is determined based on the “totality of the circumstances,” which considers the “informant’s ‘veracity,’ ‘reliability,’ and ‘basis of knowledge,’” and asks whether, as a “common sense, practical question there is probable cause.” Gates also made clear that “[s]tatements from an informant of unknown reliability may in certain instances serve to establish probable cause if, under the totality of the circumstances, a reasonable person might consider that the statements are worthy of credence.”

Or in the words of Kerr, the fact that Steele’s sources are “unknown to us doesn’t mean they can’t be credible.” True enough. But, following the release of the Grassley-Graham memo, that’s actually irrelevant.

Steele clearly qualified as an expert in espionage and had “a particular understanding of the strength and reliability of his intel sources,” as Kerr put it. But in the dossier, Steele did not vouchsafe for the credibility of his informants. And even assuming he had, courts hold that conclusory statements that informants are “believed to be reliable sources,” “standing alone without any supporting factual information, merit absolutely no weight and that information obtained from a reliable source must be treated as information obtained from an informant of unknown reliability.”

The Steele dossier lacks supporting information bolstering the credibility of his sources, and thus any assessment by Steele that the Russian informants were credible would be entitled to no weight by the FISA court. That would not necessarily doom the FISA court’s reliance on Steele’s assertions, though, if there were “a sufficient basis to sustain the probable cause finding under the totality of the circumstances.” But to find probable cause in a case where the informant is of unknown reliability, “courts insist that the affidavit contain substantial independent police corroboration.”

However, as noted above, the FISA application “appears to contain no additional information corroborating the dossier allegations against Mr. Page.” Under these circumstances, as a matter of law, the FISA court’s surveillance order cannot withstand scrutiny.

That of course assumes the Nunes memo and Grassley-Graham criminal referral accurately assessed the totality of the evidence presented to the FISA court and that Steele’s dossier served as the linchpin of the case. Kerr makes a fair point that to judge whether there is probable cause you need to see all the evidence. But I see no reason to doubt Grassley and Graham’s assertion that Steele’s statements and the dossier served as the bulk of the FISA application.

Further, as I explained last week, the legal weeds of materiality and probable cause are really irrelevant because the question is of oversight, not of the admissibility of evidence. Even assuming the Republicans had the worst of motives in exposing the deficiencies in the FISA process, the disclosures serve the public good. Hopefully, that’s something all critics of FISA can come to agree upon.


Margot Cleveland is a senior contributor to The Federalist. Cleveland served nearly 25 years as a permanent law clerk to a federal appellate judge and is a former full-time faculty member and current adjunct instructor at the college of business at the University of Notre Dame.

Last edited by Jimgorn; May 13th, 2018 at 01:58 PM.
Jimgorn is offline  
Old May 13th, 2018, 01:59 PM   #42
RNG
Senior Member
 
RNG's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2013
Location: Between everywhere
Posts: 29,672
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jimgorn View Post
http://r.search.yahoo.com/_ylt=AwrBT...SrhduJ0EwEgNI-


Why It’s A Big Problem If The FISA Court Relied On Steele’s Hearsay To Grant A Surveillance Order

The Trump dossier allegations came from unnamed Russian sources -- not Christopher Steele or other known informants. That's a big problem.
Margot Cleveland
By Margot Cleveland
February 14, 2018

<snip>
Op-ed from a rabid conservative. Big deal.

Google her.
Thanks from Howey
RNG is offline  
Old May 13th, 2018, 02:00 PM   #43
Senior Member
 
LongWinded's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2014
Location: United States
Posts: 11,878
All that is is an "if". That's not a fact. And the FISA court did NOT lean on the Steel Dossier. They had Flynn NOT reporting himself as an agent for Turkey. Pappadopulos told an Australian ambassador that Russia was helping Trump win the election. THAT information was turned over the FBI by the ambassador. Those in Trump's campaign were all red flags. Carter Page had been under a FISA warrant since 2013 when he ADMITTED to being a Russian agent. He was involved in espionage investigations. The renewal , the THIRD renewal, the FBI got on him in 2016 was BECAUSE the FBI saw that Russia was interferring with our elections.
LongWinded is offline  
Old May 13th, 2018, 02:10 PM   #44
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2015
Location: Lehigh Valley Pa.,USA
Posts: 8,165
Quote:
Originally Posted by LongWinded View Post
Links?
http://r.search.yahoo.com/_ylt=AwrBT...Ty21weVPOtYQk-

Third, the FISA warrant application cited as corroborating evidence an article in Yahoo News written by Michael Isikoff that was published on Sept. 23, 2016 and focused on a trip to Moscow made by Page in July 2016.

But that Yahoo News article couldn’t really be considered “corroboration” of the dossier compiled by Steele, as it was revealed that Steele himself had provided the information upon which this article was based to Isikoff. This tactic is known as circular sourcing, or making a single source of information appear as though it is coming from multiple independent sources.
Jimgorn is offline  
Old May 13th, 2018, 02:17 PM   #45
Senior Member
 
LongWinded's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2014
Location: United States
Posts: 11,878
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jimgorn View Post
http://r.search.yahoo.com/_ylt=AwrBT...Ty21weVPOtYQk-

Third, the FISA warrant application cited as corroborating evidence an article in Yahoo News written by Michael Isikoff that was published on Sept. 23, 2016 and focused on a trip to Moscow made by Page in July 2016.

But that Yahoo News article couldn’t really be considered “corroboration” of the dossier compiled by Steele, as it was revealed that Steele himself had provided the information upon which this article was based to Isikoff. This tactic is known as circular sourcing, or making a single source of information appear as though it is coming from multiple independent sources.

Michael Isikoff is not privileged to any information on the FISA warrant which was FOR Carter Page and just a third RENEWAL. The FISA warrant issue of the Steele Dossier would NOT even show up...as the Dossier was collected on Trump and HIS many dealings with Russia, including money laundering, and was paid for by GPS Fusion.

Sorry, you have no evidence to support your opinion.
LongWinded is offline  
Old May 13th, 2018, 02:18 PM   #46
Senior Member
 
LongWinded's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2014
Location: United States
Posts: 11,878
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jimgorn View Post
http://r.search.yahoo.com/_ylt=AwrBT...Ty21weVPOtYQk-

Third, the FISA warrant application cited as corroborating evidence an article in Yahoo News written by Michael Isikoff that was published on Sept. 23, 2016 and focused on a trip to Moscow made by Page in July 2016.

But that Yahoo News article couldn’t really be considered “corroboration” of the dossier compiled by Steele, as it was revealed that Steele himself had provided the information upon which this article was based to Isikoff. This tactic is known as circular sourcing, or making a single source of information appear as though it is coming from multiple independent sources.
It's not from yahoo news. It's from the Conservative Tribune and the story was done by Ben someone. What a deceptive poster you are. Is that because you don't have any truth to back up your opinions?

https://www.westernjournal.com/ct/5-...rom-fisa-memo/
LongWinded is offline  
Old May 13th, 2018, 02:20 PM   #47
Member
 
Howey's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2016
Location: Florida
Posts: 91
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jimgorn View Post
http://r.search.yahoo.com/_ylt=AwrBT...Ty21weVPOtYQk-

Third, the FISA warrant application cited as corroborating evidence an article in Yahoo News written by Michael Isikoff that was published on Sept. 23, 2016 and focused on a trip to Moscow made by Page in July 2016.

But that Yahoo News article couldn’t really be considered “corroboration” of the dossier compiled by Steele, as it was revealed that Steele himself had provided the information upon which this article was based to Isikoff. This tactic is known as circular sourcing, or making a single source of information appear as though it is coming from multiple independent sources.
The Federalist and The Conservative Tribune?

Really?

You don't know me but may I suggest you quit the extreme right wing biased news sites?
Thanks from LongWinded
Howey is offline  
Old May 13th, 2018, 02:21 PM   #48
Member
 
Howey's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2016
Location: Florida
Posts: 91
The Conservative Tribune:

https://www.snopes.com/tag/conservative-tribune/
Thanks from RNG
Howey is offline  
Old May 13th, 2018, 02:23 PM   #49
Senior Member
 
LongWinded's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2014
Location: United States
Posts: 11,878
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jimgorn View Post
http://r.search.yahoo.com/_ylt=AwrBT...SrhduJ0EwEgNI-


Why It’s A Big Problem If The FISA Court Relied On Steele’s Hearsay To Grant A Surveillance Order

The Trump dossier allegations came from unnamed Russian sources -- not Christopher Steele or other known informants. That's a big problem.
Margot Cleveland
By Margot Cleveland
February 14, 2018

The release of Republican Sens. Chuck Grassley and Lindsey Graham’s criminal referral of Christopher Steele to the FBI has amplified concerns the Obama administration abused the FISA process to obtain permission to spy on Trump campaign associate Carter Page. The letter confirmed and expounded on allegations of the abuse in the memo released by the House Intelligence Committee, and has been well covered, even if the major media tried to downplay its contents.

Andrew McCarthy, former assistant U.S. attorney, laid out the details of the potential abuses in a devastating weekend column for National Review that is a must-read. One important thread meriting further coverage remains, though, because it destroys the Democrats’ continued efforts to downplay both the memo and the criminal referral.

McCarthy pointed out in his column that the government must establish “the reliability of the informants” of the information they present to the FISA court as grounds for a warrant. While the government built a case around Steele’s reliability (who compiled the dossier on President Trump), ultimately he was not the source of the facts — those were anonymous Russians.

“As I outlined at greater length last week (here, in section C), in applying for a warrant, the government must establish the reliability of the informants who witnessed the alleged facts claimed to support a probable-cause finding,” McCarthy wrote. “Steele was not one of those witnesses. He is not the source of the facts. He is the purveyor of the sources — anonymous Russians, much of whose alleged information is based on hearsay, sometimes multiple steps removed from direct knowledge.”

If the FISA court did rely on Steele’s credibility in granting the warrant to spy on Page, and didn’t require the FBI to speak to the credibility of Steele’s unnamed Russian sources, effectively allowing hearsay as part of their case, that’s problematic. Here’s why.

To obtain a FISA court order for electronic surveillance for a United States citizen, FISA requires the federal government to establish that there is probable cause to believe the target is “an agent of a foreign power” who is engaged in “activities involve or may involve a violation of the criminal statutes of the United States.” The Grassley-Graham memo stressed that the FISA applications “relied heavily on Mr. Steele’s dossier claims,” and “the bulk of the application consists of allegations against Page that were disclosed to the FBI by Mr. Steele and are also outlined in the Steele dossier.”

The dossier’s allegations against Page came from the unnamed Russian sources — not Steele or other known informants. We know that because BuzzFeed published the Steele dossier in full.
McCarthy has hammered this point for the last week, and it’s been largely ignored. One critic of the Republican memo did respond, though. University of Southern California law professor Orin Kerr addressed McCarthy’s argument on Twitter.

Andrew says it is ‘truly outrageous’ ‘that critics of the Nunes memo ‘don’t — or won’t’ see the true problem with the Page affidavit: Anything Steele said was hearsay based on his sources [and] we don’t know Steele’s sources. Here’s why I think that criticism is misplaced. On one hand, Andrew is surely right that double hearsay can weaken the evidentiary value of an informant’s report. If informant A didn’t actually see a drug buy, but just heard from B that it happened, A’s report on what B told him is much weaker than if A saw it himself. That point goes to how much cause Steele provided, not whether there was ‘abuse’ of the FISA law.

But there are two big problems with trying to invoke that point here. The first is that it only goes to the relative weight of relying on Steele’s report. I think we all agree that Steele’s report would have a stronger basis if Steele was actually in the room with Vladimir Putin & discussed Trump with Putin. … Second, the fact that the Steele dossier relied on double hearsay is obvious from the nature of the report and already factored in by anyone trying to assess its credibility. What makes Steele credible, to the extent he is, is a particular understanding of the strength and reliability of his intel sources. The fact that they are unknown to us doesn’t mean they can’t be credible. See Illinois v. Gates, overturning Spinelli v. US’s informant test.

Kerr’s argument was weak before the release of the Grassley-Graham memo, but is now even more so in light of the Steele criminal referral, because we now know that the FISA application relied heavily on Steele’s credibility and apparently did not provide additional information corroborating the allegations. This makes the “Illinois v. Gates” argument Kerr is making here fatal.

In Gates, the Supreme Court held that whether an informant’s tip establishes probable cause is determined based on the “totality of the circumstances,” which considers the “informant’s ‘veracity,’ ‘reliability,’ and ‘basis of knowledge,’” and asks whether, as a “common sense, practical question there is probable cause.” Gates also made clear that “[s]tatements from an informant of unknown reliability may in certain instances serve to establish probable cause if, under the totality of the circumstances, a reasonable person might consider that the statements are worthy of credence.”

Or in the words of Kerr, the fact that Steele’s sources are “unknown to us doesn’t mean they can’t be credible.” True enough. But, following the release of the Grassley-Graham memo, that’s actually irrelevant.

Steele clearly qualified as an expert in espionage and had “a particular understanding of the strength and reliability of his intel sources,” as Kerr put it. But in the dossier, Steele did not vouchsafe for the credibility of his informants. And even assuming he had, courts hold that conclusory statements that informants are “believed to be reliable sources,” “standing alone without any supporting factual information, merit absolutely no weight and that information obtained from a reliable source must be treated as information obtained from an informant of unknown reliability.”

The Steele dossier lacks supporting information bolstering the credibility of his sources, and thus any assessment by Steele that the Russian informants were credible would be entitled to no weight by the FISA court. That would not necessarily doom the FISA court’s reliance on Steele’s assertions, though, if there were “a sufficient basis to sustain the probable cause finding under the totality of the circumstances.” But to find probable cause in a case where the informant is of unknown reliability, “courts insist that the affidavit contain substantial independent police corroboration.”

However, as noted above, the FISA application “appears to contain no additional information corroborating the dossier allegations against Mr. Page.” Under these circumstances, as a matter of law, the FISA court’s surveillance order cannot withstand scrutiny.

That of course assumes the Nunes memo and Grassley-Graham criminal referral accurately assessed the totality of the evidence presented to the FISA court and that Steele’s dossier served as the linchpin of the case. Kerr makes a fair point that to judge whether there is probable cause you need to see all the evidence. But I see no reason to doubt Grassley and Graham’s assertion that Steele’s statements and the dossier served as the bulk of the FISA application.

Further, as I explained last week, the legal weeds of materiality and probable cause are really irrelevant because the question is of oversight, not of the admissibility of evidence. Even assuming the Republicans had the worst of motives in exposing the deficiencies in the FISA process, the disclosures serve the public good. Hopefully, that’s something all critics of FISA can come to agree upon.


Margot Cleveland is a senior contributor to The Federalist. Cleveland served nearly 25 years as a permanent law clerk to a federal appellate judge and is a former full-time faculty member and current adjunct instructor at the college of business at the University of Notre Dame.
Carter Page already ADMITTED to being a Foreign Agent for Russia and had been embroiled in espionage cases.

All the FISA court needed was information to show that there was CONTINUED concern on PAge for the THIRD renewal to be issued.

Trump associate Carter Page bragged about being a Russian adviser - Business Insider

Quote:
Carter Page boasted about his Russia contacts 2 months after the FBI warned him the Kremlin was trying to recruit him as an agent
FBI WARNED Carter Page about Russia. He ignored them.

https://www.cnn.com/2018/02/06/polit...ica/index.html

Quote:
Carter Page struggles to explain how he could advise both Kremlin and Trump team
You have nothing jim
LongWinded is offline  
Old May 13th, 2018, 02:35 PM   #50
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2015
Location: Lehigh Valley Pa.,USA
Posts: 8,165
http://r.search.yahoo.com/_ylt=AwrBT...GPs8Hqwnli4C4-


President Obama’s political operatives within the DOJ-NSD were using FISA 702(17) surveillance “about inquiries” that would deliver electronic mail and phone communication for U.S. people (Trump campaign). The NSD unit (John Carlin) was working in coordination with the FBI Counterintelligence Unit (Bill Priestap, Peter Strzok etc.) to look at Trump campaign activity. DOJ Attorney Lisa Page was the intermediary between the DOJ National Security Division and he FBI Counterintelligence Division.

All research indicates the information the DOJ and FBI collected via their FISA-702(16)(17) queries, and the stuff Fusion GPS was creating via Christopher Steele (The “Russian Dossier), was used to create the Russian Narrative, “The Insurance Policy“.

♦Ultimately, the people within all of these unlawful intercepts of information is what Devin Nunes discovered when he looked at the “unmasking requests” which were a result of those FISA 702(17) collections on Team Trump. That’s why Devin Nunes was so stunned at what he saw in February and March 2017.
Jimgorn is offline  
Reply

  Defending The Truth Political Forum > Political Forum > Current Events

Tags
blasts, case, counsel, criminal, judge, manafort, mueller, paul, robert, special



Thread Tools
Display Modes


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
McCabe has been interviewed by special counsel Mueller imaginethat Current Events 25 March 18th, 2018 12:04 PM
GOP Lawmakers Warn Trump Not to Fire Special Counsel Robert Mueller tbbyolumbatobby Current Events 5 January 28th, 2018 11:49 AM
The special Counsel, Mueller, was goodpen Current Events 13 December 3rd, 2017 02:12 PM
Special Counsel Robert Mueller Investigating Trump For Obstruction Of Justice skews13 Current Events 44 June 15th, 2017 06:00 PM
Robert Mueller named special counsel Baby Ray Current Events 62 May 19th, 2017 03:58 PM


Facebook Twitter RSS Feed



Copyright © 2005-2013 Defending The Truth. All rights reserved.