 |
|
Please give us the additional context you think should be
Posted on: February 2, 2018 at 20:32:59 CT
JeffB MU
Posts:
71945
Member For:
21.40 yrs
Level:
User
M.O.B. Votes:
2
included.
and yet McCabe said that they would not have gotten the FISA warrant sans the dossier.
I did not say that was fiction. I was disputing your assertion that content was everything. My point was that it was not only content, but also trust in the veracity of the information.
For example think of a case where a couple of neighbors are in a dispute and a policeman is good friends with one and does not like the other. His good friend pays a high school kid to dig up some dirt on the neighbor he doesn't like and the kid does so. He goes around interviewing anyone and everyone who will talk to him and pays them money for any dirt they can come up with on this neighbor... the dirtier the better. He comes up with some pretty salacious stuff and brings it back to the guy that hired him. That guy takes it to his friend the policeman who looks it over & decides that some of it is pretty hard to believe, so he gets ahold of the high school kid and offers him $500 if he can verify any of it. The kid says thanks for the offer, but he can't verify any of it.
The cop says, what the heck, and they call a judge and tell him of evidence they have that his neighbor is doing bad stuff and they need a warrant to search his home, his office, take all of his computers, wiretap his phone and the phones of his family and associates. But he does not disclose that he doesn't really like this guy and is doing it as a favor for his friend. He also doesn't disclose that he has doubts about a lot of this hearsay evidence.
If all of this later came to light, do you think the judge would be happy about this?
and yet McCabe said that they would not have gotten the FISA warrant sans the dossier.
I did not say that was fiction. I was disputing your assertion that content was everything. My point was that it was not only content, but also trust in the veracity of the information.
For example think of a case where a couple of neighbors are in a dispute and a policeman is good friends with one and does not like the other. His good friend pays a high school kid to dig up some dirt on the neighbor he doesn't like and the kid does so. He goes around interviewing anyone and everyone who will talk to him and pays them money for any dirt they can come up with on this neighbor... the dirtier the better. He comes up with some pretty salacious stuff and brings it back to the guy that hired him. That guy takes it to his friend the policeman who looks it over & decides that some of it is pretty hard to believe, so he gets ahold of the high school kid and offers him $500 if he can verify any of it. The kid says thanks for the offer, but he can't verify any of it.
The cop says, what the heck, and they call a judge and tell him of evidence they have that his neighbor is doing bad stuff and they need a warrant to search his home, his office, take all of his computers, wiretap his phone and the phones of his family and associates. But he does not disclose that he doesn't really like this guy and is doing it as a favor for his friend. He also doesn't disclose that he has doubts about a lot of this hearsay evidence.
If all of this later came to light, do you think the judge would be happy about this?
Please explain why this message is being reported.
MESSAGE THREAD
Please give us the additional context you think should be - JeffB MU - 2/2 20:32:59