“We simply don’t know if the FBI knew they were supplying false information to the FISA court”
Uhhhh Comey under sworn testimony said the Dossier was Salacious and unverified. Now I fully expect if he is indicted he will say he only realized this after the fact.
There are some things you can realize after the fact, but other changing perceptions don’t work that way. I don’t see how you can think something is legitimate one day ... and then call it salacious and unverified three months later.
Troll.
It’ll fly like a lead balloon.
Prostitutes pissing all over a bed is *inherently* salacious.
And I don’t see any hotel bills with the room date and number combined with sworn statements from the cleaning staff and forensic analysis of the urine-stained sheets.
https://www.intelligence.senate.gov/sites/default/files/documents/os-jcomey-060817.pdf
A pertinent quote: “The IC leadership thought it important, for a variety of reasons, to alert the incoming President to the existence of this material, even though it was salacious and unverified.”
News reports also say an independent FBI unit said the dossier was minimally corroborated.
My point isn’t that the intelligence community (IC) had a strong case for a FISA warrant. Based on what we know, they did not.
The left claims the IC did tip top work (great to see them finally support law enforcement). Some on the right claim this was an attempt to destroy Trump. Perhaps the truth lies somewhere in between these two extremes? That was my main point.
BTW, just because something is salicious and unverified, it doesn’t mean a warrant isn’t justified. That’s kind of how you verify info, right?
Let’s say a “witness” calls the cops and says he was using a friend’s computer when he noticed it had child porn on it. The cops are probably going to get a warrant to seize that computer or monitor the suspect’s network traffic, right? The claim is “unverified” until further investigative work is done.