Forums
New posts
Search forums
What's new
New posts
New media
New media comments
Latest activity
Classifieds
Media
New media
New comments
Search media
Log in
Register
What's New?
Search
Search
Search titles only
By:
New posts
Search forums
Menu
Log in
Register
Navigation
Install the app
Install
More Options
Advertise with us
Contact Us
Close Menu
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Forums
The Water Cooler
General Discussion
House memo states disputed dossier was key to FBI’s FISA warrant to surveil members of Team Trump
Search titles only
By:
Reply to Thread
This site may earn a commission from merchant affiliate links, including eBay, Amazon, and others.
Message
<blockquote data-quote="Dave70968" data-source="post: 3079145" data-attributes="member: 13624"><p>That link has no sourcing whatsoever. "A portion of the text messages." "A letter." Nothing that actually authenticates the claim; hell, there's nothing there that actually provides any <em>evidence</em> of her claims.</p><p></p><p>Here is an <em>excellent</em> article on how to read and evaluate news stories (regardless of publication outfit): <a href="https://www.popehat.com/2017/01/19/how-to-read-news-like-a-search-warrant-application/" target="_blank">https://www.popehat.com/2017/01/19/how-to-read-news-like-a-search-warrant-application/</a> . It has nothing to do with MSM/alternative sources, and everything to do with credibility. An excerpt that's directly on-point:</p><p style="margin-left: 20px"><strong><em>Attribution:</em></strong> Around the time I became a federal prosecutor, thanks to a series of unfavorable Ninth Circuit decisions (which, naturally, I resented at the time as unfairly anti-government), the U.S. Attorney's Office began emphasizing <em>attribution</em> in reviewing search warrant applications and prosecutor training. Put simply, attribution means this: for each fact asserted in the warrant application, how does the affiant know it? if the affiant learned the fact from someone else, how did that person know it?</p><p></p><p>So...how does Ms. Carter know what she's asserting? She claims "a letter," with impressive names on it, but <em>how did she get that letter</em>? Can we see a copy of it, ideally in a form that the principals will acknowledge, or is this "some guy told me that he saw a letter that said this?"</p><p></p><p>Failure of attribution isn't fatal, though. Poor attribution can be mitigated by</p><p style="margin-left: 20px"><strong><em>Corroboration:</em></strong> Anonymous or obscure sources are not inherently impermissible in search warrants or in journalism. A search warrant may rely in part on an anonymous source <em>if</em> the affiant corroborates that source — that is, offers other facts supporting what the source says. In <a href="https://www.popehat.com/2014/04/22/supreme-court-conjures-corrorboration-of-anonymous-tip-out-of-thin-air-to-justify-traffic-stop/" target="_blank"><em>theory</em></a> a warrant application should corroborate facts only an insider could know. "My source told me that methamphetamine is being cooked at a green house at 123 Elm. I traveled to 123 Elm and observed that the house is, in fact, green" is not meaningful corroboration. "My source told me that suspect ROBERT is cooking methamphetamine at 123 Elm, that he began cooking in March 2016, and that he had precursor chemicals delivered there beginning in April. Based on my review of the Southern California Edison records described above, I noted that there was a 300% spike in energy usage at 123 Elm beginning in March 2016. My review of the UPS records described in paragraph 17 above showed a series of deliveries from an online chemical supply company beginning in April of 2016" is good corroboration.</p><p></p><p>See how much stronger that makes the claim?</p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>As the old saying goes, "extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof." I've had any number of people call me a crazy conspiracy theorist when I tell them about a secret CIA program experimenting with human mind control. When I tell them details of Project MK Ultra, they usually dismiss me as an anti-government kook who'll believe anything.</p><p></p><p>When I show them the Senate committee report on said program (and provide the Library of Congress call number so they can verify it independently), they start taking me a whole lot more seriously.</p><p></p><p>Extraordinary proof.</p><p></p><p>So...the original question stands. You asserted that a large portion of federal agents is using burner phones. Please put up some proof for that claim, something that I can use to at least give pause to those who trust the government as a matter of course. Random blogs with no corroboration, no links, no <em>evidence</em> aren't it.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="Dave70968, post: 3079145, member: 13624"] That link has no sourcing whatsoever. "A portion of the text messages." "A letter." Nothing that actually authenticates the claim; hell, there's nothing there that actually provides any [I]evidence[/I] of her claims. Here is an [I]excellent[/I] article on how to read and evaluate news stories (regardless of publication outfit): [URL]https://www.popehat.com/2017/01/19/how-to-read-news-like-a-search-warrant-application/[/URL] . It has nothing to do with MSM/alternative sources, and everything to do with credibility. An excerpt that's directly on-point: [INDENT][B][I]Attribution:[/I][/B] Around the time I became a federal prosecutor, thanks to a series of unfavorable Ninth Circuit decisions (which, naturally, I resented at the time as unfairly anti-government), the U.S. Attorney's Office began emphasizing [I]attribution[/I] in reviewing search warrant applications and prosecutor training. Put simply, attribution means this: for each fact asserted in the warrant application, how does the affiant know it? if the affiant learned the fact from someone else, how did that person know it?[/INDENT] So...how does Ms. Carter know what she's asserting? She claims "a letter," with impressive names on it, but [I]how did she get that letter[/I]? Can we see a copy of it, ideally in a form that the principals will acknowledge, or is this "some guy told me that he saw a letter that said this?" Failure of attribution isn't fatal, though. Poor attribution can be mitigated by [INDENT][B][I]Corroboration:[/I][/B] Anonymous or obscure sources are not inherently impermissible in search warrants or in journalism. A search warrant may rely in part on an anonymous source [I]if[/I] the affiant corroborates that source — that is, offers other facts supporting what the source says. In [URL='https://www.popehat.com/2014/04/22/supreme-court-conjures-corrorboration-of-anonymous-tip-out-of-thin-air-to-justify-traffic-stop/'][I]theory[/I][/URL] a warrant application should corroborate facts only an insider could know. "My source told me that methamphetamine is being cooked at a green house at 123 Elm. I traveled to 123 Elm and observed that the house is, in fact, green" is not meaningful corroboration. "My source told me that suspect ROBERT is cooking methamphetamine at 123 Elm, that he began cooking in March 2016, and that he had precursor chemicals delivered there beginning in April. Based on my review of the Southern California Edison records described above, I noted that there was a 300% spike in energy usage at 123 Elm beginning in March 2016. My review of the UPS records described in paragraph 17 above showed a series of deliveries from an online chemical supply company beginning in April of 2016" is good corroboration.[/INDENT] See how much stronger that makes the claim? As the old saying goes, "extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof." I've had any number of people call me a crazy conspiracy theorist when I tell them about a secret CIA program experimenting with human mind control. When I tell them details of Project MK Ultra, they usually dismiss me as an anti-government kook who'll believe anything. When I show them the Senate committee report on said program (and provide the Library of Congress call number so they can verify it independently), they start taking me a whole lot more seriously. Extraordinary proof. So...the original question stands. You asserted that a large portion of federal agents is using burner phones. Please put up some proof for that claim, something that I can use to at least give pause to those who trust the government as a matter of course. Random blogs with no corroboration, no links, no [I]evidence[/I] aren't it. [/QUOTE]
Insert Quotes…
Verification
Post Reply
Forums
The Water Cooler
General Discussion
House memo states disputed dossier was key to FBI’s FISA warrant to surveil members of Team Trump
Search titles only
By:
Top
Bottom