Greg66 wrote:
spot wrote:
j p o wrote:
spot wrote:
So, taking this memo purely at face value, is nobody the least bit concerned that a US citizen was spied on by US intelligence based completely on evidence paid for political opponents?
Again, I'm just reading what's in the memo, and FBI Director Wray has gone on record as saying what's in it has been cherry picked and taken out of context, but assuming there is at least some legitimacy to this, I am a bit bothered by the notion that one could use information gathered for political purposes to spy on a US citizen inside the United States.
George
I have not read the dossier at all. No idea what is in it. If what they did was take information in there at face value without corroboration, yeah, that is a problem. But if what they did was use information that they had good reason to believe is true, then they don't need to really worry all that much how the person who developed it went about the gathering. And I have no idea which way this goes, so it could be really bad, or it could be nothing to worry about, or somewhere in between.
I can find evidence of wrongdoing and pass it along to the cops. It could be evidence that the cops couldn't have otherwise seen without a warrant. That doesn't mean the cops shouldn't use it.
Yeah, me neither. I pretty much agree with your analysis, which is why I’m heavily caveating my statements.
If party A pays for information which suggests that someone in Party B is working for a foreign Govt, against the interests of the USA, would not a reasonable person want the allegation of working for a foreign govt investigated, rather than focus on the fact that the information was paid for in the first place?
The fact that the information was paid for may we’ll go to the weight that it should be given. But if it is corroborated or supported in some other way - and the Nunes memo seems to skirt around that point and instead suggest that the Steele dossier was the only thing relied upon, then the fact of payment for the initial information becomes less and less important.
In the end, one has to look at the substance of the allegation and take a view on whether or not there is some truth (or risk of truth) in it, regardless of how it came to be relied on or who supplied. Trying to direct 100% of the focus on the source of the information or payment for it is basically “look! There’s a squirrel!” tactics.
Again, I don’t necessarily disagree, and I will further add that I don’t know specifically what the rules of the FISA court are. But there are plenty of laws in the US that govern whether or not information can be used against somebody based on how that information was gathered. If the FISA court decided to spy on a US citizen based on information that should not have been used in the first place, that is a problem, regardless of whether or not that information was 100% accurate.
___________________________________________________
Taco cat spelled backwards is....taco cat.
