Ha ha charade you are! Technically, the law still applies equally because there isn't a legal distinction made and the same law is applied to both genders and in the eyes of the law (the written language) they are equal. It is in the eyes of the prosecutor, jury, and judge that they are not which is what you are addressing. Specifically, prosecution, verdict, and sentencing. If you apply mandatory minimums that 63% would probably disappear or be reduced considerably (haven't done reading on it, probably key word here) because the law prescribes the sentence without judicial bias and is written without gender consideration. However, that doesn't address the conviction rate because that would rely on the prosecutor and jury.
IOW, the law is the only gender neutral part of our legal system we have because we have explicitly written it as neutral while the other pillars of justice are based entirely on human fallibility and bias. Legal equality only guarantees that we are equal by law. That does not necessarily address judicial independence, prosecutorial discretion and certainly not the jury.
But more over, you are right I just like to play devils advocate.
I don't think feminism is small by any stretch, furthermore, which feminist community doesn't platform the gender pay gap? You say they are sub-communities and that would be fine if the example were something like "any penetrative sex is rape" but I am talking about mainstream positions that are nearly universal for all feminists that has been parroted by some of the most powerful people on Earth. I find it hard to believe that most feminists have been co-opted by "pay gap feminists" when it looks like it is a staple of feminist ideology and it is Trudeau and Obama advocating for such "extreme" positions.
I haven't seen anything worth while that western feminism has done lately (many decades) that redeems the rest of the bad things it has done. What is the point of the movement that advocates for the populate election of Senators? Again, I wouldn't and probably many others wouldn't think that way if the movement actually did something to help women in need instead of chasing the boogeyman patriarchy.
To me, the entire feminist movement in the west is a bad joke. Yes, all of it. It would rather chase boogeyman, make asinine claims of patriarchy, bastardize science, and police language in absurd ("peoplekind"... really? That is important?? A made up word because self described feminists do not understand etymology) ways than actually help people. There is nothing proud about being a feminist today in the west. It's a self branded scarlet letter that carries more baggage than a airliner.
You should never yield a movement because extreme people come in every so often
If the movement is made up of nearly entirely of extreme people. I disregard it. If you are a feminist trying to save feminism. Good Luck. At some point Old Yeller is gone and needs to be put down. He saved the family but times change.
You also may want to reconsider automatic judgement of someone based on a particular view (such as a perceived gender pay gap) as in their case they might be right
If they are right they can prove it in court. I don't have to do anything or make any judgement because it is already the law of the land. I don't need to listen and believe when I can have evidence and facts. I don't care if they are right or wrong because it's on them to prove it in court. Changing the law based on bad science and bad statistics that attack meritocracy is fundamentally different and wrong.
Do you make automatic judgements for a Republican? A pro-lifer? A Christian? The pro-life movement has surely had its extreme members yet it hasn't been plagued by the same malignancy of feminism.
If you mean equal outcomes, then no I do not believe in that garbage. Otherwise. yes the difference is that I think we have it. Name a legal, political, social or economic right that women do not have.
Does the law apply equally to men and women? Yes. Check legal. Do woman have suffrage and can hold political office? Yes. Check political. Do women have the same civil rights, freedom of speech, property rights, and equal access to social goods and services as men? Yes. Check social. In fact they have access to better services than men soooo. Matriarchy? We need a movement to promote the social rights and services of men! A... Mens Rights Movement if you will. After all, you are motivated by principle, aren't you? Can women get the same employment as men? Yes. Check economic.
Hooray! Feminism has achieved the noble goals of equality for women! Oh. Wait. I know what's really important as mansplained by the great feminist ally Trudeau. Damnatio memoriae of "mankind". "Mankind" needs to be stricken from memory and replaced with "Peoplekind"... because feminism. So glad we have an entire movement dedicated to this noble goal with people in power like Trudeau to make it happen. But MRM wanting abuse shelters for men? Sexism.
There are plenty of women that do not like feminism and stand against it. Feminists do not speak for woman. That is a degrading and undermines the individual by taking away their autonomy and voice by tribalism and group identity. Treat women as individuals that can decide, act, and speak in their own self interest. Anything less is soft bigotry of low expectations.
You missed my point. "There are too many loud mouths that the movement has lost all sense of pragmatism and direction".
I am not going to address your whataboutism or false equivalency.
Perhaps you should pay less attention to the attention whores in any movement, and look at what the majority of the movement is about.
Because what the majority of the movement is about, in my opinion, has been overtaken by the loud mouths that has derided any noble cause it may have had. How many times do I have to hear about the gender pay gap before I recognize that the movement has been overtaken by loud mouth idiots devoid of principle because they bastardize statistics and science for their own tribal agenda and personal advancement?
"the manner of the posturing used against it." Yes because nothing screams religion like unquestioning loyalty and subservience... How dare I have an opinion outside of the Holy Doctrine of Feminist Faith.
In the time before Men and Patriarchy it was good. The evilness of Masculinity has turned Sister against Sister! But fear not and harken oh Ally! The Holy Matriarchy has a plan for you, oh dear emasculated Ally. Dare not question the Holy Doctrine of Feminist Faith! Exorcise any criticism or skepticism you see on these intertubes. Strengthen your faith by listening and believing unconditionally. Reeeeeee before the Goddess Queen of the Holy Matriarchy so that you will be saved from Patriarchy and it's vile Penis' used to deceive Women. In the name of the Mother. The Daughter. And Pink Vagina Hats. Wamen.
*grabs junk* hmmmmm. I am a woman. You are marginalizing my experiences and humanity. You are toxic and are creating a toxic environment. You are the problem when you so easily malign the experiences people like me face. You are creating obstacles and limiting my opportunity to exist in this space. You should feel ashamed of yourself. Be the good ally and listen and believe because you have said enough to demonstrate that you hate all women.
There was nothing inadvertent about voicing my thoughts on modern western feminism and the toxicity it has become. I would rather label myself a MRA trying to get more male shelters that would actually help people than a feminist using bad science to attack meritocracy that will harm people. (both have toxic members but one has an objective legal goals to accomplish. I like mission accomplished banners.)
I agree but it just seems that 'feminism' has been soiled by too many extremists that it has lost all sense pragmatism or direction. There are places that absolutely need feminism and if western feminism tried to help those countries and those women I think many more would respect the movement and ideology. Instead of addressing real issues in the world we get diatribes about video games and movies.
Feminism may not be cancer but it is infected with a malignancy that, IMO, is terminal to any redeeming quality.
Refuse to acknowledge it? It just depends on what I am supposed to acknowledge and what you think I have to do about it.
I don't care about dongle jokes or master/slave terminology and do not think they highlight a problem in industry. I think the more whining about those things the more we get "shut the fuck up" and "feminism is cancer" reaction.
If words offend you and you announce to the world that they offend, are you really surprised more offensive words come out of the wood work?
Why not "individuals in open source" or "struggles in open source"? The moment you make it a group identity it becomes tribal and pron to ridicule. Especially when it comes to feminism. Feminists are their own parody. Too bad their not funny so we could laugh with them instead of always at them.
"ArmPitHairisGreat" - only until you get a neck beard with that fetish and now we have a sexual harassment claim because he won't stop smelling and staring at your armpits when you raise your hand for a question.
As an aside... There is something sad about "arm pit hair" being associated with feminism. "Feminism is about equality! We want equality! We have hairy armpits to show equality!!1!!1" Something about that I can't take seriously. Maybe it's the armpit. Maybe it's the hair. Maybe the idea is more akin to cutting off the nose to spite the face. Maybe it's all of it. I will never know.
Yes and the Democratic Republic of North Korea is democratic. If feminism was about "equality of the sexes" then mission accomplished across the board. The movement and ideology is irrelevant in the western world. There is no end goal for feminism because it isn't about equality in opportunity or legality. It's about women supremacy and getting back at men for history which is why we see the BBC males taking pay cuts for no reason other than the long debunked gender pay gap myth and virtue signaling despite reports stating that there was no discrimination. Feminism is about equal outcomes which is contrary to meritocracy and why we see the bar lowered in many areas to get more women in. Feminism is about treating women different because being in the same room as men is oppressive. Lowering the bar, vengeful practices, and segregation is not equality!
Even you assume there are not educational and professional opportunities for women equal to men yet I haven't seen a single male only scholarship for STEM ( I bet you can't find one either) nor have I seen any male affirmative action in STEM. The favoritism is toward women so the institution can check their little quota box and feel smug about it and we see that with younger women making more and are preferred over men for STEM faculty. I have seen more opportunity for women these days than men. What are you talking about other than the outcomes you don't like?
Men and women are different so personal and social "equality" is code for "we want more because equality of outcome using bad measures". Using bad measures (gender pay gap) to promote bad policy (vindictive practices) and treating women different (lower standard and segregation) will never achieve "equality" in any true sense of the word. Forcing equal outcomes is the antithesis of a free society.
If it doesn't matter why do you insist republicans paid for it? I never said it mattered I only corrected the statement that the republicans paid for the Steele dossier. That is not true and is a lie. That was even known before this memo. You keep dancing around with Steele doing his own work or wasn't directed or whatever. That is irrelevant. There was a claim "republicans paid for it" that is demonstrably false and you are trying to convoluted that statement more than it needs to defend that statement and then decrying partisanship when you are acting partisan by denying facts and defending lies.
The answer to my question is very simple. Who commissioned the Steele dossier? The DNC and Clinton Campaign.
Part of the problem is that the FBI didn't corroborate the dossier for the FISA application. Uncorroborated evidence paid for by political party used as justification for spying on political opponents is the problem.
It's one thing to recognize that the dossier was paid for by the DNC. It's quite another to rely on that without corroborating it for the purpose of spying on the DNC opposition. Particularly so when there were many conflicts of interest in the FBI like Strozk and Lisa Page whose loyalty seems more inline with the DNC than to the country.
why is using that research in this way very bad?... , that during a trial you wouldn't want the police submitting evidence from a private investigator without first verifying it
There are a few things. It looks like the dossier wasn't corroborated when used for the FISA application. That does undermine the credibility of the FBI when they used that without verifying it particularly so when we have McCabe testifying that it was verified (who do you trust, McCabe or Bill Priestap). A court warrant must have proper justification to ensure due process of law and the FBI cannot lie to FISA (it looks like they did by with-holding the source of the dossier). The justification to use the dossier was suspect, multiple time, to properly evaluate the evidence at hand to grant a warrant. Any investigation that started under that kind of evidence would be fruit of the poison tree (Mueller). Yes, FISA may be a rubber stamping court, a problem with secret courts, but that doesn't highlight the real heart of why this is "very bad".
Using political research as justification to spy on political opponents is very dangerous. That alone should make any investigation careful because of the dangers of using the full powers of the FBI as a political tool against opposition parties. I am not willing to go fully down this road but that is part of what is at stake here. Surely, the FBI handling of this and the lack of FISA accountability has highlighted that this kind of thing is possible if not already happened. If the FBI handled things properly this memo would have been a big nothing burger and no one in the FBI or democrats would care.
In fact, this memo is very weak.
I don't think it is as damning enough to fully end the Mueller investigation. However, I don't think it is weak. There are some damning things to come out of this.
WTF are you smoking? Here is my train of logic. The statement: "the Republicans first paid Fusion to get the info" is a lie because "Republicans dropped their interest and funding after the GOP primaries long before the DNC commissioned the dossier".
I didn't mention anything about Steeles motivation or whatever specious argument you think I made. I only was addressing the lie that "Republicans first paid Fusion to get the info". You need to stop smoking crack old man.
That doesn't fit with what we know. You want to disregard everything in the memo because "Trump loyalist" yet do not want to consider what has already been discovered and what questions this memo answers by naming names and events because...
There are facts that we know that the memo references that corroborates its authenticity. It naming actual people and events we know to be true corroborates its authenticity. It's not everything but it certainly is not nothing.
McCabe testified before congress that the dossier was credible and that the FBI worked hard to verify it. You're saying that I should ignore that and McCabe would not use that dossier for the FISA application because... party. You're saying I should ignore Bill Priestap who said the corroboration for the dossier was "in it's infancy" at the time of the initial Page FISA application. Why should I distrust either of these things?
I don't understand. I don't have to believe a Trump Loyalist to think that this memo answers many questions because it actually names people I can corroborate unlike the many "anonymous sources" we hear about.
Couple things: " it's a problem with the people.". It can always be said that people are the problem and that is why processes and structures must accommodate the worst kind of people to ensure that our system can't be taken over by those kind of people.
hat's a clear-cut case of lying to the court in order to get the warrant. That's not a problem with the FISA process,
It's a problem for FISA because they ddin't push back on the FBI to corroborate their sources and demand due diligence. You wouldn't see this happen in open court because it is open and any court that does not follow proper procedure and follow due diligence will have an appeal to ensure due process of law for the defendant. This is purely a problem with secret courts which FISA is.
Slashdot Mirror
Ha ha charade you are! Technically, the law still applies equally because there isn't a legal distinction made and the same law is applied to both genders and in the eyes of the law (the written language) they are equal. It is in the eyes of the prosecutor, jury, and judge that they are not which is what you are addressing. Specifically, prosecution, verdict, and sentencing. If you apply mandatory minimums that 63% would probably disappear or be reduced considerably (haven't done reading on it, probably key word here) because the law prescribes the sentence without judicial bias and is written without gender consideration. However, that doesn't address the conviction rate because that would rely on the prosecutor and jury.
IOW, the law is the only gender neutral part of our legal system we have because we have explicitly written it as neutral while the other pillars of justice are based entirely on human fallibility and bias. Legal equality only guarantees that we are equal by law. That does not necessarily address judicial independence, prosecutorial discretion and certainly not the jury.
But more over, you are right I just like to play devils advocate.
I don't think feminism is small by any stretch, furthermore, which feminist community doesn't platform the gender pay gap? You say they are sub-communities and that would be fine if the example were something like "any penetrative sex is rape" but I am talking about mainstream positions that are nearly universal for all feminists that has been parroted by some of the most powerful people on Earth. I find it hard to believe that most feminists have been co-opted by "pay gap feminists" when it looks like it is a staple of feminist ideology and it is Trudeau and Obama advocating for such "extreme" positions.
I haven't seen anything worth while that western feminism has done lately (many decades) that redeems the rest of the bad things it has done. What is the point of the movement that advocates for the populate election of Senators? Again, I wouldn't and probably many others wouldn't think that way if the movement actually did something to help women in need instead of chasing the boogeyman patriarchy.
To me, the entire feminist movement in the west is a bad joke. Yes, all of it. It would rather chase boogeyman, make asinine claims of patriarchy, bastardize science, and police language in absurd ("peoplekind"... really? That is important?? A made up word because self described feminists do not understand etymology) ways than actually help people. There is nothing proud about being a feminist today in the west. It's a self branded scarlet letter that carries more baggage than a airliner.
You should never yield a movement because extreme people come in every so often
If the movement is made up of nearly entirely of extreme people. I disregard it. If you are a feminist trying to save feminism. Good Luck. At some point Old Yeller is gone and needs to be put down. He saved the family but times change.
You also may want to reconsider automatic judgement of someone based on a particular view (such as a perceived gender pay gap) as in their case they might be right
If they are right they can prove it in court. I don't have to do anything or make any judgement because it is already the law of the land. I don't need to listen and believe when I can have evidence and facts. I don't care if they are right or wrong because it's on them to prove it in court. Changing the law based on bad science and bad statistics that attack meritocracy is fundamentally different and wrong.
Do you make automatic judgements for a Republican? A pro-lifer? A Christian? The pro-life movement has surely had its extreme members yet it hasn't been plagued by the same malignancy of feminism.
What ever is going on these days. Don't Panic!
If you mean equal outcomes, then no I do not believe in that garbage. Otherwise. yes the difference is that I think we have it. Name a legal, political, social or economic right that women do not have.
Does the law apply equally to men and women? Yes. Check legal.
Do woman have suffrage and can hold political office? Yes. Check political.
Do women have the same civil rights, freedom of speech, property rights, and equal access to social goods and services as men? Yes. Check social. In fact they have access to better services than men soooo. Matriarchy? We need a movement to promote the social rights and services of men! A... Mens Rights Movement if you will. After all, you are motivated by principle, aren't you?
Can women get the same employment as men? Yes. Check economic.
Hooray! Feminism has achieved the noble goals of equality for women! Oh. Wait. I know what's really important as mansplained by the great feminist ally Trudeau. Damnatio memoriae of "mankind". "Mankind" needs to be stricken from memory and replaced with "Peoplekind"... because feminism. So glad we have an entire movement dedicated to this noble goal with people in power like Trudeau to make it happen. But MRM wanting abuse shelters for men? Sexism.
Feminism is it's own parody.
Feminism != women.
There are plenty of women that do not like feminism and stand against it. Feminists do not speak for woman. That is a degrading and undermines the individual by taking away their autonomy and voice by tribalism and group identity. Treat women as individuals that can decide, act, and speak in their own self interest. Anything less is soft bigotry of low expectations.
You missed my point. "There are too many loud mouths that the movement has lost all sense of pragmatism and direction".
I am not going to address your whataboutism or false equivalency.
Perhaps you should pay less attention to the attention whores in any movement, and look at what the majority of the movement is about.
Because what the majority of the movement is about, in my opinion, has been overtaken by the loud mouths that has derided any noble cause it may have had. How many times do I have to hear about the gender pay gap before I recognize that the movement has been overtaken by loud mouth idiots devoid of principle because they bastardize statistics and science for their own tribal agenda and personal advancement?
"fuckstick ... about ... feminism"
Did you just assume the masculinity of my feminine penis?
Contributing to Open Source is Gods work.
"the manner of the posturing used against it."
Yes because nothing screams religion like unquestioning loyalty and subservience... How dare I have an opinion outside of the Holy Doctrine of Feminist Faith.
In the time before Men and Patriarchy it was good. The evilness of Masculinity has turned Sister against Sister! But fear not and harken oh Ally! The Holy Matriarchy has a plan for you, oh dear emasculated Ally. Dare not question the Holy Doctrine of Feminist Faith! Exorcise any criticism or skepticism you see on these intertubes. Strengthen your faith by listening and believing unconditionally. Reeeeeee before the Goddess Queen of the Holy Matriarchy so that you will be saved from Patriarchy and it's vile Penis' used to deceive Women. In the name of the Mother. The Daughter. And Pink Vagina Hats. Wamen.
*grabs junk* hmmmmm.
I am a woman. You are marginalizing my experiences and humanity. You are toxic and are creating a toxic environment. You are the problem when you so easily malign the experiences people like me face. You are creating obstacles and limiting my opportunity to exist in this space. You should feel ashamed of yourself. Be the good ally and listen and believe because you have said enough to demonstrate that you hate all women.
There was nothing inadvertent about voicing my thoughts on modern western feminism and the toxicity it has become. I would rather label myself a MRA trying to get more male shelters that would actually help people than a feminist using bad science to attack meritocracy that will harm people. (both have toxic members but one has an objective legal goals to accomplish. I like mission accomplished banners.)
I agree but it just seems that 'feminism' has been soiled by too many extremists that it has lost all sense pragmatism or direction. There are places that absolutely need feminism and if western feminism tried to help those countries and those women I think many more would respect the movement and ideology. Instead of addressing real issues in the world we get diatribes about video games and movies.
Feminism may not be cancer but it is infected with a malignancy that, IMO, is terminal to any redeeming quality.
"pron" oops.
This pr0n is prone. ;)
Whoops
Refuse to acknowledge it? It just depends on what I am supposed to acknowledge and what you think I have to do about it.
I don't care about dongle jokes or master/slave terminology and do not think they highlight a problem in industry. I think the more whining about those things the more we get "shut the fuck up" and "feminism is cancer" reaction.
If words offend you and you announce to the world that they offend, are you really surprised more offensive words come out of the wood work?
Why not "individuals in open source" or "struggles in open source"? The moment you make it a group identity it becomes tribal and pron to ridicule. Especially when it comes to feminism. Feminists are their own parody. Too bad their not funny so we could laugh with them instead of always at them.
"ArmPitHairisGreat" - only until you get a neck beard with that fetish and now we have a sexual harassment claim because he won't stop smelling and staring at your armpits when you raise your hand for a question.
As an aside... There is something sad about "arm pit hair" being associated with feminism. "Feminism is about equality! We want equality! We have hairy armpits to show equality!!1!!1" Something about that I can't take seriously. Maybe it's the armpit. Maybe it's the hair. Maybe the idea is more akin to cutting off the nose to spite the face. Maybe it's all of it. I will never know.
Yes and the Democratic Republic of North Korea is democratic. If feminism was about "equality of the sexes" then mission accomplished across the board. The movement and ideology is irrelevant in the western world. There is no end goal for feminism because it isn't about equality in opportunity or legality. It's about women supremacy and getting back at men for history which is why we see the BBC males taking pay cuts for no reason other than the long debunked gender pay gap myth and virtue signaling despite reports stating that there was no discrimination. Feminism is about equal outcomes which is contrary to meritocracy and why we see the bar lowered in many areas to get more women in. Feminism is about treating women different because being in the same room as men is oppressive. Lowering the bar, vengeful practices, and segregation is not equality!
Even you assume there are not educational and professional opportunities for women equal to men yet I haven't seen a single male only scholarship for STEM ( I bet you can't find one either) nor have I seen any male affirmative action in STEM. The favoritism is toward women so the institution can check their little quota box and feel smug about it and we see that with younger women making more and are preferred over men for STEM faculty. I have seen more opportunity for women these days than men. What are you talking about other than the outcomes you don't like?
Men and women are different so personal and social "equality" is code for "we want more because equality of outcome using bad measures". Using bad measures (gender pay gap) to promote bad policy (vindictive practices) and treating women different (lower standard and segregation) will never achieve "equality" in any true sense of the word. Forcing equal outcomes is the antithesis of a free society.
If it doesn't matter why do you insist republicans paid for it? I never said it mattered I only corrected the statement that the republicans paid for the Steele dossier. That is not true and is a lie. That was even known before this memo. You keep dancing around with Steele doing his own work or wasn't directed or whatever. That is irrelevant. There was a claim "republicans paid for it" that is demonstrably false and you are trying to convoluted that statement more than it needs to defend that statement and then decrying partisanship when you are acting partisan by denying facts and defending lies.
The answer to my question is very simple. Who commissioned the Steele dossier? The DNC and Clinton Campaign.
Who commissioned the Steele dossier?
Yes, absolutely it isn't the full story and it doesn't address everything.
But it is certainly not nothing.
Part of the problem is that the FBI didn't corroborate the dossier for the FISA application. Uncorroborated evidence paid for by political party used as justification for spying on political opponents is the problem.
It's one thing to recognize that the dossier was paid for by the DNC. It's quite another to rely on that without corroborating it for the purpose of spying on the DNC opposition. Particularly so when there were many conflicts of interest in the FBI like Strozk and Lisa Page whose loyalty seems more inline with the DNC than to the country.
why is using that research in this way very bad? ... , that during a trial you wouldn't want the police submitting evidence from a private investigator without first verifying it
There are a few things. It looks like the dossier wasn't corroborated when used for the FISA application. That does undermine the credibility of the FBI when they used that without verifying it particularly so when we have McCabe testifying that it was verified (who do you trust, McCabe or Bill Priestap). A court warrant must have proper justification to ensure due process of law and the FBI cannot lie to FISA (it looks like they did by with-holding the source of the dossier). The justification to use the dossier was suspect, multiple time, to properly evaluate the evidence at hand to grant a warrant. Any investigation that started under that kind of evidence would be fruit of the poison tree (Mueller). Yes, FISA may be a rubber stamping court, a problem with secret courts, but that doesn't highlight the real heart of why this is "very bad".
Using political research as justification to spy on political opponents is very dangerous. That alone should make any investigation careful because of the dangers of using the full powers of the FBI as a political tool against opposition parties. I am not willing to go fully down this road but that is part of what is at stake here. Surely, the FBI handling of this and the lack of FISA accountability has highlighted that this kind of thing is possible if not already happened. If the FBI handled things properly this memo would have been a big nothing burger and no one in the FBI or democrats would care.
In fact, this memo is very weak.
I don't think it is as damning enough to fully end the Mueller investigation. However, I don't think it is weak. There are some damning things to come out of this.
WTF are you smoking? Here is my train of logic. The statement: "the Republicans first paid Fusion to get the info" is a lie because "Republicans dropped their interest and funding after the GOP primaries long before the DNC commissioned the dossier".
I didn't mention anything about Steeles motivation or whatever specious argument you think I made. I only was addressing the lie that "Republicans first paid Fusion to get the info". You need to stop smoking crack old man.
That doesn't fit with what we know. You want to disregard everything in the memo because "Trump loyalist" yet do not want to consider what has already been discovered and what questions this memo answers by naming names and events because ...
There are facts that we know that the memo references that corroborates its authenticity. It naming actual people and events we know to be true corroborates its authenticity. It's not everything but it certainly is not nothing.
McCabe testified before congress that the dossier was credible and that the FBI worked hard to verify it. You're saying that I should ignore that and McCabe would not use that dossier for the FISA application because... party. You're saying I should ignore Bill Priestap who said the corroboration for the dossier was "in it's infancy" at the time of the initial Page FISA application. Why should I distrust either of these things?
I don't understand. I don't have to believe a Trump Loyalist to think that this memo answers many questions because it actually names people I can corroborate unlike the many "anonymous sources" we hear about.
Couple things: " it's a problem with the people.". It can always be said that people are the problem and that is why processes and structures must accommodate the worst kind of people to ensure that our system can't be taken over by those kind of people.
hat's a clear-cut case of lying to the court in order to get the warrant. That's not a problem with the FISA process,
It's a problem for FISA because they ddin't push back on the FBI to corroborate their sources and demand due diligence. You wouldn't see this happen in open court because it is open and any court that does not follow proper procedure and follow due diligence will have an appeal to ensure due process of law for the defendant. This is purely a problem with secret courts which FISA is.
"fruit of the forbidden tree"
It's fruit of the poisonous tree.
err memo. why would the memo say*
damn memos and dossiers.