So... about that memo and stuff

So if I understand correctly, you're claiming the article I linked to from business insider daily fake news? If it is fake news, (which, frankly, wouldn't surprise me) then maybe I can find the testimony posted somewhere? I sure don't want to use a questionable source for my information.
I think that would leave out most of the main stream news.

And you know? I think we're talking about two different things here. I think you are focused on the original FISA app. and I'm talking about the renewal FISA app.

And if you and I are honest, everything written in both of these memo's is unsupported. None of us get to see the underlying documents.

As far as )3 and )4, I don't see how those add anything new to topic. (Not going to say sand in a storm again Seems more like padding a resume.

Per McCabe, Nunes fibbed about his testimony.

Another great piece on the subject at this Twitter link, from Lawfare.

Rob, did you see that the FBI was not just relying on the dossier but on a good bit of other information as well to launch the investigation, that FISA was perfectly aware of everything about the dossier's origins, that Steele was well known to them (he's not some scummy political hack, he was quite reputable -- whoever paid for the dossier, and it was Republicans who initiated it, anyway)? That every subsequent application showed more and more intelligence had been gathered, justifying renewal? That these were all Republicans moving this forward -- judges, FBI officials, etc? And that a shitload of them had to approve for it to go forward, not once, but again and again?

Assuming you're grokking all of that, and haven't moved an inch, I guess we'll have to agree to disagree, because as for myself, I would have regarded it as irresponsible for them NOT to investigate, whether it were the Trump campaign or the Clinton campaign.  I don't even think it's a close call, frankly.

Slippery slopes...

1) Steele's supposed bonafides are inconsequential, really. He was/is a foreign agent, no? Who was getting his info from other foreign agents (who happen to be Russian). So again, there's a clear line here from FusionGPS to Russia. Hell, that's more of a reason to investigate FusionGPS, really: a sketchy firm that does business with foreign agents from England to Russia as a means of getting dirt on political candidates.

2) The whole process is--again--wrong-headed, as it represents a means of getting around FISA. The court is specifically okaying what it is supposed to prevent, imo. 

3) As to these all being Republicans, I don't know that such is the case at all (being appointed by a Dem/Repub does not make one a partisan as a matter of course), but it really doesn't matter. Of course, one could argue that it would be hardly surprising if they were all Republicans, since it's that side of the aisle that generally steps all over privacy and freedom in the name of national security. Pretty funny--to me--how the Dems who used to scream about such overreaches are now foaming at the mouth in anticipation of getting to do it some more. 

4) I do not believe most of the people okay with this would feel the same way if the target were not Trump. You can say you'd feel the same way if it were the Clinton campaign and maybe you would, but these are open questions. Still, I'll point back to what I said about Russia being an enemy in another thread. Everyone is beside themselves with outrage over Trump's conduct re Russia (and rightly so, for his actions with Putin), but where were they when our glorious State Department was letting Russia buy our uranium resources (could you imagine what Reagan or Kennedy would have thought about that)? Where were they when the Clintons were cozzying up to whatever Russian company was willing to write a big check? Where are they when it comes to a sketchy firm getting used to do "opposition research" on Trump by paying off Russians for supposed "intelligence"? (and to be fair, a ton of Trump supporters are completely inconsistent here, as well, in the opposite direction)

One of my fave conservatives (he's smart and funny -- I highly recommend his book, The Death of Expertise):








Gotta say, so far all of the experts on this I've seen who've actually read the entire 400 page document containing the FISA stuff are coming down staunchly on the side of the FISA applications being amply supported and the Nunes memo being deceptive partisan bullshit. So have my favorite intellectual conservative commentators. (Of course the liberal ones are, too, but I'm making an effort to look at non-kneejerk conservative takes.)

Others, like David French, opine that if Trump really thinks the FISA application was improperly dependent on the dossier, he should order release of a less-redacted version, which I think is a fair take (click to see the full thread).








To my eyes (and that of many experts, and, if I'm reading him correctly, Mr. French), the heavy, extensive redactions make it pretty obvious the FISA applications, judges, etc., relied on a ton of stuff other than the dossier. But the best way to clarify that and settle the argument is to remove some of the redaction, to the extent it is consistent with national security.

Jonah Goldberg seems to be of Mr. French's view, based on his endorsement of the thread attached to this tweet:




See also:






If you have serious experts and/or conservatives (especially ones who aren't just scrambling to defend Trump, Nunes, Carter Page etc. come hell or high water) opining since the release that the FBI acted improperly here, post 'em and I'll read 'em when I have time. (As is likely obvious, I'm posting takes from conservatives I follow on twitter whose takes are floating up in my feed.)


ETA:

While I actually follow a lot of prominent conservatives, as you might guess, they are mostly of the NeverTrump persuasion. 

I'd be interested in seeing some arguments on the flip side from people who are both knowledgeable on this subject matter and have also looked through all 400 pages of the recent release.  (I'm less interested in "devil's advocate" arguments made purely to find some way, any way, to discredit the Russia investigation. I see lots of argument like these, but so far they are not from people who both know their shit and have looked at the applications. 

I may not read them immediately -- indeed, I confess I have only had time to look at the applications in part myself -- but I will read them.  From what I can see, it seems bewildering to argue that there wasn't ample support for the FISA applications.  But perhaps a great expert opinion could convince me I'm wrong, and I'd be interested in seeing it.

What no one can convince me of -- that the Nunes memo wasn't utter bullshit.  What I've seen conclusively demonstrates that much.  But I'm open to being convinced there were FISA abuses, though it will likely take an expert in the area to convince me.

Maybe I'm not being clear. I don't think the FBI acted "improperly." I think everything it did was "by the book." The problem is that the book is wrong. Again, FISA--the legislation--had a purpose. And the FISA court is--in my view--being used repeatedly to defeat that purpose.