Slashdot Mirror

Collusion established easily, in fact.

You seem to be under the mistaken impression that individual errors in the Steele Dossier render the whole thing false, or that it was intended to be a complete, finished intelligence report. It was not. Constructing any intelligence dossier from dozens of sources is going to have some errors, without making the whole thing worthless.

Beyond that, you're conflating a narrative comprised of quotes from dozens of anonymous sources (many of whom have motivations to lie) with a single writer with little or no motivation to lie (beyond perhaps trying to defend themselves against accusations are complicity). No, the writer didn't allow his name to be published, but the New York Times didn't just receive an anonymous letter in the mail and publish it. By their own preface, they claim to know the writer's identity enough to say that they are in fact a current (not former with a grudge) senior (not mail room flunky making up stories to seem important) official in the White House (has personal experience, not just relaying gossip or stories they've heard). Woodward's book has many of the same problems as the Steele Dossier (many sources, many grudges, lots of hearsay), but this Op-Ed avoids the vast majority of them.

The previous guy merely pointed out that the government is enforcing the law the way they're supposed to, rather than ignoring it the way a certain previous administration did.

BULL FUCKING SHIT

Do NOT try to excuse this insanity with a lying-ass letter-of-the-law claim.

The previous guy was arguing that children should be taken away from parents who are simply charged with a crime that is typically punished with a $10 fine and time served. That is NOT "the way they are supposed to." It is vastly disproportionate. We don't take away kids from people charged for possessing a fake Smokey the Bear emblem, or transporting a water hyacinth, all of which are petty misdemeanors of the same level as improper entry.

Furthermore, improper entry is not illegal if it is for the purpose of asylum. People have 1 year after making entry to legally claim asylum. So there is absolutely no legal justification to keep asylum seekers incarcerated, much less separated from their kids.

————————————————————————

“The propagandist's purpose is to make one set of people forget that certain other sets of people are human.”

— Aldous Huxley
The Olive Tree (1936).

to the point that a document bought and paid for by the Hillary campaign, with no corroborating evidence,

That's a lie propagated by the infowars-fox state propaganda system.

It takes a special kind of conspiracy nut to think that the republican dominated FBI got approval from the FISA court on which all 11 judges were appointed by the conservative chief justice of the SCOTUS and 7 of the 11 were previously appointed to the bench by republican presidents in order to surveil a republican campaign operative based on flimsy democratic partisan lies.

In fact, the FISA requirements are that every claim submitted in support of a warrant be backed up with at least a 2nd source. The evidentiary standards for FISA warrants are higher than any other kind of court in the nation. In addition, renewal of a FISA warrant (which is required at intervals no greater than 6 months) requires proof that the warrant has generated actionable intelligence. The fact that Carter Page's FISA warrant was renewed twice is proof that he was up to no good and was caught doing it.

Fusion GPS, and what they provided was the basis by which the FBI went after Trump.

Er, no. In fact, exactly the reverse, Steele believed a cabal within the FBI sat on the file preventing it from reaching the top.

There were two FISA warrants on Manafort (2014 and 2015) that predated the dossier.

Getting a FISA warrant requires a woods procedura which essentially means that every claim used to justify the warrant must be independently verified so if the dossier were used to justify a FISA warrant that means the relevant facts were verified by at least one other source.

Furthermore, renewing a FISA warrant on a US person after 90 days requires proof that the warrant is actively yielding relevant intelligence.

So even if the Steele Dossier had been used to justify the investigation, the fact that FISA warrants were issued and then renewed shows that there was independent confirmation of the claims therein. That's not a a good road to go down for someone who wants to say the dossier is fake.

Fusion GPS, and what they provided was the basis by which the FBI went after Trump.

Er, no. In fact, exactly the reverse, Steele believed a cabal within the FBI sat on the file preventing it from reaching the top.

There were two FISA warrants on Manafort (2014 and 2015) that predated the dossier.

Getting a FISA warrant requires a woods procedura which essentially means that every claim used to justify the warrant must be independently verified so if the dossier were used to justify a FISA warrant that means the relevant facts were verified by at least one other source.

Furthermore, renewing a FISA warrant on a US person after 90 days requires proof that the warrant is actively yielding relevant intelligence.

So even if the Steele Dossier had been used to justify the investigation, the fact that FISA warrants were issued and then renewed shows that there was independent confirmation of the claims therein. That's not a a good road to go down for someone who wants to say the dossier is fake.

Dude, Papadalous told Trump in person that he was representing the Kremlin's interests and instead of kicking him to the curb, Trump said "tell me more." Then when DJTjr heard from that kremlin lawyer offering kompromat on clinton he said "I love it!"

https://www.justsecurity.org/20780/case-watch-microsoft-v-united-states-extraterritorial-reach-electronic-communications-privacy-act/

https://www.justsecurity.org/w...

Now, you can argue that the list didn't include paragraph (f) in the indictment for the various defendants, but I have yet to find any list of cases where para (f) was considered by investigators.

Here's the money quote you might find interesting:

The problem, of course, is whether the solution might be worse than the dis- ease. Thus, as Professors Hal Edgar and Benno Schmidt lamented more than four decades ago, “the longer we looked [at the Espionage Act], the less we saw.”55 Instead, they concluded, “we have lived since World War I in a state of benign indeterminacy about the rules of law governing defense secrets.”56 If anything, such indeterminacy has only become more pronounced in the 41 years since— and, if recent events are any indication, increasingly less benign.

Now, your opinion may differ than mine, but I'm more sympathetic to whistleblowers with intent, than grossly negligent actors hiding private insecure servers.

He got 1 YEAR for 6 photos in trying to show off to his girlfriend and another girl(aka trying to get laid). The statue was could have been used on Clinton but well she is Clinton. Comey was actually incorrect when he testified to congress that the FBI hasn't brought charges under 18 U.S. Code 793, most recent as 2014. Note the section 793(f) Comey has referred to has been brought against others, they all made plea deals for lesser charges. https://www.justsecurity.org/w...

Articles like this often get written because the author doesn't really understand the law, and rather than really trying to understand what's going on they just guess. The claims made in this article are so wildly off-base, however, that it makes me question whether the author is just trolling people.

Contrary to what the article suggests, Federal Criminal Rule 41(b) does not have a thing to do with what evidence law enforcement agencies are required to show to get a warrant, nor does it authorize the FBI (or anyone else) to get any particular type of warrant. Rule 41(b) is about VENUE; e.g., if you've already got enough evidence to get a search warrant, what judge (in what federal District) is the judge that you are supposed to present that evidence to?

You can read Rule 41(b) here: http://www.law.cornell.edu/rul...

The basic rule it sets out is that, when you want a warrant, you ask a judge located within the District where the person/property you want to search is located. There are exceptions to that basic rule, much like any other rule, because it's not always a simple matter of "X is located here." Sometimes things are located across several different Districts, sometimes they're mobile and can be easily moved to another District, etc. This is why there are currently 5 subsections to 41(b), each dealing with slightly different semi-unusual factual scenarios. At the end of the day, each exception is there for a very simple reason: to clearly and unambiguously tell federal law enforcement agencies how to identify the judge they are supposed to go to if they want to get a search warrant.

The proposal for changing Rule 41(b) is located here: http://justsecurity.org/wp-con...

What the DOJ is asking for is a scenario not currently covered by Rule 41(b). That being...what happens if you are dealing with someone you know to have committed a crime, you have enough evidence to get a search warrant, but the perpetrator of the crime is using some sort of technological means (like encryption, IP masking, etc.) to prevent you from finding the exact physical location of whatever you want to search? As of right now, it is not clear who the right judge would be to issue that warrant. The only thing the proposal would do is say that, if you can't identify the physical location of the computer to be searched (and therefore do not know which federal District it's located in), then you can go get your warrant from a judge in the District where the target of the crime was located.

Example: I'm an evil h@xx3r, and I hack some computers at the GooglePlex. I have masked my IP address, so the FBI does not know exactly where I'm at. Under current Rule 41(b), it's not clear who the right judge would be to try to get a warrant from. Under "new" Rule 41(b), they can go to a judge in California since that's where the GooglePlex is located.

That's literally the only thing this proposal would change. It says nothing about VPNs or TOR networks. It does not give the FBI (or any other law enforcement agency) the authority to hack your computer or your phone whenever they want. It doesn't even grant them the authority to do that with a warrant, because they already have the ability to do that with a warrant. It also doesn't say anything about how much evidence they have to present to get the warrant, because Rule 41(b) has nothing to do with that. The standards for search warrants are exactly the same as they have been for years; this proposal would only clarify who the right judge is to issue the warrant.

I don't know a whole heck of a lot about the "FEE" is, but if this article is representative of their work and/or legal abilities then color me unimpressed.