Quote:
Originally Posted by Pete F.
So if we know that all intel dossiers have some inaccurate information and some uncorroborated or unprovable assertions; and Steele told the FBI his was 30% inaccurate; of course if the FBI cited the dossier, it was going to include some inaccuracies.
So perhaps the FBI should never be able to cite any intel in seeking a FISA warrant? Would the USIC be okay with that? DOJ? The FBI? Republicans? No, I don't think so.
The standard of proof in a FISA warrant is probable cause, and they're almost never denied.
In this case the warrant didn't just involve "a former Trump campaign adviser" (Carter Page) but a former Trump campaign adviser repeatedly suspected by the FBI in the past of working with Russian spies (and they had evidence, too!)
The man the FBI sought a warrant for had also been the subject of a prior CI probe.
(As had Trump's top Russia adviser, Dimitri Simes, BTW. Simes has since fled to Moscow, and now works for Putin.)
Then look at Manafort and Derispaska, millions of dollars in debt was forgiven when Manafort became campaign manager
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device
|
the guy who put this dossier together, was arrested for lying to the fbi 5 times. the previous arrest was also for lying i think?
i have absolutely zero knowledge of such things, neither do you. maybe it’s standard process to rely on partly fabricated facts, put together as political opposition research, to get FISA warrants, and to fail to mention to the FISA court that you’re supporting data was political opposition research, which we now know involved multiple
lies to the FBI.
Maybe that’s par for the course. And maybe it’s not. I have no clue, and neither do you.
but you’ll assume it is, because the alternative ( that the democrats screwed up) is something you can’t begin to contemplate.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device