Evidence suggests a massive scandal is brewing at the FBI

[Dashinka 24,778]

45 minutes ago, bcking said:

I saw that article this morning.

 

Sort or undermines the entire memo when one of their primary points was a complete lie. Not even just bending the truth. The memo says the application made no reference. It didn't say it made only a small reference, or didn't reference it enough. It said there was none.

 

That was a lie, 100%

So the FISA court takes political hit pieces that haven't been verified and is the product of foreign collusion itself as credible?  I guess it is a swamp as I was giving the FISA court the benefit of the doubt.

[smilesammich 10,727]

1 minute ago, Bill & Katya said:

Why wouldn't he sign off on it?

it would be a dumb move if he didn't. but he signed off to release the nunes memo even though it discredits his entire "fbi works for dems" narrative

[Dashinka 24,778]

17 hours ago, bcking said:

Sorry I may have glossed over your question. Your quotes are italicized, this is long winded but I want to clearly answer your questions. NB - If you are reading this, just stop now

 

1. "So the FBI thought Steele was unreliable, thought he was highly biased, but then still included his suspect work in a FISA application along with media reports that were also highly suspect?"  

 

I can't tell from the memo WHEN the FBI identified Steele as unreliable. They knew that his funding was from a biased source, but as I've already argued I wouldn't consider that to automatically mean the investigator is biased. It creates a risk of that for sure, but it shouldn't be automatically assumed. The memo says they shared a meeting in Washington in October, but when? Was it before the application or after? They then (in the part I quoted) say that Steele mislead them and they only found out later that he was giving information to media. At that point, they "fired" him essentially. So the timeline is a little murky to me. Yes they know now, but the memo doesn't make it very clear how much they knew at the time of the application (regarding Steele's personal biases, not the bias of the firm funding him)

 

2. "If all the other information presented to the FISA court was so compelling, why did they even include the Steele documents?"

 

Neither of us can answer that. We have no idea. Perhaps the Steele documents corroborated other evidence, or vice versa? If you have a source at risk of bias (the Steele dossier), but you have a second source that independently provides the same information, that would improve the reliability of the information. Is that what they had? We don't know. The memo doesn't detail all of the evidence used in the application.

 

3. "Can you really give a Democratic administration the benefit of the doubt given how low they will stoop to maintain power?"

 

While I realize this whole discussion is calling into question how "non-partisan" the FBI really is, I wouldn't automatically associate the FBI with the "Democratic administration" or the "Republican administration". So the question in this case isn't really whether we can give a "Democratic administration" the benefit of the doubt, as much as we can give "The FBI" the benefit of the doubt (just talking about the contents of the memo). Based on the kind of work the FBI does, I would say we should give them the benefit of the doubt. They don't really "gain" anything by keeping one administration or the other. They can typically all keep their jobs if they are doing it well during transitions. I just don't really see what the FBI's motive would be in this case. Sure they all may personally really dislike Trump, but their job is to investigate without letting their personal biases impact their decisions. Just like cops. They make a career out of this. You may think a guy is obviously guilty of murder, and you may hate him because he's gotten away with it in the past...but you still need to conduct the investigation properly.

 

I still haven't seen an answer regarding standard operating procedure for a FISA application. What is typically included, and how much information is typically given to the judge? Do they get all the details about the sources? In their line of work, it could go either way. They may need to protect certain sources even from the application (every time you use the source's identity you risk exposing them), so it may not be standard practice. If it isn't standard practice to go into detail about the source, then they didn't really deviate from that in this case (Assuming, as I discussed for Question 1, that the timeline suggests they didn't know Steele was strongly biased personally at the time). If all they knew was that his funding source was biased, I wouldn't automatically say that needs to be made clear to the judge. People investigate issues with biased funding sources all the time.

 

4. "Was Russian intelligence trying to influence the election, I think the answer to that question is pretty obvious, but was there foreign collusion, well, so far, it just appears evidence to show this from one side."

 

You didn't use a question mark but it was written like a question so I'll address it. The investigation obviously is still ongoing so we don't have the details and I'm going to be a bit speculative here, though I usually try not to be. I don't think Trump is going to be found guilty of anything. I don't think he was involved. I do think that members of his "team" did indeed collude with foreign nationals (and likely some were representatives of the Russian government). Likely in a similar way to the Steele dossier. They were reaching out for "dirt" that they could use against their opponent. I think most likely both sides will be, on some level, guilty of that. Probably on both sides without the "top dog" (Trump/Clinton) being guilty of anything personally (plausible deniability, at a minimum...or real deniability I don't know). 

 

Now with that out of the way - I personally (and this is just my opinion, and it has nothing to do with the law) see a bigger issue with collusion that involves a foreign government than collusion that involves a single foreign individual. I realize there is no legal backing for that, it is just personal preference. Steele wasn't acting in the interest of his nation, or as a representative of some foreign government trying to push the election. Was he trying to push the election for personal reasons? Perhaps. But one foreign guy getting involved, in my mind, is better than representatives of a foreign government. Especially one that is frequently at odds with our country. Again this is just my opinion.

4. didn't have a question mark since it was rhetorical.  Seems like we are spending a lot of money to find out if Russia Intelligence tried to influence the election when we already know they did, just as I am sure Israeli, Chinese, and probably the UK intelligence organizations did.  The whole underlying crime the investigation is trying to uncover is was there foreign collusion?  Well, there is foreign collusion staring them in the face, but it came from the right person, so we are fine with it.  Again, is this Washington logic?

 

As to 3., I think we are talking about the highest level and those that feel they are in the powerful "know", not the day-to-day special agents in the field offices, etc.  Again, Washington is a swamp.

 

 

As to 2, according to Trey Gowdy who has seen the other information, the FISA warrants would not have been issued if not for the Steele memos.  Doesn't sound like they had a lot of other information there that was substantive.

 

As to 1, sure, timing is there, but you would think they would have known when they went in for the renewals.

[bcking 3,157]

12 minutes ago, Bill & Katya said:

So the FISA court takes political hit pieces that haven't been verified and is the product of foreign collusion itself as credible?  I guess it is a swamp as I was giving the FISA court the benefit of the doubt.

So you know the information on Page in the dossier wasn't verified by other evidence?

 

Please give us that insider information. News to me.

[bcking 3,157]

3 minutes ago, Bill & Katya said:

4. didn't have a question mark since it was rhetorical.  Seems like we are spending a lot of money to find out if Russia Intelligence tried to influence the election when we already know they did, just as I am sure Israeli, Chinese, and probably the UK intelligence organizations did.  The whole underlying crime the investigation is trying to uncover is was there foreign collusion?  Well, there is foreign collusion staring them in the face, but it came from the right person, so we are fine with it.  Again, is this Washington logic?

 

As to 3., I think we are talking about the highest level and those that feel they are in the powerful "know", not the day-to-day special agents in the field offices, etc.  Again, Washington is a swamp.

 

 

As to 2, according to Trey Gowdy who has seen the other information, the FISA warrants would not have been issued if not for the Steele memos.  Doesn't sound like they had a lot of other information there that was substantive.

 

As to 1, sure, timing is there, but you would think they would have known when they went in for the renewals.

1.

The last renewal was in October...so even for that one they may not have known since it says they didn't find out until October (when? Before/after the application we don't know).

 

Given that we know the memo intentionally left things out it's safe to say they didn't give exact dates because the exact dates didn't support their message.

 

2.

I thought the message was that if the BIAS of the Dossier was known, the warrant wouldn't have been granted.

 

So has the message changed? Not including the whole dossier is different than not including information on potential bias.

 

At the time it seems it would have been inappropriate to completely exclude the dossier just because of potential bias. The appropriate thing to do would have been to include it, and message that source of bias. Seems like that is what they did.

 

3. 

Even the highest level FBI agents don't really typically have a political motive. They can, and often do, keep their jobs between administrations. Not as strong of a motive as say, someone who would lose their job as soon as a new administration enters.

[Dashinka 24,778]

34 minutes ago, bcking said:

1.

The last renewal was in October...so even for that one they may not have known since it says they didn't find out until October (when? Before/after the application we don't know).

 

Given that we know the memo intentionally left things out it's safe to say they didn't give exact dates because the exact dates didn't support their message.

 

2.

I thought the message was that if the BIAS of the Dossier was known, the warrant wouldn't have been granted.

 

So has the message changed? Not including the whole dossier is different than not including information on potential bias.

 

At the time it seems it would have been inappropriate to completely exclude the dossier just because of potential bias. The appropriate thing to do would have been to include it, and message that source of bias. Seems like that is what they did.

 

3. 

Even the highest level FBI agents don't really typically have a political motive. They can, and often do, keep their jobs between administrations. Not as strong of a motive as say, someone who would lose their job as soon as a new administration enters.

1. I think based on the transcript of Glenn Simpson, Steele was giving media reviews prior to October.

 

2. I believe the message was that the dossier being included was the linchpin in getting the warrants.  The fact that the FBI used unverified memos from a source that would have been considered suspicious at best and also a product of collusion itself seems a bit illogical.  I assume you agree with their logic since you are defending the FBIs use of the memo.

 

3. If you watched the entire interview with the retired FBI agent, then you might have been able to say that a few years ago when it was under different leadership.

[bcking 3,157]

4 minutes ago, Bill & Katya said:

1. I think based on the transcript of Glenn Simpson, Steele was giving media reviews prior to October.

 

2. I believe the message was that the dossier being included was the linchpin in getting the warrants.  The fact that the FBI used unverified memos from a source that would have been considered suspicious at best and also a product of collusion itself seems a bit illogical.  I assume you agree with their logic since you are defending the FBIs use of the memo.

 

3. If you watched the entire interview with the retired FBI agent, then you might have been able to say that a few years ago when it was under different leadership.

1.

Based on the transcript of the memo, the FBI wasn't aware of Steele giving the media information until sometime in October. At that time, they "fired" him. They are vague on specific dates though

 

2. 

Who says the FBI hadn't verified information from the dossier? Did the memo say that? I agree with their logic of including the memo in their application, with the proper information regarding it's potential source of bias (based on what they knew at the time). They knew it was funded by a political entity, and it has now come out that they did mention that. Based on the dates in the memo is isn't clear to me if they knew that Steele himself was a potential concern for bias based on his personal viewpoints/agenda, so I can't really say if they should have included that information or not because I don't know if they knew it at the time. Bottom line though - I think the bar would be very high for me to say to not include the information at all. You include, you state the concerns about the source/bias, and you include what you have and haven't corroborated with other sources. 

 

As for whether the dossier was the key document for getting the warrant - We'd have to ask the judge who reviewed the application.

 

3. 

I don't watch videos in my office that have sound, apologies. I don't really know the content of the video at this point.

[Dashinka 24,778]

22 minutes ago, bcking said:

1.

Based on the transcript of the memo, the FBI wasn't aware of Steele giving the media information until sometime in October. At that time, they "fired" him. They are vague on specific dates though

 

2. 

Who says the FBI hadn't verified information from the dossier? Did the memo say that? I agree with their logic of including the memo in their application, with the proper information regarding it's potential source of bias (based on what they knew at the time). They knew it was funded by a political entity, and it has now come out that they did mention that. Based on the dates in the memo is isn't clear to me if they knew that Steele himself was a potential concern for bias based on his personal viewpoints/agenda, so I can't really say if they should have included that information or not because I don't know if they knew it at the time. Bottom line though - I think the bar would be very high for me to say to not include the information at all. You include, you state the concerns about the source/bias, and you include what you have and haven't corroborated with other sources. 

 

As for whether the dossier was the key document for getting the warrant - We'd have to ask the judge who reviewed the application.

 

3. 

I don't watch videos in my office that have sound, apologies. I don't really know the content of the video at this point.

1.  Yes, the FBI does in fact like to keep things vague, or better yet, label everything classified.

 

2.  I believe there are a lot of sources relative to the veracity of the Steele documents that refuted them soon after they came out.  I wonder if the HRC campaign and DNC asked for a refund?

 

3.  You can watch it at home, but in short, it talks about how political the FBI leadership had become under Comey and McCabe.  I know, this guy is retired, how would he know.  I guess he is about as credible as the Steele memos.

[bcking 3,157]

1 hour ago, Bill & Katya said:

1.  Yes, the FBI does in fact like to keep things vague, or better yet, label everything classified.

 

2.  I believe there are a lot of sources relative to the veracity of the Steele documents that refuted them soon after they came out.  I wonder if the HRC campaign and DNC asked for a refund?

 

3.  You can watch it at home, but in short, it talks about how political the FBI leadership had become under Comey and McCabe.  I know, this guy is retired, how would he know.  I guess he is about as credible as the Steele memos.

1. The subject of my statement was the memo. The memo is vague on dates. There was absolutely no reason to just state "In October". They could have stated when they fired him, and stated the date of the application. Given the fact that they've already been caught in a lie in the memo, in my view it's fair to assume not listing the dates was intentional to make it seem like the FBI knew more at the time of the application than they actually did.

 

2. From my understanding several items in the documents regarding Trump have been refuted. The application was a warrant for Page, so it was focusing on the details about Page in Steele's dossier. Do you have any sources related to the claims regarding Page in the Steele dossier that has refuted those pieces of information? If so - Please submit them to the FBI.

 

3. When did he retire I guess? He is welcome to his opinion if he actually worked under them. If he has been gone awhile it doesn't ultimately just become a personal opinion of an outsider. He can comment how it used to be, but can't really comment about how it is now (on the inside, not public opinion)

[Voice of Reason 10,298]

Reckon how accurate it would be to say that at any given point in time, one could find “fake news” on every single “news” source today?

 

 

[Dashinka 24,778]

8 hours ago, smilesammich said:

it would be a dumb move if he didn't. but he signed off to release the nunes memo even though it discredits his entire "fbi works for dems" narrative

Seems to me that it discredits the FBI that was led by James Comey.  All in all, I think he will release the DNC memo, but rumor has it that the Dems added a poison pill with respect to uncovering methods, so if it is released with redactions, they will claim it has been altered.  Time will tell.

[Dashinka 24,778]

5 hours ago, bcking said:

1. The subject of my statement was the memo. The memo is vague on dates. There was absolutely no reason to just state "In October". They could have stated when they fired him, and stated the date of the application. Given the fact that they've already been caught in a lie in the memo, in my view it's fair to assume not listing the dates was intentional to make it seem like the FBI knew more at the time of the application than they actually did.

 

2. From my understanding several items in the documents regarding Trump have been refuted. The application was a warrant for Page, so it was focusing on the details about Page in Steele's dossier. Do you have any sources related to the claims regarding Page in the Steele dossier that has refuted those pieces of information? If so - Please submit them to the FBI.

 

3. When did he retire I guess? He is welcome to his opinion if he actually worked under them. If he has been gone awhile it doesn't ultimately just become a personal opinion of an outsider. He can comment how it used to be, but can't really comment about how it is now (on the inside, not public opinion)

1. Isn’t it possible that the person who gave the testimony referencing the October date could not recall exactly?  I think it would be bad if Nunes just made up a date to make it sound more credible.

 

2.  As to Page, this seems to be more of the at the time sitting administration upset that someone is publicly critical of their foreign policy.  Not sure there is any evidence that he is a Russian spy, but there is a lot of evidence that he was critical of the previous administration.  

 

3.  Not sure when he retired, but apparently he never worked there when Comey headed the agency, but like most folks from that type of agency, I am sure he still has friends there.  He also has knowledge of how things worked when he was there.

 

 

 

 

[smilesammich 10,727]

32 minutes ago, Bill & Katya said:

Seems to me that it discredits the FBI that was led by James Comey.  All in all, I think he will release the DNC memo, but rumor has it that the Dems added a poison pill with respect to uncovering methods, so if it is released with redactions, they will claim it has been altered.  Time will tell.

'rumor has it' ? i think politically trump has to. can't be all about manufactured transparency for just one side..

[Steeleballz 7,550]

On February 5, 2018 at 10:24 AM, Bill & Katya said:

Profile says Colorado, so I am going to say Colorado.

 

   Colorado says math, like the rest of the USA. Maths is a British abbreviation. 

[Dashinka 24,778]

11 hours ago, smilesammich said:

'rumor has it' ? i think politically trump has to. can't be all about manufactured transparency for just one side..

Exactly, he has to, but if he has to make changes to keep sensitive method information out of it, the Dems will scream like the little children they are.  Of course Trump can declassify anything, so why not release it without modifications and call the bluff of the Dems.