A couple things that really need to be noted about the memo and FISA warrants in general. The first is that Carter Page was already being monitored by the FBI since he had met with Russians linked to their spy agency in 2013.

Steele started composing the dossier for Republicans connected to Marco Rubio (and funded, [I]I think[/I], by the owner of the Washington Times). Democrats obviously picked up where the Rubio people left off once Trump was chosen as the nominee, but it's not an insignificant detail to mention where the dossier got started. Further, if we're being honest, opposition research is where a lot of factual dirt is found.

Lastly, for the FISA renewals, the FBI had to specifically show not only that they had found new evidence resulting from their wiretaps but that they were likely to obtain still more evidence, and they cannot reuse items to satisfy probable cause. Meaning that the dossier could have been used only for the initial warrant at most. [Note: this comes from my civil liberties loving lawyer wife who detests FISA]

I get that it's a bad look on how the FISA warrant was obtained initially, but I think that goes back more to how shitty FISA is regardless. Furthermore, the Nunes memo is a one-sided conservative wet dream that omits a shitload of information and purportedly relies on other classified information that Nunes and his staff didn't actually read through.

I guess what I'm saying is that FISA sucks, but Nunes's memo isn't worth the paper it's written on.


Edit: Oh, and there's a pretty solid chance Nunes wrote this memo with help from the White House, given that when he was asked (behind closed doors), he purportedly rambled for a bit and then finished by saying he wouldn't answer. Remember that he was also the one who released a memo previously that he got from the White House and pretended was information he had unearthed, leading to his "recusal" from Russia-related House Intelligence Committee matters.

[url]https://lawfareblog.com/dubious-legal-claim-behind-releasethememo[/url]

Speaking to the "informant bias" part of the Nunes memo, here's a nice article from a legal scholar from Univ. of Southern California talking about how informant bias does and does not factor into warrant applications. Figured it would be good reading to go along with the debate.:smile:

It's also worth noting that the Democrats' memo purports to contain information showing that the FISA warrant application did in fact note there was bias on the part of Steele.

Thanks for the link. Good stuff to brush up on.

Thanks for the links and comments, wombatman - while I appreciate the apparent irony in Steele's oppo research originally being funded by Republicans, it simply tells us that there was, at least prior to roughly mid-2016, a ready market for anti-Trump oppo amongst both the GOP and Dems. So Steele is simply an oppo-generator of negotiable affections. I find it deeply troubling that such dodgy sources can be used for what appears to be de facto open-ended surveillance warrants. Based on the known data about the numbers of such warrant applications which get rejected, FISA courts appear to function in little more than rubber-stamps for the surveillance complex. What are the actual standards-in-practice for renewals? You mention 'unearthing new material', but the standards for 'newness', as for source credibility, appear remarkably low, precisely what would expect from the kind of non-adversarial process used in FISA. The entire on-its-face-unconstitutional edifice of a secret court system is an abomination precisely because it invites such abuses, and unlike the regular courts, appears to offer no practical means for real oversight or remedies for individuals unfairly targeted by the process.

Caitlin Johnstone [url=https://steemit.com/politics/@caitlinjohnstone/the-biggest-nunes-memo-revelations-have-little-to-do-with-its-content]weighs in[/url]:
[quote]I’m not saying it’s a bad thing that Americans are starting to look critically at the power dynamics in their country, but the partisan filters they’ve slapped over their eyes are causing mass confusion and delusion. Now everyone who questions the CIA is a Russian agent and the term “deep state” suddenly means “literally anyone who doesn’t like Donald Trump”. Your take on the contents of the Nunes memo will put you in one of two radically different political dimensions depending on which mainstream cult you’ve subscribed to, and it will cause you to completely miss the point of the entire ordeal.

...

...there have been some extremely important revelations as a result of this memo; they just haven't come from the contents of the memo itself. In the same way that cybersecurity analysts observe the metadata underlying hacked files rather than the contents of the files themselves, political analysts have been pointing out that a lot can be learned about the political establishment by looking at its response to the possibility of the memo's release.

"Memo is clearly not a blockbuster. We can tell so by reading it. Which makes Dems' frantic efforts to prevent anyone from reading it seem even more bizarre," observed TYT's Michael Tracey, later adding, "Veracity of memo's claims aside, we were told that its release would undermine the rule of law. So, just checking: is the rule of law still in tact?"

"Now it is clear to all," WikiLeaks' Julian Assange tweeted. "The claims about how the 'Nunes' memo would destroy 'national security' were lies. Classification stickers are used by bureaucrats trying to obtain 'political security' for their cronies."

"One effect of the memo — it’s an example of how extensively we overclassify information," wrote [i]National Review[/i]'s David French. "I’m highly dubious that any information disclosed threatens national security in any way, shape, or form. I’d be willing to bet the Dem response is similarly harmless. Release it."[/quote]
Johnstone has lots of other good stuff, including the bipartisan reauthorization of the FISA surveillance regime just last month, with many of the same GOPers who voted for same now expressing outrage over the 'abuses' alleged by the Nunes memo. She basically suggests not to get sucked into the partisan theater but rather focus on the legal abomination at the heart of it, which both parties midwifed and continue to overwhelmingly support.

Now that chores are done and days news caught up on, time for the weekly Sat. nite creature feature, the made-for-TeeVee 1977 shlockfest [url=http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0076214/]Ants![/url], in which an egotistical real-estate developer's (hint, hint) reckless construction activities unleash holy 'antomological' terror upon a bunch of tanned Californian resort runners and guests. Among an arms-length list of 70s TV-schlock regulars it features none other than Myrna Loy, best-known for her portrayals of Nora Charles in the famous 1930s [i]Thin Man[/i] detective films. I hope she did this one simply because she liked to keep busy, not because she needed the (surely quite modest) money. My drinking game for this one is based on spotting words containing 'ant' (either as a literal substring or as homophone) ... gotta go, looks like its almost time for the thrilling 'anty climax'.

An interesting angle from Johnstone:
[QUOTE]In addition to Assange's assertion that government secrecy has far less to do with national security than political security (a claim he [URL="https://twitter.com/JulianAssange/status/893597432965062656"]has made before[/URL] which seems to be proving correct time and time again), there's the jarring question [URL="https://twitter.com/RepThomasMassie/status/959510192240111616"]posed by[/URL] Republican Congressman Thomas Massie: "[U]who made the decision to withhold evidence of FISA abuse until [B]after Congress voted to renew FISA program[/B]?[/U]"[/QUOTE]
So yes, there is abuse, but not [B]of[/B] the system. Rather, abuse of rights [B]BY[/B] the FISC system is the very nature of its existence.

I'm still trying to read up on what rights (if any) people targeted under FISA have, but it looks like there's not much so far: [url]https://www.lawfareblog.com/judge-posner-v-judge-rovner-daoud-fisa-and-franks[/url]

That 7th circuit was upheld by the Supreme Court in 2015 without comment. It looks like the EFF and ACLU are still trying to get this fixed via legislation. To be clear, I don't like FISA or how it is implemented--I just like to make sure underlying facts are also correct so that following discussion is on the proper footing. Thanks for the links you provided. :smile:

[QUOTE=wombatman;478983]There are notable exceptions to this rule, like when Rex Tillerson (I think) allegedly called him a "fucking idiot". That's a true statement.:smile:[/QUOTE]
The statement is true in more ways than one, since he talks about his STDs as if he's some sort of sexual war hero.

Kim Jong Un Taunts Trump With Photo of Hair Withstanding Gale-Force Wind
 

[URL]http://readersupportednews.org/opinion2/277-75/48376-kim-jong-un-taunts-trump-with-photo-of-hair-withstanding-gale-force-wind[/URL]
[QUOTE]According to KCNA’s news release, “Dear Leader’s mighty wind-resistant raven mane easily overmatches the American dotard’s sparse bleached strands.”[/QUOTE]I will avoid further spoilers.

Had Hillary Won: What Now? by Andrew Levine
 

[URL]https://www.counterpunch.org/2018/02/16/had-hillary-won-what-now/[/URL]
This is an extensive discussion of the results of a second Clinton administration, versus the current clown car. I think one of the most telling parts is about the effects on feminist, progressive, and anti-war movements, of having Clinton, a woman, as President. I tend to disagree with the author's reluctant choice of Clinton as a lesser evil.

[QUOTE]Hillary, on the other hand, was anything but a beacon of hope – except perhaps to those of her supporters whose highest priority was electing a woman president. Hardly anyone else ever expected much good to come from her calling the shots.

In comparison with Obama, she wasn’t even good at what she did. Despite a constant barrage of public relations babble about how experienced and competent she is, this was widely understood, even if seldom conceded.

She hadn’t been much of a First Lady or Senator; among other things, she helped set the cause of health insurance reform back a generation, and she supported the Afghanistan and Iraq Wars.

Then, as Secretary of State, she was at least partly responsible for devastating levels of disorder and mayhem throughout North Africa (Libya especially), the Greater Middle East (not just Syria), and elsewhere (Honduras, for example). But for her tenure at Foggy Bottom, there would be many fewer refugees in the world today.

It is therefore a good bet that were she president now, Obama would be sorely missed – notwithstanding his fondness for terrorizing civilians with weaponized drones, and for deporting Hispanics and others with a zeal exceeding George Bush’s.
[/QUOTE]

NC [url=https://www.nakedcapitalism.com/2018/02/200pm-water-cooler-2162018.html#comment-2925874]reader discussion[/url] on the Mueller "fission expedition" indictments of various deplorable Rooskies.

Perhaps [url=https://www.nakedcapitalism.com/2018/02/200pm-water-cooler-2162018.html#comment-2925945]best comment[/url] is in another comment-thread further down on the page:
[quote]

So Mueller spent 12 months to come up with enough “evidence” to produce one episode of MTV’s [i]Catfish[/i]?

Are they going to indict all those Democratic Party superdelegates who “colluded” to put Trump in the White House by nominating the only person in the world who could lose to him?[/quote]

Also in Friday's news regarding the Special Counsel:

Paul Manafort's efforts to get his bail reduced seem to have hit a snag. (He was the Trump Campaign Chairman of whom Trump said, after the FBI raid on Manafort's home became publicly known, "was with the campaign, as you know, for a very short period of time, relatively short period of time.”)

Mueller's latest filing regarding Manafort's bail is [url=https://www.politico.com/f/?id=00000161-a159-d829-a37b-fb7d3c6a0001]Case 1:17-cr-00201-ABJ Document 183-1 Filed 02/16/18[/url]

The following portion, starting at the bottom of Page three, and continuing to Page 4, does not bode well for Mr. Manafort remaining at liberty:

[quote]Further, the proposed package is deficient in the government’s view, in light of additional criminal conduct that we have learned since the Court’s initial bail determination. That criminal conduct includes a series of bank frauds and bank fraud conspiracies, including criminal conduct relating to the mortgage on the Fairfax property, which Manafort seeks to pledge. The government has secured substantial evidence that Manafort secured this mortgage from The Federal Savings Bank through a series of false and fraudulent representations to The Federal Savings Bank. For example, Manafort provided the bank with doctored profit and loss statements for DMP International LLC for both 2015 and 2016, overstating its income by millions of dollars. At the next bail hearing, we can proffer to the Court additional evidence related to this and the other bank frauds and conspiracies, which the Court may find relevant to the bail risk posed by Manafort as well as the risk that the banks may foreclose on the real estate being proposed by Manafort to secure his release.[/quote]