Connecting the dots between the Steele dossier and Uranium 1

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
a reply to: howtonhawky

Read this carefully: To obtain a warrant you just have to show the possibility of wrongdoing. You don't have to prove anything with your initial evidence. The purpose of the warrant is to substantiate the concerns and actually prove if anything was done illegally or not... Y'all seem to be expecting that the investigation had to have fully proven that Trump (actually in this case it was Carter Page) was doing something illegal to get a wire tap. That is beyond ludicrous since if that were already proven then there would be no need for the wiretap. They could just indict and go to court already.

Sigh, watching lies being typed is so taxing.

The Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) allows the FBI to get a warrant from a secret court, known as the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court (FISC), to conduct electronic surveillance on U.S. persons if they can show probable cause that the target is an “agent of a foreign power” who is “knowingly engag[ing]…in clandestine intelligence activities.” In other words, the government has to show that the target might be spying for a foreign government or organization.

originally posted by: neo96
a reply to: UKTruth

So collusion with Russia IS actually proven, it's just it was Hillary Clinton, the DNC, and members of Obama's administration who are guilty of it.We also know that Hilllary's campaign colluded with the Ukraine to try and influence the election.

Damn I missed that one.

THANK YOU for pointing it out.

Ukrainian government officials tried to help Hillary Clinton and undermine Trump by publicly questioning his fitness for office. They also disseminated documents implicating a top Trump aide in corruption and suggested they were investigating the matter, only to back away after the election. And they helped Clinton’s allies research damaging information on Trump and his advisers, a Politico investigation found.

www.politico.com...

Team Left had a coalation of the willing.

Ukraine and ex british spies.

Exactly, which is why I know with 100% certainty that those harping on about Trump campaign collusion are frauds. They don't care about actual evidence of foreign involvement in influencing the election, only unverified rumours and slander from the Clinton campaign against Trump.

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
a reply to: howtonhawky

Read this carefully: To obtain a warrant you just have to show the possibility of wrongdoing. You don't have to prove anything with your initial evidence. The purpose of the warrant is to substantiate the concerns and actually prove if anything was done illegally or not... Y'all seem to be expecting that the investigation had to have fully proven that Trump (actually in this case it was Carter Page) was doing something illegal to get a wire tap. That is beyond ludicrous since if that were already proven then there would be no need for the wiretap. They could just indict and go to court already.

lol
that is not correct at all but kinda feels good to have the smokey wind at my rear.

a reply to: network dude
Lies indeed.

The Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) allows the FBI to get a warrant from a secret court, known as the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court (FISC), to conduct electronic surveillance on U.S. persons if they can show probable cause that the target is an “agent of a foreign power” who is “knowingly engag[ing]…in clandestine intelligence activities.” In other words, the government has to show that the target might be spying for a foreign government or organization.

Probable Cause

APPLICATION TO SEARCH WARRANTS

Probable cause exists when there is a fair probability that a search will result in evidence of a crime being discovered.7 For a warrantless search, probable cause can be established by in-court testimony after the search. In the case of a warrant search, however, an affidavit or recorded testimony must support the warrant by indicating on what basis probable cause exists.8

A judge may issue a search warrant if the affidavit in support of the warrant offers sufficient credible information to establish probable cause.9 There is a presumption that police officers are reliable sources of information, and affidavits in support of a warrant will often include their observations.10 When this is the case, the officers’ experience and training become relevant factors in assessing the existence of probable cause.11 Information from victims or witnesses, if included in an affidavit, may be important factors as well.12

The good faith exception that applies to arrests also applies to search warrants: when a defect renders a warrant constitutionally invalid, the evidence does not have to be suppressed if the officers acted in good faith.13 Courts evaluate an officer’s good faith by looking at the nature of the error and how the warrant was executed.14

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
a reply to: UKTruth

You clearly don't know what the issue is about at all. Typing out a disagreement with me doesn't make you correct btw. You have to actually prove your point.

Everything I said is verified by both the Republican and Democrat memo's.
You are attempting to avoid the actual issue by labouring on a point about probable cause, which is irrelevant.
The judge was not given the full picture in order to make an informed decision.

a reply to: howtonhawky

Yes. It is correct. It's called Probable Cause.

originally posted by: UKTruth

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
a reply to: UKTruth

You clearly don't know what the issue is about at all. Typing out a disagreement with me doesn't make you correct btw. You have to actually prove your point.

Everything I said is verified by both the Republican and Democrat memo's.
You are attempting to avoid the actual issue by labouring on a point about probable cause, which is irrelevant.
The judge was not given the full picture in order to make an informed decision.

See you are lying. Neither of the memos show that. BOTH memos show that the investigation and wire taps predate the Dossiers existence and the second memo says that the Dossier is only a small fraction of the total evidence used to obtain the warrant. They also show that the warrant was renewal request, not an initial warrant.

THOSE are the facts pointed out by the memo. Facts which y'all keep trying to ignore to talk about nonsense.

originally posted by: Krazysh0t

originally posted by: UKTruth

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
a reply to: UKTruth

You clearly don't know what the issue is about at all. Typing out a disagreement with me doesn't make you correct btw. You have to actually prove your point.

Everything I said is verified by both the Republican and Democrat memo's.
You are attempting to avoid the actual issue by labouring on a point about probable cause, which is irrelevant.
The judge was not given the full picture in order to make an informed decision.

See you are lying. Neither of the memos show that. BOTH memos show that the investigation and wire taps predate the Dossiers existence and the second memo says that the Dossier is only a small fraction of the total evidence used to obtain the warrant. They also show that the warrant was renewal request, not an initial warrant.

THOSE are the facts pointed out by the memo. Facts which y'all keep trying to ignore to talk about nonsense.

You just raised a completely separate point to those I raised and then accused me of lying.
Both the Republican and Democrat memos confirm that the sources for the dossier and the links to the Clinton campaign and her operatives, including the gentleman referred to in the OP, were not shared with the judge. That's a fact.

a reply to: UKTruth

So? The source of the information is irrelevant if the information within is being verified even partially. And again the Dossier makes up a small fraction of the total intelligence used to obtain the warrant. Why do you keep ignoring that part?

It's really starting to reek of desperation how you guys are trying to defend the Trump admin from this investigation. It's truly puzzling why y'all can't just let the investigation happen and the cards fall how they will fall. Instead we have to go through this unprecedented idea of investigating an investigation in mid-investigation. And the goal posts of this meta investigation keep getting moved back as the claims and concerns are constantly found wanting. Yet y'all seem incapable of admitting wrongness on, well ANYTHING.

originally posted by: Krazysh0t

So you DO know that bias doesn't prevent a court from using evidence to obtain a warrant right? You don't need to prove that someone is guilty to get a warrant; you just have to establish the possibility of guilt. Something that is allowed with biased evidence. This ENTIRE line of inquiry has been proven to be a nothingburger and Nunes shot himself in the foot with the memo fiasco.

I like the way Breitbart just slips in, "...largely discredited 35-page anti-Trump dossier" as if, while our OP blithely accepts that, but we're used to it. Now, Breitbart has a new star in Jonathan M. Winer, after they ditched William D. Campbell, who was also a 'lobbyist' for Tenex, who eventually started working, 'undercover' for the FBI, but who was deemed unreliable by both the FBI and subsequently by the JD...and the Russian player, Vadim Mikerin, who was charged with extortion and bribery had the extortion charges dropped, but was convicted on the bribery charges.

So now it's Viner who, ahem, has all the dope on Tenex, and now claims all Steele's stuff came from him.
Thing is, there is more ooomph in Steele's reporting on Russia's antics, that came from known reliable sources, than has come out of this Uranium 1 crap which is full of Walter Mitty type wannabe arseholes, trying to scam out of the various companies involved stateside. Campbell himself IMO, was lucky not to be in jail himself.
Viner though, does have a long history in the state department behind him, and knows a lot about bribery and foreign collusion cases, in a revolving door kind of way, which is not quite there though when it comes to actually being a spy. I would be suspicious of people who spend time in Government, and in the private sector as well.

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
a reply to: UKTruth

So? The source of the information is irrelevant if the information within is being verified even partially. And again the Dossier makes up a small fraction of the total intelligence used to obtain the warrant. Why do you keep ignoring that part?

It's really starting to reek of desperation how you guys are trying to defend the Trump admin from this investigation. It's truly puzzling why y'all can't just let the investigation happen and the cards fall how they will fall. Instead we have to go through this unprecedented idea of investigating an investigation in mid-investigation. And the goal posts of this meta investigation keep getting moved back as the claims and concerns are constantly found wanting. Yet y'all seem incapable of admitting wrongness on, well ANYTHING.

So? Yeah, SO Hillary Clinton, the DNC and Clinton associates feed information from the FSB to Steele to combine with his information from the FSB to compile a dossier. Collusion with Russian intelligence to gather opposition research and the judge was not told about it. The source is vitally important and was withheld from the judge. A Presidential election with one candidate, Clinton, working with Russia to get dirt on the other, Trump, and the courts were not told.

To your point about the investigation starting before the dossier, that's true, however, the FBI met with Steele a month BEFORE they started the investigation, something else they didn't tell the judge about.

Meanwhile, even though House Democrats seem to be rebutting a contention that was not made in the Republican memo, there are possible issues with the rebuttal’s claim that the FBI’s investigative team only received Steele’s “reporting” in mid-September, ostensibly referring to the written dossier. The Democrats entirely ignore that last July, Steele reportedly traveled to Rome, where he met with an FBI contact to supply the agency with alleged information he found during the course of his anti-Trump work. The Washington Post reported that Steele met with the FBI on July 5, 2016. The Democratic memo reveals that the DOJ “accurately informed the court that that the FBI initiated its counterintelligence investigation on July 31, 2016.” That is 26 days after Steele met with the FBI in Rome.

The idea that the dossier information did not drive the investigation is incorrect.

originally posted by: neo96
a reply to: kurthall

Nothing in that dossier is real.

A hit piece created by Clinton.

Political hit job.

The House and Senate intelligence committees are working with the inspector-general to tie it all into a nice gift for the Democrats.

a reply to: UKTruth

LOL! Gotta love internet lawyers. I'm sure your law degree in nonsense conservative laws is going to totally topple this investigation with your weak analysis. Just keep making a big deal out of a nothingburger while purposely missing the forest for the trees. "Nevermind that the dossier has been partially verified meaning that some of the claims SHOULD be investigated, we need to EXCLUSIVELY focus on how the Dossier was obtained. That is TOTALLY more important than someone possibly doing treasonous activities against the government."

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
a reply to: UKTruth

LOL! Gotta love internet lawyers.

That's not an argument.
I guess you're spent.

a reply to: UKTruth

Pretty much. Talking to you guys is a waste of time. I'm not going to beat the same points into the ground over and over. You guys want to focus on nothing and over hype the importance of something to make it seem like the smallest inconsistencies in its origin are somehow nefarious. Well knock yourselves out. The investigation will continue without you anyways. It's not on me to change your minds, and y'all don't ever change your minds anyways.

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
a reply to: UKTruth

Pretty much. Talking to you guys is a waste of time. I'm not going to beat the same points into the ground over and over. You guys want to focus on nothing and over hype the importance of something to make it seem like the smallest inconsistencies in its origin are somehow nefarious. Well knock yourselves out. The investigation will continue without you anyways. It's not on me to change your minds, and y'all don't ever change your minds anyways.

You have to raise valid points, or else, yes, you waste your time. Probable cause requires credible information. To withhold essential information, like the source being paid for and aided by the opposition party in a Presidential election, leaves the judge without the full picture to assess the credibility of the probable cause he is being presented.

a reply to: UKTruth

See. This is what I'm talking about. "Raise valid points". Lol. All I did was raise valid points. MY narrative is what is allowing the investigation to continue. If YOUR narrative were true then there would be more momentum available to shut the investigation down. It's simple reality of the situation. You just don't understand what is going on as well as you think you do. I blame you constantly leaping to conclusions about the investigation, but that is your personal problem. As always I have deferred my conclusions on the investigation until it has finished.

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
a reply to: UKTruth

See. This is what I'm talking about. "Raise valid points". Lol. All I did was raise valid points. MY narrative is what is allowing the investigation to continue. If YOUR narrative were true then there would be more momentum available to shut the investigation down. It's simple reality of the situation. You just don't understand what is going on as well as you think you do. I blame you constantly leaping to conclusions about the investigation, but that is your personal problem. As always I have deferred my conclusions on the investigation until it has finished.

You didn't raise a valid point because you forgot the importance of credible information when assessing probable cause. You have to be pretty entrenched not to understand that withholding the fact that Hillary Clinton, the DNC and Clinton associates were involved in pulling the information together gives a judge a less (far less) than full picture to assess the credibility of the information he is being presented.

Whether he would still have granted the warrant we will never know, but withholding that information is a clear lie by omission. I am surprised you are not asking yourself why that information was withheld. Also surprised that you don't seem to care about collusion with Russia unless Trump's campaign did it.

Yea just wait until the dems have to answer the question of their INTENT.

that is what it all boils down to

originally posted by: UKTruth

To your point about the investigation starting before the dossier, that's true, however, the FBI met with Steele a month BEFORE they started the investigation, something else they didn't tell the judge about.

Meanwhile, even though House Democrats seem to be rebutting a contention that was not made in the Republican memo, there are possible issues with the rebuttal’s claim that the FBI’s investigative team only received Steele’s “reporting” in mid-September, ostensibly referring to the written dossier. The Democrats entirely ignore that last July, Steele reportedly traveled to Rome, where he met with an FBI contact to supply the agency with alleged information he found during the course of his anti-Trump work. The Washington Post reported that Steele met with the FBI on July 5, 2016. The Democratic memo reveals that the DOJ “accurately informed the court that that the FBI initiated its counterintelligence investigation on July 31, 2016.” That is 26 days after Steele met with the FBI in Rome.

The idea that the dossier information did not drive the investigation is incorrect.

The dossier, (written in monthly memo June to December 2016) was the latest part of the information gathering that started in 2015, the specifics of which we only know bits and bobs of. The FISA was given in October of 2016...that's before the Steele Dossier was finished in it's entirety. Supposedly, there were 40 items of information re the FISA, Steele's was one item. It's pretty sure though that Carter Page was at least one target, even if he was not then part of the Trump campaign, that just shows that there was even then a lot more info that the FBI had under the belt, and God knows how much more now, and...even though Trump threatened Mueller to stay away from his own dealings, the investigation is ongoing, and Mueller is still there with large parameters to work in, something people seem to keep forgetting,

'Not only is Mueller charged with investigating any links between the Russian government and the Trump campaign, but also "any matters that arose or may arise directly from the investigation."'