Welcome guest, is this your first visit? Create Account now to join.
  • Login:

Welcome to the Online Debate Network.

If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed.

Page 7 of 7 FirstFirst ... 3 4 5 6 7
Results 121 to 125 of 125
  1. #121
    Super Moderator

    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Louisiana
    Posts
    8,542
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: The Steele Dossier

    @ cowboy, yes and as it stands it doesn't fit. So the "new" argumentation needs to come from the other side. It has been covered but it didn't break your way.
    To serve man.

  2. #122
    Registered User

    Join Date
    Oct 2012
    Location
    Boston
    Posts
    2,005
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: The Steele Dossier

    Quote Originally Posted by MindTrap028 View Post
    @ cowboy, yes and as it stands it doesn't fit. So the "new" argumentation needs to come from the other side. It has been covered but it didn't break your way.
    hmm...I don't think so. Is this the support we're talking about?

    "EXAMPLE (1): Officer Diligent seeks a warrant based on his testimony that Sneak told Diligent that he (Sneak) overheard Warren asking his girlfriend to go buy $500 worth of drugs in cash and to bring them back to his house. Officer Diligent’s testimony to this effect would not be admissible as evidence against Warren in his trial – it is inadmissible hearsay. However, for the purpose of establishing probable cause such that a search warrant may be issued, Officer Diligent’s testimony may be admissible."


    Just to be clear we're talking about the Carter Page FISA warrants and their renewals, right?
    Last edited by CowboyX; Yesterday at 11:19 AM.
    "Real Boys Kiss Boys" -M.L.

  3. #123
    Registered User

    Join Date
    Jan 2016
    Posts
    549
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: The Steele Dossier

    Quote Originally Posted by CowboyX View Post
    Why wouldn't that be the truth? and why wouldn't they be looking for the truth (as you stated).
    It very well could be they uncover/ed the truth and I haven't said otherwise.

  4. #124
    Registered User

    Join Date
    Jan 2016
    Posts
    549
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: The Steele Dossier

    Quote Originally Posted by CowboyX View Post
    This has already been covered in the thread with MT. Unless you have some new support as to why the dossier wasn't appropriate to use.
    Then you agree it does not matter how this compares to other intelligence documents.

    Since:
    it is mostly unverifiable
    the author says nearly a third of it could be inaccurate
    this information was obtained by a political adversary

    it's use in court proceedings should be limited and obviously it should not be the main "evidence" for a warrant (and I am not saying it was the main reason for the warrant, only that it should not be). I am not saying it should not have been brought up at all in court or even part of the evidence.

    ---------- Post added at 01:34 PM ---------- Previous post was at 01:27 PM ----------

    Quote Originally Posted by snackboy View Post
    Correct. Just like when a politician runs for office, he or she only communicates relationships and activities that will do no political damage to themselves. And those politicians have a flurry of people that guard against negative information coming out. So I don't really understand the objection or concern that the dossier is intended to cause political damage.
    You are taking this comment out of context, Cowboy and I were NOT discussing if I thought it was bad if the Dossier was meant to do political harm. Cowboy and I at that point were discussing would it contain the whole truth of a given situation or just the negative parts.

    So, I quite frankly do not care if it was intended to cause political harm and I am, not sure why you think I do????

    ---------- Post added at 01:36 PM ---------- Previous post was at 01:34 PM ----------

    Quote Originally Posted by snackboy View Post
    Damaging information is not necessarily dirt.
    Semantics. I already stipulated we could use your preferred terminology.

    ---------- Post added at 01:40 PM ---------- Previous post was at 01:36 PM ----------

    Quote Originally Posted by snackboy View Post
    Russian meddling could likely be a thread of it own. But my short answer is NO.
    Interesting, I have been able to find little else of substance, but another thread is probably better.
    Last edited by Belthazor; Yesterday at 06:09 PM.

  5. #125
    Registered User

    Join Date
    Oct 2012
    Location
    Boston
    Posts
    2,005
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: The Steele Dossier

    Quote Originally Posted by Belthazor View Post
    Then you agree it does not matter how this compares to other intelligence documents.
    For my argument, no. It would help yours.

    ---------- Post added at 11:58 PM ---------- Previous post was at 11:55 PM ----------

    Quote Originally Posted by Belthazor View Post
    it is mostly unverifiable
    Who said that?

    ---------- Post added at 11:59 PM ---------- Previous post was at 11:58 PM ----------

    Quote Originally Posted by Belthazor View Post
    the author says nearly a third of it could be inaccurate
    He also said 90% could be accurate.

    ---------- Post added at 11:59 PM ---------- Previous post was at 11:59 PM ----------

    Quote Originally Posted by Belthazor View Post
    this information was obtained by a political adversary
    Steele was not a political adversary.
    "Real Boys Kiss Boys" -M.L.

 

 
Page 7 of 7 FirstFirst ... 3 4 5 6 7

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •