Robert Mueller, Former F.B.I. Director, Is Named Special Counsel for Russia Investigation

What part of the article do you disagree with?

No they dont. Lots plead guilty

 

Posted numerous opinions from people with legal and intelligence backgrounds that analyzed and commented on the story... here's a direct response to York from one:

 

So which part of the article do you disagree with? That 'expert' and you failed to make any arguments?

 

These are the people I would follow with questions about the FISA story...


Julian Sanchez of the Cato Institute:



Kate Brennan, Editorial Director of Just Security and a nonresident senior fellow at the Brent Scowcroft Center on International Security at the Atlantic Council...



Matt Tait, senior cybersecurity fellow at the Robert S. Strauss Center for International Security and Law at the University of Texas at Austin...

 

So which part of the article do you think is wrong? When you gonna answer?

Also none of the tweets you posted say what nunes's memo got wrong.

 

York's paragraph by paragraph review of nune's memo was an effort to suggest that since there were a series of factual statements in nune's report, then the memo itself is not less credible. The memo, which intended prove the FISA was biased and based on the Steele Dossier.

https://www.sfgate.com/news/article/With-the-release-of-new-documents-Devin-Nunes-13095302.php

This is a lengthy analysis, so I will spoiler it:

Spoiler: Response

At the outset, Page is described in the warrant application as "an agent of a foreign power," specifically Russia. The third section of the application details the evidence linking Page to Russia, beginning with his having lived in the country for several years and being mentioned as a possible target for recruitment by Russian intelligence officers about five years ago, at which point he was interviewed by the FBI. The first four pages of this section, excluding footnotes, are either redacted or deal with that prior interaction with federal authorities.

The information from the Steele dossier comprises the next 4 1/2 pages, excluding footnotes. It's followed by Page's public response to reports that he was under investigation, a response triggered by that Yahoo article. That response runs for about 3 1/2 pages and makes up the fourth section of the report.

Five fully redacted pages, making up the fifth and sixth sections of the document, follow, leading into the document's conclusion.

It's clear that the information uncovered by Steele does play a prominent role. It's impossible to say how critical it was to the warrant, though, because so much of the document is redacted.

What isn't redacted, though, makes a few things clear. First, that the Yahoo article is introduced not as a corroborating story but as the first part of the section titled "Page's Denial of Cooperation with the Russian Government." As noted above, that article spurred Page's response, which is included. There's no suggestion from the unredacted document that it was included to serve as a second source for the story.

And while the warrant application does state that the FBI "does not believe that Source #1 (Steele) directly provided this information to the press" - which was incorrect - that same footnote (number 18) clearly implies that Glenn Simpson of Fusion GPS might have been Yahoo's source, undercutting the idea the FBI was trying to use Yahoo to bolster the significance of Steele's findings.

(Steele's findings, by the way, include allegations that Page met with key Russian figures during a trip to Moscow in July 2016. Page later admitted to the House Intelligence Committee that, despite past denials, he had encountered senior Russian officials on that trip, albeit not the ones Steele identified.)

Each of the three renewals of the warrant on Page was granted after the FBI argued that it needed to keep collecting data on Page. The length of the renewals relative to the original application suggests that the government kept adding new information to its requests as the surveillance was ongoing.

Consider three sections that appear in each document: The third section (including the Steele information), the fourth-through-sixth sections (including Page's denial and more redacted information) and the conclusion.

As time passes, more information is added to the warrant applications. The middle section - whatever it contains - kept getting larger, meaning that the section dealing with Steele's report made up less of the overall application.

It's worth noting, by the way, that after Steele leaked the existence of his dossier to Mother Jones in late October, the FBI cut off its relationship with him. That's indicated in a bold-type footnote in the renewal applications.

"(I)n or about October 2016, the FBI suspended its relationship with Source #1 (Steele) due to Source #1's unauthorized disclosure of information to the press," it reads. However: "Notwithstanding the suspension of its relationship with Source #1, the FBI assesses Source #1 to be reliable as previous reporting from Source #1 has been corroborated and used in criminal proceedings."

In the initial application, a footnote - which appears on the page in the same size type as the rest of the warrant - indicates that Steele had been a corroborated FBI source in the past about whom the FBI was unaware of any "derogatory information."

There is a full page of footnotes which includes an exploration of the motivations behind Steele's research, specifically noting why Steele's "reason for conducting the research" doesn't disqualify its validity.

You've noticed that Steele isn't mentioned by name in the application, but is just referred to as Source #1. The critique that Steele and Fusion GPS aren't identified by name is especially hollow because none of the key actors are. Trump is "Candidate #1." Clinton, "Candidate #2." The Republican Party is "Political Party #1." Clinton, Fusion GPS, Steele and the DNC aren't identified by name because no one is, save Page, some Russians and Papadopoulos.

The context for naming Papadopoulos isn't clear; the document is largely redacted in the section where he's mentioned. But that section does include two important unredacted lines: "the FBI believe that the Russian Government's efforts are being coordinated with Page and perhaps other individuals associated with Candidate #1's campaign," and "Page has established relationships with Russian Government officials, including Russian intelligence officers."

For all that we learned in the release of the memo, there's still an enormous amount of redacted information that prevents us from getting anywhere close to a full picture of what happened. From the evidence at hand though, it's certainly fair to assume that it's Nunes' memo, not the warrant application, that suffered from a stronger political bias in its creation.

We can't entirely blame Nunes, though. In an interview with Fox News in February, he admitted that he himself hadn't read the warrant application.

https://www.sfgate.com/news/article/With-the-release-of-new-documents-Devin-Nunes-13095302.php

 

And btw, if that's what u got to discredit the memo, that's pretty damn thin. This also seems to be the only flimsy argument your previous spoilers article made.

 

So do innocent people, too, though...right? So, your point?

 

Point is that Nunes is a lying POS and so is the POTUS. You know it so cut the bull.

Nunes said the FBI didn't list the source, the release showed that the FBI said the source but that they still believe at least some of the information was true. They also provided other sources.

Nunes lies.

Trump lies.

And tallanvor is spreading propaganda - passing it on like a dirty jock passes on chlamydia.

 

Please post Sean Davis' legal and intelligence background? Perhaps listing off all the FISA documents he has reviewed and maybe even written? Seems he was simply a staffer for Tom Coburn. If so, I still trust the legal opinions of four judges who reviewed the original application along with multiple renewals. And legal and intelligence experts that have since analyzed and reported on what happened.

But you can keep being you... grasping at any wingnut effort to spin this in defense of trump.

 

That's an ad hominem, but if you want an 'expert' opinion, well I already posted the opinions of andrew McCarthy. By your standards he's more credible than anyone you posted.


The 'my guys are credible and yours aren't' argument isnt compelling.

 

I do respect Andrew McCarthy...

 

You might be expecting too much from a DNC propaganda bot.

 

He's a relatively popular "thug" that has led Russia for 20 years. He's in control of a massive nuclear arsenal and powerful army. Anyone who truly believes that we don't need better relations with a military power like Russia is a complete fool that is not living on the same planet as me. This Crimea thing is ridiculously overblown and mischaracterized and it's really funny how he mentioned assassinations too. I was just reading this article https://www.rollingstone.com/politics/politics-features/how-to-survive-americas-kill-list-699334/ about our extrajudicial drone strikes.

We should get off our high horse over Russia. Complete demonization of one side gets us nowhere.

 

I was curious why Mueller didn't utilize the treaty of mutual legal assistance in criminal matters that we have with Russia.

https://www.congress.gov/106/cdoc/tdoc22/CDOC-106tdoc22.pdf

Does anyone have any good insight on this? Does it simply just go back to McFaul and us not wanting to cooperate with that investigation? Is it just a worthless treaty? BTW if anyone hasn't learned about that Browder deal with him it's a pretty interesting one.



Go to 56:45 if you just want to hear his commentary on the Magnitsky Act and his thoughts on Trump and Russia.

 

Here is a 15-tweet thread on the subject by April Doss. Here's her bio:

Article about April Doss joining the Senate Intelligence Committee investigation.

http://www.businessinsider.com/apri...ligence-committee-russia-investigation-2017-4

 

What does better relationship means? If it means surrender or if it means only we were at fault and only we need to change, that's crazy. That's capitulation, not better relationship.

No, we can stay on our higher horse. Do we kill Journalists? Critics? Political enemies of the state? Do we invade neighboring country?

We have our problems, but just no to this false equivalence.